WASATCH STOKE, CONDITIONS, OBSERVATIONS and ASSORTED DRIVAL 20-21

[Dantheman]

I really doubt the extra $300 for a season pass will do anything for crowds, and instead will just make Ikon a bit more profit.

Doesn't this prove my point? If a small price increase has no effect on demand, a price increase that is large enough to reduce demand is likely to end up being revenue-positive. Your business also becomes easier to run since you're servicing fewer customers.

Of course the government can't force a business to increase prices, that's ridiculous. What they can do set an occupancy limit. Said business can then comply with the occupancy limit through a reservation system, price increases, or both. Also, FWIW, LCC season pass prices are basically the same as they were 15 years ago.

Spending over half a billion dollars to induce more crowding doesn't even pass the straight face test. It is complete idiocy.

The Olympics are involved, so don't expect the decision-making process to involve logic or rational thought. The IOC awards the Games to the city that is willing to light the biggest pile of cash on fire.

[altasnob]

Yes, I agree ski resort lift tickets and season price is inelastic, so must be a really, really, big increase before you see decreasing demand.

Occupancy limits for public safety. The government will have a tough time arguing against the owners of Snowbird and Alta that they need to cut customers for public safety reasons.

Due to Ikon/Vail, most season passes are much cheaper today than elsewhere. So consider yourself lucky that Snowbird/Alta passes haven't gone DOWN in price from 15 years ago (it's weird arguing someone is lucky that prices have remained high).

[skifishbum]

The Olympics are involved, so don't expect the decision-making process to involve logic or rational thought. The IOC awards the Games to the city that is willing to light the biggest pile of cash on fire.

wouldnt using the lighting the big pile of cash analogy of hosting an oylmpic games kinda mean there was no real economic or infrastructural gains involved?
nor several world class local and world wide athelete training facilities left standing after the fire?
Wouldnt the "fastest ice in the world" got melted?
if ya ask me they were great for utah and worth every cent
your olympic dislike
nimby?
or just a general dislike of the tradition and what it represents?

[Dantheman]

wouldnt using the lighting the big pile of cash analogy of hosting an oylmpic games kinda mean there was no real economic or infrastructural gains involved?
nor several world class local and world wide athelete training facilities left standing after the fire?
Wouldnt the "fastest ice in the world" got melted?
if ya ask me they were great for utah and worth every cent
your olympic dislike
nimby?
or just a general dislike of the tradition and what it represents?

SLC 2002 is a rather notable exception. Most cities do not realize any long-term economic or infrastructure gains (https://www.businessinsider.com/aban...tos-rio-2016-8; https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/b...ues/index.html; https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ga...on-in-pictures). Corruption in the IOC and the selection process is infamous, to the point that the IOC has been having trouble finding cities to host the Games for years:

https://fortune.com/2021/05/22/the-b...g-host-cities/
https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/04/...olympic-games/
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/o...blem-1.4414207
https://apnews.com/article/2020-toky...1f35c2876b7bbb


Eta: To be clear, I'm not saying another SLC games will be a financial boondoggle on par with Sochi or Rio, but some financially-questionable decisions are going to be made.

[altasnob]

Brings me back

I lived in Utah from 2002-05. Moved from Boulder right after the Olympics. My friend who grew up in SLC, but was living with me in Boulder, took two weeks off work and went back for it said it was the most fun he's ever had in Utah. The party scene downtown was unreal and open container not enforced.

[skifishbum]

good news is shirf can brew full strength bitter olyhater ale this time
bad news is theres a 100 other craft brewerys makin way better product than their swill now than in 02
including the one founded in 1884 by aj fischer
but yeah feel free to claim to be utahs 1st brewery a century later
my oylmpic experiances didnt suck
partying on the mothership rarely does

[Skidog]

SLC 2002 is a rather notable exception. Most cities do not realize any long-term economic or infrastructure gains (https://www.businessinsider.com/aban...tos-rio-2016-8; https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/b...ues/index.html; https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ga...on-in-pictures). Corruption in the IOC and the selection process is infamous, to the point that the IOC has been having trouble finding cities to host the Games for years:

https://fortune.com/2021/05/22/the-b...g-host-cities/
https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/04/...olympic-games/
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/o...blem-1.4414207
https://apnews.com/article/2020-toky...1f35c2876b7bbb

Agreed Utah was an outlier Olympic city. Most are simply abandoned after the games are done. Sad really.

I'm kinda glad the IOC is considering re using venues.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using TGR Forums mobile app

[concernedutahn]

The more I think About it the stupider both options seem

[skifishbum]

did you have a second handle option you considered
or you just went with the 1st stupid sounding one that came to mind?
at least ya made it past the m series test
strong work jong and thanks fer joining the community
use code digidoesmilfs
for a discount on sweet tgr sunglasses

[schindlerpiste]

That is a good first post. It's the way I see things, too. There are a lot of good points and compelling arguments made in this thread. Right now, I think that the gondola and bus options with both done can be parts of an effective solution, along with limiting skier numbers per day + increasing pass prices. I just don't see citizens or anyone else willing to for over a cool billion+. Also, PowCorp, Mr. Cumming or the owners' of Alta will not be willing to limit skier #s

[concernedutahn]

That is a good first post. It's the way I see things, too. There are a lot of good points and compelling arguments made in this thread. Right now, I think that the gondola and bus options with both done can be parts of an effective solution, along with limiting skier numbers per day + increasing pass prices. I just don't see citizens or anyone else willing to for over a cool billion+. Also, PowCorp, Mr. Cumming or the owners' of Alta will not be willing to limit skier #s

thank you for the validation

Alta used to restrict skiers to 3500 per day

If the resorts can’t find the discipline to do that by themselves anymore, certainly the forest service could enforce it

[mall walker]

did you have a second handle option you considered
or you just went with the 1st stupid sounding one that came to mind?

lol

[Vt-Freeheel]

Since you guys have been talking cable cars I am dropping this in here.

thedrive.com/how-the-swiss-transport-huge-mining-trucks-

[MultiVerse]

Doesn't this prove my point? If a small price increase has no effect on demand, a price increase that is large enough to reduce demand is likely to end up being revenue-positive. Your business also becomes easier to run since you're servicing fewer customers.

Of course the government can't force a business to increase prices, that's ridiculous. What they can do set an occupancy limit. Said business can then comply with the occupancy limit through a reservation system, price increases, or both. Also, FWIW, LCC season pass prices are basically the same as they were 15 years ago.

I've often thought BCC & LCC resort season pass prices are artificially low too and one reason for that might be because it creates a constituency. Utah taxpayers foot the bill both for maintaining and keeping the roads open, not to mention all the future infrastructure proposals. And every time there's an issue with the the canyons that might impact the resorts they put out a poll and then blast a link to the poll to season pass holders. In other words, it helps protect their interests.

[skifishbum]

SLC 2002 is a rather notable exception. Most cities do not realize any long-term economic or infrastructure gains (https://www.businessinsider.com/aban...tos-rio-2016-8; https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/b...ues/index.html; https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ga...on-in-pictures). Corruption in the IOC and the selection process is infamous, to the point that the IOC has been having trouble finding cities to host the Games for years:

https://fortune.com/2021/05/22/the-b...g-host-cities/
https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/04/...olympic-games/
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/o...blem-1.4414207
https://apnews.com/article/2020-toky...1f35c2876b7bbb

Eta: To be clear, I'm not saying another SLC games will be a financial boondoggle on par with Sochi or Rio, but some financially-questionable decisions are going to be made.

IMHO the powers that be in the state are gonna make questionable financial decisions reguardless
might as well pack a bowl of green jello put on the mr mayfield spark it up with style and "light the fire" within again
https://www.ksl.com/article/50212649...re-bidding-for

[Dantheman]

I've often thought BCC & LCC resort season pass prices are artificially low too and one reason for that might be because it creates a constituency. Utah taxpayers foot the bill both for maintaining and keeping the roads open, not to mention all the future infrastructure proposals. And every time there's an issue with the the canyons that might impact the resorts they put out a poll and then blast a link to the poll to season pass holders. In other words, it helps protect their interests.

Probably some of that for sure, and trying to sell passes to people who won't use them enough to break even. I also think there's a general reluctance to go all-in on the Deer Valley model.

IMHO the powers that be in the state are gonna make questionable financial decisions reguardless

I can't argue against that. Lake Powell pipeline, anyone?

The brown pow has been so good this past week that winter is the furthest thing from my mind right now.

[telefreewasatch]

Thought I'd stir the pot a 'lil this Sunday eve. These are my comments for UDOT on LCC:


Hello,
My name is Jimmy Collinson. I've been a ski patrolman and avalanche forecaster at Alta and Snowbird the last 42 years. My family and I have lived up the canyon the last 32. This has led to my participating in many highway avalanche rescues at all times of day or night, especially mid canyon, over the years.

I will attempt to paint the picture of a LCC canyon road night time avalanche rescue:

It has been snowing significantly since the evening before.
There have been a.m. and p.m. road shoots with small to moderate results.
After plowing, the highway opens at say 5 pm, at least to downhill traffic.
The red snake commences with many drivers, vehicles, and tires ill prepared for a LCC winter storm.
Precipitation intensity and west wind increase; hazard increases.
An avalanche hits the lower mid canyon road an hour later, closing the road.
Laypeople are now bumper to bumper underneath adjacent slide paths.
Most folks do not have the savvy, vehicle, or tire combo good enough to go back uphill when it's raging and the plows are unable to plow in the congestion.
When you have an avalanche and the weather continues to rage you may expect more; an avalanche cycle.
The bigger mid canyon slide paths are the late runners.
That 8 mile road has the highest avalanche hazard index # in North America by far on account of the above scenario.

This is where I really ask you to picture what happens up there in the dark.
Down we go in snowcats, hopefully.
Cannot hardly see; a whiteout from snowfall intensity and wind which also means a still increasing hazard.
Are folks safer in the relative protection of the vehicle or do they need to risk a move on foot to a safe zone. Tough call eh?
Usually you want them to move to a safe zone, depending on the slide path above.
One is making people who are in harm's way get out of their warm vehicle and go to a safer place, either up or down canyon, instructing them to run.
Most are not prepared for these eventualities.
Many have been drinking and are more argumentative than the sober folks.
Rescuers spend significant time exposed under avalanche paths in rising hazard, public to a lesser degree.
What would happen to someone like me if catastrophe occurs after I demand they leave their vehicle?
Would they have been better off in the vehicle?
Could someone hold me liable?
You would not even see it coming...

These nights have been the most terrifying and out of control times of my life. I'm 64.

Yes we need the road in LCC.
And yes we need snow sheds exactly as planned.
Snow sheds under the earliest runners will reduce but not eliminate the possibility of a catastrophic event.
Sheds give forecasters some wiggle room, another tool, without the road closing itself as it currently does.
The only way to be 100% sure that an avalanche will not strike the road unexpectedly is to close it after six inches of snow and some wind.
This is unacceptable, thus forecasters forecast hazard, and if one is in the game long enough one gets burned. Maybe more than once.
We need a fire escape in LCC for other reasons as well.

I wished to see a gondola to Summit County through the head of BCC because that's where the tourist amenities are and snow will not be in the future.
In lieu of that I am the LCC gondola's biggest fan.
The safety it affords is significant and isn't safety UDOT'S middle name?

The Wasatch has world class skiing with an international airport and third world delivery.
In Europe a gondola would have happened so long ago with a train connection to the airport.
I am curious why the EIS says the gondola will be moving only 1,050 people an hour when Doppelmayr says the 3S can move 5,500?
We need to move enough people in it to be able to limit the number of vehicles in the canyon.
The current travel times of three or four hours for folks to move 8 miles so many days is ridiculous.
We are retiring to a property we developed in Wasatch Resort. The gondola line will be 200 feet away. We welcome this new neighbor with open arms and will enjoy the traffic congestion relief in our 'hood.

Thanks for receiving input and feel free to contact me if I can assist a gondola happening in any way.
Jimmy Collinson

[skifishbum]

Thought I'd stir the pot a 'lil this Sunday eve. These are my comments for UDOT on LCC:


Hello,
My name is Jimmy Collinson. I've been a ski patrolman and avalanche forecaster at Alta and Snowbird the last 42 years. My family and I have lived up the canyon the last 32. This has led to my participating in many highway avalanche rescues at all times of day or night, especially mid canyon, over the years.

I will attempt to paint the picture of a LCC canyon road night time avalanche rescue:

It has been snowing significantly since the evening before.
There have been a.m. and p.m. road shoots with small to moderate results.
After plowing, the highway opens at say 5 pm, at least to downhill traffic.
The red snake commences with many drivers, vehicles, and tires ill prepared for a LCC winter storm.
Precipitation intensity and west wind increase; hazard increases.
An avalanche hits the lower mid canyon road an hour later, closing the road.
Laypeople are now bumper to bumper underneath adjacent slide paths.
Most folks do not have the savvy, vehicle, or tire combo good enough to go back uphill when it's raging and the plows are unable to plow in the congestion.
When you have an avalanche and the weather continues to rage you may expect more; an avalanche cycle.
The bigger mid canyon slide paths are the late runners.
That 8 mile road has the highest avalanche hazard index # in North America by far on account of the above scenario.

This is where I really ask you to picture what happens up there in the dark.
Down we go in snowcats, hopefully.
Cannot hardly see; a whiteout from snowfall intensity and wind which also means a still increasing hazard.
Are folks safer in the relative protection of the vehicle or do they need to risk a move on foot to a safe zone. Tough call eh?
Usually you want them to move to a safe zone, depending on the slide path above.
One is making people who are in harm's way get out of their warm vehicle and go to a safer place, either up or down canyon, instructing them to run.
Most are not prepared for these eventualities.
Many have been drinking and are more argumentative than the sober folks.
Rescuers spend significant time exposed under avalanche paths in rising hazard, public to a lesser degree.
What would happen to someone like me if catastrophe occurs after I demand they leave their vehicle?
Would they have been better off in the vehicle?
Could someone hold me liable?
You would not even see it coming...

These nights have been the most terrifying and out of control times of my life. I'm 64.

Yes we need the road in LCC.
And yes we need snow sheds exactly as planned.
Snow sheds under the earliest runners will reduce but not eliminate the possibility of a catastrophic event.
Sheds give forecasters some wiggle room, another tool, without the road closing itself as it currently does.
The only way to be 100% sure that an avalanche will not strike the road unexpectedly is to close it after six inches of snow and some wind.
This is unacceptable, thus forecasters forecast hazard, and if one is in the game long enough one gets burned. Maybe more than once.
We need a fire escape in LCC for other reasons as well.

I wished to see a gondola to Summit County through the head of BCC because that's where the tourist amenities are and snow will not be in the future.
In lieu of that I am the LCC gondola's biggest fan.
The safety it affords is significant and isn't safety UDOT'S middle name?

The Wasatch has world class skiing with an international airport and third world delivery.
In Europe a gondola would have happened so long ago with a train connection to the airport.
I am curious why the EIS says the gondola will be moving only 1,050 people an hour when Doppelmayr says the 3S can move 5,500?
We need to move enough people in it to be able to limit the number of vehicles in the canyon.
The current travel times of three or four hours for folks to move 8 miles so many days is ridiculous.
We are retiring to a property we developed in Wasatch Resort. The gondola line will be 200 feet away. We welcome this new neighbor with open arms and will enjoy the traffic congestion relief in our 'hood.

Thanks for receiving input and feel free to contact me if I can assist a gondola happening in any way.
Jimmy Collinson

strong work
safetymatters
i haz stickers 4 u
and

[Vets]

Bus or Gondola? Why not do both?

[telefreewasatch]

i haz stickers 4 u

safety first?
I'll be by...

[ASmileyFace]

BD getting in on the action. Here.

It's kinda cute that SLCA thinks that anyone making these decisions cares about a few roadside boulders and climbing access in comparison to the money that is being made up at the top of the canyon. And I say that as someone who climbs, and donates to a few different climbing access related non profits every year.

[MitchPee]

Thought I'd stir the pot a 'lil this Sunday eve. These are my comments for UDOT on LCC:


Hello,
My name is Jimmy Collinson. I've been a ski patrolman and avalanche forecaster at Alta and Snowbird the last 42 years. My family and I have lived up the canyon the last 32. This has led to my participating in many highway avalanche rescues at all times of day or night, especially mid canyon, over the years.

I will attempt to paint the picture of a LCC canyon road night time avalanche rescue:

It has been snowing significantly since the evening before.
There have been a.m. and p.m. road shoots with small to moderate results.
After plowing, the highway opens at say 5 pm, at least to downhill traffic.
The red snake commences with many drivers, vehicles, and tires ill prepared for a LCC winter storm.
Precipitation intensity and west wind increase; hazard increases.
An avalanche hits the lower mid canyon road an hour later, closing the road.
Laypeople are now bumper to bumper underneath adjacent slide paths.
Most folks do not have the savvy, vehicle, or tire combo good enough to go back uphill when it's raging and the plows are unable to plow in the congestion.
When you have an avalanche and the weather continues to rage you may expect more; an avalanche cycle.
The bigger mid canyon slide paths are the late runners.
That 8 mile road has the highest avalanche hazard index # in North America by far on account of the above scenario.

This is where I really ask you to picture what happens up there in the dark.
Down we go in snowcats, hopefully.
Cannot hardly see; a whiteout from snowfall intensity and wind which also means a still increasing hazard.
Are folks safer in the relative protection of the vehicle or do they need to risk a move on foot to a safe zone. Tough call eh?
Usually you want them to move to a safe zone, depending on the slide path above.
One is making people who are in harm's way get out of their warm vehicle and go to a safer place, either up or down canyon, instructing them to run.
Most are not prepared for these eventualities.
Many have been drinking and are more argumentative than the sober folks.
Rescuers spend significant time exposed under avalanche paths in rising hazard, public to a lesser degree.
What would happen to someone like me if catastrophe occurs after I demand they leave their vehicle?
Would they have been better off in the vehicle?
Could someone hold me liable?
You would not even see it coming...

These nights have been the most terrifying and out of control times of my life. I'm 64.

Yes we need the road in LCC.
And yes we need snow sheds exactly as planned.
Snow sheds under the earliest runners will reduce but not eliminate the possibility of a catastrophic event.
Sheds give forecasters some wiggle room, another tool, without the road closing itself as it currently does.
The only way to be 100% sure that an avalanche will not strike the road unexpectedly is to close it after six inches of snow and some wind.
This is unacceptable, thus forecasters forecast hazard, and if one is in the game long enough one gets burned. Maybe more than once.
We need a fire escape in LCC for other reasons as well.

I wished to see a gondola to Summit County through the head of BCC because that's where the tourist amenities are and snow will not be in the future.
In lieu of that I am the LCC gondola's biggest fan.
The safety it affords is significant and isn't safety UDOT'S middle name?

The Wasatch has world class skiing with an international airport and third world delivery.
In Europe a gondola would have happened so long ago with a train connection to the airport.
I am curious why the EIS says the gondola will be moving only 1,050 people an hour when Doppelmayr says the 3S can move 5,500?
We need to move enough people in it to be able to limit the number of vehicles in the canyon.
The current travel times of three or four hours for folks to move 8 miles so many days is ridiculous.
We are retiring to a property we developed in Wasatch Resort. The gondola line will be 200 feet away. We welcome this new neighbor with open arms and will enjoy the traffic congestion relief in our 'hood.

Thanks for receiving input and feel free to contact me if I can assist a gondola happening in any way.
Jimmy Collinson

I very much respect what you’ve done and it seems like the experience of night rescues has been something you haven’t really enjoyed. Definitely appreciate the efforts you’ve put fourth. I have to ask...are these actually happening often? The story you tell is very dramatic, and I’m really sorry it’s stressed you out so much, but is it a common occurrence? Not confronting, just curious.

Secondly, I can’t think for a second that a gondola is going to help the traffic situation. If anything it will make it worse by becoming an attraction and changing the problem to the mouth of little. LCC is a place next to a city, at the most popular time in human history to ski, with arguably some of the best skiing in the country, a gondola isn’t going to change that. Much like first responders are going to busier and busier as outdoor sports grow, this is coming with the territory, and we certainly don’t need to spend a bajillion dollars to throw a nerf ball at a terminator sized problem.

Europe is able to have what they have because there are very few people to how many mountains are available. The infrastructure was put in place long ago and there is no way to match that kind of system in Utah. Certainly not by building...one...tram.

[tBatt]

UTA already struggles to find enough competent bus drivers. The increased bus service is proposing a bus up the canyon every 3-5 minutes so likely quadrupling the workforce needed by UTA. To hire that many skilled drivers in one fall seems like they'll pull anyone off the street who can pass a drug test so UTA can train them to get their CDL. Very often it's a bus blocking the road that causes the red snake. Rapidly increasing the workforce is going to rise the frequency of this occurrence.

During peak needs a 30-passenger cabin could arrive every 30 seconds and move those visitors off the road at a rate of 3,600 people per hour

The "one" tram is inaccurate. Its a gondola but people are calling it a tram because of the 30+ person capacity per car. There will be more than one car on the line. Maximum capacity of the two resorts is estimated at 7,000 people in Alta and 9,000 people at Snowbird so 16,000 combined. Estimate 5,000 beds for hotel guests, employees, and residents so moving at a very max 11,000 people down the canyon. Realistic numbers are more like 8,500 people. 2.5-3.5 hours total to safely get everybody out. It took longer than that to get out of the canyon nearly every snow storm this year.

How many days is it cloudy in the valley and snowing 2+ in/hour in upper LCC? The issue is the snow, which is often nonexistent 3000' lower. If the chairs stopped as frequently as the road when it snowed, this industry would be nonexistent. Not to mention there are many routes to the transit center at the mouth, whereas there is only one road between upper LCC and the mouth.

[DigSki]

Very often it's a bus blocking the road that causes the red snake.

I'm a BCC'er, but I've never seen a bus cause a red snake. Those buses are tanks and the drivers are mostly legit - couple kooks, but I don't know if they're bad drivers or just off their rockers. UTA vans, that's another story. I was behind one for a bit after the only extended avy closure in BCC last winter and it was bad. I was ~50th car thru after they opened the road back up and the UTA van was slip sliding edge to edge in front of us. Luckily they pulled over to let people pass eventually, I was pretty puckered for them for a while, and the road was pretty grippy.

[Dantheman]

The "one" tram is inaccurate. Its a gondola but people are calling it a tram because of the 30+ person capacity per car. There will be more than one car on the line. Maximum capacity of the two resorts is estimated at 7,000 people in Alta and 9,000 people at Snowbird so 16,000 combined. Estimate 5,000 beds for hotel guests, employees, and residents so moving at a very max 11,000 people down the canyon. Realistic numbers are more like 8,500 people. 2.5-3.5 hours total to safely get everybody out. It took longer than that to get out of the canyon nearly every snow storm this year.

UDOT says the gondola will move 1,050 ppl/hr, so Gondolaworks' 3,600 ppl/hr claim is currently vaporware. Yes, I'm aware that it's within theoretical capacity numbers from Doppelmayr, but this discussion should be grounded in verifiable facts contained in the EIS.

Gondolaworks' website contains several other factually-questionable statements, such as:

-The gondola "is a year-round option that provides the same parking relief in winter to the summer months" (as currently proposed it will only operate 120 days/year)
-Snowsheds "are an expense not needed with a gondola" (the same amount of snowsheds get built under either alternative)
-"A gondola doesn’t require expansion of Wasatch Boulevard to four lanes" (Wasatch is going to be widened under either alternative, it's right in the EIS)
-"Parking and base station drop off is necessary for any canyon solution, and the La Caille base station provides that key element" (um, no, this can be accomplished better with the bigger, better mobility hubs included in the bus plan)
-"skiers can park or be dropped by a friend or bus at the base station and on their way to fresh powder while the road is still closed" (it is still far from certain whether the gondola will load when the road is closed)
-"Gondola towers are much less impactful on the canyon views than over a half-mile of concrete tunnels and a wider road" (LOL, no one will see a wider road from a distance, and snowsheds are happening regardless)
-"We can’t forget the neighborhoods which are greatly impacted by this problem when canyon travel is blocked by traffic" (as if those neighborhoods won't be impacted by shitloads of gondola base station traffic, and they'd be a lot less impacted by not having a giant parking structure at the mouth of the canyon)


There's also these gems:

"A gondola can be its own attraction to experience the canyon, and provide access for those with disabilities."

"A gondola is also the only option that offers a new view, with a never-before-experienced angle that makes the canyon more accessible to those who simply want to take in its beauty."

So, like Mitch, myself, and others have been saying, the gondola will be an attraction unto itself that will further increase visitation and congestion. Someone remind these guys that they're not supposed to say the quiet part out loud.

Not to mention there are many routes to the transit center at the mouth, whereas there is only one road between upper LCC and the mouth.

There will be two routes to the parking structure at the mouth. Two is more than one but saying there's "many" is a stretch.