Conservationists and experts are concerned that a proposal for a passenger train from Calgary to Banff is proceeding without addressing some key environmental issues in and around the national park.
Liricon Capital Inc., the leading private sector backer, touts it as a hydrogen-powered transportation solution with lower greenhouse gas emissions than driving.
The company says it has received support from municipalities and the tourism industry, but the Alberta government told the Globe and Mail it won’t invest in the $1.5 billion train because the financial risks are too high.
Environmental groups – including the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Yellowstone to Yukon and Bow Valley Naturalists – and some scientists say the proposal also poses environmental risks.
“This is one of the most important conservation landscapes in North America,” said Tony Clevenger, senior wildlife researcher at Montana State University’s Western Transportation Institute, in Banff, Alta. “It is also one of the busiest in terms of transport infrastructure.
“The thought of this new rail line being really close to the existing rail line is really disturbing — not just in the park, but outside the park on provincial lands and Stoney Nakoda (First Nations) as well.”
Concerns include the death of wildlife along the railway line — particularly grizzly bears that have been run over and killed on the existing track — and the fragmentation of wildlife habitat in Alberta’s already busy Bow Valley.
Biologist Colleen Cassady St. Clair in Banff National Park in late June. St. Clair has explored using technology such as lighting or sound to alert animals to approaching trains and reduce wildlife deaths on the tracks. (Molly Segal)
Josh Welsh, Alberta’s Yellowstone to Yukon program manager, said passenger rail to Banff isn’t a bad idea.
“We see it as a means of potentially delivering a vision of sustainable transport that can work for wildlife, people and the planet,” he said.
But, he added, there isn’t enough information or collaboration to know if it works for wildlife.
“The Bow Valley is already being squeezed by development.”
A recent report by the Canmore, Alta.-based organization found that the mountain city’s footprint has increased fivefold in 50 years. He focuses on grizzly bears because “if you take care of grizzlies, you take care of a lot of other things.”
Another report by scientists, published this spring in the journal Movement Ecology, found that bears have lost about 85 percent of their original habitat in the Bow Valley.
“So when you’re talking about another piece of linear infrastructure, which is the ΓǪ train line, we’re talking about severing habitat, disconnecting wildlife,” Welsh said.
Devon Earle, a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association, said the Calgary-based organization has similar concerns.
“We don’t think there is an adequate assessment of how wildlife will be affected,” she said.
She also questioned whether a train would really reduce cars on the highway, saying a bus service might be more cost-effective.
Liricon said Parks Canada should consider raising the entrance fee to Banff National Park for private passenger vehicles and expanding bus and shuttle services between park attractions.
Parks Canada said in a statement that its first priority is to protect ecological integrity in national parks, but “is not currently reviewing a proposal for passenger rail in Banff National Park.” Any review, it added, would consider policy and legislation, including the Impact Assessment Act and park priorities.
Ian Watrous, managing partner at Liricon, said a study showed the train could carry about 11 million passengers a year and reduce highway traffic.
“The fact that the passenger train will be a zero-emission hydrogen train and will significantly reduce vehicular traffic ΓǪ means that human and wildlife deaths on highways will be dramatically reduced,” she said. “The specifics of the hydrogen solution and wildlife mitigation will be determined through consultation.”
The company said it is considering using technology such as lighting or sound to warn animals of approaching trains and reduce wildlife deaths on the tracks.
Colleen Cassidy St. Clair, a biologist at the University of Alberta, said she spoke with Liricon about this idea, which stemmed from some research she was leading.
Although early tests show it could be effective for some wildlife, she said “there’s a lot of untested terrain in a warning-based system.”
St. Clair said there can also be challenges with crossing structures for wildlife that goes over or under the tracks.
Clevenger, who specializes in wildlife crossings, said he heard the company was looking at underpasses to match those under the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park.
“It’s very simplistic and completely unfeasible,” he said. “You can’t put an underpass on the new railway line without putting an underpass on the main (Canadian Pacific Railway) line.” You will have to do both.”
Clevenger said the measure would reduce already compromised wildlife habitat.
The passenger train, he added, could increase overall traffic to the national park.
“It’s a landscape that’s just overflowing with people,” he said. “I don’t think they can handle it.”
Add Comment