Sadly there is no ideal solution to either LCC or BCC access that doesn't involve a lot of compromise.
Simply allowing single/low occupancy vehicles unfettered access is not sustainable. But "because freedom" (sic) is The Utah Way® and thus any thought of limiting private vehicle access is immediately off the table. Sure, there can be tollbooths and a fee system, but that'll be another "because freedom" victim, at least in the short term.
Increasing bus service (especially with an all-electric fleet) would be great
in concert with severely restricting (or altogether eliminating) private vehicle access. The big challenges here are funding (UTA doesn't get nearly enough money to make this work and the resort owners aren't keen to pony up funds to subsidize this kind of operation) and the "because freedom" canard mentioned above.
Widening roads never actually leads to traffic relief (read up on the concept of induced demand if you doubt this), and in this case it would likely be an environmental catastrophe to the Wasatch watershed. Combined with the cost (for which the estimates floated by UDOT are likely half of what they'd eventually be) and it's a nonstarter.
The gondola is a compromise, pure and simple. Gondola and funicular systems work really well in Europe as ways to connect mountain towns and resorts, but most work in concert with restricted private vehicle access (e.g. Saas Fee and Zermatt). I realize that this gondola project will be used along with increased UTA service, possible resort-funded bus service, and the possibility of access fees for private vehicles.
Is it perfect? No. But it's better than the status quo.
And UDOT is now in the initial phases of figuring out a BCC solution.
One thing that was suggested many years ago (and then scrapped) was a subway system connecting Park City, Brighton, and Alta, using many of the existing mining tunnel networks as a base for routing. This system makes a lot of sense in terms of environmental impact, aesthetics, and the like, but it would be very pricey to build (e.g. eminent domain to acquire tunnel infra, boring tunnels wide enough to handle modern subway stock, and waterproofing the tunnels). That said, I do wish UDOT would consider this option moving forward. Park City as an inter-canyon transit hub makes a lot of sense given the
existing infrastructure there now (that will need improvement anyway due to PCMR and DV's capacity issues and the ever-growing Park City/Snyderville/Hideout/Kamas area).
Just my $0.02 - YMMV.
well looks my bro source has spoken and left his number so you can call him with your poll numbers and displeasure
poundkeykilltheredsnake