Utah Interconnect Tunnel?!?

**iceman** · 10-16-2006, 08:33 AM

From TTips, this has to be the worst idea since George Bush the elder looked at Barbara with a gleam in his eye.

Article

An eventual lift-based interconnect is probable especially considering all of the work Deer Valley is doing on top of Guardsmans, but tunnels? Snowsheds? wtf?

**grizzle6** · 10-16-2006, 08:38 AM

With all due respect, sir Ice--why do you feel it's such a bad idea? (ducking, running, etc.) I can think of a couple reasons why it sucks and a couple reasons why it might not be too shabby. Please, expound.

**Trackhead** · 10-16-2006, 08:46 AM

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

**iceman** · 10-16-2006, 08:46 AM

My main concerns would be traffic, parking, environmental degradation and cost. I don't think a lift-based interconnect would necessarily be a bad thing, but making it car-based seems ridiculous to me.

There are already too many cars in the canyons on many days, a light-rail system with a common hub somewhere near the base of BCC would be a lot better way to spend that money imo. Or maybe they could spend it on schools or something.

**Tippster** · 10-16-2006, 08:48 AM

NIMBY!!!! NIMBY!!!!!!!!

**iceman** · 10-16-2006, 08:54 AM

Tipp I understand what the state wants to do, I just think this is a stupid way to go about it. And while you might think it's nimbyism, I realize that change is inevitable but it can happen in a way that makes sense sometimes.

**Tippster** · 10-16-2006, 08:57 AM

...ergo the winky.

**Tippster** · 10-16-2006, 09:07 AM

Apparently written by a somewhat math challenged staffer in Huntsman's office, the memo claims the project will tie "2+3+3 ski resorts into one 7-resort Megaplex," and make it possible to drive from any one resort to the other in less than 20 minutes.

This might actually lower the skier numbers in LCC - lotsa people, myself included, go up there and stay because it's a pain to ski anywhere else for the day. I don't know if overall skier numbers would increase all that drastically, and I understand your worries about cars, but wouldn't a good shuttle bus system alleviate a lot of that? If I could just hop on a free (or cheap) bus and ski Solly with you for a day I would do so in a heartbeat. As it is i need to take one bus down one canyon, change busses, and ride up the other....

It'd also be nice to have bus access to the perks of PC - restaurants and bars - without having to (drink &) drive for an hour.

**iceman** · 10-16-2006, 09:10 AM

Okay I changed my mind, bring it on!

**grizzle6** · 10-16-2006, 09:13 AM

Good points Tipp. Especially the drinking and driving part.

I think it will be interesting to see how this unfolds. As you said Ice, change is inevitable--hopefully we can do change right. It could be very beneficial if done right.

Originally Posted by Tippster

This might actually lower the skier numbers in LCC - lotsa people, myself included, go up there and stay because it's a pain to ski anywhere else for the day. I don't know if overall skier numbers would increase all that drastically, and I understand your worries about cars, but wouldn't a good shuttle bus system alleviate a lot of that? If I could just hop on a free (or cheap) bus and ski Solly with you for a day I would do so in a heartbeat. As it is i need to take one bus down one canyon, change busses, and ride up the other....

It'd also be nice to have bus access to the perks of PC - restaurants and bars - without having to (drink &) drive for an hour.

**summit** · 10-16-2006, 09:24 AM

They are coppying the colorado plan to connect beaver creek to loveland with a gondola!

**AstroPax** · 10-16-2006, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by iceman

Article

I find it rather funnny that telemarktips.com is refereing to this document as a "Secret Talking Points Memo"...even though the distribution is at least 25 industry representatives.

I guess telemarktips figures that anything of this nature that they didn't get a private invitation too is somehow "secret".

Regardless, I think it's a bad idea....because it will make it way too easy and convenient for all the Canyons/PC/DV gapers to access BCC/LCC on powder days. Bad, very, very bad!

-Astro

**iceman** · 10-16-2006, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Regardless, I think it's a bad idea....because it will make it way too easy and convenient for all the Canyons/PC/DV gapers to access BCC/LCC on powder days. Bad, very, very bad!

I think that's what I really meant from the start.

**Ermine** · 10-16-2006, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by grizzle6

Good points Tipp. Especially the drinking and driving part.

I think it will be interesting to see how this unfolds. As you said Ice, change is inevitable--hopefully we can do change right. It could be very beneficial if done right.

What about ganjulas? Isn' that the way they do it in 'Yurp? There are wind farms in WY, so they could even use "green" electricity. With all the development in upper Bambi Basin and the proposed Bonanza Flats expansion, we knew 10,420 would be lift served eventually...that almost links the backside resorts to Brighton. The Crayons would need to link to PCMR and then what, other than a Alta-Bright tunnel, they could lift serve Wolverene...Rocky Point? The powderturds would lose some terrain. Such excitement in the Wasatch these daze.

**Ski Monkey** · 10-16-2006, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Regardless, I think it's a bad idea....because it will make it way too easy and convenient for all the Canyons/PC/DV gapers to access BCC/LCC on powder days. Bad, very, very bad!

-Astro

Whatever, while there are more tourists here than in the cottonwoods, they don't track up powder faster than the locals already do.

**Obstruction** · 10-16-2006, 09:55 AM

I, for one, find the idea of using federal money to fund the construction of a highway tunnel ouside of the Commonwealth to be fahkin retahded.

**bagtagley** · 10-16-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Ski Monkey

Whatever, while there are more tourists here than in the cottonwoods, they don't track up powder faster than the locals already do.

Keep the horsehair boots and fur jackets on your side of the pass there, Alfonze!

**Buster Highmen** · 10-16-2006, 10:02 AM

Don't we drive enough? Or are we so carcentric that we can justify the environmental impact for cars, but not ski lifts?

St00pid, st00pid, st00pid.

**Hutch** · 10-16-2006, 10:38 AM

quick - go buy some property in upper Deer Valley! It's obviously under valued.

**Ski Monkey** · 10-16-2006, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by bagtagley

Keep the horsehair boots and fur jackets on your side of the pass there, Alfonze!

Horsehair is so last summer, it's armadillo now biatch.

**Tippster** · 10-16-2006, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Ski Monkey

Horsehair is so last summer, it's armadillo now biatch.

Ooooo - spiny.

I thought the main problem with building lifts is the agreement with SOC not to do any more construction on the ridges...

**phUnk** · 10-16-2006, 11:18 AM

Alfonze with the armadillo burn. BAM!

**Buster Highmen** · 10-16-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Tippster

Ooooo - spiny.

I thought the main problem with building lifts is the agreement with SOC not to do any more construction on the ridges...

So according to someone's brilliant manoevering, it's IS more environmentally acceptable to drill tunnels? Great.

**Tippster** · 10-16-2006, 11:33 AM

Only if they cry a little while they're doing it, a la the Indian in that commercial.

**StroupSkier** · 10-16-2006, 11:39 AM

I can think of 333,333,333 million reasons why not to:

The memo makes the case for spending an estimated one third of a billion dollars (or more), to link Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons with a two mile long "single bore" tunnel between Alta and Brighton.