 Poster: A snowHead
|
Has anyone got updated news on the progress of the link over Rendl to Iscghl?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
I cannot say that I am excited by the thought. I feel the Arlberg is big enough as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
ulmerhutte, I tend to agree. I would see a bigger need to connect up Lech and St.A, which would then give them a resort that can genuinely compare itself with the likes of 3V. For my part, I don't see the need for mega resorts, I'm happy to pick a hill and ski it all day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Steilhang, agree on Zurs/Lech link, a far more preferable development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
In the report on his group's work and decisions for 2011/2012 (on page 24) Tyrol's Umweltanwalt (the environment's advocate), Johannes Kostenzer, expresses the opinion that the proposed St. Anton/Kappl link would not be environmentally acceptable (because of the effects the project would have on the presently almost untouched Malfon valley). Whether this will scupper the project, I cannot say. In general the report is critical of further ski area developments, claiming that there is already sufficient available capacity. In particular, there should be no further developments in areas above 2500 metres.
The new cable-car to Piz Val Gronda in the Ischgl area (it started operating yesterday) is a development that should not have taken place, according to the Umweltanwaltschaft (environment's advocate's office). It was opposed by numerous environmental organisations but still went ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
espri, no matter what gets planned by the lift companies, there is always some green politician who's worried about the effect of the new lift on the lesser speckled mountain snow vole. In Voralberg the greens usually end up managing to block just about everything ( see the mention of Kleinwalsertal and the planned Panoramabahn in the artice I posted above ). In Tirol traditionally they have not been so powerful, thank God.
My view is that adding ski lifts has effectively zero impact on the ecology of a region. The question is whether it makes economic sense, and whether the resulting influx of ski tourists is what the region wants. In the case of the Kappl link I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steilhang, I doubt whether you are right in thinking that the building of lifts, with the associated snow-making systems, roads and pistes, not to mention the influx of skiers, has effectively zero impact on the affected region. More to the point is whether the affected ecology can adapt to the changes forced upon it and, if it doesn't, whether the advantages of a new development outweigh any losses. How you calculate whether it makes economic sense will differ whether you expect to make an immediate profit from the changes or you rather value the existing system. And the weight given to existing animal and plant life will vary from person to person. Despite the mess he makes of my garden each winter, I still have some sympathy for the snow vole 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
No doubt a few voles laid down their lives for the Lech / Warth link, so not quite everything gets blocked although the gestation period appears to be about 25 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
espri, I understand where you are coming from, but I do have to wonder........
The right hand side at the top of the Glas Maol poma at Glenshee is permanently out of bounds, at SNH decree. Be seen skiing there and the Lift Company will take your ticket away, because SNH would close that lift down. This is because there are some "rare" plants growing in that area. The fact that they may well be covered by anything up to 6 feet of snow is irrelevant. Moreover, during the winter months they will be dormant. So what damage would skiers be likely to cause ?
Environmentalists ....................................
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
