News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

I saw that, and feel it is just an attempt to halt all kinds of development within the mountains. I don't know the logic leap one needs to make to oppose a transportation project that has the biggest potential to reduce traffic and car trips, on the grounds that it will be bad for the environment.
 
the logic leap one needs to make
It's an unrealistic and luddite mentality that any development is bad development.

Some projects shouldn't go forward but opposing everything makes you out to be crying wolf.

They actually say in the article that they prefer a bus service! The frequency (and many other factors) that would require for it to be a decent enough for people to use is mind numbing. People can't be convinced to take the train downtown and you think those same people can be convinced to take a bus to Banff?!
 
Because I haven't seen this posted here... More trouble for the passenger train to Banff.

If it isn't the Government saying its too risky for an investment, then it's not looking at its environmental impact close enough.

Personally, I try to be sympathetic and understanding but I really worry about our ability to realize major projects like this because we have to satisfy everyone.
Business as usual has risks too.

Traffic volumes on Highway 1 east Kananaskis are up 25% the past 10 years. That's an extra few million car trips that have been added to the mountains as well as the increase in collisions, wildlife fatalities, congestion, carbon emission and highway expansions that come with them - all with little fanfare and zero environmental impact assessments.

Apart from local initiatives in Banff and the start of On-It Transit - which offers a few busses a day on a few weekends a summer - there's been zero attempt at stemming the flow of additional vehicles regionally or provincially into the mountain parks. Those On-It busses are also struck in traffic with everyone else - making them less competitive despite being a more environmentally friendly option for mountain access. More busses are incremental business as usual and won't change much in the big picture.

Meanwhile over the past decade the southwest / west ring road projects locks in another $2B+ of car infrastructure that not only has a giant environmental impact on it's own locally, but has the added impact of creating yet more vehicle capacity to access the mountains from a major city that keeps growing.

In the coming decades, additional improvements and highway expansions will start to be floated, supported and built all along Highway 1. Billions will be spent on highway improvements that directly and indirectly increase the traffic to the mountains - just as much or even more than any train will cost. Again, highway expansion is the most environmentally unsustainable and carbon-intensive way possible to add capacity and it will happen without a legitimate alternative transportation system.

Call me cynical, but I don't see our provincial government nor the highway construction lobby that runs our provincial transportation system finding as many issues as this train apparently has when these highway expansions start to trickle out from idea to plan to contract to build just as they always have done the past 75 years.

We need the train. It's the most environmentally responsible option for mountain access available by far. If they make the train good quality enough and competitive, all those highway expansion projects start not making any sense and you will prevent all the associated environmental impacts that would have come with them.
 
Last edited:
I never really picked up on it, but is this Calgary-Banff train being proposed also being planned for use by commuters? Because it would be a huge mistake to not add stops in Bowness, Cochrane, Morley, and Canmore with peak hour service into and out of Calgary.
 
I never really picked up on it, but is this Calgary-Banff train being proposed also being planned for use by commuters? Because it would be a huge mistake to not add stops in Bowness, Cochrane, Morley, and Canmore with peak hour service into and out of Calgary.
They're definitely not coming out punching with it, but its part of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
I never really picked up on it, but is this Calgary-Banff train being proposed also being planned for use by commuters? Because it would be a huge mistake to not add stops in Bowness, Cochrane, Morley, and Canmore with peak hour service into and out of Calgary.
Yes, Cochrane, Canmore, and maybe Morley (or somewhere else on the res) are all planned to have stops, along with a park and ride in the Keith valley area.
 
They just want less people into the park. They don't see the potential benefits of less vehicles.

Oh well, this is why we have formal assessments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
They just want less people into the park. They don't see the potential benefits of less vehicles.

Oh well, this is why we have formal assessments.

I would bet that the real issue at the moment is that these ENGOs would love some funding to do various environmental studies and they are annoyed that Liricon isn't talking to them / funding them, so they are going to the press to complain. Some organisations will oppose the train if it goes to EA, but a bunch more just want an annual cheque for research.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
less people into the park
A perfectly normal, reasonable and, if you've ever been to Banff, understandable ask. The park has a reasonable capacity, I'm sure those in the know know what it is even.

The problem is there's no way to set a limit and then effectively police it. Venice is implementing a capacity limit, but its an island. Best you can do is try to divert some to a alternative means of accessing the park.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
I never really picked up on it, but is this Calgary-Banff train being proposed also being planned for use by commuters? Because it would be a huge mistake to not add stops in Bowness, Cochrane, Morley, and Canmore with peak hour service into and out of Calgary.
There will be three stations inside the city - YYC, Downtown, and Keith (nw of Bowness) - along with Cochrane, Morley (or Seebe), Canmore, and Banff.

The only proposed express service (every 20 min) will be YYC to Downtown. The rest of the service is, I believe, every 2 hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
I would hope they could at least run an extra Keith-DT route or two during peak commuter hours

A perfectly normal, reasonable and, if you've ever been to Banff, understandable ask. The park has a reasonable capacity, I'm sure those in the know know what it is even.

The problem is there's no way to set a limit and then effectively police it. Venice is implementing a capacity limit, but its an island. Best you can do is try to divert some to a alternative means of accessing the park.
You don't need a limit, you can achieve target levels through discriminatory pricing. Make passenger vehicles more expensive.


From the article linked:
Clevenger, who specializes in wildlife crossings, said he's heard the company was looking at underpasses to align with those under the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park.

"That's very simplistic and completely unfeasible," he said. "You can't put in an underpass on the new rail line without putting an underpass on the (Canadian Pacific Railway) main line. You'd have to do both."

Clevenger said the measure would reduce already-compromised wildlife habitat.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I doubt anyone has suggested wildlife protection measures wouldn't also apply to the CP tracks. I imagine they haven't gone very deep into design, but this is absolutely a benefit they should be promoting...I'd imagine PC/researchers have identified a few key spots on the route that could use further mitigation...they should definitely be a fairly easy add to this project.

My only reservation with this project is that the promoters just don't seem very savvy...it's a project that could stand on its own merits, yet somehow they manage to give it a bit of a snake-oil feeling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
  • Like
Reactions: AJX
I doubt anyone has suggested wildlife protection measures wouldn't also apply to the CP tracks
But they they'd need 12m of vertical clearance, and that would mean ramps and cutting down trees! Clearly we should just do nothing!
 
Then its not a National Park. I like that fact that (if you have a vehicle or know someone that does) you can visit it.


For some reason it feels like that, you just feel like you're being screwed somehow. They couldn't even get the Provincial Government excited about it.


I think that's what they're doing now.

I'd make entrance free for Canadian citizens...their cars need to pay for the privilege.

I'm not even particularly worried about being screwed...I just don't think they have the savvy to steer this through sooooo many stakeholders.

Design is expensive...it's a chicken/egg thing, where they will only do so much before getting legitimate traction.
 

Back
Top