Utah LCC Gondola

[Philpug]

Is this fixing one problem and causing another? Where are all of the people going to park to gain access to the buses and or gondola?

I see akin to making 89 4 lines wide for access to Squaw...they are still limited to what can go through the mousehole.

 

[James]

Well buses you can have people park in other locations and get on where you want.

 

[JoeSchmoe]

Clearly there are major environmental issues to be concerned about, given all the traffic.

However, the right solution is clearly not to run a single gondola from the canyon base to the resort.

So- instead of running a lift to bring people from canyon base to the resorts, why dont we bring the resorts to the canyon base!?!?!

Simply they should run a series of lifts on the south side of the canyon down to a good snow sure level in LCC, extending the skiable acreage in LCC to world-class levels. Then build a massive parking lot there along with a double lane road from the base to maybe 6500ft. Anyone wanting to brave the traffic to the resort bases can continue on the existing single lanes.

By my extensive calculations, this solution would decrease traffic in the upper canyons by at least 20%, which would really save the earth.

Also, a requirement would be to make a large portion of the new acreage snowboarder only, to account for the discrimination further up canyon.

 

[Tony S]

The best and most popular restaurants have been dealing with this for 75 years. The solution is called reservations. The difference is that ski areas are greedier than restaurants in that they don't want to admit how few tables they actually have, and instead are happy to have customers contend rancorously with each other out on the sidewalk and then all cram into the space for standing-room-only full-price dining.

 

[James]

...they don't want to admit how few tables they actually have, and instead are happy to have customers contend rancorously with each other out on the sidewalk and then all cram into the space for standing-room-only full-price dining.

So, they’re night clubs.
Then there’s the special way in.
“You’re going to park there?”
-“Eh...he watches the car for me.”

 

[PowHog]

Have skied there once so tempted to say build the gondola but right to the top of Hidden Peak. So I can show the middle finger to the 8 o'clock resort crowds still standing in line at the bottom of the tram while hovering into the summit on a gorgeous powder day.

 

[RJS]

I agree with the ski area expansion comments. Fixing the traffic problems means a lot more skiers at Alta and Snowbird, and with no additional terrain that just means longer and longer lines. Perhaps the only good thing about the current situation is that the canyons bottleneck limits the total number of people that can be up there. More buses, or cars plus gondola users, mean a lot more people sharing the slopes. Great for Alta and Snowbird, not great for the on-hill experience unless people can spread out more. I haven't heard any recent updates on the Mary Ellen Gulch expansion by Snowbird, and I would imagine that backcountry users and Save Our Canyons would be livid if Alta tried to put a lift up Grizzly Gulch.

As far as the economics goes, I agree that the ski areas could probably raise prices as demand is clearly higher than supply. The problem, of course, is that once a ski area sells you a season pass, they don't really care how many days you use it. If you purchase a $2,000 Alta pass and then only ski 4 days because canyon traffic is so bad (I know that's a huge exaggeration, I'm sure the average Alta passholder skis quite a few days), that's great on Alta's part. It's similar to the Planet Fitness business model: underprice your gym memberships so that people who wouldn't normally consider a membership buy one, and then bank of many of your customers not really being able/willing to use the membership.

Of course, while some people would celebrate the ski areas raising prices, others would be angry at skiing becoming even more of a rich person's sport and there would be calls for the Forest Service to terminate their special use permits.

Alta/Snowbird could also permanently shift to reservation systems. That would piss people off, but would control crowds while also keeping prices from going through the roof. But again, not everyone would be happy, plus they might be leaving money on the table by doing this.

 

[RJS]

Maybe the ultimate solution is that entry into LCC is governed by a permit system in the same way that you now need a permit to enter Rocky Mountain National Park or drive the Going-To-The-Sun Road in Glacier National Park. Let's say that Alta and Snowbird each get 3,000 permits/day for employees and guests to drive up the canyon, plus the Forest Service gets 1,000 permits a day for backcountry users - the only "exception" to permits are residents, public transit, and emergency vehicles. Alta and Snowbird can disperse their permits as they choose, and the Forest Service can sell some of the permits in advance, maybe through a lottery system, and then the rest can be reserved a few days in advance.

To be clear, I absolutely hate the system I just described, but it is a solution...

 

[Ken_R]

Is this fixing one problem and causing another? Where are all of the people going to park to gain access to the buses and or gondola?

I see akin to making 89 4 lines wide for access to Squaw...they are still limited to what can go through the mousehole.

Yep. Is the juice worth the squeeze I always ask. In the case of the LCC resorts I am not sure it is since the base areas cant grow much more at all and the skiable acreage and lift capacity will remain basically the same. That is unless I am missing something.

 

[Daniel]

When some politician/ex-politician says "It's not about the money", one thing you can count on with absolute certainty is: IT'S DEFINITELY ABOUT THE MONEY!

What now? Will new buses or a gondola be the answer to a congested canyon?

Either option for Little Cottonwood Canyon transportation will be staggeringly expensive: a $529-million, 8-mile gondola or $510 million for enhanced bus service.

www.ksl.com

 

[Wasatchman]

When some politician/ex-politician says "It's not about the money", one thing you can count on with absolute certainty is: IT'S DEFINITELY ABOUT THE MONEY!

What now? Will new buses or a gondola be the answer to a congested canyon?

Either option for Little Cottonwood Canyon transportation will be staggeringly expensive: a $529-million, 8-mile gondola or $510 million for enhanced bus service.

www.ksl.com

It blows my mind that we can't try a number of ideas to alleviate the current traffic situation before spending billions on road widening or gondola. What a shame. It seems like an almost foregone conclusion that the gondola is going to be the selected "choice"

 

[scott43]

At risk of being shelled by ski folks (and I'm one..), the one person makes a good point..half a bil for 10 days a year? Wasatchman makes a good point..but in all my years, I've noticed that people like spending on big splashes. Ask for $50k to do something really relevant and a no-brainer..you won't get it. Ask for $50m to build a monorail between two buildings 200m apart? LET'S GO!

 

[Bill Miles]

Either option has a capacity of about 1,000 people/hour. Seems like it would be a disaster at 9:00-10:00 a.m. on a nice day/powder day/weekend/holiday.

 

[TheArchitect]

When some politician/ex-politician says "It's not about the money", one thing you can count on with absolute certainty is: IT'S DEFINITELY ABOUT THE MONEY!

What now? Will new buses or a gondola be the answer to a congested canyon?

Either option for Little Cottonwood Canyon transportation will be staggeringly expensive: a $529-million, 8-mile gondola or $510 million for enhanced bus service.

www.ksl.com

It's pretty frustrating to read the comments of that article.

 

[Jim Kenney]

It's pretty frustrating to read the comments of that article.

YES, lots of griping in the comments bout excessive use of tax dollars for either option. But I don't think they consider the massive ancillary spending that comes to the state because of the ski industry.

 

[New2]

YES, lots of griping in the comments bout excessive use of tax dollars for either option. But I don't think they consider the massive ancillary spending that comes to the state because of the ski industry.

Most people throughout the tourist-dependent west, including Utah, do consider the economic benefits (and costs) of tourism. But it's a pretty big leap from "tourism is an important part of the economy" to "we should spend half a billion dollars of taxpayer money on this project because it will improve some tourists' experience." Not to mention that the supposed benefit is somewhat dubious anyway... finding a way to squeeze bigger crowds onto the slopes/lift lines on the busiest days at AltaBird is not what most here would consider an improved experience.

 

[Jim Kenney]

Most people throughout the tourist-dependent west, including Utah, do consider the economic benefits (and costs) of tourism. But it's a pretty big leap from "tourism is an important part of the economy" to "we should spend half a billion dollars of taxpayer money on this project because it will improve some tourists' experience." Not to mention that the supposed benefit is somewhat dubious anyway... finding a way to squeeze bigger crowds onto the slopes/lift lines on the busiest days at AltaBird is not what most here would consider an improved experience.

I appreciate that there are valid views both pro and con on the LCC proposals.
However, as a resort skier I'm biased towards anything that improves access to the ski areas. A key point for me is reliability. If you plan a 4 or 5 day ski rip to Utah, stay down in the valley, and a one foot snow storm precludes your access to Alta/Bird for two of your 4 days that is going to turn folks off in a big way from returning on future trips. Same if you are staying up in LCC and you can't get out to catch your flight home because of a storm. The gondola option taking a sheltered line up the center of the canyon adds more certainty that you'll get the experience you came for and reliable access up and down the canyon through fair and foul weather.

Also, I have to chuckle at all the article comments complaining about crowds at Utah resorts. They don't know crowds like Eastern skiers know crowds. There are probably 5 most crowded days all winter long in LCC that compare to crowds that appear every weekend from Christmas to Prez Week at dozens of ski areas within day-trip distance from the various major cities in the Northeast.

 

[TheArchitect]

Most people throughout the tourist-dependent west, including Utah, do consider the economic benefits (and costs) of tourism. But it's a pretty big leap from "tourism is an important part of the economy" to "we should spend half a billion dollars of taxpayer money on this project because it will improve some tourists' experience." Not to mention that the supposed benefit is somewhat dubious anyway... finding a way to squeeze bigger crowds onto the slopes/lift lines on the busiest days at AltaBird is not what most here would consider an improved experience.

And here I thought the project was to ease existing congestion and fix the traffic problems already there. Why is the default thinking that this is a money grab by Alta and Snowbird? Do people really think the resorts want to put millions of dollars towards the gondola to maximize profits on the busiest days, especially when they’re saying they’re willing to contribute to the cost of the gondola?

 

[dbostedo]

Do people really think the resorts want to spend half a billion dollars

The resorts aren't spending it. It's tax dollars. Any amount of increased visitation is a bonus for the resorts. And better access will probably bump visitation up at least a little.

I think the presumption is that the busiest days also have the worst congestion issues. So you're making the most difference on the days that are busiest anyway. (Don't know how true that is, but seems to be some folks thinking.)

 

[TheArchitect]

The resorts aren't spending it. It's tax dollars. Any amount of increased visitation is a bonus for the resorts. And better access will probably bump visitation up at least a little.

I think the presumption is that the busiest days also have the worst congestion issues. So you're making the most difference on the days that are busiest anyway. (Don't know how true that is, but seems to be some folks thinking.)

Poorly worded on my part as I know it’s tax dollars. Snowbird has said they’d that they would contribute to the project and that’s what I meant. I’ve edited my post to clarify.