Utah faces two very different challenges competing for public attention and resources. One is traffic in a single mountain canyon, largely driven by skiers traveling to private ski resorts. The other is a shrinking Great Salt Lake, posing threats to Utah’s air quality, economy, water system and quality of life. The scale of the investment should force us to ask a simple question: Where would $1.4 billion do the most good for Utahns?
Read more Latter-day Saints for Life conference urges members to ‘stand for life with love’
In 2023, the Utah Department of Transportation selected an eight-mile gondola as the long-term transportation solution for Little Cottonwood Canyon. The gondola is the final stage of a three-phased broader plan that includes expanded ski bus service, tolling, road improvements, snow sheds, trailhead parking and, eventually, a 2,500-space gondola base station.
Once the gondola begins operation, regular ski bus service into the canyon would end. Taken together, this phased investment approaches $1.4 billion according to the Wasatch Front Regional Council, the state’s own official planning and budgeting entity.
Now consider another potential use of public resources: getting more water to the Great Salt Lake. The lake is not solely a scenic landmark. It generates an estimated $1.9 billion in economic activity each year and supports more than 7,700 jobs. Its industries include mineral extraction and brine shrimp production, while its wetlands support millions of migratory birds. The lake also contributes an estimated 5% to 10% of Utah’s total snowpack through lake-effect snow.
The consequences of allowing the Great Salt Lake to shrink extend far beyond the shoreline is significant. More than 2.6 million Utahns live downwind of the lake. As water recedes, exposed lake bed can generate dust containing particulate matter and potentially dangerous elements, including arsenic. A 2026 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper estimated annual health costs associated with Great Salt Lake desiccation at between $1.1 billion and $2.3 billion.
Compare that challenge with what the gondola addresses. Little Cottonwood Canyon has a real traffic problem, primarily on peak ski days. A gondola would bypass highway congestion and accidents and provide predictable transportation to Alta and Snowbird. Those are genuine benefits for the two ski areas.
Read more Where BYU and Utah landed in Week 6’s AP top 25 poll
But this UDOT plan has steep limitations. While a gondola is separate from traffic, UDOT’s own documents show that operations will be restricted during severe weather that includes wind, ice, and lightning. It will not provide unlimited canyon access, as often implied. It also creates the highest visual impact of any option evaluated. And it comes at an extraordinary price.
UDOT maintains that this high initial investment pays off over time. But independent data suggests otherwise. A 2025 BYU Department of Civil and Construction Engineering study challenged UDOT’s conclusion that the gondola plan would have lower life-cycle costs than enhanced bus service. After correcting for errors in UDOT’s analysis, researchers found enhanced buses were less expensive in 11 of 12 economic full-life-cycle cost scenarios modeled.
There are alternatives that do not require a billion-dollar gondola. Utah can expand high-frequency bus service, use congestion pricing, require resort parking reservations, enforce roadside parking restrictions, and perhaps create opportunities for private van ride sharing.
In fact, many of these measures are already part of the state’s phased canyon plan. We should implement them, objectively measure clear performance metric results, analyze the data against a structured baseline, and determine what additional investment is actually necessary.
Utah will always have more worthy projects than money. Transportation must compete with water, education, housing, public safety, and other priorities. That is why taxpayers should demand a clear comparison of benefits before committing $1.4 billion to one canyon.
Read more Opinion: Bad information about SNAP leads to bad policy