# AlpineZone Challenge 2012 Results - Steve Wright of Jay Peak



## Nick (Oct 30, 2012)

Here we go , link to results: 

http://www.alpinezone.com/skiing/ch...zone-challenge-2012-steve-wright-of-jay-peak/

Thanks Steve for the candid responses as always.


----------



## snowmonster (Oct 30, 2012)

Nick, you might want to sticky this so it doesn't go to the second page.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 30, 2012)

Thanks for the replies Steve. 

I'm still not on board with the trail cut around Timbuktu. Although I understand the need for more quality Intermediate terrain at Jay, I really think it will create more bad blood than good feelings. However, 10 years down the road everyone will likely have forgotten about it while they are skiing blower powder in the glades of the West Bowl.


Quick question: have you been privy to any of the development plans for Burke?

If so, am I close?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 30, 2012)

Did anyone take him up on his response to the disturbing trend question? I am very curious now....

" Obviously resorts are scrambling for ways to get additional spend out of guests with off-trail activities, and they’re trying to contract typical shoulder seasons so they lose less money during those lean periods.  Not sure I look at anything as truly disturbing, actually I guess I do, but it’s not appropriate for this forum.  Backchannel if you’re really interested."


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 30, 2012)

I was leaving it up to TrailBoss to PM him about it.


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 30, 2012)

Killington's web cams are pretty good now, I'd probably copy them.  They used to have those ones where visitors can control the camera.  I think that's kind of a gimmick.  Okemo does a better job of implementing control than Killington did.


----------



## Steve@jpr (Oct 30, 2012)

Yes I have.  And I'll give you a C+ on your forecasting....



from_the_NEK said:


> Thanks for the replies Steve.
> 
> I'm still not on board with the trail cut around Timbuktu. Although I understand the need for more quality Intermediate terrain at Jay, I really think it will create more bad blood than good feelings. However, 10 years down the road everyone will likely have forgotten about it while they are skiing blower powder in the glades of the West Bowl.
> 
> ...


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 30, 2012)

Well at least I did't fail 

I guess I'll have to wait and be surprised. 
I kind of feel like my guess at the plans was done with an eye for low impact on streams and existing infrastructure (i.e. fairly cheap). Also with easy access to the lifts and a decent view of the mountain.
I guess the money exists to build pretty much wherever they want.

I'm now thinking the plans are something closer to the snowmaking pond...


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 30, 2012)

Thanks for your time Steve,

West Bowl
Very disappointed.  At the homeowner meeting, we were told that Jay the permitting issues were pretty much all cleared up.  Your answer tells us that the west bowl is still a long way down the road.  Can you give us a better idea of the hurdles that need to be cleared ?   Is it a 100% permitting issue or is it also that Jay is too busy with other projects and simply postponing this because of a limited workforce or priority issue ?

Timbuktu trail

With respect to the Timbuktu trail I will add/reiterate a few things:

- 1 acre of new 'in bound' terrain is not equal to 1 acre of out-of-bound terrain.  Yes I will trade the 70 acres of the West Bowl for the 6 acres of the Orchard (thanks for not butchering the orchard until we get to see the west bowl), but I would argue that you get more customers because of Jay's out-of-bound  terrain and policies (and I think you get that - a nice proof is the full page Jay Peak ad in Backcountry's last issue - a pic taken on Big Jay ...) that you will ever get with that new run.  The orchard is the only significant out-of-bound terrain that is easily lappable.  After you put the new run in, there will be little interesting terrain left out-of-bound, certainly nothing that would warrant the trouble of skiing to the 242.  

- I have not met anyone yet (beside you and Walter Elander) who think that is a good idea.  This include the people I ski with (who all ski the Orchard so that is a skewed sample), neighbours (who don't ski this area, but who don't seem to think that you need a new intermediate run) and several other home owners who were vocal about this at the last homeowner meeting.  Do you really get feedback from visitors telling you that you need more intermediate terrain ?  The entire pod north of the tram line is intermediate terrain (including JFK that is a very soft black diamond).  You could sacrifice some unmarked glades in this pod rather than this new run.   In addition, the very top of this planned new trail will be just as steep as everything on jet side.   

- With the West Bowl, I think you should plan for some out of bound terrain only accessible with minimal walking/skinning up.   The market for backcountry is growing (sales of alpine touring gear is booming) and Jay should embrace it.  With the Orchard, this additional terrain and the whole Big Jay area, you could really carve yourself a nice niche with the backcountry crowd.

Let me know if you need additional free advice !


----------



## Steve@jpr (Oct 30, 2012)

Thanks for your feedback FB:

At the homeowner meeting we said we were still working on securing all of the permits.  At no point did I, or anyone else if my admittedly failing memory serves, say that all of our permits were locked and loaded and away we go.  I think I've been pretty forthright in suggesting that the process was difficult and ongoing.  I can get you a better idea of what we're chasing and report back though.  Sorry if you took it that we were ready to go.  We aren't.

I will reiterate my original post.  Offering that we have "very little interesting OB terrain" is subjective and we could wring our hands over it all day.

You may just see some of that terrain, as you suggest, earmarked for WB.  I would say count on it.

Let me classify that my opinion on this matter is yet to determined and, as opinions should be but seldom are, will be kept to myself.  I am but one of the arbiters and a final mandate, as you might say, has not been taken yet.  Stay tuned.

We have received some feedback from folks but even a cursory glance at our offerings shows a dearth of that level of trail.  And remember, while it can feel like sometimes the resort should be your own private Idaho, we need to consider lots of different levels of guest--including ones that might not be here yet.  I know this can feel like a foreign concept when a person has such an intimate connection to the brand, but it's reality.  At some level, I certainly care what homeowner's think about trail design (and I've talked to several that I won't name here that think we're right on the money) but, at another very real level, they're only one piece of the demo and that's the reality we're faced with; you want to preserve and protect what you enjoy and we have to concern ourselves with creating a resort that may have appeal past your own particular demo.  You might be able to create your own argument that sticking with a singular demo is more profitable.  I, on the other hand, can create a pretty strong counter.

Again thanks for the feedback.  All good things in all good time.

steve



fbrissette said:


> Thanks for your time Steve,
> 
> West Bowl
> Very disappointed.  At the homeowner meeting, we were told that Jay the permitting issues were pretty much all cleared up.  Your answer tells us that the west bowl is still a long way down the road.  Can you give us a better idea of the hurdles that need to be cleared ?   Is it a 100% permitting issue or is it also that Jay is too busy with other projects and simply postponing this because of a limited workforce or priority issue ?
> ...


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 30, 2012)

Thanks again for the quick and thoughtful reply.  It certainly makes a lot of sense. It won't stop me from lobbying for my 'own little Idaho' however...


----------



## Steve@jpr (Oct 30, 2012)

Ha, no worries FB--thank you for the comments.



fbrissette said:


> Thanks again for the quick and thoughtful reply.  It certainly makes a lot of sense. It won't stop me from lobbying for my 'own little Idaho' however...


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 30, 2012)

I'll back Steve@jpr up on the fact that Jay is sorely lacking nice intermediate cruising terrain. The cruising terrain they have is often windblown (Goat, Northway, etc.) or requires skiing one of those two crippling trails to get to (Green Mountain Boys, Lower Goat, etc). Also, there is no good cruising terrain off the Jet. Montrealer is a connecting trail, and then you get Northway to Wiggle or some such none-run-sense. 

That said, it would have been nice if Jay relied on the West Bowl expansion to provide that intermediate cruising terrain rather than eliminating one of their most beloved off map glades. Steve cites 6 acres of Orchard vs 70 acres of gladed terrain at West. But if we are talking about West, why not talk about the intermediate cruising terrain that will be there instead of the Orchard? I don't buy West Bowl as an alternative to the Orchard except that West isn't happening for a long time and the need for an intermediate trail has to be met now.

The Orchard made me "get" Jay. I've spent countless hours exploring every pitch in that area, and spent quite a few runs cutting back too early only to learn the very hard way. It is a special area and it is a major thing that keeps me coming back to Jay. I've shrugged my shoulders at all the changes Jay has made (not minor either) because the ski experience hasn't been changed. This kinda crosses that line. 

I know Jay is lacking in that terrain. I know Jay needs to please the intermediate skier more than the expert skier to stay financially viable. And I know that style of trail is sorely lacking at Jay. Knowing all that, it is still a bitter pill to swallow. But I can understand the reasoning.

Heck, cut down Timbuktu and make that an intermediate cruiser. I won't cry for one less on map glade. Another thought... if Jay builds it will it be skied? Being on the far side of the resort, I wonder how much intermediate cruising traffic that trail will draw, long way to traverse across the mountain for one run.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 30, 2012)

Regarding the webcam question, I'd just like to point out that JPR does a great (perhaps too great at times *grin*) job updating their FB page with daily photo(s).


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 30, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> I'll back Steve@jpr up on the fact that Jay is sorely lacking nice intermediate cruising terrain. The cruising terrain they have is often windblown (Goat, Northway, etc.) or requires skiing one of those two crippling trails to get to (Green Mountain Boys, Lower Goat, etc). Also, there is no good cruising terrain off the Jet. Montrealer is a connecting trail, and then you get Northway to Wiggle or some such none-run-sense.
> 
> That said, it would have been nice if Jay relied on the West Bowl expansion to provide that intermediate cruising terrain rather than eliminating one of their most beloved off map glades. Steve cites 6 acres of Orchard vs 70 acres of gladed terrain at West. But if we are talking about West, why not talk about the intermediate cruising terrain that will be there instead of the Orchard? I don't buy West Bowl as an alternative to the Orchard except that West isn't happening for a long time and the need for an intermediate trail has to be met now.
> 
> ...



Very eloquently put.  Jay was never known as an intermediate mountain and adding one run will not change that.  As such, I can't see the benefits of that run outweighing the negatives.   But I would venture that Steve knows his target clientele better than I do.  

Adding some off-piste opportunites in the West Bowl could be a fair trade-off .  I've toured the West Bowl last winter and there is a potential for wicked lines at its north end.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 31, 2012)

Put me down as another person who is anti-Timbuktu monkeying (ski arounds) and other glade destruction.  I come to Jay Peak all the way from the NJ/NYC market, and it's not because of a water park.  Decreasing glades at Jay just gives skiers a reason to not drive almost to Canada for their hobby. 

 Yes, I "get" the fact that other skiers may prefer vast stretches of groomed intermediate terrain, but the definition of a market niche is that you stand out superlative above others in a given criteria.  For Jay Peak, that criteria is glades skiing.  Sounds to me like these changes just make Jay more "like everybody else", despite the marketing and/or planning spin.


----------



## Steve@jpr (Oct 31, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback and noted.

We're not quite talking about vast stretches BG but we'll extend you the poetic, if a little romantic, license.  We're talking about enough of a product to make us at least relevant to those skiers and riders who might not have moved through the sport to the level that you, most likely, have.  Decreasing glades isn't quite the net.  If you think that the addition of several new intermediate runs (and previously noted, after we've added a fair amount of new gladed/advanced terrain) does away with our 'market niche' as you refer to it, well, it isn't something I agree with and we'll leave it to the future to accurately judge on how close we were to right.  

Worth noting? It's also been said that there's no way we'd ever fill the new beds we've brought on, an ice rink or, gasp, an indoor waterpark. We're clearly not out of the woods, so to speak, but these forecasts aren't holding as much water anymore.  Not to say we'll make the right decisions on everything, we haven't and certainly won't, but through the first several innings of this, I'd say what we're putting on the field is pretty impressive and something we're proud of.  Spin notwithstanding of course.

sw





BenedictGomez said:


> Put me down as another person who is anti-Timbuktu monkeying (ski arounds) and other glade destruction.  I come to Jay Peak all the way from the NJ/NYC market, and it's not because of a water park.  Decreasing glades at Jay just gives skiers a reason to not drive almost to Canada for their hobby.
> 
> Yes, I "get" the fact that other skiers may prefer vast stretches of groomed intermediate terrain, but the definition of a market niche is that you stand out superlative above others in a given criteria.  For Jay Peak, that criteria is glades skiing.  Sounds to me like these changes just make Jay more "like everybody else", despite the marketing and/or planning spin.


----------



## dalecaluori (Nov 4, 2012)

I would have to agree with BenedictGomez and RiverCoil in saying that the Timbuktu Groomer is a bad idea. First off, intermediates won't care about one trail being added and it certainly won't make the difference in changing Jay's reputation as a place with not very many intermediate trails (which isn't entirely true in my opinion).

Here's what I suggest if it's worth anything:

- Add snowmaking to *Derrick Hot Shot *and make it a legitimate groomer trail - taking pressure off Haynes
- Add snowmaking to *Upper Milk Run *and make it a legitimate groomer trail - taking pressure off Northway

You could even consider grooming and snowmaking on UN and Kitzbuehl, that's a better idea than destroying Timbuktu!

Grooming JFK and CanAm everyday as you do and adding snowmaking to Alligator Alley have helped make Jay more intermediate-friendly over the years. I think these steps go a long way.

Jay does groom a lot of trails and they groom well. Yes, the Goat Run can be bad, but every mountain has a disaster spot. 

I think part of the problem with Jay with respect to intermediates is that they don't advertise the good grooming that they do. They are quick to say that they have better snow than everyone, but when the snow is low they never say that their grooming is very good also. And now they are about to make a colossal mistake in destroying what's made them so great in order to cater to people who don't even come to the mountain.

Work with what is already there and don't destroy what's made you great! The glades.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 4, 2012)

I gotta disagree on props to Jay for good grooming. Though it isn't their fault. Even if they groom a trail well, the wind is going to do what the wind is going to do. It ain't just the Goat that is usually awful. Jay just doesn't have a lot of good cruising terrain. And the limited amount that it does is wind prone and receives a LOT of traffic since there are so few options.

JFK and Can Am are not intermediate trails, groomed or not. Same with UN and Kitz. I really like Derick and Milk Run natural. But I'd rather those runs get the guns and groomer treatment than the Orchard. 

Just for the record, Timbuktu is not on the chopping block, it is the woods on skiers' right of Timbuktu that are on the chopping block. Though that would effectively change Timbuktu into a glade between trails, that would really change the feel of what is currently a boundary line glade.


----------



## dalecaluori (Nov 5, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> I really like Derick and Milk Run natural. But I'd rather those runs get the guns and groomer treatment than the Orchard.



My point exactly!



riverc0il said:


> Just for the record, Timbuktu is not on the chopping block, it is the woods on skiers' right of Timbuktu that are on the chopping block. Though that would effectively change Timbuktu into a glade between trails, that would really change the feel of what is currently a boundary line glade.



If that really is true, that is really a stupid idea!!!!


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 7, 2012)

Steve, if you are still checking this thread, and you have any input to the powers that be, please see here for some more opinions on the Burke development:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...e-announcement&p=733556&viewfull=1#post733556


----------



## Jaywoodsboy (Nov 7, 2012)

With all due respect FB has it right. I know zero Jay skiers or homeowners who think cutting in the Orchard is a good move or necessary for intermediates. In the realm of our glades it is intermediate and people who return to Jay inevitably figure it out and fall in love with it. The bad blood comment hits the nail on the head, why aggravate 99% of your core skiers so you can add 1 more countable trail. Please leave better enough alone on this one Walter, Steve & Bill.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 8, 2012)

Even being dead set against cutting down the Orchard, I have to disagree that this would aggravate 99% while only helping 1% of skiers. There are many die hard "core" Jay skiers that have never been out there (not everyone skis off map glades, hell, not everyone skis glades). And Jay has a severe lack of intermediate pitched cruising (especially such trails that are not severely wind exposed and buffed out by the wind 10 seconds after they get groomed, let alone what happens when you add in ski traffic). Those of us against this new trail should argue more reasonably. We CANNOT argue that Jay doesn't need more intermediate cruising. It is simply not true. And we can't argue there are more tree skiers at Jay than non-tree skiers. We don't pay the majority of the bills. We just don't. 

But we are a large and important demographic and I think the passion for that chunk of trees is clearly evident here. I don't think there would be as much fierce commentary if almost any other off map area was on the chopping block. Or even some on map trees (there are many I could care less about).

The big issue here, in my mind, is that up until this point... Jay's development has not effected the skiing/riding and tree culture of Jay. This would be a major faux pas in the eyes of most Jay tree skiers. Unlike the Unchangeable campaign of last year, it would show that JPR is definitely changeable and is no longer just changing the base areas and beginner areas to accommodate increasing guest numbers... but taking it against its core tree skier base that didn't care for major resort build up but went along with it no problem since the on mountain experience remained unchanged.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 8, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Even being dead set against cutting down the Orchard, I have to disagree that this would aggravate 99% while only helping 1% of skiers. There are many die hard "core" Jay skiers that have never been out there (not everyone skis off map glades, hell, not everyone skis glades). And Jay has a severe lack of intermediate pitched cruising (especially such trails that are not severely wind exposed and buffed out by the wind 10 seconds after they get groomed, let alone what happens when you add in ski traffic). Those of us against this new trail should argue more reasonably. We CANNOT argue that Jay doesn't need more intermediate cruising. It is simply not true. And we can't argue there are more tree skiers at Jay than non-tree skiers. We don't pay the majority of the bills. We just don't.
> 
> But we are a large and important demographic and I think the passion for that chunk of trees is clearly evident here. I don't think there would be as much fierce commentary if almost any other off map area was on the chopping block. Or even some on map trees (there are many I could care less about).
> 
> The big issue here, in my mind, is that up until this point... Jay's development has not effected the skiing/riding and tree culture of Jay. This would be a major faux pas in the eyes of most Jay tree skiers. Unlike the Unchangeable campaign of last year, it would show that JPR is definitely changeable and is no longer just changing the base areas and beginner areas to accommodate increasing guest numbers... but taking it against its core tree skier base that didn't care for major resort build up but went along with it no problem since the on mountain experience remained unchanged.



I agree with several of your points, however:

- the natural pitch of the Orchard is quite steep at the beginning and then it mellows out rapidly as you get back to the resort.  Not the stuff for a good natural intermediate run.  Sure, you can move earth and manage something with a reasonable gradient, but the natural terrain is not good for an intermediate cruiser.   If you could manage 2 or 3 decent intermediate runs, butchering the Orchard might be worth it.   

-while there are less tree skiers than non-tree skiers, they make for a large percentage of the hardcore skiers.  On any mid-week powder day, the woods get tracked just as fast as the groomers and the first chair dudes head straight for the woods.  I don't get to see Jay Peak books but my fear is that the hardcore mid-week powder day dudes bring in a lot less money than the waterpark people. 

- Among skiers, Jay is known for three things:  lotsa snow, glades, and its very liberal out-of-bound policy.  The problem is that it is now getting known as the 'waterpark place'.  This bring lots of beginners and intermediates to the hill, and Jay is not and never will be the best mountain for them.  Forcing one new intermediate run will not change that.

'_JPR is definitely changeable'_  I think you nailed it.  That's what is making skiers nervous.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 8, 2012)

LOL at the first chair dudes heading straight for the woods on a powder day. There is nothing I like more at Jay than ripping down something like the Jet or Haynes on an untracked foot of fresh blow. Woods aren't meant for the first chair unless you are way back in line.

Agreed that one extra intermediate run is not going to make Jay intermediate friendly. I made this argument previously that Jay should focus on West Bowl being their game changer. An Orchard groomer run would also be difficult regarding accessibility being on the boundary of a very wide area (and it is a haul to get back to the chair, lots of flat and then a bit uphill, not intermediate friendly). And it will be the only trail over there aside from Montrealer which is a throw away run to get back to other locales. 

I was just at Jay yesterday and the development happening right now is absolutely crazy. There is SO MUCH going on, so much construction. The on going Jay face lift has moved Stateside. If they went to West Bowl, they wouldn't need to worry about that one single solitary intermediate run off the Jet.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Nov 8, 2012)

there is plenty of "intermediate" skiing at J. the push to provide more milktoast skiing is an indication of the resorts future, the mid week skiers are the same mid week skiers that have been there for decades, got their money already, to fill the cofers they need more "skiable" marketable terrain.  the arguement that its windblown and shitty is beside the point, the wind isn't going anywhere, isn't that being raised jay? aren't you supposed to adapt to the challenge. I won't be surprised if they build a giant wall so its more comfortable for the folks with money staying for the weekend


----------



## BigJay (Nov 8, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> The big issue here, in my mind, is that up until this point... Jay's development has not effected the skiing/riding and tree culture of Jay. This would be a major faux pas in the eyes of most Jay tree skiers. Unlike the Unchangeable campaign of last year, it would show that JPR is definitely changeable and is no longer just changing the base areas and beginner areas to accommodate increasing guest numbers... but taking it against its core tree skier base that didn't care for major resort build up but went along with it no problem since the on mountain experience remained unchanged.



Agree with this... that is "my" perspective as well coming from someone who's skied here all of his life... soon coming into my 30th straight season.

But i do realise that we (the tree skiers/riders) don't represent the best money income... we don't come for the waterpark... but we come back for trees and snow.

On the other end, the "blue cruisers" do come for the waterpark, the arcade, the restaurants and then if they get to ski, that's a bonus... so they'll spend even more money.

Of course, like many here, i'm affraid of the "changeables" when it comes to terrain we've been riding for years and that sees more traffic then many trails that need to be grommed. I'm sure that on a regular snowy days, the Orchard gets more trafic then The Flash... and the Flash is an incredible blue trail... one of my favorite! But since there is no more mid-station on the old double, you can't get there very easily... 

Anyways. We're still hoping that the Orchard doesn't get turned into a blue trail. That would be a great loss.

(plus, from a design perspective, i doubt that this trail would be the narrow new england style of trails... it would be a 4 groomers wide instead of a 2 groomers wide. People would ride down way to fast on it... and coming out of Timbuktu, people would be cut-off by people cutting lower to the road)


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Nov 8, 2012)

*Occupy The Orchard!*

This is a great discussion and it is reassuring to see the passion of fellow Jay die-hards. I really hope your words don't fall on deaf ears. Well, maybe not totally deaf, because at least we know Steve@JPR pays attention. BigJay's comment about The Flash got me thinking about a theme I started on my blog but never really finished: The Lost Runs of Jay Peak. Over all the years of lift and trail realignment, many great runs have become underused and kind of forgotten, except by those of us who either seek them out or stumble upon them. The Flash is a great example, as are Wedelmaster, Lower Milk, Poma Line, Sweetheart, JFK and Kitzbuhel. Then there are runs that are on the trail count but hardly ever skied, like St. George's Prayer. And then there are runs that have been lost forever, like Can-Am. 

The point is that Jay Peak could do a lot better at directing people to find and use the terrain that already exists. Publish a Jay Peak guidebook, make it an App, fer gawd's sake. Did you ever wonder why the upper Goat is such a clusterf**k? Most of the people there have no idea where else to go! It is a complicated mountain for a new visitor - help them out. This effort would cost practically nothing and help spread people around. OK, BigJay and I will not get first tracks on The Flash but at least The Orchard could be saved. Make better use of the terrain you have before creating a new run that will not serve any purpose but to destroy a classic glade. 

IMHO the Freezer was the biggest mistake ever made at Jay Peak and Alligator Alley a close second. The old Green Mountain Chair served the terrain in a much better fashion and the mid-station was a great option (unless you were not paying attention). I may have said this before but my radical idea would be to rip out the top part of the Flyer, re-align it to the old Green Mountain Chair exit location, then (gasp) put in a new "upper mountain lift" that starts roughly at the Kokomo entrance and exits about where the Flyer does now. Yes, this would put chair towers up the side of Ullr's and into (dare I say it) Dogpatch but really, do you think people would get this worked up about that? The "pod" (I hate that term but it works) created by such a lift would be intermediate heaven, not to mention the multiple laps one could get on BP, Andre's, Staircase and Everglade. And the spring skiing! And the best part, this would save other stashes for the rest of us . And for good measure, put in a warming hut and cafe. Think of the view in the spring!


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 8, 2012)

Good points to you both about the terrain options being limited by not having an intermediate lift where the Green Mountain Chair used to service via mid-station. Those are all good runs up there and I always forget about the Flash, great little shot. But they are a pain to lap via the Freezer because you have to deal with the Freezer and the Goat. I like SBR's idea but too little too late at this point. A lift servicing everything below the Goat on that ridge would really be intermediate haven as SBR says without the pain and agony of the Freezer and the Goat. Ah, if only it could be restarted from scratch.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Nov 8, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> ... I like SBR's idea but too little too late at this point. ... Ah, if only it could be restarted from scratch.



It is never too late for magical thinking.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 8, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> It is never too late for magical thinking.


You'll just have to wait until after the west bowl.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Nov 8, 2012)

^ In whose lifetime is that happening?


----------



## BigJay (Nov 9, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> IMHO the Freezer was the biggest mistake ever made at Jay Peak and Alligator Alley a close second. The old Green Mountain Chair served the terrain in a much better fashion and the mid-station was a great option (unless you were not paying attention). I may have said this before but my radical idea would be to rip out the top part of the Flyer, re-align it to the old Green Mountain Chair exit location, then (gasp) put in a new "upper mountain lift" that starts roughly at the Kokomo entrance and exits about where the Flyer does now. Yes, this would put chair towers up the side of Ullr's and into (dare I say it) Dogpatch but really, do you think people would get this worked up about that? The "pod" (I hate that term but it works) created by such a lift would be intermediate heaven, not to mention the multiple laps one could get on BP, Andre's, Staircase and Everglade. And the spring skiing! And the best part, this would save other stashes for the rest of us . And for good measure, put in a warming hut and cafe. Think of the view in the spring!



A lift that would cut the lower part of Ullr's would be a intermediate's haven. You could extend the season of that entire bowl by keeping it open and skiable longer. That bottom part is so flat, it needs very little snow (no snowmaking) to be open... but then it can melt away in two days with all the running water running across it.

The Flyer is a great mistake... because it's always a pain to get up there... it takes forever (even at full speed) and what you're left with is a very short descent... with 2 flats sections: 1 first traverse to get to good stuff, quick down and then a long painful traverse back to base area. The west bowl won't save that.

THe new chair for the bike park... oh sorry, snow park will do exactly that. Instead of having a t-bar that serves only one trail (or 2 if you count the capability of heading tram side and to the village chair). You can access about 7-8 different trails that offer a great learning experience for beginners. The Metro quad is way too long. Beginner take the whole morning to get one run in... get discourage and don't head out much in the afternoon because they lack the energy to do it again.

So yeah, a mid-station to the Flash and Racer was great. Getting up to the top of the flyer will be even more pointless once the 6-pack serves off thru St-George Prayer.

It's a challenging planning job to do it right... and if you know how to work the land and use it properly, it helps. You don't want to leave scars like the Upper goat run and the Can-Am again.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 9, 2012)

The six pack will be a game changer for the way I ski Jay. It makes it so you can lap everything all the way out to GMB from the 6 (slight up hill traverse to get back -- you can do it already but the uphill traverse, long ski back, and a slow lift means the Freezer is worth the pain).

It will mean the only reason to ride the Flyer is to access anything that ends on Ullr's or to get out of there if you go to something ending on Ullr's from the 6. Once the 6 is in, I really hope they consider cutting the Freezer off at the ridge and following SBR's suggested lift out of Ullr's Bowl. :lol:

What a screwed up mountain regarding layout, lol.

I think the Metro is appropriate length. It gives green circle skiers a LOT of options. And now they have a beginner lift out of both base areas (though you have to hike up from the Stateside lodge to get to that one, WOW what a massive hike for a beginner!! Especially hiking across thru traffic). 

Well, at least (I think) we can all agree that the Jet and the Tram are both perfectly placed. :lol:


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 9, 2012)

Let me see if I can put these ideas into pictures...












Rename/Market the "Pod" as 1480' vert "Ullrs Bowl". The lift line as oriented would use JFK as part of its liftline and only clip the very lowest section of Everglade (maybe take Alligator Alley off the map completely, plant some trees and reconnect the top section of Everglade?). Dogpatch would be spared . 
The bottom of the lift would be a short flat from the West Bowl base area. Adding this lift would likely require some rethinking of the real estate/building layout slated for development in that area. 
"Improving" Northwest Passage to allow direct access from the top of the shortened Flyer would be recommended.
Pay for the Ullr's Bowl lift by only having one lift to the top of Doll Peak. Move the second lift into Ullrs Bowl.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 9, 2012)

Damn, from_the_NEK... you should be charging for this.

Instead of "improving" NE Passage, another trail could also be built, it might take out the top of North Glade though... like start at the top of GMB and kinda "mirror" NE Passage, ending in the same place. 

I really like the looks of this! Bonus points if you can unload the Ullr's Bowl lift so that Poma Line is accessible. That might make Northway a CF, though.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 9, 2012)

The Ullr's Bowl lfit as drawn unloads at almost the same location as the current Flyer. The traverse over to the Poma Line would be about the same as it is today. I Would take the traverse over moving the lift line to the right and cutting into Dog Patch. 
In this senario, since the Flyer is shortened, Northway would be no worse a cluster than it already is.

I like your idea of a "parallel" trail to Northwest Passage.


----------



## BigJay (Nov 9, 2012)

Like the location of the Ullr's Bowl new lift... but you can't go that low. There is tons of water below the Ullrs and multiple streams that don't show much on line. Plus, it's flat. You're venturing somewhere flatter then Kokomo and Ullr's!

And like you, i would put in only one lift and not two on the WB... Having two lifts is like running a lift on the Derreck. Oh shit, now they'll look into it!


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 9, 2012)

I'm pretty sure it can go that low. According to the "master plan" drawing, it looks like most of those streams/wet areas are a bit further down the Ullrs runout. The thick blue line in the picture below is the main channel that drains the area. By going straight downhill from the start of Kokomo through elbow that begins the runout of Ullrs , you can keep a decent 14% pitch to the liftline. While not super steep, it is better than Kokomo and Ullrs runouts (~10% grade) that run at an angle across the general falline. 
The pink trail is where Rivercoil's potential Northwest Passage parallelling trail would go. Moving the bottom of the lift up much higher and you risk making this connection difficult.


----------



## Nick (Nov 9, 2012)

Steve should hire you guys. hahaha


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Nov 9, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> Let me see if I can put these ideas into pictures...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is awesome. Clearly there could a run connecting the West Bowl to the new NEK Express lift on Ullr's Bowl. Then folks could get back to Tramside or Stateside by taking one lift.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 9, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> This is awesome. Clearly there could a run connecting the West Bowl to the new NEK Express lift on Ullr's Bowl. Then folks could get back to Tramside or Stateside by taking one lift.


The only problem is that once this is a major trail pod, they'll need to tear down the DP and BBP to create a few more intermediate runs. :lol:8)


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Nov 9, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> The only problem is that once this is a major trail pod, they'll need to tear down the DP and BBP to create a few more intermediate runs. :lol:8)



That's at least seventeen lifetimes away.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 9, 2012)

There is potential for a intermetiate run or two off the ridgeline traverse between Ullrs Dream and the West Bowl that would avoid Andre's and BBP. However, they would be pretty short on vert.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 9, 2012)

Let's see if this works...

http://productforums.google.com/for...zekb=31#!topic/gec-sports-hobbies/Pvnc6lqx9io

For those with Google Earth, you should be able to download a flyover movie of West Bowl that I made.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Nov 9, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> Let's see if this works...
> 
> http://productforums.google.com/for...zekb=31#!topic/gec-sports-hobbies/Pvnc6lqx9io
> 
> For those with Google Earth, you should be able to download a flyover movie of West Bowl that I made.



Works for me. Good work, NEK. Sure are a lot of openings in the trees up there. Be a helluva skin up.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 9, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> The only problem is that once this is a major trail pod, they'll need to tear down the DP and BBP to create a few more intermediate runs. :lol:8)




That will be the day when I sell the condo and go somewhere else...


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Nov 10, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Damn, from_the_NEK... you should be charging for this.
> 
> Instead of "improving" NE Passage, another trail could also be built, it might take out the top of North Glade though... like start at the top of GMB and kinda "mirror" NE Passage, ending in the same place.
> 
> I really like the looks of this! Bonus points if you can unload the Ullr's Bowl lift so that Poma Line is accessible. That might make Northway a CF, though.


I've been saying much the same thing for years, though to much skepticism.  Guess I should have added a map.  Not having a lift in Ullr's Bowl terminating where the Frezer does now is a massive opportunity missed.  The Freezer was the worst design decision they could have made for that lift, and as with the abortion that is the Can-Am represents the most damning indictments of Stenger's lack of on-mountain planning chops.  Killing The Orchard would be just the coup de grace, and would ironically be linked to the lousy Freezer decision in the first place. 

Alas, that ship has almost certainly sailed.  Hard to imagine them spending the money to shorten the Freezer like that.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 10, 2012)

On the flip side, one could definitely see (in the very long term) the Freezer being fixed... much as they are going to fix the Bonnie by returning a lift to Power Line in the original footprint of the lift that used to be there. AND the reintroduction of the lower mountain lift stateside. That is (soon to be) twice that the current lift structure of Jay is reverting back to one from years ago. I am sure, eventually, that there will be a third fix. It might take a few dozen years until the Freezer's life cycle is over (or a few more EB5 investors, whichever comes first).


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 10, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> I am sure, eventually, that there will be a third fix. It might take a few dozen years until the Freezer's life cycle is over (or a few more EB5 investors, whichever comes first).



Won't happen with EB5.  EB5 investments have to result in jobs.  Changing/modifying lifts has to be financed with operating revenues.  Even though it is a ski resort, it is easier to finance a water park than a new lift with the EB5 program.   

I have not skied Jay on a regular basis for as long as many of you, but a lift up Ull'r drainage and a mid-station below Upper goat run would very clearly benefit intermediate skiers a lot more than one new run in the Orchard.


----------



## xlr8r (Nov 10, 2012)

This layout is very similar to what the original west bowl expansion plan was prior to the construction of the Freezer.  The Jay Peak brochure had a map showing the new west bowl, the Green Mtn Boys double being replaced with a detachable quad ending where the double did, and an Ullr's Chair.  Ullr's Chair would have gone from Ullr's runout near the end of Deer Run and Kokomo to near where the future six-pack will terminate just above Northway.  I just spent an hour digging through my old brouchures and trailmaps trying to find it with no success, but luckily the map is posted at new england ski history.

http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/skiareaexpansions/Vermont/jaypeak.php

They probably decided to go with the cheaper route of building just the Freezer instead of replacing the GMB double and building Ullr's chair.  This also shows how lazy Jay peak has been with the west bowl expansion.  It was on a map in a brochure 20 YEARS AGO.  get the damn thing built or forget about it.  It has been nothing but talk talk talk for 20 years.  When they finally got some money, they built a waterpark instead.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 11, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Just for the record,* Timbuktu is not on the chopping block, it is the woods on skiers' right of Timbuktu that are on the chopping block. Though that would effectively change Timbuktu into a glade between trails*, that would really change the feel of what is currently a boundary line glade.



Yes, but that changes the way it will ski.  Long uninterrupted stanchions of continuous trees always seem to hold snow better than "ski around" glades, IMO.   I'd put money on the snow-quality of Timbuktu suffering if this takes place.



riverc0il said:


> The big issue here, in my mind, is that up *until this point... Jay's development has not effected the skiing/riding and tree culture of Jay*.* This would be a major faux pas in the eyes of most Jay tree skiers.* Unlike the Unchangeable campaign of last year, it would show that JPR is definitely changeable and is no longer just changing the base areas and beginner areas to accommodate increasing guest numbers... but taking it against its core tree skier base that didn't care for major resort build up but went along with it no problem since the on mountain experience remained unchanged.



Exactly.  I drive a rather long way past MANY ski areas numerous times per year specifically to hit Jay Peak, and it's not for a water-park, intermediate groomers, Flyer, or the rubbery wet substance they call pizza.



Sick Bird Rider said:


> *In whose lifetime is that happening?*



Yeah, I havent said anything about this, but on that West bowl thing, put me squarely in the, "I'll believe it when I see it camp" myself.  It's tough to cut a single blade of grass in Vermont.  And God forbid they find one of those Bicknell's Thrushes at 2,800 they'll probably be screwed. lol.



fbrissette said:


> *Won't happen with EB5.  EB5 investments have to result in jobs. * Changing/modifying lifts has to be financed with operating revenues.  Even though it is a ski resort, it is easier to finance a water park than a new lift with the EB5 program.



Oh, I'm sure they can make it happen.  Trucking jobs, cement jobs, additional lift attendees or maintenance men required for the newer lift.  Who knows.   The "jobs accounting" for these sorts of government programs is laughably abusable (and non-regulated).


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 11, 2012)

fbrissette is correct, EB5 needs permanent jobs, not temp construction jobs and not seasonal jobs to operate the lift. Forgot about that before making my quip.

The pizza at Jay has always been pretty good for on mountain pizza, IMO. But I think we've been down that road before.

And I disagree on your assessment of the impact and conditions of Timbuk. Island glades can have some of the best snow at Jay Peak. Some of my favorite shots are trees in between trails, they hold snow extremely well. And snow conditions in Timbuk already suck balls because of high traffic, it certainly isn't going to get any worse by a trail going around its perimeter.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Nov 11, 2012)

xlr8r said:


> This layout is very similar to what the original west bowl expansion plan was prior to the construction of the Freezer.  The Jay Peak brochure had a map showing the new west bowl, the Green Mtn Boys double being replaced with a detachable quad ending where the double did, and an Ullr's Chair.  Ullr's Chair would have gone from Ullr's runout near the end of Deer Run and Kokomo to near where the future six-pack will terminate just above Northway.  I just spent an hour digging through my old brouchures and trailmaps trying to find it with no success, but luckily the map is posted at new england ski history.
> 
> http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/skiareaexpansions/Vermont/jaypeak.php
> 
> They probably decided to go with the cheaper route of building just the Freezer instead of replacing the GMB double and building Ullr's chair.  This also shows how lazy Jay peak has been with the west bowl expansion.  It was on a map in a brochure 20 YEARS AGO.  get the damn thing built or forget about it.  It has been nothing but talk talk talk for 20 years.  When they finally got some money, they built a waterpark instead.



Good memory and good find! I have no recollection of seeing that '93 map on a brochure. There is a is long history of "talk talk talk" at JPR. They talked about the golf course for about 20 years before it was built. Then there is the Sky Haus restaurant, which seems to finally be a dream coming true. Though I will miss the plastic chairs and rustic atmosphere.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 11, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> Then there is the Sky Haus restaurant, which seems to finally be a dream coming true. Though I will miss the plastic chairs and rustic atmosphere.


You may be the only one, lol. I'd say the atmosphere is more run down than rustic. I can appreciate and get behind rustic. Sky Haus was simply let go; even less than an after thought.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Nov 11, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> fbrissette is correct, EB5 needs permanent jobs, not temp construction jobs and not seasonal jobs to operate the lift. Forgot about that before making my quip.
> 
> The pizza at Jay has always been pretty good for on mountain pizza, IMO. But I think we've been down that road before.
> 
> And I disagree on your assessment of the impact and conditions of Timbuk. Island glades can have some of the best snow at Jay Peak. Some of my favorite shots are trees in between trails, they hold snow extremely well. And snow conditions in Timbuk already suck balls because of high traffic, it certainly isn't going to get any worse by a trail going around its perimeter.



but it might suck more balls needing 100K + of additional skier visits so you can pay the propane bill. 

they should stop f'in around and just cut all the trees out.  Snow fields for everyone. A unique new england ski experience.


----------



## Nick (Nov 11, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> but it might suck more balls needing 100K + of additional skier visits so you can pay the propane bill.
> 
> they should stop f'in around and just cut all the trees out.  Snow fields for everyone. A unique new england ski experience.



Where was that thread about clearing an entire peak?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 11, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> You may be the only one, lol. I'd say the atmosphere is more run down than rustic. I can appreciate and get behind rustic. Sky Haus was simply let go; even less than an after thought.



Hiked up there a couple of weeks ago.  It will be nice.  They put new large windows around so we should be able to enjoy the view while having a beer, waiting for the ski patrols to kick us out.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 11, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> *fbrissette is correct, EB5 needs permanent jobs, not temp construction jobs and not seasonal jobs to operate the lift.*



  One of the criticisms of the EB5 program is how "loose" and relatively unregulated the jobs accounting is, especially given how ostensibly job creation is the entire point of the program.  

You're thinking of "direct jobs" created by Jay Peak for Jay Peak, which is entirely logical, but that's not how the job accounting works (i.e. it doesnt mean all 10 jobs per Visa are Jay Peak employees).  There are "indirect jobs" that count under the program as well.  Lets say the concrete company that got the job claimed they had to hire two full-time workers, they would count.  I suspect if you hire two long-term permanent part-time workers at 20/hours per week you could cobble together an FTE that way too, though I'm unsure.  At the end of the day, the "jobs created" bit is at the mercy of an economist projecting this stuff out, and they get very creative (and by creative, I mean very intentionally optimistic).  I've seen first hand how this gets abused while working with the recent "Economic Stimulus" funds - the abuse was something you wouldn't even believe in terms of the bragging government claiming they created X number of jobs, whereas the reality is it was more like 1/4 or 1/5 X.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 11, 2012)

I've done some additional research. It appears that there are two EB5 programs (EB-5 Regional Center Pilot Program and the EB-5 Direct Program), one includes indirect jobs and one must be direct job creation. So we'd need to know which program JPR is on to come to a conclusion on that.


----------



## BigJay (Nov 12, 2012)

xlr8r said:


> This layout is very similar to what the original west bowl expansion plan was prior to the construction of the Freezer.  The Jay Peak brochure had a map showing the new west bowl, the Green Mtn Boys double being replaced with a detachable quad ending where the double did, and an Ullr's Chair.  Ullr's Chair would have gone from Ullr's runout near the end of Deer Run and Kokomo to near where the future six-pack will terminate just above Northway.  I just spent an hour digging through my old brouchures and trailmaps trying to find it with no success, but luckily the map is posted at new england ski history.
> 
> http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/skiareaexpansions/Vermont/jaypeak.php
> 
> They probably decided to go with the cheaper route of building just the Freezer instead of replacing the GMB double and building Ullr's chair.  This also shows how lazy Jay peak has been with the west bowl expansion.  It was on a map in a brochure 20 YEARS AGO.  get the damn thing built or forget about it.  It has been nothing but talk talk talk for 20 years.  When they finally got some money, they built a waterpark instead.



I remember that old layout and it makes a lot of sens. Having a trail pod serving one area and then another lift serving a completely different area is how it's suppose to be.

The best of the best solution would be being able to eleminate that "traverse" lift... cause from an operation standpoint, it's a net loss. It doesn't allow people to ski and ride... and just caries them over from one area to the other... kind of like having gondolas between the Jet and the Tram between the townhouses.

I prefer the line proposed here that would stand over JFK. No need to cut down more trees, no need to open up new trails in between.

Putting less lifts in the West Bowl would preserve snow quality and improve the experience of being secluded from the rest of the big resort... until they put in a water park and a bunch of hotels there too...


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 12, 2012)

BigJay said:


> I remember that old layout and it makes a lot of sens. Having a trail pod serving one area and then another lift serving a completely different area is how it's suppose to be.
> 
> The best of the best solution would be being able to eleminate that "traverse" lift... cause from an operation standpoint, it's a net loss. It doesn't allow people to ski and ride... and just caries them over from one area to the other... kind of like having gondolas between the Jet and the Tram between the townhouses.
> 
> ...



I fully agree with the above.  I hate the transfer lift and I prefer this old layout (first time I see it).  On the other hand, even if they go ahead with the current layout, I am sure we'll find a way through the woods to get back to Kokomo's entrance without having to take the transfer lift.


----------



## BigJay (Nov 12, 2012)

When you can ride the bottom of tramside from the Jet... and ride the lower Jet after a run from the Flyer and Goat, you can pull that one off as well.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 12, 2012)

As much as I dislike transfer lifts, I think the transfer lift still comes into play here. Especially when upper mountain lifts on the main mountain are on wind hold (which NEVER happens at Jay  ). The West Bowl should be the most wind sheltered area on the mountain. During windy days, when upper mtn lifts are on hold. The combination of lower mtn lifts would make accessing the West Bowl from Stateside possible (albeit 3 lift rides away). For all of the people staying in the Hotels, Condos, and Townhomes on the side of the mountain, this is important. You won't see me on those days. I'll either be at Burke, or on Skins headed to the top of Jay .

Here are drawbacks of a cross over trail:

1. A connector trail from the top of the beginner pod of the West Bowl to the Ullrs Runout would result in a trail averaging 10.6% of slope for .6 miles. 
2. Getting all the way back to Tramside would result in a 9.6% average slope for 1.4 miles. No thanks!
3. This connector trail would cross-cut the entire "Beaverpond-bowl" between West Bowl and Ullrs. This would suck for any unmarked glades that could/would be built off of the ridge line traverse.
4. You would have to take the lift servicing the beginner area (likely a slow quad) up just to get to the Cutback trail.

Riding the transfer lift would get you likely get you most of the way back to Tramside in about the same time as riding the beginner pod lift. And with out the 1.6 mile cross country ski adventure.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 12, 2012)

You would easily be able to build a trail from the top of the West Bowl beginner pod that could move people to the Ullrs Bowl lfit.


----------



## BigJay (Nov 12, 2012)

@From_the_NEK: Any chance you were at last year's meeting regarding the State Side development plan?


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 12, 2012)

I was not there. I've never been to any of the Jay Peak development meetings.


----------



## BigJay (Nov 12, 2012)

There is a guy, Ludovic, who put together a whole bunch of conceptual drawings regarding the master planning of Jay Peak. Nice stuff as well. You guys would have had a blast debatting every little issue of every trail pod on the mountain!

His family has a condo on the mountain.

Too bad you missed them, i'm sure Steve would have been all ears.

Great stuff you're doing on Google Earth. Makes it very easily understandable for most people compare to a drawing/plan.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 13, 2012)

Google Earth is a really powerful tool. It is amazing how much easier it is to visualize an area when elevation and decent aerial imagery is included. I love elevation contour lines as well, so being able to overlay the master plan document (which has the contours) into Google Earth is a great conceptual planning tool.
Last night on my laptop at home, I just checked that West Bowl Flyover movie I created. Unfortunately, it just shows flying around the west bowl and all of the trails, lifts, and buildings that I have added are not visible. Apparently I would need Google Earth Pro ($600) to record the movie as I see it.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 14, 2012)

Figured out a work around for capturing video flyovers in Google Earth.


----------



## Steve@jpr (Nov 14, 2012)

*Thanks.*

Sorry I've been out of the pic--took a few days to head out of Dodge/south with the family before everything becomes unhinged up this way.  More-so than usual I mean.

Fantastic thoughts on everything.  I appreciate all of it.  Suffice to say, none of what we currently have on the table is in stone.  The creation of developmental forums, multiple feedback channels and surveys, etc.. is to try and collect as much information as we can prior to deciding what to build, where to build it and, as important, what not to add to the mix.  While I don't agree with everything that's been offered here, I respect the fact that a strong connection to the resort is what's driving everything--right, wrong or indifferent.  I've worked at enough ski areas to respect that and acknowledge that isn't the case at many spots.  From this side of the fence, this fence at least, that's more important than anything.

Only thing I can take small issue with is the notion from XLER8R that Jay Peak is being, er, lazy in its approach to the West Bowl.  I've mentioned, more than I care to mention, that folks should set their expectations to freeze with respect to WB and have eliminated coming-soon language from everything I could.  Lazy suggests folks sitting around with their feet high which seems, at least to someone who hasn't struck that pose in a while, laughable.  We can all agree to disagree on priorities--those that guests want to see and others that the leadership team feels make immediate sense but, please, let's try to refrain from the assumption that we're watching clouds drift up this way.

Again, I appreciate all of the input and my commitment, as it's always been, will be to continue looking at everything and considering things that I haven't previously considered.  You may not always like the net decisions and we're likely to eff up now and again, but everything will be considered and examined before launching off in any particular direction.

steve





from_the_NEK said:


> Figured out a work around for capturing video flyovers in Google Earth.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 15, 2012)

As always Steve thanks for the feed back.

I know there is a rollout plan for Jay's general build out. West Bowl is likely near the bottom of that list. Getting Tramside and Stateside "fixed up" first, should be and are the first priorities. These are parts of the resort that are already developed and the current building boom is building on what is already there to some extent. These areas are the first thing visitors see when they pull in. West Bowl is rather far removed from the rest of the resort. I can see why it doesn't make sense to expand there until everything else is done.

Has there been any discussion about creating a hike to, unpatrolled backcountry glade system out there? This would be similar to the hike to bowl out west where you have to pass through a gate at your own risk. It is roughly a 1.4 mile hike from top of Beaver Pond to Doll Peak. Versus a .9 mile hike over to Big Jay. Even though the West Bowl isn't as "extreme" terrain wise as Big Jay, it still holds a lot of snow and could be a very promotable experience (and less controversial than Big Jay). Linking up to the cross country ski terrain as an egress back to Tramside may be possible as well.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 15, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> As always Steve thanks for the feed back.
> 
> I know there is a rollout plan for Jay's general build out. West Bowl is likely near the bottom of that list. Getting Tramside and Stateside "fixed up" first, should be and are the first priorities. These are parts of the resort that are already developed and the current building boom is building on what is already there to some extent. These areas are the first thing visitors see when they pull in. West Bowl is rather far removed from the rest of the resort. I can see why it doesn't make sense to expand there until everything else is done.
> 
> Has there been any discussion about creating a hike to, unpatrolled backcountry glade system out there? This would be similar to the hike to bowl out west where you have to pass through a gate at your own risk. It is roughly a 1.4 mile hike from top of Beaver Pond to Doll Peak. Versus a .9 mile hike over to Big Jay. Even though the West Bowl isn't as "extreme" terrain wise as Big Jay, it still holds a lot of snow and could be a very promotable experience (and less controversial than Big Jay). Linking up to the cross country ski terrain as an egress back to Tramside may be possible as well.



It would only require minimal work.   Access is already provided by the long trail.  Only minimal thinning (no downing of big trees) would be needed to provide a great downhill back-country experience.     A small crew working for a couple of weeks could easily thin out a large area.   Heck, I would gladly volunteer a few days to help out.  Small cost, large potential reward.  Heck, it would be worth it just to quiet down quite a few people about the West Bowl delays.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Nov 15, 2012)

fbrissette said:


> It would only require minimal work.   Access is already provided by the long trail.  Only minimal thinning (no downing of big trees) would be needed to provide a great downhill back-country experience.     A small crew working for a couple of weeks could easily thin out a large area.   Heck, I would gladly volunteer a few days to help out.  Small cost, large potential reward.  Heck, it would be worth it just to quiet down quite a few people about the West Bowl delays.



+1000 to that. I had exactly the same thoughts when I read NEK's post earlier but did not have time to answer. With a backcountry access trail, those of us that really want to ski the West Bowl (but are a bit lazy) could do so AND, of course, provide positive feedback to Bill, Steve, Walter and the gang. Heck, I'll volunteer to do a blog post about it!;-)


----------



## BigJay (Nov 16, 2012)

Oh yeah, we should just let people go "paul-crazy" on just "thinning" a large area of land...

I'm all up for a faster pace on the WB... but having volunteers thin out a large area isn't the best way to do it. Unless Jay has all the right permission to start "maintaining" the area and already have a clear plan of what the actual layout would be... Ride out there and enjoy it has is. Make the effort of skinning out there and skinning out of there. You'll see, there are a few very good lines already... but you'll need to work for it.

Also, it brings me to the subject of trail design. I like the rendering of google earth and all those fancy drawings... but i believe each of these points on the map should be surveyed in order to catch the particular features on the natural landscape. When we plan for bike trails, we use all the same fancy map to show the general proposal for trail corridor. We never know what the final product will look like until we start laying some flagging tape around... and then pin flat an actual trail alignment. I hope that ski trails, especially when it involves natural ski trails and glades, are planned that way as well. A rock face, a roller or cliff line doesn't show on a map and we need to be able to take advantage of that. They're call positive and negative control points.

When it comes to ski boulevards and highways, the excavator can carve anything... especially with a bit of dynamite... and that's a bit sad to see when you think of how pristine the land use to be and that careful trails planning would have probably saved a bunch of these natural features.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 16, 2012)

BigJay said:


> Oh yeah, we should just let people go "paul-crazy" on just "thinning" a large area of land...



You think Jay Peak would not be happy with a bunch of us roaming free with chainsaws in the West Bowl ???

Seriously, I was thinking about a Jay Peak-led operation, with proper permits, over the planned trails, to allow for better skiing until the lifts are put in place.  I think this would be a good marketing tool for Jay.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Nov 16, 2012)

Big Jay, natural features and "intermediate" skiing don't mix.

Carve it up.  Get as much sun and wind exposure you can.  The more dynamite the better.  

People hike for skiing? What a waste of time, how many runs can you get in a day?  Won't the hiking make you to tired to ski.  For me its a complete waste of time unless I can get 15 -20 quality cruising runs. 

Maybe a rope tow or some kind of people mover can be installed along the long trail.  The magic carpet has a cover that works well, maybe they could enclose it.


----------



## BigJay (Nov 16, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> People hike for skiing? What a waste of time, how many runs can you get in a day?  Won't the hiking make you to tired to ski.  For me its a complete waste of time unless I can get 15 -20 quality cruising runs.



Better snow conservation... and people drink more beer at the bar.

A bar and a magic carpet = problem solved.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Nov 16, 2012)

BigJay said:


> A bar and a magic carpet = problem solved.



You'll only find that kind of convenience at intermediate bars. The expert bar is indentifiable by the slacklines and high wire exits.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 16, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> You'll only find that kind of convenience at intermediate bars. The expert bar is indentifiable by the slacklines and high wire exits.



And hard liquor instead of beer.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 16, 2012)

The use of dynamite on ski trails is very sad.  There are so few on map trails with natural, little rock ledges to hop over not because they were never there, but because the resort destroyed them.   The trail with the most I can think of is Lift Line at Smuggs.  I understand the obvious reason why they remove them from beginner or intermediate trails, but not on diamonds and double-diamonds.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 16, 2012)

BigJay said:


> Also, it brings me to the subject of trail design. I like the rendering of google earth and all those fancy drawings... but i believe each of these points on the map should be surveyed in order to catch the particular features on the natural landscape. When we plan for bike trails, we use all the same fancy map to show the general proposal for trail corridor. We never know what the final product will look like until we start laying some flagging tape around... and then pin flat an actual trail alignment. I hope that ski trails, especially when it involves natural ski trails and glades, are planned that way as well. A rock face, a roller or cliff line doesn't show on a map and we need to be able to take advantage of that. They're call positive and negative control points.
> 
> When it comes to ski boulevards and highways, the excavator can carve anything... especially with a bit of dynamite... and that's a bit sad to see when you think of how pristine the land use to be and that careful trails planning would have probably saved a bunch of these natural features.



This is the way trails used to be built before the demand for the wide open intermediate cruiser became "important". What is the minimum recommended width of a "good" intermediate cruiser? 75-100 feet wide or roughly enough for two skiers to make wide turns and not clog up the entire trail? 100 feet of width would make adjusting the trails course to natural features nearly impossible.
Looks like the West Bowl plan keeps the trails 75 feet wide or less (in comparison, Okemo's fairly new Jackson Gore area looks to be closer to the 100' wide range). The narrower 75' width is more adaptable but dynamite would probably still be used.
For the West Bowl. If the plan is changed to a sigle lift up to Doll Peak. The cut trail layout could/would change quite a bit. But you have to actually walk around out there to see what features you have to work with before breaking out the feller bunchers.


----------



## BigJay (Nov 16, 2012)

from_the_NEK said:


> This is the way trails used to be built before the demand for the wide open intermediate cruiser became "important". What is the minimum recommended width of a "good" intermediate cruiser? 75-100 feet wide or roughly enough for two skiers to make wide turns and not clog up the entire trail? 100 feet of width would make adjusting the trails course to natural features nearly impossible.
> Looks like the West Bowl plan keeps the trails 75 feet wide or less (in comparison, Okemo's fairly new Jackson Gore area looks to be closer to the 100' wide range). The narrower 75' width is more adaptable but dynamite would probably still be used.
> For the West Bowl. If the plan is changed to a sigle lift up to Doll Peak. The cut trail layout could/would change quite a bit. But you have to actually walk around out there to see what features you have to work with before breaking out the feller bunchers.



I'm sure there is a direct line of skier injury/death that can be drawn to show the corelation with wide 80-90s high speed cruisers. Can you kill yourself by pointing it down on Haynes in 2012? Can you kill yourself the same way in 85 when the trail was a narrow winding path? Think how many people die with a helmet on these days. We use to ski slowly with leather boots on twisty trails.

If Jay is serious about genuine ski experience, they should focus on what made New England Skiing appealing in the first place: narrow winding trails down "worth-the-drive-and-big-enough" mountains. We don't have the big bowls and the magic snow of out west... but we have beautiful landscape you can enjoy while cruising down a twisty path down a hill...

Ski trails weren't first built for convenience of grooming and snowmaking. Now, we think of drainage, running water/air lines and how many runs the groomer needs to take each day. We forget about the experience we give to skiers.

Again, that run that will ruin Timbuktu and the orchard will probably be based on these same criterias: 4 groomers wide = 2 in/out runs with the snow machine. It allows to bring snowmaking in to "enhance" the intermediate ski experience. The extra width will appeal to experts who will also BOMB down this trail in the afternoon after the snow is gone from Haynes and Jet.

Not to mention the great amount of skiers coming off Timbuktu onto the new trail that will cross straight across to go ride what's left of the Orchard.

We're probably not thinking of that...


----------



## kingdom-tele (Nov 16, 2012)

BigJay said:


> If Jay is serious about genuine ski experience, they should focus on what made New England Skiing appealing in the first place: narrow winding trails down "worth-the-drive-and-big-enough" mountains. We don't have the big bowls and the magic snow of out west... but we have beautiful landscape you can enjoy while cruising down a twisty path down a hill...
> 
> Ski trails weren't first built for convenience of grooming and snowmaking. Now, we think of drainage, running water/air lines and how many runs the groomer needs to take each day. We forget about the experience we give to skiers.
> 
> ...



Why do you hate progress Big Jay?

Having classic ski trail design won't be sustainable with the amount of traffic they will need to sustain the development.

Suggesting a design that caters to the feel of the land with narrow, skier groomed terrain, that is easily made intermediate by pitch(wildcat valley trail, etc) is not going to pay for progress

I think they are entirely thinking about the experience for the clientel that will come to play and pay, mostly pay.  because lets face it, those long winding narrow trails take a bit of time to negotiate and that really screws with my data on my strava and the competition that is recreation.


----------



## BigJay (Nov 16, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> ...because lets face it, those long winding narrow trails take a bit of time to negotiate and that really screws with my data on my strava and the competition that is recreation.



You're right. Forgot about Strava.


----------



## ScottySkis (Nov 16, 2012)

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

The representative from Jay Peak is not to very happy with all these comments.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Nov 16, 2012)

He's not?


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Nov 16, 2012)

Scotty said:


> The representative from Jay Peak is not to very happy with all these comments.



Did happy hour start early today, Scotty?


----------



## ScottySkis (Nov 16, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> Did happy hour start early today, Scotty?





Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
Not yet getting on the bus in few minutes so drinking sooner.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 16, 2012)

kingdom-tele said:


> Big Jay, natural features and "intermediate" skiing don't mix.
> 
> Carve it up.  Get as much sun and wind exposure you can.  The more dynamite the better.
> 
> ...


http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...g-Skiing-Terms&p=735373&viewfull=1#post735373

 :lol:


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 16, 2012)

Scotty said:


> Not yet getting on the bus in few minutes so drinking sooner.



You should drink on the bus = even sooner!


----------



## ScottySkis (Nov 17, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> You should drink on the bus = even sooner!





Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
If I didn't have to drive from the bus 20 miles or so to local bar and home then I would drink on the bus, that is another great thing about taking a bus to ski hills, is that you can drink and have time to sober up, even better when I lives in the city because I just take subway train home so didn't need to sober up.


----------



## WTD410 (Apr 17, 2014)

*Tramside Six*



BigJay said:


> Like the location of the Ullr's Bowl new lift... but you can't go that low. There is tons of water below the Ullrs and multiple streams that don't show much on line. Plus, it's flat. You're venturing somewhere flatter then Kokomo and Ullr's!
> 
> And like you, i would put in only one lift and not two on the WB... Having two lifts is like running a lift on the Derreck. Oh shit, now they'll look into it!



Ya, why not replace the Metro AND the Flyer with a high-speed six? What trail should it follow though?


----------

