# From Utah: Park City Resorts Wish to Connect (UPDATED 2014 for ONE WASATCH Project)



## thetrailboss (Oct 23, 2011)

I was reading the Salt Lake Tribune and learned that Deer Valley/Canyons wish to install a tram/ski lift over the ridge and Guardsman Pass down into Solitude/Brighton so that skiers and riders can go between the Park City resorts and the Big Cottonwood resorts.  Not sure how I feel about it, but *this guy doesn't want to see it.*  For those that have not been out here, only a ridge separates Park City from Brighton/Solitude and the drive over Guardsman Pass (closed in the winter) drops one right into the middle of Deer Valley.  Apparently they want to install a lift over Big Cottonwood and into Alta.


----------



## AdironRider (Oct 23, 2011)

I think its pretty pointless really. Who is really going to make that trek? It would still be quicker to drive around from Park City or vice versa than take the proposed tram. 

That and theres already a ton of ski area development in what is realistically a pretty small area. I think the enviros would put the ol squadoosh on this one. 

Talisker has become a kinda love hate guy. Its going to take some work to get this approved, let alone built.


----------



## marcski (Oct 23, 2011)

There has been a whole discussion over at Firsttracks on this for about a month...ínteresting stuff:

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9774

Bossman, you should keep your eye on those forums, some good local SLC info there for ya.


----------



## marcski (Oct 23, 2011)

I kind of agree with that article.  Definitely a marketing Scheme...leave the canyons alone. Plus,I agree with Adironrider, the environmental groups will shut it down.  It is watershed area let alone some prime backcountry skiing terrain.  The environmentalists are quite strong out there since the bird was developed in '70.


----------



## Talisman (Oct 24, 2011)

Doubt it the PC to BCC connection would ever happen.  PCMR and DV can't get over themselves to connect through the bushes between the the two areas let alone over to BCC.  I can see fur trimmed Bogner panties in a twist at DV with the thought of hordes of duct tape patched boarders from Brighton trapsing through the Stien Erickson Lodge looking for Red Bull and attractive daughters.

I wonder if this is a reaction to the Squaw and Alpine connection?


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2011)

Update:  

SkiLink is running into problems:  http://unofficialnetworks.com/headwinds-canyonssolitude-gondola-56134/

And The Canyons has started their own site on the project:  http://www.skilink.com/

Thoughts?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 5, 2011)

Sometimes I loathe "environmentalists".


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2011)

I think the mistake that they made was to ignore the local process and to try to bypass it by going to Capitol Hill and getting an Act from Congress selling the narrow strip of USFS land to Talisker for this project.  Maybe they knew it would not go through otherwise, but it seemed that choosing this route guaranteed it would pretty much fail and made more enemies than friends.  It was overkill for what they wanted to do...and gives opponents the ability to use the "slippery slope" argument since the bill would have allowed the feds to sell land in other cases like this one.


----------



## steamboat1 (Dec 5, 2011)

Talisman said:


> Doubt it the PC to BCC connection would ever happen.  PCMR and DV can't get over themselves to connect through the bushes between the the two areas let alone over to BCC.  I can see fur trimmed Bogner panties in a twist at DV with the thought of hordes of duct tape patched boarders from Brighton trapsing through the Stien Erickson Lodge looking for Red Bull and attractive daughters.



That's funny Talisman...:lol:.

I read about the proposed UT. connection quite awhile ago. Seems to me from what I've read that both skiers, locals & enviromentalists are united in opposing this project. If there's enough money lining the pockets of the decision makers I'm sure anything could get approved though. Don't forget that Snowbird also has a major expansion plan on the table involving a second tram & additional lifts opening up what has been back country access only.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2011)

steamboat1 said:


> Don't forget that Snowbird also has a major expansion plan on the table involving a second tram & additional lifts opening up what has been back country access only.



Yeah, I am interested in hearing more about Snowbird's proposal.  Apparently they want to: (1) build a lodge on the top of Hidden Peak; (2) build a European style, no tower tram from Hidden Peak to the top of the Twin Peaks; and (3) to develop the Mary Ellen Gulch and to tie it in to Mineral Basin.  Sounds interesting.


----------



## AdironRider (Dec 5, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> European style, no tower tram from Hidden Peak to the top of the Twin Peaks



Whoa, now that would be sweet, and would most likely put them a step above JHole.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 5, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Whoa, now that would be sweet, and would most likely put them a step above JHole.



I think that is their plan.  BTW a recent survey put Jackson at #1 and Snowbird at #2 for expert terrain in the country.


----------



## darent (Dec 5, 2011)

I f people want to ski between the resorts they should sign up for the tour they run that does just that.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 13, 2012)

An informative video showing where the lift would run:  

http://unofficialnetworks.com/andre...untry-terrain-privatized-82812/#comment-52194


----------



## ScottySkis (Mar 13, 2012)

This will be sweet.


----------



## JohnL (Mar 13, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Yeah, I am interested in hearing more about Snowbird's proposal.  Apparently they want to: (1) build a lodge on the top of Hidden Peak; (2) build a European style, no tower tram from Hidden Peak to the top of the Twin Peaks; and (3) to develop the Mary Ellen Gulch and to tie it in to Mineral Basin.  Sounds interesting.



Aspect of the expansion ~= aspect of Mineral Basin, i.e. south? Correct? With some E/W ridges funneling into the gulch?

Mixed feelings on the Canyons/DV/PCMR to Solitude tram. Euro model is to connect areas in different countries to each other. But also to permit skiing across someone's back yard. I'm all for property rights, but skier rights are even more important.

Doesn't the current Interconnect go via that route? Single tram ride seems cheating a bit too much, but if done right, may have lesser impact than if interconnected conventional lifts were planned for a mega-resort.

Right now, I guess I like the current stove-pipe approach of the current Utah areas.


----------



## JohnL (Mar 13, 2012)

Thinking a bit more, I may have my Mineral Basin aspect a bit off. Bookends = N? Baldy Express = S? Mineral Basin = E? 

Except for the Bookends face, the entire Mineral Basin area seems to suffer from sever sun exposure. Lack of trees also accentuates it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 14, 2012)

JohnL said:


> Thinking a bit more, I may have my Mineral Basin aspect a bit off. Bookends = N? Baldy Express = S? Mineral Basin = E?
> 
> Except for the Bookends face, the entire Mineral Basin area seems to suffer from sever sun exposure. Lack of trees also accentuates it.



I think you had it right the first time.  The tram and MBE pretty much run North/South.  Yes, the MB does get its fair share of sun, which is awesome first thing in the morning, but sucks when the sun moves and things refreeze.

The Snowbird expansion has a couple aspects to it.  First, the MBE would be extended downslope so that folks could get out of Mary Ellen Gulch and to the lift without hiking.  I often wonder why they did not just go downhill a bit more originally.  Second, Snowbird wants to run a tram from the top of Hidden Peak to the top of one of the Twins.  That is not going over well at all.  Third, they want to put one lift and have skiing in Mary Ellen Gulch, which they own and in fact spent a lot of time and money cleaning up mining pollution several years ago.  They've made it clear that they will restrict access to White Pine Chutes (I think I got that right) which is another big BC destination.  There would be an exit to MBE from Mary Ellen.  The Mary Ellen Gulch lie just over the ridge and NW of Mineral Basin.

Folks I have talked to who work for the resort admit that the Tram is a hail mary and that opposition just won't allow it.  The Mary Ellen Gulch is even controversial...too bad since Snowbird owns it and cleaned it up.  We heard that, depending on how things go and money, the next big thing is the replacement of Gad II with a HSQ that would be realigned and run from its current base up into Baldy's Bowl.  They also have plans to replace Little Cloud with an HSQ.


----------



## JohnL (Mar 14, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> I think you had it right the first time.  First, the MBE would be extended downslope so that folks could get out of Mary Ellen Gulch and to the lift without hiking.  I often wonder why they did not just go downhill a bit more originally.



That would bring in a lot more terrain in Mineral Basin into play without hiking. How much further down would that be? That also could be a very long runout in the basin.

Also, so I'm not missing anything obvious, The Twins are the ridge above The Road to Provo and Baldy Bowl? I've never hiked up there, but that always struck me as a knife's edge ridge.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 14, 2012)

JohnL said:


> That would bring in a lot more terrain in Mineral Basin into play without hiking. How much further down would that be? That also could be a very long runout in the basin.



An article on it:  http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_15229922

More info and a rough map:  http://www.utahoutside.com/2011/05/snowbird-seeks-master-development-plan-feedback/

Looks like the MBE would be extended quite a ways.  I have not explored much of that area of Mineral Basin.  

Another post:  http://www.epicski.com/t/94978/snowbird-expansion-in-mary-ellen-gulch



> Also, so I'm not missing anything obvious, The Twins are the ridge above The Road to Provo and Baldy Bowl? I've never hiked up there, but that always struck me as a knife's edge ridge.


No, you're right.  This be them:


----------



## JohnL (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks for the links; I came across the Epic Ski thread yesterday.

Just looking at the topo from Google Maps, I'd be real surprised if they could connect the bottom of MB with Mary Ellen Gulch. Looks way to flat.

Sorry about all the questions and thanks for the responses!


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 14, 2012)

JohnL said:


> Thanks for the links; I came across the Epic Ski thread yesterday.
> 
> Just looking at the topo from Google Maps, I'd be real surprised if they could connect the bottom of MB with Mary Ellen Gulch. Looks way to flat.
> 
> Sorry about all the questions and thanks for the responses!


 
No problem man and welcome to the boards.  I don't quite understand the concept either as I have not ventured back there to get a lay of the land.  Look me up if you are out here and maybe we can take a few runs.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 24, 2012)

Update:  

Both sides are getting entrenched and things are getting hot.  

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=20117295&title=environmentalists-oppose-ski-connector&s_cid=queue-2

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53977941-78/skilink-canyons-chamber-president.html.csp


----------



## ScottySkis (Apr 24, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Update:
> 
> Both sides are getting entrenched and things are getting hot.
> 
> ...



I'm unfortunately not surprised, when I rode the ski bus a few years ago seem like alta employees and snowbird employees are like hostel to each other,  especially if you asked which mountain was better, i said i think their both great.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 14, 2012)

More comments on the idea:  

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54096872-78/cottonwood-canyons-skilink-canyon.html.csp


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 7, 2012)

The latest with a link to a NY Times Article:  

http://unofficialnetworks.com/york-times-utah-skilink-gondola-2-bills-congress-100968/


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 14, 2012)

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54688992-78/resort-canyons-goar-gondola.html.csp

Canyons took the press on a tour of the proposed lift line.  Still on the fence about this one, especially considering that Talisker is trying to oust PCMR and take that over.  If they buy Solitude then we have a monstrosity.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 14, 2012)

The 11K length of the gondola really puts how close the two ski areas are in perspective.  That's the same length as the Slide Brook Quad connecting Lincoln Peak and Mt. Ellen at Sugarbush.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Aug 14, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> The 11K length of the gondola really puts how close the two ski areas are in perspective.  That's the same length as the Slide Brook Quad connecting Lincoln Peak and Mt. Ellen at Sugarbush.



Wow  I guess I didn't realize they were that close.   

Is it just going to be a transfer lift, or are they planning to have skiing between them?


----------



## Nick (Aug 14, 2012)

As long as it's not the Single chairlift from Hell


----------



## drjeff (Aug 14, 2012)

jimmywilson69 said:


> Wow I guess I didn't realize they were that close.
> 
> Is it just going to be a transfer lift, or are they planning to have skiing between them?



Yup, even though by roadway, it's a bit under an hour to get from the Park City area DOWN and around Parley's Canyon into the outskirts of Salt Lake City and then back UP Big Cottonwood Canyon , as the proverbial bird flys, it's real close.  And then it's even a shorter distance as the bird flys to get from Big Cottonwood Canyon(Solitude + Brighton) to Little Cottonwood Canyon(Alta + Snowbird).  Factor in the the Southern most extent of the Canyons now is essentially just a ridgeline away from the Northern most extent of Park City Mountain Resort, and all that seperates Park City Mountain Resort from Deer Valley is a rope line and maybe 50 feet, and it's really easy to see how the interconnect of those 7 areas *could* happen and as such give the fine folks at Ski Utah an incredible ski experience to market to the country and the world!


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 14, 2012)

Yep, they are that close and as someone else said, DV, PCMR and Canyons essentially share the same ridge.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 14, 2012)

And SkiLink is only a transfer lift with no sanctioned skiing underneath it.  Although that area is already slackcountry.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Aug 15, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> And SkiLink is only a transfer lift with no sanctioned skiing underneath it.  Although that area is already slackcountry.



I've read some articles pro & against said interconnect.  What is the big deal?  The "slack country" would still be there except for a 50-foot wide Right-Of-Way with a Gondi going through it.   I know environs get fired up about lots of smaller things, but this really could revolutionize skiing in the SLC area.  It's not as if any of these places aren't known about outside of SLC.  Sure the Big Cottonwood Canyon resorts are a little " less traveled", but lots of "tourists" still go there and know that you can find powder stashes after the fact.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 15, 2012)

BTW.  Southwest is having airfare sale until 8/24.  $194 one way from Boston and $120 one way to Denver.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 15, 2012)

jimmywilson69 said:


> I've read some articles pro & against said interconnect. What is the big deal? The "slack country" would still be there except for a 50-foot wide Right-Of-Way with a Gondi going through it. I know environs get fired up about lots of smaller things, but this really could revolutionize skiing in the SLC area. It's not as if any of these places aren't known about outside of SLC. Sure the Big Cottonwood Canyon resorts are a little " less traveled", but lots of "tourists" still go there and know that you can find powder stashes after the fact.



The terrain is coveted slackcountry.  The BC movement out here is very strong, but honestly as you say the area is so well traveled and known that it is hardly wilderness.  And I use the legal definition of wilderness (no development at all).  

One big concern is that the entire BCC and LCC areas are watersheds/supplies for SLC water.  Hence why SLC is involved.  This is a legitimate concern in my mind.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 15, 2012)

I fail to see how a Gondola and interconnect would affect the SLC drinking water supply in a negative way.  Hell, if anything it might improve the water supply.  It could result in less vehicular traffic in the form of people no longer feeling the need to rent a car on their ski vacations to Utah.  

Due to how many ski areas are so close to one another in SLC, if I were to go there on a ski vacation there I'd want to rent a car and visit several.  If they were interconnected via lifts, I'd simply grab a shuttle from the airport to wherever my lodging was and use the interconnecting lift system to visit all the areas instead of using a car. 

The tree hugger and NIMBY crowd really should be viewing Skilink as a public transportation enhancement that reduces air/water pollution and not the opposite.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 15, 2012)

The concern is erosion and trash/debris/pollution/etc from the lift and riders.  But as you said you have to compare this to the car issue.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 15, 2012)

As long as they don't employ staff from Cannon Mountain to install the lift, erosion and debris shouldn't be a problem.  :smash:


----------



## ScottySkis (Aug 15, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> I fail to see how a Gondola and interconnect would affect the SLC drinking water supply in a negative way.  Hell, if anything it might improve the water supply.  It could result in less vehicular traffic in the form of people no longer feeling the need to rent a car on their ski vacations to Utah.
> 
> Due to how many ski areas are so close to one another in SLC, if I were to go there on a ski vacation there I'd want to rent a car and visit several.  If they were interconnected via lifts, I'd simply grab a shuttle from the airport to wherever my lodging was and use the interconnecting lift system to visit all the areas instead of using a car.
> 
> The tree hugger and NIMBY crowd really should be viewing Skilink as a public transportation enhancement that reduces air/water pollution and not the opposite.





I been their like 6 Times and never needed to rent a car.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 15, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> As long as they don't employ staff from Cannon Mountain to install the lift, erosion and debris shouldn't be a problem. :smash:




Neither Canyons nor Solitude are state-owned entities and they are not in the "evil triangle" of resorts.

:lol:  :smash:


----------



## drjeff (Aug 15, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> The concern is erosion and trash/debris/pollution/etc from the lift and riders. But as you said you have to compare this to the car issue.



I'm guessing that reguardless of if the skilink gondi does or doesn't get built, you'll still have the same # of widlife animals doing #1 and #2 in that watershed as always, not to mention a fair number of slackcountry skiers and riders and snowmobilers taking care of business when nature calls in that same watershed area too.  

Let's all be honest some pee and poop(of human or wildlife varieties) when diluted with what eventually becomes millions of gallons of water when the snowpack melts is a non issue.  Same thing goes with the modern lift lubricants that are used.  Most are water soluble these days, and if it's a gondi, its not like the windows will be opening up to some mega degree for some riders of the gondi to suddenly dump an entire days worth of trash from their house out of their packs and into the snow below


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 15, 2012)

drjeff said:


> I'm guessing that reguardless of if the skilink gondi does or doesn't get built, you'll still have the same # of widlife animals doing #1 and #2 in that watershed as always, not to mention a fair number of slackcountry skiers and riders and snowmobilers taking care of business when nature calls in that same watershed area too.
> 
> Let's all be honest some pee and poop(of human or wildlife varieties) when diluted with what eventually becomes millions of gallons of water when the snowpack melts is a non issue.  Same thing goes with the modern lift lubricants that are used.  Most are water soluble these days, and if it's a gondi, its not like the windows will be opening up to some mega degree for some riders of the gondi to suddenly dump an entire days worth of trash from their house out of their packs and into the snow below



Ultimately, it comes down to an issue of selfishness. People use the enviro argument in this case, but its just fluffer for their real motivations, which is to keep as much as that area, as least crowded as possible so they can enjoy it by themselves. 

In a place like the Cwood canyons, the argument of protecting "wilderness" from a ski lift (there are already 50+ within like a 10 mile area) is bullshit.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 15, 2012)

AdironRider said:


> Ultimately, it comes down to an issue of selfishness. People use the enviro argument in this case, but its just fluffer for their real motivations, which is to keep as much as that area, as least crowded as possible so they can enjoy it by themselves.
> 
> In a place like the Cwood canyons, the argument of protecting "wilderness" from a ski lift (there are already 50+ within like a 10 mile area) is bullshit.



One word: yep.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Aug 15, 2012)

I hope at some point, those in charge at the local, state, and federal level realize the opportunity that they have to create something that is completely unique to the USA.  

This is a game changer only eclipsed by hosting the olympics.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Aug 16, 2012)

jimmywilson69 said:


> I hope at some point, those in charge at the local, state, and federal level realize the opportunity that they have to create something that is completely unique to the USA.
> 
> This is a game changer only eclipsed by hosting the olympics.



Just do a real interconnect please.  Who cares about a few back country skiers and the entire area is already developed for ski areas.  No real harm in adding more terrain and lifts.  Just have a terminal at the top so people can at least ski both sides.  Incredibly stupid to have just an interconnect lift.

I would rather stay in park city were you can get good food and do something rather than the other canyons.  Then I can take 1 lift out of Park City and ski to better terrain.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 17, 2012)

Update: lots of "Stop Ski Link" signs going up here in SLC. The only thing I have heard in opposition to the project, however, are BC folks saying that they don't want some of their terrain crossed over by this lift. The Canyons has said that Ski Link is only an end-end lift and that resort skiers will not be skiing in the area that the lift traverses. They are not proposing any mid-station or allowing folks to ski in the area. 

Some of the opponents are mistakenly saying that the area in between the Canyons and Solitude will become new ski terrain. 

Basically, the argument that has come out thus far is "stay out of our BC area." Anyone who knows the area knows that this is a far cry from "wilderness." The Guardsman Pass parking lot looks like Wal Mart or Target on a weekend in the summer, with cars everywhere. There are many trails that criss-cross the area. Granted the Guardsman Pass road is mostly closed in winter, the truth is that the general area is already quite accessible to folks. 

Again, I think that the Canyons is not winning friends or influencing people, especially after its efforts to evict POWDR from PCMR and how it is going about trying to secure the right of way for the lift by getting the feds to give them the land.  But I am not convinced that this lift is going to cause the sky to fall or hell to break loose.....


----------



## AdironRider (Oct 17, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Update: lots of "Stop Ski Link" signs going up here in SLC. The only thing I have heard in opposition to the project, however, are BC folks saying that they don't want some of their terrain crossed over by this lift. The Canyons has said that Ski Link is only an end-end lift and that resort skiers will not be skiing in the area that the lift traverses. They are not proposing any mid-station or allowing folks to ski in the area.
> 
> Some of the opponents are mistakenly saying that the area in between the Canyons and Solitude will become new ski terrain.
> 
> ...



I completely agree with this. In conversations with my UT buddies they all use the same excuse, and really have nothing to back it up. "Wilderness" right... 

I also like the erosion argument, like a couple gondi towers are going to wear the place down to nubs and apparently emit sewage or something to destroy all the drinking water in Utah.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Oct 18, 2012)

That is my sentitment, sure I would be a "tourist" when I visit the area, but that's one of the things that helps stoke their economy.  They could literally build the entire gondola without building a road.  The big resorts on Federal Land do it all the time.  I am pretty sure when A-Basin built the Zuma Lift, they was no grading of roads.  Everything was flown in/out.  I would guess it doesn't really drive the cost up that much, considering they usually fly the towers and (most of the time) concrete in anyways.  

They have a chance to really create something special, very much like the places in the European Alps.  I personally hope the NIMBYs lose.

As for the Federal Land Crap I think it's shady, but at the same time if the ultimate goal is to increase skier visists, which inturn boasts the economy, shouldn't the Gov allow or want something like Ski Link to get built?  Again it sounds like it's not pristine Wilderness.

I am sure the same arguments were heard in Breckenridge when the resort wanted to and now has approval to put lifts on Peak 6.  Everytime I have been to Breck there were BC people skiing peak 6.  They did a huge study, alternative anaylsis, public involvement/comment period and the USFS eventually gave approval to build it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 18, 2012)

jimmywilson69 said:


> That is my sentitment, sure I would be a "tourist" when I visit the area, but that's one of the things that helps stoke their economy. They could literally build the entire gondola without building a road. The big resorts on Federal Land do it all the time. I am pretty sure when A-Basin built the Zuma Lift, they was no grading of roads. Everything was flown in/out. I would guess it doesn't really drive the cost up that much, considering they usually fly the towers and (most of the time) concrete in anyways.
> 
> They have a chance to really create something special, very much like the places in the European Alps. I personally hope the NIMBYs lose.
> 
> ...



Ted Johnson, who was the co-founder of Snowbird, led an effort to have an alpine railroad/highway tunnel system to connect the Canyons so as to move skiers back and forth.  Canyons are arguing that this is what they want to do, only with a gondola.  I wonder though if they are in talks to buy Solitude because why else would they want to connect to another resort?  It certainly is an interesting idea and one that would make Utah stand out.  Hell, many folks still don't equate awesome skiing with Utah.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Oct 18, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Hell, many folks still don't equate awesome skiing with Utah.



You think since they hosted a winter Olympics that the word would've gotten out a little bit...


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 18, 2012)

jimmywilson69 said:


> You think since they hosted a winter Olympics that the word would've gotten out a little bit...



You'd think so!  :lol:  Still, I am now next to that "C" state that gets a lot of attention. 

And, case in point, like a lot of folks here I am a pretty diehard skier, but up until only a couple years ago my focus was pretty much New England only.  If you'd ask me then where Alta was, I could honestly recognize the logo and say it is a legend, but I'd probably say that it was in Colorado or New Mexico.  That's how bad I was!


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Oct 18, 2012)

True.  I guess If you would've asked me in 1997 if there was skiing in Salt Lake City, I proably would've told you no. 

I appreciate the updates on the Ski-Link, I'm much too lazy to follow it on my own! :dunce:


----------



## drjeff (Oct 18, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> You'd think so! :lol: Still, I am now next to that "C" state that gets a lot of attention.
> 
> And, case in point, like a lot of folks here I am a pretty diehard skier, but up until only a couple years ago my focus was pretty much New England only. If you'd ask me then where Alta was, I could honestly recognize the logo and say it is a legend, but I'd probably say that it was in Colorado or New Mexico. That's how bad I was!





jimmywilson69 said:


> True. I guess If you would've asked me in 1997 if there was skiing in Salt Lake City, I proably would've told you no.
> 
> I appreciate the updates on the Ski-Link, I'm much too lazy to follow it on my own! :dunce:



These 2 HONEST comments about your past lives before skiing became as significant as it is now for you, is exactly why we end up with the annual Ski Magazine Resort Ranking threads 

Far too often we look at things from our own perspective, simply forgetting that our passionate interest in the sport we all love so much, is by far and away the minority view from the perspective fo most snowsliders.  It's all good in my book (even if it causes ski area marketing folks to do some things that make us both cringe and question their sanity sometimes! :lol: )


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 18, 2012)

drjeff said:


> These 2 HONEST comments about your past lives before skiing became as significant as it is now for you, is exactly why we end up with the annual Ski Magazine Resort Ranking threads
> 
> Far too often we look at things from our own perspective, simply forgetting that our passionate interest in the sport we all love so much, is by far and away the minority view from the perspective fo most snowsliders. It's all good in my book (even if it causes ski area marketing folks to do some things that make us both cringe and question their sanity sometimes! :lol: )



Yeah, for me it was my view of the skiing world was pretty small, with the "west" being all those places west of the Mississippi.  But in 2010 when I skied in Tahoe, my (now) wife and I were like, "holy shit, this is amazing!"  I started to pay more attention to the subtle differences between, say, Squaw Valley and Jackson Hole.  Now I've skied only a handful of western places (Snowbird, Alta, Deer Valley, Squaw, Loveland, and Homewood), but I am much more interested in reading up and trying out other areas I'd never think of skiing.


----------



## kickstand (Oct 18, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> I wonder though if they are in talks to buy Solitude because why else would they want to connect to another resort?



Gawd, I hope not...........


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 18, 2012)

kickstand said:


> Gawd, I hope not...........



Yeah, add that idea with Canyons taking over PCMR and you have one hell of a big resort.


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 19, 2012)

Interest is growing with this project.  There are more articles on it in several skiing magazines.  And this article just appeared in Outdoors Magazine:  

http://www.outsideonline.com/advent...ious-Skiing-Project-in-the-United-States.html

Turns out they are talking about:

* Connecting Alta to Solitude via lifts;

* Connecting PCMR and Canyons via a lift;

* Allowing skiers to access Deer Valley and PCMR with one ticket.  Those that have skied Empire Canyon at DV or McConkey's at PCMR   know that the two areas are only separated by a ropeline.  This could be as soon as next season;

* Connecting Brighton and PCMR with two lifts directly over Guardsman Pass. 

As folks know there is already a joint Alta-Snowbird ticket and a Solitude-Brighton ticket.


----------



## gregnye (Dec 19, 2012)

In my opinion--park city to deer valley is a no brainer. As for Alta to Solitude--huh?? Why would you ever want that? The onlyu benefit would be to offer access to the other canyon when there is an avalanche closure in the Snowbird/alta canyon and you can't drive out to SLC


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 19, 2012)

gregnye said:


> In my opinion--park city to deer valley is a no brainer. As for Alta to Solitude--huh?? Why would you ever want that? The onlyu benefit would be to offer access to the other canyon when there is an avalanche closure in the Snowbird/alta canyon and you can't drive out to SLC



It's part of the plan to allow skiers to get from Park City to Little Cottonwood.


----------



## jaytrem (Dec 19, 2012)

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting.  Not sure why they have such a long lift for Park City/Canyons.  They could easily connect the bottom of King Con to the top of Iron Mountain (or nearby).  The Canyons already has already started a trail pointing right at King Con (hostle takeover?).

I always thought it would be smart for Deer Valley and PCMR to get together and replace the Town Lift with a gondola they could both use.  Just need a mid-station some where in the genral vicinty old one and then run the 2nd stage to the McConkey/Empire Canyon summit.  And I guess if Deer Valley wants to splurge they could add the 3rd stage to the Empire Canyon lodge area.  That town one Deer Valley wants to build seems like it would a much bigger pain to build and get permits for.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 14, 2013)

The latest....an article about a spokesperson that Canyons/Talisker hired to help promote the plan and his view as to why SkiLink is a good idea:

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-443-16968-broken-link.html


----------



## Nick (Jul 2, 2013)

*Controversy over Skilink connecting Canyons to Solitude*

Is this a fringe group or is this controversy real? 

http://www.stopskilink.com



I'm not really in full knowledge of the details of Skilink but doesn't this seem pretty dramatic response to what is essentially a lift connector?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 2, 2013)

Nick said:


> Is this a fringe group or is this controversy real?
> 
> http://www.stopskilink.com
> 
> ...



Yes, it is an offshoot of the Save Our Canyons group.  I've merged this with the existing thread on the issue.

In a nutshell, Talisker (who owns Canyons and the land under Park City Mountain Resort) got the brainwave to connect Canyons to Solitude via a gondola.  They don't own Solitude.  Instead of petitioning the Forest Service for permission to cross a narrow strip of land that the liftline would cross, and starting the public comment process which would spark ire from those that backcountry ski in the area, they tried to do an end-move by getting Congress to sell/give the land to them.  Yeah that crashed and burned. 

As to the debate, my POV is that both sides have really done a disservice by exaggeration of their cases.  One side would have you think that the mountain will be clearcut, an interstate highway for skiers will be built under the lift, that the lift towers would be made of endangered Redwood, and that deer would be raped.  The other side would tell you that everyone will give up their cars, that every person in Utah will get a job, that everyone on the lift will hug each other and sing Kum-by-yah, and that global warming will end.  The truth is in the middle.  

The opposition really are folks who love to "earn their own turns" there and are quite territorial.  The area is pretty obvious and visible and there are existing roads and buildings in the area.  There are open bowls and nice hardwood glades in the area.  It is primo ski terrain.  The other side is a multibillion real estate company that sells $105 tickets for skiing and expect that folks will pay the $105 and a surcharge to ride the lift to little, quiet Solitude.  I have not heard any cheers or jeers from Solitude--some locals grumble because the traffic would increase.  It's really a fight over who gets to use the area.  

And, FWIW, it's always been a dream/plan for the Utah Ski Industry to connect the resorts anyways.  As it stands now, skiers can easily pass between Alta and Snowbird as well as Brighton and Solitude--these resorts market joint passes and have terrain/lifts in place to move you in between the two.  With some effort, you can ski between Alta and Brighton as well as from Park City Resort to Brighton.  Additionally, Deer Valley and Park City are literally a ropeline apart; Canyons and Park City are pretty close as well.  So if you put Ski Link in, allow Alta to put a lift in towards Brighton (they want to), and dropped the ropes in between the Park City areas, you could theoretically start at Deer Valley and ski all the way to Snowbird (or vice versa) between seven separate resorts.


----------



## snowmonster (Jul 3, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> With some effort, you can ski between Alta and Brighton as well as from Park City Resort to Brighton.  Additionally, Deer Valley and Park City are literally a ropeline apart; Canyons and Park City are pretty close as well.  So if you put Ski Link in, allow Alta to put a lift in towards Brighton (they want to), and dropped the ropes in between the Park City areas, you could theoretically start at Deer Valley and ski all the way to Snowbird (or vice versa) between seven separate resorts.



Or you could ski Ski Utah's Interconnect --  Deer Valley, Park City, Solitude, Brighton, Alta and the Bird all in one day.

http://www.skiutah.com/winter/plan/plan-other/interconnect


----------



## Nick (Jul 3, 2013)

Thanks for merging. somehow I missed page 2 of this thread and thanks for the inside scoop TB!


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 3, 2013)

snowmonster said:


> Or you could ski Ski Utah's Interconnect -- Deer Valley, Park City, Solitude, Brighton, Alta and the Bird all in one day.
> 
> http://www.skiutah.com/winter/plan/plan-other/interconnect



Yes you can.  So much skiing, so little time.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 3, 2013)

Nick said:


> Thanks for merging. somehow I missed page 2 of this thread and thanks for the inside scoop TB!



No worries man.  Very interesting discussion.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 3, 2013)

And that video makes my point, Nick. Pretty much none of the images flashed are of the area in question and the statement that the lift would cover the same area that is slated to become wilderness is not accurate. The comment that the lift would ruin pristine wilderness is not accurate...as I said the area has radio transmitters, old mining dumps, and old mining roads...so it is not pristine. 

They are right about the land grab issue.  That is a big concern of mine.

And notice how most of the folks interviewed have a tie to the outdoor recreation industry in the SLC area. As I said, the real issue is not taking wilderness, it's the taking of land that is prime backcountry skiing terrain and prime recreational area. This is the real point of contention.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 19, 2014)

Bump.  

New plan.  Vague as to specifics, but I imagine it involves two connections: one between DV/PCMR and Brighton; the other being Alta/Snowbird to Brighton.  Very doable and a dream for the ski areas for a long time.  

Apparently these would only be transfer lifts and no terrain per se.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57699224-78/ski-resorts-utah-mountain.html.csp


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 19, 2014)

Build it.  I just don't understand how construction Transfer lifts would ruin anything on either end of the lift.  It's Genious, and it would absolutely bring more people into the SLC area for skiing. 

My time share can be exchanged at a ton of places in Park City.  If I could fly to SLC and not rent a car to ski those 7 mountains, i'd probably never go to Colorado again!  Okay that's somewhat of a lie, but It makes it that much more attractive!


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 19, 2014)

I'm a skier.  Would love to see it happen.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Mar 19, 2014)

*From Utah: Park City Resorts Wish to Connect to Big Cottonwood*



jimmywilson69 said:


> Build it.  I just don't understand how construction Transfer lifts would ruin anything on either end of the lift.  It's Genious, and it would absolutely bring more people into the SLC area for skiing.



People say it is not aesthetically pleasing, that's their gripe.

Personally I'd like to see it though.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Mar 19, 2014)

There are 7 large ski resorts cut into either side of the mountain.  a 40-50 foot swath cut for a gondola isn't going to affect "Asthetics".

Typical NIMBY's...


----------



## snoseek (Mar 19, 2014)

I selfishly don't want to see it happen only because I want the people on the back to stay there. LCC and BCC are getting pretty crowded. Then again that would be a fun day jumping around


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 19, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> People say it is not aesthetically pleasing, that's their gripe.
> 
> Personally I'd like to see it though.



The issue is over the use of land.  Folks now BC ski in areas outside of the ski areas.  If anyone goes to the trailheads you will see tons of cars--so the BC areas are already crowded.  This community is concerned that traffic will increase...perhaps because folks on the lifts will see the terrain and then want to access it later.  You can't really prevent that...if folks want to ski there they will.

There is also some legitimacy in the fact that the areas connected are FAR apart and it is not realistic to expect that folks will eat breakfast in PC and ski at Snowbird in the afternoon and return to PC for après ski.  Though they are relatively close, the amount of time transferring will still be on the order of hours and not minutes.  Considering the distance there will be some back and forth, but not that much (since you have to get back to where you started).


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 19, 2014)

A big change in the process is that Ski Utah says that the connections will be made over private land--so that takes out the Forest Service and their review process (theoretically).  Some seem skeptical about this claim.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Mar 19, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> A big change in the process is that Ski Utah says that the connections will be made over private land--so that takes out the Forest Service and their review process (theoretically).  Some seem skeptical about this claim.



So does that mean they don't need an environmental impact assessment?


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 19, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> So does that mean they don't need an environmental impact assessment?



Good question.  Maybe yes since the resorts themselves sit on NFS land.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Mar 19, 2014)

I'm sure the Canadian lynx will be discovered. Whether it's an expansion in Vermont or Colorado, it's always the "endangered" lynx that's affected the expansion


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 19, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I'm sure the Canadian lynx will be discovered. Whether it's an expansion in Vermont or Colorado, it's always the "endangered" lynx that's affected the expansion



Don't get me started!    Vermont has endangered bear, birds, lynx, etc.


----------



## Gnarcissaro (Mar 19, 2014)

I'd hate to see the Park City crowd at Brighton, personally. I think the character of Brighton will specifically be changed drastically if able to be accessed from both LCC and PC via runs/lifts. It's a great place and different in vibe than any other of the resorts involved.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Mar 19, 2014)

Is this separate than what you're talking about? 

http://unofficialnetworks.com/ski-u...h-ski-resorts-lifts-ski-runs-thoughts-129508/


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 19, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Is this separate than what you're talking about?
> 
> http://unofficialnetworks.com/ski-u...h-ski-resorts-lifts-ski-runs-thoughts-129508/



Nope, this is the same project that was announced today....One Wasatch.  It is NOT SkiLink, but SkiLink on steroids.  

I've revised the title of the thread.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 19, 2014)

I wonder how this would work if, say, a snowboarder wanted to go from Snowbird to Brighton/PCMR or vice versa?  Will they run a shuttle around Alta?


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 20, 2014)

More press on it.  

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57704372-78/ski-wasatch-concept-resorts.html.csp?page=1

The locals don't like it....again, the big issue is use of land.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Mar 20, 2014)

Locals don't like.....anything lol


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 20, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Locals don't like.....anything lol



I read some of the FB posts and some of them were pretty funny. "The resorts are so crowded...I don't ski there, but that's what I hear."  Folks really don't understand crowds....they should try Wachusett or Killington on a holiday!


----------



## snoseek (Mar 20, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Locals don't like.....anything lol




It's easy to put yourself in their shoes really.

My dad first took me on a road trip out there somewhere in the late 80's. The resorts were all basically the same size with some exceptions (mineral basin, canyons) and there was really very few people hiking the backcountry, they had all that snow and everone just assumed Colorado or Tahoe was the goto spot. Then word started catching on, my time in the 90's there was noticeably busier...people were starting to hike for fresh lines. Then the Olympics....

Now its become the goto destination area for skiers all over, the Wasatch is a long but this strip of land and not all of it gets that nice consistent snowfall like lcc/bcc general area. There's that slice of powder heavy sweet BC that's sooo close to the city that big developers drool over I imagine. A project like this will squeeze them just a little bit more while attracting yet even more people without giving them anywhere else to go.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 20, 2014)

snoseek said:


> It's easy to put yourself in their shoes really.
> 
> My dad first took me on a road trip out there somewhere in the late 80's. The resorts were all basically the same size with some exceptions (mineral basin, canyons) and there was really very few people hiking the backcountry, they had all that snow and everone just assumed Colorado or Tahoe was the goto spot. Then word started catching on, my time in the 90's there was noticeably busier...people were starting to hike for fresh lines. Then the Olympics....
> 
> Now its become the goto destination area for skiers all over, the Wasatch is a long but this strip of land and not all of it gets that nice consistent snowfall like lcc/bcc general area. There's that slice of powder heavy sweet BC that's sooo close to the city that big developers drool over I imagine. A project like this will squeeze them just a little bit more while attracting yet even more people without giving them anywhere else to go.



Yeah I don't have a real historic perspective since I've been out here for three years, but I don't buy the whole "wilderness" line because if you drive up to Guardsman Pass on any weekend it looks like Walmart on Black Friday.  It really comes down to land use disputes.  And, by the numbers, Utah is still WAY behind Colorado in terms of skier visits.  So it is still unknown, but your point on a lot of people in a small area is legitimate.  Utah is one of the fastest growing states and outdoor sports are very popular here.


----------



## snoseek (Mar 20, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Yeah I don't have a real historic perspective since I've been out here for three years, but I don't buy the whole "wilderness" line because if you drive up to Guardsman Pass on any weekend it looks like Walmart on Black Friday.  It really comes down to land use disputes.  And, by the numbers, Utah is still WAY behind Colorado in terms of skier visits.  So it is still unknown, but your point on a lot of people in a small area is legitimate.  Utah is one of the fastest growing states and outdoor sports are very popular here.



Its pure powder greed no doubt. Skier visits way below Colorado but look on a map and look at the amount of Mountainous areas in Colorado VS. Utah...there's only so much land. Colorado could grow and grow....


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 20, 2014)

snoseek said:


> Its pure powder greed no doubt. Skier visits way below Colorado but look on a map and look at the amount of Mountainous areas in Colorado VS. Utah...there's only so much land. Colorado could grow and grow....



Yeah exactly. 

The proposal seems reasonable to me in terms of land use.  We're talking very small areas on private land.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Mar 20, 2014)

Just do it already.  In fact, don't just have transfer lifts but open up all the terrain.  An Alps like experience would be great.  It sucks to stay in little or big cottonwood.  Rather stay in Park City and be able to ski the other areas more easily.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 20, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Yeah exactly.
> 
> The proposal seems reasonable to me in terms of land use.  We're talking very small areas on private land.



Yup, pure and simple its a NIMBY-esque complaint those in opposition have with this.  The economic benefit to the area could be HUGE if this can be worked out though


----------



## 4aprice (Mar 20, 2014)

snoseek said:


> I selfishly don't want to see it happen only because I want the people on the back to stay there. LCC and BCC are getting pretty crowded. Then again that would be a fun day jumping around



I agree 100%.  In my situation I usually stay at the front 4 anyways.  The 45 mins around the mountain isn't killer if you want to ski LCC/BCC.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## dlague (Jul 8, 2014)

*ONE Wasatch - Interesting concept*

I have been reading about this and wonder how the whole Par City issue impacts this?

*18,000 Acres, 100 Lifts, 7 Resorts, 1 Pass.*

http://onewasatch.com/?p=785


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 8, 2014)

Just merged the threads.  

Last season we saw PCMR/DV/Snowbird/Alta team up to compete against the Epic Pass by offering free days between the resorts for passholders.  Brighton and Solitude combined passes.  

ONE Wasatch is an effort by ALL the resorts, under the Ski Utah Banner, to interconnect.  It's been a long term dream.  AFAIK Vail Resorts supports it.  How it will work with Alta and Deer Valley's ban on snowboarding is interesting.


----------



## ss20 (Jul 8, 2014)

"Just a few short years from now, Utah’s corner of the mountain sports world could offer the same great skiing but with even better access and more options. ONE Wasatch envisions a four-season resort mountain playground that borrows the best efficiencies from decades-old European transportation ideas, incorporated in a Utah tradition of conservation and sustainability"


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 8, 2014)

Bring It

The turn earners can move to Montana if they want solitude.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 8, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Bring It
> 
> The turn earners can move to Montana if they want solitude.



Good we can bring all the illegal immigrants to your town & if you don't like it you can move on.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 8, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Good we can bring all the illegal immigrants to your town & if you don't like it you can move on.



Huh? 

Two different things there. Fwiw the connection points that need to be made won't consume that much land and no real prize bc spots that I'm aware of.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 8, 2014)

And just read today that Solitude applied for a permit to replace the Summit Double with a HSQ.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 9, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Good we can bring all the illegal immigrants to your town & if you don't like it you can move on.




put the bottle down boat


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 10, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> put the bottle down boat



As long as it doesn't affect you all's good.

Got it.


----------



## Edd (Jul 10, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Good we can bring all the illegal immigrants to your town & if you don't like it you can move on.



Is there a connection between illegal immigrants and this proposal? Just Googled it and not seeing anything.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jul 10, 2014)

Edd said:


> Is there a connection between illegal immigrants and this proposal? Just Googled it and not seeing anything.



Wouldn't expect you to.


----------



## mbedle (Jul 10, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Wouldn't expect you to.



I am so lost about this, what the heck is the connection with immigrants and One Wasatch?


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 10, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I am so lost about this, what the heck is the connection with immigrants and One Wasatch?


He's trying to equate deporting illegals to displacing a couple me first backcountry skiers. An odd comparison on every level.


----------



## mbedle (Jul 10, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> He's trying to equate deporting illegals to displacing a couple me first backcountry skiers. An odd comparison on every level.



Thanks AdironRider, I obviously didn't pick up on that. Still not sure how One Wasatch is going to displace anyone???


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 10, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Thanks AdironRider, I obviously didn't pick up on that. Still not sure how One Wasatch is going to displace anyone???



I honestly don't think so.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 9, 2014)

Update on OneWasatch:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/58389385-90/ski-lift-canyons-plan.html.csp

The plan has been released:







Note that the lift configuration at Alta and Snowbird is probably 15 years off.....

http://onewasatch.com/


----------



## ss20 (Sep 9, 2014)

Everytime I see this plan I laugh.  It's more insane and impossible than Otten's plan at the Balsams.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 9, 2014)

Except its really not that hard. 

This would require about as much physical effort to connect Killington and Pico ultimately. Although the legal wrangling might be a wash between act 250 in VT and Nimby bc folks out in SLC.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 9, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> Except its really not that hard.
> 
> This would require about as much *physical effort *to connect Killington and Pico ultimately. Although the legal wrangling might be a wash between act 250 in VT and Nimby bc folks out in SLC.



Key words being physical effort. Not sure how bad the environmental politics are in UT


----------



## ss20 (Sep 9, 2014)

Rigghhhttttt... because if Canyons can't build simple connecting gondola then this is totally feasible.  

And I believe the reason why the Canyons-Solitude gondola was shot down was because of the backlash from the backcountry enthusiasts who that thought saving a few acres of precious BC terrain was more valuable than eliminating an hours drive to the other side of the canyon.  And the environmentalists didn't like it either....


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 9, 2014)

ss20 said:


> Rigghhhttttt... because if Canyons can't build simple connecting gondola then this is totally feasible.
> 
> And I believe the reason why the Canyons-Solitude gondola was shot down was because of the backlash from the backcountry enthusiasts who that thought saving a few acres of precious BC terrain was more valuable than eliminating an hours drive to the other side of the canyon.  And the environmentalists didn't like it either....



The OneWasatch Plan really does not involve THAT much additional terrain.  A big reason why SkiLink has been tabled was because of the reaction to Talisker's attempt to buy/obtain the federal land and the "go around" move to get the Feds to give them the land.  That was what sparked anger.


----------



## ScottySkis (Sep 9, 2014)

ss20 said:


> Rigghhhttttt... because if Canyons can't build simple connecting gondola then this is totally feasible.
> 
> .  And the environmentalists didn't like it either....



You know I dont get the enivionmentaists they say we should not cut down trees for trails but look at how many carraie trails are on all the hiking trails through out the counrty they do not complain about these.


----------



## ss20 (Sep 9, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> The OneWasatch Plan really does not involve THAT much additional terrain.  A big reason why SkiLink has been tabled was because of the reaction to Talisker's attempt to buy/obtain the federal land and the "go around" move to get the Feds to give them the land.  That was what sparked anger.



Neither did SkiLink.  This is 4 skilinks.


----------



## x10003q (Sep 10, 2014)

This version might actually happen. The planned lifts now is seem to be on private land. It would be great to visit the other areas without worrying  about cars/buses/closed roads due to snow.  It also might open up Alta to snowboarders.:-o


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 10, 2014)

ss20 said:


> Neither did SkiLink.  This is 4 skilinks.



Again, a large part of the furor with SkiLink was that Talisker tried to get the feds in DC to simply hand over the land to them.  That was what pissed off folks.  

The OneWasatch idea has been around for a long, long time.  Only now are we getting the specifics as to where they want to link.  The Grizzly Gulch connection is not "wilderness" or remote backcountry as some suggest.  Nor is Guardsman Pass.  Go up there any weekend in the warm weather months and there are cars everywhere.  In the winter it is snowmobile mecca.  From what I see they want to run two commuter lifts in each location such that folks are not going to be skiing in those areas but riding lifts.  

Personally a part me would like to see this because the Utah ski areas do a lot for our economy here.  But a part of me will admit that I'd like less people in LCC.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 20, 2014)

An Op-Ed in favor of One Wasatch:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58530387-82/ski-resorts-became-french.html.csp


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 11, 2014)

The latest:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1808614-155/ski-accord-mountain-resorts-skiing-wasatch


----------



## darent (Nov 12, 2014)

TTB, so what is your best guess if One Wasatch will be a go at this point.


----------



## itsnowjoke (Nov 13, 2014)

ss20 said:


> Rigghhhttttt... because if Canyons can't build simple connecting gondola then this is totally feasible.
> 
> And I believe the reason why the Canyons-Solitude gondola was shot down was because of the backlash from the backcountry enthusiasts who that thought saving a few acres of precious BC terrain was more valuable than eliminating an hours drive to the other side of the canyon.  And the environmentalists didn't like it either....



Hey!  My first post here!  Just to clarify some issues.  First, a bit about me.  I'm a 50ish, lifelong skier.  I grew up in Oregon and learned to ski at Hoodoo, then raced at Bachelor.  I used to hike to glaciers to summer ski in the Cascades before the Palmer lift was installed at Timberline.  Then I spent summers skiing at Timberline.  I went on to ski and race at Montana State in Bozeman, where I ended up living at the bases of both Bridger Bowl and Big Sky -though not concurrently!  It was droughty during the years I was there, I moved to Tahoe, where I spent over 20 years skiing everywhere, but mainly Squaw, Rose, and Diamond Peak.  I now live at the base of Canyons Resort in Park City.  My skiing pursuits have been augmented with a massive amount of climbing, backpacking, hiking, etc.  It may be said that I'm the biggest fan of connecting the Utah resorts, but that's not true.  But I AM it's biggest online fan, I've been a proponent of Skink and now One Wasatch for several years now.   So enough about me!

The comment that I quoted above is not remotely accurate.

In order to build Skink, a 30 foot swath of Forest Service land needed to be obtained in order to build the lift.  This was going to require an act of Congress.  When Skilink was proposed, Talisker -the owners of both Canyons Resort and the land under Park City Mountain Resort- had no inkling that Park City Mountain Resort would fail to renew it's lease.  This changed everything.  Not only did Talisker own all of the land under PCMR, but they also own large swaths of land in Big Cottonwood Canyon connected to PCMR.  

In short, Vail is leasing both Canyons and PCMR from Talisker.  Phase one of One Wasatch is proposed to be completed this coming summer, with the connection of those two resorts.  Park City Mountain Resort can now be linked to Brighton on private property. -No act of Congress required!  Brighton is of course already linked to Solitude, and Deer Valley -which just bought Solitude- need only to drop it's boundary rope to be connected to Park City.  In fact, in a recent interview the owner of Deer Valley stated that they worked with PCMR in designing the current lifts so the resorts could be connected one day.  So five of the resorts could be connected in very short order.  I am admittedly a bit weak on my knowledge of the Solitude / Alta connection, but understand that it should be easy as well.

Now to address the backlash from the backcountry and environmental enthusiasts:  Yes, there is some.  And they are extremely vocal, angry, and well-organized.  But they don't count for a significant fraction of those who support One Wasatch.  Most folks don't relate to those who would rather hike up the hill to ski it rather than ride lifts.  And the arguments they use are mostly based on the fear of the unknown rather than substantiative fact.  Most folks get that.  I partake in backcountry skiing, (yeah, sometimes I'd rather hike than ride lifts) and so do many of my ski partners.  Most -but not all- are in favor of One Wasatch.  In fact, I'm actually surprised at how many are, given that I think I'm going to get a negative reaction from someone I haven't seen in a while. -But I don't.  Most favor an interconnect!

One Wasatch has the potential to link seven world-class ski resorts by using only five lifts.  We have the opportunity to create what could arguably be the greatest ski resort on the planet, combined with the greatest snow on earth.  And that's why I'm for it!  www.onewasatch.com


----------



## ss20 (Nov 13, 2014)

I wanna believe it.  I wanna move out to Sandy, UT someday.  Get a pass to Alta/Snowbird, and have easy access to Park City.  Supporters may be strong, but opposition is usually stronger.  Hopefully I'm wrong.  

Welcome to the forum, and how the hell did you hear about AZ if you live in Utah?!


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 13, 2014)

ss20 said:


> I wanna believe it.  I wanna move out to Sandy, UT someday.  Get a pass to Alta/Snowbird, and have easy access to Park City.  Supporters may be strong, but opposition is usually stronger.  Hopefully I'm wrong.
> 
> Welcome to the forum, and how the hell did you hear about AZ if you live in Utah?!



I work in Sandy. There are some nice neighborhoods there and access is great.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 13, 2014)

darent said:


> TTB, so what is your best guess if One Wasatch will be a go at this point.



I dunno. It's not a new issue. There is interest between the areas...to some degree. And it sounds like some opposition groups might be softening up. PC and Canyons will connect as soon as this summer. That leaves two connections really (PCMR/DV to Brighton; Brighton to Alta).


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 13, 2014)

*From Utah: Park City Resorts Wish to Connect (UPDATED 2014 for ONE WASATCH Pr...*

Another interesting thought: Ski Link is dead. I wonder if Talisker was trying to buy Solitude and backed off when POWDR handed PCMR back to them? Wouldn't it be interesting if another result of the Talisker/POWDR lawsuit was that OneWasatch comes about? As I said it's closer now with an inevitable PCMR/Canyons link. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## RISkier (Nov 14, 2014)

I'm curious if all the resorts get linked what will happen to the "ski only" policies at Deer Valley and Alta?


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 14, 2014)

RISkier said:


> I'm curious if all the resorts get linked what will happen to the "ski only" policies at Deer Valley and Alta?



DV won't change; Alta has implied that it may reconsider.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## moguler6 (Nov 14, 2014)

I'm scared of what the 7 mountain 1-day ticket is going to cost? 

I'm definitely a fan of the connections.  As they sit, I will never ski PCMR, Canyons, or DV again.  If they're all connected, I might pop over to hit a couple things or it could be fun to tour them all when the conditions aren't great.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 14, 2014)

moguler6 said:


> I'm scared of what the 7 mountain 1-day ticket is going to cost?
> 
> I'm definitely a fan of the connections.  As they sit, I will never ski PCMR, Canyons, or DV again.  If they're all connected, I might pop over to hit a couple things or it could be fun to tour them all when the conditions aren't great.



Honestly though nobody is going to buy such ticket.  It is not feasible.  By the time one rides all the way over to Snowbird from PC they will have to turn around and go back.


----------



## trackbiker (Nov 14, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> By the time one rides all the way over to Snowbird from PC they will have to turn around and go back.



That's why I don't get the whole big push for this thing. You can't really ski any of those areas in one day. Will a lot of people really use the interconnection? The areas really aren't that far apart that you couldn't just ski one area one day and drive or take a shuttle to another for the next day. I think a joint ticket with a free shuttle between areas would be a better and less costly idea.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 14, 2014)

trackbiker said:


> That's why I don't get the whole big push for this thing. You can't really ski any of those areas in one day. Will a lot of people really use the interconnection? The areas really aren't that far apart that you couldn't just ski one area one day and drive or take a shuttle to another for the next day. I think a joint ticket with a free shuttle between areas would be a better and less costly idea.



That is very true.  I think that it works for areas that are adjacent to each other and thus more feasible.  

But let's get right down to what this is about: marketing.  Whistler is awesome, but part of its cache is that it is so big.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Nov 14, 2014)

If you've been to Europe, you would understand why this could be a spectacular idea.  There really is no better place to stay In Utah than Park City.  There is just so much more flexibility to choose where to ski if you can jump on a lift or lifts.  Consider a group or family with mixed abilities.  In my case, I would much rather prefer to ski Alta/Snowbird.  But family members of friends may prefer Deer Valley or Park City.  If they are interconnected and the cost is reasonable, I could fairly easily decide at any moment during the ski morning, to go over to another POD by myself or with a subset of the group.  Without the interconnect, everybody has to commit to skiing in 1 place for the entire day.  

What I love about Whistler is you literally do not get in a car for the entire week.  You still have to take feeder lifts to get to the terrain from the base.  But that is preferable to getting in a car and driving for an hour.


----------



## trackbiker (Nov 14, 2014)

I agree on the marketing aspect. Even if they don't use it Americans want the biggest of everything.
Europe is a whole different animal. While they have transfer lifts they are not anything like what is planned for One Wasatch.


----------



## moguler6 (Nov 14, 2014)

DoublePlanker said:


> Consider a group or family with mixed abilities.  In my case, I would much rather prefer to ski Alta/Snowbird.  But family members of friends may prefer Deer Valley or Park City.  If they are interconnected and the cost is reasonable, I could fairly easily decide at any moment during the ski morning, to go over to another POD by myself or with a subset of the group.  Without the interconnect, everybody has to commit to skiing in 1 place for the entire day.
> 
> What I love about Whistler is you literally do not get in a car for the entire week.  You still have to take feeder lifts to get to the terrain from the base.  But that is preferable to getting in a car and driving for an hour.



For these exact reasons.  Ski a few runs with friends and family to keep them happy and time to go hit the good stuff.  I'm always driving around to ski L/B Cottonwoods and usually irritate whomever I'm on the trip with by the end of the stay because I never ski with them.  It's exactly what I love about Whistler.  Keeps the masses happy but also has things to go scare myself on.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Nov 14, 2014)

trackbiker said:


> That's why I don't get the whole big push for this thing. You can't really ski any of those areas in one day. Will a lot of people really use the interconnection? The areas really aren't that far apart that you couldn't just ski one area one day and drive or take a shuttle to another for the next day. I think a joint ticket with a free shuttle between areas would be a better and less costly idea.



Evaluating OneWasatch through the lens of the ability to ski all 7 resorts in one day is silly.  As a practical matter, very few people will want to do that outside of some sort of self-flagellating ego trip.  What will be tremendously interesting is the opportunity to ski both LCC and BCC in the same day via a quick ride up Grizzly.  Or the ability of skiers based in PC to get over into BCC where there is more snow and better terrain.  When you're only going one canyon over, it's a relatively quick trip in, and easy trip back out to where you started.  BCC resorts will be the big winners in this, IMHO, b/c they off opportunities to go in both directions.


----------



## CoolMike (Nov 14, 2014)

When this is done I'm certainly coming back to Utah.  Stay at Park City and ride over to the little and big CCs.  Even if it takes 4 or five long lifts and four or five trails its better than driving up to Snowbird.  Putting your boots on in your room, hopping a quick shuttle to the nearest lift, and riding to Snowbird sounds awesome.  Packing your car full of stuff and navigating the traffic and parking at Snowbird is less awesome.

Plus, I'd love to take a really quick peak at the other resorts in the area as I only got a chance to ride around PCMR and Snowbird.  First day at Snowbird was almost life changing it was so good!


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 14, 2014)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Evaluating OneWasatch through the lens of the ability to ski all 7 resorts in one day is silly.  As a practical matter, very few people will want to do that outside of some sort of self-flagellating ego trip.  What will be tremendously interesting is the opportunity to ski both LCC and BCC in the same day via a quick ride up Grizzly.  Or the ability of skiers based in PC to get over into BCC where there is more snow and better terrain.  When you're only going one canyon over, it's a relatively quick trip in, and easy trip back out to where you started.  BCC resorts will be the big winners in this, IMHO, b/c they off opportunities to go in both directions.



Spot on TW.  When you look at the skier numbers, the PC areas and LCC areas get a lot of traffic.  So having BCC absorb some of that will help.


----------



## trackbiker (Nov 14, 2014)

I agree that it would be a nice option for letting members of the same party ski different areas or to try different areas from the same base. I just don't think it would be utilized all that much after the novelty wore off.
Does the Slide Brook Express run on weekdays? This is a similar transfer lift.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Nov 14, 2014)

Really?  Park City is the place to stay in Utah.  Its a ski town.  BCC and LCC have almost nothing for lodging/dining.  Once the lifts are in place, if the cost is ok, I think most people would prefer to ski over than take a bus/drive a car.  Its not like the skiing is bad in between.  Its way more fun to go top to bottom on Park City ski area than to sit in a car.


----------



## benski (Nov 14, 2014)

trackbiker said:


> I agree that it would be a nice option for letting members of the same party ski different areas or to try different areas from the same base. I just don't think it would be utilized all that much after the novelty wore off.
> Does the Slide Brook Express run on weekdays? This is a similar transfer lift.



It used to only run on weekends. Last year they ran it 5 days a week.


----------



## darent (Nov 14, 2014)

It would be great to ski in park city and  go over the hill to brighton and solitude without the van ride.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Nov 14, 2014)

trackbiker said:


> I agree that it would be a nice option for letting members of the same party ski different areas or to try different areas from the same base. I just don't think it would be utilized all that much after the novelty wore off.
> Does the Slide Brook Express run on weekdays? This is a similar transfer lift.



What is the "this" you are referring to?  The only plan that had any similarity to Slide Brook was SkiLink, and that is now dead.  The One Wasatch plan does not feature any transfer lifts.  Rather, it includes real lift and trail pods on mostly north and west facing aspects in BCC/LCC.   In other words, several hundred acres on some of the best skiing terrain the US has to offer.  

How exactly is that similar to Slide Brook?


----------



## ss20 (Feb 4, 2015)

ss20 said:


> Everytime I see this plan I laugh.  It's more insane and impossible than Otten's plan at the Balsams.





AdironRider said:


> Except its really not that hard.
> 
> This would require about as much physical effort to connect Killington and Pico ultimately. Although the legal wrangling might be a wash between act 250 in VT and Nimby bc folks out in SLC.





ss20 said:


> Rigghhhttttt... because if Canyons can't build simple connecting gondola then this is totally feasible.
> 
> And I believe the reason why the Canyons-Solitude gondola was shot down was because of the backlash from the backcountry enthusiasts who that thought saving a few acres of precious BC terrain was more valuable than eliminating an hours drive to the other side of the canyon.  And the environmentalists didn't like it either....





thetrailboss said:


> The OneWasatch Plan really does not involve THAT much additional terrain.  A big reason why SkiLink has been tabled was because of the reaction to Talisker's attempt to buy/obtain the federal land and the "go around" move to get the Feds to give them the land.  That was what sparked anger.





ss20 said:


> Neither did SkiLink.  This is 4 skilinks.





thetrailboss said:


> Again, a large part of the furor with SkiLink was that Talisker tried to get the feds in DC to simply hand over the land to them.  That was what pissed off folks.
> 
> The OneWasatch idea has been around for a long, long time.  Only now are we getting the specifics as to where they want to link.  The Grizzly Gulch connection is not "wilderness" or remote backcountry as some suggest.  Nor is Guardsman Pass.  Go up there any weekend in the warm weather months and there are cars everywhere.  In the winter it is snowmobile mecca.  From what I see they want to run two commuter lifts in each location such that folks are not going to be skiing in those areas but riding lifts.
> 
> Personally a part me would like to see this because the Utah ski areas do a lot for our economy here.  But a part of me will admit that I'd like less people in LCC.



You guys owe me money.  



> One Wasatch, the massive plan to turn the central Wasatch mountains into one of the world’s largest playgrounds, may not happen at all now.“One Wasatch” is being opposed by environmental groups and backcountry enthusiasts who are pushing back against further development.



http://unofficialnetworks.com/2015/02/plan-to-link-ski-resorts-may-be-on-hold-now


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 4, 2015)

ss20 said:


> You guys owe me money.
> 
> 
> 
> http://unofficialnetworks.com/2015/02/plan-to-link-ski-resorts-may-be-on-hold-now



Why is that?  I'm not surprised that there is opposition.  It is a dispute over land use.


----------

