Wasatch 21/22 - We're All Here 'Cause We're Not All There!

[Dantheman]

I did not know that Snowbird is willing to put land into a conservation trust if the gondola goes through. I imagine that land is Mt Superior (which they own almost all of).

Yes, Superior. It's a barely-veiled threat to put a lift up there or deny access Cardiff-style if they don't get what they want. Classy.

[Dantheman]

OMISSIONS The opponents to the Gondola are spreading false and misleading information in many areas. Listed below are a few:
• Opponents criticize the gondola because: “[it] only stops at Snowbird and Alta.” While this is true, their statements and printed materials conveniently omit the fact that the bus only stops at the resort locations as well.

Sure, this is technically true, but it's pretty easy to add a bus stop at lower-canyon THs and not possible with a gondola.

• Inflation. They also inflate the estimated costs by stating the $391 million dollar gondola might cost $1 billion, a wildly speculative number, presumably due to future inflationary impacts. If so, opponents omit that the bus and road improvement costs will be impacted by the same inflationary impacts as the gondola.

Strawman. SOC, WBCA, etc. opposed the road-widening option and most people are opposed to massive public subsidies for the resorts regardless.

Ridership. In several polls conducted by various groups, including one recently published by a local municipality, up to 85% of the respondents state they do not like nor do they plan to ride the bus. While residents may think busses are a good option, we can infer by the written comments (in the polls) that they feel the bus is for other people to ride. If very few plan to ride the bus, why are we spending millions on a system that the majority does not want to ride and will try to avoid?

Many people don't ride the bus because they have piles of shit they like/need to bring with them, they tailgate after skiing, etc. None of those people are going to ride the gondola either.

Several public officials have also asked that UDOT and resort owners try other less expensive solutions such as tolling, paid parking, car-pooling, etc. These measures have already been considered and in many cases implemented. They have minimal effect on the traffic and offer no long-term solution to the many issues.

Demonstrably false. Alta's parking reservation system had a very noticeable effect on canyon traffic last winter.

• Flexibility and Pivoting. The opponents’ claim that the gondola can only load 30% of the vehicles’ traffic passengers or 1,050 PPH is false. The gondola, using the submitted LaCaille Base Station design can load up to 3400 PPH.

I fail to see how stating UDOT's own stats from the EIS is a false claim.

TAX-PAYER FUNDING Opponents argue that taxpayers should not be funding a “half-a-billion-dollar system” that serves “rich resort areas” with a gondola. What they leave out is that the bus system would do the same thing. Either way, taxpayers would pay for the construction, like what they do with all other UDOT roadway and UTA train and bus public transportation improvements.

Technically correct, but another straw man that fails to account for the induced-congestion that is going to happen when Ski Utah plasters the world with ads to come ride the "World's Longest Gondola!"

And before TFW says it, yes, I'm aware that technically it won't be the longest in the world, but Ski Utah is going to make that claim anyway.

NEGATIVE IMPACTS Opponents cite that the gondola will negatively impact the view corridor of the canyon. However, for the bus system to work, according to the Draft EIS, UDOT and UTA testimony, it would require LCC roadway to be widened to four lanes of travel. This four-lane road would create a significantly greater lineal and horizontal impact in the canyon, far greater than the estimated twenty-two towers for the gondola. The road widening would drastically alter views, decimate the hillside in most roadway areas, create untold hazards and impacts to traffic during construction, and increase the flow of pollutants to watershed because of the increased road surface and annual avalanche debris flow.

So much BS here. The EIS is very clear that the road will be widened to 3 lanes, not four. From a distance an extra lane absolutely will have far less visual impact than the gondola. An extra lane will not affect pollutant loading in the watershed by any significant degree.

Alternately, the gondola could eliminate this public risk caused by avalanches and make it possible for UDOT to meet and even exceed their 30% vehicle reduction, an EIS stated objective.

The gondola will not "eliminate" or even substantially reduce the public risk when the parking lots will be full every weekend regardless.

RELIABILITY The gondola option increases the reliability of guaranteeing that canyon closures (due to adverse weather conditions including avalanches) would have little or no known impact on citizens’ travel time into and out of LCC. The 3S gondola operates in almost any kind of weather.

This conveniently ignores the fact that the gondola won't run during interlodge or avalanche control, and that the proposed snowsheds alone will reduce road closures for avalanche control by ~80% and nearly eliminate slides hitting the road.

The gondola can also load at least three times the number of passengers (as compared to the bus) during peak AM/PM travel periods. The opponents claim otherwise but have no science-based studies or proof to their claims – just rhetoric.

When UDOT makes an official, public statement that the gondola will be, or even may be, upgraded to 3,000 ppl/hr I'll happily change my tune on this. "Just rhetoric," LOL.

Furthermore, the gondola is electric, creates its own in-cabin power, and is silent.

Quiet, yes, but hardly silent, and this argument holds little water when it's absolutely not going to replace the red snake.

The gondola also presents several unique revenue generating sources—such as locker rental, naming rights, increased participation by resort owners, etc. Using these public and private partnerships input on gondola funding options, the proponents of the gondola show a revenue stream which suggests the potential that no State, County nor municipal taxes would be needed to cover the annual gondola operational expenses. The bus has no such advantages.
In fact, the gondola could have up to a $4 million dollar per year surplus, which could be used as a Little Cottonwood Canyon fund to enhance and preserve roads, trails, and trailhead maintenance or other worthwhile canyon needs.

Oh come on. It will make $4M/yr, really, really? It's only going run 120 days per year (a fact conveniently left out of the letter), you really want me to believe it's going to profit a million dollars per month?

[Dantheman]

Sorry TFW but I don't think faster commutes for LCC employees is a legitimate reason to build the gondola. I bet on 90%+ of days it would be slower than driving.

I bet it won't run before 7:00 am and won't even be an option for employees that need to be up-canyon at 6:00 am. It's also going to shut down sometime in early April.

[Buster Highmen]

TAX PAYER FUNDING In their EIS, UDOT projected the operational costs for both systems and they estimated the gondola annual costs to be $10 million less than the enhanced bus system per year. The gondola also presents several unique revenue generating sources—such as locker rental, naming rights, increased participation by resort owners, etc. Using these public and private partnerships input on gondola funding options, the proponents of the gondola show a revenue stream which suggests the potential that no State, County nor municipal taxes would be needed to cover the annual gondola operational expenses. The bus has no such advantages.
In fact, the gondola could have up to a $4 million dollar per year surplus, which could be used as a Little Cottonwood Canyon fund to enhance and preserve roads, trails, and trailhead maintenance or other worthwhile canyon needs. While opponents claim the cost to ride the gondola could be as high as $50, proponents preliminary estimate states that the ticket to ride the gondola could be as low as $9. By comparison the same analysis estimates that the actual cost to ride the bus would be greater than $25. The bus fare for the riders would most likely continue to be $5, but make no mistake, all TAXPAYERS through the traditional means of subsidizing UTA through the 1% state wide sales tax will pay the additional $20 per rider. The annual bus deficit is projected to exceed $7 million per year, leaving no potential for an on-going canyon improvement and maintenance fund. The bus is more expensive, less environmentally friendly and creates an on-going deficit leaving no maintenance fund for LCC without taxing citizens even more.

Are there reasonable arguments against these points?

Particularly " The bus is more expensive, less environmentally friendly and creates an on-going deficit leaving no maintenance fund for LCC without taxing citizens even more."?

[Phall]

Anyone in Ogden want to help facilitate a KSL Transaction?

[tgapp]

Anyone in Ogden want to help facilitate a KSL Transaction?

I got u

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[schindlerpiste]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Feds paid for a good portion of whatever is done by way of funding through the $1.3trillion Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (II&JA)? Does this support an argument for or against the gonjola?

[brutah]

Sorry TFW but I don't think faster commutes for LCC employees is a legitimate reason to build the gondola. I bet on 90%+ of days it would be slower than driving.

By TFW's own logic, no canyon employee will ride the gondola because 90% of the time it will at the very least double the commute time.


Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[googledidoo]

Dan the man. You are indeed the man. You say things on a variety of topics much more eloquently and intelligently than I could ever hope to. And you're not the only one. There are a lot of smart cookies on this forum.

[zion zig zag]

Anyone in Ogden want to help facilitate a KSL Transaction?

Looks like tgapp has this, but I can be backup if needed.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[jtran10]

It was a marketing initiative for Ski Utah to draw even more crowds to Utah.

No surprise that's exactly what we've ended up with in the end

[jtran10]

Besides the obvious issues at hand (money, politics, snowbird wants olympics) it still baffles me that we don't just:

-have alta and snowbird coordinate parking res and do both the same season to alleviate traffic. this will never happen IMO because it's in snowbird's interest to create gridlock
-actually enforce traction laws, paying someone a real wage to do so all year, every day. push people to the tire sticker system to speed things up, instead of making that worthless. no one even looked at it last year.
-if we really are using taxpayer money build snowsheds on the road at the most prominent paths. keeps road users safe so seems like a reasonable use of UDOT $$$ as opposed to vanity projects
-do a study for a year or two on how this impacts traffic. if things are still not "good enough" start tolling the road. use the tolls to create a privatized bus service for the 2 resorts, or work with UTA to expand public bus service with these funds


At the end of the day it won't even snow below 7k feet in a few years anyhow so the issue will fix itself. Sure it may take an hour to get from grizzly to entry 1 but it would take 10 minutes from there because all the precip will be rain.

[jsnowut]

I'm not super smart - but isn't the answer (except for TFW's concern) kind of obvious - a Zion Park/Maroon Bells type road closure and parking (like you'd need for a gondi) and a robust bus shuttle?

Take 75% of the vehicles out of both canyons and isn't the problem pretty much solved?

Might take a year or two to adjust to the change, but after that it's biz as usual.

[schindlerpiste]

So, no private vehicles in canyon between 8:00am-5:00pm, and reservations required for private vehicles before 8 and after 5? Businesses and local residents may not take kindly to that. That would certainly change things.

[googledidoo]

I'm not super smart - but isn't the answer (except for TFW's concern) kind of obvious - a Zion Park/Maroon Bells type road closure and parking (like you'd need for a gondi) and a robust bus shuttle?

Take 75% of the vehicles out of both canyons and isn't the problem pretty much solved?

Might take a year or two to adjust to the change, but after that it's biz as usual.

I agree with you 100%

[Dantheman]

At the end of the day it won't even snow below 7k feet in a few years anyhow so the issue will fix itself. Sure it may take an hour to get from grizzly to entry 1 but it would take 10 minutes from there because all the precip will be rain.

This is the sad brutal truth.

I'm not super smart - but isn't the answer (except for TFW's concern) kind of obvious - a Zion Park/Maroon Bells type road closure and parking (like you'd need for a gondi) and a robust bus shuttle?

Take 75% of the vehicles out of both canyons and isn't the problem pretty much solved?

Might take a year or two to adjust to the change, but after that it's biz as usual.

If this is how the gondola was going to work I'd fully support it, but it's not. Even if they bumped the lift capacity up to the hypothetical 3,000+ ppl/hr, the amount of parking proposed (2,500 spaces) is entirely inadequate for a Zion-type solution.

Another thing not mentioned in McCandless' letter is that the ski buses pick people up from as far away as Midvale Station and Sandy Station. With the gondola everyone has to drive to the mouth of the canyon ("All users would drive directly to the base station" https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.uta..._8-31-2022.pdf).

[Buzzworthy]

Another thing not mentioned in McCandless' letter is that the ski buses pick people up from as far away as Midvale Station and Sandy Station. With the gondola everyone has to drive to the mouth of the canyon ("All users would drive directly to the base station" https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.uta..._8-31-2022.pdf).

They say no busses to/from the mobility hubs in the above document? Seriously??? Seems insane.

[Dantheman]

"With the additional parking spaces, there would be no need for mobility hubs at the Gravel Pit or at 9400 South and Highland Drive and the associated bus service once these alternatives become operational."

No mobility hubs in the final EIS.

[concretejungle]

It’d be comical if it wasn’t so sad.

As a visiting boulderer I’m pissed about the impact it’ll make.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[telefreewasatch]

Mommy the kids picked on me at school today.

Y'all don't know how tickled I am that the county had a majority against.
Yeah I want me a gondola.
But as Dan has expounded, they got the cart before the horse right now on a LCC gondola. They're not talking about thousands of spaces at the gravel pit or bus service between the two points.
It oughta come outta Summit Co if possible. Seems like that idea could gain a little traction right now?
Seeing how the Olympics want the LCC, and the amenities are in Summit Co, wouldn't a Gondi from where teams will be staying be more attractive? Having it come from PC would be so much less of an eyesore.
And it can pick up the BCC on the way. Such a win.

Bigdude has a pretty good point about Vail's probable problem with this idea.

Btw why do you all seem to think that I'm gonna ride a contraption that I'd have to go the wrong way to access?
It's needed to alleviate the strain on the highway by accommodating Summit Co traffic.

Problem with the Cottonwoods with 2" of snow or more, anymore, is that one shitty driver and or vehicle costs thousands of folks an evening that they might have else wise enjoyed.

Got ten days to comment. Just sayin...

[DigSki]

Problem with the Cottonwoods with 2" of snow or more, anymore, is that one shitty driver and or vehicle costs thousands of folks an evening that they might have else wise enjoyed.

Doesn’t this speak to the fact that they should just try to enforce the existing traction rules?

I usually ride the bus so I’ve only driven one season, 2021, but in 100+ days driving I saw traction laws enforced once. And that was the day they shut it for avy, so they had people there anyway. That’s crazy, and I’m fairly convinced congestion would decrease significantly if they enforced traction laws in BCC.

Enforce for the down too! The number of cars you see having to get pushed or towed out of Eagle lot at Solitude is quite high. That hill is not steep, either, so you can bet your ass those people are going 2mph sliding their way down.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Yukonrider]

I'm with TFW on this one.

Maybe I'm just lazy, but I'd take the gondola up if it was clear dry pavement and took longer rather than driving. You just sit there and admire the views, you save money on fuel, gives you time to play with your phone, its a total win IMO. Like taking the bus, but way better, and the benefits rapidly multiply in any sort of weather event.

But based on the spirited debates over parking reservations last year, seems very few people here take the bus.


Outsiders perspective: It seems people are clinging to what LCC and SLC was, and trying to erect barriers to entry in hopes they can hold on to that idyllic image a few years longer.

[schindlerpiste]

I think that it does not make sense for anyone who drives from Summit county to take either a gondola or bus from the mouth of the canyon. People from Summit county must decide whether they want to spend extra time, or more money to get up to Alta or Snowbird. Also, it may involve having a passenger in the vehicle. I'd rather pick up a hitch hiker at the mouth of the canyon than take public transportation.

[ghosthop]

Droc posted earlier about a Ullr fest. Did this get any traction?

I have the greenlight to host Friday 11/4 or Saturday 11/5 if that is of interest.

I don't want to speak for the collective but am happy to contribute if there is a consensus.

[bigdude2468]

"With the additional parking spaces, there would be no need for mobility hubs at the Gravel Pit or at 9400 South and Highland Drive and the associated bus service once these alternatives become operational."

No mobility hubs in the final EIS.

How many parking spots do they plan on having and is it a giant surface lot or a parking garage?