Chair lift for North Creek Ski Bowl

[kornfein]

Today's Albany Times Union reports that the state budget includes $5.5 for a chair lift and new trails at the Ski Bowl. Not many details are given but this will not interconnect with Gore. I would think $5.5 would buy a fairly long chair lift?

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=466366&category=REGION&newsdate=3/30/2006

[kornfein]

I found this map of the proposed Gore lifts (including the Gondola to the base)

http://upload4.postimage.org/100799/GoreExpansion.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/100799/photo_hosting.html)

Here is a link to an the image under another forum: http://www.snowjournal.com/images/gallery_snowjournal/42e0406890d83.jpg

[Tin Woodsman]

What a complete waste of money.

Connection to North Creek = smart.

Doing so via expensive base to base gondola = stupid.

Emily S is a pretty smart cookie, but this is going to be a tough sell. Why not run a lift to the top of Burnt Mtn? Or run one as high up as possible at the Ski Bowl? I can't understand why you wouldn't want the interconnect to open up new skiable terrain. Are there really going to be that many people who want to ski/stay at the North Creek base and start their day by taking a long transfer lift to the Gore base before dealing with the morning crowding there? Makes zero sense.

[Wa]

They are opening more skiable terrain at the ski bowl and a lifts up both the ski bowl and Burnt Ridge, so the long gondola isn't the only way to go. There are going to be trails coming down the eastern side of burnt ridge as well.

[skitoggrob]

yeah i herd about that..sounds prettty cool to me...lets hear some more info

[Tin Woodsman]

They are opening more skiable terrain at the ski bowl and a lifts up both the ski bowl and Burnt Ridge, so the long gondola isn't the only way to go. There are going to be trails coming down the eastern side of burnt ridge as well.

I guess I should have made my point more clearly. I understand they are opening more terrain at the ski bowl. But given it's low elevation and limited vertical, it's not going to be a huge attraction. There's a reason the Ski Bowl closed in the first place. And I also understand that the long range plans call for a lift and trails on Burnt Ridge, but that could have happened irrespective of the Ski Bowl connection. Wouldn't it make more sense to either:

a) Run a lift high enough at Ski Bowl such that you could ski over to the Gore trail system directly like this

http://i2.tinypic.com/t5nln8.jpg

or

b) Run a lift from Ski Bowl (in addition to the dedicated Ski Bowl lift) up towards Burnt Ridge such that you could ski right down to the existing Gore lifts and trails accessible from that point in addition to any new trails that would be cut?

http://i2.tinypic.com/t5nm94.jpg

Either way, they are building a lift to serve North Creek terrain and, eventually, a lift to serve Burnt Ridge. Why waste the $8MM required for the gondola to nowhere?

[kornfein]

I believe the current plan is to build the gondola as the next step (after the chair this year). If you look at my initial map you will see the burnt ridge lifts and gondola listed as "alternatives". As I understand it they have choosen the gondola alternative-(.

[Harvey44]

Tin Woodsman,

Great job on the mountain planning. I agree that that's a big chunk of change for close to zero benefit.

M

[Tin Woodsman]

I believe the current plan is to build the gondola as the next step (after the chair this year). If you look at my initial map you will see the burnt ridge lifts and gondola listed as "alternatives". As I understand it they have choosen the gondola alternative-(.

Well that's exactly the problem. The lift going in at North Creek is fine and all, but that's not what's the real attraction here - it's the connection to Gore itself that drives optimism and interest. The manner in which they will acomplish this goal (base to base gondola) is expensive and meaningless to the Gore skiing experience. Could even be detrimental to it.

[adksara]

Yup, I agree... after looking at the proposed gondola map and then going over my own map, I just don't see how they can justify this huge expense of a gondola. It seems that the gondola will simply be a glorified taxi with nothing added to skiable terrain. Linking directly to Burnt Ridge or up to the North Chair would make so much more sense... maybe even spend the money to improve the North Chair to speed it up a bit!

I've hiked the Schaeffer (my spelling is terrible!) trail that runs up that area and there are quite a few spots that can have wonderful trails and glades and other areas that are just far to clifflike or flat... I hope that when they cut trails they would be sensible and really pay attention to the fall line and the lay of the land.

We'll see though... it doesn't seem to follow common sense with this gondola scheme - but then hey, that's the state for 'ya!

-ADK Sara

[Wa]

Tin Woodsman- nice work on the planning! They are putting in the burnt ridge lift in your second map, in addition to the gondola. I think part of the plan for the gondola is, as someone stated, a glorified taxi. Look at the conditions at the base now and think about the people who buck up minimum 450K for a house in Ski Bowl Village. They can walk (or ski is there is base left) from their house to the gondola to get up to the current base to ski for the day and then download back if neccessary. The goal is for a ski in ski out village, so the gondola is needed for that. The future plans include the train as well, so people without cars can ski right from the bowl. They ultimately want to have a gondola going from the train station to the village too, so even people staying in town at any future hotel or ski house can get to their skiing without a car.

I have the UMP revisions to the original plan at www.w-train.com/misc/gore.pdf

[takeahike46er]

Thanks for the link, Wa. A couple of thoughts:

I am glad they revised the plans a bit and did away with the trails going down the north slope of Burnt Ridge. Those runs would have offered no vert. The trails down the east side offer a bit more bang-for-the buck.

The proposed trail to the east of topridge looks like it would be a nice addition to that pod, offering alternating steeps and flats. One might even be able to ski the old gondola line to the base where the two meet up.

The gondola connecting the base areas seems like a lot of money to invest in a glorified taxi, although some transport is neccessary. I'd rather have it at the base then connecting to the Gore summit-- keeps all the peeps away from the Straightbrook area!


Looking at these plans I cannot help but think of K-mart (on a smaller scale).

[Wa]

http://www.poststar.com/story.asp?storyid=220143

With Tuesday's override of Pataki's veto frenzy, it looks like we have our Gondola/taxi and expansion plan back in shape.

[Son of Drifter]

[quote="Tin Woodsman"]What a complete waste of money.

Doing so via expensive base to base gondola = stupid.

Here Here Tin Tin. Give that 5.5MM to a mountain that knows how to use it and has a much better expansion plan on the table. We don't need anymore flat spots on Bore. I meant Gore. :twisted:

[Son of Drifter]

http://www.poststar.com/story.asp?storyid=220143

With Tuesday's override of Pataki's veto frenzy, it looks like we have our Gondola/taxi and expansion plan back in shape.

F the government. Long live King George. :twisted:

[Son of Drifter]

Yup, I agree... after looking at the proposed gondola map and then going over my own map, I just don't see how they can justify this huge expense of a gondola. It seems that the gondola will simply be a glorified taxi with nothing added to skiable terrain. Linking directly to Burnt Ridge or up to the North Chair would make so much more sense... maybe even spend the money to improve the North Chair to speed it up a bit!

And they say women are foolish with money. I say to hell with that sh!t. My sentiments exactly Sara. :twisted:

I've hiked the Schaeffer (my spelling is terrible!) trail that runs up that area and there are quite a few spots that can have wonderful trails and glades and other areas that are just far to clifflike or flat... I hope that when they cut trails they would be sensible and really pay attention to the fall line and the lay of the land.

We'll see though... it doesn't seem to follow common sense with this gondola scheme - but then hey, that's the state for 'ya!

-ADK Sara

[Wa]

Well the 5.5 isn't just for the gondola. Its for the new trail system too. I think its going to improve Gore and I'm in favor of it.

[adksara]

And they say women are foolish with money ...SOD :D

Not foolish when it comes to potentially messing with my skiing!

I'm still not convinced about the scope of the whole project. Knowing how government in general throws money into projects and then has to "fix" things later... I'm concerned... hopefully trails will be cut that add to the mountain terrain, the gondola idea will work out and the mountain will improve.

I was skeptical when they first proposed Topridge... I think my thoughts were "what are they nuts to put a trail in the full sun?" and knowing how side-pitch Pine Knot is made me wonder about Uncas. But that all worked out pretty well...

I wish that they would have some sort of open forum for skiers to have our two cents in this next stage of planning - maybe walk the land - make suggestions - I know that I would be up for a hike to let them know where I'd like to ski... whether they take our ideas or not - you never know what we could come up with. 8)

-ADK Sara