There should be a better solution to SkiLink

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • FreshAirLover Salt Lake City , UT
    Sept. 5, 2012 1:13 p.m.

    Gondola or in a smelly Car? I love the fresh air. Let's build SkiLink. It is SO close to each other. I'm ready to ski both resorts in a day. It's time to build!

  • MeSoHungry Salt Lake City , UT
    Sept. 5, 2012 1:11 p.m.

    This letter is a joke. What does he mean the number is up in the air? The Wasatach Canyons Tommorrow report was done with a TON of public input. Infact they surveyed over 16,031 people. They also had over 80 people on the executive, steering and technical committes. Here is the link to it.

    Aerial trams would connect
    Big Cottonwood Canyon,
    Little Cottonwood Canyon,
    and Park City. (58% of survey
    respondents support) Private
    vehicles would still be allowed up
    all canyons without restriction.

    Frankly, I think this is about time we connected the resorts. SkiLink is a great first step or in other words a pilot project to see if can be done responsibly. Which is can be...

  • Rh2334 Cottonwood heights, UT
    Sept. 4, 2012 2:08 p.m.

    The 58% number sounds nice, but one wonders what the people surveyed would have said if they were asked if the Tram was built by selling public land to a foreign real estate company? My guess is no where near that figure. Any way anyone cuts it the way this whole deal has gone down stinks. Congressional bills that directs the sale of prime recreational public land to foreign real estate developers can't sound like a good idea to the public as a whole. The way this tram is being planned it will only benefit a few, not the way we should connect our canyons. The author is right to question that figure as the people being surveyed were asked about trams "as a whole" not this specific tram. I would like to see a local news take a poll on Skistink with the whole truth out there, one can reasonably guess it would be way lower than the whopping (sarcasm) 58% that Mr. Dubois is quoting from the study.

  • David DuBois PARK CITY, UT
    Sept. 4, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    As per my original Letter To The Editor, the 58% figure can be found on page 32 of the Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow Study, a document often cited by opponents of the project as being an objective polling of the public's desire. According to statements made by Skiutah, plans are underway to connect Big and Little Cottonwood as well.

  • No Link DRAPER, UT
    Sept. 1, 2012 2:49 p.m.

    Thanks for the letter.

    As awareness of what Canyons / Talisker has done to their watershed increases, more will oppose letting Talisker into a watershed 400,000 people in Salt Lake rely on for drinking water. The plain fact is that Talisker / Canyons drove what was a blue ribbon trout stream to what the EPA now classifies as an impaired waterway.

    The Big Cottonwood watershed is in far better shape without Talisker and the intensive development that follows their lifts.

    If you want to get informed, please go to Facebook and type "stop skilink" and there are multiple sources to become more informed.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2012 2:31 p.m.

    Politicians, (especially Utah politicians) are famous/infamous for hiring "polling" firms to validate their goofy thinking.
    Somehow, people think if a "polling" outfit is involved the numbers they report have credence.
    "Polling" or survey companies can be paid to return whatever results I desire.
    I'm VERY opposed to opening up the canyons to ANY MORE developments.
    People ALREADY have plenty of places to ski.
    I hope the "ski link" idea just goes away. Its a bad idea.

    I hope the DN keeps us up to date on whatever hearings/meetings are involved so we, as citizens, can express our displeasure.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 1, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    Who benefits - developers. The public good has yet to be documented.
    Who suffers - the environment of Big Cottonwood Canyon. There is only one chance to save the canyons from commercialism. Once it's done, there is no going back. It's not like an elected official who can be voted out next time around. Which reminds me....

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Sept. 1, 2012 10:39 a.m.

    The headline to this letter from Jan Harold Brunvand implies that a "solution" is needed. I can't see that this is anything more than an expensive ski toy for few to enjoy. Who says it's really viable and who gets stuck with it if it's not? Extravagance? I think so.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Sept. 1, 2012 9:27 a.m.

    It's important to know WHO those respondents were.

    Was it a random survey? Where was it taken and by whom?

    I've never seen any of that information cited. It is very important if we are to be able to assess the survey's validity.