AARoads Forum

Article from Fox 13: Toll roads proposed for Little and Big Cottonwood Canyons (http://fox13now.com/2018/01/09/toll-roads-proposed-for-little-and-big-cottonwood-canyons/)

QuoteFaced with increasing congestion inside two of the state's most popular canyons, the president of the Utah State Senate is proposing turning Little and Big Cottonwood canyons into toll roads.

"The congestion we face in those canyons is extreme," said Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy.

QuoteIn an interview with FOX 13 on Tuesday, he specifically named the Cottonwood canyons as toll roads.

"Tolling is going be a big part of what we do to incentivize people to carpool and get on a bus to get up Little Cottonwood Canyon," he said.

Interestingly, they seem to be open to the idea of tolling other roads as well:

QuoteFaced with a growing population and continual demands on Utah's roads, the Senate President acknowledged more roads across the state could be tolled.

"Tolling is actually going to be a bigger part of what we deal with our roads. We’re going to double in population over the next 30 years, and we’re going to need to have these kind of tools in our tool belt," he said.

Niederhauser’s bill, S.B.71 (https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0071.html), passed the committee unanimously, and now goes to the full state senate, according to this more recent article (http://fox13now.com/2018/01/24/toll-roads-are-moving-forward-in-utah/).

Hm.  Strange thing is that in the winter, I thought they had a shuttle system set up for skiers.  At least, that is the way it was last I went skiing up there a couple of decades ago.

The bill passed, according to this article on KSL (https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46271048&nid=148):

Quoteit will be at least two years before Utahns see electronically monitored toll roads in the state, including in Little Cottonwood Canyon, where construction on an additional lane is set to start.

But here's the big change that was made, which is that tolls can now be expanded to any state road:

QuoteThe bill had been amended in the Senate to expand tolling to any state road, not just those that are newly constructed or expanded, as a way to increase transportation revenues.

"This is not a rush to go out and put toll roads all across the state," Rep. Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, the House sponsor of SB71, said during the House debate. He said it did not specify where tolls would be imposed.

"It does not enact tolls on Utah roads," Schultz said. "It does not install toll booths."

Schultz said the state doesn't want to be caught "flat-footed" as gas tax revenues dwindle with the emergence of alternative fuel vehicles. The gas tax covers about 50 percent of roadwork in the state, while the rest comes from the general fund.

Alternatively, couldn't there be an extra tax on alternative fuel vehicles to replace the gas tax, instead of requiring all cars to pay the tolls?

QuoteThe measure allows the Utah Department of Transportation to establish tollways on new or expanding roads as well as existing ones. It also allows the use of cameras and video technology to monitor toll roads and enforcement of high-occupancy vehicle lanes.

I'm all for policing the current HOV/HOT lanes better. I'd especially like if they could catch people who crossed the double-white line, but I'll take anything to improve enforcement of that lane.

QuoteNiederhauser said the state will have "so many possibilities when we have electronic tolling because it's technology," suggest the high occupancy vehicle lanes on I-15 could be converted to electronic monitoring.

That would enable drivers who don't have passengers to be charged in more than just a single HOV lane, Niederhauser said, "maybe all the lanes at some point and it will be congestion pricing" that's higher in heavier traffic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to put up new tolls on Interstate highway general purpose lanes?

---

Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:24:37 AM
Hm.  Strange thing is that in the winter, I thought they had a shuttle system set up for skiers.  At least, that is the way it was last I went skiing up there a couple of decades ago.

There are park-and-ride lots on Wasatch Blvd with shuttles that go up the canyons, but they fill up fast and most people just drive up the canyons themselves.

Quote from: roadguy2 on March 02, 2018, 07:08:43 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to put up new tolls on Interstate highway general purpose lanes?

It makes it ineligible for Federal funding, but it's not strictly prohibited.

Quote from: roadguy2 on March 02, 2018, 07:08:43 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to put up new tolls on Interstate highway general purpose lanes?

For now, but with Trump's infrastructure proposal, I don't expect that prohibitin to last much longer.

Absurd for me to pay tolls for a road my taxes also paid for.  Double whammee.

Quote from: Rothman on March 02, 2018, 09:57:18 PM
Absurd for me to pay tolls for a road my taxes also paid for.

Why is that absurd?  Especially when the revenue goes to improving and maintaining that road?

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 04, 2018, 06:29:40 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 02, 2018, 09:57:18 PM
Absurd for me to pay tolls for a road my taxes also paid for.

Why is that absurd?  Especially when the revenue goes to improving and maintaining that road?

See the rest of the post that you did not quote.

It's the old "double taxation" argument Rothman is making. Here's a suggestion: What if the option were to just pay tolls for the road instead of paying gas taxes and tolls for the road? Get rid of the gas taxes altogether. Would that be more fair, in your opinion?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 05, 2018, 04:37:46 PM
It's the old "double taxation" argument Rothman is making. Here's a suggestion: What if the option were to just pay tolls for the road instead of paying gas taxes and tolls for the road? Get rid of the gas taxes altogether. Would that be more fair, in your opinion?

Absolutely.  I have always said tax me or toll me, but never both.

I prefer taxes.  Tolls are often higher, they have issues with shunpikers increasing traffic on parallel roads, and I can't use many toll roads outside of the E-ZPass area because I won't do bill by mail (due to a combination of not wanting to pay extra fees to pay a toll and the many, many horror stories on AET facilities).  Plus tolls introduce strange situation where I have to pay to go anywhere due west, due south, or to the east, but not north or southwest (plus in NYC there's a ton of congestion due to a similar situation causing people to bridge shop instead of taking whichever one is the most logical to get between their origin and destination).

Quote from: vdeane on March 06, 2018, 01:18:38 PM
I prefer taxes.  Tolls are often higher, they have issues with shunpikers increasing traffic on parallel roads, and I can't use many toll roads outside of the E-ZPass area because I won't do bill by mail (due to a combination of not wanting to pay extra fees to pay a toll and the many, many horror stories on AET facilities).  Plus tolls introduce strange situation where I have to pay to go anywhere due west, due south, or to the east, but not north or southwest (plus in NYC there's a ton of congestion due to a similar situation causing people to bridge shop instead of taking whichever one is the most logical to get between their origin and destination).

East shouldn't be a problem for you. The Mass Pike is about 5¢ per mile using E-ZPass. You're only increasing costs by about 25% if you also consider gasoline costs and per-mile maintenance costs.

The main Thruway ticket system has approximately that rate (for NY E-ZPass), but the MassPike is actually closer to 7 cents per mile for an out of state E-ZPass.

I regularly drive between Albany and Rochester to visit family.  The tolls are $9.50 (approximately) each way.  The trip (round trip) uses about a tank of gas, which I can usually fill up for about $25, so the tolls add quite a bit.  I can't say I've ever factored in per-mile maintenance into the cost of a roadtrip, but I do know that tolls are the biggest in-your-face expense I have (since gas stations don't tell you how much the tax is, and my car only holds 12 gallons anyways, so the price of gas would have to swing by a LOT for me to notice).

In any case, it's still odd that I have to pay more to go to New Jersey, Boston, or Syracuse, while Binghamton and Montréal are "free".

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 04, 2018, 06:29:40 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 02, 2018, 09:57:18 PM
Absurd for me to pay tolls for a road my taxes also paid for.

Why is that absurd?  Especially when the revenue goes to improving and maintaining that road?

It's absurd because either ALL roads must be tolled or none.  There is no way I can get a gas tax waiver for the mileage I spend on a tolled facility.  It creates geographical unfairness within the region, which one area paying a disproportionately-higher tax rate than other areas with untolled facilities.

It sounds silly, but the week I spent in Chicago:  The Tri-State Toll Road scared me the hell right out of the state.  If I had to live in the midwest, I'd sure be more at ease in Des Moines than anywhere in Illinois.  We've been killin' it with the economy out west, and I think untolled facilities are a huge part of that.  It's gonna be a big mistake turning the west into the Northeast, imo.   Big mistake.

Need to GPS my mileage?  Fine.  As long as it is uniform on ALL roads (like the gas tax).  None of this double-dipping nonsense.

Quote from: i-215 on March 07, 2018, 02:29:29 AM
It sounds silly, but the week I spent in Chicago:  The Tri-State Toll Road scared me the hell right out of the state.  If I had to live in the midwest, I'd sure be more at ease in Des Moines than anywhere in Illinois.  We've been killin' it with the economy out west, and I think untolled facilities are a huge part of that.  It's gonna be a big mistake turning the west into the Northeast, imo.   Big mistake.

That's quite the specious argument.

Strange to cite Illinois as an example against tolling when the toll roads are in way, way better shape than pretty much all the 'free' interstates.
That's the end I care about.  Is the physical road good? 

As an example, if ISTHA took over I-55, that would be marvelous.  They'd whip that POS into shape in barely a decade.

I think that says more about Illinois than about tolling.  One can also cite Pennsylvania.  And Indiana.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 10, 2018, 09:06:08 AM

Quote from: i-215 on March 07, 2018, 02:29:29 AM
It sounds silly, but the week I spent in Chicago:  The Tri-State Toll Road scared me the hell right out of the state.  If I had to live in the midwest, I'd sure be more at ease in Des Moines than anywhere in Illinois.  We've been killin' it with the economy out west, and I think untolled facilities are a huge part of that.  It's gonna be a big mistake turning the west into the Northeast, imo.   Big mistake.

That's quite the specious argument.

Strange to cite Illinois as an example against tolling when the toll roads are in way, way better shape than pretty much all the 'free' interstates.
That's the end I care about.  Is the physical road good? 

As an example, if ISTHA took over I-55, that would be marvelous.  They'd whip that POS into shape in barely a decade.

You driven in Arizona, Utah, or Nevada (states that actually fund maintenece).  I'll take a Vegas freeway over an Illinois toll road ANY day.

That said, the Illinois toll roads weren't bad.  I certainly didn't mean that.  But have you driven on US-41?  It sucks.  Pretty much every north-south running road that "competes" with the toll road is in HORRIBLE shape (as opposed to east-west ones which were strangely good).  It probably wasn't intentional, but there's such an over-reliance on tolling there, other roads have suffered.

When roads are funded with fuel taxes or other universal user fees, the maintenance is more equitable across the entire network.

Show me a bad freeway in Utah.  In Arizona.  In Nevada.

When you only have to maintain half-a-dozen of them, it really isn't a good comparison.

Quote from: Rothman on March 15, 2018, 07:54:46 AM
When you only have to maintain half-a-dozen of them, it really isn't a good comparison.

Utah, Nevada, and Arizona also largely don't have to deal with the stresses freeze/thaw cycles and plowing put on roads.

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 15, 2018, 10:56:39 AM

Quote from: Rothman on March 15, 2018, 07:54:46 AM
When you only have to maintain half-a-dozen of them, it really isn't a good comparison.

Utah, Nevada, and Arizona also largely don't have to deal with the stresses freeze/thaw cycles and plowing put on roads.

What about the mountainous areas of those three states?

Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2018, 01:24:55 PM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 15, 2018, 10:56:39 AM

Quote from: Rothman on March 15, 2018, 07:54:46 AM
When you only have to maintain half-a-dozen of them, it really isn't a good comparison.

Utah, Nevada, and Arizona also largely don't have to deal with the stresses freeze/thaw cycles and plowing put on roads.

What about the mountainous areas of those three states?

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 15, 2018, 02:12:06 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2018, 01:24:55 PM

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 15, 2018, 10:56:39 AM

Quote from: Rothman on March 15, 2018, 07:54:46 AM
When you only have to maintain half-a-dozen of them, it really isn't a good comparison.

Utah, Nevada, and Arizona also largely don't have to deal with the stresses freeze/thaw cycles and plowing put on roads.

What about the mountainous areas of those three states?

That may be true for southern Arizona and Vegas, but pretty much everywhere in Utah except for the low-elevation valleys around St. George sees at least a few significant snowstorms in a year (in fact, Salt Lake City gets 50 inches of snow a year on average). The same goes for northern Nevada.

Utah, Nevada and Arizona have their truck traffic and they have their winters, but not even SLC gets the kind of frost in the ground we do in the upper Midwest.  And none of those states move the volume of trucks that Chicago area interstates do.  There are so many more heavily traveled, nationally-important interstate highways.  I think it's apples and crab apples.

Sure Nevada has better interstates; there's only two of 'em.  Illinois has more mainline interstates than NV, AZ and UT combined; both in quantity and mileage (pretty sure they got more miles; just thinking off the top of my head.  If not, it's gotta be close.)

Mountains are their own beast, but only affect short portions of highways in those states.

Equatable maintenance is a double-edged sword.  Fine when a state is doing it well.  But if they suck, it all goes to shit.  We're finding that out up here in WI.

ABC 4 ran an article today (https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/possible-toll-coming-to-little-cottonwood-canyon/) suggesting a toll may be implemented in Little Cottonwood Canyon by 2022:

QuoteCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, Utah (ABC4 News) – If you’ve been up to the Cottonwood Canyons, you’ve probably noticed the red snake of cars along Wasatch Boulevard up to the ski resorts during the winter months.

The Utah Department of Transportation is looking to mitigate the traffic and make it easier to get up to places like Little Cottonwood Canyon.

John Thomas with UDOT is in charge of the Environment Impact Statement. He says, “UDOT has taken the approach to look at Little Cottonwood Canyon to see what options are available to help improve transportation.”

Quote“One of the ways we are trying to improve transportation up Little Cottonwood Canyon is getting people to carpool, to use transit, to find ways to get fewer vehicles up and down the canyon,” says Thomas.

UDOT may institute a toll by 2022 as a result of the study.

In the recent Environmental Impact Study update, UDOT states:

“Roadway elements do not meet current design standards; for example, shoulders that are narrow, and horizontal and vertical curves that are steep and/or sharp,” and “Limited parking at trailheads and ski areas leads to on-road parking that reduces mobility and safety for all users.”

Here we go again...

That is stupid. It is cheap way for the state to price out the poorer and working class population so they can pat themselves on the back. The tolls aren't about maintaining the road, that is already being done with taxes folks already pay. It is about pricing people out to reduce traffic congestion and that is a horrible practice, IMO.

Is the US 40/189 a suitable corridor for a toll road? Although I've never been to Utah, I would think tolling should be implemented in places with more traffic, such as along Interstates 15 and 80.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2020, 06:27:51 PM
Is the US 40/189 a suitable corridor for a toll road? Although I've never been to Utah, I would think tolling should be implemented in places with more traffic, such as along Interstates 15 and 80.

No.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 08, 2020, 03:20:23 PM
That is stupid. It is cheap way for the state to price out the poorer and working class population so they can pat themselves on the back. The tolls aren't about maintaining the road, that is already being done with taxes folks already pay. It is about pricing people out to reduce traffic congestion and that is a horrible practice, IMO.

It should be noted that in winter, most people driving up that canyon are about to drop a bunch of money on a ski pass or hotel up there. Otherwise, I fully agree with this - it's a state highway that goes through a national forest; those are public resources that everybody should be able to enjoy. I also don't like it because people actually live up the Cottonwoods. No way would I want to retire to Alta if I have to pay a toll every time I get groceries.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2020, 06:27:51 PM
Is the US 40/189 a suitable corridor for a toll road? Although I've never been to Utah, I would think tolling should be implemented in places with more traffic, such as along Interstates 15 and 80.

Tolling would most certainly not be appropriate for these corridors. Not to mention I-15 and 80 would lose federal funding in that case.

No buts about it–tolling the Cottonwood Canyons is overkill, and it's ultimately just another source of income to the state. If I had my way, I would like to see this put to a public vote.

How likely is it that this passes? Utah didn't strike me as a toll friendly state. Does the state have tolls apart from express lanes?

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2020, 01:51:33 PM
How likely is it that this passes? Utah didn't strike me as a toll friendly state. Does the state have tolls apart from express lanes?

Two non-HOT toll roads currently exist in the state: the Adams Avenue Parkway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams_Avenue_Parkway) and the causeway to Antelope Island. Adams Avenue is privately owned and maintained; the Antelope Island Causeway is maintained by Davis County, but most people don't notice as the toll is lumped in with the state park entrance fee. If this winds up happening, it will make SR 210 the first state-run toll road.

As reported by KSL this week: UDOT proposes 3 options to ease Little Cottonwood Canyon traffic (https://www.ksl.com/article/46761418/udot-proposes-3-options-to-ease-little-cottonwood-canyon-traffic)

Quote
The first alternative is an enhanced bus service that would run 24 UTA buses as frequently as every five minutes, driving directly to each of the resorts.

The second idea is enhanced bus service in a dedicated shoulder lane.

“In the summer we could use it for pedestrians and for bicyclists,” Gleason said.

The most ambitious idea is a 35-person gondola that would take skiers and snowboarders from the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon all the way to Snowbird and Alta, carrying 1,000 people an hour. It would be the longest gondola in the world: around eight miles long.

“It’s exciting. It’s daunting,” said Gleason. “A lot of people will have an opinion about it, and that’s what this whole process is about.”

If either of the busing alternatives is selected, UDOT would build several snow sheds to protect the road and the people driving on it.

“A snow shed is a concrete structure that is built over the road,” Gleason said. “It functions as a garage or a roof over the road so that if an avalanche happens the cars can pass underneath. ”

Mobility hubs, which are essentially large parking lots, would be built on Wasatch Boulevard to enable people to park and access each of those alternatives.

UDOT also plans to widen and improve Wasatch Boulevard, improve trailhead parking and eliminate some roadside parking.

SR 210 is one of the most avalanche-prone highways in the country, so snow sheds would be a welcome addition. No word so far on whether tolls would still be considered with any of the alternatives.

Oh man part of me really hopes they build the gondola. I am happy to see gondolas taking a more serious role in transportation. They can fill a good niche.

I thought the bus system worked well last I went skiing up there.

Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2020, 01:31:41 PM
I thought the bus system worked well last I went skiing up there.

Clearly you haven't skied up there for a while. UTA does have a ski bus system, but not many people use it because it doesn't save any time or money over driving yourself up. Buses don't do much good if they have to sit in the same traffic as the cars do - and that traffic has gotten pretty bad within the past five years or so. Especially if there's been fresh snow in the past couple days, driving up either canyon on a weekend can be brutal. Add in a snowstorm and traffic can back up all the way onto I-215 at exit 6.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 16, 2018, 11:38:05 AM
...

Sure Nevada has better interstates; there's only two of 'em.

...

Try three (I-11, I-15 & I-80). And I-580 is now of a significant length to count it like a 2di as well.

Update on this project:

QuoteCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, Utah — In the winter weeks ahead, traffic in Little Cottonwood Canyon will surge as skiers and snowboarders head to the resorts.

Looking for long-term solutions, officials with the Utah Department of Transportation now have two new transportation ideas to consider as a result of public feedback during the summer.

Both options would dramatically change transportation in the canyon.

- https://ksltv.com/449448/udot-considering-gondola-cog-railroad-to-reduce-little-cottonwood-canyon-traffic/

Quote from: SSR_317 on June 13, 2020, 08:03:13 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 16, 2018, 11:38:05 AM
...
Sure Nevada has better interstates; there's only two of 'em.
...

Try three (I-11, I-15 & I-80). And I-580 is now of a significant length to count it like a 2di as well.

But it was only two mainline interstates when the original comment was written...

Of course we have pushback against any proposed improvements. The solution from the hikers is to encourage mass transit use with no road widening or gondola. It's worth noting any road widening would specifically be for busses.

https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/utah-climbers-push-back-on-new-ideas-put-forth-for-little-cottonwood-canyon/

Looks like UDOT is going with the Gondola which makes me very happy. I wish we would see more of these in the states: https://unofficialnetworks.com/2022/09/01/little-cottonwood-canyon-gondola-chosen/

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 01:39:06 PM
Looks like UDOT is going with the Gondola which makes me very happy. I wish we would see more of these in the states: https://unofficialnetworks.com/2022/09/01/little-cottonwood-canyon-gondola-chosen/

This is actually a travesty that will ruin the scenery, especially the classic view coming out of the canyon.

There had been a vote that came out against the gondola, so the proposal going forward is being construed as going against the public's wishes.

And then there's the whole issue of the financial burden resting upon the taxpayers rather than the resorts...

Meh, I go there all the time and I don't think it'll ruin the scenery. Sure it'll add a manmade structure but that's about it it'll still be fairly low profile. The public doesn't always think in its best interests.

Pfft.  I've also gone up the canyons frequently.  Took this photo earlier this year.

The idea of a gondola, with its cables and pylons, ruining this view and the canyon sickens me.  It's sacrificing the year-round attraction of the canyons for increasing capacity and profits of the ski resorts at the expense of taxpayers.  This isn't a project that is in the public's interest.  It is purely in the private interest.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52329814993_e97d945b5f_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nJcYRx)

I think it'll still look good. There are hundreds of canyons like this you can go to that won't have gondolas.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 09:29:17 PM
I think it'll still look good. There are hundreds of canyons like this you can go to that won't have gondolas.

You are wrong.

Quote from: Rothman on September 02, 2022, 09:30:26 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 09:29:17 PM
I think it'll still look good. There are hundreds of canyons like this you can go to that won't have gondolas.

You are wrong.

I'm driving to Zion for the weekend I'll respond to this nonsense when I get to the hotel.

Here's what I posted on Twitter in response to a post about the gondola plan:

Quote
Speaking as a skier who has been fortunate to have the chance to ski in Utah a few times (would like to be able to go more!), I'm thinking I'd find a gondola ride up and back much more pleasant than a drive or a bus ride up and back, especially on a busy day or in snowy weather.

I mean this as a standalone statement, acknowledging that such a gondola would affects views, might have insufficient capacity, might move parking/traffic problem elsewhere, that someone has to pay to build/maintain/operate, etc.  Just that if I had the two options available to me, I would see myself choosing the gondola ride.

Quote from: Jim on September 02, 2022, 09:41:57 PM
Here's what I posted on Twitter in response to a post about the gondola plan:

Quote
Speaking as a skier who has been fortunate to have the chance to ski in Utah a few times (would like to be able to go more!), I'm thinking I'd find a gondola ride up and back much more pleasant than a drive or a bus ride up and back, especially on a busy day or in snowy weather.

I mean this as a standalone statement, acknowledging that such a gondola would affects views, might have insufficient capacity, might move parking/traffic problem elsewhere, that someone has to pay to build/maintain/operate, etc.  Just that if I had the two options available to me, I would see myself choosing the gondola ride.

"Don't hate me for my opinion!" :D

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 09:32:24 PM

Quote from: Rothman on September 02, 2022, 09:30:26 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 09:29:17 PM
I think it'll still look good. There are hundreds of canyons like this you can go to that won't have gondolas.

You are wrong.

I'm driving to Zion for the weekend I'll respond to this nonsense when I get to the hotel.

No matter your location, you'll still be wrong. :D

Quote from: Rothman on September 02, 2022, 11:12:43 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 09:32:24 PM

Quote from: Rothman on September 02, 2022, 09:30:26 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 09:29:17 PM
I think it'll still look good. There are hundreds of canyons like this you can go to that won't have gondolas.

You are wrong.

I'm driving to Zion for the weekend I'll respond to this nonsense when I get to the hotel.

No matter your location, you'll still be wrong. :D

we'll see about that

I'm not a fan, and not just for the "how dare you ruin my view". If the idea was to mitigate avalanche closures, they should have built snow sheds on 210. This is not going to solve weather issues - chairlifts and gondolas and things of that sort can't run in high winds, which are fairly common in the mountains and often come along with the storms that tend to cause the biggest avalanche issues on 210. Given how often the ski resorts up there have wind holds on their existing lifts, this is a very real issue that gondola proponents seem to have conveniently ignored.

This also gives no thought to all the people that go up this canyon to do something other than ski at Snowbird or Alta. Plenty of people snowshoe or backcountry ski or whatever in the lower and middle canyon. Buses could at least stop at the big trailheads whereas a gondola obviously can't. And whatever restrictions/tolls get put on 210 to incentivize people to use the gondola are going to apply to everyone. I see it as a scheme to convert those people currently using our public lands for free into paying customers at private ski resorts.

And even at maximum capacity, the gondola can only carry 35 people up every 2 minutes. For something that's going to cost over a half billion dollars, I expect better.

Quote from: Rothman on September 02, 2022, 11:12:43 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 09:32:24 PM

Quote from: Rothman on September 02, 2022, 09:30:26 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 09:29:17 PM
I think it'll still look good. There are hundreds of canyons like this you can go to that won't have gondolas.

You are wrong.

I'm driving to Zion for the weekend I'll respond to this nonsense when I get to the hotel.

No matter your location, you'll still be wrong. :D

Many would find the canyon already ruined as there's an ugly highway going down it. I'm sure the view on busy traffic days is far uglier. I personally think a gondola would look far more peaceful than a highway.

Gondolas can also move large numbers of people as cities like La Paz and Bogota in South America have proved. They can also have stops along the way; this map of La Paz (https://www.howlanders.com/blog/en/bolivia/la-paz-cable-car-information/) shows how an entire city can be connected by gondolas.

Kids, kids, kids... you're BOTH wrong.

Let's settle this with the obvious answer:  Convert SR-210 in a FULL FREEWAY, with interchanges!   :bigass:

(https://i.imgur.com/Vr2F9SJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LvkhKt5.png)

Quote from: i-215 on September 26, 2022, 07:26:16 PM
Kids, kids, kids... you're BOTH wrong.

Let's settle this with the obvious answer:  Convert SR-210 in a FULL FREEWAY, with interchanges!   :bigass:

(https://i.imgur.com/Vr2F9SJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LvkhKt5.png)

You monster!

Good point on evil gondolas destroying everything.  Note how California and the rest of the civilized world have boycotted France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and Austria because of their many aura ruining gondolas.  Backwards countries that never cared about aesthetics or the environment.  Who can enjoy the Alps nowadays? 

No denying that gondolas cause climate change, too.

But look nearby at how gondolas destroyed Albuquerque.  Once they erected that on Sandia Peak the angry residents revolted.  No longer able to live and work in peace with such a monstrosity hulking over their midst, they turned to a life of crime that continues to this day.  Heed their warning or prepare for Straight Outta Cottonwood!

We aren't talking about a glorified ski lift that goes up a mountain like those in the Alps, but one that will be the means of transportation through a canyon.  It will ruin the scenic nature of the canyon, myopically only caring about getting people to the private ski resorts rather than the various other recreational activities that people participate in year round...all at taxpayer expense.

Yeah, I just drove through here a few weeks ago. I don't think it'll ruin the natural beauty at all. I also think it'll bring more people closer to nature, which is always great. At any rate, there are tons of other natural areas around Salt Lake City that won't have these horrible gondolas you can go to.

Ski areas are hardly natural areas.

Quote from: i-215 on September 26, 2022, 07:26:16 PM
Kids, kids, kids... you're BOTH wrong.

Let's settle this with the obvious answer:  Convert SR-210 in a FULL FREEWAY, with interchanges!   :bigass:

(https://i.imgur.com/Vr2F9SJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LvkhKt5.png)

"Doesn't 210 take you to West Valley and Magna?"

"No, that's 201."

"Oh."  😉

Quote from: Rover_0 on September 27, 2022, 02:51:00 PM

Quote from: i-215 on September 26, 2022, 07:26:16 PM
Kids, kids, kids... you're BOTH wrong.

Let's settle this with the obvious answer:  Convert SR-210 in a FULL FREEWAY, with interchanges!   :bigass:

(https://i.imgur.com/Vr2F9SJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LvkhKt5.png)

"Doesn't 210 take you to West Valley and Magna?"

"No, that's 201."

"Oh."  

You mean 21st... ;D

Quote from: Rothman on September 27, 2022, 03:18:33 PM

Quote from: Rover_0 on September 27, 2022, 02:51:00 PM

Quote from: i-215 on September 26, 2022, 07:26:16 PM
Kids, kids, kids... you're BOTH wrong.

Let's settle this with the obvious answer:  Convert SR-210 in a FULL FREEWAY, with interchanges!   :bigass:

(https://i.imgur.com/Vr2F9SJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/LvkhKt5.png)

"Doesn't 210 take you to West Valley and Magna?"

"No, that's 201."

"Oh."  

You mean 21st... ;D

Someone's showing their age... :-D

UDOT has released all the comments regarding the gondola: https://ksltv.com/510856/udot-releases-all-comments-on-the-little-cottonwood-canyon-gondola-there-are-over-13000/

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 08, 2022, 04:18:13 PM
UDOT has released all the comments regarding the gondola: https://ksltv.com/510856/udot-releases-all-comments-on-the-little-cottonwood-canyon-gondola-there-are-over-13000/

More comments than the I-81 Viaduct Project in Syracuse.