Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
AndrewGravesSVI forsee a drawn out legal battle
SchoessLiterally no one that lives here wants this lol
cyphersthink they should've tried bus lanes first and then this if it didn't work. but i've only been a few times so grain of salt
eheathWhile this sounds nice, building a 3rd lane up the entirety of LCC is equally as bad as a gondola and arguably more destructive on the canyon. I think the concept of less cars/vehicles in general is the future of LCC.
cyphersoh i assumed they were turning a car lane into bus only. or at least that's what i would do to actually incentivize transit. yeah putting in lane 3 would be a bit much
eheaththis is correct ...
cyphersthink they should've tried bus lanes first and then this if it didn't work. but i've only been a few times so grain of salt
Monsieur_PatateI don't see how funneling even more skiers to resorts that are already at capacity on those days will really solve anything. It will make the resorts more money for sure, but the already affected skiing experience will get even worse.
Maybe traffic gets marginally better (I bet it won't tho), but in turn the lift crowds are going to be even worse, and it's a huge environmental and visual impact to LCC, while costing a fuck ton too, it's just not worth it, period.
eheathSo you think doing nothing is the right move?
Monsieur_PatateI think tolling and more buses on existing lanes is the right move
eheathWhile I would love for this to be a solution, with the current traffic, nobody is going to want to sit on a bus in traffic when they could do it in their car, especially if the bus costs anywhere near the same as parking/tolls. IF the bus was free and it was accommodating to the riders, it could have an impact, but the main reason people dont ride the bus now is because 1. it takes longer than a car and 2. its the same shit show in the AM of finding a parking spot and waking up 3 hours before the lifts open to go 30 minutes. IF busses are the solution, they need to limit cars in the canyon and make it appealing to the random person going skiing.
LCC (and BCC) can not handle more vehicles, thats the underlying issue. The amount of people on the mountain isn't changing anytime soon, there needs to be infrastructural changes so that people can even get to the resort, we're far past caring about how many people are skiing, we just want the ability to get the resort in a timely manner.
That being said, there is a reason I don't mind skiing PC with my 10 min bus ride, driving up either cottonwood canyon is an absolutely shitshow these days and I doubt it gets better anytime soon, regardless of what UDOT/the resorts change.
Monsieur_Patate- Bus is free with a season pass
- Tolling and limiting single occupancy vehicle should reduce the number of cars on the road
That's why I think going with the nuclear option (something that will scar LCC forever while costing an unprecedented amount of money) without first trying low-cost/low-impact solutions (like tolling and more buses) was extremely dumb. So I'm glad they've backtracked that and are now saying they'll do that while waiting for funding.
And I hope they never get funding anyway, even if those easy options don't work, because as I mentioned I just don't think the benefit will outweigh the cost when it comes to the gondola. The time you'll save not sitting in traffic will be spent waiting in lift lines instead, and on top of that a bunch of climbing routes will be destroyed and we'll lose amazing views. It's just not a good trade-off, it's only benefiting the resorts' bottom line, which I don't care about.
At some point people need to realize that SLC has pretty much the highest density of skiers in the world (meaning the ratio of skiers to the available lift-served terrain, tons of people and comparatively few/small-ish resorts). If you really want to 'fix' the problem, you need either less skiers (in which case the traffic issue would solve itself), or more lift-served terrain. So unless Alta and Snowbird somehow convince the forest service to lease them some more land to operate on (which won't happen), there's just no point in funneling more skiers up canyon imo.
Just plan ahead and wake up early, traffic has never prevented me from skiing because I know what to expect and I plan accordingly, it sucks sometimes but it is what it is.
eheathWell they are doing those things first, just with a gondola as a plan for the future.
Something like gondola might be an eyesore, but would you rather have a decent solution that is used by many mountain towns in the world or never go skiing there again? IMO if traffic doesn't change in the cottonwoods, I simply would choose to not ski there. Maybe one day there will simply be less traffic, or maybe they will implement a good bus/transit option, or maybe the gondola will come to fruition, but either way I have zero desire to even attempt to ski the cottonwood canyons in their current state.
The idea of "just wake up early" is such a cop out on the situation, of course we're going to do what we have to do now to ski, but that doesn't mean we should just settle with a worse situation than before. The parking and traffic situation is unsustainable and the infrastructure is failing, something's gotta give.
Monsieur_PatateI think tolling and more buses on existing lanes is the right move
Monsieur_PatateYep, like I said I'm glad they backtracked, because the original plan not to implement those things first, so that's at least a small win there.
You really think the choice is either a gondola or 'never go skiing there again'?
A. The solution is specifically designed to address a few really bad days a season (pow days, holidays, etc.) You're free to skip those days altogether if you want to avoid the worse traffic and can still go there most of the season without significant traffic issues.
B. Traffic has never prevented me from making it up to the resorts, even on pow days.
The reality is that we just have different preferences, you'd rather have an easier trip to the resort, even if it means more waiting/less skiing once you're clicked in. I'd rather wake up earlier and get ahead of traffic than get even longer lift lines than they already are. It's ok to have different opinions, no need to be overly dramatic, it's not that drastic a choice as you make it out to be.
SchoessLiterally no one that lives here wants this lol
PeppermillRenoTolling? LIke paid parking? Vail should just buy these resorts if you are into that shit.
Loser.
Monsieur_PatateBecause you think the gondola is free? If it's publicly funded it will be my taxes, if it's privately funded my season pass is going to go up, at least with tolling tourists like you and their ikon will have to contribute lmao.
Also sorry to break it to you but Alta and Snowbird both have some paid parking implemented already, and Solitude is 100% paid, only a matter of time before Brighton does it too, the cottonwoods didn't need Vail to do paid parking.
Monsieur_PatateBecause you think the gondola is free? If it's publicly funded it will be my taxes, if it's privately funded my season pass is going to go up, at least with tolling tourists like you and their ikon will have to contribute lmao.
Also sorry to break it to you but Alta and Snowbird both have some paid parking implemented already, and Solitude is 100% paid, only a matter of time before Brighton does it too, the cottonwoods didn't need Vail to do paid parking.
eheathI'd ignore his opinion, hes a tourist that thinks he knows everything about skiing, he laughs at "locals" and flexes around the parking lot with his stupid ass cubicle job that nobody cares about.
PeppermillRenoYou should be working on your resume right now dude.
PeppermillRenoI don't ski there anymore the 'locals' have ruined the place there are too many of them SLC isn't a small city. Locals suck they all ski at the same time when there is fresh snow and go for the good terrain.
I won't by an Ikon ever because of passholders being treated like second class citizens at the demand of 'locals.'
The western lower 48 is overrated as fuck anyways and as you pointed out earlier there has been virtually zero expansion of good terrain despite the grown in participation Alta and Snowbirds trail maps look the same as they did 20 years ago.
eheathI didn't say the gondola was the solution, I just said I would like to see any improvement, whatever route that ends up being.
I went to brighton on a random saturday, not a pow day or anything and it was a shit show, I can't even imagine what its like on a pow day. If I skied during the week, it would be less of a concern but the weekends are certainly fucked in their current state. You can suffer all you want for that shit, but I'm guessing you dont ski weekends as often or maybe have an opportunity to ski different days, etc.
I think your assumption of longer lift lines is a bit exaggerated but not trying to argue about that, just trying to discuss real options to fix the issues in the cottonwood canyons.
hoodratz47Tunnel
Michigan_SucksHonestly, a train would be more destructive but not as "visually invasive" as people argue. And that $550 million price tag seems like a whole lot to go towards that. Plus a train carries more and is not beholden to weather such as busses and a gondola. .
SkiBum.I always thought avy sheds over the road should Been done years ago, to avoid the road closures. Won’t help traffic much.
Gondola is great. Takes some strain off road and traffic. All for it.
Wish the town of Park City would follow. More parking in Richardson Flats. Gondola to DV/PC lots.
Facebook comments on the news articles about this are a good comical read as well
wasatch_ratGondolas work all over Europe, it could work here too.
Monsieur_PatateThis is being brought up as an argument quite a bite, and I honestly don't know of a single resort in Europe that's using a gondola as an alternative to the road to get to the resort. I know of a very few using railway cars tho, but even that is very uncommon. Plenty of gondolas on the slopes, or to connect resorts, but gondolas as an alternative to the road? It's not really a thing in Europe.
eheathprob cause they're smart enough to not build a road with 10+ avalanche paths above it.
PeppermillRenoGreat development. Awesome to know that more people will have access to the mountains and get into the sport. Its cool taking the bus won't suck balls since you get off earlier and in the canyon sooner.
Not sure why these 2 mountains aren't adding lifts and expanding in bounds terrain. This mountain range should really be entirely connected like it would if it were Europe.
hoodratz47Tunnel
RIP_leos_shackIt seems to me that there's basically 3 options here:
1. Gondola
2. Expand road / busses / tolls
3. Do nothing and continue to bitch and moan
For those saying that a gondola has a huge environmental impact, it's truly minimal compared to the blasting and terraforming required to expand the road. Also the amount of gas wasted by spending hours in the red snake is insane. If you sit in traffic for 2 hours, you're getting the equivalent of 5 mpg. So anything to take 1000 cars off the road is a step in the right direction.
It should be emphasized that gondolas (or any ropeways) are by far the most efficient forms of transportation when it comes to energy used per person. A full downhill load at the end of the day could potentially operate at negative energy, although this specific example might not be steep enough for that. While the provisional 1000 p/h seems too low to make a substantial difference, 3S systems (think Whistler Peak2Peak) can be scaled up to over 4000.
Are there drawbacks? Sure. Line clearing requires cutting trees and there's a little bit of ground disturbance during construction. And yeah it could be an eyesore, but so are roads and transmission lines, which you'll find almost anywhere.
I think what it comes down to is if they build it, they need to do it right to where it will take 75% of the vehicles off the road. If it's half-assed or if you have to pay for it, it won't get used and you still have the same problems as before.
Monsieur_PatateMost locals are in favor of a fourth option: tolling/limiting single occupancy vehicles/more buses on existing road.
And beyond the strict environmental impact, this will also destroy a lot of very popular climbing routes, and SLC being the largest climbing community in north america, you can imagine the uproar.
RIP_leos_shackI hear this point come up a lot but I'm not quite sure I understand the argument. Can you not climb underneath a gondola 100 feet in the air? The line fairly closely follows the valley floor so anything higher up wouldn't be affected. Or is it just people worried that "their spot" will now be visible to the public?
