USSA Proposes World Cup At Killington - Page 49

AlpineZone

Page 49 of 52 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 513
  1. #481
    Smellytele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Right where I want to be
    Posts
    6,428
    Quote Originally Posted by cdskier View Post
    Of course all that said, I'm still in the camp that doesn't want to see the two areas connected and think Pico is great kept separately (as long as it is financially viable to keep it separate).
    My thought is would it make them any more money connecting them? They got the right away for water up and over it and that is what they really wanted. The interconnect is really secondary for them.
    2010/11 - 30days 2011/12 - 29days 2012/13 - 40 days 2013/14 - 39 days 2014/15 - 42 days
    2015/2016 -27 days 2016/17 - 51 days 2017/18 - 57 days

  2. #482
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    26,769
    Quote Originally Posted by skiur View Post
    Actually, if you parked at k1 or ramshead (where majority of people begin their day) you would only have to take 1 or 2 lifts, not 7.
    Exactly. That was the plan. It is not a bad idea--especially for using Pico as a gateway for folks TO Killington to save traffic going up the Access Road.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  3. #483
    Quote Originally Posted by Smellytele View Post
    My thought is would it make them any more money connecting them? They got the right away for water up and over it and that is what they really wanted. The interconnect is really secondary for them.
    That's an interesting way to look at it and I really don't know that it would bring in any more money. On the one hand you could market yourself as a single bigger resort (although at their current size would it really make much difference), but on the other hand you could also potentially lose some people that ski Pico specifically because it is is separate and is not Killington. I agree it is definitely secondary for them and I don't know that it would bring much added value at this point.

  4. #484
    Quote Originally Posted by skiur View Post
    Actually, if you parked at k1 or ramshead (where majority of people begin their day) you would only have to take 1 or 2 lifts, not 7.
    Quote Originally Posted by thetrailboss View Post
    Exactly. That was the plan. It is not a bad idea--especially for using Pico as a gateway for folks TO Killington to save traffic going up the Access Road.
    Even if you parked at Bear or Skyeship you could probably make it in about 3 lifts, although like you both said that really isn't the target audience.

  5. #485
    I'm pro-interconnect. I think it has to happen in order for Pico to receive any investment. The place hasn't received any new lift since 1988 and went bankrupt in the 90s. It's essentially frozen in time without enough business to warrant improvements. The base village is aging, Outpost is one of the oldest lifts in the East, and the 2 HSQ's are going to need replacement in the next 10 years. I love the mountain when it's all-open but snowmaking is minuscule, and during the week not running Little Pico or Outpost really limit the available terrain. For the place to see any $$$ thrown at it and to improve operations I think it has to get connected to Killington.

    As for the Killington side of things the marketing potential is huge. The resort would become something like 1,300 acres. Every stat would be untouchable by Eastern standards. You would have a resort that you truly could not ski in one day...meaning more overnight stays and more $$$ spent by guests.
    2017-2018 80 Days and counting...
    Thunder Ridge: 12/16, 12/17, 12/26, 12/27, 12/28, 12/29, 12/30, 1/1, 1/6, 1/7, 1/13, 1/14, 1/15, 1/20, 1/21, 1/27, 1/28, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, 2/10, 2/16, 2/17, 2/18, 2/19, 2/21, 2/23, 2/24, 2/25, 3/3, 3/4, 3/10, 3/11, 3/18, 3/21
    Killington: 12/1, 12/13, 1/2, 1/5, 3/17, 3/23, 3/24, 3/25, 3/30, 4/8
    Mount Snow: 11/12, 12/8, 12/10, 12/18 Stratton: 11/22, 12/14, 2/9, 3/9 Okemo: 12/21, 1/3, 3/31, 4/6
    Sugarbush: 12/20, 3/12, 3/15, 3/16 Windham: 1/16, 2/7, 3/7 Pico: 12/15, 3/18 Bretton Woods: 1/10, 1/11
    Wachusett: 12/9 Cannon: 12/19 Jiminy Peak: 12/22 Magic: 1/4, 4/7 Mohawk: 1/8 Sunapee: 1/9 Catamount: 1/19 Mountain Creek: 1/26 Belleayre: 3/2 Mad River Glen: 3/13 Stowe: 3/14
    "Skiing is the closest you'll get to flying without leaving the ground." -snowmonster

  6. #486

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Barto, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,244
    I don't think that proposed interconnect is going to be like sugarbush, but will have two new ski pods with 2 additional lifts. So controlling access via a lift gates wouldn't be possible.

  7. #487
    Smellytele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Right where I want to be
    Posts
    6,428
    You're probably right looking at this:

    2010/11 - 30days 2011/12 - 29days 2012/13 - 40 days 2013/14 - 39 days 2014/15 - 42 days
    2015/2016 -27 days 2016/17 - 51 days 2017/18 - 57 days

  8. #488
    Quote Originally Posted by mbedle View Post
    I don't think that proposed interconnect is going to be like sugarbush, but will have two new ski pods with 2 additional lifts. So controlling access via a lift gates wouldn't be possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Smellytele View Post
    You're probably right looking at this:

    Hmm. I wouldn't say it is impossible even in that configuration. You could always put an access gate going to the K side right at that intersection in the middle even without a lift directly between K and Pico. An access gate doesn't need to actually be by a lift. Or simply a sign warning people that beyond this point you must have a full K ticket in order to access lifts on that side.

    Of course we're getting way ahead of ourselves as even if they did put in an interconnect, the final design could be different than what they originally proposed years ago. And they could always decide to eliminate the Pico only reduced rates and just make it only one single K rate (I don't see this as a good option though as it would certainly make some people unhappy).

  9. #489
    That map gets me reminiscing about the original slide brook plan at Sugarbush. Multiple trail pods and a base area all along the ridge...would have rivaled K for biggest area in the East... <Homer Drool>


  10. #490
    Quote Originally Posted by tumbler View Post
    That map gets me reminiscing about the original slide brook plan at Sugarbush. Multiple trail pods and a base area all along the ridge...would have rivaled K for biggest area in the East... <Homer Drool>
    Killington may have a chance at those pods, but Sugarbush slidebrook pods are off the table. Even their most recent ubber aggressive master plan didn't touch slidebrook. IIRC, there was some deal/swap made so it can't be done.
    2017/18 = 37
    2016/17 = 31
    2015/16 = Depressing
    2014/15 = 28
    2013/14 = 27

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 PM.