Killington-Pico Interconnect...

[icedtea]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

How is his opinion ill informed, exactly?

 

[Newpylong]

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.