View attachment 104183
Agreed about the bus comments, but this puts a dedicated bus lane as the most expensive option (as proposed). The roadway expansion that was envisioned seems very costly.
I don't think you created that graphic but it doesn't make any sense. How can the 2nd bus option have less O&M cost despite the same number of buses and the added cost of expanding the roadway.
I looked it up and buses cost about 500k, so at 12 buses (assuming half of the buses exist today) that's only 6M of the 283M capital cost. I also found estimates of about $100M for snow shed work which even in the gondola plan is 2/3 the capacity and the only ambulance capacity so I would think you'd have to do that regardless of the option. So you're looking at base captial costs of 277M for all three options. If you ignore that since you have to spend that no matter what, the additonal cost for the three options are:
Option 1: 6M
Option 2: 193M
Option 3: 316M
When you look at those numbers, option 1 looks a lot better and adding even more buses for an option 1b start to look great.
Lastly, I sure hope they don't mess up every day to deal with peak days. Even now, most days I drive to Alta in 25 minutes without issue. If they put big tolls in for non-peak days or force bus/gondola riding, we could be looking at lot of wasted money and a lot of over an hour travel times despite clear roads (due to bus to gondola transit time as defined by UDOT)
I've also been stuck on the bus for hours on powder days so I know we need a solution to those peak days.