Utah Connect and Utah ski and snowboard Interconnect

How's business?

2011-11-06T03:19:00.000-08:00

Could be better, right? Everything is changing massively; consumers are “deleveraging” and this may go on for a while. If you're still hoping that business will significantly improve this winter, think again!

"Connecting the seven Wasatch Front resorts would result in a huge leap forward with incredible benefits..."

It's not just happening in Park City, but at every mountain resort near us; in Vail, everywhere in Colorado, at Lake Tahoe and in the Canadian Rockies. Sure, each ski town is trying to enhance its “best practices,” shave costs, be more creative, but in the end, the gains will remain small and market shares won't change much.

Park City resorts and their Wasatch neighbors would significantly "move the needle" if they “connected the dots” and finally harnessed their potential for snow interconnect. This would mean a huge leap forward as it would steal market share from out-of-state resorts and double our number of visitors in the time it would take to physically connect our seven closest resorts. More importantly, this could be accomplished while setting the stage for environmentally-friendly transportation and mass-transit solutions.

So, if you are tired of leaving money on the table, are not happy with the status quo, are not yet indifferent or apathetic and if you still feel some sense of hope and urgency, read on and check our updated "progress report..."

JF Lanvers, Park City, Utah

Whether you stumble upon this site, or are invited to take a peek at it, don’t hesitate to jot down a comment. This is an interactive and totally open site that welcomes all ideas and opinions. Article contributions are also welcome; let me know, I'll send you an invitation.

2011-09-27T12:55:00.000-07:00

Deseret News Article - September 2011
Tram proposal would take skiers from Summit County to Salt Lake County
By John Hollenhorst the Deseret News

Someday, skiers and snowboarders in Summit County may be able to ride a tram more than a mile to a skiing destination in Salt Lake County. A plan is in the works to build a tram between Canyons and Solitude resorts that would be first ski facility ever to cross the spine of the Wasatch Mountains.

Proponents of the joint project between Talisker Corp, owner of Canyons in Summit County, and Solitude Mountain Resort in Salt Lake County would be a way for recreationists to reach Solitude without driving from the Salt Lake Valley up the often-congested highway in Big Cottonwood Canyon. A proposal to build a tram or ski lift to link The Canyons with Solitude is in the works.

Resort officials said the design and route for the tram have not been chosen, nor have final decisions been made. And while a tram is the preferred approach, proponents have not fully ruled out a chair-lift instead. Officials said a press conference could be held as soon as two weeks to announce the plan.

Somewhere near the top of the Canyons lifts in Summit County, skiers would board the tram. It would climb over the Wasatch Divide, and plunge into Big Cottonwood Canyon. Skiers and snowboarders could enjoy the slopes at Solitude and, at the end of the day, return to The Canyons on the same tram.

Long-time skier James Marshall heard about the plan while bicycling near Solitude. "Sounds like a great idea because there'd be less congestion," Marshall said. "It would make it more dynamic." That echoes the primary argument proponents are making to win approval for the tram.

Ted Wilson, spokesman for Talisker Corp., said skiers could park their cars in Summit County and ski at both resorts in one day. "We have 5,0000 to 8,000 cars going to Big Cottonwood Canyon on the big weekends," Wilson said. "We believe that we could save up to a million miles of car traffic (each winter) on the Big Cottonwood side."

But some environmentalists oppose the plan, arguing that few skiers would consider it worth the trouble to park their cars in Summit County. "You have to ride maybe four lifts (at The Canyons) to get to where you would take this interconnect down to Solitude," said Carl Fisher, executive director of Save Our Canyons.

Wilson argues that skiers would be attracted to start their skiing day at The Canyons because it has easier parking and freeway access instead of the winding, congested road in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Another point of controversy is whether the tram would open up more terrain for downhill skiing on the Big Cottonwood side. Wilson said the tram would be designed without a stopping point on the highest ridgeline. That would prevent skiers from dismounting there and skiing down to Solitude on undeveloped slopes of Big Cottonwood Canyon.

Fisher argues that existing chair-lifts at Canyons resort already reach the highest ridge from the Summit County side, where skiers could descend on the undeveloped slopes to Solitude and then return to The Canyons on the tram. "Canyon skiers could flood the area more than they already are," Fisher said. "The Wasatch is becoming a very, very crowded place and there's a bunch of different uses that take place in this area." He said snow-shoe enthusiasts, winter photographers and back-country skiers might be forced out of the area if the tram brings hordes of downhill skiers.

The plan is rekindling a controversy that's been smoldering for decades. Some critics worry it's the kickoff of the so-called Ski Interconnect, a longstanding proposal to link all the major resorts in the Wasatch. "It's definitely a step toward creating one huge mega-resort in the Wasatch," Fisher said. The tram, or chair-lift if it's scaled down, would need approval from the U.S. Forest Service. The plan would be subject to an open public process and an environmental review.

Progress update

2009-10-06T09:13:00.000-07:00

Without some progress there wouldn't be any reason to pursue anything. Here's a transparent measurable yardstick of the progress made towards making our interconnect a reality. It also sets the record as to where key individuals stand for or against the idea. Check it out regularly...

John Stafsholt (candidate for City Council) likes the idea
October 7, 2009
I am glad that you are taking up this cause. The first time I skied multiple Utah resorts was in 1979, it was a critical factor in why I decided to move here. I have a ski in/ ski out historic home that utilizes the town lift and I had expected to be able to ski my beloved bowls and chutes at Alta via PCMR a long time ago. It is the only thing that makes sense.

In my opinion the political boundaries between the ski resorts are only due to fear and a lack of communication. It has always been my understanding that part of the decision to put in a 6 pack lift in McConkey's was to service a large number of skiers connecting with Deer Valley. The 6 pack was not economical, but a step toward a connection.

I would try to get more discussions going between Bob Wheaton and Peter Curtis and Brent Giles. These two mountains are within our towns' borders, so we some say in these discussions. I would also support and attend any communications between the 7 multiple resorts to be linked. Now more than ever this makes sense. The environmental benefits are huge and I'm glad you pointed them out. An interconnect would also be a one-of-a-kind top shelf attraction in North America. The Utah economy would be greatly enlarged and everyone's piece of the economic pie would immediately be larger. Real estate values would benefit as well.

I personally see no down side to this. It is all positive and inevitable.

Brad Olch includes interconnect in his "vision" statement...
July 21, 2009:
...as part of his mayoral campaign:
"The potential of connecting Park City’s three ski resorts to the resorts in the Cottonwood Canyons could bring incredible Economic Vitality to the area. It would also reduce traffic and emissions. If elected, I would explore the viability of such a project in conjunction with Resort operators and key stakeholders."

Discussion with Sally Elliott, Summit County Councilwoman
June 15, 2009:
Enthusiastic response; I quote:
"Fabulous. I read the entire thing. I'm so impressed."

Interview with Ann Johnson on KPCW's Mountain Money...
June 15, 2009:
Park City business man and retired ski industry executive J F Lanvers is willing to chair an effort to breath life into the old idea of an interconnect pass linking all seven Wasatch ski resorts. Listen to the interview...

Meeting with Myles Rademan
June 3, 2009:
Like many others, says he likes the idea and sees it best promoted on the local political scene...

Meeting with Dana William, Mayor of Park City
May 19, 2009:
Appears to like the idea and says so.

Meeting with Herwig Demschar, COO of Powdr Corp.
May 7, 2009:
Says he's a proponent of the interconnect...

Conversation with Bill Malone, CEO and President, Park City Chamber Bureau
April 30, 2009:
Believes a 3-resort interconnect between Deer Valley, Park City and The Canyons might add 200,000 skier days...

Meeting with the Park City Lodging Association Board of Directors
April 27, 2009:
Most of the members attending the presentation reacted positively. Only one was against the idea of linking up with Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, fearing that business would be lost to Salt Lake Hotels... Interestingly, none of the members has ever skied a European “interconnect.”

Meeting with Nathan Rafferty, President of Ski Utah
April 23, 2009
Says he is in favor of the idea of inteconnecting our Wasatch resorts and would like to see it happen during his tenure at Ski Utah.

Meeting with Mike Goar, General Manager of The Canyons
April 9, 2009:
Says he is in favor of an interconnect and could bring a lot in terms of his years mangaging Solitude resort

Welcome!

2009-04-23T13:03:00.000-07:00

Welcome to a site aimed at moving Utah into a leadership position on the snow industry scene!

With consumers "deleveraging", future winter visitations are likely to be adversely affected, as mountain resorts may compete for a shrinking number of destination visitors. Offering a significant competitive advantage will become crucial to grow, yet alone maintain, our current volume of activities.

"Linking our seven Wasatch Front resorts will vault them to the zenith of the North American snow industry"

In this context, linking our seven Wasatch Front resorts c0uld vault them at the zenith of the North American snow industry with a unique product and no competition on the entire continent. A 40 years ski industry veteran, I offer my experience, observations and thoughts to make the dream of interconnected resorts a reality; I just want to be the grain of sand inside the oyster...

Born and raised in the Alps, I witnessed and participated in the early development of interconnected mountain resorts in the 70’s. After moving to America in 1977, I've made Utah my home for the last 24 years. Besides my time, energy and thought-process, I bring a sound knowledge and clear understanding of a large number of Alpine resorts.

I've also been fortunate to be exposed to every facets of the snow industry; from "lifty" to ski instructor, racing director, hardgoods supplier, lodging as well as tour and travel provider. Just before retiring I've had some extensive experience at some of the main Colorado mountain resorts and have gained a good understanding of the way various ski towns can interact together.

Finally, my entire career spent in sales and marketing has always forced me to see issues from within the “consumer shoes” and prompted me to ask the necessary questions instead of just bringing up assumptions. I am now retired and continue to be consumed with a deep passion for skiing...

Jean-François "JF" Lanvers, Park City

What's a snow “interconnect”?

2009-04-22T04:13:00.000-07:00

It's simply a network of ski towns that are linked together to immerse skiers and snowboarders into a full mountain experience and a deep sense of adventure.

With modern gear and snow grooming, it becomes possible for most winter visitors to venture for long distances into the mountains, appreciate all of their beauty with minimum impact on nature and capture memories that will last a lifetime.

It's a re-invention of winter sports for our times, in perfect harmony with nature and its wonders. It offers visitors one convenient single lift ticket using RFID technology.

Les Portes du Soleil - Click on image to enlarge

For those who have never experienced skiing or riding from village to village, it can be very hard to imagine. It's a bit like describing the latest iPhone to someone who only knows a 1950 transistor radio; both can play music, but the former does it better and can handle a host of extra functions...

Interconnects have existed in the Alps since the 70's and have now become the standard of the European winter experience, with France offering the most networked mountain resorts. That's right, just like with high-speed trains, France leads the way with snow interconnects; consider this:

There are 30 interconnects in the French Alps, including over 100 ski resorts, 1,845 lifts (almost half of what's available in the country)

They cater to 40 million skier days compared to a 2008 total of 59 million (we had 60.5 million that same year in the USA)

The offer 875,000 visitor "pillows" (vs. 1.5 million for all French ski resorts)

The largest interconnect is Les Trois Vallées found in the Savoy region of France. Totally seamless (no shuttle required) it regroups 8 resorts, has 205 lifts and covers 55,000 acres. Slope sameness might be the weak point of that large network anchored by Courchevel's fame and luxury. Designed to be linked from the get go, these connected resorts have grown organically over the years and have set the standard.

Just behind the largest seamless interconnect, stands Paradiski, a 45,000 acre behemoth that is the sum of two gigantic clusters of villages constituting the resorts of Les Arcs and La Plagne. One valley-crossing tram links the two areas, but requires visitors to take off their boards during the ride...

Boasting 40,000 acres, Les Portes du Soleil is another network of resorts that straddles the French-Swiss border, equipped with 195 lifts and that unites 7 French and 4 Swiss resorts. Scenic variety and borderless flair is the hallmark of Les Portes du Soleil. Access to one of the villages requires shuttle access, which makes the interconnect not quite as seamless as Les Trois Vallées.

To date, the only linkage inspired from these European behemoths is the Big Sky Resort-Moonlight Basin interconnect, near Bozeman, Montana, that offers 5,512 acres of lift-served skiing and snowboarding.

Although not an interconnect, Dolomiti Superski is a large collection of ski villages using a common lift ticket. Located in Northern Italy, it includes 12 resorts, and 450 lifts. This association of resorts requires road travel between them.

An in-depth comparison between the snow industry in France and in the United States

2009-03-29T10:53:00.000-07:00

FRENCH AND AMERICAN RESORTS: VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!

by Alain J Lazard

The following paper was presented by his author at the "2009 International Ski History Congress" that took place in Mammoth Lakes form March 29 to April 2, 2009, and is reproduced with Mr. Lazard's kind permission.

This short presentation is limited to the comparison of Alpine activities (skiing, snowboarding and a few other marginal downhill activities) at U.S. and French mountain resorts. Because of time limitation, only the most salient differences are coveredi.

U.S., FRANCE AND OTHER ALPINE NATIONS:
Before entering the main subject of the lecture, it is instructive to situate these two countries in relation to the rest of the Alpine scene. They are, in fact, the two largest in business volume or more exactly in number of winter Alpine visits at their mountain resorts.

Both of them are flirting with the 60 million visit mark even if the 2008-2009 season might see a substantial setback from this figure, especially in the U.S.. Next we find Japan in the mid-fifty million visits, Austria just below 50 million, Italy at 39 million, Switzerland at 29 million, Canada at 19 million, etc. All the other nations are below 10 million visits.

The above numbers are made of the sum of domestic visits and international visits. Huge variation of the ratio between these two types of visits can be seen, from a very low ratio as in Japan where foreign visits represent less than 0.5% of the total visits to Austria where they represent almost two thirds of the total figure. France ranks second regarding international visits with 13 million, far behind Austria and barely ahead of Switzerland. The U.S. figure is much lower and represents some 5 to 6% of its overall number.

Please note that the manner in which Alpine visits are counted varies from country to country. Therefore, these figures cannot be taken to the letter but still give a good indication of the respective volume for each country.

A last observation: The aforementioned figures are fairly consistent, year in year out, discounting sizeable dips on poor snow year, with the exception of Japan that witnessed rapid growth in the 70's to reach an amazing 115 million visits in 1992, then collapsed afterward to remain at the current level (mid-50 million) since that time.

QUICK RECAP OF ALPINE RESORT DEVELOPMENT:
The development of mountain resorts in France began in the mid-1800's but was for summer tourism only up to the beginning of the 20th century. This is when the first winter resorts developed around existing alpine villages or small towns (Chamonix, Megève, Val d'Isère).

Sledding, playing in the snow, etc. was at least as important as skiing then. It is only after WWII that the first "2nd generation" resorts were created ex nihilo, at higher elevations, usually on municipal grazing lands. Courchevel, in 1946, was the first one and became the standard to be emulated by many others during the following decades.

In 1961, La Plagne was the first resort of the "3rd generation". It was built around the concept of the "Plan Neige", a fully integrated resort with ski-in ski-out to most if not all of its accommodations and a "Front de Neige": Up to that time, most of the resorts facilities were build right against the mountain, at the very bottom of the hill, as it was also done in the U.S. The "Front de Neige" is a wide set back between the bottom of the ski trails and the resort constructions.

It can be somewhat compared to the edge of a forest facing a wide meadow and, as far as usage, to a European or Mexican village plaza, where everybody congregates. At mountain resorts, this wide area is where the restaurants can extend their terraces over the snow, the ski schools can organize their gathering, the race courses have their finish area, the outdoor resort animation can take place, etc. Earlier resorts were built right against the mountain, discounting the benefit of such wide open area at the bottom of the hill.

One might think that the "Front de Neige" takes away an extremely valuable land area for real estate. As a matter of fact, it is the opposite: it creates a larger, even more valuable area for "trail front" properties (as in ocean front, green front properties) than would be impossible otherwise.

Furthermore, since most ski mountains are North-facing it creates a very desirable South-facing area. The "Plan Neige" and the "Front de Neige" concepts were developed using the experience acquired with the creation of Courchevel a decade and a half earlier. This is when the Alpine business took over in France and when most of the largest resorts were built (Tignes, Les Ménuires, Avoriaz, Flaine, Les Arcs, Val Thorens, etc.).

The resorts built after WWII offered excellent skiing and many services but were very urban looking and presented a strong contrast to the Swiss and Austrian resorts, more in tune with the traditional Alpine mountain environment.

This is when what we call the resorts of the "4th generation" began to be built in France: They were still fully integrated resort built around the principle of the "Plan Neige", but their architecture was a departure from what had been done until then: Smaller structures, use of traditional material, increased segregation of vehicles and pedestrians, etc. Valmorel (1976) is the best example of this new type of resort.

Many older resorts have been influenced by this movement and are slowly retrofitting, whenever feasible, their architecture. Courchevel and Val Thorens are good example of this current "upgrading" trend.

The concept of the American "base lodge", a single building where customers could find everything from lift ticket sales to cafeteria, to ski lessons, to ski rental, etc. was totally unknown in France and in most of Europe. In those countries, these services are provided by different entities unlike in the U.S. where they usually all come from the "Ski Corporation".

LEGAL, POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ENVIRONMENT:
One word about the legal, political and administrative environment that played and still plays a determinant role regarding the development of mountain resorts. A couple of major differences exist between the U.S. and France.

In the U.S., the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) leases the land to many resorts, especially in the Western part of the country and plays a determinant "landlord" role. Being a Federal agency, any citizen has a right to object to USFS decisions. This can impact the daily operation and the long term planning of the resort. Another major difference is that there is not always a local legal authority where the resort is located.

By this, we mean that many resorts are not located within the boundary of an incorporated territory (local municipality) but administered by a more distant county administration. For example, Squaw Valley is not an incorporated town but its territory is administered by Placer County, whose headquarters is situated in Auburn, 100 kilometers away. It is easy to envision the many problems that can result from such a situation:

Response time, lack of understanding of the resort's specific needs and problems, little accountability to a community that represents a very small percentage of electors (less than 1%), etc. By the way, in theory at least, Squaw Valley should not have been granted the organization of the 1960 Winter Olympic Games that are to be awarded to a "city".

The situation in France is substantially different. First, there is not one square inch of the French territory that is not incorporated into a municipality, so there is always a very local power to interface with the resort operators. There are less than 20,000 incorporated municipalities in the U.S. covering only a small percentage of its territory. There are 36,685 incorporated municipalities in Franceii (a country with a land mass 17 times smaller than the U.S.) covering 100% of its territory.

Furthermore, the skiable terrain in a French resort is mostly located on the summer grazing land that traditionally belongs to the municipality, with some of the lower elevation terrain on private land. Hence, all the land is controlled locally instead of being under the jurisdiction of a distant county seat and/or the Federal Forest Service as in the U.S. This constitutes a very substantial difference between the two countries.

RESORT ORGANIZATION:
The main sectors of activities of a mountain resort are very similar in both countries and can be subdivided as follows:

A - Lift Operations (lift operation & maintenance – Lift ticket sales)
B - Trail Operations (trail maintenance, grooming, snowmaking, ski patrol, avalanche control)
C - Ski School (ski lessons & tests)
D - Ski Club/Race Department (coaching, race organization)
E - Ski Shops (retail sales – equipment rental)
F - Resort Promotion (marketing, special events, advertisement, public relations, documentation)
G - Food & Beverage (mountain restaurants, resort restaurants, bars)
H - Transportation (airport shuttle, resort shuttle, taxi)
I - Accommodations (hotels, clubs, apartments, condos, chalets)
J - Sales & Reservations (central reservations, internet booking, rental agencies or pools)
K - Real Estate (developers, real estate agencies)

In a typical French resort, the lift operator will handle "A" or "A & B". A word here regarding Trail Operations which is called "Service des Pistes" in France. Amazingly, this service is under the responsibility of the town and not of the lift operator(s) or "Ski Corporation". Legally speaking, the mayor is liable for anything happening on the mountain (except on the ski lifts). Very often, the mayor subcontracts the work to the Ski Corporation but still remains legally liable.

"Unlike its U.S. counterpart a typical French resort is a microcosm of true free market system, with a plethora of independent entrepreneurs..."

Some of the major resorts in France have their "Services des Pistes" operated directly by the municipality (Tignes, Val d'Isère, Val Thorens). When the city operates the "Service des Pistes", it receives approximately 15% of the gross revenue from the Ski Corporation.
The promotion of the resort in France ("F") is done by the "Office du Tourisme". The Office du Tourisme is financed by the municipality (from local taxes from all the businesses in town, including the Ski Corporation) and its president is the Mayor of the town. All the other sectors of a French resort are run by independent operators.

The situation is quite different in a U.S. resort where the minimum run by the Ski Corporation includes "A" to "G" above, except "D", if the resort has an independent Ski Club. Often, a U.S. Ski Corporation will also be, at least partially, involved "H" to "K".

In deep contrast to most of the rest of French society, where many services often involve the participation of a local, regional or national government agency, a French resort resembles a microcosm of a true free market, with a plethora of independent players. The same could not be said about a U.S. resort dominated by a single, large "Ski Corporation" and somebody looking at the two different models without knowing anything about the ski industry might be inclined to believe that the U.S. model belongs to France and vice versa.

VACATION TIME:
Another stark contrast between the U.S. and France is the amount of available free time, particularly vacations and holidays. It is easy to understand the impact that it has on tourism and on the ski industry, especially for destination resorts.

The average vacations & holidays for the U.S. are 22 days a year and 41 days for France. Furthermore, in France, the number of days of vacation is not determined by seniority but is the same for everybody, regardless the number of years on the job: Five weeks paid vacation, with one week minimum to be taken during the winter. This is a tremendous advantage for the French recreation industry that the U.S. resorts can do nothing about but envy.

RESORT CONCENTRATION AND INTERCONNECTION:
European and French resorts are much closer to each other than U.S. resorts. It is interesting to look at a satellite picture of the Alps and at one of the Rocky Mountains at the same scale. The U.S. Rocky Mountains are approximately four times larger than the Alps. The Alps (Austria, France, Italy, Slovenia & Switzerland) count some 1,100 mountain resorts. The U.S. Rocky Mountains 97.

The Austrian Cable Car Association web site displays a map showing the 255 Austrian resorts. The East to West distance of the map is comparable to the South to North distance from Mammoth to Lake Tahoe, an area that counts only a handful of resorts.

One of the results of such concentration is that, whenever possible, French (& European) resorts interconnect their lift networks with each other and sell ski passes allowing skiing at neighboring, interconnected resorts. The beauty of this is that a ski pass for a given resort that sells for so many Euros can be sold substantially more if it encompasses interconnected resorts. On the other hand, the user doesn't "consume" any more lift rides because of that (11,532 vertical feet a day on the average) and the premium paid increases the bottom line for the operators. France counts 28 interconnected ski complexes encompassing 98 resorts and realizing together 65% of all the Alpine visits of the country. There are very few interconnected resorts in the U.S. For example, the concept of the "Utah Interconnect" that has been under consideration for at least four decades has still not be implemented.

Also, it is not uncommon to have the skiable terrain of a French resort span over 10,000 acres. La Plagne covers some 25,000 acres and the complex of "Les Trois Vallées" encompasses some 55,000 acres. Vail, the largest U.S. resort covers less than 6,000 acres and only a handful of resorts are over 3,000 acres.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT: The percentage of skiable terrain of the French resorts in the Northern Alps, for example, represents 5.1% of the overall acreage of the mountainsv , with 3% to 10% of the skiable terrain used for ski trails. No specific statistics exist in the U.S. but putting into perspective the 105,000 acres or so of the skiable terrain (permit area of the 97 existing U.S. Rocky Mountain Alpine resortsvi) and the 109 million mountainous acres of the six Western states constituting the U.S. Rocky Mountains translates into a percentage of 0.1% (1/1000) of skiable terrain or an impact more than 50 times lesser than in France.

"In spite of a fifty-fold difference in resort concentration, the environmentalist movement is a non-issue at French mountain resorts..."

Because of the fifty-fold difference in resort concentration, one would expect the environmentalist movement to be very active in fighting mountain resorts in France and considering it as a quasi non-existing problem in the U.S.. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite situation occurs and always leaves Europeans perplexed when they witness some of the controversy triggered by what would be considered a non-issue in Europe.

Currently, in France, the environmentalists are mostly fighting the erection of freeways, high voltage power lines and high speed train lines. It doesn't mean that opposition to resort development is nonexistent, but to a much lesser degree than in the U.S. With the current radicalization of the environmentalist movement, one wonders if the impressive highway Interstate network that was built in the 50's and 60's in the U.S. could be undertaken today.

The physical size of most of the U.S. resorts is limited by the permit area granted by the USFS. Most U.S. resorts use that somewhat restricted space quite intensively and it is not uncommon to have up to one third of the overall terrain cleared for ski trails. Consequently, the concentration of skiers within the permit area is quite high and the impact of any given U.S. resorts is more acute than it is in France.

Even though the percentage of the mountainous land dedicated for Alpine resorts is some fifty times les than it is in France the more intense impact on limited land is perceived very negatively by the local environmentalists. One must note that most of the large French resorts are located above the Timberline (around 6,000' at the latitude of the French Alps). Therefore, there is hardly any tree clearing necessary to create ski trails, which renders the process less visible and less controversial.

One possible but contrarian alternative would be to increase the permit areas of the U.S. resorts without increasing their capacity. They will still be handling the same number of visitors but their impact would be spread over a larger area, therefore diminishing the intensity of the impact and lowering it to the French level: If downhill activities are really detrimental to the environment, reducing their level of concentration, as you would do for any toxic substance, can do nothing but improve the situation. Unfortunately, such rationalization has little chance to rally the opposition in endorsing the suggested changes.

MARKET PENETRATION:
To finish, I would like to speak about "Market Penetration" or to assess the relative popularity of Alpine activities in the U.S. and in France and also retrace its evolution over time. We already spoke about "domestic visits". Now, we would like to put them in perspective to the overall population of the two countries.
For the best year ever (2007-2008 season), the U.S. realized 56.7 million domestic visitsvii for a population of 301 million. This gives us a ratio of 18.8%, or 0.188 per capita visit.

In France, the number of domestic visits is substantially less (44.9 million) but the population is much lower: 63.4 million. The ratio is 70.8% or .708 per capita visit.
The only two countries where these ratios are higher than in France are Austria and Switzerland, where they are in the 230% range, or 2.3 per capita visits, three times higher than in France that, nevertheless, ranks 3rd in that list, ahead of Norway (62%), Italy (54%), Canada (51%), Slovakia (47%) Japan (41%), Finland (40%) & Sweden (34%).

Frenchmen ski almost four times more than Americans. It did not use to be that way. Several factors influence the popularity of skiing, snowboarding, etc. in any given country:

Availability of sufficient facilities (sites & accommodations)
Proximity to population centers (for days skiing)
Available time (for destination skiing)
Disposable income/affordability of the activity
Transportation (from the population center to the resorts).
Winter sport culture (Winter Olympic Games: U.S.: 4, France: 3)

The U.S. and France are pretty even on all these factors, with the exception of available free time as mentioned previously. Only one of the above factors has dramatically changed over time. It is the disposable income/affordability of the activity. This factor is the only one that can explain why U.S. and France Alpine activities grew at the same rate for the first three decades after WWII, then the growth stalled for the U.S. and kept rising for France.

The best measure to gauge the distribution of income in a given country is the Gini Index. It was developed by the Italian statistician Corrado Gini in 1912, and is a way to express the equality of income distribution. A low Gini Index means that income is somewhat evenly distributed and a high index that the distribution is uneven.

An index of 0% (or 0) means that everybody has the same income, and an index of 100% (or 1) means that one person receives the total income of the country. The lower the Gini Index, the larger the middle class, an indispensable condition to have a thriving Alpine resort industry. The U.S. had a strong middle class after World War II and its Gini Index remained below 40% (35% to 38%) until the early 70's, but the situation has been degrading ever since and the index is now at 46.6%. For France, the evolution has been exactly in the opposite direction, with a high Gini index after WWII: 48.5% in the early 60s and 32.7% todayviii. As the above graph shows, when the two U.S. & French Gini index curves crossed each other in the mid ’70's, the U.S. ski industry stopped growing and France kept climbing.

We must stress the fact that the evolution of the domestic Alpine visits is somewhat deceptive. What appears as a slow growth in the U.S. for the last three decades (47.8 million visits in 1978 to 56.7 million in 2007 or +18.6%) represents in fact a decline in per capita visits: The U.S. population grew from 222 to 301 million in the same period or 35.6% and the per capita visit decreased from 0.215 to 0.188 or 12.6%. Unless there is a dramatic reversal of this trend, the U.S. mountain resorts are likely to witness slow growth, if any, in terms of number of visits. On the other hand, an increase in revenue is still possible with the adaptation of the resort to a restricted, but ever more affluent clientele, by offering more luxurious accommodations and services, a movement that has already begun at many U.S. resorts.

The French situation is quite different. During the same period the number of domestic visits has increased by 184% when the population has only increased by 16%. Consequently, the per capita visit has exploded from 0.29, a situation very close to the U.S. three decades ago, to 0.71 today, or almost four times higher than in the U.S.. France is now approaching its plateau, but at a much more enviable level than the U.S..

The drama of the U.S. ski industry is that it has little, if any, influence to modify the main factors limiting its grow: vacation time and slow but steady disappearance of the middle class.

Where’s “Plan B?”

2008-11-12T06:16:00.000-08:00

On October 29, I attended the Park City’s Chamber pre-season presentation a forum in which self-congratulations abounded. Along with our three local resorts, Deer Valley, Park City and the Canyons, Arnie Weissmann, editor-in-chief at Travel Weekly spoke and expressed some dire warnings about this year’s snow season.

Among other predictions, he said that the economic crisis and higher plane fares were affecting all forms of tourism, and the cruise industry, Las Vegas and eastern ski resorts will make it tough for Park City and the other western resorts. In spite of an admitted decline ranging between 15 to 20% in early bookings as of the end of September, all three resorts and no one in the Chamber appeared too worried and what’s worse, there wasn't any “Plan B” should the booking situation and visitations keep on deteriorating as the season advances. This, to me, is denial at its best.

We certainly are competing with the cruise business, Las Vegas and other warm destinations, but also against the Vails, Whistlers and Lake Tahoes of the world. Why is there no mechanism in place that would declare and promote a roll-back on prices and rates, attractive “specials” on lift tickets and all kinds of creative “product bundling” ideas, should bookings keep on dipping south, in order to steal some clientele from our neighboring destination resorts? Of course, we’ve got too good a product in Park City to even take interconnecting seriously and give our visitors a much better reason to pick us over the rest… I am missing something or has “competition” become a dirty word?

From JF Lanvers' blog

The case for a Greater Park City interconnect

2008-03-15T13:56:00.000-07:00

In spite of a snow-record year, the Park City Chamber/Bureau is projecting lodging numbers to be down about 14 percent during the first two weeks of March compared to the previous year. While in the recent past, March used to be the biggest month of the winter season, it has now dropped to second place. This suggests that there might be lodging oversupply through the Mountain West, including the flurry of new Western Canadian resorts added in recent years.

In a universe where all resorts look pretty much the same and quickly suffer from skiers and riders “fatigue,” this makes the entire market much more competitive and ends up spreading a quasi-stagnant volume on a fast growing number of resorts and beds, which explains that outside of the December Holiday Season, President’s Week and Spring Break, business becomes a bit thinner in and around Park City.

Faced with that, what should our community do in order to maximize its capacity and increase revenue? Do what’s the easiest, and re-engineer its product by interconnecting our three mountains and instilling a new sense of adventure instead of just going up and down the same hills the old-fashioned way. With a reasonable investment (a few connecting lifts and a common ski-pass processing system) our town could easily be vaulted into the number one destination resort in North America, leaving Vail and Whistler-Blackcomb far behind, at a very safe distance, and this not just because we’d offer the largest skiable acreage, but also through a vastly superior ease of access, great terrain variety and significant options for future expansion (by adding Brighton, Solitude, Snowbird and Alta later on to the network).

Our visitation would more than double and Utah could take a big chunk of market share away from its competition, guaranteeing a longer, busier and more profitable winter season for all, along with keeping real estate values up. Furthermore, there is no risk to the operation; it started almost half a century ago in Europe, has been thoroughly tested, and everywhere it’s been done, has been a screaming success!

From JF Lanvers' blog

A one-company town?

2007-10-25T06:12:00.000-07:00

Let me quickly set the stage for you. Park City has three ski resorts that are all different entities and are not interconnected (yet.) Park City Mountain Resort and Deer Valley Resort are leasing their land from Talisker, a Canadian-based real estate company.

That same Talisker is about to purchase and operate The Canyons, our third ski mountain that sits just next to Park City. Since the landlord for the two first resorts will now be operating the third one, one could speculate that Park City resorts now have a common denominator, which would make it the de-facto dominating economic force in the community.

How should our city engage that 800 pound gorilla? What should we expect from them? Should we instead, as many advocate, roll over and play dead under the behemoth? This certainly is not my opinion. The silver lining of that consolidation could be that, with a single underlying player, we might get closer to interconnecting our resorts and offer a much enhanced skiing and snowboarding experience.

From JF Lanvers' blog

Letters to the Park Record and the Salt Lake Tribune - October 2006

2006-10-25T12:59:00.000-07:00

Linking the Park City mountain resorts with those of Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons is an idea whose time has come. Revisiting the connection of seven mountain ski resorts is the opportunity for Utah to leapfrog Colorado and the Canadian Rockies by creating an unmatched skiing and snowboarding experience. I’ve seen that advantage at work right in my home country with “Les Trois Vallées”, the world’s largest interconnect located in the French Alps.

Conceived in the late fifties and early sixties these alpine interconnects have matured in the seventies and eighties. At their inception, fear of letting loyal clients go to the next door competitor was the order of the day. As soon as the experiment began, the success was so overwhelming that it became the new business model and since that time, the formula has been copied all over Europe. It affirms the concept of synergy by delivering a product that was much more than the sums of its parts. Once winter visitors venture boundlessly from valley to valley and village to village, they can no longer be satisfied with a single, self-contained destination resort.

To appreciate the scope of “Les Trois Vallées” just picture about 35,000 acres of connected trails and terrain parks, served by some 200 lifts spanning over 6 ski towns. In comparison, a seven resort interconnect including Alta, Snowbird, Brighton, Solitude, The Canyons, Park City and Deer Valley would offer more than 20,000 skiable acres.
With our resorts so close together, we can easily develop a world-class interconnect almost impossible to replicate anywhere in North America and secure enduring market domination.

Lisa Smith from “Save Our Canyons” is right in saying that boring tunnels and building roads would put pressure on a critical ecology. The last thing our resorts and ski towns want is more traffic and more cars to park during the day. A win-win solution must be found to limit the number of vehicles coming and going on Cottonwood Canyon’s as well as Park City roadways, and yet, at the same time accommodate more practitioners as Utah snow recreation gains in popularity.

There maybe a better way to tap our resources than spending $250 million for a tunnel and up to $150 million in roads. A fraction of that total amount could build the park-an-ride facilities at the base of each canyon (including one at Mt. Dell for Parley’s) and the lifts needed to connect all seven resorts as well as the chairlifts, gondolas or funiculars required to connect the parking lots to the closest slopes. This would drastically cut vehicular traffic in Parley’s and Cottonwood Canyons while park-and-ride facilities would address all access and parking needs for locals and destination visitors staying in the valley.

At each park-and-ride, a UTA spur should be available and, when possible, a light rail extension. Less traffic would relieve the demand for parking at the resorts and enable operators to build accommodations and facilities for destination visitors, including smaller underground parking. Under this plan, everyone, from environmental activists to resort operators, ski towns and visitors would win.

The term “Megaplex” that was picked up by the early press report regarding the State’s initiative probably was a misnomer; and a monster resort doesn’t have to materialize. Every one agrees that each village, each ski town should retain and further develop its own identity. In the Alps, interconnected ski towns did not get homogenized and had no difficulty keeping and nurturing their distinct personalities. Each town continues to address a specific market and develops its own special services and unique traits.

Some offer great on-mountain restaurants, run by families or independent concessionaires, each offering its own specialty, from fondues bistro, crêpe stands, gourmet sandwiches and self-service facility to sit-down restaurants. Other ski towns specialize in family vacations, snowboarding facilities or nature discovery. Each resort has a chance to bring a distinct flavor and be another unique and handsome gem inserted on a same precious ring.

Our choice is clear. We can either continue on a path of raggedy growth by adding infrastructure when we have to catch up to the competition, sometimes at great ecological cost, or we can pro-actively begin this new century by taking a bird eye’s view over the way our resorts can best interact with each other. At the same time, we can create sustainable environmental conditions, maximize the appeal and the development potential of the Wasatch Mountains and secure a formidable lead over the competition. Synergized in an interconnected mosaic, our resorts have the potential to showcase their differences and stand out as a region where visitors enjoy a pristine environment, experience a true adventure on snow and will look forward to returning season after season.

JF Lanvers

Salt Lake Tribune Article, October 2006

2006-10-17T14:41:00.001-07:00

Plan would link Wasatch ski resorts

By Patty Henetz and Mike Gorrell, The Salt Lake Tribune

If Utah's ski resorts ever tripled the number of skiers they see each year, they'd tie Colorado's 2005-2006 record - and likely be suffering the same kind of transportation gridlock resort-bound motorists regularly endure on Interstate 70's Rocky Mountain traverse.

That's according to a memo circulated to the "25 most influential people in government, tourism and the ski industry," who will meet Nov. 3 with Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. at the Capitol. The meeting was arranged at the request of Sen. Carlene Walker to brainstorm the latest proposal to link Big and Little Cottonwood canyons with Park City: tunnels and roads with snow sheds to connect Snowbird, Alta, Solitude, Brighton, Park City Mountain Resort, The Canyons and Deer Valley.

Such a scheme would allow skiers to drive between mountaintop resorts instead of up and down canyon roads or Interstate 80, already subject to heavy traffic. Walker, a Cottonwood Heights Republican, member of the Senate transportation committee and proponent of private investment in toll roads, was on vacation Monday and unavailable for an interview. But Huntsman spokesman Mike Mower said the governor had nothing to do with creating the talking points and said it was "premature to have this agenda that said the governor is open to reviewing this proposal."

The memo came from the office of Jeff Holt, vice president of Goldman Sachs' San Francisco office and a frequent contributor to Utah transportation and project finance discussions. It says the projects, dubbed the AltaBright Tunnel and CottonPark Interconnect, would tie the seven resorts in the tri-canyon area "into one 7-resort Megaplex." "It will be possible to drive from any one resort to any other in less than 20 minutes," the memo says, adding the project would allow Utah "to seriously challenge Colorado for total resort experience . . . This type of grouping and packaging mimics Swiss/Italian Alps models."

Ski Utah President Nathan Rafferty said the ski industry didn't propose the meeting, but welcomed it as a way to plan ahead to avoid the kind of problems Colorado is having getting skiers to Vail, Aspen, Breckenridge and other resorts along the serpentine I-70. "They're saying, 'Are we going to widen the freeway or build a monorail or some kind of train?' They're already way behind," Rafferty said. "We cannot afford to pretend our population isn't growing and the number of visitors to our resorts isn't increasing. Those canyons [Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood] can hold only a finite amount of traffic." Ski Utah reported 4 million "skier days" for this past winter, an all-time record. A recent University of Utah study said the ski industry contributes $811 million a year in direct spending annually to the state's economy.

A memo sent to those invited to the meeting says Utah could see 6 million skier days. The memo doesn't identify a source for the estimate; Rafferty said it wasn't Ski Utah. But based on that estimate, the memo goes on to say the tunnels are the preferred method of adding skier capacity and reducing diesel emissions by 40 percent - another unsourced number. The single-bore tunnel between Alta and Brighton would cost $250 million or less, according to the memo. The Guardsman Pass seasonal road could be protected by snow sheds or a tunnel could be bored under it for $50 million to $150 million. Tolls, special finance districts and federal dollars would be the revenue and funding sources.

Utah Department of Transportation spokeswoman Bethany Eller said the agency's deputy director, Carlos Braceras, will attend the Nov. 3 meeting. However, UDOT hasn't been asked to do any engineering and has no money to offer the project. "It's just an idea right now," Eller said. But not a new one. The idea is "nothing that hasn't happened lots of times before in the last 20 or 30 or 40 years, said Alta General Manager Onno Wieringa.

Save Our Canyons board member, historian and author Alexis Kelner said the proposal as presented in the memo was another in a list of resort-interconnect schemes "that would destroy the character of each individual little resort." In 1945, Kelner said, there was a road planned between Alta and Brighton over Catherine Pass. In the 1960s, when he worked for the Salt Lake City water department, there was a proposal to dig a tunnel between Alta and Brighton. The tunnel idea resurfaced during the mid-1980s when Kelner served on the Olympics feasibility committee. He recalled crashing a meeting called by then-Salt Lake City Mayor Ted Wilson to review a proposal to dig a tunnel that would connect to the ski areas via vertical elevators.

Lisa Smith, executive director of the environmental advocacy group Save Our Canyons, says the group would rather not increase canyon capacity. "The Wasatch-Cache National Forest is one of the most heavily used in the country," she said. Boring tunnels and building roads would put pressure on the critical watershed. Besides, she said, "the last thing we would want the Wasatch to be identified with is a 'megaplex.' " Rafferty agreed. "We don't feel that terminology is good. That's not advantageous to us. We have seven resorts that want to maintain distinct personalities. One big resort is not the aim."

Letter to the Park Record - October 1987

1987-04-30T06:14:00.000-07:00

Utah's Interconnect

What's shocking today, is that the following letter is already more than 20 years old and nothing has been done in terms of interconnect. It makes the point clear that if we - the people , not the so-called "leaders" - push that project, we'll still be at the same place in another 20 years...

My wife and myself have been involved at different levels in the Ski Industry, both share an obvious interest in the Interconnect. Prior to living in Park City, our home was Morzine-Avoriaz, France, the hub of what may be the largest Interconnect in Europe. We know what can be gained from networking ski areas; European resorts that are fortunate to be part of Interconnects are doing fine, other are struggling.

One reason is the addictive nature of Interconnects; once a skier has experienced them, single mountains feel like molehills. Another reason is because today's skiers are more fit and have better equipment so they can ski longer, go farther and enjoy the more diversified experience that Interconnects provide.

As far as Utah's Interconnect goes however, we must look at the competitive market place. For the past years, Colorado areas have waged marketing wars among themselves benefiting their visitors in many ways. Besides, and because of their sheer number and revenues, Colorado resorts have been able to afford high-powered marketing at the national level.

Last, but not least, Summit county which is relatively close to Stapleton airport has begun to erode Utah's reputation for easy access. In addition the heated competition that prevails in Denver between Continental and United has had a significant impact in driving down airfares. This, of course, stands in stark contrast with Salt Lake where Delta enjoys a de-facto monopoly.

At a time when skiing is no longer a growing sport, it becomes imperative to either compete aggressively with other ski regions in order to maintain market share, or start offering something that is truly unique. Since Ski Utah has less resources than Colorado to sell its product, we must take advantage of any feature that might make us desirable and different, and that where our interconnect comes into the picture.

When snow wasn't here for Christmas, many a visitor had to drive over the canyons to access some decent snow in Alta or Snowbird. Have we have the interconnect up and running that two-hour round-trip drive would be history. Thirty minutes would suffice to take skiers from Park City to Alta! Have we had the interconnect, Park City would have retained a great many winter visitors this season; instead, they'll go to Colorado next year. Bad snow years will unfortunately return and because of its lower elevation, Park City must rely on neighboring Cottonwood Canyon ski areas when this happens.

Let's face it, Utah's Interconnect has the potential to enhance the personality and the assets of every single resort involved; Alta offer great snow cover and a superb scenery, while Snowbird is – from a skiing standpoint – up to par with some of the best European resorts, and Park City rounds off the offering with the most charming mining town around, complete with a great choice of lodging, dining and entertainment. What could be more complementary?

While resorts like Sugarbush or Mammoth are contemplating connections with adjacent ski mountains and Colorado is making high-speed quads a standard in the business, Utah can no longer afford to wonder if the interconnect is a desirable asset in its tourism arsenal; it has instead become an urgent necessity.

J.F. Lanvers

What's in it for Travel Professionals?

1970-02-14T15:19:00.000-08:00

Tour operators and all travel professionals are always looking for a product that's either brand new, totally different or “enchanting.” They also have meet their clients' conflicting wants, needs and resources. Having a product that is flexible, large, and unique makes their selling a lot easier and is the most likely to gain them satisfied and thus “return” customers... A Wasatch front “Snow Interconnect” will bring them:

An easy way to close a sale when clients are torn between products that are far too similar

An easy answer to the “what's new this season?” question

An even easier answer to the “what's best?” or “what's the largest?” question, season after season

A huge flexibility in building packages; same slopes and runs but vast variety of options in terms of location, amenities, style and cost

A significant differentiation for a new American product with features and benefits that have been proven in Europe for almost four decades...

"The mere announcement of a Park City interconnect would generate a tremedous 'buzz'..." - Mike Beltracchi

Time is of the essence

1970-02-13T05:37:00.000-08:00

"The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step."
Lao Tzu

I have lived in Park City for almost a quarter of century and every now and then heard about the “interconnect.” The Olympics have come and gone and so has the latest real-estate boom and still nothing is coming with regard to linking our resorts.

"A good reason to begin now is that planning and getting permits take time..."

Bad economic times come and go and so do meager snow years. Having our seven resorts networked and offering a superior on-snow experience for out-of-state visitors is our best insurance policy against such lean times. The idea however, is that it must be ready when these moments strike. Now is an opportunity for hearing that "wake-up call" and finally getting ready for the future, whether the rough passage we're are experiencing now lasts for a long while or returns under one form or another in five or ten years from now...

Besides, do we want to wait until some other group of mountain resorts steal our “thunder” and take the leadership position we thought could be ours? It's another reason why we need to begin now. Planning and getting permits take time, especially when dealing with Forest Services; starting now instead of later will get us there much faster. The three pillars of success are innovation, leadership and sense of urgency. Do we really want to succeed?

Synergy? Show me the numbers!

1970-02-12T09:42:00.000-08:00

Interconnecting our seven resorts will have a highly positive impact on the local economy by increasing visitors/day during traditionally low-occupancy periods. The following table makes several assumptions based on more than thirty years of data collected as well as observations of European interconnects that were assembled as they were already long time, stand-alone operations:

The first one is that – without interconnect – visitations will plateau to the estimated number of 2008/2009 visitors/days. The table is meant to show the incremental visitation resulting from linking the resorts. The figures are estimates extrapolated from Ski Utah's 3,972,984 visitor days during the 2008/2009 season.

"...by the completion of the interconnect, the number of visitors/days will have more than doubled"

The second is that whenever Phase 1 begins, it is followed each year by another phase as described in the previous chapter.

Click on table to enlarge

What this table shows is that by the completion of the interconnect (phase 4), the number of visitors/days will have more than doubled for the participating resorts.

Later, more-than-average growth will continue as shown on Year 5 and will eventually grow with the overall market after Year 8; at that point, it will have dramatically closed the gap with Colorado, once the Wasatch Front interconnect's notoriety is fully recognized and established.

This spectacular growth will be mostly fueled by increased visitations during the shoulder season periods (pre-Christmas and late spring) as well as during the other low periods of the season (January to President's Week, end of February through Spring Breaks and Easter).

Optimized capacity and subsequent increased economic activity will help fund sensible mass-transit systems able to accommodate the uptick in visitations while minimizing any impact on our pristine mountain environment.

Possible sequence of events

1970-02-11T09:30:00.000-08:00

While intuitively a linkage should begin with Park City Mountain Resort, The Canyons and Deer Valley, the latter might not be an immediate candidate in spite of the fact that its lifts and Park City's are already next to each other.
There is a possibility that all might begin between Deer Valley and Park City Mountain Resort, but this would require a creative solution that has not been explored as of yet. The next logical alternative for engaging the process could be to begin with Park City Mountain Resorts and The Canyons, then carry on with Big and then Little Cottonwood Canyons.

Phase One:
Park City Mountain Resorts and The Canyons,
With the added access runs between Pinecone Ridge and White Pine Canyon, this would place Park City's size in the 8,000 acre category, at par with Whistler-Blackcomb (8,171 acres) and well ahead of Vail (5,292 acres) Phase Two:
Park City Mountain Resorts, The Canyons, Brighton and Solitude.
Adding to the existing “Solbright” pass, this linkage would add some 1,500 from two access runs and would secure Park City's place as the hub of the largest interconnect in North America.Phase Three:
The Park City grouping would include Alta and Snowbird, and their “Altabird” linkage and would boast its acreage to almost 18,000, making it equal to the 7th Alpine interconnect.
Phase Four:
At that point, if not already at the previous stage, Deer Valley might decide to join the successful group . After adding a few more runs between Park City and Brighton, the seven resort network should break the 20,000 acre range and become the world's 6th interconnect in terms of size...Other likely sequences of "events" could be:

a) Deer Valley and Park City (provided "creative solution" makes sense for the stakeholders, then Solbright and/or The Canyons and Altabird.

b) Park City or The Canyons, then Solbright, then The Canyons or Park City, Altabird and finally Deer Valley.

c) Solbright and Altabird, then Park City and/or The Canyons, then Deer Valley.

Interconnect, trains and automobiles

1970-02-10T16:07:00.000-08:00

Networking our mountain resorts should be an opportunity to reduce automobile traffic in and out of our canyons.

Without getting too deep into details, an open mind, logical thinking and a natural evolution would suggest that a good portion of our visitors' parking lots could be moved farther away from our resorts, leaving a larger role for mass-transit.

Ideally, and depending upon the choice of mass-transit, parking facilities could be located at the mouth of each canyon (Big and Little Cottonwood as well as Parley's.)

From there, it would be easy to imagine a chairlift, a high capacity gondola, a funicular or even - why not think big? - a train whisking visitors up to the slopes.

Down the road, a train from the Salt Lake City airport to Park City might offer destination visitors a seamless, car-free and rapid transfer. Such a train could offer stops in Salt Lake City, the Park and Ride at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon and from there go underground and stop in Snowbird, then Solitude before reaching Park City. An expensive proposition? Probably, but with some creativity, something we should be able to find the funds for and worth the effort.

Click on map to enlarge

The result: Less traffic in the canyons, all-weather visitation guaranteed regardless of snow, wind or avalanche-control operations. I-80 and the roadways to Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons are suddenly substantially relieved, the air is cleaner, our mountains are again the way they were intended to be.

As the crow flies, some distances to ponder:

From the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon to Solitude: 9 miles, 3,000 feet vertical gain.

From the mouth of Parley Canyon to The Canyons: 13 miles, 2,000 feet vertical gain.

Between Snowbird and Park City: 10 miles.

From the Salt Lake City Airport to Park City: 25 miles...

Other ideas? Share them with us!

Frequently Asked Questions

1970-02-09T12:33:00.000-08:00

Q. What's already linked?
A. Alta and Snowbird are already connected and offer the "AltaBird," a common pass and free skiers circulation between both resorts. That significant step forward already goes back to 2001, with Snowbird shouldered the lion’s share of the costs in developing Mineral Basin and building two quad lifts to connect to Alta.
One canyon away, Brighton and Solitude also offer a common lift ticket, the "SolBright" pass and free circulation from one resort to the other, but this linkage has not been much publicized and few skiers and snowboarders are aware of it....

Q. How can resorts share revenue from one single ticket?
A. Computerized processing of lift tickets actually started with the Alpine interconnects, in 1977 when two Austrians, Leopold Lutz and Guenther Walcher came up with the idea for replacing traditional ski passes with a system that would support automated processing from a variety of portals at different resorts. This means that at the end of each day, month or season, all the interconnected lifts are tracked for usage and the proceeds of the common ticket are pro-rated based on the actual traffic and distributed accordingly to each operator. Since 1987, wireless technology has been added to the system for real-time validation of any pass sold and automated control and validation through card-reading portals.

Q. Why has no significant network been built yet?
A. Even though interconnected mountain resorts have been in existence - and thrived - in Europe since the late sixties and early seventies, Utah resort operators have not known enough about them to emulate the system. The most important factor however is fear of the unknown and fear of losing control. Fear of losing customers to less successful resort partners in the network is also often cited as major obstacle. Also, inertia, indifference, lack of leadership and procrastination are other significant hurdles to proceeding forward. Finally, the American winter visitor has largely been left in the dark about this alternative form of "adventure" skiing and riding and because of it, is not demanding that leap forward...

Q. What's the "Ski Utah Interconnect Tour?"
A. At the moment, this is a 25 miles backcountry tour between Deer Valley and Snowbird or Snowbird and Deer Valley, available on a guided basis only. It's available, weather permitting, to a select few adult skiers (advance to expert) that can afford its relatively high cost ($250 per person plus tip.)

Q. Is each resort's personality at risk of homogenization?
A. This concern has not proved to materialize in Europe, where in a given interconnect, each ski town has held on to its character. In fact, the opposite often happen, where resorts develop their own “specialties” like mogul skiing in Deer Valley, parks in Park City, ski-only in Alta and Deer Valley, etc.

Q. What impact could a 7-resort interconnect have on the environment?
A. Skiers and snowboarders have negligible impact on the environment per se. In fact, they generally cause much less physical harm than hikers or mountain bike riders do, the rest of the year.
Most importantly, linking resorts will lessen the skiers/snowboarders density per acre and also provide an opportunity to rethink the access to each resort, greatly reducing vehicular traffic by stimulating park-and-ride locations in conjunction with new means of mass-transit as well as other types of “people movers” that will lessen the impact of automobiles into our canyons.

Q. Can Colorado, Tahoe or BC respond to Utah's interconnect?
A. They may actually steal Utah's “thunder” if nothing gets done rapidly. This would hamper the attention Utah could receive if it developed its interconnect after competitors have already attempted something similar (and probably much smaller) elsewhere in North America. Likely candidates are Alpine Meadows and Squaw Valley in California, and Vail-Minturn-Beaver Creek in Colorado. Aside from Whistler-Blackcomb, other Canadian resorts are spread apart too much to consider practical linkages. Utah still has the opportunity of making a huge splash by being the first in the game and by offering a product very hard to match elsewhere in North America.

Q. How are visitor days counted?
A. "Skier days" include all day and multi-day lift tickets, whether paid or not. Those are fairly easy to tally. Some areas scan season passes and count them that way, which is also fairly accurate. But other areas, including many smaller ones, estimate pass visits, with varying degrees of accuracy. However, so long as they use the same method every year, even the estimates provide a fairly accurate year-to-year comparison. The specific numbers might be off, but they tend to be off by close to the same amount each year. And that makes year-to-year comparisons more accurate than one might expect.

What's in it for mountain resorts?

1970-02-08T11:22:00.000-08:00

Mountain operators have a lot to gain by linking their facilities. This in fact is one of the true, and most demonstrable effect of synergy. It also seems that there's a desirable “critical mass” to obtain highly productive results. A twin partnership like Alta-Snowbird or Brighton-Solitude can only bring some incremental business; however, volume will be considerably magnified when more than three or four resorts become networked. Regardless of this consideration, the advantages of getting together are many as well as attractive...

Increases each individual resort visitation as interconnect notoriety grows (a true synergistic effect, not a “zero sum game.”)
Upon completion, the participating resorts could see their aggregate visitations double and a few year later, Utah's visitations would close the gap with Colorado.

Greater participants' retention, as the product offers endless variety, is more diverse and brings a "discovery" dimension to the ski/riding experience.

Provides a healthy emulation with regards to infrastructures and amenities (restaurants, ski/snowboard schools, terrain parks, lifts, etc.)

Affords a certain amount of “specialization”, like terrain parks in Park City, “ski only” zones in Alta and Deer Valley, treeless runs in Snowbird, etc. Each area finding and developing its niche as time goes on on

Finally offers a competitive alternative to potential European visitors

Spreads week-end crowds around (from “local” to “destination” mountains)

Gets the State of Utah's full attention as a united and worthwhile interest group for more state funded mass-transit solutions

The interconnect does not increase the user's "consumption" of lift rides (11,532 vertical feet a day on average) and the premium paid for multi-area ticket increases the operators' bottom line.

Provides a great reason to re-energize group ski school activities, like group lessons with an “adventure” theme that still is a hot seller at European interconnects

What's in it for the local business community?

1970-02-08T06:25:00.000-08:00

We're talking about tourism-oriented business, like hospitality, retail, and a host of goods and services that gravitate around recreation and visitations to our mountain resorts...

Upon completion of the interconnect, participating resorts could see their aggregate visitations double and keep growing faster than the market for three to four years after that...

Product newness and uniqueness producing huge editorial coverage, free publicity, notoriety and users' referrals through word of mouth reputation

Minimizes the ups and downs of "shoulder" and "low" season time periods

Grows and strengthens Park City and associated resorts' reputation with a unique product that has no continental competition

Provides a “leadership” umbrella that emulates leading edge ideas and business models

For communities like Park City, an interconnect offers a substantial dimension of “snow insurance” when early season snow is light and as Big and Little Cottonwood options are directly accessible from Park City.

When "smart mass transit" becomes reality, this will allow some of the work force to live more reasonably in the Valley and reliably commute to and from the resorts

Affords easier packaging with multi-area lift tickets available

About mountain funiculars

1970-02-07T14:05:00.000-08:00

If most funiculars are primarily designed for urban use, a few European resorts use them solely for winter sports. This type of lift might prove well adapted to move skiers, snowboarders and hikers to the valley floors of Little and Big Cottonwood Canyons, freeing road traffic and still able to operate day and night regardless of weather conditions.

Funival lower station. The tunnel into the mountain can be seen in the distance

Funival's ride is mostly underground, through a narrow tunnel, with wider middle section allowing both sets of cars to meet.

There are three such lifts in the Alps used for accessing slopes or even a glacier: Les Deux Alpes, Val d'Isère and Tignes. Built in 1987, Val d'Isère's “Funival” climbs mostly underground into the mountain a vertical just under 3,000 feet and is 7,500 feet long. Capaciy is 2,425 skiers per hour, while speed is 40 ft/second.

From Bourg-Saint-Maurice's train station, the "Arc-en-Ciel" funicular tracks climb the mountain above.

The "Arc-en-Ciel" crossing the river Isère

The "Arc-en-Ciel" funicular, built in the late 80's, is almost 10,000 feet long and is used to access Les Arcs, a ski resort, also at 40 ft/second, from Bourg Saint Maurice, a small city that is also a main railroad terminal located 2,700 feet below on the valley floor.

View from the top with Bourg-Saint-Maurice down in the valley

What's in it for our visitors?

1970-02-06T08:40:00.000-08:00

Our visitors would be so spoiled by the vast array of skiing and snowboarding options offered that they would never want to ski or ride out of the Wasatch Front ever again...

Click on map to enlarge

Seamless access to seven resorts and 21,000 skiable acres on one single lift ticket / pass

The world's sixth largest interconnect and without any question the only "real one" on the North American continent!

“Adventure” dimension to the overall skiing and snowboarding experience, "never the same run for an entire week.”

Patchwork of mountain villages, each with its own character, specialties and amenities

Everything either accessible from Park City's existing large bed base, amenities, ambiance and entertainment or from Alta, Brighton, Snowbird, Solitude and the Salt Lake Valley

Down the road, fast and worry-free mass transit infrastructure (at the airport and mouth of the canyons) to facilitate access, thus discourage use of rental cars and shuttle buses

What's in it for the locals?

1970-02-05T08:32:00.000-08:00

By far our local population (Park City and the Wasatch Front) would stand to draw huge benefits from a seamless network of resorts.

Very best skiing and riding experience in the Continent

Added backcountry access and opening the experience to more people, not just a select few
Less vehicular traffic in and out of town
Greater environmental protection of our community
More vibrant community with sustained and abundant jobs as well as business opportunities

Pride of living in the most advanced ski town in North America that combines the best mountain experience with the most environmentally-friendly approach to business and tourism

More local tax receipts, thus continued great services, amenities and quality of life

...there's also a "snowboarding only" pass without access to Alta and Deer Valley

Is an interconnect needed?

1970-02-04T06:44:00.000-08:00

If we believe in smart innovation and want to maintain a vibrant tourism economy, the answer is yes.

Heightened competition and economic ups and downs are maintaining a clear and present pressure on ski towns. Without a major competitive advantage, staying in the game is hard and the best efforts often yield minimal results. It comes down to economics where growing market share is key, but generally come at a very high cost.

A fully operative network of resorts would require a small investment for enormous future returns and would make a Utah winter sports destination a temptation very hard to resist and a truly unique product because it's unlikely to be replicated anywhere in North America.

Salt Lake Airport to Park City: A smooth 20 minute ride...

Skiers and snowboarders will want to experience the “adventure-style,” village-to-village discovery that only linked resorts can offer. Most importantly, they'll return after they've tasted it; the experience is highly addictive, as the Alpine interconnect experience has shown.

Easy access, the major current benefit for coming to Utah for skiing or riding, can also be enhanced in the process with more mass-transit (rail, funicular) made available to complement the infrastructure and allow for an environmentally sound car-free vacation experience.

Eventually, some mountain operators will patch over to other lifts, like Alpine Meadows and Squaw Valley in California, Vail, Minturn and Beaver Creek and even perhaps Breckenridge and Copper in Colorado, but these will pale in comparison to what a Wasatch seamless snowfield will be able to deliver.

Of course, If asked, the same resorts in Colorado, Tahoe or British Columbia, would never, never want to see the creation of an interconnect in Utah, but deep inside, they probably all fear that it's only a matter of time...

How would it work in Utah?

1970-02-03T05:27:00.000-08:00

While there seems to be very few possibilities of linking neighboring mountain resorts in North America, except for the existing Whistler-Blackcomb twin-mountain setup, Utah offers the ideal situation to replicate what has been created in multiple European locations. In fact, a linking the closest seven resorts of the Wasatch Front would vault Utah into the world's top six interconnects! The areas are Deer Valley, Park City and The Canyon on the North side of the Wasatch.Brighton and Solitude in Big Cottonwood Canyon as well as Alta and Snowbird in Little Cottonwood Canyon. For the moment, Deer Valley seems the least motivated to link up with other resorts (ski only policy, limited restaurant space, capped number of skiers on peak days and often a Ski Magazine readers survey's number one). Alta and Snowbird (Altabird) as well as Brighton and Solitude (Solbright) are already interconnected.There's more to it than just joining lifts however; if properly thought out, a linkage via lifts of all sorts could also significantly reduce vehicular traffic up and down our canyons and make up for a more pristine environment while limiting the overall "carbon footprint" due to skiing and snowboarding activities.

"Thinking big could also mean thinking clean..."

“Connecting the dots” in the Wasatch would present the ideal opportunity to:

Create the most attractive and unique winter mountain experience in North America for both locals and visitors

Maintain a healthy local economy by keeping a steady stream of visitors through the high, low and shoulder seasons

Enhance the overall access to our mountain resorts and minimizing gridlock

Further reduce any environmental impact snow sports might have on our mountain ecosystem

If we're still able to "think big" and "think clean, " and if the right funding vehicles are found, a "mountain train" could be envisioned to wrap-up the package; it would be running from the Salt Lake City airport, to downtown Salt Lake and then to a major "park & ride" location near the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon:

Click to enlarge image

From that point, the train would become largely underground and offer a stop in Snowbird, cross from Little to Big Cottonwood Canyon into Solitude, cross again into the mountain and terminate in Park City.

Major interconnects

1970-02-02T04:30:00.000-08:00

What follows is a table listing the 15 largest network of winter sport resorts in the Alps. There are many more, but all are smaller. Larger connections, including Utah's seven closest areas, fall generally within a 10 x 10 mile square (64,000 acres,) but their actual skiable/ridable acreage is significantly less than that.

Interconnecting resorts has become a necessity in order to compete for winter visitors.

Stand-alone North American resorts, as we know them, would be at a huge disadvantage in Europe, which among other reasons, explain why it's been so hard to attract and retain European skiers and snowboarders into the United States.

Click on table to enlarge

The "Detroit syndrome"

1970-01-05T05:58:00.000-08:00

Choosing not to change when faced with compelling evidence to do so could be likened to a form of death wish; under these circumstances, it's not unusual that bad things happen while the actors know they're in full control of the process, see time running in slow motion, grasp the most minute detail with intense clarity, yet feel totally paralyzed and can't do anything to rectify a situation that's going bad. This in many ways is what happened to our Detroit automakers that knew since 1973 that fuel efficiency would become a vital issue, but chose to ignore it, while fighting “Cafe” standards as hard as they possibly could. At the same time, GM came with a first version of the “electric car” and chose to kill it for no good reason. Toyota's Prius would soon fill the vacuum...

This syndrome is found in government, organizations and companies... This is also what's preventing our seven-resort interconnect from happening. So what is causing that “mental block” that stands in the way of change? Is it, as we often suspect, fear or is it also denial, disbelief, apathy, laziness and over-sized egos? I'd vote for a combination of all these factors with much weight placed on the latter. Now, the challenge is to find a clever way to clear the blockage and to move toward a goal that's in everyone's best interest.

Perhaps a “quiet revolution” will eventually change minds and advance the agenda. The best revolutions are generally short on arm-twisting and long on persuasion. When conventional wisdom has become too slow, too predictable or too comfortable, and when too many folks feel they have no control on the general outcome, it's time to start a gentle revolution. It could take the form of a sudden groundswell of “consumer demand” and a create a significant shift in views. When a growing number of highly determined folks becomes too hard to ignore and is eventually taken into consideration, the Wasatch seven-resort interconnect will begin to get traction and nothing will be able to stop it!

History of previous attempts

1970-01-04T09:27:00.000-08:00

Carlene Walker's “tunnel and roads” - 2006
In the fall of 2006, Utah State Senator Carlene Walker a Cottonwood Heights Republican, member of the Senate transportation committee and proponent of private investment in toll roads tried to advance her idea on a so-called AltaBright Tunnel and CottonPark Interconnect that would join the three canyons into what some called "one 7-resort Megaplex."

The plan was to use money from tolls, federal funds and special finance districts to build a single-bore tunnel from connecting Alta and Brighton that would cost an estimated $250 million, and an all-season road to Park City that would cost from $50 million to $150 million . The proposed road and tunnel would have connected Deer Valley, The Canyons, Park City Mountain Resort, Snowbird, Alta, Brighton and Solitude. The concept would have allowed skiers to drive between mountaintop resorts instead of up and down canyon roads or Interstate 80, already subject to heavy traffic.

On November 3, 2006, 25 of the most influential people in the Utah ski industry were invited to a meeting at the governor s office to discuss the proposal and nothing about it has been heard since...

Bob Theobald's Tram System - 1990
During the seventies and eighties, Bob Theobald a former freestyle ski champion expanded a lot of energy and money ($200,000 by his own words) to advance a proprietary, self propelled lift system composed of 28 forty-passenger trams that would have travelled from Park City all the way to Snowbird and back, via Solitude, Brighton and Alta.

The one-way ride would have taken 40 minutes while the entire cost for the infrastructure was estimated at that time to stand at $34 million. This unique lift would have been built totally in the U.S.A. According to Theobald, some of the biggest problems in the way of his plan were the local resorts that didn't know how to allocate lift ticket revenues and the Salt Lake City water authority that ran in fierce opposition to his plan. He abandoned the idea in 1990...

Comments

1970-01-03T08:49:00.000-08:00

June 24, 2009
Envision Utah Meeting, Salt Lake City
I attended the review of survey results, which showed that transportation, protection of the watershed and avalanche control where the most prevailing concerns from the 2,000 + survey questionnaires that were returned and analyzed. Something that could be "turned on its head" with some form of intelligent rapid transit system...

June 15, 2009
Sally Elliott : Fabulous. I read the entire thing. Did you write all the content? Did you put the site together? I'm so impressed.
I've been talking to UTA for years about light rail to Park City from the airport and they love the idea, but we all realize it's year away because of the cost.
I think the next step is to go talk to Envision Utah and Olene Walker.
Right off the top of my head, if PCMR and Solitude created an alliance, others would beg to come in. Talisker has other things to think about right now. Altabird would be clamoring to join after a season or two. You're right, we don't even have to pressure Deer Valley right away. That connection is in place. We just have to create a successful program, starting on a small scale.
Would Powder Corp go for it?

May 30, 2009
Anonymous: I agree, completely, it's time to catch up with the rest of the world and time to create an outdoor skiing experience rather than ride the same lifts all day. How do we get there.

May 25, 2009
Ian Ferguson: You have done an incredible job of providing information and statistics on your case for the interconnect. I believe, as I mentioned to you over the phone, that the reasons for the interconnect are all valid and backed up well by your reasoning and facts as are represented by the various interconnects in Europe. My concern is that; as we both know - timing is 90% of what happens in life.

One very bright frenchman is not enough to get things done. You need a group of highly interested and supportive people to add strength to your efforts. I read in the paper where you governor - Jon Huntsman - is heading off to China. He appeared to be a potential ally for your effort and you felt he was very tourism centered, but now will not be around to take part. You have stated that "time is of the essence" and that may be true, some sort of survey should be undertaken to see what support $ the resorts might want to put forth in this cause.

Everything takes money and at the moment, it is in short supply for many industries including the ski industry. I believe that your efforts should continue perhaps in research vein to see what the real support is at this time.I remember that the interconnect was a topic of discussion going back to when Ravio Puusemp was in charge of Ski Utah, but the effort never gained any traction and I don't think anyone had come up with the good and valid statistics that you have to support the concept.

I like the idea of the "mountain train" too. It would be very doable in Utah, but not in Colorado.If I were you, I would want to gauge the interest and support for the interconnect before investing more time and effort on your part. If the interconnect is ever to happen, it will take very large $ and the efforts of a very well organized task force including agreement by all parties including Deer Valley - who need it least of all parties. What is in it for JF Lanver?? I know you want to be an activist, but your time and efforts are worth something! Great effort on your part so far.

May 24, 2009
Kirk Benson: How do we convince the resorts and environmentalists this is a benefit?

April 24, 2009
Simon Diggins: This is a nicely put together site – good job! I wish you luck in promoting this concept. Having begun my ski industry career in the Tarentaise Valley I agree with pretty much everything you say on the site. However, I fear our collective habit in Utah of thinking small and protecting our turf will make progress very slow and difficult. Perhaps it will only be the effects of a major economic crisis over several years that will galvanize our resort owners into considering this concept.

I have personally been amazed that since I arrived in Utah in 1992, so little progress has been made and that there is so little support for the concept. Senior resort management seems to view it as a low priority if they give it any thought at all. Although having said that, Snowbird and Alta did take a significant step in 2001, and it was Snowbird that shouldered the lion’s share of the costs in developing Mineral Basin and building two quad lifts to connect to Alta.

History of Les Trois Vallées

1970-01-02T15:50:00.000-08:00

Les Trois Vallées or The Three Valleys is the largest interconnect in the world, situated in Savoie, above the town of Moûtiers and near the Vanoise National Park. The history and development of Les Trois Vallées' interconnect is more a randomly orchestrated confluence of events combined with organic development than a sudden decision to “link a bunch of resorts together.”

This huge network of ski areas came to being in 1937 when Scottish Major Peter Lindsay approached Sir Arnold Lunn, an earlier ski pionneer, to get his opinion on skiing opportunities in Vanoise and Tarentaise. Sir Arnold Lunn introduced him to Emile Allais (a 1936 Olympic medal winner) and André Tournier (a local skier and mountaineer) who would guide Lindsay through the three valleys and plan a ski resort in the valley of Les Allues. The alpine valleys of St Bon, Les Allues and Les Belleville had the same potential for skiing as the best Swiss resort of the moment.

Click on map to enlarge

In 1938 a first hotel, Le Doron was being built above the hamlet of Mussillion. This hotel was associated with The Three Valley’s first lift, the “Red Dragon,” a 19-seat cable sled. As the name Mussillian was too difficult for the British to pronounce, the Major renamed it Méribel. Peter Lindsay moved to Meribel permanently where he created the Société Foncière de la Vallée des Allues, upon which he he gradually developed the resort. In December 1938, the Saint Bon town council voted a land development for the Courchevel and Moriond sites. While the resort industry came to screeching halt during World War II, the the planning continued as the project was privately financed.

Laurent Chappis, a young architect held captive in an interment camp, had a plan to create an interconnect involving three resort, and applied it to The Three Valleys. He was helped by Maurice Michaud, another prisoner who also was a civil engineer. The town council had appointed Laurent Chappis as its urban planner and charged him with the planning of the resort. As both prisoners were realease in March 1946, they began drawing the plans for the lifts located above St. Bon, and received help from Jean Blanc, a local skier and Jean Pomagalski, the founder of Poma Lifts.

"The first Three Valleys multi-areas ski passes were sold in 1958"

A first surface lift from Courchevel to Les Tovets opened in December 1946 and another one between Les Tovets and La Loze followed in January 1947. Courchevel would become the initial link in The Three Valleys network. From that point on, things followed rapidly with the opening of the Hotel Departmental Des Trois Vallées in December 1947 and the Hotel de la Loze in January 1948.

The resort needed a name, Chappis wanted it to remain the ‘Plateau des Tovets’ but others believed a new resort needed a punchier moniker. Pierre de la Gontrie suggested Courchevel, the name of a hamlet situated someway down the mountain; in the process, and after much discussions, it was decided that the original Courchevel would be renamed Courchevel 1550, and Les Tovets called Courchevel 1850.

In December 1951, Courchevel and the Les Allues valley were finally connected via the Burgin Saulire lift. At this time, in the Allues valley, Méribel was being developed. As its three first surface lifts were installed, the valley was connected to the electric grid for the first time. In August 1952, the Saulire tram began operations and in November 1954, Emille Allais took over the management of Courchevel. The first Three Valleys ski passes were sold in 1958. In 1970 a mountain airport was added, followed by additional subdivisions. More importantly, 1973 saw the introduction of a single lift ticket accessing the entire network.

In 1963, Méribel counted100 houses built and over 10 lifts, including the Saulire cabriolet that linked the resort to Courchevel since 1951. In 1960, the Tougnète gondola allowed for the first access into the third valley des Bellevilles. As the resorts kept on developing, a new extension was planned up into the valley, in an area also known as Mottaret. Named Meribel-Mottaret, the new ski-in, ski-out resort began operations in time for the 1972/73 winter season.

The valley des Belleville appeared on scene when in 1960, Nicolas Jay, its mayor, commissioned a tourism development study. This is how les Ménuires came to being in 1964. As the upper valley offered even greater skiing potential, Joseph Fontanet, the new mayor of Saint-Martin de Belleville asked a developer in 1969 to plan and design the resort of Val Thorens, further up in the valley and with easy access to the glaciers, that opened in December 1971. Over time, Val Thoren kept on strengthening its notoriety and added in 1982 the Caron tram to its lift infrastructure.

Some smaller resorts that are now part of The Three Valleys did not develop until the 90’s. La Tania is one of them and used to be a little hamlet halfway between Meribel and Courchevel known as “La Tagna”. In December 1990, it opened as a new resort, rechristened “La Tania”. As implied by its name, the area originally consisted of three valleys: Saint-Bon, Allues, and Belleville. The skiing area has since been extended into a 'fourth' valley, the Maurienne valley. It is adjacent to Val Thorens and today, Orelle is the latest addition to the world's largest interconnect; used as a back entrance into Val Thorens, it also offers some excellent off-pistes itineraries...

History of Les Portes du Soleil

1970-01-01T07:01:00.000-08:00

Les Portes du Soleil is one of the largest European interconnects centered around Morzine-Avoriaz, in the French Alps and straddling into neighboring Switzerland.
The story started shortly after the hometown’s skier Jean Vuarnet, won a gold medal in downhill at the 1960 Squaw Valley Olympics. In the late summer of that year, Vuarnet met with a group of neighboring Swiss ski industry leaders and started to envision the first international interconnect that would eventually network eleven resorts between Savoie and Valais.

"To established French ski areas that had built their snow trade since the 1930’s, it made little sense to open the flood gates and let their hard-won clientele wonder over the Swiss border..."

The group of innkeepers and ski instructors from Champery and Val d’Illez that had met with Jean Vuarnet was gung-ho about the project as they were starving for more tourist traffic into their remote valleys, their French counterparts were lukewarm at best. To established ski areas like Morzine, Les Gets and Chatel that had gradually built their snow trade since the 1930’s, it made little sense to open the flood gates and let their hard-won clientele wonder over the border. That fear was also shared by a number of Swiss stakeholders. “Why send our few clients to the competitors” was a common comment heard on both sides of the border.

In spite of these reactions, a company was set up in 1963 and opened to any interested French or Swiss entity interested by the project. The first practical step was a 3-D model of the networked resorts built for the Lausanne National Swiss Expo of 1964. At the Expo, the model got noticed by the press and elicited a great deal of interest from the public. The project was christened “Portes du Soleil” or “Gateway to the Sun”.

In January of 1968, almost eight years after the first brainstorming, the connection between Morzine-Avoriaz and Champery was established with the completion of two lifts meeting on the ridgeline separating the two countries. The following year a joint ski pass was offered to skiers looking for a borderless adventure. Before the computer age, it was agreed that each resort would keep its sales receipts regardless of the actual usage by consumers who had purchased the interconnected pass.

In the mid seventies, more ski resorts joined in and now the network looked more like a modern day’s interconnect. By 1981, the vision that started in 1960 became a solid reality; by that time, all participating ski mountains had adopted the same computerized ski-pass system that would compensate each partner on the basis of actual usage by skiers and snowboarders. Today, the Portes du Soleil claims a network of eleven mountain villages offering 40,000 acres of ski and snowboard runs served by 194 lifts, 150 miles of cross-country tracks and 240 miles of snowshoe trails.