Interconnect Passes State Legislature

rogman · Post by **rogman** » Mar 8th, '12, 08:55

In Utah.

SAM Magazine—Salt Lake City, Mar. 7, 2012 wrote:The Utah legislature has passed a resolution supporting the long-dreamed-of Utah Interconnect, which would link Deer Valley, Park City, Canyons, Alta, Snowbird, Solitude, and Brighton. The resolution passed the Utah State Senate on Mar. 5, 22 to 7, and the House of Representatives on Mar. 6, 58 to 16, largely along party lines. It currently awaits the signature of Utah Governor Gary Herbert.

In keeping with the current economic and political climate, SCR10, drafted by Sen. Wayne Niederhauser (R-Sandy), contends that the resort interconnect would enhance the ski and snowboard resort industry’s contribution to Utah’s economy, jobs and tax base. Other local supporters have touted the Interconnect’s environmental benefits of reduced auto traffic and pollution.

Ski Utah supports the resolution and the concept of a low-impact interconnect. “Utah is uniquely positioned to create a ski and snowboard experience available nowhere else in North America,” said Ski Utah president Nathan Rafferty. “This resolution urges interconnection of the seven Salt Lake and Summit County ski resorts using best environmental practices.”

While such multi-resort “ski circuses” are common in Europe, “a connection of this scale does not exist in North America,” said Rafferty. “From a marketing and skier experience perspective, this would be a game-changer.”

Now why can't Vermont have their own "game changer"?

Mister Moose · Post by **Mister Moose** » Mar 8th, '12, 09:01

Made me look.

rogman · Post by **rogman** » Mar 8th, '12, 09:06

Mister Moose wrote:Made me look.

Yeah. I actually don't like it when people do that, but this was too obvious to pass up...

brownman · Post by **brownman** » Mar 8th, '12, 10:10

Didn't the former ownership group already pay Montpelier >$1M/black bear to get the Pico interconnect approved?
Or did Irene impact the bear population to require additional restoration fees?

Thank you in advance for your understanding...

SnoBrdr · Post by **SnoBrdr** » Mar 8th, '12, 11:08

brownman wrote:Didn't the former ownership group already pay Montpelier >$1M/black bear to get the Pico interconnect approved?
Or did Irene impact the bear population to require additional restoration fees?

Thank you in advance for your understanding...

At this point I can't see K sending the multi millions needed to get this done.

Freudian slip, should have been SPENDING

tyrolean_skier · Post by **tyrolean_skier** » Mar 9th, '12, 01:48

If this interconnect gets passed in Utah, what happens to the Alta for skiers only? How could they possibly enforce that rule if there is an interconnect?

gpetrics · Post by **gpetrics** » Mar 9th, '12, 05:22

I would just like to throw my voice in here to say that, while this will certainly be thrilling for resort skiers and riders, this just about spells the end of backcountry skiing in the Wasatch.

The proposed route to connect these many resorts will traverse almost every reasonably "safe and easy" backcountry ski route except the "down canyon" stuff in both LCC and BCC. All the "up canyon stuff" though will be effectively destroyed by this forever.

Given the small size of the Wasatch, I think this interconnect didn't receive nearly enough thought, and I think the National Forest Service continues to do a terrible job of protecting the interests of the general public. It was clear that this was a resource extraction where money talked and only money talked. I realize in the "real world" that's how it works, but I guess I am little bit of a Pollyanna, and had hoped that a public body like the NFS would stand up a little bit more to be sure that all groups of users were getting a fair shake, and the resources were being utilized in a proper manner.

I believe there are still some hurdles... and those in favor of more wilderness and less ski lifts in the Wasatch still have time to change this... but it doesn't look good.

RENO · Post by **RENO** » Mar 9th, '12, 08:05

tyrolean_skier wrote:If this interconnect gets passed in Utah, what happens to the Alta for skiers only? How could they possibly enforce that rule if there is an interconnect?

With Deer Valley and Alta not allowing snowboarders, how in the hell are they gonna police this? Are they gonna have crossing guards?

Bunch of idiots. Just drop the snowboard ban. Enough with this childish snowboarder vs skier bs. I like the statement "Utah is uniquely positioned to create a ski and snowboard experience available nowhere else in North America" Huh? About 1/3 the terrain snowboarders aren't allowed on?

HelmetCam · Post by **HelmetCam** » Mar 9th, '12, 09:34

RENO wrote:
tyrolean_skier wrote:If this interconnect gets passed in Utah, what happens to the Alta for skiers only? How could they possibly enforce that rule if there is an interconnect?
With Snowbird and Alta not allowing snowboarders, how in the hell are they gonna police this? Are they gonna have crossing guards? Bunch of idiots. Just drop the snowboard ban. Enough with this childish snowboarder vs skier bs. I like the statement "Utah is uniquely positioned to create a ski and snowboard experience available nowhere else in North America" Huh? About 1/3 the terrain snowboarders aren't allowed on?

Snowbird allows snowboarders.

brownman · Post by **brownman** » Mar 9th, '12, 09:44

The approval of an interconnect and peoples' actual usage of it are very different things. Most of Utah's vacation patrons will not bother with traversing resort to resort. You end up wasting your entire day going laterally. Yes, backcountry entusiasts will have a cow on this and the environmental card will continue to be played, but Utah needed to do something to integrate some of those areas and establish buzz around their winter recreation options.The Canyon roads isolate resorts from each other making it difficult for people to explore outside of their chosen resort destination. It ain't over. A couple good avalanches in the planned routing areas will kick up discussion again. The state will reflect on their decision. As for monitoring and controlling snowboarders, history shows that's simply not possible.

RENO · Post by **RENO** » Mar 9th, '12, 10:10

HelmetCam wrote:
RENO wrote:
tyrolean_skier wrote:If this interconnect gets passed in Utah, what happens to the Alta for skiers only? How could they possibly enforce that rule if there is an interconnect?
With Snowbird and Alta not allowing snowboarders, how in the hell are they gonna police this? Are they gonna have crossing guards? Bunch of idiots. Just drop the snowboard ban. Enough with this childish snowboarder vs skier bs. I like the statement "Utah is uniquely positioned to create a ski and snowboard experience available nowhere else in North America" Huh? About 1/3 the terrain snowboarders aren't allowed on?
Snowbird allows snowboarders.

Da! I meant Deer Valley!

brownman · Post by **brownman** » Mar 9th, '12, 10:15

Alta and Bird interconnect proved it can be done.
...they divert boarders into Mineral Basin and have 'em hike out.

KillingtonZone.com

Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Re: Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Re: Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Re: Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Re: Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Re: Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Re: Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Re: Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Re: Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Re: Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Re: Interconnect Passes State Legislature

Re: Interconnect Passes State Legislature