Introducing Mountain Rider's Alliance

[soulskier]

Here's this weekend's interview with KGO 810AM in the Bay Area. We discuss sustainability and the current state of the Tahoe ski industry.

http://vaca.bayradio.com/podcasts/Hamil ... 11_5AM.mp3

The discussion starts at minute 27.

 

[soulskier]

Bringing Skiing Back to Its Roots

http://skiingbusiness.com/12661/profile ... its-roots/

Skiing Business, March 20, 2012

Some new details for Tony, et al to dissect.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

What’s the biggest problem that you see with many of the ski resorts throughout the U.S.?Their model is to get as many people to the resort as possible. The problem, though, is that many of those same resorts aren’t expanding to accommodate the increased traffic. That diminishes the skier’s experience because there are longer lift lines and more people going down the mountain at the same time.

I found this part to be particularly ironic. Invariably, whenever a ski area proposes to expand, the immediate response from the relevant "locals", backcountry enthusiasts, and other assorted leftists who comprise the core of MRA's support is something to the effect of "Just another corporate ski area expansion that will ruin a great backcountry area by infesting it with tourons, man."

Given the complexity and expense that characterizes most ski area expansions these days as a result of a painful and convoluted EIR process, we are essentially at the point where it is only the corporations who have sufficient resources to see the process through. The notion that corporate owned ski areas are somehow intentionally limiting their terrain in order to create longer liftlines is so counter to reality, it is laughable. By that logic, Vail must be on the list of MRA targets given their "soulful" expansion into Blue Sky Basin a few years back. The people who burned down the summit lodge must have been a renegade band of loafer-wearing corporate types, incensed at the notion that Vail would try to spread people out. What an outrage!

Can't have it both ways, Jamie.

 

[soulskier]

What’s the biggest problem that you see with many of the ski resorts throughout the U.S.?Their model is to get as many people to the resort as possible. The problem, though, is that many of those same resorts aren’t expanding to accommodate the increased traffic. That diminishes the skier’s experience because there are longer lift lines and more people going down the mountain at the same time.

I found this part to be particularly ironic. Invariably, whenever a ski area proposes to expand, the immediate response from the relevant "locals", backcountry enthusiasts, and other assorted leftists who comprise the core of MRA's support is something to the effect of "Just another corporate ski area expansion that will ruin a great backcountry area by infesting it with tourons, man."

Given the complexity and expense that characterizes most ski area expansions these days as a result of a painful and convoluted EIR process, we are essentially at the point where it is only the corporations who have sufficient resources to see the process through. The notion that corporate owned ski areas are somehow intentionally limiting their terrain in order to create longer liftlines is so counter to reality, it is laughable. By that logic, Vail must be on the list of MRA targets given their "soulful" expansion into Blue Sky Basin a few years back. The people who burned down the summit lodge must have been a renegade band of loafer-wearing corporate types, incensed at the notion that Vail would try to spread people out. What an outrage!

Can't have it both ways, Jamie.

The notion isn't that corporate ski areas are intentionally limiting their terrain, but rather that many are focusing more on out-of-boot amenities, real estate development and theme-park attractions more than providing uphill transportation to new and exciting terrain. People can draw their own conclusion.

BTW, I meet with a Senior VP at Vail Resorts several weeks ago at Heavenly. They even comped me a ticket and bought me lunch, very nice of them.

Regarding the Vail arson, I thought Powder Burn by Daniel Glick was an intriguing read. I highly recommend it.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Powder ... 1586481643

 

[Mike Bernstein]

The notion isn't that corporate ski areas are intentionally limiting their terrain, but rather that many are focusing more on out-of-boot amenities, real estate development and theme-park attractions more than providing uphill transportation to new and exciting terrain. People can draw their own conclusion.

The reason they can't allocate more of their capital to providing uphill transportation to new and exciting terrain is not lack of desire. More often than not, it's the road blocks put up by the very same demographic you are courting for MRA. You can build all the base area attractions you want but the best way to drive traffic to them is to have a great on-mountain experience to sell. This is why smart operators almost invariably prioritize on-mountain investment before real-estate when they buy new ski areas. There are multiple relavant examples in your own backyard around Tahoe.

 

[soulskier]

The notion isn't that corporate ski areas are intentionally limiting their terrain, but rather that many are focusing more on out-of-boot amenities, real estate development and theme-park attractions more than providing uphill transportation to new and exciting terrain. People can draw their own conclusion.

The reason they can't allocate more of their capital to providing uphill transportation to new and exciting terrain is not lack of desire. More often than not, it's the road blocks put up by the very same demographic you are courting for MRA. You can build all the base area attractions you want but the best way to drive traffic to them is to have a great on-mountain experience to sell. This is why smart operators almost invariably prioritize on-mountain investment before real-estate when they buy new ski areas. There are multiple relavant examples in your own backyard around Tahoe.

Tahoe hasn't had a significant terrain expansion since Mt Rose opened the Chutes. Before that it was Silverado in the 90's.

What on-mountain investment do you speak of? I don't consider faster lifts to the same terrain as necessarily an improvement.

If Vail Resorts wants to, they could easily open the Cirque at Kirkwood, making it some of the rowdiest terrain in the Basin.

 

[EMSC]

Tahoe hasn't had a significant terrain expansion since Mt Rose opened the Chutes. Before that it was Silverado in the 90's.

When did flatstar's backside come online? Granted not exactly top notch expert terrain, but definitely a big expansion.

 

[soulskier]

Tahoe hasn't had a significant terrain expansion since Mt Rose opened the Chutes. Before that it was Silverado in the 90's.

When did flatstar's backside come online? Granted not exactly top notch expert terrain, but definitely a big expansion.

A few years ago, but it's gladed, low angle skiing (they don't perform avalanche control). With all due respect, nothing an expert level skier would be excited about.

 

[Marc_C]

A few years ago, but it's gladed, low angle skiing (they don't perform avalanche control). With all due respect, nothing an expert level skier would be excited about.

I thought the MRA was non-elitist, non-exclusionary, welcoming of all skiers.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Northstar's Backside (which I agree is single black, upper intermediate pitch) came online in the early 1980's. The steeper Lookout terrain and lift were opened in 2000. FYI I have now had 2 non-competitive bell-to-bell first tracks storm days on Backside and Lookout of over 25K each. On those same days soulskier and his bros were probably waiting an hour or more for KT to open (or maybe not) along with up to 1/4 of Squaw's terrain.

The reason they can't allocate more of their capital to providing uphill transportation to new and exciting terrain is not lack of desire. More often than not, it's the road blocks put up by the very same demographic you are courting for MRA. You can build all the base area attractions you want but the best way to drive traffic to them is to have a great on-mountain experience to sell. This is why smart operators almost invariably prioritize on-mountain investment before real-estate when they buy new ski areas. There are multiple relevant examples in your own backyard around Tahoe.

This statement is right on except for the last sentence. There have been only a few terrain expansions at Tahoe. But I would say in general over the West most of the limited terrain expansions over the past 2 decades have been advanced/expert oriented, like the only ones at Tahoe we can recall (Mt. Rose Chutes and Lookout). To those we can add Telluride's Gold Hill and Revelation, Highlands Bowl/Temerity, Breck's Imperial Bowl/Whale's Tail, Blue Sky Basin, Mineral Basin, the Lone Peak tram at Big Sky, Schlasman's lift at Bridger.

In Canada where there have been more significant expansions, Revelstoke and Kicking Horse are often criticized for having too little intermediate and beginner terrain to be commercially successful. I wonder where soulskier comes down on the Jumbo Glacier proposal, recently approved by the B.C. government after a 20 year battle that is not over according to the opponents. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... roval.html

Joey O'Brien, who now owns Fortress Mountain in Alberta, is running cat skiing there this season but proposes to reopen lift service in 2014. He sounds like an MRA type owner:

The Canmore-based O’Brien has spent the past four years becoming a skiing and environmental superstar by building the world’s greenest ski resort. The re-birth of Fortress Mountain as a full-fledged resort is slated to open in the fall of 2014, and he’ll be using a lot more than star power to fuel it.

“We are sourcing the potential to include up to five types of energy sources (wind, solar, geo thermal, hydra, and gasification - burning garbage into fuel), making it the greenest in the world,” explained O’Brien.

http://www.snowseekers.ca/alberta/canmo ... cat-skiing

 

[Admin]

Jeezuz, I can't even count on my own moderator. :roll:

the Jumbo Glacier proposal, recently approved by the B.C. government after a 20 year battle that is not over according to the opponents.

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2012/0 ... een-light/

Joey O'Brien, who now owns Fortress Mountain in Alberta, is running cat skiing there this season but proposes to reopen lift service

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2010/0 ... ki-resort/

 

[soulskier]

A few years ago, but it's gladed, low angle skiing (they don't perform avalanche control). With all due respect, nothing an expert level skier would be excited about.

I thought the MRA was non-elitist, non-exclusionary, welcoming of all skiers.

MRA is an equal opportunity snow slider. But we also strongly believe that more exciting terrain needs to be made available for the second generation ski bums that are coming thru the ranks.

Also, with the new ski technology, many more skiers are seeking steeper and more exciting terrain, not more low angle, gladed tree skiing.

Therefore, I stand behind my assessment that many of the Corporate Ski resorts (and Tahoe is currently ground zero of the Corporatization) are focusing on more out of boot amenities, real estate offerings and theme park attractions than offering new and exciting terrain expansions.

 

[soulskier]

Northstar's Backside (which I agree is single black, upper intermediate pitch) came online in the early 1980's. The steeper Lookout terrain and lift were opened in 2000. FYI I have now had 2 non-competitive bell-to-bell first tracks storm days on Backside and Lookout of over 25K each. On those same days soulskier and his bros were probably waiting an hour or more for KT to open (or maybe not) along with up to 1/4 of Squaw's terrain.

The reason they can't allocate more of their capital to providing uphill transportation to new and exciting terrain is not lack of desire. More often than not, it's the road blocks put up by the very same demographic you are courting for MRA. You can build all the base area attractions you want but the best way to drive traffic to them is to have a great on-mountain experience to sell. This is why smart operators almost invariably prioritize on-mountain investment before real-estate when they buy new ski areas. There are multiple relevant examples in your own backyard around Tahoe.

This statement is right on except for the last sentence. There have been only a few terrain expansions at Tahoe. But I would say in general over the West most of the limited terrain expansions over the past 2 decades have been advanced/expert oriented, like the only ones at Tahoe we can recall (Mt. Rose Chutes and Lookout). To those we can add Telluride's Gold Hill and Revelation, Highlands Bowl/Temerity, Breck's Imperial Bowl/Whale's Tail, Blue Sky Basin, Mineral Basin, the Lone Peak tram at Big Sky, Schlasman's lift at Bridger.

In Canada where there have been more significant expansions, Revelstoke and Kicking Horse are often criticized for having too little intermediate and beginner terrain to be commercially successful. I wonder where soulskier comes down on the Jumbo Glacier proposal, recently approved by the B.C. government after a 20 year battle that is not over according to the opponents. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... roval.html

Joey O'Brien, who now owns Fortress Mountain in Alberta, is running cat skiing there this season but proposes to reopen lift service in 2014. He sounds like an MRA type owner:

The Canmore-based O’Brien has spent the past four years becoming a skiing and environmental superstar by building the world’s greenest ski resort. The re-birth of Fortress Mountain as a full-fledged resort is slated to open in the fall of 2014, and he’ll be using a lot more than star power to fuel it.

“We are sourcing the potential to include up to five types of energy sources (wind, solar, geo thermal, hydra, and gasification - burning garbage into fuel), making it the greenest in the world,” explained O’Brien.

http://www.snowseekers.ca/alberta/canmo ... cat-skiing

Tony's spot on, Tahoe resorts have lagged in offering new and exciting terrain, especially compared to other western locales. I'd also add the Polar Peak chair at Fernie to the list.

As far as me and my Bros hanging at Squaw on big days, I've actually been sneaking over to Alpine Meadows on some of the bigger days and hiking/traversing choosing quality over quantity.

It's also worth noting that normally many of the big days I'd choose to tour in the back country. However, the Tahoe region has been plagued with a Persistent Weak Layer and I'm not comfortable with the risk to reward factor.

We love the idea of Fortress reopening and focusing on clean energy creation, it has quite the cult following from many Calgarians.

I'

 

[Admin]

As far as me and my Bros hanging at Squaw on big days, I've actually been sneaking over to Alpine Meadows on some of the bigger days and hiking/traversing choosing quality over quantity.

Welcome to my world. :wink:

 

[soulskier]

As far as me and my Bros hanging at Squaw on big days, I've actually been sneaking over to Alpine Meadows on some of the bigger days and hiking/traversing choosing quality over quantity.

Welcome to my world. :wink:

As in heading to Alta for quality over quantity?

 

[Admin]

As far as me and my Bros hanging at Squaw on big days, I've actually been sneaking over to Alpine Meadows on some of the bigger days and hiking/traversing choosing quality over quantity.

Welcome to my world. :wink:

As in heading to Alta for quality over quantity?

As in hiking/traversing for quality over quantity, wherever that may be.

 

[soulskier]

I'd also throw in Jackson Hole's decision to open boundaries and of course Silverton into the terrain expansion list.

 

[rfarren]

I agree with Marc_C. Having read the last MRA link provided I see this all as exclusionary against the intermediate (vacationer) over the local/expert. I think it's really important that mountains embrace tourist as much as locals, especially since profit margins are made by tourist not locals...... I know, I know... MRA isn't about profits, but let's get real here, unless MRA pulls a profit or at least breaks even against its debt, it won't be around to help locals.

I may be a tourist, but I'm cool if there is only steep terrain. My complaint about Vail had nothing to do with the village but the lack of what I consider steep terrain. However, I'm not your standard tourist. That being said, I spent a lot of time as kid and teenager on intermediate terrain learning how to ski. IMHO intermediate terrain is the best ambassador to the sport with a nice base village as a close second.

 

[soulskier]

I agree with Marc_C. Having read the last MRA link provided I see this all as exclusionary against the intermediate (vacationer) over the local/expert. I think it's really important that mountains embrace tourist as much as locals, especially since profit margins are made by tourist not locals...... I know, I know... MRA isn't about profits, but let's get real here, unless MRA pulls a profit or at least breaks even against its debt, it won't be around to help locals.

I may be a tourist, but I'm cool if there is only steep terrain. My complaint about Vail had nothing to do with the village but the lack of what I consider steep terrain. However, I'm not your standard tourist. That being said, I spent a lot of time as kid and teenager on intermediate terrain learning how to ski. IMHO intermediate terrain is the best ambassador to the sport with a nice base village as a close second.

We are not exclusionary against the intermediate at all. Our first two projects, Manitoba as well as an existing ski area we intend to purchase, both have copious intermediate terrain. We just think there is a niche not really being filled, which is lift served, big mountain skiing.

Also, we have every intention of making a profit, we aren't a charity. However, we want to do so in a values based manner. Time will tell if that's possible.

 

[rfarren]

Also, we have every intention of making a profit, we aren't a charity. However, we want to do so in a values based manner. Time will tell if that's possible.

Fair enough, but based on your writings it certainly seems you value locals over tourists. That's fair, and will certainly sit well in any community that is around your mountains, but given the cost quoted in your most recent article for start up fees I remain skeptical that it is great business model. That being said my knowledge on the ski mountain economics is small at best.