The "Sugarbush Thread"

[1dog]

And isn't the Ellen Lodge being expanded potentially next year anyway by Vermont Adaptive? Once they sink that money in I can't see the ME lodge being replaced at any point in the near future.

I'm also still not sure their goal is to ever "triple" snowmaking. I think the numbers may be off a bit because unless something has changed, they currently have around 4K GPM capacity at LP, not 2K. Tripling that brings you to 12K GPM which would be essentially Killington levels. I don't see that happening ever.

Heard a year or so ago that an on-mountain lodge - terminus of GH/SB/NL area was in the mix - nothing except small warming lodges on mountain here compared to other 'larger' ice coast areas. It would relieve some pressure on the base area crowds too. And a another wedding venue - that seems to be growing in the valley.

It does appear that the snow gun tenders have a say in air/water mix. Not a great analogy but great unprepared food at a restuarant still takes skilled hands to prepare it to make or break the customer experience.

Turn over and lack of experienced help makes a difference there too.

Housing costs, pay, schedules, competition, etc. lure people away.

So many variables. . . . . and as Win mentioned, VT is not business friendly.

Someone always states this pre season - soon as cold and dumps begin and a decent base is there - snowmaking discussions disppear.

Lets hope and pray thats the case come Dec - early Dec.

 

[Hawk]

ASC's demise was about about leveraged buying and development of lodging. They were trying to build housing and sell it to make money. that is what did them in. It has nothing to do with snow making. For what it is worth I worked at an ASC resort for a while way back. They made more snow and quality snow they anywhere else except probably Killington, another ASC resort. They are the model that everybody looks at when building a new snow making system or expanding.

 

[Hawk]

And isn't the Ellen Lodge being expanded potentially next year anyway by Vermont Adaptive? Once they sink that money in I can't see the ME lodge being replaced at any point in the near future.

I'm also still not sure their goal is to ever "triple" snowmaking. I think the numbers may be off a bit because unless something has changed, they currently have around 4K GPM capacity at LP, not 2K. Tripling that brings you to 12K GPM which would be essentially Killington levels. I don't see that happening ever.

Listen, people are getting bogged down with the numbers based on what I reported. 2X, 3x what ever. I thought Win said that they wanted to go from 2K to 6K. That might be wrong. The point he was trying to get across is they want to increase the GPM so that they can blow more snow faster when there is a thaw event. Any increase is a win(no pun intended) to me. I will repeat that he also said that it is not going to happen any time soon as they do not have the capital or governmental approval for such an increase.

 

[mister moose]

The point [Sugarbush] was trying to get across is they want to increase the GPM so that they can blow more snow faster when there is a thaw event. Any increase is a win(no pun intended) to me. I will repeat that he also said that it is not going to happen any time soon as they do not have the capital or governmental approval for such an increase.

And here is a large problem for Eastern skiing in general, and Vermont in particular. Just exactly what is the problem with spraying water on some trails? Why isn't Montpelier saying, here, let me help you, of course you can draw more water to further your business, hiring, sales, and improve the struggling economy of Vermont? Imagine how much better the East could compete with the West if they could adapt as they best saw fit to keeping snow conditions as high quality as possible, rather than have to spend large sums of money on permits, applications, lawyers, environmental studies and engineering to just spray water?

 

[Hawk]

I think you are misunderstanding the issue. Sugarbush has the approvals to draw water from the river. They only use about 20% to 30% of whats allowed. The approvals they will need are for the installation of new snow making ponds or storage facilities, piping etc. Those will require engineering, drainage plans erosion control, etc that any state would require. Granted that ACT 250 is pretty strict but you would have to do that for any type of constitution in VT or something similar in other states. Even out West.

 

[cdskier]

Listen, people are getting bogged down with the numbers based on what I reported. 2X, 3x what ever. I thought Win said that they wanted to go from 2K to 6K. That might be wrong. The point he was trying to get across is they want to increase the GPM so that they can blow more snow faster when there is a thaw event. Any increase is a win(no pun intended) to me. I will repeat that he also said that it is not going to happen any time soon as they do not have the capital or governmental approval for such an increase.

Yes, I'm obsessive with numbers. Sorry, can't help it! I do agree that any increase is a win (even just a 50% increase from ~4K to 6K would be a decent improvement).

And here is a large problem for Eastern skiing in general, and Vermont in particular. Just exactly what is the problem with spraying water on some trails? Why isn't Montpelier saying, here, let me help you, of course you can draw more water to further your business, hiring, sales, and improve the struggling economy of Vermont? Imagine how much better the East could compete with the West if they could adapt as they best saw fit to keeping snow conditions as high quality as possible, rather than have to spend large sums of money on permits, applications, lawyers, environmental studies and engineering to just spray water?

Like Hawk said earlier, they're nowhere near using the "amount" of water that they can. So I don't particularly think the government approvals would be related to the amount of water they spray on the trails. Rather I would guess the approvals are more related to having to dig a giant hole in the ground somewhere to build a new/bigger pond. And to be fair, something like that should need approval to make sure it is done properly.

 

[urungus]

And here is a large problem for Eastern skiing in general, and Vermont in particular. Just exactly what is the problem with spraying water on some trails? Why isn't Montpelier saying, here, let me help you, of course you can draw more water to further your business, hiring, sales, and improve the struggling economy of Vermont? Imagine how much better the East could compete with the West if they could adapt as they best saw fit to keeping snow conditions as high quality as possible, rather than have to spend large sums of money on permits, applications, lawyers, environmental studies and engineering to just spray water?

Water is not an unlimited resource and there are many other entities vying for it: farms, towns, other industries, etc. Extreme example ... How would you feel if the resort just upstream from your favorite ski hill built a giant reservoir and diverted the entire river into it, leaving your resort with zero water ?

 

[mister moose]

I think you are misunderstanding the issue. Sugarbush has the approvals to draw water from the river. They only use about 20% to 30% of whats allowed. The approvals they will need are for the installation of new snow making ponds or storage facilities, piping etc. Those will require engineering, drainage plans erosion control, etc that any state would require. Granted that ACT 250 is pretty strict but you would have to do that for any type of constitution in VT or something similar in other states. Even out West.

You're correct in that I'm not familiar with Sugarbush's permits. I was speaking for the entire state, and the degree of adversarial rather than cooperative relationships that exist.

Water is not an unlimited resource and there are many other entities vying for it: farms, towns, other industries, etc. Extreme example ... How would you feel if the resort just upstream from your favorite ski hill built a giant reservoir and diverted the entire river into it, leaving your resort with zero water ?

I've seen no information on a lack of water in either the Connecticut river, the Hudson, Ottaquachee, Winooski, or any other smaller ski area related river, much less in the late fall or winter. It melts and returns to the watershed. Your issue could be solved with a $50 application and one question - does anyone downstream suffer a lack of water as a result of the amount of water you wish to pump from the river during the period in question?
​

 

[tumbler]

There are very tight restrictions to the amount of water that can be drawn from the Mad River (or any river) based on the low flow in the winter. The level of the river and the amount of water withdrawn is monitored, documented and sent to the state.

 

[Smellytele]

There are very tight restrictions to the amount of water that can be drawn from the Mad River (or any river) based on the low flow in the winter. The level of the river and the amount of water withdrawn is monitored, documented and sent to the state.

Right so it isn’t just what humans need it down stream but fauna and floral as well


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[mister moose]

There are very tight restrictions to the amount of water that can be drawn from the Mad River (or any river) based on the low flow in the winter. The level of the river and the amount of water withdrawn is monitored, documented and sent to the state.

Looking at some data, the Mad River at Mooretown flows 350 CFS at average river levels from November to January, the period of most snowmaking. 350 CFS is 157,500 GPM.



So on a very intermittent basis, Sugarbush at 4,000 GPM would draw 2.5% of the flow from the Mad River. Yes, the flow at Warren is less than Mooretown, and yes, there would be some fish whose pool of water would be smaller during pumping periods, but what is the real demonstrable need to create such restrictions?


Look at the Ottauqueechee, which Killington feeds out of right at West Bridgewater



November to January flows average 900 CFS, which is 405,000 GPM. Killington pumps from the two ponds at what, 12,000 GPM, and that total is less than 3% of the river flow, yet Killington is restricted on the Ottauquechee and pumps the rest from Woodward Reservoir.

In both cases, the reduced river flow in the period is exponentially higher than low flows in July to September.

I don't see how any concern on water use by ski areas holds water.

 

[bdfreetuna]

That Holiday Rate is Awesome !

I think it's somewhat telling that when I mentioned the high walk up rates in the $120-range several folks here simply didn't believe it but chose to defend it anyway.

Look, I'd never pay that much. I will go to Sugarbush exactly one time this winter/spring on a Ski Vermont pass (and if I can't get enough I'll use Ride and Ski card for 50% off another day). This isn't really a selfish cause, but as a matter of principle and tradition I just don't see it as justified to even attempt to screw someone over that much on the way in, knowing the same fool (likely new skier or Lambo driver, probably not too many in between) is going to drop a $40 lunch tab, $20 for hand warmers, and $40 on souvenir items from their once-in-a-lifetime trip to Vermont.

I like Sugarbush though, as a naturally excellent ski resort. It's obviously top-tier in the East in terms of terrain, challenge and adventure.

By the way, add $5 to those prices because you need an RFID card... that's $134 on a holiday sucker! Nope not Vail Colorado, Warren Vermont.

 

[bdfreetuna]

I don't see how any concern on water use by ski areas holds water.

Didn't Mad River Glen say they purchased a few more fan guns this summer (bringing their total to something like four or five)?

This math may need to be completely redone if they ever decide to patch up a bare spot on Quacky II.

 

[deadheadskier]

I think it's somewhat telling that when I mentioned the high walk up rates in the $120-range several folks here simply didn't believe it but chose to defend it anyway.

Look, I'd never pay that much. I will go to Sugarbush exactly one time this winter/spring on a Ski Vermont pass (and if I can't get enough I'll use Ride and Ski card for 50% off another day). This isn't really a selfish cause, but as a matter of principle and tradition I just don't see it as justified to even attempt to screw someone over that much on the way in, knowing the same fool (likely new skier or Lambo driver, probably not too many in between) is going to drop a $40 lunch tab, $20 for hand warmers, and $40 on souvenir items from their once-in-a-lifetime trip to Vermont.

I like Sugarbush though, as a naturally excellent ski resort. It's obviously top-tier in the East in terms of terrain, challenge and adventure.

By the way, add $5 to those prices because you need an RFID card... that's $134 on a holiday sucker! Nope not Vail Colorado, Warren Vermont.

Honestly, as much as seeing these three figure lift ticket prices is alarming in that many believe that it is contributing to the flat growth rate of the sport, I don't think many casual skiers think much about it; especially folks who spend any amount of time at all in cities. The entertainment options these folks are used to cost way more. Try seeing a professional sports team in Boston for $120 a ticket. Your seats will be mediocre at best, your paying $13 for a decent beer and $6 for a hot dog. Popular concerts or Theater events you'll spend even more than that for good seats. Nevermind the parking expense. I had to park in three locations in town yesterday for work meetings. 3 hours at each garage. I spent $94 on parking. Thankfully that's a business expense that I get reimbursed for. Dinner out with my clients was $150 a person at Legal Seafoods, which isn't exactly a high cost Boston restaurant.

I'm just grateful season pass price options are reasonable these days. They were way more expensive in the past.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[1dog]

Honestly, as much as seeing these three figure lift ticket prices is alarming in that many believe that it is contributing to the flat growth rate of the sport, I don't think many casual skiers think much about it; especially folks who spend any amount of time at all in cities. The entertainment options these folks are used to cost way more. Try seeing a professional sports team in Boston for $120 a ticket. Your seats will be mediocre at best, your paying $13 for a decent beer and $6 for a hot dog. Popular concerts or Theater events you'll spend even more than that for good seats. Nevermind the parking expense. I had to park in three locations in town yesterday for work meetings. 3 hours at each garage. I spent $94 on parking. Thankfully that's a business expense that I get reimbursed for. Dinner out with my clients was $150 a person at Legal Seafoods, which isn't exactly a high cost Boston restaurant.

I'm just grateful season pass price options are reasonable these days. They were way more expensive in the past.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

Simple economics and a good comparison - choices. I was a season ticket holder for the Bruins in the past - but no real deal by purchasing 6 months in advance - plenty of people behind me when I chose not to renew.

As for the other choices DHS mentions, unlike the new options in skiing/riding, you can't purchase at $800- $900 6 months in advance to ski/ride 6-8 days to break even ( @$120) with dinner/parking/sporting event, etc.

Using inflation adjusted dollars it is getting cheaper using the various pass options, stack on that super cheap gas thanks to abundance and new tech and deregulation making US the majot player in production, Airbnb/VRBO and ski house options, (not to mention friends with condos and houses) and its not as expensive as 1982.

I did pay $12 half a day at K -Mart back then, I did get $15 rentals, and gas was $1.25, but I made maybe $7-$10 an hour too.

Couldn't afford full day, were day trips mostly, but was never about the money when you become addicted to snowcaine - as you all know - you'll do almost anything to make it happen.

It's hard to go to Gillette for under a grand for two and they have no tree-skiing there. Not a good comparison but Orthwein ( sp?) paid Sullivan $30 M for Pats in early 90's, sold to Kraft few yrs later for $150M - everyone said he was nuts - second or third highest valued sport franchise at around $1.5-$2B now. Can't say that for SV after they got a deal from ASC debacle.

No one is forced to go to either sport - its great to have choices and competition.

 

[bdfreetuna]

Just for argument's sake...

#1 I understand that places like Bousquet, Otis Ridge, Blandford Ski Area, etc are open and their tickets are very affordable.

#2 I understand Bolton Valley hands out $39 passes like candy and nobody has an excuse to say they had to pay $80 more down the road for an experience that's arguably not much better anyway.

I'm just curious what the difference would be for places like Sugarbush or Killington to charge $99 walk up rate instead of $120+. Are they worried about the crowds? But wouldn't more skiers mean overall more cash flow especially with add-ons?

To me posting a price like $119 or $129 on the ticket window is pretty close to a blantant FU to anyone who showed up unprepared. And on the other point, I think it disproportionately affects new skiers and people not in the know. I'm not into radical social justice, but on some level I don't think access to these mountains should come with a prohibitive cost which only part of the population can shrug off.

I would just encourage these top-tier mountains to start working things in the other direction. If they don't, it really works out fine for me because many places I prefer to ski with lesser crowds will capitalize on the influx of skiers tired of the jacked up prices. Places like Bolton Valley or Black Mountain NH are probably getting a second look from a lot of folks.

Cannon prices are very acceptable and Wednesdays are 3-for-1. To me it's always a good look when a mountain offers a cheap deal on low traffic days. Allows more folks to participate in the sport which is good business all around. But when certain high-ticket locations like let's say Okemo charge $120 or so for a day pass, come on, I'm not wearing a fur coat to go skiing.

But it does appear the players in the industry are taking a few different approaches. We're lucky to live in a region with such geographically high density options.

 

[1dog]

Understand all those points - competition and variety and selection.

Still think its to drive people to purchase more long term passes. If say 10-20% of the 3-4 days a year skier got turned into a 8-10 day via early pass purchase - you have a larger 'faithful'' or bought-in customer.

If more did what Bolton or these other middle areas did, they'd suffer and so would the experience for those of us who already see largest crowds on weekends than we've seen ever before.

I'm glad I'm the customer and not developing the business stratigic plan. Happy customers come from different experiences, but few ( oer none) are from standing in line or getting squeezed on Deathspout

 

[mister moose]

#1 I understand that places like Bousquet, Otis Ridge, Blandford Ski Area, etc are open and their tickets are very affordable.

I grew up skiing places like this, as well as Catamount, Sundown, and small places since off the map like Hogback and Mt Tom. My parents consciously avoided big resorts like Mt Snow and Killington. Vacations were Bromely and Magic. We'd day trip, and eat in the car on the way home.

I can't be the only one, and I'm guessing quite a few are doing the same thing today.

 

[machski]

Looking at some data, the Mad River at Mooretown flows 350 CFS at average river levels from November to January, the period of most snowmaking. 350 CFS is 157,500 GPM.

View attachment 25453

So on a very intermittent basis, Sugarbush at 4,000 GPM would draw 2.5% of the flow from the Mad River. Yes, the flow at Warren is less than Mooretown, and yes, there would be some fish whose pool of water would be smaller during pumping periods, but what is the real demonstrable need to create such restrictions?


Look at the Ottauqueechee, which Killington feeds out of right at West Bridgewater

View attachment 25454

November to January flows average 900 CFS, which is 405,000 GPM. Killington pumps from the two ponds at what, 12,000 GPM, and that total is less than 3% of the river flow, yet Killington is restricted on the Ottauquechee and pumps the rest from Woodward Reservoir.

In both cases, the reduced river flow in the period is exponentially higher than low flows in July to September.

I don't see how any concern on water use by ski areas holds water.

Moose, what you are missing is Killington does not just draw from the Ottqueche but from the Woodward Reservoir and possibly one other source. In addition, it is probably not a direct draw from either but those feed reservoirs Killington has that then feed the system.

When Otten bought SB, they drew straight out of the Mad River. Flow rates were issues so to avoid that, he built a reservoir on the river to store water during high flow times to not loose drawing capacity during low flow periods.

Sunday River has access to the most water of probably anywhere. But even they use holding ponds just off the river to stockpile water for pumping up to the hill. You do not want to pump straight from a river in the middle of winter as it can get super cold and River flows will almost halt, unless you have a deep holding reservoir.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[1dog]

http://www.nelsap.org


'How many more Mr. Speaker? How many more ( ski areas) must die?'