dlague
Active member
What never really dawned on me in New England was the trail count compared to acreage. The ratio always seemed to make sense, however, after skiing places like Vail, Sunshine, Lake Louise, Keystone etc. what caught my attention was the number of trails compared to the acres of skiable terrain.
In New England the ratio Acres:Trails is between 4:1 and 8:1 compared to the western resort listed above the ratio is between 19:1 and 31:1 - A Basin not listed above has a ratio that is more New England like.
Now we all know New England slices and dices the mountains up with narrower trails and there are a lot of connector trails. Where as out West trails are wider or are parts of a bowl where the trails are not well delineated.
So this begs the question - what is more significant trail count or acreage. I could see the vastness of Vail and I thought it skied really big - reminded me of Lake Louise in some respects.
In contrast Killkington reports 191 trails with 1509 acres vs Vail that has 195 trails on 5289 acres. The 195 skis bigger at Vail than the 191 at Killington.
Does anyone know of a site that list trails as total miles? That could be telling.
In New England the ratio Acres:Trails is between 4:1 and 8:1 compared to the western resort listed above the ratio is between 19:1 and 31:1 - A Basin not listed above has a ratio that is more New England like.
Now we all know New England slices and dices the mountains up with narrower trails and there are a lot of connector trails. Where as out West trails are wider or are parts of a bowl where the trails are not well delineated.
So this begs the question - what is more significant trail count or acreage. I could see the vastness of Vail and I thought it skied really big - reminded me of Lake Louise in some respects.
In contrast Killkington reports 191 trails with 1509 acres vs Vail that has 195 trails on 5289 acres. The 195 skis bigger at Vail than the 191 at Killington.
Does anyone know of a site that list trails as total miles? That could be telling.