Can we now all accept the fact that Banff town council will not reverse its decision on running a trial paid parking project to test its effect?
Letters, mostly from the anti paid parking side, continue to flow in and we apologize for not running them all this week (hard to believe, but there are other issues in the valley).
Rest assured, though, that we will try and leave additional space in the Outlook next week to continue printing them. Part of the problem is that, as is printed at the bottom of our editorial page, we do ask that letters be kept to a maximum of 500 words. In the case of anti paid parking letters, though, that is the exception, rather than the rule, therefore, fewer can fit the space we have.
At this time, unlike the anti paid parking lobby, we at the Outlook are willing to give town council the benefit of the doubt in assuming they will look at trial data gathered and use it to make an informed decision on the issue in future.
Whether visitors, in particular, choose to use or avoid the pay parking lots during the trial remains to be seen. Trouble is, should data show that paid parking is the way to go in the tourist town, the anti lobby will then feel justified in their statements that the trial is only a precursor to full implementation of paid parking, town-wide.
We’ll see how it plays out.
In the meantime, while much venom continues to be directed at Banff town council, we would like to point out that some of it would best be directed elsewhere.
For example, Parks Canada is looking for a two per cent per year increase in visitation – and many of those people will show up in vehicles that require parking. The days of Banff being a bus tourism destination have been replaced by rubber tire visitation.
But Parks Canada has yet to weigh in on the issue of increased parking by the increased numbers of visitors they are encouraging stifling traffic movement within Banff.
As well, Parks does sign off on the increased number of special events they, along with Banff Lake Louise Tourism (BLLT) and many in the business community, see as critical for keeping tourist visitation numbers on the rise.
As some who have spoken out against paid parking, either vocally, or in letter form, have pointed out, increased special events means increased traffic which means increased traffic congestion (just like 2+2+2=6).
The number of special events has been ramped up, but with little or no associated methods of dealing with the number of extra vehicles/parking the events attract.
While special events in Banff are all the rage, 1,500 GranFondo participants, for example, need to park somewhere and make their way around town. We feel it’s safe to say that for new events like GranFondo or larger triathlons, etc., competitors are not busing in and it’s unlikely many of them are carpooling to keep the number of vehicles down.
Possibly the same angst-filled anti paid parking letters we’re receiving at the Outlook could be directed toward Parks Canada officials, MP Blake Richards (who could pass word to his federal government counterparts), maybe tourism groups like BLLT or Travel Alberta.
Any or all could kick in positive suggestions for dealing with the traffic/parking problems associated with the increase in tourists they are embracing. Better yet, they could ante up with funding for parkades, intercept parking lots, traffic wardens … though we’re not sure it would help.
In the end, there has to be a saturation point for visitation in Banff. The town cannot simply continue to absorb more and more visitors. Perhaps saturation has now been reached.
