Is getting rid of paid on-street parking a great idea or bonkers? | Opinion

Mayoral candidate Alex Lawson poses for a portrait on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026. Photo by Spencer Colby /Postmedia

Article content

Mayoral candidate Alex Lawson has unveiled a radical plan to eliminate paid on-street parking across the city that would dramatically change how we commute around town, and set us apart from other cities. But is it a brilliant idea for the times, or just bonkers?

Article content

Calling paid parking a “toll on shopping local,” Lawson believes their removal would encourage more people to hit the streets, unleash their buying power, and boost small businesses.

Article content

Article content

Article content

“The big box store doesn’t charge you to park. The strip plaza with the giant lot doesn’t charge you to park. But pull over on an Ottawa main street to grab a coffee or pick up a prescription, and the city has its hand out before the shop does,” Lawson says in a policy statement. “On day one (of becoming mayor), paid parking stops, and everywhere goes back to being free.”

Article content

However, on main streets, where there is high demand, Lawson will allow a two-hour parking.

Article content

The obvious question is, is this a serious plan, and would you be enticed to go and have coffee in the ByWard Market or Elgin Street, instead of say, Train Yards, because parking would be free downtown? I tested the idea with a friend and his choice was Figaro at Train Yards, instead of Oh So Good in the ByWard Market. Paid parking which is often difficult to get in the Market, was the decisive factor.

Article content

On face value, Lawson’s plan sounds like a great idea. Who hasn’t spent time in the ByWard Market or the Glebe driving around looking for a parking spot? And who hasn’t had the experience of being ticketed just as you get back to your car after shopping or dinner? You yell, ‘I’m here, I’m leaving,’ but the official waves you off because you are five or 10 minutes late, and hands you a $60 ticket. Next time, you look for a suburban alternative, where there are no parking hassles. Indeed, for a city worried about a dying downtown, and needing more people to keep it buzzing, free parking may well help draw them in.

Article content

Article content

But paid on-street parking was not introduced out of a whim, but for very good reasons. “The City charges for on-street parking as a means of promoting turnover, which helps to manage parking and support businesses where there are high levels of demand,” parking services manager Scott Caldwell said in an emailed statement.

Article content

Article content

In a free-for-all, there could be chaos on the streets as people park anywhere and everywhere.

Article content

Lawson’s plan is appealing, but there are deeper issues he doesn’t address. Parking fees brought in $19.6 million last year, out of which $9.8 million came from on-street parking. The money paid for the cost of the program, as well as OC Transpo park and ride facilities and winter road maintenance in areas where the fees were collected.

Article content

Last year, parking fees contributed $4 million to the winter operations budget. Free parking will create revenue loss, but Lawson’s plan doesn’t fully explain how to make up the loss. Free parking will likely increase the number of cars on the streets, create more noise for residents, and increase pollution.

Article content

And then there is the bigger picture. At the heart of both the city’s Official Plan and the Transportation Master Plan is a conscious effort to reduce the number of cars on the streets, to encourage public transit, cycling and walking. That idea is also central to the new plan to rejuvenate the ByWard Market. Parking spots would be reduced to make the Market more walkable. Free parking to encourage more cars, will run into a headlong clash with the plan for the Market, which aims to reduce cars in the area. There can’t be free parking everywhere, when the Market is limiting parking for visitors.

Article content

Great idea or not, Lawson has given us something about the future of city transportation to chew on. It is a debate worth having.

Article content