xfernfts.com

This year, Utah’s Deer Valley opened the first phase of one of the biggest multi-year ski resort expansion projects in recent memory.

The ski-only resort, which is one of just three left in North America to prohibit snowboarding, added three new lifts for this season. The new lifts include the Keetley Express high speed six-pack, the Hoodoo Express high-speed quad, and the Aurora fixed grip quad. All of these lifts reside at or near the new Deer Valley East base area, which is south of the current Jordanelle base on US-40. This base area will eventually offer an entire base village and the country’s largest “ski beach”, but for this year, the base added 500 parking spaces—which currently require a shuttle to get to and from—and a Grand Hyatt hotel.

The new Keetley Express lift is Deer Valley’s first high-speed six-pack and first-ever bubble lift, extending from Deer Valley East to the base of the Sultan Express. The neighboring Hoodoo Express directly serves the beginner slope at Deer Valley East, running parallel the first 15% of the Keetley Express lift line. The final lift, the Aurora Quad, allows skiers to get out of a drainage near the base area back to the main part of East Village.

Complementing these new lifts is 19 new trails and 316 acres of terrain. As of the 2024-25 season, all of the new trails are rated beginner or intermediate, although several blue trails were consistently left ungroomed this winter (advanced-level trails will follow in future expansion phases). Notably, while the majority of new trails sit in lower-elevation areas near the new base, a handful extend from the top of Bald Mountain, providing a continuously skiable vertical descent of over 3,000 feet at Deer Valley for the first time in the resort’s history.

While multiple additional new lifts and trails are expected to open as part of Phase 2 next winter, we decided to check out the Deer Valley experience as it existed this season. So how do the new investments stack up? Let’s take a look.

Our Take

While it was explicitly designed with real estate in mind, the first phase of Deer Valley’s Expanded Excellence brings some surprising benefits. The new terrain offers a beautiful natural aesthetic, providing a welcome contrast from the built-up, artificial vibe that plagues much of the rest of Deer Valley. Views of the Jordanelle Reservoir are incredible, and the new trails feel thoughtfully designed for the topography, with some being very lightly gladed. As of the 2024-25 season, the new terrain might be the most scenic anywhere at Deer Valley—so we’re crossing our fingers that it doesn’t get overwhelmed by luxury real estate in the future.

While this year’s expansion won’t be the most exciting for thrill-seekers, the terrain itself is still a big win for the Deer Valley in a number of ways. Previously, the resort’s on-paper 3,000-foot vertical drop didn’t translate into long, continuous runs; the rolling mountains elsewhere at the resort broke things up, requiring mid-mountain lift rides to complete a full top-to-bottom descent. However, the new trails from the top of Bald Mountain to the bottom of East Village offer a full 3,050-foot vertical descent, creating some of the longest uninterrupted ski runs in all of Utah and finally making Deer Valley an enjoyably skiable mountain for those who prefer long runs. While everything in the new zone is rated for beginners and intermediates, several of the blue trails were consistently left ungroomed this winter, offering a bumpy, more advanced experience.

As for the lifts: the Keetley Express is the clear highlight. With its bubble chairs and heated seats, it’s the first enclosed chairlift at Deer Valley (and second enclosed lift in total following the Jordanelle Gondola), making for an especially comfortable ride on frigid days. The Hoodoo Express runs alongside the Keetley lift throughout beginner zone, providing access to a much more logistically practical and isolated learning environment than that of the Snow Park base. Due to the layout of the trails, the Hoodoo lift provides the only access to this learning area; it is discontiguous from the upper mountain runs, meaning guests will not need to worry about more aggressive skier traffic from elsewhere at the resort.

Finally, it’s worth touching on the Aurora lift, which is a fixed-grip quad. But while fixed-grip chairs are known for their slow run speeds, the Aurora lift is so short that the slower speed doesn’t really detract from the experience. In fact, the entire ride takes less than two minutes.

But for all the promise, the East Village area is still very much a work in progress. Construction is ongoing, with at least three lift terminals still unfinished and the base village in a fairly rudimentary state by Deer Valley’s normally polished standards. That said, we have to give credit where it’s due: the porta potties might be the nicest we’ve ever seen at a ski resort.

There are also a few logistical quirks that will likely be resolved in future years, but created some headaches this winter. The Sultan Express area is a bottleneck right now, with all guests coming from the East Village base needing to funnel through that lift to get elsewhere on the mountain (there will be redundancies built in future seasons). And while the East Village parking is plentiful, having to take a shuttle to the base makes for a less-than-seamless experience. Thankfully, future development includes a more direct connection between the parking and the lifts. Another funny circumstance resulting from this multi-year expansion: a few signs currently point toward trails that haven’t officially debuted yet, including some black-diamond trails that are expected to be quite a bit harder than anything that debuted this winter.

But perhaps the biggest issue with Deer Valley’s expansion terrain might be snow reliability. With most of the new terrain sitting below 7,500 feet and facing east, natural snow retention is quite a bit less reliable than most other parts of the resort. While strong snowmaking kept this year’s trails in reliable shape throughout the bulk of this season, it was clear that the areas just off the marked trails were hurting for cover throughout certain parts of the season. Some of the non-groomers were quite icy when we visited, but higher-elevation bump runs stayed soft.

Overall, this first phase is a strong leap forward for Deer Valley. It doesn’t exactly cater to the most advanced skiers out there, and natural snow reliability could be better—but for intermediates and those seeking scenic, comfortable laps (i.e. Deer Valley’s typical clientele), it’s an exciting addition. And with exponentially more terrain and infrastructure expected to come next winter (the resort claims it is opening an astounding 91 new trails across approximately 2,900 acres of terrain next winter), this year may only be a small taste of what yet to come.

Considering a ski trip to Utah next winter? Check out our comprehensive Utah ski resort rankings, as well as our Deer Valley mountain review from this past season. You can also check out our analysis on the ski patrol strike and other compounding factors facing the Utah ski scene in our video analysis below.

Well, this post is going to be different.

Starting today, I’m going to be writing you a little more personally from time to time—pulling back the curtain on what’s happening behind the scenes at PeakRankings and what’s coming next. At the heart of all this is community. PeakHouse exists because of the connections we’ve built together, and I want to make sure we’re creating space to keep those going outside of the mountains. (If you haven’t already, you can join our growing Circle community space here!)

I’m writing this after being away from home in Brooklyn for 46 straight days, leading PeakHouse trips across Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Austria, and Switzerland—without a single break to see friends or family in between. It was an absolute whirlwind. Interest in the PeakHouse program exploded after our original Utah trip in March 2024. Naturally, my instinct was to meet that demand head-on. We went from hosting one winter trip in 2024 to running six this season—a massive leap, but one we felt was worth it.

Personally, this season also marked a big shift. As someone used to solo travel for ski reviews and content, having a group along for the ride made the time pass by so much faster. There’s something transformative about experiencing an adventure with others instead of going it alone.

There were so many standout moments this season that it’s hard to pick favorites—but a few will stick with me for a long time.

In the Dolomites, Rick led us on a mission to a hidden, horse-drawn surface lift he remembered from a prior trip. It took nearly four hours of skiing from our base village just to reach it, but the journey (and the throwback lift) was 100% worth it.

In Colorado, Jacob—who happens to be a professional baker—whipped up fresh focaccia bread for the house one night. It made its way into everyone’s lunch pack the next day and set a new bar for PeakHouse meals going forward.

And the entire Northern Rockies crew? Absolute savages.

Every single day, they took on the steepest hike-to terrain we could find—and did it with the kind of energy and stoke that reminded me why this program exists. I can’t think of another time where a group of 20 was ripping it up the bootpacks and sending it down the chutes.

Finally, I want to give a personal shoutout to some of the people who’ve come back for their second trip: Sean, Will, Josh, Grant, Adi, Oscar, Brian, and Bill. And an extra huge shoutout to Steve, who came back for round three. Your continued trust and support means the world, and you’ve helped shape this community into what it is today.

But let’s be real: being on the road for a month and a half isn’t easy. I missed birthdays, family moments, and the rhythm of daily life in New York. That’s why we’re already investing in more trip leaders—so the program can grow without me needing to be everywhere at once. Huge shoutout to Sam Daley, who led the Mammoth trip this March. It was the first PeakHouse I didn’t personally attend, and based on feedback, he absolutely crushed it.

While the ski season in North America might be winding down, this is just the beginning for what’s ahead. I invite you all to join us on an international ski trip to New Zealand in August and our first ever National Park trip to Banff in July.

To the 100+ of you who’ve joined us on a PeakHouse trip so far: thank you. Your support means the world. I can’t wait to see what we’ll build together next.

Talk soon,

Sam


Founder & CEO, PeakRankings

P.S. I’d love to hear from you. Whether you’ve been on a PeakHouse trip, are thinking about joining one, or just have thoughts on where we should take things next—hit reply and let me know. I read every message.

When you visit a ski resort, one of the most critical aspects of your skiing or riding day is how you get up the mountain. Ski lifts are the workhorses of these resorts, providing skiers and snowboarders with access to the slopes. However, not all uphill transportation at ski resorts is the same.

Mountains employ various types of transportation contraptions, each with its own unique features, advantages, and drawbacks. In this video, we’ll take a closer look at the different types of lifts commonly found at ski resorts, including their capacities, speeds, and the pros and cons of each one. Let’s jump in.

Surface Lifts

Let’s start out with the most rudimentary of all ski lifts, the surface lift. These were the first motorized lifts to make their way into the ski world when the sport was born in the early 20th century. Many of you probably haven’t even thought of surface lifts as real lifts, but they play an important role in uphill transportation in several circumstances.

There are three main types of surface lifts:

T-Bars and Platter Lifts

T-bar and platter lifts consist of a horizontal bar or platter attached to a moving cable. Skiers or snowboarders grab onto the bar, and it pulls them uphill. Platters typically accommodate one rider, while T-bars typically accommodate two.

Rope Tows

Rope tows are similar to platters, but use a continuous loop of rope instead of a bar. Skiers and riders hold onto the rope as it moves uphill, providing tension for the ride.

Magic Carpets

Magic carpets are conveyor belt-like lifts that are often used in beginner areas. Riders stand on a moving carpet that takes them uphill, meaning that unlike T-bars, platters, and rope tows, riders do not have to exert real physical energy to ride them. They are particularly user-friendly for beginners and small children, but they are also the slowest of the bunch, and as such, really only get used for very short distances.

Surface lifts have a couple of notable advantages despite their simplicity. First, they are easy to operate and require minimal infrastructure, making them far more cost-effective to install and maintain than chairlifts or gondolas. Their simple design allows them to be used on sensitive terrain, such as glaciers, where full-size towers would be infeasible. In addition, surface lifts are often easier to unload than chairlifts, especially in beginner-oriented areas, and some variants can operate at faster speeds than certain chairlifts, making them faster alternatives to get up the mountain. Finally, surface lifts offer far better wind and weather resilience than traditional lifts, as their lighter, ground-oriented footprint creates more stability when storms roll around—and allows riders to hypothetically get off the lift at any time in case of an emergency.

But with a lift type this rudimentary, you run into some limitations. The biggest drawback might be capacity; since surface lifts can only carry one or two individuals at a time, guests will experience longer wait times during peak times at busy resorts. In addition, surface lifts become a lot less practical as ski slopes become longer and steeper, with the physical toll of riding platters, rope tows, and T-bars growing substantially more burdensome as the gradient and ride time increase. In today’s world, you probably think of a ski lift as an opportunity to relax and recharge—but what if it actually becomes the most exhausting part of your day?

Surface lifts are about as straightforward as ski lifts get, but there’s a reason why ski resorts that can afford to have moved onto more complex and higher-capacity uphill transportation.

Fixed-Grip Chairlifts

When it comes to the actual chairlifts you probably picture at a ski resort, fixed-grip chairlifts are arguably the most basic and traditional form. These lifts feature chairs that are permanently attached to the cable. Passengers load onto the lift while it’s moving at a constant speed, meaning the lift does not slow down at the bottom or top terminals. Fixed-grip chairlifts are cost-effective to install and maintain, making them common at smaller resorts and beginner slopes. Most often, resort guests will find them in two-to-four passenger configurations, although variants ranging from single occupancy to six-pack exist.

Some newer fixed-grip chairlifts are now paired with loading carpets, which help regulate passenger entry by slightly accelerating riders before they reach the chair. This makes the loading process a bit smoother and sometimes allows the lift to run at a slightly higher speed than a traditional fixed-grip chair, although other more complex types of lifts are still usually easier to load and faster.

Thanks to their lower cost and easier maintenance, fixed-grip lifts are often used for shorter lift routes, as backups for more popular lifts, or in terrain areas with variable opening schedules where a higher-cost lift wouldn’t be justifiable. Lower-capacity fixed-grip chairs, typically doubles or triples, are often employed in expert-oriented areas to subtly discourage less-experienced guests from riding them. In addition, fixed-grip chairlifts have smaller terminal footprints than their higher-end counterparts, meaning that they can be fit into far more complicated or space-constrained areas.

But fixed-grip chairlifts come with significant drawbacks, the biggest of which is arguably their speed. Because they must run slowly enough for safe loading and unloading, fixed-grip lifts maintain a leisurely pace on the way up the mountain. In fact, a standard fixed-grip lift ride typically takes more than twice as long as a more modern experience. However, because fixed-grip lifts have to operate at a reasonable speed to maintain acceptable transport times, their loading and unloading process is much quicker than on modern lifts, which can be a challenge for less-experienced guests. This can make the ride even slower, as lift operators often slow down or stop the lift to assist struggling passengers. While some skiers and riders may find the slower ride time okay as a chance to recover between runs, other guests will find it frustrating—especially on cold, windy days when prolonged exposure to the elements makes for an uncomfortable experience.

While fixed-grip chairlifts may not offer the convenience and speed of detachable lifts, they remain a fundamental part of many ski resorts. Even the fanciest ski resorts still employ them in some capacity, with these simple lifts providing a reliable and affordable means of getting skiers and snowboarders up the mountain.

Detachable Chairlifts

For most guests at a ski resort, the first lift they’ll truly look forward to riding is a detachable chairlift. 

Detachable chairlifts, also known as high-speed or express lifts, are designed so that their chairs can detach from the moving cable at the base and top terminals. This allows for much slower loading and unloading while the cable itself continues moving at high speed. As a result, these lifts not only transport skiers and snowboarders uphill significantly faster than fixed-grip chairlifts, but they also make for a much more convenient loading and unloading experience, enabling quicker mountain laps and greatly improving the experience for the average guest. In beginner and intermediate-oriented areas, having a high-speed lift can greatly reduce misloads, resulting in fewer lift stoppages throughout the day. Some of the highest-end detachable lifts even feature heated seats and protective bubbles to shield passengers from wind and cold temperatures—comforts rarely, if ever, found on fixed-grip or surface lifts. Detachable chairlifts typically come in four-to-six-passenger configurations, although variations range from doubles to eight-packs.

Thanks to their speed and efficiency, detachable chairlifts have become essential for any ski resort hoping to stay competitive. However, because of the mechanics of their terminals, the chairs must be spaced farther apart than on fixed-grip lifts. This means that unless a detachable lift has a higher-capacity chair (i.e. a six-pack versus a quad), it won’t necessarily move more people per hour than a fixed-grip lift, notwithstanding the misload benefits we mentioned earlier. Another drawback is that detachable chairlifts have a shorter lifespan than their fixed-grip counterparts. While fixed-grip lifts can remain operational for many decades with proper maintenance, most high-speed chairlifts have required replacement after 30 to 40 years due to mechanical wear. Finally, detachable chairlifts are more susceptible to ice and wind-related downtime than fixed-grip and surface lifts. Gusty wind conditions can interfere with safe and properly-aligned grip engagement at terminals, while any ice buildup needs to be cleared from the cable, grips, and terminal interiors to ensure the chair detachment and reattachment process functions smoothly.

High-speed chairlifts may not be perfect at everything. But as uphill transport for an activity that revolves so much around cold weather, they provide an ideal and efficient solution.

Gondola Lifts

But what if you want to shield yourself from the cold weather entirely? That’s where gondolas come in. Gondola lifts are characterized by wholly enclosed cabins that are suspended from an overhead cable, allowing for what’s essentially full isolation from the elements. Not only do gondolas offer a more comfortable ride than non-bubble chairlifts, but they are often warm enough to help visitors regain body heat—rather than lose it—before their next run, providing a much more efficient alternative to warming up in a lodge on a cold day. Traditional gondola cabins can typically fit more people than a chairlift, with most coming in six-to-ten passenger configurations, although variations ranging from two-to-fifteen passengers exist as well.

Thanks to their enclosed design and smoother ride, gondolas are often used for longer uphill spans where a chairlift ride—even a detachable one—might be too exposed and uncomfortable in cold or windy conditions. Their enclosed cabins also make them preferable for routes with high spans or downhill sections, which can be unsettling for guests with a fear of heights. At resorts that have them, gondolas are especially popular as transport from base areas, allowing skiers and riders to board before strapping on their equipment.

But while gondolas offer a highly comfortable experience, they come with tradeoffs that make them less practical in certain situations. Unlike chairlifts, where guests can simply ride up with their gear on, passengers must remove their skis or boards before boarding a gondola and either carry them inside or place them in designated exterior racks. This extra step makes gondolas less desirable for shorter rides or terrain zones that are frequently lapped, as the time spent removing and reattaching gear can offset the benefits of the enclosed cabin. In addition, some smaller gondola cabins can feel a bit claustrophobic, especially at the handful of resorts that still have four-passenger models.

Despite these drawbacks, gondola lifts remain a staple at high-end ski resorts, offering a comfortable, high-capacity alternative for accessing terrain where chairlifts may not be ideal.

Cabriolet Lift

A rare variation of the gondola is the cabriolet lift, which functions similarly to a gondola but features open-air cabins instead of enclosed ones. Cabriolet lifts are most commonly found in ski resort base areas, transporting guests from parking lots or village centers to the main ski area before they’ve had a chance to put on their skis or snowboard. Unlike gondolas which have seating, cabriolet lifts are designed for standing only. Because they lack the full enclosure and seating of traditional gondolas but still have the same practical drawbacks, they’re not really ideal for truly riding up the mountain, but they provide an efficient and scenic way to move guests around resort villages.

Chondola Lift

Another rare lift variation is the chondola lift, which consists of both chairlift and gondola carriers on the same ropeway. These lifts provide unique versatility, allowing guests to choose between the convenience of a chairlift and the comfort of a gondola cabin. However, due to their complexity, chondolas are expensive to install and come with a few drawbacks. Guests need to choose between separate loading lines for chairs and gondola cabins, which can lead to uneven wait times, as there are usually fewer gondola cabins than chairs. Additionally, because gondolas require slower speeds for loading and unloading, the entire lift must run at a lower terminal speed than a traditional detachable chairlift.

Pulse Lift

Finally, perhaps the least-known and least-understood type of gondola lift is a pulse gondola. Unlike a standard detachable gondola, where each cabin moves continuously along the cable, a pulse lift operates with groups of cabins that are fixed to the cable but move in clusters or “pulses.” These odd-looking lifts slow down at loading areas before speeding up again to a regular detachable speed once the journey starts. However, because multiple cabin clusters operate along the ropeway, pulse lifts need to slow down to a crawl whenever other cabin clusters reach the terminal to load or unload passengers. On longer applications, this can happen multiple times mid-ride. This makes pulse lifts incredibly impractical for anything more than short travel distances or very low demand applications where the resort can get away with only a handful of clusters. 

While not as seamless as a fully detachable system, pulse lifts provide a practical compromise for resorts that need a high-speed lift but are okay with trading intermittent stops and capacity for minimized cost. In extremely rare cases, pulse chairlifts exist as well.

Aerial Tramways

But for some of the world’s most intense ski resorts, regular circulating ski lifts won’t cut it. That’s where aerial tramways come in.

Trams are a unique type of lift system that consists of large cabins suspended from thick cables, transporting passengers up and down the mountain in a single, continuous trip. Unlike gondolas, which have multiple cabins that circulate along a continuously moving cable, trams typically operate with just one or two cabins traveling back and forth on a fixed cable. Most trams can accommodate substantially more people per cabin than a gondola, typically carrying between 50-150 people per cabin, although variations between 5 to 200 people exist as well. In the craziest applications, even some double-decker cabins have been used.

Because of this design, trams are known for their ability to traverse extremely steep and rugged terrain with minimal support towers, making them an excellent choice for ski resorts that need to move guests over dramatic elevation changes or across deep valleys. Many of the world’s most iconic ski areas, including Jackson Hole, Snowbird, and Chamonix, have trams that provide access to their highest and most extreme terrain. Trams tend to provide some of the most scenic rides of any lift type, as their dramatic terrain spans lead to stunning views of the mountains they ascend.

One of the other primary advantages of aerial trams is their stability in high winds compared to gondolas or chairlifts. Since most tram cabins are connected to thick track cables rather than relying on a single haul rope for support, they sway less in strong gusts, allowing them to operate in conditions that might shut down other lifts. Finally, aerial tramways can move at significantly faster speeds than even high-speed chairlifts and gondolas, with the fastest trams able to achieve operating speeds of up to 26 mph (12 m/s), which is over twice that of its circulating ropeway counterparts. This can be of significant benefit for particularly long lift route stretches.

However, despite these advantages, aerial tramways have significant downsides—the biggest being their low capacity. Since most trams can only carry between 50 and 150 people per trip and operate on a fixed schedule rather than continuously, they tend to involve long lift lines, especially at peak hours. Unlike gondolas or high-speed chairlifts, which continuously load passengers, trams require all guests to wait for the next scheduled trip, meaning a single missed ride can result in an extended delay.

Another disadvantage of trams is that, like gondolas, passengers must remove their skis or snowboards before boarding—although the headways between each tram car make this somewhat of a secondary issue. Finally, tram rides can feel crowded and less comfortable, especially when cabins are packed to full capacity on busy days. 

Despite these drawbacks, aerial tramways remain a staple at many major ski resorts due to their ability to access extreme terrain, their durability in high-wind conditions, and the unparalleled mountain views they provide. While they may not be the most efficient lift type for moving large crowds, their ability to reach rugged, high-altitude terrain—and gatekeep crowd levels on extreme terrain—ensures they remain an important part of big mountain ski resort infrastructure.

Tricable Lifts and Funitels

But what if a chairlift or gondola isn’t sufficient to navigate the terrain a resort might need to cover—and you also need higher uphill capacity than a tram? That’s where specialty lifts like tricable ropeways and funitels come into play. Both systems offer significantly improved wind resistance and tower span capabilities over traditional lifts without the practical drawbacks of a fixed tramway. Thanks to their reinforced cable systems, these lifts can also support larger cabins than traditional gondolas, typically carrying between 20 and 30 passengers per cabin, although the presence of multiple cabins on the rope means they aren’t as big as trams.

Tricable gondolas, also called 3S lifts (from the German word for “three cables”), use two stationary support cables and a third moving haul cable. This particularly stable design allows these lifts to span significantly longer distances with fewer towers, making them ideal for ski resorts that need to move large numbers of guests between far-apart resort areas or over rugged terrain where tower placement is impractical. While incredibly complex to construct, these lifts dramatically improve guest flow and provide access to terrain that would otherwise require multiple conventional lifts or an inconvenient detour.

Unlike a tricable ropeway, which features two fixed support cables and one haul cable, funitels use two parallel haul cables that grip the cabins at two points instead of one. This double attachment system creates outstanding wind resistance, reducing cabin sway and allowing these lifts to function in wind speeds that would almost certainly shut down everything else. This has made funitels especially popular in high-alpine terrain with significant exposure. Because funitels prioritize wind resistance over long-span capability, they are less commonly used in areas requiring exceptionally wide tower spacing.

Like traditional gondolas, 3S and funitel lifts have trade-offs, though their challenges differ slightly. Guests will have to remove their equipment to ride them, and because their cabins are so big, exterior equipment racks rarely exist. Also, these lifts sometimes lack seating for all passengers, meaning at least some guests will have to stand up if the cabin loads to capacity—this is especially the case when it comes to funitels. 

But the biggest drawback for these specialty lifts is arguably their price tag. These lifts cost exponentially more than a traditional gondola, and there’s a reason why only a couple dozen of each exist worldwide, almost exclusively at the world’s highest-end mountains. Even the most cash-rich resorts are incredibly particular about where and when they install these lifts, making sure they put them in the places with the highest winds and most difficult terrain layouts where conventional lifts simply wouldn’t suffice.

Mountain Railways

But sometimes, ski resorts face such exceptional circumstances that using a cable-driven system just doesn’t make sense. This is where mountain railways come in. These distinctive uphill constructions are found almost exclusively in Europe, although a handful do exist at resorts elsewhere around the world. The two main types of mountain railways used as ski lifts are cog railways and funiculars, each serving a distinct role in transporting skiers and riders efficiently and reliably.

Cog Railways

Cog railways, also known as rack railways, are a unique type of train system that uses a toothed rack rail between the running rails to help trains climb steep inclines that regular trains cannot handle. Because they run on fixed tracks and achieve much higher speeds than any other type of ski lift, cog railways are incredibly efficient, with individual trains far exceeding the capacity of any chairlift or gondola.

Funiculars

A funicular railway is another form of cable-driven mountain transport that operates on fixed rails, typically using two counterbalanced train cars moving in opposite directions. Unlike cog railways, which use a toothed rack for traction, funiculars rely on a pulley system to pull one cabin up while lowering the other down. They are particularly valuable in avalanche-prone or high-wind areas, where traditional chairlifts and gondolas might be unreliable.

Funiculars vary widely in design. Visitors can find installations ranging from short-distance, 4-person lifts that are basically just glorified elevators to massive resort transport systems capable of moving up to a whopping 440 people per trip at speeds comparable to cog railways.

Due to their incredibly fast travel speeds, mountain railways can be just as efficient as circulating ropeways, even with longer headways between departures. Additionally, alpine railways provide a comfortable, enclosed ride with no exposure to the elements, making them an attractive option for skiers and riders looking to stay warm on the way up.

However, the biggest limitation of mountain railways is their reliance on dedicated tracks. This either reduces usable ski terrain, requiring careful placement to maintain skier and rider access, or demands expensive tunnel construction to avoid interfering with slopes. Additionally, unlike chairlifts or gondolas, which continuously load passengers, cog railways and funiculars operate on a fixed schedule—meaning a missed departure could result in a long wait.

Ski trains are far from the most practical option for most ski resorts, but they’re among the most comfortable and novel forms of uphill alpine transportation. For many, riding one of these railways will be just as unique of an experience as visiting the ski slopes themselves.

Snowcats

But in certain cases, ski resorts face terrain where operating a lift or railway does not make practical or financial sense—but they still want to offer a way to transport guests uphill. That’s where snowcats come in. While primarily designed for grooming ski slopes, snowcats are also used as a specialized form of uphill transportation in certain scenarios. Cat skiing operations, typically found in remote resort areas or organized as guided experiences in true backcountry areas, transport small groups of skiers and snowboarders to seldom tracked terrain that is otherwise inaccessible by traditional ski lifts. In rare cases, some ski resorts utilize snowcats as alternative transportation when lifts are closed due to mechanical issues, avalanche mitigation, or extreme weather.

Since most cat skiing operations rely on a single snowcat carrying just 5-15 passengers per trip, uphill capacity is by far the lowest of any type of ski resort transport, with untracked powder being a common sight at the top of these rides. Due to their high operating costs and extremely low capacity, resorts often charge an extra-cost add-on for guests to ride these cats, although this is not the case 100% of the time. If a snowcat isn’t at the loading area when they arrive, guests may have to wait quite a while to ride it.

While snowcats are far less efficient than traditional ski lifts and offer limited capacity per trip, they provide a rugged, adaptable solution for reaching terrain that would otherwise be off-limits without hiking—and often has some of the best powder that’s accessible in-bounds within the resort.

Final Thoughts

So that’s our comprehensive breakdown of every type of ski lift you’ll see on your next ski trip. From basic rope tows to engineering marvels, alpine transportation is almost as fascinating as skiing and riding themselves, with an almost unconscionable number of solutions developed over the past several decades. Next time you go on a ski vacation, we hope you’ll have plenty of fun thinking about why your resort decided on a specific lift in a certain place—and whether you think they made the right decision.

Eastern Canada’s Le Massif de Charlevoix will be joining the Ikon Pass for the first time for the 2025-26 season, according to a press release put out by Ikon’s owner Alterra this week. This Quebec ski resort, which directly overlooks the St. Lawrence River, will become the second provincial ski resort to join Ikon following Tremblant. The resort will also join the much smaller Blue Mountain, Ontario in Ikon’s Eastern Canada suite.

Full Ikon Pass holders will have access to seven days at the mountain, while Ikon Base and Base Plus Passholders will have access to five days with holiday blackouts. The resort will also be included on the 2, 3, and 4-day Ikon Session Pass products.

The Ikon Pass is a multi-resort ski pass that gives access to dozens of destinations around the world. You can learn more about the Ikon Pass suite and how it stacks up to the similar Epic Pass here.

Our Take

In Quebec, the Epic and Ikon Passes have historically put up reasonable fights against one another, although we’d argue Ikon has always had the slight upper hand. Ikon offers unlimited access to Tremblant, which is one of our highest-rated resorts in the region. However, the full Epic Pass offers limited access to Mont-Sainte-Anne and Stoneham, the former of which is a quite competitive regional option as well (Stoneham is a bit smaller and less competitive). That said, the Epic Local Pass does not include access to either mountain.

But while it was already arguably the stronger choice of the two, the addition of Le Massif scores Ikon a big win for East Coast skiing and riding. Thanks to its breathtaking views and well-rounded footprint, Le Massif is our top-ranked ski resort East of the Mississippi. Its presence on the pass is likely to attract more folks in the Quebec City region, who are less than an hour away from the resort—and may have previously leaned towards the full Epic Pass thanks to Mont-Saint-Anne’s proximity to that city. It’s also entirely possible some Quebec City residents move to Ikon and away from the two-day Mountain Collective Pass, which was previously the only multi-resort pass product to include Le Massif.

However, some questions remain about the impact on crowding at Le Massif. The resort has historically been one of the less crowded East Coast resorts, with lift ticket caps playing a role there. Since reservations will not be required for Ikon Pass holders, some locals may be left wondering whether the resort could see a substantial increase in traffic next winter.

That all being said, Le Massif is likely protected somewhat from a deluge of new crowds thanks to its incredibly out-of-the-way location. While it’s quite close to Quebec City, the resort is annoyingly far from most other major Northeast metropolitan areas, including Boston, New York, and to a certain extent, even Montreal. From those cities, Ikon Pass holders have access to much more convenient mountains that offer experiences that are almost as good (or, depending on snow conditions, even better).

We’ll be keeping a very close eye on how the new Ikon access impacts Le Massif—and the rest of the East Coast—over the upcoming season.

Considering a trip to Eastern Canada next season? Check out our comprehensive Le Massif de Charlevoix and Tremblant mountain reviews.

In a move that has sent shockwaves across the ski industry, the Trump Organization has announced its acquisition of Vail Resorts, marking the biggest shakeup in ski resort ownership since the invention of the Epic Pass—or, as it’s now being called, the “Most Epic Pass, Possibly Ever.”

As part of the rebrand, several iconic Vail-owned mountains are undergoing immediate name changes to better reflect the new ownership. Vail itself will become “Trump Mountain Colorado,” while Park City has been rebranded “Trump Utah: The Greatest Ski Resort In The West (According To Many People).” Whistler Blackcomb will now operate under the name “Trump International Resort & Golf Club: Glacier Edition,” despite having no golf course and being located in Canada.

Cafeterias across the newly rebranded resorts will now feature exclusive Trump-branded food options, including:

• Trump Steaks (“The World’s Most Presidential Ribeye”)

• Melania’s Signature Goulash (available only in Whistler, for legal reasons)

• Gold Leaf Nachos (only at Trump Mountain Colorado, market price)

Additionally, a new slogan will be prominently featured across all resort signage, trail maps, and grooming reports: “MASA — Make America Ski Again.” This replaces the former slogan, “Experience the Epic,” which executives deemed “low energy.”

Sources tell us that all lift towers will soon be painted gold, and all blue square trails will be renamed “Red Trails,” due to branding conflicts. In a bold media policy shift, press credentials will now only be issued to journalists who agree to adhere to the new branding—a change justified by “correcting the color bias” in ski trail nomenclature.

And in what some are calling a “preemptive hostile ski resort merger”, insiders report that the Trump Organization is eyeing Deer Valley for annexation, citing the existence of a trail named “Trump” as “clear legal precedent” for eminent domain. Lawyers familiar with the case declined to comment, though one was overheard asking if “this is really happening” multiple times.

Our Take

While some skiers and riders might be alarmed by the sudden transformation of their favorite mountains into politically branded snow playgrounds, it’s not the first time the ski industry has flirted with… bold decisions. From the rise of resort consolidation to $30 parking fees at the base of a three-chairlift hill, nothing should surprise us anymore. That said, this move cranks the dial up to 11.

On the one hand, the Trump Organization has a knack for branding, real estate, and lavish experiences—three things the modern ski industry seems increasingly obsessed with. Expect high-end luxury upgrades, more exclusivity, and potentially a golden gondola or two. On the other hand, the MASA slogan might alienate the more neutral or apolitical nature of the ski world, where the only red vs. blue debate should be about trail difficulty, not voter affiliation.

One industry insider noted: “If you thought the Epic vs. Ikon discourse was heated, just wait until this season’s parking lot arguments.”

Ultimately, whether this is the greatest business move in ski history remains to be seen. But one thing’s for sure: the slopes just got a whole lot more… Trumped.

Editor’s Note: If you’ve read this far and haven’t realized it’s April 1st, we hope you’ve at least enjoyed your brief descent into alt-ski reality. No, the Trump Organization has not acquired Vail Resorts. Yet.

The United States is home to over 480 ski resorts, offering mountains of various locations, shapes, and sizes. What you may not realize, though, is that essentially all of these resorts were built over five decades ago.

But wait a minute—skiing and snowboarding have exploded in growth in the 21st century, so why haven’t there been any serious new resorts since the 1980s? And has the industry changed enough in recent years that this trend might reverse itself? In this video, we’ll cover the compounding barrage of factors that made new ski resort development essentially impossible starting in the early 1970s, and then we’ll go through the attempts since then and whether they’ve made any headway.

 Part 1: The Original Growth of Skiing in America

But before we take a look at what stopped ski resorts from being built in America, we have to cover how their development started in the first place. 

Skiing in America began as a niche activity introduced by Scandinavian immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Early adopters practiced the sport in snowy regions like the Northeast and the Sierra Nevada, where rudimentary skiing facilities began to appear.

Woodstock, Vermont, became a pioneer for American skiing, hosting one of the first ski clubs in the country in 1903. Several other small hills spurred up in the following years, including Colorado’s Howelsen Hill, which is the oldest continuously operating U.S. ski resort today. Skiers relied on basic rope tows and natural snow, making the experience both rustic and labor-intensive. And while a few names that we all know today emerged by the 1930s, including Stowe, Sun Valley, and Alta, skiing remained a small-scale pastime pursued by local communities rather than a mainstream recreational activity.

The United States’ involvement in World War II was a turning point for skiing’s popularity. The creation of the 10th Mountain Division, an elite group of mountain troops trained to fight in snowy terrain, helped elevate skiing from a niche hobby to a widely recognized activity. Soldiers trained in Camp Hale, Colorado, which is due south of present-day Vail, where they honed their skills in skiing, mountaineering, and wartime survival.

After the war, many veterans of the 10th Mountain Division became ambassadors for the sport, founding or managing ski resorts across the country. Resorts like Aspen and Arapahoe Basin owe much of their early success to these veterans’ passion and expertise. Furthermore, wartime infrastructure projects—such as mountain roads and railways—helped make once-remote mountain regions accessible for future resort development.

Other economic factors helped too. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the post-war boom gave rise to a new American middle class with more disposable income and leisure time. While skiing was once considered a sport for elites, it now began to attract a broader audience.

As skiing grew in popularity in the 1950s, the mountains kept getting easier and easier to reach. Improved highways and the growing popularity of air travel made it easier for people to reach remote mountain destinations that were previously way too impractical to get to. At the same time, ski technology evolved rapidly. Innovations in ski lifts, snow grooming equipment, and safer ski gear transformed skiing into a more accessible and enjoyable activity. Chairlifts became the new norm, whereas in decades past, visiting a resort had involved rope tows and surface lifts. This made it much more practical to build bigger and taller resorts than in years’ past. Resorts including Mammoth, Squaw Valley (now Palisades Tahoe), and Taos Ski Valley emerged as leading destinations during this time, drawing both seasoned skiers and beginners alike.

By the 1960s, the ski industry was booming. This period saw an explosion of resort development, driven not only by skiing’s popularity but also by lucrative real estate opportunities. Many resorts were built as part of broader ventures, with developers selling condominiums and vacation homes alongside ski passes.

Public land leases also made large-scale ski resort construction feasible.  The Forest Service worked with developers to open vast tracts of land for skiing, leading to the creation of resorts that are well-known today like Vail, Park City, and Jackson Hole. A whopping 118 U.S. ski resorts that are still operating today opened in the 1960s, nearly doubling the amount from the previous decade.

But just as fast as it exploded in growth, essentially all major ski resort development came to a halt with what felt like the snap of a finger. After six notable debuts in 1972 and 1973, serious future developments were suddenly nowhere to be found.

Part 2: Saturation of Prime Locations

In the early 1970s, new ski resort development slowed to a crawl, with an almost overwhelming compound of factors driving the change. The first and most obvious one of these was the saturation of conspicuously prime locations following the rush to build in the two decades prior.

By 1973, a lot of the best locations for ski resort development in the U.S. had already been claimed. The previous decades capitalized on accessible mountain ranges with favorable snowfall, suitable terrain, and proximity to population centers. Prime areas in Colorado, Utah, California, and Vermont had long been developed, leaving fewer viable locations for new large-scale resorts.

One factor was the slowdown in highway construction during this time period. The resorts built during the mid-20th century were strategically positioned to take advantage of infrastructure like highways and public lands, and with fewer new interstates being built, much of the remaining undeveloped terrain was either too remote or lacked the consistent snowfall needed to sustain a profitable operation.

Part 3: Environmental Concerns and New Regulations

But while the saturation of the best locations helped slow down resort development, it was nothing compared to the slate of environmental regulations that appeared around this time. In the late 1960s, public opposition to large-scale construction on public lands increased dramatically. Many of the largest ski resorts in the U.S. lease land from the U.S. Forest Service, but obtaining new leases for development suddenly became exceedingly difficult.

A major turning point was the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970. NEPA introduced stringent environmental review processes for projects involving federal lands or funding, requiring detailed assessments and approval from numerous agencies. While the act was incredibly impactful in its aim to safeguard natural resources, the additional layers of bureaucracy—such as Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and public comment periods—made it far more challenging and time-consuming to develop new ski resorts. Projects that previously required a single permit might now need approval from dozens of agencies, ranging from the Forest Service to the Environmental Protection Agency. For developers, this created significant delays and increased costs, often derailing projects entirely.

Additionally, laws such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 further complicated resort development. The CWA restricted alterations to rivers, streams, and wetlands, making it difficult to construct resort infrastructure such as roads, snowmaking reservoirs, and base villages. The ESA provided strict protections for threatened and endangered species, meaning any proposed ski area had to prove it would not disrupt critical habitats. This was especially problematic for developments in alpine environments, where species such as the Canada lynx and the spotted owl reside. Meanwhile, the NFMA required the U.S. Forest Service to create comprehensive land management plans, which, on the whole, placed greater emphasis on conservation and recreational balance than the more development-friendly attitudes of years’ past. Given how many resorts had been built through public land leases, this act had huge implications for future large-scale ski area developments.

The 1970s and 1980s also saw a rise in citizen activism and environmental litigation. As new regulations empowered environmental groups, legal challenges under these laws became common, often resulting in years-long court battles that delayed or entirely halted new ski resort projects, even if they’d made it past initial approvals processes. High-profile lawsuits set legal precedents that strengthened environmental protections and expanded the scope of regulations, making it even harder for developers to gain approvals

Beyond federal regulations, state and local environmental laws further restricted resort development. California, in particular, became one of the most difficult places to build a new ski resort due to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which was enacted in 1970. CEQA required environmental reviews similar to NEPA but applied at the state level, adding another layer of bureaucracy. Any ski resort proposal in California had to go through extensive environmental assessments, undergo public hearings, and withstand potential litigation from environmental groups. The process was often prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, deterring developers from even attempting new projects.

These combined legal and regulatory challenges created a near-impossible landscape for new ski resorts to be developed on public land.

Part 4: Economic Pressures

But not every ski resort project could be killed by environmental opposition—after all, some privately-owned land parcels were still theoretically feasible to develop, and at least some public lands did have the right topography to pass all the regulatory hurdles. But it wasn’t just the new environmental regulations that were making new ski resort projects harder to justify. By the 1970s, the U.S. economy was not exactly in the place to support developments related to any sort of leisure activities.

Building a ski resort from scratch was (and still is) a monumental financial undertaking, and in the post-1970s economy, the return on investment was far from guaranteed. The cost of constructing ski infrastructure—including lifts, snowmaking systems, lodges, and access roads, among other things—could easily reach hundreds of millions of dollars. Additionally, resorts required expensive year-round maintenance, staffing, and marketing efforts to attract visitors and remain competitive. Even if a proposed ski area managed to get through the rest of the hurdles, securing financing and attracting investors became much more difficult.

During the mid-20th century, many ski resorts were funded as part of broader real estate ventures, with developers relying on the sale of vacation homes, condominiums, and commercial properties to subsidize ski operations. However, by the 1970s, rising interest rates and financial market instability made real estate-driven developments riskier. Without a guaranteed stream of revenue from real estate sales, developers faced an uphill battle in securing financing for new projects.

Furthermore, the ski industry began experiencing rising operational costs, including labor shortages, increasing insurance expenses, and the growing reliance on snowmaking to combat inconsistent snowfall. Snowmaking technology had improved dramatically since the early days of skiing, but the costs of installation and operation remained high. The 1970s and 80s were well before ski resorts seriously considered climate change in their planning and operations, but mountains still needed substantial infrastructure, including reservoirs, pumps, and energy-intensive snow guns, to ensure reliable conditions throughout the season. These costs made it even more difficult to justify building a new resort in an uncertain economic climate.

Part 5: Expanding Existing Resorts As A Feasible Alternative

But okay, the U.S. economy didn’t stay bad forever, and by the 1980s, it recovered significantly. So why didn’t new major ski resorts get built at that point? Well, ski companies and investors recognized that expanding or improving existing resorts was far more financially viable than building new ones. Established resorts already had roads, lift networks, and lodging, reducing the need for major upfront capital investment. By upgrading lifts, expanding terrain, or adding new amenities, resorts could attract more visitors without the massive financial risk of creating a new ski area from scratch. In addition, working within pre-approved footprints saved them the regulatory headaches of trying to build something from scratch, as many resorts were permitted to operate on significantly more terrain than they actively used. 

This move to intra-resort development has had a surprisingly large impact on today’s ski scene. Since 1972, the typical destination ski resort has grown exponentially in size, with many of the resort areas you know and love today having opened in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s—despite the original resort itself opening decades earlier. Not to mention, the uphill ride experience has been thoroughly redesigned at essentially every serious destination since the 1970s; every single high-speed chairlift at a North American resort has been built in 1981 or later, and the same goes for most gondolas and aerial tramways. Examples of substantial resort expansions in just the past 15 years include Park City’s connection to Canyons Resort, Breckenridge’s Peak 6 area, and Steamboat’s Mahogany Ridge and Fish Creek Canyon zones. So while we haven’t exactly seen new destinations come into play over the past four decades, that’s not to say the resort experience hasn’t gotten a whole lot better for consumers.

The explosive inward growth at destination ski resorts has also introduced one more significant factor that impedes destination resort development—for any potential newcomers, existing resorts are now far more competitive than they were in the 1960s and 70s. Any newcomer would have to be exponentially larger, with modern lifts and world-class infrastructure, just to have a shot at drawing true destination visitors. Even ignoring the financial and regulatory barriers we’ve already discussed, the sheer scale that’s now required to build a competitive resort from scratch today makes the idea seem a lot more far-fetched than it would have been half a century ago.

Part 6: The Two Exceptions to the Post-1973 Extinction: Beaver Creek and Deer Valley

Despite the near-total halt in new ski resort development after 1973, Colorado’s Beaver Creek and Utah’s Deer Valley stand out as the two notable exceptions, with Beaver Creek opening in 1980 and Deer Valley opening in 1981. Their success can be attributed to a barrage of incredibly favorable circumstances.

First off, both resorts were backed by experienced hospitality operators with political acumen. This helped them navigate the permitting processes despite increasing regulations.  Additionally, both mountains were also uniquely set up to leverage real estate development as a revenue stream; this model had become riskier for other new resort proposals, especially with the economic downturn of the 70s, but it was still viable in premium, high-demand locations. Combined with the experience of their project leaders, this factor made it much less likely for these resort projects to lose investor funding. Finally, both mountains made it to the approval stage at what could have literally been the last minute. In the case of Beaver Creek, the project was approved by the Forest Service just days before a new governor took office—one who had expressed his strong opposition to the ski area’s permit approval and new ski resort construction in general. Also, these two projects were already in motion before certain legal cases made the development landscape even more complex on the federal level.

So Beaver Creek and Deer Valley were able to squeeze their way into existence, getting us to the roster of destination U.S. ski resorts we still know today exactly 44 years ago.

Part 7: Post-1981 Attempts at New Resort Development

So has anyone actually attempted to build a new large-scale ski resort since 1981? Well, while no new true destination ski resorts have opened in the U.S. since that year, several developers have attempted to end the development drought. However, the majority of these efforts have either failed spectacularly or faced significant setbacks.

Perhaps the best known failed ski resort project is that of the Disney Corporation. Originally planned for the Mineral King Valley in California, the resort faced intense environmental lawsuits and regulatory roadblocks, leading to its cancellation around the time the last new big ski resorts were able to open in the United States. That complicated future resort development was actually based on this plan. Disney tried again with another resort at Independence Lake in the late 1970s, but by that point, it was too late.

Similarly, Catamount, a proposed ski resort in Colorado near Steamboat Springs, failed despite two development attempts—one in the mid-1970s, and a second in the 1990s. Originally envisioned as a new destination resort that could be used as a venue for the 1976 Winter Olympics, the project went under after its developers went bankrupt in the wake of the declining economy. The plan was resurrected two decades later, and it actually received initial approval from the U.S. Forest Service after obtaining all necessary environmental permits. However, the project still faced local opposition due to its impact on housing, and developers eventually lost their financial backing for the project. The permit expired in 1998, and legislation has been introduced to turn this area into a federal wilderness area.

The most recent attempt at a new full-scale destination ski resort in the U.S. was Mayflower Resort in Utah. Located adjacent to Deer Valley, the project aimed to develop 3,700 acres of skiable terrain alongside a luxury real estate community. Mayflower was designed to follow a business strategy similar to Deer Valley’s when it first opened—prioritizing high-end lodging, capped skier numbers, and an emphasis on a premium experience.

However, as the project moved forward, Mayflower was absorbed into Deer Valley instead, effectively preventing it from becoming an independent resort. While the ski terrain itself is already in the process of being developed, it will not exist as its own distinct resort. This shift is just another example of how rather than creating new standalone resorts, developers are increasingly tying projects into existing ski infrastructure, reducing capital risk and regulatory hurdles.

Certain other developers decided to take other routes. One of the most interesting proposals in recent years was Bluebird Backcountry, a ski resort concept that opened in 2020 in Colorado. Unlike traditional ski resorts, Bluebird operated without chairlifts, groomed trails, or major permanent infrastructure, instead putting together a hike-only operation with designated skin tracks, avalanche-controlled terrain, and ski patrol support. However, despite a much easier environmental process than a traditional ski resort and strong community interest, Bluebird Backcountry struggled financially. For many people, it was hard to justify paying to earn their turns when they could just do the same for free in the true backcountry, and after three seasons of operation, Bluebird Backcountry announced its closure in 2023.

Part 8: “Non-Resorts” That Have Opened Since 1981

But while large-scale ski resort development has been rare since 1981, some smaller ski areas have opened successfully during this period. These areas typically differ from large destination resorts in their scale, target audience, and business models. They focus on serving local or regional communities rather than attracting national or international visitors—which, as we mentioned earlier, would be an absolutely astronomical financial undertaking at this point. While most of these resorts have been smaller, local hills, four of them especially stand out to us:

Southwest Colorado’s Silverton Mountain, which opened in 2001, succeeded by catering exclusively to expert skiers and backcountry enthusiasts. With just one chairlift and a guided-access model for most of the season, Silverton kept costs low while avoiding the regulatory and financial hurdles that have plagued larger projects.

Silverton’s business model also allowed it to avoid many of the economic and environmental pitfalls that might have doomed a traditional destination project. By keeping infrastructure minimal, the resort’s development costs were significantly lower than traditional ski areas. Additionally, its remote location in southern Colorado meant it was not competing directly with larger ski resorts for casual skiers. Instead, it carved out a niche for expert skiers seeking a raw, ungroomed experience, a market that was underserved at the time. Without large-scale road expansions, real estate developments, or major lift installations, Silverton was able to bypass some of the environmental battles that stopped other resort projects.

Another success story is Mount Shasta Ski Park, which opened in California in 1985. Unlike many failed projects, its development was brought about by a bittersweet circumstance: an older ski area had previously operated on Mount Shasta before being destroyed by an avalanche in the 1970s. While the ski slopes themselves would be developed in a new location, the historical presence of a resort in the vicinity allowed developers to build on an existing foundation rather than starting from scratch, significantly reducing infrastructure costs and regulatory barriers. The resort’s mid-sized, regional focus helped it avoid the financial risks of a full-scale destination resort. Additionally, strong community support played a role—locals had lost their original ski area and were eager for a replacement, making the project more politically viable.

Mount Bohemia was another minimalist ski resort that was able to overcome the odds to open in the early 2000s. Like Silverton, this Michigan resort focused on delivering a raw, backcountry-style skiing experience, only installing two lifts and catering specifically to advanced skiers and riders looking for steep, ungroomed terrain. Along with operating on private land, this helped it avoid many of the environmental and financial challenges that have plagued other new resort proposals.

Finally, we want to cover what was probably the last serious attempt to build a true independent destination ski area that actually made it to reality, though whether it truly succeeded is heavily up for debate. Idaho’s Tamarack Resort opened in 2004, marking probably the most ambitious ski resort development since the 1980s. The resort cleared regulatory hurdles largely by building on state-owned land rather than federal land, and it debuted with just over 1000 acres, making it bigger than most local hills, though still smaller than most destination resorts. In addition, the resort had an extensive base village planned out.

However, Tamarack may have bitten off more than it could chew. Financial difficulties led to bankruptcy in early 2008 forcing the resort to shut down entirely in 2009. When it reopened the following year, a bank foreclosed on one of its chairlifts, dramatically reducing its skiable terrain. Though Tamarack eventually replaced this lift and completed its base plaza years later, and Tamarack continues to tout ambitious expansion plans, its rocky financial history underscores why so few developers are eager to enter this space.

Lastly, a handful of truly high-end resorts that have opened since the 1980s—but you can’t go to them. The first major example of this model was Yellowstone Club in Montana, which opened in the late 1990s as the first true private ski resort in the U.S. Despite financial problems in the late 2000s, it still operates today. More recently, Wasatch Peaks Ranch in Utah, which first opened in 2021, has followed a similar approach, although it has faced legal battles from local residents. Beyond fully private resorts, exclusive snowcat-accessed operations have emerged as a high-end alternative to traditional ski areas. Operations like Eleven Experience’s Irwin Guides and Park City Powder Cats offer guided skiing on private land, providing a backcountry-style experience at an ultra-high price point without the need for costly lift infrastructure.

Final Thoughts

So a significant array of factors have kept any truly meaningful new resorts from making their way to reality in the United States over the past four decades. Sure, a few new areas have opened, but they’ve all been incredibly niche, locally-oriented, or not open to the public. The ski scene has still seen incredible improvements over the past four decades, with skiable terrain areas, resort infrastructure, and other creature comforts all experiencing substantial improvements in that timeframe. However, it seems pretty clear that the era of new resort mega development is over, and from economic, environmental, and competitive perspectives, it doesn’t seem like that’s likely to change any time soon.