Letter: There should be a better solution to SkiLink

Just because 58 percent of respondents to a study said they would like to see the Cottonwood Canyons and Park City connected by "trams," it does not follow as David DuBois asserts that SkiLink is a viable plan (Readers' Forum, "Support SkiLink," Aug. 31).

Where, when, and with whom was the survey conducted, and did it specify SkiLink as the solution? The SkiLink proposal only joins Canyons with Solitude, not with the Little Cottonwood Canyon resorts that many visitors would also visit. Selling even a narrow strip of public land to developers who promise "no resort expansion" sets a terrible precedent.

I doubt that a "significant number" of Park City skiers currently drive between the points linked by the proposed gondola. DuBois projects saving "tens of thousands of annual car trips … between Park City and Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons," but, again, SkiLink provides no access to Little Cottonwood Canyon, nor even directly to Brighton.

Instead of supporting this single link-to-nowhere proposal with doubtful figures and vague claims, the whole idea of an interconnect should be studied with the goal of providing a plan that truly would link our ski resorts via environmentally sound routes, and without selling public land to developers.

Jan Harold Brunvand

Salt Lake City