potatopizzafan said:
Not enough people buying $300 lift tickets?
Click to expand...
Or $80 parking or $30 burgers.

The snow drought hit Vail hard on top of the backlash it was facing over high prices, employee relations and complaints of homogrnizkng it's resorts.

Honestly, most Vail resorts suck. Whistler, Park City, Heavenly and yes Vail have the brands but they mostly don't deliver the goods.
 
MichaelS said:

One step closer.
Click to expand...
I'm anything but an Alberta government cheerleader but it seems like they're being pretty reasonable here. They're asking them to do the work to show they can do what they're proposing sustainably. Conservationists, rightfully, want to leave the area mostly untouched. That just doesn't square with the reality that people are coming no matter what, directing people to these specified areas is a good way to preserve the larger area. I don't know the numbers, but I would say most people that go to Banff and Canmore don't venture very far beyond those towns. Sure, these four-season resorts would induce more demand but hiking a lot in summer and skiing in the winter, the demand is there now. This and what Nakiska is doing can pull people towards those areas where they can properly accommodate people and away from places that can't.

I also like the idea of someone beyond Pursuit's monopoly being able to operate in the area, competition might make visiting the area more affordable.

Another thing... Highway 40 will need to be expanded sooner than later if these resort developments go ahead, the province is going to want to capture the costs for that from these developments.
 
Last edited:
potatopizzafan said:
Not enough people buying $300 lift tickets?
Click to expand...
Vail makes its money on passes. Day rates are just a bonus.

Their system may have resulted in a shift, which I don't know if it maximizes revenue or not. I know for Whistler the number of passes now makes any half decent weekend day unappealing for me, so instead of 8 days using the equivalent of a Sunshine/Louise Card, my skiing at Whistler is zero to two days.

Then you have climate change, the pass heavy system mitigates risk one year, but then makes it hard to bring people back the next year.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Highway 40 will need to be expanded sooner than later if these resort developments go ahead
Click to expand...
Maybe some flexi posts down the middle to stop stupid crashes, and intersection changes to deconflict, but there really isn't much need otherwise. single lane roads can carry lots of traffic.
 
darwink said:
Maybe some flexi posts down the middle to stop stupid crashes, and intersection changes to deconflict, but there really isn't much need otherwise. single lane roads can carry lots of traffic.
Click to expand...
Someday Smith Dorrien will need to paved and a better route built up from Dorrien. That would add redundancy to 40.

Fortress is a good start. I'd like to see the Spray Lakes proposal from the 70s revived
 
The water argument is a red herring. ~90% of indoor water consumption is returned as is ~80% of snow making. As this use is at the top of the watershed, almost all of the returned water is available for downstream use.
 
DougB said:
The water argument is a red herring. ~90% of indoor water consumption is returned as is ~80% of snow making. As this use is at the top of the watershed, almost all of the returned water is available for downstream use.
Click to expand...
Correct, on a site that has already been semi-developed, albeit vacant for some time. Good that the boxes are being checked, but to deny this or downsize it significantly would be ridiculous
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top