Hanna Olsen: Neither of UDOT’s ‘preferred’ plans for Little Cottonwood make any sense

I would like to express my opposition for both of the “preferred” alternatives given in the Utah Department of Transportation’s environmental impact statement for transportation alternatives in Little Cottonwood Canyon. I can’t imagine either of them are preferred by anybody except Snowbird and Alta, given they will benefit from the increased revenue.

UDOT has chosen the two most destructive and permanent projects. I strongly disagree that UDOT is attempting to “preserve the values of the Wasatch Mountains” with either of these preferred alternatives. Sure, the enhanced bus or gondola might be effective methods to haul people up the canyon, but neither are sufficient to solve the problem at hand. And the problem is capacity.

Ski resorts have a capacity limit just as a building does. Increasing transportation capacity up the canyon does not increase capacity on the mountain. Perhaps you’ve solved the issue of travel time with these projects, but what are you going to do about hour-long lift lines once the gondola or bus drops us off? I would personally prefer more than just a few runs a day.

Our canyons are resource limited. There is only so much space and snow to go around. The resorts cannot safely or comfortably accommodate the additional traffic.

With regard to the enhanced bus lane, the concept of induced travel demand applies. Increasing roadway capacity simply encourages more people to use that road, failing to reduce congestion. Furthermore, I think the visual impacts are a major drawback to this project. I imagine a good chunk of the mountain will have to be ripped up to add additional lanes. It would be unsightly and detrimental to our watershed. Not a promising solution considering the road will only be relevant during peak periods in the winter.

I am disheartened that a gondola was up for consideration at all. I don’t believe this 55-minute excursion is in anyone’s best interest. To begin with, ecosystems on the forest floor will be disrupted. We share our canyon with many species who depend on it for survival, while we just use it for enjoyment. Shouldn’t we advocate for those who can’t speak up for themselves?

What’s more, the gondola would significantly impact the climbing community. The spectacular quartz monzonite that makes up the canyon walls attracts climbers from all over the world who would be devastated to see their boulders replaced with gondola towers.

Do we really want to stick a giant, permanent piece of infrastructure up our gorgeous canyon? Little Cottonwood Canyon is not an amusement park and should not be developed as such. In no way is this project, “seeking to conserve the natural ecosystem for future generations.”

So, how can we solve the capacity problem without physically transforming the canyon? I have come up with a few alternative solutions that should be considered and tested before any $500 million dollar changes are made to a 30,000-year-old canyon.

The first is a permit system. Similar to Snowbird’s reservation system during the pandemic, parking permits would be purchased and sold out on a first-come, first-served basis. Didn’t get a permit? Take the bus. Cars parked at either resort without one would be ticketed.

Another solution might be a pay booth at the mouth of the canyon. As in Millcreek Canyon, visitors would have to pay a fee upon leaving the canyon, hopefully deterring excess automobile traffic. Perhaps the booth could cap the number of cars entering the canyon.

Another option is to raise single-day and season pass ticket pricing. Skiing is expensive already, but increased rates would keep some people off the mountain if they can’t afford it. Or what if we just created additional park-n-ride lots and had extra buses running to shuttle people up and down the canyon?

I’m no genius and I understand each of my solutions will have its kinks, but I can’t seem to understand why we’re resorting to such extreme solutions so suddenly. The goal should be to find a solution that meets the capacity limits of both S.R. 210 and the Snowbird and Alta resorts. We can’t exploit our resources as though they were infinite.

I would hate to see this spectacular landscape be permanently transformed for capital gain. Nature is not real estate. We are connected to the land we come from; the future of the Little Cottonwood Canyon is very important to me and many others. It would be a huge mistake to go through with either of these preferred alternative projects.

Hanna Olsen, Salt Lake City, attends the University of Utah studying environmental and sustainability studies.