Sugarloaf Gondola

[wa-loaf]

Looks like there's some hope for a new one:
http://maineoutdoorjournal.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=301532&ac=Outdoors

 

[deadheadskier]

I'm don't get it.

Why would the town have to help finance the Gondola? One would think Boyne would be more than capable of securing the funds. If they could not, that would make me a bit nervous if I were heavily invested in their ski products.

I enjoyed riding the gondola when I went there as a kid. I'd rather see the Spillway lifts replaced before a Gondola is put in.

 

[wa-loaf]

I think the town can get a better rate than Boyne and it sounds like they've done similar things in the past and it's worked out for them. I for one would love to have a top to bottom lift there again.

 

[deadheadskier]

Top to Bottom lift would indeed be nice. It would cost more, but a Funicular would be a better alternative to a Gondola given their wind issues.

 

[wa-loaf]

Top to Bottom lift would indeed be nice. It would cost more, but a Funicular would be a better alternative to a Gondola given their wind issues.

Supposedly this one can run in 60mph winds.

 

[The Sneak]

As long as they don't make it retardedly high off the ground like the superquad (you know, the failmobile that ran on diesel backup for the entire season my freshman yr of college)...At least the gondi did run that year for the final time. The tales of smoke filled cabins are most definitely no exaggeration.

But yeah, Spillway short and long are looking pretty sorry these days....

 

[deadheadskier]

That would be impressive to see and obviously needed at Sugarloaf.

One other question I have regarding the article was the feeling that a Gondola would return Sugarloaf to the 'good ole' days'. What exactly does that mean? Was there a time where Sugarloaf had significantly greater annual visits than they now currently experience?

 

[Greg]

Very cool!

 

[wa-loaf]

That would be impressive to see and obviously needed at Sugarloaf.

One other question I have regarding the article was the feeling that a Gondola would return Sugarloaf to the 'good ole' days'. What exactly does that mean? Was there a time where Sugarloaf had significantly greater annual visits than they now currently experience?

Meh, maybe they can put the USA back ... lol. I think there is some prestige in having a Gondola, I don't really care about that I just want it to be easier to lap the snowfields.

I don't know if they would follow the original path. I've heard folks discuss it going over to bullwinkels and then following timberline up. That way they can do the dinner on the mountain thing.

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

My 2 Cents

1) Should have a midstation, and make sure without question that this thing can run in winds of 60mph, or at least 35 or 40mph, not sure who wants to ski in 60mph winds, but the fact that it is open 75% of the time would do a lot for the Loafs image.
2) Please don't be content with this, other lifts need work including some of the "newer" ones. If you don't, the Gondola will be a 30+ minute wait.
3) Don't bag Burnt Mountain. Burnt Mountain can be done inside my little head with just a couple trails, T BAR or Double and leave it natural.

If all of this is done, Sugarloaf will be the king of superlatives, not that I am really big on all of that. Longest Lift in the NE (not sure of this), Most reliable Lift, Largest Ski Resort (I think it might be in regards to boundary to boundry aces), Most continuous vertical sevrved by one lift, largest glade, etc yada yada yada. Personally I could live with the Loaf being left as is, but if that happened the Loaf would not be able to stay open.

 

[Riverskier]

I am all for a top to bottom gondola, but 8 million and it can run in 60 mph winds? Sunday River spent 7 million for the Chondola that is much shorter than a top to bottom lift at Sugarloaf and most certainly can't run in 60 mph winds. Am I missing something here, can they really do this for 8 million? I am focused on the cost, becuase obviously that will effect whether it actually happens or not.

 

[deadheadskier]

3) Don't bag Burnt Mountain. Burnt Mountain can be done inside my little head with just a couple trails, T BAR or Double and leave it natural.

I would rather see this prior to a Gondola.

 

[klrskiah]

I would rather see this prior to a Gondola.

So would I, but that is not an option right now. The town would be funding a base to summit gondola up the original gondi line. The lift would be owned by the town, but leased back to sugarloaf to operate, similar to the way the sugarloaf golf club works. The town is not just giving Boyne $10 million to do whatever they want with. they are providing the funding for a gondola which will be payed back over 30 years.

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

So would I, but that is not an option right now. The town would be funding a base to summit gondola up the original gondi line. The lift would be owned by the town, but leased back to sugarloaf to operate, similar to the way the sugarloaf golf club works. The town is not just giving Boyne $10 million to do whatever they want with. they are providing the funding for a gondola which will be payed back over 30 years.

I understand that, but to the earlier point of the $8 million as the cost and your $10 million figure, how can they do it for that cost and do it right (bi cable/tri cable,etc). As mentioned the Sunday River Chondla was $7 million (according to previous posts) and I think the new quad at Bear (Skye Peak) was $6 million I believe, so how can Sugarloaf put in a state of the art Gondola running 8500 ft over 2700 ft of vertical for $8-$10 million. Has the economy really effected prices that much on ski lifts? Just curious.

 

[tipsdown]

I understand that, but to the earlier point of the $8 million as the cost and your $10 million figure, how can they do it for that cost and do it right (bi cable/tri cable,etc). As mentioned the Sunday River Chondla was $7 million (according to previous posts) and I think the new quad at Bear (Skye Peak) was $6 million I believe, so how can Sugarloaf put in a state of the art Gondola running 8500 ft over 2700 ft of vertical for $8-$10 million. Has the economy really effected prices that much on ski lifts? Just curious.

I wonder about the numbers as well but it would be great to see it happen...The lift would probably service closer to 2300 ft. of vertical if it was going back in at the original line. The extra 400ft. of vertical with run out, would add un-needed (and un-wanted) cost.

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

I wonder about the numbers as well but it would be great to see it happen...The lift would probably service closer to 2300 ft. of vertical if it was going back in at the original line. The extra 400ft. of vertical with run out, would add un-needed (and un-wanted) cost.

Either way 2300 or 2700 (I had read they wanted it near the base village, I agree though I would prefer to have the base where the old one was), I still don't get how this gets done correctly for $10 million. When I orginally saw this I was thinking $13-$15 million based on what Sunday River and Killington had done.

 

[deadheadskier]

Hard to tell on cost. Wasn't the Whistler Gondola $27 million? Given what was involved in constructing that beast, one would assume that the costs of a Gondola at Sugarloaf would be a third of that. Then you've got the 7 mil, Chondola down the road, where one might assume the SL gondi would cost double.

What hasn't been mentioned, but I seem to recall reading was that Boyne had moved and is storing an old Big Sky Gondola at one of their areas in the east. I wonder what the intentions are for that.

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

Hard to tell on cost. Wasn't the Whistler Gondola $27 million? Given what was involved in constructing that beast, one would assume that the costs of a Gondola at Sugarloaf would be a third of that. Then you've got the 7 mil, Chondola down the road, where one might assume the SL gondi would cost double.

What hasn't been mentioned, but I seem to recall reading was that Boyne had moved and is storing an old Big Sky Gondola at one of their areas in the east. I wonder what the intentions are for that.

You are correct the Big Sky Gondola is being stored at Sugarloaf in the bushes, or at least it was originally.

They better not be using anything that is used for this project. I don't care if it is just the cabins themselves. If the town is going to do this it should be done right, which mean brand new everything. Anything less then that, don't bother. My 2 cents.

 

[deadheadskier]

Maybe the Big Sky Gondola will be used to replace the West Mountain lift? Build up some additional real estate over there for it to service?

 

[klrskiah]

I understand that, but to the earlier point of the $8 million as the cost and your $10 million figure, how can they do it for that cost and do it right (bi cable/tri cable,etc). As mentioned the Sunday River Chondla was $7 million (according to previous posts) and I think the new quad at Bear (Skye Peak) was $6 million I believe, so how can Sugarloaf put in a state of the art Gondola running 8500 ft over 2700 ft of vertical for $8-$10 million. Has the economy really effected prices that much on ski lifts? Just curious.

That 8 million was what they were quoted by Doppelmayer i believe. That is for a single cable- 8 passenger design.

IMO it would be worth holding off for a pricier bi/cable system, but this seems to be a now or never type deal..