Renewed passenger rail service between Banff and Calgary?

[Fuzz]

^ Not true:


https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...681944261.html

1. To Protect and Restore our national parks and historic sites – ensuring ecological integrity is the first priority in considering all aspects of the management of national parks – through focused investments, limiting development, and by working with Indigenous peoples, provinces and territories.
2. Enable people to further Discover and Connect with our national parks and heritage through innovative ideas that help share these special places with all Canadians.
3. Sustain for generations to come the incredible value – both ecological and economic – that our national parks and historic sites provide for communities.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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

In fact:



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.

Did I make that up? Says the guy talking out his arsehole.

https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np


You might want to provide where you pulled that from, from the front page of the National Parks site:
National parks are a country-wide system of representative natural areas of Canadian significance. By law, they are protected for public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment, while being maintained in an unimpaired state for future generations

What part of bulldozing for a new town is "maintaining in an unimpaired stated for future generations". Also note the use of the word "natural areas".

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^ Not true:


https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...681944261.html

Not true? Our posts said the exact same thing (in different words).

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

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

Some of the arguments in this thread remind me of those strugglers in infomercial who can't open a jar without having it splash all over themselves. 200 people exiting a train will be overwhelming? People needing 20 minutes to board?

Trains have been around for two centuries now, and are used widely across the globe in all sorts of situations. This is not exactly a trip to Mars we're talking about.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Not true? Our posts said the exact same thing (in different words).

Well you said he was making up the part about the primary purpose of the parks. I was pointing out that no, he didn't make it up. The PRIMARY purpose is to protect and preserve ecology. Human use is secondary.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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

In fact:


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.

When has the park ever turned anyone away. They even have overflow camping areas for you to sleep in your car/tent/trailor if you get there and all the campgrounds are full.

What does the new town give you?

If you assume as you seem to that demand greatly outstrips supply then pricing won't go down significantly as a result of the new supply. So Hotel Costs are unlikely to go down and there is hotel availability on weekdays in the bow valley. So really we are talking about weekend capacity.

With Campgrounds again weekends are booked out but there is weekday availability in the campgrounds on a day of basis. Restaurants aren't hard to get into.

Expanding availability isn't going to improve weekend availability, it will still just fill up and you will still have weekday vacancy. It will just make crowding worse at the attractions within the park on weekends. Building attractions and facilities outside of the parks. New provincial parks in various areas would be a far better use of funds than a new town at Castle Junction.

Does anyone think that Lake Minniwanka, Moraine, Lake Louise, Johnson Canyon, or the ice fields need more people at them? This is the result of town expansion. It doesn't reduce crowding in the Banff townsite, in increases crowding elsewhere as a result of increased visitation.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Some of the arguments in this thread remind me of those strugglers in infomercial who can't open a jar without having it splash all over themselves. 200 people exiting a train will be overwhelming? People needing 20 minutes to board?

Trains have been around for 200 years now, and are used widely across the globe in all sorts of situations. This is not exactly a trip to Mars we're talking about.

Honestly, I have to agree with this. Having been on more trains than I'm ultimately happy about, they're pretty basic and getting on and off is about as easy as easy gets.

The fact of the matter is that there are ways to mitigate this, but one of the things that I think people dont realize is that its not like an airplane. The stop is coming up, you're alerted to it like 20 minutes early, you're allowed to move around and so you have all of your stuff ready in advance.

The train stops, you grab your prepared to exit stuff, egress. Job done.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Did I make that up? Says the guy taking out his arsehole.

https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np


You might want to provide where you pulled that from, from the front page of the National Parks site:
National parks are a country-wide system of representative natural areas of Canadian significance. By law, they are protected for public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment, while being maintained in an unimpaired state for future generations

What part of bulldozing for a new town is "maintaining in an unimpaired stated for future generations"

For the public to appreciate and enjoy the parks, they need to access them. To access them, they need a gas station, roads, restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, etc. Infrastructure isn't the enemy of the goals here.

Serious question - where do you stand on further pipeline development? If you are for it, hopefully you now see why there is so much opposition and you should likely consider publicly voicing your support of their concerns.

Personally, I'm in favour of more pipelines and more infrastructure in the mountains, so I think I'm consistent in my approach. If you don't mind a pipe ripping across the country through other people's land and territories, but you do mind a few square kilometers being used in your own mountain backyard, I think you have something to consider.

Pipelines help our petroleum industry. Developing tourism destinations helps the economy as well. We all have seen at least a couple of busts in this province now. Let's not wait any longer to develop our other industries and attractions.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Sliver

The charm/magic that attracts people is the quaint smallish towns. Canmore barely has that as is and if it gets bigger will lose it completely. It's been a hundred years or so since we started a new town in the mountains. Using 0.00001% of the land in Banff National Park to start a new town for people to enjoy is our best move, not a rail line that is pointless and uneconomical.

Unfortunately, we seem to have developed a culture in this country that balks at progress and infrastructure. The trait in Canadians that blocks pipelines is the same trait that doesn't want a new town in the Parks just manifesting itself in a different issue.

You just balked at the progress and infrastructure that is moving people in mass numbers in and out of an area by rail. Progress that was met by other parts of the world hundreds of years ago.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

You just balked at the progress and infrastructure that is moving people in mass numbers in and out of an area by rail. Progress that was met by other parts of the world hundreds of years ago.

I don't think it makes sense economically, but I don't care if it gets built on someone else's dime. Doesn't bother me. In fact, I think it would be super fun to drink in a train all the way to Banff and arrive ready to party.

If the gov't is handing out permits to develop more land in the mountains, though, I'd prefer to see a much-need new town, that's all.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

Does anyone think that Lake Minniwanka, Moraine, Lake Louise, Johnson Canyon, or the ice fields need more people at them? This is the result of town expansion. It doesn't reduce crowding in the Banff townsite, in increases crowding elsewhere as a result of increased visitation.

So what you're saying is my concept of making the road nearly impassable would actually have the opposite (and hence desired) result?

I clearly need to run for office.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

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.

The 99% majority of those tourists would be getting on and off at the terminus points of Banff and Calgary. The other stops would have fewer people getting on and off each time, which are the stops that would impact travel time.

The train sitting in Banff for 30 mins after it arrives until it leaves again doesn't affect the route time.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't think it makes sense economically, but I don't care if it gets built on someone else's dime. Doesn't bother me. In fact, I think it would be super fun to drink in a train all the way to Banff and arrive ready to party.

If the gov't is handing out permits to develop more land in the mountains, though, I'd prefer to see a much-need new town, that's all.

I doubt the train would have a night club car.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I doubt the train would have a night club car.

Why? Most at least have a Bar car. Not to mention, on Amtrak you can bring your own booze on.

So why not?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why? Most at least have a Bar car. Not to mention, on Amtrak you can bring your own booze on.

So why not?

Maybe it would, but it's not a very long trip.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Maybe it would, but it's not a very long trip.

Oh my friend, every trip on a train is a long, long trip.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Sliver

For the public to appreciate and enjoy the parks, they need to access them. To access them, they need a gas station, roads, restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, etc. Infrastructure isn't the enemy of the goals here.

Serious question - where do you stand on further pipeline development? If you are for it, hopefully you now see why there is so much opposition and you should likely consider publicly voicing your support of their concerns.

Personally, I'm in favour of more pipelines and more infrastructure in the mountains, so I think I'm consistent in my approach. If you don't mind a pipe ripping across the country through other people's land and territories, but you do mind a few square kilometers being used in your own mountain backyard, I think you have something to consider.

Pipelines help our petroleum industry. Developing tourism destinations helps the economy as well. We all have seen at least a couple of busts in this province now. Let's not wait any longer to develop our other industries and attractions.

Is 'eliminating' bears from Banff still part of your platform?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh my friend, every trip on a train is a long, long trip.

In India, but I am good up to 6-7 hours in Europe.

I would barely be done the coffee I got at the train station before getting off in Banff.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

In India, but I am good up to 6-7 hours in Europe.

I would barely be done the coffee I got at the train station before getting off in Banff.

Pfft. Amateur.

I did 44 hours to Chicago on the Amtrak.

Never. Again.

[Locke]

Oh. And an overnight trip from Paris to Cannes. That was sheer hell.