17 replies to this topic

[Kicking Horse]

Quote

POMA to 1A chair on Ajax gains lift
Latest master plan includes chairlift near Dean Street
Carolyn Sackariason
The Aspen Times
Aspen CO, Colorado
Email Print Comment
Recommend
ASPEN — A surface chairlift near Dean Street appears to be the best and most inexpensive way to get people up the west side of Aspen Mountain, in contrast to earlier plans of a covered escalator and other grandiose “people movers.”

That’s the conclusion of the Lift One Task Force and the Aspen Skiing Co., which are moving forward with installing a POMA lift that would run along the same alignment as Aspen’s first chairlift, which began operating in 1947.

The proposed lift will start where the existing terminal of the historic Lift One chair is located in Willoughby Park, and take riders slightly above and left of a new, high-speed quad Lift 1A set 150 feet farther uphill.

But it will require a variance from the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board to make it happen. Tramway standards require 45 feet of clearance on either side of a ski lift, but the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) requires only five feet on each side of a surface lift, said Skico attorney Dave Bellack. Skico wants five feet of clearance.

“That is the argument we need them to buy,” Bellack said to the task force Thursday. “We’re hopeful.”

Bellack noted that variances have been granted at other ski areas, including for the POMA lift on the Cirque at Snowmass that allows skiers to cross the alignment to reach the other side of the ski run.

Because of safety concerns, skiers and snowboarders would not be allowed to ride down to Dean Street while the POMA lift is in operation. So it’s thought that the T-bar type of lift would operate in the morning and early afternoon, and then be closed so skiers and snowboarders can have return skiing to Dean Street at the end of the day.

The surface lift is a departure from Skico’s position that a lift in the historic Lift One corridor, which is 50 feet wide, wasn’t possible because of space constraints. But that was only if its purpose was for repeat skiing. The latest thought is that the POMA lift would serve as a mode of transportation up the hill, Bellack said.

Once a site plan for the entire 8-acre area at the base of the mountain is agreed upon by the task force, an application will be prepared for the tramway board, along with a designed lift proposal and the factors surrounding it, Bellack said.

The task force met Thursday in what was its 24th meeting. It will likely gather two more times before it makes a recommendation to the Aspen City Council on a development master plan.

That recommendation will ultimately serve as a land-use application for hundreds of thousands of square feet in commercial and residential space, including two large hotels, retail shops, restaurants, affordable housing, a ski museum and public spaces.

It was apparent last week that the task force wasn’t ready to sign off on any of the “people mover” options presented to them, which included an above-ground escalator, elevators, a trolley, a cable car or an underground escalator that would take people up the steep slope along South Aspen Street.

Task force members last week also were seriously questioning whether there was enough community benefit attached to the morphing site plan and doubted they would be able sell it to the general public.

But now that a surface lift is a real possibility, task force members said they felt more comfortable making trade-offs on development. They listed more than three dozen public benefits to the existing site plan, which includes improved skiing to Dean Street; lockers; year-round access to an under-utilized base of Aspen Mountain; underground parking; a revitalized historic area of skiing; improved infrastructure such as sidewalks and locals’ friendly venues where beer and food will be served.

The long list of community benefits will be organized and disseminated to the public in coming weeks.

“I think it’s huge and important that we can bring this back to the community,” said task force member Yasmine dePagter.

Mary Janss, a task force member and the daughter of Bill Janss, who developed an early Snowmass Ski Area, said she’s excited about the aesthetic features of the site plan.

“It looks beautiful to me,” she said.

What are your thoughts on this? I would be all for it.

[poloxskier]

This HSQ has been on the table for the last 5 years but as of yet nothing has really progressed so I doubt we will see it any time soon.

It would be nice to have faster access to that part of the mountain but I don't know if it will really be used because even during spring break almost no one rides 1A. My opinion is that it is more aimed at boosting the real estate values and since the lower terminal sits on private land it can be developed if the lower terminal is moved up the hill a bit.

That being said a poma would be very nice to have to get you up to the base of 1A more easily, not only does it take a while to get to the lift from town but also its a pain to hike that hill in ski boots. I think it would be a shame to remove the remains of 1 though because of their historical value.

This post has been edited by poloxskier: 22 October 2008 - 09:14 AM

[Kicking Horse]

I dont think they will be removing the remains of Char 1.

[Lift Kid]

The historical society would never let them....

[poloxskier]

I doubt that the Historical Society would allow it but if a poma is going to be installed there really isn't anywhere else to do it that is not taken up by housing. I read the proposal as the desire to stretch it down to the old chair 1 base, which I can not see any way to do that without removing the old chair 1 remnants. I hope that I am wrong.

[Kicking Horse]

How about a Poma lift with a turn in the line? then it can be done.

[poloxskier]

but there's no open area other than the road that low unless the poma would run from the current base of 1A to the new base which would be completely useless for only 150 feet. As well as a variance not being required since its a much more open slope.

This post has been edited by poloxskier: 22 October 2008 - 08:35 PM

[skiersage]

When I was in Aspen this past winter, I was told that the idea of replacing chair 1a with a HSQ was not going well because of them wanting to move the lower terminal up the mountain. The mayor said something to the effect of we should be moving the terminal further down the mountain not up. The company needs the mayors approval before the new lift can be installed so I am guessing this concept of installing an access poma is an attempt to make him happy. I guess I don't really care though as I think the current chair 1a serves its terrain just fine.

[poloxskier]

skiersage, on Oct 23 2008, 07:29 AM, said:

When I was in Aspen this past winter, I was told that the idea of replacing chair 1a with a HSQ was not going well because of them wanting to move the lower terminal up the mountain. The mayor said something to the effect of we should be moving the terminal further down the mountain not up. The company needs the mayors approval before the new lift can be installed so I am guessing this concept of installing an access poma is an attempt to make him happy. I guess I don't really care though as I think the current chair 1a serves its terrain just fine.

The towns displeasure has been the issue for 5+ years.

I also agree with 1A being more than ample but more speed up the hill would be nice for fast laps in the area

[boardski]

I have always thought the current Shadow Mountain lift (#1A) is fine the way it is. It is very efficient since there are minimal stops and slows since it serves the steeper side of the mountain. Moving the base terminal up the mountain would make it very inconvenient for everyone, especially those people staying in the condos in that area. I would be very unhappy with that plan if I were a property owner there. As far as the surface lift, it would be neat if they could install a modern drive station (assuming lift 1, the 1946 model was a top drive) and get lift 1 running again similar to what Mad River Glenn recently did with their old single. This would draw a lot of attention to Aspen also and give them some marketing ammunition.

As far as installing a HSQ, there is a much greater need for a HSQ (1 lift) replacing the spans of Little Nell and Bell Mtn lifts.

[egieszl]

The Little Nell lift and Bell Mountain lifts will probably never be upgraded or used on a consistent basis. There is no need for either of these lifts aside from a backup for the gondola.

You do realize that this is a citizen task force that is exploring these ideas and making these recommendations. They are supposed to be representing the property owners of the immediate area. Furthermore, I don't see why a poma lift could not operate beneath the original Lift 1. I'm pretty sure the poma they're talking about is the kind you see on the beginner slopes at Snowmass.

Once Lift 1A is upgraded it will be better utilized. Most Aspen visitors don't like slow chairlifts. While some of you may think this is fine, it is not. Aspen Mountain badly needs to upgrade both Lifts 1A and 7 with detachable chairs.

Personally, I'd rather see the historic lift refurbished and reopened since I can't think of a better way to put this lift into service and provide access to the new Lift 1A for those in the town.

This post has been edited by egieszl: 25 October 2008 - 01:10 PM

[boardski]

egieszl, on Oct 25 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

Once Lift 1A is upgraded it will be better utilized. Most Aspen visitors don't like slow chairlifts. While some of you may think this is fine, it is not. Aspen Mountain badly needs to upgrade both Lifts 1A and 7 with detachable chairs.

I will go along with you on the need to upgrade lift 7 (Gent's Ridge). This should have been HSQ when it was originally built since the ride time is nearly 15 minutes. I don't find it a wise use of a ski area's dollars to upgrade a lift which has a ride time of under 8 min, has minimal stops and slows and rarely any length of a line of people waiting at the bottom. Just my opinion though.

[poloxskier]

egieszl, on Oct 25 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

Furthermore, I don't see why a poma lift could not operate beneath the original Lift 1.

From an engineering stand point it is very possible but one of the roadblocks to operating like this is tramway board approval as there are minimum clearances both horizontal and vertical for both other lifts and structures.

[skierdude9450]

Okay lets be realistic here. I know we would all love to be able to ride Chair 1, but it is nowhere near operating condition. The restoration required to bring that to operating condition (even if for only 5 towers long) would be to basically build a completely new lift. Not too much different to MRG's new single. I don't think that any part of what remains could be used. However it would be feasible to install a Poma lift with turns or a traditional platter lift with a different return line. A few trees would probably need to be taken out, though.

[Lift Kid]

Is it just me, or did Aspen kind of neglect that lift for a long time? And now it is coming back to haunt them.

[boardski]

Lift Kid, on Oct 26 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

Is it just me, or did Aspen kind of neglect that lift for a long time? And now it is coming back to haunt them.

Are you referring to lift 1 or 1A (Shadow Mtn lift)?

[egieszl]

boardski, on Oct 26 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

I will go along with you on the need to upgrade lift 7 (Gent's Ridge). This should have been HSQ when it was originally built since the ride time is nearly 15 minutes. I don't find it a wise use of a ski area's dollars to upgrade a lift which has a ride time of under 8 min, has minimal stops and slows and rarely any length of a line of people waiting at the bottom. Just my opinion though.

I respect your opinion, but I think you're opinion applies to some resorts and not others like - Aspen.

I'm also going to make an assumption that you're not the average Aspen vacationer who stays in $500 - $1500 per night accommodations for a week or two a year.

Aspen/Snowmass is one of the top rated, most famous and overall best ski resorts in the United States. In my opinion, nearly all lifts at these two resorts should be high-speed detachable lifts. This is the type of on mountain infrastructure that the guests who really contribute to a resorts bottom line want. I'll excuse FIS and I don't care if they take out Bell Mountain and leave Little Nell as is, but the remaining two lifts, 1A and Gents Ridge need to be upgraded.

Fortunately, the upper management at Aspen Mountain realizes this as well. Aspen Mountain needs an alternate way up the mountain via a high-speed lift.

I agree with the rest of you that the original Lift One won't be making any turns. However, I wonder if it would be grandfathered in for old rules with the Tramway board.

This post has been edited by egieszl: 08 November 2008 - 11:40 AM

[Kicking Horse]

There is no need for F.I.S to be a High Speed lift. It's really short and everytime I ride it there is maybe a max of 5 min wait. Which is fine.