The boundary between Deer Valley and Park City is little more than a rope.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Before we jump into the blueprints of Utah\u2019s mega-resort plan, we first have to discuss how so many ski resorts got built in such close proximity to one another in the first place.<\/p>\n The ski areas of the central Wasatch developed in remarkable proximity thanks to the range\u2019s unique geography and Utah\u2019s mid-20th-century skiing boom. In Little Cottonwood Canyon and Big Cottonwood Canyon, two adjacent canyons just east of Salt Lake City, developers utilized primitive right-of-ways originally set up for mining<\/a> to establish four resorts: first, Alta and Brighton at the terminus of each canyon in the 1930s, followed by Solitude below Brighton in the late 1950s, and then Snowbird adjacent to Alta in the early 1970s.<\/p>\n Over the ridge on the \u201cWasatch Back\u201d above Park City, three more ski resorts were developed as well: Park City Ski Area (originally Treasure Mountain), Deer Valley, and Canyons (originally Park West). Wait, three more, not two? Many of you probably know what we\u2019re talking about, but for the rest of you, more on that later.<\/p>\n By the 1980s, seven distinct ski areas operated within only a few geographical miles of one another, separated mainly by mountain ridges and canyon boundaries. This clustering was partly coincidental\u2014each resort originated independently, often on historic mining land\u2014but it was also due to the exceptional snow accumulation exclusive to one very small silver of a singular mountain range in the state. Either way, it created an unusual concentration of ski terrain.\u00a0<\/p>\n Early on, these neighboring resorts began to flirt with interconnection on a smaller scale. In the 1982-83 season, Solitude opened a trail link to Brighton via the \u201cSolBright\u201d trail, allowing skiers and riders to traverse between the two Big Cottonwood resorts. This was officially on both resort trail maps by 1987, and by 2013, this was accompanied by a joint ticket (called the \u201cBig Cottonwood Pass\u201d) that gave access to both mountains\u2019 combined 2,100 acres and 15 lifts.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The entrance to the SolBright trail from the Brighton side, which connects the resort to nearby Solitude.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Meanwhile in Little Cottonwood, Alta and Snowbird were located adjacent at a high ridge, with their boundaries directly bordering one another\u2014and unofficially allowing for skiing between both resorts\u2014as early as the 1980s. But by 2001, they formed a formal partnership that coincided with the opening of Snowbird\u2019s Mineral Basin backside, installing a gate near Snowbird\u2019s Baldy Express chairlift that enabled skiers to move freely between the two resorts. And the key word there is skiers, because Alta did not allow snowboarders, a policy we\u2019ll roll back to later.<\/p>\n By 1998, in preparation for the 2002 Olympic Games, Park City and Deer Valley both debuted substantial lift-served terrain expansions that put parts of their boundaries directly next to one another\u2014and although the resorts never opened an official link, one could now theoretically just duck the rope to go from Park City to Deer Valley, or vice-versa. As a result, the Utah ski world ended up in a place where six of its resorts were bordered by nothing more than a rope line. So if that could happen, why not link them all<\/em>?<\/p>\n Indeed, the dream of connecting multiple Utah ski areas is not new. A 1980s proposal envisioned linking<\/a> Park City with Brighton, Solitude, Alta, and Snowbird. However, the proposal excluded Park West, which later became Canyons, because it wasn\u2019t considered destination-grade at the time, as well as Deer Valley, which was (and still is) the newest destination ski resort in the United States, having only opened in 1981. And ultimately, the plan was stalled amidst governmental planning concerns.<\/p>\n But by the 2010s, with the borders of these resorts closer than ever and significant capital investments achieved in large part thanks to the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, momentum for a modern interconnect returned in a new form.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Utah resorts Alta and Snowbird were connected in 2001, when Snowbird opened an expansion that nudged the boundary with Alta and allowed skiers to traverse between the resorts.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The first true action for an interconnect attempt didn\u2019t come from the whole Wasatch ski industry, but rather from two specific resorts. In 2011, Talisker Corp., which owned Canyons at the time, unveiled a plan for an 8,000-foot gondola<\/a> directly linking Canyons on the Park City side to Solitude in Big Cottonwood Canyon. This particular link was especially enticing because, then as now, no winter road existed directly from the Park City area to the Cottonwoods. Installing this gondola would have turned an out-of-the-way, 45-mile drive between the two sectors into a direct, 11-minute gondola ride between the two mountains, and proponents argued it would have reduced traffic in both resort areas.<\/p>\n However, the big sticking point was land ownership; since the gondola would have crossed 30 acres of public land owned by the U.S. Forest Service, it would have normally had to go through a lengthy environmental approval process to get the green light. But to get around that, the project stakeholders sought a sale of 30 acres of land to bypass those approvals. The land sale proposal got support in Congress, with local Utah representatives and senators introducing federal legislation to move it forward.<\/a><\/p>\n But that land sale plan proved to be extremely controversial. Local Salt Lake City officials and even the U.S. Forest Service itself<\/a> raised alarms<\/a> over the precedent that sidestepping environmental review through federal legislation would set. Dozens of environmental groups also argued it would fragment vital watershed and backcountry terrain<\/a> (both of these arguments would become very relevant in future interconnect talks).<\/p>\n The SkiLink plan proposed a gondola connecting the upper part of Canyons with the base of Solitude.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n In addition, one could argue the layout of the proposed SkiLink gondola wasn\u2019t all that practical. While the Solitude terminal would have been built at the Eagle Express, which is right at the base of the resort, the Canyons terminal would have been located all the way at the far end of the ski area between the Dreamscape and Daybreak lifts, about as far from the Canyons base village as one could get. And due to the incongruent lift layout at Canyons, getting to said gondola would have taken four lifts from the nearest parking lot, and at least two to get back. As a result, if you wanted to ski or ride specifically at Solitude or on the front side of Canyons, you wouldn\u2019t have saved all that much time versus just driving there and back.<\/p>\n Ultimately, the swift backlash to SkiLink seemed to work: numerous community stakeholders launched campaigns opposing the project, and by 2013, the public land sale legislation had stalled in Congress. Facing all of these issues\u2014as well as a key ownership change on the part of Canyons we will revisit later\u2014Canyons and Solitude quietly shelved the SkiLink project.<\/p>\n Yet the idea of linking Utah\u2019s ski resorts was far from dead. Within less than a year, the state\u2019s ski resorts took the learnings from SkiLink to team up with the Ski Utah tourism board to promote a new proposal, and this time, it was backed by all of the resort operators in the Wasatch region.<\/p>\n In March 2014, Ski Utah and representatives of all seven central Wasatch resorts held a news conference to unveil ONE Wasatch,<\/a> a concept to connect the ski areas via a series of new chairlifts and runs. Unlike earlier speculative ideas, this proposal had the explicit support of each resort\u2019s management, from independent areas like Alta, Snowbird, Solitude, and Deer Valley to corporate-managed resorts like Canyons (Vail Resorts), Brighton (Boyne Resorts), and Park City (POWDR Corp.). The scale would have been extraordinary: over 18,000 acres of skiable terrain served by more than 100 lifts and 750 runs, and a footprint where a single passholder could cross from Little Cottonwood to Park City in one continuous journey. If achieved, it would dwarf the next largest resort in North America, Whistler Blackcomb, by a magnitude of 120%, and it would have been bigger than all but a few of the continuous linked ski regions in Europe.<\/p>\n ONE Wasatch Logo<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n Now\u2019s a good time to talk about the economic reasons why all these resorts got on board with the ONE Wasatch plan, and why Ski Utah pushed so heavily for it. By the early 2010s, destinations like Colorado\u2019s Summit County and Canada\u2019s Whistler Blackcomb had capitalized on their scale and interconnection. And while Utah\u2019s resorts offered world-class snow and proximity to a major airport, the state\u2019s tourism board believed they often lost multi-day vacationers to competitors who could advertise 5,000 acres on one ticket, especially when their resorts still competed largely as individual properties. According to the Wasatch Backcountry Alliance after they received a VIP tour of the terrain, the state\u2019s ski areas had a lot of unoccupied hotel space, and they felt they could push that much more effectively with a gigantic skiable footprint to advertise<\/a>\u2014a footprint that ONE Wasatch promised to bring about. So if nothing else, these resorts were on board with the plan for the sake of the sheer marketing power.<\/p>\n The Special Use Permit (SUP) granted to Alta by the US Forest Service<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n Crucially, ONE Wasatch was advanced only as a conceptual framework<\/a>, not a formal development proposal; this was a deliberate contrast to SkiLink, which many argued lost credibility due to its perceived haste and the political maneuvering involved. In addition, while some of the proposed projects would take place on public land, all of this land was already within the resorts\u2019 Special Use Permit area, meaning no land swaps would be required, and the projects could be developed subject to the Forest Service\u2019s approval.<\/p>\n Specific lift alignments and timelines were not fixed, but the proposal outlined four key connection steps needed to realize the interconnect:<\/p>\n Connect Little Cottonwood Canyon to Big Cottonwood Canyon:<\/strong> This would likely mean building lifts or gondolas between Alta\/Snowbird and Solitude\/Brighton over the ridgeline separating Little and Big Cottonwood. The favored location was in the Grizzly Gulch area adjacent to Alta, linking to Solitude\u2019s terrain near Honeycomb Canyon. Notably, the proposed Honeycomb lift on the Solitude side would have added lift service to the extreme Fantasy Ridge area for the first time, and with both the Grizzly and Honeycomb chairlifts proposed to terminate at the top of that ridge, there would not only be substantially easier access to that area, but also a new travel route that would likely bring significant traffic.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Connect Big Cottonwood Canyon to the Park City area:<\/strong> The proposal envisioned a connection from Brighton or Solitude through the Guardsman Pass area into the Park City resorts, either Park City itself or Deer Valley. The favored scenario had two lifts connecting in the pass itself, with one extending up to Clayton Peak near Brighton, and the other one reaching the Jupiter area of Park City. Notably, the Brighton lift would end well to the skiers\u2019 right of the current boundary, so some sort of terrain expansion would be necessary.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Link Park City Mountain Resort and Canyons:<\/strong> ONE Wasatch called for establishing a physical connection between Park City and Canyons, which could be done with one lift or gondola<\/em>. The plan here suggested a gondola from the top of Canyons\u2019 Iron Mountain across Pine Cone Ridge into Park City\u2019s Thayne\u2019s Canyon, with the terminus on the Park City side planned to be next to the King Con lift. The gondola would have a mid-station allowing guests to ski or ride some of the expert Pine Cone Ridge terrain into Park City or mellower trails into Canyons. Notably, the direct lift connection between Canyons and Solitude from SkiLink was abandoned as part of this plan.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n \u201cDrop the rope\u201d between Deer Valley and Park City Mountain:<\/strong> Unlike the other gaps, Deer Valley and Park City already share a boundary at Empire Canyon. The phrase \u201cdrop the rope\u201d meant simply removing the boundary barrier so that skiers could cross between Deer Valley\u2019s Empire area and Park City\u2019s McConkey\u2019s zone.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n On paper, achieving at least the first three of these four steps may have sounded like a substantial undertaking. But thanks to how close the resorts already were to one another, ONE Wasatch would have only required building five or six new lifts and could be done in a single summer construction season at a cost of around $20-30 million.<\/a> Now that\u2019s not cheap, but if the costs were shared across all seven resorts, it wouldn\u2019t have been all that much more than a single new high-speed lift.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n If fully realized, ONE Wasatch would have resulted in the largest ski resort in North America by a significant margin.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n At the 2014 rollout, the major resort operators expressed enthusiasm for the concept. Behind the public optimism, however, each resort also had business interests to protect, and not all were equally invested. First off, Park City Mountain\u2019s situation in 2014 was, to put it lightly, complex. Vail Resorts had pulled off a hostile takeover of the lease to much of the land under the resort, starting a legal battle that cast uncertainty on the resort\u2019s ownership, and, consequently, any immediate collaboration. That was a whirlwind of a legal battle that\u2019s worth discussing in its own right in another piece, but in short, it was resolved later in 2014 when Vail took over Park City.<\/p>\n But even after that, there were other clear tensions and open questions. One was how to integrate different ticketing and pricing models. The resorts ranged from pricey, skier-only Deer Valley to more mass-market areas like Brighton and Solitude; Park City and Canyons were on the Epic Pass (now that both were owned by Vail Resorts), while Alta was on the two-day Mountain Collective Pass (the Ikon Pass didn\u2019t exist yet). Also, if certain resorts benefited more from the interconnected skier traffic, how would the revenue be split? These were business conflicts largely left undefined in the concept phase.<\/p>\n Additionally, the ski-only policies at Alta and Deer Valley stood out as a significant policy issue. Both resorts were and still are among the only three in North America that prohibit snowboarders (the third is Vermont\u2019s Mad River Glen). In a fully interconnected Wasatch, a snowboarder attempting to ride from Snowbird to Solitude would hit a literal roadblock at Alta; they could technically snowboard down Alta\u2019s slopes because they are on public land, but Alta would not let them board a lift (no pun intended) to carry on. The same issue would exist at Deer Valley\u2019s border, although at least in that resort\u2019s case, it was planned to be at the edge of the ONE Wasatch footprint and therefore wouldn\u2019t be in the middle of a route between two other mountains. This raised questions about how a \u201cone pass\u201d system would accommodate guests who snowboard. At least in the planning phase, the assumption seemed to be that snowboarders might be shuttled around Alta to get between Snowbird and the new Solitude lift if needed, and that the novelty of a giant interconnected ski area could outweigh this hurdle.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Due to Alta\u2019s skier only policy, a snowboarder traversing ONE Wasatch would be unable to use Alta\u2019s lifts to get to Snowbird from the other resorts, or vice versa.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n But these logistical hurdles weren\u2019t even close to the biggest roadblock for the ONE Wasatch plan. As soon as the mega project was floated, it encountered vocal opposition from environmental and backcountry groups<\/a>, alongside skepticism from some local officials and citizens. The central issue: those \u201cfew lifts\u201d needed to link the resorts would cross high-altitude lands that had never before been developed for skiing, including prime backcountry skiing and riding areas that many local Utahns cherished. The Wasatch Backcountry Alliance and Save Our Canyons led the charge against the interconnect,<\/a> arguing it would effectively privatize or restrict access to favorable backcountry terrain. Jamie Kent, president of the Backcountry Alliance, brought up a critical point: backcountry skiing in Utah had been growing in popularity<\/a> even as resort skier numbers had plateaued at the time. Other controversy surrounded what would happen to Park City\u2019s Pine Cone Ridge and Solitude\u2019s Fantasy Ridge if the project went forward; these were serious expert-only terrain areas that were previously reserved for hiking, and while adding lift service to these areas would provide a much more convenient expert experience, some could argue it might have also made these areas too easy to reach and more quickly skied out.<\/p>\n Environmental and watershed impacts were another major worry. There were a number of issues raised, but the biggest one was that high Wasatch is the source of a substantial amount of Salt Lake City\u2019s drinking water, and much of the land between the resorts lies on protected watershed and U.S. Forest Service property. In fact, this is a major reason why dogs are banned from the canyons,<\/a> with dog waste being a serious risk to the water supply. Salt Lake City officials raised alarms that further resort development could threaten water quality for hundreds of thousands of residents, with the director of public utilities at the time suggesting that even if these projects just proposed a handful of lifts on the surface, that would only be the tip of the iceberg, and the additional skier traffic would bring about the need for more on-mountain facilities with larger environmental consequences.<\/a><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Solitude\u2019s Fantasy Ridge, an experts\u2019 terrain zone only accessible by hiking, was an area that locals argued would be negatively affected by ONE Wasatch infrastructure.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Speaking of additional skier traffic, perhaps the biggest worry among the local population was overcrowding. Many argued that an 18,000-acre interconnect would attract so many visitors that it would backfire,<\/a> leading to unmanageable lift lines and tracked out snow. This would be a huge negative side effect, especially in the Cottonwoods, which were and still are known for having the best snow in the country. And ultimately, local Utah skiers and riders didn\u2019t want to attract more tourism revenue at the expense of the very essence of their resorts.<\/p>\n Faced with all of this public opposition, state and local policymakers stepped in as mediators and planners<\/a> of a potential ONE Wasatch. An initiative known as the Mountain Accord was launched to hammer out a comprehensive economic plan for the central Wasatch, including transportation, environment, and perhaps most importantly, recreation. While ONE Wasatch was a proposal on the table, it became clear that with so much pushback, compromise would be needed. The resorts wanted to attract more visitors, but to locals and environmental activists, the costs of an interconnect were too high.<\/p>\n In July 2015, Mountain Accord participants, including Ski Utah and the resorts, reached a landmark conceptual compromise that essentially tabled much of the interconnect in favor of conservation and more realistic development opportunities. The Accord had Utah\u2019s Cottonwoods ski resorts agree in principle to forgo future expansions beyond their existing boundaries, with limited exceptions, in exchange for land swaps granting new development rights at their base areas. In practice, those exchanges were never finalized: the federal appraisal process proved prohibitively expensive, and by 2018, the resorts had reverted to the status quo. But the core outcome was clear: there was now a public commitment to abandon the interconnect concept, even if the legal mechanics later unraveled.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Overcrowded slopes and longer lift lines were a major concern for Utah locals opposing ONE Wasatch.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n But while the Cottonwoods sections of the interconnect failed to materialize, one significant piece of it did get built\u2014albeit under significantly different circumstances. In 2015, Vail Resorts completed the merger of Park City Mountain and Canyons into a single unified ski resort, now known simply as Park City. Vail had acquired Park City Mountain in 2014 and already operated Canyons (under a lease from Talisker), so the company moved quickly to connect the two properties. In the summer of 2015, they installed the eight-passenger Quicksilver Gondola, stretching 1.5 miles over Pine Cone Ridge to link Park City Mountain\u2019s terrain with Canyons\u2019 Iron Mountain area. The new gondola followed the original ONE Wasatch plan very closely, with essentially the same terminal and mid-station on the Canyons side, but rather than terminating at the King Con lift at the Park City side, the final construction had the new gondola span over Thayne\u2019s Canyon and end closer to the heart of the resort near the Silverlode lift. <\/p>\n By December 2015, the Quicksilver lift was complete, and the combined Park City ski resort became the largest ski area in the United States<\/a>, boasting over 7,300 acres of terrain, 340 trails and 41 lifts on one ticket. This $50 million project was way over-budget from the original concept, but it effectively accomplished step 3 of the ONE Wasatch vision (the Park City\/Canyons connection) on a standalone basis, and it gave Utah\u2019s tourism board the gigantic skiable footprint<\/a> it had hoped to use to attract people in the first place.<\/p>\n But while it created the largest resort in the United States on paper, the practical experience left a lot to be desired. The Quicksilver Gondola is about as far from the Canyons base as one can get within that side of the resort, and it’s quite a ways away from the Park City base area too. At launch, it required riding five separate lifts to travel from the Park City base to the Canyons base, and the same in reverse, often taking more than half an hour under ideal conditions with no lines. For visitors on the wrong side, missing a lift connection late in the day meant a frustrating bus ride back to their car. The Over and Out lift, added in 2019, improved the connection slightly by trimming the Park City-to-Canyons route to four lifts, but navigation between the two mountains still feels disjointed. <\/p>\n Even today, some resorts that are actually separate entities, including the aforementioned Alta\/Snowbird and Brighton\/Solitude, still offer better connections than the merged Park City setup. In effect, the resort achieved the really strong marketing plug that ONE Wasatch once strived for, but in the gimmicky way that many critics of that original interconnect plan expected.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The Quicksilver Gondola, which spans between Park City and the Canyons and allows the two resort sides to operate as one massive connected resort.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Will the full interconnect ever be revived? At least for now, ONE Wasatch hasn\u2019t officially been cancelled, but neither the business nor political will seems to exist to revive it. Even though the Cottonwoods portion of the project would only take a few chairlifts, it would take a lot of political blowback to renege on the conservation promises from the 2015 Mountain Accord, even if the land swaps never happened.<\/p>\n But perhaps more importantly, within only a handful of seasons of the interconnect being shelved, a significant factor reshaped the Utah ski scene: the rise of multi-resort mega passes such as Epic and Ikon. Five Wasatch ski resorts became members of some flavor of the Ikon Pass, including Alta, Snowbird, Brighton, Solitude, and Deer Valley, and while the now-combined Park City\/Canyons footprint is the only Epic Pass resort in Utah, it\u2019s still gigantic enough to attract hordes of skiers and riders in its own right. As a result, even though the resorts are not physically connected, Utah visitors can now ski or ride thousands of acres of terrain across a single week on the same pass. The visitation that ONE Wasatch once promised through physical connection has now effectively been delivered by the Epic and Ikon product designs.<\/p>\n This shift helps explain how even though Park City and Deer Valley are still only a single rope drop apart, they no longer see an interconnect as necessary\u2014but for those two resorts, this doesn\u2019t tell the whole story. Park City is already the biggest ski resort in the United States, but while Deer Valley was a mid-sized resort until just recently, it\u2019s actually in the process of debuting a ginormous terrain expansion<\/a>\u2014which, notably, is on private land and therefore not subject to the same restrictions as the incomplete parts of the interconnect. If its claims are to be believed, the multi-year expansion project will give Deer Valley over 5,700 acres of skiable terrain, delivering a larger skiable footprint than all but three other ski resorts in North America. As a result, both Park City and Deer Valley can now sell consumers on their raw footprint size without the need to team up with anyone else.<\/p>\n This all being said, it\u2019s important to note that while these factors have been a boon for Utah\u2019s winter tourism that have all but made the interconnect economics obsolete, they\u2019ve also brought the commercialization that many locals feared from the original interconnect plan. With so many people attracted to the weeklong or unlimited access to huge swaths of terrain at relatively affordable prices, Utah\u2019s ski resorts have seen a serious string of consequences, including access road traffic jams, overcrowded slopes, and fed up workforces. In many ways, the multi-pass era is the spiritual successor to ONE Wasatch, but not in the way that the local Utah winter sports goer would have ever wanted. At least for environmentalists, it\u2019s occurred in a way that\u2019s brought minimal disturbance to public land.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Deer Valley is in the midst of a multi-year expansion that includes thousands of acres of terrain and many new lifts, including the Keetley Express bubble chairlift pictured above.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/DeerValleyParkCitySharedRidgeline.webp\")
History of Utah\u2019s Ski Resorts and Early Connections<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/solbrightentrance.webp\")
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/AltaSnowbirdRidge.webp\")
SkiLink<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/skilinkmapproposal.webp\")
ONE Wasatch: An Ambitious Plan to Link Seven Resorts<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/onewasatchlogo.webp\")
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/AltaSUP.webp\")
\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/onewasatchmaplogo.webp\")
Resort Tensions and Open Questions<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/onewasatchoverheadmap.webp\")
Public Opposition and ONE Wasatch Stalls<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/solitudefantasyridge.webp\")
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/ParkCityCrowdedSlopeLiftLine.webp\")
What Did Happen: Park City & Canyons Join Forces<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/quicksilvergondolaparkcity.webp\")
Could ONE Wasatch Ever Be Revived?<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.missioncommons.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/deervalleyeastjordanelleview.webp\")
The Utah Interconnect That Does Exist Today<\/h3>\n