The State of Utah has selected a 3S gondola as the winning alternative for Little Cottonwood Canyon mobility after a multi-year environmental impact study. The study considered roadway widening, enhanced bus service, rail and two different gondola options. UDOT received and analyzed some 50,000 public comments in the lead up to its decision.
The selected gondola alternative B will start with enhanced bus service in 2025 and other road improvements before the gondola is constructed and State Route 210 becomes tolled. The 3S system would be capable of carrying 1,050 passengers per hour from a base terminal at La Caille to stations at Snowbird and Alta. The innovative system would include four sections with 35 passenger cabins departing stations every two minutes.
“The gondola provides the highest travel reliability, as it can operate independently of State Route 210, avoiding delays related to adverse weather, crashes, slide offs, and slow moving traffic,” wrote UDOT in its Record of Decision. “While the gondola does have high visual impacts, it has low impacts to the watershed, wildlife movement and climbing boulders, along with low operations and maintenance costs.”
The gondola itself would cost $370 million to construct and would become the most expensive and capable lift system ever built in the United States. A new parking garage, tolling infrastructure and trailhead improvements would bring all-in capital cost to $729 million. However, because the gondola would cost less than $8 million per year to operate, it has the lowest 30 year lifecycle cost of all the options studied.
Once the gondola is complete, UDOT expects the Utah Transit Authority to discontinue bus service in Little Cottonwood with transit riders transferring to the gondola at the base of the canyon. Skiers and resort employees alike could reliably access Snowbird in 27 minutes and Alta in 37 minutes whenever the gondola is operating. The road would remain open for private vehicles with tolling in the upper canyon to help pay for improvements.
Although gondola alternative B is now officially the state’s selected alternative, lawmakers have not yet funded the project. As such, no timeline has been set for gondola construction to begin.
Lift Blog 
Outrageous how much public money is being spent to wreck a natural treasure and ruin the ski experience by removing the cap that the traffic was placing on the max number of skiers all because on some Saturday mornings during peak winter season there is not enough parking. Seriously, this is so stupid, 12 weekends a year x 2 days x 30 years ≈ $1 million per day it will actually be needed (it is completely unnecessary Monday – Friday and in November and April) and that’s if it isn’t over budget. What a colossally moronic tragedy.
Hopefully we can get this put to a vote and stop the madness although I am sure they’ll do all they can to make sure it never goes to a vote because they know if the public (aka the people paying for it) votes on it, it will go down in flames.
LikeLike
Excellent decision ‘
LikeLike
I may sound sarcastic or rude but what do you want to happen then, because its more than just a Saturday problem. you probably didn’t have a problem with lifts at the resort being replaced. so what’s your idea on solving the issues of little cottonwood canyon cause leaving it the way it is just not going to happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Traffic definitely happens in that canyon on more than just weekends – especially on a season like this one. Every time I drove over there in March (with 4 people in a car) there was too much traffic to make it to the resorts before 11am. This happened both on a Monday and a Wednesday.
Those opposed to this gondola project talk about how ski lifts in LCC will wreck its natural beauty – conveniently ignoring that there’s already about 15 ski lifts in LCC and there have been lifts there for 80 years now.
The article also states the capacity of the gondola is 1050/hour. This isn’t going to significantly affect the crowding at the resorts – each of those high speed quads has double the gondola’s capacity. If anything, I think this project is going to miss the mark because its capacity is too low and people will be frustrated at the idea of waiting in line to get on the gondola.
Expanding the road and bus service are just not practical solutions on a road with the highest density of avalanche pathways in North America. Not to mention, I have significant doubts that a bus only lane would actually remain that way in utilization with the way I typically see people drive in the canyon – tourists and locals.
In spite of all the opposition to it I think the gondola is the best solution of the proposed options for improving transit in the canyon and I’m excited to see it built.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have followed this project for many years and the initial plans i drew up was a 3S system with up to 3,000 persons per hour. I think they chose a low number to compare more equally with busses. If the system works, sure they will up the hourly capacity. 3,000 per hour could fill both Snowbird and Alta about half full over 2.5 hours so should be enough.
LikeLike
@Utahsucksdontmovehere The only thing wrecking the national treasure in LCC is people like you who think having thousands of pollution and noise emitting cars stuck in hour long traffic jams is somehow more practical and environmentally friendly than an efficient, quiet clean, and cost effective gondola. This was a great decision by UDOT, and I’m confident that in 10 years, people will look back at this decision as a no brainer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It seems like UtahSucks’ true objection (camouflaged within their griping over costs, which will have little to no personal impact) is that more reliable access to the ski areas due to reduced traffic will result in more skiers at the resorts with a personal impact of fewer fresh tracks for him/her. This completely ignores the environmental impacts of vehicle trips up and down the canyon, vehicles idling while stuck in traffic or waiting for avalanche clearance/snow removal. Yes, it’s a costly project, but it will have economic, recreational and environmental benefit lasting decades. I think most people would view those as having greater value than the selfish concern that the gondola may, at some times, allow other people to enjoy skiing Snowbird and Alta as much as he/she does.
This is exactly the sort of project that we need to consider in the Truckee/North Tahoe area to get skiers out of their cars and relieve the traffic that forces locals going to work or making a trip to the supermarket, bank or a doctor’s appointment to plan ahead to leave home at a ridiculous hour to avoid being stuck in miles-long traffic jams.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The problem in North Tahoe is that the resorts are scattered as are the population and lodging centers. Unlike SLC where you have all the people in one area, and then the resorts in a relatively straight line, in Tahoe you have a spiderweb. For instance, I live in Incline and frequently ski Palisades.
The only two Tahoe alignments that would make any sense are something from Truckee to Northstar, and then something from the western side of Donner Pass to Sugar Bowl, and then Palisades. That would be more complex and expensive than the Cottonwood proposal.
LikeLike
lol I’d love to hear how this is going to create enough GDP growth to justify the $1 billion Gondola project. The resorts are already at max capacity and pass sales are through the roof and continue to grow every year. Yeah, if you have a gondola in 20 years you might be able to get more people up right after avy control but in no way will this justify the Billion dollar price tag. The amount of GDP growth you would need for it to trickle back into the funding account would be out of my lifetime.
In all reality, my opinion is that if you really want to have the biggest effect on economic growth, solve the LCC and BCC traffic issue, and do it for a reasonable cost the state should really consider backing the development of new ski resorts in Salt Lake Ogden and Provo areas. The fact that we have a private ski resort being built for the 1% of people at Wasatch peaks ranch when we have a shortage of ski resorts in Utah is insane and really makes me sad. Build more ski resorts, spread out the demand/people, and relieve the traffic. There are plenty of locations within 1-hour drive like the resort in Provo during the 80s that did not get built.
No this will not entirely solve the issue for LCC and we should still consider increasing bus capacity and incentivizing carpooling. But it does allow us to allocate $ 1 billion elsewhere to have bigger impacts on the community and state growth rather than to serve an area that is already overpopulated.
LikeLike
UDOT just spent $750 million, an equal amount to this project, for the West Davis Highway, a third (!!!) parallel highway from the north end of Davis County to Farmington, where it will forever be a barrier between Davis County residents and the Great Salt Lake Shorelands Preserve. Oh, and they also just spent an additional $473 million widening US-89 from 4 to 6 lanes, one of the other parallel routes for this exact same stretch. No one has come out and said this combined $1.2 billion is a waste because GDP growth, or some other metric, cannot keep up despite excessive highways being an economic sinkhole.
I would love it if Utah built more ski terrain to keep up with demand, but it is a bit shortsighted to think more ski resorts spread out across the state would help. Cherry Peak and Beaver Mountain are excellent resorts within a 2 hour drive of Salt Lake City, yet they are practically empty. Sundance is even closer and also receives a fraction of the traffic. The reality is that people want the best in either quality, convenience, or price, and that is the Park City resorts, LCC resorts, and BCC resorts. The business model of being a Plan B option in the ski world has failed every time (Haystack for Mount Snow, Pico for Killington, Meadow Mountain for Vail, etc.).
LikeLike
The EIS predicts that we’ll have a Redsnake every Friday-Sunday plus Powder Days every season by 2050. The EIS does not call for any particular payment approach, and in fact moderately implies that in order for the Gondola to be built, the resorts would need to pitch in. There is no mechanism presently for funding the gondola. Currently funded is phase one Bus Expansion & Tolling. If that alone works, great! But predictions are that it will be insufficient.
The EIS found (correctly, imho) that a fixed-route cableway would be *by far* the least impactful environmentally as compared to all alternatives, with the exception of visual impact. The gondola has less impact to wildlife, water, air, recreation, and cultural resources that any of the other discussed alternatives. Do you care about those, or only the viewshed (which, if you look at the vis sims, would actually not be that heavily impacted)
LikeLiked by 1 person
+utahsucksdontmovehere, 1050 pph isn’t all that many skiers in the grand scheme of things, most double chairs put out more than that. Plus, ropeways don’t wreck natural treasures, they enhance them! Just look at the Predigtstuhl in Bad Reichenhall in Germany with its lovely vintage Bleichert tram (https://www.remontees-mecaniques.net/bdd/reportage-tph25-du-predigtstuhl-bleichert-6797.html).
LikeLike
For me who has studied the matter for years, this is the correct decision.
LikeLike
A 37 minute ride sounds like a recipe for, um, smelly and unsightly things to accrue in the cabins. At least when you’re stuck in the red snake and you gotta Yobagoya there are trees to hide behind.
LikeLike
I mean, I don’t think anybody would do that on a bus, so what’s different about a gondola cabin?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll be honest that I didn’t consider the bus. You make a good point. My one thought is that unless the bus driver is inhuman, they’ll hopefully pull over between slide paths for an actual emergency. I definitely have anxieties that arrive at frustrating times; even the 15-20 minute Silver Mountain gondola pushes the envelope for me.
LikeLike
Not everyone is suited for public transportation and it sounds like you may be someone for whom the gondola would be a poor choice.
LikeLike
It’s also going to have 2 midstations, and iirc 1 of which will be right next to a trailhead/bathroom. The longest segment would be about 12 min.
LikeLike
Many parts of the world are already using ropeways for public transportation.
USA is way behind in public ropeway transportation. My guess is the state won’t operate it. Likely the operational and maintenance contact will go to the lift manufacturer. There will definitely be some operational and maintenance positions available, maybe at a good wage??
LikeLike
lol no they don’t and when they do they’re for short distances unless at mountain resorts. And when they do they don’t put them in windy canyons that would require multiple-angle stations because that increases the cost an insane amount.
The project doesn’t make sense and will never justify the $1 billion because it won’t generate enough economic activity.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi_Telef%C3%A9rico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cableb%C3%BAs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrocable_(Medell%C3%ADn)
I respectfully completely disagree with your comment. Not only are ropeway networks intended for public transit already in place in several cities (not just the ones I’ve listed above), but larger cities such as Paris are considering ropeways as transit enhancements as well. The Parisian Gondola option was chosen due to the area already being significantly built up, leaving little room for traditional transit options, which all have a larger infrastructure footprint than any ropeway.
I’m also not entirely sure that the LCC gondola is actually intended to generate more economic activity. The way this proposal has been presented, at least to me, seems more like finding the correct solution to an active problem, less about finding new economic drivers for privately owned ski resorts. Neither of these are mutually exclusive however.
Here’s the situation, from my admittedly not-close-to-the-ground point of view: The road in LCC cannot handle the volume of people who wish to be in LCC. This generates backups, which turn into traffic jams, which turn into gridlock, which means possibly thousands of cars idling combustion engines and not moving, wasting fossil fuels (a non-renewable energy source) and emitting fumes, heat, and carbon dioxide. Throw buses (vehicles which are generally not intended to climb mountainous terrain, leading to maintenance issues) in the mix, and now you have diesel emissions as well. All sitting in traffic. This is a problem for precisely the reason so many are crying to stop the gondola: Environmental Impact.
Let’s look at the alternatives to the gondola? Widening roads by adding lanes has been shown to linearly increase the number of vehicles on the road (per lane added), which doesn’t solve the problem, it could actually make it far worse. The Katy Freeway in Texas, one of the widest highways in the world with 26 lanes, had the second worst bottleneck in the entire country in 2004. The environmental impact of the widening process would also be more invasive than the gondola construction process. Rather than needing to widen entire miles of road corridor in challenging terrain (in both directions), only 20 towers need to be constructed along with each terminal/station. The gondola ground-level footprint in miles would be a very small fraction compared to a road widening effort: You can walk under a gondola. You cannot walk under a road unless it’s been dug out. Enhancing bus service (as a replacement for the gondola solution, since they are ALREADY making bus service improvements as part of this plan) would cost the state an exorbitant amount of money after implementation. Buses are much more complicated than gondola cabins and rather than focusing maintenance on drive/line components of a gondola, they would need to split attention between each of their fleet vehicles. That’s not even considering the extra space needed in bus depots to store extra vehicles, which would also carry significant cost. Rail? Now don’t get me wrong, I do love some good ol’ trains, but you have to look at the infrastructure footprint; the gondola just automatically beats out laying a new rail corridor every time, a construction task that seems to be more expensive in North America than anywhere else.
So is your solution to do… nothing? I can’t help but notice a large portion of comments against this project sound a lot like NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard!). These people do not want change. They are scared of change. They fight back against transit projects because they only see how the change will affect them and what they already know and are comfortable with while failing to see the benefits transit projects can bring to the whole community, and to those outside of it. They cannot see how changing nothing (or in many tragic cases, changing the proposal so significantly that it no longer solves the problem that it was originally created to solve) will only serve to decrease their quality of life. I also fail to see how gondola towers seriously degrade trailheads in any way (such as Black Diamond and Patagonia claim) except for some light buzzing, unless I’m wrong that people primarily PARK at trailheads and then LEAVE to go hike/climb/ski/base jump somewhere else.
The benefits added by the gondola just outnumber any of the other options, especially if you take a 5 year after construction/implementation outlook when looking at the different proposals. Nobody wants to pay to ride a city bus up a mountain road when they could just drive, but they WOULD pay extra over a toll for a car to have a unique aerial view of the canyon. Road vehicles are equally screwed if plowing isn’t completed on time (or any other weather/obstacle related issue), but the gondola doesn’t care, it can run all day no matter the weather. Road vehicles are also ALL subject to traffic, it’s inescapable, it’s a function of independent vehicles needing to share the same road. The gondola glides right over the jam, with the only congestion being the line to get on the gondola (mitigated by adding more cabins). The cost of operating a ropeway compared to operating a fleet of buses is much lower. The cost of constructing and operating a rail line (and train sheds/maintenance centers) would be astronomical in the long run, and capacity would be far lower (trainsets are real expensive, and I doubt they’d go full NYC subway with service levels), which doesn’t address the overcrowding issue as elegantly as a gondola might. The training of employees to operate ropeways is often less intensive and shorter than the training of other transit vehicle operators, not to mention less employees required overall to operate the gondola.
The only strikes against the gondola I see would be the following:
– Watershed issues (I think only during construction though? Ropeway manufacturers are VERY experienced in challenging construction areas)
– Access is only provided to the ski resorts
The access issue could be solved by changing already planned angle stations into loading/unloading stations (specifically the angle station near Tanner’s Flat) so even more people can leave their car outside of the canyon.
I hope UDOT has a level head about this. Transit projects are notoriously unpopular in planning/construction phases, but if planned and implemented correctly, the benefit lasts for decades and former critics begin to change their minds. I hope you will too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I honestly think the 2nd problem isn’t as big of a deal as many people are making it out to be. They’re not going to rip out the road the second they finished the gondola, you can still drive up the canyon all you want (albeit with a toll). I think that the gondola will be great for people going to Alta/Snowbird, and the reduced traffic from just those two destinations will free up the road in the canyon enough that people going to other places will not have a problem getting up the canyon.
LikeLike
You can just say “I’ve never been to the Alps”
3s systems are nearly immune to wind. Power usage is very clearly better, and based on the sample size of… All ropeways…. It’s cheaper than a bus route.
You’re using a 1500hp motor for a bus usage that would require at least 4 bus motors. How would that not be better?
LikeLike
He wasn’t talking about air movement windy, but twist-and-turn windy, which was why he referred to angle stations.
LikeLike
I think UDOT should consider using doppelmayr tri-line if gondola is the decision
LikeLike
I agree as the new Tri Line costs 30% less and has much smaller towers and stations and capacity can go well over 3,000 per hour. Good suggestion.
LikeLike
Exactly, looks like the biggest impact (and UDOT stated this) is high visual impact. This should help reduce this, especially over the steep keyhole ridge. I would like to see how many more towers this adds but they would not have to opt for lattice towers perhaps?
LikeLike
What a colossal mistake. A simple tolling scheme with out-of-canyon parking garages and buses would cost a fraction of this amount and offer better reliability. Construct a few strategic snowsheds and the road would rarely close, except in the most extreme snow cycles.
You can say “oh, but it will be cool!” or “it will be an engineering marvel!” And indeed, those things will be true. But tolling and buses could be implemented next winter. This gondola is probably ten years out, if it even happens. It will cost HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars (it would be fine if a ski area wanted to self-fund something like this!). And it will still close in snow cycles and high winds.
This is a lift blog, but this lift defies common sense.
LikeLike
At this point, any solution to Little Cottonwood would cost millions of taxpayer dollars and with the multiple closures this winter, doing nothing is simply not a solution. Yes, busses would cost a lot less than a brand new gondola but the existing bus service is very underutilized. I doubt the tolls will do much in terms of the existing state of LCC considering how paid parking and parking reservations have not really done much to improve the traffic and such.
As far as winds go, the 3S gondola system is the best option for that due to the way the system is engineered. Considering that Snowbird’s tram is able to do just fine going up the windiest part of Snowbird, I would argue that the gondola should be fine since it stays protected by the canyon itself.
LikeLike
This is literally what they’re doing. The phased implementation plan calls for initiation of tolling and 10-15 minute bus headways starting in 2025. Snowsheds will be installed in the years following depending on funding availability. Gondola implementation is only planned in Phase 3, which roughly correlated to 2035 at the earliest. If the tolling, bussing and snowsheds work better than expected and/or growth is lower than expected, great! We don’t need to build the gondola. If those the planners are correct, and phases 1 & 2 are insufficient, then this ROD authorizes UDOT to build a fixed-route solution without having to go through this whole five-year planning process all over again.
LikeLike
it will not close in snow wind cycles the peak to peak in whistler runs in some high winds the 3s system that is being proposed,will run in high winds
LikeLike
This issue is more recent in SLC, but has been a huge problem elsewhere for much longer. In north Lake Tahoe we only wish there was an option for a gondola like this.
LikeLike
Exactly! Imagine an offsite parking structure at the old Ollie Hendrickson mill site on West River Street in Truckee and a gondola along the Truckee with stops at the entrance to Olympic Valley and Alpine Meadows, connecting with gondolas to the base areas of the resorts. The main gondola could continue into Tahoe City. It would be a scenic, relaxing, fun ride and would get all of those people who currently clog Highway 89 on their way to ski out of their cars, reducing the burden on the roadway, ski resort parking and the stress levels of locals and visitors alike.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They did their homework on this, and really did look at all the options. It started out as a train… and this solution was the best for all involved. Everyone had their voices heard, they postponed decision making to read and consider all the opinions. I was impressed with the participation on all sides. The bottom line is it won’t be implemented soon enough, and it’s under capacity. If I have the option to park in a garage at LaCaille and not drive the stop and go in the canyon, and risk getting hit by the tourists that don’t know how to drive their rental in the snow, or tailgate you coming down the road, that’s a WIN WIN WIN WIN.
What they are really learning is how LCC closure has a ripple effect on the other ski areas and traffic. Snowbasin was a nightmare every time the canyon was closed, and I think the traffic in BCC is actually worse than LCC. If Utahns were serious about fixing the issues, they would connect the resorts already, that way people can pick the portal closest and most convenient to them… including a Utah County portal in American Fork Canyon… or start at the Mayflower exit if it’s closest to you, or Main Street in Park City…
LikeLike
The five county area has roughly 2.6 million people, and the state as a whole has 3.4 million or so. On a really busy day, the 10 ski areas probably handle 40-50 thousand. Even if that’s conservative by half, we’re talking less than 5% of the population of just the Front before removing tourism from the mix, the numbers of which I don’t know. Let’s say it’s a 4% participation rate since tourism in the Wasatch is pretty big. 20% of skier days might be light, but this isn’t for precision’s sake.
By “Utahns”, do you mean everybody? Even though many folks along the front and throughout the state ski, it’s by no means even approaching a majority. (I can’t easily find that sort of number.) Saying a whole lot of people who never use any of the canyons should just pony up is a bit of a stretch. Especially when you consider the more impoverished folks. (My Utah experience is Ogden. Spend some time substitute teaching in Weber County like my partner did if you want to see the other Utah.)
Regardless of who does what recreation, One Wasatch–“just connect that shiz already”–is not a good option. There’s already a huge problem with overuse and it’s fine to just leave some places alone. I know that none of the land you mention is in any way unspoilt; I also don’t think it’s necessary to do further damage for the benefit of a relative few folks.
LikeLike
I hear you Joe, I’ve only lived in Utah County for five years and Davis County for 6 years, and worked in SL County and Summit County doing the commutes. We ditched all that and moved out in 2012, but we visit family and ski about 8 times a year in Utah, so I’m no longer paying taxes in those counties, and I no longer work in the ski industry. As for Ogden, we love Ogden, and miss going to the treehouse museum and the train museum. I assume you’re saying the people of Ogden can’t afford the taxes on this… some can’t, but that’s true everywhere. I don’t golf, but I pay for municipal golf courses, I don’t have a boat, but I pay for ramps and docks, and fisheries. I never used any of the recreation centers I paid for with taxes either. But I’m glad they are all there.
Since we gave up our Snowbasin passes when we moved, we ski all the resorts, and I’m now a “tourist”. We’ve watched the growth and the skier patterns during the Ikon and Epic pass consolidation. Since this is a lot of money, I completely agree that the gondola should not just serve 2 ski resorts… thus connect them already. It’s not that big of a stretch, they’re so close.
I wasn’t passionate about this until I experienced it in Europe. We saved up for my 50th birthday and used our Mountain Collective pass for Chamonix… Chamonix was a mess, it might was well have been Park City. But next door to Chamonix is Portes du Soleil. And that place was interconnected, with hardly any access issues. Everyone we talked to had short commute times, because they could access it all from where they lived/stayed. There was no need to drive. You have that in Utah, literally only 3-4 chairlifts to connect Wasatch front to Wasatch back. I’m not saying develop all the canyons, but we can use what we have smarter/better, and I would push harder for it.
LikeLike
You make good points.
Your points bring up other points, too. There have been studies on sprawl which show that when a municipality widens a road–not a specific one, any one–that not only does it not alleviate traffic, it makes it worse and contributes to further sprawl. The general theory is that easing usage for a short time encourages higher levels of usage per individual over time that a given individual did not engage in prior to the widening of the road.
The correlation being that if it is easier to, say, drop into Honeycomb Canyon when you live in Midway cos you can jump into the network a few miles up the road at the new Mayflower, you probly will. Good for you, yes, as Sundance is small and folks get bored even if Sundance is rad and they shouldn’t, but in time all ski areas in the Central Wasatch will look like Solitude did on opening day last November no matter how easy it was to get there once you stood in a long line waiting for that easy transit.
Utah is growing at a rate that is incomparable to Europe’s growth, most of it along the Front, with a good portion along the Back. That humongous growth rate will overtake any small and expensive upgrades in the ease of transit, much as sprawl always overtakes the upgraded car capacity of the extra lane or two added to the above mentioned suburban road. This sounds bleak, I know, but I think it’s accurate.
Lastly, all of our fixes in the West, whether it’s a tunnel in Seattle or a gondola at Govy or 3S in LCC or high speed rail in the Central Valley, they’re too late. None of our predecessors understood the need for or cared enough to create long term solutions for the problems they would not have comprehended had they the foresight to know would arise. Now we are stuck with inadequate band-aids that will never address the root problem of general human overcrowding. If skiing is paramount for you as it is me, it seems best to figure out how to live or vacation (for me it’s live cos I can’t afford to vacation) somewhere that isn’t as desirable to the mass market. I’d really rather ski in the Cascades than at Bogus, or live somewhere high in the hills and cooler in the summer than this frustrating Idaho desert, but other people would too, and they have money for the soaring property values and don’t seem to have my innate fear of people. Bogus has another few years before it, too, is untenable, and then likely we’ll have to move on and start over again. For the fifth time. Or just give up and learn shuffleboard.
Dammit, I just depressed myself. I’m goin to work.
LikeLike
This is such a great outcome. Fish and wildlife don’t care about a handful of towers and some cabins passing overhead. But salt and cars and asphalt (and emissions) are a massive impact on the canyon and its flora and fauna. This is the obviously correct solution. The Alta powder bros can deal.
The big question here … will this, for sure, be the United States’ first 3S system?! Or is there any chance some other project will happen first?
LikeLike
Literally best decision they could have made. I honestly would never want to take a bus up to the resort. Buses just aren’t comfortable especially when they Jam Pack them with people. Also the views of BCC from the gondola will be so cool. 360 view of it all right above the road. Don’t see how it’ll “ruin the canyon” with its obstructing views. Besides everyone will be riding it anyways.
Geez you ever look out and see power lines and get all pissed off because it ruins your view
LikeLike
uhhhh… yeah
LikeLike
Me too.
LikeLike
Will it run in the summer at all, if it’s built?
LikeLike
I would think so for hiking and biking and tourism the, peak to peak in whistler is a huge tourist draw.
I
LikeLike
The only thing in Utah more controversial than the LCC gondola is the walk to the B gates at the airport haha.
Having worked in the transportation planning industry, I totally understand where UDOT is coming from and it really does have potential as an out-of-the-box solution, even though dedicated bus lanes and a cog rail up the canyon sounded like plausible alternatives they had their own drawbacks which are a whole other topic. Its also worth noting that a 1050 pph gondola is the equivalent of a bus coming every 3-5 minutes, which would be phenomenal headways by almost any metric, but I suspect that even an insanely long 3S system like the one proposed could easily have much higher capacity, maybe in the 3000 or 4000s.
I also like the phased implementation plan by getting decent bus service up and down the canyon in the near future along with a better park and ride area. Last season’s service cuts really underscored how UTA is hurting for bus drivers and staff so the fact that there’s any funding at all for this project is a miracle in itself. It looks like they’re gonna try to get to 6 busses an hour (10 minute headways) as a start, which would already be triple last seasons service and really cut down on delays and the perception that the ski bus is unreliable and overcrowded.
Phase 2 with tolling and snow sheds at the most vulnerable road points is also a badly needed improvement once they get the funding. Tucked away in the ROD it said that UDOT would consider banning single-occupant vehicles at peak times up the canyon instead of tolling, which is also a great idea and could be a more equitable approach because I don’t think the current tolling proposal would be cheaper for carpoolers.
For the anti-gondola folk there is a pretty good chance that Phases 1 and 2 will have a positive impact on the mess that is LCC in the near future. Better parking management at the ski areas (i.e. mandatory reservations but free/discounted for carpoolers) and snow tire enforcement at the mouth would improve the situation even further. If that happens the public and political appetite to push through and fund a gondola will likely be even lower than it is now, there are plenty of other transit projects that could use some funding.
On the flip side, environmental impact studies like the one UDOT just finished are meant to answer the question of what the best long-term solution is, not necessarily a fix for the here and now. UDOTs planning team thinks that the phased implementation won’t be enough to fully tackle canyon traffic, so the next few years will be interesting to see how this all plays out. If and when the first two phases don’t substantially reduce LCC’s problems, the gondola will have a far stronger case to present on how it can succeed where other fixes have failed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is really well thought out. Thanks for posting.
LikeLike
My main concerns with this at this point are if this actually solves the issues.
1. 1050 PPH?? That’s pretty low to serve both Alta and Snowbird. That’s less capacity than Wilbere. The lines on this thing are going to be insane if it stays at that capacity.
2. Why does it stop at LCC? How much would it cost to make it go 25% further into BCC?
3. $370 million is insane. Assuming this all comes from UT taxes, that’s $110 per citizen. You have to wonder if there are better options for way less. I know the cool thing is to hate roads but how much would widening SR 210 cost again? What about adding an access point to Snowbird in Utah County beneath Mineral Basin? BCC isn’t nearly as bad, what if we connected the resorts and upgraded that road?
4. Who is to say this won’t push traffic downhill? Even with widening there’s not exactly a freeway exit to the bottom of the canyon. You’ve still got to pass through some traffic lights. That’ll cause a backup.
5. 27 minutes to Snowbird isn’t bad, 37 to alta is pretty slow. 15 years ago you could get up the canyon in 15 minutes and boot up in the car. Now Utah taxpayers are funding a $370M gondola to ride up in 37 minutes. How has this regressed this much?
This feels a lot like the Squaw-Alpine gondola. The plans were great but ultimately got cut down to a vanity project with an unbelievable price tag.
LikeLike
The figure is more than the initial quoted $370 million. They came out and said that the total figures would be more around $1 Billion. It should also be noted that UDOT has not come in on budget or under budget on a project for over 2 decades.
The only comparable comp I know of for the gondola is the Whistler peak 2 peak which cost $50 million inflation adjusted. Yet that gondola is so small compared to the monstrosity of a project they’re trying to do. It’s just stupid so I believe the increased total project price of $1 billion.
The state honestly just needs to support and back building more ski resorts in the area to alleviate demand in LCC and BCC.
LikeLike
It is so good to see this outcome was the one actually selected. Once a cog train was ruled out, a gondola was the obvious choice. My only concern is that the 1050 pph number is too low, although this may be because they anticipate most people continuing to drive and paying the toll. Hopefully, they at least build this machine with the ability to increase capacity with more cabins at a later point.
LikeLike
I still believe a subway is the best solution and it can run all the way to Park City and then expanded to Midway. The biggest issue about a subway is the cost of course and its stated that it costs $1 billion per mile which is outrages and I’m not sure how this figure in calculated unless 95% of it is red tape that gets in the way. I’ve seen the new technology out there, like high pressure water cutters that cut through rock like butter is seconds the process seems cheap and easy. In addition, the subway could provide several additional benefits to Snowbird, Alta, Brighton and Solitude, such as power, water, sewer, etc. In addition, freight can be delivered off hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pemgwRrCs78
LikeLike
A “subway” would put the cost into the billion range. not going to happen. We also have earthquakes in Utah to deal with, we have several major fault lines in the area. Would love to see a rail line built up there but no. Hell we’ve been trying to get a rail line of some sort (above ground rail too) built from Denver into the mountains but that seems to have stalled out. So they have added a reversible express lane on I-70.
Just build the gondola and be done with it. Might get it done in time for the 2030 winter Olympics that Utah is likely going to get. Or the winter Olympics after that.
LikeLike
A subway-type project going all the way to Park City would need to be a regional rail project going all the way to Salt Lake Central, or at least connect to FrontRunner and Trax. The primary goal would need to be connecting Park City and SLC, with LCC & BCC stops as added bonus. Not a bad idea overall, but definitely north of $1 billion.
Remember: The gondola is only $370 million, as the rest is road improvements.
LikeLike
I don’t recall there being much fuss when a Gondola was being considered to connect Ogden to the Ogden Valley/Nordic Valley area awhile back.
LikeLike
I was living in the town of North Ogden at the time, just down 2600 N from the trailhead where the proposed Ogden station would have been located. I was surprised at the minimal response. Kinda just “meh, it’ll never happen.” I think the silliness of the idea gave people reason not to get all het up about it, and it felt like most folks in North Ogden who don’t ski really don’t ski, and they thought of this proposal as a skiers-only issue. It sounds less silly now, so maybe if Mr Coleman were to bring it up again, there would be more of an uproar. Same as LCC, lots of sabre rattling and cheering.
LikeLike
Sorry lifties but canyons have capacity… It’s time for the resorts to limit season passes and limit the number of day passes. Whether or not you support this controversial monstrosity, the increase of skiers in BCC and LCC in the last ten years is insane.
If only our state would stop advertising the snow…
LikeLike
Agreed
LikeLike
The line to ride the gondola will be worse than the traffic. 1050 pph is a joke. 1.5hr gondola line, or 1.5hrs in traffic? Nobody wins here.
LikeLike
I am completely against this. Using taxpayer dollars in the most inefficient way possible to completely destroy the landscape. If the problem ever gets this big, limit the ticket sales! It’s the only solution. I know this isn’t Alta/Bird’s decision and I agree that they should stop advertising Utah snow; It’s at max capacity. Also the 1050 pph is a joke! I really hope this project doesn’t follow through (as it probably won’t).
LikeLike
This really should be a Tri-Line with a much higher capacity as it will be a drop in the bucket capacity wise. The new Tri-Line system might help save cost on the project allowing them to extend the coverage of the system.
LikeLike
Many assume that the gondola has won.
But I ask in what political world does the winner get zero dollars and the loser gets $150 million?
I urge everyone to look into the facts of what UDOT actually decided.
LikeLike
Coming back to this, as someone who worked for UTA, I know well that we have more than enough buses to run 15 minute headways, or even 7.5 minute headways. UTA is planning to run 30 minute service again this winter and suspend the 953 for ANOTHER season.
We have the money, we have the drivers, and we have the buses. UTA simply doesn’t want to do it. In order to get 15 minute service back there needs to be enough public feedback.
It seems now we aren’t going for the gondola solution, but in the meantime, UTA needs to be more helpful with canyon service.
LikeLike
953 isn’t back this season but the CS1 service seems to be partially replacing it. This bus doesn’t run the whole day and instead terminates at the 6200 park and ride as CS2 midday, and only returns onto Ft Union for the evening runs at CS1.
I agree this current service isn’t near enough either but at least it’s a start.
I think if they build the gondola they should aim for it to completely replace the road for travel into the resorts instead of the half-assed solution they have now. Downsizing the road and decreasing aggressive avalanche control procedures in the winter will surely lower the “environmental impact”.
LikeLike