Get ready for a Gore/North Creek interconnect

kcyanks1":12v6pm75 said:
I grew up skiing at Gore. To me, the extra drive to, say, Sugarbush is absolutely worth it. Gore has improved a lot over the years as far as opening up more glades and cutting new trails, but the terrain and snow is just better in northern VT, IMO. Also, while Gore does have some nice expert runs, their trails are just so short. The 2000' vertical is very misleading as far as what you do in any given run. The Straight Brook quad probably serves the best pod of expert terrain, and is probably something like 700' vertical, if I remember correctly. And then the better runs don't even go for that entire vertical.

Also, they just don't get nearly the amount of snow that the VT areas get, and also seem to be less willing to open trails/glades in marginal conditions.

Gore has some nice terrain, and I'd rather go to Gore than to Okemo. But Sugarbush/Stowe/MRG vs. Gore? It's a no brainer for me, even with the extra drive.
Click to expand...

KC is right. Gore is most improved over the last 10 years. Tons more tree skiing, way better snow making, more total terrain. Still the only advantage that Gore has over any of the three VT resorts mentioned (outside of drive distance) is that Gore may have a longer season than MRG, due to snowmaking.

No question in my mind that Sugarbush, Stowe and MRG are better places to ski. I'm saying that and I've never skied Sugarbush or Mad River. It's not hard to figure out the positive impact of an additional 100-150 inches per year, more elevation and a more northern latitude. The drive is certainly worth it if you are going for a week. If you are leaving every Fri night and coming back every Sunday night, especially with a family - the math changes. At least for me.
 
Harvey44":2g8yov89 said:
kcyanks1":2g8yov89 said:
I grew up skiing at Gore. To me, the extra drive to, say, Sugarbush is absolutely worth it. Gore has improved a lot over the years as far as opening up more glades and cutting new trails, but the terrain and snow is just better in northern VT, IMO. Also, while Gore does have some nice expert runs, their trails are just so short. The 2000' vertical is very misleading as far as what you do in any given run. The Straight Brook quad probably serves the best pod of expert terrain, and is probably something like 700' vertical, if I remember correctly. And then the better runs don't even go for that entire vertical.

Also, they just don't get nearly the amount of snow that the VT areas get, and also seem to be less willing to open trails/glades in marginal conditions.

Gore has some nice terrain, and I'd rather go to Gore than to Okemo. But Sugarbush/Stowe/MRG vs. Gore? It's a no brainer for me, even with the extra drive.
Click to expand...

KC is right. Gore is most improved over the last 10 years. Tons more tree skiing, way better snow making, more total terrain. Still the only advantage that Gore has over any of the three VT resorts mentioned (outside of drive distance) is that Gore may have a longer season than MRG, due to snowmaking.

No question in my mind that Sugarbush, Stowe and MRG are better places to ski. I'm saying that and I've never skied Sugarbush or Mad River. It's not hard to figure out the positive impact of an additional 100-150 inches per year, more elevation and a more northern latitude. The drive is certainly worth it if you are going for a week. If you are leaving every Fri night and coming back every Sunday night, especially with a family - the math changes. At least for me.
Click to expand...

Better aspect at those three VT resorts as well. Though there are some notable exceptions (Castelrock, North Lynx, Inverness, Gate House, Spruce Peak, MRG Double), most of the terrain there faces north or northeast. There is comparatively little of such terrain at Gore, and it is generally in the 2000-3000' range - not ideal from many perspectives. Even the areas with potential aspect issues at those three tend to get a lot of blow in from the NW - Castlerock and areas around the Gondi at Stowe routinely have the most snow on the mountain.
 
James... Emily mentioned that the high-res map was going to be posted today...I was hoping to post it with an answer to your question. No luck.

My understanding is that while there are lots of new lines on the map, the only additional lift-serviced terrain will be Eagle's Nest. It's the trail that connects Pipeline to the bottom of the new BR Quad. As I see it the primary impact of that connection depends on how flat Pipeline is...I've heard from some it's an XC ski...but I don't know if that is above or below the Eagle Nest cutover. If the Pipeline/EN connection isn't a chore (and they put in snowmaking) it will improve access to the BRQ and makes laps in the Tahawas trees easier.

If you leave a car at the Ski Bowl, and the coverage is there*... other possibilities exist.
 
I don't know how much that will improve the mountain, but it will be nice to access the mountain from North Creek.
 
rfarren":2pwe2ru4 said:
I don't know how much that will improve the mountain, but it will be nice to access the mountain from North Creek.
Click to expand...

Maybe if your intentions are to stay on the lower half. 4 lifts to the summit isn't so appealing
 
skimore":1c2i0u9i said:
rfarren":1c2i0u9i said:
I don't know how much that will improve the mountain, but it will be nice to access the mountain from North Creek.
Click to expand...

Maybe if your intentions are to stay on the lower half. 4 lifts to the summit isn't so appealing
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
skimore":23an1yaa said:
rfarren":23an1yaa said:
I don't know how much that will improve the mountain, but it will be nice to access the mountain from North Creek.
Click to expand...

Maybe if your intentions are to stay on the lower half. 4 lifts to the summit isn't so appealing
Click to expand...
Indeed. It's unfortunate they are unable to go beyond the summit of Little Gore/North Creek Ski Bowl up towards the summit Pete Gay mountain. That way, it would be three lifts to the summit, with skiing between each of them, not ot mention opening up a huge swath of north facing terrain for slackcountry exploration. Alas..
 
Mike Bernstein":2vyno8mn said:
skimore":2vyno8mn said:
rfarren":2vyno8mn said:
I don't know how much that will improve the mountain, but it will be nice to access the mountain from North Creek.
Click to expand...

Maybe if your intentions are to stay on the lower half. 4 lifts to the summit isn't so appealing
Click to expand...
Indeed. It's unfortunate they are unable to go beyond the summit of Little Gore/North Creek Ski Bowl up towards the summit Pete Gay mountain. That way, it would be three lifts to the summit, with skiing between each of them, not ot mention opening up a huge swath of north facing terrain for slackcountry exploration. Alas..
Click to expand...

Depending on which 4 lifts you choose to get to the summit you really have no skiing except connector trails. The only real skiing you would get in was off the Burnt Ridge lift down to the Gondi.
 
Sorry for the dumb question (I'm a Gore know-nothing) or if it was covered earlier in the thread... didn't the previous gondola go to the top, or am I thinking of a different ski area?
 
jamesdeluxe":176yi0m1 said:
Sorry for the dumb question (I'm a Gore know-nothing) or if it was covered earlier in the thread... didn't the previous gondola go to the top, or am I thinking of a different ski area?
Click to expand...

The previous Gondola did go to the top of Gore, as did what used to be call the "Summit" chair and is now shorter and called the "High Peaks" chair. I think they are discussing the Burnt Ridge area though not the summit of Gore Mountain.
 
Admin":1vj3k1do said:
That original gondi came out years ago.
Click to expand...
That old gondola was pretty neat/scary. Kinda like an old wooden roller coaster. I think they still have one of the cars at the base of the resort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top