Friends of the Wasatch, what are your thoughts on SkiLink? - Snowboarding Forum

WasatchMan · 11-17-2011, 06:07 PM

Quote:

SkiLink is an 8 passenger gondola connecting Canyons and Solitude Mountain Resort. It creates the most unique interconnected ski network in the United States by providing skiing and snowboarding access to diverse and previously geographically disparate resorts by connecting more than 6,000 combined acres of existing, skiable terrain with a gondola.

I really hate this idea.

Who honestly wants to ski solitude and the canyons in the same day?

How much BC are they going to ruin in the process?

Thoughts?

mdc · 11-17-2011, 06:21 PM

I'm not sure what to think about that. Being that I get to Utah about once a year and really only go to the LCC and BCC resorts, it would be cool to check out the Canyons but what will that do to Solitude? Solitude is great because there are no crowds and it's a low key atmosphere. What will that do to lift ticket prices?

I see they quote statistics about the driving that will not have to happen, but how much more power will the gondola require. Will the savings in driving be cancelled out by the electric used by the gondola?

If I were local and Solitude was where I had my season pass I think I'd hate the idea. Being a visitor I'm intrigued by it.

MDC

ThunderChunky · 11-17-2011, 06:25 PM

I think it'll be awesome. I'm thinking about going to Solitude next yea and can't rent a car. So being able to go to a different resort without a shuttle would be awesome.

But I'm not a local, so I respect you're right to not like it.

snowvols · 11-17-2011, 08:25 PM

I hate the idea but I hate all expansion ideas. I would rather this pass in a second than the Alta expansion which incorporates Grizzly.

They won't take any BC away that I ride. This year I am making it a point though to travel outside of the Wasatch. It is such a shit show in the BC anyways. I am going to split the Oquirrh mountains this year and possibly the Stansberries. I'm sure people who just ride slack love this idea so they can get back to PC way quicker.

WasatchMan · 11-17-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowvols

I am going to split the Oquirrh mountains this year and possibly the Stansberries.

I've been wondering this since I moved here, why do the Oquirrh mountains seem so unexplored?

And by that I mean, I rarely hear them mentioned and there is not a lot of info online, if any. They just seem forgotten.

I'm sure they don't see the snowfall that other Utah ranges see or the terrain, but still. What's the deal?

Shocktroop531 · 11-22-2011, 12:51 PM

so sick of all the SLC locals that are against any progress . the save our canyons grinches . Utah not only needs this, it needs a full on interconnect lift connecting PCMR to Brighton and Brighton to Snowbird and Alta. Euro Style . one pass for the big cottonwood / little cottonwood, and PC. all seven resorts. it won't ruin the wasatch. get a grip. people just freak over any idea that changes anything they like. there'll still be tons of great backcountry lines for you to ride. get a grip. so sick of those people. holding Utah back from its true potential.

snowvols · 11-22-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shocktroop531

so sick of all the SLC locals that are against any progress . the save our canyons grinches . Utah not only needs this, it needs a full on interconnect lift connecting PCMR to Brighton and Brighton to Snowbird and Alta. Euro Style . one pass for the big cottonwood / little cottonwood, and PC. all seven resorts. it won't ruin the wasatch. get a grip. people just freak over any idea that changes anything they like. there'll still be tons of great backcountry lines for you to ride. get a grip. so sick of those people. holding Utah back from its true potential.

Really? I hope you're joking? Clearly all you do is ride resorts so you don't know how crowded the Wasatch is in the BC. Sorry that some people like to climb to the top of a hill and not see a tower everywhere they go. Yes lift towers and gondolas take out the scenic beauty that you can find. What is exactly Utah's true potential? There are plenty of people I know that won't come out here not because the resorts aren't all connected, but because the culture.

**killclimbz** · 11-22-2011, 01:16 PM

I always ask, what does it bring to the table? You are talking about losing the right to visit your public lands without paying for it.

Some expansions make sense. Hard to get to areas, with unique terrain. The Vasquez Cirque expansion at Winterpark comes to mind as a decent one. Expert terrain with high avy danger if left as a backcountry area. Hard to access anyway. On the other had Breck's proposed expansion is kind of the suck. All it adds is more of the same 'ol Blue, while taking away many a local's and visitors resource for enjoying relatively safe easy access backcountry. On US Forest service land that we all own.

So what does this bring to the table besides linking up the resorts? Is there terrain that is normally too dangerous to ride that could be controlled by ski patrol? Does it open any new terrain at all? I'm not sure.

I do know that the Cottonwood Canyons are being squeezed to death. The backcountry there is actually pretty limited. Overall, I don't see much of a gain, but perhaps it works. I think the earn your turns crowd has a right to be vocal in opposition of this.

Not too mention a lift, cable car, whatever going over that ridge tops is just going to ruin some of the spectacular views the Wasatch offers. Once it's done it's done.

snowvols · 11-22-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WasatchMan

I've been wondering this since I moved here, why do the Oquirrh mountains seem so unexplored?

And by that I mean, I rarely hear them mentioned and there is not a lot of info online, if any. They just seem forgotten.

I'm sure they don't see the snowfall that other Utah ranges see or the terrain, but still. What's the deal?

Sorry man didn't see this. For the most part the Oquirrh are a much further drive than the Wasatch. There is some super steep chutes that are supposed to be pretty fun. I did the twin chutes on Deseret Peak last year and hoping to hit them in winter conditions this year.

You are correct though that the mountains don't get the snowfall the Wasatch does. The approaches are generally longer as well since the road that drives through the Oquirrhs is closed during winter. Compared to the Wasatch where it takes 45 minutes the skin to the top of Cardiac for nearly 2K vert. Do you split or anything though?

Shocktroop531 · 11-23-2011, 11:37 AM

I'd ride (or used to at least) the wasatch backcountry all the time. and personally I just don't give a flying fuck if there is a tower here and there. I'm not talking about any of the resorts expanding their territory one single acre. Thats not what I want. All I'm advocating is an easy way to commute via gondola across the wasatch. this doesn't mean more people in the backcountry. has absolutely nothing to do wit backcountry.

imagine if you could take a few runs at snowbird, then take a gondola over to solitude and take some runs there, then take the gondola over to park city and spend the night barhopping on main street. all without having to drive. I just don't see the drawback. and the "i don't want to have to see a tower" excuse is lame. what is the true potential of utah?..... one word, Whistler.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-17-2011, 06:21 PM	#2 (permalink)
mdc Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 325	I'm not sure what to think about that. Being that I get to Utah about once a year and really only go to the LCC and BCC resorts, it would be cool to check out the Canyons but what will that do to Solitude? Solitude is great because there are no crowds and it's a low key atmosphere. What will that do to lift ticket prices? I see they quote statistics about the driving that will not have to happen, but how much more power will the gondola require. Will the savings in driving be cancelled out by the electric used by the gondola? If I were local and Solitude was where I had my season pass I think I'd hate the idea. Being a visitor I'm intrigued by it. MDC

11-17-2011, 08:25 PM	#4 (permalink)
snowvols Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: SLC, UT Posts: 1,388	I hate the idea but I hate all expansion ideas. I would rather this pass in a second than the Alta expansion which incorporates Grizzly. They won't take any BC away that I ride. This year I am making it a point though to travel outside of the Wasatch. It is such a shit show in the BC anyways. I am going to split the Oquirrh mountains this year and possibly the Stansberries. I'm sure people who just ride slack love this idea so they can get back to PC way quicker.

11-22-2011, 12:51 PM	#6 (permalink)
Shocktroop531 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: park city , Utah Posts: 500	so sick of all the SLC locals that are against any progress . the save our canyons grinches . Utah not only needs this, it needs a full on interconnect lift connecting PCMR to Brighton and Brighton to Snowbird and Alta. Euro Style . one pass for the big cottonwood / little cottonwood, and PC. all seven resorts. it won't ruin the wasatch. get a grip. people just freak over any idea that changes anything they like. there'll still be tons of great backcountry lines for you to ride. get a grip. so sick of those people. holding Utah back from its true potential.

11-22-2011, 01:16 PM	#8 (permalink)
killclimbz Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Front Range Posts: 9,176	I always ask, what does it bring to the table? You are talking about losing the right to visit your public lands without paying for it. Some expansions make sense. Hard to get to areas, with unique terrain. The Vasquez Cirque expansion at Winterpark comes to mind as a decent one. Expert terrain with high avy danger if left as a backcountry area. Hard to access anyway. On the other had Breck's proposed expansion is kind of the suck. All it adds is more of the same 'ol Blue, while taking away many a local's and visitors resource for enjoying relatively safe easy access backcountry. On US Forest service land that we all own. So what does this bring to the table besides linking up the resorts? Is there terrain that is normally too dangerous to ride that could be controlled by ski patrol? Does it open any new terrain at all? I'm not sure. I do know that the Cottonwood Canyons are being squeezed to death. The backcountry there is actually pretty limited. Overall, I don't see much of a gain, but perhaps it works. I think the earn your turns crowd has a right to be vocal in opposition of this. Not too mention a lift, cable car, whatever going over that ridge tops is just going to ruin some of the spectacular views the Wasatch offers. Once it's done it's done.

11-23-2011, 11:37 AM	#10 (permalink)
Shocktroop531 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: park city , Utah Posts: 500	I'd ride (or used to at least) the wasatch backcountry all the time. and personally I just don't give a flying fuck if there is a tower here and there. I'm not talking about any of the resorts expanding their territory one single acre. Thats not what I want. All I'm advocating is an easy way to commute via gondola across the wasatch. this doesn't mean more people in the backcountry. has absolutely nothing to do wit backcountry. imagine if you could take a few runs at snowbird, then take a gondola over to solitude and take some runs there, then take the gondola over to park city and spend the night barhopping on main street. all without having to drive. I just don't see the drawback. and the "i don't want to have to see a tower" excuse is lame. what is the true potential of utah?..... one word, Whistler.