Alta wants your support

thetrailboss said:

As to the One Wasatch..........Now that Alterra and Vail hold a significant amount of terrain, I don't know if this will become reality. Vail really doesn't need this for PCMR.

Click to expand...

BenedictGomez said:

I thought about that.

In fact, my reaction is Vail will be against it, because they wouldn't want anything to enable their captive audience to leave Park City. I believe that would be the initial business tact they'd take.

But I believe there's a problem with that strategy.

The logical response by ONE Wasatch would be to call that bluff, and just connect everything but PCMR. If I'm Deer Valley, I want that, as it would give them a great strategic tourism advantage being THE connected Park City property. Give it 2, 3, 5 years, and I predict Vail would capitulate under that scenario rather than cede too much market share to Deer Valley.

Click to expand...

BenedictGomez said:

I thought about that.

In fact, my reaction is Vail will be against it, because they wouldn't want anything to enable their captive audience to leave Park City. I believe that would be the initial business tact they'd take.

But I believe there's a problem with that strategy.

The logical response by ONE Wasatch would be to call that bluff, and just connect everything but PCMR. If I'm Deer Valley, I want that, as it would give them a great strategic tourism advantage being THE connected Park City property. Give it 2, 3, 5 years, and I predict Vail would capitulate under that scenario rather than cede too much market share to Deer Valley.

Click to expand...

Jully said:

I agree that Vail doesn't want it because they don't want to lose people, but I wonder if that would actually happen. Park City is one of the most iconic, well known, and substantive ski towns in North America while the places near the Canyons aren't ski towns in that same traditional sense.

Right now when I go to Utah I don't go to PC because I want to ski BCC and LCC, but were they connected I'd stay in PC a lot. I'm sure I'm not alone there. Having Park City connected would lead to fewer people skiing the trails (and I suppose eating at their on mountain restaurants), but I can't imagine it would do anything except increase the number of skiers sleeping in PC.

Click to expand...

mbedle said:

I looked at the concept plans for these interconnections and its seems like the logistics of doing this is an afterthought. Snowboarding presents a couple of issues, the lack of access at Deer Valley (which isn't really that big of an issue since its an "end resort") and access to lifts/terrain at Alta (which does seem to present a bigger problem, since the interconnection would only be available to skiers that start at Snowbird). Also, if you take snowboarders from Solitude down Grisly Gulch, they basically have to ride the surface lift across the Alta's base area, and get on a single or multiple lifts to get over to Snowbird. A single lift ride up Wildcat gets you to snowbird, but dumps you on expert terrain. Multiple lift rides in Alta to Baldy would get you over to Snowbird, but dumps beginners on the backside of Baldy mountain with no beginner terrain to Snowbird's base. The proposed Park City and Brighton connection dumps you on expert only terrain at PC and to undeveloped terrain on Brighton's side. So again, its use would be limited to experts only unless PC/Brighton and Solitude/Alta are planning on installing connection lifts and/or upgrading current lifts on each resort to allow for downloading skiers that can't handle the expert terrain. From a family vacationer's point of view (which I believe would be the majority of the users of this interconnect), it would be pretty limited. The other issue I see is the strong possibility of people getting stuck at a resort (because they miss timed their return to their hotels, lifts closing due to weather, etc.). And finally, how long during each season would such a complete interconnection be open. Each resort's connection would obviously be different, but you are going to have times that certain resorts are not operating lifts needed to complete the interconnection. Alright, just rambling thoughts, I'm done.

Click to expand...

raisingarizona said:

Alta would open to snowboarders if the One becomes a reality.

Click to expand...

BenedictGomez said:

Where'd you hear that?

I don't think that's the case.

Click to expand...

BenedictGomez said:

Where'd you hear that?

I don't think that's the case.

Click to expand...

deadheadskier said:

+1

If they are hungry for more visits/revenue, they'd allow snowboarding already.

Three other things not mentioned:

1. How do the areas amicably split revenue?

2. Does One Wasatch bring in that many more tourists that normally ski/ride elsewhere that there's a big lift in revenue for all that will offset the increased operating costs and up front investment?

3. I have been told the best skiing experience you can have at Alta/Bird is when you are "snowed in" while the road is closed for avalanche control. That partially goes away with an interconnect.

I have skied Europe. It's certainly cool to ski between towns and even countries. I suspect in Europe most locals don't bother. I suspect in Utah that will also be the case with locals. Especially if there is a cost increase.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

Click to expand...

deadheadskier said:

What would be the reason for the interconnect to be closed a ton of days?

I'd think you'd want it open every day that weather allows from 12/26 to 4/1.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app[/QUOT


Reread my post.

Click to expand...

raisingarizona said:

deadheadskier said:

What would be the reason for the interconnect to be closed a ton of days?

I'd think you'd want it open every day that weather allows from 12/26 to 4/1.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app[/QUOT


Reread my post.

Click to expand...

Does a prior post of yours explain your position better? Because the one I was responding to was pretty vague. Hence the question.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

Click to expand...

deadheadskier said:

raisingarizona said:

Does a prior post of yours explain your position better? Because the one I was responding to was pretty vague. Hence the question.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

Click to expand...

Mitigation work means avalanche mitigation efforts. I’m curious how the interconnect zones would be managed. It’s already difficult enough to get terrain open at all four LCC and BCC resorts during average seasons with poor stability so this adds another part to that equation. I imagine when they are getting cycled for weeks at a time with a more upside down continental type snowpack it might be challenging to keep the whole interconnection reliable. I’m not saying it’s such a negative aspect that it’s not doable but it definitely creates more work.

Ever spend a season in LCC? Shit can get a little crazy up there when big cycles come through. There’s already a metric shit ton of $ thrown at keeping those places functioning.

Click to expand...

raisingarizona said:

Ever spend a season in LCC? Shit can get a little crazy up there when big cycles come through.

Click to expand...

BenedictGomez said:

I hope to one day experience such trauma.

Click to expand...