Sugarbush Lift System

[ski_resort_observer]

I think as prety much the only realistic option now for Trail Dev at Sugarbush is the pod above the Inverness, and even Win said that this it is supposedly a personnel priority of John Egan to dev this terrain...... So, I guess, if they have even publicly discussed this, it is a definite possibility.

Please, pretty please.....probably a good priority #1.

I think, we need to throw together a more complete site of Sugarbush History, I think alot of people have pictures, old maps, tickets, propaganda, and commentary that could be very interesting. In addition, now in this era, we can do a great deal to doccument, Sugarbush as it is now, and events that are happening, for future generations, (perhaps to let them know there was even skiing in VT) I am intested to see what Strat and BushMogulMaster come up with.

I imagine there would be some real interest here....and I'm not sure if any mountain has a full bore "History" site that is like an online museum of the place (not to take away from the existing excellent sites mentioned - true labors of love. I'd be personally real interested to see a combo site for SB and MRG - sort of a yin-yang of the valley skiing. Or separate sites, if that wasn't feasible - practical.

I love old photos, grainy old home movies (especially those ones in color that look almost surreal) and the like.

If the ball does get rolling on a wide, organized project like that, I'd be willing to dig into my pocket and throw something into the pot to help.

In addition to Strat's most excellent site there is another more broad based Sugarbush history site http://bush.daevious.com/. This was listed in the sticky Back in the Day in this forum, which I assume you have already checked out. Not really a bunch of info there, to be honest. For a general history of Sugarbush ownership there is an excellent page on the Sugarbush website for that.

I think what your proposing is a great idea but I'm not sure your aware of the time committment required to do it right. Rather than do your own website you could do it much more easily here. We already have a thread Sugarbush Pics, for example, it's just buried in the past right now so I will bump it and maybe Lostone or Tin could make it a sticky.

You could start a new sticky like maybe Sugarbush History. I actually asked about that one awhile back and somehow it got listed as Old Trail Names. In the first 6 months of this forum or so threads pertaining to alot of the subjects your talking about exist. Again, totally buried and will bump a few of them but that will work only temporarily.

Another point is I don't think many use the seach function of this forum. It really helps to see what had already transpired, not ragging on anyone.....just saying. Strat, I hope you don't mind me stealing that....

So, what do you guys think about maybe organizing the sticky's or whatever that covers the subjects your talking about. I think most already know that I would love to see people post pics on a regular basis. Any pics, even pics of yourself! What the heck do most of you guys/gals look like anyway's. That would be a great thread or even sticky right there.

I'm not sure of the details on how it would work, you guys can take that on. It's just an idea, what do you think?

[BushMogulMaster]

SRO -- we split this out to its own topic. http://forums.skimrv.com/viewtopic.php?t=606.

I'll copy your post into that thread.

[random_ski_guy]

perhaps this is an over generalization, but it seems like a sizable majority are happy with the lift system (i know i am). is it fair to say that with respect to lifts specifically, most would be satisfied with;

i) making the VH double safer at the top and extending the lift to the new base area
ii) accelerating the inverness quad (not that its too important to the flow of the mtn, its just annoyingly slow)

and thats about it when it comes to lifts. there don't appear to be many other comments (bushmogulmaestro's request for a gondola or "pocket" surface lift notwithstanding).

[Tin Woodsman]

rsg nails it.

On the current footprint, this is the bare minimum general consensus. Though it would be nice to have some way to avoid that Lower FIS runout.

[BushMogulMaster]

perhaps this is an over generalization, but it seems like a sizable majority are happy with the lift system (i know i am). is it fair to say that with respect to lifts specifically, most would be satisfied with;

i) making the VH double safer at the top and extending the lift to the new base area
ii) accelerating the inverness quad (not that its too important to the flow of the mtn, its just annoyingly slow)

and thats about it when it comes to lifts. there don't appear to be many other comments (bushmogulmaestro's request for a gondola or "pocket" surface lift notwithstanding).

I hereby rescind my request for a gondola, short of puting gondola cabins on Slidebrook. You've got me convinced it's just not worth it!

However, I retain my surface lift request. I'd like to see several of them, actually.

[BushMogulMaster]

rsg nails it.

On the current footprint, this is the bare minimum general consensus. Though it would be nice to have some way to avoid that Lower FIS runout.

I have several ideas for that. I'll share them at some point.

[Tin Woodsman]

perhaps this is an over generalization, but it seems like a sizable majority are happy with the lift system (i know i am). is it fair to say that with respect to lifts specifically, most would be satisfied with;

i) making the VH double safer at the top and extending the lift to the new base area
ii) accelerating the inverness quad (not that its too important to the flow of the mtn, its just annoyingly slow)

and thats about it when it comes to lifts. there don't appear to be many other comments (bushmogulmaestro's request for a gondola or "pocket" surface lift notwithstanding).

I hereby rescind my request for a gondola, short of puting gondola cabins on Slidebrook. You've got me convinced it's just not worth it!

However, I retain my surface lift request. I'd like to see several of them, actually.

Forgot about the SBX gondola cabin suggestion. I think that would be in a second wave of priorities if technically feasible, as indicated here.

[Tin Woodsman]

rsg nails it.

On the current footprint, this is the bare minimum general consensus. Though it would be nice to have some way to avoid that Lower FIS runout.

I have several ideas for that. I'll share them at some point.

I'd think it would have to begin somewhere in the 1600'-1800' elevation range along Lower FIS. It could terminate in one of three locations, point 2185', the mid-Tumbler flats, or the Glen House flats. All of these terminus choices have positives and negatives.

One thing isn't in dispute, it would open up, in a much more dramatic manner than today, a truly staggering amount of terrain. If you were to draw a triangle bounded by Lower FIS on the south, Lower Rim Run/Tumbler/Crackerjack on the north, and a line between point 2185, and Lower FIS at the 1600' elevation, you'd be talking about a truly staggering amount of terrain as these things go in the East. You would be covering nearly as much acreage (not necessarily skiable acreage) as the entire upper mountain from NRX upwards, spread over about 1500 vertical feet. Aspect would range from due E through to SE - probably not all that dissimilar to the Gate House/North Lynx pods combined.

Is this considered part of Slide Brook, and therefore protected, even though it is in the Lockwood Brook drainage and is already surrounded by cut trails on all sides? As an aside, does anyone know the boundaries of the area defined in SB's agreements with the USFS defined as "Slide Brook"?

[random_ski_guy]

Tin, you beat me to a topic I was going to bring up another time. What is the potential for making better use of that zone between Lower FIS and Tumbler.

And where does Sugarbush's special use permit end and the Slide Brook zone begin? Perhaps Atkinson can answer this. Perhaps Lower FIS is indeed in the Slide Brook Area but by grandfather clause. If not, then we have more to dicuss about developing this pocket (with trails & glades, not houses).

Enough with the hypothetical chainsaw for tonight - Random.

[freeheel_skier]

rsg nails it.

On the current footprint, this is the bare minimum general consensus. Though it would be nice to have some way to avoid that Lower FIS runout.

Aw the runout isn't that bad.....

[BushMogulMaster]

Tin, you beat me to a topic I was going to bring up another time. What is the potential for making better use of that zone between Lower FIS and Tumbler.

And where does Sugarbush's special use permit end and the Slide Brook zone begin? Perhaps Atkinson can answer this. Perhaps Lower FIS is indeed in the Slide Brook Area but by grandfather clause. If not, then we have more to dicuss about developing this pocket (with trails & glades, not houses).

Enough with the hypothetical chainsaw for tonight - Random.

USFS land doesn't begin until past Lower FIS. As far as what is considered the Slide Brook, I'm 99% sure that that land does not start until past Lockwood Brook to the South, and Below Lower FIS to the East. But perhaps someone knows more about it than I do...

[smootharc]

- Tinny's Lower FIS Pod at North

- Egan's above Inverness Pod at North

- Bush Mogul Master's Surface lifts - both North and South.


All in favor....say Ayyyy ! All opposed....say nayyyyy - then slink off to some other valley and leave this one to true visionaries, ya cretins !

[ski_resort_observer]

Tin, you beat me to a topic I was going to bring up another time. What is the potential for making better use of that zone between Lower FIS and Tumbler.

And where does Sugarbush's special use permit end and the Slide Brook zone begin? Perhaps Atkinson can answer this. Perhaps Lower FIS is indeed in the Slide Brook Area but by grandfather clause. If not, then we have more to dicuss about developing this pocket (with trails & glades, not houses).

Enough with the hypothetical chainsaw for tonight - Random.

USFS land doesn't begin until past Lower FIS. As far as what is considered the Slide Brook, I'm 99% sure that that land does not start until past Lockwood Brook to the South, and Below Lower FIS to the East. But perhaps someone knows more about it than I do...

It's more complicated than you could possible imagine. There is some interesting history about how the Bush originally got the right to go ahead to develope in circa 1956.

I don't remember the details, hopefully someone can interject here but from what I remember the huge chunk of land from Bread Loaf/Middlebury Gap to the Bush was donated to the USFS by a landowner from Middlebury with the intention of keeping it forever wild. Apparently this was a gentleman's agreement, nothing was put down on paper legalwise.

When the Bush started developing the family of this benefactor felt totally dishonored and sued the USFS and lost. When the Bush proposed putting a lift across the basin, this old can of worms reared up again. Slidebrook is definately off-limits for any future developement. If anyone has more info on this historical info please post.

[random_ski_guy]

Tin, you beat me to a topic I was going to bring up another time. What is the potential for making better use of that zone between Lower FIS and Tumbler.

And where does Sugarbush's special use permit end and the Slide Brook zone begin? Perhaps Atkinson can answer this. Perhaps Lower FIS is indeed in the Slide Brook Area but by grandfather clause. If not, then we have more to dicuss about developing this pocket (with trails & glades, not houses).

Enough with the hypothetical chainsaw for tonight - Random.

USFS land doesn't begin until past Lower FIS. As far as what is considered the Slide Brook, I'm 99% sure that that land does not start until past Lockwood Brook to the South, and Below Lower FIS to the East. But perhaps someone knows more about it than I do...

It's more complicated than you could possible imagine. There is some interesting history about how the Bush originally got the right to go ahead to develope in circa 1956.

I don't remember the details, hopefully someone can interject here but from what I remember the huge chunk of land from Bread Loaf/Middlebury Gap to the Bush was donated to the USFS by a landowner from Middlebury with the intention of keeping it forever wild. Apparently this was a gentleman's agreement, nothing was put down on paper legalwise.

When the Bush started developing the family of this benefactor felt totally dishonored and sued the USFS and lost. When the Bush proposed putting a lift across the basin, this old can of worms reared up again. Slidebrook is definately off-limits for any future developement. If anyone has more info on this historical info please post.

i'm certainly interested to know more about the land donation. fortunately our little project appears to be outside the USFS oversight. from what I can see on the topo maps, the USFS boundary is to the skiers right of lower FIS, so the Tumbler / Lower FIS land mass is on private land....me thinks

and by the way, why do you assume i am underestimating the complications of these projects? what i have said that makes you think that its more complicated than i could ever imagine? these fantasy trail creations & lift pods take years to get approved and i'd be the first to tell you that most would never get approved or the approval costs would far out weigh the economic return (unless your AIG; but thats another thread) so there is no point in trying.

[BushMogulMaster]

i'm certainly interested to know more about the land donation. fortunately our little project appears to be outside the USFS oversight. from what I can see on the topo maps, the USFS boundary is to the skiers right of lower FIS, so the Tumbler / Lower FIS land mass is on private land....me thinks

and by the way, why do you assume i am underestimating the complications of these projects? what i have said that makes you think that its more complicated than i could ever imagine? these fantasy trail creations & lift pods take years to get approved and i'd be the first to tell you that most would never get approved or the approval costs would far out weigh the economic return (unless your AIG; but thats another thread) so there is no point in trying.

Yes.

Actually, regarding permitting, many of these projects, including (I think) some development in that Lower FIS area were already permitted by ASC, and would merely require a few minor edits and a renewal of the permit. Yes... it's very complicated, and time consuming; but what major project isn't? It's worth it, and this particular idea is particularly feasible and intriguing. Have a look at the topo for that area... much of the terrain just below the Glen House is measurably steeper and more intense than FIS, etc. Imagine a lift and a handfull of skinny "characterful" trails through there. Serious skiing with no more runout issue.

As far as costs outweighing economic return, I'm not sure I agree. People, especially skiers, get excited when they see something new, and ESPECIALLY when it's visible on-mountain improvement. A new lift, a few new trails might inspire people who haven't skied here in years, or maybe ever, to come and give it a try. If they like it, they'll be back. That's how you make money off of an expansion. Not to mention that it's more fun for those of us who are already here