Hunter Mtn Expansion Details

[catskillman]

The Slutzky family had a plan - and Peak/SKI is using it in part including thr
new lift and parking area near the current west side lift on Rusk Hollow Rd a seldom traveled dead end road with mostly seasonal homes.
Intermediate trails will be cut to the base of the new lift most from the Belt Parkway and wayout.


Thankfully access to the new area will be by new road from Demmings Bridge on #23A just west of the #296 intersection.
That property, which currently is owned by the Slutzky family .

 

[RichT]

And fast too, they paper says it will be done for the 2018-2019 season!! Hope it's done.

 

[skimagic]

Is the expansion going in where the lift line south of the west side area was cut years ago?

 

[slatham]

Is the expansion going in where the lift line south of the west side area was cut years ago?

View attachment 22701

No, from what I understand its to viewers left of the West side in the above pic, coming down from ridge - likely summit terminal is downhill from the six pack unload area - to Rusk Hollow Rd.

Not sure what the status of being able to develop the area you point out, which looks like sweet terrain and would boost overall vert a decent amount.

 

[RichT]

That's some steep stuff! Either way from the Belt or Way out. The only way I see it is a zig zag down?

 

[Mapnut]

Hunter is saying this will be intermediate terrain, but I agree it's generally too steep. The only way they can get blue terrain there is by sidehill return routes from Belt Parkway and Way Out, and maybe a switchbacking cut-and-fill route or two. Traffic on Belt Parkway will get even worse. If Hunter wants blue terrain, the best place would be the ridge above Hunter One. I wonder if they have access to that?

Off the topo map, I measure that the proposed lift would be 2900 feet long with 1000 feet of vertical. The liftline would be solid expert.

 

[mbedle]

They don't have access to any of the land above Hunter One. As far as steepness, its not nearly as steep at the stuff under the F lift.

 

[180]

The summit Terminal will be near the Belt Wayout intersection. Running down towards the "H" in hollow.

 

[kartski]

The reason for the Wayout regrade to intermediate was due to Westside Condo's, they'll want more than just a trail to get them home. I don't see the lift as going to the Summit as it is already too crowded up there and it will just dump too many people on Belt/ White Cloud. It will prob. land at Belt/ Wayout. From there you can go down the front, down to Zepher or the new trails. 2 maps to consider, the Topographical: https://www.google.com/maps/place/H...7daf1a!8m2!3d42.2044144!4d-74.2105038!5m1!1e4 Belt / Wayout to Rusk Hollow is 900 vertical feet. The correct angles and Dynamite will get Intermediate Terrain.
Property Map (amusing as it shows how early on, liability was split up. Some lifts and trails are separate property.): http://gis.greenegovernment.com/giswebmap/ Who owns what land. Put the lift where Rusk Hollow turns South and Condos across the street. There was talk of a snow making reservoir also.

Turn 60 soon, my legs could appreciate some new Int. Terrain in a few years.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

It's a great idea if topping out at Belt/Wayout cross. Outside of some pre-lunch and end of day traffic, it would actually draw skiers off of those trails and keep them lapping what would be the only solid intermediate pod on the mountain.

Also, FTR Hunter owns the land all the way to the top of that old liftline on the Westside. Suspect that intermediate terrain is a higher priority than more expert trails and more vert, at least at this point.

 

[RichT]

Hunter is saying this will be intermediate terrain, but I agree it's generally too steep. The only way they can get blue terrain there is by sidehill return routes from Belt Parkway and Way Out, and maybe a switchbacking cut-and-fill route or two. Traffic on Belt Parkway will get even worse. If Hunter wants blue terrain, the best place would be the ridge above Hunter One. I wonder if they have access to that?

Off the topo map, I measure that the proposed lift would be 2900 feet long with 1000 feet of vertical. The liftline would be solid expert.

They don't own the land above Hunter One, I believe they do own all the land from Hunter One to 214 though. I heard that they wanted to trade the state some of that for more vertical on Hunter One but the state turned them down.

 

[tnt1234]

Looking at their trail map, they have zip lines in the area above Hunter One. More to the right I guess. I was wondering about that terrain - the stuff from the fire tower down to the valley....

 

[mbedle]

Take a look on Google maps and you will see all the green area south of Hunter One is owned by the state, including the peak of Hunter Mountain and the fire tower.

 

[JimG.]

Take a look on Google maps and you will see all the green area south of Hunter One is owned by the state, including the peak of Hunter Mountain and the fire tower.

Correct...all of that is designated forever wild.

 

[mbedle]

Just for clarification, so every can see what is and is not owned by Peak. Would mostly be expert terrain, but the old proposed expansion to the south of the west area would be pretty nice. Maybe get in a intermediate trail by switchbacking. Also interesting is the zip lines appear to be on the Far West and Town of Hunter properties. Guessing they lease that land. Another thing that I found odd is why are some of the lifts and trails on distinctly separate parcels? Anyone have any idea the reasoning for that

Anyone know how to upload the picture so it doesn't lose its resolution?

 

[catskillman]

View attachment 22708

Just for clarification, so every can see what is and is not owned by Peak. Would mostly be expert terrain, but the old proposed expansion to the south of the west area would be pretty nice. Maybe get in a intermediate trail by switchbacking. Also interesting is the zip lines appear to be on the Far West and Town of Hunter properties. Guessing they lease that land. Another thing that I found odd is why are some of the lifts and trails on distinctly separate parcels? Anyone have any idea the reasoning for that

Anyone know how to upload the picture so it doesn't lose its resolution?

If I recall correctly that is done for liability reasons. Each of the lifts were owned by seperate companies. Just like the BAR operation is owned by Shanty Town, or sometiing like that, not the mountain .

I'll inquire,

 

[catskillman]

From today's newspaper

https://www.hudsonvalley360.com/article/hunter-mt-chief-proposes-new-trails

 

[kartski]

If I recall correctly that is done for liability reasons. Each of the lifts were owned by seperate companies. Just like the BAR operation is owned by Shanty Town, or sometiing like that, not the mountain .

I'll inquire,

Shanty Hollow Corporation. I think the name comes from an actual place or part of the Mountain.

 

[mbedle]

Interesting, I never would have thought that they would build the lodge across the creek and put a bridge in to get to the lift. Where they have it planned, that give them a solid 1,000 foot vertical.

 

[andrec10]

Curious what they end up doing with the road to Z lift. The trails look to cross it.