The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs

[dt_toronto_geek]

Those two properties went up for sale last October, originally at $3,695,000 & $3,395,000. They're beautifully kept, upscale B & B's. The buzz I heard is that the guys are done with the business and want out so they're selling, true or not. There's no way I can see these being torn down, no way - just not going to happen. From the inception of Doors Open these homes used to participate until 2007, they're both stunning inside and have clearly been well loved over the years.

 

[MisterF]

I simply don't see how congestion is aesthetically appealing. It's environmentally damaging, economically damaging and increases the risk to road users (including cyclists).

Quite the opposite actually, higher vehicle speeds make a road less safe and less pleasant for pedestrians. Look around the city, the most successful streets from a pedestrian point of view tend to have a lot of traffic congestion. They tend to be economically successful as well.

 

[Archivist]

MisterF, exactly. I find the appropriation of the "congestion" argument as an ecological one by high speed car advocates to be richly ironic. Nothing could be more beneficial than people actually not using - better yet, not buying - cars. Yet somehow making it very slightly less convenient to use a car becomes an environmental argument.

Honestly, it's hard to take that at face value. Your points about the most successful and frequently cited streets in the city - the Danforth, Queen, King - all being congested is a good one. Look at Mount Pleasant - which part of that street brings more financial good to the city, the bits that are expressway like passing through the Rosedales, or the congested, slow village portion of the street.

 

[Whoaccio]

Quite the opposite actually, higher vehicle speeds make a road less safe and less pleasant for pedestrians. Look around the city, the most successful streets from a pedestrian point of view tend to have a lot of traffic congestion. They tend to be economically successful as well.

I'm just working off of the City's data by iTrans, which only found one instance of higher pedestrian collisions for reasons I have already listed (large street blocks leading to excessive jaywalking/using the middle lane as a refuge). Nowhere in the traffic report is "excessive speed" deemed to be a safety hazard. Of course, that remains unmentioned as of yet in the final proposal.

MisterF, exactly. I find the appropriation of the "congestion" argument as an ecological one by high speed car advocates to be richly ironic. Nothing could be more beneficial than people actually not using - better yet, not buying - cars. Yet somehow making it very slightly less convenient to use a car becomes an environmental argument.

What is ironic about it? The corner stone of the mainstream environmental movement isn't that we should live like hermits*, it is that we should behave in a manner that mitigates waste. Waste of course being energy or material being expended for little to no gain. Congestion is one of the most obvious forms of waste (energy/time being consumed for nothing). Whats more ironic is this trend to throw the environment under the proverbial bus whenever it becomes inconvenient to utopian visions that never pan out. I would also add that "making it less convenient to drive" has never by itself led to anybody not buying cars. Cities like L.A. or Athens are god awful to drive in, but that has yet to lead to any kind of self-correcting switch to pedestrian lifestyles.

*Paul Watsons of this world excluded.

 

[Dilla]

it is that we should behave in a manner that mitigates waste. Waste of course being energy or material being expended for little to no gain. Congestion is one of the most obvious forms of waste (energy/time being consumed for nothing). Whats more ironic is this trend to throw the environment under the proverbial bus whenever it becomes inconvenient to utopian visions that never pan out.

The waste here is a 2000 kilo 300hp device moving one person. That is wasteful, no matter how fast the thing is moving.

I would also add that "making it less convenient to drive" has never by itself led to anybody not buying cars. Cities like L.A. or Athens are god awful to drive in, but that has yet to lead to any kind of self-correcting switch to pedestrian lifestyles.

Rubbish. If driving took longer to get to work then walking, who would incur the expense? Not many. The laws of supply and demand work in these cases as well. While driving is a very "elastic" (too keep with the S/D metaphor) activity - it is hard to get people out of their cars - there will be some people who drop out of the race with every extra expense or inconvenience. For every L.A. there's a "London congestion charge". It can be done.

 

[Whoaccio]

The waste here is a 2000 kilo 300hp device moving one person. That is wasteful, no matter how fast the thing is moving.

Ohh come one. Do you honestly expect anyone to stop driving because of this flotsam? The question isn't whether or not people will stop driving- no transit planner anywhere actually believes that- its how do you stop people driving needlessly and wastefully. Increasing congestion sure as hell does neither.

Rubbish. If driving took longer to get to work then walking, who would incur the expense? Not many. The laws of supply and demand work in these cases as well. While driving is a very "elastic" (too keep with the S/D metaphor) activity - it is hard to get people out of their cars - there will be some people who drop out of the race with every extra expense or inconvenience. For every L.A. there's a "London congestion charge". It can be done.

I figured this would happen, someone would mention congestion pricing and hold it up as a marvelous example of why Jarvis is a good idea. Look at the nominal goal of the Jarvis narrowing. Apparently it is to "increase friction" via increased congestion, so say its promoters. The congestion charge has the explicit goal of reducing congestion. So, in goals, the two are totally conflicting. The congestion pricing works, at reducing congestion, because a.)The costs are easily tangible, you pay x dollars every time you head to the city. In order to account for congestion, each driver would have to calculate the opportunity cost of the lost 2 minutes and compare that to the OC of alternatives. Unless traffic was static, most would simply continue to drive. b.)Revenues of the pricing go directly to providing alternatives. London has become saturated with buses because of it.

Let me phrase it another way, what sounds like a more practical way to reduce congestion, putting a clearly visible price on it while simultaneously providing alternatives or increasing congestion? If 'increasing congestion is the best way to reduce congestion' is your answer, I'm not sure how to respond.

 

[MisterF]

I'm just working off of the City's data by iTrans, which only found one instance of higher pedestrian collisions for reasons I have already listed (large street blocks leading to excessive jaywalking/using the middle lane as a refuge). Nowhere in the traffic report is "excessive speed" deemed to be a safety hazard. Of course, that remains unmentioned as of yet in the final proposal.

Excessive speed is definitely a safety hazard. The severity of pedestrian injuries increases with traffic speed. While most pedestrian collisions are in and around downtown, most fatal pedestrian collisions are in the suburbs.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-12612.pdf
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html

This has been extensively researched and is common knowledge among planners and engineers around the world.

It works on an intuitive level as well. Unsafe pedestrian environments are unconfortable to walk in. It's not a coincidence that the busy neighbourhoods with the most pedestrians are the the ones with the most traffic congestion.

 

[Dilla]

Ohh come one. Do you honestly expect anyone to stop driving because of this flotsam? The question isn't whether or not people will stop driving- no transit planner anywhere actually believes that- its how do you stop people driving needlessly and wastefully. Increasing congestion sure as hell does neither.

No, I don't expect anyone to stop driving due this...um...flotsam. I'm not posting this thinking that I'm making a difference to the situation; that would be idiotic. I'm not quite sure why you would think that I have such delusions of grandeur. Oh, you're just setting me up to knock me down, I get it. Great job.

I'm just pointing out that you're idea of waste doesn't include the waste of energy inherent to motor vehicle use. You're implying that cars are only wasteful when they're not moving quickly. I disagree. The whole system as it is currently set up is mind-bogglingly wasteful, even at its most efficient.

I figured this would happen, someone would mention congestion pricing and hold it up as a marvelous example of why Jarvis is a good idea. Look at the nominal goal of the Jarvis narrowing. Apparently it is to "increase friction" via increased congestion, so say its promoters. The congestion charge has the explicit goal of reducing congestion. So, in goals, the two are totally conflicting. The congestion pricing works, at reducing congestion, because a.)The costs are easily tangible, you pay x dollars every time you head to the city. In order to account for congestion, each driver would have to calculate the opportunity cost of the lost 2 minutes and compare that to the OC of alternatives. Unless traffic was static, most would simply continue to drive. b.)Revenues of the pricing go directly to providing alternatives. London has become saturated with buses because of it.

Let me phrase it another way, what sounds like a more practical way to reduce congestion, putting a clearly visible price on it while simultaneously providing alternatives or increasing congestion? If 'increasing congestion is the best way to reduce congestion' is your answer, I'm not sure how to respond.

I've hit a nerve. You're again missing my very simple point. I'm not saying Jarvis has anything to do with the congestion charge. I too would much rather a congestion charge (or how about both?). I'm sure a lot of people would be for it, but it would be political suicide to attempt it in these parts.

At any rate, I only brought up London to disprove your point. You seemed to me to imply that people would only get out of their cars when you pried them from their cold, dead, hands. You cited L.A. and Athens as examples. I was arguing that people will get out of their cars at some point. Be it monetary, or due to convince (or inconvenience), there is a point that they will get out. That's all. In the case of Jarvis, the difference will be negligible (next to none), but I don't think it's the goal of the project to get people out of their cars. This is an attempt to make Jarvis a nicer place to be.

 

[ganjavih]

Jarvis is not just another street.

I like your composites Torontovibe. A sad reminder of the elegance Jarvis once had.

 

[TonyV]

I like your composites Torontovibe. A sad reminder of the elegance Jarvis once had.

And nicely said ganjavih. A reminder of Jarvis before it was decided (by the now defunct Metro government layer) that cars were the only focus that mattered.

 

[Whoaccio]

Excessive speed is definitely a safety hazard. The severity of pedestrian injuries increases with traffic speed. While most pedestrian collisions are in and around downtown, most fatal pedestrian collisions are in the suburbs.

My point was that the City's study on Jarvis specifically found no evidence of excessive speed nor above average incidence of collisions, bar one case which I have listed about 5 times already (large block segments leading to jaywalking). I wouldn't deny that excessive speed is a safety hazard, but the City denies that Jarvis itself is characterized by excessive speed. The traffic report very clearly states that drivers keep within posted and design speed limits -which aren't changing- at a rate consistent with City-wide averages and that pedestrian collisions are no higher. The one safety hazard for pedestrians the report did mention had no relation with speed and as of yet remains unresolved (block lengths).

At any rate, I only brought up London to disprove your point. You seemed to me to imply that people would only get out of their cars when you pried them from their cold, dead, hands. You cited L.A. and Athens as examples. I was arguing that people will get out of their cars at some point. Be it monetary, or due to convince (or inconvenience), there is a point that they will get out. That's all. In the case of Jarvis, the difference will be negligible (next to none), but I don't think it's the goal of the project to get people out of their cars. This is an attempt to make Jarvis a nicer place to be.

I don't think I suggested that people will never stop driving. What I said, specifically, was that "making it less convenient to drive (via congestion) has never by itself led to less people buying cars." There are dozens of other cities I could list where driving is much, much worse than Toronto yet persists regardless. Given that congestion implies an excess of demand for a limited supply, no city has cured this imbalance by simply removing more supply (of road space). It just leads to gridlock. You can increase supply or reduce demand (congestion charge), preferably both.

I'm just pointing out that you're idea of waste doesn't include the waste of energy inherent to motor vehicle use. You're implying that cars are only wasteful when they're not moving quickly. I disagree. The whole system as it is currently set up is mind-bogglingly wasteful, even at its most efficient.

Obviously cars are energy intensive. What I said though is that congestion is wasteful, which it undoubtedly is. If you are running on the assumption that if we simply congest the city enough, people will stop driving then maybe you could argue congestion isn't an environmental disaster, but that idea simply isn't borne out by reality. Congestion tends to just lead to more congestion. If it becomes a choice between cars moving nowhere and cars idling, one is clearly environmentally superior. There are ways to manage demand for cars (road pricing, gas taxes....) which have positive environmental effects but simply decreasing their efficiency doesn't help anyone. Its sort of the 'cut off their nose to spite their face' approach to environmentalism.

 

[Dilla]

Congestion tends to just lead to more congestion.

While I agree with much of your reasoning, you're losing me here. It's been shown time and again that making more roads just makes more traffic, so no congestion also seems to lead to more congestion. I don't see why this can't work in the reverse. Congestion must have some effect on the number of people using cars. I'm sure if there was only a fraction of todays traffic tomorrow, some who currently take the TTC would ditch the subway and jump in the car, as it would take only minutes to get around.

It's a matter of supply and demand. Somewhere between $0 and $1 000 000 you're going to decide this widget is too expensive. Where people decide that point is depends on disposable income and how badly they want it etc., but for every small increase, someone drops out. The same forces decide how people get around.

All this being said, I don't think the way to tackle the problem of the overuse of automobiles is to increase congestion. There are much, much more efficient and effective ways to go about solving that problem. I do not think congestion should be induced simply to piss people off and right out of their cars. That won't work. But, if it's done to improve a lovely downtown street, I'm for it. I just hope it works.

 

[Whoaccio]

While I agree with much of your reasoning, you're losing me here. It's been shown time and again that making more roads just makes more traffic, so no congestion also seems to lead to more congestion. I don't see why this can't work in the reverse. Congestion must have some effect on the number of people using cars. I'm sure if there was only a fraction of todays traffic tomorrow, some who currently take the TTC would ditch the subway and jump in the car, as it would take only minutes to get around.

In short, it all depends on local elasticity of demand. Most roads are relatively inelastic. That doesn't mean that nobody changes behavior, just that the change in demand is less than the change in supply. Given that roads beyond their design limits experience congestion in a totally non-linear manner, congestion can become somewhat self perpetuating.

Anyways, I've more or less said all I have to say. I don't actually think that removing the 5th lane will lead to some crippling congestion. If I had to guess, Jarvis in 2015 will look more or less like it does today but with some token street scape improvements. A few bicyclists will probably be happy but the other 99% of the city wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If I'm upset at anything its an unquestioned assumption that cars are always detrimental to urban life and that any project that doesn't involve bike lanes is retrograde. Its just Culture Wars: Municipal Edition and doesn't lead to much.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

If I had to guess, Jarvis in 2015 will look more or less like it does today but with some token street scape improvements. A few bicyclists will probably be happy but the other 99% of the city wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Let's make a pact and meet back here in 6 years to see just what impact this all ends up having.

 

[Archivist]

I hope the impact is that Jarvis is pleasanter and more knitted into the urban fabric, rather than being an anomaly. The traffic impact I suspect will be similar to Dundas East or St. George and their reduced capacities - a minute more in any direction and a more civilized city.