Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Yes it is. People enjoy the restaurants, the hotels, the shopping and taking a tour bus from vantage to vantage. Over 4 million people each year visit the townsite (source: https://www.banff.com/banff-helpers/banff-facts/). They're not all going on epic hikes. A small minority are. At any given time, Banff Ave is more congested than any hiking trail out there. There is demand for one more town, and with 6,641 square kilometers in Banff National Park, we can spare 20 square kilometers for another destination.
Yeah, Yosemite is too full. Let's build another town before Banff/LL become unbearable or unvisitable, which they can be already on some weekends.
Generations before us had the foresight to plan and build for our leisure and enjoyment. We have a responsibility to do the same for our grandchildren and I don't accept that the Rocky Mountains don't have space for one more town.
Okay, if you guys care so much about migrating squirrels, build the town one range over. Elevate the road over the Bow Valley one mountain to the side and build the town there. Would that assuage your concerns? |
Your link states 4 million people visit the Park (Not just the town site). I've been trying to track down foreign visitation but haven't been able to find it. And yes people like going from vantage to vantage and these vantages is what is limiting the capacity of the National park.
If you want to build another town redevelop Field. Its already an impacted area with very low density. A good question is why isn't field being expanded is it the Parks being anti-development or is the demand just not there. Or you could expand Dead man's flats or Exshaw. The impacted areas already exist to "build a new town". Putting one at Castle Junction or other pristine area of the park is ridiculous.
Also generations didn't plan to build leisure for our enjoyment. The railway needed attractions to sell rail tickets and built towns around them (it was done out of economic incentive rather then planning leisure). The rest were coal mining towns. There was no foresight involved in development aside from the foresight to create protected areas that limit development. So in the spirit of the foresight of our ancestors we should continue to preserve these spaces based on the best available knowledge of the time.
One range over is Fernie, Cranbrook, Kimberley, Invermere and Radium so yes moving one range over does mitigate my concerns and use already impacted space and if you go on range further over you get Creston and one range after that you have the Okanogan. It sure doesn't seem like we lack towns in the mountains now does it.