or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

One Wasatch - Page 7

post #181 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lofcaudio View Post
Any argument that pretends that the resorts themselves are not the primary muscle behind this lacks credibility, in my opinion.  Your local resort that you are wanting to protect is not on your side here.

You think the owners at Alta really give that much of a damn about money? They would have opened it to boarders years ago. If all of their guests said, 'yes, let's allow the slowboarders to ride here' they would open up access to them. The point I'm trying to make is that some of the resorts do actually care what the locals and regulars think.

 

Your remark above clearly points to the fact that this whole idea is nothing more than a monetary shill by the particular group pushing it and has nothing to do with improved transportation. cough cough PC 

post #182 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post
 

 

Second, because American resorts are so much smaller, the lift and trail layout is very different. European resorts often have long lifts spread wide apart, with groomers running every which way around the mountain and covering long distances (often leaving a lot of off-piste terrain between them). In the US, you get shorter lifts sitting closer together and loads of trails lined up side-by-side. In that type of setup, it takes a long time to cover any significant amount of distance; hence, the complaints about travel times. (For comparison, in the Monterosa area, you can ski from Frachey base to Alagna, which is 9.85 miles as the crow flies, in about 1:30 or less using 5 lifts. The distance from PC base to Snowbird is 9.15 miles, but it would take over 2 hrs and who knows how many lifts under the OW plan.)

 

 

I think this is a key point. And it has a lot to do with the actual terrain in question. A quick search shows that the vertical drop of the resorts in the One Wasatch plan range from snowbird at 3240', all the way down to Brighton, at a measly 1746'. In contrast, a place like Val d'Isere/Tignes has a vertical drop of 6234'. Les 3 Vallees has a max vertical drop of 7710', more than double the best of the Utah resorts. With less vertical, that means to cover the ground from one place to the other, you are going to spend a lot more time going sideways, and a lot less time going down. You can ski an interconnected Alpine resort because with thousands of feet more vertical, you are still skiing down the mountain even while moving laterally across the landscape. Utah... not so much. 

post #183 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post
 

 

Second, because American resorts are so much smaller, the lift and trail layout is very different. European resorts often have long lifts spread wide apart, with groomers running every which way around the mountain and covering long distances (often leaving a lot of off-piste terrain between them). In the US, you get shorter lifts sitting closer together and loads of trails lined up side-by-side. In that type of setup, it takes a long time to cover any significant amount of distance; hence, the complaints about travel times. (For comparison, in the Monterosa area, you can ski from Frachey base to Alagna, which is 9.85 miles as the crow flies, in about 1:30 or less using 5 lifts. The distance from PC base to Snowbird is 9.15 miles, but it would take over 2 hrs and who knows how many lifts under the OW plan.)

 

 

I think this is a key point. And it has a lot to do with the actual terrain in question. A quick search shows that the vertical drop of the resorts in the One Wasatch plan range from snowbird at 3240', all the way down to Brighton, at a measly 1746'. In contrast, a place like Val d'Isere/Tignes has a vertical drop of 6234'. Les 3 Vallees has a max vertical drop of 7710', more than double the best of the Utah resorts. With less vertical, that means to cover the ground from one place to the other, you are going to spend a lot more time going sideways, and a lot less time going down. You can ski an interconnected Alpine resort because with thousands of feet more vertical, you are still skiing down the mountain even while moving laterally across the landscape. Utah... not so much. 


Although the descriptions go with pictures during the summer, the following blog entry tries to give a sense of how a European ski region can feel when there are multiple resorts with lots of vertical are connected by long lifts and public transportation (bus, train).  The author of the blog lives in SLC and was involved with the early stages of the Mountain Accord.

 

http://wasatchweatherweenies.blogspot.com/2014/10/mountain-mass-transit-in-innsbruck.html

post #184 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lofcaudio View Post
 

 

I find it interesting that you don't point the finger at those who are probably the most interested in seeing One Wasatch a reality --- the ski resorts themselves.  Who are you kidding?

 

Is that how you felt about Snowbird adding the Peruvian Express or the opening of Mineral Basin?

 

One Wasatch isn't going to force anyone to ski something they don't like or to go somewhere they don't want to go.  I also think that argument is bunk.

A. I will!  I think this is nothing but a money and terrain grab!  Who are you kidding?

 

B.  There are a number of people still upset about Mineral.  Peruvian was upgraded on terrain already in use, same as the Little Cloud and Gad2 upgrades.  Snowbird is currently trying to expand into American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch in particular.  I'm rather ambiguous on that as it's terrain not highly used.

 

C.  One Wasatch will certainly cause people to ski somewhere else.  Once resorts put lifts on lands they stop upward access.  Alta has had their eyes on Grizzly Gulch for quite some time, if you don't think they will use One Wasatch to eventually begin lift served you aren't paying attention.  Grizzly Gulch is a HIGHLY used backcountry area next to a major metropolis.  I'm sure people will point out that Alta owns Grizzly and I'll grant them that, but Alta operates on a LARGE portion of the best skiing in upper LCC which resides on public land.  To their credit, Alta has always allowed use of their lands, but, once lifts go in that changes everything. 

 

I'd challenge people that want to give away the Wasatch to get out and see how small this area really is.  The beauty of the topography that makes everyone want to string lifts across also gives us in the valley (and a growing crowd of touring tourists, heh) a place to get away from the lifts and what not.  Skin up to the top of Patsey Marley, take a look around, be glad you made it and ski pow on the way down.

post #185 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMc View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lofcaudio View Post
 

 

I find it interesting that you don't point the finger at those who are probably the most interested in seeing One Wasatch a reality --- the ski resorts themselves.  Who are you kidding?

 

Is that how you felt about Snowbird adding the Peruvian Express or the opening of Mineral Basin?

 

One Wasatch isn't going to force anyone to ski something they don't like or to go somewhere they don't want to go.  I also think that argument is bunk.

A. I will!  I think this is nothing but a money and terrain grab!  Who are you kidding?

 

B.  There are a number of people still upset about Mineral.  Peruvian was upgraded on terrain already in use, same as the Little Cloud and Gad2 upgrades.  Snowbird is currently trying to expand into American Fork and Mary Ellen Gulch in particular.  I'm rather ambiguous on that as it's terrain not highly used.

 

C.  One Wasatch will certainly cause people to ski somewhere else.  Once resorts put lifts on lands they stop upward access.  Alta has had their eyes on Grizzly Gulch for quite some time, if you don't think they will use One Wasatch to eventually begin lift served you aren't paying attention.  Grizzly Gulch is a HIGHLY used backcountry area next to a major metropolis.  I'm sure people will point out that Alta owns Grizzly and I'll grant them that, but Alta operates on a LARGE portion of the best skiing in upper LCC which resides on public land.  To their credit, Alta has always allowed use of their lands, but, once lifts go in that changes everything. 

 

I'd challenge people that want to give away the Wasatch to get out and see how small this area really is.  The beauty of the topography that makes everyone want to string lifts across also gives us in the valley (and a growing crowd of touring tourists, heh) a place to get away from the lifts and what not.  Skin up to the top of Patsey Marley, take a look around, be glad you made it and ski pow on the way down.

Does not seem to me that these two statements are talking about the same type of skiers.  The first comment makes me mostly think of travelers, not locals.  Certainly not locals who drive >10 min for a day trip.  In the second, it's about those who are going into terrain that is currently back country, which would change with the construction of new lifts.

 

How do BC folks think about the connection between Parley's Canyon and BCC?  I assume the owner of Deer Valley and Solitude supports that idea at this point, even though when One Wasatch was first announced the ownership map of those two canyons was very different.

post #186 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMc View Post
 

 

C.  One Wasatch will certainly cause people to ski somewhere else.  Once resorts put lifts on lands they stop upward access.  Alta has had their eyes on Grizzly Gulch for quite some time, if you don't think they will use One Wasatch to eventually begin lift served you aren't paying attention.  Grizzly Gulch is a HIGHLY used backcountry area next to a major metropolis.  I'm sure people will point out that Alta owns Grizzly and I'll grant them that, but Alta operates on a LARGE portion of the best skiing in upper LCC which resides on public land.  To their credit, Alta has always allowed use of their lands, but, once lifts go in that changes everything. 

 

I'd challenge people that want to give away the Wasatch to get out and see how small this area really is.  The beauty of the topography that makes everyone want to string lifts across also gives us in the valley (and a growing crowd of touring tourists, heh) a place to get away from the lifts and what not.  Skin up to the top of Patsey Marley, take a look around, be glad you made it and ski pow on the way down.

Agree 100%. This argument appeals to me, but the people pushing this do not give a flip about backcountry skiers or summer users. We do alot of hiking and mountain biking in the summer and while we sometimes frequent the areas with lifts, we trend more toward areas without development. The interconnect would further diminish the quantity of natural areas.

post #187 of 188
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMc View Post
 

A. I will!  I think this is nothing but a money and terrain grab!  Who are you kidding 

 

I'd challenge people that want to give away the Wasatch to get out and see how small this area really is.  The beauty of the topography that makes everyone want to string lifts across also gives us in the valley (and a growing crowd of touring tourists, heh) a place to get away from the lifts and what not.  Skin up to the top of Patsey Marley, take a look around, be glad you made it and ski pow on the way down.is currently taking public comment

 

A terrain grab?  It's all on private property. That was established a couple of pages back.  A money grab?  Is anyone robbing you?  The Forest Service is currently taking public comment on whether it's appropriate to charge a fee for access to Wasatch trailheads.  If instated, these fees will generate approximately 36 million dollars per year.  I guess it is I who would feel robbed, being charged to hike on public land & all.

 

No one is "giving away" the Wasatch.  Again, Designated Wilderness Area acreage vastly outnumbers ski area acreage at roughly 5:1.  Honestly I'm not trying to "sell" One Wasatch, but how many times do I have to argue the point?  As great as your challenge to explore the Wasatch is, I suppose that most won't take you up on your offer.  However, I actually have explored a vast majority of the range, and am comfortable that if you want a wilderness experience, you can have it and One Wasatch will have no bearing on it.    Mill B, Stairs Gulch,  Pfiefferhorn, Mt Aerie, Lone Peak, Thunderbolt Ridge, Timpanogos, and Box Elder Peak -to name but a few-encompass tens of thousands of acres that will be nowhere near the few lifts that will connect the resorts.  And let's not kid ourselves- the resorts are a mile or less apart, we're not talking about a remote wilderness experience here, anyway.

 

CB Garret says that the only ones supporting or in favor of One Wasatch are business owners, developers, or condo owners.  I am none of the above, and apparently it's biggest fan.  I've talked to several dozen people who also have no financial interest.  They are from both in SLC and Park City.  Like me, they are highly supportive of the concept, but for their own and different reasons.   I'd like to ski from PC to steeper terrain; they'd like to ski from the areas with a relative dearth of groomers, ski over to PC and ski the groomers and have lunch downtown, then ski back to to their SLC base.  To each their own 

 

I agree that it's great to preserve Wasatch acreage- to an extent.  The recent deal in which the Boy Scouts are selling 848 acres to the Forest Service is an excellent idea, and to be applauded.  The expansion of Wasatch Wilderness areas as laid out in the Mountain Accord is admirable as well, no doubt it will be tweaked a bit.  But again, the small areas -slivers- of land that separate the ski areas are obviously not prime -or otherwise- candidates for wilderness designation.  Build the lifts, already!

post #188 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by V1 Oops View Post
 
 Honestly I'm not trying to "sell" One Wasatch, but how many times do I have to argue the point?  

0

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion