Gore Proposals

TomWhiteTomWhite
in NELSAP Forum Posts: 2,579
Gore charts are at Liftblog.com. There is reference to Belleayre but no charts.

Gore’s
new UMP includes a new fixed-grip triple or quad chair from Northwoods Lodge up
Lower Sunway.  A second new chairlift would serve the nearby Bear Cub
run.  The 1986 Riblet double currently known as Sunway would be
removed.  On the upper mountain, the 1966 Riblet High Peaks lift would be
replaced and extended to the top of the mountain.

Gore
Mountain now includes the North Creek Ski Bowl, which used to be its own ski
area.  ORDA added two Partek and Borvig lifts here in 2007 and 2010,
respectively, and incorporated the complex into Gore Mountain.  The
Borvig, called Hudson, is slated to be replaced with a high-speed quad in a new
alignment.  Another lift is already approved to link the Ski Bowl to
Gore’s main base.  The existing Village lift would be extended 1,000 feet
uphill to provide a longer beginner run at the Ski Bowl.

$62.5 million could buy a
lot of lifts and while the state just bought Belleayre a new gondola, projects there could include replacement
of two 35-year old Doppelmayr fixed-grips or
the mountain’s ’86 Riblet.  Belleayre also could expand into the defunct Highmount Ski Center which
operated with several Mueller lifts until 1993.  All of these projects at
all three mountains are subject to various approvals but things are moving
along and the hardest part for many private ski areas – financing – appears to
be close at hand.




«1

Comments

  • ADKskierADKskier
    Posts: 975
    Looks like Gore wants to push their beginners area up and out on the lower mountain. I would like to see what different alignment they would go with for a Quad at the ski bowl. What I would like to see is the private development at Gore take off. A lot of the proposed hotels, golf course etc...were dead on arrival after state investment. 
    ~Rich~
  • NELSAPNELSAP
    Posts: 1,096
    The plans for Gore are wild. Those are some major expansions! I like the concept of the new lifts. However, the trail widening is a bit sad to see, particularly on the North Face, which features some interesting, twisting trails that are a joy to ski.
  • rickbolgerrickbolger
    Posts: 2,962
    what do they hope to accomplish with this?  

    I was there Saturday 1/20 39º and pleasant, the place was busier than I've ever seen it yet the quad out of the base was less than five minute wait.  Gondy was mobbed but nothing like K1.  Elsewhere on the mountain there were no lift lines to speak of, although at one point the High Peaks chair was six people ahead and everybody was commenting that it was the first time they ever saw a line.   

    Can't think of too many mountains that move people around and thin 'em out better than Gore.   I park at North Creek when the connection is open, and you can hear crickets in that little lodge.  The Hudson chair is fine, and is ski-on even on the best day.   When it runs.  Where are the logjams?   What's the point of setting aside forest land as wild and then developing it for a little-used section of the overall ski area?

     If they really wanted to fix something they'd build a dedicated race trail.  Right now they close public trails and screw things up. Unless I'm missing it, I don't see a fix for that in these phantasmagorical plans.

    what is their goal?  To spend money?   About the only things that make sense to me are replacing the sluggish Sunway lift and expanding the snowmaking pond.  All the rest is overkill.

    I don't live in NY so it ain't my problem, but Albany has a lot of bigger issues than Gore Mountain.
  • TreillyTreilly
    Posts: 622
    If they make it easier to get to the Ski Bowl I could see it getting much busier and a quad chair could be useful
  • obienickobienick
    edited January 2018 Posts: 1,435
    what do they hope to accomplish with this? 

    Cheaper and more reliable operations and better amenities for customers.

    High Peaks lift will be 51 years old after this season. It's only a double (limited capacity; bad for families), and doesn't go to the top.  With it's age it's a massive maintenance headache.  Although Riblet is still in business as a part supplier -- what is the status of the availability for the really old parts? What types of archaic electronic upgrades have been done over the years to the lift? A lot of specialty microprocessor parts are very hard to come by. So hard that Amtrak scrapped a whole set of their circa 2000 electric locomotives rather than contracting out to someone to build new circuit boards.

    If High Peaks is upgraded to a FGQ that goes to the true top, they don't have to run Straight Brook Quad midweek. Additionally a new lift with readily available parts sources will be easier and cheeper to maintain.  Overall that saves a lot of money on labor and maintenance.

    You can't claim to be a destination resort like Gore claims to be without a bunny slope served by a chairlift.  You can't cut it against the competition with only a handle tow and a J-Bar.   How Bear Cub hasn't been upgraded to a chair in all these years is the big question to ask.  

    Sunway is also the last remaining double at the ski area. A double with a mid-station. No word on if the new lift will keep the mid-station, but if it doesn't that's more labor savings.  If they remove it, just hope they add a green to connect to the top of Jamboree.

    [...] what is their goal? To spend money?

    To improve the ski area.  ORDA's annual economic impact was $120M.  Before they assumed operations of Belleayre.  $62.5M appropriations don't come every year. This isn't $62.5M for Gore. It's $62.5M for all of ORDA.  As long as this kind of spending comes every ~5 years, it's cash positive.
  • rickbolgerrickbolger
    Posts: 2,962
    I'm not anti state.  I'm against needless and/or reckless spending.  but I understand how you can conclude the former based on the latter, "state" and "reckless spending" do tend to go together.

    Where does it say every ski area is entitled to state-of-the-art lifts?

    I rode both the platter and the jbar on Saturday, very nice.   Didn't see the handle tow.  Didn't see any lack of people for lack of a beginner chair.

    The Hudson chair and Village chairs are so rarely used, and they spent how much on those?  Now they want to replace Hudson and add more lifts?  Come on, that's just bad management or poor planning or both.

    How much did they spend on that half pipe?  How many tickets does that sell?  (that's a rhetorical question. it sells tens of tickets each year)  

    Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Gore, nowadays I ski there as much as anywhere and really enjoy it.  Especially the Ski Bowl!  When it's open and the lifts are running.

    I applaud their efforts to establish a nordic center at the Ski Bowl.  That's a good move.  





  • NELSAPNELSAP
    Posts: 1,096
    Kinda half joking, but I'm surprised they didn't put in a connector chair from the lodge to the base of Burnt Ridge. That trail is about as flat as it can be and still have some downhill to it. 350' drop over 3500 feet of length.
  • mapnutmapnut
    edited January 2018 Posts: 1,033
    NELSAP said:

    Kinda half joking, but I'm surprised they didn't put in a connector chair from the lodge to the base of Burnt Ridge. That trail is about as flat as it can be and still have some downhill to it. 350' drop over 3500 feet of length.



    Echo from the top of Burnt Ridge is one of the best advanced-intermediate runs anywhere, as far as it goes, but then there's that long flat back to the lift. How does it work for racing?

    How are the connecting trails to and from the Ski Bowl? They look pretty flat on the topo maps.

    I totally agree that the North Face trails shouldn't be widened and straightened as shown. Those were so pretty! On my only trip to Gore, I could have skied those trails all day if I hadn't had the goal to explore the whole mountain. And if the lift had been faster.

    https://liftblog.com/2018/01/19/gore-whiteface-propose-ten-new-lifts/


  • rickbolgerrickbolger
    Posts: 2,962
    mapnut said:

    How are the connecting trails to and from the Ski Bowl? They look pretty flat on the topo maps.




    Going from the Ski Bowl is ok, if you're on your horse it can be done without poling. Getting back to it requires poling around that snowmaking pond. After the pond there's a section just prior to the crossover that is narrow and usually icy, can be a bit hairy for lower intermediates.

    Personally I think it's kinda cool, according to a presentation I saw on North Creek ski history a couple years ago it's a bit of a throwback to the long guided up-and-down trails that were popular there in the 1940s. The flat section around the pond is pretty scenic and provides a nice quiet moment in the day. From the crossover down to Ski Bowl proper is a relatively narrow, winding and rolling trail that has an old fashioned feel to it, I really enjoy that one.

  • NELSAPNELSAP
    Posts: 1,096
    I do have to say though, that with all of these improvements (aside from widening the North trails which would not be an improvement), that it puts me closer to considering a season pass there. For such a massive mountain to be 45 min away with endless variety is a compelling choice. However, I am a "roamer" and enjoy skiing a variety of mountains hither and yon, so I still probably wouldn't buy a pass.
  • trackbikertrackbiker
    Posts: 319
    The problem isn't getting to the Ski Bowl. It is getting from the Ski Bowl to the main lodge. Since they made Echo the race trail you have to take Hedges to the North Quad to the Saddle then ski down to the bottom. The need another trail besides Echo that will get you from the top of Burnt Ridge to the base lodge.
    They also need to cut a trail from the Top of Burnt Ridge to the Ski Bowl. The only way to get there now is to take the very long and very flat Pipeline trail.
  • mapnutmapnut
    Posts: 1,033
    Wow, such comprehensive answers to my questions! Thanks.
  • rickbolgerrickbolger
    Posts: 2,962
    none of the proposed dramatic changes will result in an equally dramatic increase in ticket sales.

    It's not a destination resort, except for oldtimers, oddballs, and families who enjoy a quiet game of Parcheesi as their apres ski activity.   FWIW I'm in the oddball camp.

    Nobody is gonna pass on the Pickle Barrel in favor of the North Creek nightlife, and the Dollar General just doesn't have the same appeal as the North Conway outlet centers. 

    They might steal a few customers from Whiteface 
    ;)
  • mapnutmapnut
    edited January 2018 Posts: 1,033

    I'll consider going there over Mt. Snow, which I like, for the more interesting trails. They're about the same driving distance for me. But Gore would have to have good snow, since Mt. Snow has better snowmaking, and possibly (?) more natural snow.

    And it would never be a destination resort for me, since if I went for more than a day I'd do what I did on my previous trip - stay in Lake Placid, ski Whiteface first and ski Gore on the way home.

  • ADKskierADKskier
    Posts: 975
    mapnut said:

    I'll consider going there over Mt. Snow, which I like, for the more interesting trails. They're about the same driving distance for me. But Gore would have to have good snow, since Mt. Snow has better snowmaking, and possibly (?) more natural snow.

    And it would never be a destination resort for me, since if I went for more than a day I'd do what I did on my previous trip - stay in Lake Placid, ski Whiteface first and ski Gore on the way home.

    I think Mt. Snow and Gore receive close to the same natural snow. Four year average for both resorts are Gore-129 inches, Mt. Snow 145 inches. Gore Is more interesting in my opinion and has way gnarlier terrain and not as crowded. If I had to choose I would choose Gore.  
    ~Rich~
  • ADKskierADKskier
    edited January 2018 Posts: 975
    I think the Gondola from Town is really a waste of Money, the lift is approved but is really not needed at this time JMO. The lift was proposed in conjunction with a build out by Fronstreet Mountain development LLC, but they have only built about 10-15 great camp house units. Original plan included multiple hotels and golf course.


    ~Rich~
  • ADKskierADKskier
    Posts: 975
    Thoughts?
    ~Rich~
  • z1000307470z1000307470
    Posts: 469
    ADKskier said:

    Thoughts?

    The only way they are going to increase skier visits is with some advertising in the NY metro area. The problem is the WF/LP ORDA board members, which is to say most of the board, will never approve anything that promotes Gore. It would steal visits from LP/WF. For the vast majority of the skiing public, Gore is a way better choice vs WF.
  • ADKskierADKskier
    Posts: 975
    z1000307470 said:

    ADKskier said:

    Thoughts?

    The only way they are going to increase skier visits is with some advertising in the NY metro area. The problem is the WF/LP ORDA board members, which is to say most of the board, will never approve anything that promotes Gore. It would steal visits from LP/WF. For the vast majority of the skiing public, Gore is a way better choice vs WF.
    Another reason why the Big Tupper build out is having trouble. Protect the Adirondacks have a weird way of making a fuss about anything outside of Lake Placid, yet multiple developments and great lodges are being strung up all around LP.
    ~Rich~
  • z1000307470z1000307470
    Posts: 469
    ADKskier said:

    z1000307470 said:

    ADKskier said:

    Thoughts?

    The only way they are going to increase skier visits is with some advertising in the NY metro area. The problem is the WF/LP ORDA board members, which is to say most of the board, will never approve anything that promotes Gore. It would steal visits from LP/WF. For the vast majority of the skiing public, Gore is a way better choice vs WF.
    Another reason why the Big Tupper build out is having trouble. Protect the Adirondacks have a weird way of making a fuss about anything outside of Lake Placid, yet multiple developments and great lodges are being strung up all around LP.
    Tupper is a completely different issue that has zero to do with LP. Tupper is marginal, small time skiing for the time it takes to get to Tupper.
  • ADKskierADKskier
    Posts: 975
    ahh I see, I'll have to start a new thread, was wondering what the deal with Big Tupper build out is.
    ~Rich~
  • JMaulJMaul
    Posts: 580
    The connector lift would help in low snow times to get the development going at Ski Bowl. maybe a cabriolet? Hybrid?

    I am confused on the extension of High Peaks to the top. Any additional trails it would serve go to other lifts. If lapping High Peaks, you'd have flats on the top section.

    The replacement of the Hudson may have to do with expansion and development of the Ski Bowl area. Check out this topo from 2008.

    image
    You ski because even if you don't do it well, it's still a blast....
  • ciscokidciscokid
    Posts: 5,277
    I love the discussion here and have never skied Gore or white face but have been to Whiteface in taking the gondola up.

    But from an outsider looking in to me it is still not a fair ball game when the taxpayer is funding a ski area

    I am sure I am opening up another burnt out canna worms but to me it is not fair competition sorry

    Same holds true for New Hampshire with cannon

    I'm sure Ted can correct me if I'm wrong but I do not believe there are any state funded Michigan ski areas perhaps porcupine being that it is within a state park

    OK let me have it
  • NELSAPNELSAP
    Posts: 1,096
    NY is an interesting case. I think almost all the major mountains in the Adirondacks are public land. Most of the ski areas that did develop in the Adirondacks were on smaller peaks, including the large ones like Hickory, Paleface, and Titus. Lyon Mountain/Lowenburg had the greatest potential (shameless plug, check out that develop in my book Lost Ski Areas of the Northern Adirondacks) but that is public land now. For there to be a major area in the Adirondacks, it has to be done by the state, and I believe it is mandated through the state constitution.

    That said, there are very legitimate points to be made about the state being involved in the ski area operating business, and if that creates competition with private resorts. It's happening in the Catskills with Belleayre vs. Hunter, Windham, and Plattekill. In the Adks, it's Gore vs West Mtn.

    Now that said, having a large resort like Gore does bring a lot of daytrippers and weekenders up 87N to the Glens Falls, Lake George, and North Creek area, even if it is just to buy gas or stop at Dunkin.


  • obienickobienick
    Posts: 1,435
    No one complains about states or cities running golf courses or beaches.
  • NJSkiNJSki
    edited January 2018 Posts: 445
    Despite the "unfair" advantage, there are more ski areas in New York than there are in any other state in the US.
  • NELSAPNELSAP
    Posts: 1,096
    And Gore is very well run, I've always had a good experience there, and there is plenty of variety for a full day of skiing, nearly impossible to ski it all in one day.

    JD
  • z1000307470z1000307470
    Posts: 469
    JMaul said:

    The connector lift would help in low snow times to get the development going at Ski Bowl. maybe a cabriolet? Hybrid?


    I am confused on the extension of High Peaks to the top. Any additional trails it would serve go to other lifts. If lapping High Peaks, you'd have flats on the top section.

    The replacement of the Hudson may have to do with expansion and development of the Ski Bowl area. Check out this topo from 2008.

    image
    Having a chair stop short of the top for reasons that no longer apply
    makes no sense. Adding another 680 ft to the High Peaks chair greatly
    increases the flexibility of the management to open Gore and operate the
    upper mountain with more efficiency. The High Peaks chair went to the top from
    1967 to 1996. There is no flat spot for Cloud if they put the top terminal in the same spot it was in prior to 1996.  It would also help spread skiers
    out over the upper mountain.  It was shortened when the replacement Gondola was still headed to the top like the original gondola. The top terminal of the High Peaks would have interfered with the installation of the new gondola.
  • NELSAPNELSAP
    Posts: 1,096
    From the top of the Straightbrook Chair,  skiing down Cloud towards the top of the High Peaks Chair - the top section as discussed above, is extremely flat it not uphill in places. It's a slog for skiers, and absolutely no fun for snowboarders.
  • JMaulJMaul
    Posts: 580
    z1000307470 said:

    JMaul said:

    The connector lift would help in low snow times to get the development going at Ski Bowl. maybe a cabriolet? Hybrid?


    I am confused on the extension of High Peaks to the top. Any additional trails it would serve go to other lifts. If lapping High Peaks, you'd have flats on the top section.

    The replacement of the Hudson may have to do with expansion and development of the Ski Bowl area. Check out this topo from 2008.


    Having a chair stop short of the top for reasons that no longer apply
    makes no sense. Adding another 680 ft to the High Peaks chair greatly
    increases the flexibility of the management to open Gore and operate the
    upper mountain with more efficiency. The High Peaks chair went to the top from
    1967 to 1996. There is no flat spot for Cloud if they put the top terminal in the same spot it was in prior to 1996.  It would also help spread skiers
    out over the upper mountain.  It was shortened when the replacement Gondola was still headed to the top like the original gondola. The top terminal of the High Peaks would have interfered with the installation of the new gondola.
    Correct me if I am wrong but it would only add access to Rumor and increase traffic on the upper portion of Cloud.
    You ski because even if you don't do it well, it's still a blast....
Sign In or Register to comment.