Replace Lifts 2 and 8:
Replacing an aging lift and increasing it’s lift capacity is expected at a ski resort, so we are in favor of these projects. The proposal to replace Lift 2 deserves further discussion.
Lift 2 Project
This proposed project is part of the 2021 Master Development Plan and is mentioned in the draft Environmental Assessment (EA).
The general purpose and need relevant to this project is stated to be:
“The purpose of the currently proposed projects from the 2021 MDP is to expand and improve the recreational offerings within the TSV(I) SUP area, …” and “There is a need to address existing capacity and circulation constraints, deficiencies associated with on mountain facilities, .... “
The description of replacing Lift 2 states:
“Lift 2 serves TSV(I)’s expert-only hike-to terrain and provides access to terrain served by Lifts 4 and 7. It also provides access to the mountain summit. It was installed in 1995 and is a fixed-grip quad lift, nearing the end of its operational life. It is currently approximately 3,200 feet long and operates at a capacity of 1,800 pph. The lift would be upgraded to either a detachable or fixed-grip quad lift that would operate at a maximum capacity of 2,400 pph depending on the configuration of the proposed lift. This would provide quicker and more efficient access to the mid-mountain and summit of TSV. Minor realignments and/or adjustments may be needed to the lift during the replacement process to improve skier circulation or lift function. Grading would be required to install the top and bottom terminals as well as the tower footings along the lift alignment. Intermittent tree clearing would be required along the lift corridor to widen it as necessary. ”
Replacing an aging lift is a good idea, so we welcome this improvement to the resort.
No alternative was given for the proposed gondola project yet this proposed improvement of Lift 2 (increasing the rate at which people reach the point where Lifts 7 and 4 are accessible) provides one.
With a gondola rate of 1800 PPH and an improved Lift 2 rate of 2400 PPH, taking into account a 7 minute ride up chair 1 and assuming the gondola and Lift 2 lengths are the same results in moved people from the base:
450 people at the Kachina basin in ~15min.
600 people at the top of Lift 2 in ~22min.
One conclusion is that more people are disbursed to the center of the resort in roughly the same amount of time, and able to ski because of an improved Lift 2 as compared to a lesser number arriving at the bottom chair 4 and still slogging. Sure, gondola riders would get to Kachina lift quicker, but those that ride up chair 2 will have a longer day of skiing, and be initially presented with a smorgasbord of opportunities. And the beginners, they start skiing/riding earlier if riding up Lifts 1/2 as compared to Gondola/Lift 4.
We realize that avalanche mitigation along the access from Lift 2 to Lift 7 area (to get to Lift 4) causes delays on very snowy days, but this is only temporary and usually about an hour if given priority by the ski patrol.
Improving Lift 2 is a clear alternative to building a gondola. This scenario should be considered in this process.
Finally, the EA provides no concrete detail on the new lifts and associated infrastructures’ locations: if the minor realignments or new footings are not clearly identified, it is difficult to understand whether the analysis accounts for complete realignment for understanding impacts or if it is assumed to be “minor". Further location details need to be provided, and public input taken before the forest service approves (or not) and the replacement of the lifts occurs.