Let's see if this has any legs!

[deadheadskier]

I'd be fine with capping tickets at MRG even if it remained skiers only.

That's a good idea.

Like I said, 100% against snowboarding bans anywhere

 

[steamboat1]

Deer Valley, another mountain that bans snowboarding, has had a cap on lift ticket sales for years. How often they reach that cap I've no idea.

 

[thetrailboss]

Deer Valley, another mountain that bans snowboarding, has had a cap on lift ticket sales for years. How often they reach that cap I've no idea.

A handful of times each season on predictable days--Christmas Week, MLK, President's Week, and Sundance.

 

[ThinkSnow]

Mad River Glen lacks access to water, that's why their snow making is as limited as it is.

MRG does not lack access to water any more than Sugarbush does. It is part of the Mad River Valley after all ("river"). Its a choice. Granted, it may be in part due to cost of permitting and installation, but its not like they're jacking up lift ticket prices to help supplement snowmaking. It's just not a priority.

Mad River Glen has limited parking & doesn't own any land to expand parking. There's no room for the masses. As it is people park on the side of the road up & down from the parking area on busy days often necessitating quite a hike to the ski area.

Sugarbush recently purchased the property of the old Warren House to expand their parking. In theory, MRG could do the same if adjacent properties came on the market. Again its all about choices. Obviously MRG shareholders are not concerned about the extra revenue from Snowboarders which could possibly help fund better snowmaking and or parking facilities. I agree with VTK in saying their's is not a mass-market product. MRG knows theirs is a devoted, niche-market, and therefore caters to it alone.

 

[cdskier]

MRG does not lack access to water any more than Sugarbush does. It is part of the Mad River Valley after all ("river"). Its a choice. Granted, it may be in part due to cost of permitting and installation, but its not like they're jacking up lift ticket prices to help supplement snowmaking. It's just not a priority.

I thought just within the past year or 2 I was watching a presentation from the MRG board on the local MRV tv channel where they did identify water capacity as a major roadblock to snowmaking expansion in that they said they really didn't have a place to build an adequate retention pond. You can't just pull water directly from the Mad River at a rate high enough to sustain significantly expanded snowmaking.

And as I was writing this I looked at MRG's website and found the snowmaking expansion report that I was thinking of: http://www.madriverglen.coop/images/resources/Snowmaking_Future_at_MRG.pdf

On the 2nd to the last slide one of the major items that would be needed in order for MRG to decide to expand snowmaking is "Significant donation of land or water rights to provide adequate Phase II + water supply".

 

[Hawkshot99]

MRG does not lack access to water any more than Sugarbush does. It is part of the Mad River Valley after all ("river"). Its a choice. Granted, it may be in part due to cost of permitting and installation, but its not like they're jacking up lift ticket prices to help supplement snowmaking.

....

On the 2nd to the last slide one of the major items that would be needed in order for MRG to decide to expand snowmaking is "Significant donation of land or water rights to provide adequate Phase II + water supply".

For 14-15' lift tickets comparing Sugarbush and MRG, weekend window tickets...

MRG- $75
Sugarbush- $84

Now MRG doesnt have the expense of snowmaking, or grooming, or a infrastructure, or new lifts. Yet thy require people to donate land and water rights to them. What are they doing with all the $ they take in and don't spend to improve the skiing experience?

 

[mbedle]

You need to keep in mind that the number of skier visits at MRG is considerably less than a place like Sugarbush. I would second to guess that MRG pulls in about 75K ski visits per year, compared to close to 500K at SB. I also got to believe that a large majority of MRG ski visits are tied to season passes.

 

[steamboat1]

For 14-15' lift tickets comparing Sugarbush and MRG, weekend window tickets...

MRG- $75
Sugarbush- $84

Now MRG doesnt have the expense of snowmaking, or grooming, or a infrastructure, or new lifts. Yet thy require people to donate land and water rights to them. What are they doing with all the $ they take in and don't spend to improve the skiing experience?

Pretty sure the weekend window rate at Sugarbush was $92 last year. Despite rumors to the contrary MRG does groom. Both the single chair & Sunnyside double chair are fairly new lifts.

 

[MadMadWorld]

MRG lacks the capacity to store the water needed for a larger snowmaking system. They have one very small holding tank and that is it. Like Steamboat1 said, it's not the water that is the issue. The problem is there is nowhere to put it. So basically they would need to find land to put the tanks on or constantly truck water up to fill the small pond that they do have. Not very efficient from a cost or snowmaking perspective.

 

[thetrailboss]

Pretty sure the weekend window rate at Sugarbush was $92 last year. Despite rumors to the contrary MRG does groom. Both the single chair & Sunnyside double chair are fairly new lifts.

+1. The costs of just keeping the place going are significant. They also are trying to keep it debt free in order to sustain it.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[steamboat1]

They also are trying to keep it debt free in order to sustain it.

Wish someone in Washington would do that, not to even mention the state & city level..

 

[darent]

They won't be let on the lift. That's all. The boundary between Alta and Snowbird near Baldy Express/East Baldy Traverse has a manned checkpoint with an RFID gate. However, the other entries on the ridge are not manned. See the red arrows below along Baldy and the ridge below it on far right:

not really true all the time, last time I skied alta two snowboarders came over the ridge, skied down to the lift and the lifties let them on and they went back over the ridge to snowbird. the forbidden fruit!!

 

[cdskier]

You need to keep in mind that the number of skier visits at MRG is considerably less than a place like Sugarbush. I would second to guess that MRG pulls in about 75K ski visits per year, compared to close to 500K at SB. I also got to believe that a large majority of MRG ski visits are tied to season passes.

I'm also sure that SB generates a significant amount of revenue from items other than lift tickets (i.e. real estate rentals at Claybrook, the SB Inn, F&B, etc).

 

[Smellytele]

MRG lacks the capacity to store the water needed for a larger snowmaking system. They have one very small holding tank and that is it. Like Steamboat1 said, it's not the water that is the issue. The problem is there is nowhere to put it. So basically they would need to find land to put the tanks on or constantly truck water up to fill the small pond that they do have. Not very efficient from a cost or snowmaking perspective.

Put in a cistern under the parking lot across the street.

 

[thetrailboss]

Bump

http://fox13now.com/2015/10/05/the-...l-hear-arguments-over-altas-snowboarding-ban/

This is still going. Ugh.

 

[jimmywilson69]

what a waste of my tax dollars...

 

[tumbler]

Since this is a Federal case would it apply to Deer Valley and MRG? STOOPID

 

[mbedle]

As a snowboarder, I can honestly say that this is stupid and a waste of time and money. Who in their right mind, even if they win, would want to board at a place that doesn't want you there. I can't even imagine the cat-calls you would get from everyone else on the mountain.

 

[deadheadskier]

I haven't heard that to be the case in Taos.

 

[Cornhead]

I haven't heard that to be the case in Taos.

It's not, the regulars are alot more upset about the new Kachina lift and the loss of long lasting hike to terrain to side slipping Texas skiers than they are the inclusion of boarders. I, as an infrequent visitor, did appreciate the easy access however.

I've skied there once before the ban was lifted, twice since, I noticed no difference at all. The Kachina lift wasn't there the first two visits. I didn't hike it, but I did ask someone popping out how long it took to do so. He told me 45 min, I asked him if it was worth it, he just said, "That was some f'n awesome powder!".