Preface: As an independent observer who has never skied in the State of Utah, but who understands the dynamics of the terrain, I think I can go on record here as an objective voice.
The way I see it, the Canyons/Solitude connection chairlift, called
SkiLink (
http://www.skilink.com/) should have no appreciable effect on backcountry access. It's a gondola with no intermediate station. There's a station at Solitude and there's a station at Canyons.
No unloading whatsoever.
The assertion that SkiLink would increase backcountry access is not true, and the facts back this up. Now, might it compromise the "backcountry skiing experience"? Perhaps. But it's not like the Wasatch are exactly "untarnished wilderness" either. Twenty or thirty lift towers are not going to affect the way the land skis, and it's not going to affect backcountry usage.
However, this does not speak to the practical purpose of the lift. It understand the argument that the gondola would decrease tourist traffic to Big Cottonwood Canyon.
Let's be honest here; there are two types of skiers who come to SLC: "expert" skiers and tourists. These so-called "expert" skiers may not be experts in ability level (although most are), but they do ski frequently every year. That means that they are avid, passionate skiers and snowboarders. The "tourist" group includes people that might ski five to ten times a year on down to complete novices.
LCC and BCC are known as meccas for the "expert" skier group, with some bleed-in by "tourists," but not much. Park City is known generally as the more "tourist"-centric locale, with some bleed in by "experts," but, again, not too much.
Now, the "tourist" group tends to stay in Park City. That's understandable, given that there isn't much of a nightlife in either of the canyons. These tourists tend to at least desire a day or two of skiing in BCC or LCC. And when they want to do that, they drive up the road to those canyons, greatly increasing traffic. The SkiLink system would mitigate that.
I take a pragmatist stance. The SkiLink solution is focused on the skier, rather than the typical tourist. This opens up additional terrain under one lift ticket, which would be a boon for skiing in Utah. And, in my view,
something like this is inevitably in Utah's future, whether you guys like it or not. And it could be a huge boon for Utah's tourism industry. And it could be good for backcountry skiers as well. See more below.
This alternative is preferable to the AltaBright and CottonPark tunnels. Those systems would have been car-centric. They would have increased carbon dioxide emissions, working against climate change mitigation directives by the State of Utah. And they would've caused considerably more environmental harm than I see the SkiLink system causing.
In summary, SkiLink has earned selkirks' approval.
This, however, does not mean that I would support other projects ongoing in the Wasatch. Here's a quick summary of what I think:
Alta. I'd
reject the
Flagstaff Mountain expansion that was proposed not too long ago. That's because the proposed expansion would encroach on important backcountry areas, harm the Salt Lake Valley's water supply, and cause some environmental problems that could go unmitigated. And the south-facing terrain would not provide very good skiing.
As for
Grizzly Gulch, we need to be completely clear here.
No approvals have been given by the USFS for anything to be built up there. There hasn't even been a plan submitted. There will not be a lift in the Gulch next summer. That's a fact. However, once the potential expansion is submitted for review, I should say that I understand the logic of an expansion into Grizzly Gulch much more than I do an expansion onto Flagstaff. There has been
snowcat skiing in the Gulch for years. It seems like a logical progression. And given the size of the BCC and LCC resorts (they're not huge), I would support a limited expansion of up to 400 acres if it took into account backcountry access, wildlife patterns, environmental mitigation, and other important concerns.
I'd even support a lift connecting LCC with BCC, but
only if the backcountry, wildlife, and environmental concerns are mitigated. That means I'd want a short route with no intermediate unloading and no new road-building for construction. And I'd want to make sure that wildlife habitat is not heavily impacted.
Snowbird. This is a more difficult one. Mary Ellen is an interesting plot of land, but the expansion proposal seems a bit...supersized? Do we really need a second tram? Granted, it is a small one, but I still question the magnitude of this proposal. It creates a Snowbird with a huge breadth. Breadth is good, but at what point do you start sacrificing the viability of your existing terrain? Let's focus on the existing terrain that is already at the resort and see what we can do with increased marketing to different markets.
Granted, this one is already essentially approved, but in the future, it's this type of development that needs to stop.
Solitude. I agree with the USFS' decision to halt the proposed expansion into Silver Fork. That would have caused significant side country and backcountry access issues and in my view, it wasn't in the best interest of the State of Utah or the County. It would have caused environmental issues in potential contamination of drinking water and other significant issues that were not addressed.
