One Wasatch: Yea or Nay?

What do you all think: Awesome one of a kind ski experience, or overexpansion into the BC?



http://onewasatch.com/?p=806

(SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH) – Today, Ski Utah along with seven ski resort mangers released a new map detailing lift alignments of two of the three potential connections for an over-the-snow interconnect between all seven resorts via chairlift and ski run called ONE Wasatch.  ONE Wasatch would offer the largest lift-served ski experience in North America – over 18,000 acres, 100 lifts and more than 750 runs, all on one pass. And all on “The Greatest Snow on Earth.”

The two lift alignments are located on the attached map and include:

Solitude (Big Cottonwood) to/from Alta (Little Cottonwood)
Park City Mountain Resort (Summit County) to/from Brighton (Big Cottonwood)
The third connection between Canyons Resort to/from Park City Mountain Resort will be determined at a later date.

“Connecting seven of Utah’s finest ski resorts while preserving both our water quality and an unrivaled backcountry experience is not an impossible task,” said Nathan Rafferty, president and CEO – Ski Utah.  “Today we have decided to move a step forward in the vision process by conceptualizing lift alignments on a map to continue providing information to the public, encouraging dialog and listening to feedback about these potential connections.”

Nay.

Don't need it, don't want it.

'Twould be cool if it was like Europe, with cool, distinct villages to ski between, but I don't like the idea for Utah. And the way it's being shoved down people's throat out there seems "slimy"

with minimal effort one can already ski from Solitude to Alta

skimore wrote

with minimal effort one can already ski from Solitude to Alta

indeed but its a bit of work to get from Park City to Alta. One that very, very few people are willing to do without a car. And it's an hour drive. Just the way I like it . If Deer Valley clientele came through Brighton or Alta, They would probably think that they were all the way back in Colorado.

From a "tourist's" perspective, I can't really see how this would be a bad thing ... being able to ski all of those resorts from one central lodging point, without having to get in a car or bus would be great. Why wouldn't you want that?

As for over-expansion and back-country overuse, not having any real knowledge of the area, it would be silly to comment.

I've been to Utah quite a few times, and have usually stayed in Park City and once in Salt Lake City. The time I stayed in Salt Lake, we went to resorts in Park City and Little Cottonwood Canyon.

Staying in Park City, however, is an easy decision ... I know someone who let's me stay in their place for free ... tough to argue with that. Whenever I've been out there, we always debate whether we should ski somewhere other than Park City or the Canyons (I don't particularly like Deer Valley), but having to get in the car and drive elsewhere always seems to be the barrier. There's also the additional expense of renting a car, gas, etc. When I stay in Park City, I usually don't even bother with renting a car ... there's no need to.

You can call me lazy, or whatever, but I think It would be awesome to have access to all of these resorts (without having to worry about the additional elements required to do true back-country skiing). I usually only go for 2 or 3 days of skiing ... having such easy access to all these mountains would almost certainly encourage me to go for 6 - 7 days.

At what expense and benefit?    Agree, very few people would use the connections.   Rather, I would see people doing it just to say they did it.   THis would be good advertising, actually awesome adverstising.    Akin to Gore saying 2800' vert.   It's true, but who really skis Gore's 2800 vert?     I won't take it from Gore or the Wasatch for playing the game this way though, most resorts play this way or would like to.   I envision lots of lost and stuck people.      Locals would probably like the additional lift served back country that would likely open.The money found in this industry is beyond me.     How Park City was getting a lease for $170,000/yr and now the Canyons is willing to pay $25,000,000/yr  for the same space.   The hidden money is crazy.  A lift is $6,000,000.  Lots of lifts can be installed with that kind of float.      

Face4Me wrote

but having to get in the car and drive elsewhere always seems to be the barrier. There's also the additional expense of renting a car, gas, etc.

Dude really? You're staying in Park City for free and its a barrier to rent a car? Next time you're there get on the bus to Snowbird or Alta if that isn't too much of a barrier?  Just messin with ya, it is funny though.

When the Giants lose the next 5 it better not be a barrier for you to buy me the 5 beers you'll own.

Yes.

This is a new, improved version that has eliminated the Ski Link gondola connection between The Canyons and Solitude that would have crossed public land. This version uses private property and minimal disruption of the bc areas surrounding the resorts.

This would be a popular addition for the vast majority of skiers and boarders who visit this area of Utah each year. A  nice side benefit might include the opening of Alta to boarders. It would be very handy to stay in Park City and be able to easily ski Brighton and Solitude or make the trip over to Alta/Snowbird without having to get in a car or bus. This would also help cut down some of the traffic in the region.

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

Dude really? You're staying in Park City for free and its a barrier to rent a car? Next time you're there get on the bus to Snowbird or Alta if that isn't too much of a barrier?

Actually, the bigger issue is even being able to get there ... I've stayed in Park City when Snowbird got dumped on, but guess what ... Little Cottonwood Canyon road closed!!!

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

Just messin with ya, it is funny though.

I'm cheap!

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

When the Giants lose the next 5 it better not be a barrier for you to buy me the 5 beers you'll own.

We'll see about that ... I'm thinking they'll be 1 - 1 after week 2!

Having skiing village to village in Europe I love this idea.  Each area would still maintain there own unique feel and I don't think Alta or DV is willing to accept snowboards over this.

They have to come up with a good revenue sharing system like they do in Europe where the lifts are owned by different entities.

One question I have is isn't the Grizzly lift out of Alta on the Avy prone aspect?  What happens if inter lodge traps people in the wrong Canyon?

Anyone ever notice how the mountains over the ridge in the trail map of whatever mountain you're looking at are always bigger than the one you're skiing?

I always want to ski that mountain.

ml242 wrote

Anyone ever notice how the mountains over the ridge in the trail map of whatever mountain you're looking at are always bigger than the one you're skiing?

I always want to ski that mountain.

 Just like touring. Something over the next ridge is always going to be better

http://grizzlyadam.net/2014/04/leaked-one-wasatch.html

That link was awesome.     Thank you.      Normally truth in most comedy.     As I noted, this could be more about marketing than anything else.  The lines about marketing the concept of the ability to leave the ski area where you decided to ski is priceless.    

I did not think of the snow dumps that could close the cottons.   That would be a good reason for them to join.   However, many people drive and/or stay there for just that reason.....if caught there, you are the only people there. No visitors.     That may be a reason to stay out of the program.   I can recall our trip last year.  Cloudless and warm on the PC/Canyons side while dumping all day at Snowbird.   The only people at Snowbird were the folks staying there and those of us who predicted (using weather of course) snow.  While not complaining too much, the lines were long on the tram.    If the interconnect was operational, the place would have been swamped and unmanagable.  

As for how the divy up the $,  the larger multi-valley resorts in Europe have electronic lift tickets, I assume they track the skiers lift rides and then divy up the money on some equation of where the skier starts and ends and how many lifts they ride in the other's valley.    

Hey, I was just at Alta/Snowbird this last winter, and I had a little hard time just traveling between those two mountains, which was pretty easy, but, I wanted to do it just because I could. After trying it a few times, I realized that I was spending most of my time traveling, instead of skiing.

If you want that experience at one mountain, just go to Vail. You never seem to get there, where ever it is.

This would never work unless all mountains allow snowboarders.  Deer Valley is on the edge of the megaresort, so you don't need to go through it to get to any other mountain.  This is not the case at Alta as Alta is the way to Snowbird.  There is no way that Snowbird would allow this to happen if Alta didn't allow snowboarding.  If Alta didn't open to snowboarders, Snowbird could not get any that came from other resorts.  This would be complete false advertising for snowboarders as they could only ride at Park City, The Canyons, Solitude, and Brighton.  Deer Valley and Alta don't allow it, and Snowbird would be cut off from the rest of the mountains to snowboarders, so none of them would go there.  Until all mountains allow snowboarding, I say nay to this, but if they do allow snowboarders everywhere, I say yay 100%.

That is how they do it in the Dolomites plus the resort that sold the pass gets a chunk for a commission.  You can ski all day and end up 30 miles away and take a bus back to your starting resort.  

Alta could just allow boarders on the new lift and terrain down to it.  Then you could take a short 2 to 3 min bus ride to Snowbird.  That could be the work around.  Alta will never allow snowboarders.  All the traversing to get to the goods would be hell for boarders and they would mess up the traverse lines.  

Snowboarding numbers severely are declining so it might no matter long term.

The typical Deer Valley customer probably has little interest in this so I would not be surprised if they did not get involved in this. Plus DV has a max ticket sales policy so they could not cut off the riff raff from clogging up their groomers if they participated.

Benny Profane wrote

If you want that experience at one mountain, just go to Vail. You never seem to get there, where ever it is.

OMG--perfect line.   While I enjoy Vail, that is exactly how I feel.    


Coach Z---great last points on DV with limited tix sales and "riff-raff"  Also thought of same solution for Snowbird/Alta.   Alta would likely agree to that limited use for a few bucks/person.  

The ticket price would have to be close to the normal ticket price, otherwise I feel these places are large enough and close enough to ski the ONE area all day, then move to another area the next day.    I might pay an extra $5 or $10 dollars if I wanted to explore, but not more than that.     PC does have good buses to get you around the mix, but again I forsee a lot of people getting stuck leaving from PC areas to get to cotton woods.  That bus ride home is a full hour.   I doubt that will come free with the pass.    

Linking the Big/Little Cottonwood Canyons via Alta/Solitude seems like a slam dunk to me. That makes it so you can ski those four areas staying up at any one of them. I don't really see the point in connecting the other areas to the Cottonwood Canyon areas. I think having four areas to choose from is already more than enough. Do you really want to spend all day going coast to coast to coast? That seems kinda silly to me. I've been reviewing a SLC trip as an option and logistics of staying at Alta and getting to Solitude is a bit of a PITA using the bus (looks like about 1:45 hours each way, hardly ideal when you are right at a mountain). Less time with a rental but that is a whole 'nuther can of worms...