# Mt. Snow announcement



## marcski (May 28, 2010)

Not sure if this was discussed here yet?

http://www.dvalnews.com/view/full_s...--Sunbrook-chairlifts?instance=home_news_left



      DOVER- Mount Snow is going full speed ahead with its renovations.  In  April, Mount Snow officials unveiled a plan for redesigning the base of  the ski resort.  Next month, the Act 250 environmental commission begins  hearings on the West Lake Project, which will enable Mount Snow to use  more water for snowmaking.  Now, they are proposing to replace two  chairlifts and officials say the changes will ensure faster travel,  better skiing, and enhance Mount Snow’s reputation a top ski destination  in Vermont.  

Mount Snow director of planning Laurie Newton said  that Peak Resorts, Mount Snow’s parent company, is in the process of  replacing two chairlifts.  Newton said they are replacing the Summit  Local triple chair, built in 1978, with a high-speed, detachable  six-pack, which seats six skiers or riders at a time.  

Like the  Grand Summit Express, the six-pack will take skiers and riders to the  top of Mount Snow.   It will replace the Grand Summit Express as the  main chair lift.  The Grand Summit Express will only be used during peak  periods of skier and rider usage.  “The six-pack will run every day and  the (Grand Summit Express) will only run as needed on peak days,” said  Newton.  

Mount Snow is also in the process of replacing the  Sunbrook Quad chairlift, built in 1990, with a high-speed detachable  quad.  Newton said the Sunbrook Quad is frequently utilized by skiers  and riders and Mount Snow management has received several requests to  replace it.  “When it’s windy and cold, the lift feels much longer.  The  detachable quad will make rides much shorter, from nine minutes to  about four-and-a-half minutes.  It will be much quicker,” said Newton.   “The Sunbrook area is underutilized and there’s great terrain back  there.  This new lift will encourage people to ski or ride more at  Sunbrook.”    

Mount Snow was pursuing the chairlift renovations  when they learned that government stimulus funds were available for ski  area capital improvements.  The funds are available through the Vermont  Economic Development Authority and Mount Snow has applied to obtain  funding.  Newton said  Mount Snow will learn by next week whether they  will be accepted.  No figures were provided on the project’s cost.  

The  Forest Service completed the public scoping process for the chair lift  renovation project.  Because Mount Snow is located on Green Mountain  National Forest Land, US Forest Service officials must allow the public  to respond to development projects.  But now that the comment period is  over, Mount Snow officials will be submitting an Act 250 permit and  other local permits through the town.  

Newton said the  permitting process will not be as difficult because Mount Snow will be  replacing two chairlifts in areas where no trees will be eliminated.   “We’re hopeful to have permits by mid- to late summer.  The next step  will be financing.  If that goes well, we could install them both by  2011. But all of that is dependent on financing,” said Newton.   

Newton  said Mount Snow officials are hearing a lot of positive feedback about  the changes taking place and added that “everyone is excited” about the  two chairlift projects.  She noted that many skiers and riders said it  was time for the chairlifts to be replaced and they are excited about  using the new six-pack chairlift. 

Newton added that the  chairlift renovations are part of Peak Resort’s economic development  plan.  Stratton Mountain Resort also uses six-pack chairlifts to  transport skiers and riders and in order to compete with local ski  resorts, Peak Resorts believes they have to invest in capital  improvements.  “For a long time there hasn’t been a lot of reinvestment.   We need to reinvest to compete with the likes of Stratton and Okemo.   Reinvesting in the mountain is important to maintain our competitiveness  with our neighbors,” said Newton. 
Read  more:  Deerfield  Valley News - Mount Snow to replace Summit Sunbrook chairlifts 
​


----------



## Newpylong (May 28, 2010)

Good stuff


----------



## jarrodski (May 28, 2010)

me gusta


----------



## vcunning (May 28, 2010)

Additional info on this post:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=77037

And agreed . . . good stuff.


----------



## Madroch (May 28, 2010)

Sweet- the GSX has never worked right, despite the overhauls, and the Sunbrook area is very nice, particularly when skiing with little kids, but has been a PITA to ski.  When my kids were younger, we couldn't go to sunbrook when the quad was not operating (they couldn't ride the double alone- and there were three of us) or when it was really cold (the quad was slow and cold).  It will be nice for those with young young kids-- and will keep folks off the beartrap double for us bump lovers!


----------



## Black Phantom (May 28, 2010)

Good news. Always great to hear that a ski area is improving. 

Love a nice spring Friday at Snow.


----------



## Philpug (May 28, 2010)

Would be good to see a high speed on the North Face


----------



## Newpylong (May 29, 2010)

Philpug said:


> Would be good to see a high speed on the North Face



No way. The North Face chairs are only 3500 feet long and sheltered from the wind  - the money is better spent elsewhere...


----------



## Glenn (May 29, 2010)

It's cool that they're upgrading. I do like Sunbrook because not many people go there. A HSQ could change that, but the quick ride up will more than likely make up for that. There's some really good terrain over there. And the ability to lap it a bit faster is a huge plus IMHO.


----------



## drjeff (May 29, 2010)

Going to like watching helecopters fly lift components up the mountain hopefully next summer!  Gotta keep the fingers crossed for BOTH Act 250 approval and financing!


----------



## Glenn (May 29, 2010)

Good point! We need to find out when the work is being done. I'd love to take a trip over there to watch the towers being flown in.


----------



## drjeff (May 29, 2010)

Glenn said:


> Good point! We need to find out when the work is being done. I'd love to take a trip over there to watch the towers being flown in.



I'm sure that we can think of a person or two (or maybe 10) around Mount Snow that will know when it will happen!  :lol:  And then we can fill up the coolers on my back deck and watch the flights!


----------



## vcunning (May 30, 2010)

drjeff said:


> I'm sure that we can think of a person or two (or maybe 10) around Mount Snow that will know when it will happen!  :lol:  And then we can fill up the coolers on my back deck and watch the flights!



I'm droppin' off the Beertender Baby! We'll save the coolers for the Champagne!


----------



## pepperdawg (May 30, 2010)

Good riddance to the Sunbrook quad - Brrrrrrrrr that was a hated lift


----------



## roark (May 30, 2010)

I'd rather see the Grand Summit Express be replaced and the old double retained, but otherwise sounds good.


----------



## vcunning (May 30, 2010)

roark said:


> I'd rather see the Grand Summit Express be replaced and the old double retained, but otherwise sounds good.



Double?  Are you referencing the Summit Triple being retained?

I'd much rather have a HS lift (looks like 6 pack according to comments made in the Deerfield Valley News) that exits at the very top of the summit.  It would be great to avoid the skating and crowds to get to the North Face and other trails.

Two HS lifts to the top, along with some proposed trail widening would be helpful to disperse traffic.


----------



## Newpylong (May 30, 2010)

roark said:


> I'd rather see the Grand Summit Express be replaced and the old double retained, but otherwise sounds good.



Why? That won't help out the worst part about the mountain - the lines at the main base area... I usually avoid the Summit Express and the Canyon like the plague due to the lines - but you really lose a lot of skiing time riding the Fixed grips all day.


----------



## Glenn (May 30, 2010)

vcunning said:


> I'm droppin' off the Beertender Baby! We'll save the coolers for the Champagne!



You know, I could hook the trailer up the Jeep and haul the entire crew right up to the site.....:smile:


----------



## MommaBear (May 30, 2010)

vcunning said:


> Two HS lifts to the top, along with some proposed trail widening would be helpful to disperse traffic.



I'm curious to see how they will disperse the crowd at the bottom.  Not much standing room now between the base of the triple and the lodge/ski rack area.  Should be interesting when the lines start forming.


----------



## Newpylong (May 31, 2010)

MommaBear said:


> I'm curious to see how they will disperse the crowd at the bottom.  Not much standing room now between the base of the triple and the lodge/ski rack area.  Should be interesting when the lines start forming.



That's for sure. I don't see it as a problem if they form the line either to the Canyon or the Grand Summit side of the lift though (or both). As long as they don't go behind it.


----------



## drjeff (May 31, 2010)

MommaBear said:


> I'm curious to see how they will disperse the crowd at the bottom.  Not much standing room now between the base of the triple and the lodge/ski rack area.  Should be interesting when the lines start forming.





Newpylong said:


> That's for sure. I don't see it as a problem if they form the line either to the Canyon or the Grand Summit side of the lift though (or both). As long as they don't go behind it.



With the new lift being the primary and the Grand Summit Express going into "overflow" secondary lift status,  #1 I'd bet that the queue ropes for the Grand Summit will be a much smaller set up, opening up more room over towards the Waffle Cabin and then #2 wouldn't suprise me at all to see queue lines for the new lift extending out both towards The Grand Summit Express and Canyon Express, with an alternating load from both the left and right sides

This is a logistical issue i'm pretty sure that the mountain ops folks at Mount Snow will enjoy figuring out, since it means that we'll be getting a snazy new 6 pack!


----------



## threecy (May 31, 2010)

marcski said:


> Mount Snow was pursuing the chairlift renovations  when they learned that government stimulus funds were available for ski  area capital improvements.  The funds are available through the Vermont  Economic Development Authority and Mount Snow has applied to obtain  funding.



No me gusta.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 1, 2010)

threecy said:


> No me gusta.



I had to read that a few times in the paper this weekend. It did have me scratching my head.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 1, 2010)

Glenn said:


> I had to read that a few times in the paper this weekend. It did have me scratching my head.



Yup, that whole article was a bit interesting.  Kind of caught me off guard when I walked into the 7-11 in West Dover Friday night and saw it as the lead story, just the way they worded the title of the article inferred that the lifts were going in THIS summer, not hopefully next summer


----------



## jaywbigred (Jun 1, 2010)

Interesting. Here's to hoping the dominoes fall the way they need to!


----------



## Glenn (Jun 1, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Yup, that whole article was a bit interesting.  Kind of caught me off guard when I walked into the 7-11 in West Dover Friday night and saw it as the lead story, just the way they worded the title of the article inferred that the lifts were going in THIS summer, not hopefully next summer




Yep, I thought the same thing. But it is a pretty quick timeline they have. It would really be something if the got the permits this summer and had the lifts up and running this winter. :-o


----------



## drjeff (Jun 1, 2010)

Glenn said:


> Yep, I thought the same thing. But it is a pretty quick timeline they have. It would really be something if the got the permits this summer and had the lifts up and running this winter. :-o



Something tells me that they haven't yet placed the purchase order for those 2 lifts, and given the build time involved from either Leitner/Poma or Dopplmayr/Ctec I highly doubt that even if the USFS gave approval today for the lifts that we'd be riding them anytime before the 2011-'12 season anyway   Plus, the way that I read the article, it sounds like those gov't funds they cited wouldn't be enough $$ to cover the cost of both lifts in their entirety, so they still need to secure some funding for them, and unfortunately most banks these days aren't exactly freely giving $$ out like they were a few years ago - also likely an issue for *fingers crossed* WHEN *fingers crossed* they get approval for the West Lake Project 

Depending on the availability of financing, and the permit approval timeline,  the building of the lifts sooner than later might actually slow down the implementation of the West Lake Project, which as long as Mount Snow can still have the complete water rights to the pond at the entrance to Haystack, wouldn't be too much of an issue


----------



## arik (Jun 2, 2010)

The story hit the paper just in time for summer real estate shopping season.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 2, 2010)

arik said:


> The story hit the paper just in time for summer real estate shopping season.



There definitely was a good sized "warm weather" crowd up in the valley last weekend


----------



## arik (Jun 2, 2010)

um yea, downtown Wilmington was packed with pedestrians


----------



## drjeff (Jun 2, 2010)

arik said:


> um yea, downtown Wilmington was packed with pedestrians



Me and my family went to the kick off of "The Best Seats in Vermont" event at the Sitzmark on Saturday evening.  We got there about 6 (it started at 3 and ended at 7) and the parking lot at the Sitzmark was full!  Probably close to 200 people there (and about 99% of them weren't the same folks that were at Mount Snow for the Peace Pipe Jam earlier in the day!).  Also was really nice to see the work they've done this spring at The Sitzmark,  2 new sand volleyball courts being installed, new pool/landscaping - a good exposure event for both the Chamber of Commerce and the Sitz!

My wife also took the kids to the rubber duck race in downtown Wilmington on Sunday and said that traffic was a beast, let alone finding a parking space.  Great for the local economy, even it it is a bit of a pain in the a$$ traffic wise for locals


----------



## Glenn (Jun 2, 2010)

That's interesting...on Saturday, we thought there was hardly any traffic. Instead of taking 100 to 9 to go to Wahoo's, we went the Handle, Mann, route to 9. I waited longer taking a left onto 9 by Dots than I would have had we gone 100...no line at the light! Last it was nuts, I think we waited a good 15-20 minutes at the light. Maybe it was just the time of the day. I'm glad to hear it was busy there this weekend. That's always really good for those local businesses. 

I also didn't see a lot of police cars around. Last year, they were everywhere.


----------



## mlctvt (Jun 2, 2010)

The crowds definitely were because of the holiday weekend. 
We were at our place at Mount Snow the weekend of May 21-23 and I'd have to say it was the quietest weekend we'd ever seen since we bought the place back in '05. It's not good for local businesses but we liked it just for that reason. 
I think May and September are the best off season months that we spend up there.


----------



## neil (Jun 3, 2010)

Announced on Facebook that they got Forest Service approval. Looking to start March 2011.


----------



## arik (Jun 3, 2010)

yeay!


----------



## Newpylong (Jun 3, 2010)

Get in line to buy a summit local chair!


----------



## Euler (Jun 3, 2010)

From Mt. Snows Facebook page:



> EXCITING NEWS! US Forest Service approved the replacement of two lifts today - Summit Local Triple with a HIGH SPEED 6-PACK and the Sunbrook Quad with a HIGH SPEED QUAD! Looking at starting the replacement in March 2011!



I hope they can get the West Lake Project done before then so all the people riding up those lifts have snow to ski on!


----------



## drjeff (Jun 3, 2010)

Yup, lots of hiking and lots of pictures I'm sensing in my future next summer!  Then lots of fast lift rides in the '11-'12 winter


----------



## Glenn (Jun 4, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> Get in line to buy a summit local chair!



x2! I want one! But who knows, they may end up selling the entire lfit to another resort. Maybe I'll ask on the passholder site.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 4, 2010)

Glenn said:


> x2! I want one! But who knows, they may end up selling the entire lfit to another resort. Maybe I'll ask on the passholder site.



The brain at work here.  I'm picturing sitting at a snowbar, with the seats being an old triple from the local!


----------



## threecy (Jun 4, 2010)

Glenn said:


> x2! I want one! But who knows, they may end up selling the entire lfit to another resort. Maybe I'll ask on the passholder site.



There isn't much of a market for used Yans.


----------



## jaytrem (Jun 4, 2010)

threecy said:


> There isn't much of a market for used Yans.



It might sell.  At least two of them were installed last year.  Discovery Basin (from Sun Valley) and Sleeping Giant (dont' know where it came from).

Would be nice if they could combine parts with the Challenger chair to increase reliability.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 4, 2010)

jaytrem said:


> It might sell.  At least two of them were installed last year.  Discovery Basin (from Sun Valley) and Sleeping Giant (dont' know where it came from).
> 
> Would be nice if they could combine parts with the Challenger chair to increase reliability.



Swapping out top drives on the Summit Local and Challenger sure would be a short move!  I'd guess though that the main electric drive motor for the summit local has a bit more horsepower than Challenger's (I just don't really feel like searching through the lift installation records over at skilifts.org right now to see the exact specs of each of them   )

Given the number of yan triples at Mount Snow (Discovery, Challenger, Sundance, Tumbleweed, and I'm pretty sure the most of Ego) , my guess is that many parts of that lift won't be leaving Mount Snow.

Now Sunbrook,  well that lift might very well show up at another Peak Resort or end up at somewhere around the country at a different resort


----------



## vcunning (Jun 4, 2010)

drjeff said:


> The brain at work here.  I'm picturing sitting at a snowbar, with the seats being an old triple from the local!



Might need more than one :-D


----------



## Glenn (Jun 4, 2010)

vcunning said:


> Might need more than one :-D



Now you're talkin'. Bench seats would be fairly easy. IIRC, the part that attaches to the top of the chair (and eventually to the grip) are held on with bolts. Nothing a little PB Blaster and an impact wouldn't make sort work of.


----------



## threecy (Jun 4, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Given the number of yan triples at Mount Snow (Discovery, Challenger, Sundance, Tumbleweed, and I'm pretty sure the most of Ego) , my guess is that many parts of that lift won't be leaving Mount Snow.



Yan fixed grip lifts have a lot of things going against them, at least in the re-sale market.  I've only been on that summit lift maybe a handful of times (and about 15 years ago), so I know next to nothing about it in particular.  Nonetheless, poured footing (rather than bolted) towers, as well as chained tensioning, make Yans less desirable than most other lifts.  I believe this lift also doesn't have lifting frames on the towers, which are expected on chairlifts nowadays.


----------



## roark (Jun 4, 2010)

I do think this is all good. But it exacerbates what I think is Mt Snow's biggest problem: crowded trails. 

I'm envisioning what a HS 6pk and HS quad both unloading at the same spot will do... Basically almost all of Mt Snow's lifts unload at the same spot (save Carinthia lifts, ego, bear trap, and to a lesser extent Canyon - the rest more or less are just below the Summit and a short skate can get you to the top of any of them). I'll ignore the beginner chairs, since the main face (save Upper Ledges) is all beginner anyway 

That's why I'll bemoan the loss of the slow Summit chair - the line was never that long and combined with long lines at the quad limited uphill capacity to some extent. Surfaces were already beat and most primary trails overcrowded with the existing limited uphill capacity - how will they fare with (perhaps FAR) greater capacity?


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jun 4, 2010)

Quick question, these lift are in part or mostly being funded my federal stimulus money correct (I believe this was mentioned)?  If so, does this money have to be paid back?  Is it like a bond?  If it doesn't have to be paid back, why is every ski resort in Vermont not putting in for this money?

Seems to me that this creates a really unfair advantage for Mt Snow in an already tough industry.

Thanks
UVSHTSTRM


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 5, 2010)

roark said:


> I do think this is all good. But it exacerbates what I think is Mt Snow's biggest problem: crowded trails.
> 
> I'm envisioning what a HS 6pk and HS quad both unloading at the same spot will do... Basically almost all of Mt Snow's lifts unload at the same spot (save Carinthia lifts, ego, bear trap, and to a lesser extent Canyon - the rest more or less are just below the Summit and a short skate can get you to the top of any of them). I'll ignore the beginner chairs, since the main face (save Upper Ledges) is all beginner anyway
> 
> That's why I'll bemoan the loss of the slow Summit chair - the line was never that long and combined with long lines at the quad limited uphill capacity to some extent. Surfaces were already beat and most primary trails overcrowded with the existing limited uphill capacity - how will they fare with (perhaps FAR) greater capacity?



That's my question too.  With that 6-pack, they will be able to offload 20 people on the summit every six seconds when all lifts are operating.  That's a really big number.


----------



## Newpylong (Jun 5, 2010)

I totally understand the downhill capacity question but you honestly need to be a consistent visitor to see there is no problem for the most part on the summit trails on the weekends - OUTSIDE of Long John, which is going to be widened at the exact same time these new lifts will go in. The problem at Mount Snow is not where to put the people, it's how to move them, and this will help resolve this. For sure there will be more people on the trails with both High Speed summit lifts running but part of the permitting process for the lifts was the study that the added uphill capacity will not drastically change the "skiing experience". It's all in the study to read...


----------



## drjeff (Jun 5, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> I totally understand the downhill capacity question but you honestly need to be a consistent visitor to see there is no problem for the most part on the summit trails on the weekends - OUTSIDE of Long John, which is going to be widened at the exact same time these new lifts will go in. The problem at Mount Snow is not where to put the people, it's how to move them, and this will help resolve this. For sure there will be more people on the trails with both High Speed summit lifts running but part of the permitting process for the lifts was the study that the added uphill capacity will not drastically change the "skiing experience". It's all in the study to read...



Another thing to remember capacity wise, is that once the 6 pack is installed, then The Grand Summit Express becomes the "overflow" lift - likely to operate about the same number of hours per week as the summit local does, so you're talking about 6, maybe 8 hours(roughly 10AM to maybe 2PM Sat/Sunday) a week that both lifts will be spinning.

Totally agree that in the big scheme of things, downhill trail density won't be that much different than it currently is.  Another thing to remember too is that *hopefully* these lift upgrades will happen simultaneously with Mount Snow getting the West Lake Project done which would take the snowmaking capacity to essentially 100%, thus additionally providing further, consistant snow coverage on many additional acres of terrain on the main face that folks lapping the new 6 pack and/or "old faithful" (the GSE) would be using.


----------



## jaytrem (Jun 5, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Totally agree that in the big scheme of things, downhill trail density won't be that much different than it currently is.QUOTE]
> 
> I don't know, I think the more popular trails will be mobbed.  You can't put that many more people on top of the mountain without the crowds going somewhere.  The top of Sunbrook is far enough away that most people won't go downs the front, so we can take that out of the equation.  Now with less stoppage and 3 extra people per chair the six seater should move at least 2000 extra people per hour.  With about 15 unique ways down the front that's an extra 133.3 people per trail.  That's an extra person every 27 sec per trail.  At the top there are only about 6 ways to start out down the front.  That's an extra person every 11 sec.  Cascade and Canyon should get the worst of it.  And of course Long John.  Maybe they should put in a magic carpet on the uphill section on the original Long John.  Could probably cut down on the Long John congestion a bit.


----------



## EPB (Jun 6, 2010)

jaytrem said:


> drjeff said:
> 
> 
> > Totally agree that in the big scheme of things, downhill trail density won't be that much different than it currently is.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## drjeff (Jun 6, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> jaytrem said:
> 
> 
> > For what its worth, Skilifts.org lists the summit quad's capacity at 3000 pph and the Sundance Quad at 2667 pph.  If these numbers are correct, the two lifts can dump 5667 skiers at capacity.  Six packs seem to top out around 3600 pph; if we assume for a moment that the new six pack will carry 3600 people per hour, the Sundance quad could still carry roughly 2000 to 2100 pph and non overflow capacity would remain unchanged.
> ...


----------



## EPB (Jun 6, 2010)

drjeff said:


> eastern powder baby said:
> 
> 
> > If the grand summit express carries more than 2400-2500 folks an hour to the summit, I'd be suprised based on the spacing/timing of that lift.
> ...


----------



## jaytrem (Jun 6, 2010)

drjeff said:


> I don't think I can ever recall a situation where Sunbrook sent up full chairs for an hour straight - that just might change when the HSQ goes in



There used to be a descent line every weekend in the early to mid 90s.  That was when it first went in and when Beartrap was also more popular.  It was also before everybody on the east coast learned thier lesson.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 6, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> drjeff said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly agree that the new lift configuration will be more likely to reach its full capacity once the new installations are complete.  It wouldn't be surprising if niether the Sunbrook chair, nor the Granrd Summit Express have run at their full capacity speeds of 500 and 1000 feet per minute respectively.  Numbers wise, it seems that there will only be a marginal increase of uphill skier traffic under the new configuration with capacity remaining roughly the same.  I cannot comment on shifts in skier flow as  I do not ski Mt. Snow nearly enough to have a valid opinion on the matter, though it seems reasonable to assume that Sunbrook would experience more volume, especially if new snow making is installed.
> ...


----------



## arik (Jun 6, 2010)

*crowding?*

I am thinking it won't be all that crowded because the west lake water will (hopefiully) come on line same season as the new lifts so there will be more trails open most of the time (better dispersing the skiiers)


----------



## Glenn (Jun 7, 2010)

arik said:


> I am thinking it won't be all that crowded because the west lake water will (hopefiully) come on line same season as the new lifts so there will be more trails open most of the time (better dispersing the skiiers)



That's what their plan has been all along; increase the snowmaking before increasing the uphill capacity. 

As Jeff has mentioned, getting the new lifts running for the 11-12 season may be a bit optomisitic. I have a feeling they'll be able to bring more water to mountain just as the new lifts are being installed/running. 

There are some nice trails over at Sunbrook. If they could blast snow over there and keep a lot of those open it would really help spread people out.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 7, 2010)

arik said:


> I am thinking it won't be all that crowded because the west lake water will (hopefiully) come on line same season as the new lifts so there will be more trails open most of the time (better dispersing the skiiers)



Crowding may not be the issue, but irrespective of getting the West Lake project online, the impact on snow surfaces on crowded weekends will be material, and for the worse.  It's not possible to have it both ways - if you are "solving" the base area crowding/lines problem, those people have to be going somewhere.  They will be on the popular trails, scraping off last night's coat of manmade down to boilerplate by 10:30.


----------



## mikestaple (Jun 7, 2010)

Hmmm.  So Peak is taking care of Mt. Snow.  I wonder if they have any Fed bucks to do anything with Attitash's slow poke lift?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 7, 2010)

interesting thought / tie in with Attitash.  If I were an Attitash regular, I'd be a bit peaved to see not one, but two high speed lifts going in at snow and that triple not being addressed. 

I would think replacing the summit triple with a HSQ would bring better ROI than the Sunbrook HSQ will for Peaks.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 7, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> interesting thought / tie in with Attitash.  If I were an Attitash regular, I'd be a bit peaved to see not one, but two high speed lifts going in at snow and that triple not being addressed.
> 
> I would think replacing the summit triple with a HSQ would bring better ROI than the Sunbrook HSQ will for Peaks.


Unless that FG quad at Sunbrook ends up being the replacement for the triple.


----------



## jaytrem (Jun 7, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Unless that FG quad at Sunbrook ends up being the replacement for the triple.



I'd feel sorry for them if it is.  That's gotta be an even slower lift.


----------



## arik (Jun 7, 2010)

Oh, yea that would not be good to get a hand me down that everybody hates.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 7, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Unless that FG quad at Sunbrook ends up being the replacement for the triple.





jaytrem said:


> I'd feel sorry for them if it is.  That's gotta be an even slower lift.





arik said:


> Oh, yea that would not be good to get a hand me down that everybody hates.



Bottomline line with that lift, if it does get recycled, even with a brand new bigger electric motor, it's not running faster than 500 ft/min (I'm pretty sure that the last 2 winters after they removed about 25 chairs from the line that it's now running at about 475 ft/min up from about 440 ft/min with the extra chairs on it.


----------



## arik (Jun 8, 2010)

Would that lift work out better on a flat beginner trail where people riding the lift don't want to go fast anyway?
Or perhaps something so steep you are climbing quickly despite the slow forward speed?


----------



## drjeff (Jun 8, 2010)

arik said:


> Would that lift work out better on a flat beginner trail where people riding the lift don't want to go fast anyway?
> Or perhaps something so steep you are climbing quickly despite the slow forward speed?



In theory they *could* increase both the horsepower of the main drive motor and also the spacing of the chairs to allow it to run at the maximum legal limit of 500 feet/min.  The other thing that they could do, and I guess is one of the "achilles heels" of Sunbrook Quad, is they way people load it.  Trying to get 4 people out to the load board from directly behind the bull wheel takes a bit of time - especially given that that lift tends to have a decent percentage of lower ability folks riding it.  If anything, putting one of those loading conveyor belts there (or anyplace that lift might be installed in the future) would likely allow them to run it at the max limit.

If you take a look at the fixed grip lifts at Mount Snow, the ones that tend to have a high(er) ridership by those of lower abilities (Discovery, Tumbleweed, Seasons, Sunbrook) do run a bit slower than those that have a higher percentage of ridership by higher ability folks (Outpost, Challenger, Ego, Sundance, Summit Local, Bear Trap, Heavy Metal) - gotta factor that into the equation too - since it doesn't make a bunch of sense to run a lift faster if it likely ultimately means that you'll need to staop it more to clean up the carnage


----------



## mountainman (Jun 8, 2010)

Go Mount Snow. The new plans sound awesome. Mount Snow is a gold mine that has not been taped yet and if Peaks follows through with their new plans with the lifts and the base area nothing but good will happen. Most other Major North East Resorts are at a stand still right now. When somethng new is built they will come to check it out. Stand by Attitash cause if this goes through and happens thier will be plenty of resourses to improve at Attitash. Go Mount Snow.


----------



## arik (Jun 9, 2010)

mountainman said:


> Go Mount Snow. The new plans sound awesome. Mount Snow is a gold mine that has not been taped yet and if Peaks follows through with their new plans with the lifts and the base area nothing but good will happen. Most other Major North East Resorts are at a stand still right now. When somethng new is built they will come to check it out. Stand by Attitash cause if this goes through and happens thier will be plenty of resourses to improve at Attitash. Go Mount Snow.



You make a good point, one step at a time.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 9, 2010)

arik said:


> You make a good point, one step at a time.



Yup!  I think that we can all agree that ASC, and now to some extent Intrawest, has proved/is still proving that you CAN'T do everything for everyone at once and still remain a solvent business


----------



## MommaBear (Jun 9, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Yup!  I think that we can all agree that ASC, and now to some extent Intrawest, has proved/is still proving that you CAN'T do everything for everyone at once and still remain a solvent business



But I sure do miss those ASC pass prices and use of 6 mountains.


----------



## drjeff (Jun 9, 2010)

Cross posted from _The Rutland Herald_ and the Mount Snow Passholders site:

"From the Rutland Herald on line:


By Bruce Edwards STAFF WRITER - Published: June 8, 2010

Central Vermont Public Service Corp. and Mount Snow Resort are among five companies that will share in $92 million in federal stimulus bonding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The preliminary approvals were announced Monday by the Vermont Economic Development Authority.
.................
Mount Snow in West Dover intends to apply the $25 million in bond proceeds to pay for the replacement of two chairlifts, construction of a 120-million gallon storage pond for snowmaking, and snowmaking fan guns. According to VEDA, the upgrades will increase lift capacity and make its snowmaking more efficient.
.................
With the latest bonding approvals, Vermont has committed all its $135 million in federal tax-exempt bonding capacity under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
"

25 million!  2 lifts and the snowmaking water upgrade and expansion to essentially 100% snowmaking     Going to be mighty busy at Mount Snow next summer!!


----------



## arik (Jun 10, 2010)

Wow that's awesome, and unusual. I am impressed with Peaks that they were able to find funding this way. I am also excited that I am going to personally experience some direct benefit of bailout stimulus.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 10, 2010)

Wow! If they can get the snowmaking going and the lfits at the same time...

That's great news for Mount Snow though. Those current 251 fan guns made a huge difference. I can only imagine more. Wooo!


----------



## arik (Jun 10, 2010)

Has any ski area ever received state/government financial support for improvement/expansion before?
And if so was it this size? (25 million)
I see this as really extraordinary.
I am so totally buying a pass for 2011-2012


----------



## jaytrem (Jun 10, 2010)

arik said:


> Has any ski area ever received state/government financial support for improvement/expansion before?
> And if so was it this size? (25 million)
> I see this as really extraordinary.
> I am so totally buying a pass for 2011-2012



Bolton Valley got a "community development grant" for their quad, $650,000.  Mentioned in this article...

http://www.newliving.com/issues/apr_2005/articles/boltonvalley.html


----------



## vcunning (Jun 10, 2010)

arik said:


> Has any ski area ever received state/government financial support for improvement/expansion before?
> And if so was it this size? (25 million)
> I see this as really extraordinary.
> I am so totally buying a pass for 2011-2012



Jay took advantage of this type of program for chairlifts, lodge improvements and a golf course revamp a year or two ago.

I'm guessing that with some very low government sponsored financing, that Mount Snow is accelerating plans that they've communicated before for capital improvements.  Good news for all of us that are passholders.


----------



## threecy (Jun 10, 2010)

arik said:


> Has any ski area ever received state/government financial support for improvement/expansion before?



All the time, but using direct Federal stimulus funds for a privately owned ski area in New England may be a first.

Other examples (aside from Bolton's quad arrangement) include energy efficient grants (though I believe these are technically private sector funds), conservation grants and/or write offs, etc.


----------



## vcunning (Jun 10, 2010)

http://www.veda.org/interior.php/pid/2/sid/102


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 10, 2010)

vcunning said:


> Jay took advantage of this type of program for chairlifts, lodge improvements and a golf course revamp a year or two ago.
> 
> I'm guessing that with some very low government sponsored financing, that Mount Snow is accelerating plans that they've communicated before for capital improvements.  Good news for all of us that are passholders.



Not exactly.  Jay took advantage of the EB-5 visa program that allows prospective immigrants to jump the line for citizenship (or Green Card - I forget which one) by investing $500K or more in certain designated areas.   Jay took advantage of this program for its new developments and SB is also using it to help fund the two new skier services buildings this summer.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jun 10, 2010)

threecy said:


> All the time, but using direct Federal stimulus funds for a privately owned ski area in New England may be a first.
> 
> Other examples (aside from Bolton's quad arrangement) include energy efficient grants (though I believe these are technically private sector funds), conservation grants and/or write offs, etc.



Also, while it's not in the US, many ski areas in Canada have received low-interest loans or direct grants from the govt.  Many if not most in Quebec fit this description, with Le Massif in particular being the beneficiary of significant govt largesse.


----------



## Newpylong (Jun 10, 2010)

Also to keep in mind that from what I read this is not a freebie by any means but a low or no interest loan. Either way, awesome that something we all love is benefiting from this right?


----------



## drjeff (Jun 10, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> Also to keep in mind that from what I read this is not a freebie by any means but a low or no interest loan. Either way, awesome that something we all love is benefiting from this right?



Totally! What this does is basically remove what potentially in this current banking climate was likely going to be the most difficult part of Mount Snow being able to do the lift upgrades, the West Lake project and the expansion of the snowmaking coverage to essentially 100% - and that was to secure 25 million of financing at once - 5 to 10 years ago this wouldn't be nearly as impressive as it is today!  But one of the things that i'm guessing. Weighed in on the descision to award the bonding funds is the fact that Mount Snow already HAD a solid plan, with the vast majority of environmental impact studies already completed of atleast well underway and looking like they will show a reasonable outcome!


----------



## threecy (Jun 10, 2010)

It'll be interesting to see what kind of effect the $25M loan/grant/etc. will have on Peak's ability to transfer their holdings into a real estate trust.


----------



## arik (Jun 18, 2010)

The Editorial from yesterdays Deerfield Valley News:

A little more than a week ago, the Vermont Economic Development Authority announced preliminary approval of $93 million in bond financing. Included in that amount was $25 million to jump-start Mount Snow’s efforts to rebuild its infrastructure. VEDA’s announcement comes as welcome news for a number of reasons. 

First it means that, should Mount Snow actually see the funding, federal recovery dollars may flow into the valley. That in and of itself is no small feat. What it also means is that by investing in Mount Snow, the VEDA funding could hopefully stimulate more investment by others in the area. We certainly need it, as businesses continue to work their way through the rough economy. Anything that brings money and good jobs to the community deserves serious consideration.

Speaking of serious consideration, incumbent upon Mount Snow receiving a nickel of the $25 million is permit process approval, along with additional private funding. Officials at the mountain are facing a critical time, as a variety of hearings are planned in the next couple of weeks with local, regional, and state agencies. Those hearings will lay the groundwork for the permits the mountain needs to rebuild the two chairlifts and begin the West Lake water reservoir project. 

The West Lake project is of particular importance. A stable and plentiful supply of water for snowmaking is critical not merely for Mount Snow’s future survival, but also for any hopeful rebirth of the Haystack ski area as well. Mount Snow has been on a 20-year quest to solve its water supply issues, and over the years officials have explored a variety of options, from tapping into Somerset or Harriman reservoirs to building new retaining ponds or expanding existing ones. Hurdle after hurdle has been placed in the mountain’s way, many of which were just too daunting to clear. While West Lake may not be the best commonsense solution, it offers the best solution for longterm viability, given past history and today’s regulatory climate.

While it would be easy to celebrate the VEDA funding announcement, the reality is that there is a lot of hard work ahead. Mount Snow still has many hoops to wriggle through before the funding can be secured. The mountain deserves as much support as the community can offer. Local officials and business leaders need to realize what happens to Mount Snow will have lasting effects on towns and businesses up and down Route 100. It is a critical time for our area, and we need to understand the opportunity that has been presented, and the negative consequences if the efforts fall short. 

Now, more than ever, the local community need to show VEDA and the other state and federal entities they were correct to fund Mount Snow’s projects, and that the region is solidly behind those efforts.

Read more: Deerfield Valley News - Mount Snow needs support


----------



## Glenn (Jun 21, 2010)

The DVN has been really supportive of Mt. Snow and the expansion efforts/plans. They understand that the mountain brings in a lot of business to route 100 and the surrounding area.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 28, 2010)

There was another article in the DVN this week regarding Mount Snow. They've made a few changes to the West Lake project and they went through three different rounds of approval. It amazes me how many hoops need to be jumped through.


----------



## arik (Jul 1, 2010)

Yea, reading that article was painful, the journalist really did a great job conveying the complexity of the process.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 2, 2010)

Could you imagine trying to open a new ski area these days? It would probably take 15 years before you could even get through all the processes.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 2, 2010)

Glenn said:


> Could you imagine trying to open a new ski area these days? It would probably take 15 years before you could even get through all the processes.



Well when you combine the bureaucracy of VT and it's Act 250, plus the mountain of Federal regulations resulting from Mt. Snow's location in a Natl Forest, that's what you get.  

Not to get all political, but this is simply a microcosm of what many businesses out there face today.  It increases costs for anyone.  Surely there must be a way to balance the legitimate regulatory functions of Fed/State govts with an approach that allows businesses to prosper.  Right now, we have the worst of both worlds - ridiculously prescriptive regulations and a govt at all levels that is incompetent in enforcing the important pieces.


----------



## Newpylong (Jul 5, 2010)

amen Tin....


----------



## Glenn (Jul 6, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> amen Tin....



x2. Well put.


----------

