WASATCH STOKE, CONDITIONS, OBSERVATIONS and ASSORTED DRIVAL 20-21

[schindlerpiste]

Except that I suspect that hardly any Parkites will drive to a Sandy gondola from PC. I, like most, will continue to drive to the resort. However, this is mere speculation.

Bus slid off road near Tanners in 2018.

[Dantheman]

I'll continue to drive from PC to BCC/LCC no problem.

You do, lots of tourists who stay in PC don't/won't. But a gondola ride direct from PC to BCC/LCC? Shit tons will take that ride.

Moreover, 50+ busses up and down the canyon/day would release more carbon than the gondola.

Read the EIS, then post. UDOT estimated the annual CO2 emissions from all proposed alternatives. The bus option produces at least 34% less CO2 than the gondola, not more. See Table 10.4-6 on p. 26: https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.uta...ir_Quality.pdf

The notes to that table also include this statement, "Note that the up-to-5% loss of energy in the power grid is not included in the calculations." So, true CO2 emissions from the gondola are even higher. That's also for diesel buses, not electric which they will be sooner than later, and assumes that PacifiCorp is getting 74% of it's electrons from non-GHG-emitting sources by 2038 which seems optimistic AF.

Bus slid off road near Tanners in 2018.

With no injuries, IIRC. How many private vehicles end up in the ditch each year compared to buses? Even if you normalize for total miles driven the accident rate for the ski bus has got to be way lower.

[schindlerpiste]

That is a lot to read, so I will take your word for it.
Interesting and very subjective. I'd bet that depending upon who is taking the poll and what is considered (construction, hot spots, hub location emissions, etc) the #s could vary.
I just think that the gondola combined with increased bus service is a viable alternative.
If SOVs are banned from SR210, my time at Alta and The Bird will decrease, so there's that...

[mall walker]

That is a lot to read, so I will take your word for it.
Interesting and very subjective…

lol my dude

[jtran10]

That is a lot to read, so I will take your word for it.

Lol. If you want to debate your preferred solution you should at least know the facts.

[jtran10]

dantheman - I hope you're attending the meeting tomorrow and will speak up. Your voicing my concerns with the gondola better than I could, and I hope that you/someone can make these facts and opinions known to the general public and the decision makers.

[schindlerpiste]

^^^That holds the potential for embarrassment.

Thanks for the lesson in debate technique. I'd rather just put it out there and be refuted by bias subjectivity.

Oh, and BTW, this recent SLT article totally disagrees with DTM's assertion: https://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...ondola-little/

"...This aerial option is more reliable than bus because the gondola would run independently of the road, which is subject to slowdowns when it’s snowing. But the gondola’s 60-foot towers and dangling cables would present the biggest visual impact of all the alternatives.

“But it does have lower impacts to the watershed, to wildlife, to climbing boulders,” Van Jura said. “That’s because the only ground-disturbing activities would be the actual tower locations themselves, rather than widening the roadway shoulders for the whole length of the canyon.”

Snowbird’s Fields said it is crucial to have a system that operates in all weather conditions and a gondola fits that bill.

“[Why add] a bunch more concrete and construction in the canyon or more lanes and snow sheds when we know the gondolas work and are much less impactful on the environment. They’re better for air quality. No matter how bad and how hard it’s snowing, a gondola can move up and down the canyon,” Fields said. “We’ve seen what happens when it snows a lot. Buses get stuck like everything else.”

[Dantheman]

That is a lot to read, so I will take your word for it.
Interesting and very subjective. I'd bet that depending upon who is taking the poll and what is considered (construction, hot spots, hub location emissions, etc) the #s could vary.

FFS, you're a smart guy. I linked you straight to the document and told you what page you could scroll to. The entire GHG section is literally two pages. And, calculating CO2e is not subjective, at all.

I just think that the gondola combined with increased bus service is a viable alternative.

That's definitely a viable option, but it's an option that is not currently under consideration.

dantheman - I hope you're attending the meeting tomorrow and will speak up. Your voicing my concerns with the gondola better than I could, and I hope that you/someone can make these facts and opinions known to the general public and the decision makers.

I'm on the fence about going. I have a feeling that it's going to be a standing room-only gong show that will look like this, but worse:




Besides, apparently this is all a pre-ordained done-deal so just spending time with my family or going for a bike ride instead sounds nice.

[muted reborn]

That is a lot to read, so I will take your word for it.

Don't shit post and we won't waste our time here. You are/were a lawyer so I think you can do better on debating , so why not try a *bit* harder?

I'm still really confused why your veterinarian likes The Canyons btw and how it applies to a Gondola, ha.

[muted reborn]

Besides, apparently this is all a pre-ordained done-deal so just spending time with my family or going for a bike ride instead sounds nice.

Ah, good point.

[schindlerpiste]

Chart is very subjective and filled with estimates..Plus, like I said the SLT article refutes DTM's comments. While Dan is smart, and IMHO, should run for Congress, I certainly afford more weight to statements made by Josh v J and Mr. Fields than DTM when it comes to this.
Muted, I love forums. They are the place to "shit post." If you don't like it, don't read it..
I guess my computer changed veh. for vet., but I see that is the kind of crap that you need to rely upon. OhhhhhKay!

[muted reborn]

I certainly afford more weight to statements made by Josh v J and Mr. Fields than DTM when it comes to this.

Dave Fields works for Snowbird. You're a fool if you weigh his statements over ANYONE. It's crucial for the gondola to happen for the Olympics to happen at Snowbird, that's the bottom line. And hey, gondola access for SB for eternity afterwards, maybe he's biased?

The vet comment was a joke, ding dong. That shoulda been clear. But keep shitposting though, it's summer, we are bored, we can play T-Ball with you if you wanna keep putting the ball up for us.

[schindlerpiste]

You have it all figured out

[Dantheman]

Oh, and BTW, this recent SLT article totally disagrees with DTM's assertion: https://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...ondola-little/

What assertion, that the bus will emit less CO2e than the gondola? That article doesn't mention CO2/GHGs once and everything you quoted from that article is irrelevant to the GHG point we're discussing right now. When Fields says "emissions" he's narrowly referring to PM2.5s and not GHGs, and it's true that the buses will produce more PM2.5 than the gondola. It's a minuscule amount more compared to the half-million cars driving in the valley every day, and not when the buses are electric which will happen, but right now that is a correct statement (that happens to be irrelevant to this argument).

Further, I'm not "asserting" anything, I'm citing verifiable facts provided by UDOT in the EIS we all paid millions of dollars for.

“[Why add] a bunch more concrete and construction in the canyon or more lanes and snow sheds when we know the gondolas work and are much less impactful on the environment...” Fields said.

Um, Dave, both alternatives include construction of the same quantity of snow sheds. Also, someone remind Dave that you're not supposed to say the quiet part out loud:

"...the ride could become an attraction in its own right."

It's crucial for the gondola to happen for the Olympics to happen at Snowbird, that's the bottom line.

Bingo.

[schindlerpiste]

I get your point and appreciate it. My use of words like "carbon" and "emissions" were referring more to environmental impact as a whole for the project. My bad. The quote from the SLT article spoke of environmental impact.

[brutah]

Except that I suspect that hardly any Parkites will drive to a Sandy gondola from PC. I, like most, will continue to drive to the resort. However, this is mere speculation.

Let's be clear. The current gondola proposal isn't a transportation solution, it's merely a way for the resorts to increase capacity. Most people will drive the 10-15 minutes up the canyon instead of parking at La Calle to take a 40 minute gondola ride. But with the gondola in place, Alta/Bird will now have a fancy, new way to keep getting people up to the lifts instead of having to turn people away.

"Mo' people, mo' money" -- The Notorious BIG

[Dantheman]

My use of words like "carbon" and "emissions" were referring more to environmental impact as a whole for the project.

I'll accept that you were just being sloppy with your words and not moving the goalposts when called out. However, as an attorney you should know better; words have meanings.

[schindlerpiste]

Touché. Retired in 2007 at 48.
Yes, words are important, but the big picture is importanter

[teleee]

I certainly afford more weight to statements made by Josh v J and Mr. Fields than DTM when it comes to this.

You obviously dont know Josh very well.

[schindlerpiste]

Good one!

[Buster Highmen]

Admission: I just think the gondy would be cool.

The CO2 of 668 tons for busses versus 873 tons for Gondy option A is surprising.

The same table for total emission is 13,135 (bus) versus 13,473 (gondy) but that may not factor in the attraction of riding the gondy versus the bus.

Point being the differences in total CO2 emissions may be lost in unknown usage rates and that the gondy may attract more users out of their cars than the bus.

Plus, who wants to bet me that the "bus only" lanes would be occupied by self entitled nitwits some significant portion of the time.

[One (+) Sentence]

Anyone else think that if this thing happens it will be susceptible to repeated eco-terrorist attempts similar to the Sea to Sky gondola in Squamish? I kinda feel like it’s a given and some $$ should be allocated for such stuff before the project even starts.

Part of me wants to go to Butler Middle tomorrow but I’m likely staying the hell away. https://www.powder.com/stories/news/...r-second-time/

[Buster Highmen]

Anyone else think that if this thing happens it will be susceptible to repeated eco-terrorist attempts similar to the Sea to Sky gondola in Squamish? I kinda feel like it’s a given and some $$ should be allocated for such stuff before the project even starts.

Part of me wants to go to Butler Middle tomorrow but I’m likely staying the hell away. https://www.powder.com/stories/news/...r-second-time/

Seems like a whole different deal. C2Sky had no road to compete environmental impacts.

[Dantheman]

Admission: I just think the gondy would be cool.

The CO2 of 668 tons for busses versus 873 tons for Gondy option A is surprising.

The same table for total emission is 13,135 (bus) versus 13,473 (gondy) but that may not factor in the attraction of riding the gondy versus the bus.

Point being the differences in total CO2 emissions may be lost in unknown usage rates and that the gondy may attract more users out of their cars than the bus.

Plus, who wants to bet me that the "bus only" lanes would be occupied by self entitled nitwits some significant portion of the time.

Gondola Alt A is dead, so the comparison is Alt B at 1006 tons/yr vs 668 tons/yr. Total CO2e includes personal vehicle use, which remains the overwhelming majority of GHG emissions under either alternative. I don't think the GHG emissions from either alternative actually matter in the slightest, but it's a fact that the gondi will produce more, and that's using very optimistic estimates that PacifiCorp will be producing 74% of its electrons from non-GHG-emitting sources by 2038.

Keeping self-entitled jackasses out of the bus-only lane is a legit concern. I don't think the EIS discusses how that would be enforced.

Anyone else think that if this thing happens it will be susceptible to repeated eco-terrorist attempts similar to the Sea to Sky gondola in Squamish? I kinda feel like it’s a given and some $$ should be allocated for such stuff before the project even starts.

That has definitely occurred to me.

[Buster Highmen]

Gondola Alt A is dead, so the comparison is Alt B at 1006 tons/yr vs 668 tons/yr. Total CO2e includes personal vehicle use, which remains the overwhelming majority of GHG emissions under either alternative. I don't think the GHG emissions from either alternative actually matter in the slightest, but it's a fact that the gondi will produce more, and that's using very optimistic estimates that PacifiCorp will be producing 74% of its electrons from non-GHG-emitting sources by 2038.

Ack the death of gondy A, but I'm thinking that a gondy may draw more people out of their cars than a bus.
If it did, that would be of environmental benefit.

Keeping self-entitled jackasses out of the bus-only lane is a legit concern. I don't think the EIS discusses how that would be enforced.
.

Threats of magic underwear?