Wasatch Interconnect

[jamesdeluxe]

Admin: if you wouldn't mind leveraging your status as a UT ski-industry insider to speculate --

What is the probability of an interconnect being pushed through? What form do you think it will take (tunnels, lifts/gondola)? If it is approved, how long before it would be operational?

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2012/0 ... erconnect/

 

[Admin]

Mind you, this is my own pure speculation with a little bit of inside knowledge, a sprinkle of gut feeling and a large dose of intuition thrown in for good measure.

That said, I'd give it better than 50/50 odds. I think that it's got a better chance of happening now than I did just a few years ago, or even six months ago. There's a strong push from all sides to develop some kind of alternative, the need for which was provided by Sunday's cluster in the canyon as Exhibit A. The enviros, however, are torn; while they have a strong desire to see less vehicular traffic in the canyon (and therefore less vehicle exhaust) they also have an extremely strong backcountry ski lobby fighting hard to prevent the loss of any more terrain to lift-served skiing.

I'm therefore unsure what form it would take, but I'd give better odds to a ski lift solution than I would to tunnels because tunnels would merely put more vehicles in the canyons, not fewer. That said, there are quite a few things that have gone on in the past year that have given this whole concept a new impetus:

1. There's a strong will in both our state and federal congressional delegations, and remember that we're the reddest of the red states.
2. In connection with #1, above, the current economic realities provide a renewed motivation.
3. A delegation of state and local officials traveled to Europe last year to see first-hand cog railways in action like the one that, in one proposal, would run up LCC.
4. There are currently US DOT studies underway associated with option #3, above.
5. The population of the Salt Lake Valley is anticipated to double within the next 30 years.
6. We've been extremely, extremely lucky over the past 75 years. Historically there's been only one avalanche-related highway fatality in the canyon, and that occurred to a snow plow driver in the middle of the night in the 1950s. The whole thing, though, is a ticking time bomb. One of these days the proverbial red snake of vehicles in the canyon is going to get taken out, and the potential for significant loss of life in such a scenario is huge. Avalanche mitigation is still a very inexact science and no matter how stable you think it is, it can still let go. For a taste of what it takes to keep that road open watch any of these video clips from the Discovery Channel's three-part series on the LCC road: http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/snow-men/

Factors weighing against anything happening soon:

1. The whole idea has a history of inaction. Keep in mind that UDOT didn't even take over avalanche control in the canyons until the mid-1980s, and since then improvements like avalanche sheds, etc. have been put off repeatedly.
2. The aforementioned environmental lobby is very strong, including (Save Us From) Save Our Canyons :wink: , the Sierra Club, Heli-Free Wasatch, etc. For a flavor of how the opposition feels read this recent blog entry from Andrew McLean:
http://straightchuter.com/2012/02/wasat ... beheading/
3. The U.S. Forest Service isn't exactly on board, and they own the vast majority of the land involved.

I would personally love to see something happen. It has to happen, I'm just unsure what form it's going to take. The only solution that would make groups like Save Our Canyons happy would be to remove the ski areas altogether and gate off the canyons so that only they can use them. I'm starting to believe, however, that our government officials just might railroad something past them.

 

[Evren]

The only solution that would make groups like Save Our Canyons happy would be to remove the ski areas altogether and gate off the canyons so that only they can use them.

Certainly seems that way. What I don't understand is how come they loom so large in the debate? I often see the "90% want no expansion" statistic thrown about and it seems that there is some underlying event/study that is the source of this but I don't know whether that reflects true sentiment (opposed to, say, some fervent minority having monopolized a meeting back-when). If anyone could enlighten me?

I use the canyons heavily and probably equally in ways SOC approves/disapproves. Yet I wouldn't piss on 'em if they were on fire. I can't imagine 90% of the Wasatch-Front being so far to the left of me in this debate.

 

[Skiace]

If the goal is really to reduce vehicle traffic/congestion, and improve safety then it seems to me the best answer is public transit along the lines of trains or whatever. Something going up LCC that is protected by avalanche barriers or whatever.

Lifts connecting LCC to BCC & Park City would certainly help some, but surely the majority of avalanche-prone traffic on the LCC road is not going to/from the Park City area, right? Lifts seem like a great way to improve marketability for the ski areas, but they seem an indirect way to address the safety and congestion issue.

 

[Marc_C]

Don't forget that the single largest concern that trumps all others is protecting water quality. The Tri Canyons area is *the* major watershed for the Salt Lake Valley. 65% of our culinary water comes from that snowpack.

From today's circus freak-show laughingly called the Utah legislative process:

House says 'yes' to connecting 7 ski resorts

Despite concerns about environmental impacts, Utah lawmakers have endorsed the idea of connecting seven ski resorts in the Park City area and the Cottonwood canyons.

The House passed a resolution Tuesday supporting the concept of linking Park City Mountain Resort, The Canyons, Deer Valley, Brighton Solitude, Alta and Snowbird. The Senate approved it last week.

"This is not about a specific proposal or a specific study," Rep. Ryan Wilcox, R-Ogden, said of SCR10.

Rep. Marie Poulson, D-Salt Lake, called the resolution premature because the impact on the watershed and traffic are not known. She noted that Big and Little Cottonwood canyons were off limits for the 2002 Winter Games for those reasons.

Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker and Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon oppose the ski-connect proposal.

 

[Evren]

Don't forget that the single largest concern that trumps all others is protecting water quality.

I had forgotten. Then again, the water quality argument has always been nebulous to me: how is putting up lifts affecting water quality? I can see how more cars are: the oil and the salt and the grime on the roads that washes down into the creeks, the particulates in the air. But the people who "earn their turns" are still driving all the way up-canyon. That, somehow, is not part of the equation. Frankly, the one thing that can easily be done to save the canyons is disallowing motorcycles without mufflers. We just need a study that shows how the noise pollution affects the mating ritual of the marmot. It certainly affects mine.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

noise pollution affects the mating ritual of the marmot.

Does Bicknell's Thrush exist out there?

 

[rogerk]

Mind you, this is my own pure speculation with a little bit of inside knowledge, a sprinkle of gut feeling and a large dose of intuition thrown in for good measure.

(snip)

The only solution that would make groups like Save Our Canyons happy would be to remove the ski areas altogether and gate off the canyons so that only they can use them.

I was going to commend Admin for a relatively fair portrayal of the situation until that last statement.

Anyone who is familiar with LCC backccountry and looks at the map of proposed development
(http://straightchuter.com/wp-content/up ... 4x36-2.pdf)
knows that the vast majority of the back country between American and Mill Creek will be gone. More importantly, there will will be virtually no low angle terrain left available for the many days when low-angle is the only safe bet. Yes, there will be Mill B and and Days Fork and the stuff around Little Water, but you're asking an awful lot of skiers to squeeze into a little area, increasing risk of avalanche accidents.

The question I have is why should the ski areas be allowed to grow past their current boundaries? The argument ofSL valley growing can also be used as argument against, since one can easily presume a larger number of backcountry users with the growth. In the meantime, none of the commercial areas are overcrowded when compared to others around the country. On the other hand, the backcountry crowds in the area are only beat by the crowds on Tuckerman's Ravine. No where else in the country is the competition for tracks so intense. The argument about decreased traffic is bogus too. A very small number of people drive around from the PC side to the Cottonwoods. And no SL resident is going to drive over Parleys in a snowstorm to access the Cottonwood resorts, especially since the slopes connecting the two will be closed awaiting bombing. And traffic in the Cottonwoods has not greatly increased in 20 years while it has increased in Parley's by around 100%(Source:Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow, published by Envision Utah) If you want to really fix the traffic problem you do what many national parks have done, and force people to take a bus if they want access. That also greatly reduces the risk of avalanche related highway fatality, since the targets are greatly reduced.

Admin, what would make Save Our Canyons happy is to preserve what's left for the crowds that will want to use it tomorrow. The Resorts have gotten what they want for a long time. Snowbird, DV, Brighton, Canyons, Snowbasin have all taken a good deal in recent history. At some point it has to be time for another group to get what they want.

 

[Evren]

The Resorts have gotten what they want for a long time. At some point it has to be time for another group to get what they want.

First off, it's not the resorts getting what they want; it's everyone who uses those resorts and everyone whose livelihood is impacted by that usage. I don't have numbers but it has to be orders of magnitude greater than the backcountry skiers. Secondly, public policy is not determined by every fringe group having a turn at getting what they want; it is, roughly, greatest good for the largest number of people.

This is why Save Our Canyons et al are trotting out "water quality" arguments. But it seems like more of a scare-tactic to me. And it alienates many like me, who'd otherwise be amenable to a compromise.

 

[rogerk]

The Resorts have gotten what they want for a long time. At some point it has to be time for another group to get what they want.

First off, it's not the resorts getting what they want; it's everyone who uses those resorts and everyone whose livelihood is impacted by that usage. I don't have numbers but it has to be orders of magnitude greater than the backcountry skiers. Secondly, public policy is not determined by every fringe group having a turn at getting what they want; it is, roughly, greatest good for the largest number of people.

This is why Save Our Canyons et al are trotting out "water quality" arguments. But it seems like more of a scare-tactic to me. And it alienates many like me, who'd otherwise be amenable to a compromise.

Ok, I'll agree with you on who is getting what they want.

And you are correct that the (skiers)/(bc skiers) ratio is huge, though (resort skiers)/(all users) is not, and the resorts impact pretty much every other user of the canyons.

As for public policy, it is not set by considering the greatest good, but by what improves reelection prospects, and in UT that is always a pro-business stance, except occasionally in SLC.

Re: the water-quality tactic of SOC- they are trying to use the tactic that they think will work best. Back in the 90's when I was doing work for the Utah Rivers Council, one tactic used to stop dam building was to explain to the citizens in municipalities of Salt Lake County that their tax dollars were subsidizing a small number of families in rural counties. We didn't care about the tax issue, but it got a lot of people on our side, and dams were stopped. That is the reality of how public policy is set.

I'm curious, if there were compromise, what that compromise might be? Why is the bus system I mentioned not enough compromise if the problem is "traffic"? Or if the problem is the unmet desires of "everyone who uses those resorts and everyone whose livelihood is impacted by that usage", why are the concessions made to them in the last 30 years not enough? At what point will the concessions become enough?

 

[Skidog]

Noone has mentioned yet destroying the actual beauty of the mountain scenery with ski lifts...???? Wow..

Also Talisker is a Canadian company that wants to use forest land to line its pockets...sorry...not for me. I think we have plenty of lift served all within very close distance to each other, no real need to connect all the dots IMHO, but this is and always will be about the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR!!!!!!

Oh and Evren the thing about the water isnt so much the lifts, but all the additional people that will be placed in the watershed on a daily basis. No matter what people create mess...

I say no interconnect.. Let alta and snowbird do whatever expansion plans they have (Alta up grizzly gluch with a lift, and Snowbird expanding the tram), but don't connect the wasatch back to the front....

M

 

[Marc_C]

Let alta and snowbird do whatever expansion plans they have (Alta up grizzly gluch with a lift, and Snowbird expanding the tram), but don't connect the wasatch back to the front....

What about both Alta's and Snowbird's desired plans to expand into what is now backcountry terrain?

Specifically, Alta - both the town and the ski area - want's a lift not up GG but up Flagstaff Mtn. This is supposedly primarily for avi control on the north side of the canyon when we eventually run out of 105mm howitzer shells. But it does vastly ease the access into Mill D, Southfork, Cardiac Ridge, etc.

Snowbird wants to:
* connect Hidden Peak with AF Twin South
* put a return lift out of Mary Ellen Gulch that will hit Mineral Basin south of the Sunday Cliffs
* extend the MBX down canyon by a half mile to enable return to Hidden Peak

This is over 1000 acres of terrain that is currently backcountry, requiring quite a bit of effort to get to (if you don't use Bird's lifts).

The concern about water quality, while certainly being used by SoC as rationale against pretty much any development or expansion, actually comes primarily from the forest service and the people responsible for maintaining culinary water in SLV. The wake up call wasn't this particular portion of an interconnect or that particular expansion plan, but when *all* the proposals were plotted on the map. It is striking exactly how much undeveloped land would need to be given over to the resorts, most of it National Forest land. This makes the Earl Houlding orchestrated 28 acre land swap at Snowbasin for the Olympics kerfuffle pale in comparison, and there was massive outrage over that deal.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

A recent article from "The Paper of Record" :-({|= about OneWasatch was posted last week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/trave ... rails.html

Even though it's billed as an update, I don't see anything new since the last time we discussed this, although the SLC crew (which is probably long tired of this topic) can say more. This quote at the end of the article seems a bit disingenuous:

Why is Utah so interested in becoming someplace else, anyway? said Peter Metcalf, founder and chief executive of the outdoor gear maker Black Diamond Equipment, which is based in Salt Lake City. Mr. Metcalf noted that when he had asked Europeans why they come here, they looked at the wild peaks still untinseled by ski lifts and replied, “Because we don’t have this.”

It sounds more like he's speaking on behalf of locals who justifiably don't want the side/backcountry terrain to be affected than European destination visitors.

This is the duh line: "skiers have questioned whether anyone other than tourists would want to do that (ski between the Wasatch Front and Back)." Isn't that the whole point of OneWasatch -- to pull ski tourists away from industry leader Colorado?

 

[Evren]

I am not a tourist. I'd want very much to ski between the Wasatch Front and Back.
10 years from now, I see myself doing more backcountry skiing than resort. I hope to.
I still want OneWasatch. Utah is big, Utah is empty. And the central Wasatch are no wilderness, despite what Democrats have deemed. They are a playground, for local and tourist alike.

 

[EMSC]

This quote at the end of the article seems a bit disingenuous:

Why is Utah so interested in becoming someplace else, anyway? said Peter Metcalf, founder and chief executive of the outdoor gear maker Black Diamond Equipment, which is based in Salt Lake City. Mr. Metcalf noted that when he had asked Europeans why they come here, they looked at the wild peaks still untinseled by ski lifts and replied, “Because we don’t have this.”

Wow, that quote is rich for interpretation or mis-interpretation.

The Europeans aren't coming to Utah in significant numbers to start with anyway. Not to mention the usually much higher snow quality and frequency in Colo/Utah than is typical to the boom or bust snow falls in Alps, organized lift lines and general friendliness of treatment to guests coming to North America. If you want to know what they don't want to visually see on the mountains vs Europe it has nothing to do with a couple more ski lifts. Its all about the huge avalanche structures/fences all over the mountains in the Alps. They probably save lives, but look kind of horrible. You can't hardly even see most of the actual lifts.

 

[Admin]

Oddly enough, I have encountered many Europeans in the last few years. Including a guy from Stockholm yesterday. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but it seems that that I have seen more Europeans in recent years. I suspect that has much to do with lower than normal snowfall over there.

Euro visitation here is miniscule. According to Kottke reports international visitation has risen over the past decade from something like 4.5% to 5.2% of skier visits. Take out the eastern Canadians skiing New England, Latin Americans at Vail, then the Brits and the Aussies, not much room for the Euros.

And with regard to snowfall in the Alps, it's not declining over the past decades any more than ours is at ski elevations (meaning not at all). It's always been more erratic with a slightly lower overall average than western North America. There are numerous microclimate exceptions in both regions.

 

[get_outside]

while that may all sound good on paper to some, who is paying for all the additional ski patrol and avalanche control work professionals required surrounding each resort?

with a lot more terrain to account for, hard not to envision seeing the shitshow that is canyons sidecountry to be everywhere a lift can get you. oh yea, and well over half of those people don't have or wear gear so that makes things a bit more interesting.

 

[Skrad]

There is plenty of lift-serviced terrain in Utah relative to demand.

There isn't as much backcountry terrain as you might think.

Hoping that this gets stalled.

 

[TRam]

There is a lot of back country terrain in the area that most don't use (the unitas , provo canyon, the sessions not to mention the areas further south (south wasatch). Its not in there backyard so I get that.The lifts connecting PCMR to Brighton wouldn't affect any terrain. What if PCMR allowed access gates like the canyons have, would that change anything with the back country crowd?

 

[Skrad]

Nobody I know would be too bent about PCMR opening gates. There is good skiing off the Park City Ridgeline but the big lines are in the Cottonwoods and Millcreek.