Comments on: Expansion of Crested Butte Ski Area Nixed http://www.wildsnow.com/2252/crested-butte-expansion/ Backcountry Skiing Weblog Blog, FAQs, more, links and info about randonnee, telemark and backcountry ski mountaineering. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:43:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: chuck shaw http://www.wildsnow.com/2252/crested-butte-expansion/comment-page-2/#comment-22560 chuck shaw Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:14:54 +0000 http://www.wildsnow.com/?p=2252#comment-22560 Lou, as one of the so-called Snodgrass "anti's" (altho' it should be noted that we view ourselves as a "pro" group - "pro-lift-free", that is) i'd like to wade in here. The real question is what would be gained and what would have been lost by expanding lift-served skiing onto Snodgrass? Here's some of the facts of the issue, all of which come from ski industry data (which I can provide if you'd like). Please bear with me as I work from macro to micro. * Colorado's resorts have expanded terrain by more than 50% since 95/96 (adding 13,000 skiable acres) - every CO ski area expanded except Howelson Hill in S'boat Spgs. However, "total" skier visits barely budged, inching up at less than 1%/year. * Virtually all of that skier visit growth occurred at a 3 ski areas - Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and A-Basin, which had relatively small terrain expansions (+/- 400 acres ave.) * Conversely, their neighbors - Aspen, Keystone, Vail and Winter Park - expanded an average of 1,500 acres each and they all LOST Skier Visits! * For the past decade-and-a-half, the strategy of expanding terrain in order to attract more skiers and/or improve ski town economies has flat-out failed. * More importantly, "Paid" skier visits - the ones that do boost ski town economies - have been in steady decline industry-wide - in spite of vast terrain additions. * That small growth in "total" skier visits mentioned above came from a declining number participants who skied/boarded more days using heavily-discounted season passes (ala Vail's Epic Pass). Both the NSAA and the USFS attribute CO's small total visit growth to increased season pass use (which does little for local economies). * The ski industry's demographics are truly frightening. The number of skiing participants dropped nearly 30% since '98. Snowboarder participants, which grew steadily between '98 and '03, suddenly reversed, dropping 19% since '03. Baby Boomers, the meat of the market, are rapidly dropping out of the sport. Michael Berry, NSAA prez', says Boomers are down 40% since '97 and the rest will be gone in a decade. The NSAA's Model for Growth, instituted in 2000 specifically to attract new participants, has been a failure. As to the local issue: * True, CBMR's skier visits are down 35% since 97/98. However, 97/98 was the height of their infamous Ski Free program and they gave away more than 100,000 free lift tickets that year. in addition, the cash-strapped previous owners shortened their ski season by 31 days (21%) and the quality of the ski product dropped way off. There's no mystery here - CBMR gave lift tickets away and their visits jumped way up, they stopped giving tickets away and shortened their season and visits dropped way back. Since new owners arrived in '04, CBMR's growth in visits is better than the CO average. * The existing ski area is way under-utilized at less than 40% of it's Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC). Skier Density/acre numbers are extremely low. There are rarely lift-lines except on holiday weekends. There's plenty of room for more skiers on the existing ski mountain. The challenge has always been how to get 'em to this remote valley with spotty air service and long drive times. * CBMR has standing approval from the USFS to implement badly needed upgrades to the existing ski area on Crested Butte Mountain including: add intermediate terrain; glade intermediate trees; upgrade old, uncomfortable, slow, fixed-grip/center-pole chairs; add a new lift; eliminate long-standing, dangerous bottlenecks; add restaurants and bathrooms (both of which are deficient), and more. Some of these unimplemented USFS approvals are 12 years old. CBMR can't compete with the Beaver Creek's of the ski world as long as the existing ski area is an unfinished work-in-process. * CBMR continually complains that CB Mtn is deficient - not big enough to keep people happy for more than 3 days, not enough intermediate, runs that are too steep and too short for most skiers (seems like that repeated negative message from the owners would depress skier visits, doesn't it?). They also claim that Snodgrass would have provided an "overabundance" of intermediate terrain and transform the resort. However, CBMR's own terrain data, published in their Master Development Plan, says otherwise… * Snodgrass would have provided only 276 total acres of which only 98 would have been intermediate. The intermediate runs on Snodgrass would have been both steeper and shorter, on average, than the intermediate on CB Mtn. There would have been more Black/Double Black terrain on Snodgrass than intermediate. If, as CBMR claims, the existing terrain is too short and steep, how does adding more terrain that is shorter and steeper solve the problem? * The top of Snodgrass would have been more than 45 minutes, via 4 lift-rides, from the current Base Area. lower Level skiers could only have accessed Snodgrass on a bus. Snodgrass would have been small, short, steep and hard to get to. Hardly transformative…in fact, it sounds a lot like their complaints about CB Mtn. * Environmentally, Snodgrass would have been a disaster. More than 200 acres of trees clear-cut, extensive blasting and filling in order to try to smooth out the mountain's unstable, convoluted topography, substantial snowmaking and drainage systems that would have destroyed the mountain's complicated hydrology. The extensive, year-round, easily-accessed, free backcountry recreational benefits would have been substantially altered and/or destroyed. The USFS likes expansions that are "light on the land", like A-Basin's Montezuma Bowl. Snodgrass couldn't have been much "heavier on the land." BTW, most of the Friends of Snodgrass - you know, the "anti" group - are avid alpine skiers. We're not anti-CBMR or anti-skiing as has been claimed. it's just that the Snodgrass expansion would have been a losing proposition for the American public - the owners of the National Forests. There would have been substantial downside to the expansion and the chances of it improving our local economy, as CBMR claimed, would have been approximately zero. Lou, as one of the so-called Snodgrass “anti’s” (altho’ it should be noted that we view ourselves as a “pro” group – “pro-lift-free”, that is) i’d like to wade in here. The real question is what would be gained and what would have been lost by expanding lift-served skiing onto Snodgrass? Here’s some of the facts of the issue, all of which come from ski industry data (which I can provide if you’d like). Please bear with me as I work from macro to micro.
* Colorado’s resorts have expanded terrain by more than 50% since 95/96 (adding 13,000 skiable acres) – every CO ski area expanded except Howelson Hill in S’boat Spgs. However, “total” skier visits barely budged, inching up at less than 1%/year.
* Virtually all of that skier visit growth occurred at a 3 ski areas – Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and A-Basin, which had relatively small terrain expansions (+/- 400 acres ave.)
* Conversely, their neighbors – Aspen, Keystone, Vail and Winter Park – expanded an average of 1,500 acres each and they all LOST Skier Visits!
* For the past decade-and-a-half, the strategy of expanding terrain in order to attract more skiers and/or improve ski town economies has flat-out failed.
* More importantly, “Paid” skier visits – the ones that do boost ski town economies – have been in steady decline industry-wide – in spite of vast terrain additions.
* That small growth in “total” skier visits mentioned above came from a declining number participants who skied/boarded more days using heavily-discounted season passes (ala Vail’s Epic Pass). Both the NSAA and the USFS attribute CO’s small total visit growth to increased season pass use (which does little for local economies).
* The ski industry’s demographics are truly frightening. The number of skiing participants dropped nearly 30% since ’98. Snowboarder participants, which grew steadily between ’98 and ’03, suddenly reversed, dropping 19% since ’03. Baby Boomers, the meat of the market, are rapidly dropping out of the sport. Michael Berry, NSAA prez’, says Boomers are down 40% since ’97 and the rest will be gone in a decade. The NSAA’s Model for Growth, instituted in 2000 specifically to attract new participants, has been a failure.

As to the local issue:
* True, CBMR’s skier visits are down 35% since 97/98. However, 97/98 was the height of their infamous Ski Free program and they gave away more than 100,000 free lift tickets that year. in addition, the cash-strapped previous owners shortened their ski season by 31 days (21%) and the quality of the ski product dropped way off. There’s no mystery here – CBMR gave lift tickets away and their visits jumped way up, they stopped giving tickets away and shortened their season and visits dropped way back. Since new owners arrived in ’04, CBMR’s growth in visits is better than the CO average.
* The existing ski area is way under-utilized at less than 40% of it’s Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC). Skier Density/acre numbers are extremely low. There are rarely lift-lines except on holiday weekends. There’s plenty of room for more skiers on the existing ski mountain. The challenge has always been how to get ‘em to this remote valley with spotty air service and long drive times.
* CBMR has standing approval from the USFS to implement badly needed upgrades to the existing ski area on Crested Butte Mountain including: add intermediate terrain; glade intermediate trees; upgrade old, uncomfortable, slow, fixed-grip/center-pole chairs; add a new lift; eliminate long-standing, dangerous bottlenecks; add restaurants and bathrooms (both of which are deficient), and more. Some of these unimplemented USFS approvals are 12 years old. CBMR can’t compete with the Beaver Creek’s of the ski world as long as the existing ski area is an unfinished work-in-process.
* CBMR continually complains that CB Mtn is deficient – not big enough to keep people happy for more than 3 days, not enough intermediate, runs that are too steep and too short for most skiers (seems like that repeated negative message from the owners would depress skier visits, doesn’t it?). They also claim that Snodgrass would have provided an “overabundance” of intermediate terrain and transform the resort. However, CBMR’s own terrain data, published in their Master Development Plan, says otherwise…
* Snodgrass would have provided only 276 total acres of which only 98 would have been intermediate. The intermediate runs on Snodgrass would have been both steeper and shorter, on average, than the intermediate on CB Mtn. There would have been more Black/Double Black terrain on Snodgrass than intermediate. If, as CBMR claims, the existing terrain is too short and steep, how does adding more terrain that is shorter and steeper solve the problem?
* The top of Snodgrass would have been more than 45 minutes, via 4 lift-rides, from the current Base Area. lower Level skiers could only have accessed Snodgrass on a bus. Snodgrass would have been small, short, steep and hard to get to. Hardly transformative…in fact, it sounds a lot like their complaints about CB Mtn.
* Environmentally, Snodgrass would have been a disaster. More than 200 acres of trees clear-cut, extensive blasting and filling in order to try to smooth out the mountain’s unstable, convoluted topography, substantial snowmaking and drainage systems that would have destroyed the mountain’s complicated hydrology. The extensive, year-round, easily-accessed, free backcountry recreational benefits would have been substantially altered and/or destroyed.
The USFS likes expansions that are “light on the land”, like A-Basin’s Montezuma Bowl. Snodgrass couldn’t have been much “heavier on the land.”

BTW, most of the Friends of Snodgrass – you know, the “anti” group – are avid alpine skiers. We’re not anti-CBMR or anti-skiing as has been claimed. it’s just that the Snodgrass expansion would have been a losing proposition for the American public – the owners of the National Forests. There would have been substantial downside to the expansion and the chances of it improving our local economy, as CBMR claimed, would have been approximately zero.

]]> By: David http://www.wildsnow.com/2252/crested-butte-expansion/comment-page-2/#comment-22516 David Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:15:42 +0000 http://www.wildsnow.com/?p=2252#comment-22516 Defintely anti-walking, anti-biking, and anti-driving from Florida to Colorado or to Utah for that matter. I love flying and the carbon foot print we all leave to to reach the skiing areas. I bet the next thing they will suggest is that we use a solar powered plane to come skiing. If you are a leftist (which I am not), you should all sell your condo if you can. Once your global warming hype comes true (as you beleive it will), there will be no skiing/snow boarding. I say expand the mountain while there is still snow. :biggrin: Defintely anti-walking, anti-biking, and anti-driving from Florida to Colorado or to Utah for that matter. I love flying and the carbon foot print we all leave to to reach the skiing areas. I bet the next thing they will suggest is that we use a solar powered plane to come skiing. If you are a leftist (which I am not), you should all sell your condo if you can. Once your global warming hype comes true (as you beleive it will), there will be no skiing/snow boarding.

I say expand the mountain while there is still snow. :biggrin:

]]> By: Lou http://www.wildsnow.com/2252/crested-butte-expansion/comment-page-2/#comment-22510 Lou Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:10:03 +0000 http://www.wildsnow.com/?p=2252#comment-22510 Like Dave says, anyone can buy carbon offsets from him, and he'll just ride his bicycle more for you. He should hit up the private jet owners going in and out of Aspen, as they make so much CO2 it makes everything else look like fairy breath. Like Dave says, anyone can buy carbon offsets from him, and he’ll just ride his bicycle more for you. He should hit up the private jet owners going in and out of Aspen, as they make so much CO2 it makes everything else look like fairy breath.

]]> By: David http://www.wildsnow.com/2252/crested-butte-expansion/comment-page-2/#comment-22508 David Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:47:57 +0000 http://www.wildsnow.com/?p=2252#comment-22508 I wonder what impact nuclear warfare will have on the ski industry and wildlife? I am pro-life, for the record. Just got back from Powder Mountain---still cheap---and better than most ski areas in the US. Lifts a little slow. They need Wal Mart and few more condos in Eden, then I won't be able to complain because the new gondolas will be FAST, but I will complain about the new price. What about all the pollution from the jets we take to get to the ski areas. Skiing should be illegal to non-locals. But then none of the lifts would be operative due to lack of funds. But all the granola munching tree huggers, could get on their mountain bikes and hook up a turnstile to make the lift wheels go, Flinstone engineering style. Or just hike for their turns. God forbid all of us tourist come to your mountain and enjoy it. May be I should move to your mountain so I can be a "local too". Nah I will stay here in Florida and enjoy my days by the sea, and come to visit your mountain, and watch all the locals take everything way too seriously. It is alot of fun I might add.. -Thanks, interesting blog. I wonder what impact nuclear warfare will have on the ski industry and wildlife? I am pro-life, for the record.

Just got back from Powder Mountain—still cheap—and better than most ski areas in the US. Lifts a little slow. They need Wal Mart and few more condos in Eden, then I won’t be able to complain because the new gondolas will be FAST, but I will complain about the new price.

What about all the pollution from the jets we take to get to the ski areas. Skiing should be illegal to non-locals. But then none of the lifts would be operative due to lack of funds. But all the granola munching tree huggers, could get on their mountain bikes and hook up a turnstile to make the lift wheels go, Flinstone engineering style. Or just hike for their turns. God forbid all of us tourist come to your mountain and enjoy it. May be I should move to your mountain so I can be a “local too”. Nah I will stay here in Florida and enjoy my days by the sea, and come to visit your mountain, and watch all the locals take everything way too seriously. It is alot of fun I might add..

-Thanks, interesting blog.

]]> By: Albert http://www.wildsnow.com/2252/crested-butte-expansion/comment-page-2/#comment-22280 Albert Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:54:02 +0000 http://www.wildsnow.com/?p=2252#comment-22280 In my view An enterprising person is one who comes across a pile of scrap metal and sees the making of a wonderful sculpture. An enterprising person is one who drives through an old decrepit part of town and sees a new housing development. An enterprising person is one who sees opportunity in all areas of life. To be enterprising is to keep your eyes open and your mind active. It's to be skilled enough, confident enough, creative enough and disciplined enough to seize opportunities that present themselves... regardless of the economy. In my view An enterprising person is one who comes across a pile of scrap metal and sees the making of a wonderful sculpture. An enterprising person is one who drives through an old decrepit part of town and sees a new housing development. An enterprising person is one who sees opportunity in all areas of life. To be enterprising is to keep your eyes open and your mind active. It’s to be skilled enough, confident enough, creative enough and disciplined enough to seize opportunities that present themselves… regardless of the economy.

]]>