The "Sugarbush Thread"

[Newpylong]

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

Killington has 4 water sources - and they are used in this priority order as it is less expensive to use water close to where you need it.

-Roaring Brook (which replenishes the Snowshed Pond)
-Falls Brook (which replenishes the Bear Pond)
-Ottauquechee River/Gondola intake (which replenishes both the Bear and the Snowshed Pond). This pumping station is on the east side of Route 4 (underneath the walkway abutment)
-Woodward Reservoir (which replenishes both the Bear Pond and Snowshed Ponds when they cannot withdraw from the 3 above due to conversation flows). Water is sent via gravity/siphon from the Reservoir to the main pumping station where Route 100 and 4 split in West Bridgewater. The pipe goes first to Bear then over to Snowshed.

Woodward was installed in a nutshell to meet conservation flows at the existing intakes and get more water at the same time.

They wanted to originally tap water sources up in Parker's Gore in the 80s (and build a pond there called "Mendon Pond") but gave up after considerable opposition. They later then swapped this land for the land in the basin between K and Pico with the state.

 

[WWF-VT]

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.

If you don't like to spend over $100 for a day ticket there is always the option of Mt Ellen at Sugarbush

 

[Howitzer]

The window rate at a ski area is analogous to walking up to an airline ticket counter and buying a plane ticket. Do people do it? Absolutely. I am interested to see more ski areas utilize dynamic pricing for walk up lift tickets. It is common place in other industries. Why not skiing? It would help further drive season pass sales that are more and more important under the Vail/Alterra model.

 

[bdfreetuna]

If you don't like to spend over $100 for a day ticket there is always the option of Mt Ellen at Sugarbush

That's true ... you know what really surprised me just now? I checked Mad Riven Glen... $92 day tickets (weekdays, weekends and holidays same price). Geez, that really jumped up! Imagine the day Mad River Glen goes triple digits, we're a long way from Kansas, Dorothy!

 

[cdskier]

That's true ... you know what really surprised me just now? I checked Mad Riven Glen... $92 day tickets (weekdays, weekends and holidays same price). Geez, that really jumped up! Imagine the day Mad River Glen goes triple digits, we're a long way from Kansas, Dorothy!

I was seriously tempted to bring MRG's price up in comparison to SB a few days ago when this conversation started. I know MRG is special and unique, but SB's daily rate really doesn't seem that unreasonable in comparison. Of course if you're actually paying window rates at either, you're doing it wrong anyway.

 

[deadheadskier]

If I were a MRG skier, I'd want the daily rate to be higher than my neighbors. Encourage casual visitors to head to SB instead to help cut down on the worst lift lines in New England by far.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[tumbler]

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.



Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app

Incorrect. The water for South was pumped from Clay Brook at the Golf Course and there was a small intake at the old gondola building. South had very little snowmaking then. Les built the Mad River intake and pond and put in snowmaking all over the mountain. North was the snowmaking mountain of SB before Les.

 

[slatham]

Incorrect. The water for South was pumped from Clay Brook at the Golf Course and there was a small intake at the old gondola building. South had very little snowmaking then. Les built the Mad River intake and pond and put in snowmaking all over the mountain. North was the snowmaking mountain of SB before Les.

Yes people forget that in the late 80's early 90's Mt Ellen had a new, state-of-the-art snowmaking system covering a good portion of the mountain. Lincoln peak was extremely limited. It was day and night.

With regard to walk up rate - how much is the inflation meant to help the calculus of whether to buy a pass or a quad pack or simply get online a day or so before? I'll bet a lot.

And I question 2 things - that people "not in the know" about skiing somehow don't know about the internet and buying online? I mean every major sporting or concert event is 100% sold online. Same with flights, hotels, etc. To think just because someone hasn't skied before that they don't know about checking online for tickets is ludicrous.

And also that people "new to skiing" aren't renting and thus getting a package deal that values the ticket well below walk up.

 

[mikec142]

I wish that there was a season pass that makes sense for me and my family. But since there isn't, I'm pretty happy about the quad packs and especially the loyalty quad packs. To be clear, I strongly consider Sugarbush to be my home mountain and for the past few years have done the vast majority of my east coast skiing there. I've said it before, but as far as east coast skiing goes, SB has the best overall package for me.

If I had one minor nit to pick it would be that the high cost of day passes takes some of the spontaneity out of the decision making process. This isn't confined to Sugarbush, it's everywhere. I experienced this at Park City, Alta, and Canyons this past March as well.

We live in NJ and it's a 5.5 hour drive to Burlington where we often stay with family. From Burlington it's about 55-60 minutes to Stowe/SB/Smuggs/MRG and about 35-40 minutes to Bolton. When we get on 89S from Burlington to go to the mountains we get off at exit 10 in Waterbury. From there, you can go north to Stowe or south to the MRV. By purchasing tix in advance I save $$$. However, conditions change and when we wake up in the morning, my wife may want to go to Stowe where she can ride the gondola to warm up in between runs or sit in the lobby at the Stowe Mountain Lodge and read a book if she feels like calling it a day. There are a million scenarios. Last year I really stocked up on quad packs but turns out my wife and kids didn't ski as much as I expected so I shared a few tix with friends to make sure I used them up (I ended up eating one day). But the flip side is that while my skiing at SB was really reasonably priced, I didn't ski at MRG or Stowe last year because I felt that I had to use my existing passes. It's the high cost of day passes that takes the spontaneity out of the decision making process.

I experienced the same scenario in Utah. We were staying in PC so we pre-purchased a 2 out of 3 day pass at PC to save some $$$. We had four ski days total. But because you never know what the weather would be like it was hard to purchase advance passes to Alta, Snowbird, Solitude, etc. Ended up skiing at PC day one, Alta day two (paid full walk up price), PC day three (snowing and roads to Alta/SB closed) and the last day we planned to ski Snowbird, but ended up purchasing slightly discounted tix the night before to ski Canyons based on anticipated conditions. Turns out it was a good idea as the road to Snowbird was closed. But even if we went to Snowbird, we would have paid full walk up price.

I'm dealing with a ski family of four that tries to get out west each season, but there is zero guarantee of that happening. So four Ikon passes would be expensive and I'm not sure we would get the value. In the future, I might buy an Ikon pass for me and some quad packs for the family.

This is a long way of saying there is no perfect solution so we play the cards we are dealt.

 

[flakeydog]

Correct on where the snowmaking resided prior to the 90s. It was all at North, dry as a bone over at South.

As complex as snowmaking is from a technical perspective, a lot has to happen before the first gallon of water ever enters a pipe.

Things changed in the early 90s and the Sugarbush snowmaking debate was one of 3 watershed cases (get it?) that set the stage for the future of snowmaking expansion and regulation in Vermont and elsewhere in New England. The issues here are complex involving private industry, the economy, and environmental/ecological concerns all wrapped up in the concept of what we would define as the "Public Good". We have a desire for the economy to thrive but that includes trout running in our streams as well as skiers on snow covered slopes.

Until it snows, I recommend the following light reading that profiles the resolution of the Sugarbush case along with some history on some of the other other cases at the time. While this shaped regulatory policy going forward, the debate is far from over.

https://www.pressdozierlaw.com/files/Sugarbush.pdf

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1297&context=ealr

 

[mister moose]

If I had one minor nit to pick it would be that the high cost of day passes takes some of the spontaneity out of the decision making process. This isn't confined to Sugarbush, it's everywhere. I experienced this at Park City, Alta, and Canyons this past March as well.

... But the flip side is that while my skiing at SB was really reasonably priced, I didn't ski at MRG or Stowe last year because I felt that I had to use my existing passes. It's the high cost of day passes that takes the spontaneity out of the decision making process.

...in Utah. ...But because you never know what the weather would be like it was hard to purchase advance passes to Alta, Snowbird, Solitude, etc.

This is all boiled down to the fact that the industry has monetized spontaneity. You can buy a seasons pass* and be spontaneous about when you go, but you cannot be spontaneous about where you go, unless you want to pay top dollar. I'm not saying that's a good thing for skiers, but it's the current reality.



*(Even then, it may depend on the type pass you bought)

 

[ThinkSnow]

I wish that there was a season pass that makes sense for me and my family. But since there isn't, I'm pretty happy about the quad packs and especially the loyalty quad packs.

Since it sounds like you ski SB and out west, have you considered the Mountain Collective Pass? You only get 2 days at each area, but then you get 50%off additional day tickets for each area after that. For SB that is less than the Quad Pack with Loyalty discount per ticket.

 

[JimG.]

This is all boiled down to the fact that the industry has monetized spontaneity. You can buy a seasons pass* and be spontaneous about when you go, but you cannot be spontaneous about where you go, unless you want to pay top dollar. I'm not saying that's a good thing for skiers, but it's the current reality.



*(Even then, it may depend on the type pass you bought)

This is a great synopsis.

I get 2 "mini" season passes, Killington/Pico and Belleayre/Gore/Whiteface. So I still get some variety. But I always enjoyed going to around 10 "off pass" mountains per season and I will no longer do that with the ridiculous walk up rates.

 

[mikec142]

Since it sounds like you ski SB and out west, have you considered the Mountain Collective Pass? You only get 2 days at each area, but then you get 50%off additional day tickets for each area after that. For SB that is less than the Quad Pack with Loyalty discount per ticket.

I'm actually not that familiar with the MC pass. I ski Sugarbush 7-10x per season. My family doesn't ski every day that I do. Last year I bought twenty days worth of quad pack tix at the early bird price so that gave me 20 days at about $65/day all in. For various reasons my family didn't ski nearly as much as I did last year so lets say we used 14 of those days as a family and I shared 5 days with friends and ate one day at the end of the season. We try to get out west once/year, but realistically, it's closer to every other year. How would the math work on that for me (and my family)?

For frame of reference, here was my skiing from last year. It's pretty indicative of what normally happens.

11/22 - Sugarbush
12/24 - Gore
12/25 - Gore
12/27 - Sugarbush
1/12 - Sugarbush
1/13 - Sugarbush
1/26 - Windham
2/2 - Windham
2/16 - Bolton Valley (intended SB but big accident shut down route 100 and we turned around)
2/17 - Sugarbush
3/2 - Sugarbush
3/3 - Sugarbush
3/11 - Park City
3/12 - Alta
3/13 - Park City
3/14 - Park City - Canyons

That's just me. That doesn't include the family.

I wonder if I pay for the MC pass and don't go out west where the break even point is for me at SB vs. quad packs.

 

[KustyTheKlown]

i'm not running any numbers here, but it strikes me as absurd that you dont ikon (or epic) with that schedule. ikon will get you much more value than MC. replace your windham and gore with places on the passes and you're coming out so much better than quad packs and liftopia/day tickets. if you're married to the catskills, do epic/hunter, or ikon with some money thrown to platty and belle for affordable day tix. throw in a western trip and its an utter no brainer.

 

[cdskier]

I wonder if I pay for the MC pass and don't go out west where the break even point is for me at SB vs. quad packs.

If you don't go out west at all you will never break even on the MC pass and the Quad Packs would be a far better value no matter how many days you ski at SB.

Current price on the MC pass is $509 (I think it was lower earlier in the year). SB is the only eastern resort on the pass. So if you only use 2 days at SB, you're paying way more than the daily rate. Additional days at SB would be 50% off as an MC pass holder, but even at 10 days at SB total with MC you'd still be at around $100/day average. MC only works out well if you plan to visit at least 2-3 of the resorts that are part of the pass.

 

[KustyTheKlown]

i do miss the max pass' inclusion of whiteface gore and windham. was really nice to have a catskills and adks option.

 

[bdfreetuna]

This is all boiled down to the fact that the industry has monetized spontaneity. You can buy a seasons pass* and be spontaneous about when you go, but you cannot be spontaneous about where you go, unless you want to pay top dollar. I'm not saying that's a good thing for skiers, but it's the current reality.

Agree and it's a smart business move, but I'd like to see the liberals up in Vermont take this on as a social justice cause. Everything today is about how much "equity" people have. Even a man should be able to wear tampons and pay no tax on them.

I'd rather take a small step back and say even a poor immigrant or just any lower income person should be able to ski "legendary" terrain.

To be 100% my thought process on this comes from 2 places. 1) I don't like getting ripped off, and I have a limited middle class income. 2) I married into a Puerto Rican family, and along with that comes friends and relatives who have started to ski but on a limited basis due to the expense and hassle.

I'll step back again: I don't think people's backgrounds, race, or other circumstances should qualify for discounts at the door. I prefer a general notion of equality of opportunity over radical equity. That said -- I think we're shooting our own selves in the foot, long term, for the viability of the sport.

Wasn't this the promise of having all the condos and slopeside lodging in the first place?

 

[ThinkSnow]

If you don't go out west at all you will never break even on the MC pass and the Quad Packs would be a far better value no matter how many days you ski at SB.

Current price on the MC pass is $509 (I think it was lower earlier in the year). SB is the only eastern resort on the pass. So if you only use 2 days at SB, you're paying way more than the daily rate. Additional days at SB would be 50% off as an MC pass holder, but even at 10 days at SB total with MC you'd still be at around $100/day average. MC only works out well if you plan to visit at least 2-3 of the resorts that are part of the pass.

Completely agree. I am skiing Banff area this season, and will get to ski at least 3 resorts out there. MC was $459 a few weeks ago.

 

[mikec142]

If you don't go out west at all you will never break even on the MC pass and the Quad Packs would be a far better value no matter how many days you ski at SB.

Current price on the MC pass is $509 (I think it was lower earlier in the year). SB is the only eastern resort on the pass. So if you only use 2 days at SB, you're paying way more than the daily rate. Additional days at SB would be 50% off as an MC pass holder, but even at 10 days at SB total with MC you'd still be at around $100/day average. MC only works out well if you plan to visit at least 2-3 of the resorts that are part of the pass.

I think MC was 449 initially and you got to add a third free day at any one resort. So say I choose SB. That gives me three days at SB for $449 (plus tax). If I add a quad pack for $260 (that includes tax) that would give me 7 days at SB for $709 ($101/day). If I added 2 more quad packs for a total of 15 ski days, it still leaves me at $82/day.

There is clear value to me if I know I'm going out west, but right now, it doesn't seem to make sense. I looked at the math on Ikon and Epic as well. Unfortunately, it seems to me that if I don't know about going out west, the economics don't make sense.