News Roundup: Watch Live

35 thoughts on “News Roundup: Watch Live

  1. Myles Svec May 7, 2021 / 10:08 am

    Anyone confused why in the Forest Service Location Summary for Lumberjack Replacement it says within Arapahoe Basin Ski area’s special use permit area?

    Like

  2. Ben May 7, 2021 / 10:28 am

    Interesting to see the Lumberjack replacement before Alpine. The terrain near Lumberjack is extremely underutilized and has some great beginner runs. I taught my wife to ski there.

    The master plan calls for a detachable four pack which would be overkill for the current amount traffic there but would entice more people to use it. The master plan also calls to lengthen the lift slightly. Maybe eventually this could be a portal to whatever future lifts will go into the Jacques Peak terrain but it is very flat right above Lumberjack on the mid-section of the Roundabout run.

    Like

    • Myles Svec May 7, 2021 / 10:43 am

      I think they are also planning to put a learning lift near the top in the future so that could be a reason why it would become a HSQ.

      Like

      • pbropetech May 9, 2021 / 12:42 pm

        No. You’re thinking of our abandoned K-gondola project, of which we got as far as clearing out the liftlines and learning area before the project was cancelled.

        Like

        • skitheeast May 9, 2021 / 1:38 pm

          Why was the project ever canceled? If Copper does indeed want to have a teaching area up there, which they still do according to their most recent master plan, it would definitely make it a lot easier to access. Plus, if anything ever does happen in Jacques Basin, the gondola would make that whole area a lot easier to access as well.

          Like

        • pbropetech May 10, 2021 / 8:23 am

          The teaching lift is still on the plan, yes, but it’s not *in* the plan, if that makes sense. As of this spring we’ve applied to replace L, but nothing else is happening with that lift-wise. We’re connecting the old gondola liftline (trail 47U) to the trail network as I type this, and we’ll be adding trails 49U and 45.25 (as noted on the 2011 MDP).

          Like

      • pbropetech May 10, 2021 / 8:10 am

        K-gondola and the on-hill learning centre were cancelled because of the oldest of reasons in the ski industry- money. Word had it that summer that Intrawest balked at the sticker price on the project once it got underway. This was in 2003, don’t forget- it wasn’t recent. And yes, we have things on our master plan but the bulk of them are not actually happening. Most ski areas’ plans are like that.

        Like

        • Ben May 10, 2021 / 11:45 am

          Makes sense. I find the master plans and lift planning interesting. Do you have an image of the K-Gondola plan? I don’t think I have seen a master plan with that as an option. I know it is out of date and not going to happen.

          Regarding your other comments:
          – Good to see Copper build out the other runs near Lumberjack based on the master plan. Should help with better progression and crowding. The greens off of Woodward are a little more difficult and can get more crowded.

          – For “we’ve been spending much more time studying the other side of the peak adjacent to Copper Bowl.” Do you mean the peak next to Summit Stash / The Nacho run? It could be a decent spot for a lift to serve some intermediate/advanced bowl skiing near the bottom of Mountain Chief up to that peak. Is Copper still looking at providing cat skiing on the backside of Tucker?

          Like

        • pbropetech May 10, 2021 / 12:35 pm

          Still thinking of the cat skiing option, yes. Who knows when/if that will happen. There will be logistical issues for sure- the cat can only haul twelve people every trip, for example, but the lift-served access at the top of Tucker obviously will entice far more than that to drop in.
          The area I was talking about. Again, who knows when or if anything will go there. https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=39.45645,-106.18106&z=14&b=t&o=f16a%2Cr&n=1,0.25

          Liked by 2 people

        • Ben May 10, 2021 / 12:59 pm

          Thanks pbropetech! The Google Earth link isn’t working but I see the caltopo locations for the Tucker location. I think the north facing slopes there could be lift served. It’s underutilized today as it requires a hike .

          Like

    • David May 7, 2021 / 11:39 am

      Lumberjack is so slow, this is a good move. Though yeah Alpine upgrade would make the regulars happier with less lines.

      Like

      • Ryan May 8, 2021 / 1:59 am

        When I rode Lumber, she was turning at 500 FPM.. what’s so slow about that?

        Like

        • skitheeast May 8, 2021 / 1:06 pm

          500 fpm for a 4300-foot lift is a ride time of about 8.5 minutes. A bit much for a beginner chairlift.

          Like

        • pbropetech May 9, 2021 / 12:43 pm

          When was that? L-lift hasn’t run at full speed for years except to get the top operator up in the morning. Beginners can’t load it at 500. We run it at around 400.

          Like

    • Mike B May 7, 2021 / 3:13 pm

      I think the point about this being important for future Jacques Peak access is spot on, though I guess we’ll know depending on whether they extend this lift uphill a bit or not. Any lifts into Jacques Peak area will likely start by filling the gap to Union Meadows, and it’s a looong way from there to the top of Lumberjack rt now. Extending uphill closer to the 11,000′ elevation gives you reasonable options to both the west and the east.

      Like

      • Myles Svec May 7, 2021 / 3:25 pm

        I made this a while back for what I think Jacques basin should be.

        Now with lumberjack extension the bottom terminal of the lift 3 I proposed would have to be moved.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thomas Jett May 7, 2021 / 8:06 pm

          Do you have the KML for that?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Myles Svec May 7, 2021 / 8:41 pm

          I don’t think I do have a KML for it but if you can click on the post on Imgur the description should tell you lengths of every lift. I don’t remember if I put verticals in for each lift.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Thomas Jett May 7, 2021 / 11:49 pm

          Actually, looking more closely, that layout makes no sense. You can’t even lap lifts 2 and 3 because you made them cross the gulch.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Mike B May 8, 2021 / 3:58 pm

          I was going to mention the same thing. Only your lift #1 makes sense when you look at the topography. Even then, not sure a lift to the ridge line will work given the winds.

          Lift #2 would basically be side hill.
          Lift #3 goes down a few hundred feet then up. Lots of potential alignments there but this ain’t it.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Myles Svec May 8, 2021 / 4:08 pm

          I didn’t realize lifts 2 and 3 wouldn’t work because Google earth does not give enough variation in terrain. I think lift 1 would be possible if it were to be a Doppelmayr six pack with the upcoming anti sway technology. Lift 4 would be possible too but lifts 2 and 3 would need different alignments.

          Like

        • Utah Powder Skier May 8, 2021 / 4:09 pm

          It’s not a bad idea, not definitely not worth 25 million + for lifts only. Does Copper really need more bowl terrain? Eliminating that right there would get you to about 15 million with lifts 1 and 3. I think 3 should be realigned to serve more terrain if the bowl is eliminated.

          Like

        • Myles Svec May 8, 2021 / 5:50 pm

          A redesign of my Jacques Basin idea at Copper Mountain, Colorado

          Purple lifts would be built as a phase 1 and Blue lifts are optional or would be built as a phase 2. You could probably also get away without building the platter lift, it may be too steep for it anyways.

          Lift 2 would be two ways allowing you to get out of the ditch and if you are coming from existing terrain you would not have to traverse over flat terrain.

          All of the lifts are numbered 1 through 7.

          Orange Lines are potential ski runs.

          Like

        • Myles Svec May 8, 2021 / 5:52 pm

          There would also be a ski run from top of lift 3 to bottom of lift 7 just forgot to put it on map.

          Like

        • Utah Powder Skier May 8, 2021 / 6:02 pm

          I like the pod setup, it makes more sense. I think lift 1 should be extended down to lift 3 so you can lap 100% of the runs off the top. The plan is still $25 million+ for lifts only. Does lift 6 need to be detachable for only 3 runs? Also, the two way lift doesn’t need to be detachable, or even new. Ray’s from Sundance is still for sale and it’s for a good price. It would be a good lift for going in two directions.

          Like

        • UpperDynamo May 8, 2021 / 6:05 pm

          Considering this concept and the modified one proposed below, I think this is a ridiculous expense and unnecessarily impactful. You’ve got lifts everywhere! Throw in a wind-protected HSQ, maybe one fixed grip somewhere on another orientation, and a surface lift to the highest exposed ridge. Much less money, and appropriate for skier demand and utility.

          Like

        • Myles Svec May 8, 2021 / 6:26 pm

          The reason there are so many lifts is because there is almost 1,600 acres of terrain to service. Also I don’t think lift 6 is necessary and lift 7 is optional bowl service terrain.

          As a reply to Utah Powder Skier do you mean lift 4 being extended down to the base of lift 3? It would make more sense then extending lift 1 down as lift 1 is the main access point of the area.

          Like

        • pbropetech May 9, 2021 / 12:52 pm

          You guys are entertaining. Unless you’re somehow privy to knowledge I’m not aware of, there haven’t been any plans to move into the Guller Creek drainage since 1986. A lengthened L-lift will merely gain a bit more vertical for the runs off the lift.

          Try that one.

          Like

        • Utah Powder Skier May 9, 2021 / 3:37 pm

          You know more about Copper than I do, but Jacques Basin does appear on the 2011 master plan. That is of course the publicly available master plan, which more often than not doesn’t resemble the real master plan. It also looks like some of that land is in Copper’s permit.

          Like

        • pbropetech May 10, 2021 / 8:19 am

          Yes, it’s in the permit area. You’ll notice the phrase ‘potential lift-served terrain’ stamped on it- at the moment that’s all it is. We’ve been spending much more time studying the other side of the peak adjacent to Copper Bowl. I’m not sure what’s going on there, but that’s where all the effort has been lately.

          Like

  3. fritzski May 7, 2021 / 12:26 pm

    Rode my bike through Keystone today. Argentine Lift has been removed. Cables and chairs are gone on Peru. All of the chairs from both are sitting in the parking lot. John Fritz 

    Like

  4. awconrad May 7, 2021 / 4:57 pm

    So what’s new with the Peak Line technology? Is it just a new tram design?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s