Use this URL for your news reader: http://lvec.ca/KCalNewsAndArticles.XML
A closer look at some of the diagrams released by the city shows a dark and prominent dashed line, labeled "100 year flood line" that goes into the proposed LVEC building. Of course, to the extent they dig down and place the ice below grade, as is common in modern bowls, and common in cases when keeping the building height in check, there may be "flooding issues" and risks that are far in excess of what's been discussed so far. Flood risk and flood control contingencies certainly aren't in the business plan.
A casual glance here shows that four times in the past 35 years we've seen "average monthly water levels" in excess of 248 feet, which meansinstantaneous peak levels well in excess of this number.
Note that these levels occurred after 1960, when the St. Lawrence Seaway began operation, and water levels on Lake Ontario have been regulated by the seaway since then. When a flood does come, the proposed LVEC in Kingston will be far down the list of flood control priorities for seaway management.
The 100-year flood elevation on the diagram appears to be 76. 3m, or 250. 3 feet. The interpretation of all this depends on the chart datums being used, but certainly the word "flood" must appear somewhere in the site selection dialogs and subsequent plans. Oh, right, there was no site selection process...
John Chambers and Gord Hunter report that Mayor Harvey Rosen has some serious lobbying to do, between now and May 3, if he hopes to pull LVEC out of the fire.
Here are details and some suggested adjustments to some quantitative aspects of CastleGlenn Consulting's very weak traffic and parking viability assessment. This report went unchecked and unquestioned by the LVEC Steering Committee.
Given this, anyone who thinks there are no serious and possibly incontrovertible parking issues with the LVEC as proposed on Anglin Bay is deluded.
Please also note the many very serious qualitative problems with the study.
In summary, within a 600m radius, after accounting for the consultant's serious mistakes, including the omission of the North Block development, which has been in the works for over two years now, and which introduces its own parking demands that are still not tallied, the parking supply is closer to 1250 stalls, not the 2100 stalls as reported by the consultants.
Here's the full text of a letter submitted by Steven Black, a rather shorter version of which was printed by the Whig on Saturday April 30th.
Perfectly timed, out comes the marketing arm of City Hall to release some very rosy projections indeed.
The problem with these LVEC proponents is there are never any downsides. The following words appear zero times in the nine page document:"risk", "debt", "finance", "pay", "expense", "water", "waterfront", "harbour", "shore", "unique", "outdoor", "boat", "parking", "walk", "customer", "patron", "rain", "snow", "weather", or even "Wellington", or "Anglin".
The word "Buskers", an outdoor street festival? Six times.
"Winter" appears exactly once, in this paragraph:
Oh really? Within what radius? They, of course, don't say. London's Covent Market Place (see also here and interestingly here) is immediately adjacent to the John Labatt Centre. Nothing liks this is remotely possible in the currently proposed location on Anglin Bay. It's a completely ridiculous statement to extrapolate these immediately proximate benefits to Kingston's downtown core, which is hundreds of meters away. There are no immediately proximate businesses near Anglin Bay.
Increased tourism expenditures resulting from LVEC will be concentrated primarily during the winter months, helping to offset this traditionally slower period for local businesses. Currently, for example, the downtown restaurants and nightclubs have a total capacity of approximately 20,000 seats, but operate at only about one-quarter of that capacity during November and December. Experience in London, Ontario, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, has shown that restaurant sales have increased significantly (between 30 and 50 per cent) as a result of sports and entertainment centres being built in those cities. (Source: London Free Press, March 23, 2005; Winnipeg Free Press, December 4, 2004. )
We've just updated the article titled "The LVEC Process: Responsible? Democratic?... You Decide" to bring it up to date. Thanks to Betty Harlow and Mary Syrett for their work on this.
Robert Mackenzie sent this letter to The Whig Standard today.
Read the whole letter.
The decision making approach of the City regarding the LVEC has been time driven and inadequate. Without adequate citizen participation the process has resulted in severe community divisiveness. Rather than debate being focused within the deliberative bodies of the City it has by default taken place in the newspapers. The Steering Committee has shown no evidence that it is open to learn from its citizens. It is committed to an objective and is not prepared to let anything stand in its way. After Monday evening's comment session and Tuesday's morning Steering Committee meeting one can only be very cynical about the whole LVEC process.
The important responsibility assigned to the Steering Committee by Council has been mishandled. In proceeding in such a single minded manner the Committee has failed to learn from its citizens and allow its work to stand the scrutiny of its critics. Council should not rely on the work of the Steering Committee.It is the responsibility of to Council to now ensure that the missing scrutiny of the LVEC proposal takes place.
Somewhat lost in the shuffle this week is Claude Scilley's editorial from April 25th. He's writing about the Multiplex Steering Committee and its process, but it could well apply, in spades, to the LVEC Steering Committee.
Read the whole thing.
Were these people ever anything more than window dressing for the bureaucrats?
We've graciously been given permission to distribute the full contents of the report issued by Paul Fraresso, P. Eng, on the LVEC business plan.
Read Derek Baldwin's report in the Tuesday, April 26 edition of The Whig Standard.
The response by Don Gedge was, reportedly, a personal attack on the integrity of the consultant.
Judge for yourself.
Here's the text of Irena Manoliu's presentation at the LVEC public meeting on April 25th.
Again, read the whole thing.
It is beyond common understanding why the City commissioned a professional consultant, who is performing such a detailed, expert job for the Wellington Street extension, and then completely disregarded its own policy by failing to follow the same path for selecting the LVEC site. In the case of the LVEC site, the cart has been put before the horse: first the site was subjectively selected, and afterwards we hear desperate, ongoing attempts made to convince the public that this is the best location. There is no doubt in my mind that the process followed by the Task Force and accepted by City Council in the improperly called site selection is flawed and cannot withstand scrutiny.
Not only have social and economic criteria been totally ignored in the selection of the Inner Harbour LVEC site but also the cost. Our repeated questions about the premium costs that will have to be paid to build on Inner Harbour location have been ignored. Additional expenses such as cleaning the brownfields, purchasing MetalCraft and the marina property, paying relocation expenses and loss of production costs for MetalCraft have been swept under the table. Moreover, with the release of Phase 1 - Draft Parking & Traffic Study on April 20th such a premium can no longer be ignored. Under "Preferential LVEC Transit Access" it is stated: "a northern driveway to the proposed LVEC site should be established for transit and emergency vehicles". It sounds prudent, except that such driveway has to be built and this would be just one more of the premiums paid by the City for building on this site.
Here's the text of Joche Katan's presentation at the LVEC public meeting on April 25th.
Read the whole letter.
The Anglin Bay site is too small to squeeze in a building with even reduced seating capacity. Does Kingston need such a huge building on prime waterfront?
Access to the site and parking is similarly quite inadequate; the proposed new building is incompatible with the current land use; and finally other experience says that without doubt the facility will become a serious burden on the Kingston tax base.
It is also clear to all that the Mayor is intent on pushing this development on the city, regardless of the steadily accumulating negative results of a rushed evaluation process.
The proposed building is huge, with a mass five times that of the Leeuwarden building which will be is situated less than a hundred feet away, and will not blend in with anything in the surrounding area. This would be a large industrial building, located in a residential area, of which the majority of the residents are seniors, not interested in the facility and its proposed functions and totally opposed to the proposal to build it.
No proper road access from four sides can ever be achieved. The proposed Wellington extension is a road that is needed only if the LVEC is built at the Anglin Bay site. The cost to the city of approximately 11 million dollars can be avoided and our precious waterfront could be saved by turning the grounds into a beautiful park. This park can be used by all : young and old.
Adequate parking cannot be provided, again because the space is too small. Simply saying we do not need the parking space on site, is sheer nonsense
There is NO evidence that the LVEC will pay for itself.
Here's the text of Mary Louise Adams' presentation at the LVEC public meeting on April 25th.
Read the whole thing.
The draft Business Plan for the proposed LVEC claims that the project will deliver economic benefits to the City of Kingston. Indeed, this is the main argument presented to justify public investment in the project.
If that were indeed to happen, the LVEC would be unique in North America.
It cannot be stressed enough: Research on the economics of sports venues is unequivocal. Sports facilities are not the development engines that their boosters claim them to be. For more than twenty years, studies by disinterested economists have failed to find evidence of urban economic growth as a result of sports facility developments. On what grounds, therefore, should we believe that Kingston is going to be the first to buck this trend?
Derek Baldwin reports in the Tuesday, April 26 edition of The Whig Standard that John Paul Fraresso,a professional engineer hired by citizens who live in the Leeuwarden condominium, says a draft business plan for a Kingston entertainment centre contains "overly optimistic" financial projections.
Don Gedge, not surprisingly, doesn't agree, despite history that teaches us that ALL such developments have overly optimistic financial projections at the outset. Yet his business plan comes nowhere near any easily foreseeable less-than-ideal scenarios, nevermind any of the common worst case scenarios we can see in LVEC projects all around North America.
Here's the text of Betty Harlow's presentation at the LVEC public meeting on April 25th.
Read the whole thing.
The B. P. says that land costs and any grant shortfalls will come out of the Municipal Capital Reserve Fund: that's in addition to the 3. 3 million they already plan to take. But if you add land and relocation and remediation costs (maybe 5 million?), a shortfall of say 4 million in grants (that's optimistic)-they'll be raiding the Reserve Fund for, say, 12 million-at a time when they need it for the Multiplex and Ravensview.
No cost to taxpayers?? Are you kidding?
This Business Plan is such a joke, you wonder if its really part of a different agenda: to push Council into selling the M centre after all.
This should never get to Council. But if it does, Council should at least insist on a peer review.
Here's the text of Robert Mackenzie's presentation to the April 25th public meeting on the LVEC. A snippet:
Read the whole thing.
The financial and economic implications of the proposed LVEC are substantial. If financial resources are spent on the proposed LVEC, what facilities and services will have to be reduced, postponed or put off indefinitely ? Unless $40M lands unexpectedly on City Hall's doorstep, a decision to proceed with the LVEC will mean less financial resources for other civic facilities and services. What are the opportunity costs? In what way will the expenditure on the LVEC impact the City's capacity to support other civic requirements?
The Business Plan fails to set out the net economic impact of the proposed LVEC on the community. Presumably the Kingston area has only so much money for entertainment so therefore much of the money spent at a new LVEC would simply be diverted from present entertainments. Will there be entertainment losers? Or will the magnitude of the new money that would be available for LVEC entertainment offset any loses? What will be the source of the new money?
Should the City be further involved in subsidizing the entertainment business? Hockey interests stand to gain financially from potentially larger gate receipts. Out of town entertainments would welcome yet another civically subsidized entertainment venue.
The Business Plan makes no effort to address the extensive writings in the field that conclude that the economic impacts of sports and entertainment facilities are typically overstated by proponents. (e.g. C. D. Howe Institute Commentary No. 161, Bread and Circuses:The Local Benefits of Sports and Cultural Businesses 2002)
Tonight everyone on both sides can be very proud to be Kingstonians. It's really just as simple as that. There are a lot of very smart, thoughtful people living in our midst.
Here is the text of Bruce Todd's analysis of the Traffic and Parking Viability Assessment Study.
This is a crushing peer review of the Parking and Traffic Viability Study. Anyone who condones this study in the name of the Citizens of Kingston has serious ethical issues. Read the whole thing.
I have reviewed Phase I - Draft Parking and Traffic Study for the Kingston Large Venue Entertainment Centre, and I have found eighteen major errors and omissions in this report. Without correction and clarification of these major errors and omissions, it is my opinion that council members cannot make a thoroughly informed decision concerning acceptance of this report, nor can they have a clear understanding of the major impact that the LVEC will have on our downtown area.
Does building the LVEC on Anglin Bay mean the City of Kingston won't be able to divest itself of downtown parking lots for the foreseeable future?Smart partners are sure to demand this. The story goes on:
OTTAWA " The Ottawa Lynx baseball club wants the City of Ottawa to step up to the plate after the team lost hundreds of fans last Saturday because they couldn't find parking anywhere near the city-owned stadium.
There are now just 800 parking spots at the ballpark with seats for more than 10,000 people. There used to be 2,500 parking, but many of them were on land the city has since sold off.
Sound familiar?Here's the killer point:
The team's general manager, Kyle Bostwick, says 7,500 fans got in on opening day, but hundreds more were not so lucky.
It's the worst thing that could have happened to a team that needs fans, he says.
"We're in a spot where we've opened our doors, trying to get some of the support, and I am worried about how many people were turned off to the whole experience," said Bostwick.
City Coun. Jacques Legendre is also concerned, because he doesn' t want to see the city stuck with an empty baseball stadium.
But the councillor for Rideau-Rockcliffe saw the parking problem coming years ago.
In the early 1990s, he opposed the stadium's construction precisely because there weren't enough parking spots.
In the meantime, city officials are negotiating with the owners of nearby private lots, including the St. Laurent Shopping Centre. But Bostwick says fans aren't willing to walk long distances to see a game... in Spring, Summer, and Fall months. The citizens of Kingston are being asked to do it, mostly in Winer months.
There is more: In this city document, Report No: LVO4-002 REPORT TO LVEC STEERING COMMITTEE, on page 14, it says:
Lynx Stadium in Ottawa is located at 300 Coventry Road, and is surrounded by highways. The Corel Centre in Ottawa is also located on a highway, surronded by ample parking. These places are nothing at all like Wellington Street in Kingston. Who was kidding whom here?
RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE:
It is recommended that the appointment of the firm of CastleGlenn Consultants Inc. be considered by the LVEC Steering Committee for recommendation to City Council.
The purpose of this report is to seek approval to engage a consultant to undertake the Traffic & Parking Study for the LVEC project.
OPTIONS / DISCUSSION:
We wish to engage the firm of CastleGlenn Consultants Inc. as a single source supplier for the following reasons:
- The firm offers directly applicable experience having undertaken a detailed transportation and traffic assessment of Kingston's Downtown Area and offers familiarity with such developments as:
- the Block "D" site,
- the North Block site;
- and configuration changes being contemplated for the Ontario Street, Place D' Armes intersection.
- The CastleGlenn Team offers a keen understanding of the Wellington Street corridor and its potential integration into the surrounding Downtown area.
- The firm has completed traffic, parking, transportation and transit assessments on behalf of:
- The Corel Centre in Ottawa -- The Corel Centre: Traffic and Parking Impact Evaluation (2004)
- The Coventry Road Triple "A" Baseball - Plan of Development (2000)
- a This experience is relevant in that the proposed 6,000 to 6,500 seat Large Venue Entertainment Centre (LVEC) complex intended for the 1 1. 7 acre site on the Inner Harbour Lands adjacent to the Wellington Street Extension will mirror similar travel demand trends.
CastleGlenn may not be to blame for Ottawa later divesting itself of nearby lands, but the fact that Mr Gedge lauds this firm's experience on Coventry Road, and Coventry Road is a disaster, but yet CastleGlenn does not bring this experience to bear in preliminary reports here, indicates, again, a lapse in the professionalism of their work. Lynx Stadium teaches us that fans have a limited tolerance for walking great distances to fair-weather stadiums. The proposed LVEC is to be extensively used in winter. CastleGlenn's report ignores these things entirely.
Don Gedge has a whole lot of explaining to do.
Re: DRAFT - Phase I: Traffic and Parking Viability Assessment Study (April, 2005) prepared by CastleGlenn Consultants of Ottawa (yes, that's really CastleGlenn's website -- here's Google's cache of an earlier version of their home page, from April 2004. )
So the City of Kingston hired that company to paper over the genuinely questionable access aspects of the mysteriously blessed Anglin Bay waterfront LVEC site. This is what they got:
The circle labeled 600m in radius on Page 9 is, actually, about 710m in radius, an 18% error. And an 18% error on the radius is, interestingly, a 40% error in total area since the area of a circle varies with the square of its radius, and 1. 18 squared is 1. 4.
This circle, and its mis-scaling, is pivotal. It delimits the study. It defines what is, and what isn't, to be considered as realistic parking supply for the LVEC. Moreover it appears that all the reported distance measurements within that exagerated area are also proportionally in error.
We emphasize: this error is not just dashed-blue circle drawn too large on a Powerpoint slide, it's an error that permeates all the distances in the study, and affects the study'sconclusions in dimensional proportion.
Here's what the 18% linear (40% area) error looks like in practice. Here we've drawn what we call a proper 600m circle from the proposed LVEC. From the proposed LVEC location, a 600m distance doesn't reach Princess Street. Compare that with what CastleGlenn calls "600m".
The consultants also drew what they called an 800m circle. The radius of that circle, which as drawn almost reaches William street at Wellington, is closer to 925 meters. A proper 800m circle from the front entrance of the proposed LVEC just reaches Clarence at Wellington.
We checked our measurements with EMR chart 31 C/1, a handheld GPS unit, and Microsoft Mappoint 2000, which we used to create some of our diagrams. We also checked by rolling a tru-meter all the way down Wellington Street.
But where does the 600m criteria come from in the first place?They don't say. It's vastly in excess of modern design guidelines for parking and pedestrian access.
For comparison, the worst parking scenario when moviegoing at the RioCan Cineplex would be to park, say, by Home Depot close toGardiners Road. The distance between the Cineplex Odeon and Gardiners Road via the centre roadway is 450 metres +/- 10. The distance CastleGlenn suggests, 600m to the best entrance, is well beyond the worst possible park and walk scenario you can possibly get at almost any mall in North America, yet many people will be walking this far, because there simply isn't enough parking within 600m of the proposed LVEC for everybody, and the parking supply is heavily weighted to the more distant lots, many of which are grossly misrepresented as being within 600m.
Reviewing the data, CastleGlen's estimate that 2,500 stalls are available within 600m (as the crow flies)appears indeed to be overstated by 40% at least.
Unless there has been a redefinition of the metric system, CastleGlenn Consultants, the LVEC Steering Committee, and the members of the LVEC Technical Advisory Committee have some explaining to do.
It should be very interesting viewing.
Kingston City Hall confirmed today that TVCOGECO 13 will televise the Monday, April 25, "Have Your Say" meeting from Memorial Hall, City Hall. The public meeting, hosted by the Large Venue Entertainment Centre Steering Committee, runs from 7:00 p. m. to 9:30 p. m. and will provide an opportunity for public delegations to share their opinion on the proposed sports and entertainment centre in downtown Kingston.
This letter from Bruce Todd was sent to all City Councilors, and to The Whig Standard on April 23, 2005.
Note that these measurements are taken starting from the property line between the park and the boat works on Wellington, wheras some of our other measurements emanate from the approximate location of the main entrance of the proposed LVEC. We don't know how CastleGlenn Consulting (CG) produced their measurements.
One of the major errors in the recently released Traffic and Parking Report for the proposed LVEC is the fact that the consultant, CastleGlenn, described a walking-distance circle from the proposed site of 600 metres and 800 metres. But he used a circle described as the crow flies. No one walks that way.
One of the industry standards for determining distances in a downtown is to use the distance as the crow flies times 1. 4. So you can start with the distance as the crow flies, then multiply by 1. 4 to get the actual as-you-walk-the-street distance.
I used a tru-meter to walk off the distance along Wellington Street from the fenceline between the Doug Fluhrer park southerly to William Street. I feel this fenceline is a reasonable starting point because it is almost the centre of the proposed LVEC building, and the front door would be another 20 metres or so easterly from Wellington Street.
Here are the measurements along Wellington Street -
Property line between park and metalcraft - 0 feet - 0 metres
North edge of drydock - 165 feet - 56 metres
South entrance to Leeuwarden front entrance - 308 feet - 94 metres
Road into Leeuwarden parking lot - 379 feet - 116 metres
Centre of Bay Street - 614 feet - 187 metres
Entrance to OHIP parking lot - 837 feet - 255 metres
Centre of Ordnance Street - 1050 feet - 320 metres
Centre of Place D'Armes - 1195 feet - 364 metres
Centre of Barrack Street - 1462 feet - 446 metres
Centre of Queen Street - 1895 feet - 550 metres
Centre of Princess Street - 2135 feet - 651 metres
Centre of Brock Street - 2470 feet - 753 metres
Centre of Clarence Street - 2665 feet - 812 metres
Centre of Johnson Street - 3010 feet - 917 metres
Centre of William Street - 3342 feet - 1019 metres
You will note that 600 metres takes you only to halfway between Queen Street and Princess Street, not to almost Brock Street as is shown on the consultant's drawings.
Here is a comparison of distance measurements supplied by CastleGlenn Consultants and measurements made using a surveyors' wheel:
LOT Measurements in Meters Notes
These measurements are to the centre point of each lot, and cutting diagonally across lots to get to other lots where appropriate (to be on the conservative side). These are walking distances to municipal lots from the proposed LVEC front door.
Anglin 60 185 ; Barrack 250 431 ; Frontenac North 280 536 ; Drury 390 540 ; Frontenac South 280 606 ; King & Queen 480 682 ; Angrove 460 737 ; Springer 510 745 ; Ordnance 530 804 ; Holiday Inn 550 833 Measured by traveling along Wellington to Place D'Armes, then easterly to the Frontenac lot, then cutting across the lot (which I considered was reasonable and conservative), then along Ontario Street and then easterly to the centre of the lot. ; An error of 283m Byron 520 889 An error of just 369 meters.
The CastleGlenn (CG) measurements result in a parking supply 80% higher than my (BT) calculations (e.g., 1132 is 80% higher than 628; and 628 is 55% of 1132).
This is not to suggest that I agree with CastleGlenn's purported acceptable walking distances, but only that the consultant's error is exorbitant and shows to me a lack of objective data reporting provided by a professional company.
Start with a draft report, convert that to PowerPoint slide show, then convert that to an Adobe PDF, and you have the public's materials of an out-of-town consultant's traffic and parking report for Harry Rosen, all 2. 4 megabytes of it. By the way, extracting all the text and tables in the download yields a text file 22Kb in size, for a presentation bloat factor of 109:1.
It's otherwise a stunning piece of work, requiring no less than the suspension of disbelief.
Ask any cab driver, or many people coming across the Lasalle Causeway from Pittsburgh, or arriving aboard a ferry, about that one. Here's more:
Page 20 - Parking Prohibitions & Street Closures: Ordnance Street will be closed at the intersection ofWellington Street during LVEC events.
We assume Mr Gedge will soon update the LVEC business plan expenses for items such as those, and for items such as these:
Pedestrian safety measures must be provided adjacent to the site such as wide sidewalks, designated crosswalk locations and proper illumination.
Page 26 - TransportationSeven traffic cops, at standard evening rates.
Traffic control personnel will be needed to supplement peak attendance events to direct traffic and high pedestrian volumes at:
" Wellington Street and Bay Street / Anglin parking lot;
" Wellington Street and the southern OHIP parking lot access;
" Wellington Street and Place D'Armes;
" Bay Street and Rideau Street;
" North Street and Rideau Street;
" The LVEC parking lot access north of the site; and
" The main (southwest) entrance to the LVEC.
Get this, from the same page:
A transit / emergency service strategy is required that would provide preferential service to the LVEC.
" Connecting a Transit-Only & Emergency Access route along the potential Wellington Street extension between the LVEC and Cataraqui Street.
The Wellington Street Extension, otherwise unnecessary for many more years, is still not counted as part of the "investment" called for by the LVEC business plan.
We will, of course, have much more to say about all this. Meanwhile, read the whole thing, all 22 kilobytes of it.
In another classic example of how to run a railroad, it comes down to this: Council sees the parking report on April 20th.
Then, just five days later, under very tightly controlled circumstances,
"There will be a question and answer period for members of City Council and the Steering Committee after the presentation, but we hope that members of the public come to the meeting as some meaningful information will be shared. "
On the heels of the April 20 parking and traffic session, a public meeting where citizens can have their say will be held, this time on Monday, April 25, in Memorial Hall.
"The meeting on April 25 is hosted by the LVEC Steering Committee so that the committee can hear delegations from the public regarding the proposed project. The meeting is not a question-and-answer session - it's a chance to formally offer your opinion to the Steering Committee. "
Hickey says that anyone wishing to make delegation regarding the LVEC at the April 25 meeting needs to pre-register as a delegation.
Clearly the whole process has everything to do with expedition, and nothing whatsoever to do with avoiding costly mistakes.
It's an excellent article, and it appears balanced in all respects. Read the whole thing.
Very interesting piece on page 3 of today's Whig Standard, unfortunately not online, about the interest the Ottawa Senators are showing in partnering with Kingston for a four- or five-pad ice complex.
Randy Sexton, you may recall, is the former president of the Ottawa Senators. Note that there doesn't appear to be a website for Capital Sports Management, and there appears to be several companies in North America and Europe operating under this name. Anyway, the story goes on:
Capital Sports Management director Randy Sexton said easy access has been a key to the success of its new Bell Sensplex, a four-pad centre it opened in Kanata in December.
"Certainly part of our model is to be on a major boulevard and to be only a couple of blocks north or south from the main highway, in this case Highway 401," Sexton said in a presentation.And further down, the story continues:
"The volume of traffic gets to be a challenge," he added.
Part of the research, he said, will be to record travel times from various parts of the city to determine possible drive times for potential arena patrons.Heh. Why was no such research done, or if done not given its due weight, prior to choosing the location for the proposed LVEC?The motives and convenience of the potential patrons of the LVEC, those who are already paying the bills, just aren't a properly weighted factor in the whole decision making process.
He noted a similar study in Ottawa showed that it took 80 per cent of Sensplex patrons 40 minutes to drive to the Kanata arena.
The LVEC business plan is now available online. Some very preliminary bullet points are here. The terms "interest" and "principal", as in borrowing, appear exactly once in the document, and both terms are in the same sentence. "Metalcraft Marine" is mentioned just once, almost in passing, and it is misspelled.
For some reason the financial model, Appendix B, is not posted online. Update:It's now posted here. Incredibly, the financial model extends forward 30 years.
During five publication days last week, The Whig published a full page of letters each day, and overall published 12 letters "For" and 17 letters "Against".
Since April 20 2004 The Whig Standard has published 244 LVEC-related letters to the editor from 189 different authors. If we count each author only once, we tally 53 letters "For" and 124 letters "Against" the Anglin Bay LVEC plan, with 12 opinions "Unknown". This despite urgings by Mayor Rosen, Don Gedge and others including the publishers and editors of The Whig Standard for supporters to speak up.
On a somewhat related note, The Whig is running an internet survey on its home page that asks: "Do you support Mayor Harvey Rosen's plan to build the LVEC at the Inner Harbour site?" with results so far running massively against. Beware! There are many known potential problems with internet surveys and the one currently on offer by The Whig is no exception.
It's hard to draw definitive conclusions from any of this, but one thing seems increasingly clear: there is no evidence of any "silent majority" in support of the proposed LVEC as wishfully claimed by many of the LVEC supporters who've written to the Editor. In fact, quite the opposite appears more likely.
Dennis Brown sent us this letter on the comparisons with the city of London was published by The Whig on March 30th. By the way, here is a parking map of the area around the John Labatt Centre in London.
Robert Mackenzie has just submitted this excellent letter to the Kingston Whig Standard.