# Killington-Pico Interconnect...



## Highway Star (Feb 27, 2009)

(The thead about NEP inspired me to post this)

Many of you may be aware that Killington was planning to connect themselves to Pico back in the mid-late 90's.  Les Otten (ASC) bought Pico shortly after aquiring S.K.I. Ltd.  The plan was to install 2 lifts and 110 acres of skiing on the ridge between Rams Head and Pico Peak, in conjunction with building a base Village in the Killington basin area.  Then later, two more lifts, one down to Killington road, and another serving advanced terrain in the middle of the ridge (all permitted in act 250).  Potentially, the skier visits target was 1,400,000 per year at the combined resort.

They got as far as building a road to nowhere in '97, a large traverse from the side of Pico down to below Rams Head.  It can be seen from the top of Killington.  Don't bother going out there, the interconnect is flat, there's no good skiing, trust me.  They really need to cut some trails.

Anyway, they ran out of money, couldn't build the village, and shelved the interconnect for the last 12 years.  POWDR rolled into town, bought the resort, and has their own plans.  They want SP Land to build a Village, however, they seem to think the Interconnect is not part of this plan.  The interconnect is supposedly on hold for at least another 5 years.

The inteconnect should cost $10M or so as planned for the first phase of the buildout.  One fixed grip lift, on HSQ, trail cutting, snowmaking and additional parking at Pico.  Maybe $25M total for 2 more lifts, more trails, and a mid mountain lodge.  Thus, this a big chunk of change and something that they have to save up for. 

Looking at the terrain, I've presented idea of a limited, low cost interconnect several times.  It is possible to cut a traverse off the side of the Rams Head quad that would take you over to the south shoulder of Pico.  Then a lift is needed to get you up Pico.  There is more than enough natual snow for traverses and natural snow trails/cut glades at that elevation, they run snowmoblie tours up there.  This could probably be done for about $2M or so.

Either option would truely combine them into one resort, creating by far the largest resort in the east.

Question is, how interested are you in the interconnect?  The full plan or a basic plan?  Would it make you ski Killington more often, or keep you there as a customer?  Would you ski Pico more often?  What do you think?


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 27, 2009)

If I was pass holder, I'd like to see it happen without question.  As a day skier, I don't as Pico is more affordable and I'm sure the connection would end that..  I enjoyed my day there earlier this winter and will be back for a second visit later this month.  It was $32 through my ski club as opposed to $48.  At the $48 ticket level, I can also ski at either Sugarbush or Stowe, both of which I'd rather ski then Killington any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Now, if the interconnect improved the chances that Killington will start skiing through May again, then yes, I'd be behind it 100%.


----------



## St. Jerry (Feb 27, 2009)

Absolutely not wanted.  Pico is one of the few unique areas left.


----------



## SkiDork (Feb 27, 2009)

I want the interconnect.


----------



## RootDKJ (Feb 27, 2009)

It's about time we had another thread on this.  My date was starting to slip in the pool


----------



## andyzee (Feb 27, 2009)

Are you ever going to stop crying about the freaking interconnect.


----------



## Rogman (Feb 27, 2009)

The interconnect will be built when the village is built. As for the "road to nowhere", the pipe to the Rutland sewage treatment plant is buried under it. The trail is a  skiable green, nothing special, other than the massive amount of earth and stone moved to build it. There is a trail map floating around that James Niehues did that shows NEP, Killington, the Interconnect, and Pico. That road is one of the trails.


----------



## mondeo (Feb 27, 2009)

I might be interested more in a Slidebrook type option, in attempt to keep the character of Pico but still make it so I can actually ski both areas if I want to invest the time of the two rides. In keeping with their intention of making Killington a higher-end product, I don't see the cheap option happening. And assuming $8-10 million in development per season, I'm thinking South Ridge and Snowdown lifts get replaced and lodges get renovated first, along with basically getting to the point where they only use the old snowmaking equipment for warm weather snowmaking where the low energy guns don't do as well. Plus I'm sure a bunch of stuff we don't really have visability to. 5 years before the interconnect seems to make sense.


----------



## Highway Star (Feb 27, 2009)

mondeo said:


> I might be interested more in a Slidebrook type option.......



Not a chance.


----------



## mondeo (Feb 27, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> Not a chance.


Never said it was, just said I'd be interested in it. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 27, 2009)

I think even if Killington did go through with the interconnect, they wouldn't see 1.4 mil skier visits.  Because so many other areas have improved so much and stolen market share in the past ten years, I just don't see that expansion stealing that many riders back.  It will generate interest for sure, but Killington's competitive advantage of being the biggest place around isn't what it once was with other areas improving and expanding as much as they have.


----------



## Geoff (Feb 27, 2009)

At the moment, Killington doesn't have the skier visits to justify expanding.  It costs big money to blow snow, operate lifts, groom, and patrol extra acres.  I'm actually surprised they're running as many lifts as they do midweek given how tight they are with operating costs under the new ownership.


----------



## 2knees (Feb 27, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I think even if Killington did go through with the interconnect, they wouldn't see 1.4 mil skier visits.  Because so many other areas have improved so much and stolen market share in the past ten years, I just don't see that expansion stealing that many riders back.  It will generate interest for sure, but Killington's competitive advantage of being the biggest place around isn't what it once was with other areas improving and expanding as much as they have.



to expand on that just a bit, i dont think people are neccessarily looking for the "biggest" resort anymore.


----------



## Highway Star (Feb 27, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Never said it was, just said I'd be interested in it. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?



No, not a chance because it makes absolutely no sense for them to install a cross-lift.  Logic isn't exactly your strong suit....


----------



## mondeo (Feb 27, 2009)

highway star said:


> no, not a chance because it makes absolutely no sense for them to install a cross-lift. Logic isn't exactly your strong suit....


 


mondeo said:


> *never said it was [a chance]*, just said i'd be interested in it. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?


 
qfe.


----------



## mountainman (Feb 27, 2009)

*Should do it or it is it even possible now?*

The interconnect could be done very easily. One lift from the back side of Pico. A couple of trails to start. Make the sewer line trail connect for skiing to rams head and a trail from top of rams head to base of new lift. Some real nice terrain in the bowl between Pico and rams head. Get it started and go from there. Pico is a gold mine that has not been tapped yet. Great access off of rte. 4. Alot of potentional? I think. If you ever get any time go out and hike some it of this summer. Terrain is awesome. Not sure, have the permits expired for that area now? If people come then start building beds and lodges. Longer the K waits the more visits will be lost to other resorts. The K is getting stale and needs some improvements to keep up with the industry. One sad point the infrastructure now needs alot of up keep which will probaly set them back even more.


----------



## TheBEast (Feb 27, 2009)

No interconnect is my vote.  I enjoy both areas for very different reasons and wouldn't want to see them combined.


----------



## MrMagic (Feb 27, 2009)

not for the interconnect, i like killington for what it is and pico how it is,  and that is that


----------



## Newpylong (Feb 27, 2009)

I rather see the current infrastructure repaired and more utilized. I don't necessarily think more terrain is better - one of the reasons they closed NEP besides the one's we have mentioned is simply because the mountain was too big at the time and they could barely get all the snowmaking terrain open by the time they were ready to start scaling back for spring - or so it seemed.

I think I rather see some of the snowmaking repaired that has gone into disuse (lower Pipe Dream and Valley Plunge come to mind), and replace a lift on Snowdon.


----------



## boston_e (Feb 27, 2009)

I'm not in favor of the interconnect either.


----------



## Geoff (Feb 28, 2009)

Newpylong said:


> I think I rather see some of the snowmaking repaired that has gone into disuse (lower Pipe Dream and Valley Plunge come to mind), and replace a lift on Snowdon.



So you want to completely destroy the remaining character at Killington.  Brilliant!


----------



## Newpylong (Feb 28, 2009)

Geoff said:


> So you want to completely destroy the remaining character at Killington.  Brilliant!



Hey chief, how about you lay off? Every single thing I write you jump all over like flies on a turd. From reading your posts both on here and Killingtonzone it's apparent you have a lot of knowledge to offer. But does being an a$$hole come with that? 

Anyway, I don't believe making snow on two trails that originally had the capability would ruin anything at all. Installing a new lift on Snowdon is a debatable move - and people have differing opinions.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Feb 28, 2009)

Years ago I was for it, but am now pretty much against it.  I actually wish Pico was an independent ski area from Killington


----------



## Newpylong (Feb 28, 2009)

Johnskiismore said:


> Years ago I was for it, but am now pretty much against it.  I actually wish Pico was an independent ski area from Killington



Would be interesting wouldn't it? It is an awesome mountain... But you have to wonder if it would survive on its own...


----------



## Johnskiismore (Feb 28, 2009)

Newpylong said:


> Would be interesting wouldn't it? It is an awesome mountain... But you have to wonder if it would survive on its own...



Maybe with the right managment and owners!  Pico is a mountian that I haven't been to for a long time and I have nothing but good memories of the place pre- ASC.


----------



## sLoPeS (Feb 28, 2009)

im still on the fence if id want them to put in the interconnect.  from a killington skiers stand point i would really like to be able to take a couple of lifts over there.  i would ski pico more than i do now.  however, i think we will really lose pico and it would become one big killington.  maybe down the road they should do it, but for now they've got enough on their plate.  the summit lodge needs to be torn down and replaced.  it is such a great spot up there and it could be so much better.  as far as snowdon goes, i think the quad should get replaced.  yea itll track out faster but that ride really does suck.  i really like snowdon for a bunch of reasons and lapping it on a HSQ would be awesome.  i did hear that this is not happening this summer.  they could cut down the triple and work it so that it takes u just high enough to get to the poma.  maybe somewhere by the old mid station.  im all for the village thing, but now may not be the best time to do that.  i say replacing the quad should be next on the list.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 28, 2009)

Johnskiismore said:


> Years ago I was for it, but am now pretty much against it.  I actually wish Pico was an independent ski area from Killington



+1

with the right focus, I think it could work.


----------



## KevinF (Feb 28, 2009)

I'm very in favor of an interconnect, as hopefully a heavily marketed "expanded Killington / Pico" would siphon more skiers there and away from the places that I like to go (i.e., Stowe).


----------



## tcharron (Mar 1, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> (The thead about NEP inspired me to post this)
> 
> Many of you may be aware that Killington was planning to connect themselves to Pico back in the mid-late 90's.  Les Otten (ASC) bought Pico shortly after aquiring S.K.I. Ltd.  The plan was to install 2 lifts and 110 acres of skiing on the ridge between Rams Head and Pico Peak, in conjunction with building a base Village in the Killington basin area.  Then later, two more lifts, one down to Killington road, and another serving advanced terrain in the middle of the ridge (all permitted in act 250).  Potentially, the skier visits target was 1,400,000 per year at the combined resort.



  And the idea died.



Highway Star said:


> They got as far as building a road to nowhere in '97, a large traverse from the side of Pico down to below Rams Head.  It can be seen from the top of Killington.  Don't bother going out there, the interconnect is flat, there's no good skiing, trust me.  They really need to cut some trails.
> 
> Anyway, they ran out of money, couldn't build the village, and shelved the interconnect for the last 12 years.  POWDR rolled into town, bought the resort, and has their own plans.  They want SP Land to build a Village, however, they seem to think the Interconnect is not part of this plan.  The interconnect is supposedly on hold for at least another 5 years.



  It's there plan, I got a PRETTY good idea that they know what's in their plans.  :-D



Highway Star said:


> Either option would truely combine them into one resort, creating by far the largest resort in the east.
> 
> Question is, how interested are you in the interconnect?  The full plan or a basic plan?  Would it make you ski Killington more often, or keep you there as a customer?  Would you ski Pico more often?  What do you think?



And destroying any possible profit that Pico makes.

Wait, you still go to Killington?

Wow...

We all stopped when you told us how bad they sucked.  *shrug*


----------



## icedtea (Mar 1, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> (The thead about NEP inspired me to post this)
> Don't bother going out there, the interconnect is flat, there's no good skiing, trust me.  They really need to cut some trails.




There is some nice glades back there. Just park a car at Wheelerville. 

I would like to see the interconnect built. They should keep the terrain natural anyway, so there would not be an additional snowmaking cost.


----------



## Geoff (Mar 1, 2009)

Newpylong said:


> Hey chief, how about you lay off? Every single thing I write you jump all over like flies on a turd. From reading your posts both on here and Killingtonzone it's apparent you have a lot of knowledge to offer. But does being an a$$hole come with that?
> 
> Anyway, I don't believe making snow on two trails that originally had the capability would ruin anything at all. Installing a new lift on Snowdon is a debatable move - and people have differing opinions.



The beauty of Southridge is that they leave it the hell alone.  It faces east.  If they blow snow on it, groom it daily for the masses, and replace the lift with one that runs 7 days per week, the surface will be just like that gawd-awful porcelain stuff at Bear.  It's much better with no snowmaking, a lift that only runs once in a blue moon, and a really nice ungroomed skiing surface.  Ditto the natural snow terrain parts of Snowdon.  High speed lifts and snowmaking do not improve the quality of the skiing surface.  Killington already has plenty of McSkiing at Bear, Needles Eye, Superstar, and the Canyon.  Sugarbush was smart enough to replace the Castlerock double with another double.  If I want 100% overgroomed manmade surface at a big sprawling ski area, I can go to Sunday River.  I don't need to reproduce that at Killington.

Stick to Mount Snow.  They have all the overgroomed manmade terrain you'd ever want.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 1, 2009)

Geoff said:


> The beauty of Southridge is that they leave it the hell alone.  It faces east.  If they blow snow on it, groom it daily for the masses, and replace the lift with one that runs 7 days per week, the surface will be just like that gawd-awful porcelain stuff at Bear.  It's much better with no snowmaking, a lift that only runs once in a blue moon, and a really nice ungroomed skiing surface.  Ditto the natural snow terrain parts of Snowdon.  High speed lifts and snowmaking do not improve the quality of the skiing surface.  Killington already has plenty of McSkiing at Bear, Needles Eye, Superstar, and the Canyon.  Sugarbush was smart enough to replace the Castlerock double with another double.  If I want 100% overgroomed manmade surface at a big sprawling ski area, I can go to Sunday River.  I don't need to reproduce that at Killington.
> 
> Stick to Mount Snow.  They have all the overgroomed manmade terrain you'd ever want.


I disagree that replacing the chair at South Ridge will dramatically increase the amount of people that ski it; it's too far out of the way for most people to care about. Look at the Needle's Eye area. No one skis there even though there's a HSQ. And you don't even need to replace the chair entirely, you just need to cut down the upper lift towers to be below the treeline and cut the footrests off the safety bar. Maybe replace the two bull wheels with something with a little larger radius, take some of the whiplash effect away while still maintaining its uniqueness. And let skier's left on Pipe Dream grow in, there's no reason to have the trail that wide when you can't ski half of it, ever.

Snowdon, I think what you need to do is have an HSQ that takes people up where they can access Northstar, Great Bear, and Vagabond, but not so that they're obvious to people immediately after getting off the trail. If you had to traverse half the distance between the two Snowdon chairs now just to get to the top of North Star, you can have the HSQ and keep the 1 day a year crowd away from the goods. Haven't looked at a contour map recently to know if that's possible.


----------



## Stache (Mar 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> +1
> 
> with the right focus, I think it could work.



+1 more

Pico has it's own loyal family base. 
I do believe both ASC and Pwdr draw from it more than they put into it.


----------



## tcharron (Mar 2, 2009)

Stache said:


> +1 more
> 
> Pico has it's own loyal family base.
> I do believe both ASC and Pwdr draw from it more than they put into it.



If they made an interconnect, Pico would cease to exist.  It would simply turn into another peak at Killington.  Aka, Pico tickets are no more, and to ski there, 80$.


----------



## RootDKJ (Mar 2, 2009)

tcharron said:


> If they made an interconnect, Pico would cease to exist.  It would simply turn into another peak at Killington.  Aka, Pico tickets are no more, and to ski there, 80$.


good point


----------



## icedtea (Mar 2, 2009)

tcharron said:


> If they made an interconnect, Pico would cease to exist.  It would simply turn into another peak at Killington.  Aka, Pico tickets are no more, and to ski there, 80$.



You can sell Pico only tickets still. Limit lift access to just Pico with the Pico ticket and maybe Ramshead.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 2, 2009)

icedtea said:


> You can sell Pico only tickets still. Limit lift access to just Pico with the Pico ticket and maybe Ramshead.


On top of that, offer a Killington-only ticket for $5-10 less.

Do the expansion, and you probably get more buying the Pico-only tickets. Spent a day there earlier this year, and while it's a nice place, it doesn't have enough variety to get me to go there more than a couple times per year (if I was a day ticket kind of guy.) I can't imagine a Pico-only pass with Killington down the road. Add a bunch more terrain on the back side of the mountain, and you turn it into something that can hold people's attention a bit more.

I think it all depends on how the interconnect is done. The worst thing to do is fully flush out the side of Ramshead and back of Pico, making one continuous ski area. While it would make Killington marginally better, it would destroy Pico. One or two trails from Ramshead and a decent number on the back of Pico would probably be ok. And make the backside of Pico natural, winding New England trails. I really don't think you need a cruiser boulevard in that area. Killington has far too many of them already.


----------



## icedtea (Mar 2, 2009)

mondeo said:


> On top of that, offer a Killington-only ticket for $5-10 less.
> 
> The worst thing to do is fully flush out the side of Ramshead and back of Pico, making one continuous ski area. While it would make Killington marginally better, it would destroy Pico. One or two trails from Ramshead and a decent number on the back of Pico would probably be ok. *And make the backside of Pico natural, winding New England trails. I really don't think you need a cruiser boulevard in that area. Killington has far too many of them already.*



Right on. The backside of Pico is prime, challenging terrain. A very nice cliff line.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 2, 2009)

Doesn't the back side of Pico face south?  You'd have to have at least a couple of boulevard type trails with significant snowmaking as insurance for bad weather to maintain the interconnect.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 2, 2009)

To answer the original question; no, the interconnect does not interest me.  I wouldn't ski there any more, or less, if it came to be.  Seems to me that it would be a waste of money, I'm sure they could find better things to do with that money.


----------



## icedtea (Mar 2, 2009)

bvibert said:


> To answer the original question; no, the interconnect does not interest me.  I wouldn't ski there any more, or less, if it came to be.  Seems to me that it would be a waste of money, *I'm sure they could find better things to do with that money.*



Do you understand how much great terrain the interconnect would make readily accessible? If they kept most of it natural the costs would be minimal. If the do replace the Snowdon lifts with a HSQ, then you could probably use those lifts for the interconnect. 

Also, a lot of people never do experience Pico. It will expose Pico to additional people. I do not think Pico will get overrun as the gondolas and the tourist attractions are still at K. However, those that do enjoy Pico will think about staying there and skiing there next time. Provided a Pico only pass is available.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 2, 2009)

icedtea said:


> Do you understand how much great terrain the interconnect would make readily accessible?



How much terrain does Killington really need?  I don't think adding terrain would attract enough new business to justify the costs, no matter how small you think they could be.

Additional terrain wouldn't attract me to ski there any more often.


----------



## Geoff (Mar 2, 2009)

Highway Star talked about using surface lifts to do the interconnect on the cheap.  It'd be killer to have nothing but low capacity platter lifts, a few novice connecting trails, and endless tree skiing in that basin.  Slidebrook on steroids.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 2, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Highway Star talked about using surface lifts to do the interconnect on the cheap.  It'd be killer to have nothing but low capacity platter lifts, a few novice connecting trails, and endless tree skiing in that basin.  Slidebrook on steroids.



...a nice dream for sure.  However, don't you think that any investment in that area would be geared towards the 80% segment of the market that drives the revenue.....wealthy folks looking for High Speed Lifts, buffed cordoroy cruisers and terrain parks for their kids?

It would be pretty sweet to put in the type of terrain that you suggest though.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 2, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> ...a nice dream for sure. However, don't you think that any investment in that area would be geared towards the 80% segment of the market that drives the revenue.....wealthy folks looking for High Speed Lifts, buffed cordoroy cruisers and terrain parks for their kids?
> 
> It would be pretty sweet to put in the type of terrain that you suggest though.


Not necessarily. They already have the terrain to attract that 80%, they don't really have the terrain to attract the freeride crowd. Killington is good for groomers and bumps; trees, cliffs, and twisting trails are in relatively short supply. Really aren't many character trails. The segment of the population that are looking for character trails aren't looking at Killington; make Pico's back side gnarly terrain and you keep more than enough terrain for the one weekend a month crowd, keep the character of Pico intact by keeping the groomer segment away, and attract more of the Castlerock/MRG seeking crowd. Plus you can still market the increased vastness of the newly combined area, it's not like that 80% segment ever ski the good trails anyways.

About the southern exposure...details, details. Probably need a trail or two with snowmaking and that are groomable, but you don't need them to be super wide.

And with the interconnect, you can pull of the Carinthia thing and turn the front side of Pico into a terrain park-only mountain! :flame:


----------



## icedtea (Mar 2, 2009)

bvibert said:


> *How much terrain does Killington really need?*  I don't think adding terrain would attract enough new business to justify the costs, no matter how small you think they could be.
> 
> Additional terrain wouldn't* attract me *to ski there any more often.




The more terrain the better. We go back there anyway, it would be nice to have a lift there. 
No one cares if it would attract you, it seems you have a chip on your shoulder about the Mighty K. 

If you do not like terrain with tight woods, cliffs, and steeps then Killington is not for you. Which is a shame, you being from CT it is a relatively short drive.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 2, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Not necessarily. They already have the terrain to attract that 80%, they don't really have the terrain to attract the freeride crowd. Killington is good for groomers and bumps; trees, cliffs, and twisting trails are in relatively short supply. Really aren't many character trails. The segment of the population that are looking for character trails aren't looking at Killington; make Pico's back side gnarly terrain and you keep more than enough terrain for the one weekend a month crowd, keep the character of Pico intact by keeping the groomer segment away, and attract more of the Castlerock/MRG seeking crowd. Plus you can still market the increased vastness of the newly combined area, it's not like that 80% segment ever ski the good trails anyways.
> 
> About the southern exposure...details, details. Probably need a trail or two with snowmaking and that are groomable, but you don't need them to be super wide.
> 
> And with the interconnect, you can pull of the Carinthia thing and turn the front side of Pico into a terrain park-only mountain! :flame:




I would tend to agree with you.....if you were right!  :razz:

The one thing Killington lacks is good groomed, cruising intermediate terrain.  The Okemo's and Stratton's of the world are far better mountains for that kind of terrain.  The people who tend to buy the real estate, the real estate being what funds the terrain projects, tend to dig that Slowkemo/Flatton type of terrain.

Without having intimate knowledge of the topography of that terrain, my guess is that any type of expansion in that area would be geared towards addressing their short comings in providing solid intermediate terrain.


----------



## sLoPeS (Mar 2, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Not necessarily. They already have the terrain to attract that 80%, they don't really have the terrain to attract the freeride crowd. Killington is good for groomers and bumps; trees, cliffs, and twisting trails are in relatively short supply. Really aren't many character trails. The segment of the population that are looking for character trails aren't looking at Killington; make Pico's back side gnarly terrain and you keep more than enough terrain for the one weekend a month crowd, keep the character of Pico intact by keeping the groomer segment away, and attract more of the Castlerock/MRG seeking crowd. Plus you can still market the increased vastness of the newly combined area, it's not like that 80% segment ever ski the good trails anyways.
> 
> About the southern exposure...details, details. Probably need a trail or two with snowmaking and that are groomable, but you don't need them to be super wide.
> 
> And with the interconnect, you can pull of the Carinthia thing and turn the front side of Pico into a terrain park-only mountain! :flame:



i dont really follow u here.  K is good for the groomers and bumps only?  well yes, bumps but groomers???  if i skied mostly groomers, id stop driving and go to okemo.  Killington has maybe a handful of "quality groomers" and thats on a good day....mid week.  not enough trees and cliffs???  uve got to be kidding me.  theres stuff out there that will make u wet ur pants.  go explore a little bit or tag along with a local.  theres nothign really mrg/castelrock in between rams and pico.  some drops for sure, but it is would be mostly intermediate terrain.  as for the southern exposure, i dont think it is too much of a problem since all most all of that terrain is pretty high (above 3000').  just the main connecting trails would kinda need snowmaking for those lean years.  im not touching that carinthia talk wiht a 50 foot pole.  we lost enough of bear as it is....speaking of great crusing terrain way to kill dream maker.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 2, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> The one thing Killington lacks is good groomed, cruising intermediate terrain. The Okemo's and Stratton's of the world are far better mountains for that kind of terrain. The people who tend to buy the real estate, the real estate being what funds the terrain projects, tend to dig that Slowkemo/Flatton type of terrain.


Hmm, I suppose you're right. I guess 10 cruisers over 7 mountains seems like more than enough for me, but not for most. I sorta lump all the groomers together, which makes a lot more terrain seem attractive to intermediate skiers than really is.

I maintain my statement that Killington is good for groomers and bumps, though. It's just that their groomers tend to be on the steep side.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 2, 2009)

icedtea said:


> The more terrain the better. We go back there anyway, it would be nice to have a lift there.
> No one cares if it would attract you, it seems you have a chip on your shoulder about the Mighty K.
> 
> If you do not like terrain with tight woods, cliffs, and steeps then Killington is not for you. Which is a shame, you being from CT it is a relatively short drive.



Actually I believe the question posed was that if the interconnect would make me more likely to ski there more, the answer is no.  If you guys ski in there anyway then why the hell would you want to attract more people to the area??

I have no chip on my shoulder for k-mart, I just don't usually get to ski there.  I find plenty of options that fit my preferences just as well, and are closer.  Killington is right on the edge of being a day trip for me and if I'm going to do an overnight I'd rather drive the extra distance to the MRV.  I don't need a giant super mountain to have fun while skiing.


----------



## icedtea (Mar 2, 2009)

bvibert said:


> Actually I believe the question posed was that if the interconnect would make me more likely to ski there more, the answer is no.  If you guys ski in there anyway then why the hell would you want to attract more people to the area??
> 
> I have no chip on my shoulder for k-mart, I just don't usually get to ski there.  I find plenty of options that fit my preferences just as well, and are closer.  Killington is right on the edge of being a day trip for me and if I'm going to do an overnight I'd rather drive the extra distance to the MRV.  I don't need a giant super mountain to have fun while skiing.



I hear ya, I think that the interconnect would do a lot of good though for the whole area. I do not need a super giant mountain either to have fun, but spending a whole season at K, it is great to have many different options available

I never had a chance to ride at MRG, I hear it is great from skier friends. May have to do the drive / poach one day.


----------



## Talisman (Mar 2, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> ...a nice dream for sure.  However, don't you think that any investment in that area would be geared towards the 80% segment of the market that drives the revenue.....wealthy folks looking for High Speed Lifts, buffed cordoroy cruisers and terrain parks for their kids?
> 
> It would be pretty sweet to put in the type of terrain that you suggest though.




Northstar at Tahoe which is the epitome of catering to "wealthy folks looking for High Speed Lifts, buffed cordoroy cruisers and terrain parks for their kids" has a Poma lift to access 'Look Out Mtn' which has a big pod of steep terrain.  The Poma seems to weed out most who ski at Northstar making that area lonely even on weekends.  

I know there are folks who sniff at Northstar being "Flatstar", but better to ski deep powder at Look Ouut Mtn on a windy day than waiting in huge lines to ski Red Dog at Squaw.

I would like to see an Killington/Pico interconnect.  Ideally done on the cheap al a Slidebook & Castlerock at the Bush, the 'back side' smowfields at the Loaf or Beyond Beaver Pond Glades at Jay.


----------



## Geoff (Mar 2, 2009)

Where is this "south-facing" thing coming from?  The two drainage areas down the ridge line between Pico and Rams Head on either side of Little Pico face northeast.  They're both somewhat more north-facing than the Rams Head lift or the Bear Quad.  The top of the pipeline trail points east.  It's the same sun exposure as Pipe Dream or Fiddle but much higher elevation.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 2, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Where is this "south-facing" thing coming from?  The two drainage areas down the ridge line between Pico and Rams Head on either side of Little Pico face northeast.  They're both somewhat more north-facing than the Rams Head lift or the Bear Quad.  The top of the pipeline trail points east.  It's the same sun exposure as Pipe Dream or Fiddle but much higher elevation.



Guess, I'm making a bad assumption.  I thought the front face trails of Pico were oriented Northeast, so I assumed that the interconnecting trails would run off skiers right of Summit Glade and have a south eastern exposure.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 2, 2009)

sLoPeS said:


> i dont really follow u here. K is good for the groomers and bumps only? well yes, bumps but groomers??? if i skied mostly groomers, id stop driving and go to okemo. Killington has maybe a handful of "quality groomers" and thats on a good day....mid week. not enough trees and cliffs??? uve got to be kidding me. theres stuff out there that will make u wet ur pants. go explore a little bit or tag along with a local. theres nothign really mrg/castelrock in between rams and pico. some drops for sure, but it is would be mostly intermediate terrain. as for the southern exposure, i dont think it is too much of a problem since all most all of that terrain is pretty high (above 3000'). just the main connecting trails would kinda need snowmaking for those lean years. im not touching that carinthia talk wiht a 50 foot pole. we lost enough of bear as it is....speaking of great crusing terrain way to kill dream maker.


But how much of the trees and cliffs/drops are actual trails? Only on-map cliffs I know of are on the Fiddle, and under the Skye quad (though those aren't even technically on-map, just an obvious poach.) I do need to tag along with someone that knows the off map stuff some, but I'll do that after I get better at trees and after I've come a bit further on the learning curve for bumps.

Carinthia, I sorta like the idea of segregating all the terrain stuff, think it's best for everybody. But at the same time, I'm not sure where I'd want them to put it. Only part of the place I wouldn't miss is Ramshead, but you need that as the family mountain.


----------



## sLoPeS (Mar 2, 2009)

mondeo said:


> But how much of the trees and cliffs/drops are actual trails? Only on-map cliffs I know of are on the Fiddle, and under the Skye quad (though those aren't even technically on-map, just an obvious poach.) I do need to tag along with someone that knows the off map stuff some, but I'll do that after I get better at trees and after I've come a bit further on the learning curve for bumps.
> 
> Carinthia, I sorta like the idea of segregating all the terrain stuff, think it's best for everybody. But at the same time, I'm not sure where I'd want them to put it. Only part of the place I wouldn't miss is Ramshead, but you need that as the family mountain.



there is a fair amount of gnar in the boundaries.  go ski bear all day and ull find plenty of stuff to jump off of (fiddle, centerpiece, growler, skye peak liftline).  yes, a lot of the good stuff is not so obvious, but its out there.  thats kinda how it is at every resort right???........id think Area 51 at the mighty sundown is in game now.  :grin:


----------



## tcharron (Mar 2, 2009)

mondeo said:


> And with the interconnect, you can pull of the Carinthia thing and turn the front side of Pico into a terrain park-only mountain! :flame:



  Now THAT might make it an intersting buisness proposition..  However, as I said before, it'd be the death of Pico.


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 2, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Not necessarily. They already have the terrain to attract that 80%, they don't really have the terrain to attract the freeride crowd. Killington is good for groomers and bumps; trees, cliffs, and twisting trails are in relatively short supply. Really aren't many character trails. The segment of the population that are looking for character trails aren't looking at Killington; make Pico's back side gnarly terrain and you keep more than enough terrain for the one weekend a month crowd, keep the character of Pico intact by keeping the groomer segment away, and attract more of the Castlerock/MRG seeking crowd. Plus you can still market the increased vastness of the newly combined area, it's not like that 80% segment ever ski the good trails anyways.
> 
> About the southern exposure...details, details. Probably need a trail or two with snowmaking and that are groomable, but you don't need them to be super wide.
> 
> And with the interconnect, you can pull of the Carinthia thing and turn the front side of Pico into a terrain park-only mountain! :flame:



I nominate mondeo as most ill-informed killington skier ever.....


----------



## tcharron (Mar 2, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> I nominate mondeo as most ill-informed killington skier ever.....



How is his opinion ill informed, exactly?


----------



## Newpylong (Mar 2, 2009)

Geoff said:


> The beauty of Southridge is that they leave it the hell alone.  It faces east.  If they blow snow on it, groom it daily for the masses, and replace the lift with one that runs 7 days per week, the surface will be just like that gawd-awful porcelain stuff at Bear.  It's much better with no snowmaking, a lift that only runs once in a blue moon, and a really nice ungroomed skiing surface.  Ditto the natural snow terrain parts of Snowdon.  High speed lifts and snowmaking do not improve the quality of the skiing surface.  Killington already has plenty of McSkiing at Bear, Needles Eye, Superstar, and the Canyon.  Sugarbush was smart enough to replace the Castlerock double with another double.  If I want 100% overgroomed manmade surface at a big sprawling ski area, I can go to Sunday River.  I don't need to reproduce that at Killington.
> 
> Stick to Mount Snow.  They have all the overgroomed manmade terrain you'd ever want.




I didn't mention replacing the South Ridge lift at all - just using the pipes already there but broken on Lower Pipe Dream - the same goes for Valley Plunge. Neither of which, if snow was made - probably would ever see a groomer.

You make some very bold assumptions that this or that is going to produce more "McSkiing" and destroy the place.


----------



## icedtea (Mar 2, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> I nominate mondeo as most ill-informed killington skier ever.....



:flag:


----------



## thorski (Mar 2, 2009)

All for the interconnect.   How can expanding terrain be a bad thing?


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 2, 2009)

thorski said:


> All for the interconnect.   How can expanding terrain be a bad thing?



I'm an expansion whore myself, but Pico is a very unique area in and of itself.  I could see how the Pico loyalist might be upset by the connection.  

Though less extreme, it would be like connecting MRG to Sugarbush.  Sure it would be awesome, but MRG would be MRG no more.


----------



## thorski (Mar 2, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm an expansion whore myself, but Pico is a very unique area in and of itself.  I could see how the Pico loyalist might be upset by the connection.
> 
> Though less extreme, it would be like connecting MRG to Sugarbush.  Sure it would be awesome, but MRG would be MRG no more.



I think MRG and sugarbush are a different issue due to the fact that MRG keeps the knuckledraggers out, and this makes MRG seem like your stepping back in time when your there. 
How do the people who own condos at pico feel? How would the interconnect effect property value? 
Expansion is the american way-Bigger is better.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Mar 2, 2009)

If the base village needs to be built before the inter-connect I would say your looking at more than "5" years down the road for the inter-connect and the new lift pod. From what I understand the new trails between the two mountains would access some awesome terrain. 

You could offer a Pico only ticket for the familes and other folks who just want to ski ski Pico and an all-mountain ticket for both. Hard to predict but I don't think it will change Pico all that much as most with an all-mountain will ski kmart especially since there will be a new fancy base village there.


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 3, 2009)

ski_resort_observer said:


> If the base village needs to be built before the inter-connect I would say your looking at more than "5" years down the road for the inter-connect and the new lift pod. From what I understand the new trails between the two mountains would access some awesome terrain.
> 
> You could offer a Pico only ticket for the familes and other folks who just want to ski ski Pico and an all-mountain ticket for both. Hard to predict but I don't think it will change Pico all that much as most with an all-mountain will ski kmart especially since there will be a new fancy base village there.



Originally, they were both supposed to be built together, in phases.

At this point, they are very hard pressed to justify a village.  IMHO, they are well served by building an interconnect first, even if it is just a traverse off Rams Head and one lift on Pico's southeast shoulder, with natural snow.  More than enough natural snow to support green trails at that elevation for the peak season, and it's just one lift.


----------



## RENO (Mar 4, 2009)

They need a major selling point for the village and the biggest and best idea is the Interconnect!  Snowmaking, new lifts, etc... are great and I'm all for spending most of the money on snowmaking (don't really care about the village that much), but I can't see anything else that's gonna get people to buy property in the new village unless you're gonna give them something big to bring them in like the Interconnect. I can't imagine Pico surviving without it either. POWDR is just not gonna pour money into Pico at anything comparable to Killington. Especially in this economy. If it's put on the selling block, who's gonna buy it right now? I also don't believe that Pico will be destroyed by connecting it with K. :???: That's ridiculous. :lol:


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 4, 2009)

RENO said:


> They need a major selling point for the village and the biggest and best idea is the Interconnect!  Snowmaking, new lifts, etc... are great and I'm all for spending most of the money on snowmaking (don't really care about the village that much), but I can't see anything else that's gonna get people to buy property in the new village unless you're gonna give them something big to bring them in like the Interconnect. I can't imagine Pico surviving without it either. POWDR is just not gonna pour money into Pico at anything comparable to Killington. Especially in this economy. If it's put on the selling block, who's gonna buy it right now? I also don't believe that Pico will be destroyed by connecting it with K. :???: That's ridiculous. :lol:



I have to agree (omg), but as I say above there's nothing stopping them from installing one lift on Pico side and a traverse off Ramshead.  The traverse would be very similar to existing natural snow beginner runs like Solitude, and probably not even as flat as Carpenter's Run out of Needles eye.  Make it just wide enough to get a snowcat down it.  The lift on the pico side would be a standard fixed grip quad, about 1000ft of vert. This can be done new for about $1m or so, and used for much cheaper....but new would probably be better if there was to be more expansion.  There is more than enough natural snw to support traverses in this area, and there could be some narrow natural snow trails and glades cut.

Later on, snowmaking could be added, and a new lift to the side of Rams head or to the top of rams head, etc, etc.

It makes no sense to try to do 2 lifts (one HSQ) and 100+ acres of trails with snowmaking in one season.....


----------



## RENO (Mar 4, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> I have to agree (omg)


What is this world coming too! :lol:
Anarchy...


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 4, 2009)

the interconnect will get done....eventually.  of course, that might be in 20 years or so.

it;s like the 2nd ave subway project here in NYC.  Makes sense to some degree, hope it doesn;t bankrupt you in the process, someone will gain fabulously when it;s complete if you are willing to gut it out but probably just not those who are currently affected.

Ultimately, it comes down to available money-something we know is in short supply.  maybe Powder corp has the power to levy some sort of assessment on Pico condo owners?  Maybe they can get some stimulus money for capital improvements......you know, to provide construction jobs?  Considering it was a good snow year, did they actually make money this season?  Good snow supposedly trumps bad economy.


----------



## tcharron (Mar 4, 2009)

RENO said:


> What is this world coming too! :lol:
> Anarchy...



I'm sure he's just prepping us for some other massive disagreement.  Such as, how 1 million dollars is a small amount of money.  :-D


----------



## Rogman (Mar 5, 2009)

In simple terms, the Interconnect will be good for Killington (more terrain), bad for Pico (more masses). It will drastically change the traffic patterns, since it will provide a Western entrance for day trippers, saving 15 minutes over the top of Sherbourne pass and up the access road. Incremental steps on the Interconnect won't happen; they will need to maximize buzz to sell the village units.


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 5, 2009)

Rogman said:


> Incremental steps on the Interconnect won't happen; they will need to maximize buzz to sell the village units.



I'm not sure I buy that....given the current skier visit levels, is the town going to approve a village when there are already so many empty beds?  They need to start driving visits back up first, IMHO, by building the interconnect or at least starting it. They aren't going to get skier visits to increase by 30-40% in one year.

With the Village real estate, they want to sell in a strong market with high prices.  While the greater market may have recovered by the time these units go on sale, what are the local factors?  Even before the recent housing market colapse, Killington was flooded with properties going at low prices, due to the neglect under ASC and the lack of demand.  Demand (skier visits) has not improved, though the skiing experence has.....somewhat.  

Even with a strong economic recovery, Killington is going to have to work VERY hard to get to a point where people are ready to pay premium prices for real estate in a village.....say 5 years down the road.  Frankly, I'm shocked that the SP Land's moneymen (E2M) aren't putting big money into the place.  If they kiced in...$10M a year for the next 5 years, they would probably make it all back in profits once units went on sale.

Optimally, they want play the interconnect card correctly.  They are doing it wrong right now, by saying "it's at least 5 years out and probably never unless you approve our Village".......BS.  Probably means never, Village or not.   What they SHOULD do, is time the construction of the interconnect so that it is open shortly before the Village realestate goes on sale....so 1 season before hand.  That will signifigantly drive presale hype and draw in buyers.  Agreeing to build the interconnect will also satisfy the town that they are bringing in more skiers to fill those new beds.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 5, 2009)

I'm wondering what POWR's ratio is in terms of skier visits gained for them to do the interconnect.  My guess is 100K minimum to get a proper return on not only the investment, but the added overhead of running the lifts in that area and opening Pico back up midweek.  

I'm not certain the interconnect would generate 100K more visits; perhaps the first year or two it's open, but no sustainably long term.  I just don't view Killington size as being the same competitive advantage as it once was.  All of the competition has come so far since the 80's and early 90's when that was a big advantage for them.


----------



## Highway Star (Mar 9, 2009)

Any word on Killington improvements for next year?  SpinmasterK???


----------



## icedtea (Mar 9, 2009)

Do not go on Wheelerville unless you have a 4WD. MUD SEASON GOING ON!

Does not get super bad until you get passed Brewer's Corner.


----------



## duncanH (Dec 7, 2010)

this is a great thread as a newer skier at killington.  I was reading the history of killington this past weekend, the fact that asc gave up 3000 acres and a potential back bowl in the east for this area and the village, I hope something gets done with it.   it's a shame that the former governor and all the environmental groups stopped pres smith from creating something that would have been so great on the east coast , instead we need to travel west to get any such riding


----------

