Big Sky seems like a really interesting case where the increased crowding issue is limited to the tram while the rest of the mountain is, relatively speaking, uncrowded. Compare that with a place like Jackson Hole, Alta, or Snowbird, where the increased crowding is more uniformly distributed across the lifts on the mountain. Given how ambitious Big Sky's future development plans are, I would be surprised if they did not want to continue increasing overall visitation, with the caveat that they need to control visitation at the tram.
While I do not love this idea as a skier as it increases the costs of me visiting Big Sky, I am intrigued from a business standpoint. From an Econ 101 perspective, when the supply of expert terrain is limited and demand keeps rising, it makes sense that prices will increase. Big Sky's strategy is quite interesting: they are increasing their overall visitation by accepting customers with Ikon Passes, but getting (presumably) less revenue per ticket from Ikon than they would from day ticket sales, but now increasing the price of their supply-constrained lift in order to better manage limited resources and make additional revenue.
Curious to see how this plays out. Do expert destination skiers (possibly along with their family and friends) revolt and decide to ski other mountains? Or, does tram access not factor into their decision-making? After all, like someone posted, the cost of adding tram access while on a vacation is probably trivial compared with the overall cost of the vacation. Do tram lines actually decrease? If so, that's a win for folks who purchase tram access. And if tram lines don't decrease? Big Sky makes more money.
I expect to see more creativity in pricing at the most sought-after ski areas in order to manage crowds and increase revenue.