Burke moving forward with Developement

[Masskier]

Why do you think that? The maps I have seen would mean that folks don't need to ski the runout, and some diagrams have that lift going to the true summit, or close to it. But that only adds maybe 10 or 11 vertical..not much more.

The base of the East Bowl lift is actually much lower than the runout at the bottom of the East Bowl trail adding more vertical. You will also be able to get to the East Bowl lift from the new Cutter lift.

The new summit lift starts in the lower mid Burke parking lot. There will be a lot of re-grading so everything will flow easily to this lift.

 

[deadheadskier]

The base of the East Bowl lift is actually much lower than the runout at the bottom of the East Bowl trail adding more vertical. You will also be able to get to the East Bowl lift from the new Cutter lift.

The new summit lift starts in the lower mid Burke parking lot. There will be a lot of re-grading so everything will flow easily to this lift.

how confident of this happening and in what time frame? As TTB has mentioned, many of these plans have been in place for well over ten years. Track record for improvements at Burke isn't so hot.

 

[thetrailboss]

The base of the East Bowl lift is actually much lower than the runout at the bottom of the East Bowl trail adding more vertical. You will also be able to get to the East Bowl lift from the new Cutter lift.

The new summit lift starts in the lower mid Burke parking lot. There will be a lot of re-grading so everything will flow easily to this lift.

OK. Earlier conceptual drawings I have seen have the EB lift starting at or about the runout. Below that it really flattens out IIRC. But then again you're right in that they need to get that EB lift down to the area where said condos will be going.

I had not really seen any good detailed maps for the MidBurke area. The ones online didn't give me a good idea as to what was going to happen there, other than MB being demoed.

 

[Masskier]

The EB lift has been on the drawing board for about 30 years now. It has never come, it almost did in 1998-1999 when Northern Star had plans to move the current fixed grip into the East Bowl and then to install a new HSQ where the Willoughby Quad sits now.

Ginn scrapped those plans. At one point, they had the lift configuration conceptually really messed up...with the Willoughby terminating where the Poma does now, and the summit lift originating in the East Bowl. This would mean that if you started at Sherburne, you would need to ride 3 lifts to get to the top...Sherburne, Willoughby, ski over to EB, East Bowl to summit. :blink:

At some point that changed to the current plan with "some kind of lift" being installed from MidBurke to the summit...likely a HSQ but it is not clear. The new lift route would go pretty much up along Doug's Drop and to the summit. This is problematic because unless they regrade the MidBurke area, which they may very well do, then you still would have to ride three lifts to get to the top from Sherburne...assuming that the current summit quad is shortened.

The thinking behind the idea of shortening the current summit quad, was simply to retain as much of the character of the trails as possible. They didn't want to dump so many people at the summit and then have to widen all of the trails to handle the increase volume. With the current proposed lift configuration and re-grading, they will be able to maintain most of the natural character and make it very easy to get around.

 

[thetrailboss]

The thinking behind the idea of shortening the current summit quad, was simply to retain as much of the character of the trails as possible. They didn't want to dump so many people at the summit and then have to widen all of the trails to handle the increase volume. With the current proposed lift configuration and re-grading, they will be able to maintain most of the natural character and make it very easy to get around.

OK. So the latest plan has WQ being shortened. Are they going to shorten the Poma as well? If I were them, I might leave the WQ as it is for redundancy on (hopefully) busier days or, heaven forbid, if the new lift doesn't run.

It sounds like you've seen the latest plans. Do you know what kind of lift they want to install from MB to the summit?

 

[Masskier]

how confident of this happening and in what time frame? As TTB has mentioned, many of these plans have been in place for well over ten years. Track record for improvements at Burke isn't so hot.

In the past Burke never had an owner with such deep pockets. Considering that they just spent 4 years and tens of millions of dollars in the designing, engineering and planning, it is only logical for them to finish the permitting stage. I would think that they would have all their permits late winter-early spring. Then depending on the economy, they could start next summer with infrastructure improvements and probably start residential the following year. I just hope a new summit lift goes in next year.

 

[Masskier]

ok. So the latest plan has wq being shortened. Are they going to shorten the poma as well? If i were them, i might leave the wq as it is for redundancy on (hopefully) busier days or, heaven forbid, if the new lift doesn't run.

It sounds like you've seen the latest plans. Do you know what kind of lift they want to install from mb to the summit?

hsq

 

[riverc0il]

The base of the East Bowl lift is actually much lower than the runout at the bottom of the East Bowl trail adding more vertical. You will also be able to get to the East Bowl lift from the new Cutter lift.

The new summit lift starts in the lower mid Burke parking lot. There will be a lot of re-grading so everything will flow easily to this lift.

The terrain below the current run out isn't that steep so it would be worthless vertical regardless of how much it might add. That aside, I can't imagine it is going to increase the total vertical of the mountain much as the Sherburne base lodge is already pretty low. The benefit of a lift starting below the current run out is simply so that folks could reach the East Bowl lift from the top of the Sherburne Express, though that would involve a bit of traverse. Better yet, it would be easily reachable from Mid-Burke. Regardless, it does not add any vertical where it counts on the mountain, IMO. It does add a lot of new tree trail options in East Bowl though.

 

[thetrailboss]

Not sure if I would say tens of millions in planning.....maybe closer to maybe a million or so...maybe I am off. They had the advantage of having much work already (conceptually) done by previous owners.

The terrain below the current run out isn't that steep so it would be worthless vertical regardless of how much it might add. That aside, I can't imagine it is going to increase the total vertical of the mountain much as the Sherburne base lodge is already pretty low. The benefit of a lift starting below the current run out is simply so that folks could reach the East Bowl lift from the top of the Sherburne Express, though that would involve a bit of traverse. Better yet, it would be easily reachable from Mid-Burke. Regardless, it does not add any vertical where it counts on the mountain, IMO. It does add a lot of new tree trail options in East Bowl though.

Well, I don't think that the plan is to make the EB Lift accessible from Sherburne. Not at all. IIRC the Upper Mountain Road will remain in place. I think that the plan for the EB lift is indeed as Masskier said...to give the Cutter folks access to the upper mountain, bypassing MidBurke.

I agree that they need to do that summit lift sooner rather than later. It was originally "anticipated" for 2006-2007, but it did not come. Word had it that they were going to put it in for 2005, but they ran out of time and were not quite settled as to what they wanted to do with the MidBurke area.

As much as I hate to say it, there is a portion of the market that will not consider Burke a serious contender until that summit lift is a high speed lift. They only want high speed lifts.

 

[Masskier]

The terrain below the current run out isn't that steep so it would be worthless vertical regardless of how much it might add. That aside, I can't imagine it is going to increase the total vertical of the mountain much as the Sherburne base lodge is already pretty low. The benefit of a lift starting below the current run out is simply so that folks could reach the East Bowl lift from the top of the Sherburne Express, though that would involve a bit of traverse. Better yet, it would be easily reachable from Mid-Burke. Regardless, it does not add any vertical where it counts on the mountain, IMO. It does add a lot of new tree trail options in East Bowl though.

Agree, it won't add any vertical to the total of the mountain, only to the East Bowl area. Longer runs and more options.

 

[thetrailboss]

And if I were them I would aim for developing some slopeside accomodations for weekenders/the occasional visitor. In 1999 Northern Star finally saw the light and realized that if they had a slopeside hotel they would get a lot more traffic and a lot more revenue. Keeping the $$$ on the mountain is a good thing for them. Before getting foreclosed, Andy Holmes made a last ditch effort to get $$$ to erect a reasonably priced hotel off of High Meadow's Pass. As we know it was too little too late.

With that in mind, why not work on developing MidBurke first and put in that hotel? Sell some units, have some for slopeside visits. Seems to work with this economy. But then again they have been working on trying to develop the resort and not the ski area.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

The terrain below the current run out isn't that steep so it would be worthless vertical regardless of how much it might add. That aside, I can't imagine it is going to increase the total vertical of the mountain much as the Sherburne base lodge is already pretty low. The benefit of a lift starting below the current run out is simply so that folks could reach the East Bowl lift from the top of the Sherburne Express, though that would involve a bit of traverse. Better yet, it would be easily reachable from Mid-Burke. Regardless, it does not add any vertical where it counts on the mountain, IMO. It does add a lot of new tree trail options in East Bowl though.

Bingo. The lower the EB lift goes, the further East the woodchucks can go while still enabling a reasonable return to a lift. If the base is below the 2000' elevation, it opens up all sorts of possibilities.

 

[Masskier]

As much as I hate to say it, there is a portion of the market that will not consider Burke a serious contender until that summit lift is a high speed lift. They only want high speed lifts.[/QUOTE]

This is so true.

With that in mind, why not work on developing MidBurke first and put in that hotel? Sell some units, have some for slopeside visits. Seems to work with this economy. But then again they have been working on trying to develop the resort and not the ski area.[/QUOTE]

I think this is exactly what they are considering. Starting with md Burke or the Sherburne area first and doing the Cutter area last. It makes a lot more sense cause a lot of the infrastructure is already there.

 

[thetrailboss]

I think this is exactly what they are considering. Starting with md Burke or the Sherburne area first and doing the Cutter area last. It makes a lot more sense cause a lot of the infrastructure is already there.

Ah, that would be a wise adjustment to the plan. Also makes sense because instead of spreading the operations and infrastructure out, you have it all concentrated around existing ski area base areas. So you can expand outward and at your own pace.

 

[deadheadskier]

What are Burke's limitations / restrictions moving West or Skiers left side of the Mountain. That terrain over there is what would appear to be the most exciting undeveloped terrain on the mountain. Or is it better left that way for those in the know

 

[thetrailboss]

What are Burke's limitations / restrictions moving West or Skiers left side of the Mountain. That terrain over there is what would appear to be the most exciting undeveloped terrain on the mountain. Or is it better left that way for those in the know

I can't find the map, but in the 1980's expansion was planned for in that area along with the other areas discussed.

Why is that not front burner? It's simple. Ginn wants to develop other aspects and have an integrated resort, not add to a ski area. So they want to develop areas near the core.

They are not building a ski area, they are building a resort.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I can't find the map, but in the 1980's expansion was planned for in that area along with the other areas discussed.

Why is that not front burner? It's simple. Ginn wants to develop other aspects and have an integrated resort, not add to a ski area. So they want to develop areas near the core.

They are not building a ski area, they are building a resort.

Also, FWIW, the East Bowl holds snow a lot better than the West side of the mountain b/c it is actually a misnomer and faces almost due N. Since there are trails there already, and more that could be developed, not to mention Cutter etc..., better to put a lift there.

 

[thetrailboss]

Also, FWIW, the East Bowl holds snow a lot better than the West side of the mountain b/c it is actually a misnomer and faces almost due N. Since there are trails there already, and more that could be developed, not to mention Cutter etc..., better to put a lift there.

Yep. Most of the mountain faces north. The 'west side' is to the skier's left of Willoughby, and it is very steep and has great pitch but that side is angled slightly to the west = snow does not hold as well because of the sun. So you would need some snowmaking over there. The east side, in contrast, has good consistent pitch, but more variety.

 

[deadheadskier]

So Northeast Bowl, North Main Face, Northwest side.

I guess I just look at the pictures of Burke and the bowl to the skiers right of Willoughby looks big time steep. Suppose steep doesn't matter if you don't get and hold snow.

 

[riverc0il]

West Side is fine for snow, it isn't that significant of a difference, IMO. East Side including the Bowl area suffers severely when the wind is blowing across that side of the mountain. I have seen horror show in East Bowl while West was skiing amazingly.