Little Cottonwood Canyon UDOT Draft Transportation Alternatives - Public Comment Period

UDOT released their environmental impact study's draft for transportation alternatives in LCC here https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.utah.gov/ The summary can be found here.

It includes 3 options:

1. Enhanced bus service
2. Enhanced bus service with roadway widening
3. Gondola

Here's an incomplete screenshot of a map of the options from the summary pdf:


I might be wrong, the map makes it seem like the gondola could impact climbing in lower LCC

All 3 options feature 2 mobility hubs:


There is a 35 day comment period from June 8 - July 10, 2020

The public may submit comments on the draft alternatives in writing at
public meetings and through mail, email, or on the project website

James thanks for all your effort to summarize. 

I dont understand how the O&M costs of the "enhanced bus only" option is higher than the O&M costs of the "enhanced bus + roadway widening" option. If you are running the same number of enhanced buses in both scenarios, then the option that has more road to maintain should have higher costs, right?

Dylan Pike wrote: I dont understand how the O&M costs of the "enhanced bus only" option is higher than the O&M costs of the "enhanced bus + roadway widening" option. If you are running the same number of enhanced buses in both scenarios, then the option that has more road to maintain should have higher costs, right?

That's a great point. This is total guess and doesn't make complete sense, but maybe it's because it will cost more to manage snow/avalanche debris when the road isn't widened?

Of note: any changes to road capacity in the lower canyon will surely impact roadside bouldering. UDOT isn't exactly in the business of moving boulders in ways that allow for preservation of rock climbing.

And James, wouldn't a gondola be the least likely to affect climbing in the canyon?

I am a transportation engineer, though not on this project. What I can say is that an environmental impact study (EIS) is one of the first steps in a very long process. Don't expect to see anything shown here in the next 5 years at best. Detailed study of the alternatives identified will be next, then initial design, final design, and finally construction. That is just the reality transportation work. All that being said, getting involved as the public early is the best way to get your concerns documented and considered. Right now, the cost of a change to an alternative is very low and those in charge are more likely to listen.

Again, I am not working on this project or even work in Utah. However, the way the environmental impact process is the same everywhere.

I read through the EIS for the first time this am. Overall I would say it's a typical EIS missing some key points not to mention mistakes such as the one Dylan has pointed out regarding in Table 2-23. Level 2 Screening Results. My best guess is that the numbers are reversed.

A personal comment, the issue is private businesses, Alta and Snowbird have created a traffic congestion issue that is on average an issue 39 days a year (51 max) that they want the public to solve via a ~$300-$500 million solution. So the first question that really should be asked but is to a certain degree outside of the scope of the EIS is what will be the funding mechanism so those businesses can continue to profit?

Regardless of the alternative there will still be a significant number of vehicles going up and down the canyon - Table 2-22. Level 2 Screening Alternatives. As such it is disingenuous not to put the cost of snow sheds into the gondola option. That said the overall costs really need to be presented with some finer detail.

A couple comments about the gondola, it is going to be overbuilt and under utilized. To get the speed and distance between towers needed, the 3S system was selected. And though the maximum distance between towers may be 9000 feet that is for an ideal alignment, which I doubt is realizable. The other to consider is the impact to climbing all along the north side of LCC from Bong Eater to the Black Pealer, There will be visible impacts from towers and cables as well as noise impacts.

Next consider the base location, which would be at the current park and ride at the mouth of LCC. The other options are not feasible. So that means one has to park at a transit hub, schlep all their shit to the bus stop, wait for a bus, ride the bus for 10 minutes, schlep all their shit to the gondola stop, wait for a gondola, ride the gondola for 30 minutes. If the cost is $15 per person which is cheap compared to similar, that is $30 for two people. Parking at Solitude was $20 so there will be little motivation to ride a gondola even if there was a toll of $10 per vehicle to drive up the canyon.

Regarding the transit hubs, the EIS is talking about the gravel pit. That would be great but what no one is talking about is when that private property might be available. Could be decades before it is played out. Missing was using a piece of property just down the road - the Old Mill Golf Course. Which is already public property and available now, which is really needed. If done correctly it could serve as transit hub for weekend skiing but also light rail or other transportation down the east side of the valley during the week.

IMHO, the real option is increased bus service as the needs are on the weekends. So buses though specialized for the grade and snow, can be used for weekend riders but also used during the weekdays. They can be started now not years down the road. And in both canyons. How are they paid for? via a special tax on lift tickets that is no different than hotel room tax. At that point your lift ticket becomes your bus pass, not unlike the season passes are for some resorts now. Want to drive,  your options might be limited to before 8am or after 10am unless there are two or more people and you are will to pay a toll to be in the upper part of the canyon. Remember there are climbers, bikers, hikers, in the lower canyon year round that are not really an issue.

Food for thought ... take it with some salt.

Does anyone rember the mt accord?

in general once someone has to use a 3rd mode of transit, it fails. On this alone the gondola fails.

The other part of the plan to look at is potential modifications to the parking along the lower portion of LCC. It's my understanding that if Alternative A or Alternative C for parking is adopted, that it would eliminate roadside parking year round. Alternative A includes a reduction in total parking spaces at Gate Buttress, but an overall increase in spaces for Bridge Trailhead (e.g. to Pentapitch), Lisa Falls, and White Pine. Alternative C would remove all roadside parking, leaving just the gravel lots at Gate Buttress, Lisa Falls, and White Pine, and would certainly make it harder to access a large number of areas. Overall, it looks like most of these options reduce direct access to areas like Black Peeler, Lizard Head Wall, or 5 Mile Boulders. Though to be fair, if the shoulder lanes for the busses is added, during the summer it would be much easier to walk along the road (shoulder lanes would be available for pedestrians).

Folks should follow the lead of the Wasatch Backcountry Alliance on this issue.  They formed in response to the skilink debacle as well as other canyon centric concerns.

Carson Darling wrote: The other part of the plan to look at is potential modifications to the parking along the lower portion of LCC. It's my understanding that if Alternative A or Alternative C for parking is adopted, that it would eliminate roadside parking year round. 

There are two alternatives within those (look at the table), one eliminates the roadside parking with 1/4 mile of a trailhead, the eliminate road parking all together.

Reducing the parking at the Gate, and eliminating roadside parking is not feasible. On the other hand the Gate is private property (SLCA asked it to be looked at as it is a major access point). What UDOT did for study in the lower canyon was inadequate.

What I found a bit ridiculous was the huge expansion of Whte Pine parking without any accompanying data as to the carrying capacity of White Pine and Red Pine.

Allen Sanderson wrote:

There are two alternatives within those (look at the table), one eliminates the roadside parking with 1/4 mile of a trailhead, the eliminate road parking all together.

Reducing the parking at the Gate, and eliminating roadside parking is not feasible. On the other hand the Gate is private property (SLCA asked it to be looked at as it is a major access point). What UDOT did for study in the lower canyon was inadequate.

What I found a bit ridiculous was the huge expansion of Whte Pine parking without any accompanying data as to the carrying capacity of White Pine and Red Pine.

A shout out to the folks at SLCA  

The thing to remember about NEPA :LAWYERS , GUNS & MONEY,  the guns are obviously a metaphor for the experts that need to get hired.  

Allen Sanderson wrote:

There are two alternatives within those (look at the table), one eliminates the roadside parking with 1/4 mile of a trailhead, the eliminate road parking all together.

Reducing the parking at the Gate, and eliminating roadside parking is not feasible. On the other hand the Gate is private property (SLCA asked it to be looked at as it is a major access point). What UDOT did for study in the lower canyon was inadequate.

Agreed. my comment was mostly from a ski touring FB group, where someone was talking about whether or not roadside parking would be banned (either entirely or within 1/4 mile of parking areas) during the summer.

I do think that the study so far has not adequately addressed the warm weather use cases and is almost entirely focused on how to get more people to the ski resorts during peak usage. Unfortunately, as it currently stands there is definitely the possibility of reduction in available parking for climbing and hiking purposes. I very much agree with you that reducing the parking spaces at the Gate is not feasible based on how it's currently used. I'm not familiar with the requirements for building parking spaces, but my suspicion is that any developed lot (read paved, lined spaces) will be required to be less dense than the gravel lot just because of regulations. I do wonder if it would be possible to expand the overall size of the Gate lot. One of the goals specific to the parking issue is to "reduce or eliminate roadside parking to improve safety and operations".

Peak and seasonal congestion eternally a problem at ski areas. these business are keenly aware of their peak times and when they are busiest. Imo wasteful and ugly to build a gondola that is a permanent structure on the landscape when you're only dealing with a smallerl percentage of the days out of the year that are problems.  I would say go with a bus system mandatory on your peak days. Essentially Blackout dates for passenger cars.skiers are familiar with blackout dates concept. As long as there is a drive option people will underutilize a bus or gondola system . Most winter weekends and holidays would be blacked out--no passenger cars allowed in the canyon bus transit only. have Express buses that go straight to the mountain and have some that stop along the way at people's hotels properties etc. You could allow downhill traffic for cars that came on a weekday and need to leave weekend. Zion NP style.

Couper Gear wrote: Peak and seasonal congestion eternally a problem at ski areas. these business are keenly aware of their peak times and when they are busiest. Imo wasteful and ugly to build a gondola that is a permanent structure on the landscape when you're only dealing with a smallerl percentage of the days out of the year that are problems.  I would say go with a bus system mandatory on your peak days. Essentially Blackout dates for passenger cars.skiers are familiar with blackout dates concept. As long as there is a drive option people will underutilize a bus or gondola system . Most winter weekends and holidays would be blacked out--no passenger cars allowed in the canyon bus transit only. have Express buses that go straight to the mountain and have some that stop along the way at people's hotels properties etc. You could allow downhill traffic for cars that came on a weekday and need to leave weekend. Zion NP style.

What about backcountry skiers and ice climbers who aren't going to the resorts or anywhere near where a reasonable bus stop would be?

Dylan Pike wrote:

What about backcountry skiers and ice climbers who aren't going to the resorts or anywhere near where a reasonable bus stop would be?

The current options include fuck'all for these people. It's not about them, the resorts are driving the process and couldn't give 2 shits about those who don't give them $$.

Boissal . wrote:

The current options include fuck'all for these people. It's not about them, the resorts are driving the process and couldn't give 2 shits about those who don't give them $$.

My understanding is that the enhanced bus system includes stops at the trailheads along LCC. 

Edit: "Inclusive Transportation that Serves Dispersed Users. Buses and vans can provide transportation to trailheads, serving dispersed users. The gondola will not stop for you at the backcountry trailheads and as proposed will not be a year-round solution." source: https://wasatchbackcountryalliance.org/wba-supports-enhanced-bus-transportation-option-for-lcc/.. 

Hate to say it, but there is no good fix for the LCC problem.  But I think we should be really honest for who is actively making the problem worse, as Sanderson said above - the resorts.  They are asking us to pay for a problem they are making worse every year with more terrain, more lifts, more capacity, etc.

I'd love to say buses will be a fix, but you all know they won't.  Do the math: 1 bus = ~50 people (maybe. . )  peak hours are 8-10 = 2hrs  peak weekend days see 21k people. . . let's see that's about 210 buses running each hour between 8am-10am to get everyone up there.  That's a bus leaving every 15-20 seconds?  Round trip is like 60 minutes with stops?  So you would need about 210 buses to meet that need?  Think about that. . .

I get it, not everyone would ride the bus, not everyday is a peak day, some would be fine going up and arriving at noon, etc., etc., etc. but no matter how you slice it, if you have ever used UTA skibus, you know it's gonna take an F-load more buses than we normally run to put even a minor dent in the skier traffic.

The gondola sucks.  I hope there is no need to discuss it further.  Towers need maintenance, maintenance needs roads, noise, right of ways, no trespassing, finite number of people you can transport (see bus discussion above) etc., etc.

Fees suck - why should we turn OUR public lands into a playground for those better off?  BS.  How many of you have a smile on your face paying the fee to park up Albion and climb the castle while a guy whizzes by in his Range Rover to his chalet at 60 mph and doesn't have to pay?  And BTW - does that fee you pay even guarantee you a parking place?  No?  Well, some deterrent the fee is. .

The only way to help with congestion is limit how many people go up the canyon.  This means less resort infrastructure (more lifts/hotels/restaurants ALWAYS equals more cars), less road infrastructure (more lanes ALWAYS means more cars) and more ride sharing/busing/bikes/whatever.  It also means maybe we decide there is a capacity at the resorts which we shouldn't exceed.  Just like when you look at the wall of the movie theatre or restaurant there is a sign that says "maximum occupancy 180 people by order of Salt Lake Fire Department", maybe we could have something similar with the resorts. . .

Alternatively, maybe we the landowners should revoke the leases for public lands by one resort per canyon. . .

Slambo G wrote:

My understanding is that the enhanced bus system includes stops at the trailheads along LCC. 

Edit: "Inclusive Transportation that Serves Dispersed Users. Buses and vans can provide transportation to trailheads, serving dispersed users. The gondola will not stop for you at the backcountry trailheads and as proposed will not be a year-round solution." source: https://wasatchbackcountryalliance.org/wba-supports-enhanced-bus-transportation-option-for-lcc/.. 

Guess it's not too much of an issue in LCC since people only really ski out of White Pine. Maybe a GWI stop is needed for ice climbers?? Not sure the buses will be running early enough to satisfy most BC skiers though...

Boissal . wrote:

Guess it's not too much of an issue in LCC since people only really ski out of White Pine. Maybe a GWI stop is needed for ice climbers?? Not sure the buses will be running early enough to satisfy most BC skiers though...

A GWI stop makes sense, but there are plenty of other frozen objectives that would be quite a slog if we couldn't drive to them...

Dylan Pike wrote:

A GWI stop makes sense, but there are plenty of other frozen objectives that would be quite a slog if we couldn't drive to them...

Add a Lisa Falls stop then, should cover the vast majority of the ice in the canyon and allow access to the Y area & Hogum for skiers. A Tanner's stop would also be good for skiers, getting there from White Pine is no fun.