Serious Accident at Gore

Snowballs wrote

Coach Z wrote

Why don't they get rid of Gully and cut a new trail that cuts out some if the flats. Since no uses Gully anyway it would make much more sense.  It never made sense to me how they connected Brunt Ridge.

Topography.

And careful commenting on Gore's quirks Coach. Per Harv, Gore's faithful don't complain and per moi, are about as tolerant of it as Face guys are of .......traversing.  

You lost me here SB?
Where at WF are you talking about?
Gore has serious design flaws where someone decided to add XC trails into network in like 6 or 7 places.  Once you might say ok but to do it so many times makes you go WTF were they thinking.  The only beef anyone can have about WF is if your legs are not used to skiing so much sustained Vert at one time

Gore's expansions in the last 20 years were:

Gondola replacement:  1999
Topridge area:  2002
Burnt Ridge:  2008
Ski Bowl:  2010

The first two were designed to section the mountain, while eliminating the need to take Lower Tannery and reducing the need to take Lower Cloud.  These reduced the number of flat spots.

The two most recent ones however, increased the amount of flat spots.  

Burnt Ridge, when it first opened had only Echo with snowmaking, which meant taking the long runout every time you skied it.  There also was no connector from Twister.  The only way in was down Cedars from the main base and the only way out was to skate around the back of the then triple if you wanted to take the gondola or get to the lodge.  You also had to go down and around through the base area to get to the saddle when Burnt Ridge is geographically right next to the North Quad.  Later you could ski out through the Tahawus Glades, but that resulted in people going in the glades who had no business being there and tracked them all out fast.  It wasn't until 2 or 3 years ago that they finally invested in a proper connection to the North Side.  It should've had all the connector trails that were added later right away.

The Ski Bowl, the way it was rolled out, I refer to as the "mother of all mistakes".  The only way in is a former work road that was never designed for downhill skiing, and the only way out is through two full runs and lift rides just to get to the main base.  The way out is dictated by the topography, but the way in is much easier to change.  It still blows my mind that there is no proper connection from Burnt Ridge which is right next to the Ski Bowl.  You have to go all the way around the back to even get in there.  Of course you could take one of the glades, but that means that people ski them who should not be in there and track them all out.  People wonder why it is underutilized and the reason is how hard it is to get in and out.  Once again, a proper connection to the main mountain should've been the FIRST thing that was done.  Now it's been 6 years and we're still hoofing it around the base of the North Quad to get to the Ski Bowl.

What's worse is that there isn't any reason at all why the real connector couldn't have been cut.  Between 2010 and now, Gore has cut the Hudson trail, also on the Ski Bowl, added snowmaking to 46er, and cut numerous glades.  Why the hell couldn't they prioritize the actually important trail first.  Snowmaking on 46er makes zero sense unless people are skiing it.  Cutting the Hudson trail makes zero sense unless it is easy to get to.  Cutting trees to make more glades makes zero sense when they can be cut in one area to provide a critical link between two mountain areas.  Maybe because the selfish elitists on here want the ski bowl to be hard to get to so they can have it to themselves.  You all know that if more people skied it, there would be a lot more incentive to make snow on it and get it open more than it currently is.

Coach Z wrote

Snowballs wrote

Coach Z wrote

Why don't they get rid of Gully and cut a new trail that cuts out some if the flats. Since no uses Gully anyway it would make much more sense.  It never made sense to me how they connected Brunt Ridge.

Topography.

And careful commenting on Gore's quirks Coach. Per Harv, Gore's faithful don't complain and per moi, are about as tolerant of it as Face guys are of .......traversing.  

You lost me here SB?
Where at WF are you talking about?
Gore has serious design flaws where someone decided to add XC trails into network in like 6 or 7 places.  Once you might say ok but to do it so many times makes you go WTF were they thinking.  The only beef anyone can have about WF is if your legs are not used to skiing so much sustained Vert at one time

Oh no Coach, my reference was to the way WF skiers dislike and comment on GORE"S flats. And yes there's some messed up spots at Gore. BR traverse was a big disappointment.

The issue is that BR was seen as more of a link to the Sno Bowl than a connected pod to the main front side of Gore.  Orda tried to do what they always do and do things the cheap way instead of the right way.  They really needed at least one more lift to connect that many miles of spread out acreage

Someone on here years ago posted that the BR lift should of been longer putting the bottom of it further downhill and then cedars might have been better. Topography or landownership may have been factors, but yeah it sucks and no doubt effects overall usage of those pods.

Coach Z wrote

The issue is that BR was seen as more of a link to the Sno Bowl than a connected pod to the main front side of Gore.  Orda tried to do what they always do and do things the cheap way instead of the right way.  They really needed at least one more lift to connect that many miles of spread out acreage

I designed effective connections between the two without installing any more lifts.  Burnt Ridge opened first and the way they put in only 2 trails, but built the ski bowl after only two years shows that they only built it as a way to connect to the ski bowl.  It makes no sense.  You spend 5 million dollars on a hsq and put in only 2 trails, making them insanely crowded and if Echo is closed for racing, it's even worse.  

They designed it as a connection to the ski bowl and town, but they still blow off putting in a proper connection off the top of Burnt Ridge to the ski bowl.  My guess is that the ski bowl exists as a political favor to campaign donors and staff located in North Creek and they keep pouring money into that bottomless pit as a way to please them.  What these politicians with no ski industry experience don't understand is that the Ski Bowl will not help the town in any way unless it is consistently open, and there will be no motivation to blow snow there and have it consistently open unless many more people ski it, and there will be hardly anyone skiing it unless it is relatively easy to get to, which it is not.

That makes sense.  

At this point putting is a surface lift like Alta has that goes both ways to and from BR would make sense and would be very cheap.

A fixed grip transfer lift maybe from the bottom of the North Side to the top of the Hudson chair would make a lot of sense as well.  Buy something used cheap..  WF is basically built out at this point so invest in Gore.  I really like skiing Gore.  It has so much potential.  

Coach Z wrote

At this point putting is a surface lift like Alta has that goes both ways to and from BR would make sense and would be very cheap.

Be way fun to skate past those people on the surface lift too.

OK maybe I am exaggerating about keeping up, but when twister to echo is open you can make it to BR in about 20 skates. One time when it was icy I remember doing it with 5 skates.

Put it this way I would never wait in line at that lift.

You guys just don't understand us teleskiers we like exercise.

the mileage cap is ridiculous. It's obviously some silly number to keep the enviro nuts happy, it doesn't make any actual sense. If the ski areas have a damn good lawyer and go through the Federal designated NEPA process they should be able to bypass that.

I have never skied at Gore so I'll try to keep the sharing of my opinions short and respectful. Harv and some locals don't mind the skating, I mostly ski tour so I get that. They probably also like the slower pace and overall under the radar atmosphere of Gore or the fact that it's not Mount Snow, I dig that too.

That being said, I don't think Sno and Coach's points are that they can't do the skate, it's just a bad design from a ski area engineering and management pov. The ski area and it's connections have been marketed as a good way to bring money to the local struggling and flailing economy. In order to do that you would want to create the kind of experiences that keep bringing people back. Even though a visiting day skier or someone there for the weekend might only use a poorly aligned connector trail a few times it might just be the thing they remember the most about their visit. If you don't create the experience people desire then they go else where. Although Sno likes to poke the fire and say things that pull at peoples emotional strings such as saying glades are a waste, his point has always been that all of the desired user experiences can be created with some thoughtful planning and I have to agree with him from a ski area management pov. And to be completely honest, it's sort of a let down to the local community that they didn't do that.

Harv, you love your little utopia and mountain town getaway that lets you escape the hell that is known as the Garden State but there are people that actually live there and could use a bit of an economic boost. Maybe I'm off on this, like I said I have never even been to NC but it seems to me that Gore could be a whole lot more successful than it currently is.

Unfortunately the stupid mileage limits are in the NYS constitution so changing them is not a simple matter and Orda is not about to sue the state to challenge them.

You hit the nail on the head.  It's bad design pure and simple.  I can do the skate but what if you are a boarder or a family with small kids.  Then all that skating becomes a nightmare and limits return visits.

Coach Z wrote

It's bad design pure and simple.  I can do the skate but what if you are a boarder or a family with small kids.  Then all that skating becomes a nightmare and limits return visits.

IT's not so much design (although the original trails and lifts were poorly thought out), it's that there just isn't enough vertical between the base, BRQ and the Ski Bowl base.  You really can't have an all-downhill snowboard friendly ski area on a piece of land as horizontal as Gore is. Gore would be a lot better if an earthquake tipped it up about 5 degrees.
OTOH some of us are such cranky old farts that we are happy to have snowboarders stay away, or at least happy we can skate to spots the tourists avoid, but I'm sure that's not good for the town or anyone interested in the business side of it.

mm

If a surface lift would have prevented this terrible accident, it's probably a good idea.

Hey I'm not pretending my way is correct and sustainable.

All I'm saying is I like Gore. Hey I get to be a skier with preferences too, or it's not as much fun, for me.

I have always done my level best to support the local economy, with my wallet, website and marketing skillz.

The state chose Gore as a location long before they imagined expansion on this scale.  What year was it?

Original Gore, the East Side, is a nice place for a ski area.  IMO it's is a good ski area on it's own.

Would you guys be happier if the Ski Bowl or BR or both were separate ski areas, only available by car, or would you rather they didn't exist at all? (I know your answer sno.)

If they were separate areas, I bet a donut those routes would be skied to connect the areas.

Harvey wrote

The state chose Gore as a location long before they imagined expansion on this scale.  What year was it?

Not to mention that it would have been a natural and logical choice. Skiing already had an established history there. People had a history of riding up on the train ( I believe the Northway wasn't built yet ) . It's relatively close to population areas and it's a good size mtn. Bear mtn itself has more vert than many ski hills.

All you posted above is good stuff Harv. Your dedication and efforts for Gore are very impressive and real.

But there's always been this damn traverse thing. People don't like it and it holds the mtn back.

The new Gondi and the Topridge chair eliminated the traversing @Gore that many disliked for so long.

Ruby Run and BR brought it back and there will always be that nagging thought of " couldn't there be a better, easier, more fluent, more enjoyable way to get to it ? ".

Same with the Bowl. Ski peeps live for new additions and are all " Yeah ! We wanna rip it! " but if it's never open or you can't get to it cause connectors are closed or are a waste of time then it all is very, very disappointing.

Milo Maltbie wrote

Coach Z wrote

It's bad design pure and simple.  I can do the skate but what if you are a boarder or a family with small kids.  Then all that skating becomes a nightmare and limits return visits.

IT's not so much design (although the original trails and lifts were poorly thought out), it's that there just isn't enough vertical between the base, BRQ and the Ski Bowl base.  You really can't have an all-downhill snowboard friendly ski area on a piece of land as horizontal as Gore is. Gore would be a lot better if an earthquake tipped it up about 5 degrees.
OTOH some of us are such cranky old farts that we are happy to have snowboarders stay away, or at least happy we can skate to spots the tourists avoid, but I'm sure that's not good for the town or anyone interested in the business side of it.

mm

I've looked at the topo maps and from where I'm sitting I definitely see better options there for fluid connectivity. I haven't ever been there so maybe there are some major geological features that aren't visible on the topo maps and it would probably cost more money but it's not impossible.

I think there are definately better routes. To stay within the mileage limits, I guess they would have to reforest the current trails at the same time they cut the new ones. Makes it even more expensive.

I'm told according to the "rules" once it is in the mileage number it can't be removed. Like Pipeline.

Also I prefer to think of myself a part of the Johnsburg marketing department.

Everything in this human created reality is negotiable, especially when there is big $.

I believe the mileage limits were expanded once. There is currently a movement to push them back again:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/522/662/061/demand-the-repeal-of-trail-mileage-limits-at-orda-ski-resorts/

(ROFL about the assumption that the only skiing happening in the Adirondacks is happening at Gore and Whiteface.)

I'm confused how any new trail milage/development that's done within the current approved ski area/use area has any sort of negative impact on the Park.

It sure sounds like total bullshit to appease the cult like over the top extreme nature lovers.