BANFF – Banff’s elected officials won’t be reversing course in their push for an intercept parking lot on sensitive lands outside the townsite to deal with congestion chaos and parking problems.
On a 5-2 vote on March 27, Coun. Hugh Pettigrew failed to convince his council colleagues to scrap plans to hire an independent consultant to investigate a potential land trade or swap with Parks Canada for an intercept lot at the east entrance to the tourist town.
The vote followed council’s March 23 get-together with Banff National Park superintendent Sal Rasheed, who has consistently reaffirmed Parks Canada’s long-standing position of no intercept lot outside town boundaries in the critical montane due to environmental, policy and legislative challenges.
“Considering the response we’re getting from Parks Canada, at least what I understand we heard, I think it’s a hard no,” said Pettigrew, who got support only from Coun. Ted Christensen to scrap the $30,000 spend for a third-party consultant.
The rest of council, however, wanted to proceed with the study, which is being funded by visitor paid parking revenues.
Some councillors narrowed in on one sentence in Rasheed’s February 2023 letter to council in which he referred to a reduction in each ski area’s commercial leasehold size through the return of lands to Parks Canada determined to have ecological value.
Coun. Chip Olver said if the Town of Banff can identify a significant net environmental benefit through this study, “then I think it’s a worthwhile endeavour.”
“I totally acknowledge and respect Parks Canada’s role to say no if that doesn’t exist,” she said.
Following council’s decision last week to continue to seek a third-party study, Parks Canada says its clear and consistent position on intercept parking outside legislated town boundaries since the early 2000s position "remains unchanged."
Rasheed said Parks' long-standing position on intercept parking for both national park communities and ski areas is that proposals for use and development outside of already established, legislated boundaries on undeveloped park land pose environmental, policy, and legislative challenges.
“Parks Canada cannot approve proposals that fail to demonstrate conformance with applicable national park policy and law,” he said in an April 3 email. “The agency’s position on this matter has been clear and remains unchanged.”
Town of Banff administration and Parks Canada are getting together for a workshop at the end of April, and the subject of an intercept lot to deal with the townsite’s parking and congestion problems is on the agenda.
The Town of Banff has long had its eye on the wooded area known as the Elkwoods beside the Husky gas station off Banff Avenue at the east entrance to town; however, Parks Canada has consistently said no to this and any other location outside of town boundaries in the critical montane areas.
Parks Canada has indicated it is open to a parkade as part of the redevelopment of the 200 block of Banff Avenue or an intercept lot on already disturbed land in the industrial compound – both within town boundaries.
Town administration has sought early independent advice on potential ideas but Town Manager Kelly Gibson said administration won’t re-engage in this file or hire a consultant until they meet with Parks Canada.
He said administration would not bring a proposal forward that was not a net environmental win.
“We wouldn’t ever suggest to bring back something that wasn’t because we know Parks Canada would say no to that and I am not sure we would support it either,” said Gibson.
Coun. Grant Canning, who originally pitched the land swap proposal in December, raised concerns with both potential options of a park-and-ride lot in the industrial compound and downtown underground parkade.
He questioned the sense of diverting hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles a day off Banff Avenue to the industrial area via Compound Road, over an at-grade railroad crossing and through a wildlife corridor to an intercept lot.
As for a downtown underground parkade, he worried it would be impossible to build something that big, given previous transportation studies suggest a need for 500-1,000 parking stalls moving forward, not to mention the impact that would have on residential neighbourhoods.
Canning said there isn’t a reasonable solution to the parking problems within town boundaries and hopes the third-party study can come up with an idea that proves to be a net environmental benefit to the national park that Parks Canada could support.
“What if we identified lands within the industrial compound, like the dog park or the Town of Banff industrial yard, or land around the Fenlands, and cobble together enough land to give back to the park in return for a small section next to Banff Avenue on the east entrance near the Husky station,” he said.
“What if the national park got two times or three times as much land as the Town of Banff is receiving? Is that not a significant net environmental benefit?”
