Boycott Alta and Snowbird?

Posed as a question because I want to get a feel for the room. UDOT has made it clear they're in favor of the LCC Gondola, and in spite of a really admirable public comment campaign on the part of thousands of Utahns, the SLCA, and the Access Fund, there is a very strong chance this is going to go forward. 

Many, many others before this have demonstrated there is a lot of money behind the Gondola option, not least of which is coming from Alta and Snowbird and their associated business partners. Worst of all, as taxpayers in Utah, we will be forced to pay for the gondola's construction (to the tune of 500 million dollars), even though most of us will not benefit from it, some of our climbing areas will be either destroyed or access impeded by it, and the resulting increase in tourist traffic up the canyon will outrageously benefit Alta and Snowbird. 

If money is where the conversation starts, what impact would the Utah outdoors community have on this project if we actually worked on a boycott to the two resorts who stand to gain the most from this project? 

Obviously one or two ski bums refusing to hit up Alta for one season isn't going to make a difference, but I'm thinking more along the lines of a bigger movement. Gear Room already hands out stickers like crazy of Calvin pissing on Gondola Works, and as far as I can tell those are super popular. Well, why not hit them where it actually hurts? Stop blaming Gondola Works and start looking at who really put their money behind this project and will be making a fortune from it?

Fuck Alta and Snowbird

Fuck Yeah Gondola!

Is there a better source of info than the link provided that confirms loss of climbing access?  They’re quite vague on that point, and use the word “potentially.”

Is there a concrete (har har) plan out there that’d close climbing areas during construction?

The Traddest Dad wrote:

Posed as a question because I want to get a feel for the room. UDOT has made it clear they're in favor of the LCC Gondola, and in spite of a really admirable public comment campaign on the part of thousands of Utahns, the SLCA, and the Access Fund, there is a very strong chance this is going to go forward. 

Many, many others before this have demonstrated there is a lot of money behind the Gondola option, not least of which is coming from Alta and Snowbird and their associated business partners. Worst of all, as taxpayers in Utah, we will be forced to pay for the gondola's construction (to the tune of 500 million dollars), even though most of us will not benefit from it, some of our climbing areas will be either destroyed or access impeded by it, and the resulting increase in tourist traffic up the canyon will outrageously benefit Alta and Snowbird. 

If money is where the conversation starts, what impact would the Utah outdoors community have on this project if we actually worked on a boycott to the two resorts who stand to gain the most from this project? 

Obviously one or two ski bums refusing to hit up Alta for one season isn't going to make a difference, but I'm thinking more along the lines of a bigger movement. Gear Room already hands out stickers like crazy of Calvin pissing on Gondola Works, and as far as I can tell those are super popular. Well, why not hit them where it actually hurts? Stop blaming Gondola Works and start looking at who really put their money behind this project and will be making a fortune from it?

It would be a miniscule number of locals boycotting, resulting in zero impact. The time to do this would have been before we bought our season passes. Even then it would be tilting at windmills.

Might as well boycott all major ski resorts. Support only the independent/family owned. Use your expensive lift tix money to get a snow machine and touring gear. That’s where it’s at. 

I applaud the sentiment of your post, but if you're looking at economics, it's fair to point out how much money trickles down into the greater Salt Lake region by those "evil" ski areas.   Of course the decision was made that benefits their interests; it's important to many people's lives locally.

I favored the (much more expensive) light rail option.  It works well in Europe.  It seemed to me to be the best long term solution.

The gondola is a compromise solution that is less than ideal, but was cheaper.    

As someone who lives at the mouth of LCC, I feel like something needed to be done to change the current status quo.  Traffic and canyon access during the ski season is bad.  

I don't know what contingencies are in the gondola plan for backcountry skiers and ice climbers.  Hopefully, those of us who are doing other things in the canyon besides skiing at the resorts won't be negatively impacted.  

F Wheeler wrote:

Is there a better source of info than the link provided that confirms loss of climbing access?  They’re quite vague on that point, and use the word “potentially.”

Is there a concrete (har har) plan out there that’d close climbing areas during construction?

Any campaign relying on arguments of "environmental marginalization and injustice" loses all of its credibility in my eyes.  

I remember the days when the LDS church was quarrying in LCC for the granite that they used to build the Conference Center on Temple Square.  

There were some areas that were temporarily impacted.  The biggest issue for me was climbing delicate slabs and never knowing when a big dynamite blast would shake the canyon.  

Good luck with that. Local Alta and Snowbird skiers are the same people who insist on driving their own vehicle up there on powder days, clogging the road and polluting the air. Although I do have one buddy who was a chef up there who made it a point to hitchhike, every time he skied or went to work. I'm against the gondola, but locals need to pull their heads out of their asses where their own contribution to the mess is concerned.

LL2 wrote:

Good luck with that. Local Alta and Snowbird skiers are the same people who insist on driving their own vehicle up there on powder days, clogging the road and polluting the air. Although I do have one buddy who was a chef up there who made it a point to hitchhike, every time he skied or went to work. I'm against the gondola, but locals need to pull their heads out of their asses where their own contribution to the mess is concerned.

The gondola proposal cites a DOT study that says that “up to 7,000 vehicles (cars, trucks and buses) go up and down Little Cottonwood Canyon per day…these vehicles produce 70 tons of carbon.”

Anything that gets mass numbers of combustion engines off the roads peaks my interest.  I know people are worried about the view, but the gondola sort of looks like a more environmentally friendly option than the status quo here.

Kai Larson wrote:

The biggest issue for me was climbing delicate slabs and never knowing when a big dynamite blast would shake the canyon.  

Interestingly, the anti-gondola bus plan calls for dynamiting an area equating to 50 acres (UDOT environmental analysis) in order to widen the road for more buses…

https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.utah.gov/draft-eis/

F Wheeler wrote:

Is there a better source of info than the link provided that confirms loss of climbing access?  They’re quite vague on that point, and use the word “potentially.”

Is there a concrete (har har) plan out there that’d close climbing areas during construction?

Everything is potential because there is no exact plan at this point. Just a preliminary design. Until there is hard money, there is no hard design. For instance, the EIS does not discuss access roads to the towers for construction or maintenance. Absolutely nothing is mentioned about rescue/extraction in case of a emergency.

F Wheeler wrote:

Interestingly, the anti-gondola bus plan calls for dynamiting an area equating to 50 acres (UDOT environmental analysis) in order to widen the road for more buses…

https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.utah.gov/draft-eis/

That option is no longer being considered. That is no road widening of SR210. Wasatch would be widened.

F Wheeler wrote:

I know people are worried about the view, but the gondola sort of looks like a more environmentally friendly option than the status quo here.

F, I can understand how it might look like that, but you've got to understand Utah and how things work there, both in terms of the politics and the people. This is a taxpayer boondoggle of the highest order in a state that is especially good at taxpayer boondoggles. Look up the Lake Powell pipeline, the prison move, the inland port, etc. Then about the status quo, that's where the people come into the equation. For any Alta or Snowbird skier that rides the bus, I could show you probably 50 who would never consider it. I'm kind of making that number up, but I'll put it another way: none of my skiing friends when I lived there ever took the bus. They all drove. "Oh, the inversions aren't so bad, you've just got to go up the canyon (in your car) and get above it". LOL.

There's a lot that could be done better than the status quo, but it starts with individual choice (fail) and ends with politics (fail). UDOT only looked at two possibilities and it's pretty obvious their mind was made up from the start. That gondola, if built, will be an eyesore from virtually any point in the canyon, a financial boondoggle, will destroy a good bit of LCC's classic boulders, will destroy and impair a lot of critical watershed (access roads to all the towers, as Allen alludes to), and turn a relatively small canyon that is amazingly wild for its proximity to such a population center into Disneyland. Will dynamite less than the road? Not even considered was the possibility of adding a few selective passing lanes where it would be possible to do so with lesser environmental impact. Notice how it was pitched as "gotta dynamite a hell of a lot of wilderness to expand the road"? I would offer that it all could have been acheived through buses alone, without widening the road. But I'll never know that for sure, because that wasn't even on the table.

If I sound cynical, it's because I am. I lived in Utah for 27 years, increasingly holding my nose for the air, the politics, and stuff like this gondola. But I finally left. My hat's off to those who remain and fight the good fight. My hat's not even tipped to all the local skiers who oppose this gondola, yet never ride the bus to go skiing.

LL2 wrote:

 I would offer that it all could have been acheived through buses alone, without widening the road. But I'll never know that for sure, because that wasn't even on the table.

This is the “phased approach” recommended by UDOT. 

Gotta vote. Utah keeps electing its own worst enemies.

If ya want the most economical and environmentally friendly option then you just make the canyon strictly for buses and people that work at the resorts. Thus, everybody is forced to take public transit. No need to widen roads as the traffic is severely reduced. Increase the bus frequency & stops in the canyon (at every major TH). Create sticker pass for canyon workers. I'd wager that the 500 million might go a bit further (a shit ton) with this option. Also, could be implemented much faster. 

Yes we're a car focused population, but I have a feeling folks would adapt when given no other option...

Will M wrote:

If ya want the most economical and environmentally friendly option then you just make the canyon strictly for buses and people that work at the resorts. Thus, everybody is forced to take public transit. No need to widen roads as the traffic is severely reduced. Increase the bus frequency & stops in the canyon (at every major TH). I'd wager that the 500 million might go a bit further (a shit ton) with this option. Also, could be implemented much faster. 

Yes we're a car focused population, but I have a feeling folks would adapt when given no other option...

This. Simple, cheap and way more effective.

Will M wrote:

If ya want the most economical and environmentally friendly option then you just make the canyon strictly for buses and people that work at the resorts. Thus, everybody is forced to take public transit. No need to widen roads as the traffic is severely reduced. Increase the bus frequency & stops in the canyon (at every major TH). I'd wager that the 500 million might go a bit further (a shit ton) with this option. Also, could be implemented much faster. 

Yes we're a car focused population, but I have a feeling folks would adapt when given no other option...

UTA cannot hire enough drivers as it is let alone for increased bus service. In fact UTA has curtailed ski bus operations this year, including eliminating one of the Midvale lines and the bus stop at GMD.

Marc801 C wrote:

UTA cannot hire enough drivers as it is let alone for increased bus service. In fact UTA has curtailed ski bus operations this year, including eliminating one of the Midvale lines and the bus stop at GMD.

I’m pretty sure some small part of the $500m could be used to hire drivers. Maybe we should pay them a fair wage?

The Traddest Dad wrote:

Well, why not hit them where it actually hurts? Stop blaming Gondola Works and start looking at who really put their money behind this project and will be making a fortune from it?

Not sure that's Alta or Snowbird.  More likely land owners at the base of LCC where the parking structure would be located.  That and the construction folk who'll build it.

Tough fight as we're likely to host the olympics and Snowbird missed out in 2002.  I think they need an alternate transportation plan for the next go 'round.  Hence, the push for a gondola.  IMHO.

Cottonwood Heights folks have a bigger dog in this hunt than Sandy...given that's where the traffic would end up (and kinda already is given how backed up their exit off 215 gets on powder daze).

Kinda interesting to scroll through the comments posted by UDOT.  All 13k of them.  Hopefully will help.  The pessimist me thinks this is likely a done deal unless someone really does a decent study of how little a gondola would make a dent in folks getting to the ski areas.  Folks who won't ride a bus won't use the gondola.  

Given the reservations and paid parking imposed by the resorts, the ski areas have nearly solved the traffic problem anyhow.  Add a toll both, a current scoreboard with available resort parking and snow sheds and the gondola is dead.