Uh oh. Fast Tracks at Powdr resorts is coming

SBrown

So much better than a pro
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
6,668
Location
Colorado
And many of the locals aren't skiing those days anyway.

This is my thought. And this: Everyone is waaaaaaaay overthinking this. This is a daily add-on, and limited purchase. They aren't selling hundreds and hundreds of these to people who ski every day. If they oversell them, then they will have to deal with people who bought and still have to stand in a long line. As for pow days, it's a total crapshoot if you even get snow on the day you pick months in advance.

My feeling is so different. I view it like a glorified singles line, mostly, and we are all free to jump into a singles line to bypass other crowded lines. But mostly, I see it as an upgrade for people who don't get to ski that often. I get to ski a lot, and on weekdays, so I can avoid crowds more easily. I don't mind letting others have an opportunity at that. And I don't agree at all with those trying to differentiate this from hiring a pro on a powder day simply to cut lines. It is the SAME: people willing to spend more money are cutting your line.
 

slowrider

Trencher
Skier
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Posts
2,998
Perhaps. But winds are often a big factor on the mountain. Wind holds happen all the time and can affect multiple lifts. Similar thing when we get "unfrozen precipitation". Either situation will push people to lifts that service runs with less exposure ('Bach is a dormant volcano with access to all sides).

So, on the days when winds/conditions limit usable lifts, the Fast Track lanes at those lifts could make things worse. I said "could" there because some of those days a lot of skiers will just go (or stay) home and lift lines don't become crazy long.

But if it's a big snow day things will be a sh*tshow as usual. The mtn will be packed and most skiers will likely brave super long lift lines that are now even longer. Many folks in the normal lift corral will likely become hyper-sensitive about folks in the Fast Tracks slot passing them by & making the wait even longer for everyone else.
When I wave at you skating by in line don't hate me. :snowball:
 

UGASkiDawg

AKA David
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
1,583
Location
CO
Copper has had this for at least 4-5 years now. Not sure you could add it to day ticket though but you could certainly buy a season pass with it and add it to multi day day tickets as part of lodging. It was no big deal and I was never tempted to purchase the pass. I get in plenty of skiing...
 

Andy Mink

Airborne Andy
Moderator
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,258
Location
Reno
OK, for sake of argum, er, discussion let's say the fast pass area has an uphill capacity of 27,000 (approximately what Bachelor has) over 12 lifts. The average number of skiers per day over the whole season of 09-10 was 2,428 with the high 20 days averaging 5,900. That was quite a few years ago so lets use the average 20 days from 05-06 at 7,400. Heck, let's call it 8,000 (attendance numbers from Wikipedia, your source for everything ski related:rolleyes:).

So, 8,000 people on a pretty busy day and we'll use 15% as the number who purchase the Fast Tracks. 9 of the 12 lifts will use Fast Tracks. Granted, those are the main lifts with only the beginner lifts not on Fast Tracks. In my mind, you will NEVER have all 8,000 people on the hill at once. They will be in the lodge for breakfast or lunch. The bar for cocktails and hot chocolate. Sitting on the decks on nice days. Ski morning, leave at noon or ski noon to close. Plus you will have several hundred people just lapping the beginner areas throughout the day. So, as long as we're postulating here, let's say 5,000 on the hill at any given time.

1,200 people have Fast Tracks. Not all of those folks are on the hill at the same time either. Assuming (I know, I know!) 63% of the 8,000 are on the hill at any given time, we'll use 63% for the Fast Track users. So that's 756 people. We know they won't spread evenly across the hill and at times not all 9 FT lifts will be running. But it's a nice day and I'm pulling numbers out of thin air anyway, so...

If they were spread evenly, that's 84 FT riders per lift. You'll have at least half or more on the mountain at any given time so that's 42. On a six pack that's 7 chairs. I'm guessing they'll be loading as singles with <6 groups too.

Anyway, I'm not sure this will be as big a hit as we think it might be. Without knowing the actual FT pass numbers per day this is all just conjecture. Will it be a percentage of expected attendance or just a hard number? So, food for thought, plus I'm at home watching my back yard get re-done. YMMV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. If you read this far, thank you. If not, you'll never miss what you know!
 

SBrown

So much better than a pro
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
6,668
Location
Colorado
^^ and I would be shocked ... SHOCKED ... if 15% would be buying a Fast Pass on any day. Again, I don't know numbers, either, but that seems very high.
 

givethepigeye

Really, just Rob will do
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,161
Location
The CLT (or a plane)
This is my thought. And this: Everyone is waaaaaaaay overthinking this. This is a daily add-on, and limited purchase. They aren't selling hundreds and hundreds of these to people who ski every day. If they oversell them, then they will have to deal with people who bought and still have to stand in a long line. As for pow days, it's a total crapshoot if you even get snow on the day you pick months in advance.

My feeling is so different. I view it like a glorified singles line, mostly, and we are all free to jump into a singles line to bypass other crowded lines. But mostly, I see it as an upgrade for people who don't get to ski that often. I get to ski a lot, and on weekdays, so I can avoid crowds more easily. I don't mind letting others have an opportunity at that. And I don't agree at all with those trying to differentiate this from hiring a pro on a powder day simply to cut lines. It is the SAME: people willing to spend more money are cutting your line.
How dare you bring clear, thoughtful analysis to a topic that has triggered many before it has even occurred in real time yet. ogsmile
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
11,701
Location
The Bull City
RJS said:
let's acknowledge the truth that every one of us who stands in that lift line is privileged in some form or another to be standing there. Without bringing politics into this

All of us who stand in any lift line are privileged compared to most of the rest of the neighborhood I live in. Being able to afford to have the gear, transportation, lift access fees, and free time to apply all of that investment towards a leisure activity is something half of the people within 3 blocks of me in any direction will probably never experience. Or you could just say we're not dirt poor. I prefer privileged.. for that alone. But there are a lot of other things different about me than my neighbors when it comes to access and barriers to things not to be discussed here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tch

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
11,701
Location
The Bull City
I try not to worry if someone somewhere might be having more fun than I am, even if they paid an extra $50 for it, and especially if I am still having fun myself. This isn't even a pimple on the ass of inequality.
I'd be way more pissed if it was some special access to a public city park everyone should get to use for free. People griping loudest about this seem to thing ski resorts are just that..
 

SBrown

So much better than a pro
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
6,668
Location
Colorado
I'd be way more pissed if it was some special access to a public city park everyone should get to use for free. People griping loudest about this seem to thing ski resorts are just that..

Yep. I have been thinking a lot about Natl Park fee increases and the surrounding debate during this discussion. That is something that I do think is important and worthy of debate.

Inequality is 1. a fact of life, 2. everywhere. Not saying it's right, sometimes it's wrong, other times it just IS. I personally think this is not much to worry about (particularly with so many other meaningful areas to spend our attention). Other people think it is. I think certain things are more offensive than others do, too. C'est la vie.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
3,943
Location
Colorado
Inequality is 1. a fact of life, 2. everywhere. Not saying it's right, sometimes it's wrong, other times it just IS. I personally think this is not much to worry about (particularly with so many other meaningful areas to spend our attention). Other people think it is. I think certain things are more offensive than others do, too. C'est la vie.

Inequality in the US is not natural or a fact of life. We've created a system of inequality and we continue to reinforce it through continual behaviors like this. So yes, it "is" -- but it's current form isn't inherent to humanity -- it's a choice, it's a social production. There is plenty evidence that lesser forms of social inequality are possible. Not just in say, many current European examples. But there are plenty of pre-modern socieites where--while yes--"inequality existed"--they was far far less social inequality than what we have in the US now. Reduction to "inequality exists" as a dismissal of a concern rather than an engagement of "does this increase or decrease inequality" seems to avoid the question to me.

The only people who can comfortably ignore inequality are those who benefit from it. Sorry -- but that's just a fact of life.
 
Last edited:

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
11,701
Location
The Bull City
Inequality in the US is not natural or a fact of life. We've created a system of inequality and we continue to reinforce it through continual behaviors like this. There is plenty evidence that lesser forms of social inequality are possible. Not just in say, many European examples. But there are plenty of pre-modern socieites where--while yes--"inequality existed"--they was far far less social inequality than what we have in the US now. Reduction to "inequality exists" as a dismissal of a concern rather than an engagement of "does this increase or decrease inequality" seems to avoid the question to me.

The only people who can comfortably ignore inequality are those who benefit from it. Sorry -- but that's just a fact of life.

It's not always noticed and often denied until it impacts ME negatively..
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
31,246
Location
Reno, eNVy
I think you are waaaaaaay underappreciating what is happening here on many levels
And I think you are waaaaaay over analizing it....which means the actual real world effect is somewhere in the middle and that effect will be pretty broad depending on each individual person.

Inequality in the US is not natural or a fact of life.
What about the food chain, that is all about inequality. Skiing as a sport is all about inequality.
 

Dave Marshak

All Time World Champion
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
760
The only people who can comfortably ignore inequality are those who benefit from it. Sorry -- but that's just a fact of life.
Theoretically, if inequality of income and wealth continually increases, eventually one person has everything and the economy collapses. Historically, extreme inequality ends in political instability and/or economic disaster, but that will never happen here.

dm
 
Last edited:

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
3,943
Location
Colorado
What about the food chain, that is all about inequality. Skiing as a sport is all about inequality.

Huh? like...humans eating other animals?

The question is about social equality -- e.g. human society. Not equality amongst all things.

As my quote says, the social inequality in the US is not at all natural or a fact of life. It's the product of historical decisions and continue decisions that we make whether to reinforce it, extend it, ignore it, or reduce it.

As it relates to skiing and equality,
- the first question to me is: do products like this increase or decrease equality as it pertains to access to skiing?
- The second question is: what is the extent of the increase/decrease?
- A forth question is: how are different groups differentially impacted? that is...who does it impact the most?
- And a final question: based on all of those -- is it a move that I/we think is good/bad/otherwise?

What do I know...I just work as a professional evaluator of social programs from an equity, diversity and inclusion perspective.
 
Last edited:
Top