The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs

[AlvinofDiaspar]

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

Considering the fact that I can see quite a bit of green space, single detached housing and a relatively small high rise office population, so it shouldn't compare - which is exactly my point - to argue that somehow narrowing by one lane Jarvis is somehow comparable to removing an entire avenue in New York without taking into account how densely the space is used is, for the lack of a better word, a joke.

AoD

 

[Chuck]

Wow, my earlier post has really been taken out of context. I said two things:

1) Width is not what makes or breaks a street.
2) You don't grow a city's population by reducing road capacity and under-building the transit system, especially not at the same time!

There will always, always be people who drive or use taxis. There will always be delivery vehicles, mail trucks, buses, and tourists who drive. Roads will be required for the foreseeable future. As the population density grows, more and more people will use transit. Demands on the transportation system are only going to go up, and capacity must increase with population growth.

I would never suggest actually widening a road, however what little road space Toronto actually has should be preserved for surface vehicles, especially on the main thoroughfares. The one exception is Yonge, which I think would benefit by being narrowed since it is already such a heavily used bike and pedestrian corridor.

Either way, expanding the transportation network should be the number goal for downtown planners. All major downtown streets should be made one way to improve traffic flow, and above all else, expand the subway!

 

[Archivist]

Chuck, your points are taken, and sorry if I misrepresented what you said, and you've clarified that other transportation options are needed.

Re: Jarvis. Only two blocks from the subway, no one could argue this particular street is underserved. Cars travel along it much too fast currently for a major downtown area. Restricting a lane of traffic, and lowering the speed, will have safety benefits.

 

[TKTKTK]

Considering the fact that I can see quite a bit of green space, single detached housing and a relatively small high rise office population, so it shouldn't compare - which is exactly my point - to argue that somehow narrowing by one lane Jarvis is somehow comparable to removing an entire avenue in New York without taking into account how densely the space is used is, for the lack of a better word, a joke.

Right but this area, like that area of NYC, serves as a transit corridor for more than just the immediate population. Jarvis is one of the few N/S corridors into and out of the city. Why do you keep trying to ignore the reality of that in favour of some weird local-only distortion?

I never argued they were the same, only that at least in NYC's case, they're thinking about ways to accommodate the lessened capacity.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Right but this area, like that area of NYC, serves as a transit corridor for more than just the immediate population. Jarvis is one of the few N/S corridors into and out of the city. Why do you keep trying to ignore the reality of that in favour of some weird local-only distortion?

Of course it is - and what's the reality of the N/S density patterns in New York, vis-a-vis Toronto?

I never argued they were the same, only that at least in NYC's case, they're thinking about ways to accommodate the lessened capacity.

Of which the end result of that accomodation is no lessened capacity? Or is the result of that accomodation reduction in the decrease of capacity?

AoD

 

[Archivist]

Jarvis is one of the few N/S corridors into and out of the city.

I guess that's the point, I don't believe Jarvis ought to be a corridor, it runs through a densely populated residential neighbourhood. As for thoroughfares, alternatives are Yonge, University, Bay, Spadina, Sherbourne, and Parliament. Treating Jarvis as a "corridor into and out of" the city is a mistake, and saying that it's the only one is disingenious. You'll never agree with this, of course, you've made your position clear, but we can agree to disagree.

 

[TKTKTK]

Of course it is - and what's the reality of the N/S density patterns in New York, vis-a-vis Toronto?

That it's comprised mostly of high capacity N/S routes where Toronto has but a handful?

Of which the end result of that accomodation is no lessened capacity? Or is the result of that accomodation reduction in the decrease of capacity

I'm suggesting the latter, while you seem to think I'm suggesting the former.

 

[TKTKTK]

I guess that's the point, I don't believe Jarvis ought to be a corridor, it runs through a densely populated residential neighbourhood. As for thoroughfares, alternatives are Yonge, University, Bay, Spadina, Sherbourne, and Parliament. Treating Jarvis as a "corridor into and out of" the city is a mistake, and saying that it's the only one is disingenious. You'll never agree with this, of course, you've made your position clear, but we can agree to disagree.

Well, I'm not sure you can do without one. So whether you think Jarvis ought to be that street, or an as-yet-laid-out alternate...there needs to be a route

Neither Spadina nor University are alternates to Jarvis - they're simply too far away! Yonge, Sherbourne and Parliament are too narrow, and are usually quite packed already. Jarvis' capacity has been what's allowed us to get away with not widening those streets (which is great!). Nevermind that Parliament ends at Bloor, and Sherbourne becomes the residential street we lament Jarvis no longer being.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

TKTKTK:

That it's comprised mostly of high capacity N/S routes where Toronto has but a handful?

Well, if you can demonstrate that our density patterns require such a form of high capacity N/S routes even though the density of Manhattan is considerably higher than Toronto, then sure.

I'm suggesting the latter, while you seem to think I'm suggesting the former.

Actually I am suggesting neither - and in both cases, there is a decrease in capacity of some degree even after mitigation, period.

AoD

 

[Archivist]

Neither Spadina nor University are alternates to Jarvis - they're simply too far away! Yonge, Sherbourne and Parliament are too narrow, and are usually quite packed already. All of these are still alternatives to Bloor. Cabs use them all the time. Other people drive on them all the time.

Jarvis' capacity has been what's allowed us to get away with not widening those streets (which is great!). If it's great not to have wider streets on other routes, it will be ever better when capacity is reduced on Jarvis, which is what the city is going to do.

 

[TKTKTK]

TKTKTK:
Well, if you can demonstrate that our density patterns require such a form of high capacity N/S routes even though the density of Manhattan is considerably higher than Toronto, then sure.

I think you're trying to put words in my mouth again. I'm not suggesting Toronto needs to have an identical grid to NYC, only pointing out that compared to NYC's abundance of N/S routes (as well as the density of them) Toronto has shockingly few - even if you take our much smaller population into account.

Actually I am suggesting neither - and in both cases, there is a decrease in capacity of some degree even after mitigation, period.

Umm yeah, that's a given. I've apparently already agreed with you:

TKTKTK: I never argued they were the same, only that at least in NYC's case, they're thinking about ways to accommodate the lessened capacity.

AlvinofDiaspar: Of which the end result of that accomodation is no lessened capacity? Or is the result of that accomodation reduction in the decrease of capacity?

TKTKTK: I'm suggesting the latter, while you seem to think I'm suggesting the former.

AlvinofDiaspar: Actually I am suggesting neither - and in both cases, there is a decrease in capacity of some degree even after mitigation, period.​

 

[TKTKTK]

Neither Spadina nor University are alternates to Jarvis - they're simply too far away! Yonge, Sherbourne and Parliament are too narrow, and are usually quite packed already. All of these are still alternatives to Bloor. Cabs use them all the time. Other people drive on them all the time.

Alternates to Bloor?

If I was in a cab and he took University or Spadina as an alternate to going north on Jarvis to Mount Pleasant - I would be on the phone to their head office complaining I was being grossly taken advantage of. That route is kilometers out of the way.

Jarvis' capacity has been what's allowed us to get away with not widening those streets (which is great!). If it's great not to have wider streets on other routes, it will be ever better when capacity is reduced on Jarvis, which is what the city is going to do.

What's great is the diversity. We have a high capacity road that allows us to have lower-traffic neighbouring streets (that's great!). Removing that high-capacity road, or lowering its capacity, risks over-running those streets with unnecessary traffic (that's bad!).

 

[adma]

Micallef making love to Jarvis

 

[Chuck]

I guess that's the point, I don't believe Jarvis ought to be a corridor, it runs through a densely populated residential neighbourhood. As for thoroughfares, alternatives are Yonge, University, Bay, Spadina, Sherbourne, and Parliament. Treating Jarvis as a "corridor into and out of" the city is a mistake, and saying that it's the only one is disingenious.

Regardless of your opinion, Jarvis is a major corridor. Jarvis is the fastest route into and out of downtown due to perfect signal timing, and its connection to the Mt. Pleasant mini-expressway makes it an exceptional commuter route. There are no streets that compare, not even Avenue Road.

But getting back to my main point, that street width alone does not prevent vibrant urban neighbourhoods from forming, I think that it's ridiculous to narrow Jarvis in the hopes that it will improve the streetscape. For starters, Jarvis needs to be perceived as safe at most times of the day in order to increase both local and non local pedestrians. Once this obstacle is overcome, more stores will open up, drawing more people, and creating more redevelopment. The fact that Jarvis happens to be wide is insignificant compared to the above.

Note that the only reason why I brought New York into the picture was to prove that vibrant urban neighbourhoods can not only exist, but thrive along 7 lane roads.

Consider also that the extra road width allows cars to park for most of the day, which effectively shields pedestrians from the street. Traffic light coordination allows blocks to be very short even today, which further helps pedestrian traffic without impeding traffic flow. Given the importance of transit, it's rather unfortunate that the TTC doesn't capitalize on this high speed corridor.

 

[adma]

Consider also that the extra road width allows cars to park for most of the day, which effectively shields pedestrians from the street. Traffic light coordination allows blocks to be very short even today, which further helps pedestrian traffic without impeding traffic flow. Given the importance of transit, it's rather unfortunate that the TTC doesn't capitalize on this high speed corridor.

I suppose the Jarvis option was "cancelled out" by immediate parallel transit routes on Sherbourne and Church--the Church one a victim of past TTC cutbacks...