Most Disliked Lifts

[Smellytele]

They've been saying this since they bought Pico. I'll believe it when I see it. Personally, I don't want to see it. I prefer Pico as it's own separate area.

+1

 

[thetrailboss]

They've been saying this since they bought Pico. I'll believe it when I see it. Personally, I don't want to see it. I prefer Pico as it's own separate area.

I think it is inevitable. But it hasn't happened in now almost 20 years. If it does I wonder if Pico will become just a parking lot for folks going to Killington from Rutland-side.

 

[steamboat1]

The Morse mountain chairs serving the beginner terrain at Smuggs is pretty old & slow.

Talking about K is old too.

 

[deadheadskier]

I think it is inevitable. But it hasn't happened in now almost 20 years. If it does I wonder if Pico will become just a parking lot for folks going to Killington from Rutland-side.

Well, there's a couple of issues with that.

1. The parking lot at Pico is quite small and there isn't a lot of real estate available to expand parking.

2. Think about the work it would take to get over to Killington. You'd need to take the Golden Express to the Pike Express and ski the long ass traverse that's already been cut and head down to Ramshead base. Up the Ramshead Quad and then ski some not so great terrain down to the base of K Peak, then up the Gondola to get to the summit. Without lift lines, it would probably take over an hour just to get from the base of Pico to the summit of Killington. On a weekend day with lift lines? Probably more like two hours.

Now, if there was some exciting lift and trail developments in between K and Pico, then I could see the plan of parking at Pico having some merit as there would be some worthwhile skiing to be had as you worked your way across the ridge instead of just riding lifts and skiing connector trails.

This plan has been around for some time; looks to be like some good terrain in there. The vertical is a little short though.

I question the ROI on such a large scale project though. From the looks of it, there's two lifts and ten trails incorporated in there. Even if you went with lower cost fixed grip lifts; what's that going to cost on the cheap factoring trail clearing, running snowmaking pipe and probably having to have some sort of new compressor and pump station because it's so far from their current snowmaking plant? $15 million bucks conservatively? You would have to see a fairly significant increase in annual skier visits for it to be worth it to build and operate. It certainly won't sell many new condos to make the money back.

Maybe Cannobie#1 is suggesting a connector lift similar to Slidebrook at the Bush. That might make some sense, but you know very well how underutilized Slidebrook is at the Bush. I'm not so sure it would be all that different at Killington.


Queue Highwaystar entering the tread to say You = Fail in 3, 2, 1........

 

[Smellytele]

Well, there's a couple of issues with that.

1. The parking lot at Pico is quite small and there isn't a lot of real estate available to expand parking.

2. Think about the work it would take to get over to Killington. You'd need to take the Golden Express to the Pike Express and ski the long ass traverse that's already been cut and head down to Ramshead base. Up the Ramshead Quad and then ski some not so great terrain down to the base of K Peak, then up the Gondola to get to the summit. Without lift lines, it would probably take over an hour just to get from the base of Pico to the summit of Killington. On a weekend day with lift lines? Probably more like two hours.

Now, if there was some exciting lift and trail developments in between K and Pico, then I could see the plan of parking at Pico having some merit as there would be some worthwhile skiing to be had as you worked your way across the ridge instead of just riding lifts and skiing connector trails.

This plan has been around for some time; looks to be like some good terrain in there. The vertical is a little short though.

I question the ROI on such a large scale project though. From the looks of it, there's two lifts and ten trails incorporated in there. Even if you went with lower cost fixed grip lifts; what's that going to cost on the cheap factoring trail clearing, running snowmaking pipe and probably having to have some sort of new compressor and pump station because it's so far from their current snowmaking plant? $15 million bucks conservatively? You would have to see a fairly significant increase in annual skier visits for it to be worth it to build and operate. It certainly won't sell many new condos to make the money back.

Maybe Cannobie#1 is suggesting a connector lift similar to Slidebrook at the Bush. That might make some sense, but you know very well how underutilized Slidebrook is at the Bush. I'm not so sure it would be all that different at Killington.


Queue Highwaystar entering the tread to say You = Fail in 3, 2, 1........

How about a peak to peak gondola ala Whistler/ Blackcomb?

 

[skiersleft]

It's all of 9.5 minutes. Just curious, why is the Canyon Quad so much more acceptable?

This is true. If you're against slowdon, you should also be against the Canyon quad. Of course, you can just avoid canyon by skiing down and taking the gondola. But avoiding slowdon is difficult if you want to ski Snowdon, especially if you want to lap the woods over there. I would replace both lifts, but slowdon should be the priority, because canyon is - in a sense - an (almost) redundant lift.

 

[manhattanskier]

Canyon quad is the best! Who the hell wants to ski all that flat area to take their skis off to get on the gondola to put their skis back on to ski more greens to get back to the awesome steeps. Canyon quad is for people who love the steeps.

Sent from my XT907 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[canobie#1]

The canyon quad is an awesome run up because of how steep and beautiful it is up there. You can't get to any og the good trails on snowdon with taking that stupid chair! Plus if cayon isn't running, no worries. K-1 is right there.