It's been a while since we took a look at the proposed transportation alternatives for Little Cottonwood Canyon. We last visited this issue on June 9, 2020 (see Little Cottonwood Canyon Transportation Alternatives) when public comment was being sought on three proposed alternatives: enhanced bus with no additional roadway capacity, enhanced bus with roadway widening, and a gondola from the mouth of the canyon. All three include bussing enhancements along Highland Drive and Wasatch Boulevard.
UDOT actually received, identified, and evaluated 19 proposed alternatives from the public comments including everything from direct gondola to Snowbird and Alta from the gravel pit (eliminated as it would traverse wilderness areas) to a tunnel loop system with autonomous vehicles (eliminated due to a lack of existence of a fully operational system currently). A full run down is available in the addendum report issued in late November 2020.
Below is a summary of the five current alternatives.
Additionally, you can watch a summary on YouTube below.
I remain disappointed with all of the plans so far for three reasons.
First, there are no plans for stops anywhere in the lower or middle canyon. The only stops are at Snowbird and Alta. This is true even for the enhanced bus alternatives. For the gondola, it explicitly says no unloading or loading at the proposed Tanners Flat angle station. The ski areas are important, but Little Cottonwood is a multiuse canyon. We need to think beyond resort skiing and how we can transform access and recreation in the canyon in general.
Second, it appears this would only be a wintertime operation. If so, this is extremely shortsighted. The tricanyons (Mill Creek, Big Cottonwood, Little Cottonwood) are heavily used year round and parking in the summer is already untenable. The White Pine parking lot on a summer weekend day is filled by about 7:30 am and shortly thereafter cars are parked up and down the canyon for a half mile. What will it look like in 2050? Imagine summer operations and a stop or unloading point either at the current trailhead or at Tanners Flat, the latter with a newly constructed trail up the Pink Pine ridge to the Red Pine trail, enabling access to White or Red Pine Canyons.
Finally, there are some big numbers listed above. Anywhere from $334 million to $1.05 billion dollars in capital costs. How will this be paid for and how will these changes affect access to the canyon for lower income individuals and families?
If we are going to do this, we should aim for a "cake-and-eat-it-too" solution that benefits many and improves all recreation opportunities in Little Cottonwood.
It's also disappointing that that infographic doesn't show the different emissions levels from each option; decision makers are going to take one look at that and see that the cheaper bus option moves as many people as the gondola and rail options and just go with busses. I've heard UTA is looking to extend electric bus operations to the canyons, which we should absolutely do, so in that case I would definitely be more onboard with the bus idea.
ReplyDelete100% agree on year round operations. I saw on road parking extend over a mile in both directions on both sides of the road last summer on more than one occasion. And at least one (if not three) mid canyon stops needs to be a thing. I’ll be honest, I’m sad to hear the train talk again. Not that I don’t like the idea of a train, but it’s just so expensive (ie the same as our landmark transportation bill passed - which surprised at least a few given the price tag). I’m convinced the more we talk about the train the more nothing will happen ever. And we are already 2 decades too late here...
ReplyDeleteBuses and avalanche sheds. We should not spend huge amounts of public money to primarily make it easier to access what is now a luxury service that the majority of Utahns (especially low income valley residents) do not use. Its almost worse than publicly subsidized NFL stadiums. I love powder skiing in the cottonwoods, and feel for those who remember accessing it more easily, but the word is out. Get up early or late, ride the bus, or go to another ski area. There is not enough lift accessed skiing in the cottonwoods to justify something like a train. If there was vastly expanded skiing, diversified and expanded accomodations, and 10,000 more full time jobs then maybe, but that is not in line with USFS mandate and American mountain development ethos. As a disclaimer, I do not advocate for turning Alta into Verbier, and oppose any ski area expansions into the backcountry. IMO, the only place that model makes sense is Summit County Colorado, where a weather protected train should run from the airport and ski areas should expand.
ReplyDeleteWith no summer service and no stops other than Snowbird and Alta, the plans all seem designed to help Alta and Snowbird while disregarding the public, who are the owners of these lands. But isn't that what governments always do? Subsidize industry at public expense?
ReplyDeleteExcellent comments. I especially appreciate Anonymous @ 9:29 a.m. I've lived in Colorado a long time and the train to Summit County has been studied and studied and studied, along with the other various "alternatives" for decades. Nothing much happens. They end up doing a few band-aid things which never keep up with the increasing traffic on I-70 from the ever-expa ding expanding population of recreationists in the Front Range urban corridor. There is also increased traffic from commercial truckers, commuters, and contractors building stuff. Skiing/riding and going to the mountains in any season is supposed to be fun, and exhilarating, and it used to be a place to find some solitude. I recently escaped the Denver metro and moved to Southern Colorado where there is always more space between vehicles, and fewer furrowed brows and scowls and honking. I'm lucky, can work from home.
ReplyDelete