A controversial city proposal to transform roads and restrict vehicle access in Toronto’s High Park is causing a rift among contenders in the Ward 4 city councillor race, with differing opinions among community groups and candidates on the park’s future.
In the expansive 400-acre park, parts of the roads are currently lined with pylons and construction barriers as the city progresses with efforts to minimize vehicular traffic. This initiative is part of the city’s long-term High Park Movement Strategy (HPMS), endorsed by the council in 2023, aiming to ultimately close off roads to cars completely. Although cars are already prohibited in the park on weekends, the city is still exploring options for redesign.
Marshall Leslie, the director of High Park Access advocacy group, which opposes the city’s car-free plan, emphasized the significance of the redesign in the upcoming municipal election on Oct. 26, influencing his support decisions. On the other hand, Faraz Golizadeh, co-chair of the street-safety community group Safe Parkside, advocates for the full implementation of the car ban to enhance safety within High Park.
Concerns have been raised about the impact of the car ban on park accessibility. Leslie highlighted that key amenities like sports facilities are centrally located, warning that the exclusion of cars could hinder access for youth sports leagues and summer camps, especially for families and young children. The reduction of accessible parking spaces has already posed challenges for individuals with disabilities trying to navigate the park.
Luke Anderson, the executive director of the Stop Gap Foundation advocating for accessibility, echoed Leslie’s sentiments, stressing the necessity for clarity on which vehicles will be allowed in the park. He emphasized the importance of only permitting vehicles with accessible parking permits in the area.
The debate surrounding the car ban has divided the candidates in the ward. Some candidates support immediately suspending the HPMS and reconsidering consultations due to perceived inadequacies, while others oppose halting the plan. The differing viewpoints highlight the complexities of balancing environmental preservation with inclusivity and accessibility in public spaces.
REWRITE_BLOCKED: The content contains copyrighted material.