38 replies to this topic

[Tony]

You can compare the Banfff situation to the West Coast Trail and the Chilkoot Trail......for years  both have restricted the number of people allowed per day to maintain the quality of the Experience. They are more isolated so easier to control.

 

The same problems happen in city tourist hot spots like Banff that have easy road access.or pedestrian access.. As of this month there is a fee of 2 euros that tourists must pay for a ticket to join a long line to gain close proximity to the Trevi fountain in Rome.

 

When I first visited the fountain there were few people. You could take your time to enjoy the work of art and ambiance. No rush if you wanted to throw a coin into the fountain. Last Spring the area was chockfull of tourists lining up to even get close to the fountain. When we arrived we just turned around and discovered less well known but just as interesting vistas with few tourists.

 

Making just more access is like building more roads to reduce congestion which has not worked out  

Edited by Tony, 08 February 2026 - 03:50 PM.

[Blair M.]

What exactly is the problem with lots of people? Are they trampling tree roots? Then build boardwalks. Are they littering? Then charge enough to pay someone to clean up and fine litterers.
This idea that parks can’t have too many humans in them is nonsense.

It’s far more than simply “lots” of people in summer, unfortunately. 

 

Lake Louise on a nice summer day is so crowded, you can’t move forward, backward, or sideways in places. 
You certainly can’t park closer than a few miles away, if you can park anywhere at all. 
Banff sidewalks are jammed up like mid-town Manhattan, but in a space hundreds of times smaller. You’re often forced to come to a full stop on downtown Banff sidewalks on sunny days, only to get going again and have to stop once again 5 minutes later. 
You can forget about getting into popular shops and eateries altogether. 
 

Services like food and washrooms require your own RV or hotel room in order to be comfortable - and that’s only if you reserved that hotel room or campsite within seconds of reservations opening up many months prior. 
 

I agree with your premise above in general terms, but Banff / Lake Louise really does have to be experienced in order to understand that it’s currently overloaded by a factor of 3 or 4 beyond what it can comfortably (and to some degree: safely) accommodate. 
 

In the couple of years I lived in Banff, you learn a few tricks - like being at Safeways door to shop for groceries five minutes before they open, and eating and drinking in unpopular establishments over in Canmore - but you still can’t beat the brutal traffic, line-ups at the gas pumps, and just the general overload of the entire Bow Valley. 

[Mike K.]

Yellowstone gets 50% more visitors annually.

They don’t seem to have the drama we do, and just deal with it.

[Tony]

Check out your numbers. My info indicates that they both get about the same number of tourists each year more than 4 million.

 

Yellowstone also has problems with the volume of tourists.

 

There is no single community in Yellostone.  Most people that visit the national park park will pass through Banff.

 

Remember the song with the lyrics.......  

 

"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Edited by Tony, 08 February 2026 - 08:19 PM.

[Mike K.]

Robot says 6 million for Yellowstone, 4 million for Banff.

[Blair M.]

Yellowstone can be a major crap-show too, there are lots of stories online related to hours long traffic jams on the road that winds around the park.

Yellowstone also has around 140 miles of excellent road through the park to absorb visitors, Banff to Lake Louise is only about 20 miles, plus the overloaded side roads.

 

There's no conspiracy at play though, it's just the age old tale of spectacular places featuring spectacular scenery being "loved to death" by sightseers and vacationers.

 

The same kind of issue is ongoing in Yosemite National Park, but even worse than Banff or Yellowstone, as Yosemite is basically a single (but beautiful) road with one turn off to the village.

In Yosemite village proper, I drove around in a non-stop traffic jam for almost an hour looking for a place to park.

Not being able to find any parking whatsoever (even paid), my daughter and I simply had to turn around and head back out West towards the coast.

Edited by Blair M., 08 February 2026 - 10:07 PM.

[Tony]

Interesting BOT contrasts for 2025 estimates 

 

COPILOT...Yellowstone 4.0 to 4.8, Banff Park 4.0 to 4.5, City Banff 4.2

Google BOT Yellowstone 4.7 to 4.8, Banff 4.3 City Banff more than 4.0 with more than 6.7 vehicles passing through the town site.

Bing  Yellowstone  Park 4.75 Banff Park  4.28

 

 

Alberta Government data for visitors to Banff National Park 2025 4,289,691

https://economicdash...ndance#section2

 

Yellowstone National Park 4.76, 4.8 Estimates ... there are some officialy monthly numbers but I could not find any full year. BOT full year stimates based on monthly data available is about 4.8

 

Lots of media reported number sources come up when you check the BOTS references rather than official sources.

Edited by Tony, 08 February 2026 - 11:02 PM.

[lanforod]

Yellowstone gets far more actual visitors I'm sure. Far, far more. Banff, many quick stops, not true visits. You can't really do that in Yellowstone, its a minimum a half day trip, and more likely a full day as you woudn't be staying in West Yellowstone or Gardiner without intending to visit the park. If you're simply on a road trip east/west, It's out of your way to go through the park generally, rather than for Banff where you pretty much have to go through the park.

[Mike K.]

It’s just Canada being Canada. Build more facilities, you hosers. It’s obviously under-served by what’s there now.

Leave it to Canadians to complain they have too many people wanting to visit a park that’s promoted the world over and used as marketing for the entire nation.

C’mon now.

[Tony]

Remember the song Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell with the lyrics.......  

 

They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel *, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum *
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em

 

 

 

[Mike K.]

Who?

[Mike K.]

Oh, I beg your pardon.

 

This Joni Mitchell, the one who lives here. Yes, we should absolutely take her advice on paving paradise.

 

[Tony]

Does not look like a National Park! The subjuct under discussion.

 

On residential construction since you brought it up are you suggesting she or anyone else  shoild not build or live in a large homes in residential areas and creating what looks like great landscaping.

 

But in National Parks you said........Build more facilities, you hosers. It’s obviously under-served by what’s there now. Seems like a contrdiction there.

 

Back to the topic. National Parks  have a major challenge with increased tourism and just building more facilities is not the solution in my opinion. There will be no simple one answere but many different variations depending on the situation.

 

Community and user input from the many user groups and services that support the park experience is an impoetant first step.

Edited by Tony, 09 February 2026 - 04:42 PM.

[Mike K.]

Joni Mitchell’s house has a larger parking lot than most people’s entire residential property.

[LJ]

I'm pretty sure that her house is an affordable rental property.

[Tony]

So?

[Mike K.]

Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?

[Victoria Watcher]

The City of Colwood is working with Parks Canada and local First Nations to create a national urban park around Fort Rodd Hill-Fisgard Lighthouse National Historic Site.

 

Parks Canada land around Fort Rodd Hill would be combined with pieces of municipal parkland to create walking and cycling corridors, and connections to ­historical areas and natural spaces as part of the National Urban Parks program, in discussion since 2023.

 

Colwood’s Coburg Peninsula, which stretches across Esquimalt Lagoon, as well as Perimeter Park, Lagoon West Park and Matilda Park could all potentially be included in the urban park.

 

The national urban park would be connected to Fort Rodd Hill by a 100,000-square-metre piece of land owned by the Department of National Defence called Cavendish along Ocean Boulevard.

 

The land is currently used as part of an informal trail connection to Royal Roads University.

 

 

Colwood Mayor Doug Kobayashi said the new national urban park will have huge benefits for locals and the entire region.

 

“I think this is an amazing project because it shows you what collaboration between federal, provincial and local governments, and more importantly, First Nations, can do when we work together,” Kobayashi said. “What we’re trying to ­create right now is a phenomenal park. It’s something very visionary.”

 

 

https://www.timescol...d-hill-12024629

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 March 2026 - 04:31 AM.

[aastra]

 

 

Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?

 

That was one of her biggest hits, no doubt.