Lehman foreclosing on Moonlight Basin, Area Interconnects
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Patrick
Well-known member
Admin":7d9o2v3a said:
The question is "How long until Big Sky takes over?"
How many mountain have two seperate, independent ski areas with actually touches (or almost)? I'm aware of a few in Quebec that eventually became part of one area and/or same ownership.
Mt St-Sauveur and Mont Avila = shared ticket option and same ownership now.
Mt Blanc and Mt Faustin = same area and ownership now.
Whistler and Blackcomb. Okay, not same mountain and not in Quebec. Whistler was taken over by the new kid on the bloc, Blackcomb (Intrawest).
Others?
Others that are still seperate like BS/MB?
Smuggs and Stowe could also qualify due to the Spruce lifts.
Timberline and Meadows on Mt. Hood? Any others?
Aren't The Canyons only one yet-to-be-cut trail pod/lift away from PCMR?Admin":3ry9lzf6 said:
It'll never happen, but that'd be a huge draw (that would balance out the less impressive conditions/terrain vis a vis the Cottonwoods) if they could ever officially connect the three PC ski areas into an extensive Alps-esque destination.
jamesdeluxe":h98iwijv said:
That's oversimplifying it a bit. There's actually a drainage in between, so it would require two lifts. Actually it would be easier to connect The Canyons to Solitude -- only one lift required going up across the street from Solitude in BCC.
jamesdeluxe":h98iwijv said:
Don't be so sure. There's actually an active state government initiative, launched by former Governor and now Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, that's studying ways to connect all seven to alleviate traffic in the Cottonwood Canyons. Options being explored include tunnels (which more or less means widening the bore on passages that already exist), light rail running up the Cottonwoods, and over-snow transportation amongst the seven resorts. It was a prominent topic of discussion at Ski Utah's meeting on Friday night, and by Bobby Danger's and my calculations last night over dinner, would require no more than four lifts -- two rather short ones and two of more traditional length -- to connect all seven resorts into one white circus.
You covered the logistics of an interconnect a while back, but what I'd like to know is how each ski area would keep its cut of revenues and protect its defined market share if the whole thing were opened up. In the Alps, the company that owns the lifts doesn't own the hotels, restaurants, etc. Would more people stay in PC because of the better ski town options, rather than in the Cottonwoods?
jamesdeluxe":32w8yxgd said:
You're getting more than a bit ahead of yourself as this would be one of the last issues that would need to be addressed. However, how difficult could it be? If existing relationships like the AltaBird joint ticket can be worked out, so can this.
jamesdeluxe":32w8yxgd said:
Hard to say without running a full blown market analysis, which for all I know is being or has been conducted. If so, I haven't seen it.
Comparing the present AltaBird situation to a potential interconnect between all seven areas sounds like apples and oranges to me. People stay on-mountain at Alta and SB because they want to specifically ski those two areas. What happens when you can easily access them and take advantage of the better restaurant/nightlife selection in Park City? Wouldn't the Cottonwoods base village resorts be at a disadvantage?Admin":3l8pt0m5 said:
I agree. Even with lifts you're going to chew up half your day getting from Park City to LCC and back. I see BCC as the big winner if this happens. They are in the middle, accessible from either side in less time, should raise skier visits significantly IMHO.
Mt. Rose and Slide Mt. meet at the top, sort of like Stowe/Smuggs. They were separate, together briefly, separated again and have been combined for ~a decade or so now. Likely permanent with the addition of the Chutes between them 5 years ago.
Mt. High bought Holiday Hill in SoCal in 1981. There's a fairly flat fire road at the top between them, maybe like Stowe/Smuggs and the unpatrolled Sawmill Canyon below the fire road drains to the East (Holiday Hill) parking lot. Snow Summit bought Bear Mt. in 2002. That's more like the Sugarbush/Glen Ellen situation in distance, though the connection is likely to remain by shuttle bus rather than the transport lift at the latter areas.
I would also remind Patrick of Valle Nevado/La Parva/El Colorado, which cry out for consolidation IMHO.
What's strange to me is that Brighton/Solitude have never actively marketed their interconnect. They sell the SolBright pass, but sometimes it's not even on their ticket price list. I've done SolBright before with out-of-towners since it skis like a larger resort (2500' vertical, 2200 acres) making it more worthwhile/fun for destination skiers who only have a couple days to see Utah. Solitude especially would seem to benefit, since they have the beds in the village and they could market the quick access to Brighton's parks and boarder-friendly vibe for the kids while the parents hit the x-country, Honeycomb or nice little restaurants/bars.
Overall, a Wasatch interconnect would be absolutely unique to Utah - nowhere on the continent could ever come remotely close to the combined acreage, snow conditions, terrain. I'm really curious how the total acreage would compare to the large linked resorts in the Alps - Trois Vallees, Val, Portes du Soleil, etc. I imagine the Alp circuses would dwarf a Wasatch interconnect, but acreage (or the metric equivalent) on European resorts seems hard to come by...
Overall, a Wasatch interconnect would be absolutely unique to Utah - nowhere on the continent could ever come remotely close to the combined acreage, snow conditions, terrain. I'm really curious how the total acreage would compare to the large linked resorts in the Alps - Trois Vallees, Val, Portes du Soleil, etc. I imagine the Alp circuses would dwarf a Wasatch interconnect, but acreage (or the metric equivalent) on European resorts seems hard to come by...
I'm amazed it's taken the Wasatch people this long to actively organize a push for something like this. Once it becomes a reality, Utah would leave Colorado in the dust with skier numbers, instead of the other way around -- something that would give the Beehive State immense pleasure, I'm certain, after all these years being second banana to a state with less accessible and less snowy resorts.rsmith":3nfb5886 said:
Right. They measure everything there in trail kilometers, with very little mention of acreage. Speaking anecdotally, the Euro circuses are unbelievably big, and the whole piste/on-piste, in-bounds/out-of-bounds aspects add to the confusion. At some resorts, you can do complete circles while at others, you ski to the furthest point and take a bus back. During the return ride to your starting point, you realize how far you've skied.rsmith":3nfb5886 said:
As we've discussed many times, there's a similar apples and oranges thing going on between northeastern ski areas and the west. Most ski areas here only measure the acreage of official cut trails and occasionally include the acreage of official tree skiing -- leaving all the unofficial glades uncounted. At some mountains, like Whiteface or Hunter, the official trails and glades are more or less the truth, as the uncut areas are so jungle-like with trees and bushes that they're unskiable without pruning. But at a place like Stowe, does anyone know what the real skiable acreage is when you include all the hike-to terrain up top and the sidecountry? I forget, does Sugarbush claim the Slide Brook area, a sizable piece of real estate, as an official part of the resort?
Of course, the NE ski areas are small compared to the bigger ones out west --- just saying that when people see "200 skiable acres" and chortle, sometimes it may be a bit larger.
jamesdeluxe":t7kxkvwm said:
Realize that there's a lot of local opposition to an interconnect, not only from the typical enviro lobby (Save Our Canyons, Sierra Club, etc.) but also from local backcountry skiers, etc. The only way this'll ever get pushed through is if the proponents are able to convince the opponents that the reduction in canyon traffic, etc. yields a net environmental benefit.
Tony Crocker":t7kxkvwm said:
That's 12M for Colorado.
My mistake, I completely forgot that obvious point. Maybe it's because the resident SOC go-to guy on TGR (screen name: David Witherspoon) hasn't posted in a while.Admin":1dcbfsks said:
q
Member
The one thing that is missing in all the talk about linking places in Utah is the fact that in Europe, and the reason most Europeans prefer the ski experience over there, you can ski all day to reach a picturesque shack on a mountain or a ski all morning to reach a remote village for lunch. I'm afraid there is absolutely no appeal whatsoever to ski for hours to get to a base area cafeteria at Brighton.
What benefit is there for the individual resorts in being interconnected unless visitor number increase drastically and who gets the revenue? A straight split in a joint ticket?
Sorry for pissing on your flames but connecting everything in Utah has little or no appeal to me at all.
What benefit is there for the individual resorts in being interconnected unless visitor number increase drastically and who gets the revenue? A straight split in a joint ticket?
Sorry for pissing on your flames but connecting everything in Utah has little or no appeal to me at all.
The ski area acreage/size discussion is relocated here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=8169 .
The general interconnect discussion is tangential but at least related to the Big Sky/Moonlight situation.
The general interconnect discussion is tangential but at least related to the Big Sky/Moonlight situation.
q":mq06l82e said:
I can think of at least 2 scenarios that would compel someone to purchase and take advantage of a Utah Interconnect:
1) An advanced, powder-oriented skier who is staying in Alta/Snowbird but who wants to apres-ski and later party in Park City (since the apres/nightlife in LCC is seriously lacking) and later take a shuttle back to LCC. As opposed to most people in Utah and on this forum the social/drinking/partying aspects of skiing are a big part of the appeal for Europeans and most destination skiers (and is one of the driving factors of why Europeans ski from spot to spot in a circus).
2) A Park City intermediate skier who wants to experience the powder/terrain of BCC/LCC (but who is staying in Park City). Snow conditions are another reason why Europeans take advantages of circuses (especially since the low elevation, resort level slopes can suffer badly while the remote, higher terrain are snow-sure).
1) would benefit Alta/Snowbird since they are no longer stuck with the stigma of 'dark at night' and can attract the extreme skiers/partiers that otherwise go to somewhere like Whistler (where you can both party and ski hard).
2) would benefit the Park City resorts since most destination skiers are already happy with the existing intermediate runs but want an occasional taste of BCC/LCC terrain/snow (they can brag about it to their friends at home).
The marketing benefits are pretty big which would presumably drive skier #'s up and thus justify revenue sharing (why else did AltaBird happen?). I would imagine very few people would really take advantage of the interconnect (similar to AltaBird which doesn't sell many interconnect tickets), but the whole concept from an advertising/word-of-mouth viewpoint would steal skiers from the other destination markets.
Mike Bernstein
New member
rsmith":12gumv7u said:
I think this pretty much nails it.
It should also be considered that even if this happens, few people who buy an Interconnect ticket will actually try to ski all 7 resorts in a day. More likely is that you'll have people going back and forth between PC and BCC and between BCC and LCC, but not all three at one go. I'd agree that BCC would likely be a big winner in this scenario, especially Solitude with its village. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't just split the revenue between the 7 or 6 (DV wouldn't need to be in if they didn't want to) hills evenly. You could also do 4 mountain passes, which may be the more popular product.
Geoff
New member
rsmith":171mu7tr said:
I don't know about your social circle but I have lots of friends who ski hard and party hard. I guess that's why we're all at Killington. I have a bunch of every-weekender friends in a share house called Crack O' Noon. It's unusual to see them before 11:00 on a Sunday. When Killington had a 7 month season and you're there every weekend, you don't feel quite as compelled to do the first chair to last chair thing every day. I'd match the skills of several of those people against pretty much anybody.
The three Park City resorts ain't AltaBird but they have plenty of terrain to interest just about anybody. The microclimate at 9990, Jupiter, and Empire delivers a totally reasonable skiing surface. I still rate Deer Valley as my favorite place to be on a powder day. No elbow shots from the Powder Nazis like Admin. The trees are completely ignored.
As for interconnecting everything, it wouldn't suck to be able to ski to Deer Valley for lunch.
