Tahoe Advice

I am heading to the SF area on business and have a couple of days when I can ski. Should I head to North or South Tahoe? I have skied in the Truckee area 15 years ago and had a blast, but I'm curious about Kirkwood and Heavenly. <BR> <BR>What would you choose and why?

Depends on what you're looking for. Kirkwood has fabulous steeps, and most of the goods require only a gravity traverse or short, short hike. Heavenly is mostly a cruiser hill, save for short steeps in Killebrew and Mott Canyons and reportedly is a sleeper for its trees. <BR> <BR>I loved North Tahoe, but my favorite was Sugar Bowl, west of Truckee near Donner Summit. Lots of steep, varied terrain with very little to no effort to reach any of it. Squaw is huge and deserves its reputation, but can get to be a bit of a zoo at times, especially on weekends. Alpine required a lot of work to get to the best stuff, and many of its steeps face south where the snow seemed to get rotten very quickly.

I usually make that call based on current weather. There have been frequent storms in the past month with more expected this weekend. Squaw and Alpine are severely restricted in storms due to avalanche issues. If you're north, go to Northstar, Mt. Rose or maybe Sugar Bowl in bad weather, then to Squaw or Alpine after it clears. In the north Heavenly is excellent in storms, which cut down the usual crowds and enhance the tree skiing. Kirkwood will have some terrain restrictions, but will also have the deepest powder. The drive from south shore to Kirkwood can be a marathon in bad weather. Sierra-at-Tahoe is a closer drive, and like Heavenly is completely forested. If it clears after a storm, Kirkwood is best in the state for powder. <BR> <BR>See Sierra analysis at <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/crockeraf/calnet.htm" TARGET="_top">http://members.aol.com/crockeraf/calnet.htm</A> and detailed resort guides for the major areas at <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/crockeraf/insdtrak.htm" TARGET="_top">http://members.aol.com/crockeraf/insdtrak.htm</A>