Tram proposed to link Canyons and Solitude
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
The shortest and least impact connection would be from Jupiter to Great Western. Nonetheless it's no surprise that The Canyons, perennially overshadowed by several of its neighbors, would the mover behind a project like this. The route crosses the Wasatch Crest beyond the The Canyons current boundary. Would there be a station on the Crest from which one could ski? I'm suspecting not but I could be wrong.
Evren
New member
Forgetting for a moment all the red tape and those grinches at Save The Canyons, this'd be a dream come partially true. Imagine skiing 9990 all day at Canyons, downing a Rendezvous Rye at High West Distillery in Park City (make that two, you don't have to worry about coppers on Hwy 224) then taking the tram -- back via the PC connector -- to your alpine repose at Solitude Village. People would pay good money for that. But no, we have to "save the canyons". Like parents who make their adult daughter and her boyfriend sleep in separate rooms when visiting over Thanksgiving. Wake up pops, she is not a virgin any more! And neither are the canyons.
From the article: "Canyons Resort officials cite as a benefit of the lift reduced traffic in Big Cottonwood Canyon."
I don't know, that kinda sounds like
. I mean, to get to Solitude, SLC locals or visitors staying in SLC could drive or take the bus up the canyon to arrive at Solitude's base prior to opening bell . . . OR, they could drive around to Canyons' base, wait for Canyons' lifts to start spinning, and then take 4 (or would it be 5?) lifts to arrive at Solitude's base, delaying the start of the skiing day by however long it takes to ride all of those lifts. :-k For folks starting their day at Canyons it might make some sense, but how much of the traffic in Big Cottonwood is arriving from Canyons/Park City?
Seems to me, a lift from Canyons will really mean more Canyons skiers coming over to Solitude, out of curiosity/for variety, or to track out Solitude on those days when BCC picks up 18" while the other side of the ridge picks up 8". As a destination skier looking to maximize fresh tracks, I love Solitude on a powder day (and even for a day or two after). I'm gonna love it less if there's less, uh, solitude.
I don't know, that kinda sounds like
. I mean, to get to Solitude, SLC locals or visitors staying in SLC could drive or take the bus up the canyon to arrive at Solitude's base prior to opening bell . . . OR, they could drive around to Canyons' base, wait for Canyons' lifts to start spinning, and then take 4 (or would it be 5?) lifts to arrive at Solitude's base, delaying the start of the skiing day by however long it takes to ride all of those lifts. :-k For folks starting their day at Canyons it might make some sense, but how much of the traffic in Big Cottonwood is arriving from Canyons/Park City?Seems to me, a lift from Canyons will really mean more Canyons skiers coming over to Solitude, out of curiosity/for variety, or to track out Solitude on those days when BCC picks up 18" while the other side of the ridge picks up 8". As a destination skier looking to maximize fresh tracks, I love Solitude on a powder day (and even for a day or two after). I'm gonna love it less if there's less, uh, solitude.
I think flyover has it right. This is all about The Canyons trying to raise its profile and attract more business, particularly more people who will actually stay there. Being able to market lift access to BCC gives them a talking point over Park City and Deer Valley.
Mike Bernstein
New member
It also makes Park City a more attractive lodging base. If you can avoid the expense, uncertainty and hassle of the shuttle to LCC/BCC, that would be a major selling point, I would think. Also might have environmental benefits if you can concentrate more people on the flats of PC instead of the more fragile alpine environment at the head of BCC.Tony Crocker":1s4m493e said:
Of course, this idea would be a lot more attractive if the Canyons lift system wasn't so completely retarded. As pointed out above, it would take 4 lift rides just to get to the tram from the Canyons side. Just another example of how ill-advised ASC's decision to retain the historical base area was instead of moving it bodily to somewhere near the base of Tombstone.
I disagree. This is not going to change the decision making process of anyone who strongly prefers the Cottonwoods to Park City. This is an attempt by The Canyons to elevate its current distant 3rd place status (revenue in terms of both lodging and ticket sales) among the Park City areas.Mike Bernstein":17cchuay said:
Also flyover's point:
Not to mention 2 or 3 lifts to get back to The Canyons' base at the end of the day. How many hours are these people actually going to be skiing at Solitude?
Mike Bernstein
New member
But look at the words you've chosen. "...anyone who strongly prefers the Cottonwoods to Park City".Tony Crocker":39k0di5z said:
Duh.
Those people aren't going to ski the PC resorts in any event - by definition, PC was never a consideration. But there is a very large segment of people who don't have a strong preference, either due to lack of familiarity/knowledge, or b/c of different preferences/priorities in the group. Think about all the people who stay in the SLC area b/c they don't want to commit to one specific area. How about all of the people taking the van between Parley's Canyon and BCC/LCC. How about all the people who never even leave the PC area b/c the perceived barriers to exploring further afield (knowledge, hassle, ability level) are too great?
Do I think this is some paradigm shifting lift? No, but it will have a much more meaningful impact than you're giving it credit for.
You're probably looking at 60-90 minutes from base to base. Doesn't save you any time vs. the van/shuttle, but you don't have to worry about traffic/road conditions, you get to keep your skis on, you avoid a cramped, sweaty van, and you actually get to do some skiing along the way b/c of how The Canyons is currently laid out (stupid as that may be).
On the way back, until they come to their sense and install a transfer lift from the bottom of Tombstone directly to the current base, you'd need to take two lifts on The Canyons side. But again you're getting to ski 3000' plus of vert on the way down and it's no different than if you had been on the S/E side of that resort to begin with.
The most likely comp for this lift, IMO, would be the Slidebrook Express at SB. Similar length and purpose. It will likely face similar operational issues due to safety/evac requirements but there are three big differences.
1) The resorts the lift connects are much further apart than SB South and North (45-60 mins vs. 10 minutes)
2) The resorts on either end each see more skier visits than all of SB combined
3) The resorts/market directly adjacent to the ski areas on either end (MRG for SB vs. PCMR, DV and Brighton) is orders of magnitude larger in Utah
Ultimately, due to the topography and associatedlift systems on the PC side, it's going to take at least two lifts from town and possibly more (depending on starting point) to access any sort of conveyance into BCC. In a world in which road/tunnel access between the two is a pipedream, I think this option (or some variant therein) makes the most sense from an environmental, political and financial perspective.
Since my first post, I've taken just a minute to actually look at Canyons' online trail map. Assuming the new tram would start at the top of Day Break, it looks like it would take 5 lifts from the base of Canyons to the base of Solitude (Red Pine, Tombstone, Peak 5, Day Break and the new tram). From the parking lot/ticket sales area, it looks like skiers would have to take the Cabriolet lift as well. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I've never actually skied at Canyons and may be missing some short cut that is not evident on the map.)
Of course the punchline of this joke is that once a Solitude-bound Canyons' skier reaches the base of Solitude, they will have exchanged one miserable lift layout (Canyons) for another equally miserable lift layout (Solitude). It would now take such a skier another two, slow, fixed-grip chairlifts to arrive at the top of Solitude, making it a total of 7-8 lifts from the base of Canyons to the top of the Summit lift at Solitude. Just to really be cruel about it, I'll point out that none the skiing in between any of these lifts, looks like anything more exciting than simple commuting runs from one lift to another.
As for returning to Canyons at the end of the day, as far as I can tell from Canyons' online map, it would take at least three lifts to return to the Canyons' base (the new tram, Tombstone and Short Cut). Yikes!
Of course the punchline of this joke is that once a Solitude-bound Canyons' skier reaches the base of Solitude, they will have exchanged one miserable lift layout (Canyons) for another equally miserable lift layout (Solitude). It would now take such a skier another two, slow, fixed-grip chairlifts to arrive at the top of Solitude, making it a total of 7-8 lifts from the base of Canyons to the top of the Summit lift at Solitude. Just to really be cruel about it, I'll point out that none the skiing in between any of these lifts, looks like anything more exciting than simple commuting runs from one lift to another.
As for returning to Canyons at the end of the day, as far as I can tell from Canyons' online map, it would take at least three lifts to return to the Canyons' base (the new tram, Tombstone and Short Cut). Yikes!
Mike Bernstein
New member
flyover":2grze76p said:
This is mostly true. But this will largely be the case for any lifts from the PC side to Solitude, given topography and lift layouts. IMO, that doesn't substantially alter the calculus vs. other options (tunnels/road between the two canyons). Given the unceasing pressure to achieve some sort of integration/connection between the 7 SLC resorts, and the equivalent pushback from the hippies (no more road traffic; no skiing on south side of BCC), I see this as the most realistic option, even if it is highly imperfect, as you point out.
Marc_C
Active member
A reminder for some who may not be familiar with the areas....
There is a road that currently exists between BCC and Park City and is used quite a bit in the summer, however its elevation, width (in sections), graded dirt surface, and terrain it crosses makes it both impractical and exceedingly difficult to keep it open in the winter in its present state. The tunnel idea was suggested as a way to connect Little CC with Big CC and PC, but there was also the possibility of replacing the current road over Guardsman's Pass from BCC to PC with a second tunnel.
Personally, I'd rather see both a new Alta lift up Flagstaff and the Solitude expansion into Silverfork Canyon along with Snowbird's Mary Ellen/Twin Peaks expansion before any links between the Cottonwoods and PC.
There is a road that currently exists between BCC and Park City and is used quite a bit in the summer, however its elevation, width (in sections), graded dirt surface, and terrain it crosses makes it both impractical and exceedingly difficult to keep it open in the winter in its present state. The tunnel idea was suggested as a way to connect Little CC with Big CC and PC, but there was also the possibility of replacing the current road over Guardsman's Pass from BCC to PC with a second tunnel.
Personally, I'd rather see both a new Alta lift up Flagstaff and the Solitude expansion into Silverfork Canyon along with Snowbird's Mary Ellen/Twin Peaks expansion before any links between the Cottonwoods and PC.
Mike Bernstein":2on9s6r7 said:
I pretty much agree with this analysis. I just wonder if Canyons/Solitude risk pissing off both the "hippies" and the vacationers at Canyons who will think they are buying easy access to Solitude's deeper, longer-lasting powder.
In the interest of full disclosure, I will once again admit that I like Solitude/Brighton's current isolation for the simple reason I believe it substantially contributes to Solitude's relative abundance of untracked snow a day or two after a storm.
A ridge-line station would be ideal, but i'm guessing the "Save Our Canyons" crew would be majorly opposed, at least certainly to any kind of patrolled/controlled terrain on the BCC side. But perhaps this could open up some of the ridge-line terrain on the Canyons side?
Meanwhile, Daybreak is an ancient, slow triple. If this proposal goes through, they should at least tear out that lift, replace it with a new lift or tram that connects to Solitude, and place the mid-station as high up towards the ridge-line as can feasible be done/allowed.
Meanwhile, Daybreak is an ancient, slow triple. If this proposal goes through, they should at least tear out that lift, replace it with a new lift or tram that connects to Solitude, and place the mid-station as high up towards the ridge-line as can feasible be done/allowed.
Mike Bernstein
New member
biny":9mwh01zs said:
Agreed on all points.
Daybreak is yet another example od ASC short-sightedness/stupidity. A slow lift serving flat terrain that serves only to provide access/increase the value of McMansions at high elevation. Brilliant! It's even more insane given that:
1) It sits in one of the snowier areas of The Canyons (closer proximity to BCC) yet doesn't servive any worthwhile terrain
2) It doesn't provide service to the steeps near the ridgeline which happen to be among the few portions of the ridge that The Canyons actually owns
I mean, I get that real estate was the model that drove much of the industry for 20 years, but at some point you would think someone would have stepped back and said - this makes no freaking sense.
For me, 75% of the time I'm staying in the SLC valley and picking my destination based on conditions; however, if I could take a lift (or 5 or whatever it takes) to BCC from PC I'd 100% consider it an option. For a boys trip the SLC valley works fine but make it a few couples and the option to have the amenities of PC along with the option of heading to Solitude would be something I'd definitely consider.
For non skiers, in my experience the Wasatch front just is out of the question. So when planning trips with non skiers we never consider UT which is a shame because for me the travel to SLC is easiest/cheapest, snow is the best, and terrain is as good as anywhere.
For non skiers, in my experience the Wasatch front just is out of the question. So when planning trips with non skiers we never consider UT which is a shame because for me the travel to SLC is easiest/cheapest, snow is the best, and terrain is as good as anywhere.
Fascinating to see so much discussion about the two SLC mountains that most people here wouldn't ski even with a free ticket.
I'm one of the dorks that has gone to Solitude/Canyons voluntarily.
I'm one of the dorks that has gone to Solitude/Canyons voluntarily.
Marc_C":3elfqwkn said:
Go out for drinks and a nice dinner in a cool town. Wake up, spend the morning with whoever wants to ski the canyons and then head over to Solitude for some fun in the afternoon. This would be especially good if the snow surfaces or base depth are significantly better in BCC.
Obviously its not ideal but its a decent option from having to go to Colorado or BC because the girls/non skiers won't enjoy staying in SLC and I refuse to take a ski trip to Park City exclusively. And no driving in the morning doesn't work.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk
Ticket sales support socal's analysis above. Most locals prefer the Wasatch front and most vacationers want the resort town, thus prefer Park City. I'm outspoken in preference for the Wasatch front and constantly tout the advantage of driving the relatively short distances to the Utah ski area of choice day by day. But vacationer stats show that mine is a minority view. Most people want to stay put in a resort for a week.
For someone in socal's position trying to make the resort skiers and the big mountain/powder skiers happy on the same trip, I don't think a couple of tedious partial days at Solitude (as delineated by flyover) will satisfy the latter group. Jackson Hole, Aspen, Telluride come to mind as better options.
The simplest, least obtrusive PC-BCC connection is Jupiter to Great Western. If it's going to be Canyons to Solitude I want to see:
1) A station on the Wasatch Crest, with controlled skiing at least on the Canyons' side of it.
2) The lower Canyons station needs to be at/near the Canyons' base, not 3 or 4 lifts removed from it.
For someone in socal's position trying to make the resort skiers and the big mountain/powder skiers happy on the same trip, I don't think a couple of tedious partial days at Solitude (as delineated by flyover) will satisfy the latter group. Jackson Hole, Aspen, Telluride come to mind as better options.
The simplest, least obtrusive PC-BCC connection is Jupiter to Great Western. If it's going to be Canyons to Solitude I want to see:
1) A station on the Wasatch Crest, with controlled skiing at least on the Canyons' side of it.
2) The lower Canyons station needs to be at/near the Canyons' base, not 3 or 4 lifts removed from it.
Bobby Danger
New member
any lift that starts on that side of the mtns. is for one purpose only -- to appease the over crowded minds of park -hitty ites --- this is from the minds that wanted to purchase powder mtn. a few years back and install thirty something lifts, because they thought they needed more room to ski . your all being baited to get cheap entertainment somewhere out of all this . they don't get early season snow at the base of either of those mtns.- so any tram operation would be based on the hosting mtn. being in operation for skiing (never mind the four lifts to get there) . and i have skied solitude extensively and let me say , if one happened to be skiing there with me for a day you wouldn't regret it . same goes for brighton at the top of big cottonwood - nothing wrong with the skiing off great western lift , chest deep is chest deep in b.c.c. or l.c.c. but not in p.c. it's a lot rarer - glorified eastern resorts over there