the Wasatch's new worst enemy=TALISKER

[schindlerpiste]

For a large % of paying tourists coming to UT., the skiing/riding experience includes lunch, apres , lodging and actually making turns. That is why the interconnect works both ways. TGR people and backcountry skiers/riders think that the sport is only about schralping the gnar and hucking meat, while the great percentage of recreational skiers love corduroy, bumps and 4" (as opposed to 4') of fresh snow.

The one detraction from the connect is mechanical failure. If someone is staying at Canyons and rides the 5 lifts to get to Alta, and once there a lift breaks down, how will he get back to his bed in the evening? I remember skiing Kitzbuhl one late afternoon with my wife and getting lost on a long, rambling groomer. We wound up in a town about 10k from Kitzbuhl (where our lodging was). A 10k bus ride on an established route is nothing. OTOH, 35 miles from LCC to Park City without transportation is something entirely different. While lifts hardly ever break down for extended periods, this may be of concern.
Personally, I like the idea of an open wasatch, and hate the attitude that the backcountry guy is entitled. The only reason that I am anti powder birds is that they land on top of hikers, with no regard for up hill traffic. That can be dangerous. The connect poses no such problem,, and if the bc is not restricted (by resorts allowing up hill travel), all is good ...we need to learn to COEXIST...
For the budget minded people,, I'm sure that they will be able to continue to buy single area passes, hike for turns, or enjoy other options. I doubt that they will be prices out of the sport. Besides, everyone is going to be unhappy if Vail owns Canyons, PCMR, D.V. Solitude and Snowbird. I have heard that the owners thing that is a possibility w/out interconnect.

Tuco, it is a part of it. Call me an idiot, but that just shows your ignorance.

[tuco]

For a large % of paying tourists coming to UT., the skiing/riding experience includes lunch, apres , lodging and actually making turns. That is why the interconnect works both ways. TGR people and backcountry skiers/riders think that the sport is only about schralping the gnar and hucking meat, while the great percentage of recreational skiers love corduroy, bumps and 4" (as opposed to 4') of fresh snow.

2 words. Wasatch back.

Resorts already have gates for getting around, so it is already an 'open Wasatch'. It's called an interconnect tour and has been around for years. Or you can go on your own.

[wra]

We need to learn to COEXIST...

In the late seventies-early eighties I gave up Clayton Peak, Honeycomb Canyon, Albion Basin and the Deer Valley area. Started sharing the back country with the heli.
In the nineties I gave up Peak 9990, Dutches Draw, Mineral Basin-Mary Ellen, Snowbasin back country and most of the Bountiful-Sessions to snowmobiles.
Now I'm asked to coexist by giving up what's left of the upper Cottonwoods + who knows what the fuck else.
Wondering when I get something back rather than giving more away?

[schindlerpiste]

That's what I usually ski, and for the most part I am very happy with it. Also, personally, I don't mind driving to LCC 10-15x/season. But, I'm not everyone, and, if available at a cheaper rate than the restricted Silver Pass, I would certainly buy a season pass to all 7 resorts. (I have no need for access to the Beav., Brian Head, or Sundance and would buy a day pass to Snowbasin 1-3x/season). Variety is the spice of life, and the market will let us know whether the connect will be/is a success. No one would build it to lose $. ...and the masses may actually prefer it to auto transportation. It does not matter what is proposed...people love to complain, right?

Wra, were you paying for that, or are you just entitled to it? If it's free for you, then you are going to eventually need to accept less and less. It is the way of the good ole USA.

[Skidog]

dont know if this got posted yet but strong move by Vail

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_2541900...out-offer-pcmr

[yabyum]

In the late seventies-early eighties I gave up Clayton Peak, Honeycomb Canyon, Albion Basin and the Deer Valley area. Started sharing the back country with the heli.
In the nineties I gave up Peak 9990, Dutches Draw, Mineral Basin-Mary Ellen, Snowbasin back country and most of the Bountiful-Sessions to snowmobiles.
Now I'm asked to coexist by giving up what's left of the upper Cottonwoods + who knows what the fuck else.
Wondering when I get something back rather than giving more away?

Dick Bass's lust for White Pine goes back to 1970's

[tuco]

That's what I usually ski, and for the most part I am very happy with it. Also, personally, I don't mind driving to LCC 10-15Sx/season. But, I'm not everyone, and, if available at a cheaper rate than the restricted Silver Pass, I would certainly buy a season pass to all 7 resorts. (I have no need for access to the Beav., Brian Head, or Sundance and would buy a day pass to Snowbasin 1-3x/season). Variety is the spice of life, and the market will let us know whether the connect will be/is a success. No one would build it to lose $. ...and the masses may actually prefer it to auto transportation. It does not matter what is proposed...people love to complain, right?

Wra, were you paying for that, or are you just entitled to it? If it's free for you, then you are going to eventually need to accept less and less. It is the way of the good ole USA.

The only way to know if the market will determine its success is to build it, that's dumb. And there is the transportation word again. Other than transporting you up a hill with skis on, exactly how is this transpo? It would run 5 months a year from 9 to 4? Have you seen the C-Woods in the summer. Make some real transportation without all the limitations.
Yeah, people like to complain, but that is not a notch in favor of this latest dumbass plan.

If it restricted access to public land, then yes, Wra was paying for that and he was entitled to it, just like everyone else. Are you saying these areas need to have a lift to be good for the public?

[tuco]

Dick Bass's lust for White Pine goes back to 1970's

Yet, didn't they give up what they owned in WP as part of the Mary Ellen deal?

[Skidog]

Yet, didn't they give up what they owned in WP as part of the Mary Ellen deal?

I think Mr Bass has made more than a few land "trades". He owns a LOT.

I dont personally ever see Mr Bass selling out to Vail. I also for sure don't see Alta doing it...they have a pretty nice balance sheet. The Wastach Back resorts? I could easily see all of them being sucked into the black hole of Vail properties. Solitude? hmm thats a tough one...i bet they could be persuaded to sell. B-Right On? I'd say they'd probably sell too.

Wonder if Vail is interested at all in our neighbors to the north? Snowbasin? Earl's health aint all that great and I don't think any of his kids give 2 shits about the ski resorts. Vail could snatch them up and get Sun Valley too. Those guys/group that bought Powder mtn are business men, they'd sell to Vail if the price was right. Vail might even have the $$ to expand a place like Powder, though it would ruin why i think that place is great. They own a lot of terrain thats really not accessible aside from the heli.

I think the whole "one Wasatch" idea is stupid. This isnt Yurp.....this won't draw more visitors IMHO, its a novelty at best. I personally dont think id ever waste my time using it. Seems like you'd lose a lot of ski time just riding lifts, but as someone mentioned the reason for this isn't "me", its for the out of towners, who crave some "experience". Changing the archaic liquor laws would benefit this place much more. Don't know how they'd get rid of the already perceived notions that you "cant get a drink in Utah", not like you can advertise that.

I too find it odd that they made this huge announcement when the plan doesnt even seem to be much past a drawing and a "grand" idea.

[ole2planker]

I think the whole "one Wasatch" idea is stupid. This isnt Yurp.....this won't draw more visitors IMHO, its a novelty at best. I personally dont think id ever waste my time using it. Seems like you'd lose a lot of ski time just riding lifts, but as someone mentioned the reason for this isn't "me", its for the out of towners, who crave some "experience".

I'm an out of towner tourist (touron to some, I'm sure). I don't see wasting the ski time riding this lift, either. For variety, I get in the car, drive to a new ski area and ski there for the day. DV's food aint gonna get me to change that behavior.

[Buster Highmen]

Earl's health aint all that great .

Earl's dead. His son in law Peterson may have some interest.

[schindlerpiste]

Well, there is always market research. Regarding transportation, the masses would much rather ride lifts, and enjoy the outdoors, rather than drive. Again, that is a part of the ski experience that doesn't actually include making turns, or hucking meat. My proposal would be to actually close the canyons to motor vehicular traffic (except busses) from Dec. 1-May 1. Again, this is all contingent upon NOT RESTRICTING up hill traffic. I would be against any interconnect that attempts to do so. Certainly, I do not think that one needs to ride a lift to make it good. I am saying that the majority would rather ride a lift to access more varied terrain, than drive a car, take a bus or hike 45mins. to an hour to do it less times.
Again, I am about doing what the public wants to increase the total ski experience. While, I prefer UT. snow to Austria's, I prefer the open Austria lift system to that of the Wasatch (especially when everything is so close).

[bigdude2468]

Earl's health aint all that great and I don't think any of his kids give 2 shits about the ski resorts.




Nothing wrong with Earl's health, very stable, he died last April.

[Skidog]

Earl's health aint all that great and I don't think any of his kids give 2 shits about the ski resorts.




Nothing wrong with Earl's health, very stable, he died last April.

Damned...i didnt know that...seemed like i just saw him like less than 2 years ago..he wasnt doing good then.

[Buster Highmen]

It's a pretty typical tactic: distract attention from a failure to a new controversial, polarizing, divisive proposal.

(btw, I had no idea wra had accrued so much land.)

Hmmm. I thought DT was being sarcastic regarding lunch and apres, but serious regarding leaving some unliftserved. I'll try rereading (and yes, I know my reading skilz suck).

What would be cool is a train to connect these places with maybe a stop on top of Guardsman. That would be Yuropeein.

[bigdude2468]

Nobody is going to ride the half dozen lifts from DV to LCC on a snowy day / windy day. Hell the DV crowd doesn't ski DV when it is snowing. I do not believe someone is going to ride from LCC or BCC to DV for lunch. From The Canyons yes but not the added distance from the Cottonwoods and the crowd is entirely different.

I also think the Utah liquor law thing is way over blown. No more private clubs, and every restaurant I go to has all the booz I want. Nice State Store in a good location with a great wine selection in PC. Ok the Sunday thing but a whole lot of states still have sunset laws. Shit even in WI you cant buy beer after 9:00 PM and not early in the morning.

[itsnowjoke]

So between you, DT on Powdermag.com, and the Ski Utah contingent on facebook, the central argument for a lift connected wasatch is that the lunch and apres scenes will be just to die for. How will ONE improve the skiing/riding experience? (And what exactly is ONE an acronym for?) If you take the resort dining and apres out of the picture, what's to gain from interconnecting? Does it just come down to "bigger = better?"

On that same note, what's the strategy behind the timing of the PR push for the "concept?" It seems like no decisions have been made regarding where lifts might be placed, or whose land they'd be on, or how revenue will be shared, or what ticket/pass prices might be, or whether snowboarders could ride between resorts, or how backcountry access would be effected, or when any of it might happen, so why go public with it now? Is it to kick the standoffish asses of the resort management teams into gear? Or to publicly polarize the issue so everyone chooses a side before anyone understands what's at stake? Or SkiUtah got impatient clicking through the sharp-looking ONE Wasatch dev site and couldnt resist going live?

Every person who skis does so for the adventure. Whether you're locals like ourselves or a guy getting on the plane in New York, there is something that motivates us to get out and ski. Sedentary people don't ski. But what is that adventure going to be? The awesome thing about skiing is that it will be unique for everyone, and every day is different. It's been stated that some people would want to try the eating and drinking circuit. Whatever floats their boat. For others, skiing from one side of the ski area to the other and back in a day will be exciting, adventurous, and tiring. As I've said before, each canyon exudes a unique ambience, one can choose their adventure. Presently Bird/Alta are very similar in ski experience, as are Brighton / Solitude and the entire Wasatch Back. By connecting these areas, one would be able to ski whatever they're vibing into at that moment. I could go on and on, but that's how the ski experience would improve. For me? I'd like to ski the steeps of Solitude without driving 80 miles to go somewhere that's two miles away. Park City to Bookends and back in a day? Sign me up!

What's behind the push of the PR concept? As you are probably aware, the Mountain Accord process is well underway. It's a long-range master-planning process for the future of the Wasatch. The concept is to have all Wasatch shareholders (City and County Govts., Ski Areas, Environmental Groups, Business Leaders, etc.) come up with a long-range plan for the Wasatch. And the process operates like the part in a wedding where you are to speak now or forever hold your peace. So in a show of solidarity, the ski areas laid out their plan. While some are upset that it's not more specific, the entire concept is allowing for suggestion and compromise within the Mountain Acccord framework. One of the first public statements the Mountain Accord made was that it would in no way impinge on private property rights in this process. So if you hate the concept, look on a map and determine the least-painful alignment, participate, and hope it works out.

I've talked to one of the principles in this concept regarding pricing and profit issues, and it's apparent that it's nothing to generate heartburn over. For the purchaser of a day pass at a given resort, prices will generally be 10-15% more than they are now for someone who wants to ski all of the areas. Otherwise you'll have the option just to stay at one area. Season passes will be sold at individual resorts, but if you want to ride the entire area there will be an add-on. Of course, it must be affordable or no one will use it. The ski areas realize this, so pricing will be done accordingly. It's really not that complicated, nor will it price thousands of locals out of shredding.

Speaking of shredding, there's much heartburn over how boarders will get through Alta. Is it too complicated to designate several fall-lineish runs so that boarders can complete the circuit or just have a bus shuttle boarders back to Bird? The bus is in place now. It's not that big of a deal in terms of making or breaking the interconnect.

In the end, you can't please everyone. It's just impossible. I think a train with a tunnel from PC to Snowbird with a stop at Brighton would be awesome. Connect it to a line down Big Cottonwood, and everything would be served by rail. The possibilities with this setup would be astounding. But a railroad with tunnels is a multi-billion dollar project, not to mention the serious environmental implications of building and operating the thing. And of course you'd have the outrage expressed surrounding the project. Every illegitimate and legitimate argument surrounding One Wasatch would probably be valid with a railroad, paving Guardsman Pass, etc.

In the end, I agree with the Powder Magazine piece, and Carl Fisher of Save our Canyons. We've been talking about this for thirty years. When are we going to stop talking about it? When the resorts are interconnected and One Wasatch is realized, that's when.

Cheers,

D

[BigSkyfan]

[QUOTE=Skidog;4217376]I think Mr Bass has made more than a few land "trades". He owns a LOT.

I think the whole "one Wasatch" idea is stupid. This isnt Yurp.....this won't draw more visitors IMHO, its a novelty at best. I personally dont think id ever waste my time using it. Seems like you'd lose a lot of ski time just riding lifts, but as someone mentioned the reason for this isn't "me", its for the out of towners, who crave some "experience". Changing the archaic liquor laws would benefit this place much more. Don't know how they'd get rid of the already perceived notions that you "cant get a drink in Utah", not like you can advertise that.

I don't have a dog in this fight but agree...its a novelty. How long is it before the vacationer coming in for a week figures out that one lift ticket to 7 resorts is pretty useless. You can't begin to ski all that terrain in a weeks vacation. So does it benefit the season pass holder more than the vacationer??? That will depend on the cost of the pass. I would think a season pass to 7 resorts would be have to be pretty pricey to pay for all those new lifts in addition to some type of ground transportation setup to get people back to the resort they started at when lifts shut down.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. Good luck!!!

[Buster Highmen]

When are we going to stop talking about it? When the resorts are interconnected and One Wasatch is realized, that's when.

Cheers,

D

That was really badly done. Again.

[wra]

ivisive proposal.
(btw, I had no idea wra had accrued so much land.)

The land I included was, except for Deer Valley(you had to sneak in), public, undeveloped, non motorized land.
I have been paying taxes since 1971 so...I was paying a user fee.

[Hugh Conway]

I think the whole "one Wasatch" idea is stupid. This isnt Yurp.....this won't draw more visitors IMHO, its a novelty at best. I personally dont think id ever waste my time using it. Seems like you'd lose a lot of ski time just riding lifts, but as someone mentioned the reason for this isn't "me", its for the out of towners, who crave some "experience".

Does "big sky" not qualify you as an outoftowner?

the skiworlds going to a few mega-resorts and mega-conglomerates in the US. that won't change; if you don't like all the bullshit of the Wasatch how about you cockpunch of all the broheim ski-industry douchebags taking pictures of every inch of it?

[Buster Highmen]

The land I included was, except for Deer Valley(you had to sneak in), public, undeveloped, non motorized land.
I have been paying taxes since 1971 so...I was paying a user fee.

My point is that it's not "yours". It's "ours".

[wra]

Was ours. now it's accessible to the general public after the ski lifts close, at least most of it is.

[Buster Highmen]

Was ours. now it's accessible to the general public after the ski lifts close, at least most of it is.

I'm not liking the distinction there between "the general public" and "ours" but, yeah, I'm with you on preserving some portion of the zone (like powerline, Days, etc) for unliftserved.

I still think the focus should be put on public transportation between the various bases with lifts a secondary issue.

A train would be so awesome, especially if it went LCC<->BCC<->Guardsman<->Canyons<->PC.

Plus the Ogden tram.

[tuco]

Well, there is always market research. Regarding transportation, the masses would much rather ride lifts, and enjoy the outdoors, rather than drive. Again, that is a part of the ski experience that doesn't actually include making turns, or hucking meat. My proposal would be to actually close the canyons to motor vehicular traffic (except busses) from Dec. 1-May 1. Again, this is all contingent upon NOT RESTRICTING up hill traffic. I would be against any interconnect that attempts to do so. Certainly, I do not think that one needs to ride a lift to make it good. I am saying that the majority would rather ride a lift to access more varied terrain, than drive a car, take a bus or hike 45mins. to an hour to do it less times.
Again, I am about doing what the public wants to increase the total ski experience. While, I prefer UT. snow to Austria's, I prefer the open Austria lift system to that of the Wasatch (especially when everything is so close).

Market research is kinda like breaking out your snow shovel because the weatherman said it is going to snow. Personally, I'll wait till the snow is on the ground to bust out the snovel.
Lifts do not do shit for transpo when it is not open before 9am or closed after 4 or 4:30 pm and running from middle of Nov to middle of April. Need a viable transportation alternative YEAR ROUND!
Of course more people would rather ride a lift than work for it. That's the whole attraction. And again that is really not an argument for it.
The Wasatch is not Austria or anywhere in Yurp, so why compare?