Killington Base Village

JMaul

Attached is an overall village plan. Notice the access to K1 and where public parking is pushed further down the access road.

The ACT250 project number is 1R0980. Many files and altered submissions for your viewing pleasure.
https://anrweb.vt.gov/anr/act250/default.aspx

On a side note, the Pico Killington Interconnect was NOT extended and a dismissal order was made back in 2023.

rickbolger

What's the over/under on "Additional parking at Pico Pond property" being the first thing shot down?

newpylong

JMaul;c-65296 wroteAttached is an overall village plan. Notice the access to K1 and where public parking is pushed further down the access road.

The ACT250 project number is 1R0980. Many files and altered submissions for your viewing pleasure.
https://anrweb.vt.gov/anr/act250/default.aspx

On a side note, the Pico Killington Interconnect was NOT extended and a dismissal order was made back in 2023.

These plans are outdated and no longer valid. They have yet to file the current 250 submission for Phase I.

ADKskier

Can someone explain why they wont connect Pico? Is it a bird issue?

newpylong

Skier visits aren't there, not an environmental thing.

JMaul

newpylong;c-65298 wrote
JMaul;c-65296 wroteAttached is an overall village plan. Notice the access to K1 and where public parking is pushed further down the access road.

The ACT250 project number is 1R0980. Many files and altered submissions for your viewing pleasure.
https://anrweb.vt.gov/anr/act250/default.aspx

On a side note, the Pico Killington Interconnect was NOT extended and a dismissal order was made back in 2023.
These plans are outdated and no longer valid. They have yet to file the current 250 submission for Phase I.

I noticed inconsistencies with the village phase and the submitted plans from the original 1R0980 submission. I did not go through all of the "altered" submissions.

joshua_segal

ADKskier;c-65299 wroteCan someone explain why they wont connect Pico? Is it a bird issue?

There are many stories on this. I don't know which ones are true. Here are some of them:
1. The two mountains are in different watersheds and there need to be plans in place to assure that the quantity of snowmaking water used on each mountain actually drains to the right watershed.
2. A poll of priorities was taken and the inter-connect is low on the list. A lot of people like things as they are, where especially the locals and the Pico condo owners, like the shorter weekend lines at Pico.
3. The inter-connect will not increase net revenue to POWDR. (It's not clear to me how much additional skiing terrain would be added by the interconnect. With the new housing construction, Killington will need much more additional terrain.)

There are more stories and rumors. Perhaps some of you can add them.

lotsoskiing

joshua_segal;c-65307 wrote
ADKskier;c-65299 wroteCan someone explain why they wont connect Pico? Is it a bird issue?
There are many stories on this. I don't know which ones are true. Here are some of them:
1. The two mountains are in different watersheds and there need to be plans in place to assure that the quantity of snowmaking water used on each mountain actually drains to the right watershed.
2. A poll of priorities was taken and the inter-connect is low on the list. A lot of people like things as they are, where especially the locals and the Pico condo owners, like the shorter weekend lines at Pico.
3. The inter-connect will not increase net revenue to POWDR. (It's not clear to me how much additional skiing terrain would be added by the interconnect. With the new housing construction, Killington will need much more additional terrain.)

There are more stories and rumors. Perhaps some of you can add them.

Do they operate a shuttle or do they run as essentially 2 areas? I was impressed with Alpine/Palisades Tahoe's interconnect. No added terrain but a really efficient gondola, not a quad that rarely runs (Sugarbush) or long, flat connecting trails (old Crotch and Magic). I can't see how it would help them much, aside from the buzz.

newpylong

joshua_segal;c-65307 wrote
ADKskier;c-65299 wroteCan someone explain why they wont connect Pico? Is it a bird issue?
There are many stories on this. I don't know which ones are true. Here are some of them:
1. The two mountains are in different watersheds and there need to be plans in place to assure that the quantity of snowmaking water used on each mountain actually drains to the right watershed.
2. A poll of priorities was taken and the inter-connect is low on the list. A lot of people like things as they are, where especially the locals and the Pico condo owners, like the shorter weekend lines at Pico.
3. The inter-connect will not increase net revenue to POWDR. (It's not clear to me how much additional skiing terrain would be added by the interconnect. With the new housing construction, Killington will need much more additional terrain.)

There are more stories and rumors. Perhaps some of you can add them.

#2 and 3 are on the money, 1 is not. Watershed is a concern (as we saw when through the permitting process to send water from Snowshed to Pico) but the interconnect is already permitted along with associated studies for where the water will end up.

The big (valid) concern is ROI for such a big project and it's not seen as being a positive return at this time.

joshua_segal

lotsoskiing;c-65308 wrote
joshua_segal;c-65307 wrote
ADKskier;c-65299 wroteCan someone explain why they wont connect Pico? Is it a bird issue?
There are many stories on this. I don't know which ones are true. Here are some of them:
1. The two mountains are in different watersheds and there need to be plans in place to assure that the quantity of snowmaking water used on each mountain actually drains to the right watershed.
2. A poll of priorities was taken and the inter-connect is low on the list. A lot of people like things as they are, where especially the locals and the Pico condo owners, like the shorter weekend lines at Pico.
3. The inter-connect will not increase net revenue to POWDR. (It's not clear to me how much additional skiing terrain would be added by the interconnect. With the new housing construction, Killington will need much more additional terrain.)

There are more stories and rumors. Perhaps some of you can add them.
long, flat connecting trails (old Crotch and Magic). ...

While I skied Magic and Timber Ridge individually, I never skied the combined area.

The interconnect between Crotched East and West (Onset/Bobcat) was the first step in a development plan of the area between the two with many more trails and three more lifts.

Chuckstah

lotsoskiing;c-65308 wrote
joshua_segal;c-65307 wrote
ADKskier;c-65299 wroteCan someone explain why they wont connect Pico? Is it a bird issue?
There are many stories on this. I don't know which ones are true. Here are some of them:
1. The two mountains are in different watersheds and there need to be plans in place to assure that the quantity of snowmaking water used on each mountain actually drains to the right watershed.
2. A poll of priorities was taken and the inter-connect is low on the list. A lot of people like things as they are, where especially the locals and the Pico condo owners, like the shorter weekend lines at Pico.
3. The inter-connect will not increase net revenue to POWDR. (It's not clear to me how much additional skiing terrain would be added by the interconnect. With the new housing construction, Killington will need much more additional terrain.)

There are more stories and rumors. Perhaps some of you can add them.
Do they operate a shuttle or do they run as essentially 2 areas? I was impressed with Alpine/Palisades Tahoe's interconnect. No added terrain but a really efficient gondola, not a quad that rarely runs (Sugarbush) or long, flat connecting trails (old Crotch and Magic). I can't see how it would help them much, aside from the buzz.

There is a bus between K and Pico, but it is only once an hour. Currently you can ski from Pico to K (Rams Head) on the interconnect trail, when natural snow allows, but not the other way. It's a fun day starting at Pico, and skiing over to K, but you have to time the bus right to get back to your car at the end of the day. Not ideal.

lotsoskiing

Chuckstah;c-65311 wrote
lotsoskiing;c-65308 wrote
joshua_segal;c-65307 wrote
ADKskier;c-65299 wroteCan someone explain why they wont connect Pico? Is it a bird issue?
There are many stories on this. I don't know which ones are true. Here are some of them:
1. The two mountains are in different watersheds and there need to be plans in place to assure that the quantity of snowmaking water used on each mountain actually drains to the right watershed.
2. A poll of priorities was taken and the inter-connect is low on the list. A lot of people like things as they are, where especially the locals and the Pico condo owners, like the shorter weekend lines at Pico.
3. The inter-connect will not increase net revenue to POWDR. (It's not clear to me how much additional skiing terrain would be added by the interconnect. With the new housing construction, Killington will need much more additional terrain.)

There are more stories and rumors. Perhaps some of you can add them.
Do they operate a shuttle or do they run as essentially 2 areas? I was impressed with Alpine/Palisades Tahoe's interconnect. No added terrain but a really efficient gondola, not a quad that rarely runs (Sugarbush) or long, flat connecting trails (old Crotch and Magic). I can't see how it would help them much, aside from the buzz.
There is a bus between K and Pico, but it is only once an hour. Currently you can ski from Pico to K (Rams Head) on the interconnect trail, when natural snow allows, but not the other way. It's a fun day starting at Pico, and skiing over to K, but you have to time the bus right to get back to your car at the end of the day. Not ideal.

There looks to be some nice terrain, most north-facing, in there. But I would be surprised if they went for it.

NJSki

Chuckstah;c-65311 wrote
lotsoskiing;c-65308 wrote
joshua_segal;c-65307 wrote
ADKskier;c-65299 wroteCan someone explain why they wont connect Pico? Is it a bird issue?
There are many stories on this. I don't know which ones are true. Here are some of them:
1. The two mountains are in different watersheds and there need to be plans in place to assure that the quantity of snowmaking water used on each mountain actually drains to the right watershed.
2. A poll of priorities was taken and the inter-connect is low on the list. A lot of people like things as they are, where especially the locals and the Pico condo owners, like the shorter weekend lines at Pico.
3. The inter-connect will not increase net revenue to POWDR. (It's not clear to me how much additional skiing terrain would be added by the interconnect. With the new housing construction, Killington will need much more additional terrain.)

There are more stories and rumors. Perhaps some of you can add them.
Do they operate a shuttle or do they run as essentially 2 areas? I was impressed with Alpine/Palisades Tahoe's interconnect. No added terrain but a really efficient gondola, not a quad that rarely runs (Sugarbush) or long, flat connecting trails (old Crotch and Magic). I can't see how it would help them much, aside from the buzz.
There is a bus between K and Pico, but it is only once an hour. Currently you can ski from Pico to K (Rams Head) on the interconnect trail, when natural snow allows, but not the other way. It's a fun day starting at Pico, and skiing over to K, but you have to time the bus right to get back to your car at the end of the day. Not ideal.

Is it "okay" to ski the interconnect without repercussions, or does the ski patrol frown on this?

Chuckstah

NJSki;c-65314 wrote
Chuckstah;c-65311 wrote
lotsoskiing;c-65308 wrote
joshua_segal;c-65307 wrote
ADKskier;c-65299 wroteCan someone explain why they wont connect Pico? Is it a bird issue?
There are many stories on this. I don't know which ones are true. Here are some of them:
1. The two mountains are in different watersheds and there need to be plans in place to assure that the quantity of snowmaking water used on each mountain actually drains to the right watershed.
2. A poll of priorities was taken and the inter-connect is low on the list. A lot of people like things as they are, where especially the locals and the Pico condo owners, like the shorter weekend lines at Pico.
3. The inter-connect will not increase net revenue to POWDR. (It's not clear to me how much additional skiing terrain would be added by the interconnect. With the new housing construction, Killington will need much more additional terrain.)

There are more stories and rumors. Perhaps some of you can add them.
Do they operate a shuttle or do they run as essentially 2 areas? I was impressed with Alpine/Palisades Tahoe's interconnect. No added terrain but a really efficient gondola, not a quad that rarely runs (Sugarbush) or long, flat connecting trails (old Crotch and Magic). I can't see how it would help them much, aside from the buzz.
There is a bus between K and Pico, but it is only once an hour. Currently you can ski from Pico to K (Rams Head) on the interconnect trail, when natural snow allows, but not the other way. It's a fun day starting at Pico, and skiing over to K, but you have to time the bus right to get back to your car at the end of the day. Not ideal.

Is it "okay" to ski the interconnect without repercussions, or does the ski patrol frown on this?

It is fine, at least the last time I did it a few years ago. I don't frequent K anymore. It is officially listed as an uphill route, and is often groomed. A lift ticket or uphill pass is required. Here is a Fatmap of the route

https://fatmap.com/discover/route/united-states-of-america/vermont/resort-ski-touring/killington-pico-interconnect/2895692

« Previous Page