Summit County Council Meeting on Mountain Accord
We live blogged the Summit County Council Meeting on Mountain Accord. You should get a good feel for how various members of your County Council feel about the topic.
Please forgive any spelling mistakes. The meeting moved pretty quickly. In some cases below you’ll see just the first names of council members. For clarity, Roger is Roger Armstrong, Kim is Kim Carson, Dave is Dave Ure, Chris is Chris Robinson, Claudia is Claudia McMullin.
Rail up Parley’s? Maybe we were too cynical.
We received an email from a Friend of the Park Rag regarding our earlier article on a rail up Parley’s Canyon. We had said that County Council Member Chris Robinson’s explanation of the route being owned by the federal government, and the fact that it wasn’t at capacity, made sense why we shouldn’t expect light rail from the airport to Park City.
Our Friend replied:
If people want to dream of rail through the mountains we might as well dream of rail over the mountains. What’s the harm? As Daniel Burnham said:
Touche’. Perhaps we are too cynical. More importantly, we fear we are sounding too much like our father.
So, here’s to you. Our Dreamer. We hope you are right.
Our Made Up Conspiracy Theory of Why We Are Still Part of the Mountain Accord
Last night’s Mountain Accord Q&A was informative. There were a couple of statements made by Andy Beerman and Chris Robinson that made issues clearer. An audience member, we think his name was Clay, asked if Andy Beerman (Park City City Council) and Chris Robinson (Summit County Council) would go back to their respective councils and ensure there wasn’t a train between Brighton and Park City. We are paraphrasing Mr Beerman and Mr Robinson but the response was something like, “We can’t commit to that. It’s on the menu of options but it wouldn’t be our first choice. There will be discussions between now and April. However, by being on Mountain Accord we protect ourselves.”
While we at the Park Rag try not to be completely crazy, we never want to let a good conspiracy theory go to waste. With that in mind, we wish Clay’s question and Andy’s response would have gone something like this:
Clay: Andy Beerman, is Park City going to continue with the Mountain Accord?
Laynee Jones (Mountain Accord Consultant): You don’t have to answer that.
Andy Beerman: I’ll answer the question!
Andy Beerman: You want answers?
Clay: I think I’m entitled to them.
Andy Beerman: You want answers!?!
Clay: I want the truth!
Andy Beerman: You can’t handle the truth!
[pause]Andy Beerman: Son, we live in a world with powerful people, and those people have to be placated by other men with power. Who’s gonna do it? You Clay? You, Chris Hague? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the mountains, and you curse the light rail. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the Mountain Accord, while tragic, probably saves Park City. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves Summit County too. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at Rotary Club, you want me on that Accord, you need me on that Accord. We use words like planning, protection, preservation. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the transportation system that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a pick axe and build a tunnel. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Why There Won’t Be A Train Going up Parley’s Any Time Soon
During Tuesday’s Mountain Accord Q&A, Summit County Council Member Chris Robinson provided a succinct explanation to why there won’t be a train heading from the airport to Park City anytime soon. Mr Robinson explained that the route was owned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA). He said the FHA first looks at the time it takes to travel between two points via car (i.e. the airport and Park City) and then decides whether an alternative is faster. This is typically based on traffic causing the route to slow.
He then explained that I-80 was nowhere near capacity. He was effectively saying that right now nothing would be as fast as a car and therefore the FHA wouldn’t explore alternatives.
We aren’t sure anyone heard him during the meeting. At least three people referenced rail between the airport and Park City after his comment. That said, Mr Robinson’s explanation makes sense to us.
Also, the fact that it would cost $3 billion to build, means that idea is a non-starter.
Mountain Accord Live Blog
We live blogged Tuesday night’s Mountain Accord meeting at PCHS…Please forgive the typos. The meeting moved pretty quickly.
Water is Our Most Valuable Resource
As the Mountain Accord plays itself out, one of the areas to pay attention to is the proposed “Land Swap” between the private parties, governments, and the ski resorts. With this part of the proposal:
“The four Cottonwood Canyon Ski Areas, local and federal government partners, and conservation and outdoor interests would partner to preserve, for public benefit, about 2,150 acres of Ski-Area owned lands in the Cottonwood Canyons. At the headwaters of Little Cottonwood Canyon, preserved lands would include the areas of Mt. Superior, Flagstaff, Emma Ridge, Grizzly Gulch (under consideration), and White Pine. At the headwaters of Big Cottonwood Canyon, the preserved lands would include Ski Area holdings in the Guardsman Pass, Cardiff/Days Fork, and Hidden Canyon areas.”
In exchange for doing this, the ski resorts get:
- Station stops on a mountain-rail system which would provide reliable, fast, unique, and marketable transit to the resorts and to major dispersed recreation access points. The canyon road would still be open to vehicular traffic.
- Approximately 258 acres for base-area management and future development (with new culinary water for up to 108 units at Alta) to support activity at transit stops.
- Additional water for snowmaking.
- Ski permit boundary expansions of 210 acres (140 in Hidden Canyon, 70 in lower Silver Fork).
- Approximately 416 acres in American Fork Canyon.
While there may be other issues of concern here, from an environmental perspective we are concerned with #3. One of the stated environmental benefits of the Mountain Accord is protecting watersheds. However, we wonder how much additional water the resorts will receive. NASA has stated there is an 80% likelihood of a Mega Drought in the West and Central US in the next 50 years. That would be a drought lasting longer than 10 years.
We like the idea protecting our watersheds. However, when push comes to shove, there isn’t enough water for residents, and water restrictions become the norm we don’t like the idea of resorts taking even more water. It seems foolish to trade what is likely our most valuable resource (water) and trade it so we can get more people to ski Alta.
Wasatch Backcountry Alliance Against Mountain Accord in Current Form
The Wasatch Backcountry Alliance is Against the Mountain Accord, as currently proposed. They are specifically concerned with back country access for skiing. If interested, you may want to read more:
Summit County Council Voting on “Donating” Another $150,000 to Mountain Accord
On Wednesday, The Summit County Council will hear an update on the Mountain Accord. Along with this update will come a request for agreeing to spend another $150,000 on the Mountain Accord. If you recall, a couple of years ago Summit County spent $50,000 to get a “seat at the table” during the Mountain Accord process. We’ve since learned that the total outlay by interested parties in the Mountain Accord is $27 million; therefore, our total of a $250,000 outlay represents 0.9% of the money. So, when they said “seat at the table” we guess that meant a seat at the kiddie table.
Given the current Mountain Accord Blueprint and discussions we’ve heard, it seems that the current plan is for rail to stop at PCMR. Technically, that is in Summit County but it is really Park City.
So, we aren’t really sure what is to be gained by our further investment in a project that very few people here seem to want. Perhaps we don’t want to piss off UDOT, who controls 88% of the Mountain Accord as well as the purse strings for road funding. I’m sure we’d hate if some of those road upgrades that are partially funded by UDOT were “delayed.”
It’s all feeling a little New Jersey around here. Is Chris Christie staying at the Waldorf?
in Boondoggles
When you think about it, putting a transit center behind the Library building doesn’t make a lot of sense
Last week, the Summit County Council voted to build a transit center behind the Sheldon Richins Library building. Initially we were a little ambivalent about the project. We weren’t sure if it was the right place. Yet, after reading the Park Record article on it and associated comments on the article, we are pretty sure the County Council made a mistake on this one.
If you haven’t heard, the County is going to build a transit center right behind and to the west of the Library building in Kimball Junction. There will be 10 spaces for buses and 20 spaces for cars. It will serve as a central place where people can connect and transfer between buses.
The problem? It’s in the middle of proverbial-nowhere and it cost $2.4 million.
The Park Record article had a couple of statements that summed it up best. A member of the Kimball Junction business association said that it was great there was a transit center but it would be better on the other side of the road. A co-founder of Newpark said the location was “really wrong” because there was nothing around it and we ‘d have to wait 10 years until something is built around it.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that it’s not in the right spot. Imagine a transit center right in the heart of the Village at Kimball. You take a direct bus to get dinner and go to the concert by Maxwell’s this summer. Would it happen? At least it has a shot. With this proposal, you take a bus to the area behind the Library, hike a half mile with your kids, lawn chairs, and blankets. Will people do it? I guess we’ll see.
Right now, it seems like a foolish decision to proceed forward with a plan devised in 2010 that doesn’t make a lot of sense given the current situation. We guess we’ll see if it pans out. If not, the transit center should be named after the County Council Members who aproved it and the multi-millions that will be spent building it.
Ignoring Regional Differences Is the Fundamental Problem With the Mountain Accord
We’ve been looking at the Mountain Accord, the plan for uniting the Wasatch via trains, planes buses, and automobiles. Something didn’t sit quite right but we couldn’t put our finger on it. Then this morning Peter Metcalf, CEO of Black Diamond Equipment, was on KPCW. Leslie Thatcher asked Mr Metcalf, who had served on the Executive Committee of the Mountain Accord (and is a Summit County resident) where he stood on the Accord. He said:
That sounds great in theory. However, in practice, the back side of the Wasatch is very different from the front side. It’s even unfair to say that the front side is necessarily similar. When you drive through the Avenues how similar does it seem to Sandy? How different is Cottonwood Heights from Sugarhouse? It’s only 6 miles via I-215 but it’s truly a world away.
When we look at the Mountain Accord, it tries to look at the entire Wasatch as homogenous. “Let’s connect it all. Won’t that be AWESOME!” Yet, there are differences that fundamentally should influence how one approaches the region. Sandy had its growth in the 80’s and 90’s. Compared to that, Wasatch County is a babe-in-arms. It’s looking at a future that’s just begun. Park City is a world-renowned resort community that lives and dies off of tourism (Sundance and mountain sports). Sandy is generally a suburb where its “wholesome lifestyle” and good schools make it ideal to raise kids. Summit County is a mix of second home owners, commuters, people desiring a rural lifestyle, and outdoor enthusiasts. Does that mix sound like Salt Lake City to you?
If Park City is truly like Salt Lake City then Donna McAleer would be in the US House of Representatives instead of Rob Bishop. Yet, we know how that turned out.
The truth is that different areas of the Wasatch are … different. They are at different points in their “lives.” They have different backgrounds… different needs…different pros…. and different cons. By trying to define a regional solution they are willing to sacrifice what makes Park City great for the benefit of the Wasatch Front. They are willing to enable a horde of day-skiers to flood our mountains without contributing to what has made Park City successful.
If they truly wanted to maximize Park City, they would look deep into our soul and optimize what has made Park City great. They would figure out how to reduce traffic while making it easy for tourists to experience our town. Instead they seemed focused on enabling Sandy to be a hub for locals wanting to ski and perhaps build a few more Motel 6’s along the train tracks.
That may be great for them but it’s not for us. We need to start calling what it what it really is… the Sandy Accord or perhaps the Cottonwood Accord (that has a nice ring to it). It may be just what Sandy wants but it’s getting really hard to see a benefit for Park City and Summit County.
Parkrag
We believe in citizen journalism. We believe there are stories to tell that can help to shape our community for the better. We believe tomorrow's Park City can be better than today's.