PCMR Loses to Vail Resorts

[Tony Crocker]

So Vail better get that connection

Stated that will happen for 2015-16. It is likely to be a very tedious connection at first, but eventually Vail will clean up the lift systems and make them more efficient.

I agree Park City is an excellent resort town. It's hard to believe that with the town and a 7,000 acre ski area that should appeal to Vail's typical clientele, they can't make this work quite well within a few years.

That [One Wasatch] won't be for another 5-10 years, if it ever happens.

With the Vail/Powdr fight over, SkiUtah and all 7 ski areas on board, and the connections being on private land, that's a lot of potential momentum to get what is a fairly modest project of 4 lifts done. Save Our Canyons will fight it tooth and nail, but I'm not sure they have the clout to derail it.

 

[Evren]

>Save Our Canyons will fight it tooth and nail, but I'm not sure they have the clout to derail it.

Interestingly, the comments I see on facebook, blog posts, etc. are overwhelmingly against the link projects. They are quite a vocal minority, if that's what they are. I always thought Save Our Canyons equals backcountry skiers upset with the loss of proximate terrain. Can't take their abstract watershed-loss arguments seriously and can't imagine anyone would be so upset about this, absent a very real personal stake. Am I being too Machiavellian about it?

 

[Marc_C]

That [One Wasatch] won't be for another 5-10 years, if it ever happens.

With the Vail/Powdr fight over, SkiUtah and all 7 ski areas on board, and the connections being on private land, that's a lot of potential momentum to get what is a fairly modest project of 4 lifts done. Save Our Canyons will fight it tooth and nail, but I'm not sure they have the clout to derail it.

The problem from the SOS and backcountry community is the location of those 4 lifts and the b/c and side country access they would provide. Derail it? In the long term, probably not. But if a suit were to be filed on Monday, that could easily and immediately add 2-3 years. And a personal discussion with the head of SOS indicated there is zero possibility of compromise on their part.

 

[Marc_C]

>Save Our Canyons will fight it tooth and nail, but I'm not sure they have the clout to derail it.

Interestingly, the comments I see on facebook, blog posts, etc. are overwhelmingly against the link projects. They are quite a vocal minority, if that's what they are. I always thought Save Our Canyons equals backcountry skiers upset with the loss of proximate terrain. Can't take their abstract watershed-loss arguments seriously and can't imagine anyone would be so upset about this, absent a very real personal stake. Am I being too Machiavellian about it?

Most of SOS would be happiest if Snowbird were dismantled in entirety. They'd be overjoyed if all 4 Cottonwood resorts were shuttered. Look at it this way - Snowbird first started talking about a new summit building prior to the permitting for the Mineral Basin lift. That is finally happening this year - over 15 years after first proposal. Yes, Snowbird often used it as a bargaining chip to be offered up in return for what they really wanted to do at the time (think Peruvian lift and tunnel), but SOS did effectively block the construction of that building (now vastly scaled down from the original proposal which was a conference center on the order of 75K sq ft.) for easily 10 years. Were you here when SOS prominently published and hung maps around the city that showed all the locations in the valley from which the proposed building would be visible?

You mentioned "link projects" - let's not get confused over names. The vast majority of objection was over the "Ski-link" project - a very specific interconnection, not interconnections in general. Personally, I'm all for One Wasatch. The Ski-Link proposal otoh was idiotic to a fault and deserves a messy death.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Personally, I'm all for One Wasatch. The Ski-Link proposal otoh was idiotic to a fault and deserves a messy death.

MarcC and I are in 100% agreement on this. Ridiculously small sample size, but it's an indicator that One Wasatch is/will be more popular than Ski Link and thus harder to derail.

The problem from the SOS and backcountry community is the location of those 4 lifts and the b/c and side country access they would provide.

As a more lazy skier, that's another reason I'm for it. It will be more like some of the places in the Alps, with high reward-to-grunt-work ratio.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the backcountry skiers. In general the lift-served ski areas take up a tiny fraction of contested mountain ranges. But the Cottonwood Canyon microclimate with the highest altitude and huge snowfall is actually quite small geographically. Contrary to what other Utah ski areas would like you to believe.