Is bigger necessarily better?

Harvey44 wrote

Even snowmaking is a small component of the impact.  The big environmental cost has to be the travel to and from the mountains.  

For Gore, it's about $5 per skier visit in snowmaking electricity.  That's a pretty big carbon footprint.  For my family of four, our round trip commute to Gore from Saratoga Springs is 100 miles.  At 25 mpg, that's 4 gallons of gasoline.  On a per skier visit basis, I'd argue that my family's carbon footprint attributable to snowmaking is about equal to the carbon footprint attributable to transportation.  I would also make the case that my family is likely pretty representative of Gore's skier base.  So for Gore, transportation and snowmaking are likely equivalent in terms of environmental impact.  

frk wrote

Skiers who require fresh, natural snow ( and lots of it ) are not having their needs met in the northeast ( unless you live/ski Jay ).

Natural snow and terrain are not things that can be changed. If you personally are not having your natural snow needs met, you need to move and that is the only way you can resolve that issue. The thread is in regards to ski area made "improvements" not improving mother nature.

Adk Jeff wrote

For Gore, it's about $5 per skier visit in snowmaking electricity.  That's a pretty big carbon footprint.  For my family of four, our round trip commute to Gore from Saratoga Springs is 100 miles.  At 25 mpg, that's 4 gallons of gasoline.  On a per skier visit basis, I'd argue that my family's carbon footprint attributable to snowmaking is about equal to the carbon footprint attributable to transportation.  I would also make the case that my family is likely pretty representative of Gore's skier base.  So for Gore, transportation and snowmaking are likely equivalent in terms of environmental impact.

I can't believe that 100 miles round trip to a major ski destination is representative. That would mean that the average Gore skier lives only 50 miles away? The largest metro area is Albany about 90 minutes away plus Gore would pull from locations even further away. And there isn't going to be a large population draw locally compared to metro. I would think the average would be slanted much higher than 50 miles away. I think Harv is right on that on average, transportation round trip is going to be more environmental impact. For an area like Whiteface, it would be even greater. And resorts in Vermont, Maine and NH pull people on average 2-4+ hours away via interstate. Any one coming up from NJ, PA, or other southern areas are doing even more driving and it would take dozens of "locals" to off set the driving of just one NJ or PA visitor (in average).

Harv also brings up a good point regarding western areas and sustainability regarding air travel. No matter how much a western areas gets sustainable, all those cross country airfare miles are doing way more damage than anything being done locally to conserve energy.

riverc0il wrote

I can't believe that 100 miles round trip to a major ski destination is representative. That would mean that the average Gore skier lives only 50 miles away? The largest metro area is Albany about 90 minutes away plus Gore would pull from locations even further away.

Riv, I didn't say representative to a major ski destination.  My comments were Gore-specific.  The geography of Gore's skier base puts me right in the middle of the day-trippers.  Some come from further away, like Clifton Park and Albany, others from closer, like Queensbury and Glens Falls.  

Addressing your comments relative to other ski areas like WF and destinations in VT, as you point out skiers come from further away.  They also typically come for multi-day stays.  So a family of 4 going to Killington from 150 miles away in Massachussetts and skiing for three days is consuming exactly the same amount of gasoline as my family traveling 50 miles each way to ski at Gore, on a per-skier day basis.  Also, has been discussed extensively on this board, destination areas like Killington and other Vermont areas have significantly larger snowmaking operations than Gore's.

Regarding Western ski destinations, it's a completely different equation due to air travel.  My response was to Harv's point about ski areas in NY, a ski destination to which essentially no one flies.  You are completely correct that cross-country air travel to Western ski areas dwarfs the energy consumption attributable to those areas' minimal snowmaking operations.

frk wrote

Skiers who require fresh, natural snow ( and lots of it ) are not having their needs met in the northeast (unless you live/ski Jay).

He types on a rainy December day........

thanks for this hot tip on natural snow and terrain.