Anonymous Comments Will Be Removed

Anonymous posts can be confusing and hard to follow with several users posting anonymously in the same thread. Please create a User Name/ID when adding to our comments section.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

The Standard Editorial Board Nailed It This Morning With "Resort Road Won't Work" - Relating to the Powder Mountain Road, of Course

The Standard hit right to the heart of the Powder Mountain Road issue this morning with their editorial Resort road won't work.  Be sure not to miss the Grondahl cartoon, too.

Here are some tidbits, but read the entire editorial by clicking here:  (emphasis added)

The facts are clear: If there are going to be major plans for expansion at Powder Mountain -- including yearlong events and perhaps a new incorporated town -- there needs to be major changes with road access to Powder Mountain resort.
They went on to say,

The Weber County Sheriff's Department is concerned about the dangerous impact of heavier traffic up the resort road, but it can't do anything other than patrol the roads to make sure travel is as safe as possible.
And then,

It seems to us that some major brainstorming is needed. The existing road is not adequate. It won't work. Powder Mountain officials need to lead the way in coming up with safer, better transportation ideas. Unless some feasible idea is implemented to make the resort road safer and more practical, we can't see Powder Mountain's expansion ideas becoming a reality.
 Any comments from our Ogden Valley observers?


Pencil Pusher said...

It appears that people and the media are finally waking up to the dangers of this road. How many lost lives will it take to force the powers that be to restrict the road traffic and growth expansion until a second, safer road is constructed?

Dan S. said...

Interesting that most of the S-E's brainstorms would be completely incompatible with the sprawling, auto-dependent development that the owners have proposed.

Even more interesting that the S-E has overlooked the most obvious solution: Leave the mountain the way it is.

Whistler said...

Dan, your point is good. However, it appears we may have to accept some increase in development if they move forward with the current zoning (about 1500 units). If the town incorporation goes forward, we could wind up with 10,000 units within the town boundries.

Space said...

The road is a bugger, ain't it?

Wonder how all those skiers get off the mountain every afteroon? (during the winter of course, when the road is at it's worst).

Valley said...


Do you really think the road is safe?

How many times throughout the season is the road closed because of accidents, avalanches or snow maintenance?

Now add 10,000 housing units to the mix.

You must be eating too many space cakes if you think the road is adequate, feasible or safe.

Diana said...

Well,Pencil Pusher said he wonders how many lost lives it will take before they realize a newer, safer road has to be constructed. The DOT has said a newer safer road CANNOT be built. Period. So what else us there to say?

The rest of the story said...

Diana is either misinformed OR trying to misinform.

Pencil pusher went on to say "restrict the road traffic and growth expansion until a second, safer road is constructed?"

That is the premise behind the second or alternate road that the Ogden Valley planning commission insisted upon in 2008 and probably what prompted Powder Mtn. Developers to file for incorporation in the first place.

There are plenty of options for a second road. The developers don't care about safety, but instead care only about increasing the density without increasing their costs.

If a few lose their lives in the process, then so be it.

Pencil Pusher said...

UDOT said the current road cannot be modified to any great extent. It never said another road could not be put up there. Cache County would be a good place since many of the buildings of the proposed resort will be in Cache County up at the top.

Pistol Pete said...

Space seems to have forgot that a driver did not make it off the mountain alive recently. Last year it was a lady and her daughter.

Bo said...

What is wrong with Cache County? If they allowed a road to be built through the Paradise area they would no doubt get a great deal of construction material business when the developement begins and it would open up a nice ski area to it's residents. Is someone on the Cache County Commission have interest in Beaver Mountain?

Diana said...

I agree with everything Pencil Pusher said. And also with what the Standard Editorial Board said as well. They are merely making my point. No need to reiterate what has already been said again and again. Money and greed are at the basis of this whole thing. Apparently, to the developers, lives, inconvenience, removing peoples' rights to vote on local officials, and ruining one of the most beautiful places in this whole United States don't matter in the least. 'Nuff said.

Ron Gleason said...

Let's assume that a road is built on the Cache County side. What does it accomplish? Yes it provides a second road, provides for an alternative in an emergency situation but does alleviate traffic from passing though Ogden Valley? reduce or eliminate construction traffic? Does it make the existing road any safer? I see a road from Cache County as nice but relatively unused. Anyone south of Brigham City is going to go through OV to get to POwder. The amount of folks coming from Cache COunty is minimal.

Would the developers agree to having all construction traffic, event traffic and certain size vehicle *only* use a road from Cache County? Is it feasible to enforce such a law or agreement?

I do not have a better solution but I keep thinking the focus on a second will not deal the issue of traffic through and within the OV.

Pencil Pusher said...

I guess the only solution is to limit the size and scope of the development up there.

Duh! That is what everyone has been saying for the last 3 years. The road/traffic is only one issue that must be solved. The other main issue is the density suggested by PM of 10,000 units that will destroy the general plan for Ogden Valley and will overwhelm the valley roads, water, sewer, air pollution, etc. etc. I guess if we forget about all that stuff, there is nothing wrong with their plan.

Space said...

The road is too dangerous. That's the premise correct?

Is it too dangerous right now? Guess that's an opinion. I drive it every weekend in the winter and survive. To me, it is not TOO dangerous. To you it might be.

We talk about people dying on the road. If death is a benchmark for TOO DANGEROUS, every road leading into beautiful Ogden Valley is TOO DANGEROUS.

Like guns (guns don't kill people, people kill people), the road doesn't kill them, they kill themselves. (IMHO)

Think the road is too dangerous, don't drive it. Take care of yourself and I'll take care of myself.

I realize this is a excuse/reason/attempt to stop or limit the development. I don't agree with the premise. Welcome to a ski resort after all.

Miranda said...

Space's last comment speaks for itself. A self centered response that indicates, who cares about anyone. How would you like to have him or her doing your highway planning?

Space said...

No Miranda, it's an attempt to say "Be responsible for yourself".

Genesis said...

Space once again exposes himself for ridicule. His mantra is every man for himself and no one should help each other. This flies in the face of the Church teachings that we should help others,but not to Space who is way out in space.

Space said...

After all, "Church" teachings have nothing to do with responsibility. I think that's one of the main points isn't it?

Church in a state issue.

Grab another straw!!!

Just for the record, I don't support the powder mountain incorporation attempt. I do think the road is the responsibility of the driver. That's really my point in this thread.