Should Highway 742 Be Paved? The Spray Lakes Road Debate

Premier Danielle Smith’s latest letter to Forestry and Parks Minister Todd Loewen zeroes in on the Bow Valley. Think: more campsites, improved services in Kananaskis and Canmore, and upgrades to trails and highways. At the centre of the debate is Highway 742, better known as Spray Lakes Road.

The Dusty Question. The province says “upgrades,” but stopped short of clarifying whether that means paving the entire Smith-Dorrien. So far, the only fresh asphalt is at pull-outs like Grassi Lakes and Ha Ling to help with dust. Everything else? Still gravel.

Community Split. When we asked readers whether the road should be paved, the valley nearly split down the middle: 52.7% voted yes, 47.3% no.

• Yes side: Safer winter driving, fewer potholes, less dust choking plants (and cyclists), and better access for everyday vehicles. Some suggested partial paving up to Ha Ling or Spray Lakes, plus adding bike lanes.

• No side: Paving equals speeding, more traffic, and pressure on already-strained trails. Many pointed to wildlife corridors, overtourism, and Canmore’s congestion. Others said the gravel itself acts as a filter, deterring casual visitors and keeping the valley wilder.

Bigger Picture. The Spray Lakes debate isn’t just about smoother driving. It’s about whether improving access turns a backroad into another tourist highway, and what that means for locals, wildlife, and the outdoor experience.

Community Comments

Here’s what locals said in response to the poll:

• Paving it will lead to speeding and overcrowding.

• Paving it is inviting over-tourism to the area.

• Gravel roads keep people away, so they should stay, but tourism is increasing and a safer road would be better.

• Keep it gravel to keep traffic manageable… pavement will eliminate a “level of commitment” to access the corridor.

• Paving will further encourage speeding on a winding, narrow route, endangering motorists, cyclists, and wildlife.

• No, because paving it opens the door to resort development; Canmore will get overrun with traffic.

• It would be safer and easier on our vehicles—a main artery to great hikes.

• No paving south of Shark Mt. turn-off (Canmore to Shark Mountain only).

• No, leave it as is; it’s one of the last real adventure roads in the Bow Valley. Paving will wreck the area—too many tourists won’t respect the place. “Paving will end up having too much traffic. I would be in favour of filling in all the frickin’ holes and levelling it a bit.”

• “WILDLIFE CORRIDOR! WILDLIFE CORRIDOR! WILDLIFE CORRIDOR! Just encourages more traffic, destroying the environment!”

• Paving will greatly increase access and traffic volume (and speeds) through pristine valley-bottom habitat, applying more pressure on already-strained trails and day-use infrastructure.

• Too many people!!

• Once you pave that stretch, people will speed and endanger other drivers and wildlife. This road is meant to be driven slowly to take in the scenery. Keep it gravel so it slows people down.

• If it gets paved it will only bring more pressure to the area. Leave it alone.

• Pave it to the Ha Ling parking lot so buses can get up there. The road is actually nice to drive—hard-packed snow, not dusty or washboarded.

• Paving will increase vehicle volume and excessive speeding; serious danger for wildlife.

• The road helps limit traffic.

• As is, it’s dangerous in winter unless you have 4WD—limits safe access for people who can’t afford an expensive vehicle.

• Built in the 1940s; substandard and not suitable for more traffic—however upgraded. Trailers have tough access.

• Paving will add congestion in the Spray Lakes area and take away one of the few more-remote jewels locals have.

• Dusty road clogs air filters; potholes can be dangerous. Paving would improve recreation access (cyclists: less dust), hikes more accessible, bigger parking lots to stop roadside parking; motorcyclists would love a loop via Spray–Hwy 40. Safer winter travel.

• Ongoing maintenance matters, but paving will increase speed and volume without matching controls (trails, washrooms, cell service, safety). It pushes people into backcountry without proper management.

• Can’t imagine how fast tourists would drive if it was paved.

• Paving draws more traffic—buses and sports vehicles—hurting a peaceful animal corridor in negative, likely irreversible ways.

• Could be upgraded to reduce washboard, but wildlife wouldn’t fare as well with pavement.

• Already too busy.

• Some mountain areas should remain harder to access. Buses already drop city hikers and clog trails; the dusty road keeps traffic down a bit.

• At least first 20 km.

• Road is reasonably maintained and aligned. Paving is unnecessary expense to increase access when gravel filters less-motivated visitors. Up to first dam is probably safer as gravel for speed/traction control.

• Looks like Smith is trying to redirect traffic from federal to provincial parks, which is good. Keep Ottawa out; “the Liberals ruin everything.” Keep Alberta Albertan and Canadian.

• Pave with more water access. Add bike lane or widened shoulders to create world-class road biking loop to Hwy 40/Highwood. Dust reduces visibility; speed concerns could be mitigated with strict enforcement and education.

• “Absolutely not! More frequent grading would help. Paving would turn Spray Lakes into a ‘mountain highway,’ disrupting wildlife safety further. Keep our wild places wild.”

• I like that it’s less popular because it’s gravel, though I see more visitors than 20 years ago. Is anyone counting cars on 742 vs. Hwy 40? Maybe gravel doesn’t deter as much as we think—please find out.

• Dangerous with gravel surface.

• Gravel impedes speeding.

• There are enough people in the Spray; paving means more. My car gets dusty, but I can wash it.

• If paved, we’ll see tourists driving 15 km/h rubbernecking, with locals weaving through like an autobahn to the trailhead.

• Stop being elitist NIMBYs and give better, safer access: fewer potholes, less washboard, less silt dust. It’s used—make it usable.

• Leave it unpaved and rustic. It adds to the appeal; many haven’t gone due to gravel.

• Leave as gravel; spend money elsewhere. Paving brings high-speed traffic that endangers animals. Build a parallel bike path for touring to get bikes off the road.

• With increased heavy-truck use, today’s road is only good for the Wind’s Head repair guys.

• If gravel actually deterred people, I’d keep it, but it doesn’t enough to justify vehicle damage.

• So should Highway 40 between Nordegg & the Crowsnest.

• If not paved, spray for dust suppression.

• One of the few places that still feels remote; gravel forces slower driving and appreciation. There are better uses of money than paving paradise.

• Paving encourages more traffic and more wildlife accidents. Leave wildlife in peace.

• Being gravel keeps Spray Valley volumes lower than if paved; paving would create unsustainable flow to the Nordic Centre.

• If you pave it, there will be too much traffic.

• It will be even busier if paved; gravel keeps speed down—safer for animals.

• Why not?

• But with better, consistent maintenance.

• Paving will attract more visitors.

• It’s a horrible road, but it makes folks think twice—fewer unprepared visitors and fewer rescues.

• Gravel is dangerous now with so much traffic—unlike years past.

• Dust coats flora; not good for plants/animals. Speeders could be controlled with cameras. It’s already busy; an overwhelming increase may not occur.

• “Exit in the case of fires. Keep dust in valley down.”

• If paved, there’ll be even more, faster traffic; road is barely wide enough in places. Hard NO! Local Canmore family of 45+ years.

• Only way to manage volume of cars.

• Paving starts overtourism: more traffic, more wildlife deaths. Keep it quiet and gorgeous.

• Gravel keeps it from being so busy and deters motorcycle joyriding/noise.

• Gravel is fine; hope it keeps tourist traffic down. Occasional grading would be nice though.

• 742 is awful to travel—limits which hikes I take. Paved access would be awesome.

• Road lasts longer, better drivability & less dust. Better outdoor experience/access for all.

• Paving will compromise the wildness; keep access down as part of the solution.

• It’s already crazy busy; paving encourages speeding, which kills wildlife; more people will come.

• Great choice to travel between Kananaskis and Canmore.

• Paving will be worse than gravel with constant winter damage.

• Pavement would bring even more traffic to an already busy area. As a local cyclist, less dust would be nice and road-bikeable, but like Lake Louise road—do we want more traffic?

• As a local, I’d use it more as a gateway into K-Country, but want specifics on Smith’s wider plan.

• At times almost undriveable and dangerous; accesses a huge recreation area and should be upgraded.

• If paved, Spray Lakes will be a disaster: tour buses, RVs, thousands more cars—another Lake Louise, a treasure lost to locals.

• Keeps speed down.

• Too much road on our planet!

• I’d love it paved (dust is ridiculous), but fear speeding; gravel at least keeps speeds down.

• “It will be so busy. It’s a lovely drive. Don’t take away what little peace wildlife has. Please don’t pave for human convenience.”

• Keep as is, but grade more often to reduce washboard.

• “You pave it and they will come! Better to drive gravel, keep speed down, and spend a few dollars at our car washes!”

• “No paving. Speed and accidents will increase. More wildlife-vehicle crashes. Pedestrians to trailheads at risk.”

• It would make it crazier busy than it already is!

• If paved, it becomes a higher-speed highway and endangers wildlife.

• Increased traffic from paving will add extreme pressure to already braided, poorly maintained K-Country trails.

• Leaving it gravel minimizes human impact on this sensitive area.

• “So unsafe! Can’t see parked cars/wildlife… dust interferes with photosynthesis… animals can’t eat dusty berries… I’ll never drive it again until paved… Remember when some didn’t want Hwy 40 paved? Imagine how many animals/people would have died otherwise… Do animals get COPD from dust?”

• There’s enough traffic; paving would beat the washboard, but…

• If paved, will it be fenced or will wildlife collisions increase? It’s a corridor—respect wildlife; they don’t need higher-speed traffic.

• Up to Spray Lakes but not past it!

• The less desirable, the fewer tourists.

• Gravel keeps visitor numbers down so those who really want to be there enjoy quiet. Speed increases deaths of wildlife and people.

• “Good roads bring bad people, bad roads bring good people.” Paving brings busloads; parks are overcrowded, trails braided, garbage everywhere. Say no to paving paradise.

• No more rock chips and dust, please.

• Never pave it! More people than ever will slide off the final descent into Canmore. Tow trucks will love it. The 60 km between the Nordic Centre and K-Lakes Road will be overrun. PLEASE NO!!!

• Hard no: paving will result in overtourism and environmental degradation. Learn from Jumbo Valley—keep it wild.

• Gravel makes the single-letter license plates think twice—and I appreciate it.

• Pavement could cause more icing in winter and be less safe downhill; will increase traffic and speed.

• Tough one.

• Leave it gravel but maintain better; it’s destructive to vehicles now.

• Kananaskis has to be protected. Too many vehicles will disturb wildlife.

• There are other roads tourists can access. Paved roads mean more traffic and higher speeds. Not interested!

• I don’t think they can pave it due to avalanches?

• I just don’t go because of road conditions; cars are too expensive.

• Paving allows more direct access to Canmore through Kananaskis.

• Poor conditions deter some people. It’s busy enough; paved = zoo like everywhere else. 👎🏻

• Fewer people travel gravel; critical to have that filter.

• We’ve gotten many rock chips; dust is terrible. Scenic but terrible to drive—avoided it this year with a new vehicle.

• Too many tourists without the experience to drive it now; needs a bike path too.

• “Paving would provoke more high-speed traffic in sensitive wildlife areas.”

• Pavement nicer to drive, but would enable more tourism and development. Keep it quiet.

• Nasty road; no one wants to drive. At least fill potholes and keep dust down.

• Make it accessible for everyone.

• It would be a huge expense and increase stress on the area.

• Need cost comparison: if paving costs less to maintain and improves safety (plowing/sanding), maybe; if gravel costs less and stays safe, keep gravel. Need more info.

• Keep visitor volume down to protect the region.

• It would be safer and easier on the suspension.

• Paving would only generate more traffic—better to leave gravel.

• Leave K-Country as is—improvements bring too many people.

• Pave it and it will be overrun; the poor road is the area’s only protection. We hate driving it but are thankful for the filter.

• Terrible for asthma due to dust; we hike/snowshoe but complain about Spray Lakes Road conditions. We pay the K-Pass and haven’t seen improvements.

• Gravel decreases traffic, good for wildlife. If paved, add fencing and wildlife overpasses.

• Remember the song? They paved paradise.

• Nobody needs to drive faster than they do now; gravel keeps speeds lower.

• Gravel will keep crowds away.

• Dust continually enters the reservoir—long-term silting. Needs to be paved.

• Paving would make it more attractive and therefore much busier.

What Do You Think?

Let us know in the comments.