or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

When, What Where at Copper???

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Please let this new year bring good things for Copper

-New lifts, or plans of
- new master plan for a comercially viable viilage
- real vision of the future

What are poeples thoughts? Who wants what? Who knows the inside skinny?

My thoughts; under achieving lagger to the the local big boys. With amazing potential.
post #2 of 24
I can only assume you are dismayed with Copper Mtn.

I'm quite happy with current state (well…they could update the lockers).

Besides, the two seat lifts are nostalgic, cozy and keep the complainers away

Regardless, be careful what you wish for. Being a “big boy” has its consequences.
post #3 of 24
Thread Starter 

I understand that line of thinking. But in the end nothing remains static. Knowing a little about the boundries of the permitted area, that currently are not accesable. I would love to see a few of those cozy two seaters deployed to those areas.

As far as complaining, I'm not normally one. And if Coppers future is to be static, just let me know. I'll divest and go elsewere. Resulting in even less crowds, even fewer places to go get a beer . What I don't want is to be told hang in there and have nothing happen for the next 5-10 years.
post #4 of 24
Originally Posted by tictoc View Post
And if Coppers future is to be static, just let me know. I'll divest and go elsewere. Resulting in even less crowds,...
Yes please! :
post #5 of 24
Copper is planning its next village update request to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners sometime in the not to distant future. They are trying to coordinate the village update with on mountain updates.

Tuesday, the adult ski school manager and I toured the new learning center (beginner/novice) terrain at the top of the Lumberjack lift. It will be service by a gondola out of Union Creek (this is NOT the same contentious gondola originally proposed to go through the village). With a chairlift and multiple carpets it is going to be great.
post #6 of 24
tictoc…you’re making this just too darn easy:
Originally Posted by tictoc View Post
...just let me know. I'll divest and go elsewere.
Is that a promise?
post #7 of 24
"What I don't want is to be told hang in there and have nothing happen for the next 5-10 years."

That would be my plan if I was in Charge! The Golf Course will be the 1st to go, need room for more Real Estate, which equals Mo Money!
post #8 of 24
Originally Posted by tictoc View Post
Resulting in even less crowds, even fewer places to go get a beer .
I will give you this tictoc; one of these items above is a bad thing to see happen at any ski hill.
post #9 of 24
Originally Posted by Mr. Vertical View Post

That would be my plan if I was in Charge! The Golf Course will be the 1st to go, need room for more Real Estate, which equals Mo Money!
Now just what the hell do you know about Real Estate big guy. Why don't you go and finish that mountain chalet for the Verticalets and leave the big mountain decisions to tictoc and me.
post #10 of 24
Was once told by a Real Estate Typhoon, "that the best investement on Earth,was a piece of it!"
post #11 of 24
Thread Starter 
Mike, thanks for the input.

Don, we could have a beer at the lunch counter/ bar at Loveland .Maybe get a few idea on how to improve coppers base facilities.

And Mr.V. , we could play a round at the Raven. Get some ideas for that trophy home you'll want, right were the 2nd hole tee box is.
post #12 of 24

Mid Mountain Lift

Perhaps this has been discussed before, but I would like a lift that will go from the bottom of Rendevous/Sierra (or lower) to the east side to catch Excelerator or Storm King. You could then ski Upper Enchanted Forest and/or the back bowls and get back over to the Resolution chair/Storm King without enduring the Super Bee or American Eagle
post #13 of 24

nice point turt...

For Mrs. Don and me off loading from Storm King and running down Upper Enchanted exiting through Ute, Slip or Looking Glass tends on occasion be our last run of the day as we then run it over to SB base then off to Alpine lot and the Jeep.

Actually, we really never take Enchanted anything from Storm King during the day due to the very fact you point out. Although there is some really nice stuff to be found there, we do not see value of the 800 or 900? vertical feet Enchanted brings if we must only head back to AE or SB especially on a busy day.

Selfishly, although it does push up the green run terrain and exposure for some with Wheeler Creek and Union Park, I would have rather seen Rendezvous Lift moved mirroring how Sierra lift serves Union Bowl & Meadows that would perhaps service a load point at Looking Glass run off and an off load at an higher appropriate point on Hallelujah Ridge (also servicing Spaulding Bowl) that could (God forbid) perhaps make Storm King unnecessary. Hope that all made sense without the map opened:


I would also be interested in the input and views from our Copper home folks (like mikewil) as tictoc intended.

Good Skiing!
post #14 of 24
Thread Starter 
Don, this goes to the careful what you ask for warning. I'm sure there are those out there that like the fact that anchanted is hard to make good use of. But that is why there are good stashes to be found in there. Imagine how fast it would get tracked out with kift access.

But even better, imagine the day when there is lift access for that face of enchanted, and better connectivity for traversing the mountain. AND those stashes are replace with new terain off the back side of Tucker. Which I believe is within the permit area. Or maybe that was just a dream I had.
post #15 of 24
Exactly tictoc. I certainly agree there should be a premium placed upon reaching a segment such as Enchanted. However, I think that premium should be of a higher skill level rather than a long lift line. I suppose same is true for Tucker, which naturally places the premium of your skills and willingness to hike for access to finer routes. However, while the SnowCat for Tucker access is a unique ride of sorts, I also find it an unnatural barrier waiting for a seat or two out of a dozen. I suppose my idea paying for a lift served mountain is just that; lifts serving me quickly to reach the vertical my skills are suited for. I can always choose for skins and a hike backcountry if I want delayed gratification of a special downhill run. Besides, at my age I have waited in enough unnecessary lines, I don’t particularly wish for more.

I think Copper truly exhibits one of those unique layouts that serve skill sets quite nicely all the while maintaining good space and flow. Many have mentioned as such on this forum. Nevertheless, reexamination of current or consideration of new lifts placed appropriately serving all terrain quickly and efficiently would be a good thing. Done correctly I’m confident it would help to improve upon what is already outstanding at Copper Mountain. I can remain patient for a period of time but not at the consequence of grid lock. Unfortunately, once there it takes longer to recover at even a higher overall cost.

From my perspective, as long as any thoughtful development is predicated on Copper as a “Ski mountain” rather than a “mountain destination”, experienced skiers, new beginners, over the hill gang etc., will be best served. Let’s just hope good Skiing for all levels remains the focus and the economics stay in balance.
post #16 of 24
Not directly related to Copper itself, but in response to employee suggestions, we are considering a Coppper/Winter Park pass that would offer 10 days at Steamboat.
post #17 of 24
Thread Starter 
That would be great. I usually ski about 4-6 days a year at the boat. Lisa, do you know when/if there will be news of on mountain improvements at Copper?
post #18 of 24
Not sure, but since I am on the media email list as well as being an employee, I will post as soon as I hear something.
post #19 of 24
I've sat in on all the meetings for years. I've heard more planning talk than I could possibly attempt to summarize, so if you've got some specific questions, feel free to ask.

First, Copper's on mountain plan was approved by the Forest Service last year. That had all the stuff in there a lot of people want - lift on Tucker, gondola at Union Creek, etc.

However, Copper has tied mountain development directly to base area development. Without approval to do the base area they won't do the mountain.

First, think back to around 2004 when Bob French became a county commissioner. At his first BoCC meeting Copper's master plan was put on the table for a vote. It was completely unexpected and since French abstained from voting the measure failed. That meant Intrawest had to go back to the drawing board.

Well, late 2005 a new plan was developed. It was taken in front of a lot of community groups and feedback received. They further refined the plan and then began a series of working sessions last summer with the Board of County Commissioners. The point of the working sessions was to figure out what issues the commissioners might have so it wouldn't fail again. Well, time after time there seemed to be neverending problems with plan. A decision was made late last fall to wait until after the November elections before trying to seek approval.

But what's the underlying issue? Voters. See, Copper has almost no electoral base. On the other hand, areas like Breckenridge have a lot of voters. So the county commissioners can easily say no to Copper without any fear of repercussion in an election. At the same time, that also helps Breck. Now, with Wallace moving on the thought was that would help Copper's chances. However, Thomas Davidson who got elected to that opening just happened to be a former Vail Resorts planner. Last I knew, Tom Long's and Bob French's families both had business interests in Breckenridge. Add all that up and it means you've got a slim chance for getting any new master plan approved.

Intrawest could be doing a better job with this process though. Right now they're tying two separate things together in the new master plan and they really should be separated. First, they're moving around density allocations. Going back to the recent development, the way the buildings ended up getting constructed means there's a lot of density in places Copper doesn't need it. It would be better to shift that around to make way for the new development. There's enough that the Hard Rock hotel in the chapel lot could go in, etc. The second thing they're trying to do is get approval for all the changes to parking, new buildings, etc, etc, etc. The first thing actually has a reasonable chance of getting approved. The second thing doesn't.

I suspect we'll see Intrawest try to make one more attempt in the middle of the summer to get it passed. If it doesn't, then that's going to be it for a while. Intrawest has a lot more opportunity elsewhere and will gladly develop that rather than bother with the hassle of Summit County.

Oh, the new master plan isn't a secret. If you want to see it, you can find it here: http://www.copperliving.com/master_plan/
post #20 of 24
Thread Starter 
Vinn, great insight. AND that is exactly my fear. Vail/Breck wheel to much sway over the copper approval process. When the powers that be should be encouraging the competition that would raise everybodies game.

CO is no longer the default choice for a destination ski trips, look at Park city. They should be doing everything they could to make ALL of summit/eagle county resorts the best they could be for everyone. A rising tide raises all boats.

It is a shame, and the people you list should be ashamed if they make their decisions not for the greater good of summit county but for the greater good of themselves.
post #21 of 24

Relevant news item…

denver & the west
Copper's parking plan blasted
County officials say expanding a lot on public land will worsen clogs
By Steve Lipsher
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/21/2007 01:00:00 AM MDT

Breckenridge - Summit County officials skewered a proposal by Copper Mountain ski area to expand a parking lot on public land, contending that it wouldn't ease traffic snarls on a state highway.
"It's going to be an even heavier impact than it has today, (and) today is a nightmare," said Tom Long, chairman of the board of county commissioners.
Copper executives are working with the U.S. Forest Service on the plan to add more than 1,000 parking spaces to the Corn lot, across Colorado 91 from the ski resort, as a first phase in its long-sought proposal to redevelop portions of the base village.
General manager Gary Rodgers and mountain-planning director Tim Thompson said the goal is to eliminate traffic-clogging overflow parking along the main road into the resort.
"Last year, there were days where we turned cars away. That's not too good for guest experiences," Thompson said at a meeting with commissioners Tuesday.
Copper isn't the only ski area struggling with parking. This season, cars parked along highways at some busy resorts were towed and owners were issued tickets.
"We need to design parking lots for Easter Sunday," said commissioner Thomas Davidson, alluding to the quandary about whether to build churches for the regular attendance or to accommodate the crowds on holy days. "I hate the inefficiency of it, but we have to park the cars."
The resort can handle as many as 5,000 vehicles, Thompson said, but the expansion of the Corn lot would ease the dangerous mix of traffic, parked cars and slope-bound pedestrians along Copper Road.
Long, however, said parking more cars across the highway would only add to the problematic congestion.
Rodgers promised that any parking spaces lost to future development would be replaced on resort property, but resort officials also acknowledged Copper Road still could be used for overflow parking.
That prompted both Long and Davidson to wonder out loud about the propriety of putting parking on public lands as the resort maximizes real-estate development on private land at the base.
"You don't have an increase in parking spaces whatsoever. You're just shuffling them from one place to another," Long responded. "I'm just being honest with you guys: This looks like the rearrangement of the stinkin' deck chairs on the Titanic." Staff writer Steve Lipsher can be reached at 970-513-9495 or slipsher@denverpost.com.
post #22 of 24
Originally Posted by DonDenver View Post
"It's going to be an even heavier impact than it has today, (and) today is a nightmare," said Tom Long, chairman of the board of county commissioners.
I can't believe I'm defending Intrawest development plans...

First, the county commissioners have a horrible track record on even reading plans. I would be shocked if Tom Long had already been presented with a plan, let alone even bothered to ask someone what it might be. Last summer they were quoted in the newspaper regarding Copper's master plan and they had a comment along the lines of, "This plan is a piece of crap because it doesn't even address parking." In fact, the plan had about 5 pages dedicated toward parking, was mentioned in the introduction, etc. How could they have possibly missed that unless they were asleep at the working sessions?

Second, this really isn't about adding more parking. Copper really doesn't want to add more skier visits - they realize that peak weekends pretty much max everything out and lead to a bad guest experience. About 14,000 is all they can support on a peak weekend. So this is more about moving cars off Copper Rd to the Corn Lot. What does that affect as far as congestion goes? Not a whole lot. It means cars coming from Leadville down Hwy 91 hit traffic about a 1/4 mile earlier than they would have. The cars streaming out of Copper Rd at the new stop light will cause the same amount of congestion getting onto the Interstate.

Not only don't I think it wouldn't hurt, I think it truly would help. On busy weekends they disregard the stop light and direct traffic by hand. Without 5000 cars streaming out of Copper Rd the traffic can be directed straight through the light without being held up at the intersection.
post #23 of 24
Originally Posted by vinn View Post
Not only don't I think it wouldn't hurt, I think it truly would help. On busy weekends they disregard the stop light and direct traffic by hand. Without 5000 cars streaming out of Copper Rd the traffic can be directed straight through the light without being held up at the intersection.
Agree Vinn. In my estimation dealing with (new) 5000 autos off cop road is already experienced when eastward 1-70 traffic is hobbled or periodically halted for whatever reason as you try to get out of Alpine or Corn lots. At peak times you may as well turn off the car and catch the bus back to the Village and let the mess thin out. Even with good flow on 1-70, maintaining a (primarily) one way travel through that light junction is mission critical.
post #24 of 24
Thread Starter 
There is a need for a parking/ traffic flow solution. Which should be part of a comprehensive master plan. That is one reason Master plans are developed. The cost of non revenue generating infrastructure is covered by enhancing existing revenue generating development. My sence is that Tom Long has no interest in allowing an enhanced master Plan move forward. What drives this man? It can't be a need to serve those that elected him.

Think about it. It is my belief that the people of Breck would benifit from Copper being allowed to build out. I'm not recommending recless development, but a well thought out plan. The people of Breck that do most the working and local living would benifit through more high paying jobs, greater inventory in the real estate market, and more competion between the two resorts. Given, these people aren't buying resort property. But they are being driven farther and farther out, fiscally and geographically. Stifling devopment dries up supply, except that which vail resorts is building out. Dry up supply and prices on all existing homes go up. Thats great if you plan on selling and leaving summit county, but if you want to stay, well!!

Think of all the construction jobs, administative jobs, on mountain jobs, support jobs, tourism dollars, improved services, mountain experiance ( at both breck and copper) ( remember competion is good), and the general boost to summit county economically . When I think of all that, I can not draw the conclusion that Tom Long is motivated by a need to serve his constituants, but more likely by something else, maybe special interest.

If this is allowed to continue, only a select few are being served (Vail resorts inc.)

I wish others would speak up on this, all view pionts would be welcome. I wish the peoiple of Breck would speak out. I wish the guy/gal that worked their arss off would speak out. They deserve better, and yes Copper owners deserve better
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Resorts, Conditions & Travel