Utah Interconnect Tunnel?!?

It sounds like someone has some federal money burning a hole in their pocket. Who actually needs to drive those routes? Most tourists pick an area and stay with it. Those who don't aren't exactly faced with long drives anyway. It's about an hour in between any of the resorts listed. There are so few true locals in either of the canyons that connecting them to each other and Park City seems pretty pointless. Are you really going to build a tunnel so that the AltaBird locals can go drink in Park City, and track out LCC?

Surely there has to be a better use for this money. Heck a tram would be way cheaper and probably just as effective (if they're worried about envirnmental effects/annoying the hippies they could make it a transport only tram with no skiing access).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiSoCalSkier

Are you really going to build a tunnel so that the AltaBird locals can go drink in Park City, and track out LCC?

---

It's about the bed base in PC, the second (& third) homeowners in Deer Park Canyons, Ski Utah! (the eternal competition w/ 'rado) and (hopefully) transportation. It's about Dolore$, big dollars...not so much skiing.

I could see concerns about traffic becoming one of the factors limiting skier visits. But wouldn't making the LCC/BCC roads 4 lanes and bumping up the plowing budget be a better way to fix that? It wouldn't make rich PC developers happy, which is a huge problem, but it would alleviate traffic concerns between the LCC/BCC resorts and the essentially unlimited bed space in the valley.

lifts would be better.

totally better

Seems to work in EU, why shouldn't it work in the US?

I'd love to ski from town to town, resort to resort. Downside is that it will impede on wildlife, BC skiers, and drive up energy costs. With every pro, there is a con.....

B)

Tourists are always looking for something to do, let them figure out how, where and when to ski. Enough of spending tax dollars to coddle the feeble.:nonono2:

Even if the "feeble" drive your economy? This has everything to do with $$ and nothing to do with what's cool or core. The 1/3 Billion might sound like a lot, but if it generates an extra Billion in revenue over the next ten years it's worth every penny.

Regardless of the consequences to the quality of life, wilderness or the rest of that kind of inconvenience:tdo13:


As far as 'worth it', might depend on who you talk to.

Lifts would be the way to go. A couple of Funitels going base area to base area (with stops at the top) would do the trick......but i guess they are more worried about visual impact these days instead of physical impact of say a shitload more cars driving around.....they'll probably want to drill a hole in the peaks at 300' below the summit so there is not visual impact.
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

The 1/3 Billion might sound like a lot, but if it generates an extra Billion in revenue over the next ten years it's worth every penny.

---

To me, it sounds a little low.Is it still worth every penny if the project is $333 million over budget? The talking points are a joke and I doubt this boondoggle will go anywhere.

Here's the paper news:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4504038
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0...199314,00.html

Utards, read the articles and send the editors a short letter (we're talking 3-6 sentences, one paragraph) to tell them what you think of the project and its proposers.

Your System of Government thanks you.

Just want to say that despite not liking the idea, it makes more sense than lifts. For all those "non-utahns" please keep in mind that getting back and forth between Park City and Salt Lake is an issue year round. This idea would simply give us an alternate from big and little cottonwood, instead of down the canyon, across the valley and then up parleys canyon and then back across the Park City valley. Again, I dont like the proposal, but this isnt just about skiing.

I like tunnels.

I like the lift idea, but this remains the best way to do it:
http://www.highonadventure.com/Hoa98...n/intrconn.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Professor

Just want to say that despite not liking the idea, it makes more sense than lifts. For all those "non-utahns" please keep in mind that getting back and forth between Park City and Salt Lake is an issue year round. This idea would simply give us an alternate from big and little cottonwood, instead of down the canyon, across the valley and then up parleys canyon and then back across the Park City valley. Again, I dont like the proposal, but this isnt just about skiing.

---

And that's part of why it's a bad idea. There's an interstate between SLC and PC, and a couple of alternate routes through OGden or Provo, so that it would never truly be cut off even if some accident shuts down the interstate. There is no need for an alternate route (albeit more direct than the alternates we currently have) straight through the mountains. BCC surely doesn't need anymore traffic. The interstate is fine anyway. I've never seen a traffic jam on 80 down Parleys, though I do not commute on it. And if you're talking about going from PC to BCC or LCC, I really don't think an hour drive is that bad. Besides, you can get directly from PC to BCC in the summer, though it's a little slow, and in the winter, they've got skiing in PC, no need to come further crowd LCC and BCC.

I don't think any more roads up LCC and BCC are needed. If anything, you could widen LCC and BCC to three lanes with a reversable lane in the middle, up in the morning, down in the afternoon during winter. That could ease the biggest traffic problem up there (going to and from skiing). And as for Utah's projected increase in skier days, let snowbasin build the base village it surely wants. Direct some traffic towards Ogden. If worse comes to worst, put in the interconnecting lifts. And give us a cheap, all utah resorts season pass.

I really don't think this tunnel thing will ever happen, but it sure is a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

Here's the paper news:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4504038
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0...199314,00.html

Utards, read the articles and send the editors a short letter (we're talking 3-6 sentences, one paragraph) to tell them what you think of the project and its proposers.

Your System of Government thanks you.

---

How about: This plan smells of shinola :nonono2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

Here's the paper news:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4504038
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0...199314,00.html

Utards, read the articles and send the editors a short letter (we're talking 3-6 sentences, one paragraph) to tell them what you think of the project and its proposers.

Your System of Government thanks you.

---

I hate to say it but the deseret news reporter seemed to give the story much more justice than the salt lake tribune. emailing reporters is one thing, but wouldn't emailing representatives be more effective?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

It will make my American Fork to Mill Creek Canyon tour alot easier. Won't have to climb those pesky hills.

---

Yeah, why don't we just buldoze them all down while were at it. Who needs mtns.:rolleyes:. Whatever we need to do to make peoples lives "easier".
(I am really pissed about it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BRUTAH

I hate to say it but the deseret news reporter seemed to give the story much more justice than the salt lake tribune. emailing reporters is one thing, but wouldn't emailing representatives be more effective?

---

:biggrin: Ray Grass (DesNews) likes pavement and motors, so he was nice to the propopsal. Since the proposal is so absurd, a balanced view of it would come off as negative.

But apart from Ray, the DesNews is a decent paper. Their articles are often a bit better researched than the SLTrib's.


I think it'd be most useful to get an LTE in the paper at this point - our reps will wash their hands of the project after seeing the flaws publicly pointed out. But whatever, as long as somebody gets emailed, it's good.

http://www.sltrib.com/columnists/ci_4514650

Quote:

Typically some Fortune 500 carpetbagger who skis here for two weeks every year pitches an interconnect project.
...
Here is the memo the group ought to consider: We don't want your stinkin' tunnels and your paved Guardsman Pass. I mean, we hate to go all parochial on you, but our canyons are sacrosanct. We live and play there. We get our water there. We like them slightly isolated and unique. We don't want Vail and we don't want Chamonix.
...
Bonar gets the idea. He's an energetic salesman for the industry, but he knows Utah. "In the end, any question about development will have to answer 'what would it do to our precious mountains?' We don't want one big ski resort. We want them each to retain their very original characteristics."

In a nation where sustainability is becoming more and more of an issue, an automobile oriented plan for an interconnect is unlikely to be successful and for good reason. A "suburban" style design is a bad solution. A gondola or lifts would be a much better solution. Still, investing huge funds based mostly on speculation will be a huge and interesting political debate.

Perhaps it is a strategy to start with the excessive and unrealistic (tunnels) so that a compromise (lifts or gondolas) is easier to achieve when the opposition kicks in.

As has been discussed before, linking the resorts with lifts is easy. A gondola may be a little more difficult, but it does open up many more options for tourists and even commuters. It is probably inevitable that at some point the connection will occur, I just hope it is after my lifetime and my children's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by release

Perhaps it is a strategy to start with the excessive and unrealistic (tunnels) so that a compromise (lifts or gondolas) is easier to achieve when the opposition kicks in.

---

That was my feelings all along, I'm sure Mr. Witherspoon has also thought of that. ;)

BobMc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by release

In a nation where sustainability is becoming more and more of an issue, an automobile oriented plan for an interconnect is unlikely to be successful and for good reason.

---

Are you high? since when is sustainability and common sence on the menu in Utah?

In further news the price of gas has just dropped a dollar in the last 2 months just in time for midterms and the national debate on alternative energy...

What if they made it mass transit only, like limited to Busses or.... *gasp*... a monorail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

What if they made it mass transit only, like limited to Busses or.... *gasp*... a monorail?

---

Given the poor quality of mass transit into LCC, I think you might be "safe" thinking that'll ever happen.