Tony, thanks for the expert analysis on the Powder Magazine list; I definitely thought of you when I was reading it, so it’s nice to read your thoughts.
TRam":e7depi0t said:
Burlington/jay peak is on the list at number 27. Could you really place it ahead of vail,steamboat,south tahoe? I don't think so. The other issue is that powder used skiable acreage as the number one component. You are talking like 500 max acre for those big east resorts with good snow. For example Park City has ~10000 combined.
I figured I’d comment on this topic since
we’ve talked about it extensively on the forum in the past; the low acreage numbers for the
Vermont resorts are really just a function of their traditional reporting method. A number of ski areas around here, such as
Mad River Glen,
Sugarbush, and
Smuggler’s Notch have reported their boundary to boundary acreage, but for whatever reason (perhaps to keep lawyers or other resorts in the region without boundary to boundary skiing happy) they only report acres of marked runs in their official stats. Some of the actual acreage numbers can be found in the link above, but I think
the extensive Big Mountain/Whitefish Resort tree skiing analysis from that thread really speaks to the fact that the
Northern Vermont resorts are simply leaving out the majority of their terrain that would typically be reported in total acreage. With
Bolton,
Stowe,
Smugg’s, and
Jay Peak, you’ve got four resorts with 300"+ snowfall and roughly 6,000 total acres of lift-served terrain, all 75 minutes or less from
Burlington. That acreage number will also get a bump when
Jay Peak puts in its
West Bowl expansion. There’s no way that
Burlington (or
the town of Stowe, which would substantially reduce the drive distance to the four resorts) is going to top the list with the heavyweights that are on there, but it would obviously move upward using Tony’s 300" snowfall cutoff. I could even see
Burlington working its way above some of the other selections on Tony’s revised list, simply because of the amount of acreage and variety of resorts available. Although the
Central Vermont Ski Areas don’t quite make the 300" snowfall cut, like Mike suggested, there should probably be some ancillary benefit for having an additional 7,000 – 8,000 acres (my best guess off the cuff) of lift served terrain within 90 minutes if you draw the line at
Killington/
Pico. Beyond just the extra everyday skiing options, there’s something to be said for having all that additional acreage close by in the
Central Greens for when the occasional storm misses the
Northern Greens (such as
last October). Tony mentioned the potential for discussion about acreage and skier density, and I’d certainly argue that it keeps the
Vermont resorts artificially low in the assessment due to the way they report their acreage. Ironically on that front, one could contend that there’s actually an additional enhancement in the powder skiing experience due to the nature of the tree skiing that typifies the
Vermont resorts – due to the more secluded settings of many of the off piste terrain areas, visitors can’t just spot the terrain from lift and head right to it. Although you can generally find some decent skiing in most off piste areas between the trails if you’re willing to commit, one still has to dive in and do some exploring if they’re not familiar with the area, and they also have to have the skills to match the terrain. Although they’re not positive factors for uninitiated resort visitors, from the locals’ point of view these factors actually help to limit the number of skiers tracking up the off piste powder.
