My interesting point of view on installing a bridge through Jackson Park to extend Peterborough’s Parkway situation:

Having a consultancy background, I find it odd that despite the enormous funds devoted to consultants’ reports, they have yet to reveal a version of a by-pass AROUND the perimeter of Pererborough rather than through it. Generally consultants present several options, weigh them with pros and cons and make a recommendation. However I have never heard anyone refer to any other option other than extending the Parkway.

Many cities in US and Canada have addressed their traffic issues with a by-pass around the city limits. Jackson Park was awarded to the city to be protected and act as a steward of precious parkland even if it is “only a bridge”.

Have you ever stood underneath a bridge with cars crossing? The amount of dirt and pollution is extraordinary. Plus once you begin to deteriorate green space with “it’s just a bridge”, the next step to invade more green space becomes easier.

Is it possible that the plan created in 1947 is anachronistic, out of date and needs to be revised based on the city’s requirements in the 21st century and beyond? If green space is precious now, imagine 20 years from now, 50 years from now, 100 years from now. What is the balance between growth and stewardship of green space? Surely there is another way folks. I get that “it’s only a bridge”. That is true AND it is creating traffic right through the city that is only 20 minutes wide from end to end.

I wonder if there is some other solution that has not yet been explored? What are possible routes around the perimeter of the city that already exist and could be widened to accommodate additional traffic, such as the current bypass Highway 7 to the west and Highway 28 to the east?

Is it time to stop wasting time and money on the same thing over and over and over again? Isn’t that Einstein’s definition of insanity? Is anyone else asking “what else is possible?” instead of being stuck in “either or”?

And while we’re at it, is anyone else concerned about all the logging going on to make way for new houses, especially If the population of our city is hardly growing? We moved to this city because it is beautiful and over the ten years we have been here, have been heartbroken to see more and more trees being torn down. I understand that the city gets developers’ fees which add to the coffers of our city, but at what cost?

Pin It on Pinterest