Skiing from Boulder (p.1, then Random Topics)

Jcocktosten

New member
I have what is probably a dumb question but I have never skied in Colorado. I have friends moving to Boulder - if you were squeezing in skiing while also having to visit Boulder, what would the best options be? Thanks - need a mountain with varied terrain as my wife is a low intermediate skier.
 
Depends on just how close you need it.

Eldora is only 30 min from Boulder and even has metro bus service.

Next closest would be Loveland and Winter Park at about 1:15 to 1:30.
 
I'm sure EMSC can correct me, but it appears the big Front Range/I-70 areas are only about 20 minutes farther from Boulder than Denver. Still part of #4 or #5 best metro area in the West behind SLC, Reno and Vancouver. Close call vs. Seattle depending upon flexibility of schedule and powder-centric personal priority (both of which favor Seattle). Once everything is covered Colorado is hard to beat for consistency. Thus the attraction for vacationers with rigid schedules who must commit far ahead.
 
Yup - when we visit - it is going to be a weighing of factors, time with friends, driving distances and skiing needs. Spoiled by our friends who live in Park City and flying into SLC where everything is in play
 
Tony Crocker":2f710y09 said:
I'm sure EMSC can correct me, but it appears the big Front Range/I-70 areas are only about 20 minutes farther from Boulder than Denver. Still part of #4 or #5 best metro area in the West behind SLC, Reno and Vancouver. Close call vs. Seattle depending upon flexibility of schedule and powder-centric personal priority (both of which favor Seattle). Once everything is covered Colorado is hard to beat for consistency. Thus the attraction for vacationers with rigid schedules who must commit far ahead.

When you factor in that Denver is already 2 hours to the front range areas that extra 20 minutes is a pretty painful proposition... At that point you're really a destination skier since hitting a powder day is darn near impossible due to the extra time for traffic/conditions. I know there are hardcore types that can take 5+ hours of driving for a day trip (I used to be one of them), but it wears you down. On the plus side, Boulder is a beautiful, funky town and a great place to live. Skiing-wise, IMHO, I think you would be best off hitting Eldora on weekday powder days (of which there's got to be more than a handful) and then planning some overnight trips in the Front Range at times of year when you can get good lodging deals on short notice (to maximize likelihood of powder conditions). I've never skied Eldora, but most small to medium-sized resorts have at least some decent powder terrain - you just have to find it and learn how to take best advantage of it.

On a side-note Tony, I'm not sure what your criteria is for best (skiing) metro areas in the West, but I think Sacramento could argue for a spot in the top five. Travel time (specifically if you're starting from the east suburb towns) to the resorts surrounding Truckee is slightly over an hour, so day trips are a definite possibility. The terrain/snow at Squaw, Alpine, Sugar Bowl, etc. is pretty darn good. Sacramento, size-wise, is similar to Vancouver or Denver and much larger than SLC. You've got waterskiing next door at Folsom (and the Delta) and Napa and San Francisco are around an hour and a half away. Plus, it almost never snows or freezes in Sacramento, so you get to deal with winter on your own terms... Of course, it doesn't have the mountain vistas of the other spots and the summers are incredibly hot, but it's still a viable launching pad for skiers.
 
He included Reno which serves the same areas. You bring up a lot of good points tho. I used to day trip all the time from Fort Collins to Vail, Beaver or A Basin/Winter Park even steamboat and believe me it weared me out but when you where 23 you could come home shower, hit the bars and look for girls all the same day. One other good thing about Denver/boulder is that is a really nice city with lots to do besides skiing, it ranks above SLC, REno/sac town for that reason alone.
Eldora is a fine resort you will have a good time there. Gets storms that favor Denver and the front Range, gets realtivly light snow from mountain storms.
 
I have Sacramento next after Seattle/Denver. Realistically on weekends it's 2 hours to the big places (Squaw, Heavenly, a little more to Kirkwood). On a clean road it's 2 hours Denver to Vail, with other places a bit closer. I-70's traffic reputation is probably worse but I-80 and US50 definitely have their heinous moments. Nearly all of my personal snow/traffic horror stories are from Tahoe, admittedly the combination of traffic and huge dumps. Those 3 metro areas are in a fairly close group from a skier's perspective. I think it's a noticeable drop to the next group (Calgary, Spokane, Portland).

Sacramento has fog-bound winters and scorching summers, but considering the options 2 hours in either direction it's still one of the more attractive places for outdoor enthusiasts.

Eldora is a fine resort you will have a good time there. Gets storms that favor Denver and the front Range, gets relatively light snow from mountain storms
There are many more of the latter than the former. Steamboat, Vail and Winter Park are the favored areas of the region for snowfall by a not trivial margin. Often the difference between floating in the powder or bottoming out on the subsurface.
 
TRam":143w14be said:
One other good thing about Denver/boulder is that is a really nice city with lots to do besides skiing, it ranks above SLC, REno/sac town for that reason alone.
I'm always curious when I see these kind of unqualified statements...
Please define "nice city", why you think Denver is "nicer" than SLC or Reno, and identify those "lots to do besides skiing" things that are more plentiful (in Denver) than in either of the other cities you mentioned.
 
Marc_C":1sm8slc0 said:
TRam":1sm8slc0 said:
One other good thing about Denver/boulder is that is a really nice city with lots to do besides skiing, it ranks above SLC, REno/sac town for that reason alone.
I'm always curious when I see these kind of unqualified statements...
Please define "nice city", why you think Denver is "nicer" than SLC or Reno, and identify those "lots to do besides skiing" things that are more plentiful than either of the other cities you mentioned.

Marc, you know that I'm a city person, and that I'll defend NYC to the death. (I guess it's funny that I have a passion for skiing, as NYC really has very little to offer for skiing other than a lot of direct flights and 2-4 hour drives.) I've been one of the most critical persons on this forum about "cities" in the mountain west. Yet, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by Denver. It has a really nice well developed downtown area where people actually live. The architecture has an overarching theme as much of the cities buildings highlighted a very deep red tone (masonry and brickwork). The color must be because there is a lot of iron in the ground where the materials were mined. Much of the new development in the downtown area was smart, using either high architectural standards, or reworking of old factory buildings for new residential use. I've always been one of those people that liked Jane Jacobs' idea of the city, and Denver seemed to pick up on that as the urban planning (shops, pedestrian areas) resulted in a lot of people walking on the streets and gave a sense of life and excitement to the downtown area. I also thought the landings in the Platte river where people could kayak was a nice touch. That being said, huge swaths of it reminded me of Levitt Town on LI, so I wasn't too impressed by that. Nonetheless, based on my experience of both SLC and Denver I would probably move to Denver first as it seemed more cosmopolitan.
 
Wow, you have a few meetings at work and then get a flight for life heli in the neighborhood and go to sleep and look at all this. (no idea who the heli was for as I live near an 'urgent care' facility. Only the 3rd heli there in 10 years).

Anyway...

Tony Crocker":3qdgfl5k said:
I'm sure EMSC can correct me, but it appears the big Front Range/I-70 areas are only about 20 minutes farther from Boulder than Denver.

More like 30 min more than Denver. Traffic lights and 2 lane roads out of Boulder until you hit I-70.

rsmith":3qdgfl5k said:
I've never skied Eldora, but most small to medium-sized resorts have at least some decent powder terrain - you just have to find it and learn how to take best advantage of it.

Much better than average for it's size IMO, but generally harder to figure out if you don't know where you are going.

Tony Crocker":3qdgfl5k said:
Eldora is a fine resort you will have a good time there. Gets storms that favor Denver and the front Range, gets relatively light snow from mountain storms
There are many more of the latter than the former. Steamboat, Vail and Winter Park are the favored areas of the region for snowfall by a not trivial margin. Often the difference between floating in the powder or bottoming out on the subsurface.

Eldora patterns are:
Upslope - Eldora gets it good as any others or occasionally even much more than even loveland would get. Upslope storms can be frequent in a small number of years. Typical year there will be several, but not a ton.

Westerly flow/storm - will get a few inches, but less than the rest of the resorts.

Persistant NW flow or storms - will get as much or nearly as much as WP and the rest of the mtns.

SW flow - get almost nothing unless the Low pressure wraps around into an upslope event.


And sorry for the SLC'ers, but I mostly agree with Rfarren on the differences of Denver metro vs SLC. Not that Denver metro area doesn't have plenty of sprawl and other issues around, but in the core of the cities it's quite a difference.
 
EMSC":3o2ki4n0 said:
And sorry for the SLC'ers, but I mostly agree with Rfarren on the differences of Denver metro vs SLC. Not that Denver metro area doesn't have plenty of sprawl and other issues around, but in the core of the cities it's quite a difference.
I don't disagree, either. But mostly I wanted to hear TRam's explanations, in particular the "lots more to do" comment.

Regarding SLC, it will be interesting to see how the new City Creek $3B investment will change things downtown. There's already been a small explosion of new restaurants on Main St and a lot more of the older buildings being converted into luxe lofts, apartments and condos (a trend that started with the construction of the Gateway Center 8 years ago).
 
Marc_C":10uxv083 said:
EMSC":10uxv083 said:
And sorry for the SLC'ers, but I mostly agree with Rfarren on the differences of Denver metro vs SLC. Not that Denver metro area doesn't have plenty of sprawl and other issues around, but in the core of the cities it's quite a difference.
I don't disagree, either. But mostly I wanted to hear TRam's explanations, in particular the "lots more to do" comment.

Regarding SLC, it will be interesting to see how the new City Creek $3B investment will change things downtown. There's already been a small explosion of new restaurants on Main St and a lot more of the older buildings being converted into luxe lofts, apartments and condos (a trend that started with the construction of the Gateway Center 8 years ago).

In the spirit of really hijacking this thread...

Downtown SLC does seem to be progressing into a livable, active small city. It will never have the diversity (of people, things to do) or liveliness of many larger metro areas, but it's big enough that it's hard to argue there's nothing to do, nowhere to get a drink, no nightlife, etc. It is what it is - a small city of ~200,000 people surrounded by a relatively small, very suburban (and very homogeneous) metro area. You get typical small city amenities, but they're limited (one pro sports team, a few museums, some theatre). Whether or not it's enough for some people is purely subjective.

What is objective, and the biggest issue for me, is the climate and weather. It's arguable that SLC has amongst the worst climate of nearly any metro area in the continental U.S. If you've ever lived through a 3-week inversion in the middle of February you'd agree with me. During an inversion the air is as bad as anything in L.A., but the overall situation is worse since along with the bad air are very cold temperatures. In L.A. you can always escape to the beach. In SLC the only escape is the ski resorts (which are above the inversion and can actually be warmer than the valleys), but skiing gets progressively worse throughout the inversion since the high pressure keeps out any new snow. Now repeat this several times throughout the winter and you end up pretty depressed. Combine this with huge temperature differentials (the sub-zero temps of a week ago), snow days (great for skiing but not so great if you're stuck in the valley), extremely dry air, plus weeks of 100+ scorchers in the summer and the number of really good weather days is limited. Of course, the ace for SLC is the incredible access to the mountains and southern Utah. To me, to payoff the costs of living in that climate you've got to take big-time advantage of the skiing. IMHO you'd need to ski upwards of 50+ days a year to make it worth it (and obviously there's plenty of people on liftlines that do exactly this). I have plenty of friends in SLC that never ski, and I really question their sanity...
 
Last January was the first time I saw a big-time inversion in SLC. It did remind me of L.A. in the 1970's, but I've been going there for ~25 years so I suspect that was an extreme. My understanding is that Denver gets those winter inversions too. I would hazard a guess that wind would be more likely to break them up than in SLC.

skiing gets progressively worse throughout the inversion since the high pressure keeps out any new snow.
All ski regions go through dry spells. But the consistency of LCC snow conditions over a whole season are the best in the world. Bringing that into the discussion would dissuade a ski-centric person from living anywhere else. We've just been through 2 crappy Novembers in the past 3 years and the skiing is still up to snuff by Dec. 15.

extremely dry air, plus weeks of 100+ scorchers in the summer
July/Aug averages for SLC are high 90 low 61. With very low humidity that's pretty comfortable. Anybody here rather be in say, Washington D.C. at 88/68 with high humidity? SLC's 4,500 foot altitude also results in summer nighttime cooling. Denver is similar to SLC at 88/60 and Reno is 89/50.

I find this a very useful reference for comparing city climates around the world: http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city ... w=n_guides. Other sites cover many more places in the U.S. but I like the format of the BBC tables, which I've used for the L.A. vs. Santiago and Tokyo vs. D.C comparisons.

To return the discussion to its original geographic location, it looks to me like Front Range Colorado is in for a bad holiday ski season. There was a website that tracked the percent of terrain open Thanskgiving, mid-December and Christmas week for many Colorado resorts from 1988-2002. I downloaded it and have updated it since to ~20 years of data. The results for mid-December this year are grim:

Area Current 25th 50th 75th percentiles
A-Basin 16% 12% 33% 63%
Breck 42% 27% 55% 74%
Copper 20% 33% 44% 65%
Keystone 14% 35% 56% 89%
Loveland 18% 27% 65% 85%

Now the usually reliable places:
Steamboat 32% 57% 77% 92%
Vail 26% 64% 81% 95%
Winter Park 27% 48% 66% 79%

This year's mid-December numbers are similar to average numbers at Thanksgiving. This situation is not like the Cottonwood Canyons a week ago, where a 4 foot dump converted marginal to near full coverage in a few days. Those kind of storms are very rare in Front Range Colorado.

The only way I could be misinterpreting this data is that for perhaps financial reasons some resorts are holding off opening lifts/terrain until the holiday season. But with regional snowfall running at 43-63% of normal I don't think so. Bottom line: Destination skiers should avoid these places until at least mid-January.
 
Contrary to rsmith's assertion, SLC averages precisely 5 days of 100-deg temps each summer, not "weeks."

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
mobile.png
 
Tony Crocker":2zc7wcbe said:
My understanding is that Denver gets those winter inversions too.
Since all the technological innovations for cars and the new light rail lines over the past 15 years, friends and family out there claimed that smog is not nearly the problem it was when I lived there in the 80s. But while leaving the mountains via I-70 on two weekdays earlier this week and looking out over the entire Denver metro area, I can tell you that the brown cloud is alive and well. Ghastly.
 
Admin":28wipgfn said:
Contrary to rsmith's assertion, SLC averages precisely 5 days of 100-deg temps each summer, not "weeks."
Also contrary to rsmith's suggestion of multiple 3-week inversions, in 9 years here I've experienced precisely one inversion that lasted longer than 5 days. Nor do we have the implied "many" inversions in a single winter.
 
Back
Top