XC ski center: viable business?

On Dec 2, 6:16*pm, "
wrote:
As a spin-off of the thread on Salmon Hills, purely out of curiosity,
- is running a XC ski center a viable *business model at all? What %
of XC ski start-ups make it through the first ~5 years? The 2 places
I've skied at (and love skiing at) that on the surface looked like
successful businesses are Royal Gorge, CA (which rumors say was
supposed to have been sold to a housing developer had it not been for
the current housing crisis) and Lapland Lake, NY.

Another thing - for XC areas, doesn't the money flow in mostly (~90%?)
on weekends, and of those weekends mostly during the Christmas break?
While the 1-2 people who show up on a weekday/non-holiday still expect
the trails to be groomed, the hut and the food warm, and the parking
lot snow-plowed?

Though the numbers aren't extraordinary, Christmas break is usually
more continually busy over a period of time, while February president's
weekend gets highest paid admissions. MLK weekend gets some too. The
most numbers show on the free day.

Gene

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 13:51:30 -0800 (PST)
" wrote:

Another thing - for XC areas, doesn't the money flow in mostly (~90%?)
on weekends, and of those weekends mostly during the Christmas break?
While the 1-2 people who show up on a weekday/non-holiday still expect
the trails to be groomed, the hut and the food warm, and the parking
lot snow-plowed?

That said, I noticed an immediate drop in grooming after the sale.
AFAICT they operate only a single groomer at a time, now. There are
several trails that were never groomed the last season or two and I
doubt will be ever again. There also appears to have been a 100%
turnover of the staff *post sale. The new crew isn't bad, but it seems
the "aussie pipeline" is no longer

I actually like the new manager and her crew way better. Very friendly
and respectable.

I have also noticed the drop in grooming. They probably now groom ~25%
of their claimed 300 k of trails. But realistically, I think 95% of
people who visit RG ski ~15K a day. I usually ski 30-50K per visit,
and I do not feel limited by the fewer ks groomed.

I wonder if area design based on higher density of trails is generally
more "sustainable" - both economically and environmentally. At Lapland
Lake, the whole area is quite small in area compared to other places
I've been to, but still seems "big" in terms of ks to ski, since their
trails are very windy, using every acre on the property. Since you are
in the woods most of the time you don't notice that you are
essentially skiing past the same pine tree a dozen times. I suppose,
it's much easier to manage and groom, less tax, probably, too.

wrote:
That said, I noticed an immediate drop in grooming after the sale.
AFAICT they operate only a single groomer at a time, now. There are
several trails that were never groomed the last season or two and I
doubt will be ever again. There also appears to have been a 100%
turnover of the staff post sale. The new crew isn't bad, but it seems
the "aussie pipeline" is no longer

I actually like the new manager and her crew way better. Very friendly
and respectable.

Well that's a good sign. I know that they are trying to reach out to the
local race community - there are 2 new races at RG this season:
12/13 and 2/28, both 10k freestyles.

I have also noticed the drop in grooming. They probably now groom ~25%
of their claimed 300 k of trails. But realistically, I think 95% of
people who visit RG ski ~15K a day. I usually ski 30-50K per visit,
and I do not feel limited by the fewer ks groomed.

Even before the sale, the Rainbow interconnect only had about a 50%
probability of opening due to snow conditions. It always amazed me that
they could groom a waterfall ;-)

I wonder if area design based on higher density of trails is generally
more "sustainable" - both economically and environmentally. At Lapland
Lake, the whole area is quite small in area compared to other places
I've been to, but still seems "big" in terms of ks to ski, since their
trails are very windy, using every acre on the property. Since you are
in the woods most of the time you don't notice that you are
essentially skiing past the same pine tree a dozen times. I suppose,
it's much easier to manage and groom, less tax, probably, too.

Yes, Auburn Ski Club has an amazing network of trails for such a tiny
place - makes for excellent ski-orienteering!

Bob

Meanwhile, I notice, in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, an
article that says (as best I can tell from my minimal reading ability
in the Norwegian language) that some places in Sweden are actually
about to start charging for the use of groomed trails:

http://www.aftenposten.no/pengenedin...cle3410771.ece

On Dec 7, 2:58*pm, Lew Lasher wrote:
Meanwhile, I notice, in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, an
article that says (as best I can tell from my minimal reading ability
in the Norwegian language) that some places in Sweden are actually
about to start charging for the use of groomed trails:

http://www.aftenposten.no/pengenedin...cle3410771.ece

where I grew up "grooming" was done by skiers themselves by skating/
classic skiing the same trail over and over again. Naturally, skiing
at those "groomed" trails was free. The grooming was pretty good, but
depended on the popularity of the trail. Also, the trails just wide
enough to accommodate one skier, and normally would be ~10K long at
most, so you would have to ski the same loop ~3-5 times to get a
decent workout. Also, the snowfall was gradual and consistent, like,
we would never get more than ~6" at a time, never 12-24" dumps in one
night. I guess if I ever have my own ski area I will keep this self-
grooming method in mind. And I would not try this method in the
Sierras: skating over 2 feet of fresh stuff would be a bummer.

On Dec 8, 12:58*am, Lew Lasher wrote:

Meanwhile, I notice, in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, an
article that says (as best I can tell from my minimal reading ability
in the Norwegian language) that some places in Sweden are actually
about to start charging for the use of groomed trails:

http://www.aftenposten.no/pengenedin...cle3410771.ece

In Funäsdalen the annual cost of preparing and maintaining 300 km of
tracks is about 3 million SEK. The price of a one-day pass is 60 SEK,
a weekly 250 SEK and a winter pass 850 SEK (or 660 if you purchase
yours before Dec 1st). Children under 15 do not need a pass. (Neither
do the inhabitants of the municipality.)

It would appear that there is 1) a strong opinion both for and against
among the XC skiing population, and 2) a sizeable legal grey area
whether such fees are compatible with the "allemansrätt"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden and therefore
everyone is rather eagerly awaiting forthcoming decisions from the
county administrative court and the Swedish EPA.


Anders

In Funäsdalen the annual cost of preparing and maintaining 300 km of
tracks is about 3 million SEK.
is about 3 million SEK

So it's ~$420,000 for 300K of trail. Where did this number come from,
do you have the source? Is it the cost of fuel, and groomer/trail
maintenance, and groomers' salary, while the land is municipal, i.e.
no rent/lease involved? Also, I bet the price does not scale down with
the trail length linearly. I.e. 30K of trail would not be $420,000
divided by 10.

wrote:

In Funäsdalen the annual cost of preparing and maintaining 300 km of
tracks is about 3 million SEK.
is about 3 million SEK

So it's ~$420,000 for 300K of trail. Where did this number come from,
do you have the source? Is it the cost of fuel, and groomer/trail
maintenance, and groomers' salary, while the land is municipal, i.e.
no rent/lease involved? Also, I bet the price does not scale down with
the trail length linearly. I.e. 30K of trail would not be $420,000
divided by 10.

You're right, the minimum track length is probably around 100km, or
whatever is needed to keep a pistenbully or similar employed most of the
day.

Track setting works at fairly slow speed, but even at 15km/h 30k would
only take 2 hours, and the rest of the day your very expensive track
setter would be idle, as would the operator.

In Rauland they boast about 140 km, and they also have three downhill
areas which can share the cost of the groomers: This is crucial because
it allows xc skiing to be at least partly subsidized by the downhill crowd.

Terje
--
- Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On Dec 9, 10:50*pm, "
wrote:

So it's ~$420,000 for 300K of trail. Where did this number come from,
do you have the source? Is it the cost of fuel, and groomer/trail
maintenance, and groomers' salary, while the land is municipal, i.e.
no rent/lease involved? Also, I bet the price does not scale down with
the trail length linearly. I.e. 30K of trail would not be $420,000
divided by 10.

The numbers come from http://www.funasdalen.com/index.php?...4&I temid=449

Is is first said that it is a lot of money and that it is spent on
"clearing and preparing tracks and setting up signs", but later in the
text it is said that "apart from the cost of grooming, there is
maintenance, huts, bridges, signs, maps and lease to land owners that
must be financed" and that it all comes to three million per year

I would indeed imagine that most of the land is indeed municipal (and/
or state-owned, which is why the Swedish Environment Protection Agency
would come in with some say in whether track fees are okay or not) and
that the rent is "negotiable" (due to the jobs and increased tax
revenue etc).

The cost of one hour of grooming - one man, one machine, salary,
social security fees, fuel, maintenance and depreciation all included,
I suppose - is given as 900 SEK.


Anders