mount snow plan?

[SKIER4LIFE1281]

is there a plan for the upgrades that are coming to mount snow and if so do you have it. i know the new company doesnt officially own it yet but i guess they could plan ahead.

i was on the chairlift there and the guy sitting net to me said that they are going to put in a new lift on the north face this summer.

 

[mlctvt]

see this post
http://forums.alpinezone.com/14759-mount-snow-q-management-summary.html

no plans for new lifts until the upgraded snowmaking is added, several years away at best.

 

[tree_skier]

There are all kinds of rumors flying around. The transaction is scheduled for april 7 so look for anouncements after that. The above mentioned discussionwas with ASC owning so it is pretty much useless now as the big issue was money.

The last improvement on my list is a new list on the face. The 2 there now put far too many joey's on the trails as it is. My wishlist in order is.

1. pipe to somerset
1. improve snowmaking
1. replace summit express with six pack

2. move summit express to sunbrook and cover all sunbrook with snowmaking.

3. replace nitro with six pack and move to sundance triple and add or improve snowmaking to titianium, hop, uncles, shootout, ridge and southbowl

4. reaquire Haystack and interconnect

5. add a double between ripcord and jaws.

6. replace canyon with sixpack

7. then you could move one canyon to NF

 

[Newpylong]

There are all kinds of rumors flying around. The transaction is scheduled for april 7 so look for anouncements after that. The above mentioned discussionwas with ASC owning so it is pretty much useless now as the big issue was money.

No, it wasn't useless. It was with the management of Mount Snow, who while are still under the ASC, will work under Peaks as when the sale is final. They have given Peaks their recommendations to regarding improvements. This was stated in my summary. All talk was towards the future, not the past with the ASC.

 

[tree_skier]

No, it wasn't useless. It was with the management of Mount Snow, who while are still under the ASC, will work under Peaks as when the sale is final. They have given Peaks their recommendations to regarding improvements. This was stated in my summary. All talk was towards the future, not the past with the ASC.

I tend to disagree with you. If you follow what the current management plus past have said the pipeline, from sommerset, was originally to be installed last summer with lift upgrades this summer. The official speal was that permits were not in place and thus the pipeline was delayed. first to this summer then next and the latest the summer of 09. Now at one point in the past it was announced to staff that all the permits were in place for the pipeline. Common sense tells use that money was the issue not permits. Common sense also tells us that the pipeline is needed before more uphill capacity is added. Although the 15 million in new snowmaking equipment rumor will help with the snowmaking problems.

The only truth in the discussion is the need for the pipeline before lift upgrades and for lift upgrades management has said 2 different angles both involving replacing the summit express with the original going to the NF and the second version going to sunbrook. But however you look at it without the ability to open more terain with more water putting more people on the summit would be a horror story.

 

[Newpylong]

Of course we're going to see similar plans....in the past, versus what they want to do now. Its going to be the same local management, pushing for the same improvements, regardless of owners. But, like you said, money was a huge factor, but the plans aren't going to change. This is from the official meeting log:

"STATUS OF SOMERSET RESERVOIR PROJECT
Mount Snow is meeting weekly with the U.S. Forest Service, water quality and other agencies to explore any issues or public concerns with the project. If all goes well, groundbreaking will occur in February 2008 for getting operational by the 2008-09 season. Engineering plan is already thought out but may take 18 months to approve. Need Act 250 permit to put pipes in. It will be submitted in June with that possibly passing by September."

I don't see anything about Summer of '09... nor have I read anything official that the necessary permits have already been acquired.... rumors, just like the rumors of moving the lifts around. Read the meeting summarization again for a list of tentative official plans.

I tend to disagree with you. If you follow what the current management plus past have said the pipeline, from sommerset, was originally to be installed last summer with lift upgrades this summer. The official speal was that permits were not in place and thus the pipeline was delayed. first to this summer then next and the latest the summer of 09. Now at one point in the past it was announced to staff that all the permits were in place for the pipeline. Common sense tells use that money was the issue not permits. Common sense also tells us that the pipeline is needed before more uphill capacity is added. Although the 15 million in new snowmaking equipment rumor will help with the snowmaking problems.

The only truth in the discussion is the need for the pipeline before lift upgrades and for lift upgrades management has said 2 different angles both involving replacing the summit express with the original going to the NF and the second version going to sunbrook. But however you look at it without the ability to open more terain with more water putting more people on the summit would be a horror story.

 

[marcski]

I think it would be a very bad decision to put a hsq on the NF in place of both triples. First, when operating both triples vs. a HSQ, there is more uphill capacity in the triples. Therefore, a HSQ would only increase the lines on the NF in peak times. At all other times, ie. during the week, a HSQ would surely be nice over there. But if the purpose is to alleviate crowds and/or decrease peaktime liftlines...a HSQ is not the answer.

Also, I kind of agree that the Q & A with existing mgt without the benefit of anyone from Peaks...doesn't really shed any light on what to expect in the near future.

 

[BeanoNYC]

The last improvement on my list is a new list on the face. The 2 there now put far too many joey's on the trails as it is.

I hate the term Joey, but I won't hold it against you.

Anyway...Don't you think that putting two 6 packs on the main face will put far too many people on the mountain? I think the FG's on TNF are fine as well. It keeps the volume down on TNF.

If I ruled the world, or at least West Dover, I would:

1) Make that pipeline happen and get 100% snowmaking
2) Buy Haystack and work out some sort of interconnect.

I certainly agree with you on those two points, Tree.

 

[threecy]

It already costs $72 ($63 midweek) to ski there - imagine what they'd be charging if they connected Haysatck?!?

 

[BeanoNYC]

It already costs $72 ($63 midweek) to ski there - imagine what they'd be charging if they connected Haysatck?!?

Good point. Well, they could sell a pass with a Haystack add-on. Post someone at the connector trail to check the passes.

 

[Newpylong]

I agree with you guys 100%, absolutely no need to replace the North Face lifts. They are a welcomed rest of the legs and frankly, it doesn't take that long to get up them! They might be looking at costs of running both lifts on busy days vs. one in the long run though... who knows..

I don't think connecting Haystack is a wise use of resources. The amount of distance between the two is monumental.

 

[BeanoNYC]

I don't think connecting Haystack is a wise use of resources. The amount of distance between the two is monumental.

What kind of a distance are we looking at?

 

[mlctvt]

What kind of a distance are we looking at?

My guess is about a 1/2 to1 mile from the closest trail, which is Big Dipper but it’s probably closer to 1 mile. I'll have to get my topographical maps out and measure. I live about 1/2 way between Haystack and the Mount snow main base lodge and it's about 1.25miles from my door to the Mount Snow main base lodge. Another thing nobody is mentioning is the fact that is extremely difficult or next to impossible to add even a single connecting trail never mind a major expansion like connecting these two areas. The current permit process and the National Forest just won't allow the types of expansions ski areas did just 10 years ago. What does having Haystack do anyway besides spread already minimal resources even thinner, there's no need for this

 

[marcski]

I have an old copy of a proposed map of the interconnect in my office..I'll try and remember to post it here tomorrow. Not the best quality..but you get an idea.

 

[threecy]

You'd need two pods or a Slidebrook-like lift to connect the two. Not worth it right now or in the near future. Not much point in adding two ~1k vertical pods to get over to a ~1k vertical mountain when you already have 4 ~1k complexes (Carinthia, Sunbrook, North Face) competing with a ~1.7k main mountain.

Unless there's major maintenance required on the lifts, its cheaper to run the two triples in North Face rather than one HSQ.

 

[drjeff]

Anyone have any idea if the clause in the sale of Haystack a year or so ago that states that it can only operate as a private area for a set period of time is being transferred in the sale to Peaks, or if ASC is still holding that???? Just might make the entire arguemwnt null and void. Plus, if remember from the passholders meeting this past weekend, when Kelly Pawlak was asked what was the chance of buying back Haystack, the answer was something to the extent of "a snowball's chance in hell"

You'll see MS adding new trails out past "The Trials" on The Northface way before anything reguarding Haystack. BTW, if your interested, some of the townhome units at Haystack are listed at the website for Century 21/Kenyon reality:
http://www.century21kenyon.com/real_estate/

 

[tree_skier]

I hate the term Joey, but I won't hold it against you.

.

Back when the logo was a skier instead of the flag we nicknamed him Joey.

 

[madskier6]

Anyone have any idea if the clause in the sale of Haystack a year or so ago that states that it can only operate as a private area for a set period of time is being transferred in the sale to Peaks, or if ASC is still holding that???? Just might make the entire arguemwnt null and void.

I don't know the answer but I've got to believe it will be assigned to Peaks as part of the sale. Why would ASC want to retain this while owning no ski areas in the East anymore (except in Maine for the time being)? Also why wouldn't Peaks want to own that right/benefit?

 

[from_the_NEK]

My guess is about a 1/2 to1 mile from the closest trail, which is Big Dipper but it’s probably closer to 1 mile. I'll have to get my topographical maps out and measure. I live about 1/2 way between Haystack and the Mount snow main base lodge and it's about 1.25miles from my door to the Mount Snow main base lodge. Another thing nobody is mentioning is the fact that is extremely difficult or next to impossible to add even a single connecting trail never mind a major expansion like connecting these two areas. The current permit process and the National Forest just won't allow the types of expansions ski areas did just 10 years ago. What does having Haystack do anyway besides spread already minimal resources even thinner, there's no need for this

In Google Earth it is a little more than 1.5 miles of rather uninteresting looking terrain.

 

[marcski]

O.k. Here's the map that I have..its a bit small and doesn't have the best resolution....don't blame me...

Basically looks like 2 additional trail pods. However, this interconnect will never happen. I was reading that the new owners of K-mart want to restart those interconnect plans...