Page 10 of 98 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 2444
  1. #226
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sandy by the front
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    From the WBCA email:

    "The original Mountain Accord was signed with the basic understanding that Grizzly Gulch, which is mostly owned by Alta Ski Lifts (ASL), would become public land and in exchange ASL would receive high-value national forest lands near their base, culinary water from Salt Lake City Public Utilities for a potential hotel and a taxpayer-funded “transportation solution” in the form of a tunnel or other connection to Big Cottonwood Canyon."

    I've also been told by some little birdies I know who were at the table during Mountain Accord that 1) ASL was extremely keen on a train up LCC as an alternative to a BCC connection; and 2) a tunnel was the only BCC connection they were actually willing to accept.

    LCC train would easily be a (multi?) billion-dollar project. Any possible tunnel route from the Albion parking lot to the BCC road is >2 miles at a likely cost of $500M to >$1B per mile (https://www.citylab.com/transportati...the-us/551408/). That's also just construction costs and doesn't factor in O&M. Remember, UTA operates at a huge overall loss, fares only cover 30% of their operating costs.
    I pointed out the high cost of any canyon transportation option when this all started two or three years ago. My argument was also that spending this kind of money for a seasonal need when the valley has a need five days a week with I-15 parking lot makes zero sense. Fact of the matter is the traffic in LCC is horrible about 20 day a season but for argument sake lets say its 30 days or even 50 days it makes no difference. Holidays and or weekend powder days don't occur enough to justify spending $100 million much less the amount we are talking about. The other issue is that UTA covers 70% of their operating budget with tax $, mostly sales tax. For the small % of locals that ski, I have heard numbers of <7% of the population it makes no sense. Adding a rail option further reduces $ for UTA to spend on other more worthwhile projects because they lose money on every passenger.

    Lastly what is Alta's reason for wanting a LCC / BCC interconnect so badly? I don't see any big benefit unless you move people up BCC with the express idea they then take this connection to LCC.

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    511

    WASATCH STOKE, CONDITIONS, OBSERVATIONS, AND ASSORTED DRIVAL 18-19

    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    The bottom line is that ASL wants a taxpayer-funded train up LCC and/or tunnel to BCC, rational economic analysis be damned. Until that happens their position is that they're taking their ball, going home, and everyone else can fuck off.
    Well yeah, but this was predictable. As was pointed out, the Mountain Accord called for a train and tunnels to connect to Big Cottonwood. If that were to occur, then all of the Grizzly Gulch land would be turned over to the forest service to become preserved public land. Without the train, Alta would retain the right to build a lift connecting to Big Cottonwood. Given that during the subsequent years there is no motion, desire, plans, funding, etc., for a realistic train, there is obviously going to be a lift, bringing One Wasatch one step closer to realization.
    Last edited by itsnowjoke; 11-29-2018 at 09:02 PM.

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Behind the Zion Curtain
    Posts
    3,028
    ^^^ He's like Beetlejuice.

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    4,420
    Quote Originally Posted by BobMc View Post
    ^^^ He's like Beetlejuice.
    lol yeah

  5. #230
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sandy by the front
    Posts
    1,809
    Unless MTN or Alterra buy Alta or Snowbird there is no reason for either one to promote a connection with LCC. The business model for EPIC and IKON are to hook you and then make money on rentals, food, lessons etc. If your Vail why would you encourage customers to exit your ski area to spend money in LCC ? LCC has a fraction of the lodging that PC has which means an interconnect would have far more movement from PC to LCC than from LCC to PC.

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdude2468 View Post
    Unless MTN or Alterra buy Alta or Snowbird there is no reason for either one to promote a connection with LCC. The business model for EPIC and IKON are to hook you and then make money on rentals, food, lessons etc. If your Vail why would you encourage customers to exit your ski area to spend money in LCC ? LCC has a fraction of the lodging that PC has which means an interconnect would have far more movement from PC to LCC than from LCC to PC.
    Hold my beer...


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  7. #232
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    10,696
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdude2468 View Post
    My argument was also that spending this kind of money for a seasonal need when the valley has a need five days a week with I-15 parking lot makes zero sense. Fact of the matter is the traffic in LCC is horrible about 20 day a season but for argument sake lets say its 30 days or even 50 days it makes no difference. Holidays and or weekend powder days don't occur enough to justify spending $100 million much less the amount we are talking about.
    And you're not wrong. The cost/user has got to be enormous. So many better ways to spend a billion fucking dollars.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdude2468 View Post
    Lastly what is Alta's reason for wanting a LCC / BCC interconnect so badly? I don't see any big benefit unless you move people up BCC with the express idea they then take this connection to LCC.
    Yeah, it's completely irrational. The gall of it is what really rubs me the wrong way. Highly profitable private business that already operates on a sweetheart USFS lease and has its access road maintained with public money is butthurt that the public won't support a billion-dollar infrastructure upgrade that <10% of the population needs 30 days a year. That's some next-level entitlement.

    Quote Originally Posted by BobMc View Post
    ^^^ He's like Beetlejuice.
    Hah!

  8. #233
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,985
    Alta may be pricks, but the skiing has been good this week, and tomorrow is looking even better. They opened the ho today too which was nice. Hereís a couple shitty cell phone pics.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_3212.JPG 
Views:	80 
Size:	251.0 KB 
ID:	257817

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_3214.JPG 
Views:	79 
Size:	1.04 MB 
ID:	257818

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    4,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    Yeah, it's completely irrational. The gall of it is what really rubs me the wrong way. Highly profitable private business that already operates on a sweetheart USFS lease and has its access road maintained with public money is butthurt that the public won't support a billion-dollar infrastructure upgrade that <10% of the population needs 30 days a year. That's some next-level entitlement.
    this

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    And you're not wrong. The cost/user has got to be enormous. So many better ways to spend a billion fucking dollars.



    Yeah, it's completely irrational. The gall of it is what really rubs me the wrong way. Highly profitable private business that already operates on a sweetheart USFS lease and has its access road maintained with public money is butthurt that the public won't support a billion-dollar infrastructure upgrade that <10% of the population needs 30 days a year. That's some next-level entitlement.



    Hah!
    Yeah, itís not butthurt or entitlement. Alta never wanted a train in the first place. The knuckleheads at Save Our Canyons, et al, said if we get a train in, are you willing to give up that land? And Alta said sure, if itís done in a timely manner. Itís not being done in a timely manner and is pie-in-the-sky cost prohibitive -duh- so Alta is going with Plan A.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Queen City North Carolina
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Dantheman View Post
    And you're not wrong. The cost/user has got to be enormous. So many better ways to spend a billion fucking dollars.



    Yeah, it's completely irrational. The gall of it is what really rubs me the wrong way. Highly profitable private business that already operates on a sweetheart USFS lease and has its access road maintained with public money is butthurt that the public won't support a billion-dollar infrastructure upgrade that <10% of the population needs 30 days a year. That's some next-level entitlement.



    Hah!
    Perfect summation. Iíve argued for years that the overwhelming majority of locals could give a damn that you are late on a powder day.
    Iíve also wondered aloud if the tax revenue from tourists and property taxes is a break even for simply avalanche and snow control for what is essentially two private business operating on public land. Asking the public for a spare billion or more is ridiculous.

  12. #237
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sandy by the front
    Posts
    1,809
    + X2

  13. #238
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sandy by the front
    Posts
    1,809
    Love the Ho but no bus laps yet

  14. #239
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    11,261
    Quote Originally Posted by BobMc View Post
    ^^^ He's like Beetlejuice.
    Who said his name 3 times damnit.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
    http://www.firsttracksonline.com

    I wish i could be like SkiFishBum

  15. #240
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    the LCC
    Posts
    373
    Not on a soapbox to try and change anybody's mind...most sound made up, anyway.
    Been a canyon employee and ski tourer for 40 years and a canyon resident for 30+.
    Really care about this place.
    Not a believer in over development myself.
    But...
    As Onno Wieringa always said "think fast, talk slow". Lot to be said for that statement. Its always been the Alta way.
    When this Johnny come lately newfangled Mountain Accord morph (CWC) holds a gun to an 80 years old's head,
    who are they and who is any Johnny come lately to give Alta shit for doing what is in their / their patron's best interest?
    Like waiting to see what the best use of Grizzly Gulch is before giving it away.
    A lot more private land there than y'all would like to think.
    Be grateful that it really is about the experience at Alta, not how much money they could make.
    This isn't anything like Trump and our local legislatures reneg on Bears Ears.
    Since when has Alta become the bad guy? What have they done?
    What have they yet done that smacks y'all wrong?
    With the population here expected to double in most of your lifetimes, and global warming / climate change expected to take it's toll on skiable acreage, having some terrain in reserve, especially a connection to other ski areas / lifts only makes sense for ski area skiers.
    Alta is being far sighted for the expected crush of skiers that will be here in the future.
    The other 3 ski areas in the Cottonwoods had nothing like Grizzly to work with; the land exchanges for them were no brainers.

    Let me put it another way. On the ski patrol at Alta, there was one turnover last year...to a returning patrol person. This year had one turnover.
    They must be doing something right seeing how patrolmen are paid the same as sister resorts with 20x the turnover!
    Time spent skiing cannot be deducted from one's life.

  16. #241
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    1,595
    Woah. Posed one question to see if this was an appropriate place to discuss the topic. Got busy and didn't log in for a day. Come back and there is indeed a lot of discussion.

    Still don't know what to think. My gut reaction is to place Alta in the bad guy roll. But I still think that the concern of population doubling combined with climate change reducing skiable acreage lends itself to at least giving Alta the benefit of the doubt. However...

    I think Dantheman and others say it right: as shitty as bumper to bumper canyon traffic is, we are all a very small portion of this state's population and spending a billion fucking dollars on a train or tunnel is ridiculous. The way that Alta is trying to spin this is what bothers me.

    I trusted Onno. I don't trust Maugahan.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDingleberry View Post
    pissing in a sink? fucking rookies. Shit in an oven, then you'll be pro.

  17. #242
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,378
    Amen, brother. Here is something super-weird about this anti-Alta hate. I canít put my finger on it but I hope Porter Fox writes an article about it for Powder or whomever. Someone needs to expose this hypocrisy elegantly. Thanks for putting a real locals thoughts down, telefreewasatch.

  18. #243
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    1,595
    Also. Props to patrol for getting so much terrain open. I've always loved Alta's policy of "let the skier decide if they're gonna wreck themselves".
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDingleberry View Post
    pissing in a sink? fucking rookies. Shit in an oven, then you'll be pro.

  19. #244
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    the LCC
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by monkeywrenchMoose View Post
    I think Dantheman and others say it right: as shitty as bumper to bumper canyon traffic is, we are all a very small portion of this state's population and spending a billion fucking dollars on a train or tunnel is ridiculous. The way that Alta is trying to spin this is what bothers me.
    With the world class snow and skiing found in the LCC, the transportation is 3rd world. Highway 210 is the only thing stopping this canyon from being world class.
    One way in, one way out to boot.
    Alta is not trying to get more skiers / money by having good mass transit, they are trying to improve the experience!
    Being unable to get up on a powder day, or spending two hours getting down is an experience that can be improved on!
    Of course mass transit is key to a great experience in the LCC!
    Only one person has been killed by an avalanche on the highway since Alta opened...a plow driver in the 50's.
    Unbelievable record that will not stand forever.
    One day a catastrophe where say 100 people die on the highway, will lead to change and improvement in transportation and safety.
    The reason the road is placed where it is was to accommodate Shea engines hauling ore out of the canyon back when.
    It was not built with skiers traveling through avalanche country in mind.
    The answer is a gondola away from the slide paths.
    If we were in Europe this would have happened long ago.
    Time spent skiing cannot be deducted from one's life.

  20. #245
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by telefreewasatch View Post
    Alta is not trying to get more skiers / money by having good mass transit, they are trying to improve the experience!
    Being unable to get up on a powder day, or spending two hours getting down is an experience that can be improved on!
    Of course mass transit is key to a great experience in the LCC!
    I thought it was important to highlight this portion of your comment. Perhaps I'm not understanding the situation as well as you do. Can you explain how Alta Ski Lifts not participating in a land swap giving up Grizzly Gulch to the Forrest Service would improve the traffic condition in Little Cottonwood, specifically with regards to mass transit?

    I'm starting to get the sense that the issue here is that Alta is playing their hand as one that benefits the whole Wasatch skiing community. But people are seeing through Alta's narrative because the solutions that could be accomplished through holding hostage the Grizzly Gulch public access do not actually benefit the whole Wasatch skiing community.

    The other resorts involved in the land swap planning played a more transparent game, it feels like Alta is not.

    Improved mass transit is the key, you say so yourself. But how does Alta holding onto their portion of Grizzly actually help implement your solution of a canyon length gondola? Maybe I'm not understanding correctly?
    Last edited by monkeywrenchMoose; 11-29-2018 at 10:16 PM. Reason: punctuation
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDingleberry View Post
    pissing in a sink? fucking rookies. Shit in an oven, then you'll be pro.

  21. #246
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    the LCC
    Posts
    373
    You do know how many visitors the LCC has that stay in Summit County?
    Especially early season?
    Can you imagine if those visitors could come to Alta or BCC without ever firing up a vehicle?
    We should be spinning bullwheels not bald tires in the LCC!
    The gondola up the canyon and a chairlift in Grizzly are partners in a better riding experience for the canyon...

    Understood that a lift in Grizzly would alter it's sidecountry. Considerably.
    Not here to argue that point, just a business's thinking...I think.
    Time spent skiing cannot be deducted from one's life.

  22. #247
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    95
    Well I don't know what you all are arguing about. Weather's great and skiing is looking better. Hoping for a big morning tomorrow followed by a quick run back to work. Should be fun.

  23. #248
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    401
    I stand with Alta. They have been the preeminent steward of LCC for 80+ years and know whats best for this special sliver of the Wasatch.

    I also find the amount of childish and butthurt vitriol directed towards Alta by the Ski Touring community to be extremely amusing. They have supplanted the snowboarders in this regard. Feel free to voice your displeasure but you end up looking like a dickhead imo

  24. #249
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    11,261
    Quote Originally Posted by telefreewasatch View Post
    With the world class snow and skiing found in the LCC, the transportation is 3rd world. Highway 210 is the only thing stopping this canyon from being world class.
    One way in, one way out to boot.
    Alta is not trying to get more skiers / money by having good mass transit, they are trying to improve the experience!
    Being unable to get up on a powder day, or spending two hours getting down is an experience that can be improved on!
    Of course mass transit is key to a great experience in the LCC!
    Only one person has been killed by an avalanche on the highway since Alta opened...a plow driver in the 50's.
    Unbelievable record that will not stand forever.
    One day a catastrophe where say 100 people die on the highway, will lead to change and improvement in transportation and safety.
    The reason the road is placed where it is was to accommodate Shea engines hauling ore out of the canyon back when.
    It was not built with skiers traveling through avalanche country in mind.
    The answer is a gondola away from the slide paths.
    If we were in Europe this would have happened long ago.
    Said gondola many moons ago lower impact and can move a lot of people. I don't feel like searching but I did some rudimentary "math" using info found in the internet on gondola speeds and passenger capacity. If I recall it was 45ish min trip and could move an ample amount of folks. Most poo poo'd the idea. Meh....snow shed tunnels would be easiest and cheapest solution. Europe has those too.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
    http://www.firsttracksonline.com

    I wish i could be like SkiFishBum

  25. #250
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sandy by the front
    Posts
    1,809
    Just to be clear I am an Alta skier and have no axe to grind with them. I understand their desire to do a land swap to allow for development of a hotel. While I think Alta does fine financially I have no way to confirm that, its not like they have spent big sums of money over the past 10 years. Almost 15 years ago they replaced Germania with the HS Collins chair and built a new Watson's Shelter. Last year they replaced Supreme with a HS quad. I guess I would think that if they were flush with cash more would have been done. Alta loses out on major revenue by not having lodging and no restaurant on the Wildcat side. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a land swap and I don't see any downside. Alta would get base area property from the FS that is in a developed area. GG reverts to the FS and everybody's pretty happy. I continue to disagree with transportation options other than improving the road in LCC with snow sheds etc. Having a gondola at the mouth of LCC would require a large parking lot which I am not sure where you build it. Using the existing lots at the gravel pit and 9400 S and shuttling by bus to the mouth would work but now you are probably of doubling the time to get up the canyon. Once again with a gondola you are talking about installing a mass transit solution for a few months of the year. If you charge for the gondola that becomes an additional cost to skiers, that in the case of Alta & SB pass holders they already pay more for their pass than the cost of Epic or Ikon passes. If we were forced to take / pay for a gondola ride on top of our $1000 Alta pass Solitude suddenly becomes more attractive. Fewer crowds already has me wondering about that option, limiting my transportation might put me over the top.

    Wonder what the cost of a gondola would be with multiple stations? White Pine, at least two at Snowbird and two at Alta, all manned. Building in the creek over a lot of private land with it not being a straight shot might be damn expensive.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •