Originally Posted by cbgarrett
There are many legitimate reason for opposition.
1. Any interconnect will need somewhere between 2-4 lifts built. These will be built in the areas in BCC and LCC where there are not currently lifts. There are many thousands of people who use these areas (summer and winter) and do not want any more signs of human activity. We like the lack of lifts and roads. We like the peace and quiet. When we are bc skiing or summer hiking and mountain biking, we don't want any other stuff up there.
2. Many (maybe most) of the locals and visitors who ski LCC and BCC, do not want more people to access these 4 resorts from PC. Sorry to be that way, but why would we want the ski areas any more crowded? Do you think Altabird passholders are going to ski from there over to PC? No. Very few. It would be a one-way stream trying to get the better snow in LCC/BCC.
3. Money. The only reason this is being entertained is money. It will not make the skiing better, it won't add any good terrain. It is just for money.
What it comes down to is most of the locals around here do not want this. They like things the way they are. One person I talked to (longtime local) said this has been thrown around for 30 years, and each time the proposal is a little different, as if the proponents change things up to try to get the public to back it.
The wasatch is a small range, and there are already is enough infrastructure in it. There is plenty of lift served skiing capacity. We don't need to permanently claim more of the range for skiing. Especially when it is just for someone trying to make money on hotels and condos.
When you say the whole thing is about money and the locals don't support it, are you including the locals who would benefit economically from an increase in visitors to the region? As someone who lives in an airport town, works for a hotel company, and grew up as the son of a restaurant supplies salesman, I can tell you that it's not just hotel and condo owners who benefit.
More passengers flying in and out means more jobs at the airport. Higher occupancy in the hotels means more jobs in the existing hotels and, possibly, more hotels being built (and of course more jobs in those). It also means an increase in business at local restaurants, supermarkets, ski shops, and so on, which brings about more jobs. That's just at the first level. You also have all of the local companies that service and supply those industries. All in all, a lot of people work in industries that are impacted by tourism in one way or another.
I'm not saying their concerns are as important as those of the Altabird pass holders or backcountry skiers of the area, but you know.
Originally Posted by JoeUT
Yeah, thanks, guy, but I had a watch and simply had trouble connecting multiple lifts to get all the way back. This 100 percent will happen when people try to get to and from Snowbird, the farthest resort from PC.
I've never seen a 1 hour lift line here. That was kinda the point. Also we have the Internet here, too!
And if, as you admit, a tiny, public range already has sprawl, why would you create more for a sport that isn't growing? That's public land that isn't just used for skiing. The industry's developed enough of it. And don't undersell it by acting as though they're only dropping border ropes; it's the lifts that are the issue.
So what you're saying it shouldn't be done because some people might not be able to make sure they get back home in time.
I haven't seen a 1-hr lift line in the SLC/PC area either, but I've certainly spent over an hour waiting for lift tickets over the course of a few days just because I've had to wait in line every day (and that's after buying the discount "passes" from ski shops, which are just vouchers for lift tickets that I still have to wait in line for). A 20-minute wait done 3 days in a row is 1 hour of waiting, and 20-minute waits aren't uncommon. Even if the wait time went up to 30 or 45 minutes, I'd rather do that once and get it over with. As it is, I spend more time in line when I go there than on any of my European ski trips. That's kind of my point.
As for underselling the connections, I was responding to someone who specifically mentioned the 3 PC resorts (in a thread about the consolidation of the PC resorts). The gap on one side is almost literally spitting distance, and the gap on the other can be bridged with a single up-and-over lift that is already going to be built regardless of the outcome of the OW plan. So one new lift makes one big area, and one dropped rope turns it into a giant area.
Anyway, having grown up in the US and lived in the UK for the last 10 years, I have to say that skiing in the US is expensive and inconvenient, which is probably why the sport is stagnating there. The SLC and PC area really doesn't need to be the same. Even without the whole OW plan, simply linking the PC resorts and changing the trail maps and pricing models of the LCC and BCC resorts, which already have links in place, would make them look bigger on paper and be more convenient and less expensive on a per day basis. And that would boost business.