Advocacy for Expanding US Skiing Capacity

[Goose]

The capacity might be the same based on the lifts never stopping, but the FG lifts stop way more than the HS lifts. Loading and unloading is vastly different.

That depends where you ski, what type of terrain the specific lift services and how many lifts there are.
Skiing a lot at Blue mt and both the HS detachable are constantly stopping and doing so imo more than the two twin sister fixed doubles servicing the right third of the resort.

last time there just a couple weeks I was actually noting the stoppages and I recall barely making one full loop without seeing a stoppage while skiing down , or while on the line or while in the air. Its constant (on crowded days)

On another note,...the 6pack is often the longest lift lines of them all. And the most stoppages. But hence the small overcrowded zoos of this area.

But on another note I easily recall the torture of 40 minute lift lines being a weekend norm back in the old days at Hunter.

 

[tomahawkins]

So your last statement infers my simple understandable numbers are invalid though you have not explained how numerically. To just relate it is only so with no line, means there is something invalid in my numbers of totals of loop time that I do not see.
Please explain.

This is a fun little problem. Try this reasoning: Compare fixed-grip vs high-speed quad assuming all else is equal: runs, length, number of people. Also assume that capacity is high enough such that the fixed grip quad has a line. Now draw two boxes: the downhill box starts at the top and ends before you get in line at the corral. The uphill box starts at the end of the corral line and ends at the top. Note that for both fixed-grip and high-speed, the downhill box is exactly the same: both have 4 skiers entering the box every 8 seconds, both have 4 skiers leaving the box every 8 seconds. More importantly both have the same number of skiers in the downhill box at any given time. If both have the same number in the downhill box, this implies they also have the same number in the uphill box. And since the throughput on the uphill box is 4 skiers every 8 seconds, the time it takes to progress through the uphill box is the same regardless whether you are riding fixed-grip or high-speed. QED.

 

[tomahawkins]

Maybe the most cost effective means to increase capacity is to stop grooming.

 

[Goose]

Maybe the most cost effective means to increase capacity is to stop grooming.

And you can also then prevent any growing of the recreation as grooming has likely been one the things which helped it grow to where it is in the first place only next to the invention of the chairlift itself.

 

[Nathanvg]

The math showing upgrading to a HS lift from a FG lift results in LONGER lines is solid and it looks like it has been well explained above. There are a number of lift design factors that can adjust the exact effect but generally upgrading a FG quad for a HS quad will increase lines by the time the HS lift takes to reach the summit.

Regarding the question of how lift lines can be longer but skier visits across the US are unchanged, I think the trend is that a greater percent of those visits are at the top 50 ski areas in the country. Part of that has been alleviated by some ski area expansions but those same expansions have further put the smaller ski areas at a disadvantage. Of course, this year's COVID capacity limits are a major factor.

A few comments have suggested that all the demand is for ski areas with big villages. While I think there is clear demand for those things, I think there is demand for both. Many of the ski areas that are big work well with a village so there may be correlation without causation. Often those villages were big short term money makers but often degraded the ski area overall. There are several major ski areas that do not have big base villages that I think prove that point such as: Lake Louise, Sunshine Village, Arapahoe basin, Crystal, Mt Hood, Mt Bachelor, Alta, etc. Most of these areas have laws or logistics that prevent major village development. I'd like to see a better balance between these two types of areas. I think we could develop many more ski areas with smaller town footprints while still preserving the environment. The trick is to limit sprawl and ensure that the limited remaining lodging land is zoned for dense lodging, not just a few mansions. So I'd love to see proposal for no-village or dense village ski areas. Ideally these areas would have minimal development on mountain other than ski lifts and a few restaurants. No coaster, ziplines, snowmobile tracks, laser tag, etc.

 

[Goose]

A few comments have suggested that all the demand is for ski areas with big villages. While I think there is clear demand for those things, I think there is demand for both. Many of the ski areas that are big work well with a village so there may be correlation without causation. Often those villages were big short term money makers but often degraded the ski area overall. There are several major ski areas that do not have big base villages that I think prove that point such as: Lake Louise, Sunshine Village, Arapahoe basin, Crystal, Mt Hood, Mt Bachelor, Alta, etc. Most of these areas have laws or logistics that prevent major village development. I'd like to see a better balance between these two types of areas. I think we could develop many more ski areas with smaller town footprints while still preserving the environment. The trick is to limit sprawl and ensure that the limited remaining lodging land is zoned for dense lodging, not just a few mansions. So I'd love to see proposal for no-village or dense village ski areas. Ideally these areas would have minimal development on mountain other than ski lifts and a few restaurants. No coaster, ziplines, snowmobile tracks, laser tag, etc.

But then its not (in most cases) going to be as profitable enough unless in an area close enough to denser major populations. Like Atla or snowbird are with Salt lake City or like places near enough other densest areas like NYC . And your also talking about large ski areas whereas that in itself is attractive in its own right.

But the average flying distance (or major hrs car traveling) vacationing families with kids and or also the vacationing families where not everyone in them is a skier (or an avid skier) are not going to visit the "non ski village" resorts nearly as much as the others.

Any places near enough large dense populations dont really need the ski village per se because they got most whats needed anyway within the town or within a nearby enough of a town.

Honestly....2 years ago when I was finally able to take the fam on a major ski vacation requiring air travel and costing significant expense , one (of the very many) reasons I chose telluride was because there is not just a ski village but also an entire ski town. Among other things that weighed in heavy on my choices. My wife skis but not the avid skier, and my soin and daughter (even though not kids anymore) I wanted the family to experience not just skiing like we've done many times in VT but also the town, the beautiful scenery, and the whole vibe of such a place. It wasnt just a ski vacation but was a destination ski vacation. Two different kinds of things going on there imo.

 

[tball]

The letter below talks about how Vail is attempting to develop the last remaining big horn sheep winter habitat in the valley. Corporations talk a good game but ultimately whatever their revenue stream depends on will take priority over other issues. There are many examples of how our recreation, even though it often seems inconsequential to us, simply disrupts wildlife to the point where they disappear from areas they previously thrived in. We are loving our public lands to death.

This is why I do not support expanding or building new ski areas.

Letter: Vail Resorts needs to live up to its promise

Per the Vail Resorts employee handbook, I am obligated to share with CEO Rob Katz my concern surrounding the proposed development on the Booth Heights parcel in East Vail.

www.vaildaily.com

That's NIMBYism at its worst.

The residents of East Vail are using bighorn sheep as the excuse to keep long planned and much-needed employee housing out of their neighborhood.

The true colors of the article author can be seen in her previous testimony to the town council:

Anthony and Cindy Ryerson worried that the increase in traffic created by the project could affect safe access to their home. Anthony Ryerson noted that Vail Pass will close many times during a winter. That turns the area around the East Vail Interstate 70 interchange into a crowded and potentially dangerous area.​

Vail Town Council upholds Booth Heights decision

Council members voted to uphold the Booth Heights housing proposal by a 4-3 vote around 10:15 p.m. at the end of a charged public meeting that lasted over four hours.

www.vaildaily.com

​

Here's the proposal. It seems reasonable given the demand for workforce housing, the relatively small footprint, and there's already a freaking interstate there:

http://www.vailgov.com/Portals/0/docs/community%20development/Planning%20Projects/Vail%20Resorts%20East%20Vail/East%20Vail%20WFH%20Subdivision%20Narrative%208-28-17.pdf

 

[SSSdave]

Looking back on earlier posts I now note some seemed to be relating a fixed grip chair with the same number of seats as a high speed detachable has the same capacity. ??? In my chart, made the fixed grip chair times longer. That is why my numbers work and expect that is the source of misunderstanding. If a fixed grip quad takes say twice the time to reach the top, with all else equal, the detachable high speed lift will have an overall shorter loop time equal to the difference in times.

The lift line lengths will be the same as will the rate of people getting on the lift as will the ski down time. Thus the loop rate of the detachable is shorter. What can make this the same is if the fixed grip chair is not half the rate but rather the same speed. If so I am not aware that newer fixed grip chairs are now able to run at the same speed as high speed lifts.

 

[BC.]

Looking back on earlier posts I now note some seemed to be relating a fixed grip chair with the same number of seats as a high speed detachable has the same capacity. ??? In my chart, made the fixed grip chair times longer. That is why my numbers work and expect that is the source of misunderstanding. If a fixed grip quad takes say twice the time to reach the top, with all else equal, the detachable high speed lift will have an overall shorter loop time equal to the difference in times.

The lift line lengths will be the same as will the rate of people getting on the lift as will the ski down time. Thus the loop rate of the detachable is shorter. What can make this the same is if the fixed grip chair is not half the rate but rather the same speed. If so I am not aware that newer fixed grip chairs are now able to run at the same speed as high speed lifts.

Please don’t get them started on the fixed grip/high speed chair math debate.......it’s as bad as the skinny/wide ski debate....lol.

 

[crgildart]

Looking back on earlier posts I now note some seemed to be relating a fixed grip chair with the same number of seats as a high speed detachable has the same capacity. ??? In my chart, made the fixed grip chair times longer. That is why my numbers work and expect that is the source of misunderstanding. If a fixed grip quad takes say twice the time to reach the top, with all else equal, the detachable high speed lift will have an overall shorter loop time equal to the difference in times.

The lift line lengths will be the same as will the rate of people getting on the lift as will the ski down time. Thus the loop rate of the detachable is shorter. What can make this the same is if the fixed grip chair is not half the rate but rather the same speed. If so I am not aware that newer fixed grip chairs are now able to run at the same speed as high speed lifts.

High speed detachable only allows for half as many chairs going up because they have to be spaced twice as far apart due to the speed.. as the number of chairs going up for fixed grip. That means half as many people hanging on the cable going up at any given moment... So, twice as many people lined up waiting for half as many chairs available going up to a fixed grip. Fixed grip has a shorter line with more people sitting down taking a slower ride up.. Still a shorter line on fixed.. longer line for detachable.

 

[Johnny V.]

No math involved, for those of us who can ski at less crowded times with insignificant lift lines, the HS lift is faster.....................................please prove me wrong! (Just kidding!)

 

[Goose]

Looking back on earlier posts I now note some seemed to be relating a fixed grip chair with the same number of seats as a high speed detachable has the same capacity. ??? In my chart, made the fixed grip chair times longer. That is why my numbers work and expect that is the source of misunderstanding. If a fixed grip quad takes say twice the time to reach the top, with all else equal, the detachable high speed lift will have an overall shorter loop time equal to the difference in times.

The lift line lengths will be the same as will the rate of people getting on the lift as will the ski down time. Thus the loop rate of the detachable is shorter. What can make this the same is if the fixed grip chair is not half the rate but rather the same speed. If so I am not aware that newer fixed grip chairs are now able to run at the same speed as high speed lifts.

Spending less time on the cable, same time skiing down to the line so the group got from boarding to the back of the line faster but (when crowded) the line is longer because most folks returned quicker via that faster/quick lift ride. . All we did was trade time spent on the cable for that same time now being spent in line. Unless it is not crowded and there is no or very little line. Then the HS is much faster boarding to re-boarding. As the crowd and lift coral grows in people density it reaches a point of diminished returns and the only benefit is a shorter time on chair.

And honestly, except in the case of very cold weather Id rather hang in chair longer vs spend that similar longer time on line in the coral.

Please don’t get them started on the fixed grip/high speed chair math debate.......it’s as bad as the skinny/wide ski debate....lol.

Nah,...imo its not and its fun discussing and analyzing it with others. At least for me while my knee is still healing.

 

[SSSdave]

Nah,...imo its not and its fun discussing and analyzing it.

Quite agree.

 

[Goose]

Id like to see super high speed detachable 6-pack tee bars and 2 mile long rope tows.
What will the boarders do?

 

[pchewn]

High speed detachable only allows for half as many chairs going up because they have to be spaced twice as far apart due to the speed.. as the number of chairs going up for fixed grip. That means half as many people hanging on the cable going up at any given moment... So, twice as many people lined up waiting for half as many chairs available going up to a fixed grip. Fixed grip has a shorter line with more people sitting down taking a slower ride up.. Still a shorter line on fixed.. longer line for detachable.

I guess what we need then is the "full duplex" high speed quad chair design:

• Quad chairs
• Twice as many chairs as a regular high-speed quad
• Two loading stations at bottom
• Two unloading stations at top
• Loading station "A" alternates with loading station "B"
• Unloading station "A" alternates with unloading station "B"
• The chairs separate from the moving cable and are diverted to exit "A" and exit "B"
• The chairs do a zipper merge onto the moving cable of the lift at the loading station

This would then double the uphill capacity of the high speed quad.

 

[tball]

High speed detachable only allows for half as many chairs going up because they have to be spaced twice as far apart due to the speed.. as the number of chairs going up for fixed grip. That means half as many people hanging on the cable going up at any given moment... So, twice as many people lined up waiting for half as many chairs available going up to a fixed grip. Fixed grip has a shorter line with more people sitting down taking a slower ride up.. Still a shorter line on fixed.. longer line for detachable.

Here's a check on your work that doesn't seem to pan out.

Both A-basin and Loveland have modern fixed grip and high-speed quads. The high-speed quads generally have a slightly greater capacity than the fixed-grip quads. That means they generally chew through the line a little faster, but just a bit. The ride times are shorter and misloads less frequent, so it looks like a win-win for the HSQ to me. The downsides are cost and a shorter operational lifetime.

See the lift specs from @Lift Blog here:

Arapahoe Basin, CO

Click on a lift’s name to view pictures. View in fullscreen↗

liftblog.com

Loveland, CO

Click on a lift’s name for pictures. View in fullscreen↗

liftblog.com

Edit: Also, IIRC Loveland reduced the capacity of the new HSQ to match the 1800 pph of the triple it replaced so as to not overload the slope.

 

[crgildart]

Here's a check on your work that doesn't pan out.

Both A-basin and Loveland have modern fixed grip and high-speed quads. The high-speed quads generally have a slightly greater capacity than the fixed-grip quads. That means they generally chew through the line a little faster, but just a bit. The ride times are less and misloads less frequent, so it looks like a win-win for the HSQ to me.

See the lift specs from @Lift Blog here:

Arapahoe Basin, CO

Click on a lift’s name to view pictures. View in fullscreen↗

liftblog.com

Loveland, CO

Click on a lift’s name for pictures. View in fullscreen↗

liftblog.com

There's still a lot more people at the bottom waiting for fewer available but faster seats moving up. A much longer line moving "slightly" faster is a lose lose for me. I'd rather sit on a slow chair than stand in boots almost twice as long waiting for a faster ride up..

 

[Johnny V.]

As long as this thread has kind of drifted (with little help from @Tony S) to a lift efficiency discussion, we should probably include gondolas and trams just to cover all modes of uphill ski area transportation.

 

[tball]

There's still a lot more people at the bottom waiting for fewer available but faster seats moving up. A much longer line moving "slightly" faster is a lose-lose for me. I'd rather sit on a slow chair than stand in boots almost twice as long waiting for a faster ride up..

I guess that assumes everyone skis back down to the same crowded lift?

In these parts, if a line is that long, folks will migrate to another lift that isn't as crowded. It happens, but large resorts are rarely at full capacity on all lifts, and people are very good at avoiding lines. [Insert Vail Hitler video here]

 

[dbostedo]

I guess that assumes everyone skis back down to the same crowded lift?

In these parts, if a line is that long, folks will migrate to another lift that isn't as crowded. It happens, but large resorts are rarely at full capacity on all lifts, and people are very good at avoiding lines. [Insert Vail Hitler video here]

Well, Vail video... or maybe one of some resorts in the Mid-Atlantic here that really only have one main lift.