Mt. Baldy, May 1, 2010

[Admin]

I’m reading the same thing I see on a lot of ski area forums. Let’s clear something up. A new lift isn’t a “cost”, it's an “investment”. I’m also pretty sure that most ski areas finance their new lift projects.

Financing doesn't come for free. You have to have sufficient revenues to pay for the note, plus interest. I don't see anything to indicate that Baldy does for an $8MM gondola, especially at 50,000 skier visits per year, or even if they double. I'd expect to see 250,000-300,000 skier visits or more to justify a lift like that. Overreaching leveraged debt in times of financial prosperity is what killed once dominant players like American Skiing Co. Even getting that kind of financing in the current climate is dubious, at best.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

I’m reading the same thing I see on a lot of ski area forums. Let’s clear something up. A new lift isn’t a “cost”, it's an “investment”. I’m also pretty sure that most ski areas finance their new lift projects.

In my opinion a gondola would be a smart investment for the long-term success of Mt. Baldy since I believe it has the potential to generate a much larger return. I listed numerous reasons why and that increase in business should offset the higher price tag.

A gondola would be a huge marketing statement. I believe this investment would help the ski area eventually make additional investments in snowmaking, lift and facility upgrades and possibly justify expansion.

A used gondola, would be a fine alternative. It may cost more to operate than a new lift, but the initial investment would be less.

Ditto what Admin said. You may choose to wordsmith and call it an "investment", but what do you call the monthly repayments of interest and principle? That's cost, or "expense" if you prefer. For an area that does 50K skier visits, if you assume that they generate $60 per visitor (that's heroic, in light of their season pass pricing and an avg at the more modern, and better run, June Mtn that is less than that), that's a total pot of $3MM in revenue to work from. For a new gondola, you're looking at interest payments alone in excess of $1.2MM per year, and that's before you consider increased costs of personnel (it takes a crew of 4-5 at least to run a gondi vs. the 2 for an old chair), electricity and maintenance. In sum, you're likely looking at a bump closer to $1.5MM/yr, fully half of their existing revenue pool. Even if you buy a used gondola, the numbers are difficult to make work. Keep in mind that used gondolas are a lot harder to come by then used chairs. There are a LOT fewer gondolas installed and they tend to last longer than chairs due to their large up front cost and lack of upgrade alternatives (fixed grip chairs can always be upgraded - gondis are already detatch technology). To be sure, I don't disagree with your contention that a gondola, regardless of whether it's used, would have a positive impact on revenues. I just doubt that, when all is said and done, they could find one in good enough condition and at a reasonable enough price point to make it work for a mtn with Baldy's small customer base.

I stand by what I said on the snow reports. I don’t care what any resort says for surface conditions. What I want to see is daily photos, a web cam that doesn’t get moved (Did anyone notice for last weekend they repositioned it so the lower portion of Chair 3 wasn't visible anymore), a list of status for every single run, including when it was last groomed and any snowmaking activity. I’d also like to see actual base depths reported from several locations that never move. I don’t want to see ranges other than for reports on man-made snow supplementing natural snow.

When they start to do this then I’ll be able to easily anticipate what conditions will be like.

While the improvements you mentioned would be welcomed (your point about the camera is silly - it's been stationary all year - who cares if it's moved on the very last day they're open?), they are by no means necessary to anticipate what conditions will be like. You're asking for them to spoon feed this information to you when it's readily available elsewhere.

Some of you can continue to defend the mountain and call me out, but you’re missing the point. Baldy is loosing my business to other ski areas because of poor communication practices. I don’t give a s**t that it’s the best big mountain this side of Mammoth. I ski 30+ days every year at the ski area with the largest vertical drop in the US, so I get my fill of big mountain skiing. I ski locally to fill in the gaps between those days and just to get out of the house. Baldy might be better, but Mountain High and Snow Valley are adequate. If Baldy would simply shape up their snow reports then I’d feel more comfortable with patronizing their mountain instead.

So you'd rather settle for adequate instead of great b/c you don't have the patience to read up on current and pending weather? that's your choice. The amount of tie you spend at Big Sky is irrelevant - you clearly plan your time there well in advance. If you're looking to fill those gaps with a high quality skiing experience, you don't need bells and whistles on a website to make it happen. It would help, and would certainly make Baldy a busier place, but you're missing out, and with all due respect, sounding pretty childish about it in the process.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I’m also pretty sure that most ski areas finance their new lift projects.

Mt. Baldy, with SoCal droughts to deal with, should NEVER EVER TAKE ON ONE CENT OF DEBT. You make interest payments every year, and in 2001-02 and 2006-07 they had zip for ski revenue and I can give you a list of plenty more bust or marginal seasons since 1976. With the improved snowmaking they will get a little in future years like that. However their recurring customers as represented here are not going to be there much unless the the natural snow off-trail skiing is available.

If you're looking to fill those gaps with a high quality skiing experience, you don't need bells and whistles on a website to make it happen.

I agree, but you do need to meet the minimum reporting standards set by your local competition. The trail list and status sets that standard and can't be fudged without making it easy to call out, as opposed to getting into semantic discussions about what "packed powder" is. As noted before anyone with prior experience at an area can use the list of open and closed trails to "read between the lines" and make an educated guess on conditions. I'm sure the easterners do this all the time.

Since Mt. Baldy is financed by revenues and occasional outside investment, improvement will necessarily be gradual. With regard to the Stockton Flats expansion step one is to get the permits and immediately get a cheap lift (like the old chair 1) installed off the backside of chair 4. The more expensive Lytle Creek base development and road would come later.

 

[SoCal Rider]

I’d also like to see actual base depths reported from several locations that never move. I don’t want to see ranges other than for reports on man-made snow supplementing natural snow.

What Southern California hill does this? I agree on a number of points, but please tell us where Mountain High and Snow Valley take their measurements from. I don't know because they don't say where on their phone reports or Web pages. (It's funny — Mountain High runs neck and neck with Baldy for most accusations of dishonesty. For instance: After a season concludes, High takes the high range of its snowfall — presumably West summit — and puts that down alone in its snowfall history page and then computes its yearly average from that. Is that high-end number representative of the mountain's average snowfall when it might be 30 percent to 50 percent higher than the reported base snowfall?)

(Did anyone notice for last weekend they repositioned it so the lower portion of Chair 3 wasn't visible anymore)

I'm not following on the webcam thing. The Baldy cam is positioned the same way virtually every time that I look at it. And it showed brown spots on Skyline, Robin's and Liftline this past weekend. The snow report more than implied that you had to walk to get to Chair 3. I did not see any rude surprises — I was there. I agree it's far from ideal, but it's not as bad as you contend it to be.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

I’m also pretty sure that most ski areas finance their new lift projects.

Mt. Baldy, with SoCal droughts to deal with, should NEVER EVER TAKE ON ONE CENT OF DEBT. You make interest payments every year, and in 2001-02 and 2006-07 they had zip for ski revenue and I can give you a list of plenty more bust or marginal seasons since 1976. With the improved snowmaking they will get a little in future years like that. However their recurring customers as represented here are not going to be there much unless the the natural snow off-trail skiing is available.

This is really the key here. Variability in weather is so high here, that it's folly to make such an extravagant investment unless you're talking about major new terrain. Banks don't care if you had a bad season - they expect that check every month.

I agree, but you do need to meet the minimum reporting standards set by your local competition. The trail list and status sets that standard and can't be fudged without making it easy to call out, as opposed to getting into semantic discussions about what "packed powder" is. As noted before anyone with prior experience at an area can use the list of open and closed trails to "read between the lines" and make an educated guess on conditions. I'm sure the easterners do this all the time.

Agreed that there is a minimum standard you need to meet, but I don't understand why egieszl is using that as an excuse. He's clearly interested enough in skiing that he found his way here and incurs the hassle and expense to get to Montana 30+ days/year. As such, he should be savvy enough to figure it out if he cares at all about the quality of his skiing experience. I fully understand that this description/dynamic does not apply to the vast majority of skiers in the LA Basin.

Since Mt. Baldy is financed by revenues and occasional outside investment, improvement will necessarily be gradual. With regard to the Stockton Flats expansion step one is to get the permits and immediately get a cheap lift (like the old chair 1) installed off the backside of chair 4. The more expensive Lytle Creek base development and road would come later.

So you'd drop a lift down there w/o improving the road? I suspect that would be difficult, if only b/c egress out of there in case of an emergency will be seriously impaired in the absence of an improved road. Also, don't forget that most of the IE and OC move 20-30 minutes closer to Baldy if they can drive up Lytle Creek Rd. I think the impact of having true access there could be staggering.

 

[reefuss12]

Admin put it right and you others are dreamin. Lefflers, Lewsadder and Olson couldnt make enough money to justify major expasion since the place opened in the 50 's. Baldy needs snow from mother nature to get that parking lot full. Using snowmaking to make up for no precip is a losing propisiton. If baldy ends up like waterman than the incompetence would from dumping in millions of dollars and then having to default on the loan. Or maybe the investors could just eat it and call it a day. Investors cant be that dumb.By the way ,applause for the new snow fences on skyline,the fantastic grooming and the ski patrol for getting the mountain opened up early on the snow days. I was impressed with the place this year. Had some great skiing. Just keep them bowlwheels turnin and most people are going to be happy with Baldy.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Admin put it right and you others are dreamin. Lefflers, Lewsadder and Olson couldnt make enough money to justify major expasion since the place opened in the 50 's. Baldy needs snow from mother nature to get that parking lot full. Using snowmaking to make up for no precip is a losing propisiton. If baldy ends up like waterman than the incompetence would from dumping in millions of dollars and then having to default on the loan. Or maybe the investors could just eat it and call it a day. Investors cant be that dumb.By the way ,applause for the new snow fences on skyline,the fantastic grooming and the ski patrol for getting the mountain opened up early on the snow days. I was impressed with the place this year. Had some great skiing. Just keep them bowlwheels turnin and most people are going to be happy with Baldy.

Which is why everything you need to do there should be modest and incremental. Try to move too fast and it's a recipe for debt, unhappy investors, or both. This is why I think the backside is dead for good - between lawyers, environmental investigations and consultants, it will cost too much money even to find out whether it's possible. A good first step would likely involve revising the website, which is pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Tony Crocker]

So you'd drop a lift down there w/o improving the road? I suspect that would be difficult, if only b/c egress out of there in case of an emergency will be seriously impaired in the absence of an improved road. Also, don't forget that most of the IE and OC move 20-30 minutes closer to Baldy if they can drive up Lytle Creek Rd. I think the impact of having true access there could be staggering.

I agree on the potential impact of the new road and base. But building a paved road that long is expensive and I doubt Caltrans will be picking up the tab anytime soon. The permits are "use it or lose it." If Baldy gets them again they need to build something in there quick so they won't have to start over again. It's part of

everything you need to do there should be modest and incremental.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

So you'd drop a lift down there w/o improving the road? I suspect that would be difficult, if only b/c egress out of there in case of an emergency will be seriously impaired in the absence of an improved road. Also, don't forget that most of the IE and OC move 20-30 minutes closer to Baldy if they can drive up Lytle Creek Rd. I think the impact of having true access there could be staggering.

I agree on the potential impact of the new road and base. But building a paved road that long is expensive and I doubt Caltrans will be picking up the tab anytime soon. The permits are "use it or lose it." If Baldy gets them again they need to build something in there quick so they won't have to start over again. It's part of

everything you need to do there should be modest and incremental.

Right - I was just playing the "$25MM falls in my lap" fantasy game. Since that's not happening in any dimension we're living in, you would definitely go the quick and dirty route on the off chance those permits are ever secured again.

 

[egieszl]

How many tickets does Baldy sell the rest of the year for scenic lift rides? Does anyone have any estimate on what kind of off-season business they have? They charge $20 for an adult ticket. I really think the off-season business is where a lot of potential growth lies. As stated, the ski season is inconsistent, so I sort of agree with Tony that there is a risk for a ski area like Mt. Baldy to take on significant debt. I still think that significant improvements would increase business year-round and allow for increases in lift ticket and pass prices. I also expect that the increase in business would result in additional revenue from food & beverage, rentals, sports school, special event fees, etc.

So throw out my gondola - fair enough. I just don't see how replacing Chair 1 with basically the equivalent is going to help. If they're not interested in growing the business then I'd say forget the lift upgrades and only replace equipment when its absolutely necessary.

Mike FYI- Big Sky Montana doesn't have the largest vertical drop for a ski area in the US.

What Southern California hill does this? I agree on a number of points, but please tell us where Mountain High and Snow Valley take their measurements from.

None of the other Southern California ski areas report their snow depth like this. I'm used to this sort of reporting at ski areas in Colorado and Utah or Mammoth. If you ski regularly at these areas then you learn what sort of conditions you can expect when they're reporting 22, 39, 48, 80 inches or any depth. Since Baldy is primarily a natural snow ski area then reports like this would over time give me a good idea of the sort of conditions to expect. At a ski area that primarily uses man-made snow, like Mountain High, the snow depth doesn't matter as much.

 

[ChrisC]

I ski 30+ days every year at the ski area with the largest vertical drop in the US, so I get my fill of big mountain skiing. I ski locally to fill in the gaps between those days and just to get out of the house.

Telluride has the largest vertical drop for any US Resort.
http://verticalfeet.com/

4,425 feet
TELLURIDE - Telluride, Colorado

4,406 feet (the 4,406 reported includes hiking or using the cable tow which runs a few weeks per season - 3,723 vf is more typical)
SNOWMASS Ski Area - Snowmass Village, Colorado

4,350 feet (appx. 3,650 vertical feet of this total is skiable as one continuous run from Lone Peak tram to bottom of Shedhorn double)
BIG SKY - Big Sky, Montana

4,139 feet (Most CONTINUOUS 'lift-served vertical' skiing in the U.S., but not North America)
JACKSON HOLE/Teton Village - Teton Village, Wyoming


Here are some pics of the start of the longest vertical drop in the US. Palmyra Peak -> Lena Basin -> Bear Creek -> Telluride. It's continuous with sidecountry.

 

[ChrisC]

Althought I have never skied at Baldy, I think they could make it:

First issue: Baldy should not be about skiing. The core issue is Chair#1. You need to get all those non-skiers/one-day-per-year skiers up to the notch. Therefore, Chair #1 should become a high-speed chondola - chairs and gondola cabins = perfect for winter/summer use. The Notch should be renovated for view, food, day visitors who do not ski. This revenue stream should support the upgrade/help solve access issues. (Also, maybe it would solve the "I don't have to drive to Big Bear to ski?') As a result, I think the place could afford some fixed gripped lifts - and possibly a backside expansion.

I would try to use other mountains as reference points that have similar attributes to Baldy.

1. Heavenly, CA.
Most skiers access the place from the CA side. The place built a gondola from Stateline Casinos, a tram from CA base lodge and a High-Speed Quad from the CA base lodge. These lifts function to move a massive amount of people over terrain that is non-skiable for most/all of the year. The have installed snowmaking on one run to the base of Tahoe.

2. June Mt., CA.
This is a negative case. They have crappy double chair like Baldy over a very steep face that is unkiable for much of the season. In the 1980s, they had a first generation Funitel that needed to be ripped out. The place has languished since then.

3. Sandia Peak - Albuquerque, NM
The tramway is the #1 tourist destination in the state. Why not market Mt. Baldy in the same manner? Escape from polluted LA for the day - high above the smog. See the sunset. See snow.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Interesting comparisons above. I had mentioned Heavenly and June. I'm not sure June had much business even when it had the QMC Funitel. FYI Mt. Baldy has had one of those old QMC cars by the base of chair 1 for a few years. This year they moved it down next to the office to use as an occasional extra ticket booth.

Sandia's tram is like Palm Springs. It's similar vertical of ~6,000 off the valley floor but then has a long 1 1/2 mile span to the ski area. The ski area though 1,700 vertical is very flat and also doesn't get much natural snow. I have little doubt that most revenue is from sightseers on the tram. But the tram base is practically in an Albuquerque suburb, not up a narrow and twisted mountain road.

I'm not sure whether the typical occasional skier finds Baldy's drive access a positive because of shorter time/distance or a negative because of that treacherous last 3 miles above the village. If the latter, that's an attraction of Lytle Creek, which if paved would probably be similar to the canyon access to the tram at Palm Springs. The current road can be a complete disaster on weekends with low elevation snowcover due to snowplayer traffic.

 

[egieszl]

Snowmass is where I ski. Lift served vertical is what puts all ski areas on an equal playing field for comparison sake.

FYI, the Cirque Poma runs all-season long (Christmas until end of season). Its been running that way for at least the last 5 years. If I want to hike and ski I'm not going to pay to do it and there are better mountains to hike than Telluride. I skied Telluride this year, but I would never hike up Palmyra Peak in ski boots. I'll leave that powder for someone else to enjoy.

ChrisC I don't agree with a chondola (they're for very specialized cases), but I like how you also agree that you need to take a different look at Mt. Baldy and skiing maybe should be secondary to operating the area as an attraction. Palm Springs Aerial Tramway, Scandia Peak are good examples and I should add the Wyler Aerial Tramway as another example.

Skier visits didn't increase at June Mountain with the QMC tram. The only thing this lift did was make accessing the upper mountain terrain and lodge easier and safer. I don't think June operated during the summer when the QMC was in place. Chair 1 will be open this summer for scenic rides, but this is the first time I ever recall it operating during the summer under Mammoth ownership.

Tony, Albuquerque has an estimated population of just under 900,000. However, Los Angeles and Orange County combined have a population of over 12 million. The windy road is an issue for some, but plenty still make it up there without issue. If the facilities were upgraded, then they would have something to market to the millions that reside below the mountain.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Lift served vertical is what puts all ski areas on an equal playing field for comparison sake.

While I believe subjectively that Telluride is a better overall ski mountain than Snowmass, I agree that Telluride's vertical in an apples-to-apples comparison should be the 3,831 that is lift served.

I think you'll find divergent opinion on using vertical as the key comparison metric of ski quality. Snowmass is not all that popular among advanced skiers because it takes multiple lift rides and long runouts for repeat access to the steeper terrain. A relatively high proportion of the mountain is at a flattish 5-1 length to vertical ratio. In terms of direct fall line skiing most people would think Jackson still has the longest vertical skiing of continuous high quality in the U.S.

 

[egieszl]

I'm in agreement that having the largest vertical drop does not necessarily make it the best ski area. I love Snowmass, but I agree that Jackson Hole is more challenging and especially since you'll find challenging runs that make use of their entire vertical drop. Neighboring Aspen Highlands is even a better ski area for experts than Snowmass. Largest Vertical Drop is just a label and I simply used it instead of naming the ski area for a quick quiz on ski area facts, not for bragging purposes.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Lift served vertical is what puts all ski areas on an equal playing field for comparison sake.

While I believe subjectively that Telluride is a better overall ski mountain than Snowmass, I agree that Telluride's vertical in an apples-to-apples comparison should be the 3,831 that is lift served.

I think you'll find divergent opinion on using vertical as the key comparison metric of ski quality. Snowmass is not all that popular among advanced skiers because it takes multiple lift rides and long runouts for repeat access to the steeper terrain. A relatively high proportion of the mountain is at a flattish 5-1 length to vertical ratio. In terms of direct fall line skiing most people would think Jackson still has the longest vertical skiing of continuous high quality in the U.S.

Not to get too far off-track, but I'd prefer Snowmass in general. It has a better mix of terrain and, crucially, much better powder preservation due to a smaller number of expert skiers gunning for the best terrain. That's where I spend most of my days now when I'm in town visiting local friends. Highlands is great with deep Temerity and all, but the expanse of expert terrain on the upper mtn at Snowmass is massive and lonely.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

How many tickets does Baldy sell the rest of the year for scenic lift rides? Does anyone have any estimate on what kind of off-season business they have? They charge $20 for an adult ticket. I really think the off-season business is where a lot of potential growth lies. As stated, the ski season is inconsistent, so I sort of agree with Tony that there is a risk for a ski area like Mt. Baldy to take on significant debt. I still think that significant improvements would increase business year-round and allow for increases in lift ticket and pass prices. I also expect that the increase in business would result in additional revenue from food & beverage, rentals, sports school, special event fees, etc.

You are probably right that there is potential in the off-season business, but you'd have to bring in a huge number of incremental visitors to pay off the debt accumulated from investing in a detatchable lift of any kind. I'm not sure you can build a solid business case based on that.

So throw out my gondola - fair enough. I just don't see how replacing Chair 1 with basically the equivalent is going to help. If they're not interested in growing the business then I'd say forget the lift upgrades and only replace equipment when its absolutely necessary.

But it's not basically an equivalent. The effective capacity of the current double is likely in the 900 ppl/hr range given standard 1200 ppl/hr numbers and the fact they need to skip chairs every so often. A new triple would double this, and would turn people off with old, broken wooden slats every other chair.

Mike FYI- Big Sky Montana doesn't have the largest vertical drop for a ski area in the US.

Oops. My b.

None of the other Southern California ski areas report their snow depth like this. I'm used to this sort of reporting at ski areas in Colorado and Utah or Mammoth. If you ski regularly at these areas then you learn what sort of conditions you can expect when they're reporting 22, 39, 48, 80 inches or any depth. Since Baldy is primarily a natural snow ski area then reports like this would over time give me a good idea of the sort of conditions to expect. At a ski area that primarily uses man-made snow, like Mountain High, the snow depth doesn't matter as much.

Since most of the best skiing at Baldy is off-piste, a single range for snow depths, so long as it's accurate, is fine with me. They certainly could stand to improve in this regard, but the Baldy skiing experience is simply unlike any other in SoCal save for Waterman. I'm not sure it's an apples to apples comparison that's being made.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I've often expressed my opinion of the near uselessness of base depth quotes. Mt. Baldy is always going to report depths from a shaded area on Thunder which preserves best. This is the way most areas do it. You have to know the individual ski area and how coverage varies. Mt. Baldy is one of those places with radical differences within the boundaries. The steeper sheltered parts of Thunder have SoCal's best snow preservation and in above average years like this one the natural snowpack there will usually outlast the manmade at Big Bear. Meanwhile chairs 1 and 4 get a lot of warmth/sun and won't hold up under much more than a month of sunny weather no matter how much snow they had.

I'd prefer Snowmass in general. It has a better mix of terrain and, crucially, much better powder preservation due to a smaller number of expert skiers gunning for the best terrain.

Agree on the powder preservation. Snowmass definitely has merit on powder days. The awkward lift/terrain access is a plus for that, similar to Solitude in that regard but also like Solitude it's a nuisance the rest of the time IMHO. Telluride I view as a work in progress. At inception it had one of the world's worst lift setups. Once Prospect Bowl was added the terrain was better integrated and it has become easier for skiers to concentrate on runs that best suit them. I haven't seen Revelation yet, but from the map it's clearly a further improvement.

 

[SoCal Rider]

I've often expressed my opinion of the near uselessness of base depth quotes. Mt. Baldy is always going to report depths from a shaded area on Thunder which preserves best. This is the way most areas do it. You have to know the individual ski area and how coverage varies. Mt. Baldy is one of those places with radical differences within the boundaries. The steeper sheltered parts of Thunder have SoCal's best snow preservation and in above average years like this one the natural snowpack there will usually outlast the manmade at Big Bear. Meanwhile chairs 1 and 4 get a lot of warmth/sun and won't hold up under much more than a month of sunny weather no matter how much snow they had.

Tony,

The older dude with the earring - you know him (if not personally) - said on May 8 that Emile's still had 5'. So if that's true, if only the favored portion, then Thunder's base was 3-60" that day. :lol: