How will ski areas fare with 5.00/gallon gas
- Thread starter jasoncapecod
- Start date
Harvey44":11fc7lns said:
We only have one car: a 97 Honda CRV. I've measured it at 29 mpg highway, 25-ish overall. For the most part, we only drive it on weekends because both the wife and I take the NJ Transit train to Manhattan for work.
Commuting by car is something I refuse to do out of principle. It's also one of the Top 3 reasons I won't move out west again. 20 years later, I still have nightmares of being stuck on I-25 in Denver during rush hour.
EMSC
Well-known member
I would expect little difference to the ski industry overall from higher gas prices. However individual markets and resorts could suffer. Is Stowe or MRG 'good enough' instead of spending the extra $$ to go to Jay from NYC? or how about only going to Hunter and avoiding lots of miles to VT at all or etc... Similar for Denver area, how about Eldora or Breck for that day/weekend trip instead of all the way Vail or Aspen (or perhaps not going the extra distance quite as many times as you used to or etc...).
Overall though, we in the US love to complain about the price but I have not noticed any fewer cars on the road, no reduced speeds, no less 'drag racing' or 'monster truck' types running around, etc... We in the US rarely change our personal behavior; and while a few may, it will not be in overly large numbers - especially among the generally wealthier sub-set that skis.
What do I drive? Depends on the day. 1992 Saturn SL1 to work more often than not - gets ~32-38MPG depending on season/etc... ('only' has ~195,000 miles). To skiing? AWD 2002 Ford Escape with ~65,000 miles - Averages about 21mpg in spite of the big uphill drive from the front range to get to the skiing.
Overall though, we in the US love to complain about the price but I have not noticed any fewer cars on the road, no reduced speeds, no less 'drag racing' or 'monster truck' types running around, etc... We in the US rarely change our personal behavior; and while a few may, it will not be in overly large numbers - especially among the generally wealthier sub-set that skis.
What do I drive? Depends on the day. 1992 Saturn SL1 to work more often than not - gets ~32-38MPG depending on season/etc... ('only' has ~195,000 miles). To skiing? AWD 2002 Ford Escape with ~65,000 miles - Averages about 21mpg in spite of the big uphill drive from the front range to get to the skiing.
EMSC
Well-known member
jamesdeluxe,
You could potentially move out to Denver again in a few years then. There is a current limited amount of light rail, but there is an initiative that passed a few years ago to put quite a bit of rail in the denver metro area (and redevelop Union Station area downtown). Connect a lot of the area to downtown and out to the airport , etc... Though most of it won't come online until 2011 or 2012... Denver FasTracks
Though I took a new job last year that requires driving I-25 right through the heart of Denver and it's been much better than I expected. $2B of improvements to it in the last few years have helped.
Harvey44":23gdjztl said:
Just drive past one of their (many) RV dealer lots and check out the size of the inventory to answer your question.
Harvey44":23gdjztl said:
2004 Land Rover Discovery. 100K miles. 13 mpg.
SLC has what has been rated as the best mass transit system for a city of its size in the country. I just can't take advantage of it as my commute starts and ends perpendicular to he route most folks flow (although it does make for an easy 16-mile commute). Much of SLC's transportation infrastructure can be attributed to the build-up to the 2002 Winter Games. In addition to the typical city bus network we have TRAX light rail serving as a trolley system connecting downtown and faster light rail reaching down valley to Draper. Spur routes reaching into the west valley and the airport are under development. Debuting this weekend is the FrontRunner high-speed commuter rail linking SLC and Ogden, and they're about to start work on another line linking SLC and Provo.
The marginal difference in gas cost to drive 1+ hour farther to a resort you like better than the closer one ... I don't see that. That's why I mentioned the Mammoth/SoCal difference, because it's big enough that it might mean something.
My ski (and soon to be only) vehicle is a 2002 Acura MDX. 17-18mpg around LA, 19-20 on a typical Mammoth trip. Adam has a new Subaru WRX, which I drove here for a week and got about 22mpg. He did not do any better than that driving it to Mammoth. However, any of you that have driven with either one of us on ski trips will not be surprised by that.
The hybrids generally do not pencil out on a pure economic basis. The extra upfront price takes a long time to recover in gas costs. One of the car mags did a comparison demonstrating this, and showing that it did work out for the Nissan Altima hybrid only because of a tax credit. But Toyota has exhausted its credits and Honda will soon IIRC. For us skiers the cargo space displaced by the battery is also a problem.
The other issue with hybrids is that their mileage is no better than European diesels with better performance and versatility and considerably less complexity. In order to have a meaningful impact in the marketplace IMHO, the mileage increase from new technology needs to be more, perhaps a diesel hybrid or plug-in hybrid.
The mileage question is not really a hijack IMHO. Topics are close enough that I'll leave this thread alone.
My ski (and soon to be only) vehicle is a 2002 Acura MDX. 17-18mpg around LA, 19-20 on a typical Mammoth trip. Adam has a new Subaru WRX, which I drove here for a week and got about 22mpg. He did not do any better than that driving it to Mammoth. However, any of you that have driven with either one of us on ski trips will not be surprised by that.
The hybrids generally do not pencil out on a pure economic basis. The extra upfront price takes a long time to recover in gas costs. One of the car mags did a comparison demonstrating this, and showing that it did work out for the Nissan Altima hybrid only because of a tax credit. But Toyota has exhausted its credits and Honda will soon IIRC. For us skiers the cargo space displaced by the battery is also a problem.
The other issue with hybrids is that their mileage is no better than European diesels with better performance and versatility and considerably less complexity. In order to have a meaningful impact in the marketplace IMHO, the mileage increase from new technology needs to be more, perhaps a diesel hybrid or plug-in hybrid.
The mileage question is not really a hijack IMHO. Topics are close enough that I'll leave this thread alone.
Another thing we need to remember is that if someone commutes by public transit (jamesdeluxe), or if the commute is short miles with minimal traffic (admin) the vehicle is going to be chosen for its utility, and gas consumption is a small or negligible part of the picture. Fuel efficient cars became attractive a bit earlier in California because many people have commutes from hell where transportation costs add up.
jasoncapecod
Well-known member
me 2003 toyota corolla 25 around town 35 highway
wife 2004 mazda mpv 25 highway crap around town
wife 2004 mazda mpv 25 highway crap around town
jasoncapecod
Well-known member
Now that we have established that we will keep on skiing no matter how much gas costs.
How will the ski areas that depend on snowmaking fair. With the price of diesel approaching 5 dollars . Those compressors sure drink a ton of fuel. Will they have to cut back on the amount of snow they blow.
How will the ski areas that depend on snowmaking fair. With the price of diesel approaching 5 dollars . Those compressors sure drink a ton of fuel. Will they have to cut back on the amount of snow they blow.
Tony Crocker":1co6bmx5 said:
A year ago, I wrote a proposal for a VW America cross-country roadshow to increase visibility of and "correct" outdated public perceptions in the U.S. about diesel-powered passenger cars.
If anyone wants to check it out, PM me and I'll send it to you... it's fascinating reading. The only fly in the ointment is that since we presented the proposal, the price of diesel gas has exploded. It's now a dollar more expensive than regular gas.
jamesdeluxe":1tvtn5op said:
I'm not sure it's on principle...but I've been walking to work since 1988. It's a huge quality of life improvement. Tony...here's a question for a numbers guy. If I've saved $50 a month for 20 years and put it in a total (US) stock market index in 12 x 20 installments what would that be worth now?
Probably enough to pay for some gas to the mountains.
The hybrid thing...for me...isn't about "making it pay." It would be about encouraging technology advancements and cleaning up the air. (Honestly I don't know jack about battery disposal.)
Oh yea...I know I shouldn't ask this...lest this thread turn into every other thread but...James - what are the other 2 reasons?
EMSC":3favzncx said:
If I were to move back to Denver, it'd be near downtown (Capitol Hill, Speer, Lincoln Park, etc). The suburbs that the light rail is designed to serve aren't places I'd consider living in, even with a gun to my head. Isn't Union Station kinda part of the Coors Field area?
It'll be a long summer. We'll have plenty of time to cover that.Harvey44":3favzncx said:
:wink:
q
Member
This is getting away from the original discussion a little but I'll add it anyway.
Until I recently bought my own house in Aberdeen I stayed around 19 miles out of town with my parents within a 5 minute walk of the A96, which is the main road between Inverness and Aberdeen. A train line runs alongside the road.
Anyway, to get to my point, EMSC and jamesdeluxe mention commuting to work.
Driving to Aberdeen at 7am I could be at my desk at 7.30 but taking a bus or train would mean multiple busses or a train and a bus meaning a circa 1 1/2 to 2 hour commute and here in the UK I cannot ever see a situation where people will stop using their cars to get to and from work as it is just so much more flexible to have a car. A friend was actually moaning just the other day that a 15 mile train between Inverurie and Aberdeen is now £7.80 return, or $15. Trouble parking is the only thing that would get me on a train or bus to work. The roads if anything are busier now than ever.
We have empty park and rides(apart from the travelling gypsy scum that local government were going to allow to stay in the parking lot!), a train system that is unreliable, busses that chunter along at 30mph on 70mph stretches of roads. We live in a different world!
For me, I started driving in 1992 and remember filling my dads car for £12 and now it cost me £60 for a similar sized vehicle. It does not stop me driving but in previous years I used to head to the Scottish hills every weekend to hillwalk but TBH I simply cannot afford to do that now.
Edit:- Tony and others from CA.... I paid over $4 a gallon somewhere on my travels and I think it may have been around Mammoth Lakes, would that be correct?
Until I recently bought my own house in Aberdeen I stayed around 19 miles out of town with my parents within a 5 minute walk of the A96, which is the main road between Inverness and Aberdeen. A train line runs alongside the road.
Anyway, to get to my point, EMSC and jamesdeluxe mention commuting to work.
Driving to Aberdeen at 7am I could be at my desk at 7.30 but taking a bus or train would mean multiple busses or a train and a bus meaning a circa 1 1/2 to 2 hour commute and here in the UK I cannot ever see a situation where people will stop using their cars to get to and from work as it is just so much more flexible to have a car. A friend was actually moaning just the other day that a 15 mile train between Inverurie and Aberdeen is now £7.80 return, or $15. Trouble parking is the only thing that would get me on a train or bus to work. The roads if anything are busier now than ever.
We have empty park and rides(apart from the travelling gypsy scum that local government were going to allow to stay in the parking lot!), a train system that is unreliable, busses that chunter along at 30mph on 70mph stretches of roads. We live in a different world!
For me, I started driving in 1992 and remember filling my dads car for £12 and now it cost me £60 for a similar sized vehicle. It does not stop me driving but in previous years I used to head to the Scottish hills every weekend to hillwalk but TBH I simply cannot afford to do that now.
Edit:- Tony and others from CA.... I paid over $4 a gallon somewhere on my travels and I think it may have been around Mammoth Lakes, would that be correct?
EMSC
Well-known member
Relatively close yes. It's also pretty close to the LoDo bar/restaurant district. For me, I've done the in-the-city living (not Denver, but elsewhere). It's OK, but I prefer a less populated lifestyle thus I'm out close to Boulder - and for 9 years commuted further away from the city, not into it.
This is my biggest complaint with public transit. With only a handful of exceptions in NYC, Chicago, etc... (the very biggest cities), the network of rail/bus routes is pretty poor and requires a ton of transferring and wait time to get anywhere. I could give up flexibility of the car on some days at least, but am not willing to waste the additional 1.5hrs each way it would add to my 40 minute commute... If they could get me there in an hour or so, OK, but over 2 hrs replacement for 40minutes of normal driving? No way.
I sort of would like mass transit to be workable at least part of the time, but the reality of the implementations here just doesn't work out well in the US as a general rule.
rfarren
New member
EMSC":oqazs56v said:
My feeling about cities, in large part cities west of the Appalachians , is that the infrastructure for public transportation has always taken a back seat to suburban living. I've always felt suburban living, i.e. houses with lawns and lots of room, was incredibly wasteful in terms of energy, mobility, and land. It does, however, have its upsides too!l Public transportation shouldn't be slower than driving your car, indeed the worst traffic I've ever experience was not in NYC but in SLC. The room for a viable public transportation system is there, but when people are driving 50 miles to work, and "cities" are 70 miles wide, it pretty much makes public transportation impractical.
I've always felt that towns and cities should be more compact to preserve the surrounding "wild" or rural areas. However, in a country where land is so abundant, people, at least since the invention of the car, have not thought of preserving their "natural" heritage. I fear that due the sprawl that characterizes urban centers in america, we won't fare very well with high oil prices. IMHO the reason why europeans endure high oil prices better is due to the compactness of their towns and cities. As a result, they needn't drive every day. Perhaps, we should put a moratorium on new development on unused land, and build in and up rather than out, that might help with our energy problem.
Perhaps, I've strayed too far off topic on this one, but remember: if CO2 is indeed causing global warming; every time you drive a car just to get your dry cleaning you are keeping snow from falling.
Agree 100% with rfarren... which makes his decision to move to LA even more puzzling.
:lol:
Not to bust EMSC's chops, but these types of preferences -- wanting to live in a place with lots of elbow room, thus making public transport completely impractical -- are very typical for North Americans. Most fathom that their actions negatively impact the environment and the security of the country, but decide that owning 40 acres and a mule is more important.
I remember when Denver proper ended at County Line Road, Louisville was nowheresville, and Parker was just a glint in some developers eye.
:lol:
Not to bust EMSC's chops, but these types of preferences -- wanting to live in a place with lots of elbow room, thus making public transport completely impractical -- are very typical for North Americans. Most fathom that their actions negatively impact the environment and the security of the country, but decide that owning 40 acres and a mule is more important.
I remember when Denver proper ended at County Line Road, Louisville was nowheresville, and Parker was just a glint in some developers eye.
EMSC
Well-known member
Feel free to. No worries, as long as it's civil around here.
Just to stray further off topic... It's an interesting gig for me to be near a big city at all in the first place. I grew up in a tiny nowheresville then went to college in an even smaller nowheresville. So tough for me to fit into the middle of the big city, though I did try it for a bit.
I feel like I should get this thread back on topic somehow.
They are talking about making I-70 into a toll road from Den to the tunnel. I figure it's unworkable logistically at best. Be very interesting trying to get people to pay for something that has been free since it was built too. A lot of politics and behavior modification issues wrapped up in one proposal. Not likely to happen is my best guess.
L.A. is Exhibit A of that. But employment here is almost as diffused as residences. So many people do have jobs close to work and don't deal with serious traffic issues in their daily lives. Admin's company HQ in far-flung Simi Valley is a good example. If he lived there he would rarely see the extreme congestion of the Westside/Downtown areas. And he could head west to Ventura/Santa Barbara beaches or NE to Mammoth with only modest contact with L.A. commuters.
So rfarren's situation depends on individual circumstances. Where would he be working, and can he afford to live in a decent area close by?
I'd be astounded if the Denver locals would stand for a previously free key route like I-70 being converted to toll. Building additional toll lanes might happen, as on the Riverside Freeway out here.