Ski Vermont Reports Record Breaking Season

[from_the_NEK]

I dont see why their 1,928 Burke figure bothers you, as Burke's own figure is barely 2,000 feet itself at 2,011.

It's not like 2,011 versus 1,928 is a dramatic difference to begin with, but given Mountain Veritcal's impartiality (and obvious lack of motivation to eek out a 2,000th foot versus 1,999) I'd inherently trust Mountain Vertical's 1,928 to the resort's 2,011.

I know there is barely a difference between 1928' and 2000' (i.e. the height of a decently tall tree). It is that the "2000" number is the number that many people use to classify a large ski area.
And Burke DOES have a 2000' vertical. I've looked at the engineering drawing for the Sherburne and Mid Burke Express chairlifts and the contours on them work out to being exactly 2000 of vert. I'm sure some decently accurate surveying has to be done before a lift can be designed and built. On the bottom end, I almost have to believe that when the Sherburne base area was built in the late 1970's, that they purposely built it at the spot on the mountain that gave them the 2000' vertical number. It is just too perfect.

I do not know where Burke is picking up the extra 11 feet that they began claiming several years ago. Maybe you can get that if you hike up to the very top of the road near the communications tower.

 

[dlague]

A couple of challenges:

Boston people don't ski VT? 89 is a major route to Northern VT and heavily traffic by Boston-area skiers going to VT. I agree that So VT see little from the Boston area. But North has a lot of people from Boston. (anyone have any real data on this?)

2000' vert areas - you guys already covered to some extent. But areas like Stratton, Burke, Mad River Glen and Jay are substantial ski areas that are "around" or over 2,000 vert. And Sugarbush is 2 mountains. No comparison to NH.

I agree that many of the Boston storms did not hit right on a weekend. But the shear amount of snow, the clean up of driveways and roofs etc, had to have a significant impact on skier visits.

I work a Booth during the Ski Show in Boston and it is unbelievable how many people from the Boston area ski at Loon. Hence the joke about renaming Loon to Boston.

I do not think the 2000 vert part has as much to do with anything. I think name recognition with places like Killington, Okemo, Stratton, Stowe, Sugarbush, Jay Peak, Smugglers Notch and Mount Snow - these places are marketing machines and their names are well respected in winter sport communities. I think NH's best marketing machines are Betton Woods, Loon and Waterville Valley. Cannon is known but people are afraid of it. Good for Cannonites I guess! In any case, I do not ski somewhere because of their vertical, IMO - terrain, trail network, acreage etc. play a huge part in why people ski somewhere.

Boston storms were predicted to hit on Sundays at least a couple of times with one of them being right in the middle or President's day weekend. The Blizzard hit on a Tuesday and were probably a mess into the next weekend. Two others hit late Sunday into Monday so not sure if those had much impact overall.

 

[dlague]

I know there is barely a difference between 1928' and 2000' (i.e. the height of a decently tall tree). It is that the "2000" number is the number that many people use to classify a large ski area.
And Burke DOES have a 2000' vertical. I've looked at the engineering drawing for the Sherburne and Mid Burke Express chairlifts and the contours on them work out to being exactly 2000 of vert. I'm sure some decently accurate surveying has to be done before a lift can be designed and built. On the bottom end, I almost have to believe that when the Sherburne base area was built in the late 1970's, that they purposely built it at the spot on the mountain that gave them the 2000' vertical number. It is just too perfect.

I do not know where Burke is picking up the extra 11 feet that they began claiming several years ago. Maybe you can get that if you hike up to the very top of the road near the communications tower.

Waterville Valley is barely over 2000 and it is not large - acreage dictates size! Bretton Woods is only 1500 and skis way bigger than Waterville.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Don't even get me started on the arbitrary numbers involved with acreage :lol:. But that is very true. A 1500' vert mountain spread across a mile long ridge line definitely feels bigger than a taller "skinny" layout mountain like Waterville.

 

[VTKilarney]

Could Burke have picked up the 11 feet with the new lift? It's a little higher than the Willoughby quad.


.

 

[BenedictGomez]

And Burke DOES have a 2000' vertical.

I disagree. It's definitely slightly less than 2,000", but it looks like more than 1,928" to me.

I pulled up the terrain map from GOOG, and if you use the upper contour line you get 3,200", which is what Burke cites, and it does look legitimate.

When you look at the lowest life, however, the 1,200" contour line that they use to get 2,000 feet is clearly well below the lift, there's no question about it. Probably like 1230'ish I'd say, so I'd eyeball Burke's vertical at 1,970. How they get 1,928" I have no idea, unless they claim that the disembark point at the top is 40" less than the 3,200".

 

[from_the_NEK]

I disagree. It's definitely slightly less than 2,000", but it looks like more than 1,928" to me.

I pulled up the terrain map from GOOG, and if you use the upper contour line you get 3,200", which is what Burke cites, and it does look legitimate.

When you look at the lowest life, however, the 1,200" contour line that they use to get 2,000 feet is clearly well below the lift, there's no question about it. Probably like 1230'ish I'd say, so I'd eyeball Burke's vertical at 1,970. How they get 1,928" I have no idea, unless they claim that the disembark point at the top is 40" less than the 3,200".

You may want to look up "cartographic generalization".
The highly detailed engineering drawings for the lifts that found on the Act 250 website confirm the 2000' vert. But somehow I feel like your baiting me into arguing about this. :flame:

 

[steamboat1]

Can you take take to the QBURKE thread?

Who cares?

 

[joshua segal]

I think Pico might be the only area with between 1900 and 2000 vertical that has never claimed to be 2000 vertical - and I can't think of an operating area between 900 and 1000 vertical that doesn't claim to be 1000 vertical!

 

[drjeff]

Do probably 90% of the people on a hill on any given weekend day have any clue as to what the vertical (listed or actual) is? I suspect no. I also suspect that they frankly don't care what the vertical is. All the majority of folks on a hill on any given day tend to care about is #1 what is the snow surface like? and #2 how long a lift line are they having to wait in for the probably 6 to 10 runs a day that the typical weekend customer makes

We have to remember, that we AZ'ers are FAR from the typical ski area customer!!

 

[HowieT2]

A couple of challenges:

Boston people don't ski VT? 89 is a major route to Northern VT and heavily traffic by Boston-area skiers going to VT. I agree that So VT see little from the Boston area. But North has a lot of people from Boston. (anyone have any real data on this?)

2000' vert areas - you guys already covered to some extent. But areas like Stratton, Burke, Mad River Glen and Jay are substantial ski areas that are "around" or over 2,000 vert. And Sugarbush is 2 mountains. No comparison to NH.

I agree that many of the Boston storms did not hit right on a weekend. But the shear amount of snow, the clean up of driveways and roofs etc, had to have a significant impact on skier visits.

Sugarbush is majority Boston area skiers and its not even close. I'd venture to say 70%+.

 

[Cannonball]

"The New Hampshire ski industry says the 2014-2015 season was the fourth best on record." And they mention that "The number of alpine skiing visits rose about 1.7 percent over the previous winter." It's not exactly an in-depth report but in contradicts VT's statement given in the OP.

http://nhpr.org/post/new-hampshire-ski-industry-reports-growth-over-tumultuous-winter

 

[Cannonball]

A more in-depth article than the one I posted earlier. Again, this contradicts the VT article since NH is also claiming increased visits. Those increases include:
- an increase of 1.7% over 2013/14
- a gain of 5.1% over the 10-year average

This is consistent with my gut feeling on the season. One of the best seasons I can ever remember in terms of snow quality, length, and attendance (Ski NH calls it #4 in terms of visits). Full article http://www.skinh.com/about-us/media-center/nhareasreport4thbestseason.aspx

 

[Jully]

It'll be interesting to watch these numbers over the next two or three seasons with Tenny and the Balsams opening back up.

 

[cdskier]

Sugarbush is majority Boston area skiers and its not even close. I'd venture to say 70%+.

Not sure I buy the 70%+ from Boston area even if you excluded VTers (which I've met quite a few of on the lifts). Even 50% might be stretching it a bit. There are a decent number of people from CT, NY, NH, and even NJ (like me!). My condo complex is maybe 2/3 MA and CT combined when you look at license plates.

 

[HowieT2]

Not sure I buy the 70%+ from Boston area even if you excluded VTers (which I've met quite a few of on the lifts). Even 50% might be stretching it a bit. There are a decent number of people from CT, NY, NH, and even NJ (like me!). My condo complex is maybe 2/3 MA and CT combined when you look at license plates.

You don't think so? I'm not counting Vermonters, but the skiers who travel to the Mtn have always seemed to me to be predominantly from the Boston area. Certainly from NYC environs there aren't many. I'd be curious to see the season pass breakdown. Sure, all those folks look alike (jk), but there does seem to be a lot of them.

 

[cdskier]

You don't think so? I'm not counting Vermonters, but the skiers who travel to the Mtn have always seemed to me to be predominantly from the Boston area. Certainly from NYC environs there aren't many. I'd be curious to see the season pass breakdown. Sure, all those folks look alike (jk), but there does seem to be a lot of them.

While not directly related to the breakdown of skiers (I don't think Win will release the breakdown of the states for season pass sales), we can look at the breakdown of property-owners in Warren which is at least somewhat of a decent starting point. I realize some people rent or don't use their places in the winter or don't ski, etc, but still interesting data to look at.

In Warren there are approximately 3300 properties on the Grand List. 1200 of those are owned by people in VT. That leaves us 2100 pieces of property owned by non-VTers.

727 MA - (Only 34% of the non-VTer owned properties)
340 NY - (16%)
302 CT - (14%)
168 NJ - (8%)
78 - NH (4%)
78 - FL (4%) - Possibly people with dual residences in FL and VT?
61 - RI (3%)
58 - PA (3%)

And then the numbers just get smaller from there (including Bermuda and Bahamas which always are fascinating to see as property owners), but that's already accounting for 86% of the non-VTer owned properties in Warren.

So even if we add in additional rentals from the MA area, I'd still say no more than about 50% of the people at SB are from the MA/Boston area.

 

[HowieT2]

While not directly related to the breakdown of skiers (I don't think Win will release the breakdown of the states for season pass sales), we can look at the breakdown of property-owners in Warren which is at least somewhat of a decent starting point. I realize some people rent or don't use their places in the winter or don't ski, etc, but still interesting data to look at.

In Warren there are approximately 3300 properties on the Grand List. 1200 of those are owned by people in VT. That leaves us 2100 pieces of property owned by non-VTers.

727 MA - (Only 34% of the non-VTer owned properties)
340 NY - (16%)
302 CT - (14%)
168 NJ - (8%)
78 - NH (4%)
78 - FL (4%) - Possibly people with dual residences in FL and VT?
61 - RI (3%)
58 - PA (3%)

And then the numbers just get smaller from there (including Bermuda and Bahamas which always are fascinating to see as property owners), but that's already accounting for 86% of the non-VTer owned properties in Warren.

So even if we add in additional rentals from the MA area, I'd still say no more than about 50% of the people at SB are from the MA/Boston area.

interesting.

 

[dlague]

While not directly related to the breakdown of skiers (I don't think Win will release the breakdown of the states for season pass sales), we can look at the breakdown of property-owners in Warren which is at least somewhat of a decent starting point. I realize some people rent or don't use their places in the winter or don't ski, etc, but still interesting data to look at.

In Warren there are approximately 3300 properties on the Grand List. 1200 of those are owned by people in VT. That leaves us 2100 pieces of property owned by non-VTers.

727 MA - (Only 34% of the non-VTer owned properties)
340 NY - (16%)
302 CT - (14%)
168 NJ - (8%)
78 - NH (4%)
78 - FL (4%) - Possibly people with dual residences in FL and VT?
61 - RI (3%)
58 - PA (3%)

And then the numbers just get smaller from there (including Bermuda and Bahamas which always are fascinating to see as property owners), but that's already accounting for 86% of the non-VTer owned properties in Warren.

So even if we add in additional rentals from the MA area, I'd still say no more than about 50% of the people at SB are from the MA/Boston area.

Yup 70% did seem pretty high!

 

[WWF-VT]

Sugarbush is majority Boston area skiers and its not even close. I'd venture to say 70%+.

My guess is that on any given weekend about 70% of the out of state license plates in the parking lots at Lincoln Peak are from MA. That does not equal 70% of the total skiers/riders. At Mt Ellen the majority of skiers/riders are from VT.