Definitely a good deal at the time, just reminiscing about my days at BC. Employer financing was a nice touch as long as you showed up for work.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiBall
Printable View
Definitely a good deal at the time, just reminiscing about my days at BC. Employer financing was a nice touch as long as you showed up for work.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiBall
My first year in the valley a pass was 1800 and with the merchant pass/class it was 900 with blackout dates. More expensive for sure but the mountain wasn't close to as crowded as it has become since Epic.
I have heard all the good hikes that used to stay fresh for days get hit on powder days now. Are people hiking to the y-chutes on powder days? Remember when 9 was a double? You could cook multiple burgers on the ride up.Quote:
Originally Posted by montanaskier
Yeah they're seriously considering running the shuttles year round now. Parking lot is pretty full almost every weekend and is completely full a lot of weekends. Still pretty much empty if you're willing to dawn patrol or ski anywhere besides Tyndall Gorge and HV. Still, its busy as fuck compared to what I'm used to living here for as long as I have. But hey, what can ya do. Wake the fuck up earlier and go ski or hike a little farther and you'll beat team Denver to the hill.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchgreenchile
The visitor numbers have jumped quite a bit the past few years, 10-20% annually. Tough to hide that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmnpsplitter
The ski resorts are still public land even if they have a lessee operating lifts to assist access part of the year.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchgreenchile
Why do you believe we should avoid overcrowding by improving road access only to places where there aren't ski lifts?
Why do you believe we should spend billions in public money to push even more crowds to those places already beyond their capacity and force them to build more infrastructure and adapt to bigger crowds? Just because there are ski lifts already?
This is the future for sure. Fees, waiting lists, signing up a year out to go access parts of the back country or hike a 14er.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchgreenchile
Look at the current hanging lake mess, conundrum hot springs is going to a fee permit use situation, it's endless. Eldora on the weekends summer and winter. I pitty people who have to live there all the time. Bus access? The towns people in Montezuma have been going to blows with road cyclists, snowmobilers in winter, hikers, off roaders because they all thought they were living in some quiet little town but it's over run now with visitors, who think it's ok to run snowmobiles up and down the road and into their yards at full speed. Ever go by the quandary trail head on a summer weekend, I would hate to live right there, getting run over by peak bagging yahoos for weeks on end. Spruce creek used to be a nice quiet little area in breckenridge, well on the weekends a hundred cars are park like idiots in any space they can find, pretty much blocking the road at times. Don't know what guide book that hike is in? But it's in everyone I think.
You can complain or you can pack up and goto lake city, south fork, del norte, crestone, rico, that's not even a start to the list
Yes one can go farther to less overrun places... but should we put billions into improving transportation that will worsen the crowds in already overrun areas already experiencing inter-user conflict and visitor-local conflicts you described?Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
I70 is going to get upgraded one way or another, that much isn't debatable. Yes, it will cost billions, and yes, it will boost numbers to the area overall. There is no "Sorry Folks, Colorado is Closed" signage going up. Perhaps an efficient I70 /mass transit option from the counties to Denver means less hotel stays and seconds homes. Who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I have no idea how you "fix" the influx of people on regular old public land, but I think it's quite easy to cull the crowds from the developed public lands, if you want to go down that path, but I don't see any of the bean counters casting those stones yet.
I don't buy the idea that you build a bigger better road and more people will use it just because you built it. 70 for example is overused, it needs to be updated to accommodate the existing usage, more people will use it of course because of growth and the constant push for increased tourist numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Summit County is doomed, it is what it is, it's an over run over used maxed out destination for outdoor activities. The highway between breck and frisco should have been widened 15 years ago but instead they are piecing it together and it's not even getting the basic maintenance that it needs on the parts that have been finished for years IE overlays, fixing pot holes, settling of fill. I can't believe that just twenty years ago that was a two lane highway with no shoulders. Crazy to think.
I am all for increased gas tax and car reg fees. I like nice roads. The problem is gov't collects taxes and just pisses it away on whatever they want. People need to know how they are being taxed and where it is being spent. They also need to educate themselves. But that's not gonna happen. Politicians suck. They need to grow some balls and start laying out like it is, but they all want to be liked, re elected, and have a job that pays ok, with no responsibility or actual work
You are proposing using public funds to boost demand in over-capacity areas and saying "well the market will deal with that by increasing prices." But you are boosting that demand by governmental facilitation and public funds with local conflict and other results of overcrowding as a side effect to be endured.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchgreenchile
Spending billions on whatever solution to make it easier for a 20 or 50 or 100% increases in visitors to reach overcrowded areas is a dumb way to spend public funds in my view.
Why not use those public funds to enable better access and infrastructure in areas that are not over capacity and that could more easily tolerate buildup and development?
Just curious, do you know of any examples where regional infrastructure improvements were not approved? I'd love to see if this is completely uncharted territory. I know some large cities have removed downtown freeways (SF, Boston), but that's the only thing that comes to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Proposed I70 improvements are about creating a year round, long term solution for a corridor that has experienced major capacity issues for decades. It is much wider than getting people to the ski lifts. I don't think it's necessary to improve access to other areas, as getting to all but a few select trailheads isn't too challenging, some areas just need to be better "promoted". Perhaps an improved I70 makes it easier for people to spread out.
I70 seems sufficient in that enough people use it to push areas along it over capacity... seems like maintenance and enforcement should be the priority over expansion.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchgreenchile
Increasing I70 capacity and hoping people "spread out" is... illogical is a kind adjective. If you imagine that there was infrastructure improvement without more people clogging it for the same transit times, all you did was spread the crowds to Eagle County.
Why not increase capacity on 285 and 24 instead? That will let people spread out on 24 and 50 corridors.
Make CO14 and Buckhorn Road into a two lane divided road, improve US40 and spread people to Routte County?
Make a highway and tunnel through Moffat zone and spread people into Grand?
Subsidize the development of more recreational activities the Pikes Peak region?
I'm not talking about ski only. We like to say "the problem is that recreational traffic is being held up by commercial traffic at peak times, so let's ban trucks at peak times and expand I70." Or we could say, "lets spread people out so that the peaks are less peaked and don't become more critically congested in the future."
If Front Range tripled in population tomorrow, should we still focus on sending them all up I70? No? When is the point at which you prioritize transportation infrastructure development outside of the I70 mountain corridor?
90% of the population of Colorado lives in narrow 150 mile-long North-South strip... so why are we focusing nearly all the East-West transport infrastructure improvements into one corridor?
Absolutely. Assuming that it will slow the expansion into the still-silent areas of the state. Sort of a sacrificial honeypot, if you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
:D
Maintenance and enforcement are certainly things that could be better prioritized along the corridor. Every winter, we bitch about the little things that could be changed (Mandatory 4x4/AWD & snows on snowy days, please!) that continue to be avoided or axed in legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
285/24 are not yet a peak time nightmare to drive, but that is a corridor that needs to be prioritized. 14 through the Poudre is pretty landlocked, and we can barely figure out getting a new 2 mile tunnel in, let alone a 6 miler next to the Moffatt. As it stands, the I70 route is way more efficient than any possible alternate. I think any investment in east/west travels needs to be 70 first, but I'm not opposed to other options.
I still say we should just nuke Aurora.
Oh... don't you worry - they're doing that too. Although I'd bet the "locals" in Tincup and Taylor Park would disagree that it's a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
:D
Go anywhere more than 5 miles from a trailhead that is not a 14er and you will find solitude even on the busiest of summer weekends....ok, you may have to go 10 miles to find solitude at an alpine lake. Last year, I backpacked in the gore over 4th of july weekend and the only place I saw anyone was at cataract lake and the trail leading up to it. I was the ONLY person camped at mirror lake, 2 miles further up the trail from cataract lake on Saturday night on one of the busiest weekends of the year. I also had griffith lake (1/2 mile bushwhack off trail) to myself on friday night that weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
Colorado is NOT crowded. Put in a little work and you don't need to see anyone if you don't want to.
I wasn't going to get into that argument, but you are rightQuote:
Originally Posted by skiracer88_00
I was a trail head this weekend, people everywhere, rode my bike on the popular trails and saw people, ended up on some of the less popular trails later in the afternoon, saw four people in three hours and when I ran into the two groups I was kinda spooked
I know how to get after it, I can ride for hours and not see a person, unfortunately back country skiing is a different animal, in the past ten years each quiet hidden spot seems to no longer be unknown, but then again I mostly ski in summit, so I guess that's my fault
it won't help this problem but it will make us feel better.
Edit: this was in response to the nuke Aurora comment.
I guess it snowed a little bit in the mountains yesterday, how many times did 70 close? I couldn't keep track on twitter.
Closed a bunch but as always not real sure why. Snowed hard at times but roads were mostly wet with some slush and maybe snow packed during a brief period of heavy snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bean
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiracer88_00
That's good information, I think I'll take my scout troop up there this weekend and post about it on facebook.
And we have our first closure of the storm, Vail Pass due to a rollover crash.
Hell yeah, once Cottonwood is paved in 2 years, Tincup will be the place to be :)Quote:
Originally Posted by skaredshtles