Small and local or big and far?

[ctenidae]

If you had 1000 feet of vertical 20 minutes away, or 2000 feet an hour away, what would make you go to the local hill? I'm curious what you guys think about local areas, and why so many make it to the NELSAP list.

 

[JimG.]

If you had 1000 feet of vertical 20 minutes away, or 2000 feet an hour away, what would make you go to the local hill? I'm curious what you guys think about local areas, and why so many make it to the NELSAP list.

Strictly terrain dependent...I'd rather ski a steep 1000 vert hill like Plattekill than a 2000 vert bunny hill like Stratton.

 

[Grassi21]

For this season and probably the next few, consider me a local. The determining factors for me will be family, money, and time. With a new house, trying to start a family, and my current intermediate status, I will spend most of my time skiing hills within 1.5 hrs of Southbury, CT. I will do a few trips to VT and hopefully get out West in the next year or two. But for now, the local terrain will be fine for me.

 

[2knees]

interesting. To be honest, most areas within a day trip for me really dont offer more than 1000 vertical feet in one shot anyway. Killington may be the exception if you're riding the K1, but alot of the skiing involves crossovers, connectors, flat areas etc. Mt Snow, north face is about 1000, east side at bromley is like 700 or so. Magic is about 1000 of sustained pitch, and so on. So that being said, i dont care too much about stated verts because in so many cases, its just a number thrown out to make an area look impressive on paper. Give me sustained pitch and then i'll care. So to answer, if its 1000 local of sustained, i'll take that all day as long as the conditions are decent. Driving for better snow is always worth it.

 

[Greg]

Strictly terrain dependent...I'd rather ski a steep 1000 vert hill like Plattekill than a 2000 vert bunny hill like Stratton.

What Jim said. My problem is 1K vert hills are the only option within one hour for me. Stratton and Okemo (3:30 and 3:00 respectively) are the closest 2K vert hills, and there are probably other places I'd go before either of those like Hunter (2:15), Snow (2:45) or Beast (2:00).

My local hill (Sundown) is 25 minutes away and that really opens up a lot of options to get some on trail time. It is, after all, all about the miles. Sundown will be a good option for night skiing, or when there's a big storm in progress (close enough to drive there), or perhaps before or after work, and of course when skiing with my daughter. I don't normally ski Saturdays, but Sundays will likely consist of trips to the Berkshires - Jiminy, Catamount, Beast. I usually take Fridays off for longer day trips like Magic, Hunter, Killington, or maybe if I'm feeling really insane Gore, Burke or MRG. Places like Sugarbush, Loon, Whiteface or Sugarloaf are reserved for extended stays.

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

I think with fuels costs up (sure, it's down a little, but there's still up), and more demands on my time, I think I'll be "local" more this season. (Don't worry Riv, I'm good for a couple of "quick day trips" to Saddleback this season). A certain amount of my skiing is "road work" to get my legs ready for the real thing.

As long as you don't get hurt, is there really such a thing as a "bad day of skiing"?

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

West Mt. is about 30 minutes from my house and about 1,000 vert. I go their Thursdays as a chaperone for my kids ski club. It's fun for a few hours at nite, but I much prefer a big mountain with alot of terrain options. So every weekend as I pass West at exit 18 of the Northway I keep driving to exit 30 to get Whiteace's 3,000+ vert.

 

[bvibert]

For me, at the ablility level I'm at now, the smaller hills are fine. I'd much rather save the driving time and be skiing. My views may be different as I get a little better, but then I'll be introducing my daughter to skiing so the local hills will do just fine there.

 

[2knees]

as a side bar to this question, i think how you typically spend a day skiing has something to do with it. I get stuck on a trail if i find one really to my liking. The rest of the mtn might as well not even exist sometimes. Its a product of skiing alone so many times. I have no one wanting to try something else and i just keep hitting the same run over and over. So the size of the area doesnt really come into play all the time.

 

[jack97]

It use to be more interesting terrain irregardless of vertical. Nowadays, I’ve been skiing more with my daughter, so it’s local just because it takes less time to get there.

 

[jack97]

as a side bar to this question, i think how you typically spend a day skiing has something to do with it. I get stuck on a trail if i find one really to my liking. The rest of the mtn might as well not even exist sometimes. Its a product of skiing alone so many times. I have no one wanting to try something else and i just keep hitting the same run over and over. So the size of the area doesnt really come into play all the time.

Ditto, that why I don't really care about vertical. If the place has interresting terrain, I'll do laps on it all day. Glades, trails with character or a bump run with nice lines comes to mind.

 

[ChileMass]

I get bored at smaller hills. Most places under 1500' of vert, you wind up skiing the same trails over and over (West is a prime example). Bigger mountain = more options. Hell, I'll even tear up a couple green circles with my kids and intermediate friends just for a change of scenery. Gore, WF, Cannon, Sugarloaf, even K-Mart = lots of blacks and sterner blues to choose from.

 

[Greg]

as a side bar to this question, i think how you typically spend a day skiing has something to do with it. I get stuck on a trail if i find one really to my liking. The rest of the mtn might as well not even exist sometimes. Its a product of skiing alone so many times. I have no one wanting to try something else and i just keep hitting the same run over and over. So the size of the area doesnt really come into play all the time.

Ditto, that why I don't really care about vertical. If the place has interresting terrain, I'll do laps on it all day. Glades, trails with character or a bump run with nice lines comes to mind.

I'm with you guys on this one. If I find a good bump run, I can ski it all day; especially if I'm at a local hill. This is precisely why I sometimes like to ski alone. Otherwise if I keep suggesting the same trail over and over, I can't help but think I'm annoying my ski partner(s). I knew immediately after skiing with Pat the first time that he's of a similar mindset (I'll be looking out for ya this season, buddy!).

If I'm at a bigger ski area like the Bush or Loaf, or if I'm at a new ski area, or with a larger group (e.g. AZ gatherings) I like to explore around a bit more, but for those daytrips at the local haunts, I'm more than content with finding a line or run I like and doing laps.

 

[RISkier]

Actually, I'd love both options. If we had a 1,000 ft hill within 20 minutes we'd get a lot more skiing in and would most likely buy a pass. If they have night skiing you could run over for an hour or two and you could spend a few hours skiing on weekend mornings without blowing the entire day. A 2,000 ft mountain an hour away would definatey get a good bit of our business too. It's a good 1.5 hours for us to get to Wachusett, Pats is about 2.5 hours, Sunapee is around 2.75 hours.

 

[bigbog]

.........

A local hill(truely a hill....350' vert, 98% kids), 30min away, is pretty much stuck between Sugarloaf(1hr 45min to the parking lot) and Bangor's "City Forest" (7min) from the house...with miles of touring terrain when there is enough natural cover.

 

[skiprob]

Yes

I would ski both. Assuming, of course, that I could ski more than one day.

The way I see it, it really has to do with the people at the area. If the people running the place and the people skiing are cool, then I'll 'spread the wealth'.

If I don't like the people or the vibe, forget it. Somehow, all the money I make is going to end up somewhere else. The most I hope for is to have some input on where it goes.

I ski with my kids too and they like the variety. At school they like to boast and show off their passes (gapers - that thread was great). How old do they have to be before I can start teasing them?

The best seasons (skiing) I ever had were when I was single and working. I would ski weeknights at the local hill and then head further on the weekends.

 

[SKIQUATTRO]

if with the kids, then local is the way to go, you dont feel the pressure that you are missing the rest of the mtn when stuck on the greens with the 4yr old....if with just the wife or buddies,,,,,,,drive to the big stuff...we'll leave NY at midnight, drive all night to 'bush/stowe/smuggs, ski all day then drive home...well worth it

 

[ctenidae]

The way I see it, it really has to do with the people at the area. If the people running the place and the people skiing are cool, then I'll 'spread the wealth'.

If I don't like the people or the vibe, forget it. Somehow, all the money I make is going to end up somewhere else. The most I hope for is to have some input on where it goes.

Interesting point. What makes or breaks a vibe for you? Is it interaction with the local community, or something more unidentifiable, like the "feel"?

I know a lot of the demise of local hills has been due to finances, but I wonder if, with the right touch, those areas could make enough money to stay open.

 

[RISkier]

Interesting point. What makes or breaks a vibe for you? Is it interaction with the local community, or something more unidentifiable, like the "feel"?

I know a lot of the demise of local hills has been due to finances, but I wonder if, with the right touch, those areas could make enough money to stay open.

I think something that's often overlooked in the "demise" of local hills is simple demographic change. I once knew a woman who ran a dance hall in the upper midwest. We were talking and she was dismayed and simply couldn't understand why the crowds kept getting smaller and smaller. Every year, fewer kids were coming to the dances. What she hadn't thought of was that the farms were getting bigger and bigger and the average family size was getting smaller and smaller. There simply weren't as many kids in the area. I'd speculate that some of the same process has contributed to the demise of many smaller hills that depended on a relatively local population base. The density of skiers that would frequently visit those hills has simply decreased. To be sure, there are numerous other factors that contributed to many closures. A relatively small place like Wachusett is certainly successful; it has an almost perfect combination of location, location, location. Unfortunately, many smaller hills had a much smaller catchment area from which to draw local skiers.

 

[2knees]

it also depends on what you define as local. Local hills in real ski country have a much harder time surviving because the competition from the big boys is direct. Little areas in s. new england, ny and nj have a fighting chance. You actually dont see too many closures of these areas. They offer night skiing, after school programs, parks, beginner programs (seeded bump runs ) to attract clientele. I could be dead wrong, but i bet for every Mt Tom there are two or three Maple Valleys. Hell, even Powder Ridge still manages to open every year, and if any place deserved to go the way of the dinosaurs, that be it.

sorry if i offended any powder ridge fans.