One more step: Manitoba is getting closer to reality

Thanks to Patrick for the informative link. The pictures and narrative show that the 1,000 acres within the proposed ski area boundary are moderately pitched and should not require much avalanche control. The "get after it" steeps fall away from the spine at the top of the mountain and much of it requires only a modest amount of hiking. A Silverton-style guiding system is one option mentioned and would probably be a good idea to access this terrain.

However, only a Nordic center is in the cards soon. "No lift-assisted shredding will go down for several years."
 
Tony Crocker":2vb0bbn7 said:
However, only a Nordic center is in the cards soon. "No lift-assisted shredding will go down for several years."
Click to expand...
I saw another 2-3 years mentioned. :brick:
 
Patrick":1l097nnp said:
Tony Crocker":1l097nnp said:
However, only a Nordic center is in the cards soon. "No lift-assisted shredding will go down for several years."
Click to expand...
I saw another 2-3 years mentioned. :brick:
Click to expand...

Which is "several."
 
Admin":1o4lv7qx said:
Patrick":1o4lv7qx said:
Tony Crocker":1o4lv7qx said:
However, only a Nordic center is in the cards soon. "No lift-assisted shredding will go down for several years."
Click to expand...
I saw another 2-3 years mentioned. :brick:
Click to expand...

Which is "several."
Click to expand...

I don't recall putting a brick in my post?

Yes, it is several...but several it could also be 5-8 years. That is why I mentioned it.
 
I put the sentence in quotes because it was directly from Patrick's source. So "several years" is the source's term, not mine.

In some respects I was encouraged by the article.
1) MRA will not have to spend big bucks on avy control. The core 1,000 acres is not exposed and they can let the extreme sidecountry settle before letting anyone ski it, similar to what CPG or most cat/heli operators would do. And it is a maritime snowpack, so probably does not need as much active preparation as Silverton.
2) While Silvertip Peak may be a 1-2 hour hike, it's obvious from the pictures that a lot of the extreme terrain is quite accessible from the top lift within 10-15 minutes.

The key issue remains whether Manitoba can get enough business from the locals to support lift served operations. And where the $ will come from to build the lifts. I'd vote for pomas or T-bars, but if rope tows are much cheaper and can get the area off the ground sooner, so be it.
 
Tony Crocker":1a4vqsl0 said:
The key issue remains whether Manitoba can get enough business from the locals to support lift served operations. And where the $ will come from to build the lifts. I'd vote for pomas or T-bars, but if rope tows are much cheaper and can get the area off the ground sooner, so be it.
Click to expand...

That is the question. On the same scale maybe, how much cash due to the NZ Club fields need to operate. When it appends, I'll definitely go check it out. There is an Alaskan ski safari in the cards.
 
Patrick":j73qui05 said:
Tony Crocker":j73qui05 said:
The key issue remains whether Manitoba can get enough business from the locals to support lift served operations. And where the $ will come from to build the lifts. I'd vote for pomas or T-bars, but if rope tows are much cheaper and can get the area off the ground sooner, so be it.
Click to expand...

That is the question. On the same scale maybe, how much cash due to the NZ Club fields need to operate. When it appends, I'll definitely go check it out. There is an Alaskan ski safari in the cards.
Click to expand...

The NZ Club fields have a significant city nearby (Christchurch is pushing 400,000) and have totally different liability laws.
 
Geoff":1khty4ds said:
The NZ Club fields have a significant city nearby (Christchurch is pushing 400,000) and have totally different liability laws.
Click to expand...

First off, i'm not a lawyer and wouldn't know much about the legal differences and liabilities between the two. However in terms of geography:

1) Anchorage is slightly bigger than Christchurch in term of population.
2) Travel time would be about the same (AN-Mamitoba vs CH-NZ Clubfields).
3) NZ has a multitudes of club fields + ski areas within a long drive from Christchurch. Alaska has very little.
 
Patrick":2nj4eyhg said:
Geoff":2nj4eyhg said:
The NZ Club fields have a significant city nearby (Christchurch is pushing 400,000) and have totally different liability laws.
Click to expand...

First off, i'm not a lawyer and wouldn't know much about the legal differences and liabilities between the two. However in terms of geography:

1) Anchorage is slightly bigger than Christchurch in term of population.
2) Travel time would be about the same (AN-Mamitoba vs CH-NZ Clubfields).
3) NZ has a multitudes of club fields + ski areas within a long drive from Christchurch. Alaska has very little.
Click to expand...

I thought Ancorage, Alaska only had a population of around 275,000? Christchurch is more like 400,000.
 
Geoff":37z4adsa said:
I thought Ancorage, Alaska only had a population of around 275,000? Christchurch is more like 400,000.
Click to expand...

Anchorage: 374,553 residents within the Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2010

348,435 people usually live in Christchurch City. NZ Stats census 2006 (the latest didn't happen due to the earthquake).
 
Canterbury, the province containing Christchurch and most of the club fields, has half of the South Island's 1 million population. Drive distance is shorter in NZ. My gut feeling is that NZ culture is avid for adventure sports including skiing and snowboarding while Alaskans are more into hunting and snowmobiling. The interested population base in Canterbury is definitely bigger than Anchorage's IMHO but perhaps only 1.5 or 2x bigger. The raw population numbers say Manitoba should find adequate local support. It's certainly bigger than the local population in those Montana towns q visits every year. What makes me nervous is how empty Alyeska has been most of the days I've skied there.
 
Patrick":2dfqfogp said:
Geoff":2dfqfogp said:
I thought Ancorage, Alaska only had a population of around 275,000? Christchurch is more like 400,000.
Click to expand...

Anchorage: 374,553 residents within the Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2010

348,435 people usually live in Christchurch City. NZ Stats census 2006 (the latest didn't happen due to the earthquake).
Click to expand...

What's with the froth-at-the-mouth defense of a set of assertions that aren't correct?

I'd point out that you drive right by Aleyska to get to Manitoba. From Christchurch, you have roughly the same drive time to get to the lift-serviced resort at Mount Hutt as you do to Cragieburn. It's an hour and change from downtown.

When you Google Aleyska for skier visits, it appears to be somewhere between 135,000 and 150,000. The place gets 700+ inches of snow. For most, it will be tough to justify doubling the drive time when you are going right past a ski area that is underutilized. I don't see how you can cover your expenses off the kind of skier visits Manitoba is likely to receive unless you do all the things the MRA loathes and turn it into a deluxe lift-serviced cat/heli-skiing substitute for the affluent.
 
+1

I posted this hypothetical last year in the "Introducing MRA" thread (viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9056&start=15) after Tony prematurely spilled the beans on MRA's tentative plans and then yanked his post:

"Let's just say you could fly to a distant (sometimes expensive-to-fly-to), but not-insanely-remote, small city and drive a short distance before you arrive at a ski area with 2500 vert, 1,500+ acres of largely high-alpine skiing with respectable terrain features, an average annual snowfall of more than 600 inches of "maritime" snow, a skier density that is often relatively low compared to similar North-American resorts, and lift tickets that can be bought at the window for approximately $60. Do you stop and ski there, or do you double or triple your drive time to ski the MRA-style (Soulskier has asked us to think Silverton) area further down the road?"

I think the question is almost equally valid when applied to Anchorage-area skiers.
 
flyover":ruh4bxx5 said:
"Let's just say you could fly to a distant (sometimes expensive-to-fly-to), but not-insanely-remote, small city and drive a short distance before you arrive at a ski area with 2500 vert, 1,500+ acres of largely high-alpine skiing with respectable terrain features, an average annual snowfall of more than 600 inches of "maritime" snow, a skier density that is often relatively low compared to similar North-American resorts, and lift tickets that can be bought at the window for approximately $60. Do you stop and ski there, or do you double or triple your drive time to ski the MRA-style (Soulskier has asked us to think Silverton) area further down the road?"

I think the question is almost equally valid when applied to Anchorage-area skiers.
Click to expand...

Since this almost perfectly captures Anchorage and Aleyaska (1000-ish acres instead of 1500+ and slightly more of that maritime snow), what city were you talking about?
 
Geoff":l6p802pr said:
flyover":l6p802pr said:
"Let's just say you could fly to a distant (sometimes expensive-to-fly-to), but not-insanely-remote, small city and drive a short distance before you arrive at a ski area with 2500 vert, 1,500+ acres of largely high-alpine skiing with respectable terrain features, an average annual snowfall of more than 600 inches of "maritime" snow, a skier density that is often relatively low compared to similar North-American resorts, and lift tickets that can be bought at the window for approximately $60. Do you stop and ski there, or do you double or triple your drive time to ski the MRA-style (Soulskier has asked us to think Silverton) area further down the road?"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I could see this place being a poor man's heli trip destination. There are 3 problems I foresee.

1. The demographics of it's visitors. The best terrain offered is outside of its boundaries. People who are most comfortable earning turns in the backcountry and who have the gear to do so often live in places where there is world class backcountry terrain nearby. These people may not want to spend the amount required to go on a destination ski vacation to earn turns. However, I will plead my ignorance when it comes to ski area demographics.

2. Winters are very dark. The usable daylight is quite limited from November to March. Meanwhile, the sierra and NW back country really begins to hit its stride by march. This means the window to draw visitors in could be narrow.

3. Alaska is one of the most expensive places in the country. Anchorage was shockingly pricey when I visited there, even more so than NYC. There is a cost to flying everything in.
 
Thought you guys might enjoy this clay model of Manitoba Mountain to add to the discussion.

Clay-Manitoba-with-Elevations.jpg
 
With respect to rfarren's points:
1) As I noted above, a lot of that world class terrain drops either side of the spine maybe 10-15 minutes from the top of the 3rd lift, probably no worse than Hanging Valley at Snowmass. Certainly not as arduous as Highlands Bowl, particularly considering altitude.
2) Alaska is dark to early February. Mid-February through April is prime season in Alaska, as noted by the heli operators' schedules.
3) I have to agree with rfarren on the expenses issue for visitors. That's why Geoff and I focus on local support as key to Manitoba's success.
 
Tony, You are spot on with 2 and 3. And we expect the bulk of any visitors to show up during the prime heli months you speak of.

I'm sure you will find interesting that this part of AK had one of their lowest snowfall years in the last 40 in 2010-11, and Manitoba was skiable from mid November to the end of May.

Regarding terrain, as I have stated before, this is in a superior league to anything in the lower 48. If you can name another zone with 2,ooo foot sustained 45+ degree slopes with generally safe(r) powder conditions, please do.

Here are the results of the community outreach meetings. Our project manager Dave conducted 7 meetings and received back 98 surveys.

http://www.skimanitobamountain.com/wp-c ... .2011.xlsx

Eager to see what you guys deduce out of it.
 
soulskier":24wz71h5 said:
Regarding terrain, as I have stated before, this is in a superior league to anything in the lower 48. If you can name another zone with 2,ooo foot sustained 45+ degree slopes with generally safe(r) powder conditions, please do.
Click to expand...
Hmmm:
A) the terrain you speak of is outside your boundaries... Am I wrong?
B) 45 degrees and powder out of bounds isn't "safe" or "safe-r". It's risky. Class 5 avys happen in maritime snow packs too, just ask most of the chugach powder guides. All it takes us one victim and your whole attitude towards the backcountry will change drastically. Remember, Alaska is part of the litigious USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top