Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
So Bruce, was the casino bar better or worse than the Ivanhoe?
An article about the gondola proposal from the Squamish Chief - the local paper, that is.
http://www.squamishchief.com/article/20110701/SQUAMISH0101/306299982/-1/squamish/-8216-sea-to-sky-gondola-8217-concept-launched
They still won't give up that hoary old nonsense about the Chief being "the world’s second largest granite monolith". It's tiresome, almost reedonkulous. The chamber of commerce or tourism bureau or something seems to have come up with the absurd claim decades ago, and continue to embarrass themselves by repeating it.
The article also refers to "the Squamish Access Society (SAS), the climbing group that voiced strong opposition to the 2004 proposal" - except that the "Squamish Access Society", a local group, didn't exist then, or for a year or two after. The opposition was led by the Climbers' Access Society of B.C., aka the Access Society.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
What about the chief trail appeals to the grinders:
Ease of use, you park you hike you drive home. Its steep, to the point and then its over.
You can get in a quick "organic" work out and still sip lattes in downtown Vancouver in the afternoon.
These folks are not after trails, they want a workout and they want to pair it with a yoga session afterwards.
Do you see thousands of people taking the 45$ skyride to hike Crown or Goat, no its too much time out of the day and those routes dont offer the steep stair master type hikes these folks want.
Go hike the BCMC, its dead and right next door the grind is packed like a conga line.
No the gondola is for the folks who want to ride up in their loafers, check out the wildlife sanctuary, have a coffee and a bite and continue on to Whistler. I highly doubt there will be any removal of the chief trail participants to this Gondola ride.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
There aren't enough facts yet about the proposal to do much more than hypothesize - a perfect situation for SuperTopo. The questions being:
1. What the proponents say they want to do, now and for the foreseeable future.
2. What they would actually do, if allowed to go ahead, and if there are any hidden agendas.
3. Whether they'd change their minds part way in, and whether they have the needed financing.
4. What real accountability there would be.
5. The process to properly examine the proposal - Bruce will have to check the area for those endangered slugs he likes so much, and that could take years.
Some examples:
 Would they use/restore the Shannon Creek road for construction of and access to the upper terminal?
What access would the public have to upper Shannon Creek, at least once construction is finished?
What activities would take place in that area? Would it just be a restaurant, souvenir shop and nearby things like nature walks, or perhaps a network of hiking and mountain bike trails?
Will they close for October - March, given that the upper terminal is roughly at the usual snowline? Skiing, hiking and mountain biking aren't likely winter activities, and the usual view would be the inside of a cloud. You'd need a fair bit of traffic to justify staying open in the winter, especially with competition from Grouse and Whistler. (There may be possibilities for cross country skiing, or access to some backcountry skiing higher in the valley, but neither seems likely to be a big draw.)
What about impacts on the parks? If nothing else, construction, the swathe that would be cut from bottom to top, and visual and noise impacts?
Who will clean up the mess if the thing fails?
What process will be used to examine and decide on the proposal, under the Park Act and the master plans? Last time the government tried to bypass the Act, perhaps illegally.
What resources will BC Parks be given to examine the proposal, oversee construction and operation if it goes ahead, and manage increased use of the parks?
What alternative locations are there?
Whether it would be possible, or wise, to build trails from the base to the top is an interesting question. Perhaps by going around the far south end of Shannon Creek Wall, or by going part way up the Chief trail (more traffic!), then across Olesen Creek and somewhere up by the 1992 clearcut. But there's a lot of steep terrain. Whether such trails might help slake demand for hiking in the area is another matter.
BC Parks did some good and much-needed work on the Chief trails in autumn 2010, and plan to do more this year. I still hope that they can eventually build a trail up to the saddle between the Chief and Slhanay, more or less using the old mountaineers' route. With parking at the gravel pit, so allowing better access to the centre of the park, and a loop trip. (A path through the forest, paralleling the highway and Stawamus River road, would also help.)
At any rate, these are questions that will take facts, discussion and perspective. Not a simple matter, and it's going to take time. We have a provincial government and new premier itching to call an early election this fall, which may also be a factor.
Disclosure: I have no family, personal or business connnection with the proponents, and neither I nor anyone close to me has any expectation of benefiting from the proposal.
|
|
Khoi
climber
Vancouver, BC
|
|
Flocks of asians fresh off the plane from china
None from Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam or the Philippines, Bruce?
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
BK if you were to take your kids on the Skyride today it would cost you 150$ plus parking plus food.
How does that appeal to the folks you saw on the chief trail, what is it about the gondola that will attract those folks?
At best a grind esque trail from the base to the tram top?
And if this is all Squamish needs to attract folks and reduce the numbers on the backside then what they should do is chase mighty hiker out of town and build some new trails and include some via feratta.
Then you can actually start getting people out and off the idiot box and actually spending loot in Squamish.
If MH is around then at best we may get a permit to cut some grass but even still that would be after decades of studies ;)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Don't assume that I'm in favour of or opposed to the proposal. Yes, I believe that the default setting for the argument should be no developments of this kind in provincial parks, and that anything that is proposed should be thoroughly scrutinized and discussed before any decision. (I'm well aware that there are others who see parks as a land reserve for 'recreational' development, based on the appalling precedent of major encroachment on Garibaldi Park for downhill skiing.) But there's not enough information about the current proposal, its proponents, and their bona fides to comment yet.
As Bruce observes, the main apparent direct impact on the Chief and Shannon Falls, apart from clearing the tramway, may be the base area.
My support for rebuilding the existing trails in the park, and indeed for expanding them, and my work on careful restoration of existing routes, shows that I'm comfortable with appropriate uses and activities in parks.
The last few years, maybe inspired by the FaceLift, I've spent a fair amount of time on the backside trails at the Chief, doing cleanup, trail work, and graffiti removal. Quite a lot, overall. One of the nice side benefits is all the people you get to meet, as regular pauses are needed to do whatever needs doing. It's a veritable United Nations, and that's good to see, even if some are more acculturated to hiking than others.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
I fail to see (so far) how how bad it can be to transport people up into an old cut block where currently no one goes or has an interest in and where I assume the ecological impact will be reasonable, where the visual aesthetics will also be minimal, and where the local economic spin offs could be quite substantial for a town that is perpetually complaining about being the poor kid sitting between rich cousins. I realize my assumptions need to be substantiated but so far I see no big red flags.
Agreed this doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand. Trails up top and winter access a good idea. I paid 80 bucks for an annual grouse mtn skyride pass this year. BCMC trail was dead quiet while continous stream of folks on grind was sniffing each others ass today. put in a couple via ferrata too and bobs your uncle
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Bruce M practices trolling. Or maybe his former residence in Whistler corrupted him?
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
All I was getting at was that the crowd you wrestled with on the backside is not the same crew heading up the gondola. I dont believe a gondola to nowhere will capture much, if any of this outdoor boot camp gym crowd coming from Vancity.
In my view the crew that wants to ride gondolas is already well serviced in two world class cities on either side.
good luck getting the backside crew off farmed salmon....its more expensive for a reason...hello its organic!!
Its right beside the organic shrimp in safeway!
|
|
Khoi
climber
Vancouver, BC
|
|
khoi, i can see how my quip may be seen as being a bit flipant or disparaging, if thats what you driving at. point taken. for all i know they were all 5th generation Canadian. sorry about that - i didn't mean it that way.
I'm glad you see that, and are big enough to apologize.
Back on topic, I also agree that this proposal, if all the announced plans come to pass, won't make a noticeable dent in the proto-Grouse-Grind-esque traffic scene that the backside trail is getting.
A huge proportion of said traffic isn't there just to be at the top. Hell! A lot of them barely spend any time at the time. It just seems like they are there to do a hike, and be able to tell their friends that they've done that hike, and possibly make them think that they've are a part of the "outdoorsy culture" of the West Coast. I don't think they'd be interested in paying $$ to be taken via gondola to the top. It's not something they can really brag to their friends about. It's not something that significantly adds to their possible self-image of being a West Coast girl/guy.
While this proposal, which I am still highly skeptical, suspicious, and cynical about, may have benefits outside of the develops' and investors' bank accounts, I don't believe that easing up of traffic on the backside trail will be one of them.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
I suspect there could be three or four trails similar to the Chief hike, in the Squamish area, and demand would still be high.
One thing - this is a public forum, as is Squamish Climbing, and it is very likely that the gondola proponents (at least) are watching the discussion here, and may adjust their tactics accordingly.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
So we are in agreement on the premise that if the gondola proposal is engineered with a trail system up to the top station aka grouse grind thereby alleviating traffic pressures on the backside trail, then the proposal is highly desirable
Clearly its the needs of the lululemon crowd intent on a workout up and a lunch ontop followed by a safe and low impact descent should be their target market as this model is proven wildly succesful on Grouse.
If the developers adopt the "godola ride down" model then they have a winner - in terms of proposal acceptance**
The via ferratas go in under the tramline on those broken cliff bands which are not really good for much else. The new grind trail goes in between Shannon falls and the tramline
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Bruce, no one seems to be biting. Try some other bait.
As for the "access for the disabled" argument, there are lifts to the tops of Mount Seymour, Grouse Mountain, and Mounts Strachan and Black Mountain on the north shore. Grouse, at least, is fully accessible. Likewise, gondolas to the tops of Whistler and Blackcomb, 45 minutes north, with a far better view and facilities. There are opportunities already. Developers build these things to make money, not as a public service. They'll bring in any argument they can find to try to find support or justify what they're doing, but money is the bottom line. Not the public interest.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
Astutely stated gf though the viability of the business isn't our concern -- But the impact of the development is very much our concern.
Build the project around a fitness centric model as I have proposed and we get the desired impact.
If the initial investors want to lose their shirts that's fine with me, I'll come in for bankrupcty sale @10 cents on the dollar to pick up the azssets and operate it myself from there.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
"selling the hype" is often all there is to the meat of some of these business schemes - the advocates of the gondola proposal may just be looking to put approvals in place then flog the permits to someone else if they can. Isn't there someone offshore who needs a money laundering store front in Canada ?
Remember the floating hotel scheme sold to investors in Britannia Beach ? Didn't that ship get sold for scrap in the end ?
How many times has Grouse mountain gone bankrupt in the past ? How many times has Whistler Blackcomb been resold ?
Good point gf
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Then there's the interesting question as to what the First People of Squamish thinks of the proposal. Perhaps they have some direct involvement, as investor or partner. (Maybe a few would prefer it go from the casino to the second summit...) If they're not directly involved, what part will they have in the review and approval process? They were adamantly opposed to the 2004 proposal, given what I understand to be the importance of the Chief in their culture. Shannon Falls is also quite important to them, and the proposal wouldn't do much for its appearance, although riders would get a good view of the falls.
And yes, before anything else, the economics and business plan have to be thoroughly examined, to see if it's viable. The ski areas and tourist gondolas in B.C. generally make little if any money on lift operations. For most, real estate development is key, followed by as many tourist facilities as can be fitted in, operated to as high capacity year round as is possible.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Whistler/blackcomb ski and bike operations profit margin is huge - they actually don't need real estate to profit at all. They used to subsidize other Intrawest operations all the time. Is that including both capital and operating costs? Lift operations and related things might well generate income in comparison with expenses, but not when capital costs are factored in. It costs a lot of money to build a ski area and infrastructure. The overall marginal finances of Whistler/Blackcomb speak for themselves, as it was sold again about a year, after some sort of semi-receivership. As it's one of the top ski resorts in North America, not good.
The proposed gondola would have to go considerably higher to have reliable snow. The current upper terminal is about 800 m, which isn't far above the usual snowline in Squamish. The difficulty being that you could move it higher, say to 1,200 m or more, but then might forego an upper station with a good view. Also, Vancouver already has three (or more) marginal ski areas - does it need a fourth?
Then there's climate change to consider, and shifting demographics.
I do find it surprising that Squamish doesn't do a better job of building on what it already has - fantastic climbing, hiking, camping, mountaineering, backcountry skiing, wind surfing, and mountain biking, plus all the regular outdoor activities. It may not be as dramatic and sexy as a gondola, but the overall contribution is enormous. I've seen climbing at Squamish grow from a few people around on sunny weekends to what it is now. Instead of imitating Whistler, and sacrificing what it has, why not build on it?
|
|
Rolfr
Social climber
North Vancouver BC
|
|
After 40 years of climbing at Squamish it has become obvious to me that climbers contribute very little to the economic drivers of the community. Yes, I concede that numerous studies have arrived at figures from 1 to 1.5 million per year of economic stimulus, but these are based on middle class, per day hotel spending not dirt bagging beside the Stawamas river. You can confirm this with the local economic development officers, I am not making this sh#t up!
The Squamish city infrastructure and the Provincial Parks funding is based on taxation and spending, something which our lifestyle has worked hard to avoid.
We enjoy the privilege of driving on a new highway, using community facilities, all at our miserly contribution of the price of our morning Starbucks latte and to piss in some one else’s toilet!
Squamish like a lot of small communities have lost the large resource based employers and is struggling to develop some kind of local economic stimulus. It is rapidly becoming or perceived to be an elitist outdoor NIMBY community. We “develop” our recreational activity of choice through miles of trail networks, hobbit warrens through boulders, deforestation and the addition of permanent fixtures, then say we perceive any other form of development as undesirable! I acknowledge and recognize myself as part of this community but also recognize that a sustainable local based economy needs real jobs and investment.
Before we (the outdoor community) dictate, mandate, poll our peers and become outraged on what direction our private play ground is headed towards, perhaps we should listen to some of the local mom and pop businesses. Let’s recognize how little we contribute to the local economy; a few new climbing shoes, some groceries and coffee don’t make a significant contribution to local economy.
Squamish will either stay a bedroom community of Vancouver with limited job growth and increasing local taxation or encourage and entertain new business ideas which will help pay for the infrastructure and access to the outdoors we take for granted.
One of the posts on another forum justified their anti development arguments on the bases of self-propelled outdoor access as opposed to Gondola access. “ We earn our turns”, well it’s about time we earned our turns with the local economy as well!
I agree we should be skeptical of the promises the developer makes, but we also need to be open to the opportunities they may bring. If we examined, critiqued and held climbing up to the same standards we do the Gondola proposal, I doubt we would have the free unrestricted access we enjoy today.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Where are the would-be developers based? Any Squamish connections? How about the financing?
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
100% Canadian
|
|
So what if they fail ? Someone else buys it at their loss. Metal prices don't warrant leaving much behind these days and a few concrete piers are nothing relative to the clearcut they are in. Bigger problem is too successful and not enough parking at the base.
Good time to get financing in place for long term.
You have to be pretty narrow minded to object to this. Of course that would describe a lot of climbers I used to know.
2500 elevation gain is just about right for a workout. Two or three laps if you are super motivated. One is enough for the average person. Yoga classes, showers and change rooms on top. Maybe a bunch of campsites too, since there aren't many places to camp anymore when its busy.
Surveillance cameras and security patrol for the parking lot at night. Someone is getting away with a lot of break-ins and its time to shut that bastard down.
Whatever they do don't propose a ski area ....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!