WASATCH STOKE, CONDITIONS, OBSERVATIONS and ASSORTED DRIVAL 19-20

[mall walker]

^ 100% with you. It’s very weird that there aren’t snowsheds already.

[Dantheman]

Century-old unmaintained mine tunnels are irrelevant for building modern transportation tunnels. They might as well not exist. Alta-Brighton tunnel would cost billions.

Snow sheds are proposed in both non-gondi options, but not in the gondi option. All the more reason to go with bus options.

Yes, a gondi would be a massive eyesore IMVHO.

[glademaster]

I was being facetious w/r/t using the old mine tunnels that Swiss cheese the Cottonwoods. I would still love to see a tunnel connecting the two canyons though.

[telefreewasatch]

So...
This is what l had to say at the last SL County council meeting:

I've lived in LCC for 30 years, and worked as a ski patrolman, avalanche forecaster, rescuer, and dog handler for 40.
The most terrifying moments of my life have been performing avalanche road rescues in the canyon, especially at night. And l've been involved in many.
The current snow shed proposal under the earliest and most frequent running slide paths l support.
They will help mitigate the need for rescues but not eliminate them.
lf we do not move the public in a safer manner in LCC there will be catastrophes on that highway involving many people.
l fully support a high capacity gondola to move goods and people safely.
A gondola can be away from slide paths and operate in major storms which a road can never do.
Last winter 30 percent of traffic in LCC was coming from Park City.
lf one believes in climate change, there will be no snow in Summit County to speak of or the temps to make it.
Yet most of our hotels, condos, eateries, etc. are located there.
We need to spin bull wheels not bald tires to transport these guests to upper Big and Little where the last islands of snow will be.
We have an international airport and world class skiing here, but a broken delivery system.
We propose a high capacity gondola originating in Summit County reached by interstate to fix the delivery.
lt will run to upper Big and Little from there.
This plan kills three birds with one stone.
Not only does it make moving goods and people much faster and safer, but it plans for a not too distant future and provides a needed fire escape for BCC and LCC.
Extending the gondola down LCC itself can be phase two or possibly prove unnecessary.

Think about it, eh?

[snowaddict91]

You aren't wrong. Unfortunately Park City will have no parking in a few years. I'd say that would be the biggest issue. Well that and Vail.

[googledidoo]

Oh God. That Park City parking situation is going to be a nightmare with Vail selling all of PCMRs parking. I think the developer's plan that bought the land is going to be to put up some parking garages to make up for some of the lost parking. I'm sure it will be paid parking though and it probably won't make up for all the lost parking. Right now, the large amount of parking PCMR has is a huge advantage versus the other ski resorts that is going to be lost and may incrementally drive more traffic to the Cottonwoods or even to the Ogden area resorts.

[Trefin]

So...

l fully support a high capacity gondola to move g
lt will run to upper Big and Little from there.
This plan kills three birds with one stone.
Not only does it make moving goods and people much faster and safer, but it plans for a not too distant future and provides a needed fire escape for BCC and LCC.
Extending the gondola down LCC itself can be phase two or possibly prove unnecessary.

Think about it, eh?

These were my thoughts too, maybe an expanded parking somewhere by the high school or garage at it for that Gondi.

Snow sheds are mandatory imo either way. Honestly they need to actually enforce the snow tires and ban rental cars to isolate it to the traffic issue. In my experience fuckhead bro brahs/angry dads in rentals or cars without snows cause the majority of the dangerous slowdowns/stoppages over the last 3 years. To be pessimistic, I think both canyons are going to be fucked due to the ease of access, effective marketing, and global warming going forward now matter what we do.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[D-Roc]

Guys, we just need Elon Musk to look into this!

Musk is a Must for LCC!

C'mon - Gondolas are 1970s technology - we all saw the billboards - ONE STAR...

Vactrains ! https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/16/tech/...ort/index.html

[bigdude2468]

Wish I could get on board with buses but in the current and proposed solutions they are terribly inefficient. UTA has never been able to add buses on busy days or reduce buses when (early January for example) there is little demand. On no snow days they work fine but have a 5:30 AM closure or an accident on worse yet a closure during the day and its a nightmare. You are looking at multiple hours on a bus or in the case of a PM closure or worse interlodge you are waiting hours for a bus. Also its likely when you get on the bus you will be standing for two hours either in your ski boots or carrying a back pack along with your skis. Adding more and more buses does little to resolve the issue on snowy days when traffic is barely moving. Lastly UTA gets just 11% of their revenue from fares, 70% of its revenue is from from sales tax. Adding more buses and the cost of salaries and UTA's budget hole just gets bigger. Unfortunately if you raise fares it discourages riders. I wish I had a diary with the road conditions on the 100+ days we ski in LCC. My guess is last year we had no more than 15 days that it took longer than 25 minutes from the mouth of the canyon not counting the three day interlodge. I wish they had given more information costs etc on snow sheds. Having sheds and then not having to plow and eliminating a substantial amount of control work has a cost savings associated with it. On the other hand having sufficient snow sheds so that Hellgate / Superior portions of the road does not close seems a bridge too far.

On another note Midvale is going to drop UPD and join Taylorsville and Cottonwood Heights which have done the same thing. That will leave UPD with Millcreek and some unicoporated areas of SL County. I could see this resulting in less checking of tires in as much as UPD already said they don't have the budget to provide for more checking at the mouth of LCC. Would not be surprised to see UPD just go away.

[schindlerpiste]

I think that TFW makes good points, but I don't believe for one second that 30% of LCC traffic comes from P.C. There are just too many people crowding the slopes of PCMR and DV and beds purchased/night are not increasing that much. In fact, more often than not I ride lifts with people from Provo, SLC, and Ogden who have purchased Epic passes. I think that the overwhelming majority of increased traffic comes from these multi-resort pass holders. This is true, whether it be IKON, Epic or Mountain Collective. They are a bad idea, and should be stopped. Also, the cost of a day pass should linger around $200+. This way, most resorts will get plenty of season pass holders to the individual resort, and not so many day pass tickets sold.
Absolutely, this should be a multi faceted project. We need a gondi from P.C. to BCC and LCC. OTOH from the mouth of LCC, I am for adding a bus lane, just because I can't imagine driving 20-40 mins. to the mouth and then 50 mins on the gondola. This reminds me a bit of the current situation at Canyons (car to cab to gondi) but on a much larger scale. The other approach would be to leave construction of the mouth alone for 3-5 years, impose a $15-$20 toll to be collected by Easypass type collection mechanism to every vehicle entering the canyon and then use the funds to improve the situation.

[glademaster]

FWIW, the only time I ever took a ski vacation to Park City (this was 2003/4ish), we skied a day each at Deer Valley and The Canyons, then one day each at Alta, Bird, Soli, Brighton and Snowbasin. We stayed in PC because my mom isn't a skier and it was the best location in terms of providing her with things to do while we skied, not because of the skiing.

I think more people vacation like that than you realize, there Himmler.

[Skidog]

I think that TFW makes good points, but I don't believe for one second that 30% of LCC traffic comes from P.C. There are just too many people crowding the slopes of PCMR and DV and beds purchased/night are not increasing that much. In fact, more often than not I ride lifts with people from Provo, SLC, and Ogden who have purchased Epic passes. I think that the overwhelming majority of increased traffic comes from these multi-resort pass holders. This is true, whether it be IKON, Epic or Mountain Collective. They are a bad idea, and should be stopped. Also, the cost of a day pass should linger around $200+. This way, most resorts will get plenty of season pass holders to the individual resort, and not so many day pass tickets sold.
Absolutely, this should be a multi faceted project. We need a gondi from P.C. to BCC and LCC. OTOH from the mouth of LCC, I am for adding a bus lane, just because I can't imagine driving 20-40 mins. to the mouth and then 50 mins on the gondola. This reminds me a bit of the current situation at Canyons (car to cab to gondi) but on a much larger scale. The other approach would be to leave construction of the mouth alone for 3-5 years, impose a $15-$20 toll to be collected by Easypass type collection mechanism to every vehicle entering the canyon and then use the funds to improve the situation.

I LOVE your last idea....Tolls to pay for the improvements. The majority of Utah taxpayers, who would foot the bill for such a project, could give 2 shits about skiing. Hell most of them don't even realize there are mountains to play in right in their own backyards.

[telefreewasatch]

Getting folks to a terminal in Summit County via interstate versus to the mouth of Little has many advantages.
Where ever the gondola's origin is I support it.
Just not the one they are proposing.
1,500 people an hour?
Fifty minutes?
wtf
Doppelmayr's 3s system moves 5,500 people an hour!
There is still room for parking galore at the mouth of Little, north side of 210, on either side of the Dillard residence; FS land.
That is what the current park and ride sits on...FS land.
Parking structure, etc.
The Euros woulda done this so long ago.
Still need snowsheds and the road...

[telefreewasatch]

A little about the snow sheds.
I believe that they will only be under White Pine, Little Pine, and White Pine Chutes 1 + 2...the earliest and most frequent runners.
Might need correction on that.
What these will accomplish is that if one of these paths run to the road, traffic can still flow while the highway is being closed; no traffic jam bottled up under the larger adjacent paths.
It gives UDOT forecasters a little wiggle room on leaving the road open; if a shredded path runs then its time to close the road versus the road just closed itself and there are a shit ton of people in harm's way.

[snowaddict91]

^thanks for the info. I agree that the proposed gondola is missing the mark. I've been pro gondi for a while but I don't see this plan being the best. And I agree, we need snow sheds AND an alternate way of transport, whether it is aerial, a tunnel, or something else weird. LCC is only going to get busier.

But man, as much sense as a PC gondola makes, I want it to come to my house, not further away!

[whyturn]

The Europeans run gondolas to some crazy areas. We just need more resorts like them not trying to shove everyone up LCC I stopped going to Alta last few seasons due to issues on the road. I do love me some Catherine’s though


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Dantheman]

The other approach would be to leave construction of the mouth alone for 3-5 years, impose a $15-$20 toll to be collected by Easypass type collection mechanism to every vehicle entering the canyon and then use the funds to improve the situation.

All three proposed options include some degree of tolling or "management of vehicle occupancy." I'd fully support tolls if the money was specifically earmarked for canyon public transit. I have little faith that the state won't just use it as a general slush fund. I also see no reason to believe that the gondola would be like the Telluride gondola, I guarantee riding it would be pricey.

Just not the one they are proposing.
1,500 people an hour?
Fifty minutes?
wtf
Doppelmayr's 3s system moves 5,500 people an hour!

It's actually 1,050 people/hr, and that 50 minutes doesn't include the bus ride to/from the gravel pit. The 3s system moves up to 5,500 people/hr. P2P at Whistler moves 4,100/hr, but it's only 2.7 miles long. 8 miles is a really long gondola, it would be the longest in the world. My not-a-lift-engineer understanding is that capacity is inversely proportional to length, so compared to P2P the capacity makes sense and to increase the capacity you'd have to split it in two.

Regarding the inherent dangers of the road and a PC-BCC-LCC gondola, I have deep respect for your opinion and the work you've done and still do. But, I think the idea is irrelevant to the current discussion because that option is not on the table in any meaningful way. Under all of the currently proposed options, 2/3 of LCC transportation will continue to be accomplished by private vehicles using the road. If I understand your position correctly, your opinion is that snowsheds are critical to mitigating the road avalanche hazard and preventing loss of life. Well, of the three current options, only the gondola option does not provide snowsheds for the road.

[telefreewasatch]

All three proposed options include some degree of tolling or "management of vehicle occupancy." I'd fully support tolls if the money was specifically earmarked for canyon public transit. I have little faith that the state won't just use it as a general slush fund. I also see no reason to believe that the gondola would be like the Telluride gondola, I guarantee riding it would be pricey.



It's actually 1,050 people/hr, and that 50 minutes doesn't include the bus ride to/from the gravel pit. The 3s system moves up to 5,500 people/hr. P2P at Whistler moves 4,100/hr, but it's only 2.7 miles long. 8 miles is a really long gondola, it would be the longest in the world. My not-a-lift-engineer understanding is that capacity is inversely proportional to length, so compared to P2P the capacity makes sense and to increase the capacity you'd have to split it in two.

Regarding the inherent dangers of the road and a PC-BCC-LCC gondola, I have deep respect for your opinion and the work you've done and still do. But, I think the idea is irrelevant to the current discussion because that option is not on the table in any meaningful way. Under all of the currently proposed options, 2/3 of LCC transportation will continue to be accomplished by private vehicles using the road. If I understand your position correctly, your opinion is that snowsheds are critical to mitigating the road avalanche hazard and preventing loss of life. Well, of the three current options, only the gondola option does not provide snowsheds for the road.

Thanks for some education!
And I understand the different options.
What I'm hoping for is the snow shed option to start with, and the gondola idea rethought and planned on for the future.
Sorry I didn't make that clear at all...

[muted]

Wish I could get on board with buses but in the current and proposed solutions they are terribly inefficient. UTA has never been able to add buses on busy days or reduce buses when (early January for example) there is little demand. On no snow days they work fine but have a 5:30 AM closure or an accident on worse yet a closure during the day and its a nightmare. You are looking at multiple hours on a bus or in the case of a PM closure or worse interlodge you are waiting hours for a bus. Also its likely when you get on the bus you will be standing for two hours either in your ski boots or carrying a back pack along with your skis. Adding more and more buses does little to resolve the issue on snowy days when traffic is barely moving. Lastly UTA gets just 11% of their revenue from fares, 70% of its revenue is from from sales tax. Adding more buses and the cost of salaries and UTA's budget hole just gets bigger. Unfortunately if you raise fares it discourages riders. I wish I had a diary with the road conditions on the 100+ days we ski in LCC. My guess is last year we had no more than 15 days that it took longer than 25 minutes from the mouth of the canyon not counting the three day interlodge. I wish they had given more information costs etc on snow sheds. Having sheds and then not having to plow and eliminating a substantial amount of control work has a cost savings associated with it. On the other hand having sufficient snow sheds so that Hellgate / Superior portions of the road does not close seems a bridge too far.

On another note Midvale is going to drop UPD and join Taylorsville and Cottonwood Heights which have done the same thing. That will leave UPD with Millcreek and some unicoporated areas of SL County. I could see this resulting in less checking of tires in as much as UPD already said they don't have the budget to provide for more checking at the mouth of LCC. Would not be surprised to see UPD just go away.

I'd like to see the ski areas step up and provide a new bus system. It's their issue to solve hand-in-hand with the government. Having a dedicated bus lane and a guaranteed seat for every customer would draw riders. Financially it would be costly for the ski areas, even if the government subsidizes I would imagine, but everything is expensive. Relying on UTA after a new lane goes in would be a mess but a private company could run a tight ship, like at big concerts where you park, walk on a bus, and it's full quickly. Also, maybe there is a better bus out there that could get more seats in it, and better storage for gear than UTA buses that a private company can use.

[Mudfoot]

I LOVE your last idea....Tolls to pay for the improvements. The majority of Utah taxpayers, who would foot the bill for such a project, could give 2 shits about skiing. Hell most of them don't even realize there are mountains to play in right in their own backyards.

This brings up a point that has been somewhat overlooked in this discussion, which has been focused on skiing. I live in BCC and the traffic in the summer is even worse than the winter. Literally tens of thousands of trips on some weekends. I assume it is the seasonal opposite in LCC. If you impose tolls would that be year-round? Are you going to charge all the locals who recreate in BCC in the off ski seasons? How about all the summer campers in Albion Basin? Thousands of people a day use BCC to go back and forth to Park City. Traffic is not just a winter problem but the vast majority of the expense to fix the problem appears to be winter related. I think the toughest issue is not choosing the physical solutions but figuring out a funding solution that is equitable enough to get people to swallow it.

[concretejungle]

Ok, so I have a basic understanding of the situation from this thread and the graphic on the SLCA webpage (https://www.saltlakeclimbers.org/new...-llc-look-like) but can someone help me out? What does "address trailhead parking mean)? I'm more concerned with winter bouldering access. Thanks.

[schindlerpiste]

This brings up a point that has been somewhat overlooked in this discussion, which has been focused on skiing. I live in BCC and the traffic in the summer is even worse than the winter. Literally tens of thousands of trips on some weekends. I assume it is the seasonal opposite in LCC. If you impose tolls would that be year-round? Are you going to charge all the locals who recreate in BCC in the off ski seasons? How about all the summer campers in Albion Basin? Thousands of people a day use BCC to go back and forth to Park City. Traffic is not just a winter problem but the vast majority of the expense to fix the problem appears to be winter related. I think the toughest issue is not choosing the physical solutions but figuring out a funding solution that is equitable enough to get people to swallow it.

Yes to year round. The residents of the actual canyon should have a decal on car that provides access. DTM's point that all funds earmarked for Canyon maintenance and improvement. I would be like a use fee/tax with all proceeds going to improving canyon transportation (not the company obviously)

[Sirshredalot]

Getting folks to a terminal in Summit County via interstate versus to the mouth of Little has many advantages.
Where ever the gondola's origin is I support it.
Just not the one they are proposing.
1,500 people an hour?
Fifty minutes?
wtf
Doppelmayr's 3s system moves 5,500 people an hour!
There is still room for parking galore at the mouth of Little, north side of 210, on either side of the Dillard residence; FS land.
That is what the current park and ride sits on...FS land.
Parking structure, etc.
The Euros woulda done this so long ago.
Still need snowsheds and the road...

Where does your proposed Interstate-accessible gondi station in Summit County go and how is it accessed? It's a hell of a long way from I-80 to Big Cottonwood Canyon and highway 224 is already gridlocked with day trippers from SLC any time it snows.

To me, it seems more feasible to run something from the new Deer Valley base in Wasatch County, but that's not as convenient a drive for the Wasatch Front crowds.

If people are getting in a gondi at Kimball Junction and riding it all the way to Alta, that would be amazing, but I don't see it happening.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Dantheman]

Thousands of people a day use BCC to go back and forth to Park City. Traffic is not just a winter problem but the vast majority of the expense to fix the problem appears to be winter related.

Paving the Wasatch County side of Guardsman was incredibly stupid. The increase in through-traffic was massive. I agree that UDOT is way over-focused on winter traffic, and on LCC in general. As far as I can tell UDOT isn't even seriously investigating transportation improvements for BCC, at least not publicly. Even the most pie-in-the-sky ideas that came out of Mountain Accord and the CWC never proposed anything more than marginal improvements to the bus system in BCC.

What does "address trailhead parking mean)? I'm more concerned with winter bouldering access. Thanks.

Current trailhead parking will be expanded and improved. Roadside parking will be either reduced (not allowed within 1/4-mile of THs) or eliminated completely between the SR-209/210 junction and Snowbird. All winter roadside parking adjacent to Snowbird and Alta will be eliminated under all proposed options. Here's the full TH improvement plan: https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.uta...rking_fin_web/

Snowshed plan: https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.uta...ation_fin_web/

Wasatch Blvd improvement plan: https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.uta...lvd_fin_web-3/

Mobility Hub plan: https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.uta...hub_fin_web-4/

Here's the links to all those fact sheets, plus others and the full EIS report: https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.uta...reening-report

[bigdude2468]

Getting folks to a terminal in Summit County via interstate versus to the mouth of Little has many advantages.
Where ever the gondola's origin is I support it.
Just not the one they are proposing.
1,500 people an hour?
Fifty minutes?
wtf
Doppelmayr's 3s system moves 5,500 people an hour!
There is still room for parking galore at the mouth of Little, north side of 210, on either side of the Dillard residence; FS land.
That is what the current park and ride sits on...FS land.
Parking structure, etc.
The Euros woulda done this so long ago.
Still need snowsheds and the road...

I have stated this before, Vail has no interest in a gondola or chair from PC to BCC / LCC. They do not want to see their skiers get a ride where they can pay another resort for rentals, lessons and overpriced food. The available lodging in PC dwarfs what there is in the Cottonwoods. My guess the volume would be 80 / 20 or more coming from PC. Vail's entire business plan is to get the skiers on site and them happily take their money. Making it convenient to go somewhere else is not something they would go along with.