18 replies to this topic

[alexboesen]

Noticed that Whistler and Blackcomb have released updates to their master plans. Interesting items of note are: for Blackcomb they are proposing a gondola to replace the showcase and horstman t-bars, two lifts in blackcomb glacier, and a tram from rendezvous to horstman hutt. On Whistler the plans are even more ambitious including an eight person chair for Harmony, six packs for Emerald and in Flute bowl, and a whole new base village on the south side of the mountain with a link to Function Junction. More info is available at: Link

[Marc Shepherd]

It's not surprising news: long liftlines are cited in many of the trip reports I've read.

[BernardP]

Although I mostly lurk here, being "only" a recreational skier, I can't let this pass without noting that what this master plan, if implemented, will do, is put more and more people on the same terrain. Skier densities will continue to increase, leading to a degradation of conditions and of the ski experience.

What we need are new ski areas, not increased lift capacity on existing terrain.

[Marc Shepherd]

BernardP, on 23 February 2011 - 01:52 PM, said:

Although I mostly lurk here, being "only" a recreational skier, I can't let this pass without noting that what this master plan, if implemented, will do, is put more and more people on the same terrain. Skier densities will continue to increase, leading to a degradation of conditions and of the ski experience.

Did you, by any chance, read the reports? If you did, you'll find that's not true. They are not proposing merely to put more lift capacity on the same terrain. Both mountains, but especially Whistler, have terrain that is not currently being used at all, or that is significantly under-used. Some lifts have chronically long lines, but once you get to the top there are vast open spaces. That's because the downhill capacity far exceeds the uphill capacity in certain areas.

In addition, they’re aiming to balance out the load. Some areas are over-crowded, while others are relatively untracked, because the existing lift system "forces" people into a funnel, or doesn't make it easy to get where they want to go. Whistler-Blackcomb is unusual, in that many skiers rely on a few "staging lifts" to reach a mid-mountain area, and don't come down again until the end of the day. But those lifts are far too crowded, in relation to the rest of the ski area, forcing people into long waits when they begin their day.

Although the original post, naturally, focused mainly on the lifts, the report also talks about restaurants, finding that the ski area has far too few of them, in relation to the visitors it gets on peak days.

That's just a summary: the two reports are more than 300 pages, between them. Someone has taken a very thoughtful look at the issue.

Quote

What we need are new ski areas, not increased lift capacity on existing terrain.

It's very hard to create a new ski area. Indeed, you'll find that more ski areas have closed in the last 30 years than have opened. The barriers to entry are staggering, and often there are environmental objections to putting a new ski resort in previously unspoiled wilderness. It is much more practical to develop unused capacity at mountains that already have the infrastructure in place, than to develop it in places where it never existed before.

[BernardP]

Of course I have not read the report. I have downloaded the Master Plan at Buildout PDFs and will look at them. The first post is enough to understand that there will be more lift capacity to serve existing terrain.

New lifts on new terrain is of course OK. But the discourse about the "under-used terrain" and "downhill capacity exceeding uphill capacity" is well-known. It is an elegant way of saying that, yes, there will be more people skiing the same terrain.

For example, there is a proposed tram on Blackomb between Rendez-Vous and Hortsman Hut. I guess it's going to take a traffic light at the top of Couloir Extreme (aka Saudan Couloir), and maybe even snowmaking and winchcat grooming to cope with the increased traffic.

And anywhere you replace a quad with a six-pack, to feed the same terrain, you increase density. There will always be calculations to show that the higher density is acceptable and comfortable, but it will be higher than before, putting more pressure on the snow surface.

I agree that it has become almost impossible to open new ski areas, and even very difficult to expand existing areas.

As a skier though, the more I feel part of a packed-in mob, the less I enjoy the experience.

----------------------

EDIT: I have looked at the buildout plans. No significant new terrain on Blackcomb, only more lifts. I almost chocked when I saw the quad chair in Ruby Bowl. Whistler is adding lift capacity on its existing terrain and planning a terrain expansion on its south side - winter-long corn snow... I see few trails in proportion to the huge new lift capacity. But I digress: It's all about selling real estate.

This post has been edited by BernardP: 24 February 2011 - 10:29 AM

[Marc Shepherd]

BernardP, on 24 February 2011 - 09:29 AM, said:

Of course I have not read the report. The first post is enough to understand that there will be more lift capacity to serve existing terrain.

New lifts on new terrain is of course OK. But the discourse about the "under-used terrain" and "downhill capacity exceeding uphill capacity" is well-known. It is an elegant way of saying that, yes, there will be more people skiing the same terrain.

But "more people skiing the same terrain" does not necessarily mean too many people skiing that terrain. It seemed to me that your original post was a blanket condemnation of the report, without considering whether any of the ideas might actually be good ones.

Quote

And anywhere you replace a quad with a six-pack, to feed the same terrain, you increase density. There will always be calculations to show that the higher density is acceptable and comfortable, but it will be higher than before, putting more pressure on the snow surface.

But might not those calcuations be accurate? I mean, obviously it's literally true that every extra skier "puts pressure on the snow surface." But not all traffic is bad traffic; I mean, the whole point of running a ski business is to attract skiers. A less-than-ideal lift system may concentrate a lot of that pressure, instead of spreading it out over the available terrain.

I mean, I'm not an expert on ski area design, but it seems to me that if someone has written 300 pages of analysis, one ought to at least read it before concluding that none of it is any good.

[BernardP]

I can see that we mostly say the same thing, but without necessarily being in agreement. I just wanted to underline the unrelenting increase of skier densities over the past decades.

As an Eastern skier, I can attest that most major Eastern ski areass have long since exceeeded what I would call their "natural carrying capacity": they are no longer viable without extensive snowmaking and continuous grooming. This is not because they get less snow on average. It is because the mountain is overloaded.

The same mountain that was a snow paradise when served only by a slow double chair can't resist the high traffic generated by a trio of HSQs

In the West, since there is usually much more terrain available at a given ski area, skier densities have been much lower than in the East. Thus, conditions could remain excellent between storms.

But things are changing, and Whistler/Blackcomb is a good example of the general tendency to put more and more people on about the same terrain. I have made 5 trips to Whistler since 1987 (55 ski days), at more-or-less regular intervals, and on each of these trips, I have observed an increase in lift capacity while the available terrain has remained about the same. And we now have all these easy-way-down roads snaking across the bowls...The secret hike-to stash of 25 years ago is now scraped-off in one hour.

To top it off, many resort, including W-B, are "selling the powder separately". If one wants to ski powder the morning after a storm, one has to buy the early-breakfast-at-the-summit in addition to the regular lift ticket.

It's no longer an adventure, it feels more like a factory. To caricature, it seems like the main point of resort design is now to offer "lift rides" with trails being only a necessary means of bringing skiers back to the base for their next lift ride.

If I lived in the West, I would definitely be into backcountry skiing.

[Aussierob]

BernardP
You are fundamentally misunderstanding why there are higher densities. It is all to do with increased skier visits, not the lifts. As skier visits rise as they have at WB, management looks at that line at the bottom of the FGD to paradise and decide that a better experience for the guest is to get them out of that line and on the hill. Hence the HSQ upgrade. The tracked out mountain is a function of the number of people you are try to provide a good experience for.

The tram to the peak is a sightseeing lift and quite low capacity you won't need that traffic light as the vast majority of people dont ski that run.

Powder is not sold separately as on a avalanche control day the guests coming up at the regular time arrive before avalanche control is complete. First tracks guests may get a couple of runs in Ratfink or Dad's, but that is about it.

Real estate? You obviously haven't noticed WB has no more to sell, or the bed units to build with.

If your cariacture is correct, then no one would ski any more. Everyone I know loves to ski. The lifts are just a means to an end. You need to realize that a whole lot of people have discovered skiing and do ot a lot more than they used to. The empty ski hill of 25 years ago is a distant memory and no one will be turning back the clock. I highly recommend ski touring, just get the skills, knowledge and equipment you need before you go.

This post has been edited by Aussierob: 26 February 2011 - 09:08 AM

[Gripforce]

Rob is absolutely correct. What everyone has to remember is that the master plan is just a dream, or a compilation of ideas. None of it is set in stone. Senior management and Ecosign throw ideas into the plan, sometimes without any actual planning or study. Most of the lift proposals are tossed into the mix and studied later to determine its feasablity. I doubt we will ever see most of the lifts listed on the plan, e.g. the tram from Renedzvous to Horstman hut. Other proposals on the plan that have been in place for years are more real. Like the new Crystal lift, and lifts into the Khyber area south west of Whistler Mtn. Blackcomb is virtually built out, but Whistler has the potential to double its size. Could you imagine???

As far as real estate goes, Intrawest built out that a long time ago. And there is also a building cap in the valley that is pretty much filled.
Which is good for me and Rob....


Go Canucks Go!

This post has been edited by Gripforce: 26 February 2011 - 11:41 AM

[Marc Shepherd]

Gripforce, on 26 February 2011 - 11:28 AM, said:

What everyone has to remember is that the master plan is just a dream, or a compilation of ideas. None of it is set in stone. Senior management and Ecosign throw ideas into the plan, sometimes without any actual planning or study. Most of the lift proposals are tossed into the mix and studied later to determine its feasablity. I doubt we will ever see most of the lifts listed on the plan, e.g. the tram from Renedzvous to Horstman hut.

It looks to me like most of the proposed lifts are the results of actual planning and study. Between them, the two documents are 300 pages. I don't think they were just puked out in an alcoholic haze. In any case, quite a few of the proposals make obvious sense: they're things any rational person would come up with. Obviously, construction will depend on economic conditions and the continued growth of the resort, but no one who has seen the success of WB over the last 20 years would be wise to bet against them.

It's worth noting that Ecosign has developed the master plans for WB since the 1990s, and an awful lot of what they suggested DID get built. I do agree that the tram seems like a fanciful suggestion, but people said the same of the Peak 2 Peak gondola before it actually got built.

This post has been edited by Marc Shepherd: 27 February 2011 - 09:52 AM

[teachme]

I think BernardP is making some good points that are getting dismissed too easy.

First, the point about management seeing a long line and deciding to upgrade a lift is valid, and this will mean a greater density on the slopes.

To me that is not the point. The point is that when possible add uphill AND downhill capacity. Uphill capacity can be easily calculated, but downhill capacity is highly subjective. To some, Saturday afternoon on Grouse is an OK skier density, to others another group 2km away skiing up to Elfin lakes hut is too many people. In short I would argue that due to the subjective nature, there is no such thing as downhill capacity and WB should try to keep it as low as possible, not add lifts because there is spare downhill capacity. All things being equal, new lifts on new terrain is highly desirable to new lifts on existing terrain.

Scanning the report, there are many good aspects in it and I hope much of it gets done, just hope they try to keep the skier density down. What ever happened to the plans for WB to build lifts up Fitsimons creek direction?

TME

[Marc Shepherd]

teachme, on 28 February 2011 - 03:21 AM, said:

Scanning the report, there are many good aspects in it and I hope much of it gets done, just hope they try to keep the skier density down.

Ski areas are generally not in the business of trying to keep people away. I doubt that the report was commissioned with the idea of putting fewer people on the slopes. Many of the plans are to build out new terrain, and to do a better job of eliminating bottlenecks on the terrain they have. I suspect that if you owned or ran the ski area, you would have those same objectives.

[BernardP]

OK, coming back here after a couple of days away shows that the discussion has evolved. I am not surprised to see that many people don't seem to mind the negative consequences of increases in skier density.

Adding more lifts in response to long lift lines seems appropriate, yet there has to be a limit to how much people can be crammed on the slopes. If you have seen pictures of ski areas in Japan or South Korea, you know that there is always room for more...

Adding more lifts allows putting more people on the mountain, and thus, more revenue (after lift expenses). Adding more terrain adds... expenses and no revenue: more terrain to patrol, groom, and even make snow on.

Taking Whistler as an example, on my first trip there in 1987, only a slow triple gave access to the summit: Whistler Bowl, West Bowl, Harmony Bowl, Burnt Stew Basin (Symphony Bowl). Since then the triple has become a HSQ, a new HSQ has been added in Harmony, another one in Symphony, with a couple more projected in the latest Master Plan. There is always room for more.

An economist would say that another way to deal with long lift lines would be to raise prices until lines shorten, to reach a new point of equilibrium.

It takes a strong commitment to the quality of the ski experience to resist the temptation to simply increase lift capacity with little or no terrain increase.

As for real estate, I would think the point of the new Whistler South Base is to start a new cycle of real estate development.

[Marc Shepherd]

BernardP, on 28 February 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

OK, coming back here after a couple of days away shows that the discussion has evolved. I am not surprised to see that many people don't seem to mind the negative consequences of increases in skier density.

I think you're under-estimating us. We do realize that. But by the same token, ski areas cannot continue to get better without finding ways to attract new customers. I mean, at the density levels you appear to favor, many ski areas wouldn't be economically viable. As I noted upthread, more ski areas have closed in the last 30 years than have opened.

Quote

Adding more lifts in response to long lift lines seems appropriate, yet there has to be a limit to how much people can be crammed on the slopes. If you have seen pictures of ski areas in Japan or South Korea, you know that there is always room for more...

The Japanese and the Koreans have a much higher tolerance for crowds (not just at ski areas, but everywhere) than North Americans and Europeans will tolerate. The report discusses this. It does not suggest that WB could operate effectively at the density of the Japanese ski areas. If it reached that point, or anything close to it, people would choose not to ski.

Quote

Adding more terrain adds... expenses and no revenue: more terrain to patrol, groom, and even make snow on.

According to the report, adding terrain does add revenue --- otherwise, why would any ski area ever grow.

Quote

An economist would say that another way to deal with long lift lines would be to raise prices until lines shorten, to reach a new point of equilibrium.

It takes a strong commitment to the quality of the ski experience to resist the temptation to simply increase lift capacity with little or no terrain increase.

Have very many ski areas adopted the approach you're suggesting? There's probably one somewhere, but I don't see much evidence that the people running ski areas think that's the way to go.

[BernardP]

Marc Shepherd, on 01 March 2011 - 06:58 AM, said:

Have very many ski areas adopted the approach you're suggesting? There's probably one somewhere, but I don't see much evidence that the people running ski areas think that's the way to go.

It's more an observation than a suggestion. There is, in fact, one somewhere that I know. Have you ever skied the Putnam Creek side at Silverstar BC? Despite the HSQ, there is so much terrain that one is almost always skiing alone. Conditions remain excellent for days and days after a storm, even without grooming. But a lot of the terrain is un-groomable ;-)

Of course, this is not a model for a "skiing factory" type, real-estate driven resort.

As a professionnal accountant, I think that a low-density day area can be perfectly viable, because it has low fixed costs. It costs a lot for resorts to build infrastructure to serve peak demand. That is why they are trying to use real estate to finance on-mountain improvements.

Some perfectly good ski areas, especially is the East, have harmed their overall ski experience by trying to cram too many people on the mountain. I hope the same doesn't happen to W-B.

This post has been edited by BernardP: 02 March 2011 - 10:24 AM

[Marc Shepherd]

I just spent a week at WB. One of the hosts said that the next major lift-related project will be to upgrade the Harmony HSQ, and move that equipment to the site of the Crystal triple on a new alignment. Both proposals are in the Master Plan, and having now observed the site for myself, it is obvious that this solves several fundamental problems, and should be an improvement for just about everybody.

The Harmony chair serves so much terrain that it could be a 12-seat gondola, and the area would still be under-lifted. (They are not, of course, proposing a 12-seater for that alignment.) You get to the top, and there are dozens of ways down. There is a clear mismatch between the lift capacity and the skier/rider volume that can be comfortably accommodated without crowding. The report notes that Harmony is chronically one of the most crowded lift lines.

The Crystal chair has numerous problems. It's Blackcomb's only long-range chair that hasn't yet been upgraded to high-speed, and it's only a triple. There are so many ways down from the top that there is no hint of over-crowding. On top of that, there's no way to "lap" that chair, because most of those runs terminate below the current loading point. The proposal is not only to upgrade it to a high-speed detachable, but also to move the lower terminal farther down the mountain, so that skiers can "lap" the chair without having to go back to Excelerator.

Although it's understandable that proposals for new chairlifts get the focus of this forum, the Master Plan covers many other elements of the guest experience. While there, it struck me that WB is relatively poor in beginner and lower-intermediate terrain. While not a drawback for my son and me, I could well imagine a type of guest that would find this frustrating. I went back and scanned the reports, and sure enough, the Master Plan makes that very observation, something I had not remembered from my first reading.

Now, I can't vouch for all of the proposals, especially those that refer to terrain I didn't see for myself. The plan even notes that it is meant to have a very long shelf-life (like, 20 years), and many things could change before all of these ideas have a chance to be implemented. But anyone disagreeing ought at least to read them first, and see just how deep the analysis goes.

This post has been edited by Marc Shepherd: 21 March 2011 - 06:44 AM

[BernardP]

Thanks for these recent comments Marc. One thing I can 100% agree with is Crystal Chair at Blackcomb. There is some good below-treeline terrain in that pod, and the proposed Crystal Express will be a big improvement.

Interestingly logging/clearing for the base of this future lift has been done for a number of years. The centerline has also been cut IIRC. I guess we won't have to wait too long.

As the Alpine at W-B is often partially or totally unskiable for me on cloudy/foggy days because of visibility problems, I always welcome the addition of blue/black/double black treed runs on the upper mountain.

[Marc Shepherd]

BernardP, on 21 March 2011 - 06:13 AM, said:

As the Alpine at W-B is often partially or totally unskiable for me on cloudy/foggy days because of visibility problems, I always welcome the addition of blue/black/double black treed runs on the upper mountain.

That's an interesting observation. In six days of skiing, I don't think they achieved 100 percent open until the final day.

[BernardP]

Exactly,

And even when the alpine is open, sometimes I have trouble seeing where I'm going when light conditions are bad... Old eyes...

This post has been edited by BernardP: 21 April 2011 - 01:21 PM