News   Jul 12, 2024
 853     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 766     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 324     0 

Jarvis Streetscape Improvements Environmental Assessment

Cars shouldn't come first I think we can all agree but what gets lost on some enthusiastic urbanites is that vehicular traffic is still fundamental. Transportation still needs to be stressed. There are different components to transporation and those who advocate on behalf of small scale or neighbhourhood interests often lose sight or are uninformed of some of the greater issues and various layers of activities that occur in order to make their neighbourhoods function. Issues like the flow of people to and through their neighbourhood, the movement of goods and services in and out and through their neighbourhoods, the access of emergency vehicles and other services in and out and through their neighbourhoods etc. Just because you could bike or walk to work does not mean that your neighbhourhood can function with that expressly in mind.
 
Chuck,

I hope I didn't come off sounding like an ass in my last post. The debate over whether neighbourhoods should accomodate pedestrians or cars is clearly not as black and white as I may have made it seem. Why, for example, are Manhattan avenues that are eight lanes wide and all one way extremely vibrant and active? Why do some streets have all the right ingredients, but fail to take off? Danforth east of Greenwood, for example, has a subway, proximity to downtown, a wide sidewalk and an 'avenues'-style streetscape but it has never become a desirable neighbourhood, nor an area that developers are investing in.

Cars shouldn't come first I think we can all agree but what gets lost on some enthusiastic urbanites is that vehicular traffic is still fundamental. Transportation still needs to be stressed. There are different components to transporation and those who advocate on behalf of small scale or neighbhourhood interests often lose sight or are uninformed of some of the greater issues and various layers of activities that occur in order to make their neighbourhoods function.

I don't think I've lost sight of this fact. One of my chief criticisms of Transit City is that it puts local thinking ahead of regional transportation needs along major arterials. The greater the transportation investment, the more it needs to address regional needs.

I actually have no problem designating Jarvis as our north-south vehicular artery (complementing University and, to a lesser extent, Bay). I think, however, that a street can be reconfigured to serve multiple needs. Right now, that fifth lane is somewhat useless, even in rush hour. If we could widen sidewalks or put in some sculpted median without affecting the existing traffic pattern then why not give it a shot?
 
I hope I didn't come off sounding like an ass in my last post.

Nah. And besides, I like hearing opposing views. Here's my final stance:

1) If the transportation planners agree that 1 lane of traffic can be eliminated, then I'm all for it.

2) Like it or not, Jarvis is a key route into the city. A travel time of not more than 10 minutes during a typical rush hour should be maintained between Queen and Bloor, regardless of what is done.

3) Turning that lane over to bikes would be super. I do from time to time use my bike to get around, and would really love to see more bike lanes, especially on streets where there is apparently excess lane capacity.

4) In order to fix up the east end, far more is needed than just pedestrianizing Jarvis. Those store owners shouldn't get their hopes up as this plan is but one piece of a larger puzzle.
 
from what i remember at the meeting, it hasn't been ruled out, but it is really up to Hydro Toronto. But if you think about it, once the reversible lane is removed, most of the visual clutter from overhead wires will be gone.
 
From the Globe:

Will faded Jarvis get an upgrade?
Jeff Gray
Globe and Mail
Apr 7, 2008 A10

The city is drawing up plans to narrow and beautify Jarvis Street - a favourite thruway to downtown for those in Rosedale, among other places - in an effort to recapture at least some of the faded strip's 19th-century grandeur.

The proposal, discussed at a public meeting last month, would see Jarvis from Bloor to Queen Streets reduced to four lanes from five. This would mean the end of its unusual shared middle lane, which reverses direction from southbound to northbound in the afternoon rush hour.

Not surprisingly, Councillor Kyle Rae, who represents that area and Rosedale to the north, says he is getting calls from angry motorists who fear their easy route downtown will be slowed.

But he points to a 2005 traffic study, conducted by outside consultants, that concluded taking away a lane on Jarvis would result in a "modest" increase in delays for cars. A four-lane Jarvis would divert small amounts of traffic (about 300 cars an hour in the morning rush of the 1,300 headed south on Jarvis now) onto Church and Sherbourne Streets, the study predicts, but not onto streets in nearby residential neighbourhoods north of Bloor.

"We've had calls from people who say it takes us six-and-a-half minutes to get from Rosedale to King Street. ... Now it's going to take them seven minutes," Mr. Rae said, acknowledging the proposal could be in for a fight as public consultations continue.

The traffic study concludes a four-lane Jarvis would mean only "minor impacts" on traffic, but does point to a possible 5- to 25-per-cent increase in car emissions and an increase in travel times on Sherbourne Street of up to 22 seconds over two kilometres.

The aim of the street narrowing is to allow for larger boulevards and sidewalks, some bike lanes, greenery and public art, to turn grim old Jarvis into a place to go, instead of just go through. It's not clear if all of these elements will fit onto the new-look street, when a final proposal comes to council in the fall.

If approved, it would be the latest of a series of narrowings of a handful of city streets aimed at creating bike lanes or better street-level environments for pedestrians, such as Dundas Street East and Lansdowne Avenue. Each one is a battle, but in this case, the city's aim to revive a drab street combines with its goal to make the city more hospitable to people without four wheels.

Jarvis' once-grand mansions, many serving as bed and breakfasts and a handful of restaurants, line a route now better known for street prostitution. The street was widened to five lanes in the 1940s, and ever since, it has been an uninviting and hazardous route for pedestrians and cyclists, with speeding cars and narrow lanes and sidewalks.

With the new National Ballet School, and a good deal of new residential high-rises, Jarvis's character is already changing, Mr. Rae said. Improving the street to make it more inviting, and to recognize its historical status, will help this process along, he argues.

Penelope Palmer, the city's project manager for the Jarvis Street environmental assessment process, acknowledges that a four-lane Jarvis will result in some increase in congestion for cars. "But that delay and congestion is going to occur anyway," she said, "because of background growth of traffic in the city."

The project will also mean saying farewell to Jarvis's strange shared lane, which dates to at least 1963, and, Ms. Palmer said, is not a safety concern. Outside of the afternoon rush hour, the middle lane is for southbound traffic. But from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., those drivers are told with an overhead glowing red X that their lane is now for use by northbound traffic, which sees a green arrow.

The city's field observations suggest that some drivers avoid this lane, but Ms. Palmer said Jarvis's real safety hazard is sideswiping collisions likely caused by its substandard narrow lanes, something narrowing the road may actually reduce.

Dr. Gridlock appears Mondays.

AoD
 
Alas, as usual the value engineers are already hard at work lowering expectations, apparently making it very clear at the initial meeting that *no* hydro infrastructure is to be relocated. Why are we so incapable of anything but half-assed streetscaping?
 
The Yonge subway is overcrowded.

If the City admits that there is growing traffic, but is taking away traffic lanes, how does it plan to accommodate the people from the vehicles that will be displaced from Jarvis?

Maybe our trendy traffic engineering decision need to be more pragmatic: how about these responses:

"We will rebuild Jarvis with a new lower-capacity design once we have completed a signal overhaul of the Yonge subway to allow for increased capacity on that line."

"We will rebuild Jarvis with a new lower-capacity design once we have completed the Downtown Relief Line."

"We will forceably relocate jobs from Toronto's core to the 905 to make up for the loss of transportation capacity once Jarvis is rebuilt with a new design."

Jarvis will certainly look prettier no matter what they do to it, but why is a loss of transportation capacity acceptable in this city? There are three more huge office towers under construction in the core right now...

42
 
interchange, the traffic capacity of Jarvis will only be minimally reduced as a result of the removal of the reversible lane. The current conditions on Jarvis (sub-standard lane widths, turning vehicles blocking flow) are limiting the capacity as it is. The removal of the lane will improve flow by creating left turn bays at intersections and create standard-width lanes that are safer. These changes will offset most of the 'capacity loss' from removing the center lane.

I agree there needs to be a look at increasing transportation capacity into the downtown by transit and other means though.
 
This could actually be one step towards a less car-dependent future. I'm not some crazy nut environmental activist, but I'm interested in seeing less cars and better city-wide transit systems. Not just here either, but all over North America. Ideally one day city centers will be reclaimed by rail transit, bikers, and pedestrians.

This is obviously something that will take years though, but eventually driving around as a single driver in a big SUV will be put to an end.
 
I thought I'd dig up this topic given Council's recent growing of balls against Ford. What is the status of the dismantlement of the Jarvis bike lanes? There is a cost associated with removing the lanes and reinstating the centre reversible lane. Has this expenditure been approved by Council? If so, when will this take place?

There's been a recent push by some councillors to expand BIXI and in the spring bike infrastructure will be back on council's plate. If there is another vote on Jarvis, I have a feeling the results will be quite different than when Ford was in his honeymoon phase and getting a lot of his policy rubber stamped by a weary new City Council.
 
This could actually be one step towards a less car-dependent future. I'm not some crazy nut environmental activist, but I'm interested in seeing less cars and better city-wide transit systems. Not just here either, but all over North America. Ideally one day city centers will be reclaimed by rail transit, bikers, and pedestrians.

This is obviously something that will take years though, but eventually driving around as a single driver in a big SUV will be put to an end.

word.

signed,

a guy who drives a dozen times a year, only road trips and the odd drive uptown or some other distance above 15km when i'm short on time. everything i love and need is within 30min of me walking/bike/subway/streetcar.
 
They should just keep the bike lanes on Jarvis. Seriously. I actually prefer driving down Jarvis now because it doesn't have that old bidirectional lane that I found confusing.
 

Back
Top