[manny_santos]

Reviving an old thread...

I saw something that would shock, and frankly, horrify many Londoners on the weekend. I visited a Mexican city a little smaller than London (with a geographical footprint about the size of St. Thomas), where a number of the downtown streets are pedestrian only with a big public square. There are numerous shops and a small mall that are accessible only by foot. There are no vacant shops. The area is vibrant - it's where all the townspeople gather. Like our Springbank Park, it even has a miniature train for the kids.

It is also worth noting that the amount of vehicular traffic in this city is a fraction of London's. There is only one four-lane road, and the traffic levels are nothing like any four-lane road in London, even on a Sunday. No, instead of driving to the downtown, you walk, or you drive a very short distance. If you do drive, parking is free everywhere, even near the hospital (something that LHSC officials would find difficult to comprehend).

My point is, the only reason pedestrian-only streets don't work is if we say they won't work. They can and do work in all kinds of cities, big and small. Obviously in London's case you can't walk downtown if you live in Oakridge or Masonville, but there is no reason why the central part of the city can't be walkable. I just find it hilarious reading comments on the LFP website about how people who want on-street patios are waging war on the automobile, or making snide comments about having to walk to get to downtown destinations instead of being able to drive.

The inter-city bus terminal in this city would put any Greyhound station in North America to shame.