Originally Posted by dbostedo
Another question from an un-knowledgeable point of view...
I see some folks saying all this interconnection with lifts wouldn't be useful and people would drive anyway. I'm trying to understand that thinking versus what I read about European resorts, with their (in some cases) multiple long interconnections across different areas/valleys.
How is OneWasatch different? Or do people think the European interconnections are just cool to have but aren't really practical too?
And I wonder if the "gotta be on first chair for powder" attitude is actually something that would affect a very small percentage of skiers, and doesn't matter either?
On my first trip to the Alps after moving to Europe, my brother and I went to the Four Valleys (Verbier, Nendaz, et al). Even though it could take us over an hour to ski to some parts of the area, we never once thought about driving.
One of the reasons is that an hour on skis (and lifts) is more fun than 15-30 minutes in a car. But for me the main reason is that getting geared up in a warm room with a proper chair to sit down on is far nicer than gearing up outside in a parking lot. If you're staying near the lifts or you can take a short shuttle from your hotel, then a link spares you the hassle of gearing up (and down) in a parking lot, waking up extra early in the morning, and doing a tired drive home at the end of the day.
On top of that, you also have to consider mixed groups that want to ski different places. With an interlinked ski area, they can start and end each day in the same place but go their separate ways during the day. Without a link, they have to compromise each day about where to ski or do a lot of extra driving to get everyone where they want to be.
Oh, in addition to considering how many (or few) people have to be on the first chair on a powder day, you also have to consider how many (or few) powder days there'll be on an average ski trip.