Browse Our Archives

As many resorts approach build-out within their boundaries, a new phenomenon is starting to shape the industry. For many resorts, there are simply fewer and fewer opportunities to “get bigger.” This situation creates an opportunity, if not the necessity, to refocus capital projects on improving the operating efficiency and performance of the resort.

Throughout the development of the ski industry, the predominant trend has been for capital investment at ski resorts to fund projects that address the guests’ evolving expectations and demands. The expectation has been that these projects would increase visitation and attract more market share—“if you build it, they will come.” In short, the focus has been on getting bigger, providing more variety, and generally ensuring that the resort keeps up with competitors. Examples of these projects abound, but have been usually focused on upgrades like detachable lifts, terrain expansion, increased guest services, and so on.

The goal of operational efficiency in ski area planning is different. The aim is to ensure that all components of the resort are correctly sized to the visitation levels and market position of the resort. Having higher-than-necessary operational and maintenance costs for lifts, terrain, and guest services for the actual levels of visitation creates higher annual expenses, resulting in lower profitability.

While most managers would agree that a resort that is designed and operated efficiently is going to be more profitable than one that is not, efficiency has not always been at the fore of the decision-making process. For example, in the past resorts often made decisions based on marketing goals. But improvements in overall resort efficiency can benefit a resort in many ways: reduced operating costs, optimized staffing levels, reduced carbon footprint, and improved bottom-line performance.

And resorts can achieve higher operational efficiency within three fundamental areas of business: operations, sustainability, and design.


Operations
Resorts can often improve efficiency within a variety of operations, including grooming, snowmaking, lift operations, snowmobile use and food service.

The amount of terrain groomed on a regular basis can be balanced with the amount of terrain required for comfortable slope densities. An analysis can determine how much terrain of each ability level is required to meet the demands of a resort’s clientele, and therefore calculate the appropriate acreage to be groomed regularly. That can help a resort groom only as much terrain as necessary, and keep grooming costs to a minimum. Snowmaking coverage can also be set to the acreage required by the target slope densities.

Another increasingly popular technique for improving the efficiency of snowmaking operations is to monitor snow depths to optimize production volumes, either by using snow-depth scanning technology or groomer-mounted GPS units. Summer grooming of terrain allows for reduced requirements for snow depth and for correcting any erosion issues.

Lift operations can often be optimized by operating only those lifts required by demand, or by replacing multiple lifts that serve connected terrain with one higher-capacity lift. If demand is low, closing some lifts can reduce costs—but only with the use and circulation of the mountain in mind, so as not to harm the quality of the skiing experience. Re-prioritizing and reorganizing snowmobile routes can also reduce usage.

And lastly, balancing food service seating and space with capacity can lead to increased revenue.

There are ample examples of resorts’ operational efficiencies. Here are a few:

• Deer Valley changed its snowmobile use policies and reduced the number in use by one third. In addition to significant savings in maintenance and fuel use, the resort was able to reduce chances for snowmobile/skier collisions.

• Squaw Valley has been able to limit lift operations at certain times and still maintain access to the mountain, retain important circulation routes, and serve its differing user groups while operating just 75 percent of its lifts.

• Many resorts have adopted innovative grooming techniques, such as grooming only half of a run (which not only reduces expenses, but also provides additional terrain variety), or establishing strategic grooming routes to maximize the number of acres that can be groomed per hour.

• Mount Snow recently installed more than 100 tower-mounted fan guns, which significantly reduced snowmaking energy consumption and staffing needs while improving water-to-snow conversion rates.


Environmental Sustainability
Many of the environmental sustainability initiatives that can be implemented at ski resorts are focused around reduction in energy use. Suppliers are introducing new, more efficient products, such as variable speed AC drives, low-energy snow guns, and more efficient groomers. And, as mentioned earlier, optimizing slope maintenance can reduce energy consumption for grooming and snowmaking operations. But all types of business equipment is becoming more efficient, from lights to icemakers.

Examples of reduced energy use abound. Here are three:

• Beaver Mountain, Utah, replaced all the light bulbs at the resort with LEDs, and reduced energy costs by 80 percent.

• Aspen added solar panels on a Ski Patrol shack to provide power.

• More areas are adding wind turbines, such as those at Jiminy Peak, Mass., and Bolton Valley, Vt., to produce a significant quantity of the power demand.


Design
Efficiency relates not only to energy efficiency and operational efficiency, but also to the design and layout of the resort. The amount of effort and cost required to operate and maintain the lift and developed terrain network should be compared to, and balanced with, the number of guests served. In short, a properly designed lift and terrain network will have the fewest number of lifts possible to effectively serve the terrain, with a terrain network that meets the needs of the market. Additionally, the lift system can be optimized to work with various operational scenarios, i.e. peak days and slow days.

Unfortunately, there are many examples of resorts that operate more lifts than necessary. In these cases, the resort’s terrain utilization (and corresponding visitation levels) is lower than one might think, based on the number of lifts at the resort. Often, some lifts at these resorts were built for specific reasons, including real-estate access, race training programs, or a desire for redundant lifts. Some areas have added a detachable lift and left a the old fixed-grip in place as well. And some resorts must operate some lifts for circulation and access purposes rather than for actual skiing, due to the physical configuration of their mountains. Taking a good, hard look at these lifts could lead to some significant savings.

One good example of an efficient lift network is Grand Targhee, which achieves its circulation with just four chairlifts. Other resorts with the same annual visitation levels (and roughly the same amount of terrain) operate with up to 11 chairlifts.

From the ski terrain standpoint, the amount of effort required to properly maintain the terrain (snowmaking costs, grooming costs, energy costs, ski patrol costs, summer trail maintenance costs, higher staff levels and increased administrative costs, etc.) makes it inefficient and expensive to operate more terrain than is necessary to keep guests happy.

How much terrain is enough? You can determine that by setting target densities for each ability level, and estimate the daily volume of guests. The most efficient way to manage terrain is to open an appropriate amount given the capacity of the resort, and then have additional, alternative terrain that requires less maintenance—such as glades, bowls, chutes, and natural halfpipe ravines.

Good examples of terrain efficiency include Wachusett, Mass., Eldora, Colo., and Mountain High, Calif., all of which operate and maintain levels of terrain that are well aligned with the capacity of the resort and visitation levels.


The Future is Efficient
As expansion opportunities decrease and visitation levels out, overall resort efficiency will become even more important than it already is. The old approach—expanding terrain or adding more infrastructure in the hopes of increasing visitation—will prove more and more difficult.

Much of the significant, long-term gains to be realized will be found in improvements to the design of the resort. Reducing the number of lifts operated and maintained, without sacrificing any functionality or visitation, and properly balancing the maintained terrain to the actual capacity and visitation levels of the resort will have a big impact on the bottom line.