Jump to content


Revised Breckenridge Peak 6 expansion plan


  • You cannot reply to this topic
6 replies to this topic

#1 trooper1556

    Established User

  • Member
  • 67 Posts:

Posted 26 January 2011 - 08:16 PM

from: http://www.summitdai...entProfile=1055
extending the lift to between angels rest and lincoln meadows runs on peak 7 is a great idea in my opinion

BRECKENRIDGE — Featuring a realigned lift and more accessibility, the latest version of Breckenridge Ski Resort's Peak 6 expansion proposal now rides on the results of a pending environmental impact statement and the approval of the U.S. Forest Service.

Resort representatives presented a comprehensive and up-to-date look at the plan to the Breckenridge Town Council during a work session Tuesday in anticipation of the release of the draft EIS, expected this spring.

“The big change is the realignment of the lift,” Breckenridge chief operating officer Pat Campbell said. “The lift has been extended down into Peak 7 ski terrain. That was to provide much-improved access.”

The proposed expansion would add a single six-person lift and 450 acres of new terrain to the resort.

The lift, a 8,200-foot high-speed detachable chair, would begin on Peak 7 and continue to a load-only mid-way station located on Peak 6 that would allow guests to continue to access Peak 6 terrain without returning to Peak 7.

The revised plan with a two-stop lift allows skiers and riders to access Peak 6 from lifts on Peak 7 and Peak 8 as well as the T-bar.

In the original plan, Peak 6 was accessible only by a fairly flat catwalk cutting through the trees from Peak 7.

“We have a lot of these catwalks and snowboarders have a difficult time with them,” said Gary Shimanowitz, director of mountain operations. “I thought that was the last thing we needed at Breckenridge was a 10-percent grade catwalk.”

The expansion would include 70 acres of cleared runs, 280 acres of lift-served terrain above tree line and another approximately 100 acres of advanced hike-to terrain.

The proposal offers intermediate-level bowl skiing, something not currently available at Breckenridge.

“It provides a more alpine experience for those middle-level (people),” Campbell said.

Of the high-alpine terrain in the proposal, 79 percent would be intermediate.

A restaurant at the mid-station on Peak 6 is also included in the current plan, though Campbell said it would not be built in the first phase of construction.

The need for expansion
The expansion is intended to offset overcrowding problems on Breckenridge's other mountains by dispersing skiers and riders over more terrain, according to ski resort representatives.

Breckenridge has been ranked the most-visited or second most-visited ski resort in the country for several years. It tends to compete for the top spot in number of skier visits with Vail Mountain, a resort with more than double the terrain.

“We feel like we really need this project to accommodate the visitation,” Campbell said. “(Peak 6 terrain) will disperse people further out from the core of the mountain.”

Breckenridge can currently accommodate nearly 15,000 skiers and snowboarders per day comfortably, but on peak days the resort might see as many as 20,000 skiers. The Peak 6 expansion would increase the resort's comfortable carrying capacity by approximately 1,100 skiers per day.

Campbell told the council the project was not geared to increase visits, only to mitigate crowding problems and create a better skier experience.

The expansion would fall within the resort's existing boundaries, which extend onto Peak 5.

The draft environmental impact statement is expected from the Forest Service this spring. Its release will be followed by a 45-day public comment period, after which the Forest Service will put together a final EIS and the White River National Forest supervisor will deliver a record of decision on the proposal.

A 45-day appeal period will follow the record of decision.

Breckenridge representatives said if the project is approved, they intend to begin work during the summer construction period following the decision.

Attached File(s)



#2 DakarNick

    Established User

  • Member
  • 58 Posts:

Posted 27 January 2011 - 06:59 AM

Interesting! I'll have to keep an eye on this.

#3 DonaldMReif

    Established User

  • Member
  • 1,980 Posts:

Posted 27 January 2011 - 03:15 PM

I actually agree with this. So basically, the lift will function as a six pack version of the Peak 8 SuperConnect. So it does raise one question: how many chairs will be sent through the bottom terminal empty to allow skiers to get on at midway? I'd assume that they'd probably want to send every other chair through the bottom empty so that each station receives an equal amount of chairs. And the midway looks like it will also be a turn station.

With regards to getting from Peak 8 to Peak 6, it looks like a short blue run will start off of Pioneer between the two cut offs that lead to Claimjumper. This short blue will tie into Wirepatch, and then cross to Lincoln Meadows. Making it possible, in theory, to go from the top of Peak 10 to Peak 6 and only use the Peak 8 SuperConnect, though, theoretically, here's what I would do to "traverse" all the way across the mountain:

1. Go from the top of Peak 10 to the Peak 8 SuperConnect at the bottom terminal.
2. Ride the SuperConnect all the way over to Peak 8.
3. Ski down to Peak 8 Base.
4. Ride the Rocky Mountain SuperChair.
5. Take Columbine to Claimjumper to Fort Mary B to access Peak 7.
6. Ride up the Independence SuperChair, and ski down Lincoln Meadows to the Peak 6 lift's terminal on Peak 7.

After they open this peak, they might consider adding another lift going from the Peak 7 terminal up to the area that is above the Independence SuperChair and below the Peak 7 Bowl.

Also a consideration: constructing a quad and additional terrain to Peak 5, creating a five peak area. It might be an interesting idea to try to in a single day ski runs on Peaks 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Lastly, it might be a suggestion that Breck survey the high alpine terrain directly above the Mercury SuperChair to see if that might be suitable for an expansion. The result would be a lift running from near the Peak 9 Restaurant to the saddle between Peaks 9 and 10.

This post has been edited by DonaldMReif: 27 January 2011 - 04:00 PM

YouTube channel for chairlift POV videos and other random stuff:
https://www.youtube....TimeQueenOfRome

#4 trooper1556

    Established User

  • Member
  • 67 Posts:

Posted 27 January 2011 - 03:27 PM

View PostDonaldMReif, on 27 January 2011 - 03:15 PM, said:

I actually agree with this. Although I would think that at the same time, it might be a good idea to try to make sure the new lift, whatever it is called, does not put additional strain on the Independence SuperChair. One idea in mind might be to cut an additional run to allow skiers to get to Lincoln Meadows and Angel's Rest from the Rocky Mountain SuperChair, to allow people to bypass the Independence SuperChair.

thats exactly what this change is about, the new lift can be reached from colo & rocky mtn superchairs

#5 DonaldMReif

    Established User

  • Member
  • 1,980 Posts:

Posted 27 January 2011 - 04:07 PM

In one version of Peak 6 I created, the lift still had the midway in the same location, but it would have started at the Independence SuperChair. Another version started at the bottom of Peak 7 and didn't have a midway station. Both, however, would probably only put more congestion onto the runout where Monte Cristo, Angel's Rest, Lincoln Meadows, and Wirepatch all funnel into a single run to take people back to the Independence SuperChair.
YouTube channel for chairlift POV videos and other random stuff:
https://www.youtube....TimeQueenOfRome

#6 liftmech

    lift mechanic

  • Administrator II
  • 5,906 Posts:
  • Interests:Many.

Posted 27 January 2011 - 05:29 PM

View PostDonaldMReif, on 27 January 2011 - 03:15 PM, said:

Lastly, it might be a suggestion that Breck survey the high alpine terrain directly above the Mercury SuperChair to see if that might be suitable for an expansion. The result would be a lift running from near the Peak 9 Restaurant to the saddle between Peaks 9 and 10.


If you've noticed (and I assume you have, seeing as how you're always up there), aside from the southeast aspect of chair 9/Imperial Express, none of the high alpine terrain would be suitable for lift-served expansion. The weather doesn't exactly cooperate up that high. The wind howls through those saddles and scours everything in its path.
Member, Department of Ancient Technology, Colorado chapter.

#7 DonaldMReif

    Established User

  • Member
  • 1,980 Posts:

Posted 27 January 2011 - 09:11 PM

View Postliftmech, on 27 January 2011 - 05:29 PM, said:

If you've noticed (and I assume you have, seeing as how you're always up there), aside from the southeast aspect of chair 9/Imperial Express, none of the high alpine terrain would be suitable for lift-served expansion. The weather doesn't exactly cooperate up that high. The wind howls through those saddles and scours everything in its path.



It was just an idea. That cornice one sees above the Mercury SuperChair would probably never go in bounds due to avalanche risks. At the same time, they should also focus on constructing lifts to take the load off of some of the detachable lifts, such as constructing a triple or FGQ on the old #1 lift line.
YouTube channel for chairlift POV videos and other random stuff:
https://www.youtube....TimeQueenOfRome





1 User(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users