• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

I-1: Jordan Hamann Comment I-1-1 The gondolas. I would pay just to take the gondolas themselves, that would be an attraction in its own right: take the Gondolas to summer flowers, fall foliage, spring melt, winter snow. It would be much cooler than most US ideas. And there is so much precedent in the developed world (Switzerland, Austria, Germany, etc.). This would not be a pioneering engineering project but it could be awesome. Comment I-1-2 The idea to connect Brighton to Park City? Transformative! Clearing the Wasatch Crest without private vehicles could do so much to alleviate congestion and encourage visitors to hit more resorts, significantly helping the recreation economy. Moving more cars into the mountains is a recipe for disaster, whether that be from fires, pollution, air quality, environmental stress, or what have you. Comment I-1-3 The idea to connect Brighton to Park City? Transformative! Clearing the Wasatch Crest without private vehicles could do so much to alleviate congestion and encourage visitors to hit more resorts, significantly helping the recreation economy. Moving more cars into the mountains is a recipe for disaster, whether that be from fires, pollution, air quality, environmental stress, or what have you. Comment I-1-4 The idea to connect Brighton to Park City? Transformative! Clearing the Wasatch Crest without private vehicles could do so much to alleviate congestion and encourage visitors to hit more resorts, significantly helping the recreation economy. Moving more cars into the mountains is a recipe for disaster, whether that be from fires, pollution, air quality, environmental stress, or what have you. I-2: Jake Garfield Comment I-2-1 I strongly support the implementation of dynamic tolling in BCC and LCC. Both BCC and LCC are being loved to death, and dynamic tolling would disincentive private vehicle use and better protect canyon resources, particularly the watershed. -I do not support any sort of discount for canyon users based on income. There is no income- based discount to access Millcreek Canyon, or Arches National Park, or to drive up American Fork Canyon, and I do not believe that an income-based discount is appropriate for driving in either LCC or BCC. I do not see how such a program could be administered fairly, and it would be extremely cumbersome for UDOT (or whichever organization ultimately administers a dynamic tolling system in the Cottonwood Canyons) to verify income level of canyon users. Just like a national parks, UDOT should charge a single toll for all vehicle entering the canyon. -Dynamic tolling must charge vehicles per vehicle, NOT on the number of occupants per vehicle. One of the biggest problems in the canyons is the number of vehicles with only one occupant. Tolling based on vehicle will incentivize car-pooling, certainly a positive for the canyons. If tolling is charged per vehicle, then groups traveling in the canyons may squeeze into a single vehicle to avoid paying the toll for 2 or more vehicles. This would b a GOOD THING and should be encouraged. Tolling per occupant would disproportionately impact immigrants and people of color, many of whom live in larger families or multi-generational households. Tolling per occupant would ultimately be discriminatory, which is why tolling per vehicle is the only fair solution. -UDOT (or another entity administering dynamic tolling) must offer a season pass for vehicle use in the canyons. This season pass should be include access to both LCC and BCC. A season pass would make the tolling system less regressive and provide frequent canyon users with a more affordable option. A season pass would be particularly helpful for immigrants communities, communities of color, and low-income communities, members of whom often drive in the canyons frequently and likely would not be able to afford paying the toll each time they travel in the canyons. The season pass to drive in the canyons should be available to all Utah residents, and not limited to canyon property owners, which would be highly discriminatory. -Dynamic tolling should be administered through a traditional toll booth at the entrance to both LCC and BCC, just as in most national parks. A toll booth would eliminate much of the confusion and complexity that would likely result from a license plate reader or other tolling system. A toll booth would also discourage inappropriate uses of the canyon such as dogs, graffiti, or other elements; canyon users planning to engage in such inappropriate activities would be discouraged from doing so if they needed to first drive through a toll booth and interact with an attendant. -A tool booth should also be built at the top of Guardsman Pass as well as the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon so that canyon users coming from both directions are charged equally. Comment I-2-2 I strongly support the implementation of dynamic tolling in BCC and LCC. Both BCC and LCC are being loved to death, and dynamic tolling would disincentive private vehicle use and better protect canyon resources, particularly the watershed. -I do not support any sort of discount for canyon users based on income. There is no income-based discount to access Millcreek Canyon, or Arches National Park, or to drive up American Fork Canyon, and I do not believe that an income-based discount is appropriate for driving in either LCC or BCC. I do not see how such a program could be administered fairly, and it would be extremely cumbersome for UDOT (or whichever organization ultimately administers a dynamic tolling system in the Cottonwood Canyons) to verify income level of canyon users. Just like a national parks, UDOT should charge a single toll for all vehicle entering the canyon. -Dynamic tolling must charge vehicles per vehicle, NOT on the number of occupants per vehicle. One of the biggest problems in the canyons is the number of vehicles with only one occupant. Tolling based on vehicle will incentivize car-pooling, certainly a positive for the canyons. If tolling is charged per vehicle, then groups traveling in the canyons may squeeze into a single vehicle to avoid paying the toll for 2 or more vehicles. This would b a GOOD THING and should be encouraged. Tolling per occupant would disproportionately impact immigrants and people of color, many of whom live in larger families or multi-generational households. Tolling per occupant would ultimately be discriminatory, which is why tolling per vehicle is the only fair solution. -UDOT (or another entity administering dynamic tolling) must offer a season pass for vehicle use in the canyons. This season pass should be include access to both LCC and BCC. A season pass would make the tolling system less regressive and provide frequent canyon users with a more affordable option. A season pass would be particularly helpful for immigrants communities, communities of color, and low-income communities, members of whom often drive in the canyons frequently and likely would not be able to afford paying the toll each time they travel in the canyons. The season pass to drive in the canyons should be available to all Utah residents, and not limited to canyon property owners, which would be highly discriminatory. -Dynamic tolling should be administered through a traditional toll booth at the entrance to both LCC and BCC, just as in most national parks. A toll booth would eliminate much of the confusion and complexity that would likely result from a license plate reader or other tolling system. A toll booth would also discourage inappropriate uses of the canyon such as dogs, graffiti, or other elements; canyon users planning to engage in such inappropriate activities would be discouraged from doing so if they needed to first drive through a toll booth and interact with an attendant. -A tool booth should also be built at the top of Guardsman Pass as well as the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon so that canyon users coming from both directions are charged equally. Comment I-2-3 I strongly support the implementation of dynamic tolling in BCC and LCC. Both BCC and LCC are being loved to death, and dynamic tolling would disincentive private vehicle use and better protect canyon resources, particularly the watershed. -I do not support any sort of discount for canyon users based on income. There is no income-based discount to access Millcreek Canyon, or Arches National Park, or to drive up American Fork Canyon, and I do not believe that an income-based discount is appropriate for driving in either LCC or BCC. I do not see how such a program could be administered fairly, and it would be extremely cumbersome for UDOT (or whichever organization ultimately administers a dynamic tolling system in the Cottonwood Canyons) to verify income level of canyon users. Just like a national parks, UDOT should charge a single toll for all vehicle entering the canyon. -Dynamic tolling must charge vehicles per vehicle, NOT on the number of occupants per vehicle. One of the biggest problems in the canyons is the number of vehicles with only one occupant. Tolling based on vehicle will incentivize car-pooling, certainly a positive for the canyons. If tolling is charged per vehicle, then groups traveling in the canyons may squeeze into a single vehicle to avoid paying the toll for 2 or more vehicles. This would b a GOOD THING and should be encouraged. Tolling per occupant would disproportionately impact immigrants and people of color, many of whom live in larger families or multi-generational households. Tolling per occupant would ultimately be discriminatory, which is why tolling per vehicle is the only fair solution.

Load more

  352

Copy Link