• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

From Utah: Park City Resorts Wish to Connect (UPDATED 2014 for ONE WASATCH Project)

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,331
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
I was reading the Salt Lake Tribune and learned that Deer Valley/Canyons wish to install a tram/ski lift over the ridge and Guardsman Pass down into Solitude/Brighton so that skiers and riders can go between the Park City resorts and the Big Cottonwood resorts. Not sure how I feel about it, but this guy doesn't want to see it. For those that have not been out here, only a ridge separates Park City from Brighton/Solitude and the drive over Guardsman Pass (closed in the winter) drops one right into the middle of Deer Valley. Apparently they want to install a lift over Big Cottonwood and into Alta.
 

AdironRider

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
3,484
Points
63
I think its pretty pointless really. Who is really going to make that trek? It would still be quicker to drive around from Park City or vice versa than take the proposed tram.

That and theres already a ton of ski area development in what is realistically a pretty small area. I think the enviros would put the ol squadoosh on this one.

Talisker has become a kinda love hate guy. Its going to take some work to get this approved, let alone built.
 

marcski

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
4,576
Points
36
Location
Westchester County, NY and a Mountain near you!
I kind of agree with that article. Definitely a marketing Scheme...leave the canyons alone. Plus,I agree with Adironrider, the environmental groups will shut it down. It is watershed area let alone some prime backcountry skiing terrain. The environmentalists are quite strong out there since the bird was developed in '70.
 

Talisman

New member
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
673
Points
0
Location
New England, ayup
Doubt it the PC to BCC connection would ever happen. PCMR and DV can't get over themselves to connect through the bushes between the the two areas let alone over to BCC. I can see fur trimmed Bogner panties in a twist at DV with the thought of hordes of duct tape patched boarders from Brighton trapsing through the Stien Erickson Lodge looking for Red Bull and attractive daughters.

I wonder if this is a reaction to the Squaw and Alpine connection?
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,331
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
I think the mistake that they made was to ignore the local process and to try to bypass it by going to Capitol Hill and getting an Act from Congress selling the narrow strip of USFS land to Talisker for this project. Maybe they knew it would not go through otherwise, but it seemed that choosing this route guaranteed it would pretty much fail and made more enemies than friends. It was overkill for what they wanted to do...and gives opponents the ability to use the "slippery slope" argument since the bill would have allowed the feds to sell land in other cases like this one.
 

steamboat1

New member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
6,613
Points
0
Location
Brooklyn,NY/Pittsford,VT.
Doubt it the PC to BCC connection would ever happen. PCMR and DV can't get over themselves to connect through the bushes between the the two areas let alone over to BCC. I can see fur trimmed Bogner panties in a twist at DV with the thought of hordes of duct tape patched boarders from Brighton trapsing through the Stien Erickson Lodge looking for Red Bull and attractive daughters.

That's funny Talisman...:lol:.

I read about the proposed UT. connection quite awhile ago. Seems to me from what I've read that both skiers, locals & enviromentalists are united in opposing this project. If there's enough money lining the pockets of the decision makers I'm sure anything could get approved though. Don't forget that Snowbird also has a major expansion plan on the table involving a second tram & additional lifts opening up what has been back country access only.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,331
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
Don't forget that Snowbird also has a major expansion plan on the table involving a second tram & additional lifts opening up what has been back country access only.

Yeah, I am interested in hearing more about Snowbird's proposal. Apparently they want to: (1) build a lodge on the top of Hidden Peak; (2) build a European style, no tower tram from Hidden Peak to the top of the Twin Peaks; and (3) to develop the Mary Ellen Gulch and to tie it in to Mineral Basin. Sounds interesting.
 

darent

Active member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,548
Points
38
Location
nantucket ma
I f people want to ski between the resorts they should sign up for the tour they run that does just that.
 

JohnL

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
35
Points
6
Location
Margaritaville
Yeah, I am interested in hearing more about Snowbird's proposal. Apparently they want to: (1) build a lodge on the top of Hidden Peak; (2) build a European style, no tower tram from Hidden Peak to the top of the Twin Peaks; and (3) to develop the Mary Ellen Gulch and to tie it in to Mineral Basin. Sounds interesting.

Aspect of the expansion ~= aspect of Mineral Basin, i.e. south? Correct? With some E/W ridges funneling into the gulch?

Mixed feelings on the Canyons/DV/PCMR to Solitude tram. Euro model is to connect areas in different countries to each other. But also to permit skiing across someone's back yard. I'm all for property rights, but skier rights are even more important.

Doesn't the current Interconnect go via that route? Single tram ride seems cheating a bit too much, but if done right, may have lesser impact than if interconnected conventional lifts were planned for a mega-resort.

Right now, I guess I like the current stove-pipe approach of the current Utah areas.
 

JohnL

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
35
Points
6
Location
Margaritaville
Thinking a bit more, I may have my Mineral Basin aspect a bit off. Bookends = N? Baldy Express = S? Mineral Basin = E?

Except for the Bookends face, the entire Mineral Basin area seems to suffer from sever sun exposure. Lack of trees also accentuates it.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,331
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
Thinking a bit more, I may have my Mineral Basin aspect a bit off. Bookends = N? Baldy Express = S? Mineral Basin = E?

Except for the Bookends face, the entire Mineral Basin area seems to suffer from sever sun exposure. Lack of trees also accentuates it.

I think you had it right the first time. The tram and MBE pretty much run North/South. Yes, the MB does get its fair share of sun, which is awesome first thing in the morning, but sucks when the sun moves and things refreeze.

The Snowbird expansion has a couple aspects to it. First, the MBE would be extended downslope so that folks could get out of Mary Ellen Gulch and to the lift without hiking. I often wonder why they did not just go downhill a bit more originally. Second, Snowbird wants to run a tram from the top of Hidden Peak to the top of one of the Twins. That is not going over well at all. Third, they want to put one lift and have skiing in Mary Ellen Gulch, which they own and in fact spent a lot of time and money cleaning up mining pollution several years ago. They've made it clear that they will restrict access to White Pine Chutes (I think I got that right) which is another big BC destination. There would be an exit to MBE from Mary Ellen. The Mary Ellen Gulch lie just over the ridge and NW of Mineral Basin.

Folks I have talked to who work for the resort admit that the Tram is a hail mary and that opposition just won't allow it. The Mary Ellen Gulch is even controversial...too bad since Snowbird owns it and cleaned it up. We heard that, depending on how things go and money, the next big thing is the replacement of Gad II with a HSQ that would be realigned and run from its current base up into Baldy's Bowl. They also have plans to replace Little Cloud with an HSQ.
 
Last edited:

JohnL

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
35
Points
6
Location
Margaritaville
I think you had it right the first time. First, the MBE would be extended downslope so that folks could get out of Mary Ellen Gulch and to the lift without hiking. I often wonder why they did not just go downhill a bit more originally.

That would bring in a lot more terrain in Mineral Basin into play without hiking. How much further down would that be? That also could be a very long runout in the basin.

Also, so I'm not missing anything obvious, The Twins are the ridge above The Road to Provo and Baldy Bowl? I've never hiked up there, but that always struck me as a knife's edge ridge.
 

thetrailboss

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
32,331
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
That would bring in a lot more terrain in Mineral Basin into play without hiking. How much further down would that be? That also could be a very long runout in the basin.

An article on it: http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_15229922

More info and a rough map: http://www.utahoutside.com/2011/05/snowbird-seeks-master-development-plan-feedback/

Looks like the MBE would be extended quite a ways. I have not explored much of that area of Mineral Basin.

Another post: http://www.epicski.com/t/94978/snowbird-expansion-in-mary-ellen-gulch

Also, so I'm not missing anything obvious, The Twins are the ridge above The Road to Provo and Baldy Bowl? I've never hiked up there, but that always struck me as a knife's edge ridge.
No, you're right. This be them:

bullion1.jpg
 
Top