Killington-Pico Interconnect...

[Geoff]

I think I rather see some of the snowmaking repaired that has gone into disuse (lower Pipe Dream and Valley Plunge come to mind), and replace a lift on Snowdon.

So you want to completely destroy the remaining character at Killington. Brilliant!

 

[Newpylong]

So you want to completely destroy the remaining character at Killington. Brilliant!

Hey chief, how about you lay off? Every single thing I write you jump all over like flies on a turd. From reading your posts both on here and Killingtonzone it's apparent you have a lot of knowledge to offer. But does being an a$$hole come with that?

Anyway, I don't believe making snow on two trails that originally had the capability would ruin anything at all. Installing a new lift on Snowdon is a debatable move - and people have differing opinions.

 

[Johnskiismore]

Years ago I was for it, but am now pretty much against it. I actually wish Pico was an independent ski area from Killington

 

[Newpylong]

Years ago I was for it, but am now pretty much against it. I actually wish Pico was an independent ski area from Killington

Would be interesting wouldn't it? It is an awesome mountain... But you have to wonder if it would survive on its own...

 

[Johnskiismore]

Would be interesting wouldn't it? It is an awesome mountain... But you have to wonder if it would survive on its own...

Maybe with the right managment and owners! Pico is a mountian that I haven't been to for a long time and I have nothing but good memories of the place pre- ASC.

 

[sLoPeS]

im still on the fence if id want them to put in the interconnect. from a killington skiers stand point i would really like to be able to take a couple of lifts over there. i would ski pico more than i do now. however, i think we will really lose pico and it would become one big killington. maybe down the road they should do it, but for now they've got enough on their plate. the summit lodge needs to be torn down and replaced. it is such a great spot up there and it could be so much better. as far as snowdon goes, i think the quad should get replaced. yea itll track out faster but that ride really does suck. i really like snowdon for a bunch of reasons and lapping it on a HSQ would be awesome. i did hear that this is not happening this summer. they could cut down the triple and work it so that it takes u just high enough to get to the poma. maybe somewhere by the old mid station. im all for the village thing, but now may not be the best time to do that. i say replacing the quad should be next on the list.

 

[deadheadskier]

Years ago I was for it, but am now pretty much against it. I actually wish Pico was an independent ski area from Killington

+1

with the right focus, I think it could work.

 

[KevinF]

I'm very in favor of an interconnect, as hopefully a heavily marketed "expanded Killington / Pico" would siphon more skiers there and away from the places that I like to go (i.e., Stowe).

 

[tcharron]

(The thead about NEP inspired me to post this)

Many of you may be aware that Killington was planning to connect themselves to Pico back in the mid-late 90's. Les Otten (ASC) bought Pico shortly after aquiring S.K.I. Ltd. The plan was to install 2 lifts and 110 acres of skiing on the ridge between Rams Head and Pico Peak, in conjunction with building a base Village in the Killington basin area. Then later, two more lifts, one down to Killington road, and another serving advanced terrain in the middle of the ridge (all permitted in act 250). Potentially, the skier visits target was 1,400,000 per year at the combined resort.

And the idea died.

They got as far as building a road to nowhere in '97, a large traverse from the side of Pico down to below Rams Head. It can be seen from the top of Killington. Don't bother going out there, the interconnect is flat, there's no good skiing, trust me. They really need to cut some trails.

Anyway, they ran out of money, couldn't build the village, and shelved the interconnect for the last 12 years. POWDR rolled into town, bought the resort, and has their own plans. They want SP Land to build a Village, however, they seem to think the Interconnect is not part of this plan. The interconnect is supposedly on hold for at least another 5 years.

It's there plan, I got a PRETTY good idea that they know what's in their plans. :-D

Either option would truely combine them into one resort, creating by far the largest resort in the east.

Question is, how interested are you in the interconnect? The full plan or a basic plan? Would it make you ski Killington more often, or keep you there as a customer? Would you ski Pico more often? What do you think?

And destroying any possible profit that Pico makes.

Wait, you still go to Killington?

Wow...

We all stopped when you told us how bad they sucked. *shrug*

 

[icedtea]

(The thead about NEP inspired me to post this)
Don't bother going out there, the interconnect is flat, there's no good skiing, trust me. They really need to cut some trails.

There is some nice glades back there. Just park a car at Wheelerville.

I would like to see the interconnect built. They should keep the terrain natural anyway, so there would not be an additional snowmaking cost.

 

[Geoff]

Hey chief, how about you lay off? Every single thing I write you jump all over like flies on a turd. From reading your posts both on here and Killingtonzone it's apparent you have a lot of knowledge to offer. But does being an a$$hole come with that?

Anyway, I don't believe making snow on two trails that originally had the capability would ruin anything at all. Installing a new lift on Snowdon is a debatable move - and people have differing opinions.

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.

 

[mondeo]

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 disagree that replacing the chair at South Ridge will dramatically increase the amount of people that ski it; it's too far out of the way for most people to care about. Look at the Needle's Eye area. No one skis there even though there's a HSQ. And you don't even need to replace the chair entirely, you just need to cut down the upper lift towers to be below the treeline and cut the footrests off the safety bar. Maybe replace the two bull wheels with something with a little larger radius, take some of the whiplash effect away while still maintaining its uniqueness. And let skier's left on Pipe Dream grow in, there's no reason to have the trail that wide when you can't ski half of it, ever.

Snowdon, I think what you need to do is have an HSQ that takes people up where they can access Northstar, Great Bear, and Vagabond, but not so that they're obvious to people immediately after getting off the trail. If you had to traverse half the distance between the two Snowdon chairs now just to get to the top of North Star, you can have the HSQ and keep the 1 day a year crowd away from the goods. Haven't looked at a contour map recently to know if that's possible.

 

[Stache]

+1

with the right focus, I think it could work.

+1 more

Pico has it's own loyal family base.
I do believe both ASC and Pwdr draw from it more than they put into it.

 

[tcharron]

+1 more

Pico has it's own loyal family base.
I do believe both ASC and Pwdr draw from it more than they put into it.

If they made an interconnect, Pico would cease to exist. It would simply turn into another peak at Killington. Aka, Pico tickets are no more, and to ski there, 80$.

 

[RootDKJ]

If they made an interconnect, Pico would cease to exist. It would simply turn into another peak at Killington. Aka, Pico tickets are no more, and to ski there, 80$.

good point

 

[icedtea]

If they made an interconnect, Pico would cease to exist. It would simply turn into another peak at Killington. Aka, Pico tickets are no more, and to ski there, 80$.

You can sell Pico only tickets still. Limit lift access to just Pico with the Pico ticket and maybe Ramshead.

 

[mondeo]

You can sell Pico only tickets still. Limit lift access to just Pico with the Pico ticket and maybe Ramshead.

On top of that, offer a Killington-only ticket for $5-10 less.

Do the expansion, and you probably get more buying the Pico-only tickets. Spent a day there earlier this year, and while it's a nice place, it doesn't have enough variety to get me to go there more than a couple times per year (if I was a day ticket kind of guy.) I can't imagine a Pico-only pass with Killington down the road. Add a bunch more terrain on the back side of the mountain, and you turn it into something that can hold people's attention a bit more.

I think it all depends on how the interconnect is done. The worst thing to do is fully flush out the side of Ramshead and back of Pico, making one continuous ski area. While it would make Killington marginally better, it would destroy Pico. One or two trails from Ramshead and a decent number on the back of Pico would probably be ok. And make the backside of Pico natural, winding New England trails. I really don't think you need a cruiser boulevard in that area. Killington has far too many of them already.

 

[icedtea]

On top of that, offer a Killington-only ticket for $5-10 less.

The worst thing to do is fully flush out the side of Ramshead and back of Pico, making one continuous ski area. While it would make Killington marginally better, it would destroy Pico. One or two trails from Ramshead and a decent number on the back of Pico would probably be ok. And make the backside of Pico natural, winding New England trails. I really don't think you need a cruiser boulevard in that area. Killington has far too many of them already.

Right on. The backside of Pico is prime, challenging terrain. A very nice cliff line.

 

[deadheadskier]

Doesn't the back side of Pico face south? You'd have to have at least a couple of boulevard type trails with significant snowmaking as insurance for bad weather to maintain the interconnect.

 

[bvibert]

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.