Throne Traverse Construction Project

We should start pointing out that the often awful skiing technique demonstrated in the BC TRs would probably be corrected with several seasons of hard lift skiing.

Right on! So True!

Another irony is that the park service has really been digging their heels in and threatening to close the back traverse behind the Throne to the King.
[...]
Kudos to Crystal for always fighting the man. Increased traffic to the South will create more heat on that stove.

This is the most compelling argument I've seen in this thread. But surely Crystal Management has thought about this and thinks that the benefits of the new cat-track outweigh the risks with respect to the park. The southback is a golden goose and they're not going to jeopardize it. So I doubt that this argument will have any weight with Crystal, since they must have already considered it in their plans.

I haven't seen an argument here that would sway Crystal Management. Arguments that boil down to "I want the southback for me and my friends" don't have legs.

---
Edited:

I should add that I think it would be a really bad idea to pit the National Park against Crystal Mountain as a way to stop the cat-track project. I don't know if anybody has tried to do this.

"but to us lift sluts it's a really important issue."

I'm not only a BC Slut, I'm also a Lift Slut, and several other kinds of Slut as well.  

Reductions in weekday powder would concern me more than reductions in weekend powder - weekend powder at Crystal already seems to have an extremely short shelf-life.

seems

now we're back at the whole 12 days business.

Well good points Lowell but my experience with private business and government agencies is that they have different timescales when it comes to strategic planning.
Assuming that Crystal has considered that increase SB travel as a result of the traverse and that it won't affect the SB access may be optimistic ?

From my perspective Crystal has definitely upped their game in courting the local, season pass skier...... lifts opening earlier, more aggressive terrain openings... I feel the change of emphasis and I like it. Their desire to improve this traverse may be a good faith attempt to clean up what they feel was a problem area for the skiers frequenting this area but without thinking about the long term. Not saying that's what happened , just a scenario.

However, the NPS MAY be taking a more longer term view to achieve their ultimate goal along the lines of " we'll work with the Forest Service to support this...... continue counting MRNP access with our paid counter.....wait  a few years until we can prove SB access and hence MRNP intrusion has been significantly increased.... and then force the boundary issue on Crystal... with the caveat ... "well Crystal it was you guys that wanted the improved traverse... sorry."

Wish a Crystal exec would put our fears at bay and tell us their thinking.

I should add that I think it would be a really bad idea to pit the National Park against Crystal Mountain as a way to stop the cat-track project. I don't know if anybody has tried to do this.

Agreed, I can tell you with no uncertainty that Crystal does not need another battle with the Park.
The Park will be regulating the work done on the new cat track so it won't become a visual scar from Sunrise, as if anyone sees it anyway.

Their desire to improve this traverse may be a good faith attempt to clean up what they feel was a problem area for the skiers frequenting this area but without thinking about the long term. Not saying that's what happened , just a scenario.

However, the NPS MAY be taking a more longer term view to achieve their ultimate goal along the lines of " we'll work with the Forest Service to support this...... continue counting MRNP access with our paid counter.....wait  a few years until we can prove SB access and hence MRNP intrusion has been significantly increased.... and then force the boundary issue on Crystal... with the caveat ... "well Crystal it was you guys that wanted the improved traverse... sorry."

I think another reason for the traverse is that if the plan is to put in a 4 person chair to the top, you need a way to get people out of the way quickly. it's already a cluster up there with a two person chair.
I share Scotsman's outlook about the NPS's Plan, they spend way to many tax dollars thinking this one out. Trying to balance the vendor access to the park, not to develop special interest in one area, so they are forced to give out permits in other areas if it goes to court and Crystal's business model is used as a case scenario of the park being used for recreation without any compensation.
The real kicker is that IF the park threatens more and wants to close the door on the back traverse, Crystal can pull out the Ace of Spades and reapply to put a chair in to the top of the King since they have already done their research on that matter. Like Lowell says, "It's the Golden Egg." and they can't be denied that gem. This puts the Park on the defense, what would they prefer? A bunch of hikers traversing a short section of MRNP or a zillion more people on the edge of the Park?