Alta wants your support

[ThinkSnow]

https://www.alta.com/blog/supportalta#supportalta

 

[BenedictGomez]

That was a confusing as hell read.

I gather ONE Wasatch, while not dead, is currently dormant, but should they ever win out over the eco-extremists, Utah will become the absolute behemoth of the North American ski industry and an economic winter juggernaut.

 

[gregnye]

That was a confusing as hell read.

I gather ONE Wasatch, while not dead, is currently dormant, but should they ever win out over the eco-extremists, Utah will become the absolute behemoth of the North American ski industry and an economic winter juggernaut.

It's not just the eco-extremist against ONE Wasatch. I don't really like the idea of the resorts getting connected. Each resort has it's own character and charm. You lose that when you combine them.

Just like I don't want Pico and Killington ever connected, I wouldn't want Alta connected to anything near Park City.

Utah must be jealous that everyone wants to move to Colorado instead, and are thinking that creating a mega resort will solve this.

Outside looking in, it's really obvious why Colorado is superior to Utah. Yeah, Utah gets more snow...blah blah blah. But Colorado has somehow managed to balance economic growth, tourism, and the environment too. You don't need to pick one or the other. You can do economic development sustainably but Utah doesn't care.

 

[thetrailboss]

My wife got the Email as a passholder. Locals who are in the BC community are pissed because Grizzly Gulch is an important BC access point in LCC. Right now, as I understand it, folks are free to hike it and earn their turns so long as they avoid Alta's operations and their limited catskiing operation in Grizzly Gulch.

I don't know what actually precipitated Alta "taking their ball and going home" on the Mountain Accord. If I had to guess it was because they wanted to preserve the ability to maybe, just maybe, someday expand. LCC is very saturated with resort ski traffic. The ski areas have all previously set a self-imposed limit as to how far they may expand. Alta had this set aside for years.

Some of you might have seen that there was a flare up in late-April by the Save Our Canyons folks because the NFS gave their preliminary approval of Alta building a "tram" from the summit of Collins to the top of Mount Baldy. Of course overnight the hype revved up to the point where opponents felt that Alta was going to build a huge summit complex akin to what Snowbird has done. Also, the "tram" is on the order of the one at Snowbasin--a 15 person car at most. Of course Alta does not have nearly as deep of pockets as the 'Bird, nor the interest or demand for such a facility, but SOC didn't care. So Alta found itself in the crosshairs all of the sudden. I don't know why opponents had not said anything when the updated Master Plan was out for comment, but oh well.

I understand the access concern here. It has become a zoo out here in the last few years we have lived here. Housing is now 50,000 units SHORT of the realistic demand. Population growth here is real. And everyone wants to get the goods in LCC. So this is not the last land-use dispute for the mountains here.

As to Alta, mixed feelings. I love the area, but in bad snow years the employees can be downright rude and mean. Customer service isn't really their thing. Also the crowd can be interesting...I will leave it at that.

 

[thetrailboss]

Exhibit A showing the anger...from Alta's FB page:

Shame on you Alta Ski Area for being so greedy for Grizzly Gulch you can't even discuss compromises. Grizzly Gulch is where I learned to splitboard, one of the most accessible winter trailheads in Utah, and a place I enjoy many times each winter. You want to take over the whole area just to add another ski lift, for your bottom line. Is it really worth it? #keepGrizzlywild #boycottAlta

 

[BenedictGomez]

I don't really like the idea of the resorts getting connected. Each resort has it's own character and charm. You lose that when you combine them.

I fail to see how you lose, anything, by combining them via short connections. The terrain is the most important thing, and that will not change. Hell, you can already ski between some of them as is if you wanted.

The convenience of such a thing would be unrivaled in North America. Say you're staying in Park City, you could ski Brighton or Snowbird without having to get in a car and drive for a solid hour. Or maybe you're a local living in Sandy and you ski Alta, but you want to meet friends at a bar for dinner & apres on Main Street in Park City. You could do all that. The cross-promotional opportunities could be endless. It would be amazing.

 

[Jully]

I fail to see how you lose, anything, by combining them via short connections. The terrain is the most important thing, and that will not change. Hell, you can already ski between some of them as is if you wanted.

The convenience of such a thing would be unrivaled in North America. Say you're staying in Park City, you could ski Brighton or Snowbird without having to get in a car and drive for a solid hour. Or maybe you're a local living in Sandy and you ski Alta, but you want to meet friends at a bar for dinner & apres on Main Street in Park City. You could do all that. The cross-promotional opportunities could be endless. It would be amazing.

I'm fully with you here. I'd love to see those resorts connected as a non local. However, if this were back east and something like Sugarbush being connected to MRG, I'd be quite opposed, so I go back and forth about how guilty I feel for wanting to combine the resorts lol.

 

[deadheadskier]

I'm opposed to 3 out of 4 merger contenders in the East. No on Bush/MRG. No on Stowe/Smuggs beyond what historically existed. No on Killington/Pico. Yes on Mt Snow / Haystack, but only because it maybe needed to preserve the Haystack terrain.

As for Utah? Pretty much every single area involved is larger than all the ski areas in the East. I just don't see the need.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[skiur]

I will never give any support to a place that excludes people because they snowboard.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I will never give any support to a place that excludes people because they snowboard.

Nobody excludes people because they snowboard, they exclude people who do not ski.

 

[crazy]

My wife got the Email as a passholder. Locals who are in the BC community are pissed because Grizzly Gulch is an important BC access point in LCC. Right now, as I understand it, folks are free to hike it and earn their turns so long as they avoid Alta's operations and their limited catskiing operation in Grizzly Gulch.

I don't know what actually precipitated Alta "taking their ball and going home" on the Mountain Accord. If I had to guess it was because they wanted to preserve the ability to maybe, just maybe, someday expand. LCC is very saturated with resort ski traffic. The ski areas have all previously set a self-imposed limit as to how far they may expand. Alta had this set aside for years.

Some of you might have seen that there was a flare up in late-April by the Save Our Canyons folks because the NFS gave their preliminary approval of Alta building a "tram" from the summit of Collins to the top of Mount Baldy. Of course overnight the hype revved up to the point where opponents felt that Alta was going to build a huge summit complex akin to what Snowbird has done. Also, the "tram" is on the order of the one at Snowbasin--a 15 person car at most. Of course Alta does not have nearly as deep of pockets as the 'Bird, nor the interest or demand for such a facility, but SOC didn't care. So Alta found itself in the crosshairs all of the sudden. I don't know why opponents had not said anything when the updated Master Plan was out for comment, but oh well.

I understand the access concern here. It has become a zoo out here in the last few years we have lived here. Housing is now 50,000 units SHORT of the realistic demand. Population growth here is real. And everyone wants to get the goods in LCC. So this is not the last land-use dispute for the mountains here.

As to Alta, mixed feelings. I love the area, but in bad snow years the employees can be downright rude and mean. Customer service isn't really their thing. Also the crowd can be interesting...I will leave it at that.

Good write up of the situation. I do not understand why Save Our Canyons is hating on Alta so much. Sure, having a small tram up to Mount Baldy means that there is a non-zero chance that Alta develops Baldy in the same way that Snowbird created their summit complex, but Alta has said that they are not interested in creating such a complex, and it is not part of their master plan! This makes Save Our Canyons seem overzealous and petty.

 

[raisingarizona]

I’m all for the interconnect. It would be so much fun to ski from area to area over a four or five day stretch. It’s not like the wasatch is some pristine mountain range any longer. It’s crowded af. It’s the perfect place for a euro ski experience.

I love the argument that there’s no point because you can’t ski it all in one day, what the hell does that even mean? Does this make European resorts crap because you can’t ski all of it in a day? Weird.

 

[sull1102]

Nobody excludes people because they snowboard, they exclude people who do not ski.

LMAO okay buddy whatever you need to tell yourself. I'm happy to see Alta and MRG struggle, not that either does but still. It's ridiculous to not allow snowboarders when we are happy paying customers. Taos learned, in time the others will as well.

Sent from my Pixel using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[gregnye]

I’m all for the interconnect. It would be so much fun to ski from area to area over a four or five day stretch. It’s not like the wasatch is some pristine mountain range any longer. It’s crowded af. It’s the perfect place for a euro ski experience.

I love the argument that there’s no point because you can’t ski it all in one day, what the hell does that even mean? Does this make European resorts crap because you can’t ski all of it in a day? Weird.

Unlike European resorts it will be crap because most of the time you'll be traveling horizontally. Back east, for example think of how much the slidebrook chair adds to Sugarbush. Really it adds nothing. Each of the mountains are better to be skied for a full day.

I know both little and big cottonwood canyons are overcrowded. However the solution should be improving the existing access to the resorts. Example, replacing the bus service with a metro line in each canyon (with a stop at Snowbird and then Alta) would be a more effective way to get people to the resorts faster (and it could run on days that require snow-chains).

However, this is Utah. Rather than improving public transit, they want to solve the problem by privatizing it. They want ski lifts (private transportation) to get people between resorts. But what about those that do the backcountry? Will they be able to take the transfer lifts?? What about those that hike? Can they go between canyons?

Basically, the solution to traffic/ski area overcrowding is public transit in both of the Canyons. But it's Utah so I'm not going to hold my breath for them to invest in anything.

 

[deadheadskier]

Can't have an Alta (or MRG) thread without the snowboarding ban coming up. It's a dumb policy. People should continue to speak up until it's gone. If you don't want to share everything you can ski with someone who finds the same passion on a snowboard, shame on you.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[thetrailboss]

I will never give any support to a place that excludes people because they snowboard.

We made it 8 posts before this issue came up.

Honestly they are excluding an activity. Not people. And it was settled in federal court and on appeal.

 

[thetrailboss]

Unlike European resorts it will be crap because most of the time you'll be traveling horizontally. Back east, for example think of how much the slidebrook chair adds to Sugarbush. Really it adds nothing. Each of the mountains are better to be skied for a full day.

I know both little and big cottonwood canyons are overcrowded. However the solution should be improving the existing access to the resorts. Example, replacing the bus service with a metro line in each canyon (with a stop at Snowbird and then Alta) would be a more effective way to get people to the resorts faster (and it could run on days that require snow-chains).

However, this is Utah. Rather than improving public transit, they want to solve the problem by privatizing it. They want ski lifts (private transportation) to get people between resorts. But what about those that do the backcountry? Will they be able to take the transfer lifts?? What about those that hike? Can they go between canyons?

Basically, the solution to traffic/ski area overcrowding is public transit in both of the Canyons. But it's Utah so I'm not going to hold my breath for them to invest in anything.

As to the One Wasatch, that is largely a marketing thing. It is meant to compete with neighboring Colorado. 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.

Their angle of making it a transportation solution is to gain support and to market the idea. You are right that Utah has a serious problem with its predominant public transportation system (UTA) which since its creation has only been an excuse for people to get on its board and self-deal, help their friends, etc. The overall amount of corruption and obvious conflicts of interest in this State that go unchecked is excessive. But One Wasatch is something that the resorts have dreamt up and not the State per se.

LCC and BCC have long had transportation issues. Unfortunately, the idea of a rail system is extremely cost prohibitive. It has been considered many times before. UDOT and other entities are trying to "figure out" what to do, but it will likely mean more busses.

 

[raisingarizona]

Why would you be traveling horizontally all day? Again, this makes zero sense just like the “you can’t ski it all in one day” argument. Why would you need to go to each hill in a day to make the interconnect valuable. You lack vision.

I’d love to ski Alta and snowbird for two days, head over to Solitude for the second night, ski half day at solitude and half day at Brighton with a sunset run into Park City and stay there for a few days. That sort of experience sounds super cool to me. Especially the part where I don’t get into a car for 5 days straight!

I’m with you guys on snowboarding bans, that’s super lame.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Why would you be traveling horizontally all day? Again, this makes zero sense just like the “you can’t ski it all in one day” argument. Why would you need to go to each hill in a day to make the interconnect valuable. You lack vision.

I'd reply to his post, but I'd just be repeating what you wrote above.

Only thing I'll add is that I think the Slidebrook Express at Sugarbush is cool, helpfu,l & convenient, and not a "not value added" lift.

 

[Zermatt]

It's not just the eco-extremist against ONE Wasatch. I don't really like the idea of the resorts getting connected. Each resort has it's own character and charm. You lose that when you combine them.

Just like I don't want Pico and Killington ever connected, I wouldn't want Alta connected to anything near Park City.

Utah must be jealous that everyone wants to move to Colorado instead, and are thinking that creating a mega resort will solve this.

Outside looking in, it's really obvious why Colorado is superior to Utah. Yeah, Utah gets more snow...blah blah blah. But Colorado has somehow managed to balance economic growth, tourism, and the environment too. You don't need to pick one or the other. You can do economic development sustainably but Utah doesn't care.

Don't ever go to Europe then. No character at all.

Even mega resorts like Zermatt are the result of several ski areas combining into one.

Agreed that Colorado is superior to UT for tourism, the snow is not as deep but the resorts are far better.