• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

The "Sugarbush Thread"

raisingarizona

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
1,132
Points
113
Simply put - based on the topography there's no way to cut trails to easily ski from one side to the other. A lift of some sort is needed. Either you need a lift from the bottom of the middle going up to either side (which is essentially what was rejected years ago). Or you need a connecting lift as you have now with Slide Brook.
How about a gondola with a mid station at the lowest elevation point? Then could you have a trail from both sides descend towards that mid station?
 

raisingarizona

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
1,132
Points
113
Well it wouldn't just serve those two runs. It would also allow for a better early season and late season as well maybe. I'd put a mid station too. my mountain my lift.
Sure there's a bit of redundancy in it, but one could say the same thing having VH and Bravo. Why do we need both? Well, I love having redundancy.

I have always personally felt that one of Sugarbush weakness is no bottom to top lift. MRG has one, Stowe has 2. Four runner Quad and Gondy are both epic lifts and serve epic terrain top to bottom. Stratton, Smuggs. etc. I mean, stratton has 3 lifts that summit. Most others do. In fact, is Sugarbush the only one that doesn't? That's a personal nit that's all. I like the pods approach but having choice with top to bottom as well to me would make it better. So when playing fantasy mountain, I would always go back to that. The liftline is there, no regulations needed, which as we know in VT is a big barrier. so that's why I would love to see a basically bottom to top lift. especially over a base to base lift like Slidey-B. I can see your argument, although I would disagree on downspout, the only reason anyone skis downspout to to go to HG. That is the only reason. LOL
The topography unfortunately doesn’t work well for T2B skiing. Big T2B lifts sound cool and can be attractive on paper but it f the fall lines don’t work well it’s a very expensive proposition for what amounts to a novelty.
 

mikec142

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
Messages
836
Points
43
Not going to happen unless the USFS would agree to tear up the current agreement.
I realize that this is all theoretical discussion. But one thing that I wouldn't discount in today's world is the USFS saying, go ahead...do whatever you want.
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
6,867
Points
113
Location
NJ
How about a gondola with a mid station at the lowest elevation point? Then could you have a trail from both sides descend towards that mid station?

Not all that different from what I said would work, but again that is still not terribly different from the plan that was rejected years ago. (I know this was all a theoretical discussion as there's no further development at all that can be done in Slide Brook...so options are get Slide Brook running, replace it with basically the same thing eventually, or have nothing connecting LP and ME).
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
6,867
Points
113
Location
NJ
This is a quintessential Slidey B day!!

On that topic...it has now been exactly 1 month since our last "State of the mountain" report where it was mentioned that Slidey B was "hopeful to open over the holiday week".

We all know at this point it isn't running this year and based on the information we've heard we know what the problem is. Still would be nice for the mountain to give a public update for all the people that don't read this niche forum. Transparency would be nice...
 
Top