NASTAR At Whiteface

[Denison]

NASTAR closing together with making Brodaway a park only trail - two dumb moves. Way to start, Mr. McCulley

[Hoser]

Could not have said it better myself Denison. Petition signed and commented. Very disappointed in the continued reduced support of racers at Whiteface.

Know many kids, now competing in USSA programs, who "got the bug" from NASTAR. What message does this send that the funds now support growth of parks, rather than a discipline already receiving minimal TV time and national coverage less and less each season.

[highpeaksdrifter]

I prefer to wait and see before I pass judgment. Changes in the way things are done in any business seldom turn out as good or bad as people perceive before they happen.

Park is a growing segment of the ski/ride population. If WF doesn’t accommodate them then they’ll go somewhere else.

[zski]

Here is an idea if they need more space on tower 10 hill lets put Nastar on Broadway instead of a terrian park - it will be less expensive than having to blow extra snow for the features in the park.

Here is a little simple financial anaysis of the terrian park. I've heard that the park budget was north of $500,000 - to cover the extra snow, extra grooming time building the features, staff, liability for injuries, higher insurance etc. Let's say that will the large addition of broadway the park budget is $600k. At $74 a day for lift tickets that means you have to sell over 8100 more lift tickets just to break even on cash flow.

the proper way to do this would be to really look at the extra profit that the park brings in. Since we don't know WF's margin lets just say its 25%. In that case WF would have to sell over 24,000 more lift tickets to justify the terriain park. I don't the park supports any where near that. On a weekend its the same 25-50 kids that use the thing all day long and most of them have a season's pass.

If WF got rid of the park it would not hurt the tourist business in Placid one bit. Park rats are not really the demographic that LP is looking for

Conversely - nastar is cheap to operate - just a few staff on snow that is already blown. Since their is less traffic on Nastar is does not need as much snow as a regular trail. It brings in extra money on top of a lift ticket. Both locals and tourists use and love it. This is a no brainer financial decision - keep Nastar and dump the parks.

[Hoser]

Fair point on growth of the Parks

"If WF doesn’t accommodate them then they’ll go somewhere else."
This applies to the racing community also.
Have already seen this begin to happen.

[Denison]

On top of direct costs, it looks like parks are an added liability headache:

Yesterday at library I read article from SKIING magazine, with following from lawyer's experience:

If someone encounters a natural feature [like a rock, cliff, or tree], the resort will win those cases more often than not. But cases involving terrain parks and other manmade conditions are a little trickier.

here is the link to original source

http://www.skinet.com/skiing/fondue-...y-way-im-suing

[highpeaksdrifter]

Here is an idea if they need more space on tower 10 hill lets put Nastar on Broadway instead of a terrian park - it will be less expensive than having to blow extra snow for the features in the park.

Here is a little simple financial anaysis of the terrian park. I've heard that the park budget was north of $500,000 - to cover the extra snow, extra grooming time building the features, staff, liability for injuries, higher insurance etc. Let's say that will the large addition of broadway the park budget is $600k. At $74 a day for lift tickets that means you have to sell over 8100 more lift tickets just to break even on cash flow.

the proper way to do this would be to really look at the extra profit that the park brings in. Since we don't know WF's margin lets just say its 25%. In that case WF would have to sell over 24,000 more lift tickets to justify the terriain park. I don't the park supports any where near that. On a weekend its the same 25-50 kids that use the thing all day long and most of them have a season's pass.

If WF got rid of the park it would not hurt the tourist business in Placid one bit. Park rats are not really the demographic that LP is looking for

Conversely - nastar is cheap to operate - just a few staff on snow that is already blown. Since their is less traffic on Nastar is does not need as much snow as a regular trail. It brings in extra money on top of a lift ticket. Both locals and tourists use and love it. This is a no brainer financial decision - keep Nastar and dump the parks.

You make a compelling argument; however, if it is a no brainer why don’t they do it your way? I’m sure they thought of it. I don’t think they’re trying to lose money so maybe they think it's a sound business decision.

[Alkyy]

Not going to lie im on the exact other side of the argument here. I think that a good well recognized park will do wonders for the mtn. If your planning a family vacation and your kids really push the place with a good park your gunna be apt to go there, not many kids these days are going to push there parents to go to a resort because it has a nastar. The thruway park is now going to be a normal trail as is where the half pipe was which will be great for the ski school.

I am biased on this, i have been riding whiteface parks since i was a little kid. I think the expansion is a great thing, look at it this way. When its a spring day and all the park rats are straightlining in and out of everyone to get straight to the park THAT causes a huge liabilty. So now if they are just weaving in and out of people from broadway to Dbridge there isnt as much room for someone to get seriously hurt.

Also with the change in trails (this isnt so much of an expansion as it is a relocation) it will allow for a seperation of intermediate and expert jumps in the park. In turn making it safer for everyone

sorry for the poor grammer, I'm about to run to class so no chance to look it over. And if im wrong on some of these points, please correct me

[Denison]

I'm not against parks: take wide trail (Lower Valley) - build a park; make a park features on an "extra" little used trail (no example here) or cut new trail - make it a park.

What looks to be happening with Broadway - is the safe alternative to Upper Valley being take away from intermediate skiers.

[Snowballs]

i'm not so sure the liability issue is a sound arguement against parks. After all there are plenty of resorts that have them. in fact they're standard at the majority of mtns. So are some here saying these mtns are losing money due to Park litigation? And yet they still operate and expand their parks.

the evidence is that parks are good things, good for business and good for customers. Rumor around Gore has been Patrol doesn't want to be bothered with a Park. i don't discount that.