# master plan thread



## Sacadelic_Skier (Oct 16, 2016)

post all master plans here!


----------



## dlague (Oct 16, 2016)

Like what the goals thread talks a out?


----------



## gmcunni (Oct 16, 2016)

Hit lotto and retire


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 16, 2016)

If this is a hypothetical thread, I'll play.

As Wildcat is what I consider home and they can't do much on USFS land, my realistic plan (if the money was there)

- complete the replacement of all old snowmaking pipe on trails that are designated to have it.
- increase the snowmaking reservoir to 20+M gallons
- increase pumping capacity
- a few more beer taps

All of the above snowmaking improvements in theory could allow them to have 90% of their terrain open and covered by Christmas week.  It's not that big of a mountain, so with the right investment this would be feasible. 

Now for the unrealistic Master Plan.  Rework the Bobcat chair with a modern lift that serves the terrain better.  Currently it is a pain in the ass to get to any of the trails beyond Bobcat skiers left.  A simple solution would be to just extend the lift up to where the red X is on this drawing.  A more difficult to get approved, but even better solution I think would be to realign the lift (black line) and extend Cheetah, Lower Wildcat and Wild Kitten a bit.  A modern fixed grip triple with conveyor to shorten the ride time would be all it needs. HSQ would be great, but that would be a pretty short HSQ.  The goal is to make all the trails from that chair easily accessible.  This might make that area of the mountain more appealing and take some pressure off the summit trails.


----------



## ss20 (Oct 16, 2016)

http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/skiareaexpansions/

https://anrweb.vt.gov/anr/vtanr/Act250.aspx


----------



## Tin (Oct 16, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> If this is a hypothetical thread, I'll play.
> 
> As Wildcat is what I consider home and they can't do much on USFS land, my realistic plan (if the money was there)
> 
> ...



You're forgetting a midstation for the Wildcat Express at Cat Track or Cat Walk to provide the longest ski season in the east.


----------



## yeggous (Oct 16, 2016)

Tin said:


> You're forgetting a midstation for the Wildcat Express at Cat Track or Cat Walk to provide the longest ski season in the east.



Don't need it. Don't want it. A mid station would just slow down the lift.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 16, 2016)

Unless they configured it like the one on Mount Hood where the midstation is only operated seasonally, yeah I'm in agreement.  I wouldn't want a slower lift to extend the season a month.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 17, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Don't need it. Don't want it. A mid station would just slow down the lift.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



Not if it's only used early and late season where it is beneficial.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 17, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> If this is a hypothetical thread, I'll play.
> 
> As Wildcat is what I consider home and they can't do much on USFS land, my realistic plan (if the money was there)
> 
> ...



You could extend the bobcat even a little further up to the hump above that with a mid-station for the racers


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 17, 2016)

If by hump you mean you mean a couple hundred vert higher than where I have the new alignment,   Ive thought that as well. Would make for a great steep lift line under the top portion of the chair.  That would also enable you to get over to the right side of the mountain as you could take the cut off above middle Wildcat over to Lynx connector.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 17, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> If by hump you mean you mean a couple hundred vert higher than where I have the new alignment,   Ive thought that as well. Would make for a great steep lift line under the top portion of the chair.  That would also enable you to get over to the right side of the mountain as you could take the cut off above middle Wildcat over to Lynx connector.


yup


----------



## Jully (Oct 17, 2016)

Would you still be able to run a beginner trail down to connect to Wild Kitten? For the mountain itself Bobcat serves as an important stepping stone from the true beginner area to the beginner terrain at the top/off Tomcat


----------



## Mapnut (Oct 17, 2016)

Any good reason there are no trails in that wide space between the upper liftline and Wildcat? That would be prime expert terrain,wouldn't it?


----------



## Jully (Oct 17, 2016)

Only reason being that it's on forest service land in the White Mountain National forest so expansion is unlikely or at the least a long difficult process.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 17, 2016)

Jully said:


> Would you still be able to run a beginner trail down to connect to Wild Kitten? For the mountain itself Bobcat serves as an important stepping stone from the true beginner area to the beginner terrain at the top/off Tomcat



Well, with the realigned chair I've extended Wild kitten up. My thought for the realigned chair is based almost entirely on providing better novice access to Wild Kitten. (Green line)  In Smellys scenario you could extend Wild Kitten even further up the hill probably adding close to a half mile to the trail, which would be awesome.  The topography stretching out skiers left from the top of that hump could support a beginner trail swinging wide out.

My scenario involving just extending the chair to the red X would still make getting to Wk difficult as beginners would have to cross the bottom of middle Wildcat where advanced skiers tend to fly through


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 17, 2016)

Jully said:


> Only reason being that it's on forest service land in the White Mountain National forest so expansion is unlikely or at the least a long difficult process.



Pretty much.  I've actually reached out to them to see if any thought has been given even to just putting in a glade in that area or between Upper Polecat and Upper Lynx.  The mountain has talked to them about it, but it got shot down due to being "bird habitat."  I forget the breed.  Some sort of Thrush that other mountains have had projects blocked in the past.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 17, 2016)

Wildcat is one of the only mountains left with winding, narrow old school trails without too much density. I am all for not expanding terrain, but resolving snowmaking deficiencies whether that be infrastructure or budget. Adding Lift Lion and Upper Wildcat off the top would make all the difference. Add it stands, they do not make snow on any blacks outside of the middle of Lift Lion and Black Cat/Middle Catapult, which you can't get to without going down something else. But we all know that...


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 17, 2016)




----------



## benski (Oct 17, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


> View attachment 20853



I think any chairlift to the top of Mt Washington would top the list of "lifts that never run" just from wind holds.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 17, 2016)

It's actually a T-bar. The world's first Bubble T-bar as a matter of fact.


----------



## dlague (Oct 17, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


> It's actually a T-bar. The world's first Bubble T-bar as a matter of fact.



Heated as well!


----------



## Mapnut (Oct 17, 2016)

https://thebalsamsresort.com/vision/ski-expansion/
I know you've all seen the Wilderness-Balsams plan, but it belongs in this thread. Don't you love how the photo at the top of this page isn't anywhere in the East?


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 17, 2016)

How many years have these plans been a topic of conversation?


----------



## frozengranular (Oct 17, 2016)

If we are talking past plans, the plan for Sunday River in the LBO days was pretty impressive, as it would have made Jordan Bowl the new middle of the mountain when completed.  I found a map of the planned new terrain at one point but could never seem to find it again.  In hindsight I always wondered why the village wasn't planned for South Ridge or the base of the North Peak lift.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 17, 2016)

frozengranular said:


> If we are talking past plans


Killington/Pico interconnect & Killington village are not past plans. They both have current approvals for construction. In fact there is already a trail cut connecting Killington/Pico. 

http://www.businessvermont.com/ski-village-act-250-permit-approved/


----------



## Jully (Oct 17, 2016)

Mapnut said:


> https://thebalsamsresort.com/vision/ski-expansion/
> I know you've all seen the Wilderness-Balsams plan, but it belongs in this thread. Don't you love how the photo at the top of this page isn't anywhere in the East?



Where is that top photo? I hadn't really thought about it until now!


----------



## Jully (Oct 17, 2016)

frozengranular said:


> If we are talking past plans, the plan for Sunday River in the LBO days was pretty impressive, as it would have made Jordan Bowl the new middle of the mountain when completed.  I found a map of the planned new terrain at one point but could never seem to find it again.  In hindsight I always wondered why the village wasn't planned for South Ridge or the base of the North Peak lift.



Everything out west of the Jordan Bowl isn't as big and has substantially less pitch than Jordan though, isn't it? I'd be interested to see that map as well.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 17, 2016)

Not sure connecting Killington and Pico is really a good thing. Pico is a lot quieter and that's nice.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 17, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


> Not sure connecting Killington and Pico is really a good thing. Pico is a lot quieter and that's nice.


Didn't say it was a good thing only that it's been approved. In fact I'm against both the interconnect & village plans.


----------



## cdskier (Oct 17, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


> Not sure connecting Killington and Pico is really a good thing. Pico is a lot quieter and that's nice.



I tend to agree. It is nice with Pico being a more old school throw-back style mountain compared to the big K next door.


----------



## Jully (Oct 17, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Didn't say it was a good thing only that it's been approved. In fact I'm against both the interconnect & village plans.



Out of curiosity, why the village? The interconnect I totally understand though.


----------



## benski (Oct 17, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Didn't say it was a good thing only that it's been approved. In fact I'm against both the interconnect & village plans.



The village will probably come with a new south ridge chair and a detach on snowdon. 

I think they could also use a way to get from the top of Superstar to the Canyons chair.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 17, 2016)

wait, where is this village supposed to go?


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 17, 2016)

Jully said:


> Out of curiosity, why the village? The interconnect I totally understand though.


If built as planned it will eliminate parking at Snowshed & Ramshead & substantially reduce parking at K-1. Plans are to build parking further down the access road & shuttle people up from there likely not bringing them to K-1 but to the new village at Snowshed/Ramsdhead. This why I'm against the village as planned.


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Oct 17, 2016)

first i get the sugar

then i get the power

then i get the women


----------



## Jully (Oct 17, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> If built as planned it will eliminate parking at Snowshed & Ramshead & substantially reduce parking at K-1. Plans are to build parking further down the access road & shuttle people up from there likely not bringing them to K-1 but to the new village at Snowshed/Ramsdhead. This why I'm against the village as planned.



Hmm, yeah that is very odd/not great from a day skier perspective. It will change the way the resort flows if that is the case. Sounds like they are basically modeling after a Sugarloaf style village where all parking is super far away and you get shuttled into the village.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 17, 2016)

benski said:


> The village will probably come with a new south ridge chair and a detach on snowdon.


Maybe a new Snowdon chair but I wouldn't count on anything for South Ridge. Both the village & interconnect are intertwined. One is not happening unless the other happens too. Any new lifts would go for the interconnect, not South Ridge.


----------



## Jully (Oct 17, 2016)

How many lifts are actually planned for the interconnect supposedly?


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 17, 2016)

Jully said:


> How many lifts are actually planned for the interconnect supposedly?


Depends on who you ask. Some say it can be done with only one lift but I think the majority believes they would need two.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 17, 2016)

Also don't forget that when you're talking about the interconnect & the village you're talking about two different entities. SP Land owns the land where the village would be built & would be responsible for the majority of construction costs. POWDR owns the land between Killington & Pico (it was swapped with the state for the Parkers Gore land they owned) & would be responsible for the majority of the cost of building the interconnect.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Oct 17, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> If built as planned it will eliminate parking at Snowshed & Ramshead & substantially reduce parking at K-1. Plans are to build parking further down the access road & shuttle people up from there likely not bringing them to K-1 but to the new village at Snowshed/Ramsdhead. This why I'm against the village as planned.


I can't believe they could basically cut out k1 and put everyone on snowshed or ramshead to start the day. I would guess they would somehow incorporate k1 into the village.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 17, 2016)

Can just go to Stowe to hang out in a cheesy village and pay $112 lift ticket. Can't even imagine what Killington would try to charge after this.


----------



## benski (Oct 17, 2016)

ALLSKIING said:


> I can't believe they could basically cut out k1 and put everyone on snowshed or ramshead to start the day. I would guess they would somehow incorporate k1 into the village.



They should try expanding k1's parking and shuttle people up there with a stop in the village. I think a 2 story parking structure could work nicely. Landscape it so from the lifts the upper level appears to be ground level. Put the groomers and maintenance shed on the lower level so they are out of sight.


----------



## Jully (Oct 17, 2016)

Parking structure I could see, putting groomers underneath I cannot. It would take up room that they could give to cars or even better charge as premium parking.


----------



## 4aprice (Oct 17, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> If built as planned it will eliminate parking at Snowshed & Ramshead & substantially reduce parking at K-1. Plans are to build parking further down the access road & shuttle people up from there likely not bringing them to K-1 but to the new village at Snowshed/Ramsdhead. This why I'm against the village as planned.



Are they planning development up and around the current Snowden base?  That's a lot of parking to eliminate if its not going to be used for something.  I have to look at the planning but I assumed most of it would be around the Grand Summit and Snowshed Lodge (with under road access to Rams Head)

I'm actually not so opposed to remote parking per se.  Its how they get you from parking to the Lodge or slopes that's important.  Out west you see plenty of remote parking and the transport to slopes ranges from lift (Canyons) to Bus (Like Copper or Snowmass for example).  Telluride's got a gondola that accesses the mountain village from the town. It really depends upon how they would do it.  

Not saying I'm big pro this but done right and tastefully a village up by Snowshed/Rams Head might be kind of cool. For the record I like Pico as a stand alone but I can see the interconnect getting done.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## benski (Oct 17, 2016)

Jully said:


> Parking structure I could see, putting groomers underneath I cannot. It would take up room that they could give to cars or even better charge as premium parking.



I would people pay a premium for underground parking?  I like the sun beating down on my windshield to keep the car warm. I guess if the groomers could go someplace cars can't get to that would be better but is there such a place at killington.


----------



## Big Game (Oct 17, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


>



I just think we all need to take the time and honor this as the best f'n thing this forum has ever seen. High-speed detachable heated bubble six-pack T-bar to the top. Straight to the top. Washington. Washington. 6 k tall and full of fun.


----------



## Sacadelic_Skier (Oct 17, 2016)

agreed haha. I actually once thought about how crazy a lift system on washington would be! too bad it never happened before the forest service got picky. (LOL)


----------



## slatham (Oct 17, 2016)

Here's one we can be pretty sure will not happen.


----------



## slatham (Oct 17, 2016)

And here is a Plattekill fantasy from many years ago. From a conversation I had with a family member of Lazlo's, he owns most of the property in question, with the exception of the all important base terminal area. Thats very old info though.....


----------



## Not Sure (Oct 17, 2016)

spring_mountain_high said:


> first i get the sugar
> 
> then i get the power
> 
> ...


----------



## benski (Oct 17, 2016)

slatham said:


> Here's one we can be pretty sure will not happen.
> 
> View attachment 20859



The trail pods next to sun brook look like a good idea if Mt snow ever want to add more capacity. I here Sun Brook is due for an express quad so maybe it should end lower.


----------



## Jully (Oct 17, 2016)

slatham said:


> Here's one we can be pretty sure will not happen.
> 
> View attachment 20859



Still very unlikely, but in the Big Sky master plan they have a lift coming out of the Yellowstone Club into the resort I believe. 

Mt snow is a little different though, but you know, just throwing it out there for fun.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Oct 17, 2016)

slatham said:


> And here is a Plattekill fantasy from many years ago. From a conversation I had with a family member of Lazlo's, he owns most of the property in question, with the exception of the all important base terminal area. Thats very old info though.....
> 
> View attachment 20860



i have skied plattekill once and some local gave me the grand tour of the bike trails and sidecountry. a farm is on the land where the base terminal would be, and i was warned to not ski thru his yard. we ended up way below the base lodge and he had his car waiting right where we popped out to shuttle back. good stuff


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 17, 2016)

4aprice said:


> Are they planning development up and around the current Snowden base?  That's a lot of parking to eliminate if its not going to be used for something.  I have to look at the planning but I assumed most of it would be around the Grand Summit and Snowshed Lodge (with under road access to Rams Head)


Actually the plan calls the elimination of the access road as we know it between Snowshed/Ramhead & K-1. Access to K-1 becoming the Vale parking lot road. Vale parking would also be eliminated making room for condo development up to the back end of K-1 parking lot. Snowshed & Ramshead would become one base area with what they're calling a ski beach connecting the two. The village would encompass all of Snowshed /Ramshead & then some.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 17, 2016)

Then we had Glen Ellen's plan to connect to Mad River Glen, pictured on trail map. They even cut the lift line trail (pictured) then realized they didn't own the property.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 17, 2016)

That project looks to be considerably larger than Spruce Peak at Stowe.  What's the price tag? 

What a dramatic change that would be to the Killington experience. I'm not sure I'd want it if K was my home hill.  Seems like the only benefit would be for new real estate buyers.  It's not like those who already have homes there lack for dining, entertainment and retail options. I guess the on hill benefit would be the interconnect, but I'm in the camp of keeping Pico as a stand alone


----------



## benski (Oct 17, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Then we had Glen Ellen's plan to connect to Mad River Glen, pictured on trail map. They even cut the lift line trail (pictured) then realized they didn't own the property.



That map does no show an interconnect. With that pod, you would still need to traverse a bit to get between the two.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 17, 2016)

benski said:


> That map does no show an interconnect. With that pod, you would still need to traverse a bit to get between the two.


Well that was the plan & it was promoted as such.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 17, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> That project looks to be considerably larger than Spruce Peak at Stowe.  What's the price tag?


I believe the price tag for just Phase I was in the $140M ballpark & that estimate is at least several years old. You can see parking is below the village with a long slong through the village to get to any lift. I think this is Phase I.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 18, 2016)

Seems to me the better option is to have the buildings up by Snowden quad be phase 1.  It would add desirable slopeside lodging without affecting the overall experience people are used to too much. If that goes well, move on down to Snowshed / Ramshead.


----------



## cdskier (Oct 18, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> What a dramatic change that would be to the Killington experience. I'm not sure I'd want it if K was my home hill.  Seems like the only benefit would be for new real estate buyers.  It's not like those who already have homes there lack for dining, entertainment and retail options. I guess the on hill benefit would be the interconnect, but I'm in the camp of keeping Pico as a stand alone



Is there even a market demand for the added real estate at K? The problem with so many of these new developments is that they are way overpriced and your "average" skier is never going to be able to afford to buy any of the new units on the mountains. It would be nice if someone built reasonably priced condos, but developers always want to maximize their profits (understandably).


----------



## benski (Oct 18, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Is there even a market demand for the added real estate at K? The problem with so many of these new developments is that they are way overpriced and your "average" skier is never going to be able to afford to buy any of the new units on the mountains. It would be nice if someone built reasonably priced condos, but developers always want to maximize their profits (understandably).



Their are also older condos and houses for those who can't afford the luxury units. 

Do some ski areas put a lot of backup plans or just extra stuff in there master plans so they have something to concede to environmentalists and locals or to get condo buyer excited about the future of the resort there buying into?


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 18, 2016)

I'd say if the market demand was there, it would have already been built.  The K village plan has been on the table for many years.

Then again the Stowe stuff sold fairly quickly.


----------



## cdskier (Oct 18, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd say if the market demand was there, it would have already been built.  The K village plan has been on the table for many years.
> 
> Then again the Stowe stuff sold fairly quickly.



I'd argue Stowe's target demographic is a bit different than K, although perhaps there is pent-up hidden demand at that level at K or K wants to get more of that demographic to the resort. I know Sugarbush has been slowly building new slopeside condos and I would say from my perspective there seems to be low demand. The latest phase was a 16 unit complex. They had to have commitments to sell at least half before they broke ground. They broke ground in summer of 2015 and construction was finished a few months ago. There are still 2 or 3 units for sale.


----------



## cdskier (Oct 18, 2016)

benski said:


> Their are also older condos and houses for those who can't afford the luxury units.



Of course...but that doesn't mean there is actually demand for luxury units. If there's an excess of other units already for sale, that could also indicate the opposite that there's an over supply and lack of demand. Where will the people that want to buy the luxury units come from? Are they already in the area and want to "upgrade"? Or are they assuming that there are people without condos/homes in the area that would suddenly buy one if a slope-side luxury one was built? (i.e. if you build it they will come mentality).


----------



## Jully (Oct 18, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Of course...but that doesn't mean there is actually demand for luxury units. If there's an excess of other units already for sale, that could also indicate the opposite that there's an over supply and lack of demand. Where will the people that want to buy the luxury units come from? Are they already in the area and want to "upgrade"? Or are they assuming that there are people without condos/homes in the area that would suddenly buy one if a slope-side luxury one was built? (i.e. if you build it they will come mentality).



I would think it is a combination of both. There are always new homeowners in every market and the rise of mountain biking and summer activities could even add more to the pool of potential buyers. On top of that there is certainly more desirability for a brand new luxury unit as opposed to an older condo from the '90s or even earlier. In non-resort condo units that are still expanding in a phase 2 or 3 manytimes you will see condos for sale from phase 1 of the development that aren't selling while new units in phase 2 and 3 just steps from phase 1 are selling at a higher cost!


----------



## Jully (Oct 18, 2016)

cdskier said:


> I'd argue Stowe's target demographic is a bit different than K, although perhaps there is pent-up hidden demand at that level at K or K wants to get more of that demographic to the resort. I know Sugarbush has been slowly building new slopeside condos and I would say from my perspective there seems to be low demand. The latest phase was a 16 unit complex. They had to have commitments to sell at least half before they broke ground. They broke ground in summer of 2015 and construction was finished a few months ago. There are still 2 or 3 units for sale.



I looked at the Sugarbush units and they actually just seemed expensive / luxury and that is why they are not selling as fast. They will certainly have completely sold out soon though I would bet.

I would actually wonder if K was planning on making any of these units affordable. Sugarloaf (given Maine is less of a luxury market than VT to begin with) has actually had a lot of success building units that are quite affordable compared to the >$600,000 price tag I think I saw on the cheapest units at Sugarbush's slopeside development. SL obviously needs to sell 2 or 3 of their units to match one of SB's, but thats the difference between a 16 unit complex and a 45 unit complex.


----------



## Rothski (Oct 18, 2016)

This is Sugarbush's original interconnect plan from the early 80's. How amazing would this have been.




Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## Jully (Oct 18, 2016)

Rothski said:


> This is Sugarbush's original interconnect plan from the early 80's. How amazing would this have been.
> 
> View attachment 20867
> 
> ...



Stupid bears...


----------



## cdskier (Oct 18, 2016)

Jully said:


> I looked at the Sugarbush units and they actually just seemed expensive / luxury and that is why they are not selling as fast. They will certainly have completely sold out soon though I would bet.
> 
> I would actually wonder if K was planning on making any of these units affordable. Sugarloaf (given Maine is less of a luxury market than VT to begin with) has actually had a lot of success building units that are quite affordable compared to the >$600,000 price tag I think I saw on the cheapest units at Sugarbush's slopeside development. SL obviously needs to sell 2 or 3 of their units to match one of SB's, but thats the difference between a 16 unit complex and a 45 unit complex.



I would love to see affordable options built at any resort and think it is a shame when they focus purely on the luxury ones. Hopefully K's plan includes at  the very least a mixture. I think the cheapest unit at SB in the new development that I saw was over 700K for a 2 bedroom unit. And you have to factor in the condo association fees as well which are also astronomical in the new SB developments (the 2 BR unit at Gadd Brook is 1200/month in fees).


----------



## cdskier (Oct 18, 2016)

Rothski said:


> This is Sugarbush's original interconnect plan from the early 80's. How amazing would this have been.
> 
> View attachment 20867



I'd settle for some parts of the plan outlined in the 2008 Vegetation Management plan that I saw.


----------



## machski (Oct 18, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Seems to me the better option is to have the buildings up by Snowden quad be phase 1.  It would add desirable slopeside lodging without affecting the overall experience people are used to too much. If that goes well, move on down to Snowshed / Ramshead.



But that is part of the problem.  Any Snowden quad replacement I have heard rumored is tied to the development and likely lengthend down to it.  Steamboat would know best.

Seems to me the best way to deal with the parking might be a lift like Tremblant has through the Village from parking to the K1 lodge for day trippers.  Then you can ski through at the end of the day.

I also think the thought is to have any type of destination skier draw (apparently the interconnect alone wouldn't be enough in their estimation), they need a centralized, highly developed base village.  I will say that while the ski terrain wasn't killer, the base village at Tremblant was a nice feature and would lead us to make the slog back up there for an extended stay or 2 in the future.  So while I don't need it at K due to my proximity to it, I can see why they would love to finally get this rolling.  Probably also a revenue generator (hopefully) for things we all would love to see on the hill.


----------



## dlague (Oct 18, 2016)

It looks like about half of the K-1 Parking lot will be used for residential units.  As you can see The top circled area is what is the planned remaining parking up there so it is not going away totally.  Closer to the planned village there is parking also circled but that will be a hike.  Parking seems to be significantly reduced as far as I can see.



I am sure this was brought up along the way this summer but thought I would share it in any case.  I did not know this happened.

http://mountaintimes.info/killington-village-closer-than-ever/


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 18, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Then again the Stowe stuff sold fairly quickly.


I believe Stowe has a different model. They sell 1/4 shares of their units making them somewhat more affordable then buying a unit outright. Each 1/4 gets to use their unit for several weeks during spring, summer, fall & winter. Then of course you have the option of buying one of their town houses outright or I guess you could buy a unit outright by buying all four quarter shares.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 18, 2016)

machski said:


> But that is part of the problem.  Any Snowden quad replacement I have heard rumored is tied to the development and likely lengthend down to it.  Steamboat would know best.


Yes I've heard the same thing about extending Snowdon chair down further. How exactly they'd accomplish that I don't know. As I'm sure you know both their maintenance & storage yard for their groomers is located just behind the base of the current Snowden chair. Not only that but their in house snowmaking plant is just behind the maintenance yard. I'm sure they have it figured out.


----------



## benski (Oct 18, 2016)

Rothski said:


> This is Sugarbush's original interconnect plan from the early 80's. How amazing would this have been.
> 
> View attachment 20867
> 
> ...



Ouch, everything would have been a boulevard except one trail in slide brook, upper cotillion, upper paradise, twist, and tumbler. Why is there upper traverse from north lynx to castlerock, You could not have given that some slope. Also it appears heavens gate goes down spillsville and ends at the bottom of domino. Thank god they did not let this whole plan go threw the only thing I like about this plan outside of slide brook which too has too many boulevards. Should have had a few boulevards and a bunch of narrow trails similar to castlerock so fewer people ski there.


----------



## benski (Oct 18, 2016)

Rothski said:


> This is Sugarbush's original interconnect plan from the early 80's. How amazing would this have been.
> 
> View attachment 20867
> 
> ...



I just noticed the lift bring people from slide brook to MT Ellen terminates near the bottom of FIS so you would then have to ski the flat out get back. Awful idea. why not extend that lift to the main mountain.


----------



## ss20 (Oct 18, 2016)

Jully said:


> Stupid bears...



Same reason why Snow and Haystack couldn't be connected (as pictured earlier in the thread).

What is it with bears and interconnects?  I'm surprised the anti-Killington interconnect people didn't move the Parker's Gore bears over to Pico to prevent that interconnect from happening! :lol:


----------



## Jully (Oct 18, 2016)

ss20 said:


> Same reason why Snow and Haystack couldn't be connected (as pictured earlier in the thread).
> 
> What is it with bears and interconnects?  I'm surprised the anti-Killington interconnect people didn't move the Parker's Gore bears over to Pico to prevent that interconnect from happening! :lol:



They still might!


----------



## machski (Oct 18, 2016)

frozengranular said:


> If we are talking past plans, the plan for Sunday River in the LBO days was pretty impressive, as it would have made Jordan Bowl the new middle of the mountain when completed.  I found a map of the planned new terrain at one point but could never seem to find it again.  In hindsight I always wondered why the village wasn't planned for South Ridge or the base of the North Peak lift.



Yup, I can still remember when LBO revealed the plans for the Jordan Village.  It was suppose to be huge.  I know SR still has all the terrain expansion plans in the offices, though the Jordan Village is dead.  Given how fast the single home lots sold off Ridge Run, i wouldn't be surprised to see some offered eventually off of Lolla above or below the Jordan Grand.

Supposedly a mini village was envisioned for South Ridge (in the lower lot and tied into what was the Phoenix I would imagine) but no idea if that is still under consideration.  Heard a rumor of a new more luxurious condo development off Dreamaker where the current rail yard is.  But only a rumor, no hard confirm.

Lastly, if I were to expand the ski terrain, I would attempt to secure the land off the back of Barker/Spruce/Aurora.  If you hike onto the rock fields behind Barker Summit, that area would yield some long, sun drenched runs with interesting terrain on the far shoulder and obviously coming down the back of Barker and Locke.  Not only that, back there would yield a new max elevation reached.  But pretty sure they don't own or have use rights back there.


----------



## machski (Oct 18, 2016)

Errr


----------



## tumbler (Oct 18, 2016)

cdskier said:


> I would love to see affordable options built at any resort and think it is a shame when they focus purely on the luxury ones. Hopefully K's plan includes at  the very least a mixture. I think the cheapest unit at SB in the new development that I saw was over 700K for a 2 bedroom unit. And you have to factor in the condo association fees as well which are also astronomical in the new SB developments (the 2 BR unit at Gadd Brook is 1200/month in fees).



It costs a lot to *permit* and build in Vermont.  You need nicer units to make any money back.  A building is a building it will still cost the same to frame, wire, HVAC, etc.  You can cheapen the finishes but then it wil hold no value.  In looking at Gadd Brook those units are not finished very nicely, just the kitchen.  You can see black covers where they cose not to install lights.  Carept everywhere and no fireplace, even gas?  I think they have actually been very smart in building small, managable buildings instead of monsters.


----------



## tumbler (Oct 18, 2016)

cdskier said:


> I'd settle for some parts of the plan outlined in the 2008 Vegetation Management plan that I saw.



There is another plan that I saw only on paper that had 4 seperate lift pods in Slide Brook all going to the ridgeline and a connector trail from pod to pod.  There was also no new road or lodges in Slide Brook.  That would have been incredible, the terrain in there is sick!

I would like the pod above Inverness to go in though.  I also like the lift from skiers right of Lower FIS down in the gully to the corner of Rim Run.  is that one in the 2008 vegetation plan?


----------



## Jully (Oct 18, 2016)

tumbler said:


> There is another plan that I saw only on paper that had 4 seperate lift pods in Slide Brook all going to the ridgeline and a connector trail from pod to pod.  There was also no new road or lodges in Slide Brook.  That would have been incredible, the terrain in there is sick!
> 
> I would like the pod above Inverness to go in though.  I also like the lift from skiers right of Lower FIS down in the gully to the corner of Rim Run.  is that one in the 2008 vegetation plan?



Wasn't there a Lynx expansion in a recent plan as well?


----------



## tumbler (Oct 18, 2016)

Jully said:


> Wasn't there a Lynx expansion in a recent plan as well?



I don't know but a Jester type trail and one more to skiers left of Sunrise would be nice.  Could maybe do something skiers right of Birch but would need a lot of grading to get back the chair where the CR connection is.  NL has way too much capacity for the amount of terrain.


----------



## benski (Oct 18, 2016)

tumbler said:


> I don't know but a Jester type trail and one more to skiers left of Sunrise would be nice.  Could maybe do something skiers right of Birch but would need a lot of grading to get back the chair where the CR connection is.  NL has way too much capacity for the amount of terrain.



A blue to the left of sunrise is a good idea. Have it split somewhere and head back to north lynx chair or down to the village lift.


----------



## benski (Oct 18, 2016)

tumbler said:


> I would like the pod above Inverness to go in though.  I also like the lift from skiers right of Lower FIS down in the gully to the corner of Rim Run.  is that one in the 2008 vegetation plan?


 That would be great!  Hopefully it would end a bit lower than lower fis and have a bridge so one could easily ski trails on the other side of the stream.


----------



## benski (Oct 18, 2016)

Here is the Sugarbush 2008 vegetation plan you guys were referencing. I really would like to see more narrow natural snow trails to take pressure off Castlerock, but I don't many trails like that.


----------



## Jully (Oct 18, 2016)

Sadly there just isn't too much business in that


----------



## tumbler (Oct 18, 2016)

benski said:


> View attachment 20869 Here is the Sugarbush 2008 vegetation plan you guys were referencing. I really would like to see more narrow natural snow trails to take pressure off Castlerock, but I don't many trails like that.



A lot of good stuff in there!!  I'lltake all of it!


----------



## cdskier (Oct 18, 2016)

benski said:


> View attachment 20869 Here is the Sugarbush 2008 vegetation plan you guys were referencing. I really would like to see more narrow natural snow trails to take pressure off Castlerock, but I don't many trails like that.



Thanks benski. I didn't have the file on my computer at work. That's exactly what I was talking about. I like the pod above Inverness. A couple of the other new trails could be interesting too...although some would interfere with areas that are now glades so I'm sure would no longer even be considered. The new trail from the summit of Mt Ellen skiers right of Black Diamond could be neat. I'm also pretty sure any development in Slide Brook is completely off limits now due to a bear habitat iirc (and I'm fine with that not being developed and being left as is).

In reality, I think the only realistic possible expansions would be more marked glades. I don't see them even thinking about cutting any real new trails or developing any new pods anytime in the foreseeable future.


----------



## benski (Oct 18, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Thanks benski. I didn't have the file on my computer at work. That's exactly what I was talking about. I like the pod above Inverness. A couple of the other new trails could be interesting too...although some would interfere with areas that are now glades so I'm sure would no longer even be considered. The new trail from the summit of Mt Ellen skiers right of Black Diamond could be neat. I'm also pretty sure any development in Slide Brook is completely off limits now due to a bear habitat iirc (and I'm fine with that not being developed and being left as is).
> 
> In reality, I think the only realistic possible expansions would be more marked glades. I don't see them even thinking about cutting any real new trails or developing any new pods anytime in the foreseeable future.



I doubt there will be any new trail pods till after all the brooks are complete.


----------



## cdskier (Oct 18, 2016)

benski said:


> I doubt there will be any new trail pods till after all the brooks are complete.



I say even longer than that!


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 18, 2016)

There's been a more recent Sugarbush plan that involves a lift heading up from Lower FIS that terminates by GMX and Slide Brook. It included a few trails as well.  That would be a great improvement. Even better than the pod above Inverness.  It would probably help out spreading the crowd distribution between the two areas.  That is if you want to see that happen. I prefer skiing North to South due to lesser crowds and better sustained vertical.


----------



## cdskier (Oct 18, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> There's been a more recent Sugarbush plan that involves a lift heading up from Lower FIS that terminates by GMX and Slide Brook. It included a few trails as well.  That would be a great improvement. Even better than the pod above Inverness.  It would probably help out spreading the crowd distribution between the two areas.  That is if you want to see that happen. I prefer skiing North to South due to lesser crowds and better sustained vertical.



I'm not too crazy about that idea actually. With that proposal, the Lower FIS area would see more traffic and with all natural snow at low elevations I think conditions would deteriorate too rapidly. At least with a pod above Inverness you have elevation helping out with better snow coverage. I heard that Mt Ellen can't expand snowmaking beyond the current footprint due to some kind of grandfathered permit. So any new trails would have to be reliant on natural snow as a result if that info is accurate.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 18, 2016)

If that's true on snowmaking, then I would agree the pod above Inverness would make more sense.  My preference for the lower is under the assumption the new runs would have snowmaking and the lift would eliminate the need to slog back to the base from Lower FIS.


----------



## cdskier (Oct 18, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> If that's true on snowmaking, then I would agree the pod above Inverness would make more sense.  My preference for the lower is under the assumption the new runs would have snowmaking and the lift would eliminate the need to slog back to the base from Lower FIS.



Found it! Win himself said it in a post on the MRV forum back in Jan 2015...here's what he said with regards to ME snowmaking expansion potential:


> The issue at ME is that we have a grandfathered snowmaking permit and can do no expansion of snowmaking there. what we have is what we got!


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 18, 2016)

_"The issue at ME is that we have a grandfathered snowmaking permit and can do no expansion of snowmaking there. what we have is what we got!"
_
And they don't even use what they got. When was the last time they blew snow on Exterminator? Pipes are there.


----------



## cdskier (Oct 18, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> _"The issue at ME is that we have a grandfathered snowmaking permit and can do no expansion of snowmaking there. what we have is what we got!"
> _
> And they don't even use what they got. When was the last time they blew snow on Exterminator? Pipes are there.



I've long wondered about not using the pipes on Ext. Is there a technical reason they don't use them as in something is broken? Or is it simply by choice where they think Ext is better all natural or just don't want to spend the time/money on covering that trail? I can't remember the last time they blew snow on Ext.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 18, 2016)

cdskier said:


> I've long wondered about not using the pipes on Ext. Is there a technical reason they don't use them as in something is broken? Or is it simply by choice where they think Ext is better all natural or just don't want to spend the time/money on covering that trail? I can't remember the last time they blew snow on Ext.


Well I remember when they did.


----------



## benski (Oct 19, 2016)

cdskier said:


> I've long wondered about not using the pipes on Ext. Is there a technical reason they don't use them as in something is broken? Or is it simply by choice where they think Ext is better all natural or just don't want to spend the time/money on covering that trail? I can't remember the last time they blew snow on Ext.



And the hydrants are not on the side of the trail on exterm. would be much better if those could be removed if they aren't going to make snow on the trail.


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 19, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Killington/Pico interconnect & Killington village are not past plans. They both have current approvals for construction. In fact there is already a trail cut connecting Killington/Pico.
> 
> http://www.businessvermont.com/ski-village-act-250-permit-approved/



It was only cut for a sewer line pumping out of K village up and over Pico to Rutland.


----------



## cdskier (Oct 19, 2016)

benski said:


> And the hydrants are not on the side of the trail on exterm. would be much better if those could be removed if they aren't going to make snow on the trail.



I personally like the hydrants where they are. I wouldn't remove them even if they aren't used. I enjoy skiing around them lol!


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 19, 2016)

doublediamond said:


> It was only cut for a sewer line pumping out of K village up and over Pico to Rutland.


Yes I know. It's the reason Killington bought Pico. They saved millions being able to run the sewer line up & over Pico instead of down the access road & over Sherburne Pass when the Grand was built. But it is a connection that many have skied from Pico to Ramshead. It's even been groomed a few times.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 19, 2016)

We actually used to train on Exterminator sometimes and they always made snow on it, this was late 90s.


----------



## tumbler (Oct 19, 2016)

we also used to drag hoses through the woods from Cliffs and make snow on Hammerhead.


----------



## tumbler (Oct 19, 2016)

I like the lift pod between North lynx and Castlerock, nice terrain in there.  Would need that lodge at top of Gatehouse for that though.


----------



## benski (Oct 19, 2016)

tumbler said:


> I like the lift pod between North lynx and Castlerock, nice terrain in there.  Would need that lodge at top of Gatehouse for that though.



That pod looks nice though the it does include a trail over to middle earth which is a bad idea. It should have a cruiser that goes along the ridge to birch run and then build a bridge over that dip in the ridge so you can ski to sunrise and mourning star off that lift.


----------



## dlague (Oct 19, 2016)

Speaking of Master Plans - I take it Jay Peaks plans are out the window!  Probably going to just try to keep the doors open and lights on at this juncture.


----------



## machski (Oct 20, 2016)

dlague said:


> Speaking of Master Plans - I take it Jay Peaks plans are out the window!  Probably going to just try to keep the doors open and lights on at this juncture.



Will be up to the new owner I am sure.  Depends how deep the pockets are that eventually buy it.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Oct 20, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


>



This needs more love.  I will buy a season pass to this...


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 21, 2016)

also known as the Wildcat-Bretton Woods interconnect


----------

