rfarren":1zwdgl84 said:
I'm not sure that the mountain needs more terrain but rather a better way of moving people around the mountain. It is really annoying to have to ski a mountain with a destination involved. It didn't seem like the type of mountain that one could just look at a line and go for it and not have to worry about where they ended up. When I was just there with my friend we literally avoided the base of peak 8 like the plague due to the crowds. Perhaps rather than expanding they should just double up on the lifts so that they can move people around with a bit more ease.
While I was there peak 7 really wasn't crowded at all, but peak 8 was a disaster. According to my friend peak 9 isn't much better, but peak 10 is pretty nice. I'm not sure if expanding to peak 6 would move more people around as it seems to me peak 8 and 9 deal with the brunt of people anyways, and it's hard to get around with the present lift system. Again, perhaps they should just expand the amount of lifts to go to different places on the mountain.
Oh yeah, maybe they could replace that t-bar. Its annoying, although it is much more entertaining to watch on line as person after person falls. One person fell right at the start and it caused a massive pile up! It was hilarious. My friend said they use the t-bar instead of a chair because of wind.
Interesting point on the skiing with a destination. Most often I have one, though not always. The bottom few lifts on 8 & 9 are generally total sh*t shows. Peak 10 is typically good, upper parts of 8 you have to time things if you can, though that's where I spend much/most of my time when @ Breck. T-bar not likely to get replaced - due to the wind issue. Independence chair ("pk 7" chair) is flat as a pancake and tough to get to, though a bunch of hotels and lodges are scheduled to go up at the base there.
Tony Crocker":1zwdgl84 said:
...it is also an area where topography does not lend itself well to smooth traffic flow. Again in contrast to Vail. [snip]
Price and perhaps proximity to Denver must explain the similar skier visit numbers.
Not sure that Vail lends itself too much more to 'smooth flow'. Mostly it's got longer continuous vert on most of it's lifts. You can spend your life traversing around Vail just as much as Breck. Though Vail generally has something that's likely to at least interest you off most of it's lifts vs Breck where some lifts are crowded & boring/flat while the 'good terrain' lifts are separated from each other by the ridge lines. As for the skier visits, it's three primary items IMO - proximity (mostly one less mtn pass to deal with), the cute old mining town center and the 'feel' of everyman skiing vs furs and snooty that can be found @ Vail (not really too bad, but enough around to put some people off by it). People love the mining town thing way more than Vail's clearly faux euro architecture. Pricing is getting to be much more similar between the two, though with more options/places the room rates are cheaper in Breck still (but not by all that much anymore).
*************
As for my take on the article, I think the ship has already sailed on Breck. It very much needs the extra terrain due to the huge skier visit #'s. The enormous amount of housing built all around town already would have to have been stopped quite a while ago for the town to 'stay' like it is (from a local's viewpoint). Rte 9 from frisco is in desperate need to be 4 lanes the whole way instead of alternating between 4 & 2, etc... It is already a mess nearly year round. I think the local's complaints are way too late in the game. It's like they just woke up from sleeping through the past 5+ years or even more. The preservation of the experience they talk about is the local experience of at least a decade ago, not even of recent years. As demonstrated by two FTO'ers recently the guest experience is still mostly good, but local's trying to keeping the town fixed at a decade ago seems unrealistic and almost certain to cause or retain more issues and problems than it purports to solve.
I think the locals should be talking about what does the real end game look like. That area of Summit County will run out of private land soon enough, etc... There is more growth that will occur, but on a relative basis not an extreme amount. What does that end point look like and how can they shape that eventuality vs trying to freeze things up to a concept/feel they had a decade ago.
Just my 2cents of course; but then I'm very much considering buying the Intrawest pass again next season partially so as to avoid the sh*t show Breck has become - esp for day skiers. I'd love to ski Vail a few times a winter and A-Basin in spring on the same pass, but not sure it's THAT much more worth the hassles: of Breck generically (I don't ski Keystone anymore) or the extra fun of more mtn passes, expensive parking garages and annoying village walks at Vail, etc... Copper I'm on a shuttle bus for 2 minutes tops to a lift with no lines and terrain as good as I really need for the most part, not to mention I didn't even bother with WP this season which I can hit and park right next to the base/lifts on mary jane side, etc... Tough debate in my mind for next year - and of course my particular take/view of the world of options and pro/con.
