Advocacy for Expanding US Skiing Capacity

[tball]

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

I bet you have bars in the lodge to absorb overcrowded lifts, though!

Edit: I think we may have discovered a contributing factor to COVID lift lines. Nobody is sitting around eating and drinking!

 

[Goose]

A lot has to depend on the departing interval time. If a quad (whether FG or HSD) is placing 4 skiers in the air every 6 seconds then that is the rate the waiting coral will move regardless which lift it is.

 

[pchewn]

Here's a simple chart that shows the similar capacity (1600 skiers/hr) for high speed quad and fixed grip quad lifts at White Pass ski area. We don't need to speculate or calculate on the high-speed-quad vs quad debate. We have actual side-by-side numbers for actual lifts.

I skied there for the 1st time last week. There were no lines and I much preferred to ride the "Couloir Express" rather than the "Basin" lift -- because the ride was 4.1 minutes rather than 8.2 minutes. Even with the same 1600 skier/hr capacity.

Lift Blog White Pass

 

[Guy in Shorts]

The Killington Snowdon 6 pack bubble chair is normally run at 2/3 max speed as this is the fastest they can run the lift without having skier loading issues. Lift would stop every minute or two to untangle the tourists when they ran it at full speed. Comparing lift data on paper is far from real world operation.

 

[Errand Wolfe]

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

Well maybe the author is NIMBY but I oppose them in everyones back yard.

 

[Goose]

The Killington Snowdon 6 pack bubble chair is normally run at 2/3 max speed as this is the fastest they can run the lift without having skier loading issues. Lift would stop every minute or two to untangle the tourists when they ran it at full speed. Comparing lift data on paper is far from real world operation.

thats a fair and good point.
Also I notice in the chart the two 1600 capacity chairs have a 400 foot length difference. At about 4000 feet thats only about 10% or so longer but none the less not exact sisters.

But also Im not certain just how capacity is determined. I wonder if capacity calculation has some subjectivity in the way one calculates it.
I mean is there a standard to this measurement?
is it how many people can be dropped off up top in one hr beginning with an empty lift? or beginning with a full lift? And does the hr end after the last chair loads and then gets brought up to the top even after the hr expired? or does it end with whomever is not up top is left hanging?
There are big differences in those numbers.

The lift in the chart with largest capacity says 2400. And its the only lift in the chart which notes the amount of chairs. It says 78 chairs (if thats correct). It also states a 5 min ride time. That would mean a 10 min round trip for the chair. It actually means more because the ride time would be a tad shorter than the chair total loop time as the chair sits in the slower waiting detached section. And also the ride time is imo likely calculated only once reattached. But again there is some subjective possibilities.
But lets make it easy and say the 78 chairs have a 10 minute total loop (as per doubling the 5 min ride time indicated). Thats 6 trips per each of the 78 chairs per hr with a 4some of skiers. That math equals 1872 in one hr. How do they come up with 2400? And im being a tad lenient by doubling the 5 min ride time to make a 10 min loop when in reality the chair might actually be empty a tiny bit longer than it is full in which case the capacity would be slightly less than the 1872.
So just where does the 2400 come from? To reiterate.... Its 10 min loop which means 6 loops per hr for each of the 4seater 78 chairs. Thats 1872. not 2400. You would need 100 chairs of 4seats doing 6 loops per hr to make the 2400. So the 78 has to be wrong or they use a different more favorable method to determine capacity.

 

[tomahawkins]

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.

My comment about grooming was a bit tongue in cheek. However, if we are considering ways to increase capacity without changing existing infrastructure, the only way to do this is to increase the number of skiers on the downhill at any given time. This means skiing slower, spending more time getting from the top to the bottom. Restricting grooming is one way to accomplish this. Perhaps areas only groom the long, slow greens, but not the short, fast blues or blacks? And another benefit of slowing down skiers is fewer serious injuries and fatalities.

 

[no edge]

The consumer prefers larger ski areas with high speed lifts, adequate snowmaking, advanced grooming, and a variety of terrain. Off the snow, shopping, restaurants, decent lodging, winter activities to entertain the non skiers.

That is true but should wilderness places be subjected to that king of bull/&h!7. Well that is harsh I suppose. Great small ski areas use fixed grip lifts, no shopping to speak of, lodging near by, and entertainment is a bar full of serious skiers. Sounds like Magic!


In Vermont, the last new ski area was built in 1966. In New Hampshire, 1973.

If the public objects to lifts, parking lots, hotels, and restaurants, then resorts will forever be limited to existing areas. And the small ones will continue to struggle.

Resorts have been poor stewards of the land. Stowe even put in a golf course in the heart of the Green Mountains. Stratton too. Looks like New Jersey - not that there is anything wrong with that.

Oddly, we celebrate the history of the mavericks who built the original areas, rightly honoring their achievements with awards and accolades. But if these same 10th Mountain veterans, engineers, and entrepreneurs proposed the same today they would be branded as greedy developers intent on ruining the environment.

There isn't much left in Vermont to develop. Some marginal ski areas have failed. Climate change means elevation has become critical and snowmaking is expensive plus water is strictly monitored by the State (over regulated possibly).

Today we reap the benefits of a small window of development, most of it from the late1950's to very early 1970's.

Keep in mind, Vermont has changed a lot since the 60s. It was much more wilderness and less developed. Look at Mad River Glen and imagine what it was like back then. Look at the expertise that laid out that ski area and the way that lift was build. Today, the whole place would have been bulldozed like that one trail at Sugarbush North. The designers of today grand ski resorts are nothing like the 10th Mountain or the other renowned people who build places like Stowe and Mad River.

I don't trust developers, planners and new ski resorts.

 

[crgildart]

Here's a simple chart that shows the similar capacity (1600 skiers/hr) for high speed quad and fixed grip quad lifts at White Pass ski area. We don't need to speculate or calculate on the high-speed-quad vs quad debate. We have actual side-by-side numbers for actual lifts.

I skied there for the 1st time last week. There were no lines and I much preferred to ride the "Couloir Express" rather than the "Basin" lift -- because the ride was 4.1 minutes rather than 8.2 minutes. Even with the same 1600 skier/hr capacity.

Lift Blog White Pass

View attachment 124669

Exactly... not stacked up I'll take the high speed option. However, if there is a line I'd rather sit an extra 4 minutes on the slow lift cable than stand in line waiting for the faster ride up.

 

[no edge]

I will ride on a FG double and not complain out loud, but that doesn't mean that there is no frustration,

I ski at Jiminy peak and can't quite understand the logic presented earlier. I ski 1100 vertical in less than six min. Call it 7 min. Very small lift line means I can ski a ton of vertical in a short time. 7 times 8 runs is less than an hour (2 hrs = 17,000 feet). I always do better than 7 minuets per run and it's fun. I ski two hours and crawl to the car. I don't actually do 17,000 because I get too tired.

This was privately developed and still controlled by the owner from sometime during the 60s. Lots of real estate development, a windmill to offset the cost of snowmaking. I think that they do quite well.

 

[surfsnowgirl]

Magic does a really great job at controlling capacity and can write the book on communication and customer service. They've got it going on with covid protocols as well and cut ticket sales even more to make sure there aren't too many people. Think max tickets sold saturday were 600. They released a few more on Sunday and while it was more crowded people seem to disappear when you get off the chair.

 

[Goose]

My comment about grooming was a bit tongue in cheek. However, if we are considering ways to increase capacity without changing existing infrastructure, the only way to do this is to increase the number of skiers on the downhill at any given time. This means skiing slower, spending more time getting from the top to the bottom. Restricting grooming is one way to accomplish this. Perhaps areas only groom the long, slow greens, but not the short, fast blues or blacks? And another benefit of slowing down skiers is fewer serious injuries and fatalities.

But still, id bet my left arm if grooming was scaled back the recreation itself would eventually loose supporters/customers. grooming made/makes skiing easier as Im sure you know.
There are already more than enough hurtles for the starter family to become hooked. Scaling back grooming would be far greater another deterrent than it would ever be a positive for total participation.

 

[x10003q]

thats a fair and good point.
Also I notice in the chart the two 1600 capacity chairs have a 400 foot length difference. At about 4000 feet thats only about 10% or so longer but none the less not exact sisters.

But also Im not certain just how capacity is determined. I wonder if capacity calculation has some subjectivity in the way one calculates it.
I mean is there a standard to this measurement?
is it how many people can be dropped off up top in one hr beginning with an empty lift? or beginning with a full lift? And does the hr end after the last chair loads and then gets brought up to the top even after the hr expired? or does it end with whomever is not up top is left hanging?
There are big differences in those numbers.

The lift in the chart with largest capacity says 2400. And its the only lift in the chart which notes the amount of chairs. It says 78 chairs (if thats correct). It also states a 5 min ride time. That would mean a 10 min round trip for the chair. It actually means more because the ride time would be a tad shorter than the chair total loop time as the chair sits in the slower waiting detached section. And also the ride time is imo likely calculated only once reattached. But again there is some subjective possibilities.
But lets make it easy and say the 78 chairs have a 10 minute total loop (as per doubling the 5 min ride time indicated). Thats 6 trips per each of the 78 chairs per hr with a 4some of skiers. That math equals 1872 in one hr. How do they come up with 2400? And im being a tad lenient by doubling the 5 min ride time to make a 10 min loop when in reality the chair might actually be empty a tiny bit longer than it is full in which case the capacity would be slightly less than the 1872.
So just where does the 2400 come from? To reiterate.... Its 10 min loop which means 6 loops per hr for each of the 4seater 78 chairs. Thats 1872. not 2400. You would need 100 chairs of 4seats doing 6 loops per hr to make the 2400. So the 78 has to be wrong or they use a different more favorable method to determine capacity.

You would really need to see the engineering specs to do your calculation. There are variables that may not be reflected in the data. Maybe the spec on the chair was 1200ft/min and/or more chairs. Where did the 78 chairs come from? Maybe they run faster at crowded times. Maybe the original spec was 2400 but they have removed chairs and run slower and never recalculated.

The main issue is that for most of the 50 plus hours that ski areas are open during the week, there are minimal lines on the lifts. That means that most of the time the HS will be faster up the hill vs a FG lift. Even on regular weekends, most lifts do not have big lines all day.

 

[spoofer]

I have noticed declining lines in upstate NY over the past 30-40 years. Some lifts are rarely used these days unless conditions are excellent and its the only way to access trails.

 

[Ogg]

But still, id bet my left arm if grooming was scaled back the recreation itself would eventually loose supporters/customers. grooming made/makes skiing easier as Im sure you know.
There are already more than enough hurtles for the starter family to become hooked. Scaling back grooming would be far greater another deterrent than it would ever be a positive for total participation.

If they left more of the easier terrain ungroomed it would be easier for people to learn to ski moguls and you would have more people that could ski them.

 

[Goose]

If they left more of the easier terrain ungroomed it would be easier for people to learn to ski moguls and you would have more people that could ski them.

Not everyone wants to ski moguls. I for one really dont anymore.
But regardless, ...There is a reason grooming became so popular and even at the enormous expense of doing it, still is a major function of the entire ski industry and its growth among the masses. And also grooming has grown and expanded almost religiously. No one is going to spend that kind of money if what they spend it on wouldn't result in a profitable return.
There is a reason for it all and Its because it worked. And it still does work.

 

[Goose]

And i forgot to mention to Ogg
yes id agree they should have some (at least a little) section/s for moguls, etc... on the blues nd even greens here and there.

 

[Shawn]

the 6pack is often the longest lift lines of them all.

So here's how I understand it. The main choke point is the loading interval: how frequently the chairs come. With a quad, you're pretty much loading the same skiers per hour regardless of the rope speed because the loading interval is about the same. Every 6 seconds? Every 8 seconds? For example, for a quad chair with a six-second loading interval, you get 3,600 seconds / a chair every 6 seconds = 600 chairs per hour x 4 people per chair = 2,400 people per hour. It's the same regardless of the rope speed, so a detachable quad doesn't give you more skiing on a crowded day. That I agree with you on.

But with a six-pack, the capacity increases. So instead you get 3,600 seconds / a chair every 6 seconds = 600 chairs per hour x 6 people per chair = 3,600 people per hour. Six-packs might in fact let you do more skiing. If you're waiting in a line of 3,600 skiers, then you'll get loaded in 1 hour. Whereas if you're waiting in a line of 3,600 skiers on a lift with a capacity of 2,400 people per hour, you'll be waiting quite a bit longer. But maybe there's an induced demand argument to make. Kind of like how when they build additional lanes on highways, people end up using the highway more and traffic ends up just as bad.

 

[Goose]

So here's how I understand it. The main choke point is the loading interval: how frequently the chairs come. With a quad, you're pretty much loading the same skiers per hour regardless of the rope speed because the loading interval is about the same. Every 6 seconds? Every 8 seconds? For example, for a quad chair with a six-second loading interval, you get 3,600 seconds / a chair every 6 seconds = 600 chairs per hour x 4 people per chair = 2,400 people per hour. It's the same regardless of the rope speed, so a detachable quad doesn't give you more skiing on a crowded day. That I agree with you on.

But with a six-pack, the capacity increases. So instead you get 3,600 seconds / a chair every 6 seconds = 600 chairs per hour x 6 people per chair = 3,600 people per hour. Six-packs might in fact let you do more skiing. If you're waiting in a line of 3,600 skiers, then you'll get loaded in 1 hour. Whereas if you're waiting in a line of 3,600 skiers on a lift with a capacity of 2,400 people per hour, you'll be waiting quite a bit longer. But maybe there's an induced demand argument to make. Kind of like how when they build additional lanes on highways, people end up using the highway more and traffic ends up just as bad.

Yes agree imo to all points.

I referred to a 6-pack at one my most visited hills being usually the longest and slowest line. Mostly only cause majority of people head over to it.

 

[Ogg]

Not everyone wants to ski moguls. I for one really dont anymore.
But regardless, ...There is a reason grooming became so popular and even at the enormous expense of doing it, still is a major function of the entire ski industry and its growth among the masses. And also grooming has grown and expanded almost religiously. No one is going to spend that kind of money if what they spend it on wouldn't result in a profitable return.
There is a reason for it all and Its because it worked. And it still does work.

Yeah unfortunately skiing has been dumbed down for the lowest common denominator like so many other things.