or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › PCMR spinoff thread about OneWasatch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PCMR spinoff thread about OneWasatch - Page 9

post #241 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 

Looking at the maps they produced, a "fast" transit--I imagine that is a high speed train-- running past the three PC resorts (soon to be two, but Canyons will have a separate station) and into BCC and LCC would eliminate a lot of traffic. How costly is the transit?  That remains to be seen, and could have a lot to do with the next presidential election since federal funding would likely be in the equation. They are looking out to 2040 with the assumptions of population and other growth, which is reasonable. 

 

The below is not the fast train envisioned:

 

^^ Yea, I know you guys are too good to ride a bus.

 

Cost: a couple billion. 

 

To restate in a more clear manner: regardless of the public transportation (unless it is deep up in the canyon), there aren't many people up there. In April, even on good days, Alta is like a ghost town. It is going to be hard to justify spending billions for something fixed and for minimal traffic coming from PC. 

post #242 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spooky View Post

 

Cost: a couple billion. 

 

To restate in a more clear manner: regardless of the public transportation (unless it is deep up in the canyon), there aren't many people up there. In April, even on good days, Alta is like a ghost town. It is going to be hard to justify spending billions for something fixed and for minimal traffic coming from PC. 

 

Having a quick, convenient, and affordable transit option from PC to Altabird would likely significantly boost April/May visitation in Little Cottonwood Canyon. That said, yes, there would definitely be seasonal lulls in ridership in the spring and September-Thanksgiving. Seasonal and day-to-day variation don't doom this, though. And if they do this smart enough so that the same trains can run on commuter rail (extra on weekdays) and the Canyon line (extra on weekends and holidays), they can keep everything busy enough most of the year that the downtime will come in handy for deep cleaning and bigger maintenance tickets.

 

Nonetheless, I agree that it's going to be hard to justify spending billions. The big benefits, when contrasted with One Wasatch, seem to be for the environment, summer recreation, and backcountry skiers. Resort skiers, tourists, and the tourism industry benefit from either One Wasatch or Mountain Accord. Definitely a win-win as long as it's "somebody else's money" that foots the bill... but I think it'll be a pretty hard sell to actually get $2 billion for this.

 

My best guess right now is that 1) Mountain Accord will go to voters, who will reject paying for it; 2) One Wasatch will move forward after the rejection; and 3) taxes will end up paying for a transit scheme that looks at least a bit like this 15-25 years from now.

post #243 of 267
post #244 of 267


The approval process is going smoothly: http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-news/ci_27506754/interconnect-gondola-flies-through-basin-panel?nstrack=sid:380005|met:0000300|cat:0|order:3&%2F%3Fsource=dailyme      The color scheme will be the PCMR red stripe over a gray gondola with non-reflective windows. I guess the Canyon's orange is out and will eventually disappear?

post #245 of 267

Looks like the idea of stringing lifts all about the range is cooling off a bit...

 

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2727567-155/utah-ski-resorts-will-get-give

post #246 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMc View Post
 

Looks like the idea of stringing lifts all about the range is cooling off a bit...

 

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2727567-155/utah-ski-resorts-will-get-give


Yes and no. Good politics is about compromise, and that is what is happening now with the Mountain Accord agreement (land swaps). But the One Wasatch concept is far from dead as the second article shows. Regardless, Alta will get a hotel, all four Cottonwood resorts get land to build out their bases and get more tourists, the tunnel connection will still be debated as will the mass transit. At least decisions are finally being made without pushing them off for 40 years.

 

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_28483580/mountain-accord-plan-including-controls-development-wins-approval

 

http://www.parkrecord.com/summit_county-news/ci_28466447/one-wasatch-stays-game?source=most_viewed

post #247 of 267
"Alta with 160 acres at its base, a 100-room hotel (probably one building) and eight commercial/retail shops in support of a transit station, and the water to service them, in exchange for 603 acres in Grizzly Gulch, Devil's Castle and on Emma Ridge. Alta also wants a tunnel or another type of connection to Big Cottonwood, but is giving up its plan for a ski lift up Flagstaff Mountain when avalanche control methods are upgraded."

If that swap does indeed happen it certainly seems to seal the deal of no lifts from LCC to BCC.
post #248 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMc View Post

"Alta with 160 acres at its base, a 100-room hotel (probably one building) and eight commercial/retail shops in support of a transit station, and the water to service them, in exchange for 603 acres in Grizzly Gulch, Devil's Castle and on Emma Ridge. Alta also wants a tunnel or another type of connection to Big Cottonwood, but is giving up its plan for a ski lift up Flagstaff Mountain when avalanche control methods are upgraded."

If that swap does indeed happen it certainly seems to seal the deal of no lifts from LCC to BCC.


Bump!

 

Because the ski season has started in the Wasatch and Park City, Brighton, Solitude, Alta, and Snowbird are now all open!

 

And One Wasatch is well underway to becoming reality, because the gondola that joined Canyons to Park City making Park City the largest resort in the US is a significant factor in the One Wasatch concept.

 

Regarding the post above, it's a bit more complicated.  Alta and Solitude will consider a train linking the two areas "ski area connectivity," if the train and tunnel are built.  If that happens, the land above the two areas -private property including Grizzly Gulch- will be donated to be kept protected in perpetuity. However, if the train isn't built -and quickly- then the two areas reserve the right to build lifts, as agreed in the Mountain Accord.   As-is, Park City, Deer Valley, and Brighton can connect, entirely on private property.

 

Theres a new One Wasatch Facebook page, that supposedly will update recent developments.  www.facebook.com/onewasatch

post #249 of 267

I just went to the FB page on One Wasatch. Not many people have been there. If you are like me and think that One Wasatch could provide the European ability to cover terrain, here in the States, please visit and Like the site to help provide support.

post #250 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by tachedub View Post
 

I just went to the FB page on One Wasatch. Not many people have been there. If you are like me and think that One Wasatch could provide the European ability to cover terrain, here in the States, please visit and Like the site to help provide support.


Yes.  The site has been up for just a few days and hasn't been widely promoted...yet.  If you want to show your support for One Wasatch, like it on Facebook and you'll be apprised of the latest developments.  www.facebook.com/onewasatch  Then have your friends and the friends of your friends like it, too!

post #251 of 267
Thread Starter 
Full disclosure what's your commercial/employment interest?
post #252 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbob View Post

Full disclosure what's your commercial/employment interest?

Seriously, we can only guess.

VR Ops:

How does one build a train and all the tunnels it will require in the mountains, quickly?

More importantly, who would pay for this train?

Who would benefit the most?
post #253 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbob View Post

Full disclosure what's your commercial/employment interest?


Lol.  Does one have to have a commercial / employment interest in order to think that building 4 more lifts to create an 18,000 acre skiing mecca would be extraordinary?  That's actually pretty funny!

post #254 of 267

Does one? :cool

 

In my book, if it looks like a piece of fish and smells like a piece of fish, most likely it's a piece of fish.   

post #255 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingGrump View Post
 

Does one? :cool

 

In my book, if it looks like a piece of fish and smells like a piece of fish, most likely it's a piece of fish.   


Yup, more like 1W Ops. 

post #256 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by V1 Oops View Post
 


Lol.  Does one have to have a commercial / employment interest in order to think that building 4 more lifts to create an 18,000 acre skiing mecca would be extraordinary?  That's actually pretty funny!

 

No, but when someone joins and starts promoting promotional material for a relatively controversial venture, it's completely normal for longer term members to be wary. And I notice you didn't actually answer the question. Are you involved with any of the companies or benefactors involved with One Wasatch?

 

If you're curious about what many of the members think of One Wasatch around here, I'd suggest reading all of this thread. And while you're at it, read all of these too : 

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/142462/thoughts-on-the-park-city-canyons-merger-and-further-park-city-consolidation

http://www.epicski.com/t/133908/vail-resorts-moves-forward-with-interconnect-park-city-canyons

 

There are a few other relevant ones as well. It's not univerally accepted that it will be extraordinary. (Although, personally, it sounds good to me, I like to be well informed and understand all sides of an issue.)

post #257 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeUT View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingGrump View Post
 

Does one? :cool

 

In my book, if it looks like a piece of fish and smells like a piece of fish, most likely it's a piece of fish.   


Yup, more like 1W Ops. 

 

The kicker is that a fresh piece of fish does not smell fishy. :rolleyes

post #258 of 267

Acres, schmacres...............unless a "skier" wants to spend more time riding lifts than actually skiing, bigger doesn't always mean better. VR might have bettter spent their $$$ eliminating some of the bottlenecks at the former Canyons rather than adding the connector if they really want to improve the experience rather than gain bragging rights.

post #259 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyV View Post
 

Acres, schmacres...............unless a "skier" wants to spend more time riding lifts than actually skiing, bigger doesn't always mean better. VR might have bettter spent their $$$ eliminating some of the bottlenecks at the former Canyons rather than adding the connector if they really want to improve the experience rather than gain bragging rights.

 

Eliminating bottle necks is great... but bigger doesn't mean more time on lifts either. 

post #260 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbostedo View Post
 

 

Eliminating bottle necks is great... but bigger doesn't mean more time on lifts either. 


'zactly.  Having widened Chicane -as they did this summer- is a major step in the bottleneck elimination department, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbostedo View Post
 

 

No, but when someone joins and starts promoting promotional material for a relatively controversial venture, it's completely normal for longer term members to be wary. And I notice you didn't actually answer the question. Are you involved with any of the companies or benefactors involved with One Wasatch?

 

If you're curious about what many of the members think of One Wasatch around here, I'd suggest reading all of this thread. And while you're at it, read all of these too : 

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/142462/thoughts-on-the-park-city-canyons-merger-and-further-park-city-consolidation

http://www.epicski.com/t/133908/vail-resorts-moves-forward-with-interconnect-park-city-canyons

 

There are a few other relevant ones as well. It's not univerally accepted that it will be extraordinary. (Although, personally, it sounds good to me, I like to be well informed and understand all sides of an issue.)


Ha, um, no.  Not assosciated in any way, shape, or form with anything to do with One Wasatch.  But since it sounds good to you, what's your angle?  Because obviously, anyone who could be remotely for it has got to be a developer or something, as I'm quickly learning from the peanut gallery.  Lol.

 

Signed,

 

The Fish

post #261 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by V1 Oops View Post
 


'zactly.  Having widened Chicane -as they did this summer- is a major step in the bottleneck elimination department, IMO.


Ha, um, no.  Not assosciated in any way, shape, or form with anything to do with One Wasatch.  But since it sounds good to you, what's your angle?  Because obviously, anyone who could be remotely for it has got to be a developer or something, as I'm quickly learning from the peanut gallery.  Lol.

 

Signed,

 

The Fish


If you have a problem with the "peanut gallery", then why not leave?

It does sound very fishy that you have exactly 4 posts on Epicski, and all are related to promoting One Wasatch.

post #262 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by V1 Oops View Post
 

...anyone who could be remotely for it has got to be a developer or something, as I'm quickly learning from the peanut gallery.

 

Nah... if you've never dealt with any type of close knit online forums before, you'll find that they function much like any real group of folks. I.e., if a stranger walks in and starts telling them how great something is, they are going to want to know if the stranger has an angle. If you're just enthusiastic about skiing or resorts - great! But nothing wrong with being asked, and answering the question. (And thinking of folks you're just meeting as the "peanut gallery", when it's an online forum and we're all participants, not spectators, may not be a great way to think of it.)

 

As far as my view, I like the sense of exploration and travelling when skiing - not hitting the same slopes many times, and being able to see a variety of mountains/runs. And I think that a large interconnected area could enhance that. BUT I have very little experience with actual large ski areas, so it's just an idea in my head. So my POV may not hold weight compared to folks who are more familiar. Or other folks who actually live in/near the Wasatch.

post #263 of 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbostedo View Post
 

 

Nah... if you've never dealt with any type of close knit online forums before, you'll find that they function much like any real group of folks. I.e., if a stranger walks in and starts telling them how great something is, they are going to want to know if the stranger has an angle. If you're just enthusiastic about skiing or resorts - great! But nothing wrong with being asked, and answering the question. (And thinking of folks you're just meeting as the "peanut gallery", when it's an online forum and we're all participants, not spectators, may not be a great way to think of it.)

 

As far as my view, I like the sense of exploration and travelling when skiing - not hitting the same slopes many times, and being able to see a variety of mountains/runs. And I think that a large interconnected area could enhance that. BUT I have very little experience with actual large ski areas, so it's just an idea in my head. So my POV may not hold weight compared to folks who are more familiar. Or other folks who actually live in/near the Wasatch.


Yeah, fair enough.  Thanks for that.  Yes, I suppose that I am the stranger that just walked in the room, and I came across as Mister Sales.  Only I'm not.

 

You hit the nail on the head.  Yes, I'm an enthusiastic resort and backcountry skier, live in Park City, and get around 100 days per season in.  I'm not really used to talking about skiing online, maybe I'll find my feet.  I'd rather do it than talk about it.  But maybe I'll find something on some other conversations that pique my interest.

 

But as far as this conversation goes, as a local, I think that the One Wasatch idea is fantastic, I for one would no longer drive down to Salt Lake to ski places that are right on the other side of the ridge. One Wasatch is an extremely interesting concept that could be the biggest thing in North American skiing in the entire history of North American Skiing.  The individual resorts have spent decades improving themselves, and to tie that all together with a small amount of lifts is absolutely intriguing. That's my angle.

 

Time to hit the slopes!

post #264 of 267

As a long time out of state visitor since 1981 and at a Snowbird timeshare since 1996, I'm for One Wasatch.  The environmental impact and cost of building those 4 lifts is trivial vs. the grandiose train tunnel plans.  Nonetheless I also ski with Utah locals who all say this will be a fierce battle and don't expect to see those lifts for a decade or maybe two.

 

While certain marketing people would like you to believe that it snows 450+ inches in all Utah mountains, the reality is it's a very small microclimate centered at the top of the Cottonwood Canyons. The competition for that slice of terrain between resort and backcountry skiers is intense.  The proposed 4 lifts would provide access to a lot of prime "slackcountry" which now requires exclusively earned turns.  This is the bottom line of the dispute.  I understand this because I would probably be one of those lazy "poachers" from those lifts when powder and snow safety conditions are favorable.


Edited by Tony Crocker - 11/26/15 at 11:18pm
post #265 of 267

An article regarding One Wasatch has been posted to the One Wasatch Facebook page.  It is an article written by High Country News, a famously fierce environmental publication that is highly critical of anything that would degrade the western landscape.  Interestingly, the opponents of One Wasatch are referred to as a radical group, and the article did not disparage One Wasatch.  And why would it?  Is it environmentally friendly to have tens of thousands of people drive 80 miles round trip from Park City to ski at ski areas that are only a mile or less from the Park City ridgeline?  No!  So the editors of High Country News were kind to the concept.

 

The Facebook One Wasatch page is a FAN page, not associated in any way with Ski Utah or individual resorts.  So if you'd like to proclaim your fandom and support for creating the greatest resort experience in the Western Hemisphere, please go to the page and hit LIKE.  That way you will be apprised of the latest rumors, innuendo, developments, etc., regarding One Wasatch!  If you are a hater, go to the hater sites, there are several of those!

 

www.facebook.com/onewasatch

 

Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving!

 

David DuBois

One Wasatch Fan Extraordinaire

post #266 of 267

Strictly wanting to have the type of skiing I enjoy in Europe here in the states. Up one valley, down the other, up that one and down the next. I really enjoy moving across the country over cycling the same runs.

post #267 of 267

A major element of One Wasatch is coming to fruition this coming week!

 

https://www.facebook.com/parkcitymountain/videos/10153344576479226/

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Skiing News
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › PCMR spinoff thread about OneWasatch