EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Utah Legislature Pushing to Link 7 Resorts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Utah Legislature Pushing to Link 7 Resorts - Page 7

post #181 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post


roflmao.gif I'm looking through all that for any good reason - or even a lame one - why Skilink is a good idea. I'm just not finding it, only CTKook going off the rails ranting about, of all things, mountain bike parks. Unless, wait, do you think knowledge about mountain bike parks is required to understand the benefits of Skilink? roflmao.gif

It seems SkiLink opponents are not overly troubled by lack of accuracy.  Your concern for the plight of Lahontan cutthroat trout, which are resident in NV, quite a drive away from the Wasatch, and JoeUT's whiffing away at the Canyons bike park, seem rather typical. 

 

On a positive note, even in NV, while certainly efforts to restore them to their full former range are important, Lahontan cuts have an important sport fishery in the state. Both in lakes and streams there, they're doing fine, even if they need to be restored to more areas.  In this thread, there's been a lot of yelling by people who don't like a business wanting to undertake a small infrastructure addition, with a lot of the yelling way way offbase.  It seems the point isn't to be accurate, the point is to yell.

 

Don't believe the hype.

post #182 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

It seems SkiLink opponents are not overly troubled by lack of accuracy.  Your concern for the plight of Lahontan cutthroat trout, which are resident in NV, quite a drive away from the Wasatch, and JoeUT's whiffing away at the Canyons bike park, seem rather typical. 

On a positive note, even in NV, while certainly efforts to restore them to their full former range are important, Lahontan cuts have an important sport fishery in the state. Both in lakes and streams there, they're doing fine, even if they need to be restored to more areas.  In this thread, there's been a lot of yelling by people who don't like a business wanting to undertake a small infrastructure addition, with a lot of the yelling way way offbase.  It seems the point isn't to be accurate, the point is to yell.

Don't believe the hype.
Can you point to a post where I said the fish were a reason not to build Skilink? A specific post? Because I don't remember writing any. I remember you babbling down a rabbit trail about your anecdotal experiences with fish and claiming everything was okay with them, then I referenced the USF&W page showing a number of T&E fish, not just trout, in Utah. My point was, and is, to show how you throw out irrelevant bullshit in your drive to meet your agenda.

But please, in the interest of accuracy, show us where I said fish were a reason not to build Skilink.

I bet you don't.
post #183 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post

 

 

rolleyes.gif  Remember a little while ago when I wrote that you were a good example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous?  The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists native cutthroat as threatened in Utah, as well as chubs, pike minnows, and suckers. ...

 Dude, here's you stating that the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists native cutthroat as threatened in UT.

 

Only, Bonneville Cutthroat are specifically not listed as threatened, and the Lahontan cuts in NV are a great distance away from the Wasatch, and while threatened have stable enough populations that they support a thriving fishery.

 

If by inaccurately claiming that Bonneville cuts were threatened, you were not trying to oppose SkiLink, certainly I apologize.  Maybe you were just throwing that baldly inaccurate statement out there for giggles, with no relation to the thread topic at hand?

post #184 of 207

More broadly, we may have a chance for consensus here.  If you concede that SkiLink does not threaten local fish populations, then we've narrowed the scope of concern and helped gain some clarity. 

 

This is an example of internet dialogue at it's best.

post #185 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

 Dude, here's you stating that the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists native cutthroat as threatened in UT.

 

Only, Bonneville Cutthroat are specifically not listed as threatened, and the Lahontan cuts in NV are a great distance away from the Wasatch, and while threatened have stable enough populations that they support a thriving fishery.

 

If by inaccurately claiming that Bonneville cuts were threatened, you were not trying to oppose SkiLink, certainly I apologize.  Maybe you were just throwing that baldly inaccurate statement out there for giggles, with no relation to the thread topic at hand?

 

Apology accepted.  I was pointing out that, contrary to what you wrote, fish are in trouble in Utah.  IOW, I was following you down on of your rabbit trails of baldly inaccurate statements with no relation to the topic at hand.  I'm trying to avoid getting sucked into your ridiculous off-topic assertions now.  You were the one that brought up fish, and do I now see that you agree that they are irrelevant?  

 

Now tell us, what do mountain bike parks have to do with Skilink?  

post #186 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

Learn a bit more about MTB.

 

In the meantime, try to slander Canyons on other grounds...hint:  maybe pursue that "they're foreign" agenda.  But you seem afraid to elaborate on that. 

 

What is happening here is a resort has not only done a good job on the ski front, but made a good start for a bike scene.  It's not Whistler yet, but a good first start deserves kudos.

 

We have a group of posters with an odd grudge against the resort, with at least one so lacking in relevant background in for instance MTB that they are trying to criticize the resort for something that anyone with cred in the area would give them very high marks for. 

 

Even more priceless, JoeUT seems to try to claim that the "flow" concept doesn't relate to skateparks, either.  Since he's ignorant of MTB at least as regards good parks, there's no reason not to be blindly and arrogantly ignorant of the concept for two sports, I suppose.

 

It's ok not to know this stuff -- not everyone needs to have a good background in MTB.  It's not ok to then attack positive contributions, that a place like Canyons has made, because you're simply looking to throw mud at them.


A whole lot of flapping your proverbial gums...and (no surprise here) ....NO Link!!! (Again.)

 

Did I attack The Canyons? No, drastic exaggeration on your part. (Again.) I took issue with their claim, and perhaps more importantly with Quant's verbatim repeat of their claim with no context. Now, if you hadn't butted in, maybe Quant could have clarified why it is he copies and pastes marketing speak on behalf of The Canyons. But I guess we're past that now. I wasn't knocking the park itself or Canyons as a whole entity, as you oversimplify, just questioning a claim. That, incidentally, is what any consumer should do when a company makes some kind of superlative claim about its product.

 

I don't see mention of flow parks anywhere outside of The Canyons website, and you've failed (multiple times now) to produce any other links to prove me wrong - just a lot of incidental yammering on (Again.) While you're looking for that link, you'll want to run a refresh on your definition of "slander," I think you might be surprised at what ya find.

 

Also love how you gloss over complete points (i.e. how you totally mistook me for a different poster - I don't think I even posted on that entire page). Kinda makes one wonder about the origins of your other "facts."

post #187 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post


roflmao.gif I'm looking through all that for any good reason - or even a lame one - why Skilink is a good idea. I'm just not finding it, only CTKook going off the rails ranting about, of all things, mountain bike parks. Unless, wait, do you think knowledge about mountain bike parks is required to understand the benefits of Skilink? roflmao.gif


That's because....now wait for it, because it's worth it....

 

CTKook doesn't really support the SkiLink!!!

 

Here's how he made his grand entrance into this very thread:

 

 

Quote:

That said, in this case I can't imagine what in practical terms they hope to do to get a return on investment.  Using PC as an example, there are inbounds places there with minimal liftlines even just after storms, because tourists don't like to go too far out of their way.  The main people that these projects would seem to benefit would be existing highly motivated users of the terrain, who could use the interconnect(s) to speed up their day.

 

I'm inclined to trust Talisker et. al. here to have thought this out more thoroughly than I have, and/or to have seen a way to get public funding that lays the cost off on the public as a whole.  But, I thought the casinos in Vegas, with their excellent overall planning, would do a good job making sure their monorail would get heavily used, and they failed there.

 

It would seem he's been reddening his face in favor of a project that he himself doesn't believe in. Puts some things into perspective.

post #188 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post

 

 

Did I attack The Canyons? No, ...

I don't see mention of flow parks anywhere outside of The Canyons website, ...

You've spent lots of posts attacking Canyons, and did in fact attack them as regards their bike park, as you ignorantly claimed there is no such thing as a flow park and that they're making it up.  This continues to reflect the incessant midirection so typical of people opposed to SkiLink.

 

As to whether I "support" SkiLink, it's the wrong question.  I support the right of ski resorts to make business decisions without being subjected to viscious and even ridiculous attacks from those who never want businesses to do anything.  They're willing to spend millions of dollars to build the thing, bringing needed jobs and investment to the area, so they seem to firmly believe it's a good idea.  In business terms, my prediction is it'll either be a big success, or a quiet failure, but that in either case it's not going to physically or environmentally be a big deal.  It's wise to be humble, and since they are ski resort execs with a longstanding presence in the local community, I think it's quite likely their judgment may be better than my own.  So, I'm willing to trust their judgment, as I said.  There's a chance they'll fail, but anyone who tries to do anything to create will sometimes fail, businessmen included.  Even if they do fail, they're the one on the hook for the investment, and the local community still benefits from all the work and jobs created in the meantime.

 

You want people to try to do things...unless you're an "anti" activist who basically never wants anything at all to get done. 

 

I'm aware part of the anti-SkiLink strategy is to claim it's a "really bad idea" and so shouldn't go forwards on that basis.  As the claims of enviro catastrophe and the "don't trust the underhanded foreigners" talk proves to not be taken seriously by people -- it is pretty transparent -- there seems to be a SOC shoft of strategy to just argue that it's a really bad idea.  Though, oddly, only on Talisker's part, not on the part of Solitude, and not on the part of any other resorts such a PCMR that the concept might expand to cover.  But, again, you have a bunch of activists who seem disposed to oppose just about anything as a bad idea.  There's no news there.

post #189 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post


A whole lot of flapping your proverbial gums...and (no surprise here) ....NO Link!!! (Again.)

 

Did I attack The Canyons? No, drastic exaggeration on your part. (Again.) I took issue with their claim, and perhaps more importantly with Quant's verbatim repeat of their claim with no context. Now, if you hadn't butted in, maybe Quant could have clarified why it is he copies and pastes marketing speak on behalf of The Canyons. But I guess we're past that now. I wasn't knocking the park itself or Canyons as a whole entity, as you oversimplify, just questioning a claim. That, incidentally, is what any consumer should do when a company makes some kind of superlative claim about its product.

 

I don't see mention of flow parks anywhere outside of The Canyons website, and you've failed (multiple times now) to produce any other links to prove me wrong - just a lot of incidental yammering on (Again.) While you're looking for that link, you'll want to run a refresh on your definition of "slander," I think you might be surprised at what ya find.

 

Also love how you gloss over complete points (i.e. how you totally mistook me for a different poster - I don't think I even posted on that entire page). Kinda makes one wonder about the origins of your other "facts."

The material posted was not copied and pasted from the Canyons, but from another posting on EPICSKI.  JoeUT probably forgot that I am the EPICSKI ambassador for the Canyons, and that I get a nifty hat from EPICSKI to post these things.  After all, that is what an "Ambassador" is supposed to do. I guess it bothers JoeUT that the resort he hates is a world class resort actually having a busy summer offering activities to the local population.  JoeUT has never stopped slamming Canyons for months now, starting well before the SkiLink and Interconnect links started. I suppose he can't argue that the lodging isn't world class, the service isn't world class, or the food isn't world class.  The same goes for the skiing, although that is always subject to opinion.  Nor can he argue that the summer events don't offer a lot to the local community.  These activities are possibly greater than any other ski resort in UT.   Regarding the lift serviced mountain bike park, it is a monster hit for those in the area.  The reports I've seen indicate it will be expanded (I have not verified this with Canyons) with an expanded beginner area. 

 

The reason why all resorts don't offer similar summer activities is simple: money.  After last season, not every resort has the capital to expand their summer offerings.  Rather than praise a resort for offering more to Utahns this summer, JoeUT will try to find something wrong with the offerings because he obviously hates Canyons.

 

At first I thought JoeUT must be a terminated ex-employee.  Regardless, it is becoming all too obvious of his motivation.  After all, he will slam Canyons over the SkiLInk, but never mention Solitude (the other entity necessary to make it work).  In terms of the Interconnect, he will never slam Alta, Snowbird, Solitude, Brighton, Deer Valley or PCMR.  Each of these resorts are behind the idea, and will be part of it should the concept succeed.  This means they also want the SkiLink.  There must be, of course, a reason why JoeUT only slams one international company that creates jobs, creates and sponsors summertime activities helping the local community, pays federal, state and local taxes, operates award winning restaurants that creates local and regional food sourcing partnerships, etc.  I wonder what bothers him so much?

 

I'll likely move to Park CIty before next summer, and it is unknown which of the three areas I'll call "home."  In other words, I am not a "shill" for any resort.  I do dislike those who hide their reasons of hate.

post #190 of 207

Well, the original post was clearly copied and pasted from Canyons' materials, as is half of the stuff you write.  I am pretty sure ambassadors aren't given the hat to sprinkle public relations materials into unrelated threads, but I suppose that's up to interpretation. And it's one thing to share events and news and another to shut off your own brain and default to pr-speak and unfiltered superlatives directly from the resort (Canyons is having a concert v. Canyons is hosting the only concert in Utah since the creation of the musical instrument <3 !!!).

 

I won't argue about it anymore; people can judge your angle for themselves, if they care to. 

 

Your tangents about me hating The Canyons are quite funny. Outside of the SkiLink/Interconnect project, I don't have any problems with Canyons. I was there for about 20 minutes once - I don't have an opinion one way or the other. As I said in the past, you can have your wild fantasies about me being an ex-employee if it helps you wrap your mind around the crazy notion that not everyone shares your opinions on things. I'll continue chuckling away.

 

As for why people direct their SkiLink ire at The Canyons, that's fairly self evident and has been explained directly to you within the past couple days. To summarize: Talisker is the one pushing the SkiLink at the moment, so it's made itself the target of opposition.

post #191 of 207

The opposition to transfer of USFS lands to a "foreign" corporation has its merits. Few years ago when some MIddle Eastern group attempted to purchase major US port, even US Congress and the WH (GOP controlled at that time) got involved and vocal in questioning proposed purchase (diplomatic speak for "oppose"). Not having all the details, but Congress identified 9 strategic resources/areas where foreign ownership should be somewhat restricted. Now, nobody is saying that Talisker is this evil organization that would take over public lands and f.ck it up in irresponsible way and pick up their stuff and leave, but we must be careful before we agree to this move. Precedent once established might be hard to overturn or argue against in any possible future cases. Just like one brewing on the horizon, hint: Rio Tinto (company very familiar with Utah). USFS lands belong to all of us and are national asset and should not be transferred/sold to corporations (foreign) for the purpose of profit enhancement. Same applies to national monuments. 

 

Also, nothing against foreign corporations, they do provide jobs, contribute to local economy and (somewhat) pay taxes. But any lawyer might explain to broader public all the  advantages that  foreign corporations receive just to bring those jobs to the US. Many tax/legal loopholes, international treaties that greatly restrict liability of foreign corporations doing business in other domains, etc. Simply speaking, subsidies is the word. Same applies other way as well, US corporations are greatly protected in foreign lands. In the case of major environmental accident (BP, Exxon Valdez) the liabilities of those companies are successfully challenged in US courts. Again, Talisker has no capacity to do environmental damage on the scale of BP/Exxon Valdez, but what scares me is the precedent of giving public lands/national assets to corporations that could very easily escape the legal challenges from environmental groups in the case of something gone horribly wrong. 

 

Talisker brought all this negative publicity unto themselves by putting themselves in forefront of this SkiLink disaster. I would somewhat agree that major beneficiary would be Solitude, families with skiers of different abilities/interests would have greater choice. But Solitude is smaller resort and even if they double the number of skiers (huge if) Talisker would dwarf that  dollar number by selling few of the overpriced, overbuilt real estate "gems" on the other side of the hill - after all that is what they do - real estate development.

But let's not deviate from the original discussion which is about merits of SkiLink. This forum is somewhat mislabeled as "link Utah 7 resorts." This is about Talisker (Canyons) wanting to build the ski lift to connect to one, maybe two ski resort(s) and do so by acquiring public lands.  Let's not get ahead of ourselves, this one proposed lift is generating a lot of controversy (as we are all witnessing it here on EPISKI). Imagine that times 3  or whatever number of lifts are needed to connect PC with BCC and LCC.

As I mentioned in some earlier posts, dollar numbers that Talisker put out there simply make no sense or if their numbers are different someone should be fired for providing numbers that actually show their real reasoning behind big push for building this SkiLink. 

Jobs that Talisker would provide by building this link are of temporary nature and low paid construction/service jobs. Utah can do better than that.

 

Prudence, caution, consumer/public protection, national asset protection, environmental concerns, economic development and many more issues should carefully be discussed before we get sucked into Talisker's "spin the facts" campaign. Every time when some corporation whose only interest is to make profits claims "this is good for you", I have serious doubts.

 

And yes, I agree with CTKook - don't believe the hype. That Talisker created.

post #192 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by goranmilos View Post

The opposition to transfer of USFS lands to a "foreign" corporation has its merits. Few years ago when some MIddle Eastern group attempted to purchase major US port, even US Congress and the WH (GOP controlled at that time) got involved and vocal in questioning proposed purchase (diplomatic speak for "oppose"). Not having all the details, but Congress identified 9 strategic resources/areas where foreign ownership should be somewhat restricted. Now, nobody is saying that Talisker is this evil organization that would take over public lands and f.ck it up in irresponsible way and pick up their stuff and leave, but we must be careful before we agree to this move. Precedent once established might be hard to overturn or argue against in any possible future cases. Just like one brewing on the horizon, hint: Rio Tinto (company very familiar with Utah). USFS lands belong to all of us and are national asset and should not be transferred/sold to corporations (foreign) for the purpose of profit enhancement. Same applies to national monuments. 

 

Also, nothing against foreign corporations, they do provide jobs, contribute to local economy and (somewhat) pay taxes. But any lawyer might explain to broader public all the  advantages that  foreign corporations receive just to bring those jobs to the US. Many tax/legal loopholes, international treaties that greatly restrict liability of foreign corporations doing business in other domains, etc. Simply speaking, subsidies is the word. Same applies other way as well, US corporations are greatly protected in foreign lands. In the case of major environmental accident (BP, Exxon Valdez) the liabilities of those companies are successfully challenged in US courts. Again, Talisker has no capacity to do environmental damage on the scale of BP/Exxon Valdez, but what scares me is the precedent of giving public lands/national assets to corporations that could very easily escape the legal challenges from environmental groups in the case of something gone horribly wrong. 

 

Talisker brought all this negative publicity unto themselves by putting themselves in forefront of this SkiLink disaster. I would somewhat agree that major beneficiary would be Solitude, families with skiers of different abilities/interests would have greater choice. But Solitude is smaller resort and even if they double the number of skiers (huge if) Talisker would dwarf that  dollar number by selling few of the overpriced, overbuilt real estate "gems" on the other side of the hill - after all that is what they do - real estate development.

But let's not deviate from the original discussion which is about merits of SkiLink. This forum is somewhat mislabeled as "link Utah 7 resorts." This is about Talisker (Canyons) wanting to build the ski lift to connect to one, maybe two ski resort(s) and do so by acquiring public lands.  Let's not get ahead of ourselves, this one proposed lift is generating a lot of controversy (as we are all witnessing it here on EPISKI). Imagine that times 3  or whatever number of lifts are needed to connect PC with BCC and LCC.

As I mentioned in some earlier posts, dollar numbers that Talisker put out there simply make no sense or if their numbers are different someone should be fired for providing numbers that actually show their real reasoning behind big push for building this SkiLink. 

Jobs that Talisker would provide by building this link are of temporary nature and low paid construction/service jobs. Utah can do better than that.

 

Prudence, caution, consumer/public protection, national asset protection, environmental concerns, economic development and many more issues should carefully be discussed before we get sucked into Talisker's "spin the facts" campaign. Every time when some corporation whose only interest is to make profits claims "this is good for you", I have serious doubts.

 

And yes, I agree with CTKook - don't believe the hype. That Talisker created.

 

Thanks for that. The ski link has been sold as a "transportation solution" to get skiers form PC lodgings to BCC powder. But the design doesn't live up to that and will almost certainly be a huge annoyance for anyone trying to access BCC from the PC side.

 

 

Quote: 
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. 

 

Epic is a hardcore skiers webwise and skiers are the user group which it would seem would benefit the most from a plan to link UT resorts into a mega resort. It is telling that on a venue like EPICSKI that this specific plan --skilink-- is being met with so much skepticism and opposition. If we are not for this who else would be? 


Edited by tromano - 7/11/12 at 7:53pm
post #193 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

More broadly, we may have a chance for consensus here.  If you concede that SkiLink does not threaten local fish populations, then we've narrowed the scope of concern and helped gain some clarity. 
Um, you were the one that brought up the topic of fish. Regrettably, at the time I didn't recognize your compulsive introduction of, and returning to irrelevant and misleading rabbit trails. Much like your insistence on discussing mountain biking parks, which I think most people would agree have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Quote:
This is an example of internet dialogue at it's best.
This is quoted for its hilarious ironic value.
post #194 of 207
Well said, goranmilos, well said.
post #195 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

There's a chance they'll fail, but anyone who tries to do anything to create will sometimes fail, businessmen included.  Even if they do fail, they're the one on the hook for the investment, and the local community still benefits from all the work and jobs created in the meantime.
Hilarious. No mention of, after failure, the currently existing user groups that will have been displaced and the damage that will remain. The community will be on the hook for those problems long after the temporary jobs have disappeared.
Quote:
You want people to try to do things...unless you're an "anti" activist who basically never wants anything at all to get done. 
Is that how it is for you - all or nothing? No wonder we're having such a problem with this discussion. Skilink is a bad idea, but that doesn't mean thAt all development is a bad idea. Was that clear enough for you? I doubt it, since you once went on about how if I ever used lifts I couldn't oppose any lifts.
post #196 of 207
xxx
post #197 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post

At first I thought JoeUT must be a terminated ex-employee.  Regardless, it is becoming all too obvious of his motivation.  After all, he will slam Canyons over the SkiLInk, but never mention Solitude (the other entity necessary to make it work).  In terms of the Interconnect, he will never slam Alta, Snowbird, Solitude, Brighton, Deer Valley or PCMR.  Each of these resorts are behind the idea, and will be part of it should the concept succeed.  This means they also want the SkiLink.  There must be, of course, a reason why JoeUT only slams one international company that creates jobs, creates and sponsors summertime activities helping the local community, pays federal, state and local taxes, operates award winning restaurants that creates local and regional food sourcing partnerships, etc.  I wonder what bothers him so much?

 

I'll likely move to Park CIty before next summer, and it is unknown which of the three areas I'll call "home."  In other words, I am not a "shill" for any resort.  I do dislike those who hide their reasons of hate.

 

And if ski link fails what then? Would that put a sour taste in the mouth and push the idea out another 10-20 years? I would like to see interconnected resorts if it can be done the right way and successfully. Ski link connects the two resorts with arguably the worst lift systems in the entire state and it does so in a way that highlights all of those problem. This is not a plan wiht long term success writtne all over it. Ski link is a white elephant.  That is 100% of my problem with it. Connecting Alta / brighton with PCMR / deer valley? Seems like a much more sure path to proving the concept. 

post #198 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

 

And if ski link fails what then? Would that put a sour taste in the mouth and push the idea out another 10-20 years? I would like to see interconnected resorts if it can be done the right way and successfully. Ski link connects the two resorts with arguably the worst lift systems in the entire state and it does so in a way that highlights all of those problem. This is not a plan wiht long term success writtne all over it. Ski link is a white elephant.  That is 100% of my problem with it. Connecting Alta / brighton with PCMR / deer valley? Seems like a much more sure path to proving the concept. 

tromano,

 

If SkiLink fails it will be difficult (IMHO) to complete a Cottonwood to PC area link.  Why?  Look at the map:

 

skilink.jpg

 

Without SkiLink the link will be too long and/or more complex parcels of land need to be purchased (combination or public and private).  In terms of getting there, remember that there are already paved roads going near Dreamscape and Dreamcatcher.  Take a look at the trail map.  I have no idea if using roads is part of the plan, but getting to the link from Canyons could be easier than any of us posting here previously thought.

 

Linking the three PC resorts is a no brainer.  In fact, court documents from the lease dispute show PCMR and Canyons have had those discussions before.  PCMR boarders Deer Valley, so linking the three resorts is a slam dunk.  Those three resorts offer a combined 9,500 skiable acres.  Add in the four other resorts and the "Ski Utah" marketing pitch is tough to beat. That is why the politicians are behind the idea.  A skier can stay on the east coast and ski 750 acres at Killington, or get 9,500 acres in Park City and 17,000 acres linked.

post #199 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post


 

Linking the three PC resorts is a no brainer.  In fact, court documents from the lease dispute show PCMR and Canyons have had those discussions before.  PCMR boarders Deer Valley, so linking the three resorts is a slam dunk.  Those three resorts offer a combined 9,500 skiable acres.  Add in the four other resorts and the "Ski Utah" marketing pitch is tough to beat. That is why the politicians are behind the idea.  A skier can stay on the east coast and ski 750 acres at Killington, or get 9,500 acres in Park City and 17,000 acres linked.

 

I don't think you would get nearly the opposition to just conneting the PC resorts?  But I'm also not sure Deer Valley really wants it that badly.  They've shared a rope line with PCMR for decades and they still don't have a combinded ticket?

In addition, Alta and Deer Valley don't allow snowboards?  That's over 20% of your market right there, plus anyone with a boarder?

post #200 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD View Post

 

I don't think you would get nearly the opposition to just conneting the PC resorts?  But I'm also not sure Deer Valley really wants it that badly.  They've shared a rope line with PCMR for decades and they still don't have a combinded ticket?

In addition, Alta and Deer Valley don't allow snowboards?  That's over 20% of your market right there, plus anyone with a boarder?

 

Deer Valley has long defined their target market, and probably doesn't depend upon skier days as much as other resorts do for profitability.  Nor does Deer Valley have skiers that get bored easily with the resort even through Canyons and PCMR offer at least double the skiable acreage (the DV tourists must love those ulta-groomed runs).  But skier days nationwide have been trending downwards, and I see the Interconnect benefiting all the resorts involved--including DV--by reversing that trend in UT.  The benefit of advertising what will likely be billed as "The Largest Combined Ski Area" (or whatever the marketing and advertising people call it) is a fortune in tax revenue coming from an increased number of skiers who will spend money at all seven resorts.  Some of this money will be spent on Deer Valley lodging, spas, retail stores, restaurants and real estate.  I don't see Deer Valley or any of the seven resorts talking down the SkiLink or Interconnect idea.  I imagine that is because they all know the real competition is with Colorado, and not with each other. 

post #201 of 207
Thread Starter 

To date, the Talisker/PCMR lease dispute has not been settled so there is no news about a Canyons/PCMR lift.  The SkiLink bills are still in Congress.  Deer Valley will soon have a lift going to the top of Main Street PC not shown in the map below (you can't ski down Main Street).  The map below displays a hypothetical Snowbird lift ticket  price, what appears to be an optimistic guess in the timing of construction projects, and the potential experience of having all seven resorts linked.  Obviously, Snowbird is not the likely place most skiers seeking an Interconnect experience would start (it would be at a Park City resort since that is where the most lodging is located).  Still, the map shows how easily a tourist would be able to ski 2-4 areas in a given day regardless of where they choose to lodge.

 

Will there be resort links if the SkiLink legislation doesn't pass?  My guess is absolutely, because all the resorts know Colorado is the real competition and not each other.  They want to link because linking adds skier days. This is why Ski Utah is trying carefully to properly word each press release regarding SkiLink and the whole Interconnect idea, making the connection of resorts not necessarily dependent upon SkiLink..   Will Canyons and PCMR soon link?  My guess is yes, because the lease dispute has to be resolved before next season either in or out of court.  Does it matter how the lease dispute is resolved?  In term of a linkup, no.  I predict it will happen because it is good for the business of both firms.  PCMR cannot link withCanyons or  Brighton until the lease dispute is settled with Talisker!  In terms of everything else, yes... it could matter a lot in terms of the profitability of PCMR and Powdr Corp. (owners of PCMR, Killington, Pico, Mt. Bachelor and other resorts).

 

Note:  I think the acreage is off on the maps.  PCMR has 3700, Canyons has 4000, etc.  The author used old statistics.

 

http://www.outsideonline.com/adventure-travel/north-america/united-states/utah/The-Most-Ambitious-Skiing-Project-in-the-United-States.html?page=all

 

51_powder-dreams.jpg


Edited by quant2325 - 2/13/13 at 10:00am
post #202 of 207

Thanks for posting that.  The map helps drive home how natural a fit the Interconnect and SkiLink are.

post #203 of 207

As someone who has only skied in Utah for three trips, but anticipate many more as my daughter and her family live in SLC, I don't see what the full link really acomplishes other than braggin' rights/and or marketing. If it existed, it might be fun to do it once just to say you've done it, but frankly I'd rather spend the day SKIING at a single area rather than riding lifts. Do the powers that be think the quality of Utah skiing is such an secret that they need something like the Skilink for publicity? But, I'm not the target audience anyway-when it comes down to it, I'm a day skier (guess I answered my own question!)

post #204 of 207

I think the attraction is being able to stay at Canyons or Park City and be able to ski Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons without going out I-80 through SLC and back up  the canyons.  These are small lift rides compared to the distances you need to travel by car to go place to place.  For those who want to take a limo ride from the airport, the cost of a lift ticket sure beats the price and convenience of having to rent a car that you need now to ski more than one area.   The impact is hundreds of thousands of car miles driven by tourists and locals avoided each winter.

post #205 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John V. View Post

As someone who has only skied in Utah for three trips, but anticipate many more as my daughter and her family live in SLC, I don't see what the full link really acomplishes other than braggin' rights/and or marketing. If it existed, it might be fun to do it once just to say you've done it, but frankly I'd rather spend the day SKIING at a single area rather than riding lifts. Do the powers that be think the quality of Utah skiing is such an secret that they need something like the Skilink for publicity? But, I'm not the target audience anyway-when it comes down to it, I'm a day skier (guess I answered my own question!)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post

I think the attraction is being able to stay at Canyons or Park City and be able to ski Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons without going out I-80 through SLC and back up  the canyons.  These are small lift rides compared to the distances you need to travel by car to go place to place.  For those who want to take a limo ride from the airport, the cost of a lift ticket sure beats the price and convenience of having to rent a car that you need now to ski more than one area.   The impact is hundreds of thousands of car miles driven by tourists and locals avoided each winter.

Colorado crushes Utah in terms of skier days, by more than a 3.5x margin.  An Interconnect will make the extra time flying from the east coast or south worth it. As Cirquerider mentioned, the Cottonwood Canyon resorts suffer from not having having enough lodging.  This means they have to depend more upon skier days and winter activities than a Canyons or Deer Valley, who also derive revenue from golf, MTB events, restaurants, lodging, conventions, etc.  The promoters of the resort linkages have been emphasizing the lesser impact to the carbon footprint due to less driving.  The promoter of SkiLink has come up with environmental studies that their opponents disagree with.  To the best of my knowledge, the opponents have not come up with their own environmental study.

 

After camping each summer in Yosemite the past few years, I can understand the opponents view that everything should be left alone only for those with the capability to hike into the backcountry.  I understand, but  happen to disagree since Yosemite is an example of a responsible use of Federal land that millions of people can and do enjoy without any significant harm to the environment.  Most people who enjoy Yosemite probably would experience health problems trying to hike instead of drive there, or they would never see it.  There  is only 30.3 acres of federal in question for the SkiLink out of the entire Wasatch Range, that is approximately 160 miles long.  So like Yosemite, little of the entire universe of land (including the current ski areas) is used.   But 85% of Utah's population lives within 15 miles of the mountains, and some are very upset with Talisker/Solitude going directly to Congress and circumventing local discussion.  The other planned links are through private land, and would be easy to accomplish.  Utah is a "Red"state with a relatively small population, and has a governor and members of Congress solidly behind this plan.  We should know how it plays out later this year.

post #206 of 207

That's just pie in the sky, build it and they will come, real estate propaganda.  Who came up with the $105 endless turns ticket, that 30% of the market (snowboarders) can't even use?  Deer Valley holiday rates are already higher than $105!

 

If Utah wants to increase their market share, they should just do what they already do very well.  Provide a low cost, high quality ski experience utilizing the lodging base that already exists in the SLC valley.  They need to get a combined lift ticket and improve mass transit options to the Park City resorts, which could be implemented cheaply and almost immediately.

But Talisker wouldn't make as much money that way, so I bet this option won't get as much press.

post #207 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post

 

Colorado crushes Utah in terms of skier days, by more than a 3.5x margin.  An Interconnect will make the extra time flying from the east coast or south worth it. As Cirquerider mentioned, the Cottonwood Canyon resorts suffer from not having having enough lodging.  This means they have to depend more upon skier days and winter activities than a Canyons or Deer Valley, who also derive revenue from golf, MTB events, restaurants, lodging, conventions, etc.  The promoters of the resort linkages have been emphasizing the lesser impact to the carbon footprint due to less driving.  The promoter of SkiLink has come up with environmental studies that their opponents disagree with.  To the best of my knowledge, the opponents have not come up with their own environmental study.

 

After camping each summer in Yosemite the past few years, I can understand the opponents view that everything should be left alone only for those with the capability to hike into the backcountry.  I understand, but  happen to disagree since Yosemite is an example of a responsible use of Federal land that millions of people can and do enjoy without any significant harm to the environment.  Most people who enjoy Yosemite probably would experience health problems trying to hike instead of drive there, or they would never see it.  There  is only 30.3 acres of federal in question for the SkiLink out of the entire Wasatch Range, that is approximately 160 miles long.  So like Yosemite, little of the entire universe of land (including the current ski areas) is used.   But 85% of Utah's population lives within 15 miles of the mountains, and some are very upset with Talisker/Solitude going directly to Congress and circumventing local discussion.  The other planned links are through private land, and would be easy to accomplish.  Utah is a "Red"state with a relatively small population, and has a governor and members of Congress solidly behind this plan.  We should know how it plays out later this year.

Fact is the extra flying time (an hour) is already inherently worth it. If you look at the entire travel time, and factor in you could ski for free on your day of arrival, UT competes with or beats Colorado in terms of ski travel. 

 

Also why the manufactured competition with CO? Colorado is always going to have more skiers because it a. has more than twice the number of resorts, b. has close to twice the population and c. doesn't suffer from an image problem. 

 

In reality, the Interconnect does nothing to really improve the experience or ski value. Last time I checked, people go to ski resorts to ski, not ride lifts for half a day. On the other hand, it will be a great way of funneling crowds from PC to poach the Cottonwoods on powder days. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Après-Ski
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Utah Legislature Pushing to Link 7 Resorts