Epic and Iconic One Wasatch transit plans revealed

[raisingarizona]

It looks like the report is based solely on released toxins in 2016?

I don't think that's enough information to really know how toxic a state is. Colorado may not be nearly as active as Utah right now with mining but there are plenty of old abandoned mines all over the state that are most likely still very toxic. I know southern Utah has all kinds of toxic sites from all of the uranium mining that went on in the 50's/60's. They are still trying to clean up those messes.

Just don't move next to a superfund site and you should be fine. We are all gonna die regardless. I'd rather live where I want to be doing the things I love. As far as money goes, I get it, it's a necessary evil but you ain't taking it with you.

 

[mbedle]

Just to be clear, the EPA TRI tracks total onsite & offsite disposal and releases from certain industrial activities (i.e., Petro refining, chemical production, mining operations, petroleum refining, etc.) that deal with a specific list of chemical compounds (metals, petroleum compounds, cancer causes chemicals, etc.). It does not track superfund sites (and the chemicals that were released at them), accidental environmental releases, or abandon mine discharges, etc. It is also not a good indicator of general environmental quality for a specific state, nor was it intended to be for that purpose (Forbes just presented it that way). For example, a state that has a large amount of active mining for metals is going to show up very high on the TRI list. That explains why places like Nevada, Alaska and Utah are all high on the list.

 

[raisingarizona]

Just to be clear, the EPA TRI tracks total onsite & offsite disposal and releases from certain industrial activities (i.e., Petro refining, chemical production, mining operations, petroleum refining, etc.) that deal with a specific list of chemical compounds (metals, petroleum compounds, cancer causes chemicals, etc.). It does not track superfund sites (and the chemicals that were released at them), accidental environmental releases, or abandon mine discharges, etc. It is also not a good indicator of general environmental quality for a specific state, nor was it intended to be for that purpose (Forbes just presented it that way). For example, a state that has a large amount of active mining for metals is going to show up very high on the TRI list. That explains why places like Nevada, Alaska and Utah are all high on the list.

Exactly what I was thinking too. Thanks for explaining further and better than I can articulate!

 

[mbedle]

I do environmental cleanup work, so the BS just kind of flows out of mouth... LOL

 

[thetrailboss]

https://unofficialnetworks.com/2019...ZWZVwcKzrnWlzwHy_OJtgDmvXZHaBvfz2Ul6LreP5KMBI

 

[thetrailboss]

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/letters/2019/04/06/letter-ski-passes-ruin/


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[asnowmobiler]

Typical fake news, that fails to mention any facts to back up “Their Opinion”

 

[thetrailboss]

Typical fake news, that fails to mention any facts to back up “Their Opinion”

Well, it is a letter to the editor....so it is opinion.

And spent the weekend in Aspen Snowmass. All the folks I spoke to that worked at the resorts said that this year was REALLY busy. And it is not because it snowed...it's because of a certain new pass product. Seeing that Alterra, and most of their partner resorts, are privately owned, there will likely not be any hard data made public. I wonder if things will quiet down next season when the novelty wears off.

I-70 was busy, but not too bad tonight.

 

[asnowmobiler]

I didn’t Realize it was just a letter but it still lacks facts. That being said, I’m sure the passes had something to do with the larger crowds but I also think the great conditions had more to do with it . IMO ��

 

[cdskier]

I didn’t Realize it was just a letter but it still lacks facts. That being said, I’m sure the passes had something to do with the larger crowds but I also think the great conditions had more to do with it . IMO ��

Precisely why more than 1 year of data is needed to really know...

Overall I'm quite interested to see skier visits nationally this year once those numbers are available as well. Based on all the anecdotal talk of how crowded it is everywhere, we should be seeing some good numbers one would think...

 

[BenedictGomez]

I didn’t Realize it was just a letter but it still lacks facts. That being said, I’m sure the passes had something to do with the larger crowds but I also think the great conditions had more to do with it . IMO ��

Deer Valley pegged it at 12%; that's pretty significant.

I wouldn't be surprised if end-of-year it's even more, as I skied there two days last week & saw plenty of IKON folks, including the type that are not beneficial for Deer Valley, like having intentionally loud "look at me" parking lot parties while drinking PBR (of course) & literally carrying on-and-on about how Deer Valley sucks & they're only there because it's "free" skiing, while making fun of "Deer Valley skiers" too.

 

[BenedictGomez]

My belief is there are 3 specific reasons leading to the increased numbers (listed in order of significance):

1) Great snow year across America
2) Great national economy
3) Great number of people buying EPIC & IKON passes (~925,000 & ~240,000), at roughly 1.2M sales combined.

 

[thetrailboss]

Precisely why more than 1 year of data is needed to really know...

Overall I'm quite interested to see skier visits nationally this year once those numbers are available as well. Based on all the anecdotal talk of how crowded it is everywhere, we should be seeing some good numbers one would think...

I doubt Alterra will release any “data”, but I agree that we’ve got to see what happens next year.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[cdskier]

I doubt Alterra will release any “data”, but I agree that we’ve got to see what happens next year.

We don't need "data" from Alterra themselves though.

Individual partner mountains at least are already releasing data (x% of our visits this year are from Ikon, etc). The tricky part though is that just because say 10% of your visits are from Ikon, that doesn't mean all of those visits wouldn't have existed pre-Ikon. Sure, some are definitely from people that wouldn't have been there without Ikon, but others are from people that used to visit anyway but via different methods (i.e. day tickets or other deals).

But anyway, even anecdotal "how crowded my mountain seems" data will be useful to compare over multiple years.

When multiple variables change in 1 year, it is hard to point to 1 single one of those variables as the cause of increased crowding (even though that's exactly what all the anti-Ikon locals are trying to do). I think BG is right in the 3 factors he pointed out as contributing to crowding. When resorts are point blank saying that season passholder visits are up significantly as well, it becomes very hard to blame it purely on Ikon. Ikon absolutely adds to it, but I don't believe quite as much as some people are trying to convince us it is.

I also find the argument from some locals about Ikon passholders skiing for "free" at their resort pretty ironic. If a local skis enough, their per day revenue to the mountain from the lift ticket could easily be far less than what the mountain is getting per Ikon ticket scan.

 

[abc]

When resorts are point blank saying that season passholder visits are up significantly as well, it becomes very hard to blame it purely on Ikon.

Actually, it's pretty easy to do a quick analysis on passholder from 2 years to see the "increase visit" from pass holders.

The rest of the increase are from point 2) and 3).

 

[thetrailboss]

We don't need "data" from Alterra themselves though.

Individual partner mountains at least are already releasing data (x% of our visits this year are from Ikon, etc). The tricky part though is that just because say 10% of your visits are from Ikon, that doesn't mean all of those visits wouldn't have existed pre-Ikon. Sure, some are definitely from people that wouldn't have been there without Ikon, but others are from people that used to visit anyway but via different methods (i.e. day tickets or other deals).

We have had some limited information, and in the coming months there will be state ski area associations reporting skier/rider days, but generally resorts don't release financial or skier day totals.

When multiple variables change in 1 year, it is hard to point to 1 single one of those variables as the cause of increased crowding (even though that's exactly what all the anti-Ikon locals are trying to do). I think BG is right in the 3 factors he pointed out as contributing to crowding. When resorts are point blank saying that season passholder visits are up significantly as well, it becomes very hard to blame it purely on Ikon. Ikon absolutely adds to it, but I don't believe quite as much as some people are trying to convince us it is.

I agree that those are indeed factors. I think seeing how another year goes will be interesting. I read in the Forbes (I think?) article that was posted here that Alterra asked partner resorts to commit to at least two years. Hence why nobody is all of the sudden backing out.

I also find the argument from some locals about Ikon passholders skiing for "free" at their resort pretty ironic. If a local skis enough, their per day revenue to the mountain from the lift ticket could easily be far less than what the mountain is getting per Ikon ticket scan.

That's not correct. At Alta, for example, they get at least $999 for every adult passholder. Nobody has any idea what Alterra is paying them for Ikon days. It is less than $100 a day though, so a ridiculous maximum number would be no more than $700.00 per skier. At last check $999 is more than $700. Granted, I understand what you are saying about the "per day" cost, but a very small number of folks ski more than 20 or so days in a season.

And, at least from what I have heard from those at the resorts, Ikon folks are not buying more food, drink, goods to offset the lost revenue.

But the question is if those skiers would have come in the first place. Maybe?

In full disclosure: my wife just bought a full Ikon pass to replace her Alta pass. She has skied 13 days this season at a group of resorts...that are all covered by Ikon. So it makes complete sense for her. I will be staying at Snowbird (at least).

 

[cdskier]

That's not correct. At Alta, for example, they get at least $999 for every adult passholder. Nobody has any idea what Alterra is paying them for Ikon days. It is less than $100 a day though. And, at least from what I have heard from those at the resorts, Ikon folks are not buying more food, drink, goods to offset the lost revenue.

I'm referring to PER DAY revenue. If I'm a passholder and ski 20 days, per day revenue is $50. Ski 50 days and it is down to $20. That's what I meant by "If a local skis enough". I agree Alterra is definitely giving less than $100 a day. But my argument was that even if Alterra gives $20, that's still the same PER DAY revenue as a passholder that skis a lot of days. So you can't argue that Ikon skiers are skiing for "free" if you're not saying the same about passholders once they hit a certain number of days.

 

[thetrailboss]

I'm referring to PER DAY revenue. If I'm a passholder and ski 20 days, per day revenue is $50. Ski 50 days and it is down to $20. That's what I meant by "If a local skis enough". I agree Alterra is definitely giving less than $100 a day. But my argument was that even if Alterra gives $20, that's still the same PER DAY revenue as a passholder that skis a lot of days. So you can't argue that Ikon skiers are skiing for "free" if you're not saying the same about passholders once they hit a certain number of days.

Right. I acknowledged that. And I have never said that Ikon folks ski for free. My questions have always been, (1) how much revenue the resort gets per Ikon day, and (2) are Ikon skiers and riders buying enough other goods, food, services to make up for the discount in revenue?

But at the end of the day the resort is getting at the very least, and most likely a lot more, from the passholder who commits to their mountain. I'm factoring in food, lessons, souvenirs, etc.

And how many passholders do you honestly know that ski 50 days at one mountain? Not too many.

 

[thetrailboss]

And none of us know how much Alterra pays each resort for a day for their Ikon passholders. I HIGHLY doubt it is $50 or more. That's in large part because a lot of the Alterra resorts provide reciprocal discounts for the partner resorts (e.g. I just skied at Aspen/Snowmass for half-off using my Alta/Bird season pass.)

 

[slatham]

Food for thought - is the amount paid by Epic/Ikon to a participating resort a FIXED amount per visit, or does it vary based on how much an individual skier has used from their pass? For example, someone pays $700 for a pass. They ski only 7 days. You therefore have $100/day to "distribute". While I doubt they actually pay out the full $100, I do wonder if they increase the payout for the 7 day/year guy vs. someone who skies 30 days. There is only $700 to distribute. Otherwise EPIC/Ikon have to take the risk that their "modeling" of the number of days the average pass holder skis is accurate. If wrong, then EPIC/Ikon could lose money. And I bet its easier to create a payout model passed on pass usage then it is to model the number of days the average pass holder skis. Of course, this would delay payment to the end of the season, to the benefit of EPIC/Ikon. Just wondering.

Also, I will again state my view that I think the real issue with EPIC/Ikon is Saturday's (and Holiday's). I predict some form of limitation coming on pass usage on Saturdays (and more restrictions on Holiday's).