News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

The rail project’s assets transfer to the province at the end of the concession. This is one reason why the price to the province grew by quite a bit, since the builder/operator needs to pay off its loans by the transfer date instead of having the most expensive parts on a 50 and 100 year amortization.
 
Editorial discussing transit/transpo in Banff:
https://www.rmoutlook.com/opinion/e...rum-a-never-ending-issue-for-everyone-7890600

As Roam buses have become popular, it’s brought problems with overloading and having to turn away passengers. From June to September 2023, Banff routes 1 and 2 and the Banff-Lake Louise regional 8x bus had more than 1,300 times buses turned riders away because they were full.
These are great problems to have, but it's gotta be really difficult planning transit for such variable demand (summer peak months)
 

A resident-first approach to sustainable tourism means infrastructure should support visitors and residents — a train does that, while the recently proposed underground visitor parking does not. It does nothing to support the environment, nor is it a long-term solution.
Anyone have any links to the underground idea referenced here? Hard to fathom any way that isn't totally preposterous
 
Anyone have any links to the underground idea referenced here? Hard to fathom any way that isn't totally preposterous
Structured parking crops in Banff regularly. Might be referring to this?
IMG_8409.jpeg


IMG_8410.jpeg
IMG_8411.jpeg
 
A fairly notable development tangential to the rail project, though IMO it mostly speaks to the proponents inability to navigate a project development process.

https://www.rmoutlook.com/banff/par...ff-townsite-to-mount-norquay-wont-fly-8468243

I've selfishly been quite enticed by the notion of a gondola up to Norquay and never quite understood PC's objections, but this sums it up pretty well:
Parks Canada has previously raised concerns that portions of any gondola proposal from the townsite to the base of the ski hill would include land outside the ski area lease and licence of occupation, which could be viewed as a de-facto expansion of the ski area.

In addition, there were also concerns that ski area management guidelines do not contemplate ski areas becoming primarily summer operations, as well as concerns a gondola flies in the face of legislation and policies pertaining to commercial development and growth and use of public lands.
These concerns are valid. I think the reduction of vehicle traffic/miles driven in the park outweighs the negatives of expanded summer operations (which already exist and seem to be limited to the base area and top of the Big Chair), but I see PC's point, and they are probably concerned about setting a precedent for operationalizing beyond the ski area lease (as we know Sunshine would love to dump their parking issues down the hill).



The free intercept parking at the site hinges on revenue generation from a gondola.

Should a gondola terminus be excluded from the ARP, revenue stream from the gondola – which is intended to cover free intercept parking, wildlife restoration and off-site improvements – would be replaced by paid parking.

In documents before Banff’s Municipal Planning Commission on March 13, planners indicated the municipality would work with Liricon if a gondola terminus is not included in the ARP, which could include an ongoing funding arrangement, or transitioning to a user-pay model.

“The Town could explore payment agreement to subsidize cost or maintain free parking,” according to the documents before MPC.
This may make a mess of the intercept parking that seems to have been a major improvement in the townsite. If I had to pay to park there I'd probably take a stab at finding parking closer to my intended visit, which means more cars circling the roadways and probably more 'creative' parking on side streets



Liricon was quick to fire back a scathing letter to Parks Canada in response.
Waterous said there were several fundamental errors with Park Canada’s position in the letter, including that there have never been two gondola proposals.

She said Rasheed’s letter confuses Parks Canada’s previous decision to turn down a large gondola proposal to the summit of Mount Norquay with a potential smaller aerial transit proposal between the townsite and the base of Norquay, which she said Parks Canada has not assessed.

“While the proposed ARP currently before Town council includes a gondola terminus, until an actual second gondola proposal is made Parks Canada will not know whether it actually contains any of the allegedly offending components referred to…,” she said.

Waterous also suggests that Parks Canada’s position of a gondola in the ARP is a breach of the 2011 Mount Norquay Site Guidelines, which indicated potential consideration of tramway/gondola from the townsite to the ski area.

So to my point about shepherding a project through key stakeholders, this seems a masterclass in how not to do it. Waterous has been repeating this issue of one vs. two proposals for a while now in letters to the RMO editor, etc, even though PC's objections noted here remain applicable whether they run from the base to the summit or not.

I suppose it would be annoying to have PC pre-emptively quash a theoretical proposal, but if you want them to consider a different proposal then perhaps Liricon should actually submit it instead of playing games in the newspapers.

Lake Louise is in the process of building their 3rd entirely new lift in the last ~5 years. Sunshine and Marmot have both upgraded new lifts in the last few years. Brewsters built a brand new attraction on the highway. It seems absolutely possible to achieve developments in the Parks.

Norquay has had a few development wins (reponening the cliffhouse, via ferrata), but I'm 99% sure those came before Liricon bought it in 2018. I don't see them actually moving the rail project forward...hopefully a competent developer can take over soon!


Waterous believes Parks Canada is interjecting in the municipal process.

“Town council’s ability to represent the community should not be prematurely thwarted by Parks Canada administration,” she said.

“Town council must not blindly follow whatever Parks Canada administration determines.”

The Town of Banff administration welcomed the clear feedback they had requested from Parks Canada on the proposed ARP.

“We are glad to have received their response for council’s consideration as part of this agreed upon process,” said Randall McKay, manager of special projects and strategic initiatives for the Town.

“Town administration respects and acknowledges Parks Canada’s concern about including a gondola terminus building in the ARP.”

Liricon: "WTF is Parks doing! Unfair!"

Town of Banff: "Ok, cool. thanks for letting us know."
 
Sunshine Village tried playing the victim for a few years until they figured out how to play ball. Their (Norquays) registered lobbyist I don't know whether they have a background to inform a successful strategy on this. They haven't registered a single meeting on the lobbyist registry either!

Like, build up a relationship, play ball, convince MPs and cabinet members this sounds like a win win. talk about needed infrastructure, and how it is going to be at no federal expense. If Parks doesn't want to expand the lease, can give the gondola to Parks and lease it (but not a ground lease) back. It wouldn't be easy, but it isn't also rocket science.

Fortunately a rail project 30x in budget is easier than a tourist gondola.
 
Last edited:
If I had to be charitable to Liricon, maybe their strategy is to paint Parks as bad and unreasonable, and then hope that a Conservative government agrees, and changes the Parks leadership. It's not a crazy plan. But you'd think they would have gotten UPC ministers and CPC critics out making this case by now, and it hasn't happened.

Beyond the Parks fight, there is nothing about Liricon that demonstrates that they have the political savvy to deal with the other two big stakeholder challenges, which are dealing with CPKC and the Stoney Nakoda. There's no election coming that will save them from those fights.
 
If Liricon thinks Parks Canada isn't fun to work with, wait until you need to engage CPKC/CN and Parks Canada on the rail project...
As far as I know, they already have an MOU or something with CPKC on the Banff rail project. However, who knows how easy it'll be when they try actually getting down to the details of building and operating it.
 
Sunshine Village tried playing the victim for a few years until they figured out how to play ball. Their (Norquays) registered lobbyist I don't know whether they have a background to inform a successful strategy on this. They haven't registered a single meeting on the lobbyist registry either!

Like, build up a relationship, play ball, convince MPs and cabinet members this sounds like a win win. talk about needed infrastructure, and how it is going to be at no federal expense. If Parks doesn't want to expand the lease, can give the gondola to Parks and lease it (but not a ground lease) back. It wouldn't be easy, but it isn't also rocket science.

Fortunately a rail project 30x in budget is easier than a tourist gondola.
Yup, SSV is still run too much by nepo-baby idiots.

Speaking of Nepo-babies (from the link above):
This is it not a save-the-planet solo-effort, mind you, but a Waterous family affair, equally propelled along by Jan, a public relations whiz, who parked a big corporate job in Toronto to move west, and to a lesser degree the couple’s three, Harvard-educated sons who, incidentally, all have day jobs at Waterous Energy Fund.

It sucks to be so cynical about a project that would be great (aside from the whole money thing). Oh well, maybe my great-grandkids can ride on the first train and then illegally scatter my ashes somewhere in the park.

Also, I can't imagine any more soul draining job than writing puff pieces about rich dudes. I'm not even an 'eat-the-rich' kinda guy, but the sycophancy is just sickening
 
If Liricon thinks Parks Canada isn't fun to work with, wait until you need to engage CPKC/CN and Parks Canada on the rail project...
As a CP employee, with no knowledge of any MOU or plans or agreements, I think it would have been sweet to just upgrade/double up our whole mainline to make the passenger traffic work on our network. Rather than the mess of them running parallel, just have it all integrated together. Knowing the Laggan pretty well, there are some tight spots that would be more feasible as double track rather than separate tracks going beside each other.
 

Back
Top