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."
calgaryherald.com
calgaryherald.com
