Little Cottonwood Canyon UDOT Draft Transportation Alternatives - Public Comment Period

Slambo Gwrote:

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/.. 

The current UDOT EIS proposal does not include stops along trailheads. It's certainly possible that stops would be added later in the process, but they are not currently in any of the alternatives that UDOT is proposing. During UDOT's public presentation, this question was explicitly asked, and the answer was that busses were express busses that only stopped at the resorts.

Carson Darlingwrote:

The current UDOT EIS proposal does not include stops along trailheads. It's certainly possible that stops would be added later in the process, but they are not currently in any of the alternatives that UDOT is proposing. During UDOT's public presentation, this question was explicitly asked, and the answer was that busses were express busses that only stopped at the resorts.

It's almost as if this entire process was designed purely to benefit the resorts while every other user group gets to fuck right off as they're not pumping $$ into the state's coffers via tax revenue. Who'd have thought?? I'm shocked Alta and Snowbird haven't tried to build a wall all along the canyon road so the only place to stop are the resorts themselves. Recreating on your public lands? Hell no. Gotta pay to play...

Actually Alta tried to play that game this winter claiming that there was no roadside BC access and any parking along the road was for Alta customers oniy. That didn't go too well for them but it's definitely indicative of their mindset (see the Parking tab in the WBA website linked upthread).

Boissal .wrote:

It's almost as if this entire process was designed purely to benefit the resorts while every other user group gets to fuck right off  ...

This point is something that needs to be driven home in folks comments. At present the current document does little to address dispersed users. Further, it does little to address dispersed users in the canyon during the winter months. UDOT seems to think that during the winter months people are not in the lower canyon. 

It's not easy to quantify disperse use in the canyon but most can qualify it's importance. With these draft alternatives, UDOT is putting climbers and BC skiers in a tight spot. They argue that the focus on mobility will create the space for us to drive while adding the constraints of reduced parking capacity and tolls but we can pay for a private shuttle while 12 buses and hour roar up and down the canyon? Then get dropped off at trail head parking that may or may not be engineered with transit and safe pedestrian crossings in mind. Not to mention they don't think it's worth looking at plowing of existing or proposed lots - the Gate parking was jacked with snow for weeks this Spring.  It's tough to see the positives for climbers, but to an extent, it's important to focus comments on improvements to the alternatives and what is to be studied further in more detail during the next phase.

And keep an eye in the rear view on the power players behind gondolaworks. A long shot to be the gondola alternative, but public/private funding could drive support from the legislature. At least it wouldn't supplant the park and ride? But it would create another layer of scarcity by being the quickest access while the road boils near capacity on powder days. Paid parking, concessions, lots of winter use and a tourist attraction with performing climbers to boot.

Highway widening would have significant impact on climbing resources. As stated in the second virtual public meeting, the expansion would be uphill and away from the creek to protect watershed. Check out the cut and fill plan from this preliminary design for the Gate parking to get a general sense of the potential impacts:

Thought folks would like to see this map (thanks Jonathan) of the gondola alignment: https://hdr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2c539e5c4e584584ab004d80f9b99089

Note the approximate tower locations in front of Crescent Crack and Gate Buttress. Now think how that will impact climbing. That is if one will even be allowed to climb that close to the tower/cable/cars.

I hadn't seen that gondola website but the funding source is clear. I'm not into the visual destruction of the lower canyon by this kind of thing. Would the counterpoint for doing a gondola be the ability to keep dispersed parking in the canyon? Thing is, even if the ski resorts bore all the costs of funding the gondola (which they wouldn't), a gondola still won't keep tons of people from driving in the canyon. Growth will only exacerbate things.

Driving home from bouldering up canyon last night and saw people parked in places I'd never imagined anyone would want to park. Many are bike trailheads (mostly unsanctioned by the F.S.). Many are climbing trailheads (technically, just as unsanctioned by the F.S.) Many are simply convenient places to pull off and take photos.

Anyone know why so many people are stopping across from the Campus boulder? What are they doing down there?

Dave Ellerwrote: 
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'm not going to dig into your math, but look at the EIS summary page at Factsheet

Their target carrying capacity for each alternative is ~3200 people per hour.  Enhanced bus gets a third of that total with "24 Bus Departures, 6 buses per hour, to each resort from each mobility hub."  IOW, one bus every 10 minutes from each of 4 starting points.  This seems very doable with minimal direct impact to the canyon.  The way to make buses work is to start limiting resort parking to employees only and a set number of pre-paid visitor slots on weekend ski days. No change to dispersed users.

I just sent in my comments, which mirrored the SLCA position.

Heavy sigh.  Yeah, its only a few days a year that the red snake is a huge deal.  And, its ski area traffic that's the issue (count me as part of that crowd with my Ikon pass).

I just cannot see a gondola at all.  I'd rather see partial or total tunnels.

And...after riding the bus a couple of times this last winter...ugh.  I hated it.  Especially standing.  One trip up BCC was 1.5 hours...after a full load of coffee at breakfast, you can bet I was hurtin' by the time I got to Solitude.  At least in a private vehicle I can sit and make do with that empty 'tater chip bag.

Snow sheds and tunnels.  If this was Europe...ha ha.  We already have a restaurant on top of Hidden Peak...(lost that battle, eh?).

Here's a random solution...we need a road and/or a tunnel from the Midway side.  Funnel the ski area traffic through Midway.  Big parking lots.  Get on a train that whisks you to BCC or LCC ski areas.

Or, punch in a road with snow shed and tunnels and have a big parking lot in the upper Snake Creek drainage.  Then, folks get on a lift to either BCC or LCC from there.

There's already a tunnel.  The Snake Creek Tunnel.  14,000 feet worth, that goes directly under Clayton Peak.  Built from 1910 to 1916.   With modern boring equipment, if the Euro's can drill a hole for a road all the way through the alps, you'd think we could get folks to the upper end of LCC and BCC.

Miners got mail between BCC and LCC throught tunnels between the canyons back in the late 1800's.

Come in from the back side!  No traffic issues in the canyons.  Watershed issues in the canyons?  Nada since the tunnel would come from the backside.  Voila.  

Anyhow...last day for this round of comments.  Get 'er done.

ddriverwrote:

I'm not going to dig into your math, but look at the EIS summary page at Factsheet

Their target carrying capacity for each alternative is ~3200 people per hour.  Enhanced bus gets a third of that total with "24 Bus Departures, 6 buses per hour, to each resort from each mobility hub."  IOW, one bus every 10 minutes from each of 4 starting points.  This seems very doable with minimal direct impact to the canyon.  The way to make buses work is to start limiting resort parking to employees only and a set number of pre-paid visitor slots on weekend ski days. No change to dispersed users.

No doubt that 24 buses per hour is a boat ton more than are running currently, HOWEVER, what bus have you been on that hold 130 people?  Their math doesn't add up. . .

I am totally on board with the last part of your comment!

Dave Ellerwrote:

No doubt that 24 buses per hour is a boat ton more than are running currently, HOWEVER, what bus have you been on that hold 130 people?  Their math doesn't add up. . 

How did you arrive at that 130 figure?
ddriver wrote:

Their target carrying capacity for each alternative is ~3200 people per hour.  Enhanced bus gets a third of that total with "24 Bus Departures, 6 buses per hour, to each resort from each mobility hub." 

Marc801 Cwrote: How did you arrive at that 130 figure?
ddriver wrote:

missed the 1/3.  My error.  Still, that's what we're getting rid of total?  3200?  Of 21,000?  Not much of a difference IMHO.

Why did this thread disappear from the lists?

jonathan knightwrote: Why did this thread disappear from the lists?

Huh? It’s on the front page recent post list right now. 

It popped back up after I posted last night. Wasn't visible for a few hours prior. I was able to find it in a search.

Just bad timing as the comment period was ending. Might have been user error on the part of the admin that removed driver's post.

Brian in SLCwrote: Here's a random solution...we need a road and/or a tunnel from the Midway side.  Funnel the ski area traffic through Midway.  Big parking lots.  Get on a train that whisks you to BCC or LCC ski areas.

Or, punch in a road with snow shed and tunnels and have a big parking lot in the upper Snake Creek drainage.  Then, folks get on a lift to either BCC or LCC from there.

There's already a tunnel.  The Snake Creek Tunnel.  14,000 feet worth, that goes directly under Clayton Peak.  Built from 1910 to 1916.   With modern boring equipment, if the Euro's can drill a hole for a road all the way through the alps, you'd think we could get folks to the upper end of LCC and BCC.

Miners got mail between BCC and LCC throught tunnels between the canyons back in the late 1800's.

Come in from the back side!  No traffic issues in the canyons.  Watershed issues in the canyons?  Nada since the tunnel would come from the backside.  Voila.  

Of course that would be amazing. Let the PC folks deal with it. Or the Midway people.... I'm sure they would looove more traffic through their communities, lol. 

By the way, I always heard about that tunnel. One of my friends from the early 90's claimed they rode a mountain bike through some super long tunnel in the upper Wasatch. I thought they were full of crap. Maybe they weren't.

Has anyone considered just letting it continue to be a fucking free for all? People can get up early or sit in traffic on powder days.

Snow Flakewrote: Has anyone considered just letting it continue to be a fucking free for all? People can get up early or sit in traffic on powder days.

That is called the "No change alternative" and it will be one of the alternatives.

Allen Sandersonwrote:

That is called the "No change alternative" and it will be one of the alternatives.

It’s actually the “no action” and is required by law.