Ski Area Count 2019

[jamesdeluxe]

what happens at the end of the season when you add them up? If you ski two areas in one day, your season total day count will be overstated if you count both as one day.

Well, I keep track for myself.

Agreed. My day total is similar to what ski areas say about trail ratings and how they're specific only to that mountain, i.e. a double-black diamond at Snowbird will be different than one at Camelback in the Poconos.

As mentioned, skiing two separate mountains in the same day is something I do rarely if ever and with the Wurzeralm/Hinterstoder exception given above: in the 3-ish hours I spent at each, I covered 90% of their on-piste skiing along with a handful of offpiste runs. The only way I could've improved on the experience would've been to have a local show me less obvious offpiste terrain. Therefore, I got a pretty good overview of them; ergo, they count as full days. OTOH, I counted Diavolezza/Lagalb as one day because I only did two T2B runs at Lagalb due to poor visibility and scratchy conditions as opposed to Diavolezza, which was in very good shape.

 

[Tony Crocker]

The only way I could've improved on the experience would've been to have a local show me less obvious offpiste terrain. Therefore, I got a pretty good overview of them; ergo, they count as full days.

That still doesn't answer the question of whether your end of season day count includes that experience as one ski day or two.

I didn't fully understand Patrick's examples but I agree with his conclusion:

From 1 run to 12 hours of skiing = only count as 1 ski day.

I agree quantity is irrelevant, as where to draw that line would be a real rabbit hole. I think one of my combined days at Brighton/Solitude was over 30K, but that's still one ski day.

I suspect James and perhaps Patrick might want to answer the question, "How many days have you skied at Area X?" by counting each day as one even if part of that day was spent at another area. In my case, I place higher priority in making the numbers add up, and have so programmed my spreadsheet so I don't have to think about it anymore or make manual adjustments.

With the advent of Mountain Collective and Ikon, my allocation of half a day to each area skied in the same day makes even more sense. 21 of my LCC days since 2014 on those passes have been divided between Alta and Snowbird. Counting those as one day at each would be a significant and systematic overstatement. Lifetime I have 35 days split between 2 areas.

 

[vondess]

There are many ski areas in Maine and British Columbia that are of interest; however, from where I live (15 minutes from EWR), traveling to the Alps is less onerous and a better fit for me culturally.

 

[vondess]

I update at the end of season, but below is a manual edit of that with what I recall from this year. I'm sure I have the areas right, day counts in the 3rd column might be off in a few cases.

 

[jimk]

Here is a philosophical question for all you firsttrackers: would you rather ski one day each at 1000 different ski areas. The ski areas would be of mixed quality from grade A+ to grade D-. Or, would you rather ski 1000 days at one grade B quality ski area? Why?

My ski area count as of 2020: 95 ski areas
USA
California
Alpine Meadows
Heavenly
Homewood
Kirkwood
Sierra at Tahoe
Sugarbowl
Squaw Valley

Colorado
Arapahoe Basin
Aspen Highlands
Aspen Mtn
Beaver Creek
Breckenridge
Copper Mtn
Crested Butte
Eldora
Keystone
Loveland
Snowmass
Steamboat
Telluride
Vail
Winter Park

Maine
Mt Abram
Saddleback
Sugarloaf
Sunday River

Maryland
Wisp

Massachusetts
Wachusett Mtn

Montana
Big Sky

New Hampshire
Attitash
Black Mtn
Cannon Mtn
Gunstock
Loon Mtn
Waterville Valley
Wildcat

New Mexico
Red River
Ski Santa Fe
Taos

New York
Gore Mtn
Hunter Mtn
Plattekill
Whiteface
Windham

Oregon
Mt. Bachelor

Pennsylvania
Blue Knob (first place skied, Dec 1967)
Camelback
Hidden Valley
Laurel Mtn
Liberty Mtn
Seven Springs
Ski Roundtop
Whitetail

Utah
Alta
Brighton
Deer Valley
Park City
Powder Mtn
Snowbasin
Snowbird
Solitude

Vermont
Killington
Mad River Glen
Magic Mtn
Mt Snow
Okemo
Pico
Smugglers Notch
Stratton Mtn
Stowe
Sugarbush
Suicide Six

Virginia
Bryce Mtn
Massanutten
Ski Cherokee (lost)
The Homestead
Wintergreen

West Virginia
Canaan Valley
Timberline
Snowshoe

Wyoming
Grand Targhee
Jackson Hole

Canada
AB
Lake Louise
Mt. Norquay

BC
Banff-Sunshine
Revelstoke
Whistler

Quebec
Le Massif
Mont Sainte Anne

Europe
Austria
Bad Hofgastein
Flachau
Saalbach-Hinterglemm
Zauchensee
Zell am See

 

[Tony Crocker]

The ski areas would be of mixed quality from grade A+ to grade D-. Or, would you rather ski 1000 days at one grade B quality ski area? Why?

James and Patrick would make the first selection. Admin's track record leans the other way though obviously Alta is an A+ ski area. I would modify the second choice to "Do 100% of your skiing on a season pass at a grade B area you like." Many people opt for that choice to maximize ski time per $ spent and/or prefer the convenience of skiing within daytrip distance. The latter point was made loud and clear by several Easterners during the East vs. West threads a decade ago. I'll :stir: by contending that even James' Tier 1 eastern areas are not grade A's by international standards.

I'd want to know the distribution of the mixed quality. I'm obviously in the variety camp with my 241 ski area count but I have minimum standards. I'm not really interested in grade D ski areas. Grade C's are worth a day if I'm in the neighborhood or to break up a drive. Examples in my experience are Baldy B.C. between Red Mt. and Vancouver and Pomerelle between Salt Lake and Boise.

Grades can be on the basis of terrain/snow or both. Pajarito is a rather homogenous intermediate area in terms of terrain, more expansive version of Snow Summit. But being there on an uncontested powder day was a grade A experience. However that would be irrelevant at a molehill that is too short and too flat to ski powder.

The other issue is regional context. The interior Northwest is full of secondary but interesting areas. But the big areas, Red Mt., Schweitzer and Whitefish, are delightfully uncrowded by national standards, so it's hard to tear yourself away from those if you are in the region only occasionally. I'm more likely to check out a secondary area to avoid crowd situations in Utah or Colorado.

The upcoming season is likely to be the golden age of mom-and-pop skiing. The big name places could be quite unattractive:
1) Rationed skiing with tickets required far in advance like Thredbo. So much for chasing short notice powder.
2) Shuttle buses from remote parking lots (most Vail resorts). Aspen's outstanding public transit system might be considered a negative in the current COVID-19 context.
3) Gondolas and trams.
4) Crowd buildup in lift lines and indoor facilities. We can expect rationed skiing to limit this.

I have renewed my Ikon Pass but it is possible that Mammoth will only be worth skiing during the combination of midweek and shoulder seasons. I see our Iron Blosam timeshare week facing major obstacles without significant improvement in the virus situation:
1) How many of the large eastern contingent will be willing to fly?
2) Who will spend a week in a destination resort if there is ticket rationing and they don't know if they can ski every day? Some people speculate that guests lodging on-site might have ticket priority.
3) Our famous "mess hall" dinners of 30+ people in one condo are the antithesis of social distancing.

 

[jimk]

Good answer Tony.
I could go either way on the 1000 question. There have been periods in my life where I've been in the mode of skiing just one ski area 95% of the time. It was between my late teens and early 30s when my parents had a vacation home at a small but pretty good ski area in PA (Blue Knob). I guess I would rate that ski area as a C. It was sort of like a mini-Mad River Glen. It had enough challenging terrain to be pretty interesting to my young self. I have also done ski trips later in life for a week or two where I visited a different ski area every day, often moving between motels almost daily as well. Those kind of trips can be adventurous, but you return home exhausted. A life time of that would be very tiresome. Sort of like 50 first dates
About Covid, I am very disappointed that the virus infection rate hasn't eased in the summer months. I hope you are wrong with your prognosis of how next season will play out, but I suspect your are not far from what the reality will be unless we see a big vaccine breakthrough.

 

[ChrisC]

Here's my lift-served list. I officially began downhill skiing when I was 36 so I started at a disadvantage.

Impressive. I likely had 30+ years on you at 36.

But my parents met via skiing, so I was on the slopes early.....on rope tows that did not move - just knots where you pulled yourself up them.

 

[ChrisC]

The following comment is only of interest to those nutcases who keep count of their visits --

A few weeks back on Alpinforum, there was a discussion of what constitutes a ski area given how there are so many gigantic interconnected circuits in the Alps composed of what were at one point separate lift-served mountains. For example, should the Portes du Soleil be considered one ski area or should you list all the separate components that in the past were self-contained (Les Gets, Morzine, Avoriaz, etc.).

One solution offered that makes sense to me is: there has to be lift access in both directions; thus, the Portes du Soleil should be one area (I've divided mine out into the French and Swiss sectors); however, Mont Chery is separate. Westendorf was separate when I visited in the early 00s; however, it is now connected to the Skiwelt in both directions. OTOH, Arosa and Lenzerheide should be considered separate ski areas connected by a tram. Same deal with Whistler and Blackcomb. Likewise for Diavolezza and Lagalb even though they're physically very close together (connected by a moving carpet in one direction). Tony, where does Fieberbrunn stand compared to Saalbach-Hinterglemm? Haven't been there since they've been connected.

That's going to be my criteria moving forward unless I can be talked out of it.

I got thinking about this in the last few weeks....

I think lifts allowing horizontal/lateral movement between ski sectors might define different 'ski areas.' You are not 'skiing' between them. Places that come to mind are:

• Arosa-Lenzerheide. Separate.
• Arlberg. Lifts between St. Anton-Zurs, Lech-Warth. Definitely separate.
• Chamonix. Brevent-Flegere. Linked, but kind of separate.
• Megeve-St. Gervais. Linked, but separate.
• La Grave-Les 2 Alpes. Linked, but no one would put them together.
• Whistler. Whistler-Blackcomb are separate mountains tenuously linked by a horizontal gondola and base area.
• Park City. Canyons-Park City Mountain is not trail linked - horizontal gondola.
• Palisades Tahoe. Unfortunately, the gondola path allowing terrain access at Alpine Meadows was not allowed. Linked, but separate.
• Sugarbush. Lincoln Peak-Mt. Ellen, Sugarbush North-South. They are separate for the most part.
• Stowe. Had to argue for Spruce Peak being separate, but it was for most of its history.

It is harder to define 'ski valleys' as different linked 'ski areas,' but is sometimes is useful. Other places I think about:

• Ischgl-Samnaun
• Arlberg. Weaker links between Lech-Zurs. And Stuben-St. Anton.
• Verbier. Sprawl. Could make a case for 4-5 areas.
• Zermatt. Well-linked.
• Laax Flims. Well-linked. Hard to separate.
• Crans Montana. Well-linked. Hard to separate.
• Monterosa. Each valley is a resort/ski area?
• Val d'Isere/Tignes. Just huge - need to separate.
• Paradiski. Just huge - need to separate.
• 3 Vallees. Just huge - need to separate. Could make a case for 4-5 areas.
• Many others I have not been to.....

 

[Tony Crocker]

Agree with nearly all of the above. Comments:

Verbier. Sprawl. Could make a case for 4-5 areas.

I voted for two with obvious division at Tortin. The non-Verbier half is a bunch of James-style areas with lots of surface lifts.

Zermatt. Well-linked.

Zermatt was originally 3 areas: Rothorn, Gornergrat and Klein Matterhorn. The former two sectors are now well integrated with lifts through Findeln and Gant. The Gorner glacier still separates Klein Matterhorn, with lifts in both directions only from Furi, a measly 500 vertical feet above Zermatt, which reminds me topographically of Whistler and Blackcomb. So I voted for two areas with the division at Furi but Liz listed one.

Monterosa. Each valley is a resort/ski area?

I thought about that, but in Grosseney there's basically one long trail coming down the west side from Champuloc, while the east side has quite a bit of off-piste complementary to that in Alagna continuing east. So I voted for two with Grosseney as the dividing line but Liz listed one.

Paradiski. Just huge - need to separate.

Les Arcs and La Plagne are separated by a horizontal tram with no skiing in between exactly like Arosa-Lenzerheide and Lech-Warth.

3 Vallees. Just huge - need to separate. Could make a case for 4-5 areas.

The very name makes most people consider it three, definitely Liz' view. I lean toward obvious geographic boundaries, which made me think about Orelle. When you take lifts up east from Val Thorens, there are big black banners on the ridgeline pointing toward Val Thorens, Les Menuires and Meribel. That supports the view of some comments here that cheaper single area lift tickets might be available. There is no such banner for Orelle. Probably only a small fraction of the skier traffic is coming up from the Maurienne Valley, so I doubt it's worth the trouble to offer a separate lift ticket.

Liz is more reluctant to split these big Euro complexes, except she listed 7 in the Dolomites vs. my 4. We both listed 4 for the Arlberg. She did not split Westendorf from the rest of SkiWelt or Fieberbrunn from Saalbach/Hinterglemm. If you look at a Dolomite trail map, there are 12 areas, split probably by lift ownership. Without easily defined geography, I don't split places like Flims-Laax.