Page 2 of 32 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 786
  1. #26
    spook Guest
    as soon as whitey stops calling it squaw

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    KT / Headwall
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by splat View Post
    And your suggestions for alternatives are.....
    my suggestion is they forget the whole thing.

    (that's more likely than building a tram or a light rail)

    i honestly don't have any real suggestions...

    but it's pretty obvious nobody is going to build a tram or light rail.
    Still waiting...

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,938
    Quote Originally Posted by jahroy View Post
    my suggestion is they forget the whole thing.
    In terms of the environmental compliance stuff, you want to be asking for a thorough analysis of a No Action Alternative or the No Build Alternative.

    Of course, the no build is not KSL's plan.

    I like the rail idea that generally travels above the bicycle corridor along 89. Two raillines, at least. big constraints that come to mind for that are construction cost and the beaurocracy of multiple municipalities/decisionmakers (NV Co, TRPA, Placer Co, Ci of Truckee, Caltrans, etc.). Elevated rail structures are pretty pricey (it's reason why the CA high speed train will not be elevated above grade).

    i've said this in another thread, but i think this development plan, from marketting to design and onward, should not be snow/winter centric.

    btw, whatever happened with the CA/NV olympic planning commission (or whatever its name was)? how does that planning process play into this specific area plan and regional transportation planning?

  4. #29
    Hugh Conway Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jahroy View Post
    but it's pretty obvious nobody is going to build a tram or light rail.
    So why not just better bus service? Much easier to modify capacity on bus lines

    errr, the bike trail was the rail line. Just replace it, and fix whatever gaps/flood damage has occured.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    KT / Headwall
    Posts
    1,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Conway View Post
    So why not just better bus service?
    that sounds great to me...

    but do you really see bay area people leaving their cars behind so they can ride buses?

    i don't.

    as far as i can tell, the bay area folks live to stand in line and wait in traffic.

    all these ideas sound wonderful... but i don't see any of them happening.

    i don't think you "just build a railroad..." (maybe i'm wrong)

    squaw isn't going to spend millions/billions to improve public transportation...

    and the state isn't going to spend millions/billions to support squaw.
    Still waiting...

  6. #31
    spook Guest
    maybe they could call it white trash valley for a while and see how that works.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    33,440
    Of course, if they hired spook as the official Squaw greeter dude next season, the whole project would simply go down as a 'nice try'.

    *At last...words from spook we would all welcome. In a demeaning Chris Rock voice...

    Hey! City Honkie Technonerd! How many black men died in the ghetto and fighting your wars so you could have your Tesla towed from the summit to your $5K a year front row parking spot here in Brown Woman Valley?

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,938
    Quote Originally Posted by jahroy View Post
    squaw isn't going to spend millions/billions to improve public transportation...
    it's often called an "impact fee". the fee is paid into a transit program.

    This being a specific area plan, the creation or revision of transit programs, impact fees, etc. can be included as part of the plan and specific conditions can be put in placed for all development/building permits.

  9. #34
    spook Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by splat View Post
    Of course, if they hired spook as the official Squaw greeter dude next season, the whole project would simply go down as a 'nice try'. *At last...words from spook we would all welcome. In a demeaning Chris Rock voice... Hey! City Honkie Technonerd! How many black men died in the ghetto and fighting your wars so you could have your Tesla towed from the summit to your $5K a year front row parking spot here in Brown Woman Valley?
    i will have retired by the time the name rotates to brown woman valley. during my period, people will enjoy the confrontational ambience -- like those restaurants where the employees get to be as rude as they want and the customers love it. whenever rich people get little people ideas thrown in their faces, they get that tingling in their loins because true or not, there's not a fucking thing little people can do about it. few things give nouveau riche a bigger thrill. the voice will be george carlin. i will get huge tips.

  10. #35
    spook Guest
    and a wall plaque for the revitalization of white trash valley

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,547
    everything will be on a pre-paid pkg. a la disney, so no tips for you!
    b
    .

  12. #37
    spook Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by flowing alpy View Post
    everything will be on a pre-paid pkg. a la disney, so no tips for you! b
    people won't be able to help themselves. i've seen it happen many times in my gigs on the cruise lines.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    33,440
    Quote Originally Posted by bodywhomper View Post
    it's often called an "impact fee". the fee is paid into a transit program.

    This being a specific area plan, the creation or revision of transit programs, impact fees, etc. can be included as part of the plan and specific conditions can be put in placed for all development/building permits.
    Bingo. Don't start with apathy. Convince Squaw it could be even better instead of just saying don't do it.

    There's a small part of me that likes to think the opinionated crowd here might have helped sway the decision on the roller coaster fiasco.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,081
    There is parking planned under all the buildings, but that obviously won't be nearly as much as there is now. The plan for phase one (of four) is for 500 off site spaces. The plan does not say where they will go, or where additional off site spaces during the remaining phases will go. KSL says all the development will occur in already developed areas (the parking lot) without accounting for the off site parking.

    I would like to see a traffic management plan that holds traffic in Squaw (and in North Tahoe) when 80 is closed--similar to the traffic hold on 80 at the state line, unless you can prove you're a local.. As it is Truckee is gridlocked with traffic on stormy sundays to the point where emergency vehicles cannot pass. Better to be stuck where there is food, heat, and bathrooms than in a car parked on 89. Of course the permitting body is Placer County, the big impact is in Truckee, in Nevada county, so I don't expect it to happen, but may be FSV can lobby for it.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    2,675
    If I remember correctly, back when Intrawest was running the show, there was a 4 phase plan for conversion of the parking lot into the village. What's been done, the existing village today, was/is just Phase 1.
    It was always my understanding that when completed, the full build of the village would cover and eliminate the entire parking lot.

    So I'm not sure why all of a sudden the outrage here, this has been planned for years. Maybe the FoS can chime in and detail what has changed in this current proposal from the original plan?

    I know originally there was a plan for a multi level parking garage but I don't see it or at least recognize it in that proposed drawing. That's not good. At least if the Squaw-Alpine connect happens through WhiteWolf, there will be parking at Alpine if you arrive early enough.

    And there is currently undergound parking below the existing village but it's not open or available to the public, only to the owners, tenants or paying guests. Can anyone in the know definitively give the number of these existing parking spots today?
    "The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size."

  16. #41
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    33,440
    You're right, powpig. Back when it was proposed, I thought it would have been built out by now. I worked as a union carpenter on the village, so I saw it evolve. Before the village, like everyone else, I used to aim for the parking spots in that up front area the village now sits on. The parking capacity has seemed greatly reduced. A further reduction would inevitably require offsite parking. Perhaps that reduction was justified by the parking space increase created when the old ice rink went down.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    16,105
    seems to me something like a light rail could happen. it would involve a hefty impact fee for the developers (not just the developers at squaw either), money from the state, and money from various grants for clean initiatives (petroleum reduction, etc). it would have to be something that works for visitors (meaning tied into existing rail from the population centers along 80) as well as for locals (you'd need a drunks car for people returning from floating the truckee ). seems like the logical way to build it would be directly over 89, so very little in the way of easements would be needed and it would have minimal visual impact. pipe dream? maybe so, but that's how these things start.
    powdork.com - new and improved, with 20% more dork.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,081
    Quote Originally Posted by powpig View Post
    If I remember correctly, back when Intrawest was running the show, there was a 4 phase plan for conversion of the parking lot into the village. What's been done, the existing village today, was/is just Phase 1.
    It was always my understanding that when completed, the full build of the village would cover and eliminate the entire parking lot.

    So I'm not sure why all of a sudden the outrage here, this has been planned for years. Maybe the FoS can chime in and detail what has changed in this current proposal from the original plan?

    I know originally there was a plan for a multi level parking garage but I don't see it or at least recognize it in that proposed drawing. That's not good. At least if the Squaw-Alpine connect happens through WhiteWolf, there will be parking at Alpine if you arrive early enough.

    And there is currently undergound parking below the existing village but it's not open or available to the public, only to the owners, tenants or paying guests. Can anyone in the know definitively give the number of these existing parking spots today?
    My recollection is different--that the original village was not planned to cover the entire lot. But I don't see how what was planned years ago matters now--the environmental impact of the current proposal still needs to be considered on it's own terms. While the potential loss of free on site parking disturbs me, that won't hold any water as far as opposing the project. What will hold water is showing that Squaw will be clearing and paving over land outside the boundaries of the project as it is being presented. The information about parking--how many spots will be present under the buildings, who will they be for, where the off site parking will be and what the environmental impact of that will be--is vague or nonexistent as I read the proposal and IMO deliberately so, and KSL needs to be pressed on that issue at public meetings. Or it may be that KSL doesn't plan off site parking and is happy to reduce the number of day skiers using the mountain in favor of making things less crowded for the happy owners of what are likely to be very expensive condos. And KSL doesn't care about the long term future of the mountain. Their stated intention is to develop the property and sell it. They didn't buy a ski area, they bought a parking lot that happened to have a ski area with it. In the meantime they are happy to sell as many passes as they can to raise money for their development. I predict cheap passes will disappear once they are done.

    As a previous poster said, KSL is hoping to take business away from existing hotels, shops, and restaurants in Truckee and North Tahoe. In making their argument for the project they either have to deny this and account for the additional traffic impact of all the additional people staying at Squaw, or they have to admit it in which case I wonder if an environmental case can be made about out-of-business, boarded-up hotels, shops and restaurants and the damage to the sales and TOT base of the surrounding communities.

    It's disingenuous for the FOS to talk about preserving this beautiful pristine mountain valley. It hasn't been that for a long, long time. Better they should focus on the environmental arguments, which are the only arguments that can successfully stall, modify, or kill the project. Placer County and the courts don't care about day-use skiers getting screwed, or the proud tradition of an iconic ski area being trampled. They care about the environmental impact, because the law requires them to. These arguments were successful with the Homewood and Donner Summit projects (the great recession helped with the latter).

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Verdi NV
    Posts
    10,457
    It would be nice if the lager development plans were contingent on big mass transit projects.

    What did north Star do? or are doing to improve transportation into that area.

    The government access and legal teams these Corporate Real-estate development companies have could go along way to getting a 21st century mass transit pushed to reality. If they had to have the mass transit to support the additional load. Well just imagine.

    Also think of 5 years from now.

    Homewood gets the complete build they want.
    Northstar adds another 30% in Housing
    Squaw is 80% built as proposed.
    Alpine ?? You got to know that,s comming

    So How the fuck will people get around on a busy day?
    Do all local residents just hide at home till the log jam passes twice a day.?

    At what point is enough TOO MUCH?
    Own your fail. ~Jer~

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Squalpine View Post
    It's an old tactic--go big, then when the local community gets some concessions, they feel like they've won, but the developer still gets a large development.
    Yep. That's what they tried to do on the summit, before the market busted and the project (thankfully) went bankrupt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squalpine View Post
    "south coast plaza--sierra edition"
    That hurts to hear. I lived in Orange County for my first 16 years. Enough said.

    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    The plan for phase one (of four) is for 500 off site spaces. The plan does not say where they will go, or where additional off site spaces during the remaining phases will go. KSL says all the development will occur in already developed areas (the parking lot) without accounting for the off site parking.
    Incorrect. See bottom of 4 through middle of 6, and figure 10 (last page): https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByR...FZoTV9EQVc0a2s

    Sounds like that may work for Phase One. But God knows what they're going to do later. Edit: Remember too that their EIR will necessarily be much more specific than the docs they've put out so far.

    Prediction: KSL will get sued like the Martis Valley developers did. And by the exact same people (http://www.sierrawatch.org/experts/). Not that I think FoSV and others are necessarily gearing up for a legal fight. I'm sure everybody will negotiate in good faith. But I think that's where it'll end up. Martis Valley wound up there. Homewood is currently there. And Royal Gorge probably would have ended up there, if other factors hadn't intervened.
    Last edited by LightRanger; 05-15-2013 at 11:52 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    June Lake
    Posts
    2,624
    I've been a Squaw passholder since 1987 and was part of the opening team at the Resort at Squaw Creek in 1990, which was arguably the beginning of the corporatization movement in the Tahoe basin.

    When Alec owned the mountain, it was all about the skiing. Season pass prices were much more expensive, the amenities outdated and lodging options minimal. It was funky but the quality of skiing was top notch.

    I reflect back on the Alec days and the quality of the skiing experience was far superior to the current day. There were far less people with much more elbow room. Shane, Kreitler, Gaffney and all of us wanna-bees started skiing on shaped and fat skis. It was a magical time to be in Squaw.

    Fast forward to 2013 with KSL as the new owner, has bought the competition (Alpine Meadows) and is engaged in an arms race with Vail Resorts, who owns the other big 3 (Heavenly, Northstar and Kirkwood).

    The notion that KSL should quadruple the bed base in order to attract more people to "the Village" is illogical. Squaw already exceeds capacity on many days and hasn't had a terrain expansion since Silverado in 1992. (It will be interested to see what the connection to Alpine will do to the overcrowding).

    IMO, the Tahoe Basin needs mass transit before it needs another cookie cutter mountain village. And a 120 foot tall indoor water park a mere 5 miles from North America's most beautiful alpine lake is silly at best.
    Last edited by enlosandes; 05-15-2013 at 12:23 PM.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by MTT View Post
    Alpine ?? You got to know that,s comming



    At what point is enough TOO MUCh?
    Ironically--alpine will probably be spared The high avy danger on the main road and the fact that the ski area (and much of the upper condo area) is on a 100 yr renewable lease from the US forest service will limit if not prevent development. Plus--alpine suffers from access issues both in terms of alpine mdws rd and the snow-trap nature of the valley.

    FOSV, placer county, and TRPA need to come together and find a better solution. Even northstar's development has been better managed (and hidden). But KSL is eager to maximize its asphalt slabs.

    Personally, my biggest concern for the Tahoe region, broadly speaking, is controlling the crowds and their long term environmental impact. Raise pass prices. Expand the terrain. But listen to the voices of skiers who made your mountain valuable in the first place.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    P-tex, CA
    Posts
    8,656

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by powpig View Post
    And there is currently undergound parking below the existing village but it's not open or available to the public, only to the owners, tenants or paying guests. Can anyone in the know definitively give the number of these existing parking spots today?
    I used to have a pass to park in the underground lot. Any village or Year round squaw valley employee go to park down there. Although they did reserve some of the spots for valet parking a few years ago which never seems to get used. It's a two level garage, packed pretty tightly, I couldn't tell you how many spaces there are, but I would wager that between the two levels, there are more spaces than there were when it was just a ground lot. It's actually pretty sweet. No need to shovel your car at the end of a storm day, it's warm enough that when you've had a few too many you can sleep it off in the car no matter what the weather. That was probably one of the biggest perks of working for squaw.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Olympic Valley
    Posts
    238

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •