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

[jaytrem]

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting. Not sure why they have such a long lift for Park City/Canyons. They could easily connect the bottom of King Con to the top of Iron Mountain (or nearby). The Canyons already has already started a trail pointing right at King Con (hostle takeover?).

I always thought it would be smart for Deer Valley and PCMR to get together and replace the Town Lift with a gondola they could both use. Just need a mid-station some where in the genral vicinty old one and then run the 2nd stage to the McConkey/Empire Canyon summit. And I guess if Deer Valley wants to splurge they could add the 3rd stage to the Empire Canyon lodge area. That town one Deer Valley wants to build seems like it would a much bigger pain to build and get permits for.

 

[thetrailboss]

The latest....an article about a spokesperson that Canyons/Talisker hired to help promote the plan and his view as to why SkiLink is a good idea:

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-443-16968-broken-link.html

 

[Nick]

Controversy over Skilink connecting Canyons to Solitude

Is this a fringe group or is this controversy real?

http://www.stopskilink.com



I'm not really in full knowledge of the details of Skilink but doesn't this seem pretty dramatic response to what is essentially a lift connector?

 

[thetrailboss]

Is this a fringe group or is this controversy real?

http://www.stopskilink.com



I'm not really in full knowledge of the details of Skilink but doesn't this seem pretty dramatic response to what is essentially a lift connector?

Yes, it is an offshoot of the Save Our Canyons group. I've merged this with the existing thread on the issue.

In a nutshell, Talisker (who owns Canyons and the land under Park City Mountain Resort) got the brainwave to connect Canyons to Solitude via a gondola. They don't own Solitude. Instead of petitioning the Forest Service for permission to cross a narrow strip of land that the liftline would cross, and starting the public comment process which would spark ire from those that backcountry ski in the area, they tried to do an end-move by getting Congress to sell/give the land to them. Yeah that crashed and burned.

As to the debate, my POV is that both sides have really done a disservice by exaggeration of their cases. One side would have you think that the mountain will be clearcut, an interstate highway for skiers will be built under the lift, that the lift towers would be made of endangered Redwood, and that deer would be raped. The other side would tell you that everyone will give up their cars, that every person in Utah will get a job, that everyone on the lift will hug each other and sing Kum-by-yah, and that global warming will end. The truth is in the middle.

The opposition really are folks who love to "earn their own turns" there and are quite territorial. The area is pretty obvious and visible and there are existing roads and buildings in the area. There are open bowls and nice hardwood glades in the area. It is primo ski terrain. The other side is a multibillion real estate company that sells $105 tickets for skiing and expect that folks will pay the $105 and a surcharge to ride the lift to little, quiet Solitude. I have not heard any cheers or jeers from Solitude--some locals grumble because the traffic would increase. It's really a fight over who gets to use the area.

And, FWIW, it's always been a dream/plan for the Utah Ski Industry to connect the resorts anyways. As it stands now, skiers can easily pass between Alta and Snowbird as well as Brighton and Solitude--these resorts market joint passes and have terrain/lifts in place to move you in between the two. With some effort, you can ski between Alta and Brighton as well as from Park City Resort to Brighton. Additionally, Deer Valley and Park City are literally a ropeline apart; Canyons and Park City are pretty close as well. So if you put Ski Link in, allow Alta to put a lift in towards Brighton (they want to), and dropped the ropes in between the Park City areas, you could theoretically start at Deer Valley and ski all the way to Snowbird (or vice versa) between seven separate resorts.

 

[snowmonster]

With some effort, you can ski between Alta and Brighton as well as from Park City Resort to Brighton. Additionally, Deer Valley and Park City are literally a ropeline apart; Canyons and Park City are pretty close as well. So if you put Ski Link in, allow Alta to put a lift in towards Brighton (they want to), and dropped the ropes in between the Park City areas, you could theoretically start at Deer Valley and ski all the way to Snowbird (or vice versa) between seven separate resorts.

Or you could ski Ski Utah's Interconnect -- Deer Valley, Park City, Solitude, Brighton, Alta and the Bird all in one day.

http://www.skiutah.com/winter/plan/plan-other/interconnect

 

[Nick]

Thanks for merging. somehow I missed page 2 of this thread and thanks for the inside scoop TB!

 

[thetrailboss]

Or you could ski Ski Utah's Interconnect -- Deer Valley, Park City, Solitude, Brighton, Alta and the Bird all in one day.

http://www.skiutah.com/winter/plan/plan-other/interconnect

Yes you can. So much skiing, so little time.

 

[thetrailboss]

Thanks for merging. somehow I missed page 2 of this thread and thanks for the inside scoop TB!

No worries man. Very interesting discussion.

 

[thetrailboss]

And that video makes my point, Nick. Pretty much none of the images flashed are of the area in question and the statement that the lift would cover the same area that is slated to become wilderness is not accurate. The comment that the lift would ruin pristine wilderness is not accurate...as I said the area has radio transmitters, old mining dumps, and old mining roads...so it is not pristine.

They are right about the land grab issue. That is a big concern of mine.

And notice how most of the folks interviewed have a tie to the outdoor recreation industry in the SLC area. As I said, the real issue is not taking wilderness, it's the taking of land that is prime backcountry skiing terrain and prime recreational area. This is the real point of contention.

 

[thetrailboss]

Bump.

New plan. Vague as to specifics, but I imagine it involves two connections: one between DV/PCMR and Brighton; the other being Alta/Snowbird to Brighton. Very doable and a dream for the ski areas for a long time.

Apparently these would only be transfer lifts and no terrain per se.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57699224-78/ski-resorts-utah-mountain.html.csp

 

[jimmywilson69]

Build it. I just don't understand how construction Transfer lifts would ruin anything on either end of the lift. It's Genious, and it would absolutely bring more people into the SLC area for skiing.

My time share can be exchanged at a ton of places in Park City. If I could fly to SLC and not rent a car to ski those 7 mountains, i'd probably never go to Colorado again! Okay that's somewhat of a lie, but It makes it that much more attractive!

 

[thetrailboss]

I'm a skier. Would love to see it happen.

 

[skiNEwhere]

From Utah: Park City Resorts Wish to Connect to Big Cottonwood

Build it. I just don't understand how construction Transfer lifts would ruin anything on either end of the lift. It's Genious, and it would absolutely bring more people into the SLC area for skiing.

People say it is not aesthetically pleasing, that's their gripe.

Personally I'd like to see it though.

 

[jimmywilson69]

There are 7 large ski resorts cut into either side of the mountain. a 40-50 foot swath cut for a gondola isn't going to affect "Asthetics".

Typical NIMBY's...

 

[snoseek]

I selfishly don't want to see it happen only because I want the people on the back to stay there. LCC and BCC are getting pretty crowded. Then again that would be a fun day jumping around

 

[thetrailboss]

People say it is not aesthetically pleasing, that's their gripe.

Personally I'd like to see it though.

The issue is over the use of land. Folks now BC ski in areas outside of the ski areas. If anyone goes to the trailheads you will see tons of cars--so the BC areas are already crowded. This community is concerned that traffic will increase...perhaps because folks on the lifts will see the terrain and then want to access it later. You can't really prevent that...if folks want to ski there they will.

There is also some legitimacy in the fact that the areas connected are FAR apart and it is not realistic to expect that folks will eat breakfast in PC and ski at Snowbird in the afternoon and return to PC for après ski. Though they are relatively close, the amount of time transferring will still be on the order of hours and not minutes. Considering the distance there will be some back and forth, but not that much (since you have to get back to where you started).

 

[thetrailboss]

A big change in the process is that Ski Utah says that the connections will be made over private land--so that takes out the Forest Service and their review process (theoretically). Some seem skeptical about this claim.

 

[skiNEwhere]

A big change in the process is that Ski Utah says that the connections will be made over private land--so that takes out the Forest Service and their review process (theoretically). Some seem skeptical about this claim.

So does that mean they don't need an environmental impact assessment?

 

[thetrailboss]

So does that mean they don't need an environmental impact assessment?

Good question. Maybe yes since the resorts themselves sit on NFS land.

 

[skiNEwhere]

I'm sure the Canadian lynx will be discovered. Whether it's an expansion in Vermont or Colorado, it's always the "endangered" lynx that's affected the expansion