36 replies to this topic

[floridaskier]

There's a lot more proposed lifts at Snowbird, I wonder if any of them will ever be built. Also, what's the White Pine (Potential) thing? The Canyons covers that up now, but were there plans for another resort there?

[Aussierob]

Powdr, on Oct 13 2004, 03:43 PM, said:

Here is what an interconnect gondola (in yellow) would look like:

attachment

The gondola would have:

- 7 stages
- a total of about 7.5 mile travel length
- Start (or end) in Park City's Old town
- Mid stations in DV's Empire Canyon (2), Brighton's Great Western Area, Brighton's base area & Alta's Point Supreme
- End at Alta's Albion base area

Powdr
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately a lift with that many stations would never run for more than a few minutes between stops. A three station lift is not too bad, but any more turns into a nightmare. Can you imagine giving two bells to start it and then trying to count the other 12 to make sure everyone is ready. It's never going to work. Maybe if you broke it up into three spearate lifts it would work OK. Downside is people would have to unload/load a couple of times.

[Tin Woodsman]

Aussierob, on Apr 25 2005, 08:31 AM, said:

Unfortunately a lift with that many stations would never run for more than a few minutes between stops. A three station lift is not too bad, but any more turns into a nightmare. Can you imagine giving two bells to start it and then trying to count the other 12 to make sure everyone is ready. It's never going to work. Maybe if you broke it up into three spearate lifts it would work OK. Downside is people would have to unload/load a couple of times.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why would that be a downside? The point behind an interconnect isn't to ride the lifts around as if it were the monorail at Disney World. The point is to ski from one area to another, so the entire discussion of multiple stage gondolas seems silly to me.

[SkiBachelor]

The reason why there are plans to install a gondola is because some of the runs that you would ski in the winter wouldn't be open during the early months and later spring because of lack of snow on those sunny slopes. Another reason is because of avalanche danger and it's probably a lot easier to maintain a gondola rather than having to constantly set chargers in those avalanche zones. The last and probably the most important is private property. Not all the land in those areas in on U.S. Forest Service land or owned by the ski areas. So if somone gets hurt while skiing on someones property, they could sue that property owner. So you can see why a gondola is important with these aspects and it would also be a very popular attraction in the summer time. Plus, if the gonvernment is going to be paying for the gondola most likely, I can't see why someone wouldn't want to install one.

[jasdmd0]

Then there is the other potential "sticky" point of snowboarders and the Deer Valley/Alta thing. If it ever happened, I think that it would be the one thing that would put the already serious consideration of moving the family from Connecticut out to Utah

[floridaskier]

I don't think that would be a problem, Snowbird and Alta have the interconnect going and it seems to be working out

[SkiBachelor]

But I believe that Alta bought Snowbird.

[stan]

I have heard nothing to suggest that Alta bought Snowbird. That would be major news. This past season they still seemed to be very different entities, with very different management styles.

Snowbird has historically caried a heavy debt load, and seems to be trying to spend and expand its way to solvency. Alta reportedly runs on a cash basis, they save the money before they spend it on improvements. This would make a very awkward mariage.

[Powdr]

Snowbird has NOT bought Alta.

[SkiBachelor]

Then is there some talk about it because I seem to have read something about that a while back. I just thought that Alta bought Snowbird during the time Snowbird expanded into Mineral Basin.

[iceberg210]

Alta hasn't bought Snowbird and I doubt they ever will given the whole thing with Alta really being a conglomerate of different companies such as Alta Lifts, the various hotels and resturants I think it would be hard for any one party to take over Snowbird and besides under Bob Bonar's watch Snowbird will never become someone else's.

ON the interconnect I don't think it would be such a great idea. Its like the EU it will merge many different resorts together and help them alot but will hurt other ones that aren't in it. With that kind of a mega resort in Salt Lake I think that resorts such as Snowbasin Powder Mountain and Brianhead would have a tough time drawing people in. The resorts also have thier own qualities which would be hindered by a conglomerate. Each resort has its own special things about them like Alta limits the number of people in thier resort at a time. How could they then keep that going? I think it better that the resorts just expand on thier own and if someday they all connect out of chance great but I don't think the benifits will out wiegh the costs on this one.

Also Tyler one those other lifts at Snowbird it now really seemms unlikely that they will ever get permission to go into the White Pine area because not only is it public land but the backcountry skiers would have a fit. As for the other lifts its a possiblity but Snowbird seems to be focused more on updating the current lifts then expanding.

This post has been edited by iceberg210: 28 April 2005 - 05:20 PM

[SkiBachelor]

Erik, you have to remember that Park City, DV, The Canyons, Solitude, Brighton, Alta and Snowbird are pretty much just destination resorts and don't rely on the general population of SLC to support them. I'm not saying that the population of SLC doesn't support those resorts by buying lifts tickets and season passes which they do, just most of the business comes from out of state skiers. The other small ski areas in Utah except for Snowbasin maybe pretty much rely on locals to support them so that's why they wouldn't be affected.

For example, Whistler-Blackcomb is pretty much one of the most popular ski resorts in North America and when Intrawest bought Whistler, Grouse and Cypress weren't really effected by it, I think they both benefited since it brought more people to the area to ski the resorts.

[Powdr]

The other draw that the LCC & BCC resorts would have w/ an interconnect is the huge bed base in PC. These resorts could only dream of the capacity in Park City, and they all know that they could never develop anything near that size, so they figure a tunnel or lift would be the next best thing.

This post has been edited by Powdr: 29 April 2005 - 12:21 PM

[liftmech]

All seven areas are pretty disparate in their clientele. DV is high-end, PCMR and the Canyons are destination resorts, the Bird is a medium-market destination/ski area, and Alta, Brighton, and Solitude are day ski areas to one extent or another. Is there really a market for a way to ski from one to the other easily? Why would, for example, someone skiing Solitude want to ride all the way over to DV? I'm not really that familiar with the area, but it seems to me the current Utah Interconnect tour relies on skiers who are at least moderately interested in touring and not laps on lift-served terrain. I could be wrong, but if this went through I think most people utilising the lifts would be doing it for the novelty.

[SkiBachelor]

I personally believe that Brighton is a mix between local and destination skiers. When I was there, we road up the lifts with several people who were from out of state and Brighton promotes itself as a destination resort too. Now it's probably true that Brighton doesn't get all its business from out of state, but it doees get a decent amount. Boyne spent a lot of money installing detachables and putting in an overnight lodge for destination skiers.

[iceberg210]

Brighton and Solitude really aren't destination resorts. Most of Solitude's skiers especially are locals although as can be seen by thier recent addition to the condos they wish they were.

[Tin Woodsman]

Keep in mind that if you do interconnect, there is no reason why the identity of the 7 ski areas would have to erode or disappear. Think of the European model, where each access point or even lift is owned by a different company and you can move one valley over for a completely different feel from the one you've come from. Those areas would be able to sell their individual day passes or they could sell a 7 areas pass for more. All the areas would split the latter. With the move towards electronic scanning of passes, this wouldn't be difficult to pull off logistically.