Renewed passenger rail service between Banff and Calgary?

[KTrain]

I think Northendzone isn't too far off with how long it would take Canadians to board the train. At least at first. It's a much more common mode of transportation for Europeans. Western Canadians rarely use trains.

[Fuzz]

Well they will learn pretty quick when the train leaves with their bags while they are busy grabbing a latte.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If you can't get a few bags and skis on a train in 5 minutes, you are to big a struggler to be out in public. Plenty of trains in Europe only stop for a minute or 2 with people who have airport luggage, bikes etc.

but we are not talking about one ro tow people trying to board - we are talking about 100 or more. add in the fact that they are tourists and may not speak english very well.

at peak periods i am sure the c-train stops for more than one minute at each stop. also, i am assuming that if this idea were to fly, we are not talking about a train out to banff every 10 minutes like a c-train - this would need to be a scheduled service.

i am trying to imagine the chaos of folks to to wrangle a bike and a duffle bag off the train while others are trying to board all within 120 seconds.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Wildlife will eventually adapt just like it'll adapt after a pipeline goes through. There isn't only one valley; there are hundreds or thousands. Humans are allowed to have a footprint, too.

We really have to stop soliciting so much feedback from progress-stoppers on project proposals. There's nothing you can do to make them happy. Push forward and let them squawk on the sidelines.

You are trying to destroy what makes the park the park. There aren't hundreds or thousands of valleys that provide a North South corridor through the mountains. Look at a map and see why the bow valley corridor through the icefields to jasper was used to build a road and compare that to other routes.

Then assess how blocking the easiest corridor will affect wildlife. Then realize you don't care if Grizzly Bears get hit buy trains or relocated to BC and shot by hunters as long as you can have a latte and a selfie.

The park is not too full. Go to Yosemite or Zion if you want to see too full. The natural attractions of the park are not getting bigger so more towns is not reducing the crowding at Lake Louise, Johnson Canyon, or the ice fields. Its not reducing crowding at every viewpoint on the way.

The act of staying in a town is not why people visit Banff.

[Fuzz]

No, you aren't talking about 100 people all at once. Obviously the end stations, the busy ones like Calgary and Banff will have long stops as they are the turning point. Cochrane will have as many people getting on as there are doors on the train. 5 minutes will feel like an eternity.



We don't have to imagine this. It happens in other countries all over the world.

[Weitz]

Why would this think need to stop in Cochrane or Morley? If you want people to use it it should be Calgary Canmore Banff.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

After some consideration I agree - stop it in Banff. I want to make it harder for people to get to Lake Louise, not easier. Don't know what I was thinking. If it's possible to de-pave that section of HWY 1 and make it impassable in spots without fairly stout 4WD, I'm in for that too.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by GGG

You are trying to destroy what makes the park the park. There aren't hundreds or thousands of valleys that provide a North South corridor through the mountains. Look at a map and see why the bow valley corridor through the icefields to jasper was used to build a road and compare that to other routes.

Then assess how blocking the easiest corridor will affect wildlife. Then realize you don't care if Grizzly Bears get hit buy trains or relocated to BC and shot by hunters as long as you can have a latte and a selfie.

The park is not too full. Go to Yosemite or Zion if you want to see too full. The natural attractions of the park are not getting bigger so more towns is not reducing the crowding at Lake Louise, Johnson Canyon, or the ice fields. Its not reducing crowding at every viewpoint on the way.

The act of staying in a town is not why people visit Banff.

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?

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by GGG

The act of staying in a town is not why people visit Banff.

I'd disagree with this. Aside from skiing and the odd hike, most of my time within the park is spent in the Banff townsite and golf course. I love the urban vibe, great restaurants, and picturesque setting. Not everyone is an outdoorsman.

[Northendzone]

elevate the road in a national park? because that would not disturb anything.......building new town, elevating roads - how many billions is this going to cost, and who pays the capital costs? and these capital costs are on top the the costs for the train.

perhaps we should consider dredging out the bow river, and making it deep enough for the queen mary to sail from calgary to banff

i agree that the vast majority of people visit banff to wander around downtown, or see stuff that is easily accessible, but we don't need to drop something like cross-iron mills in the bow valley

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

elevate the road in a national park? because that would not disturb anything.......building new town, elevating roads - how many billions is this going to cost, and who pays the capital costs? and these capital costs are on top the the costs for the train.

perhaps we should consider dredging out the bow river, and making it deep enough for the queen mary to sail from calgary to banff

i agree that the vast majority of people visit banff to wander around downtown, or see stuff that is easily accessible, but we don't need to drop something like cross-iron mills in the bow valley

Literally nobody wants that.

[Zarley]

There's obviously a way to design another small townsite at Castle Junction while still maintaining a corridor for wildlife, but good luck at getting that past the enviro-nutjobs. These are the same people who think that hosting a two week ski race at Lake Louise in the middle of winter is going to be some ecological tragedy.

I think it's important for us as a province to develop tourism extensively as it's one of the few lucrative counter-cyclical (ie. when oil is weak tourism is strong) industries that are viable here. With the new Castle Wilderness parks opening up, maybe the Crownest Pass area is the place to focus on.

[CliffFletcher]

Can anyone name some countries that extensively develop their national parks for tourism? Who should we be modelling this off?

[GGG]

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.

[Fuzz]

Field sucks because it is in such a huge shadow zone, and the flat part is all a flood plain.

Dead Mans Flats is really far to small for any real development, it's north side is all a flood zone. Across the highway is being developed, but it's just vacation home stuff that sits empty 90% of the time.

Exshaw is again way to small an area to do anything with.

Something in the front ranges would make sense, like the Rafter 6 area or north in the Ghost and farther up. I think a town on the front range, just on the doorstep to the rockies would be perfect.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Can anyone name some countries that extensively develop their national parks for tourism? Who should we be modelling this off?

I always find this funny. We want to be World Leaders in Climate change and clean energy and social progressiveness but we wont do anything unless someone else has done it first so we can copy them.

Shouldnt World Leaders, you know, lead and not follow?

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Can anyone name some countries that extensively develop their national parks for tourism? Who should we be modelling this off?

This is not town specific but does relate to highways and railroads.

My counterpoint would be name some countries that have national parks directly between their major seaports and the rest of the country. Goods and people need to get from the west coast through the mountains and to the rest of the country. This is going to be via either truck or rail. Both our major highways and both our major rail lines must get through these parks somehow, there really is alternative to that. We do need to find a way to allow to keep our economy from strangling while also protecting the parks as much as possible.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This doesn't solve the problem. What we actually need - and I've said this before - is a new Banff-like town in the national park. Start with a new GoC campground between Banff and Louise, and build the town site up around that. Banff shouldn't get bigger as it's already perfect the way it is. Louise is maxed out, too. Time for a new town.

The primary purpose of national parks is to preserve natural habitat and resident wildlife, not setup a trendy shopping and restaurant district for you and your garage buddies. Why don't you get off your wallet and get out to Whistler, sounds like it is exactly what you are looking for.

The reason those towns are maxed out, and won't grow further, is to limit their environmental footprint.

[Weitz]

They are animals. They will adapt.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Flacker

The primary purpose of national parks is to preserve natural habitat and resident wildlife, not setup a trendy shopping and restaurant district for you and your garage buddies. Why don't you get off your wallet and get out to Whistler, sounds like it is exactly what you are looking for.

The reason those towns are maxed out, and won't grow further, is to limit their environmental footprint.

Did you just make that up? Is that what you want it to be?

In fact:

The goal of Canada's national parks system, in addition to their role in representing and protecting examples of the country's geographic heritage, is to encourage public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of our natural heritage...

The national parks are here for our enjoyment. It's your mistake to think we roped off a bunch of our most beautiful land and are trying to keep people out. Parks Canada's mandate is to share our Parks with Canadians and the world. They actually want and encourage people to come, enjoy and appreciate our parks.

It's hard to enjoy and appreciate the parks when they're full and they turn you away when you arrive. We need another town.