More on Sno Summit-Bear Mountain interconnect

I found this article on line:

http://www.ocweekly.com/2007-02-15/n...venient-slope/

So while Kun and I were riding a chairlift, I asked him whether he had
considered creating a ski run or trail between Snow Summit and Bear
Mountain, like the narrow one that connects the California and Nevada
sides of the Heavenly resort that towers over Lake Tahoe.

It was if I'd lit a fuse. Squinting my way, he launched into a
colorful tirade against federal protections of the California spotted
owl. No spotted owls had ever been seen at Snow Summit, Kun fumed, but
because their nests have been found in the same San Bernardino
National Forest that holds his lease, he's prevented from removing the
necessary trees to carve out such a run.

"Environmentalists!" Kun muttered dismissively into his parka.

He went on to concede that even if Summit were permitted to chop down
trees (and potential owl nests) it would be problematic to directly
link with Bear Mountain because the areas are separated by a valley.
Lifts would be needed to take skiers from the top of either mountain
down to the flats, where they'd switch places for a ride back up to
the other mountain.

On 1/5/10 9:45 AM, Richard Henry wrote:


He went on to concede that even if Summit were permitted to chop down
trees (and potential owl nests) it would be problematic to directly
link with Bear Mountain because the areas are separated by a valley.
Lifts would be needed to take skiers from the top of either mountain
down to the flats, where they'd switch places for a ride back up to
the other mountain.

Properly done a lift can have midlength unloading and loading ramps -
Alpine had one a while back, and Mammoth's gondola is such. It's a
matter of will, not engineering.

And then there's the Whistler solution ...

On Jan 5, 10:19*am, lal_truckee wrote:
On 1/5/10 9:45 AM, Richard Henry wrote:



He went on to concede that even if Summit were permitted to chop down
trees (and potential owl nests) it would be problematic to directly
link with Bear Mountain because the areas are separated by a valley.
Lifts would be needed to take skiers from the top of either mountain
down to the flats, where they'd switch places for a ride back up to
the other mountain.

Properly done a lift can have midlength unloading and loading ramps -
Alpine had one a while back, and Mammoth's gondola is such. It's a
matter of will, not engineering.

And then there's the Whistler solution ...

A ridge-line tram comes to mind, high enough to not require cutting
any trees. For now, we have the half-hourly shuttle bus, or an
impatient skier can simply drive over when so moved.

Another issue came up in my recent reading - in order to keep the View
Haus and Mountain Haus restaraunts up on the ridge properly supplied,
Snow Summit plows enough snow off the Forest Service road that runs up
the valley between the two resorts so that they can get their 4WD
refrigerated trucks up the mountain a couple of times a week. (Last
Sunday I had the View Haus spaghetti and meatballs with salad and
garlic bread for a late lunch - $9.50)

lal_truckee wrote:
On 1/5/10 9:45 AM, Richard Henry wrote:


He went on to concede that even if Summit were permitted to chop down
trees (and potential owl nests) it would be problematic to directly
link with Bear Mountain because the areas are separated by a valley.
Lifts would be needed to take skiers from the top of either mountain
down to the flats, where they'd switch places for a ride back up to
the other mountain.

Why not just one lift that goes down and back up? Unless there's some
compelling reason to stop at the bottom, why make the customers get off?


Properly done a lift can have midlength unloading and loading ramps -
Alpine had one a while back, and Mammoth's gondola is such. It's a
matter of will, not engineering.

Lifts with Mid-station loading or unloading that come to mind:

Bellayre, NY
Marquette Mountain, MI
Sundance, UT
Homewood, CA

These are chairlfits. If we include gondolas there's

Killington, VT
Whistler, BC

I'm sure there are others, this is just what I remember off the top of
my head.


And then there's the Whistler solution ...

That would be the peak-to-peak gondola?


//Walt

On Jan 5, 12:02*pm, Walt wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:
On 1/5/10 9:45 AM, Richard Henry wrote:

He went on to concede that even if Summit were permitted to chop down
trees (and potential owl nests) it would be problematic to directly
link with Bear Mountain because the areas are separated by a valley.
Lifts would be needed to take skiers from the top of either mountain
down to the flats, where they'd switch places for a ride back up to
the other mountain.

Why not just one lift that goes down and back up? *Unless there's some
compelling reason to stop at the bottom, why make the customers get off?



Properly done a lift can have midlength unloading and loading ramps -
Alpine had one a while back, and Mammoth's gondola is such. It's a
matter of will, not engineering.

Lifts with *Mid-station loading or unloading that come to mind:

Bellayre, NY
Marquette Mountain, MI
Sundance, UT
Homewood, CA

These are chairlfits. *If we include gondolas there's

Killington, VT
Whistler, BC

I'm sure there are others, this is just what I remember off the top of
my head.



And then there's the Whistler solution ...

That would be the peak-to-peak gondola?

//Walt

Even Snow Summit has one of those. Chair 11 (which used to be Chair
1) was originally constructed with two mid-lift unloading platforms.
In the days before snowmaking, the mountain operators and skiers could
choose which section of the mountain had the best coverage. When the
current Chair 1 was built to replace the old one, they cut off the old
1 at the 2nd mid-mountain platform, but left the 1st platform in
place. (Not that it really matters - I believe I have only seen that
lift run one or two times in all my years of going to Big Bear anyway)

On Jan 5, 3:26*pm, Richard Henry wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:02*pm, Walt wrote:





lal_truckee wrote:
On 1/5/10 9:45 AM, Richard Henry wrote:

He went on to concede that even if Summit were permitted to chop down
trees (and potential owl nests) it would be problematic to directly
link with Bear Mountain because the areas are separated by a valley.
Lifts would be needed to take skiers from the top of either mountain
down to the flats, where they'd switch places for a ride back up to
the other mountain.

Why not just one lift that goes down and back up? *Unless there's some
compelling reason to stop at the bottom, why make the customers get off?

Properly done a lift can have midlength unloading and loading ramps -
Alpine had one a while back, and Mammoth's gondola is such. It's a
matter of will, not engineering.

Lifts with *Mid-station loading or unloading that come to mind:

Bellayre, NY
Marquette Mountain, MI
Sundance, UT
Homewood, CA

These are chairlfits. *If we include gondolas there's

Killington, VT
Whistler, BC

I'm sure there are others, this is just what I remember off the top of
my head.

And then there's the Whistler solution ...

That would be the peak-to-peak gondola?

//Walt

Even Snow Summit has one of those. *Chair 11 (which used to be Chair
1) was originally constructed with two mid-lift unloading platforms.
In the days before snowmaking, the mountain operators and skiers could
choose which section of the mountain had the best coverage. *When the
current Chair 1 was built to replace the old one, they cut off the old
1 at the 2nd mid-mountain platform, but left the 1st platform in
place. *(Not that it really matters - I believe I have only seen that
lift run one or two times in all my years of going to Big Bear anyway)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Breckenridge has two gondolas with midpoint load/unloads and at least
one chairlift also the same setup.

"Walt" wrote in message
...
lal_truckee wrote:
On 1/5/10 9:45 AM, Richard Henry wrote:


He went on to concede that even if Summit were permitted to chop down
trees (and potential owl nests) it would be problematic to directly
link with Bear Mountain because the areas are separated by a valley.
Lifts would be needed to take skiers from the top of either mountain
down to the flats, where they'd switch places for a ride back up to
the other mountain.

Why not just one lift that goes down and back up? Unless there's some
compelling reason to stop at the bottom, why make the customers get off?


Properly done a lift can have midlength unloading and loading ramps -
Alpine had one a while back, and Mammoth's gondola is such. It's a matter
of will, not engineering.

Lifts with Mid-station loading or unloading that come to mind:

Bellayre, NY
Marquette Mountain, MI
Sundance, UT
Homewood, CA

These are chairlfits. If we include gondolas there's

Killington, VT
Whistler, BC

I'm sure there are others, this is just what I remember off the top of my
head.


And then there's the Whistler solution ...

That would be the peak-to-peak gondola?


It would be.
Revelstoke has a mid (actually only about a quarter of the way up, but th
eprinciple is the same) load unload point on their gondola. Sun Peaks has a
mid load/unload station on the long quad.

On Jan 5, 6:15*pm, "Norm" wrote:
"Walt" wrote in message

...





lal_truckee wrote:
On 1/5/10 9:45 AM, Richard Henry wrote:

He went on to concede that even if Summit were permitted to chop down
trees (and potential owl nests) it would be problematic to directly
link with Bear Mountain because the areas are separated by a valley.
Lifts would be needed to take skiers from the top of either mountain
down to the flats, where they'd switch places for a ride back up to
the other mountain.

Why not just one lift that goes down and back up? *Unless there's some
compelling reason to stop at the bottom, why make the customers get off?

Properly done a lift can have midlength unloading and loading ramps -
Alpine had one a while back, and Mammoth's gondola is such. It's a matter
of will, not engineering.

Lifts with *Mid-station loading or unloading that come to mind:

Bellayre, NY
Marquette Mountain, MI
Sundance, UT
Homewood, CA

These are chairlfits. *If we include gondolas there's

Killington, VT
Whistler, BC

I'm sure there are others, this is just what I remember off the top of my
head.

And then there's the Whistler solution ...

That would be the peak-to-peak gondola?

It would be.
Revelstoke has a mid (actually only about a quarter of the way up, but th
eprinciple is the same) load unload point on their gondola. Sun Peaks has a
mid load/unload station on the long quad.-

The original Mammoth gondola allowed riders from the bottom to
continue all the way up if they wanted. Mid-station loaders had to
wait for space available. During the upgrade year (years? my memory
is fuzzy on that), the upper and lower gondola systems were
incompatible, so everybody had to get out.

Where is TCS (The Colorado Skier) when we need him?