2017 Whiteface UMP Amendment

59 messages Options
123456
Hoser Hoser
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: 2017 Whiteface UMP Amendment

So does APA approval mean the new chair from Bear to mid is a go?   Are all proposals now a go?  Where does new chair end?  Mid lodge or base of two upper chairs ?    Approval means what to execution?   How much of the $60m in this years budget cares for this plan?    Will I be alive to reap the benefits?    
ScottyJack ScottyJack
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: 2017 Whiteface UMP Amendment

Hoser wrote
Will I be alive to reap the benefits?
How old are you?

I ride with Crazy Horse!
Harvey Harvey
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: 2017 Whiteface UMP Amendment

In reply to this post by Hoser
LOL Scotty good answer!

The UMP is about permission. Funding is a separate issue.
"You just need to go at that shit wide open, hang on, and own it." —Camp
ScottyJack ScottyJack
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: 2017 Whiteface UMP Amendment

Not sure of allocation breakdown other than its not all for ski mtns.

They are cleared for all approved proposals.  Things listed as approved conceptional will have to come back for future ump once the specific details are finalized.

Bear lift would mid drop at current end drop and end drop to a clearning skiers left above the split  of calaminty lane off thurway

Their presently is enough milage under the trail cap for the new trail off approach and the lookout mtn trail - (so in other words SnoIsWrongAgain).

I’ve been in the woods extensively between empire and upper mac and for sure it is possible to put an intermediate trail in there.  The already, since 1996, approved trail along approach and wrapping around skiers right of existing freeway lift back onto parkway is super doable.

Having only one intermediate option off little whiteface is not in the best interest of Whiteface.  And an intermediate trail to all expert terrain creates a lot of problems.  

A high speed quad from base to just above lift I (7, racer chair) which is still in the best protected wind zone would be a great enhance to move skiers on big wind days during or the day after major storm events

Snowmaking infrastructure improvements are first priority. Then lifts and new trails.

Very excitted for these changes and thankful for the funding!!




I ride with Crazy Horse!
Hoser Hoser
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: 2017 Whiteface UMP Amendment


Bear lift would mid drop at current end drop and end drop to a clearning skiers left above the split  of calaminty lane off thurway

I just cant picture this.  It must go uphill of the ridge that is by the midlodge, right?
ScottyJack ScottyJack
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: 2017 Whiteface UMP Amendment

Correct. There is an access road that cuts from bottom of mtn run to bottom of calamity lane - right around tower 1 of lwf chair.  Above that.  In vinicity of where 1980 scoreboard is
I ride with Crazy Horse!
Z Z
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: 2017 Whiteface UMP Amendment

In reply to this post by ScottyJack
ScottyJack wrote
Bear lift would mid drop at current end drop and end drop to a clearning skiers left above the split  of calaminty lane off thurway

Their presently is enough milage under the trail cap for the new trail off approach and the lookout mtn trail - (so in other words SnoIsWrongAgain).
so there is really two chairs in the plan
1) a new bear chair with a mid station and a top around the top of Mid I now which I assume utilizes the I lift line - it would serve the race needs though probably not as well as they would have to do to bottom to load and get mixed in with the masses using Bear lift unless they do a mid load lift like at Alta but those are pretty uncommon and probably costly.
2) a new I lift on a different lift line

would that allow to open the skiing under the upper I liftline that will no longer have a lift on it?  I recall skiing that legally way back like 20+ years ago.

Also is there mileage under the limit to do two new trails off LWF and the one on the lookers right of Lookout?  That trail should be priority as it would get more use out of that lift and would be sheltered from the wind pretty well - it looks to also have some great glade potential and is high in elevation.
if You French Fry when you should Pizza you are going to have a bad time
ScottyJack ScottyJack
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: 2017 Whiteface UMP Amendment

<quote author="Z"

so there is really two chairs in the plan

Yes

Bear would would extend its line to above calaminty lane intersection.

The new I lift would lookers left of where bear starts now and use most of existing I line extending above current drop zone to somewhere between start of empire and upper mac.

Also is there mileage under the limit to do two new trails off LWF and the one on the lookers right of Lookout?  
</quote>

Yes on milage.  The approved not built trail on lookout is lookers right off liftline starting off on wilmington and connecting back to hoyts at rand’s last stand.
I ride with Crazy Horse!
ScottyJack ScottyJack
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: 2017 Whiteface UMP Amendment

A portion of the trail off parkway would use some of the existing lift line under racer chair above the present mid drop
I ride with Crazy Horse!
snoloco snoloco
Reply |
Open this post in threaded view
 

Re: 2017 Whiteface UMP Amendment

In reply to this post by Z
I don't get why all these new lifts are supposed to start from the bottom.  I don't see out of base capacity as a pressing issue for Whiteface.  When the gondola gets crowded (most of the time), I ride the Facelift (and sometimes ride it even when the gondola isn't crowded).  When the Facelift gets crowded, I go Bear to Freeway and then don't return to the base until the end of the day (and I've only had to do that once this year).

The Freeway lift is the most underutilized lift on the mountain and replacing it with a high speed quad that goes to the bottom will not get many more people to ride it.  Experts won't use it if LWF is running.  Intermediates won't use it as they prefer to lap the gondola.  On windy days it might be useful.

The blue trail that is planned to go off towards the gondola like I said earlier may actually be a decent trail.  Should have nice views and will result in Parkway getting more attention with snowmaking.  The one between Empire and Mac would be like trying to dynamite Skyward into a blue with switchbacks.  And it will get blasted by the wind.  If it allows one to access the Summit and Lookout lifts from the new Freeway lift that would be really great as I would never need to ride the gondola again.

I looked at extending the existing Freeway route with a slight turn that could be done with canted sheaves.  That and upgrading Bear would make more sense than crowding the base area with an additional lift and would upgrade out of base capacity.  And with a mid station in the current location it would be useful for racers.  A new Bear lift could be extended in both directions and start closer to the gondola and end at mid.

If they're going to do so much to improve their product for intermediates, then they also need to be fair and do something to improve it for experts which would be in the form of snowmaking upgrades that would result in Hoyt's and Cloudspin being open on a much more consistent full time basis, more resurfacing on expert trails, and cutting the final Lookout trail.

I've lived in New York my entire life.
Reply
123456