Utah Legislature Pushing to Link 7 Resorts - Page 5

This has all been discussed up thread but to recap some additional opposing perspective (which have nothing to do with environmentalism perse)... 

Right now we have a contiguous section of high recreation value federal land in BCC with beautiful trails and great BC skiing in the winter time. The plan to sell off a section and break up ownership (regardless of intended purpose for the deal) really does complicate future land magement decisions and makes it harder for BC user groups to get things done. The wasatch crest trail is a national treasure and has some of the best views of the Wasatch you will find. Adding a Gondi over head will make it one less uninterrupted vista. And if that gondi runs in the summer time it will potentially flood the trial with even more people than the already crowded trail can support.  Additionally if Talisker decides it is in their interest to not allow trail access through their property at some future time the trail could well be closed. And the other obvious land use change is that the entire backside of the canyons will be side country, with no human powered access limitations in the winter time. 

There are plenty of people (even people who ride lifts) who are interested in maintaining that status quo in BCC and don't want to see this national treasure which is accessible from the back yards of a million people broken up and simply given away to a huge foreign owned development corporation. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano 

... 

 

There are plenty of people (even people who ride lifts) who are interested in maintaining that status quo in BCC and don't want to see this national treasure which is accessible from the back yards of a million people broken up and simply given away to a huge foreign owned development corporation (emphasis added). 

Well, hatred or fear of Canadians is certainly one element of the opposition to the project that's difficult to contest.  Because, last I checked, Talisker is based in Toronto.  In short, the cultural and for that matter business assumptions of Talisker execs are gonna be pretty much the same as if they were based in NYC or San Fran, or Vail or SLC. 

I actually have a feeling that SOC and friends know and like a lot of Canadians.  The whole "foreign-owned corporation" bs is just one more way to try to raise emotions.  Along with asking for names of people who think the project would be a good idea, threatening social and even economic exclusion for people who might like the project, the false claims of environmental catastrophe, and the rest of it.

Now, the aesthetic points you raise, which are basically that you 1) think a gondi will interrupt the viewshed (it will, at least a little), and 2) would like human-powered access limitations to remain in place for that area, are totally legit points.  The problem is, they are probably not compelling to the majority of people.  Which is why the environmental alarmism and even dark talk about huge foreign-owned development corporations (based in...Tehran...Myanmar...oh, wait... based in Toronto!) get thrown in.

Don't believe the hype. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by quant2325 

...My concern is with the watershed.  A bathroom here, and mountain top restaurant there, etc. all use up water.  All of this has to be planned for.  The environmental white paper on the SkiLink website draws a conclusion that the watershed will not be negatively impacted to a significant degree.  I am waiting to see if other studies or white papers are published...

The proposed project doesn't even include restaurants and such, so consumption of water is not the big issue in this case, so much as concern about topsoil erosion and such, since Big Cottonwood Creek supplies some of SLC's drinking water (and silt is directly a problem, plus healthy topsoil and plants help filter out all sorts of bad stuff before it gets to the creek).  SLC has some sort of water authority that vets these type projects for effect on the water supply, and given the politicized nature of things I'm sure it will be a very thorough vetting. 

Given all the comments about Talisker suposedly pulling a switcheroo and deciding to build a lodge, say, after all, it bears mention again that among other things SLC's water authority would shut that type of change of plans down before the first bulldozer moved.  That type of thing is not the way the real world works.

Since the water has actually gotten cleaner over the last couple decades, and the experience of the ski industry elsewhere in the West has been that ski areas don't hurt water quality, it's likely that in this case the effect of the project on water quality is not a meaningful concern. 

Did a lot of research go into that one, or did you just pull that out of your crevice?

You realize that there are many people that enjoy recreating in the Cottonwoods that don't go skiing and don't benefit in the least from a ski lift, right? Not to mention all the backcountry skiers and lift-served skiers that think this is a bad idea, in part or whole because it interferes with the view and public land. Pretty sure those issues are compelling to a lot of people, which again, is why there's this debate.

But feel free to minimize those valid and real concerns so that you can continue to opine that everyone that opposes the plan is some environmentalist whack job. It's funny how you keep getting substantive, non-environmental arguments (like Tromano's), only to dismiss them offhandedly - with no actual facts or logic - so that you can focus on the environmental extremist faction. Don't believe your own misconstrued hype.

The foreign corporation argument has nothing to do with the ominous nature of the company or its headquarter city; it has to do with selling valuable wild land owned by the American people to a private corporation, period. The fact that it's a foreign entity just adds a little bit of salt to the wounds. No one gives half a $#!# what city they're located in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

Did a lot of research go into that one, or did you just pull that out of your crevice?...

 

The foreign corporation argument has nothing to do with the ominous nature of the company or its headquarter city; it has to do with selling valuable wild land owned by the American people to a private corporation, period. The fact that it's a foreign entity just adds a little bit of salt to the wounds. No one gives half a $#!# what city they're located in.

Re: the foreign corporation bit, if no one cares where Talisker is located, why does it keep getting brought up, time and again, and not exactly in a loving way?  Even you seem to view Talisker's headquarters being in Toronto as "salt to the wounds."  Would you feel the same way if a Delaware corporation were involved?  The land in question is in UT, after all, and Delaware corporations are foreign in that sense.  How about a UT corporation with foreign investors? 

Either a lot of SkiLink opponents sincerely DON'T care for Canadians, or, more likely, they are using economic jingoism in a cynical way to try to stir emotions around the issue.  I think it's option B, and that they're actually cool with Canadians. 

As far as what people may find compelling, the fact is that a small usergroup trying to keep a large area like that entirely to themselves, when their own actual use will not be curtailed by the plans as stated, doesn't get a lot of people fired up to adopt their point of view.  Even more so when the core of the usegroup routinely opposes just about anything.  It is what it is.

So hikers, mountain bikers, backcountry skiers, naturist type folks and anyone who otherwise just doesn't care to see public land dissected by a ski lift make up a small user group?

Stopping the lift does quite the opposite of keeping a "large area like that entirely to themselves," it keeps it open to all the users that currently enjoy it rather than dedicating it to a single user group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

 

So hikers, mountain bikers, backcountry skiers, naturist type folks and anyone who otherwise just doesn't care to see public land dissected by a ski lift make up a small user group?

 

Stopping the lift does quite the opposite of keeping a "large area like that entirely to themselves," it keeps it open to all the users that currently enjoy it rather than dedicating it to a single user group.

It will be open to all current users after the lift goes in.  You are being misleading.

Hikers, mountain bikers, bc skiers, and naturists will all have access.  MTB'ers, btw, in general are in favor of the lift, because SOC has repeatedly narced on them and in other ways sold them out. 

Some people will ride that gondi who wouldn't otherwise have crossed that piece of land ever, for sure.  Maybe even some Canadians.  They ain't gonna be hiking or skiing on it unless they access it the same way it's accessed by those user groups now.  The same diverse group of users will be there, only expanded to included Gondi riders, even Canadian gondi riders.  Maybe even Swedes, and I hate the f'in Swedes (not really, peace my Swedish brothers, just jokin) but I can get past it.

Another issue with the expansion, is that the execution is so bad. To get from the canyons parking area to Solitude on skis you have to take 6 lifts: cabrio, redpine, toombstone, peak 5, day break, then download on the new gondi and finally then walk across the BCC road. It will take 2 hours to get over there. This lift is a gimmick, nothing more. If you actually want to ski at Solitude and you are staying at the canyons, you are much better off just driving there. 

  Everybody who thinks that building one gondola connecting resorts would make Utah more competitive to Colorado is out of their mind. It would take much, much more to get close to what Colorado has to offer to an average once a year, one week a year skier. There was previous comment regarding "weirdness" of Utah (which is not my personal opinion) and we all know why is that. A lot of that weirdness is coming from (somewhat false) presumption that Utah is extremely conservative state. Party type skier who wants to ski 2 hours a day and party 8 hours a night is not coming to Utah - build 1 or 100 gondolas. A lot of those types are found elsewhere (town in CO, starts with A, B ... V). Heavenly in NV sucks as a ski hill, but boy are those casinos attractive for hordes of weekend ski/gamble warriors. Spring breakers are not going to Utah because there is one new gondola - unless they serve free drinks on that ride and operate it 24/7. How is that gondola going to make more money to any of the resorts involved - including Talisker? Are they going to charge extra for gondola ride - fat chance to make some serious buck doing that. How are they going to make money? Selling real estate maybe? Oh no, they are not going to do that since they "promised" that it is not their intention (they only make their existence from that, but this case is different). People can spin this and spin it and spin it again until their brains turn into ice cream (it's hot here, by the way), but it will not change the fact that Talisker is a real estate development company and it will not change their business model just to be nice to skiers.

Dismissing environmental concerns of many people and labeling them as "die hard" environmentalist is nonsense as well. Dismissing concerns of any sizable group is a dangerous slippery slope. Foreign corporations are good as long as they benefit us, moment they fu#c% up they run under the protection of their domicile. Hello to BP, their fu#c% up became a matter of international relations. US goes after BP with full force, UK retirement system is down and as it goes we are sinking with them. It is becoming more difficult holding corporations responsible for their abuse and neglect of human welfare,  more so if foreign corporations are involved be them Canadian or Iranian or Swedish. Selling of something that belong to all of us to benefit few of us makes sense ?  Only consensual transfer of federal lands to private/foreign corporation would be appropriate. Private land - I do not care what are they going to do with it as long as it does not affect my well being. 

I have a feeling that Utah politicians pushing for this are shooting themselves in the foot. Many people would leave Utah out of their itinerary and not many more people would buy into it. Net loss for Utah, net gain for Talisker. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

It will be open to all current users after the lift goes in.  You are being misleading.

 

Hikers, mountain bikers, bc skiers, and naturists will all have access.  MTB'ers, btw, in general are in favor of the lift, because SOC has repeatedly narced on them and in other ways sold them out. 

 

Some people will ride that gondi who wouldn't otherwise have crossed that piece of land ever, for sure.  Maybe even some Canadians.  They ain't gonna be hiking or skiing on it unless they access it the same way it's accessed by those user groups now.  The same diverse group of users will be there, only expanded to included Gondi riders, even Canadian gondi riders.  Maybe even Swedes, and I hate the f'in Swedes (not really, peace my Swedish brothers, just jokin) but I can get past it.

Perhaps, I was unclear. I wasn't saying the land will be closed off to those user groups, but a gondola will definitely have a negative impact on them. You're basically building something for the benefit of lift skiers that will detriment a whole lot of others. The problem is that benefit isn't enough to justify that detriment.

Also, by privatizing the land you run the risk of access issues, the same with any private land.

I'm pretty sure MTBers aren't psyched about the idea of a gondola running across the premier trail in northern Utah. They might not be jumping full-force onto the SOC agenda, but that doesn't mean they're all for the Inter-Link either. You want so badly to paint the sides as black and white, but it's possible to oppose the lift without agreeing with every single bullet point and tactic used by SOC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

Also, by privatizing the land you run the risk of access issues, the same with any private land.

Bingo! Talisker will keep it open as long as it is profitable for them to do so. If that profit motive changes, then it could be lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

 

Perhaps, I was unclear. I wasn't saying the land will be closed off to those user groups, but a gondola will definitely have a negative impact on them. You're basically building something for the benefit of lift skiers that will detriment a whole lot of others. The problem is that benefit isn't enough to justify that detriment.

 

Also, by privatizing the land you run the risk of access issues, the same with any private land.

 

I'm pretty sure MTBers aren't psyched about the idea of a gondola running across the premier trail in northern Utah. They might not be jumping full-force onto the SOC agenda, but that doesn't mean they're all for the Inter-Link either. You want so badly to paint the sides as black and white, but it's possible to oppose the lift without agreeing with every single bullet point and tactic used by SOC.

I didn't say MTBers are ALL for the link.  However, there is a strong tradition of lift-served riding, as well as xc across ski resorts, in the U.S., the Canyons has done a good job with http://www.canyonsresort.com/gravitybikepark.html.  Some MTBers may not like the viewshed disruption of one extra lift, but riding xc in that area -- including DV and PC on up to Canyons -- they see lots of lifts, and most aren't too emotionally scarred by it. 

Now, maybe there's some diabolical mastermind at Talisker saying, "The best way to kill MTB access here is to be its friend, maybe do more for MTB than any other single entity public or private in the area, build a pretty good start to a park, then get this tiny little piece of land and then, Whammo!  The Switcheroo.  No more MTB access, we shut down the bike park and start strip mining, and those ridgeline condos can go up, with no review or permitting.  No one will notice!  Haaahhahahahaha."  But I doubt it. 

Again, there are lots of scare tactics being used that make no sense.  Environmental alarmism that doesn't hold water.  Access fears that don't acknowledge the good that Talisker has in fact done.  Talk of a "foreign corporation" like it's some sinister thing. 

Unless you're mega clairvoyant (in which case let's stop talking about this and talk about more important things), you really don't know whether anyone's wrong or not. I'd say he's right on the money.

As I said earlier in this thread, the reason UT doesn't compete with CO in terms of ski tourism has nothing to do with the lack of lifts connecting the resorts. Interconnect or not, it already has accessibility on its side in a HUGE way. The farthest big mountain resort from SLC airport (Powder Mountain is what I'm thinking) is still closer than the closest resort to Denver (unless maybe you're flying in to visit Echo Mountain or Eldora). Then there are all those other resorts that are even closer to the airport and close to each other. Accessibility is already one of Utah's biggest selling points. And guess what? The Interconnect doesn't really add much accessibility when it's all said and done. It adds a nice novelty that will appeal to some tourists (at least for one single trip until they realize that they're better off driving anyway) and that's about it.

If we were talking about a lift from the PC town lift station that gets you up and over to the Cottonwoods before those resorts open, maybe you'd have a point. But, we're not; we're talking about a long, multi-lift affair that's going to be more of a hassle and expense than it's worth in the real world. Not to mention it starts at the Canyons, which kind of defeats the purpose i.e. staying in a genuine ski town (not a suburb of a genuine ski town) while enjoying the world famous snow of the Cottonwoods. There's a huge disparity between how they're going to sell it on paper and how it's going to work on the ground.

And, yeah, Utah is filled with weirdness both real and perceived. Sorry, your characterization of the drunken spring breaker is wrong at best, and I'd say insulting to the poster you're responding to. Right or wrong, drinking and ski culture go hand in hand (how many other sports have a fancy name for 'beers after we're done')? People avoid Utah and opt for Colorado and other destinations because they want it all, and Utah doesn't offer an atmosphere amenable to drinking and partying. Some of that is overblown, for sure, especially now that they've changed some of the laws, but things like having to buy a meal to have a drink, no happy hours, restrictions on the number of shots in your drink, and warm, double-priced real beer are impediments to Utah's tourism.

And it's not just college kids and fresh grads, it's anyone and everyone that enjoys the freedom to have a drink without tip-toeing around arcane laws. That also includes self-aggrandizing real estate moguls and mothers and fathers of families, wouldn't ya know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

I didn't say MTBers are ALL for the link.  However, there is a strong tradition of lift-served riding, as well as xc across ski resorts, in the U.S., the Canyons has done a good job with http://www.canyonsresort.com/gravitybikepark.html.  Some MTBers may not like the viewshed disruption of one extra lift, but riding xc in that area -- including DV and PC on up to Canyons -- they see lots of lifts, and most aren't too emotionally scarred by it. 

 

Now, maybe there's some diabolical mastermind at Talisker saying, "The best way to kill MTB access here is to be its friend, maybe do more for MTB than any other single entity public or private in the area, build a pretty good start to a park, then get this tiny little piece of land and then, Whammo!  The Switcheroo.  No more MTB access, we shut down the bike park and start strip mining, and those ridgeline condos can go up, with no review or permitting.  No one will notice!  Haaahhahahahaha."  But I doubt it. 

 

Again, there are lots of scare tactics being used that make no sense.  Environmental alarmism that doesn't hold water.  Access fears that don't acknowledge the good that Talisker has in fact done.  Talk of a "foreign corporation" like it's some sinister thing. 

The Canyons just built that park. That's hardly a tradition. And, for the billionth time, we're not discussing all the lifts in the ski world. We're discussing the Interconnect/SkiLink, which will offer exactly ZERO benefit to MTBers and will threaten the sanctity of their trails, both immediately (big stupid lift hanging overhead into the Cottonwoods, where they're not accustomed to lifts) and possibly in the future. No they're not "emotionally scarred" by lifts that pre-date their sport, but that doesn't mean they're excited about lifts creeping into areas where there are none.

Funny how you go on a whole anti-diatribe about destroying MTB access, but still don't recognize the missing link. Hint: It's green, comes in paper form and is the reason that corporations exist. Nope, they're not thinking how they can limit MTB access, but they sure are thinking of how they can bump up the bottom line. If it comes down to profit vs. MTB access, who do you think wins?

Oh well,

It seems like you are loosing your cool, your comments are getting out of control. Have a drink and relax, it is all OK, we do not have to hurl veiled insults at each other. And if that will make you feel better and empower you in any way - yes, I do ski groomers and those of green designation as well. Trying to get better though, blues here I come !!! Heavenly is heaven for trying to learn how to ski skate from one state to another. Disclaimer here: I love SLT. 

I agree that real estate sales is the reason that this "link" will be developed.

Again, nothing wrong with "foreign" corporations (if there is such a thing in this day and age of "globalism"). But foreign corporation buying USFS land to advance their business interest seems wrong to me. I would have tough time agreeing with some Russian/Iraqi/Bulgarian company buying Yellowstone and charging entrance fee. USFS lands are national treasure and should not be incorporated and privatized. My opinion, and please do not get upset because I have an opinion that differs from yours. 

Environmental concerns are legitimate since there is a lot of suspicions about intentions and final outcome of this "ski link". Talisker is known as a real estate developing company and it would take a lot of convincing on their part that "ski link" would be just that and nothing more. 

It is also somewhat insulting insinuating that my opinion is based on some stance toward religion. I would be the first one to defend anyone's right to their religious beliefs. So, quit that argument, and again relax and have a drink, this is just an internet forum (invented by Al Gore by the way - internet, not EpicSki) and nothing more than that.

And finally, I do not know JoeUT, it just happened that we appear to have similar opinion on some of the issues. There are a lot of "assumptions" on your end. 

This is starting to get truly weird as a thread.  Park City in particular is known as a party ski town, and like similar areas, has everything from art galleries, to film stars and LA and New York area people living it up from wholesomely to unwholesomely, to more downhome party alternatives.   It may not have the same concentration of Aussies that Whistler has, say -- every area has its delightful quirks  -- but overall it has the full spectrum. 

Fishing-wise, locals in lots of places have been known to talk about how the fishing where they live sucks, sometimes because they think the grasss is greener on the other side of the fence, and sometimes -- oftentimes -- to keep other people away.

Maybe things like Sundance and all the movie stars who have homes in the area, etc. are drawn by the weirdness and the difficuly to be had in having a good time?  A few of them fish, maybe the fishing there sucks, too.

Don't believe the hype.

edit:  http://away.com/skiing/ski_best_for.tcl?Top_Ski_Resorts_for_Nightlife&id=293367  #4, PC, ahead of Breck and Vail, just below Heavenly. 

As regards SkiLink, again, there is a tremendous amount of BS getting thrown around.  SkiLink won't help, because the party life in the area sucks -- add that to the list of complete BS.

Utah already has two set of resorts that are linked together, brighton/solitude and alta/bird. The idea that adding another link between canyons and Solitude will revolutionize the market here is not an obvious one. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by quant2325 

The SkiLink benefits initially The Canyons and Solitude, and won't make Utah more that much more competitive with Colorado (I assume there is a reason JoeUT and you always attack Talisker and not Solitude).  The Interconnect will absolutely make UT extremely competitive, and this is why most of the big politicians and all seven ski areas are behind it.

 

I am not sure how a skier lodging in PC or snyderville or even in a hotel at the canyons base area how this lift makes access to BCC more convenient. Here is why. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano 

Another issue with the expansion, is that the execution is so bad. To get from the canyons parking area to Solitude on skis you have to take 6 lifts: cabrio, redpine, toombstone, peak 5, day break, then download on the new gondi and finally then walk across the BCC road. It will take 2 hours to get over there. This lift is a gimmick, nothing more. If you actually want to ski at Solitude and you are staying at the canyons, you are much better off just driving there. 

 

The only 'canyons customers" who will get better access to BCC are those who are residents in the colony.

I suppose ski link will also help to get day skiers from SLC into the canyons from the BCC side. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

This is starting to get truly weird as a thread.  Park City in particular is known as a party ski town, and like similar areas, has everything from art galleries, to film stars and LA and New York area people living it up from wholesomely to unwholesomely, to more downhome party alternatives.   It may not have the same concentration of Aussies that Whistler has, say -- every area has its delightful quirks  -- but overall it has the full spectrum. 

 

Fishing-wise, locals in lots of places have been known to talk about how the fishing where they live sucks, sometimes because they think the grasss is greener on the other side of the fence, and sometimes -- oftentimes -- to keep other people away.

 

Maybe things like Sundance and all the movie stars who have homes in the area, etc. are drawn by the weirdness and the difficuly to be had in having a good time?  A few of them fish, maybe the fishing there sucks, too.

 

Don't believe the hype.

 

edit:  http://away.com/skiing/ski_best_for.tcl?Top_Ski_Resorts_for_Nightlife&id=293367  #4, PC, ahead of Breck and Vail, just below Heavenly. 

 

As regards SkiLink, again, there is a tremendous amount of BS getting thrown around.  SkiLink won't help, because the party life in the area sucks -- add that to the list of complete BS.

LOL. Did you really just deny that Utah has some strict drinking laws?

Image is everything (even ol' quantum alludes to that in his 'perception' argument) and most of the country views Utah as a little off, thanks largely to its drinking laws and overtly religious governance. That's something that affects ski tourism on a real level. Long before I moved here, I struck Utah right off my trip list the minute I read all about the 3.2 v real beer/restaurant v "private club" tutorial. Yeah, I'll go where I can just buy whatever beer or drink I want (Colorado, incidentally).

The lack of a slow, multi-lift system connecting the Cottonwoods and PC? Not an issue for anyone, except maybe PC residents (which it sounds like you are) who want to get over to CC powder without having to drive.

And could you stay on point just once? Since when were we talking about fishing? If that was a comparison with nightlife, it missed the mark by several miles.

BTW - quoting a thoughtless list from Away.com doesn't help any argument. PC has solid nightlife, but it's still governed by the same restrictive laws as everywhere else in the state. And the image of that is even worse than the reality.

Do you actually believe any of what you're writing? Now think about that same skier who spends half his day riding around on half a dozen or more lifts to get over to the CCs, then pays extra to ski half a day of tracked-out pow because it's already noon. You couldn't even write your story without alluding to the problem. What was that phrase I heard once? Oh, yeah: "Perception gets tourists to a location, and an exceptional experience keeps them coming back." Yeah, maybe the whole "largest ski area in N. America" (what a joke that is) will get 'em there, but the experience won't be bringing 'em back.

As has been stressed before: a novelty with no long term legs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quant2325 

My assumption to competitiveness has little to do with backcountry access, since the greatest percentage of additional tourists will likely ski their one week per year at resorts and call it a season.  Competitiveness comes from the perceived and actual skiing experience. Perception gets tourists to a location, and an exceptional experience keeps them coming back.  The Interconnect would, in effect, make the combined seven areas (not the backcountry) the "Largest Ski Area in North America."   Skiing what would normally be considered an unimaginable amount of terrain in one week, while staying in one location without having to drive, offers one heck of an experience.    I do not think any of this changes backcountry access.

 

The four resorts blessed with the "Lake Effect" can't compete with Park City's  luxury hotels, close by lodging, shopping, fine dining, galleries, spas, etc.  Sure, SLC is close by but it is still a drive to the resorts.  Park City has all of what a tourist wants and more.  The snow is good enough for sure, which is why its 3 resorts are considered "world class."  But die-hard powder hounds and those seeking the gnarliest terrain will still want to travel about two miles as the crow flies (or as the SCUD flies if you are into The Dictator) to the Cottonwoods on those powder days.  The Interconnect makes it possible without driving.  Think about an expert skiing tourist waking up in a hotel or condo and checking PCTV.  The talking head says there is avalanche blasting here, or a road is closed there.  So he puts the kids in ski school, hops on the lift outside the resort where he is staying and eventually ends up at one of the seven resorts that will give him the best experience for any given day.  You mean to tell me that isn't competitive?

There are some BC issues, but I think that is besides the point I was trying to make in the post you responded to. 

The problem I have with the experience you are talking about comes down to the word "eventually". If I want to ski Solitude, I would not want to get there eventually, I would want to get there early for a better chance of fresh. In practice I suspect that by the time that skier gets to wherever he is going;  it will probably be time to start heading back to where he came from. And unless there is a shared lift pass, he will have to pony up big time to have that experience. 

I was curious enough and watched the interview with Mike Goar and Carl Fisher. Bunch of generalities, mostly arguments heard on this forum, nothing new. One thing caught my attention. Mr. Goar claims that in the first year alone "SkiLink" would generate $50,000,000.00 (fifty million US Dollars) of revenue in first year, or about $3,000,000.00 (tree million US dollars) for Utah tax revenues alone. 

Let's say one person spends about $300 per day (lift ticket, lodging, car rental, food, drinks in PC (#4 ski resort for night life). That is being generous, most people share accommodation and cars with friends/families, do not eat 3 meals at fancy restaurants and do not party all night with $20 shots of whiskey. I am sure there is a number how much average visitor to Utah spends daily. If anybody has that info, I am just curious to see it, please post it here. 

That math would show that number of visitors have to increase by 166,000 visitors or so. Breaking it down even further that would be increase of 456 tourists a day. Now, if one ski link alone can have this kind of economic impact I would say build 10 of them and elect Mr. Goar for lifetime president. (not really)

On the other hand, if you build only 100 homes priced around $500000 (real bargain), that number (50 mil.) is easily achievable. Hmmmm. 

Even if those hundred homes are not built on newly acquired federal land, but rather in Colony area of Canyons, with clever marketing/selling point of "opportunity to own property that would give you access to best of both worlds", I am not sure how would that affect environment. Unfortunately, very little could be done since canyons sits on private land. Acquiring 30 acres of federal land and building gimmick gondola might be just a brilliant marketing/advertising move. 

SkiLink would mostly be empty after initial year since most skiers would realize that it is a major loss of precious skiing time to traverse to BCC. Homes would be empty as well (been there - seen that), but Talisker's account would be fatter. 

My point here is that SkiLink might just be a ploy to build more real estate, after all isn't that what Talisker does best ? Nothing wrong with that, but doing so in environmentally sensitive area might become public issue, or might not - time will tell. And acquiring federal land to further private corporations agenda and use it in such a way would make a travesty of the whole process. Transfer of federal land to private corporation that would use it for marketing purposes is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quant2325 

I think the shared passes are the least of the issues, since it is easy to electronically track where anyone skis....   I do disagree with the idea that it will take "hours" to get to and from each resort.  A two mile high speed gondola ride is what, 12 minutes or so?...

The shared passes issue is just a talking point to try to create an issue where there is none.  Passes have been shared for some time in the industry, and people claiming that it will be an issue in this case...kinda odd.  Kinda like when SOC says they want to study using a train and/or tram as an alternative to a gondola -- yeah, right, let me buy some land and tell SOC I want to build my railroad, how do you think SOC will respond to that? 

The "hours" objection is another talking point.  It "can" take hours just to ride one existing lift, at any current resort, depending upon crowds, snow, wind, and a variety of other variables.  It generally does not take hours.  They are trying to sell the idea that anybody who rides the thing will be a duped fool, as opposed to taking advantage of a convenience. 

Don't believe the hype.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quant2325 

I think the shared passes are the least of the issues, since it is easy to electronically track where anyone skis.  The court filing in the PCMR/Talisker lease dispute (the UPCM property) proved the two resorts already were discussing shared lifts and combined passes. It isn't hard to imagine all seven resorts have already had this conversation on at least an informal basis. The seven resorts can easily work out a revenue sharing arrangement because they want to, and perhaps need to from a financial perspective in order to show some growth. 

 

The fact that you and I want fresh tracks (BTW, I received my new Ski Logik Rock Stars yesterday) means we have to be the early bird, and that will never change.  The example I gave was to demonstrate the "experience."  The "experience" also works for anyone desiring to change the scenery from one resort to another, looking for different conditions, wanting to attend an event at a resort, etc.  It would be cool for a tourist to hop on a lift at Solitude, take a few runs at another resort, attend a freestyle event in Deer Valley, and then come back for dinner.  Yeah, he/she wouldn't ski the entire day, but the experience would make coming to UT worthwhile.    I do disagree with the idea that it will take "hours" to get to and from each resort.  A two mile high speed gondola ride is what, 12 minutes or so? 

 

I am absolutely positively not an employee of any resort, so these opinions are just mine.  I have two main concerns with this issue.  The first is the survival of some Utah resorts outside of Park City  (I won't get into rumors) since the entire industry is shrinking with no sign of a reversal in the trend.  The other concern is with the watershed since I have no expertise in the subject. That is why I previously posted about looking for a white paper that disagrees with the one published by the promoters of the SkiLink.  I would find it interesting to review differing studies, but so far there isn't much available to read.   Unlike some here, I have a negative view of the economy and don't believe we will grow out of this mess like with previous cycles.  Obviously, it is better to watch what the Fed does and not listen to what the politicians say.  Bernanke was not optimistic about economic growth during his last testimony, and the Fed keeps buying bonds in the hopes of keeping the yield on the 10-yr low keeping poeple in their homes a bit longer.

The shared pass is a risk IMO. Its certianly possible that they will develop a shared ticket, then again, they may not.

I like the idea of going from resort to resort, and this has been sold as a "transportation option", I like that! What i don't like is the implementation. You will have to take 6 lifts and numerous flat roads, to get from the parking lot at the Canyons to Solitude. Thats about two hours imo. Like the Canyons Rep said on the TV, "you GET to RIDE lifts! That's the experience!" 

I would think much better of the plan if they were serious about the transit aspect and were going to make the lift to build two gondies, one from Red pine to the ridge and another from the Ridge to solitude. This would improve the lift system vastly overall and speed people to their destination (the transit factor). But it appears that is NOT the plan. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by quant2325 

 What are you smoking and, as the joke goes, where can we get some?  With the Timberline lift in, they can pop in a feeder lift to get anyone near the SkiLink in minutes.  The last I heard, Chicane is not a "numerous flat roads" run (it would be an entirely fast GS cruiser except for the slow skiing zone at the end). So you take the gondola from the base, spend a couple of minutes on a cruiser called Chicane, a couple of minutes on the flat Timberline lift (never a line), and either end up at the base of the SkiLink or a feeder lift will take you there.   I am starting to understand what CTKook is saying about some of the critics.

The ski link is planned to connect the top of daybreak to the solitude parking lot. How does the timberline lift help you get there faster?   My reasoning for 6 lifts and multiple roads is already in this thread above. If you want to read it. 

Are you saying that there is a plan to pop in a feeder lift to the top of Daybreak? Where is this plan documented?