New life for Elk Meadows

[Admin]

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2 ... is-Season/

Frankly, the area skis small -- it's 1,300 verts are from the top of one terrain pod on one side of the road to the bottom of another on the other side -- but it will be good to see this place return. It's all natural snow, which they receive a decent amount of high in the Tushar Mountains of southern Utah.

If you're interested in more about Eagle Point/Elk Meadows, here was my feature from their last season of operation:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2 ... te...Utah/

 

[rsmith]

Best of luck to them. Hard to imagine they can be viable either as a local's area or especially a destination resort, though. 20,000 skier visits seems way too low to support any lift operation, and I wouldn't imagine you could get too much beyond those numbers with the tiny local population (and, really, who's going to travel from SLC or Vegas to go there?). A separate press release mentions that there are plans to build out 800 luxury homes starting next year (and potentially privatize the resort). Similar recent ventures (with more backing and better locations) have failed miserably.

Seems to me the most viable option would be to run the place more like Silverton. According to the same press release the area has 'advanced and expert inbounds and backcountry terrain that rivals most runs in the Wasatch'. If this is really true then perhaps they just run one or two lifts, perhaps augmented by snowcats, and cater to the powder-savvy adventure crowd who are willing to travel to get untracked terrain...

 

[Admin]

According to the same press release the area has 'advanced and expert inbounds and backcountry terrain that rivals most runs in the Wasatch'. If this is really true then perhaps they just run one or two lifts, perhaps augmented by snowcats, and cater to the powder-savvy adventure crowd who are willing to travel to get untracked terrain...

Not from what I saw in 2002. The steepest in-bounds terrain is down low and well below treeline. The upper mountain is rather flat - low intermediate at best. The backcountry above on Mt. Holly (which is seen in the background of the photo within the article) is somewhat windswept and a significant slog above the current ski area.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Regional context again. Not viable IMHO, even for backcountry. The Wasatch is no slouch for backcountry terrain, as salida reports, Save Our Canyons, etc. remind us frequently.

 

[Admin]

This isn't the Wasatch, it's southern Utah. The only "regional context" is Brian Head, and by comparison Elk Meadows is comparable, although it's an hour's more driving from Brian Head's primary market, Las Vegas. But it's still half the drive time from Vegas than to the closest resorts along the Wasatch.

 

[EMSC]

20,000 skier visits seems way too low to support any lift operation

Somehow Berthoud Pass made a go of it for a few years at 20K or just under skier visits. That was 2 short lifts and a lot of buses. Then the owner was killed in a car crash, the place was bought by Brazilian billionaires and then shut down by the billionaires once they realized it was a break even thing at best and not a money making enterprise. Shoestring they could get by on 20-25K visits maybe if the snow years are good. But with that terrain it's more like a cheap learn to ski place for anyone who is not a local. I can't quite imagine why the wealthy would drive to there (not sure if there is an airport in beaver capable of gulfstreams and the like).

I always root for the 'little' guys, but it's a rough road to hoe on this one if you are an owner.

 

[Admin]

(not sure if there is an airport in beaver capable of gulfstreams and the like).

There's not, which is why I questioned the Mt. Holly Club plan, or even the dreams of Wayne Case as relayed to me by Gene Gatza back in 2002 (see aforementioned feature article for details). There's a small airport in Beaver but the runway is quite short. There was talk back in 2002 of potentially lengthening the runway, but I'm not sure where that's gone in the intervening years.

 

[Tony Crocker]

The only "regional context" is Brian Head

Yes, and Brian Head is both closer and better to the market in question. And Brian Head isn't exactly overrun either.

 

[Admin]

Yes, and Brian Head is both closer and better to the market in question.

"Better" in what way? Define, please.

Reading your feature, I couldn't see anything Elk Meadows has that Brian Head doesn't. They are rather similar in snow, distribution of ski terrain, awkward layout split by the road. And not much expansion potential. Brian Head has more resort infrastructure and is maybe a bit larger.

So who is going to drive the extra hour beyond an area that is already rather quiet?

Admin note: WTF? I didn't write this. Crocker, I presume this is you who wrote this but for some reason it displays as having been written by me.

 

[ilikewinter]

If by better, you mean better terrain, I disagree, respectfully. It may be my idealizing it (it was the first resort I ever visited, where I learned to ski, where I spent my first four years of skiing) but Elk Meadows (along with Mt. Holly at the time) inbound was more enjoyable for me than Brian Head (can't get those "Giant Steps" out of my head). I didn't get a chance to do any backcountry in either area, so this is a limited view. Either way, I don't think privatizing Elk Meadows is the way to go- disowning the locals and those who already own property at the resort is not the road to popularity.

 

[Admin]

Reading your feature, I couldn't see anything Elk Meadows has that Brian Head doesn't. They are rather similar in snow, distribution of ski terrain, awkward layout split by the road. And not much expansion potential. Brian Head has more resort infrastructure and is maybe a bit larger.

So who is going to drive the extra hour beyond an area that is already rather quiet?

I doubt that Brian Head is as quiet as you think it is. And Elk Meadows has significantly more expansion possibility than BH, actually -- the Mt. Holly Club developers and Wayne Case's group both had plans to expand toward the ridgeline at >12,000 feet. For some, the serenity of Beaver Canyon may be more to their liking, and the lodging is certainly more upscale, the new hotel at BH possibly notwithstanding.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Yes, and Brian Head is both closer and better to the market in question.

"Better" in what way? Define, please.

Reading your feature, I couldn't see anything Elk Meadows has that Brian Head doesn't. They are rather similar in snow, distribution of ski terrain, awkward layout split by the road. And not much expansion potential. Brian Head has more resort infrastructure and is maybe a bit larger.

So who is going to drive the extra hour beyond an area that is already rather quiet?

Admin note: WTF? I didn't write this. Crocker, I presume this is you who wrote this but for some reason it displays as having been written by me.

I know you like to butt heads with Tony as if it's sport but, seriously?

Brian Head is 50% larger by acreage, gets equivalent snow and has significantly longer continuous vertical. It also happens to be a much shorter drive to the closes major population center.

Am I missing something?

 

[Tony Crocker]

I must have hit a wrong button and inadvertently edited admin's post. #-o

Mike Bernstein sums up my sentiments exactly. I've seen Brian Head and not Elk Meadows, so I read admin's feature to compare. From the map the ridgeline at 12,000 seems a short vertical expansion rather like the small amount of alpine above the lifts at Brian Head. Neither will attract many destination visitors outside the local drive-up market IMHO.

 

[Admin]

I know you like to butt heads with Tony as if it's sport but, seriously?

It's not sport -- I consider it a profession.

Brian Head is 50% larger by acreage

Brian Head claims 650 skiable acres. Eagle Point claims over 1,100 acres. Admittedly much of Eagle Point's acreage remains undeveloped, but I don't know how much of Brian Head's claimed 650 acres is currently in-bounds, either.

gets equivalent snow

True.

and has significantly longer continuous vertical.

At the moment it's more, but I wouldn't call it significantly longer. Brian Head's longest continuous vertical is 1,175 feet. Eagle Point's longest continuous vertical at the moment is ~850 feet, but by going to the Tushar ridgeline near Mt. Holly they could easily do close to 2,000 feet before crossing the Beaver Canyon roadway, and ~2,300 feet if they do. Right now their private landholdings only go to ~10,600 feet -- anything above that to 11,985-foot Mt. Holly is within Fishlake National Forest, so there would be permitting involved. But unlike the Wasatch I don't imagine that they'd encounter horrendous resistance to doing so -- Beaver County is economically stagnant...or worse. Population in the entire county is 6,000.

They could also add another 250 verts by going further down the Tushar Ridge and still remain within their own land holdings, equaling Brian Head's current sustained vertical. In fact, they had cut a liftline and installed the bullwheel for just such a lift at the time of my 2002 visit.

It also happens to be a much shorter drive to the closes major population center.

~60 minutes shorter. I don't know if that qualifies as "much shorter." That depends on the perspective of the driver, but I know that you routinely drove an hour past Killington to patronize Sugarbush when you lived in the East.

Am I missing something?

Yes and no. An hour is an hour, I'll give you that. But Eagle Point has the opportunity to provide something that Brian Head can't. Mind you, I'm as skeptical as the next guy, and that even appeared in my 2002 piece. But the potential is still there in the right set of conditions.

From the map the ridgeline at 12,000 seems a short vertical expansion rather like the small amount of alpine above the lifts at Brian Head.

2000 verts ain't short -- it would be nearly double what Brian Head currently provides. Going from 10,600 to 12,000 is a significant vertical expansion, not a short one. Even if Brian Head could expand to the summit it would only add 300 verts to their current 1,175 continuous verts. And they'd surely encounter more resistance to doing so than a project in Beaver County would generate.

Neither will attract many destination visitors outside the local drive-up market IMHO.

No one is talking about anything other than the drive-up market, which includes Vegas (1.8 million).

 

[Tony Crocker]

Going from 10,600 to 12,000 is a significant vertical expansion, not a short one.

That must be one of the crappiest trail maps ever. The alpine behind Elk Meadows Lodge looks small, but I'll take admin's word for it that's much bigger than it looks on that map.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Brian Head claims 650 skiable acres. Eagle Point claims over 1,100 acres. Admittedly much of Eagle Point's acreage remains undeveloped, but I don't know how much of Brian Head's claimed 650 acres is currently in-bounds, either.

There's got to be a lot of real-estate acreage in that number b/c if you look at the historical acreage claims for Elk Meadows, it was 420. I'll believe that number to be much more accurate, as it was a skiing play then.

At the moment it's more, but I wouldn't call it significantly longer. Brian Head's longest continuous vertical is 1,175 feet. Eagle Point's longest continuous vertical at the moment is ~850 feet, but by going to the Tushar ridgeline near Mt. Holly they could easily do close to 2,000 feet before crossing the Beaver Canyon roadway, and ~2,300 feet if they do. Right now their private landholdings only go to ~10,600 feet -- anything above that to 11,985-foot Mt. Holly is within Fishlake National Forest, so there would be permitting involved. But unlike the Wasatch I don't imagine that they'd encounter horrendous resistance to doing so -- Beaver County is economically stagnant...or worse. Population in the entire county is 6,000.

While it's only an extra 275 vetical, that is equivalent to 30% - pretty significant in my mind. What they "could" do is is essentially irrelevant until they do it. In the current economy, real-estate sales aren't going to fuel significant on-hill expansion, so who's going to dump the $5-10MM into the place needed to bring that vertical into play when the RE component is so speculative?

~60 minutes shorter. I don't know if that qualifies as "much shorter." That depends on the perspective of the driver, but I know that you routinely drove an hour past Killington to patronize Sugarbush when you lived in the East.

An hour longer drive is equivalent to a 40% longer trip from Las Vegas. Coming from NYC, the extra hour represents a 25% longer trip (actually less to our house b/c we're in the upper White River Valley). More importantly, SB has a clearly superior product to Killington. It's got less than half the people on 3/4 of the acreage. Gets more snow. Fewer New Yorkers/gapers. Better terrain. Better trail lay out. Longer fall lines. Better egress from the slackcountry (it's a long way back from Wheelerville Road vs. the Slidebrook shuttle). The only thing Killington has over SB is nightlife.

The appropriate comparison isn't Killington's Brian Head to Sugarbush's Eagle Point, but rather something more akin to driving an hour further to something like Ascutney (I recognize that Ascutney is actually closer). Lots of potential to grow bigger but until it does, who cares?

But Eagle Point has the opportunity to provide something that Brian Head can't. Mind you, I'm as skeptical as the next guy, and that even appeared in my 2002 piece. But the potential is still there in the right set of conditions.

I think that's what it comes down to - can they actually execute the on-mountain expansion to make the skiing product worth noticing? For the reasons stated above, I'm skeptical of anything like that being executed, at least for the next 10 years or so.