Future of NCC Parkways

[lrt's friend]

I am being portrayed as a car zealot.

But, I go to Lansdowne quite regularly by transit, occasionally by car when I go to a restaurant or to the theatres. Transit is not good except for special events.

Let's look at this rationally.

We have competing visions.

1. We want QED closed for active transportation. The current desire.
2. We want QED closed and replaced by a tram.
3. We want to build hundreds of new residential units on site.
4. We want to renew the stadium and arena, which will hopefully bring more people to Lansdowne in the long run.

Are these competing visions really compatible?

First, we have an underground parking garage used by business customers and local residents. We want hundreds of additional residents. Any formula that closes QED, creates access problems to the parking garage. New local residents are occasionally going to want to use a car, like it or not.

Second, a QED closure for active transportation is not the same as QED closure for a tramway. The latter means the status quo for active transportation, in fact, there will be no cyclists on QED if there is a tramway. Bicycles and cars and not ideal, but bicycles and trams is not going to be allowed. So, a tramway is less usable for active transportation than an open QED. My main point here is that options 1 and 2 are not at all the same. 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. To be fair, we could build a new bikeway along the tramway, but we could do that today as well.

Third, we want to increase use of Lansdowne by adding residences and additional use of public venues. We assume, that these additional people will all arrive or depart by active transportation or public transit. Is this realistic? I don't think so. I cannot think of a way that additional use will by 100% active and public transit. And then we say that a subway is 50 years off, the most viable way to increase access to Lansdowne and the Bank Street corridor in general.

I just can't square any of this with real human behaviour. We close QED and make Lansdowne more difficult to access and we see fewer people wanting to come to Lansdowne. We are effectively choking the life out of it. This is the gist of what the mayor is saying.

I have made one unpopular previous comment a few months back about how we want to make urban Ottawa exclusive to local residents and this is a perfect example. Sure, come if you are willing to cycle from the suburbs or if you park in someone else's neighbourhood and walk in. By the way, we will continue to make transit crappier in the process.

Our mayor is making a point. Are our urban neighbourhoods really open for business? Local residents can only support so much business and Lansdowne is not designed to be a local facility mainly for the enjoyment of Glebe residents.

When we look at plans for Lansdowne, we need to make it friendly to visitors and on-site residents. Any changes need to offer net improvements that reflect the needs of both visitors and residents. There needs to net gains that will enhance the success of Lansdowne, while being friendly to the greater neighbourhood. This is the challenge and we cannot be making decisions based on jurisdiction that ignore all vested interests.