Expansions

[BeefyBoy50]

I've spent a lot of time recently reading about proposed/cancelled ski area expansions because it's a topic I find really interesting. One thing I've noticed, however, is that certain regions seem to see a lot more or less expansion activity than others.

For instance, I think that British Columbia is currently the location where it is easiest for any given ski area to add new terrain. One small ski area (Hemlock Resort) just received a 1.5 billion dollar investment towards future expansion.
http://unofficialnetworks.com/2015/11/1-5-billion-investment-into-b-c-ski-area
In addition, it has been easy for resorts such as Kicking Horse, Revelstoke, Whistler, etc. to add new terrain in the past.

In the Rockies in the last decade, it seems like expansion has been a bit more difficult to achieve but still possible - Park City's acquisition of the Canyons (can barely be called an expansion IMO), the growth onto Peak 6 at Breckenridge. A large investment of money (typically by Vail Resorts or another large corporation) always greatly helps such expansions.

Lastly, there is the East Coast, where it seems like ski areas were growing exponentially back in the 1980s but have for the most part become entirely stagnant in the last 20 years. I'm wondering why any of you think this is. I'm not as concerned with the benefits and disadvantages of ski area expansions (some say it brings no new skiers to the market and is therefore an ineffective strategy/ is worse for our natural areas). I would love to see growth in ski areas in the east coast, but I think it has become much more difficult financially and is therefore generally not worth the effort.

 

[deadheadskier]

Diminishing ROI. The industry is flat and will likely be in significant decline as baby boomers leave the sport.

 

[Jully]

Not sure about the west or Canada, but in the East many mountains, especially ones with the population/skier visits to do expansions are usually on forest service land or other protected areas.

 

[MadMadWorld]

BC definitely is the best place for expansion and has happened frequently over the last decade. It's also the reason you can find a shit load of cat and heli operations popping up all over the place. It's strange because Alberta is the exact opposite (even outside of the national park)

 

[ss20]

Because you can't, lol.

Sunapee's expansions will never happen as long as the state in in control.
The Killington-Pico interconnect won't happen for 10+ years because of economics and lack of seeing return by Powdr.
Jay Peak has been held up by financials.

Recent, successful expansions have been scaled down or minimally disruptive tot he environment (because that's all that can be approved nowadays.

Loon's South peak took 20 years because of permitting.
Bretton Wood's put in a T-Bar and all gladed terrain.
Sugarloaf's Brackett Basin is all very undisturbed with just glade.
Cannon's Mittersill was already there, and had minimal cutting up until this year.
Pat's Peak "expansion" was 7 short trails with 300 vertical feet.


Loooonnnggg gone are the days of "10 new trails with 1,000 vertical drop and a new base lodge". Too much hassle for too little return. I am interested in seeing how Waterville's and Ragged's expansions come along. But even those look like they're going to be scaled down significantly.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Loooonnnggg gone are the days of "10 new trails with 1,000 vertical drop and a new base lodge". Too much hassle for too little return. I am interested in seeing how Waterville's and Ragged's expansions come along. But even those look like they're going to be scaled down significantly.

And yet more reason to believe that huge expansion at the Balsams will never happen.

 

[thetrailboss]

Because you can't, lol.

Sunapee's expansions will never happen as long as the state in in control.
The Killington-Pico interconnect won't happen for 10+ years because of economics and lack of seeing return by Powdr.
Jay Peak has been held up by financials.

Recent, successful expansions have been scaled down or minimally disruptive tot he environment (because that's all that can be approved nowadays.

Loon's South peak took 20 years because of permitting.
Bretton Wood's put in a T-Bar and all gladed terrain.
Sugarloaf's Brackett Basin is all very undisturbed with just glade.
Cannon's Mittersill was already there, and had minimal cutting up until this year.
Pat's Peak "expansion" was 7 short trails with 300 vertical feet.


Loooonnnggg gone are the days of "10 new trails with 1,000 vertical drop and a new base lodge". Too much hassle for too little return. I am interested in seeing how Waterville's and Ragged's expansions come along. But even those look like they're going to be scaled down significantly.

Hate to say it, but I agree. Regulations, lack of capital, and economics are all reasons.

Out here in Utah there are a few projects on the drawing boards, but they are fraught with challenges.

Snowbird wants to expand into Mary Ellen Gulch--which they own a large portion of, spent their own money cleaning up someone else's mining mess, and only realistically want one lift in the basin and to extend Mineral Basin Express downslope a bit. Yet, the Utah County NIMBY crowd (yes, they do exist in that red county) have stalled it again for now.

Alta also wants to expand into Grizzly Gulch and in other areas. Also opposed by the backcountry skiing crowd.

The One Wasatch Project to connect the seven Wasatch resorts--controversial. Mainly over access and land use conflicts.

Only really in the Park City and Ogden areas are places able to move ahead with their plans. Deer Valley has plans to expand down to the bottom of Mayflower. They intend on moving their day base area over there. No real opposition. Lots of real estate in play there.

I doubt that PCMR is going to expand anymore. The only thing folks will probably see are replaced lifts and maybe a few new homes here and there but nothing huge. Their recent connection did not involve much new development--one lift over one major ridgeline. Only controversy, that did not go anywhere, was from the local backcountry crowd upset that they would lose access to that ridge. But let's be honest there was not much terrain in play really.

Nordic Valley--they have big plans, but nobody is really opposed. They are moving ahead slowly.

Powder Mountain--despite the hoopla from a few years back by their inexperienced but new age moneyed owners, the have not done anything really. There are plans for some real estate....high end for their friends.

So out here things are on the drawing boards, but the same issues, more or less.

 

[machski]

I would add in the east, snowmaking is required for any expansion. As we have seen with rising energy costs, the snowmaking window has become shorter and shorter. Many of the largest areas don't even make snow everywhere they can now. Why add more terrain to the mix?

 

[HowieT2]

With overall skier visits flat at best, and the increasing popularity of backcountry recreation, it just doesn't make sense to invest significant capital in new trails.

 

[deadheadskier]

Because you can't, lol.

Sunapee's expansions will never happen as long as the state in in control.
.

The state is not the issue with the Sunapee project any longer. It's more an issue of local opposition.

http://mobile.vnews.com/home/16544097-108/state-approves-mt-sunapee-expansion

 

[thetrailboss]

The state is not the issue with the Sunapee project any longer. It's more an issue of local opposition.

http://mobile.vnews.com/home/16544097-108/state-approves-mt-sunapee-expansion

True. Lynch was the one who was very opposed to it. He's since moved on to other things.

 

[thetrailboss]

And yet more reason to believe that huge expansion at the Balsams will never happen.

Dude, you're talking about Mr. Otten. He can do anything You know he won a World Series, right?

 

[Harvey]

Diminishing ROI. The industry is flat and will likely be in significant decline as baby boomers leave the sport.

Something something... "my cold dead hands..."

 

[spiderpig]

Seems like it's all gonna be real estate-based expansions. I didn't think this Okemo South Face Village would be a success, but the lift is at least in this year.

 

[SIKSKIER]

BC definitely is the best place for expansion and has happened frequently over the last decade. It's also the reason you can find a shit load of cat and heli operations popping up all over the place. It's strange because Alberta is the exact opposite (even outside of the national park)

I think its more that Alberta's snowfall is way inferior to BC.Interior BC gets 3 times as much.

 

[Highway Star]

Not sure about the west or Canada, but in the East many mountains, especially ones with the population/skier visits to do expansions are usually on forest service land or other protected areas.

State/National forest is not an issue, they could care less about using the land. Typically it's anyone who is anti-development, they will look for any excuse as to why things shouldn't be done - wildlife habitat, etc.

 

[Tin]

I think its more that Alberta's snowfall is way inferior to BC.Interior BC gets 3 times as much.

Just looked that up and couldn't believe it. The lower mountain area of Kicking Horse averages less than most of the Berkshires (~100"). Up top is just below 300".

 

[MadMadWorld]

Another point is that most of the expansion to areas of Kicking Horse and Revelstoke were only on paper. The Super Bowl (how have they not been sued yet?) area of Kicking Horse area had been skied for years but they just made it more accessible and now it's officially patrolled. No trees were cut (other scrub brush on the runout) and no lifts added...all hike to terrain. Both areas have tons of room for expansion though.

 

[Highway Star]

In the east it is exceptionally important to have "critical mass" to justify terrain (and lifts). Look at Killington eliminating lower sunrise when their visits dropped, a deleting two lifts. It's not like the west with natural snow. Roughly, you need about 1,000 yearly skier visits (minimum) for every acre of snowmaking terrain in the east, and that terrain is open for at least 3 months.

 

[thetrailboss]

Another point is that most of the expansion to areas of Kicking Horse and Revelstoke were only on paper. The Super Bowl (how have they not been sued yet?) area of Kicking Horse area had been skied for years but they just made it more accessible and now it's officially patrolled. No trees were cut (other scrub brush on the runout) and no lifts added...all hike to terrain. Both areas have tons of room for expansion though.

Roger Goddell just read this and is considering his options.....