Resort Improvements 2015

deadheadskier · Jun 29, 2015

I'm guessing wind holds is the answer to both of those questions. By breaking the mountain up into Upper and Lower areas, they can still offer a decent amount of terrain when the summits are closed due to wind. The topography at Sugarbush lends itself very well to be a "pod" type mountain. I'm not a fan of the run outs at either North or South, so seldom do I ski the mountain top to bottom.

steamboat1 · Jun 29, 2015

mbedle said:
Wonder why Sugarbush is done with base to summit lifts. Seems to be a little short sighted on their part. Would think a base to summit at mount ellen would be pretty nice. Also wondering why the got rid of the gondola in the first place, other than it was pretty old.

Mt. Ellen already has pretty close to a base to summit lift in the North Ridge Express. You miss having to ski the run out to the bottom every run which is a good thing. Only downside is it doesn't go all the way to the peak so you have to use the Summit quad to access Black Diamond & upper FIS. Everything else is accessible from the NRE. I think it's a pretty good set up. Only thing I'd like to see is a lift & trail expansion in the area of lower FIS. It's a great trail but a bitch to hike out of.

My understanding is the top gondola terminal was hit by lightning & burned. That's why they got rid of the gondola at Lincoln Peak. Only thing I'd like to see there is either a new Heavens Gate lift that goes a tad higher eliminating the need to climb the hill to get to Organgrinder & Jester or do something at the top of the present lift to eliminate what I call herring bone hill.

Jully · Jun 29, 2015

I believe when the gondola was removed Sugarbush agreed in a deal with the forest service to not have a lift terminate any higher than the current Heavens Gate chair

steamboat1 · Jun 29, 2015

Jully said:
I believe when the gondola was removed Sugarbush agreed in a deal with the forest service to not have a lift terminate any higher than the current Heavens Gate chair

Perhaps some regrading would solve the problem. In fact I think Win said he would try to do just that in one of the AZ questions a couple of years ago. I haven't noticed any change.

Jully · Jun 29, 2015

Regrading would totally work and I think I remember hearing that Win did want to do that a few years back. I doubt it's against whatever agreement they have with the forest service.

Maybe that will be addressed this upcoming season after completing valley house/ the regrading of the traverse.

steamboat1 · Jun 29, 2015

Found Wins answer:

Win: This would be challenging because it would likely require blasting and impacting the ridgeline environment which would be difficult to get approved. However, we can do a better job of making more snow there and pushing it around to make the grade better up to Organgrinder and Jester.

benski · Jun 29, 2015

Another problem with a top to bottom at lp it would create a lot of traffic on upper jester and lower downspout. Upper jester already is near capacity. As for mt Ellen north ridge is top to bottom for people who see the runout as a pain in the neck and assume anything hire up is icy on normal day.

Summit and gmx could be combined into one gondola with a mid station. You could also do the same with north Lynx and gatehouse. I would prefer they leave it the way it is and focus on more trails and lifts from now on unless north ridge becomes a problem next year.

Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

dlague · Jun 29, 2015

I read much of what is being discuss regarding Sugarbush and T2B lift. I personally like their setup since it is very POD driven. the only lift combo that sucks IMO is the Gate House to North Lynx. I know some will argue they they are not true PODS so for me they are since it allows me to ski sections at a time. I also think that it prevents some run from getting tracked out or crapped off early. As mentioned earlier Upper Jester would worse than it is now. When it is cold, only the hardcore ski Heaven's Gate and preserves those runs.

thetrailboss · Jun 29, 2015

Re: Sugarbush

As folks have said--wind, cost, traffic issues, etc. are reasons NOT to have a top-to-bottom lift. If you think about it, most ski areas actually DON'T have a single top-to-bottom lift in order to spread out traffic and to allow folks to ski "more" of the mountain. A lot of skiers are not like us...and don't want to ski one big long run.

cdskier · Jun 29, 2015

I too love Sugarbush's lift setup the way it is. I'm not a fan of top to bottom lifts in general. I much prefer that the mountain be split up into separate pods as it is today. As for the top of Heaven's Gate, there's always cutting through the woods to get to OG if you don't want to make that short hike up to the OG headwall. Perhaps sometime in the future I'd like to see more trails at SB (I saw some crazy studies and plans done years ago on different possibilities for expansions). Right now I'm pretty happy with the on-mountain status once the VH lift replacement is complete. I could do without them building any more of those high end slopeside developments though like Gadd Brook...

deadheadskier · Jun 29, 2015

Kind of a catch 22 situation at Sugarbush. You need the real estate developments to finance new lifts, snowmaking and trail expansion. Part of the reason why I love Wildcat and Cannon so much is there's no slope side development, so I get what you're saying. Well there is at Mittersill, but it's not in the same vain as most 2000 vert ski areas in the East. The penalty for not having that bed base and income from the sales of the real estate is older equipment at those areas.

I'd trade some condos for a lift and trails down lower FIS and up above Inverness.

cdskier · Jun 29, 2015

Actually right now I think the profits from sales of the new condos are still going to pay back a number of EB-5 investors from a number of years ago. So not really going to help fund anything new on the mountain directly, but it is still obviously an obligation that SB has to pay off so from that perspective I don't blame them for building new condos. Doesn't mean I have to like it though

The full build out plans for all the new condos they eventually wanted to build are in the ACT 250 submissions somewhere. I saw them a couple weeks ago. If they get to build all those out, it definitely makes the mountain too "upscale" for my tastes. I'd love to see more "affordable" condos built that a more normal person could afford (although I realize that's not likely to happen as that simply isn't profitable).

steamboat1 · Jun 30, 2015

They can build all the condo's they want. Just leave me somewhere to park within a reasonable distance & run the lifts. Not asking for much. I'm a simple guy.

Time to buy a condo at the Bush was 93/94 before ASC came in. Practically were giving them away. Kick myself in the ass for not doing it at the time. Place was bankrupt.

steamboat1 · Jun 30, 2015

thetrailboss said:
Re: Sugarbush

As folks have said--wind, cost, traffic issues, etc. are reasons NOT to have a top-to-bottom lift. If you think about it, most ski areas actually DON'T have a single top-to-bottom lift in order to spread out traffic and to allow folks to ski "more" of the mountain. A lot of skiers are not like us...and don't want to ski one big long run.

You're kidding me right? Most mountains do have top to bottom lifts in VT.. Mountains that don't are in the minority.

Even your beloved Snowbird has a top to bottom lift.

Lets see in VT: Mt. Snow, Stratton, Bromley, Magic, Killington, Middlebury, Mad River, Bolton, Stowe, Smuggs & Jay. How many do not? Okemo, Pico, Sugarbush, Burke. Heritage is a wash with Plymouth Notch. What's that leave, Cochrans? Even Suicide Six & Queechie are top to bottom.

If we go NELSAP there were even more.

bigbob · Jun 30, 2015

Stemie, show me where Killington currently has a top to bottom lift. Killington had a top to bottom, I am talking the base of Skyship to the peak, the first gondola.

steamboat1 · Jun 30, 2015

bigbob said:
Stemie, show me where Killington currently has a top to bottom lift. Killington had a top to bottom, I am talking the base of Skyship to the peak, the first gondola.

I don't consider Skyeship the base. It's only open 3 months a year tops. Base areas at Killington are K-1, Snowdon, Ramshead all which have top to bottom lifts.Yes I know Ramshead doesn't go to the top anymore. Neither do any of the lifts at Stowe. Still top to bottom in my book. When Killington opens early season when do you consider them to have top to bottom skiing? When they open to K-1 base or when they open to Rt.4? If it's the latter K doesn't have T2B skiing until mid January.

slatham · Jun 30, 2015

I don't view Killington as having a base to summit lift. Also, Sugarbush is 2 distinct mountains, neither with base to summit.

So I think its more evenly split, especially when you look at the larger mountains.

HowieT2 · Jun 30, 2015

I'm a big fan of the pod setup at SB. for the most part, I only take a base lift once in the morning and once after lunch. The upper mtn lift setup lets me do laps thereby avoiding the run outs and lift lines. also has a tendency to keep those less skilled off the more advanced terrain.
as for the shuffle up from the heavens gate, as previously mentioned, there is a a short cut through the woods to get to organgrinder just below the lift shack that obviates the need to go up.

VTKilarney · Jun 30, 2015

steamboat1 said:
They can build all the condo's they want. Just leave me somewhere to park within a reasonable distance & run the lifts. Not asking for much. I'm a simple guy.

Time to buy a condo at the Bush was 93/94 before ASC came in. Practically were giving them away. Kick myself in the ass for not doing it at the time. Place was bankrupt.

I had an opportunity to buy one around that time fir DIRT cheap. I'm kicking myself for not doing it.

.

dlague · Jun 30, 2015

My uncle along with, my dad, brother-in-law and myself tried to bid 500,000 for 20 units during the Burke Foreclosure in the 1990's and were unsuccessful. My uncle wanted to bid $25,000 for each which probably would have sealed the deal. Hind sight is always 20/20.

Resort Improvements 2015

Moderator

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Similar threads