Editorial: Gore Expansion (Comments)

Multiple people emailed me and asked if I could move the discussion generated by the blog's Gore Expansion Editorial into the forum. This is my attempt:

nick said: "...as a part time local and property owner, you are more likely to take a rosy longview of the expansion than someone with out that connection...."

@nick: I’m sure you are right. No doubt our commitment to North Creek influences my view.  Here’s a town I’ve invested in, so it makes sense that I would look favorably on others doing the same.  Also I’ve seen changes to Gore, that I was really against originally that I now see as good.

Benny Profane said: "Name me a private ski area over in VT that is expanding and spending money like this over the last four to five years..."

@Benny: no doubt capital improvements at Gore have outpaced your average ski area. I’ve said this before: IMO state run ski areas should strive to break even or better on operating expenses.  Capital improvements, I think, fall into a different category.  If the state chooses to invest in those areas, I’m ok with it. With the caveat that ALL states should be responsible and balance their budgets. If that means major improvement have to stop now, then that’s what it means. Put it this way IF the state should be in the ski business (a WHOLE 'nother discussion) then they have to invest in capital improvements.  With out real estate to pay for that stuff, it's going to have to come out of the general fund.

adx said: Gore is boring. I have skied at Gore since it opened, before the red gondola was built. Some years I skied there 20 to 30 days a year.  Back in the day, there was minimal grooming, and Chatiemac and Hawkeye, and the Summit Chair trails, were bumped up all winter long ...

@adx:  Personally I love bumps. That's why I asked Mike that question. I think if Rumor and Lies were left to bump for the entire season, it wasn’t above freezing, and there was no new snow, I’d have a tough time with them.  It seems like the strategy is to leave Rumor bumped as much as possible and groom Lies a little more.  

Disclaimer: I admit don't have tons of experience with other mountains. I've probably only skied 15 mountains in my life. My experience in VT is limited to Stowe, Killington and Stratton.  (I dream at night about MRG! and the Bush).  But I don't find Gore boring, and I find it just the opposite when it's 100% open. Those runs under the chairs, DarkSide, Double Barrel and High Pines are my favorite treeless runs at Gore. They don’t ice up as much as the groomers because the snow is natural.

From the sound of it, you're a pretty good skier.  I’d consider myself maybe a 6 out of 10. (I ski the whole mountain, but don’t ski the expert terrain at an expert level.) I mentioned in the original blog post that Gore resembles a business.  I think grooming is a way to appeal to more customers.  My favorite skiing is ungroomed all natural snow, but I think I’m in a minority. That's why I love the trees.

I don’t agree with Benny that most people don’t like bumps, unless “most” means 51%.

70s Gore Kid said: "Groom out half the trail, leave the other half bumped up. Skiers would choose the half they are most comfortable with. Everyone happy."

@Kid: IMO at least SOME runs should be groomed this way.  I was taught to ski bumps in snowmobile swales in the Summit County CO hut system.  One place that I really PRACTICED bumps was "Challenge" at Blue Mountain in PA. They groom half of it. You can ski bumps and bail at any time. IMO it really encourages beginners.

With regard to the elimination of “sidecountry” as mentioned by skimore, adx and others ...  This is something I admit I hadn't thought through.  There’s lots of frontcountry, and in the Adks at least – lots of backcountry.  But semi-lift served sidecountry, like Burnt Ridge BC, The Slides or even Big Jay is much more rare.

One thing I find interesting. Comments under the blog post have two opposite complaints — Burnt Ridge is too hard to access (flats) and Burnt Ridge is too easy to access (lift served). Rule of thumb, the harder terrain is to access, the better the snow.

I just spent about 40 mins writing about this, and then it got deleted because the comments were locked!

Me 2!

Blow double barrel and leave it bumped for pete's sake. There's water/air connections on both sides of DB. This short/narrow trail would not take much to cover.

Other trails could be left bumped or half and half. I'm not a fan of Sags being totally bumped top to bottom, it's too long for that. I noticed those who say it's the bomb this way only make one or two runs on it then split.

Uncle Mikey's explanation of why Gore doesn't have bump trails more often is flat out lame. Other resorts do it, Gore could too. End of debate.

I'm not a big bump fan but other people are and it would be easy and harmless to provide a few bumps for the mogul minded.

Also, too much ungroomed trails would ignore the needs of the many, the actual masses who pay the bills. If Gore went au natural, like Hickory in days gone by, Gore would lose many customers.

Another fan of bumps with a bailout area.  As someone who is working hard on advancing and becoming more of an all mountain/all conditions skier this would be HUGE!  

True story:
The first time I ever skied bumps was on Sagamore....big, hard, wall to wall bumps with icy troughs for something like 1.2 miles...no place to get off that wild ride! WTH!   (BTW, did you ever notice how they don't look "so bad" from the lift??)  The grade of that trail is well within my personal comfort limit, but the lack of anywhere to bail out/change trails made for one EPIC run for me!  lol  I have never...NEVER! been so frustrated (or battered). Hard to absorb bumps when your body is rigid with panic.   First time since beginning this ski journey that I have wanted to sit down and cry like a baby!  If you knew me, you'd know I'm not that kinda gal.    Ah well, to me it's a good story.  I still laugh like crazy every time I relive it in memory....I just don't want to REPEAT it! I'm happy to report that I am now beginning to recover from the trauma and exploring bumps again.  lol

Anyway, my point is that I believe, IMHO, that Gore should absolutely leave more terrain ungroomed, leave some bumps....please leave some on intermediate terrain too....it would greatly encourage the beginner bumper.  Not to mention it would keep gapers like me off the expert terrain while trying to figure it all out.  Can someone point me to the beginner "non threatening" well spaced glades???  

Unfortunately for all who have developed a love and appreciation for the au natural terrain....the fact is that a good majority of customers feel the quality of their experience at a particular mountain is in direct relation to the quality of their grooming.  Hey, I'm starting to feel like a Rippin' Chick on the groomed, I get it, but I'm also looking to move up to that next level.  Many are just happy to ski perfect cordouroy and alot of them are the ones buying those expensive weekend/holiday passes.  

I like this girl ^^^^ She's fun, articulate and not afraid to speak out. Excellent quailites. Bravo Snowflake!

I think Otter slide glades maybe your answer or perhaps Tahawus and whatever the new glades off Wild Aire are called.

Love your spirit SFADK.

Nope, if a lot of people liked bumps, you'd see quite a show on Saturdays riding the Outer Limits chair at Killington. I see a lot of kids playing a dare game with their buddies, picking their way down. Don't look like fun to me.

Best bump skiers I  have known are from Vail, and that's the reason I hate the place. (well, one) So many people, the supposed far reaches of the Blue Sky "backcountry" have VW sized bumps in the trees. No thanks. I live for powder.

I like Bumps...and yes I will ski Sagamore top to bottom non stop more than twice and leave
I like Trees and yes Gore is very liberal with their tree skiing policy
I like screaming down the lower mountain on groomers at 8:15
I like the idea of expanding into little Gore and can't wait to ski 46er once we get enough snow (by the way I bought the new Powder in the airport and it does have a nice little article on the expansion and history of skiing in North Creek)...I thought that was what this discussion was supposed to be...I also Love Mad River and seriously, there are more bumps on that mountain than any mountain in the east (and I would never bring a new pair of skis there).  Chute just might be the best bump trail in the east.  They do get more natural snow but they also depend on it.  Mad River keeps the trail crowd down by not putting too many people on the mountain at one time...Gore does it by spreading out the terrain(ok the saddle could use a little work, but I do avoid it)...I love going over to lap Sagamore when the main mountain gets crowded...there are also some nice glades over there.   Adding 46er will give me another option.  There is something for everyone at Gore.  As it grows there will be more for all of you.  We all are selfish with our wants when it comes to skiing.  There are trails I won't ski that might be some of your favorites, but I know when I am at Gore I will poke around to find what I am looking for and more often than not, will find it and have another great day in Paradise(I also like blower at MRG's Paradise)
Let it Grow!
More Gore!

Bumps are lots of fun. Half and Half would definitely be ideal. Clearly Bennyboy doesn't like them, but there are most definitely people who do.

I'm partly with skimore and adx on Gore being pretty boring terrain. Yes there is good stuff, but it is all the same. Chatiemac/Hawkeye are similar. At lease 1/2 of one should be left bumped up... preferably lower Hawkeye with one or two groomed cat passes on skiers right for people to bail on or to get from Chati to the liftline.

As Snowflake said, a low-angle bump run is a must. there are maybe 10 skiers a day who take Ward Hill. Save it for either a bump run or a beginner park - most likely a bump run though.

A friend of mine, he's a ski instructor, said that he had an intermediate/advanced bump lesson the other day. They went from either Topridge or Hawkeye to Rumor. There really isn't any intermediate level bump runs.

Rumor and Lies are always a sheet of ice - true...ish. The day or two after it opens when they've been hammering it with guns. after that, ICE. Or if there is a storm with 8"+, but that gets skied off soon enough.

Fact - Gore's bumps almost never have rhythm to them. They hit a trail with guns, leave the whalebacks, to get skied on, and then after two weeks they mow it flat. I love the soft whalebacks, but they always turn to ice before getting pushed flat. People who are going down trails like Rumor and Lies in a power wedge in the back seat are also partially to blame.

Solution - blow some snow on hawkeye, groom it, blow some more, put bamboo down it in an offset pattern, have people ski around them to make real bumps. Maybe it's a liability? Close it and only send a designated crowd down it. Rinse & repeat for Ward Hill.

The park - Take the jibs out of Lower Sleighride, take the jibs from the bottom of Wild Air, and put them on Stokes. No more dangerous cross traffic going from Lower Sleighride to skiers right of Wild Air. No park on Wild Air, leave that an open gap.

Use that natural pitch on the bottom of Lower Sleighride for an inrun to another jump.

I like the c-box and down rail setup as well as the canon. Keep it, just move it over. MattChuck is probably the only other person on here who remotely cares about the park setup anyways.

SO, you're going to ski Burnt Ridge.. go ski Echo for a groomer, head to Sagamore for au Natural. Keep one or two cat passes groomed for people to bail out on. Less grooming = less money spend on diesel = less emissions = more fun for people who enjoy bumps.

Tired of skating over or unstrapping a foot for a snowboarder? Convince Pratt & Co. to install a Poma at the junction of Echo and Cedars. Have it take you up enough vertical that you can actually ski down to the lift. They can turn the real Cedars trail into valet parking to compliment the gold parking. Think that installing a Poma there is ridiculous? All the cool kids are doing it! Jay Peak, Alta, Powder Mountain just to name a few.

The biggest problem with Gore is the natural topography of the area. If you look at mountains like Whiteface or Mad River, you can ski the entire vertical in one run... with no skating! In order to do that at Gore, you better have some LF wax complimented by blackwolf, freshly scraped and brushed.

"They can turn the real Cedars trail into valet parking to compliment the gold parking."

Gotta agree with BP.... That's was quite the Spiel !!!! HA!!!!

Wildest show I ever saw on the Outer Limits chair was actually very pointed. A freekin Porcupine had crossed the trail and was headin for da woods. Imagine skiing into him.

BP...SPEIL....Pretty  "slick " eh?  Get the "point " ? Or did I lose you oily on?  Ok. More oil well humor....

A barrel of laughs, a fountainhead of funny and a well of wit....

Great platform for practicing my bit! What a gas. Ha!

I'm done with this drill.

Hope it wasn't too crude.

I think I'll go Gulf.

Was that spiel a sinker or a floater?

I am all for the terrain expansions that have occurred, BUT... the next significant capital investment had better be a doubling of the snowmaking plant.  15 acre/feet per day is woefully inadequate for a 450 acre ski area.  

For the record, Fox Lair didn't come on line until a year or two after the new gondola went in.  The significance of that point is that it took 6 or 7 years to muddle through a solution to the problem of getting beginners down from Bear Mtn.  Fairview was a disaster for intermediates, Foxlair was a disaster for beginners.  Ruby was the final solution, but that took until 2006, was extremely expensive, and it's still a less-than-perfect solution.  With Burnt Ridge, the problem is the approach on Cedars.  It didn't have to be that way:  the base of the BRQ could have been built a hundred or two vert lower.  So when some skiers complain that certain aspects of Gore's expansions have not been well executed, I think they have some legitimate gripes.

That ^^^ was a floater. Him make good sense.

Adk Jeff wrote

I am all for the terrain expansions that have occurred, BUT... the next significant capital investment had better be a doubling of the snowmaking plant.  15 acre/feet per day is woefully inadequate for a 450 acre ski area

Yes yes yes.

Adk Jeff wrote

I am all for the terrain expansions that have occurred, BUT... the next significant capital investment had better be a doubling of the snowmaking plant.  15 acre/feet per day is woefully inadequate for a 450 acre ski area.  

But, how to pay for all of that snowmaking?

I once walked up to the ticket window at Killington way back when, and, they were charging full price for maybe 20 trails on 12/5 or something. Expecting the whining and griping about the charge, somebody taped up a sign on the window that said: "Snowmaking is expensive". It is, you know. Do you want to pay $90 for a ticket at Gore?

I found a map from 2000-2001 that has the trail now know as Foxlair labeled as Sagamore at the top section and Foxlair at the bottom section. I also noted that my 6 year old son skied it for the first time in Mar, 2001. I cannot find the 1999-2000 map.

Benny - the lift ticket prices at Gore are now similar to Mt Snow/Stratton/Okemo yet the snowmaking is not even close. The ticket prices at Gore (until the last few years) had been about 60% of the rate at the Big 3 in S Vt. Gore has already dealt with the hard part - water. They just need to add horsepower. Gore can handle more people, but who knows where the extra profit would end up once ORDA got their hands on it.

You know, after reading some things on this thread, I swear some people think that ski area funding falls from the sky like snow.
It's tax dollars. Mine and yours, and, let's face it, the other 95% of people in this state who couldn't even find Gore on a map. I refuse to believe Gore is self supporting. If anyone is privy to the real books (the real books, not the fake set they keep in the other drawer), please fill us in. I'll bet five bright kids from McKinsey would scratch their heads after seeing the figures.
My skiing day count has been kinda pathetic the last few years, but, from what I can remember, Gore had Killington beat big time the last season I was up there in snowmaking, after the new owners bought the place and operated it as a profitable ski hill and not an adjunct to a real estate scheme. All the talk I hear here about the minimal funding Gore gets just makes me say, huh? Have you guys been over to Vermont a lot lately?
And, snowmaking is not only horsepower, it's installation, maintenance, manpower, and, grooming (you don't think those whales are going to sit there all year, right? It's expensive. Very.

Benny Profane wrote

You know, after reading some things on this thread, I swear some people think that ski area funding falls from the sky like snow.

LOL. Actually in the last few years we've probably had more funding than snow.

So ... if we have this correct, the order of trails built from the top of the Gondi to the lower mountain was:

1.  Fairview and Pine Knot
2.  Foxlair
3.  Foxlair (widened)
4.  Ruby Run

I'd bet a donut that those trails are listed from least to most expensive.

Fairview had to be the cheapest - it required little grading and it's short.  And you KNOW Ruby Run was the most expensive of the four - somewhere in the neighborhood of $200k I think.

I seems unlikely to me that it never occurred to mtn planners that they needed a way to get beginners down from Bear. I think it was a matter of doing the best they could with budgets available.

When I spoke to Mike last summer I asked him what were the most important milestones during his tenure as GM at Gore. He said they were:

1. Regulatory Approval of the pipe from the Hudson.
2. Completion of Ruby Run.

A sincere question: If you feel that Ruby and Foxlair are poorly routed - how would you run them?

Benny Profane wrote

 You know, after reading some things on this thread, I swear some people think that ski area funding falls from the sky like snow. I refuse to believe Gore is self supporting.

Unreal. Guess I gotta say it again. Pay attention class!!! Dozens of other ski resorts do just fine without ANY State monies. DOZENS.

Gore never had a mortage to pay for. Gore pays no Federal or State income tax. No real estate taxes. No school taxes. No fuel taxes. No sales taxes. Gore pays no interest on loans, They don't have any loans! Gore pays no insurance, Liability, fire, auto. The State is self insured.

Gore pays no improvement costs. Any time there's an improvement, lift, trail, snowmaking the State pays for it. Gore never had to pay for the buildings, the infrastructure, roads, asphalt, equipment, furnishings, trail building, on and fricken on.

Gore gets discounts on vehicles, fuel, utilities. It's very possible their retirement and health care costs are paid by the State.

Gore charges just as much as the private areas, yet Gore has all these mega cost saving State breaks.

Don't swallow the Kool aid. Benny dump your glass out. These NY State organizations are screwed up!

Here's an example. Recently the university of Albany was given a Billion freeckin dollars to replace some roofs on some buildings. A billion Freeckin Dollars!!!!! They would be able to totally rebuild half the damn campus and have money left over if it was a private group.

I don't understand why people are so anxious to overlook these State ski areas' savings while the ski area short changes them.
Some people act like questioning Gore is akin to punching their Mom in the face.

If private areas can deliver a better product without all the huge tax breaks and State funding Gore  has.........

Harvey44 wrote

And you KNOW Ruby Run was the most expensive of the four - somewhere in the neighborhood of $200k I think.

A sincere question: If you feel that Ruby and Foxlair are poorly rooted - how would you run them?

Harv, you're price tag for Ruby is well short of the actual figure.  I'm sure the amount was well into 7 figures.  That trail required a SERIOUS amount of rock removal.  Drilling, blasting, grading:  VERY expensive.  I don't know that there's an official figure out there, but I know that kind of work is much more expensive than a couple hundred K.

Not sure I know what you mean by "poorly rooted."  If you mean poorly executed, I can tell you that Foxlair should have been constructed from the start the way that Ruby was.  They should have done the serious drilling and blasting on Foxlair so that it didn't have the problematic (for beginners) drop at the end and so that it dumped out at the top of Showcase instead of below, i.e. above the Snoopy Rock.    That would have made Ruby unnecessary.  When it later became necessary to construct Ruby, it would have been a much better trail if it dumped out close to the top of the triple chair, not halfway back on the flats.  The problem with that of course is that Fairview was already in the way.  If the whole thing had been thought through from the start, and the big bucks were spent up front (on Foxlair), the end result would have been a better product overall for less cost.  Hey, hindsight's 20-20.

One final thing.  There is confusion among some as to when Foxlair came online.  There is a website, archive.org, on which you can look Gore's website as it existed each year going back to around 1998.  Take a look at the trail maps and read the "what's new" links for those early years and you will see that Foxlair came online a year or two AFTER the gondola opened.  It was not available the first year the gondi opened.