PSA Silver Basin is part of Crystal Ski Area

I thought I'd take this from the TAY facebook and put it on the main site.

A group skinned up into Silver Basin on Monday under active avalanche control work.

Other than being truly clueless about where you are travelling, why would anyone do this? Now that Crystal is open wall-to-wall that is a terrible place to tour. When the terrain is open to skiers there will be tons of people hurtling down at you, when it's closed AC work can commence at any time. If you don't know where the ski area boundary is, educate yourself. It's your responsibility.

If you hear explosions going off TURN AROUND!!! You could die and that's not cool.

I'm perplexed as to why this is an issue. There are warning lights throughout the base area that alert you to the fact that uphill travel is not allowed and/or AC work is going on. Call ski patrol or stop into their office in the base area.

Limiting uphill travel into Silver is on the table now thanks to these actions.

crystalmountainresort.com/safety/uphill-travel/

crystalmountainresort.com/safety/boundary-policy/

crystalmountainresort.com/safety/avalanche-safety/

The Kirchers don't own the land Crystal Mountain Resort is on, nor does Boyne Resorts. We, the American People, do. Crystal operates a ski area on USFS land, the terms & conditions of which are detailed on their permit with the Forest Service. Since it isn't private land, they cannot completely restrict you from accessing it. They can, however, lay out guidelines and restrictions for the preservation of the public's safety. That's where the uphill travel policy comes from (and compared to that of Crystal's red-headed stepchild's resort a few dozen miles to the north it's quite generous).

"This land is your land, this land is my land" aside... it is foolish to tour in an area where you knowingly are exposing yourself to danger from above. When Crystal's in full operation, you can expect everything on their side of Three-Way Peak to be prone to such danger. Assess your options accordingly based on conditions, professional information and your group's risk-tolerance.

I'm glad you got in an expected and pointless soliloquy on how the ski area does not own USFS land. How does the Kemper's and Rock Face permanent closures fit in with that ethos?

There is more than enough precendence throughout the US for a ski area to restrict access in the name of safety. In fact even UDOT is considering or has implemented nighly closures for the entirety of Little Cottonwood Canyon plus 'overshoot' areas. snowbrains.com/little-cottonwood-canyon-...ng-by-andrew-mclean/

If people keep acting like this access will be restricted.

If I were the ski area, I'd probably significantly restrict access or try to make it a closed area. Why? Because this sort of idiocy on the part of backcountry skiers leads to unpleasant depositions in the offices of very expensive lawyers. It doesn't take a genius to start thinking about the questions:

Attorney for plaintiff: "But you knew, based on years of prior experience, that there might be skiers. You knew that it was common for skiers to travel in the area?"
Ski area employee: "Yes".
Attorney for plaintiff: "Describe the procedure you use to search for people prior to avalanche control."

Sometimes during these discussions I get the feeling that people might think that a ski area would close or reduce access simply out of spite. I don't believe this is the case. Crystal has been super supportive for the last 10 years and the pro patrol has rescued more than a few backcountry skiers ( who never even bought lift tickets! ) over the years.

They've done their part. We haven't done ours.

I agree that skinning Silver Basin during the active ski season and especially during avy work in Southback is not kosher.

I have personally had to wait at the top ( having got there via the ski area traverse) while some of TAY's most prolific and revered posters laboriously skinned their way up Silver Basin oblivious( or know and don't care) to the effect on others. I'll spare their names...they know who they are.

I once came across several know TAY posters skinning up SE trees!!!! It was a very steep skin track that they were trying to put in while resort skiers flashed past them.

However , there lots more terrain up there than Silver Basin. Many people go up to ski the Bad Ass Shoulder, Pickhandle and Black Tusk area and FFF is a favorite for low angle skiing on danger days. I think, looking at the map, that all these areas are outside the ski area boundary . They are however most conveniently accessed by skinning up Quicksilver to the old top lift position then heading East, outside the boundary.

So just to clarify... are you NOT allowed to skin up Quicksilver to access the areas OUTSIDE the boundary( Not Silver Basin) when the light is flashing and uphill traffic prohibited or does it just mean that you can't go into Silver Basin via the plowed Sliver Basin egress track that CM puts in.

Of course checking in with Patrol is always the best policy.

Well, Waterfall, you're right. The ski area does not own the land, and Pipedream's response is expected, but not pointless. Actually, it's pretty much spot on. Maybe you read it expecting an irrational counterpoint to your post, but I think even the ski area would have to agree with him.
A funny thing happened the other morning when I checked out with Crystal patrol (as I always do when accessing public lands within or beyond the ski area lease boundary):
I was asked by the patroller at the watch desk to not ski any lines that could be clearly visible from their customers riding lifts because they were planning to open SB the next day and they didn't want their customers to be disappointed. OMFG!
To his credit, the patroller was super nice about it, and even seemed to acknowledge that this was a bogus request, but you can bet that this topic was included in the morning meeting.
The reply?: "Thanks, we'll take that into consideration."
If you don't think that crystal would prefer people don't access interface terrain you're a fool. They are running a business, not a stewardship. Protect your rights with communication and good relations. Don't expect that others know better.

Land ownership is not really a factor. The Crystal has a Special Use Permit with boundaries -- within those boundaries the Crystal Ski Patrol can regulate the public's access to the area to ensure safety according to terms spelled out in the Special Use Permit.

But also note that only some portions of Silver Basin are within the Special Use Permit boundary, look at this map.

crystalmountainresort.com/wp-content/the...fs/Map_CM_1-2015.pdf

The eastern edge of Silver Basin has some good slopes that are outside the SUP -- of course to get there -- you've got to skin up Quicksilver which is within the SUP.

It's always a good idea to check-in with the Crystal Ski Patrol before heading up -- I've found them to be super friendly and getting a conditions report form them is useful.

If you don't think that crystal would prefer people don't access interface terrain you're a fool. They are running a business, not a stewardship. Protect your rights with communication and good relations. Don't expect that others know better.

I cannot understand what you're saying here. You are asking if I don't think that Crystal would prefer that people don't access interface terrain. That makes no sense to me. But thanks for calling me a fool.

I am not trying to get into some arguement about land stewardship in the US. I would just like people stop skinning into the portions of Silver Basin that are managed by the ski area when active control work is going on. That's it.

If you guys are trying to make an arguement that you should be allowed to ski tour in a downhill ski area while avy control work is going on then have fun with that.

Yes, you're right. that was poorly worded. Please allow me to rephrase.
I think it would be foolish to allow Crystal Mountain Resort to be your sole source of information regarding where and when you are legally allowed to travel on public land. They are running a for profit business, and are influenced by other things. I don't think your public land access is high on their priority list.

I sincerely apologize for my poor wording that led you to believe that I called you, personally, a fool. I don't think I know you personally, and that was not my intent at all.

I do have a question:
What do you mean when you say limiting uphill travel into Silver is on the table? What table is this, and do you sit at this table?

I think that Crystal has been laissez-faire in regards uphill travel and I apreciate that. I think the current uphill travel policy was only instituted after people began skiing up open runs (Lucky Shot, Rolling Knolls) on weekend days.

CookieMonster's has expressed my thoughts better than I can:

"Sometimes during these discussions I get the feeling that people might think that a ski area would close or reduce access simply out of spite. I don't believe this is the case. Crystal has been super supportive for the last 10 years and the pro patrol has rescued more than a few backcountry skiers ( who never even bought lift tickets! ) over the years.

They've done their part. We haven't done ours."

What do you mean when you say limiting uphill travel into Silver is on the table?  What table is this, and do you sit at this table?

This is pure supposition on my part based on rumor, trends in other areas and the safety precendent as set by Kemper's and Rock Face.

First of all, I am a lift whore!  If the bull wheels are turning and I can ski, I will be riding the lift.  I love ski areas!  Yearly I buy lift tickets and season passes.  I am not some clown looking to get a freebee off the poor corporations.  I get that they have a big job to do and don't begrudge them that fact. I pay good money each year to enjoy the privileged of lift skiing.

However, one need only to look at bachelor butte to see how a ski corporation will make moves to restrict climbing with no good reason to do so. I have been climbing bach in the off season for decades.  Then a big corporation bought the place.    For the last few years they have worked tirelessly to close the mountain to climbers all year round.  NO good reason for those restrictions. Just another corporate "Trump in sheep's clothing".  Fortunately, skiers routinely ignored the off season closures and climbed anyway.  

Now Bachelor just got a new manager and that policy changed to allow that same climbing.  The risk didn't change, they just chucked the idea of limited access in the off season. For sure this is something to be applauded, but not something that will naturally happen without public insistence.
 

That mountain exists because of the paved highway that brings it life.  That road is built and maintained with public taxes.  It is the very best access to climbable, off season snow in that part of the state.  It is public land. Bachelor never bought the land from the NFS.  They don't pay property taxes on the land.  

I never saw these closures as anything short of a land grab.  Now, the new management seem to agree they don't really have to restrict access all year long.

If it had not been for people climbing all these mountains, none of these ski areas would have ever been built.  If people don't challenge this kind of land grab, they end up loosing their birthrights.  Besides which.... anyone who will drive across the state, spend hot hours climbing a mountain with skis strapped to their back, all for 10 minutes of skiing...anyone who will do this is obviously a skier at heart.  They should be seen as an adoring public by ski areas.  Come winter, most of these people will end up buying lift tickets and season passes anyway.  Why just piss them off with trivial regulation?  You would think they should be courted instead.

I get the avi control issues are a very good reason to restrict access. Duhhh..... But otherwise, I see it as making sure that every citizen, who wants to ski that mountain, pay big money to do so, WEATHER THE LIFTS ARE TURNING OR NOT.  This despite the fact that these same citizen-climbers already subsidize the ski area's very existence.  Like I said... Trumps in sheep's clothing.

Powder to the People.

...
This is pure supposition on my part based on rumor, trends in other areas and the safety precendent as set by Kemper's and Rock Face.

I recall both Rock Face and Kemper's permanent closure was the result of repeated fatalities in those areas.   Also those areas are closed to *ALL* users.  

I don't see Crystal closing Silver Basin to *ALL* users and I think without fatalities resulting from an action attributable to Crystal's Employees e.g. using explosives for snow control that ends up burying uphill travellers -- it seems unlikely that such a closure against uphill travel would be enacted -- I also believe that such a closure action would be subject to review and public comment by the USFS.

I don't see Crystal closing Silver Basin to *ALL* users and I think without fatalities resulting from an action attributable to Crystal's Employees e.g. using explosives for snow control that ends up burying uphill travellers -- it seems unlikely that such a closure against uphill travel would be enacted -- I also believe that such a closure action would be subject to review and public comment by the USFS.

Great. So when they are using explosives to make avalanches happen, don't skin up underneath them.

Just for clarity, the points I would like to make are:

1) Inside Crystal's permit area the ski patrol will use explosives and initiate avalanches.

2) Parties have approached active avalanche control work from below.

3) I consider this to be inappropriate behaviour.

4) Continuing this inappropriate behaviour will force the ski area to do something about it.

Just for clarity, the points I would like to make are:
...
2) Parties have approached active avalanche control work from below.

3) I consider this to be inappropriate behaviour.
...

Certainly -- As I've stated previously, I think the appropriate behavior is to check-in with the Crystal Mt Ski Patrol before heading up (and checkout with them when you leave)

Crystal's uphill policy crystalmountainresort.com/safety/uphill-travel/ contains the following

Crystal Mountain accepts no liability or responsibility for accidents that occur or as a result of uphill travel. RCW 4.24.210

and RCW 4.24.200 and 210 pretty well protects the landowner from recreational users getting killed on their land.

app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.200

The purpose of RCW 4.24.200 and 4.24.210 is to encourage owners or others in lawful possession and control of land and water areas or channels to make them available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon and toward persons who may be injured or otherwise damaged by the acts or omissions of persons entering thereon.

app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.210

So even if some knuckleheads chooses to ignore all the warning signs and gets killed/injured by a ski patrol triggered avalanche -- any lawsuit against the ski area would have a very tough go.

So even if some knuckleheads chooses to ignore all the warning signs and gets killed/injured by a ski patrol triggered avalanche -- any lawsuit against the ski area would have a very tough go.   

Right, but you still have to show up in court and pay a lawyer, there's a PR hit etc. etc. The law being on your side is only part of the equation. Plus, you've killed someone.

With all that as background, I'm quite sure they'll take the blowback you might get from a microscopic segment of the public railing about "this land is my land" and "the Man" over killing someone and winning in court.

There's all the incentive in the world for them to dissuade people from touring in their management area.

Certainly -- As I've stated previously, I think the appropriate behavior is to check-in with the Crystal Mt Ski Patrol before heading up (and checkout with them when you leave)

Crystal's uphill policy crystalmountainresort.com/safety/uphill-travel/ contains the following

and RCW 4.24.200 and 210 pretty well protects the landowner from recreational users getting killed on their land.

app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.200

app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.210

So even if some knuckleheads chooses to ignore all the warning signs and gets killed/injured by a ski patrol triggered avalanche -- any lawsuit against the ski area would have a very tough go.   

any lawsuit against the ski area would have a very tough go.

A good lawyer would try to establish gross negligence and then those disclaimers would be more or less worthless. Even if a lawsuit was tossed out as a result of a request for summary judgment, a ski area would be left with a very large bill for attorneys and depositions and whatever else had transpired up to that point. Provided the suit was brought in good faith, and that there was even a slightly reasonable basis for the suit, it would be probably very tough for a ski area to get fees awarded.

Not a lawyer, but spent far too much time around them. This is how they get trained and paid to think.

I thought I'd take this from the TAY facebook and put it on the main site.

A group skinned up into Silver Basin on Monday under active avalanche control work.

Other than being truly clueless about where you are travelling, why would anyone do this? Now that Crystal is open wall-to-wall that is a terrible place to tour. When the terrain is open to skiers there will be tons of people hurtling down at you, when it's closed AC work can commence at any time. If you don't know where the ski area boundary is, educate yourself. It's your responsibility.

If you hear explosions going off TURN AROUND!!! You could die and that's not cool.

I'm perplexed as to why this is an issue. There are warning lights throughout the base area that alert you to the fact that uphill travel is not allowed and/or AC work is going on. Call ski patrol or stop into their office in the base area.

Limiting uphill travel into Silver is on the table now thanks to these actions.

crystalmountainresort.com/safety/uphill-travel/

crystalmountainresort.com/safety/boundary-policy/

crystalmountainresort.com/safety/avalanche-safety/

Seriously.  And please remember this for Alpental too.  Last year, an early morning skinner shut the place down for the day.  He interfered with the active control work we were doing and put himself in a bad spot under the cliffs where 3 main shots go off.  The program was thrown off so severely that it made more sense to cease control efforts.  The power outage didn't help either.. Lose the 'this is my land' attitude and just use your head.  These measures are in effect for your safety and everybody elses.  Really bad shit can happen.  Or you could delay skiing for hundreds of people, just because 'you had the right to skin on your land'.
Check in with patrol and get the scoop on whats going on. It's really easy; The lifty can get them on the phone for you if they're all up top. They may tell you no, and why, or they may provide you with a safe travel route. This has become a more frequent issue, especially with the huge number of Seattle people getting into touring.

A good lawyer would try to establish gross negligence and then those disclaimers would be more or less worthless. ...

Yes that is what would be required. 

Gross Negligence
An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

Given all the warning signs and the care that the ski patrol takes in their operations -- establishing gross negligence would be hard to do.

Not that this would stop a "Lionel Hutz" from filing suit, but I believe the ski area gets sued on a regular basis because of more run of the mill injuries and has attorney's on retainer to deal with these sorts of things all as part of the cost of doing business.

For example about 25 years ago I was skiing at Mt Baker ski area over Thanksgiving, fell and dislocated my shoulder.   I went to the DR and had an MRI -- I didn't need surgery, but some months of physical therapy.    My health insurance provider paid for all of this -- however an adjuster called me and asked a series of questions about where the injury occurred and the health insurance companies lawyers did contact the ski area and received a response from their legal department.   It didn't go any further than that -- but the ski area did need to have an attorney respond.

I saw the following in the crystal uphill policy

3) When the ski area is open for the season, all uphill travel into Southback is prohibited.

I was there 2 weeks ago and checked in with the ski patrol. I told them we were headed to silver basin. Is this "No Southback" policy new? Is it a result of this recent incident? Or maybe they were okay with it since chair 6 was closed? Or maybe it is just the laissez-faire attitude that has enabled my touring in silver basin for the past 25 years?

The Southback prohibition is definitely a major change. As is much of the current Uphill Travel Policy, since most items in the 8-item main list have changed completely!

Thanks to the wonder which is the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, we can easily check the previous policy:
web.archive.org/web/*/https://crystalmou...afety/uphill-travel/

The most recent previous saved version as of June 9, 2016:

Uphill Travel Policy

Hiking, Skinning & Snowshoeing within the Ski Area Boundary

1. Uphill travel within “closed” terrain is not permitted; Avalanche control work—including explosives use—may occur at any time.
2. Closures are posted only at the TOP of trails; those entering from below shall be considered to be trespassers. Uphill travelers may check in with Ski Patrol for current closures, recognizing that status may change at any time.
3. Traveling above “No Hiking Above This Point” signs is prohibited. These signs indicate sufficient avalanche hazard exists to warrant closure to all, regardless of whether one hiked up from the bottom, or whether one has or hasn’t used a lift ticket.
4. The absence of the “No Hiking Above This Point” signage at the top of operating lifts indicates that uphill travel is permitted in ‘open’ terrain.
5. Anyone boarding or attempting to board a lift without a valid lift ticket or pass shall be considered a trespasser.
6. Uphill traffic must keep to the side of ski trails and well out of the way of downhill skier traffic.
7. Pierce County leash laws apply in the developed ski area; unrestrained dogs’ handlers will be considered trespassers.
8. The designated runs for uphill travel are Quicksilver, Queens Run, Lucky Shot and Kelly’s Gap Road.

After Hours Uphill Travel Policy

1. DANGER! No uphill travel when light is flashing. Several lights are located in the base area.
2. Uphill travel allowed on Quicksilver, Queens Run, Lucky Shot and Kelly’s Gap Road only*
3. Use extreme caution for unmarked hazards and heavy equipment including but not limited to snowmobiles, snowmaking, winch cats and cables.
4. For more information you can contact Ski Patrol during operating hours: 360-663-3061
*Quicksilver trail is the only area within the ski area boundary that uphill travel is allowed at all times.

See Backcountry Safety for more information about your responsibilities when accessing terrain other than by lifts.

Crystal Mountain accepts no liability or responsibility for accidents that occur or as a result of uphill travel. RCW 4.24.210

And compared to the current online version at crystalmountainresort.com/safety/uphill-travel/ as of December 10, 2016, with recent changes marked in red:

Uphill Travel Policy

1. DANGER! No uphill travel when light is flashing. Several lights are located in the base area.
2. When the lights are not flashing, all uphill travelers within the ski area boundary must check in with patrol. No exceptions. 360-663-3061.
3. When the ski area is open for the season, all uphill travel into Southback is prohibited.
4. Uphill travel within “closed” terrain is not permitted. This includes areas marked with “No Hiking Above This Point” signs. Avalanche control work—including explosives use—may occur at any time.
5. Uphill traffic must keep to the side of ski trails and well out of the way of downhill skier traffic.
6. When traveling uphill after hours, use extreme caution with unmarked hazards and heavy equipment including but not limited to snowmobiles, snowmaking, winch cats and cables.
7. For more information contact Ski Patrol during operating hours: 360-663-3061.
8. Anyone found in violation of these rules will be subject to a fine and possible prosecution under Washington State Law RCW 79A.45.070


After Hours Uphill Travel Policy

1. DANGER! No uphill travel when light is flashing. Several lights are located in the base area.
2. Uphill travel allowed on Quicksilver, Queens Run, Lucky Shot and Kelly’s Gap Road only*
3. Use extreme caution for unmarked hazards and heavy equipment including but not limited to snowmobiles, snowmaking, winch cats and cables.
4. For more information you can contact Ski Patrol during operating hours: 360-663-3061
*Quicksilver trail is the only area within the ski area boundary that uphill travel is allowed at all times.

See Backcountry Safety for more information about your responsibilities when accessing terrain other than by lifts.

Crystal Mountain accepts no liability or responsibility for accidents that occur or as a result of uphill travel. RCW 4.24.210

I saw the following in the crystal uphill policy

3) When the ski area is open for the season, all uphill travel into Southback is prohibited.

I was there 2 weeks ago and checked in with the ski patrol. I told them we were headed to silver basin. Is this "No Southback" policy new? Is it a result of this recent incident? Or maybe they were okay with it since chair 6 was closed? Or maybe it is just the laissez-faire attitude that has enabled my touring in silver basin for the past 25 years?

So what did the Crystal Ski Patrol say about your plans for Silver Basin when you checked in? Did you go to Silver Basin or somewhere else?

So what did the Crystal Ski Patrol say about your plans for Silver Basin when you checked in?  Did you go to Silver Basin or somewhere else?

They said, "have a good time." That was it. No avy beta or anything else. It was quite pleasant.

This is a good call out. I get both sides of the argument but seriously, let patrol do their job. Just as you wouldn't make a wsdot road worker stand with arms full waiting for you to save 1 minute on your commute... right?

What I don't get is bc tourists choosing a destination that's lift served or side country. Why make the effort when you can get after your 'own' piece of fresh backcountry? Every resort around here has nice tour options that avoid this whole topic if you just put your back to the lifts and explore.

What I don't get is bc tourists choosing a destination that's lift served or side country. Why make the effort when you can get after your 'own' piece of fresh backcountry?

Sort of like the people that ride road bikes (bicycles) up and down I-90 in the Summer?

Seriously. And please remember this for Alpental too. Last year, an early morning skinner shut the place down for the day. He interfered with the active control work we were doing and put himself in a bad spot under the cliffs where 3 main shots go off. The program was thrown off so severely that it made more sense to cease control efforts.

Apparently this was an issue again this year/last week.

The cascades are enormous and there are tons of ski touring options. The fraction of the available ski terrain covered by ski area permits is minuscule, so why not just ski somewhere besides Silver Basin? There are lots of land use access/issues worth fighting for, but I don't see this as one of them.

The resort access issues are of greatest concern at the beginning and end of each season. The resorts are among the highest-elevation parking locations, and they have brush-free routes to reach higher-still elevations. Furthermore, the resorts are familiar terrain to many newer backcountry tourists, who haven't yet developed a library of destinations from which to choose. There are oodles of early-season wilderness turns to be had, but few of them will let you get home in time for dinner.

I've toured into Silver a few times in the past decade, checking in/out with patrol after that became a thing. It'd be a shame to lose the access, but it's hard to disagree with access closures if uphill skiers don't choose to coordinate with Crystal avalanche control operations.

Knowingly touring into terrain without checking whether someone else, who regularly triggers avalanches in that location, plans to trigger avalanches is inconsiderate to family, friends, avalanche control workers, mountain rescue, paramedics, and everyone in the ski community.

Sort of like the people that ride road bikes (bicycles) up and down I-90 in the Summer?

Don't knock until you've tried it. Oddly enough riding I-90 is feels safer than US-2 -- the shoulder is really wide and there aren't "death bridges" where the shoulder disappears altogether and your are riding right up against a steel guard rail. Also Interstate construction standards limit the grade, so the hills can be long, but they are never steep. Going down the section from Exit 52 to Exit 47 is a blast, easy to get over 50mph.

On reading this thread the famous quote by the incarnate llama Rinpoche Tulka Butwan, (1312 to 1383 A.D) comes to mind.

" Never underestimate the power of stupidity to overcome every obstacle placed in it's path"

Don't knock until you've tried it.   Oddly enough riding I-90 is feels safer than US-2 -- the shoulder is really wide and there aren't "death bridges" where the shoulder disappears altogether and your are riding right up against a steel guard rail.   Also Interstate construction standards limit the grade, so the hills can be long, but they are never steep.  Going down the section from Exit 52 to Exit 47 is a blast, easy to get over 50mph.

The 3.5 miles from exit 25 -> 22 are far better than the grind over Lake Alice or going all the way down and around through Fall City when riding back from North Bend to Issaquah