rickbolger
In my career I've been paid to write letters, edit letters, critique, etc. for almost 40 years. Here's an easy way to use what you already have and (considering your target audience) get it read.
Dear [Senator/Representative Names],
I’m writing as a New Hampshire resident and lifelong skier with deep ties to the Franconia Notch region to express my concern about the current state of infrastructure at Cannon Mountain Ski Area.
As you know, Cannon’s aerial tramway — a historic and beloved feature of our state park — is scheduled for retirement this fall, While I appreciate the allocation of $27.2 million toward its replacement, I’m concerned about the lack of a clear and timely plan for installation. A multi-season gap with limited summit access could significantly impact tourism, local businesses, and the broader outdoor economy that Cannon supports.
Beyond the tram, many of Cannon’s chairlifts are aging and in need of modernization. These lifts are essential not only for winter recreation but also for maintaining Cannon’s reputation as a premier destination for outdoor enthusiasts. Without proactive investment, we risk losing a cornerstone of New Hampshire’s identity.
I urge you to advocate for:
• A transparent and accelerated timeline for tram replacement
• Additional funding to assess and upgrade aging chairlifts
• A long-term infrastructure plan to ensure Cannon remains safe, accessible, and competitive
Cannon Mountain is more than a ski area — it’s a symbol of our state’s natural beauty, resilience, and outdoor spirit. I hope you’ll support efforts to preserve and enhance this vital resource.
Thank you for your time and service.
Sincerely,
Bob Misuraca
Alexandria, NH
[/quote]
abubob
Short and sweet
@rickbolger.
Right. Because nobody likes to read. :D
abubob
Letter sent.
If you haven't already I urge everyone here to do the same.
riverc0il
abubob;c-70163 wroteIf you haven't already I urge everyone here to do the same.
I have no idea what I would recommend they do. Given they only run the tram on weekends (and no early or late season), what is even the point of replacing it?
The tram is not meant for us and is only being replaced for summer tourism. I'd rather they do deferred maintenance on the rest of their lifts and skip the tram.
Install a transfer lift from Tram Base to Zoomer. Maybe repurpose Brookside Triple, since it is fully overlapped by Tuckerbrook Quad. Or just a T-bar from the other side of the bridge (might need a little trail widening). Obviously, they need to put a covered carpet for newbies.
At least it isn't Wildcat. B)
abubob
riverc0il;c-70167 wroteGiven they only run the tram on weekends (and no early or late season), what is even the point of replacing it?
Sacrilege!
The tram is not meant for us and is only being replaced for summer tourism.
That — is unfortunately — true.
I'd rather they do deferred maintenance on the rest of their lifts and skip the tram.
I understand what you’re saying but I think it’s mostly out of frustration. The rest of the mountain is poorly placed in relation to the tram but I feel it’s necessary. I’d rather see a gondola there than nothing.
rickbolger
riverc0il;c-70167 wrote Given they only run the tram on weekends (and no early or late season), what is even the point of replacing it?
The tram is heritage-eous! To not replace it would be outrageous! Umbrageous!
Honestly, I've ridden that thing three times in the summer (1x orginal, 2x new) versus once only in winter, and given the choice I'll take summer. Maybe it would last longer if they didn't run it in the winter B)
NELSAP
I had the chance to ride up the Tram one last time on Saturday with our good friend Linda who just retired from the Ski Museum. It was moderately busy and a coolish, cloudy day to say goodbye to the Tram. Here are some photos:
Lower terminal
Tram tower
Upper lift line
Mustard at summit
Loading at summit
Inside tram car
obienick
I’m still surprised they’re calling it a replacement despite using a lot of the original gear. This is more akin to the MRG single rebuild than a fully new tram.
NewEnglandSkier13
obienick;c-70201 wroteI’m still surprised they’re calling it a replacement despite using a lot of the original gear. This is more akin to the MRG single rebuild than a fully new tram.
The MRG single was replaced with a new lift for all intents and purposes. The only significant thing that was reused were some towers, and you don't see anyone trying to claim that the triple at Ward or the Pine Quad at Pleasant were rebuilds instead of replacements.
abubob
obienick;c-70201 wroteI’m still surprised they’re calling it a replacement despite using a lot of the original gear. This is more akin to the MRG single rebuild than a fully new tram.
My understanding is that the only things not being completely replaced are the buildings and towers.
ski_it
For that money they should just call it new.
I’m with rivercoil on this one. The views are nice, the trip time is great. The fact that not everyone has to park at Peabody is good But unless you are skiing the glades or Tramline, the trip over and the wait times since it is only open peak days makes it a wash for me.
Then if you factor in the overheating and the steamed up goggles I’d rather have another kind of ride.
Jay’s is a tad better since it reaches more expert terrain in good conditions, but the gravel, icy, sloshy, mud, asphalt path you now have to cross at the base I could do without
Jonni
I just hope the entire project gets done in a reasonable time frame. Currently I'm an NH expat living in VT, but the nostalgia of Ketchup and Mustard will never be lost on me. I realize the primary function of the lift is for summer and fall and I think that's what it should be setup for - with skiing off it in the winter being an added bonus. I'm really hoping that a replacement (or refurbishment) plan gets released soon so we can "get on with it."
I do also agree that the money would be better spent on the rest of the aging transportation infrastructure on the mountain, but I'm guessing that tram does make a decent amount of money for the state park system as a whole. So I can kinda see why they want to focus on it.
ski_it
We still don’t have an official answer to the OPs original question. So it’s safe enough to run at capacity through October then it’s not safe? Among all the other myriad of guesses Is it an insurance issue based just on age??
And if the Ski Museum located at the base doesn’t know or won’t tell I guess we’ll never know. But they probably don’t want to cut down their chances on getting a tram car.
I thought someone posted a pic on here on the 2 tram gens running side by side but now I don’t see it. Well they did and they didn’t using dates found on NESH. You can still see the remnants in the tram houses.
According to New England Ski History com: The original tram closed March 29, 1980. The new tram debuted in late May 1980.
Looks like they had much better planning back then.
ski_it
Ok I found a more official statement from Sarah Stewart, commissioner of the state Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. The system components are showing fatigue, wear, and corrosion, she wrote.
https://indepthnh.org/2025/07/14/nhs-iconic-tramway-to-close-in-fall-and-take-2-years-to-replace/
1.8M a year of revenue is nice considering long term financing
timberleaf
This is from the Cannon newsletter email I got the other day:
"We are committed to preserving the Cannon legacy while investing in the future. Each year, we take on a range of infrastructure projects to improve safety, guest experience, operational reliability, and environmental stewardship. Over the last year and a half, we’ve launched and/or executed more than $5 million in capital improvements, ranging from lift upgrades and lodge repairs to snowmaking efficiency, environmental systems, and planning for the next-generation tramway. These projects reflect thoughtful planning, responsible investment, and continued dedication to the mountain and its community."
Parse away...
I'll start: "lift upgrades". What, exactly, has been "upgraded". I saw something about replacing fixed grips and I think maybe a haul rope as well but does anyone really get away with calling replacing worn out parts "upgrades"?
They could easily have stated exactly what lifts were upgraded, what lodge repairs were done, what snowmaking efficiency improvements were made, etc...
If I were a skeptic, I'd say this is all intentionally vague. Very intentionally. Very vague.
At the end of the day, who am I gonna believe? Jace Wirth or my lying eyes???
powderstud
I don't believe there is anyone on Snowjournal that needs convincing that after the Cannon tram is gone, there will never be a tram replacement for it. EVER. Sarah Stewart and the Cannon people are all blowing smoke up our collective derrieres while knowing perfectly well they are lying to us. I thought Ms. Stewart's statement that the state is working on determining whether the existing lift towers and infrastructure could be re-used and was "hopeful" the entire replacement project would take only two seasons, is magnificent performance art.
Let's face it: The NH Republican Governor, Republican-controlled State Senate, and Republican-controlled House of Representatives, do not want to admit that Trump's illegal tariffs have broken the budget and prohibitively raised the costs of keeping Cannon's tram running. Everyone knows that when any piece of equipment is near the end of its useful life, the maintenance costs go through the roof and are usually beyond what one would budget for or expect. And then add a tax onto it in the form of the illegal tariffs (when the tram and all its parts come from Europe), and NH had no choice but to shut the tram down much earlier than expected while putting a smiley emoji on it.
And if the State was unable or unwilling to properly budget for the tram replacement when times were good under the "leadership" of Waterville Valley owner/governor Chris Sununu (and prior to Trump taking over when the economy was booming but soon to be run into the ground), and where because of the Republican Big Beautiful Bill that not a single Democratic supported ensured that every state's budget will see catastrophic revenue shortfalls and enormous budget deficits if they weren't already there, and voila, you have a formula for the end of any tramway on Cannon. Yeah, NH will pay lip service to a replacement, but it will never happen. And this is at a time when the NH Republican Governor is in the process of dismantling state government but before the huge deficits hit hard, and it's obvious that there will not be ANYTHING replacing the Cannon tram anytime soon.
Maybe in the future, once Democrats get back into power, someone will decide they need to do something about Cannon after the loss of the tram (and its revenues) causes the entire NH State Park System to collapse due to the systemic shortfall emanating out of Franconia Notch. So someday they'll put in something cheaper there, but not a tram. And don't expect it happening so long as the Republicans are in charge.
Live Free or Die.
Chuckstah
I, for one, as a NH resident and taxpayer would need a lot of convincing that the tram won't be replaced. It's an ikonic state attraction and literally will pay for itself, although that will take years. I would be in favor of a long term bond to cover the deficit, with it being paid from the tram's revenue.
On another note, I don't believe many on here come for divisive politics. If the forum doesn't have a no politics policy, it should.
riverc0il
Chuckstah;c-70258 wroteOn another note, I don't believe many on here come for divisive politics. If the forum doesn't have a no policy policy, it should.
It is kinda challenging to discuss a lift replacement that needs state budget approval without dipping at least a little into politics. That said, I support keeping things civil and not bringing in extraneous issues or national politics into the discussion. Otherwise, things will certainly devolve into tit-for-tat replies that will quickly go way beyond the scope of the topic.
Chuckstah
riverc0il;c-70260 wroteChuckstah;c-70258 wroteOn another note, I don't believe many on here come for divisive politics. If the forum doesn't have a no policy policy, it should.
It is kinda challenging to discuss a lift replacement that needs state budget approval without dipping at least a little into politics. That said, I support keeping things civil and not bringing in extraneous issues or national politics into the discussion. Otherwise, things will certainly devolve into tit-for-tat replies that will quickly go way beyond the scope of the topic.
Yes, I'll agree with that. There are just so few places left online that are not polluted by partisan politics. I would love this tiny forum to remain one of them.
lotsoskiing
I agree about making an attempt to keep politics out of SJ. But if tariffs are why costs have skyrocketed and are pushing the project beyond what the state will pay, then we should not be restricted from saying so. We don't hesitate to cite insurance costs and energy costs for reasons ski areas go under or raise prices, so we shouldn't just avoid calling out other cost pressures that impact the viability and attractiveness of a ski area. I am certain that this issue will be a huge issue as more and more first- and second-generation HS lifts face replacement. Smuggs was smart to stick to all Hall FG and slog along...
Sad to see the tram go, regardless. I, too believe it won't be back, barring some huge change. Glad I got to ride it a few times and with my kids.
