The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs

[Hipster Duck]

Didn't say there was. Just pointing out that without mentioning any specifics, any numbers, anything, it was just conjecture - equal in value to suggesting it might have had surplus capacity.

Okay, here's the burden of proof. New York hasn't built any road capacity in a long time (whether that's 60 years or 40 years it doesn't really matter). During the last 20 years when we are all in agreement that no road space was built, and road space was actually taken away, Manhattan island increased its population by 200,000 and the number of people working on the island by 13%.

The Long Island Expressway was finished in the 70s.

But not in Manhattan. This would actually weaken your argument because it shows that added capacity elsewhere funneling traffic into Manhattan did not require a subsequent addition of capacity in Manhattan.

East Side highway was rebuilt in portions in the 80s.

It was then torn down completely, lowering its capacity.

60 years ago: 1949

Okay, fair enough. No road capacity has been built since the late 1960s in Manhattan (40 years).

"They" ? That didn't even make sense.

C'mon, I didn't call you out for spelling "Manhatten" and "Calender" like you did.

 

[Edward Skira]

The Long Island Expressway was finished in the 70s.

The New York City portion was finished by 1960. The furthest section in eastern Long Island opened in 1972.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

TKTKTK:

Seventh Avenue would be widened slightly within Times Square to accommodate the extra traffic diverted from Broadway.

Before you claim this as "proof" - I would love to hear from you as to how much it will be widened relative to the amount of lane-loss on Broadway.

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

TKTKTK:

Before you claim this as "proof" - I would love to hear from you as to how much it will be widened relative to the amount of lane-loss on Broadway.

"proof" of what?

Relative to what we're doing with Jarvis, it's wider.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And relative to what's proposed for Jarvis, the closing of Broadway is more significant in scale relative to the original capacity of the roadway. So your point?

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

Better bitter than dated. What could be more dated in 2009 than arguing for expressways cutting through a city? Nothing. It's a position oblivious to everything in good urban planning, good transportation planning, or common sense.

Who's arguing for expressways cutting through the city? Jarvis isn't an expressway.

Gosh, Seventh avenue, widened slightly, in one block? Quickly, smash down everything along Jarvis for ten lanes of pure powertraffic happiness based on Manhattan's traffic-happy engineering. That's not only dated, it's delusional.

It is delusional, but ideas you put forth can't be blamed on me.

 

[TKTKTK]

And relative to what's proposed for Jarvis, the closing of Broadway is more significant in scale relative to the original capacity of the roadway. So your point?

It isn't relative to the capacity of a single street - it's relative to the capacity of the surrounding area.

I don't think it's a hard comparison to make between Toronto and New York. NYC is blessed with wide arterial avenues, with the cross-streets being narrower but more numerous. Toronto, on the other hand, has few wide arterial avenues, even fewer that form a backbone like Jarvis/Mount Pleasant. It might be that narrowing Jarvis/Mount Pleasant by a lane (with its neighbouring streets being relatively low-capacity Church and Sherbourne) is equal in significance to removing an entire Avenue in NYC (and only adding a lane to part of seventh)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

TKTKTK:

Since you wanted to get into the comparison game - the density of either residents or jobs in the said area of Toronto doesn't even compare to that of NYC in this case.

It might be that narrowing Jarvis/Mount Pleasant by a lane (with its neighbouring streets being relatively low-capacity Church and Sherbourne) is equal in significance to removing an entire Avenue in NYC (and only adding a lane to part of seventh)

Or not, considering the said differences already described with regards to NYC and Toronto. So basically - you don't know what the end results would be. I think I will go with modelling in this case. We'll just have to wait and see if the effort is worth it in the end - unless of course you just happen to know what they are in spite of the "mights"?

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

Okay, here's the burden of proof. New York hasn't built any road capacity in a long time (whether that's 60 years or 40 years it doesn't really matter). During the last 20 years when we are all in agreement that no road space was built, and road space was actually taken away, Manhattan island increased its population by 200,000 and the number of people working on the island by 13%

You can keep trying to argue the above, but I'm telling you - there's not enough information there to draw any kind of conclusion.

But not in Manhattan. This would actually weaken your argument because it shows that added capacity elsewhere funneling traffic into Manhattan did not require a subsequent addition of capacity in Manhattan.

Except that you haven't established that Manhatten needed to increase capacity from what it had, and instead refused to.

It was then torn down completely, lowering its capacity.

You're thinking the West Side Highway. FDR/East River Drive is still there.

C'mon, I didn't call you out for spelling "Manhatten" and "Calender" like you did.

You didn't make a spelling mistake, yours was syntax. I still don't know what you mean. "They" the arguments I made? "They" the quip that Archivist made? Also, I'm one man against, what...5 now?

 

[TKTKTK]

TKTKTK:

Since you wanted to get into the comparison game - the density of either residents or jobs in the said area of Toronto doesn't even compare to that of NYC in this case.

And the density of NYC roads and avenues (not to mention transit) doesn't compare to the said area of Toronto.

Or not, considering the said differences already described with regards to NYC and Toronto. So basically - you don't know what the end results would be. I think I will go with modelling in this case. We'll just have to wait and see if the effort is worth it in the end - unless of course you just happen to know what they are in spite of the "mights"?

Sorry, did I suggest that I had a crystal ball and that I was reading directly into the future? I've got a great body, and I glow, but...I'm not blue. 2/3 ain't bad.

 

[Hipster Duck]

You can keep trying to argue the above, but I'm telling you - there's not enough information there to draw any kind of conclusion...Except that you haven't established that Manhatten needed to increase capacity from what it had, and instead refused to.

Unless you can prove that Manhattan increased its road capacity by 13% or more during the last 20 years, you don't have a case.

And if you don't listen to anything else that I've told you today, at least remember that it's spelled "Manhattan".

Also, I'm one man against, what...5 now?

If you're the minority, it's because your opinion has been discredited by almost 40 years of professional planning and actual practice.

 

[Whoaccio]

This is dumb, comparisons to other cities are a bit useless both ways. Especially New York. I think I agree with TKTKTK on the fundamental issue here though, wider streets are not the only determinant of street habitability. Jarvis really isn't even that wide to start with. While direct comparisons to different streets in different cities are a bit fruitless, there are more than enough streets of comparable width to Jarvis everywhere around the world to argue with a strait face that width is the reason why Jarvis sucks. Its also pretty lazy planning. I'm personally getting tired of the solution to every problem in Toronto being to close down streets, installing bike lanes, and expecting everything to get better via eurosmossis.

 

[TKTKTK]

Unless you can prove that Manhattan increased its road capacity by 13% or more during the last 20 years, you don't have a case.

Again, they would only need to increase their capacity if, at the end of their building cycle, their capacity was maxed. If the network had extra capacity for future volume increases - then they don't need to increase the road capacity in time with increases in population.

Of course, this ignores New York's public transit system and the role it plays in accommodating increases in population.

And if you don't listen to anything else that I've told you today, at least remember that it's spelled "Manhattan".

Is this audible content now? I'm still having to read this stuff.

If you're the minority, it's because your opinion has been discredited by almost 40 years of professional planning and actual practice.

I'm actually in the majority, this is but an echo chamber in a much larger world.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Again, they would only need to increase their capacity if, at the end of their building cycle, their capacity was maxed. If the network had extra capacity for future volume increases - then they don't need to increase the road capacity in time with increases in population.

There was a surplus capacity of roadspace in Manhattan 20 years ago?

I'm actually in the majority, this is but an echo chamber in a much larger world.

The majority of who? People, or people who count? Maybe the cashiers of Wal*Mart in Las Cruces, New Mexico agree that employment cannot be met without increased road capacity in inner city Toronto, but most transportation planners do not.

 

[TKTKTK]

There was a surplus capacity of roadspace in Manhattan 20 years ago?

Sorry, I used "if". I know I've made some egregious spelling mistakes in this thread, but that one I'm pretty sure I got right. Also, I made sure to reference New York's much denser transit network.

The majority of who? People, or people who count? Maybe the cashiers of Wal*Mart in Las Cruces, New Mexico agree that employment cannot be met without increased road capacity in inner city Toronto, but most transportation planners do not.

When did I make the point "that employment cannot be met without increased road capacity in inner city Toronto" ? Please quote.