• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

USSA Proposes World Cup At Killington

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
9,911
Points
113
Location
Right where I want to be
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.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,329
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
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.
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
6,408
Points
113
Location
NJ
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.
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
6,408
Points
113
Location
NJ
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.

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.
 

ss20

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,919
Points
113
Location
A minute from the Alta exit off the I-15!
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.
 

mbedle

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
1,764
Points
48
Location
Barto, Pennsylvania
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.
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
9,911
Points
113
Location
Right where I want to be
You're probably right looking at this:

killingtonmap-2001-0000a.jpg
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
6,408
Points
113
Location
NJ
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.

You're probably right looking at this:

killingtonmap-2001-0000a.jpg

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).
 

tumbler

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
1,404
Points
83
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>
 

slatham

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
2,410
Points
83
Location
LI/Bromley
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.
 

machski

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
3,701
Points
113
Location
Northwood, NH (Sunday River, ME)
You're probably right looking at this:

killingtonmap-2001-0000a.jpg
Seems it would be very easy in this configuration to control. Probably allow Pico only guest on the Pico "back pod" and lift and on the one connector trail at the intersection, sign and maybe fence denoting the requirements to proceed to K or head back to the Pico back pod lift. Snowbird and Alta seem to do it ok with their interconnect points.

Sent from my XT1650 using AlpineZone mobile app
 

tumbler

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
1,404
Points
83
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.

No, It cannot be done. The lift was the deal.
 

KustyTheKlown

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
5,362
Points
113
Location
Brooklyn
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.

is it weird that i love it how outpost is never open? i do a 5 minute hike with zero exertion and i have untouched or sparsely tracked powder runs deep in the afternoon, every time i ski pico, even days after a storm.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
is it weird that i love it how outpost is never open? i do a 5 minute hike with zero exertion and i have untouched or sparsely tracked powder runs deep in the afternoon, every time i ski pico, even days after a storm.
Nope

Feel the same way.

I'm only pissed when I show up and the A Slope triple isn't spinning.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app
 

urungus

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
1,779
Points
113
Location
Western Mass
Nope

Feel the same way.

I'm only pissed when I show up and the A Slope triple isn't spinning.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

Personally I find it irritating, bordering on downright fraudulent, when Pico advertises itself as 100% open but is not running the Outpost or A Slope chairlifts. Noticed this several times last year.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,329
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
Personally I find it irritating, bordering on downright fraudulent, when Pico advertises itself as 100% open but is not running the Outpost or A Slope chairlifts. Noticed this several times last year.

They did that a lot in the ASC days.

Outpost is not a bad hike, but A Slope is a different story.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
 

FBGM

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2016
Messages
794
Points
63
Location
Your Moms House
New tunnels at killington are going to be a disaster. This was one of those ideas that looks good on paper and that’s it. I’m surprised Mt Blow didn’t try this dumb shit first

Also, Killy is going to be in trouble with completing this work. They bit off a bit much for 1 year. They are a first class resort. So hope they get it together.
 

speden

Active member
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
913
Points
28
On paper the tunnels look well engineered, but it will be interesting to see how they actually ski, and what kind of fencing they put around them.

Looks like some of them will ski a little bit like a roller when you go over them with a flattish approach, and then a sharper drop. Maybe with some decent speed you could catch some air off the downhill side. The pitch angle inside of them looks really mellow, so that should reduce crashes inside. I hope the pitch isn't so shallow that snowboarders get stuck. The tunnels are pretty long, so I wonder if they will need any artificial lighting inside for dark overcast days.

Somehow they will need to prevent people from going off the open ends from above, since that would be like a hucking a small cliff with a flat landing (or landing on the heads of cross traffic). When I've seen bridge/tunnels at other resorts, they usually have solid guardrails on the bridge. But I've never seen tunnels as long as these.

My worry is that they will get paranoid about accidents and put "Slow Zone" signs at every tunnel crossing, which would interrupt the flow of the trails and defeat the purpose of having them in the first place.
 

bdfreetuna

New member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
4,300
Points
0
Location
keep the faith
Summit Glades > Bushwacker > A-Slope isn't a longer hike than to Outpost. Actually it's flatter, you could skate most of it.

I do think they need to start advertising more clearly which lifts will be open and when. Also some updates during the mid week period in terms of expected terrain would be nice (especially when there is a mid week storm and you expect trail count to rise).


I would change my vote on the interconnect in a heartbeat if it also meant a noticeable terrain expansion.
 
Top