2017 Amendment to the 2002 Gore Mountain UMP

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/gore2018ump.pdf

Lots of interesting reading over 375 pages including:

Replace and relocate the Hudson Chair with a HSQ
Extend the Village chair
Add a zip line in the Ski Bowl
Replace and extend the Sunway chair with a FGT or FGQ
Add a chair up Bear Cub run and up Lower Sunway
Extend and replace the High Peaks chair with a FGT or FGQ
Some new of new trails
Some trail widening
Enlarge the snowmaking reservoir

A plan snoloco would love.

That plan still has Lift 14 on it.

How about, staff the mountain midweek with enough employees so that all of this hardware is put to use?

If you build it... They will come

Benny Profane wrote

How about, staff the mountain midweek with enough employees so that all of this hardware is put to use?

Yes, great point Benny! There is a huuuuge lack of available labor here in our area, and Gore/ORDA has blinders on if they think that the wages that they pay will bring workers here, especially with the cold hard fact that there is very little available rental housing for workers to live local.
It's only going to get worse...

MC2 5678F589 wrote

If you build it... They will come

Or go bankrupt

Wait --- i keep forgetting nobody is held responsible for these "investments" in state run ski areas  

noticed the location of "cave glades" isn't right on the map. I think that's actually Birch Bark....

MC2 5678F589 wrote

If you build it... They will come

On that note, last night on the way home I saw an ad in the Metro North car for the ski hill at West Point -- open to the public during the week.  

So the U.S. Army is now officially marketing its only ski property better to NY metro residents than is Gore Mountain.

Petronio

x10003q wrote

Extend and replace the High Peaks chair with a FGT or FGQ

That would be a shame.  Me and the girls love the double chair up the narrow path through the trees.  I know that lift is old, but replacing it with a new double might keep some of the charm.  There's almost never a line there anyway so why would you need a quad?

Petronio

Petronio wrote

x10003q wrote

Extend and replace the High Peaks chair with a FGT or FGQ

That would be a shame.  Me and the girls love the double chair up the narrow path through the trees.  I know that lift is old, but replacing it with a new double might keep some of the charm.  There's almost never a line there anyway so why would you need a quad?

Petronio

Nobody makes doubles anymore. You probably can find used triples and quads cheaper than building a custom double. The Mittersill double installed in 2010 cost almost $3 million. If they replace the Hudson triple with a HSQ, the Hudson Triple would slot right into the High Peaks line.

Replacing that old double might be an effort to make that pod more attractive and to improve crowd distribution.

x10003q wrote

Petronio wrote

x10003q wrote

Extend and replace the High Peaks chair with a FGT or FGQ

That would be a shame.  Me and the girls love the double chair up the narrow path through the trees.  I know that lift is old, but replacing it with a new double might keep some of the charm.  There's almost never a line there anyway so why would you need a quad?

Petronio

Nobody makes doubles anymore. You probably can find used triples and quads cheaper than building a custom double. The Mittersill double installed in 2010 cost almost $3 million. If they replace the Hudson triple with a HSQ, the Hudson Triple would slot right into the High Peaks line.

Hey, Mad River found somebody to renovate the single. There's gotta be a way to do it.

Last time I rode that chair was maybe five years ago (ahem, I'm a midweek skier, you know what I'm saying?), and even then I questioned my own personal sense of responsibility for riding it. Scary experience, especially that lurch at the beginning. And, they still haven't replaced it. Eh, what does it matter, never running when I'm there............

Benny Profane wrote

x10003q wrote

Petronio wrote

x10003q wrote

Extend and replace the High Peaks chair with a FGT or FGQ

That would be a shame.  Me and the girls love the double chair up the narrow path through the trees.  I know that lift is old, but replacing it with a new double might keep some of the charm.  There's almost never a line there anyway so why would you need a quad?

Petronio

Nobody makes doubles anymore. You probably can find used triples and quads cheaper than building a custom double. The Mittersill double installed in 2010 cost almost $3 million. If they replace the Hudson triple with a HSQ, the Hudson Triple would slot right into the High Peaks line.

Hey, Mad River found somebody to renovate the single. There's gotta be a way to do it.

Last time I rode that chair was maybe five years ago (ahem, I'm a midweek skier, you know what I'm saying?), and even then I questioned my own personal sense of responsibility for riding it. Scary experience, especially that lurch at the beginning. And, they still haven't replaced it. Eh, what does it matter, never running when I'm there............

Renovating the single in 2007 cost MRG $1.54 million vs $1.2 million for a new double. The High Peaks chair was renovated around 1995.

I remember when MRG replaced the single, the people that wanted a double were saying it was cheaper than a single, but I don't believe it.  (Nobody wanted a double, but I think Eric started a fake controversy for marketing purposes.) For one thing, a double would have required new loading and landing zones.  For another, part of the cost of the single was renovating the old truss towers, instead of using cheaper tube towers, but that was only necessary because they wanted to maintain the low rope line and the look of original lift. Keeping the single was a smart move that maintained the experience, without building something that would have required a higher rope line or slower speeds.

It's the same with the HP chair.  A fixed quad would run at a lower speed, and maybe need a higher, windier rope line. Extending it to the summit would put more of it in the wind.  So you get a longer, slower, colder ride, for not much more terrain, and it's on wind hold more.  It doesn't really need more capacity, and extending it only adds the opportunity to ski Rumor back to Straightbrook.  I would be happy to see it renovated as a double, without extending it.

mm  

Milo Maltbie wrote

I remember when MRG replaced the single, the people that wanted a double were saying it was cheaper than a single, but I don't believe it.  (Nobody wanted a double, but I think Eric started a fake controversy for marketing purposes.) For one thing, a double would have required new loading and landing zones.  For another, part of the cost of the single was renovating the old truss towers, instead of using cheaper tube towers, but that was only necessary because they wanted to maintain the low rope line and the look of original lift. Keeping the single was a smart move that maintained the experience, without building something that would have required a higher rope line or slower speeds.

It's the same with the HP chair.  A fixed quad would run at a lower speed, and maybe need a higher, windier rope line. Extending it to the summit would put more of it in the wind.  So you get a longer, slower, colder ride, for not much more terrain, and it's on wind hold more.  It doesn't really need more capacity, and extending it only adds the opportunity to ski Rumor back to Straightbrook.  I would be happy to see it renovated as a double, without extending it.

mm

Do you realize that the High Peaks lift went to the top prior to the 1995 renovation? You were able to access all the Straight Brook trails from the top. The current top location was the result some sort of compromise during the renovation. The factors that drove the decision are no longer valid.

Why would the new lift have to run at a slower line speed? Quads are better in the wind due to the weight of the chair. Go ride the Straight Brook quad if you want to ride a fast FGQ. The top of Cloud is pretty wind protected by trees and wind would be less of a factor than you think.

Petronio wrote

I know that lift is old, but replacing it with a new double might keep some of the charm.

Oh I so agree.  I wish this was possible or practical.

High speed chairs are sweet, especially with the costs of today’s lift tickets. I really prefer spending more time on my skis than sitting in a chair.

Me to! but something is to be said about old slow lifts.  I wend to mad river after a 5 foot cycle the first day they were spinning.  The single line took like 45 minutes.  Lots of pompous crunchy dudes in line they like to tell their stories which are only exciting to them..but that's a different story.    When you did finally get off the lift you really felt like you had the trails to yourself.  Snow stayed good all day.  Only got like 6 runs in that day because of the lines but they are some of the best powder runs I have ever made.  I have thought about it and for Mad River it works(and they can keep it) but for me I like small lift lines and lots of runs.

x10003q wrote

Do you realize that the High Peaks lift went to the top prior to the 1995 renovation? You were able to access all the Straight Brook trails from the top. The current top location was the result some sort of compromise during the renovation. The factors that drove the decision are no longer valid.

Why would the new lift have to run at a slower line speed? Quads are better in the wind due to the weight of the chair. Go ride the Straight Brook quad if you want to ride a fast FGQ. The top of Cloud is pretty wind protected by trees and wind would be less of a factor than you think.

What was the compromise that made them shorten the old Summit lift?  What factors are no longer valid?  

Quads and triples generally run slower ropes speeds than doubles and singles. Ride the MRG single on a busy day.  It's noticeably faster than any other fixed grip. High rope speeds exacerbate loading problems, and it gets worse when the seats get wider.

Access to Chatiemac or Rumor for one run from the HP side doesn't add much to the whole experience IMO. Maybe if I got to the top of HP just as patrol was dropping the rope on Rumor on powder day, that would be cool.

mm
     

 

Now you all made me look at the UMP and it’s wasted my whole morning.  
The Gore mountain goals included this:

Gore Mountain will seek to improve trail selection and create a better balance among trails in order to appeal to a greater cross-section of the skiing market by increasing the number of trails for the beginning and advanced skier. (page VI-4)

But the UMP doesn’t do anything for advanced skiers.  The 2002 UMP mostly looks like trail widening and glade removal. For example, it looks like the whole area between upper Chatiemac and Hawkeye was approved for clearcutting, and new trails were approved that mostly eliminate Barkeater, Twister and Tahawus glades.  IMO none of the proposed trail widening is necessary to relieve congestion, or improves the experience for advanced skiers.

The 2017 amendment is worse.  It puts an intermediate trail through Cirque glade for easier return to the base from Burnt Ridge when Echo and/or Twister are closed.  That doesn’t add much for advanced or even intermediate skiers, who can return by Tahawus and the North quad.

It's like they are trying to turn the place into Okemo, but they will only add lots of acreage that needs snowmaking to be skiable.  

DEC is accepting comments until February 9.  IME public comments to state agencies are sorted into categories by keywords and tabulated, then mostly ignored.  OTOH comments from groups with a real interest and expertise are considered in detail.  If a group of Gore passholders and North Creek property owners filed comprehensive joint comments, DEC might actually have to address them directly.  Ultimately, you might be able to your way into a position where you would be consulted before UMP amendments are drafted.

mm