Smellytele
Well-known member
My thought is would it make them any more money connecting them? They got the right away for water up and over it and that is what they really wanted. The interconnect is really secondary for them.
-
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!
USSA Proposes World Cup At Killington
- Thread starter mbedle
- Start date
My thought is would it make them any more money connecting them? They got the right away for water up and over it and that is what they really wanted. The interconnect is really secondary for them.
Exactly. That was the plan. It is not a bad idea--especially for using Pico as a gateway for folks TO Killington to save traffic going up the Access Road.
That's an interesting way to look at it and I really don't know that it would bring in any more money. On the one hand you could market yourself as a single bigger resort (although at their current size would it really make much difference), but on the other hand you could also potentially lose some people that ski Pico specifically because it is is separate and is not Killington. I agree it is definitely secondary for them and I don't know that it would bring much added value at this point.
Even if you parked at Bear or Skyeship you could probably make it in about 3 lifts, although like you both said that really isn't the target audience.
ss20
Well-known member
I'm pro-interconnect. I think it has to happen in order for Pico to receive any investment. The place hasn't received any new lift since 1988 and went bankrupt in the 90s. It's essentially frozen in time without enough business to warrant improvements. The base village is aging, Outpost is one of the oldest lifts in the East, and the 2 HSQ's are going to need replacement in the next 10 years. I love the mountain when it's all-open but snowmaking is minuscule, and during the week not running Little Pico or Outpost really limit the available terrain. For the place to see any $$$ thrown at it and to improve operations I think it has to get connected to Killington.
As for the Killington side of things the marketing potential is huge. The resort would become something like 1,300 acres. Every stat would be untouchable by Eastern standards. You would have a resort that you truly could not ski in one day...meaning more overnight stays and more $$$ spent by guests.
As for the Killington side of things the marketing potential is huge. The resort would become something like 1,300 acres. Every stat would be untouchable by Eastern standards. You would have a resort that you truly could not ski in one day...meaning more overnight stays and more $$$ spent by guests.
mbedle
Well-known member
I don't think that proposed interconnect is going to be like sugarbush, but will have two new ski pods with 2 additional lifts. So controlling access via a lift gates wouldn't be possible.
Smellytele
Well-known member
You're probably right looking at this:
You're probably right looking at this:
Hmm. I wouldn't say it is impossible even in that configuration. You could always put an access gate going to the K side right at that intersection in the middle even without a lift directly between K and Pico. An access gate doesn't need to actually be by a lift. Or simply a sign warning people that beyond this point you must have a full K ticket in order to access lifts on that side.
Of course we're getting way ahead of ourselves as even if they did put in an interconnect, the final design could be different than what they originally proposed years ago. And they could always decide to eliminate the Pico only reduced rates and just make it only one single K rate (I don't see this as a good option though as it would certainly make some people unhappy).
slatham
Well-known member
Killington may have a chance at those pods, but Sugarbush slidebrook pods are off the table. Even their most recent ubber aggressive master plan didn't touch slidebrook. IIRC, there was some deal/swap made so it can't be done.
machski
Well-known member
Seems it would be very easy in this configuration to control. Probably allow Pico only guest on the Pico "back pod" and lift and on the one connector trail at the intersection, sign and maybe fence denoting the requirements to proceed to K or head back to the Pico back pod lift. Snowbird and Alta seem to do it ok with their interconnect points.You're probably right looking at this:
Sent from my XT1650 using AlpineZone mobile app
No, It cannot be done. The lift was the deal.
KustyTheKlown
Well-known member
is it weird that i love it how outpost is never open? i do a 5 minute hike with zero exertion and i have untouched or sparsely tracked powder runs deep in the afternoon, every time i ski pico, even days after a storm.
Nope
Feel the same way.
I'm only pissed when I show up and the A Slope triple isn't spinning.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app
ss20
Well-known member
Every time I ski A-Slope I forget how steep the top part is. Short, but pretty freaking steep! I couldn't imagine doing that with the equipment in the 40s and 50s... :blink:
urungus
Well-known member
Personally I find it irritating, bordering on downright fraudulent, when Pico advertises itself as 100% open but is not running the Outpost or A Slope chairlifts. Noticed this several times last year.
They did that a lot in the ASC days.
Outpost is not a bad hike, but A Slope is a different story.
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
FBGM
Well-known member
New tunnels at killington are going to be a disaster. This was one of those ideas that looks good on paper and that’s it. I’m surprised Mt Blow didn’t try this dumb shit first
Also, Killy is going to be in trouble with completing this work. They bit off a bit much for 1 year. They are a first class resort. So hope they get it together.
Also, Killy is going to be in trouble with completing this work. They bit off a bit much for 1 year. They are a first class resort. So hope they get it together.
speden
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 913
- Points
- 28
On paper the tunnels look well engineered, but it will be interesting to see how they actually ski, and what kind of fencing they put around them.
Looks like some of them will ski a little bit like a roller when you go over them with a flattish approach, and then a sharper drop. Maybe with some decent speed you could catch some air off the downhill side. The pitch angle inside of them looks really mellow, so that should reduce crashes inside. I hope the pitch isn't so shallow that snowboarders get stuck. The tunnels are pretty long, so I wonder if they will need any artificial lighting inside for dark overcast days.
Somehow they will need to prevent people from going off the open ends from above, since that would be like a hucking a small cliff with a flat landing (or landing on the heads of cross traffic). When I've seen bridge/tunnels at other resorts, they usually have solid guardrails on the bridge. But I've never seen tunnels as long as these.
My worry is that they will get paranoid about accidents and put "Slow Zone" signs at every tunnel crossing, which would interrupt the flow of the trails and defeat the purpose of having them in the first place.
Looks like some of them will ski a little bit like a roller when you go over them with a flattish approach, and then a sharper drop. Maybe with some decent speed you could catch some air off the downhill side. The pitch angle inside of them looks really mellow, so that should reduce crashes inside. I hope the pitch isn't so shallow that snowboarders get stuck. The tunnels are pretty long, so I wonder if they will need any artificial lighting inside for dark overcast days.
Somehow they will need to prevent people from going off the open ends from above, since that would be like a hucking a small cliff with a flat landing (or landing on the heads of cross traffic). When I've seen bridge/tunnels at other resorts, they usually have solid guardrails on the bridge. But I've never seen tunnels as long as these.
My worry is that they will get paranoid about accidents and put "Slow Zone" signs at every tunnel crossing, which would interrupt the flow of the trails and defeat the purpose of having them in the first place.
bdfreetuna
New member
Summit Glades > Bushwacker > A-Slope isn't a longer hike than to Outpost. Actually it's flatter, you could skate most of it.
I do think they need to start advertising more clearly which lifts will be open and when. Also some updates during the mid week period in terms of expected terrain would be nice (especially when there is a mid week storm and you expect trail count to rise).
I would change my vote on the interconnect in a heartbeat if it also meant a noticeable terrain expansion.
I do think they need to start advertising more clearly which lifts will be open and when. Also some updates during the mid week period in terms of expected terrain would be nice (especially when there is a mid week storm and you expect trail count to rise).
I would change my vote on the interconnect in a heartbeat if it also meant a noticeable terrain expansion.
Similar threads
