Normally I'm biased in favor of development for these types of things. The reality is that ski areas have been a huge boon for SLC, PC, etc., and more of them, if it makes economic sense, will be an added benefit for the area, with minimal environmental or visual impact. The same environmental groups who are opposed to this would be opposed to Snowbird, Alta, PC, etc. if they weren't already there.
That said, in this case I can't imagine what in practical terms they hope to do to get a return on investment. Using PC as an example, there are inbounds places there with minimal liftlines even just after storms, because tourists don't like to go too far out of their way. The main people that these projects would seem to benefit would be existing highly motivated users of the terrain, who could use the interconnect(s) to speed up their day.
I'm inclined to trust Talisker et. al. here to have thought this out more thoroughly than I have, and/or to have seen a way to get public funding that lays the cost off on the public as a whole. But, I thought the casinos in Vegas, with their excellent overall planning, would do a good job making sure their monorail would get heavily used, and they failed there.
FWIW, there are lots of locals that do support the project. It is highly fashionable online to oppose it, but the same people who are loudest in opposing it seem to oppose any type of development, including mines in Alaska that have nothing to do, directly, with skiing in UT. Get together, drink some beer, oppose X, Y or Z -- it doesn't really matter which, because they will always find something to be in opposition to.