Vote for Utah ski bus

[raisingarizona]

Or maybe some thinking down the road if SLC gets awarded another Winter Olympics.... We'll let you lease the land for the gondola base terminal, if inturn we (Snowbird) gets to host the premiere Alpine Speed events for the games, like they were originally supposed to do for the 2002 games before various environmental groups put forth enough legal challenges that the organizing committee made the choice to move the speed events to Snowbasin, which without a doubt was a GREAT thing for Snowbasin and made them a resort people want to go to with all of the infrastrcuture that was put in for the games.

It's probably a little bit of all of these things. I can't hate on a business that makes good decisions for themselves and others.

 

[jimk]

I wonder if they bought the 5 acres for a future employee parking lot?

 

[ss20]

I wonder if they bought the 5 acres for a future employee parking lot?

Probably not needed, lot of their guys take the ski bus (as it adds almost no time compared to a car) and they run a more extensive employee shuttle service than Alta, from what I've seen.

 

[ss20]

Is it a shady self serving move or a conservation effort to help alleviate pressures on the Canyon and positive visitor experience?

Personally it doesn't bother me at all and the article could be written in different ways depending on the journalists opinions or goals for reader reaction.

Eh.... Snowbird owning that land ensures that should a gondola be approved that's one less parcel that the state will really have to fight to have the rights of. But yeah, Snowbird can totally lease/sell that land for a big profit once the time comes. I don't think it's super shady but they're not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts either lol.

 

[thetrailboss]

Or maybe some thinking down the road if SLC gets awarded another Winter Olympics.... We'll let you lease the land for the gondola base terminal, if inturn we (Snowbird) gets to host the premiere Alpine Speed events for the games, like they were originally supposed to do for the 2002 games before various environmental groups put forth enough legal challenges that the organizing committee made the choice to move the speed events to Snowbasin, which without a doubt was a GREAT thing for Snowbasin and made them a resort people want to go to with all of the infrastrcuture that was put in for the games.

So have you skied Snowbasin? Sure, Earl Holding put in new lifts and built some nice lodges, but in terms of "infrastructure" there is not much. No hotels, no places to stay, limited restaurants. Was it better than before? Of course.

And business obviously increased, but it is way less crowded than LCC/BCC/Park City.

 

[thetrailboss]

Eh.... Snowbird owning that land ensures that should a gondola be approved that's one less parcel that the state will really have to fight to have the rights of. But yeah, Snowbird can totally lease/sell that land for a big profit once the time comes. I don't think it's super shady but they're not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts either lol.

Not exactly. CW owned it and were getting lots of flack because its two owners were politically connected to the decisionmakers. Of course McCandless was relentless in (self-) promoting. So John Cumming creates an LLC to buy the land and was not smart enough to use a different address to conceal that he actually owned it. No doubt the deal was to calm the claims that CW was looking to make $$$ off this. But Snowbird, and POWDR, aren't exactly loved by locals either.....

And I don't buy McCandless' claims that he "won't" change the zoning of the adjacent lots CW still owns. If he does not change the zoning than he will just sell very expensive single-family homes.

 

[ss20]

Or maybe some thinking down the road if SLC gets awarded another Winter Olympics.... We'll let you lease the land for the gondola base terminal, if inturn we (Snowbird) gets to host the premiere Alpine Speed events for the games, like they were originally supposed to do for the 2002 games before various environmental groups put forth enough legal challenges that the organizing committee made the choice to move the speed events to Snowbasin, which without a doubt was a GREAT thing for Snowbasin and made them a resort people want to go to with all of the infrastrcuture that was put in for the games.

Snowbird hosting any events would be a logistical nightmare. Not saying it couldn't be done, but all the spectators would certainly have to shuttle bus their way up the canyon. Doable but there's minute details like the driver shortage, equipping additional busses with snow chains, adding additional pick-up points all over the valley, dropping them off at Snowbird which lacks a proper bus/transit area. I also think about the weeks of heavy trucks and machinery that would have to go up/down the canyon on either side of the event to get the grandstands/suites/support structures put up and taken down.

 

[raisingarizona]

Eh.... Snowbird owning that land ensures that should a gondola be approved that's one less parcel that the state will really have to fight to have the rights of. But yeah, Snowbird can totally lease/sell that land for a big profit once the time comes. I don't think it's super shady but they're not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts either lol.

Well running a business isn't some sort of altruistic endeavor anyways.

 

[thetrailboss]

FWIW I think that the bigger concern with the Olympics at Snowbird is the road itself and avalanches. It's the only way in and out. In an emergency, access could be an issue.

 

[thetrailboss]

Well running a business isn't some sort of altruistic endeavor anyways.

Of course. But Snowbird is asking for Utah taxpayers to pay $500 million to $1 billion to install a Gondola to benefit its business. The LCC traffic problem is at least in part because Snowbird decided to join IKON and that increased traffic. They are asking us to subsidize their business decisions.

 

[ss20]

Of course. But Snowbird is asking for Utah taxpayers to pay $500 million to $1 billion to install a Gondola to benefit its business. The LCC traffic problem is at least in part because Snowbird decided to join IKON and that increased traffic. They are asking us to subsidize their business decisions.

1000%. The ski area further down the road isn't a saint either but realizes action needs to be taken to control supply AND demand. Snowbird only seems keen on increasing their capacity to keep up with visitation. And yes, have you and I pay for it in the process.

 

[drjeff]

1000%. The ski area further down the road isn't a saint either but realizes action needs to be taken to control supply AND demand. Snowbird only seems keen on increasing their capacity to keep up with visitation. And yes, have you and I pay for it in the process.

Ultimately what it gets down to, is as a whole, the ski industry has been essentially flat in it's growth for the last 20 odd years (sure there are some resorts that have grown and others that haven't and or gone out of business but ultimately the industry has been flat growth wise). Now, it's trying to grow a bit, and certainly that does present some challenges on various fronts, but the industry needs to grow as many of it's current customers are far closers to aging out of the physical requirements that skiing/riding demand, and will be leaving the sport, and those people need to be replaced. That is just a simple fact.

Now as the industry tries to grow, there are some consumers, who really dislike this concept as it changes what they're used to. It may mean that yes, there will be more people at their favorite resort more days of the season, and that can make them feel like their resort doesn't appreciate them like they used to.

It's not an easy situation to navigate, as with any type of changes, regardless of it's an industry growth thing or something else, change isn't always easy to accept for all, however underneath it all, we all want a strong, healthy, vibrant ski industry that we can enjoy for decades to come, and that's going to mean that there will be some changes to address the fact that long term growth is needed, and when you factor in the push by so many for what is perceived as some Green initiatives to "help" the growth potential, you bring in an entirely different level of costs and complexities often, such as how to get more people up LCC to meet the demand that various pass participation and pricing structures and population growth in the greater SLC area over the last few decades has created, above and beyond the tourism factor. And I don't think that it's as simple as say "double the cost of a pass/day ticket and only have 1/2 the folks on the hill" as an answer since that affects the number of lessons/rentals per day and the food and beverage revenues as well... It's a complex problem for sure, but one that needs to be handled for the sustainability of the sport

 

[jimk]

I recognize that this is a complicated issue with a lot of competing interests and priorities. But what about all the ancillary business that resorts like Snowbird and Alta bring to Utah? The locals that are against the gondola seem to ignore the fact that skiing kind of put Utah on the map for many of us from other parts of the country.
From a KSL report:
"In 2019, travelers directly spent a record $10.06 billion in Utah, generating an estimated 141,500 total Utah jobs, and $1.34 billion in state and local tax revenue," Leaver wrote. Tourism spending increased by 3.3% from 2018 to 2019. About $8.6 billion of the spending, or a little over 85%, came from nonresidents coming into Utah. Skiing and snowboarding was the largest attraction to drive tourism spending. It brought in $1.55 billion alone.

 

[machski]

I recognize that this is a complicated issue with a lot of competing interests and priorities. But what about all the ancillary business that resorts like Snowbird and Alta bring to Utah? The locals that are against the gondola seem to ignore the fact that skiing kind of put Utah on the map for many of us from other parts of the country.
From a KSL report:
"In 2019, travelers directly spent a record $10.06 billion in Utah, generating an estimated 141,500 total Utah jobs, and $1.34 billion in state and local tax revenue," Leaver wrote. Tourism spending increased by 3.3% from 2018 to 2019. About $8.6 billion of the spending, or a little over 85%, came from nonresidents coming into Utah. Skiing and snowboarding was the largest attraction to drive tourism spending. It brought in $1.55 billion alone.

All true, but so is the flip side. The other question is with all these people coming into the Salt Lake Basin, can it handle the population growth/travelers? Given all the natural refill streams to the Great Salt Lake are pretty much tapped out before they ever make it there, the answer might be no. So should they build a Gondola to improve flow to/from LCC and potentially attract even more human traffic to the Basin? A lot of questions to be answered and I think a really hard look at how natural resources will be used is step 1.

 

[thetrailboss]

I recognize that this is a complicated issue with a lot of competing interests and priorities. But what about all the ancillary business that resorts like Snowbird and Alta bring to Utah? The locals that are against the gondola seem to ignore the fact that skiing kind of put Utah on the map for many of us from other parts of the country.
From a KSL report:
"In 2019, travelers directly spent a record $10.06 billion in Utah, generating an estimated 141,500 total Utah jobs, and $1.34 billion in state and local tax revenue," Leaver wrote. Tourism spending increased by 3.3% from 2018 to 2019. About $8.6 billion of the spending, or a little over 85%, came from nonresidents coming into Utah. Skiing and snowboarding was the largest attraction to drive tourism spending. It brought in $1.55 billion alone.

True, but the gondola really only directly benefits Snowbird (mainly) and Alta. As much as I love skiing, should I expect the other Utah resorts to ask me as a taxpayer to foot a $500 million-$1 billion for each of them?

 

[drjeff]

True, but the gondola really only directly benefits Snowbird (mainly) and Alta. As much as I love skiing, should I expect the other Utah resorts to ask me as a taxpayer to foot a $500 million-$1 billion for each of them?

Politician mind thought here.... (and I am not a poltician, but dealt with way too many of them via some professional associations I have been a part of over the years)

Keeping it Utah focused here.

How is asking the tax payers to foot some of the bill for the proposed LCC Gondola, something that certainly not every UT resident will use, but likely will help drive tourism dollars for the state and its residents as well as "help" with a traffic situation that much different than the tax payers of UT footing the bill for say a convention center and the associated infrastructure needed for it down in say St. George's? Again, not something that by any means all UT tax payers would use, but it helps drives tourism dollars which does benefit the state and it's residents?

Thinking like a politcian is DEFINITELY a warped way of thinking of things for sure, as often it defies logical thought processes

 

[Smellytele]

Are convention centers money loss or do they actually make direct money for the state/city? A gondola will make no direct money for the state. Yes it has an economical impact indirectly.

 

[drjeff]

Are convention centers money loss or do they actually make direct money for the state/city? A gondola will make no direct money for the state. Yes it has an economical impact indirectly.

One has to presume that most of them ultimately are viewd as a positive economic driver for where they're built, or else you wouldn't see them in so many places, let alone in some locations with multiple convention center type locations. Do each and every one of them actaully turn a profit? Probably not, but if they regularly throughout the year bring in groups of a few hundred to a few thousand, utlimately that is going to be a positive thing for the local hotels/restaurants/etc in that area, kind of like a ski area is. Not something that gets used 52 weeks a year/every day of the year, but when it's operating, especially if it's a "destination resort" as the one's around Salt Lake City are, it's bringing thousands and thousands of people into the area over the course of the year and odds are that they're adding $$ to the local economy.

Heck, within my own dental field, I know that annually of the 3 -5 convetions that I go to, our state meeting in CT draws at 2500ish people to the Mohegan Sun Casino, our New Enlgand Regional Convention typically draws 15k people nowadays to Boston (used to be 25-30K people maybe a decade ago) and our national meeting typically draws 20k people on up to 40K plus people depending on what city it's in that particular year (lots of folks like to go when it;'s in Orlando and bring their familes with them too, not so many folks want to go to that meeting when it's in say Kansas City as it has been in the past.

I guess that the view that if they're attracting enough people into the area to be a net positive predictably on the local economy that that will offset any operational losses that they may incur to the organization that is running them, which very often if its a stand alone facility and not part of the hotel, will be run by some governmental agency. You could also question then the New York State owned ski areas and wonder if the capital expenditures the statehas been throwing at them over the last 5 years or so especially and plans to continue doing ir seems for the next few years atleast is ultimately a net positive or negative from a fiscal perspective, even thoigh I am sure it is a positive for the surrounding communities

 

[ss20]

I don't see the gondola having much of an indirect effect on the economy. Alta/Snowbird is one of the top ski destinations in North America, and arguably the most affordable and easiest with the SLC airport, transit to the hills, Ikon pass availability, and lodging well, well, well under $100/night 30 minutes from Snowbird Entry 1. If you're serious about skiing, you're coming to this Mecca with a gondola or without. No one is going to say "gee well they never got the gondola or improved road built, guess I'll just go to Whistler instead of Utah.". Yes, you could make the point additional capacity up LCC is needed. But this is not going to be a huge tourist attraction. It's primarily for transit... that's what it's billed as, a transit solution. Yes, I'm sure it'll do fine in the Summer as a tourist attraction but will people be lining up to ride this sucker en mass? I don't see it.

I don't see ski busses or a gondola increasing skier visits either, frankly. If it did move the needle substantially (10%+) the on-hill experience would be a complete shitshow. Neither Alta nor Snowbird has the lifts, lodges, or support infrastructure to handle 10% more skier visits, even if they're not coming up via car.

 

[machski]

The problem I see is that both LCC and BCC have such limited lodging up canyons currently, this public lift structure still has to be used more often than say public lift/transit options in the Alps.