42% of Banff’s Vehicle Traffic Starts in Calgary, New Data Shows

What’s Happening? Banff’s traffic headaches keep growing: more than 1.7 million vehicles entered town this July-August alone, blowing past the 24,000-vehicle daily threshold every day since June 21. With nearly half of those cars tied to Calgary residents or rentals from YYC, local leaders say solving congestion means tackling Calgary day-tripper traffic.

All Roads Lead to Calgary. Licence plate data shows 19% of vehicles entering Banff are Calgarians, 23% are rentals, most from the Calgary airport. Add them up, and nearly half of Banff’s vehicle problem starts in Calgary. Mayor Corrie DiManno said the solution is mass transit from Calgary, whether bus service now or passenger rail later. “If you can solve Calgary, you can solve congestion,” she told the Overheard Podcast, noting that existing On-It regional buses only move about one percent of visitors.

The Rail Pitch. A Calgary–Banff train has been floated for decades, most recently by Liricon Capital, the company that owns Mount Norquay and is paying $1.2 million to move Banff’s welcome sign. It pitched the rail line as a nation-building project under Ottawa’s new fast-track legislation. But when Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the first round of winners, Banff didn’t make the cut. 

The Pushback. Not everyone’s aboard. Conservationists worry trains could worsen an already deadly problem: 17 grizzly bears have been killed on Banff’s CP-KC rail line from 2000 to 2017, and this year alone three more have been struck. Groups like the Bow Valley Naturalists argue buses and integrated transit should be prioritized before rail, and warn that using federal fast-track powers could undermine local environmental safeguards.

Big Picture. Whether it’s buses or rails, one thing is certain: space for more cars isn’t part of the solution.

Poll: Should a Calgary-Banff Train Take Priority Now

A poll of 485 Bow Valley Insider readers found that 64% believe a Calgary-Banff train is the long-term solution that should take priority.

Community Comments: Here’s What Was Shared

• Removing vehicles from both Highway 1 and Banff streets will improve safety and reduce environmental impacts. Trains are safer than cars, and road kills far exceed rail kills. Push rail companies to fix leaking grain cars that attract bears. A single passenger train can replace hundreds of cars and cut emissions.

• It is not one or the other. Use existing rights-of-way for rail and increase bus frequency and convenience to replace personal vehicles.

• Just because rail is an option does not mean most people will use it. Canada is vast, and we drive. Do not base decisions on this year’s free park pass traffic volumes.

• Explore other options due to environmental impact and grizzly deaths. The risk of losing more bears is unacceptable.

• Focus on affordable, convenient alternatives. A frequent bus service from two pickup areas would be better.

• Rail requires tearing up land. Sustainable vehicles like electric buses are a more flexible solution. Who will pay for rail—the Town of Banff?

• Wildlife fences and corridors will be needed. Look to Europe for examples of effective mountain transit systems.

• Traffic keeps some visitors away in summer. A rail line with a large car park and rapid transit from Canmore could help, along with day-rate passes for towns.

• Prioritize buses first to keep bears alive.

• Research shows rail traffic may eventually reach capacity alongside cars.

• Rail through Canmore raises concerns about emergency access, as trains block crossings near the hospital and firehall.

• Rail is viable but wildlife protections must come first. Tourists arriving by train could reduce vehicle numbers.

• Buses are cheaper and more flexible than rail, which is costly to build and may be too expensive for consumers.

• Let’s move into the 21st century with better transit solutions.

• This discussion is long overdue. Technology exists to detect animals on tracks. In the meantime, expand shuttle service from Calgary.

• Rail could reduce highway congestion and improve safety during peak travel times. Expansion to three lanes on Highway 1 is also needed.

• Costs and funding remain unclear. Liricon Capital has vested interests and ridership estimates may be exaggerated.

• Bus infrastructure is scalable and cost-effective. Focus on conservation over over-tourism.

• Improving access, whether by bus or rail, must address safety, affordability, and connectivity to surrounding areas.

• A train would be attractive but the taxpayer burden is too high. Even if approved today, it would take 5–10 years.

• Excessive costs make rail unrealistic.

• Many Calgarians would use a train if affordable and reliable.

• A Banff-Calgary train could boost the economy, spread tourism dollars, ease housing pressure, and cut emissions if built with hydrogen technology.

• In the meantime, cap vehicles allowed at townsites and trailheads.

• Visitors still need cars to explore beyond Banff. Rental demand and traffic would continue.

• New services are necessary to accommodate tourism growth and benefit Alberta. Past rail existed—why not now?

• Rail costs are extreme. Buses are more flexible and safer for wildlife.

• Current proposals underestimate costs and overstate ridership. Tickets could be $100 return, plus rental car needs.

• RV and camper visitors still need vehicle access. Shuttle service at campgrounds is a good step.

• Wildlife tunnels or fencing around rail lines could reduce bear deaths.

• More transit may attract even more visitors, worsening congestion.

• A rail line plus shuttles could ease congestion. Inaction is costly.

• Capping daily park passes could protect wildlife and manage visitation.

• Focus on bus expansion first. Rail may just increase freight traffic.

• With so many vehicles, rail seems obvious.

• Some Calgarians would not use rail because they need vehicles for camping, groceries, and activities.

• Rail could reduce congestion and pollution, especially if tied to Calgary’s C-Train and park-and-ride.

• European-style park-and-ride models could help.

• Visitors need cars once in Banff unless robust mass transit exists inside the park.

• Rail development must include wildlife fences and passages.

• Rail does not solve overcrowding and lowers local quality of life.

• A train would also benefit those who cannot drive due to medical conditions. Wildlife crossings are essential.

• Limiting visitors is as important as reducing vehicles. High-speed rail could over-intensify visitation.

• Passenger rail in Canada faces safety and crime concerns. More volume could worsen congestion.

• Traffic is already maxed out. Trains allow comfort and bike transport that buses lack.

• Rail is financially impossible without massive public subsidies.

• Efficient, safe transport from Calgary to Banff is essential.

• Wildlife fences should be mandatory if rail is built.

• A high-speed train could bring new social issues to Banff and Canmore, like homelessness or addiction.

• Rail is safe and long-term, but we need creative solutions to protect bears.

• Learn from Europe. Trains reduce vehicle traffic and encourage foot traffic.

• Rail is expensive and disruptive, with negative impacts on nearby communities.

• Many visitors need vehicles beyond Banff, so uptake may be limited.

• Highway 1 traffic is dangerous and congested, supporting the case for rail.

• Rail requires capital for wildlife protections but could transform the park experience.

• Bus service is more efficient and less costly.

• Rail, with wildlife protections, is the future.

• Some argue rail will not replace cars, as tourists still want vehicles for luggage and flexibility.

• Trains are modern and attractive for tourists. Luxury coaches could also work.

• Rail would ease parking issues in Banff.

• Highway 1 pollution and wildlife kills are rising. A Calgary-Banff rail connection is necessary.

• Wildlife deaths from freight grain spillage must be addressed. Even partial rail service to Canmore would help.

• Trains cut vehicle traffic, emissions, and accidents.

• Too many bears already die on tracks. Higher park entry fees, especially for international visitors, could fund protections.

What Do You Think?

Let us know in the comments below.