Mountain Accord

[Sirshredalot]

Buster, I agree with you about rail in general, but I don't think it's a good solution in the cottonwood canyons. The cost is prohibitive, unfortunately. Expanded light rail in the SLC valley would be money better spent, along with improved bus service up the canyons. UTA must have some metal sitting idle on weekends because I am pretty sure they run buses at higher frequencies on commuter routes during the week. Redeploying those buses to serve weekend ski traffic should be relatively easy - at least in theory.

[bigdude2468]

Buster, I agree with you about rail in general, but I don't think it's a good solution in the cottonwood canyons. The cost is prohibitive, unfortunately. Expanded light rail in the SLC valley would be money better spent, along with improved bus service up the canyons. UTA must have some metal sitting idle on weekends because I am pretty sure they run buses at higher frequencies on commuter routes during the week. Redeploying those buses to serve weekend ski traffic should be relatively easy - at least in theory.

To make buses work UTA will have to add some flexibility to their schedules. Adding even just a few more buses every day when demand does not meet supply drives costs out of line. More buses on weekends, holidays, on powder days etc. I think the resorts are walking a fine line if it comes to them using a stick (charging for parking) as a solution to parking. My understanding is that UDOT wanted no part of charging a toll for use of Hwy 210.

[muted]

Why can't the train go up BCC? It's wider; less steep. Then build a smaller, more frequent, shuttle-train to go to SB/Alta. I'm sure this question has been answered before in another thread, but I missed it.

As for comments of a train being too slow: if the train is built, that probably will be your only choice. It will be faster than skinning, so you will have to accept whatever speed it is. If they allow cars while having a train, it seems like a waste of money. Just like if they increase buses up LCC, everyone will be driving slower up there because everyone will be stuck behind a bus. Which will make people ride buses more.

[skifishbum]

the pilatus banhens cogs wheels faster than the pow day conga line cept it had to stop for a goat on the tracks
way faster once some special agrro snowflake who thinks chains and 4x4 excludes him or his bald tires and fucks shit up worse

[Buster Highmen]

I give UT a shit ton of credit for their train system up and down the Wasatch front.

Everyone thinks Seattle is so fucking groovy and eco and yet Seattle doesn't have a system that is nearly as functional as the Wasatch front. So I look to UT to be the leader.

If you buy anthropomorphic global warming and climate change, you have to accept that combustion engines are not sustainable. So engineer for the future. Fuck, Yrup does it, why can't the USA?

[skifishbum]

make bigger better
#letlittleneverclose

[Buster Highmen]

In the same vein, Ogden tram!

It doesn't have to be some land giveaway, put the tram base at Weber, run some trolleys from the train station in town. That would save so much pollution from driving up and around to Snow Basin.

[bigdude2468]

Why can't the train go up BCC? It's wider; less steep. Then build a smaller, more frequent, shuttle-train to go to SB/Alta. I'm sure this question has been answered before in another thread, but I missed it.

As for comments of a train being too slow: if the train is built, that probably will be your only choice. It will be faster than skinning, so you will have to accept whatever speed it is. If they allow cars while having a train, it seems like a waste of money. Just like if they increase buses up LCC, everyone will be driving slower up there because everyone will be stuck behind a bus. Which will make people ride buses more.

My experience skiing 100+ days up LCC last season was maybe six days had the red snake on the way down. Over Christmas with plenty of snow in Park City the crowds were way down compared to the year before. We have had three below average years in a row so a normal snow year (my fingers are crossed) would have more bad traffic days. Unless you do a tunnel a train faces the same avy danger and the snow has to be removed from the tracks just like the road. Trains that use traction, steel wheels on a rail are very limited to the grade they can climb. The steepest traction rail line in the U.S is the Raton Pass in New Mexico at 3.3%, barely an incline. That means it has to be either a monorail, cog style or a funicular. Funicular's are like trams with only two cars going opposite direction so gravity assists in pulling the uphill car. Cog style trains don't seem to go very fast. The Mt Washington cog travels 2.8 mph on the way up. I know someone suggested a monorail but they are extraordinarily expensive. Found data for the Las Vegas monorail and it was $168 million per mile in 2002 $. Considering this was built on public right-away, flat ground I doubt the construction costs would be less up LCC. Finally the UTA Green line from downtown to the airport, six miles was $325 million, also flat ground. The road up LCC has to remain in order to allow for construction equipment, supplies etc that provide services to the ski resorts. So do they excavate on the north side of the canyon to make room for a train? I wonder if skiers were forced to take a train would that drive more of them up the Bigger Better Canyon? (as SFB would say)

[Dantheman]

How many spots are needed at the bottom of LLC? 2,500? 10,000?

Good question, I was pondering that yesterday. Total parking capacity up-canyon from SB Entry 1 to the Alta GG lot is hard to guess, maybe ~2,000 vehicles? If you wanted to future-proof parking at the mouth I think you'd probably want to build a few thousand spaces. There would be a big aesthetic benefit to building it inside the mountain since it would be hidden (not that it would ever happen, but another reason it would be cool).

I think the one I rode from Goeschenen up to Andermatt is a cog rail, but the cog only engage for portions of the trip. I'd assume the same design could be used on the CCs. On the flatter sections, the train can go more conventional speeds.

Max grade for friction rail is about 3.5%. It would be cog the whole way up.

I didn't mean that; I meant that the design should be able to accommodate existing rec areas.

There's no way to do that. You could spit and almost hit the road from some of these spots, and the creek is spitting distance from the road on the other side. It's just too confined and something has to give, and it won't be the road or the creek.

The train doesn't have to start right at the mouth is what I meant.

There are more distant options available for the bus already. They barely get used.

That may depend on how much gas and a potential toll on the road would cost. Will gasoline continue to be affordable and environmentally acceptable?

That assumes we'll still be powering cars and buses with dino juice in 20+ years, which quite possibly won't be the case.

I must misunderstand something - don't they already have a publicly subsidized transit system, the road?

Touche. Let me rephrase that: Alta and Snowbird want a second publicly subsidized transit system that overwhelmingly benefits their customers and also happens to be a highly marketable novelty attraction.

I know there is a thought that a tunnel for trains or cars that would eliminate or at least mitigate avalanche control work would be a good way to go.

AFAIK, with the exception of the Alta-Brighton connection the train would not be in a tunnel. Putting it underground the whole way up LCC would increase the cost drastically, like $10+ billion probably. Snowsheds over the road and/or train at key slide paths were not considered AFAIK.

Why can't the train go up BCC? It's wider; less steep.

Only above the S-curves, lower BCC is very confined. Even higher up the grades typically exceed the limits of friction rail. Plus, it would have to be twice as long and thus twice as costly.

As for comments of a train being too slow: if the train is built, that probably will be your only choice.

Everything I read said the train would be in addition to the road, not a replacement for the road.

That would save so much pollution from driving up and around to Snow Basin.

Like bigdude already said, pollution from ski traffic is a non-issue compared to traffic in the valleys. A tiny drop in a very large bucket. If the electric vehicle revolution really happens it could be a non-issue in a few decades anyway.

Unless you do a tunnel a train faces the same avy danger and the snow has to be removed from the tracks just like the road.

That's what I don't get. SB/Alta's beef with the road is the closures and delays from weather and avalanche danger, but an above ground train is impacted by those as well. I really think they just like the marketing angle the train provides. It's just like Yurp!

So do they excavate on the north side of the canyon to make room for a train?

That's the only way. A tunnel the whole way up increases the cost by at least an order of magnitude.

[bigdude2468]

I keep coming back to the practicality of spending millions of $ for essentially three months out of the year. The "real" ski season starts at Christmas ends late March when spring vacation ends.

I don't see a "train" being an attraction for out of town skiers. In a previous life I rode a commuter train in a large metropolitan city twice per day. It was cool for about three days than it was just an excuse to read a newspaper in the morning and drink a beer on the way home.

Lastly if in fact the number of skiers is declining what are we worried about? The parking lots at Alta & Snowbird are going to have plenty of room.

[skifishbum]

the number of skiers who don't need mechanical ups are not dwindling its rising
this i know from my current life
of +100days for 2 decades

[bigdude2468]

Yea but they are not parking in a lot owned by a ski area.

[skifishbum]

actually silver forks trailhead is solis lot
and most usa bowlers park in the village lot
b right on allows uphill traffic your sposed to park at the general store but very few do
i park in rustlers lot to access flag and emmas

[SJG]

how much says SB proposes a lot in American Fork Canyon as a huge solution? :-/

[Sirshredalot]

I keep coming back to the practicality of spending millions of $ for essentially three months out of the year. The "real" ski season starts at Christmas ends late March when spring vacation ends.

I don't see a "train" being an attraction for out of town skiers. In a previous life I rode a commuter train in a large metropolitan city twice per day. It was cool for about three days than it was just an excuse to read a newspaper in the morning and drink a beer on the way home.

Lastly if in fact the number of skiers is declining what are we worried about? The parking lots at Alta & Snowbird are going to have plenty of room.

The total number of skiers may be stagnant, but it's the mom and pop hills that are dying. It's possible for AltaBird to thrive while that goes on in Michigan and New Hampshire.

[JKnight]

I keep coming back to the practicality of spending millions of $ for essentially three months out of the year. The "real" ski season starts at Christmas ends late March when spring vacation ends.

In reality, LCC traffic is a year round issue, mostly due to Octoberfest, and Big is packed spring, summer, and fall with Guardsman all buffed out and all the developed and disperse rec.

Bigdude, the tunnels were specific to the connections between LCC/BCC and BCC/PC. I think there was another small one between Snowbird and Alta. The big move to reduce the avy index on that road was taking the rail line across the creek near Tanners Flat to avoid significant avy hazard. This would require an adjustment to the wilderness boundary, and MA is still holding on to this as the resorts have earmarked the need to reroute the highway or for future rail. This adjustment would also serve the MTB community, most likely.

We'll see if MA survives. If not, we are back to our piecemeal Wasatch ways until the next planning efforts commence.

Items of interest: How long are residents and Cottonwood Heights going to tolerate that gravel pit? It's value as a transit hub/mixed development must be looking attractive, and it would negate the need for a bunch of ugly parking at the mouth of LCC.

Fees/Parking Pass - FS is currently pursuing this for a number of their high use areas in LCC and BCC.

Adding a Auto/BRT/Rail lane to LCC - Transit will not work until there is a priority lane, imo, and the MA transportation engineer was confident that most all direct impacts to bouldering and rec. access could be avoided with rail as the talk was of a single line w/ sidings design. (Some skepticism is warranted as not all access was examined, and local climbing has been a "soft target" in the past.) Personally, I'd rather have a rail line buffering the brake dust along the most feasible route on the north side of the highway in the lower canyon.

Then there's the money. Will we end up spending more or less on the piecemeal or planned approach in the long run? I can't help but think how easily we talk of privately held billions, then feel guilty advocating billions for the public good. Maybe the spending piecemeal based on a solid long term plan is the most affordable?

American Fork Canyon - Motorized shitshow up high and great climbing down low. Looks bad, climbs good. Heartening to hear that the Utah Valley dragon is awakening to what is going on up there.

[bigdude2468]

Adding a Auto/BRT/Rail lane to LCC - Transit will not work until there is a priority lane, imo, and the MA transportation engineer was confident that most all direct impacts to bouldering and rec. access could be avoided with rail as the talk was of a single line w/ sidings design. (Some skepticism is warranted as not all access was examined, and local climbing has been a "soft target" in the past.) Personally, I'd rather have a rail line buffering the brake dust along the most feasible route on the north side of the highway in the lower canyon.

What kind of rail are they talking about? I would like to know which option can get people the 11 miles in a reasonable amount of time from a practical (cost) standpoint. Traction won't work and monorail is completely out of line $ wise. So that leaves a cog style unless there is another type I am missing. Maybe there is a "high speed" cog or rack style system but even that is going to be incredibly expensive. Looking at what the cost of light rail projects are I would expect a cog to be at least as much, hundreds of millions. Looking at the parking lot on I-15 every work day I think spending the money there to actually have an impact on pollution makes so much more sense.

The gravel pit certainly makes some sense for BCC parking but its location does not address LCC drivers from farther south. Parking closer

[yabyum]

Adding a Auto/BRT/Rail lane to LCC - Transit will not work until there is a priority lane, imo, and the MA transportation engineer was confident that most all direct impacts to bouldering and rec. access could be avoided with rail as the talk was of a single line w/ sidings design. (Some skepticism is warranted as not all access was examined, and local climbing has been a "soft target" in the past.) Personally, I'd rather have a rail line buffering the brake dust along the most feasible route on the north side of the highway in the lower canyon.

What kind of rail are they talking about? I would like to know which option can get people the 11 miles in a reasonable amount of time from a practical (cost) standpoint. Traction won't work and monorail is completely out of line $ wise. So that leaves a cog style unless there is another type I am missing. Maybe there is a "high speed" cog or rack style system but even that is going to be incredibly expensive. Looking at what the cost of light rail projects are I would expect a cog to be at least as much, hundreds of millions. Looking at the parking lot on I-15 every work day I think spending the money there to actually have an impact on pollution makes so much more sense.

The gravel pit certainly makes some sense for BCC parking but its location does not address LCC drivers from farther south. Parking closer

Parking lots will not happen until connected Utah legislators can make a killing on the land. Hughes and Neiderhauser are on the top of the list.

[itsnowjoke]

https://youtu.be/J1UHgcujRRA

The cog railways I've been on go 40-50 mph up some decent grades. They don't crawl, as some are saying. I'm sure there are some that crawl up very steep grades, a modern cog railway train should be able to fly up LCC. But... Billions.

[telefreewasatch]

See post 21 about parking.

Any thought of transport should be in the air for the reasons in that post. If a monorail is too expensive then settle for a gondola or whatever.

[Buster Highmen]

The cog rail from Goeschenen to Andermatt is 6.1 km == 3.8 miles done in less than 10 minutes, so that's more like 22 mph. That road is pretty crazy too.

Anyway, I'm going to hold DTM responsible for stomping on my personal dreems to shoehorn a train from some underused mall in Sandy to Alta.
;-) (just in case)

It __would__ be Yuro cool and environmentally brilliant if difficult to design and engineer and expensive. It's more about mindset than anything else.

[JKnight]

Light rail with slower cog sections is what was mentioned in various documentation. Here's a table with the grades and speed from a 2015 Mountain Accord Transportation White Paper:



And these are shots are from the SLCO 2012 Mountain Transportation Study:

[JKnight]

Telefreewasatch, other than the Dillard place, that's a nice piece open space at the bottom of the canyon. Private owners are trying to get part of it rezoned for higher density development currently. A big parking lot would go nicely with more clusters of zero-lot-line homes.

Along with the operational shortcomings, UTA jumped the shark in not focusing on building one of the valley connections first. Realistic phasing could have been part of Mountain Accord from the beginning.

[bigdude2468]

Looking at the "White Paper" the first chart titled Rail Transit Attribute Summary. They are showing speeds of 65 MPH for light rail and 79 MPH for commuter rail, max speeds. I don't buy it that you can ever get to that speed even in the low angle sections that are not using the rack / cog drive. Maybe on the way down but this would require taking the sharp turns out to sustain any kind of speed. Regardless, their cost estimate is $510 - $680 Million. IMO it does not pass the smell test as the cost of the airport extension was $325 million on flat ground for six miles.

One last thing, would there ever be enough utilization of a rail system during the spring, summer and fall to run it on weekdays?

[telefreewasatch]

Telefreewasatch, other than the Dillard place, that's a nice piece open space at the bottom of the canyon. Private owners are trying to get part of it rezoned for higher density development currently. A big parking lot would go nicely with more clusters of zero-lot-line homes.

Along with the operational shortcomings, UTA jumped the shark in not focusing on building one of the valley connections first. Realistic phasing could have been part of Mountain Accord from the beginning.

Isn't all that Forest Service land but that one private mining claim corner? That corner by itself seems too small to do anything with...

Like the idea of the gravel pit for BCC