First, we link to this morning's Scott Schwebke story, wherein the Emerald City Council breathlessly announces the official release of its Urban Gondola/Tram Comparison Report, compiled by council staff in lieu of accepting Boss Godfrey's gracious invitation to an all-expense-paid Telluride junket.
We're running a little behind today, so we haven't yet subjected this report to our usual micro-anlysis, although it appears at first glance to be a mere a re-hash of the material we'd thoroughly discussed here in an earlier comments thread (and other places.)
Have at it, gentle readers. Please feel free to offer your own micro-analysis.
Next, Ace reporter Schwebke has again been working feverishly on the fast-developing Dean Martinez story. From today's Scott Schwebke article we gain this brand-new information:
• Former Emerald City Human Resources Manager Dean Martinez had formed an administration-unapproved internal affirmative action committee, for the purpose of exploring ways to improve employee hiring and promotion practices. This unauthorized act didn't apparently wash with Boss Godfrey's current practices, which are geared, according to Mr. Martinez, more closely toward favoring white L.D.S. guys in suits. Godfrey thus pulled the plug on the committee, but did spend thousands of dollars producing a nice (Rupert Hitzig?) video, we are told. Boss Godfrey remains of course entirely unaware of any existing hiring/promotion policy problems. "If we had any problems, I would already know about them," suggests the All Knowing One on Nine.The floor is open for further comments, analysis or speculation...
• In classic neoCON fashion, the administration is sticking to its story: "Martinez is merely a disgruntled employee; and his claims are entirely without merit."
• The Standard-Examiner, which has utilized state law open-records request procedures numerous time recently, with mixed success, has now filed a new GRAMA request, seeking salary information on all Emerald City division managers.
Or address whatever you wish to address.
12/14/06 4:05 p.m. MT: Being the curious type, we googled "Dean Martinez" and came upon this revealing web-page, from a more optimistic time, gleefully announcing the hiring of Mr. Martinez, and setting forth his ambitious original "mission statement."
As added bonuses, be sure to read Mr. Martinez's October 3, 2003 Std-Ex letter to the editor, in which Mr. Martinez "butters up" his prospective boss, and the Cathy McKittrick piece, written before Mr. Martinez had actually begun to work with real-life Boss Godfrey cultural xenophobe.
12/15/06 7:50 a.m. MT: Kristen Moulton weighs in on the council's Gondola/Tram Comparison report with this morning's SL Trib story.
37 comments:
I'm so weary of the machinations of this lousy administration!
WHEN is the viable candidate for mayor going to step forward?
He/She needs to be introduced to the voters, position explained, questions asked and answered, platform out in the open!
Yoo Hooooo...where are you??
People should listen to and see the reruns on channel 17 of Godfreys last call in show from November 25th. I only caught the tail end of the show but it must have been a slow call in day as he went into great detail defining portions of his vision. Talked about the Junction development, the gondola from downtown and even mentioned Peterson a little. In retrospect, he probably said more than he should of.
Found it interesting that he suggeseted that if the gondola didn't get built that Ameri-Group might leave town. He indicated that they only rented the downtown building (acting like it was still a secret which building they were going to occupy) for 10 years and then have a renewal option. To suggest that Ameri-Group which is committed to moving 125+ people into town (paying all of their relocation expenses and suffering all of the inconvienences that accompany a relocation of a business entity) would then be willing to pick up and move again in 10 years because there is no gondola is pure B.S.
Who owns the old cannery building anyway and why did we the city build a new parking facility there on property that I think is private?
I believe the aforementioned Ogden PD recruiting video produced by Rupert Hitzig can be viewed online.
On November 19th, when the links between Mayor Godfrey, the indicted Gadi Leshem, and Rupert Hitzig were being discussed, I asked "...Producer Rupert, did Ogden City pay for the making of those police and firefighter recruiting videos?" Of course, no response was made.
The OPD video seemed particularly lame since it was obviously targeted at Blacks living in "the hood", not Hispanics living in Ogden. I'm SO glad to see that our City's funds were well-spent.
Dean Martinez is just experiencing the same sensation that anyone connected to Godfrey experiences in short order, once he's gotten to know Matt Godfrey.
Three cheers for Dean Martinez.
May he have or summon up the financial resources to expose Godfrey's corrupt regime.
He's "fighting city hall," after all.
Here's the Rupert Hitzig-produced diversity recruiting video for the Ogden Fire Department. Lots of women, no blacks and few, if any, Hispanics are shown. The script does say that if you're green, you can apply.
Just downloaded and read the city council's gondola report, and I'm wondering, where's the rest of it? The seven gondolas and trams are pretty good, I guess, at illustrating the range of possibilities. But the information on these seven could be quite a bit more complete, and the report should go on to compare them to what's proposed for Ogden.
For instance, a crucial piece of missing information is hours and days of operation. Do any of these systems operate from dawn until late at night, 365 days a year? Another obvious question is why in each case a tram or gondola was chosen, rather than ground-based transportation. You can figure out the reason in most cases, but the report should make it explicit. How many of these systems include intermediate stops? (I think the answer is only one: Telluride.) What's the annual expense of operating each of these systems?
Some of the data in the table seem inconsistent. The max ridership for the proposed Baltimore gondola must be counting trips in both directions, whereas for Telluride or Medellin it's for just one direction. If the quoted speeds and lengths are correct, then a one-way trip on the Telluride gondola should take 13.6 minutes, plus time for slowdowns for the two intermediate stops; whereas a one-way trip on the Medellin gondola should take only 6.8 minutes, unless it normally operates at well below the maximum speed (which would be interesting to know, if true).
Most importantly, how do these systems compare to what's being proposed for Ogden? The most obvious difference is that the length of the Ogden urban gondola would be off the scale compared to these: 4.5 miles, with a 24-minute one-way travel time. This, plus Ogden's four-season climate, would make heating and air conditioning almost mandatory, I should think. Is there any gondola (not tram), anywhere in the world, with cabins that are heated or air conditioned?
It's remarkable that of the seven systems, only two have been in operation for more than three years. Both of these two have required long down-times (every fall and spring at Telluride; unscheduled at Roosevelt Island), and are now due for expensive upgrades.
So: will the Council staff now produce a similar report on streetcar systems?
Dan, Where can I get that link for the report?
Tec, (formerly TT, new handle)
Interesting that two of these systems are not yet built, Camden/Philly has started construction but apparently in trouble. Baltimore is still a dream.
New Orleans is outdated and slated for removal as is the Roosevelt Island Tram in NYC. That leaves Medellin, Telluride and Portland.
Portland is not an Urban Gondola. It is a point-to-point system linking OHSU and the waterfront development. It stands as an example of massive cost overruns which is it's major claim to fame. Initial estimate 12 mil. Finished cost...57 mil.
Medellin is an urban gondola in the sense that it operates in the midst of a densely populated city. It also is a point to point system linking a densely populated mountainside "neighborhood" of 250,000 to the urban rail system, which could not be engineered to serve this area of the city. It does not function like, nor replace traditional ground transit. It was built for the very special and particular need to deliver passengers to and from a very steep and geographically isolated area of the city to the rail transit infrastructure. No such condition exists in Ogden.
Telluride is an example of a gondola serving the unique task of connecting the town of Mountain Village to Telluride. They are seperated by a large mountain that just happens to be part of the ski area. If the mountain village were not even there they would still have the lift there to serve the skiers. Thus building the gondola was nothing more than a lift upgrade that conveniently could be used by residents and workers traveling between the two remote villages. It's cost is supplemented largely by the ski area. None of the conditions that make this installation right exist in the 4.5 mile proposed gondola in Ogden. Mainly the fact that Telluride spans a Ski resort, Ogden's would span a city, a city in need of a transit system that would not be filled by the gondola because it simply does not stop anywhere.
I received a copy of the Gondola/Tram report because I'm on the CC mailing list. As Dan S. described, it's really not much to write home about.
However, while hunting around on the City's website trying to find a copy there (I didn't), I came across the following Chris Peterson Project Process Resolution.
Did I just stumble on a landmine or was I asleep when it was discussed here?
Dan S.
All your critiques may well be true, but we need, I think, to keep in mind Mr. Phares' charge by the council. [I was at the meeting at which he reported the comparisons]. He was charged, I think, to simply do a quick survey of urban gondola systems that Council members might want to visit when looking for information about how a gondola might work, or not work, for Ogden. [His charge came after the Council turned down the Mayor's invitation to visit Telluride.]
When he presented this chart [comparison], he noted it had been hard to find urban gondola systems at all, and he said the Telluride one was in the quick comparison only because it's the one the Mayor wanted the Council to visit, that it really wasn't a gondola in an urban situation. He did comment on how hard it was to find much at all out there, noting that when he googled urban gondola, 80% of the hits dealt with the gondola in Ogden. His sources were largely the gondola websites he turned up, which did not offer complete information. And, I think, some phone calls.
So, the charge was to assemble some information about urban gondolas elsewhere so the Council could decide at a later date if it wanted to visit any of them pur purposes of seeing how an urban gondola might work in Ogden. This was a preliminary screening of potential sites to visit only. He was not charged with doing a full and detailed comparison or with assessing the extent to which the ones he found "fit" Ogden's circumstances or not.
The Council, at its work session, decided the quick comparison chart should be made available to the public [provided it could be done without cost], but the members also seemed determined not to take any action on this unless and until the much-promised and still-undelivered "Peterson Proposal" finally appeared.
Hard put to find much wrong, then, in my view, with what the Council asked for, or for what Mr. Phares dug up, or with the making public the results on line.
I believe it was the Mayor who charged Chad Phares with doing 'research' on gondolas...not the Council.
This 'process resolution' is a crock that was delayed by the PC twice, and the Council once.
Let's give it a burial. It's nothing more than the garbage Ellison came up with in August during the infamous 'work meeting'.
WE amend, put into place all that is necessary for the golf course and 'parklands, and trails' to be raped by the pilaging trio...while these cads don't even leave a dollar on the dresser and and a 'thank you m'am.'
Makes us look like pimps for sure for these hawks looking for tender treasure.
Ogden Lover--
you were not only asleep-- you were snoring.
Against:
I think you are misinformed about who charged Mr. Phares to do a quick survey of urban gondolas for the Council's information. He is, I think, Council staff and reports to the Council, not the Mayor.
Anon:
On sports companies abandoning Ogden if the downtown flatland gondola to Weber State is not built, note this from this morning's SE story on Scott opening its facility at BDO:
"The Scott facility is the largest at BDO, said Steve Waldrip, project manager for The Boyer Co., which manages the industrial park.
With a 15-year lease on the building and an option to extend for another 15 years, Scott USA plans to stay put in Ogden, said Zaugg, a native of Switzerland.
“We’re a private company, so we get to decide,” he said. “Swiss people are used to long-term commitments.”
Hmmmmm....nary a threat to pack up and skeedadle if Scott employees can't drive to downtown to catch a gondola ride to WSU on their lunch hours. Imagine that....
The Phares Report, even given its limited goals, contains some very interesting information. After searching the net for urban gondola systems, he came up with only 7 he thought worth passing on to the Council for a quick comparison. Two of the seven do not yet exist [Baltimore and Philadlphia, and Philadelphia's is a tram that will likely never be built as investors pulled out of the project well before construction]. That left five of the seven.
But two of the five are trams, not gondolas [NY and Portland]. Taking them out left three. One of the three was the NO Mart system, which was built, but which failed spactacularly and which was torn down finally as a navagation hazard having cost its investors millions. That left two. One of the two is the Telluride system, which does not serve a metropolitan area at all, and which skiers ride free between the town and the resort. [Total resident population 3500].
The only true urban gondola in operation is Medellin, Columbia, which has been successful [at huge subsidized cost] as a mover of the city's large numbers of resident poor from the slum areas to the business districts for work.
It would seem that Mr, Pharas was unable to locate a single gondola system operating successfully in an American city. Not to mention that Ogden's planned gondola would not deliver residents to an already-established and very popular high-end ski resort [as Telluride's does at no charge to the riders] but instead would carry people from downtown Ogden over a flat urban landscape to WSU. There they could transfer [and pay a new fare] to a private gondola [if one is ever built] to carry them to a Manlan's Basin mini-ski venue [if it is ever developed].
Why, I believe any fair minded person must conclude that what Hizzonah Mayor Godfrey wants to build here is such a close match for what Telluride built that it fairly takes one's breath away. Reasons for believing the Telluride Gondola provides a good model for Ogden are every bit as strong as the reasons for believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Great Pumpkin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that Bill Clinton didn't inhale. Every bit as strong.
Curm:
Thanks for the background info on the gondola report. I didn't mean my comments to be critical of Mr. Phares; perhaps he was given a deadline and this was simply all he could do in the allotted time. Still, I should think that, before deciding to take a field trip to visit one or more of these locations, the Council would want a somewhat more complete comparison report.
And I still think a similar report on streetcars is called for.
Another point with the Medellin, Columbia gondola that was pointed out by "Tec" is the fact that the Medellin gondola links a densely populated mountainside "neighborhood" of 250,000 to the rest of the city. That's a huge isolated population to draw from that we would not have in Ogden.
Another detracting point about gondola and or tram operations is their need to shut down anytime there is lightning in the area (i.e.within 10 miles).
All I want to know is why the mayor hates the golf course so much that he would rather have houses there rather than the open space?
Great post Curm,
Dan, I totally agree that a similar report should be done on streetcar deployments. It is amazing how such a single minded approach can mask the available options and lend credibility to only those items viewed. How is it that the council sits by and accepts such limited research and not ask for more. It is my natural response to want to see the other available options compared with the same criteria.
Tec:
Well, I think the Council's position at this point is, there is no proposal and so, with respect to a non-existent proposal, there is manifestly nothing for them to do. Nothing has arrived from Mr. Peterson or the Mayor on which they can act. Nothing. The sense I got at the last work session was that they are not going to do anything more at this point... and they are certainly not going gad about on the public's dime visiting gondolas. I think it was Councilwoman Wicks who said doing so would be a bit "premature." Indeed it would.
I think the Council, or some of its members at least, are looking into what the Council might do with respect taking the next steps to implement the recommendations of the WFRC, and to access state or federal funds to help that happen. That next step would be to commission an "alternatives analysis" --- a much more detailed look at costs, etc. of the three alternatives the WFRC looked at [recommending first, the trolley, second, Bus Rapid Transit and dead last, the gondola]. That step would be necessary prior to any federal funds or UTA funds becoming available for construction.
Ideally, the Mayor should have initiated steps to act on the WFRC study and recommendations over a year ago. But since they didn't reach the conclusion he wanted reached, he has done nothing. [Think of a six year old playing football on a playgound with a ball he brought, stamping his foot and staying "If I can't score a touchdown on every play, I'm taking my football and going home!" That's more or less the Mayor's style (politely so called) in cases like this.]
Whether the Council can start things moving, whether it can access whatever state/federal funds are available to help pay for the alternatives analysis without the active cooperation of the Mayor, is I gather, a matter of some debate. It is being looked into now.
As for a separate "trolley" report like the one Mr. Phares just did for gondolas... well, I think if the Council gets to the point at which it is considering visiting a city with a working trolley system to see what it might do for Ogden, a quick-and-dirty trolley report would be asked for then. Seems reasonable to me.
A lot of information (details, State law, etc.) is being withheld from the Council as well as the public. For instance, State law requires that the City purchase and have available to rescue trapped riders from the gondola when it automatically shuts down in winds of 35 mph, a rescue vehicle with a large platform to load a wheelchair, costing over a million dollars. Also, nothing has been said, about moving and replacing water and sewer pipes to dig the holes deep and big enough to solidly anchor the massive towers for the gondola. What are the costs involved and does the City have the money to do such a project?
When Chris Peterson finally presents his plan, the Council should require the above information be provided.
The Council should also look into the State law that was passed a few ago, absolving the developer of any liability when homes are damaged in slippage areas, earthquakes, and flooding, leaving the Council and the City of Ogden liable.
Regarding that resolution that the Council tabled, the Council should study it in depth and be aware of all the subtlities in it. If they approve it, Peterson and Ellison could come back and sue the Council/City on the grounds that they believed the Council's intent is to approve the project. In business, similar documents are known as "pre-development agreements, and are binding documents.
These are only the obvious reasons/arguments to disapprove this resolution. The Council would be wise to do so.
In the Know:
Some of the matters you raise, like constuction costs [including cost of moving utilities, etc] would, I think, be directly addressed in the alternatives analysis, which is what the city ought to have begun over a year ago following the Wasatch Front Regional Council study and recommendations. The longer the Mayor drags his feet on beginning that, the longer it will take the city down the line to tap into federal funds to build any kind of transit. And so the longer it will take to put that transit in place.
Saturday morning's SE paper, front page bottom right, has an article about a study that the state is doing with regards to property in sensitive overlay zones. This study will be incorporating the lessions learned in those communities that have recently experienced problems in these types of zones. The study is being performed by the State and the findings will be made public after the first of the year. This would be an excellent document when it's made public in assisting our city in its review of our sensitive overlay ordinance. This may become a state-wide standard that we will need to meet at a minimun any way.
City Council should ask the Planning Commission to hold off on any further considerations of our city's review of our sensitive overlay zoning ordinance until the Planning Commission and their staff have had a chance to fully review and incorporate the study's findings into their go forward recommendations for our city.
The only gondola in the world that serves any purpose other than exclusively skiing that can be called a resounding success is the Telluride gondola. Although it does not exclusively serve skiing it is largely subsidized by it. In fact, the town of Mountain Village is a creation of Telski(Telluride Ski Corporation). The not yet proposed mountain gondola linking the not-yet-proposed foothill base to the not-yet-proposed Malan's Resort is more comparable to the Telluride system than any part or the whole of the not-yet-proposed town gondola. Therefore there is no basis to use it as an example for the construction of the not-yet-proposed town gondola.
The Medellin gondola connects a densely populated(250,000)and topographically isolated hillside borough to the metro train system in a city of 2.2 million and metropolitan area of 3.3 million. There is no similar conditions or demand in Ogden.
These two examples are the only that can be found in the whole world that have any urban utility. So now we have narrowed down the list of "urban gondolas" to...uhh.. 2...in a world of a million cities larger than Ogden. That's pretty ridiculous to even suggest in any kind of promotional language that there is any case for a gondola to serve anything but the most special of cases. This is not one of them. The council should now begin to look closely at the special conditions that make either of these two in the whole wide world and see of any of those conditions resemble Ogden. There are no common conditions.
I wonder why they dropped the Kellogg gondola from the look-see list.
Chris Peterson would be wise to take this project in small bites. I don't care how much cash you have, this project has cost overruns stamped deeply into it's veneer.
No one has offered up one single example in this huge world of ours of a mountain resort village built and operated entirely by cableway. This is fresh territory for any engineering firm including heavyweights like Bechtel, Morissey-Knudsen, GE, Halliburton, Fluor, etc. If I were CP I would get that gondola built to Malan's,if he can convince WSU to lease or sell him a base station parcel. After getting the gondola operational, it will be much easier to design the logistics to accomplish the rest. I wouold not trust a bid from anyone in this instance and he reveals his very green horns when he assumes he is in good hands with a bid from whoever. My assumption would be that any bid for mountain village construction prior to the actual operations of the gondola would have to be padded heavily to cover unforeseen logistical hurdles of which there will undoubtedly be many. He would be wise to allow a test period for mateerial handling and loading/offloading procedure. Any hiccups in this process will add tremendous downtime and raise the overall construction costs. I would rather test my contractors with a couple of small projects before contracting the whole shebang to one large general. That would insure that the hangups related to the whole material handling process can be ironed out. The delivery of materials will be the guiding force on the construction schedule. Chris Peterson knows all of this I would think, which is why he wants our parklands to underwrite the enormous costs of his dream. It is wrong. The town gondola is wrong. Peterson is a rank amateur who seeks only to assemble the development rights to all of this and the only thing likely to be developed is our parklands. The town gondola will be killed for any of a hundred reasons or hurdles creating unsurmountable cost overruns. The mountain resort will likely never be built after Peterson blows his wad on reconfiguring the golf course and miring himself in endless litigations over slope, drainage and infrastructure. This is one sickening mess and the city council should beware of the hugely negative ramifications. Will any one of the current council members want to share and shoulder the blame for selling out our beautiful foothill for luxury development. I hope they have some soul. They could be losing it over this one.
Well, Tec, you state your case so well, and all you say is interesting and enlightening.
But, after all is said..it still boils down to CP only wanting our land to build his gated community!
I've said FOREVER, that he'll never build in Malan's...as you aptly point out...the engineeering logistics are staggering to comtemplate.
Therefore, he'll never do what we have suggested...build his darn gondola up to Malan's...keep records for 4 years, see who rides the thing and how often....
It ain't gonna happen. IF it does, I'll buy him a lovely dinner. That is, if I can leave the nursing home long enuf to do that...being way over one hundred by then, and all.
Just a comment about the feasibility of this whole concept of aerial transportation and the viability of this whole Malan Basin development,
I was part of the 1998 group that helped the city study and develop the gondola/tram option up Taylor Canyon to Snow Basin. After looking at several technologies it was determined that a tram was the most effective technology even though it wasn’t the cheapest. Trams can operate in more severe weather conditions, have fewer moving parts so to speak and create less of a visual effect on the mountain.
I bring this one issue up as an example to show how little the sponsors of this development have looked into their project. If they seriously try to employ the gondola technology to move people into Malan Basin from the base of the mountain they are going to encounter several periods when they won’t be able to operate the gondola due to wind and not just high winds either. Wind shifts and/or wind gusts are actually more common reasons for gondolas or trams to stop operations than are simple high winds. Trams though, due to their additional weight, fair much better in these wind conditions than do gondolas and as such can continue to operate when gondola operations are shut down. It was primarily for this reason that the original group decided on the use of a tram operation over that of a gondola. As mentioned above though, the tram is a more costly alternative to build.
I point this out simple to suggest that the developers are trying to present a financially viable “vision” of this project to the people of Ogden and realistically it isn’t. When each of these separate projects is examined individually it becomes clear that each project is much more expensive to develop, build and operate than we are being lead to believe. The devil is in the details and until the developer provides the City Council with a detailed proposal, including financials, the City Council should do nothing, sign nothing and request that the mayor back off on his efforts to initiate changes to our City’s General Plan and zoning ordinances to accommodate this developer.
Sharon,
I agree completely with you accessment as to what the developer is really up to. I would also suggest to you that if Ogden sells our open space to be developed into gated residential community that Ogden will, after all is said and done, have cost itself a lot more money than it gained.
What hasn't even been discussed is how much money Ogden will need to spend to accomodate this area being developed. All of our drinking water, storm run off drainage systems, sewer system are stretched to the max up there. Additionally if you fix them up there you simply move the problem down stream to the rest of Ogden which is also maxed out. You're not just looking at the cost of installing the new services at Mount Ogden but you're also looking at having to address adding capacity to all of the municipal services through out the entire city. Additionally we would need to address new roads, snow removal, medical response, fire, and police.
When you factor in all of these costs that this devbelopment will cost the city, you have to ask yourself where's the gain? If the Mayor has his way, we may simply be giving up very good quality of life for more taxes.
Thank you, Anon.
This is a sorry mess, isn't it?
One wonders how this mayor can keep his blinders in place.
We have ten months (almost) til the electons. WHERE is our mayoral candidate?
I'd hoped this person would've volunteered to come forth on his white charger by now.
Anon (who posted at 1:16): As I recall, the 1998 study actually said a tram going up Mt. Ogden would be slightly cheaper than a gondola. The advantage of the gondola isn't cost, it's short wait times before the next departure. This doesn't matter much for a relatively short system like the one being built in Portland, but for longer distances, the wait time between tram departures would be substantial. Even so, the 1998 study recommended a tram; I assume this was primarily due to its better resistance to wind as you say. Other advantages with a tram are its higher speed, smoother ride (due to greater weight and greater spacing between towers), and relative ease of providing on-board lighting and climate control (since there are two large cabins rather than dozens of small ones). Another advantage to the gondola is that intermediate stops are possible, though they add quite a bit to the cost.
Imagine that you’re a high roller and you’re bragging to your high rolling buddies at a Christmas Party or cocktail party about how you bought a condo at this new high end ski resort nestled in a remote basin high on the mountain and accessible only by gondola. I’m sure every one would be impressed and want to know the name of this Valhalla! Malan Basin would be your response.
Now the tough part, as all your buddies starts talking about how they plan on spending their Christmas break actually skiing with their family at Aspen, Vail, Deer Valley or Snowbird, you know that it won’t be until at least the later half of January (after Christmas break is over) before there will be enough snow at your Valhalla to actually ski and oh by spring break time there won’t be enough snow left for you to ski up there then either. All this because when you bought the place you didn’t realize that the resort had only limited access to water and even if the could access more water, that due to the resorts lower elevation, the resort would be challenged to make enough snow in time for the peak season anyway, but you wouldn’t want to point this issue out to your buddies as they might question your wisdom of buying the condo in the first place. Even tougher will be your admission that you had to rent one at some other ski resort just so you could ski with your family when the family could all be together (i.e. Christmas and Spring break). But hey you could still brag about the beautiful sunsets.
Then there will be the questions about the night life and the variety of wonderful restaurants. Now you’re going to have to hedge. You’ll say something like, this is a true ski mountain and the amenities are top drawer but limited. Then you’ll say something like, you can always get on the Gondola (minimum 30 minute trip each way without bathrooms) and head into Ogden if you want night life or menu variety. Then your high rolling buddies will start wondering as to why you didn’t just buy in Park City where you would already be in the middle of things. And the first time the gondola shuts down for what ever reason and you have to rent a hotel room in Ogden for the night rather then stay in your condo or miss a flight home, you’ll start thinking about the little comments all your high rolling buddies are making about your Valhalla. It won’t be long after that that you’ll have your condo on the market along with every one else that bought into the vision.
Yes the location will sound great but the reality of the limited ski terrain, limited ski season, limited area to develop, limited amenities, limited variety and what will eventually develop into the limited appeal will kill this deal if it ever gets off the ground. Who knows history might repeat itself and we might have another hotel fire up there
I'VE REACHED MY LIMIT!!!!!!
To Dan S.
If you can get your hands on the August 1998 study and if you look on pages 11 and 12 you will indeed see that cost was an issue as well as wind
Anon:
I'm afraid I don't have a complete copy of the 1998 study; I photocopied excerpts but nowhere near the whole thing. I do have pages that give cost estimates for the two recommended options, jigback tram and funitel. Between these, the tram was by far the cheaper and most of the detailed financial analysis assumes the tram option with a cost of about $12 million (1998 dollars, straight shot up Taylor Canyon with no intermediate stops). I have a vague recollection of seeing something (possibly not in the 1998 study) that said a gondola would be a little more expensive than a tram, but not a lot. For comparison, the 3.1-mile Kellogg gondola cost $12 million in 1990. What does it say on pages 11 and 12?
Page 11 is the page where the chosen technology choice was identified and why some of the other technologies were ruled out. It was on this page where the gondola option was mentioned as not being suitable because of wind considerations. On page 12, the people that put together the study organized a chart that examined the advantaages and disadvantages the of all of the examined technologies. It is on this page 12 where they identify gondolas as being less costly than trams.
I can get you copies of both pages or if you want provide you with an option to view the whole thing.
Anon:
Thanks. Actually I think I do know someone who has a copy of the full report, so I can try to look at that copy some time. Ideally someone would scan in the report, or at least scan some of the more interesting pages, and put the thing online for the public to see. Any interest in helping with such a project?
If I knew how to do that I'd be glad to make it available to all
New comments are not allowed.