[BCharlie]

"...who like the idea of enabling a large number of people to enjoy the great canyon’s very heart, a stunningly beautiful and remote site long inaccessible to the masses."

Don't they realize that being remote and inaccessible is a big part of what makes it stunningly beautiful? The moment you arrive there with 10,000 other people, the place will no longer have what you came there to see.

[timhon]

I somewhat disagree. I rode around it on a motorcycle from the bay last year. It was my first time seeing it. I hate crowds just like everyone else, and there was a crap ton of buses with even more people there, but I have to say -- I didn't expect much... "big whoop, grand canyon..." but when I walked up to the side in person, the shear size and strange 3d illusion the sight put on my brain, I just couldn't comprehend. I was put in awe and literally couldn't turn away for 10 minutes... the people around hadn't detracted from that. But everyones different... the southside will always be crowded, if you want it to be remote, just plan a trip to the north side.

[sanderjd]

The whole point of the article is that the inside will be like the south side. The north side only works because it is remote—if you set up a gondola from the south side to the north side, then your "just plan a trip to the north side" advice won't work. It's even worse to do that to the real remote area, which is the floor itself.

[001sky]

The current canyon r2m "tourist" corridor is 17 miles long by maybe 1/2 a mile wide (of the 100+m miles length). Also if its only on indian land, the thing is on a side-canyon off to the east that is 80% out of theway anyway. You have to take 4x4 roads or trails over to Nankoweap. What is a pity is that area is supposed to be really nice, and is on the edge of the existing trail networks. So it kind of takes advantage of the National park whislt at the same time being incongrous with it.

The other irony here is that the indians surely had all of these same arguments about the US feds. Its just the table are turned on who is getting the $$ and the benefits.

[BCharlie]

I agree that there will still be something worth seeing, but at the cost of a naturally beautiful place being made less. Personally, I am glad that some places exist in this world that I cannot get to without significant effort, and I don't want to change that. Humans don't need easy access to every corner of the earth.