How will ski areas fare with 5.00/gallon gas
- Thread starter jasoncapecod
- Start date
q
Member
Marc_C":4yn90rkj said:
Its not so bad though, you head downhill and it swings back to the right :lol: :lol: :lol:
Anyway, rationing is in place all around my area. I notice in that article that some stations were rationing people to £5 of fuel. Probably cost most people more than that to get there!
And in an interesting twist bearing in mind the discussion here, 3 Scottish mountains are still open for snowsports. However, Glencoe, has been closed Friday and again today citing poor weather and the fuel crisis as the reasons for them not operating. They hope to open again tomorrow.
q's post brings out another advantage of a hybrid.
If you are waiting in line for gas, and a hybrid doubles the amount of time between fill ups...that could be a big advantage.
Or if there are supply disruptions it may be the difference between being able to get to the store, work, whatever or not.
If you are waiting in line for gas, and a hybrid doubles the amount of time between fill ups...that could be a big advantage.
Or if there are supply disruptions it may be the difference between being able to get to the store, work, whatever or not.
Not sure about range on the hybrids, though still probably better than most gas cars. I think some of that extra battery space comes at the expense of the fuel tank. Some of those Euro diesels go 700 miles on a tank though.
Tony Crocker":1bj1xkf7 said:
While I agree that it would be a hugely unpopular move to put a toll on I-70 -- and the ski resorts' collective heads would explode -- we've got to end the subsidized highway construction and maintenance that triggered suburban sprawl and makes public transportation useless to all but the very poor in most cities.
What’s fascinating is the assumption (repeated earlier in the thread) that cities in the western U.S. are so spread out that they can’t be navigated by anything other than a car. Are you aware that LA, of all places, used to have to world's largest streetcar system with 1,500 (!) miles of track? Check out the sad story: http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm
With EZ Pass technology, Colorado could reduce the Front Range ski traffic mess by putting up a toll that can be substantially reduced during non-peak hours.
It'll never happen, I know.
Tony Crocker":1rptt9kp said:
I wasn't really looking big picture...just at our decision...which was between the Civic, Civic Hybrid and Prius. And I checked it out. Tony is right the Civic Hybrid has a tank that is 2 gallons smaller.
Anyone know what car available in the US has the biggest (EPA rated) driving range?
One thing I find hilarious...one of the auto mags... Car and Driver I think...did a test of the Jeep Commander. Took it out west and came to some place out there with 280 miles between gas stops. They had to have it towed for 50 miles to make the distance. Not much of an adventure vehicle in my book.
The L.A. streetcars may be looked upon now with nostalgia, but they were running on city streets and were thus no faster than buses. In hindsight it looks bad to have replaced potentially clean electric with fossil fuels, but I suspect at the time it was a non-issue, and with similar costs and the greater flexibility of motor GM didn't have to push that hard to make its case.
If it existed now the electric rail would be serving the same people that use the buses and have little impact upon those driving IMHO. From a pollution standpoint many of the L.A. area buses have been converted to run on natural gas.
L.A. would have had to put that system underground for it to be competitive over the long run. Maybe possible with depression-era cheap labor, but at current costs you do need compact high density traffic corridors to justify subway construction costs.
If it existed now the electric rail would be serving the same people that use the buses and have little impact upon those driving IMHO. From a pollution standpoint many of the L.A. area buses have been converted to run on natural gas.
L.A. would have had to put that system underground for it to be competitive over the long run. Maybe possible with depression-era cheap labor, but at current costs you do need compact high density traffic corridors to justify subway construction costs.
salida
New member
I'll paraphrase a few paragraphs in Plug-In Hybrids by Sherry Boshert, 2006, that talks about the NiMH battery industry, or lack there of.
Basically, NiHM were put into some Toyota RAV-4EV's in the 90's and were tested for quite a while by the Southern California Edison company, some as many as 100,000 miles. They found the lifespan of the car could be as much as 150,000 miles, considered the traditional lifespan of many cars (I know you'll all disagree with me here). However cars with these batteries never really went mainstream.
"Battery researchers continued to make improvements, but companies never began the large-scale production of NiMH batteries for electric vehicles that would bring their costs down. One of the world's largest oil companies may have played a role in that decisions: Chevron Texaco.
In 1994 GM bought a controlling interest in Energy Conversion Devices (ECD), the company that invented the Ovonic NiMH batteries used in the electric vehicles and that held the battery patents. GM sold its interest toTexaco (which later merged with Chevron). ECD and ChevronTexaco formed an equal partnership in the spinoof battery company, now called Cobasys. When Toyota began using a better version of NiMH batteries made by Panasonic EV Energy in its Rav4-EV, ECD sued for patent infringement. Its parent company, Cobasys, entered into a confidential settlement with the Japanese companies in July, 2004.
In 2005 Cobasys granted Panasonic EV Energy a licenses to sell NiMH batteries "for certain North American transportation applications," for which Cobasys will recieve royalties until 2015, federal reports filed by Cobasys show. In recent years, the only NiMH batteries sold for vehicles in North America by any company have been for hybrids [not plug ins only] - cars that must use the petroleum products that make up Chevron's core business. Plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles ideally use bigger batteries than the versions in hybrids" (page 44).
I guess interesting. Goes to Tony's point that until the battery technology makes it more feasible people wont by the hybrids. Anyone ever wonder why the battery technology hasn't improved in 15 years. Possibly someone is holding it up?
Just finished a paper on the demand for gasoline. The basic conclusion found in the regressions are that, as Marc C said, demand is completely inelastic to a point, $7 a gallon, $10, $12, its hard to say. One thing is for certain, price is not a good mechanism to control demand.
Basically, NiHM were put into some Toyota RAV-4EV's in the 90's and were tested for quite a while by the Southern California Edison company, some as many as 100,000 miles. They found the lifespan of the car could be as much as 150,000 miles, considered the traditional lifespan of many cars (I know you'll all disagree with me here). However cars with these batteries never really went mainstream.
"Battery researchers continued to make improvements, but companies never began the large-scale production of NiMH batteries for electric vehicles that would bring their costs down. One of the world's largest oil companies may have played a role in that decisions: Chevron Texaco.
In 1994 GM bought a controlling interest in Energy Conversion Devices (ECD), the company that invented the Ovonic NiMH batteries used in the electric vehicles and that held the battery patents. GM sold its interest toTexaco (which later merged with Chevron). ECD and ChevronTexaco formed an equal partnership in the spinoof battery company, now called Cobasys. When Toyota began using a better version of NiMH batteries made by Panasonic EV Energy in its Rav4-EV, ECD sued for patent infringement. Its parent company, Cobasys, entered into a confidential settlement with the Japanese companies in July, 2004.
In 2005 Cobasys granted Panasonic EV Energy a licenses to sell NiMH batteries "for certain North American transportation applications," for which Cobasys will recieve royalties until 2015, federal reports filed by Cobasys show. In recent years, the only NiMH batteries sold for vehicles in North America by any company have been for hybrids [not plug ins only] - cars that must use the petroleum products that make up Chevron's core business. Plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles ideally use bigger batteries than the versions in hybrids" (page 44).
I guess interesting. Goes to Tony's point that until the battery technology makes it more feasible people wont by the hybrids. Anyone ever wonder why the battery technology hasn't improved in 15 years. Possibly someone is holding it up?
Just finished a paper on the demand for gasoline. The basic conclusion found in the regressions are that, as Marc C said, demand is completely inelastic to a point, $7 a gallon, $10, $12, its hard to say. One thing is for certain, price is not a good mechanism to control demand.
Sharon
New member
I know that I'm a wee bit late in this discussion, because I don't get to FTO as much as during ski season and I forget about the "General" discussion, but this topic has been hot on everyone's minds, including my own.
First, I will say straight out that that gas prices are going to directly affect my upcoming ski season. It was already a challenge last ski season. I needed to have people travel with me in order for me to afford going to the Adks or VT. It was costing me approx $100 in fuel round trip (it costs me about $50 per 300 miles in my Subaru...and rising). It is over 300 miles to get to Stowe and Jay...and a bit less to Whiteface.
I do not make a lot of money. I live in a place where not many people make over $45k per year, and most of my friends and I fall into that category. It is extremely difficult for us to afford to travel for ski vacations, as well as to manage all the other rising costs of living. I've heard that we should expect to see gas prices rise $1 per gallon per year. We are looking at $10/gal in only a few more years, and I don't see my income rising all that much. I am already considering taking a second job to make ends meet and so that I can at least take a few ski trips next season. I am looking at a real lifestyle change.
If most skiers are wealthy, then I guess it won't make too much of a difference to the ski industry, but I think skiers span the range of economic classes to some degree. I'm sure there will be some impact on the industry. Many of us need to cut back on expenses if our incomes are not rising along with the price of consumer goods and fuel, and we'll be cutting back on luxury items so that we can afford the necessities (like a new roof, new furnace, heating fuel, car repairs etc).
First, I will say straight out that that gas prices are going to directly affect my upcoming ski season. It was already a challenge last ski season. I needed to have people travel with me in order for me to afford going to the Adks or VT. It was costing me approx $100 in fuel round trip (it costs me about $50 per 300 miles in my Subaru...and rising). It is over 300 miles to get to Stowe and Jay...and a bit less to Whiteface.
I do not make a lot of money. I live in a place where not many people make over $45k per year, and most of my friends and I fall into that category. It is extremely difficult for us to afford to travel for ski vacations, as well as to manage all the other rising costs of living. I've heard that we should expect to see gas prices rise $1 per gallon per year. We are looking at $10/gal in only a few more years, and I don't see my income rising all that much. I am already considering taking a second job to make ends meet and so that I can at least take a few ski trips next season. I am looking at a real lifestyle change.
If most skiers are wealthy, then I guess it won't make too much of a difference to the ski industry, but I think skiers span the range of economic classes to some degree. I'm sure there will be some impact on the industry. Many of us need to cut back on expenses if our incomes are not rising along with the price of consumer goods and fuel, and we'll be cutting back on luxury items so that we can afford the necessities (like a new roof, new furnace, heating fuel, car repairs etc).
I think salida and MarcC are right about gasoline elasticity.
With regard to the oil companies, they do have some divergence of opinion on what to do with the money they are making. Exxon/Mobil believes that new energy technologies are not economic yet and is sticking to its core oil exploration business. Chevron/Texaco has the opposite view and wants to hedge its bets by becoming involved in a wide range of energy technologies. So if Cobrasys has a patent on a promising battery, I suspect Chevron/Texaco would want to exploit it.
With regard to the oil companies, they do have some divergence of opinion on what to do with the money they are making. Exxon/Mobil believes that new energy technologies are not economic yet and is sticking to its core oil exploration business. Chevron/Texaco has the opposite view and wants to hedge its bets by becoming involved in a wide range of energy technologies. So if Cobrasys has a patent on a promising battery, I suspect Chevron/Texaco would want to exploit it.
berkshireskier
Active member
Regarding the elasticity of demand for gasoline, I think we have hit the point where, with gas at $3.50 to $4.00 per gallon and possibly going higher, many people are a lot more conscious about how much driving they do and what sort of vehicle they drive. I think we're going to see a drop in how much driving the average person does in this country. I also think people will be much more interested in what sort of mileage a vehicle gets when they go out to buy a new or used car. I read last week that GM is shutting down 4 of their factories that make large trucks and SUV's because demand for those vehicles has fallen off the shelf. I don't know of many people who are out looking to purchase 5,000 pound SUV's that get 14 miles to the gallon. I now drive a Honda Civic Hybrid that I've had for two years. It gets 44 to 48 MGP around town and 50 to 52 MPG on the highway. With a 12 gallon tank, the range is 400 to 500 miles per tankful, depending on the type of driving you do and how low you let the tank go before putting more gas in. It is NOT a good ski car (we also own a Subaru wagon on which I put 4 snow tires in the winter). The Honda Civic Hybrid has a small trunk with no pass through from the trunk into the passenger compartment because the batteries are located behind the rear seat in this vehicle. You could put a ski rack on the car to carry skis, but my experience is that this car does NOT handle well in the snow or on slick roads. I would not want to drive this car on mountainous roads in a snowstorm. Even though it is a front-wheel drive car, I think it is simply too light to do well in the snow. It might help to put 4 snow tires on the car. I may do this next winter.
My guess on the impact of high gas and energy prices on the ski industry is that if prices do remain high (or go higher), it is going to have a meaningful adverse impact on the ski industry. I think the large, destination ski areas (Vail, PC, Alta/Snowbird, JH, Stowe, etc) will continue to do OK as the type of affluent people who ski at these areas will still be well off enough financially and be willing to pay the higher costs necessary to ski and vacation at these types of areas. However. I think the smaller, regional ski areas are going to be hurt badly if energy prices remain high. First, their own costs for running the ski area are escalating exponentially, especially int he Northeast , where extensive snowmaking is necessary (especially if "global warming" continues) to keep the slopes open. Operating a ski area is very energy intensive. Second,the type of people who ski at these smaller areas (mostly middle class or in the lower "upper middle class" range) are the ones who will be hurt financially by higher energy prices (facing a choice of using their money to buy oil to heat their house and pay for gas to get to work and pay higher costs for food or spend the money to go skiing, most people are going to choose to live in a warm house and continue to have a job and have food on the table). Third, the cost of driving to the ski area will increase, adding to the overall cost of the ski trip (and I predict that most ski areas are going to have to substantially raise ticket prices in the upcoming years to try to make up for their higher costs). Unfortunately, I think that the smaller ski areas are facing a perfect storm of unfortunate consequences if energy prices remain high or go higher. I would not invest $5.00 in a small ski area right now. My prediction is that we will see many ski areas go under in the next 10 to 15 years. The big resorts will survive, but the smaller ones are facing a bleak future. Skiing will become even more of an elitist pastime along the lines of sailing. Sad, but an unavoidable consequence of higher energy prices. It's been 35 years since the first Arab oil embargo and we've essentially done nothing in this country to develop a more rational and realistic "energy policy". We're now paying the price for that inaction.
I don't mean to rant, but I think a lot of people are going to get hurt. I hope that I am wrong and maybe energy prices will come down again, but I would not bet my life savings on that.
My guess on the impact of high gas and energy prices on the ski industry is that if prices do remain high (or go higher), it is going to have a meaningful adverse impact on the ski industry. I think the large, destination ski areas (Vail, PC, Alta/Snowbird, JH, Stowe, etc) will continue to do OK as the type of affluent people who ski at these areas will still be well off enough financially and be willing to pay the higher costs necessary to ski and vacation at these types of areas. However. I think the smaller, regional ski areas are going to be hurt badly if energy prices remain high. First, their own costs for running the ski area are escalating exponentially, especially int he Northeast , where extensive snowmaking is necessary (especially if "global warming" continues) to keep the slopes open. Operating a ski area is very energy intensive. Second,the type of people who ski at these smaller areas (mostly middle class or in the lower "upper middle class" range) are the ones who will be hurt financially by higher energy prices (facing a choice of using their money to buy oil to heat their house and pay for gas to get to work and pay higher costs for food or spend the money to go skiing, most people are going to choose to live in a warm house and continue to have a job and have food on the table). Third, the cost of driving to the ski area will increase, adding to the overall cost of the ski trip (and I predict that most ski areas are going to have to substantially raise ticket prices in the upcoming years to try to make up for their higher costs). Unfortunately, I think that the smaller ski areas are facing a perfect storm of unfortunate consequences if energy prices remain high or go higher. I would not invest $5.00 in a small ski area right now. My prediction is that we will see many ski areas go under in the next 10 to 15 years. The big resorts will survive, but the smaller ones are facing a bleak future. Skiing will become even more of an elitist pastime along the lines of sailing. Sad, but an unavoidable consequence of higher energy prices. It's been 35 years since the first Arab oil embargo and we've essentially done nothing in this country to develop a more rational and realistic "energy policy". We're now paying the price for that inaction.
I don't mean to rant, but I think a lot of people are going to get hurt. I hope that I am wrong and maybe energy prices will come down again, but I would not bet my life savings on that.
I do think we've reached a point where, in the normal replacement cycle of vehicles, people will pay some attention to fuel economy. Before recent months evidence indicates that most Americans paid virtually no attention to fuel economy in purchase decisions.
Not sure I see the ski area impact quite the same way. You could argue that smaller areas closer to where people live could benefit at the expense of the more remote places. I agree that the marquee places will do just fine.
With regard to Sharon's laments, her distance to Vermont is like L.A. to Mammoth. Ski fanatics with limited budgets here have tended to go in groups, mainly to slash Mammoth's high lodging costs. But the same strategy cuts the fuel costs too. Put 3 people in that Subaru and now the 300 miles costs $17 per person.
Not sure I see the ski area impact quite the same way. You could argue that smaller areas closer to where people live could benefit at the expense of the more remote places. I agree that the marquee places will do just fine.
With regard to Sharon's laments, her distance to Vermont is like L.A. to Mammoth. Ski fanatics with limited budgets here have tended to go in groups, mainly to slash Mammoth's high lodging costs. But the same strategy cuts the fuel costs too. Put 3 people in that Subaru and now the 300 miles costs $17 per person.
J.Spin
New member
When I first read berkshire’s post, my initial thoughts were much in line with Tony’s comment in that, if fuel prices are high and money is tight, wouldn’t people be spending more time at their local ski areas instead of traveling farther to the big regional resorts? Trips to the local ski area require less fuel, the lift tickets generally cost less than what the bigger resorts charge, and you’re not going to have to pay for lodging. Sharon commented about the cost of gas being an issue for trips to the Green Mountains and Adirondacks, so one would expect she’d spend more time skiing locally at Greek Peak if she didn’t make the longer trips. It just doesn’t seem like higher fuel costs are a perfect storm situation for the demise of smaller ski areas. History has certainly shown us that the trend over the past decades is for smaller local ski areas to close down instead of the larger resorts. But, I always had the impression those closures were due to decreasing or stagnant skier numbers, changes in skier expectations, and the fact that so many of the very small ski areas were simply impractical from a business perspective.berkshireskier":16nepmvq said:
J.Spin
I certainly don't know the answer either.
It sounds like from Sharon's input that, those times when she's on the fence, she may be more likely to end up at Greek. Although based on her huge network of ski buddies...I wouldn't bet against her racking up quality days - ever.
And from Geoff's input, and my own experience, owning real estate next to a ski hill means that gas and lift tickets are only a part of your cost. A lot of your cost is fixed whether you ski or not. And there are emotional attachments to an area and the people. And you develop traditions.
Then there's places like $towe. If you are paying those prices for passes, real estate and everything else...do you really care about the cost of gas? The vehicles I see out there...doesn't seem like it. MRG may be a different story.
I'm not familiar with Bolton, but I get the idea that it's used by a lot of locals who've moved to Burlington because they like to ski. So maybe driving isn't a big issue there.
I had assumed that the demise of smaller hills was due to a lot of different things. Advances in gear mean that people want more challenging terrain which tends to be farther away from the population centers.
For us...We''ll try to take longer trips, for less total driving. But that limits flexibility and probably ski day quality. It also seems to add to stress. Taking a week, with 3-5 day forecast type notice, is doable, but doesn't make me popular around here (at work).
It sounds like from Sharon's input that, those times when she's on the fence, she may be more likely to end up at Greek. Although based on her huge network of ski buddies...I wouldn't bet against her racking up quality days - ever.
And from Geoff's input, and my own experience, owning real estate next to a ski hill means that gas and lift tickets are only a part of your cost. A lot of your cost is fixed whether you ski or not. And there are emotional attachments to an area and the people. And you develop traditions.
Then there's places like $towe. If you are paying those prices for passes, real estate and everything else...do you really care about the cost of gas? The vehicles I see out there...doesn't seem like it. MRG may be a different story.
I'm not familiar with Bolton, but I get the idea that it's used by a lot of locals who've moved to Burlington because they like to ski. So maybe driving isn't a big issue there.
I had assumed that the demise of smaller hills was due to a lot of different things. Advances in gear mean that people want more challenging terrain which tends to be farther away from the population centers.
For us...We''ll try to take longer trips, for less total driving. But that limits flexibility and probably ski day quality. It also seems to add to stress. Taking a week, with 3-5 day forecast type notice, is doable, but doesn't make me popular around here (at work).
berkshireskier
Active member
I hope I'm wrong about the demise of many small ski areas if energy prices remain high. I'm sure there will be some people who will not go on their weekend ski trip with their two kids to Stowe (and spend $1200 to $1500), but will make a day trip to their more local ski area where they may spend $250. However, I do think a lot of people will either give up skiing or cut back on how much skiing they do (or never begin to ski) if they continue to be crunched by high energy prices. I also think all ski areas face increasing costs to run their operations from higher energy prices and resulting inflation. I'm afraid that the squeeze between higher costs and fewer skiers is going to force many smaller, financially marginal ski areas out of business, especially if we have some bad snow winters. I'm guessing $100/day lift tickets will be commonplace in the near future at Aspen, Vail, PC, Deer Valley, Stowe, etc. Their clients will pay these prices and they'll survive. Again, I hope I am wrong. I don't like to see any ski areas go under. We've lost enough ski areas in the past three decades.
I think the current skiing population will generally find a way to keep doing it. The key issue, which many of us have commented upon even before energy prices, is the price threshold for the younger generation/new entrants to the sport. That's why Killington's move to jack up the price of children's programs seems dumb. This is an area ski resorts should be willing to subsidize as an investment in their long term future.
Sharon
New member
As for the smaller ski areas, I don't think the fuel prices are boding well.
Greek Peak extended its pre-season rate for seasons pass purchases. It seems that they did not sell as many passes as they had expected and are trying to lure in those who may have put it off.
I know for a fact that 6 of my friends decided not to buy passes for GP because they didn't get their money's worth last season. They will go night skiing a few times next season (at $27) and skip the weekend days ($56). If they go 6-8 times, it is still cheaper than the $290 seasons pass. But when the time comes, they may opt to not ski because they don't want to spend the money, or they will only go when the conditions are excellent (which is barely a coupla times a month). When everything costs more, things like a day of skiing get cut out of the expenditures. I think all ski areas will see a decrease in skier visits next season, and I think they will also be blowing less snow. It isn't looking good for any ski areas.
Greek Peak extended its pre-season rate for seasons pass purchases. It seems that they did not sell as many passes as they had expected and are trying to lure in those who may have put it off.
I know for a fact that 6 of my friends decided not to buy passes for GP because they didn't get their money's worth last season. They will go night skiing a few times next season (at $27) and skip the weekend days ($56). If they go 6-8 times, it is still cheaper than the $290 seasons pass. But when the time comes, they may opt to not ski because they don't want to spend the money, or they will only go when the conditions are excellent (which is barely a coupla times a month). When everything costs more, things like a day of skiing get cut out of the expenditures. I think all ski areas will see a decrease in skier visits next season, and I think they will also be blowing less snow. It isn't looking good for any ski areas.
berkshireskier
Active member
I think you're right on the mark, Sharon. If energy prices remain this high (or go higher) through next winter, I think many ski areas will see a decrease in skier visits. The type of skier who posts to these boards will find a way to still ski many days, but the casual skier who is crunched for cash will cut back on "luxuries" like skiing and other non-essential activities.