Trail Count vs Acreage

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.

acreage is the only thing that matters. trail counts are meaningless, especially since killington likes to cut one trail into 3-5 "trails" for their reports. and out west there is so much more skiable terrain than there is "trails". i don't think length/mileage is really informative either. especially for someone like me who spends most of the day in the trees, acreage is the only size number that counts.

KustyTheKlown said:

acreage is the only thing that matters. trail counts are meaningless, especially since killington likes to cut one trail into 3-5 "trails" for their reports. and out west there is so much more skiable terrain than there is "trails". i don't think length/mileage is really informative either. especially for someone like me who spends most of the day in the trees, acreage is the only size number that counts.

Click to expand...

I partially agree, but also partially disagree. If we are simply talking about "skiable" terrain stats, then sure acreage is probably most important.

If we're talking about snow reports though, then you have to consider that when some resorts report "acreage" for open trails in their snow report, they include only "on-trail" acreage. So right off the bat at some eastern resorts a quick look at the snow report (or even a snow report website like snocountry) isn't including the trees and gladed areas (Sugarbush for example in their snow report will only list a max open acreage of 484 which is their on-trail number. They have another 100 acres of "official" glades and then hundreds of other acres that are all available as long as you know what you're doing and where you're going).

Focusing purely on acreage also gives an advantage to resorts like Okemo that have lots of wide open cruisers. To get an accurate picture you really need to look at a combination of acreage and mileage and to a lesser degree trail counts. Okemo at the moment has 485 acres and 32 miles open. Sugarbush on the other hand has 449 acres and 50 miles open. Less acres, but more miles because they have a lot of narrower trails that cover less acreage.

Overall it is hard to compare apples to apples as not all resorts report things consistently. Some in their stats clearly define boundary to boundary acreage vs skiable on-trail acreage vs skiable glades while others are less clear on what their reported acreage numbers include. For me, you can't focus on just one number. They all play a part in determining size.

A combination of acreage and mileage. Acreage is over inflated at mountains with super wide trails. The trail acreage on the Superstar trail at Killington probably is more than double the acreage of all of the Castlerock trails combined, even though CR would offer much greater mileage and terrain variety.

Trail count is mostly for marketing departments

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app

Neither are as important as the amount of varied and unique terrain.

By this measure, instead of counting trails or acres, count unique and/or compelling runs. Unique and compelling runs that are especially challenging are counted first. A run can use a trail or sections of a trail multiple times. The number will also be dependent on the skier and what they consider compelling. I'll use a few areas I'm especially familiar with for examples:

Bolton Valley--
18 points. A quick glance at the map and I see 18 unique and compelling runs, though partially overlapping runs that on a good day I would take without having to repeat terrain.

For example, off of Cobrass:
1. Cobrass with Cobrass woods
2. Preacher proper
3. Preacher > Playground
4. Preacher > Preacher woods (to the left up top)

Or off Wilderness:
5. Peggy Dows > Old Turnpike > Lower Turnpike
6. Peggy Dows > Wilderness woods

Let's try another. Okemo:

10 points. Most of their trails get nixed for being so similar and not compelling. After picking the 10 runs I consider most interesting and unique I'd start to feel as if things were getting repetitive. YMMV.

One more. Berkshire East:

11 points. Smaller area but outscores Okemo. Bias can come into play with this system, but that's kind of the point.

Another skier might find skiing a greater variety of somewhat similar blue square rated groomers to be compelling. For me, that often means the 1) most difficult and/or 2) most charactered trail off a pod. You'll rarely find me skiing Sigi's Ripcord off Heaven's Gate when Paradise is the more compelling route down. Sigi's scores Sugarbush no points; Paradise does.

I should also note that if I'm burned out on a trail, or it's always icy and skied off, or if it has a crappy weird fall line and I just don't enjoy it = that trail is not compelling.

Thus a place like Killington where I've skied all too often won't come up with a much better score than a place like Burke, which is a rising star in my own mind. Or Pico, where character and compelling terrain is simply in abundance.

An acre is an acre (roughly the size of a football field for reference) that's the most honest way to report, especially if all resorts chose to do what Mount Snow has done, which is not to report the full acreage of a trail open if it's just say in WROD state, but that takes some honesty in reporting to do. Mileage is my 2nd most important measuring stick, but then again there's certainly some wiggle room in that, like for example if Killington has all of Juggernaut and Great Eastern open, that gives them more mileage than many New England small to mid sized areas have in total. Trail count by far and away is the least important thing to me, since let's be honest, for various reasons from marketing standpoints to ski patrol rescue reference standpoints, pretty much every ski area has way more "trails" than actual continuous runs, and I think most of us mentally divide the posted number of open trails by anywhere from 2 to 5+ to get a better idea for how many actual runs are open

Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app

bdfreetuna said:

You'll rarely find me skiing Sigi's Ripcord off Heaven's Gate when Paradise is the more compelling route down. Sigi's scores Sugarbush no points; Paradise does.

Click to expand...

This might be the first time I can recall someone using the full name of Ripcord or even referring to it simply as "Sigi's". Personally I love ripping down Ripcord (first thing in the morning before it gets scraped off of course though).

Tuna - you do have a point! Every skier has different likes and what is compelling can vary widely. Vail definitely has lot and lots of steep bump rums that might be compelling to bump skiers. Or to skiers right at Breck there are some pretty sweet runs that I am curious about. Even Loveland off Chair run has nice steeps and narrow chutes. You mention Burke, they have very nice runs all through the woods to skiers right from the top or way to skiers left. In the end, it seems that acreage possibly provides great opportunity to find such runs that are compelling to many.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app

cdskier said:

This might be the first time I can recall someone using the full name of Ripcord or even referring to it simply as "Sigi's". Personally I love ripping down Ripcord (first thing in the morning before it gets scraped off of course though).

Click to expand...

Ripcord is not even on the trail map as sigi's.

I prefer miles of terrain and acres of woods. Acres benefits wide boulevards and I prefer many narrow trails.

You ski geeks are way too cute. There are 3 measures I use after skiing in NEw England for 45+ winters: Big, Medium and Dinky. I know which is which. Stowe = Big. Cannon = Medium. Gun stock = Dinky. i guess growing up here a skier you just know and decide accordingly.

benski said:

Ripcord is not even on the trail map as sigi's.

I prefer miles of terrain and acres of woods. Acres benefits wide boulevards and I prefer many narrow trails.

Click to expand...

Right...the trail report on the website lists it as "Sigi's Ripcord", but the maps and trail signs list it only as Ripcord.

I'm with you on the terrain preference as well.

SkiFanE said:

You ski geeks are way too cute. There are 3 measures I use after skiing in NEw England for 45+ winters: Big, Medium and Dinky. I know which is which. Stowe = Big. Cannon = Medium. Gun stock = Dinky. i guess growing up here a skier you just know and decide accordingly.

Click to expand...

Here in Colorado Vail = Big, Breckenridge = Medium and A Basin = Dinky using those measures.

Then Pats = Tiny Weeny at 115 acres? Like Eldora is Tiny Weeny here at 680 acres.

BTW I think of Killington or Sugarloaf as Big back east when considering acres.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app

Trail count matters as a percentage of trails that are open. If a mountain has 25% of trails open, you're looking at a string of WROD's and crowded trails. Get above 75% and natural/ungroomed trails are in play along with glades.

Trail count and acreage mean nothing if the trails are all green or lack anything interesting.

Smellytele said:

Trail count and acreage mean nothing if the trails are all green or lack anything interesting.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Mileage is the same way as well like Great Eastern at K, as dlague said.

I personally prefer mileage or even better a trail map where I can just count the number of unique ways down. Judgement is involved in all of this of course.

This is a real pet peeve for me with my home mt Cannon.Almost every day they boast "most trials in NH" while they have 50% less acreage than Loon or BW.Enough!Any area can claim the most trails by continually splitting trails apart.I laugh when I see the FRONT 5 report with 16 trails and 3 other trails on the mid-mountain list are shown twice in the report with the SAME NAME.Really?"Total crap.Cannon has gotten rediculous doing this the past 5 years.Acreage means much more than trail count to me.

SIKSKIER said:

This is a real pet peeve for me with my home mt Cannon.Almost every day they boast "most trials in NH" while they have 50% less acreage than Loon or BW.Enough!Any area can claim the most trails by continually splitting trails apart.I laugh when I see the FRONT 5 report with 16 trails and 3 other trails on the mid-mountain list are shown twice in the report with the SAME NAME.Really?"Total crap.Cannon has gotten rediculous doing this the past 5 years.Acreage means much more than trail count to me.

Click to expand...

Having "The Saddle" as an official trail is a total joke.

wtcobb said:

Having "The Saddle" as an official trail is a total joke.

Click to expand...

True you basically have to hike it!

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app

Bump

Sent from my SM-N950U using AlpineZone mobile app

My focus is on the number and type/quality of unique ways down vs #of trails or acreage. There is too much difference in the naming of "trails" and acerage gets skewed by wide (and often times flat) trails. I question how many regular/frequent skiers blindly look at number of trails and/or acreage without looking at the tail map and visualizing what's is actually available.

The classic example is Killington, which when they move from North Ridge to the base they usually have one, fairly boring run down, yet it encompasses parts of 6 (?) trails and dozens of acres. But for me all they really have to ski is North Ridge.