VAIL SUCKS

[thebigo]

Just took a look through my gallery. First day in the trees was jan 17 at ragged, last ragged day in the trees was March 5 with a bunch of good days in between. Jan 29 and Feb 26 standout as excellent tree days. A very typical season for southern NH.

The idea that this was a lousy weather season in NH is pure BS. The season was average to slightly above average, with a great run from MLK through late Feb. April was all time.

 

[ss20]

The town of Park City seems to have won!

Park City Lift Projects Blocked

The Park City Planning Commission voted 3-1 tonight to grant an appeal of two approved lift projects at Park City Mountain. First announced in September 2021, the new Eagle six pack would have feat…

liftblog.com

The Park City Planning Commission voted 3-1 tonight to grant an appeal of two approved lift projects at Park City Mountain. First announced in September 2021, the new Eagle six pack would have featured a mid-unloading station and a new Silverlode lift would have become the first eight place lift constructed by Vail Resorts. Both detachables were set to be built by Doppelmayr and Silverlode was slated to be a D-Line model. The projects were part of the Epic Lift Upgrade, a 21 lift initiative across Vail Resorts.

Love to see Vail not get their way but this is a large can of worms that's being opened... hopefully the NIMBY crowd actually lets them put in more lifts and upgrade the resort once Vail has resolved the existing issues with the town (parking, traffic, employee housing, etc).

 

[cdskier]

I don't know enough about the specifics of this Park City issue itself and agree about some mixed feelings from a general perspective. I like Vail not getting their way all the time. Perhaps it will teach them that they need to be better community partners. But at the same time, it isn't good that a small handful of people (seemingly) can stop a lift replacement project. Whether the concerns are genuinely justified or not I don't know in this specific case.

 

[ss20]

I don't know enough about the specifics of this Park City issue itself and agree about some mixed feelings from a general perspective. I like Vail not getting their way all the time. Perhaps it will teach them that they need to be better community partners. But at the same time, it isn't good that a small handful of people (seemingly) can stop a lift replacement project. Whether the concerns are genuinely justified or not I don't know in this specific case.

1000% agree. Like you said, a few people should not be able to stop a lift project on their own. Kinda like the guy who lives near Stowe who does not want them building the 6 pack cites the buzzing power lines near his house as a "concern".

But like Stowe, the town of Park City wants Vail to at least help resolve the issues that come when your skier visits are significantly higher than pre-Vail days and are impacting the locals negatively on a daily basis.

 

[thetrailboss]

Uh oh…..

Park City Lift Projects Blocked

The Park City Planning Commission voted 3-1 tonight to grant an appeal of two approved lift projects at Park City Mountain. First announced in September 2021, the new Eagle six pack would have feat…

liftblog.com

 

[drjeff]

Uh oh…..

Park City Lift Projects Blocked

The Park City Planning Commission voted 3-1 tonight to grant an appeal of two approved lift projects at Park City Mountain. First announced in September 2021, the new Eagle six pack would have feat…

liftblog.com

Don't most boards of this type have an odd number of members on them to prevent the possibility of a tie vote? (Not that this was atie vote) Seems weird to me to have a voting board with an even number. Heck I know that some boards that I have sat on over the years would defer any voting business if we had an even number of members present and had met the threshold for a quorum to conduct official busness.

And regardless of how one feels about Vail resorts, the growing trend to stifle ski area upgrades, should really raise concern among us skiing/riding enthusiasts, especially given how many resorts do have aging infrastucture, and the fact that it does seem like the sport is trying to grow a bit. Most new expansions seeme to ultimately be a permitting issue with the US Forest service, whereas many a lift replacement seems to have more oversight by local planning and zoning boards.

 

[thetrailboss]

Don't most boards of this type have an odd number of members on them to prevent the possibility of a tie vote? (Not that this was atie vote) Seems weird to me to have a voting board with an even number. Heck I know that some boards that I have sat on over the years would defer any voting business if we had an even number of members present and had met the threshold for a quorum to conduct official busness.

And regardless of how one feels about Vail resorts, the growing trend to stifle ski area upgrades, should really raise concern among us skiing/riding enthusiasts, especially given how many resorts do have aging infrastucture, and the fact that it does seem like the sport is trying to grow a bit. Most new expansions seeme to ultimately be a permitting issue with the US Forest service, whereas many a lift replacement seems to have more oversight by local planning and zoning boards.

There are still some details to come out of this. I believe that PCMR and PC had an agreement regarding capacity and parking and this went against it. Anyone who has been to Park City lately knows that traffic, and parking, have been horrendous.

 

[drjeff]

There are still some details to come out of this. I believe that PCMR and PC had an agreement regarding capacity and parking and this went against it. Anyone who has been to Park City lately knows that traffic, and parking, have been horrendous.

Isn't the reality that short of building a multi story parking garage on the existing park lot near the base of Park City (and I am gussing the NIMBY crowd would loathe that for view reasons at a minimum), that unless you start talking extensive off site parking and shuttle use or sometime of tranfer lift from a non immediate base area parking lot to the lifts (such as what they have on the Canyons side), that there really isn't much that can be done without DRASTIC changes.

And if I am not mistaken based on what I read online recently and recollection from my past Utah ski trips, isn't parking an issue with most of the ski resorts in the greater SLC area? And yet many potential solutions to the parking problems are often met with NIMBY resistance? The balance between the financial benefts that the ski resort tourism brings so many communities and the desire of many locals to seemingly want to have their own private club like setting, but not have to pay big $$ for that type of experience, really seems to be at a crossroads. And how it all plays out will be interesting to see in the coming years.....

 

[2Planker]

The performance of Wildcat, specifically, was outrageously bad this year. It was one notch above just closing the fucking mountain permanently. That the GM still has a job indicates that he just wasn’t given proper capital to run the mountain I guess, I don’t know. Is that why the same GM still has a job?

They couldn’t run a single bar at any point during the season? Gunstock ran two on weekdays.

Fact - Saw the WC GM interviewing at 2 places.
The writing must be on the wall...

 

[crystalmountainskier]

Don't most boards of this type have an odd number of members on them to prevent the possibility of a tie vote? (Not that this was atie vote) Seems weird to me to have a voting board with an even number. Heck I know that some boards that I have sat on over the years would defer any voting business if we had an even number of members present and had met the threshold for a quorum to conduct official busness.

There are actually 6 - 1 abstained and 1 was absent.

 

[drjeff]

There are actually 6 - 1 abstained and 1 was absent.

Thanks for the info. The even number I still find a interesting thing.

I wonder if the abstention had a conflict of interest or just didn't want to go on record fo fear that folks would get on their case about how they voted? Since it's not like with 1 member of the board not present at that meeting the abstention wouldn't of made a difference in the outcome at all

 

[thetrailboss]

Isn't the reality that short of building a multi story parking garage on the existing park lot near the base of Park City (and I am gussing the NIMBY crowd would loathe that for view reasons at a minimum), that unless you start talking extensive off site parking and shuttle use or sometime of tranfer lift from a non immediate base area parking lot to the lifts (such as what they have on the Canyons side), that there really isn't much that can be done without DRASTIC changes.

Newsflash: they already have off-site parking and shuttle services. Those are all but maxed out. Just like IKON, EPIC leads to crowding. That's the business model. PCMR can't handle anymore.

And if I am not mistaken based on what I read online recently and recollection from my past Utah ski trips, isn't parking an issue with most of the ski resorts in the greater SLC area?

In the last four years with EPIC, IKON, and population growth, yes.

And yet many potential solutions to the parking problems are often met with NIMBY resistance?

No. Not yet at least. There have been no solutions. Only Alterra and Vail denying that there is a problem.

That said, things are slowly and quietly changing. The tune is now changing. Alterra is charging for parking at Solitude and limiting Deer Valley (no more IKON base). Vail is charging for parking at PCMR starting this fall. The opposition is not NIMBY as much as it is people angry about now paying for parking.

We are still awaiting UDOT's decision on LCC.

As to this case, I think merely labeling this as a NIMBY thing is not telling the whole story. Again, PCMR apparently had a legal agreement with the City for many years that it would not expand capacity without addressing parking. The issue is if increasing lift capacity on existing lifts requires adding parking.

The balance between the financial benefts that the ski resort tourism brings so many communities and the desire of many locals to seemingly want to have their own private club like setting, but not have to pay big $$ for that type of experience, really seems to be at a crossroads. And how it all plays out will be interesting to see in the coming years.....

Well, maybe in some places. But in a lot of places you are seeing lots of haves and lots of have nots. Tourism jobs are not well-paying. Is it better than nothing? Sure.

What you said used to be true, but with the business model change to a discount multi-mountain season pass product, your argument is no longer really the case.

 

[thetrailboss]

More information.

Park City Mountain Lift Upgrades Blocked

SAM Magazine—Park City, Utah, June 16, 2022—The Park City Planning Commission granted an appeal of a previous decision to approve two Park City Mountain (P

www.saminfo.com

 

[machski]

This move could be anti-Vail by the commission (and a warning shot to Alterra as well) but IMHO sets an ominous precedent in terms of municipal boards and resort investments. We are not talking about new terrain with these halted projects, simply lift replacements. Yes, they are upgrades in the case of Silverload with a bit more capacity but the other project replaces two existing lifts with a single lift (yes, again a bit of an overall caacity increase). Between the Cottonwood issues and seeming roadblocks by various groups towards trying to improve access up those and now this, I would say destination skiers are going to start taking notice. Trailboss, maybe you will see reduced visitation and crowding out there soon.

 

[deadheadskier]

I'm not sure I agree with the phrase "ominous precedent'. To be honest, I'm quite surprised there isn't more Nimbyism in resort areas. I think we visitors to these places overvalue the cost / benefit of tourism to local economies / people.

Outside of a handful of management positions, professional services jobs and small business owners, very few workers in these areas have good jobs and reap much of a financial reward from the local ski area, beach resort, casino etc. The development in tourist areas has completely pushed a huge percentage of the working class out of town. It's all second home owners and retirees now. Some remote working families too, but it's limited.

I have several friends who are from multigenerational families in Stowe who carry massive resentment towards the ski area. They have been completely priced out of town and don't even like to spend any time in town anymore because of all the traffic.

Tourism really is one of the more exploitive industries. So I don't really have a problem with the town of Park City essentially capping efforts by Vail to drive more business until they invest heavily in things that really benefit the town first and foremost.

 

[cdskier]

This move could be anti-Vail by the commission (and a warning shot to Alterra as well) but IMHO sets an ominous precedent in terms of municipal boards and resort investments. We are not talking about new terrain with these halted projects, simply lift replacements. Yes, they are upgrades in the case of Silverload with a bit more capacity but the other project replaces two existing lifts with a single lift (yes, again a bit of an overall caacity increase). Between the Cottonwood issues and seeming roadblocks by various groups towards trying to improve access up those and now this, I would say destination skiers are going to start taking notice. Trailboss, maybe you will see reduced visitation and crowding out there soon.

One thing to add though...how many resorts other than Park City have actual agreements with towns regarding caps and limits on their comfortable carrying capacity? That agreement is what appears to be the major sticking point here where the people appealing were arguing they were not abiding by that agreement. If it wasn't for that agreement, I don't know that the board would have really had any actual grounds to stop this particular project.

 

[thebigo]

Dont know if this has been mentioned here but the crystal pass with parking and Ikon is $4099 plus tax. Good organizations create value and charge for it.

 

[deadheadskier]

I'm all for paying a premium price for a premium product, but I have my limits. I couldn't see myself paying that much for one pass plus parking.
Western Washington seems to need more ski areas in a big way.

 

[SenorQuesadilla]

Looks to me like they're essentially charging 2k for premier parking. You can get an unlimited no blackout crystal pass which includes parking for $1,799 or for $300 more you can include a full Ikon with it.

This is, however, the only way to avoid having to make parking reservations on weekends and holidays.

 

[machski]

One thing to add though...how many resorts other than Park City have actual agreements with towns regarding caps and limits on their comfortable carrying capacity? That agreement is what appears to be the major sticking point here where the people appealing were arguing they were not abiding by that agreement. If it wasn't for that agreement, I don't know that the board would have really had any actual grounds to stop this particular project.

True. But that is part of this rub, isn't it? The board had previously APPROVED Vail's lift upgrades even with that agreement in place. 4 individuals were able to basically swing the board to reconsider and then yank their previous approval. Now, for all I know, the board now and the board that approved had been changed out to some extent in elections. Still, Vail is falling prey to multiple municipalities granting different projects in different regions the approval and then yanking it just prior to shovels meeting dirt. Sorry if I see a bad precedent (s) forming here.

DHS, I'm curious how your Stowe friends saw or felt about the resort back in the single chair days. How about when the original Forerunner went in during that era of the resort. Yes, it stinks that resort towns continue to get more and more expensive. But then we all want the sport to grow in popularity. The reality is if wealthy folks enjoy the sport, they have the means to buy into second, third, etc homes to enjoy it more. It certainly isn't directly the resort company's fault if they buy single family homes outside of the resort's immediate offerings. I would actually say it is the town governance's fault for not tightening zoning ordinances, etc as the area develops. Maybe that's just me.