Throne Traverse Construction Project

I really didn't realize that this would cause so much consternation. I started the thread because this was a recent development made all the more relevant in light of the traverse a few weeks ago--the worst I have ever seen it coupled with not having seen anything posted on the TAY site about the Memo of Decision

This is just one piece of the overall plan around chair 6. (Below from Crystal MDP Amendment 1 Scoping Letter 07252009  issued July 29, 2009)

Replacing High Campbell Basin Chairlift (C-6)
This popular lift was originally built in the early 1950s at Pilchuk ski area then relocated to Crystal Mountain in 1979. Its age makes repairs and getting replacement parts difficult. The upper terminal is near the summit of Silver Queen, at 6,983 feet elevation. The upper portion of the alignment, including the upper terminal, is exposed directly to the prevailing southwest wind. As a result, the lift must often be shut down due mechanical constraints that limit operation of the relatively light, fixed-grip double chairlift in high winds.
This project is not included in the current MDP. However, it is consistent with the overall purpose and need for the MDP, as noted above.

Replacing High Campbell Basin Chairlift (C-6)
This is a new project not previously proposed or approved in the 2004 ROD. The proposal is to replace the existing High Campbell Basin Chairlift (C-6), a fixed-grip double chairlift, with a new fixed-grip quad chairlift. The same alignment would be used, though some new tower locations would likely be required. The unloading point at the top might be shifted down the alignment slightly (about 20 to 30 feet) to a less confined location. Carrier spacing on the new lift would be increased so that rated capacity did not increase notably (978 pph to 1,200 pph). Ride time would be unchanged at about 5.5 minutes and no notable increase in use other than that due to fewer shut-downs is anticipated...

In case you guys have forgot. You are in a
"Lift" served ski area. Which means that the owners can improve the area to best fit the "Lift " served skiiers.

This isn't a "Backcountry" resort. You can access the backcountry, sure. But , if the owners make it a little easier to get to the goods, I don't think you'll have your green circle skiiers wanting to hit a cat track to black diamond runs.

If you like the feel of bouncy traverse trails , just hit the Green Valley Bowl. You can do that all season long.

That is honestly terrible,terrible news.
Never did trust the Forest Service.
I am depressed by this news. :'( :'(
I like the present traverse, rocks and all. It keeps the punters at bay.
Anyone want to form a comittee to fight this to the bitter end.

Reasons For Implementing Traverse Trail:

1. Create Jobs

2. Make it safer for Ski Patrol to access areas quicker and with less stress on Patrollers trying to pull sleds.

3. Save on equipment

4. Improve summer mountain biking and hiking trips

I am with Bandit.  I think this will be good for all the reasons listed, but also for the skiing experience.  I guess we're all after something a little different. I've probably "buzzed" several of you on the trail over to the southback gate as you pick your way through the rocky traverse. I don't like doin' that, but I am not going to putz around waiting for people.

They should have done something similar in Northback instead of putting in the lift....if they would have slightly lowered I-5 and graded and groomed the trail it would have been a great way to make it easy to ski most of Brand X and still have a good experience getting back to the base area without building the lift.

Reasons For Implementing Traverse Trail:
1. Create Jobs
2. Make it safer for Ski Patrol to access areas quicker and with less stress on Patrollers trying to pull sleds.
3. Save on equipment
4. Improve summer mountain biking and hiking trips

Reasons for not Implementing Traverse Trail.
1. Makes it easier to get to start of Throne bootpack and SB gate.
2. More accidents for Ski patrol as people without the skills will be lured to more difficult terrain.
3. Will promote increased access to SB which mandatory passes through MRNP land.
4. Mountain Biking down Powder Bowl not a good idea.

5. Mountain Biking in MRNP not allowed( where would you go on a mountian bike from top of chair 6, down Kempers?

I don't think you'll have your green circle skiiers wanting to hit a cat track to black diamond runs.

Oh really!!? :
My experience skiing Crustal for quite a few seasons leads me to believe this hypothesis wrong.
But I have to be honest and say it will improve the access and will save on gear and that my reasons for being against it are purely selfish.
I just don't like sharing my SB powder with more skiers and although honesty is usually the best policy I am prepared to make up reasons to advance my agenda in this case.