Ideas for Ski Area Improvements

I apologize for not using this thread for my Gore Burnt Ridge Expansion ideas and instead posted them in the conditions thread.  Thought I'd go more in depth here, since I'm in the correct thread.

The main purpose is to create sections that are divided by ability level and the preferences of terrain for each skier, but are easy to move around.  I'll list the sections and what ability level is best suited to them.

Front Side/Northwoods:  Intermediate

North Side:  Lower Intermediate

Burnt Ridge:  Advanced Intermediate

Topridge:  Advanced

Straightbrook:  Advanced

High Peaks:  Advanced

Ski Bowl:  Something for everyone.  Sort of a self contained ski area.


Now I'll point out the issues on each section and possible actions to fix them.  Some are bigger issues than others.


Front Side/Northwoods Area:  

Issues:  There are 3 lifts on this section.  The Gondola and Adirondack Express are pretty much ideally suited to serve the full section, plus provide access to other sections.  The Sunway Double Chair serves the lower mountain and learning terrain.  It does not have enough capacity, and it's also an issue for young children in group lessons who can't get on by themselves.  Currently an instructor can only help one kid onto the lift.  Single riders have to take the other kids up, or doubles have to be split up to do this.  Some aren't always willing, and it can also be a source of worry for parents to have their kids riding a lift with a stranger.

Solution:  Upgrading the lift to a quad would allow for more capacity and reduce lines, and would also allow for one instructor to help 3 kids onto the lift, meaning less help is needed from bystanders.  This lift should have a loading carpet to reduce stops and slows.


North Side:

Issues:  As this section is meant to be used by lower intermediates, some with young children, there are issues with loading onto the fixed grip quad that services it.  Many skiers avoid this section as a result, and are skiing the front side, leaving this one underutilized.

Solution:  Upgrading the lift to a HSQ would reduce stops and slows, and also provide a much quicker lift ride, making this section more attractive to ski.  More people would ski it, and crowds would be more spread out.  The fixed grip quad would be relocated to replace the Sunway Chair.


Burnt Ridge:

Issues:  This section is served by a HSQ, but only has two trails and a bunch of glades.  Because it's lower, the glades are closed a lot, leaving the two trails very crowded.

Solution:  Cut 3 additional trails.  One would be near where the Cirque Glades are and be called Cirque.  It would be rated blue, and would be narrow and have some twists and turns in it, but still have snowmaking and be groomed daily.  Another trail would be near where the Boreas Glades are and would clearcut that glade (more glades can be added on either side to make up for the loss).  This would be called Boreas and be a wide open run similar to Echo and rated blue.  The final one is an extension of Eagle's Nest to the top of the lift.  The full route would be rated green and be the main route to the ski bowl.  It would be widened where it exists already, and be about the width of Quicksilver.


Topridge:  

Issues:  This section currently serves as an access point and exit from the summit areas (Straightbrook and High Peaks).  It however doesn't offer much for a skier to lap, and the lift is underutilized as a result.

Solution:  Cut an additional trail on the other side of the lift.  It would be a narrow old school trail, but with snowmaking and the capability to groom.  It would contrast the very wide Topridge and Uncas quite nicely.  The lift is fine in its current configuration and doesn't need to be upgraded.


Straighbrook:

Issues:  At the top of the lift, one must skate for a quarter mile to reach pitch that can be skied on.  Part of the problem is the old gondola building which one must skate around.

Solution:  Demolish the old gondola building and do some grading work on Cloud so that it has gentler pitch right at the top, but it starts to slope down sooner.  This would significantly reduce the amount of skating that would need to be done to reach the trail.


High Peaks:

Issues:  The lift is quite old and suffering from poor reliability.  It needs to run consistently every day as an alternative way to the summit in case the gondola is down.  Wood Out has no snowmaking which hurts connectivity to the North Side, Saddle Lodge, and main mountain.

Solution:  Replace the lift with a new double chair that follows the same line, but with slightly more capacity.  Add snowmaking on Wood Out so that it is easier to avoid the Lower Cloud Traverse.


Ski Bowl:

Issues:  Due to limited snowmaking capacity, it isn't open consistently on a full time basis.  Because it is open so infrequently, it is underutilized when open.  There is a yurt for a lodge and not enough parking.

Solution: Massive increases in snowmaking capacity to the entire mountain, not only the ski bowl.  Add more parking spaces and build a lodge to replace the yurt.  Add full blown food service as well so that people can eat there instead of going all the way to the main base.


Eagle's Nest Route


Burnt Ridge with the new trails added.


New Topridge Trail

Pretty good but a few things I don't agree with

Totally agree about getting rid of the Gondi building and regrading the start of the summit trails to eliminate the skating / walking.  It must suck to be a boarder up there.

Northwoods section doesn't need a HSQ.  It's just not that important in the overall scheme of Gore to spend that kind of Capex that Orda doesn't have.   Add one of those loading conveyors and speed up the lift.

Don't mess with the glades on BR

👍

Coach I think you mean Northside. Northwoods already has 2 high speed chairs.

Sno when you do these Google images do you check the topo? I'm not great at reading the Google version of topos but I couldn't tell if your Abenaki route would work without mega blasting.  (Your route may have been more Barkeater than Abenaki so in that case it would work, if you don't mind losing an awesome intermediate glade.)

How long is your Abenaki?

Also Eagles Nest... not that I personally care but isn't part of it pretty flat?


EDIT: where on this map is the Eagles Nest intersection?

Coach Z wrote

Don't mess with the glades on BR

I'm not messing with the glades.  Not sure what the exact routes of them are, but I'd intend to put the trails where they won't destroy the best glades, and to add plenty more glade skiing between the trails, so that there's actually more than there currently are.

Harvey wrote

Coach I think you mean Northside. Northwoods already has 2 high speed chairs.

Sno when you do these Google images do you check the topo? I'm not great at reading the Google version of topos but I couldn't tell if your Abenaki route would work without mega blasting.  (Your route may have been more Barkeater than Abenaki so in that case it would work, if you don't mind losing an awesome intermediate glade.)

Also Eagles Nest... not that I personally care but isn't part of it pretty flat?

Google Earth has a function that displays the elevation for the point that you have the cursor on.  The run I showed is supposed to be of green pitch and would only require blasting in one, maybe two sections.  Yes it is more Barkeater than Abenaki, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the exact route, so the glade would still be there, although bisected by the trail at least once.  I used this route to allow it to be a green and keep you off the Pipeline Traverse so that it skis more like a real run.

I've skied Eagle's Nest many times and it has enough pitch to make it through without skating.  It should definitely be a green and not a blue.

Don't know the exact route, but I think the yellow is Barkeater.



Edit:  My full run is 1.87 miles from top of Burnt Ridge to the bottom.  Not sure how much of that is the upper portion as it is the same path on Google Earth.  It's about the length of Sunway if you're skiing it off the ADK Express.

I don't ski gore as much as a lot of the people here but what does everybody think about adding a narrow cruiser from the bottom of the top ridge triple out around that side of the resort to connect to the Northwoods area and ultimately the base area? I know the routing would have to be just right to maintain the pitch but I think it could be done.

There already is one.  It was taken off the map when the Topridge Triple was added in 2002.  It was called Tannery, just like the current run, but went all the way to the base.  I've never skied it, but there was a thread on here about it.  It was said to be so flat for so long that it made the Lower Cloud Traverse seem like Olympic Downhill.

My route for the BR-Ski Bowl Connector looks like it cuts through some of Abenaki and Barkeater.  I've skied Barkeater and I'd hate to lose it, I'd rather have a way to get to the Ski Bowl without taking that mile long traverse down there, and having to go down and around through the North Side to get back.  The best way to the Ski Bowl is through Burnt Ridge, plain and simple.  The other reason I have it routed the way I did is so that it skis more like a real run and not just a one-and-done connector trail.  I fear that the way Abenaki is cut will feel like the latter.  If it merges into Pipeline too far up, you'll still have to skate and it won't feel like a real run.  It'll also be too steep to be a green, which makes it impossible for skiers of all ability levels to move between the mountains.

Burnt Ridge desperately needs more trails, so this is one way to kill two birds with one stone by adding an extra run, and making it possible to get to the Ski Bowl without taking that horribly long and flat traverse.

It does look like an unutilized area that should have more available trails.

Years ago, summer of 2004 I think, we had three steep dh trails on Mount Elden here in Flagstaff off a shuttle road. These are secret trails not recognized by the forest service and that was a wickedly dry and hot summer. The trails dried up really badly and when it's that dry riding these trails didn't work so well. They were tight and steep so we were basically skidding down loose dry ruts. It dawned on me how to build better trail and that even though those trails were a ton of fun when in optimal shape it didn't make sense to have all of your trails only be good for riding during small windows when things lined up perfectly.

So I get what you are saying. You need to have enough trails that you can open when things aren't ideal to make a lift like Burnt Ridge make sense. A hsq is a big investment for just two trails. Sure, it sounds killer during big storm cycles but if you looked at a ten year chart showing how often those lower mountain glades are skiing good the numbers probably aren't very much (not that I know for sure, I'm just guessing).

How close is Gore to its max trail mileage limit?

Coach Z wrote

How close is Gore to its max trail mileage limit?

3.6 miles before Peace Pipe was added.

EDIT: Also deduct the extension of Hedges. I think.

Harvey said it was at 36 of 40 miles.  The trails that I showed here are supposed to be within it or close enough to sort of sneak it in.

I skied Killington this weekend and realized some of its pitfalls that can be corrected.

The biggest issue is that there are huge amounts of trail intersections that can be dangerous.  They have a lot of lift capacity for their acreage, so they need to do something about those damn intersections.

The best solution would be to separate some of these trails using pow's orange netting, but maintaining connections between Mountain areas.  One example of this would be where Skyelark and Great Eastern merge in and out of each other.  Allow for one spot to go between them and fence off the rest.  The other issue is the Great Northern trail bisecting the North Ridge area making it ski poorly.  If possible, they should cut a trail around the back of the peak to allow this route to exist without cutting some decent intermediate skiing in two.  Snowdon Mountain is by far the worst.  They need to do a lot of grading work and maybe even add some bridges and/or tunnels to fix it.

As for lifts, the Ramshead Express and Snowdon Quad need replacement.  South Ridge needs a lift.  Ramshead is a HSQ now, but needs to be a 6-pack.  There is massive trail acreage on that section, but the lift doesn't have the capacity to get them even moderately crowded.

The Snowdon Quad is underutilized and should be upgraded using the original Ramshead HSQ.  This would funnel a lot of people away from the K1.

South Ridge gets the Snowdon FGQ and now has a lift and Bear is better connected to the rest of the mountain.

Don't mess with Killington. It's awesome like it is. You said in your post theat they have enough lift capacity but it seems like you want Ramshead to be as crowded as Snowshed and Snowdon. Also, don't suggest that mountains put up orange fencing. Orange fencing is evil. If you don't like the crowded areas, go ski the uncrowded  areas. The nice thing about Killington is that it's big enough and diverse enough for everybody. As for all the green trails bisecting blues and blacks, the answer is to turn your lift ticket over and read the back of it. There's probably a set of rules there called The Code. It's on us as skiers not to run into each other. Even if that fencing wasn't ugly as hell, it would just create bottlenecks for exactly the people that can't handle them and make it even harder for snowboarders to keep up their speed on those green traverses. I like reading your posts but suggesting that Killington be more like MC or Camelback is just wrong; it's honestly depressing to me.

Killington is one of my favorite mountains.  I ski it mostly in the spring when it isn't crowded.  I like that it is so diverse and offers a ton of terrain for everyone.  

The only mountain area that needs more capacity is Ramshead.  Most crowded lift on the mountain and there's enough acreage off of it that adding capacity wouldn't make it like Snowdon or the top of Skye Peak.  I don't think they need any more capacity anywhere else.  They also need it in case the Pico interconnect gets built that will funnel a lot more people toward it.

I don't think that interconnect is ever gonna happen. They've been talking about it forever (at least since the late 90s when I worked there) Nimbyism is part of the VT culture now. In this case I'm good with it. Pico is great on its own anyway and Killington is big enough.

snoloco wrote

The biggest issue is that there are huge amounts of trail intersections

I thought it was a connectivity thing.

I am not even close to a Killy terrain expert but I assumed that the reason for all those intersections was connecting a huge mountain and allowing green skiers to get around (Great Northern?). I mean peeps might die in a collision but at least they won't have to skate!

All of this is wishful thinking unfortunately.  While they're one of the best mountains in the east, their operator is Powdr Corporation, which is the same people who forgot to renew the Park City lease.  

They have not spent a dime on improving the skiing since 2008 when they built the Skye Peak Express.  Then they reversed that upgrade by taking down the South Ridge Triple in 2011.  They however have built up the summer activities more, but that has no effect on the skiing.  They are trying to run it into the ground and spending all the money at Copper to try and compete with the massive homogenized resorts that Vail owns.  If Vail owned Killington, they'd do all of these upgrades in a heartbeat, but fund it through their amusement park/airline style nickel and dime tactics which harm the skiing experience.  Intrawest would do the same thing, but to a lesser extent.

snoloco wrote

All of this is wishful thinking unfortunately.  While they're one of the best mountains in the east, their operator is Powdr Corporation, which is the same people who forgot to renew the Park City lease.  

They have not spent a dime on improving the skiing since 2008 when they built the Skye Peak Express.  Then they reversed that upgrade by taking down the South Ridge Triple in 2011.  They however have built up the summer activities more, but that has no effect on the skiing.  They are trying to run it into the ground and spending all the money at Copper to try and compete with the massive homogenized resorts that Vail owns.  If Vail owned Killington, they'd do all of these upgrades in a heartbeat, but fund it through their amusement park/airline style nickel and dime tactics which harm the skiing experience.  Intrawest would do the same thing, but to a lesser extent.

Once again Sno, you prove that you haven't a clue as to what the fuck you are talking about. I have 24 days with my midweek pass in at the Big K this year (78 days overall) and I can tell you first hand that they having been blowing and grooming like no other mountain, PERIOD END OF STORY!
So, how about talking about something that actually do know about, like how to ski like a gaper

Isn't that place like the Jersey shore of Vermont skiing?

From a planning perspective the trail layout is indeed a shit show.