The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs

[dt_toronto_geek]

Jarvis is, architecturally, one of the best streets in the city. The only "mediocrity" here is that the issue has become so contentious - cleaning up a heavily populated corridor and making it pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists is the right thing to do.

I remain suspicious of pedestrian streets. I actually prefer streets that have cars, just cars moving in an environment that seems safe and reasonable within the city. Church Street is lively, and if it has problems it is more to do with the physical constriction of the commercial core of the street, which limits its growth and makes rents too high. I have no desire to have Church as a pedestrian street, the cars there move in the way that cars should move in a densely populated city - slowly and carefully.

Jarvis is a traffic funnel.

But we're arguing for nothing - no one will convince TKTKTK, who will be still be driving presumably when gas is $5 a litre. And my own eyes and considerable experience crossing and walking Jarvis tells me that the fifth lane is bad for the city, bad for business, bad for everyone.

Very well put, you hit it all on the head.
Why are so many people afraid that moves like this are "anti-car"? That's hardly the case.

 

[Chuck]

This is not a car vs. transit or urban vs. suburban debate. This is about reducing the transportation capacity into the downtown area and assuming that everything will be ok. Population, employment, and university enrollment are growing downtown. The city is cramming more people into a confined space (which is excellent, and good for the health of this city), yet at the same time, cutting back rather than growing the capacity of the transportation network.

The rest of the transportation system is full. If those who use Jarvis switch to the TTC, they will bump an equivalent number of existing commuters (including myself) off the train and onto the platform because the subway is full. If they continue to drive, any street they pick is already traffic clogged. What will Transit City do? It will not increase transit capacity into the downtown core for those residents who can no longer use Jarvis. Rather, it will make central parts of the subway even more crowded, and make it even harder for midtown residents to use the TTC.

If the City wishes to take back part of Jarvis, fine. Although I do believe that wide roads can coexist in an urban environment, I also support sustainable initiates. However, those initiatives must also include concurrent transit expansion and subway construction in central areas to pick up the slack.

Finally, remember this: the residents who are protesting this project are doing so because they love the city. They want to continue working there, going to school there, and being entertained there. They buy into inflated home prices in order to live close to the core. All they want is to be able to get there in a reasonable amount of time. Are they really the enemy?

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

This is not a car vs. transit or urban vs. suburban debate. This is about reducing the transportation capacity into the downtown area and assuming that everything will be ok. Population, employment, and university enrollment are growing downtown. The city is cramming more people into a confined space (which is excellent, and good for the health of this city), yet at the same time, cutting back rather than growing the capacity of the transportation network.

The rest of the transportation system is full. If those who use Jarvis switch to the TTC, they will bump an equivalent number of existing commuters (including myself) off the train and onto the platform because the subway is full. If they continue to drive, any street they pick is already traffic clogged. What will Transit City do? It will not increase transit capacity into the downtown core for those residents who can no longer use Jarvis. Rather, it will make central parts of the subway even more crowded, and make it even harder for midtown residents to use the TTC.

If the City wishes to take back part of Jarvis, fine. Although I do believe that wide roads can coexist in an urban environment, I also support sustainable initiates. However, those initiatives must also include concurrent transit expansion and subway construction in central areas to pick up the slack.

Finally, remember this: the residents who are protesting this project are doing so because they love the city. They want to continue working there, going to school there, and being entertained there. They buy into inflated home prices in order to live close to the core. All they want is to be able to get there in a reasonable amount of time. Are they really the enemy?

Chuck I agree with some of what you write however this is not, read not about reducing traffic flow into or out of the city. I don't have a video camera but I can setup a webcam in my window at 5:00, 5:15, 5:30 pm - whatever time you choose and post traffic flow up on YouTube for you to see. You'd be stunned to see the speeds of many vehicles and I believe you'd agree, Jarvis could very easily lose a lane and still move well. Make no mistake, Jarvis is a busy street but let me assure you traffic moves very well at all times of the day and night.
This is about beautifying what was once one of our grand avenues which has become a dangerous speedway for pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists. I live at Wellesly & Jarvis and there are several accidents a week at this very intersection. Three weeks ago someone in a power chair got hit by a car and smeared all over the street. I don't know the circumstances - I didn't see it happen but I saw the mess they were hosing down afterward. That is one example of countless accidents I've seen over the years of what happens at just this one intersection. It's the mid-town types who are protesting their quick exit up Jarvis from downtown at 5pm, some of which have no regard for the neighbourhood that they are passing through.

 

[MisterF]

Although I do believe that wide roads can coexist in an urban environment, I also support sustainable initiates. However, those initiatives must also include concurrent transit expansion and subway construction in central areas to pick up the slack.

You've made this point several times and brought up 7-lane avenues in New York. But it's not about the width of the street. It's more about the speed of the traffic. It's no coincidence that the streets with the most pedestrians tend to be very congested for cars.

Buffering between traffic and pedestrians also helps, and wider sidewalks with more landscaping and/or parallel parking helps with that aspect.

I do agree with you that more transit expansion downtown is necessary, even if none of the streets have lanes taken away. The DRL is the single most important transit project for the city right now, imo.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Oh the inhumanity, they closed Times Square and Broadway to cars

See this link for information on the closing of Times Square and Broadway to automobiles.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Department of Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan are beginning a pilot program, "Green Light for Midtown," to reduce traffic congestion throughout Midtown Manhattan via targeted improvements on Broadway, focused at Times and Herald Squares. Despite attempts over several decades to address congestion caused by Broadway, the street has remained a significant traffic problem, disrupting the grid of avenues and streets, creating complicated intersections and negatively impacting traffic flow throughout Midtown Manhattan.

Here's the view from 45th Street looking south at about 1 pm Sunday, about 30 minutes after the city Dept. of Transportation closed Broadway to motor vehicle traffic in Midtown. It's obviously way too soon to judge how this remarkable experiment is working but today, at least, car-free Broadway appears to be a huge hit.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Jarvis lane debate heats up

From today's Toronto Star-

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/639881#

Note the last two paragraphs:

"And the traffic has been fine. The delays, according to the transportation department, were much less than they anticipated."

City traffic officials estimate that it will take about 10 minutes for drivers to get from Bloor St. to Queen St. E. once the changes are made, up from a current average of about eight minutes.

 

[Mustapha]

Chuck I agree with some of what you write however this is not, read not about reducing traffic flow into or out of the city. I don't have a video camera but I can setup a webcam in my window at 5:00, 5:15, 5:30 pm - whatever time you choose and post traffic flow up on YouTube for you to see. You'd be stunned to see the speeds of many vehicles and I believe you'd agree, Jarvis could very easily lose a lane and still move well. Make no mistake, Jarvis is a busy street but let me assure you traffic moves very well at all times of the day and night.
This is about beautifying what was once one of our grand avenues which has become a dangerous speedway for pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists. I live at Wellesly & Jarvis and there are several accidents a week at this very intersection. Three weeks ago someone in a power chair got hit by a car and smeared all over the street. I don't know the circumstances - I didn't see it happen but I saw the mess they were hosing down afterward. That is one example of countless accidents I've seen over the years of what happens at just this one intersection. It's the mid-town types who are protesting their quick exit up Jarvis from downtown at 5pm, some of which have no regard for the neighbourhood that they are passing through.

Concur with your opinion on this intersection. Walk across it often to visit my son. Here, yellow means 'step on it'. Have seen many, many cars gun motors and accelerate into a mature yellow/young red light here.

 

[urbanfan89]

New York City has closed down vehicle traffic in Times Square starting from today, with little fuss.

Meanwhile lobby groups in Toronto are up in arms about plans to close down one lane of traffic on a thoroughfare.

Sometimes I hate this joke of a city.

 

[GraphicMatt]

This passed in Council today despite a bunch of wailing from Minnan-Wong and Stintz.

I'm happy, but a bit disappointed that the issue turned into a bike versus car thing. The original reason removing the middle lane came up was streetscape improvement and beautification. I'm worried they'll just kill the middle lane, slap down some lines for bike lanes and call it a day.

 

[TonyV]

New York City has closed down vehicle traffic in Times Square starting from today, with little fuss.

Meanwhile lobby groups in Toronto are up in arms about plans to close down one lane of traffic on a thoroughfare.

It's just a few 'nob's (North-of Bloors) agitating because they still think they run this town. They don't anymore, and they'll lose this issue.

 

[Hydrogen]

I'm happy, but a bit disappointed that the issue turned into a bike versus car thing. The original reason removing the middle lane came up was streetscape improvement and beautification. I'm worried they'll just kill the middle lane, slap down some lines for bike lanes and call it a day.

I agree. All too often it's as if beautification should never be allowed to stand as an aim all by itself. Beautification always has to be connected to some form of utility in order to be considered as worthwhile.

Beautification should be valued and promoted both as an aim and as an end.

 

[Mustapha]

By the way, as an driver, here's some advice for people taking the Mt Pleasant/Jarvis route at rush hour. Don't. Don't subject your car, your patience and give Big Oil a reason to expand exploration. It's stop and go of the worse short. Plan your trips up and down this route at off peak, or take the Yonge subway; a few minutes walk to the west. For crying out loud, at 5pm it takes at least 1/2 hour to get from Branksome Hall to St. Clair.

My lawyer neighbour drives his Porsche 911 from Yonge and Lawrence to Yonge and Queen daily. Otherwise a bright boy.

 

[Whoaccio]

It's just a few 'nob's (North-of Bloors) agitating because they still think they run this town. They don't anymore, and they'll lose this issue.

Huh? Maybe you should look at population dynamics in the GTA before you talk. Never mind trying to avoid sounding like some second rate African "president for life" about to liquidate all of his opponents before the start of the rainy season.

These protestors are ridiculous because a) It's not like Rosedale to Downtown is a particularly difficult trip to make via transit, and b) There's an uncomfortable class-war subtext to it

To point b.), if a "class war subtext" does indeed exist it seems much more a case of self identified "left wing" yuppies arguing that the Rosedale "burghers", as C. Hume called them, are for whatever reason unworthy of decent transportation. See the comment above for example. I've yet to hear Karen Stintz going on about how the removing the 5th lane will force her constituents to spend time with the unwashed masses of Jarvis.

I'm not opposed to removing the 5th lane, I'm just getting tired of this M.O. City Hall identifies a 100% symbolic gesture in order to please their followers -> neglect to really try to show how their policy will accomplish its nominal goal of improving the public realm -> immediately denounce naysayers as Mike Harris loving barbarians bent on a fundamentalist anti-urban agenda -> issue some lame statements to the effect of "bicycles good, cars bad" to stir up the base -> repeat. Maybe if there was some kind of master plan for Jarvis, with architectural goals, improved transportation and clearly researched and defined goals I would buy this more. All we get though are lame PowerPoint presentations filled with shiny pictures and happy render people (including the ubiquitous white family on bicycles).

 

[urbanfan89]

It's just a few 'nob's (North-of Bloors) agitating because they still think they run this town. They don't anymore, and they'll lose this issue.

The fact that, in Toronto, so much hot air is emitted over one lane of traffic, while NYC can pedestrianize Times Square overnight, is indicative of the "do-nothing-at-all-never-ever-nope" culture.

 

[adma]

Then again, the well-ingrained gridiron nature of NYC's road network is such that there are more default options readily at hand...