Position on the Proposed Little Cottonwood Gondola

I first want to note that while UDOT has said the gondola is their final solution, this issue will not be settled until the Utah Legislature agrees to fund their solution in full.

I am firmly against the gondola for the following reasons:

• The traffic problem in BCC is now arguably as bad as LCC and a gondola in LCC does nothing to address that.
• The proposed base of the gondola is located on a road that cannot handle the traffic volume necessary for the gondola to ease canyon congestion.
• Traffic congestion in the two canyons is interconnected (skiers / snowboarders opting for BCC when LCC is closed) and should be treated as a single problem with one solution to address the issues in each canyon.
• The gondola, as proposed, is to be publicly funded, but will not serve public trailheads or public need outside of winter.
• The gondola, as proposed, is scheduled to operate only in the winter. Summer traffic / parking at public trailheads is in need of relief and any solution needs to address that.
• I believe a publicly funded gondola that would financially benefit only a few landowners and private businesses is a corrupt theft of public funds.

1st proposed interim relief solution:

• Do away with the traction law in the canyon. UDOT has said they will not consider the weather forecast when activating it, and many times the down-canyon congestion can be attributed to ill-equipped vehicles being allowed up the canyon in the morning on a dry road and then forced to descend the canyon in a snowstorm. It is rarely enforced at the bottom of the canyon when active, and never enforced at the top of the canyon when active. Also, Ill-equipped cars are always permitted to descend when the traction law is in effect.
• In place of the traction law, require all vehicles in the canyon to be either four-wheel or all-wheel drive between Oct 15 and May 1 (just example of date range…I’m not committed to those dates). Exemptions would obviously be granted to many commercial vehicles when road conditions permit (food deliveries, waste removal, etc.)
• Require all vehicles that qualify for canyon access to submit to a free vehicle inspection prior to the season. The primary focus of the inspection would be to verify adequate tires on the vehicle (I frequently see vehicles in the canyon with terribly worn tires and I fear the driver believes all-wheel drive alone is adequate). A windshield sticker would be provided to all vehicles that pass.

2nd proposed interim relief solution

• Operate the ‘downhill lane’ (will be referred to as north lane for clarity) as a bus-only uphill lane from 7am to 10am (hours are an example).
• Allowing buses to skip ahead of car traffic will incentivize bus usage. A major complaint about the buses is that they wait in the same traffic line as personal vehicles.
  • I always say, “When given the choice between standing on a bus or sitting in their car, most people will choose their car.”
• Keeping the north lane open to uphill travel will allow emergency services to respond to a morning emergency up the canyon.
  • In the case of an emergency response, the police would stop uphill bus travel to allow the emergency response team to descend.
• There would need to be a short window in the middle to allow buses back down the canyon for a second trip uphill.

I view true solutions as long-term, and how we get to that solution in the interim is always up for debate. By long-term, I mean solutions that will still achieve their intended purpose for many future generations. I believe the Stadler Report was dismissed too hastily and my personal preferred long-term solution is a rail system:

• My background is in engineering and my engineering philosophy is "Solve it once, solve it right". When you attempt to save money by adopting a flawed solution, you often spend more money in the end trying to fix that flawed solution, or outright replace it.
• I would propose a single rail system that utilizes a tunnel between Alta and Brighton and can run in a loop. It would need only one set of tracks in each canyon which would leave a remaining road lane for emergency vehicles, deliveries to the resorts, residents of the canyons, etc. Further, that single lane would also allow cyclists access to the canyons.
• Trains provide the benefit of expandability. As visitor traffic fluctuates through the year, cars can be added or removed to meet that demand. This also allows train capacity to grow as skier traffic grows in the coming years.
• I would like to see the gravel pit at the bottom of BCC converted to a Cottonwood Canyons transportation hub (the gravel pit is an eyesore and it's embarrassing that the vast majority of visitors to our canyons drive by, or are driven by, that pit). There is plenty of space for parking, and Wasatch Blvd to that point can handle a significant amount of traffic.
• There has been talk of widening Wasatch between the two canyons to accommodate increased traffic. A single rail line on Wasatch between the canyons would likely require less space that widening Wasatch to more lanes in each direction.
• If small sidings are incorporated for each stop, express trains to individual resorts could be utilized.
• Since much of the land surrounding the roadways is National Forest and Wilderness area, I believe some federal funding should be sought as any solution also benefits the National Forest Service (less traffic / pollution, reduced need for expanded trailheads, etc.)