[MisterF]

If the City wants to make Jarvis more visually appealing and increase "friction", superb. The point I have been trying to make, and I think that people like Chuck have as well, is that conversion of the 5th lane will have little to no impact on the visual appeal (given that it will just go to wider curb lanes) of the Jarvis street-scape and needlessly increase congestion. There is no obvious visual appeal to bike lanes that I can see. Unless somebody starts making the case that wider bike friendly curb lanes are an aesthetic improvement on the status quo, the argument is simply "cars vs. bikes," for which is the better allocation of road space.

The slight increase in congestion from removing the centre lane is exactly the point (and it was the part of the document I didn't quote). The EA recommendation to address the concern of high speed traffic was two fold: by removing the centre lane and increasing "friction" with streetscaping. The fact that it'll slow down traffic counters your assertion that it will have no impact on the visual appeal of the street, since the speed of traffic has a lot to do with visual appeal.

Btw, I'm not going to debate bike lanes with you. They were a political decision that came after the fact.

The hell? When I asked if the "if you build it, they will come school of infrastructure" had been discredited post-Mirabel, you clearly responded "No." How much more contrary can you get? if you actually think that increased capacity will spontaneously generate sufficient demand to justify a project, look at Mirabel. There is no reason to suggest that adding bike lanes along Jarvis will lead to any major shift in cycling patterns across the city, maybe a few dozen extra cyclists an hour. That's basically the experience with other streets. Of course, this was all in response to the oft repeated axiom that "if only" we build x km of bike lanes, we will all bike to work.

We're obviously misunderstanding each other. I interpreted your question to be whether the "if you build it they will come" principle in general was discredited, which we both agree it's not. But your point had more to do with induced demand justifying projects, which I wasn't commenting on.

 

[Torontovibe]

Jarvis is not just another street.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

There are other important points of interest on Jarvis Street aside from the above, not the least of which is Jarvis Collegiate, the Radio City/National Ballet School project which is brilliant, opening up Allen Gardens, a few churches etc.

 

[gregv]

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/642825

Fear and cycling on Jarvis

Wherein our columnist puts aside his terror to jump on a bike and brave a mean street

May 30, 2009 04:30 AM

Christopher Hume
Urban affairs columnist

Until a few days ago, it had been years since I rode a bike in the city; I was tired of arriving at work ready to kill – if I hadn't been run over en route.

Then Toronto City Council voted to narrow Jarvis St. to make way for bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks and more trees. Driver outrage was predictable, but what about those bike lanes? Are they justified?

Even in the best of conditions, bike riding in Toronto can be dangerous. When my kids were younger, it wasn't the sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll that scared the hell out of me, it was the thought of my girls lying dead and bleeding beneath the wheels of some SUV.

As the proposed changes on Jarvis have made clear, Autonation doesn't react well to having its privileges threatened. Drivers call it Toronto's "war on the car." But if we really are battling cars, why are so many casualties either cyclists or pedestrians? To find out, I put aside my fears, hopped on a bike and headed for Jarvis on Wednesday. As I quickly rediscovered, there's still good reason for cyclists to be afraid: Little has changed, here at least.

Other than a courier with a really tight deadline and a death wish, most would prefer to avoid Jarvis. To ride this street is to take your life into your hands. Dangerous isn't the word; it's foolhardy.

Every sort of driving behaviour happens here, all made worse by speed. There are those who like to play chicken with cyclists, daring you to move from your space in the gutter. One inch to the left and you die, one to the right, you hit the curb and get airborne.

That, of course, means hitting potholes head-on, skidding over cracks and negotiating other roadway imperfections. No wonder male cyclists have lower sperm counts.

Then you have the door-openers, usually older men unaware that drivers are now expected to share the roads with bicycles. Most irritating are the ones who get mad at the cyclist after nearly killing or maiming him. It's your fault, they spit angrily; what were you doing on my road?

There are other hazards, too, including drivers who switch lanes at the last minute to get around someone turning left or right. This is when cyclists suddenly find themselves the meat in a car-and-sidewalk sandwich.

By the time I finally pulled off Jarvis where it ends at Queen's Quay, I was exhausted, dripping wet but thrilled to be alive. Then I realized I was grinding my teeth.

None of this matters to the north-of-Bloor crowd, mightily upset about losing its own private freeway into the downtown core. Not that anyone was talking about closing Jarvis to traffic; four of the five lanes would remain in place. The intention was simply to create more room for cyclists and pedestrians.

From a cyclist's point-of-view, dedicated lanes on Jarvis would make all the difference. Drivers choose Jarvis because it allows them to travel quickly. The same couldn't be said of, say, Yonge or Bay Sts. For similar reasons, cyclists and pedestrians aren't welcome on the Bayview extension or Lake Shore Blvd.

Ironically, the Jarvis strategy might just work. Perhaps with cyclists taken out of moving traffic, it would flow more freely even with one less lane.

Let's not forget that bicycle use will grow in the years ahead as people live and work more closely and the price of oil increases. More lanes today mean more cyclists tomorrow.

But in Toronto, the car has been king for so long, it's hard to believe it could be any other way. Despite the overwhelming need to change our ways in the face of the growing environmental crisis and get people out of their cars, many Torontonians would rather keep their foot to the floor and their head in the sand.

But around the world, cities are moving to cut back on cars. Just this week, New York closed Times Square, i.e. Broadway between 42nd and 47th Sts., to create a pedestrian zone. The complainers were nowhere to be heard.

Here, we have yet to get serious, and until politicians in this country start to raise issues such as road tolls and congestion fees, the war on the car will remain a phony one. So far, all we've done is talk about narrowing Jarvis and Roncesvalles and turning Adelaide and Richmond Sts. from one- to two-way streets. This is pretty minor stuff, more a matter of redressing a historic imbalance. At the same time, tearing down the Gardiner Expressway, once considered "fundamental" to waterfront revitalization, now seems a distant hope.

It's true we have ignored public transit for two or three decades, which gives officials an easy way out. As Toronto Mayor David Miller has said repeatedly, it's unfair to levy road charges when commuters have no alternative to driving.

But this is just another circular argument, a chicken-and-egg thing, ultimately self-serving and tautological: Does transit lag because we drive, or do we drive because transit lags? The TTC is attracting record numbers of passengers, so clearly demand exists.

Meanwhile, back on Jarvis, a driver in a small white car has just given me the pleasure of an unexpected afternoon shower. Toronto's streets are riddled with potholes, and after a rainfall, each one is a puddle.

We don't just need bike lanes, we need whole bike roads, car-free streets, neighbourhoods, entire cities ...

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

That's a good piece, I'm really happy that he addressed the speed on Jarvis Street.

 

[Eug]

I used to ride on Jarvis, and I agree, it's not a safe street to ride on. But then again, I used to ride on Jarvis to go up Mount Pleasant. Mount Pleasant isn't a pleasant road to ride on either.

If I wasn't going to go up Mount Pleasant, then I wouldn't bother riding up Jarvis. I'd just pick another street. Jarvis as envisioned may in fact be a road to nowhere for most cyclists.

It will be interesting to see where those increased riders along Jarvis are actually going.

 

[adma]

Well, maybe it's useful as a cattle prod, but the cyclist issue is overrated. This whole project isn't about Jarvis being an unpleasant street to *ride* on; it's about Jarvis being an unpleasant street to *be* on. And no; don't lay the load on what lines the street. It's about the street proper, middle lane and all. Seriously.

 

[confusion]

What a well written article!

 

[Eug]

Well, maybe it's useful as a cattle prod, but the cyclist issue is overrated. This whole project isn't about Jarvis being an unpleasant street to *ride* on; it's about Jarvis being an unpleasant street to *be* on. And no; don't lay the load on what lines the street. It's about the street proper, middle lane and all. Seriously.

Well, it's not the greatest street to walk on, but it's not bad either. I wouldn't necessarily say it's unpleasant, just OK.

BTW, most of the time the street speed is pretty slow already. It's often a lot slower than say Richmond or Adelaide, when there's the least bit of traffic. Now those streets are often genuinely unpleasant to walk on.

For the record, I'm ambivalent about this Jarvis lane removal. It really is a great street to carry vehicular traffic, and it diverts traffic from closer to the core. If I had to choose, I'd rather see Yonge closed from Dundas to Queen or something like that, with street vendors all along there instead of just being crammed all in Dundas Square all the time. Oh and stop overregulating those damn food carts. Hire a few health inspectors, but let the vendors vend, all along that closed off strip of Yonge.

 

[Whoaccio]

The slight increase in congestion from removing the centre lane is exactly the point (and it was the part of the document I didn't quote). The EA recommendation to address the concern of high speed traffic was two fold: by removing the centre lane and increasing "friction" with streetscaping. The fact that it'll slow down traffic counters your assertion that it will have no impact on the visual appeal of the street, since the speed of traffic has a lot to do with visual appeal.

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). I would also add that this is why people perceive there as being a "war on cars." After all the rhetoric of improved pedestrian spaces, better service to bicyclists and, rather incredulously, transit (considering transit won't improve an iota), the justification is simply to congest cars.

Anyways, most of the "speed issues" come from stop-light spacing along Jarvis. The traffic report doesn't suggest that speeding is endemic or that drivers disregard posted speed limits at an abnormal rate. The main problem though is that between Dundas & Maitland there are only 3 lights versus 5 or 6 along the same stretch of Yonge. Jarvis could be 1 lane, if traffic doesn't stop it will obviously be perceived as "fast." It's the two super-blocks between Maitland/Carlton and Gerrard/Dundas which lead to the most abnormal pedestrian behavior, at least according to the iTrans report. Maybe connecting Gould through to Jarvis and adding a crossing light may help.

Btw, I'm not going to debate bike lanes with you. They were a political decision that came after the fact.

Well, we agree on something. Bike lanes were a political decision. That's sort of been my entire point.

Well, maybe it's useful as a cattle prod, but the cyclist issue is overrated. This whole project isn't about Jarvis being an unpleasant street to *ride* on; it's about Jarvis being an unpleasant street to *be* on. And no; don't lay the load on what lines the street. It's about the street proper, middle lane and all. Seriously.

What do you mean by street? I agree that Jarvis is "unpleasant to *be* on" and that should be changed, but how do you not lay the load on what lines the street? How can you so easily separate "the street" from "what lines the street"? Does the sidewalk line the street, or is it the street, for instance? If the "street" only goes to the curb, how could it ever be pleasant to be on? I wouldn't want to *be* in the middle of any street.

The one thing that displeases me about Jarvis is the setbacks most buildings have from the sidewalk. Even new projects like the Ballet School have these car pick up areas which really disconnect the buildings from the public realm. The heritage houses are especially bad, with their fenced off front yards. Maybe if the area had more commercial business these could be "connected" via patios and such, but as is they just feel like a suburb hit puberty.

 

[Eug]

The one thing that displeases me about Jarvis is the setbacks most buildings have from the sidewalk. Even new projects like the Ballet School have these car pick up areas which really disconnect the buildings from the public realm. The heritage houses are especially bad, with their fenced off front yards. Maybe if the area had more commercial business these could be "connected" via patios and such, but as is they just feel like a suburb hit puberty.

Indeed. To make Jarvis truly more pedestrian friendly, this would need to be corrected. However, these aren't simple parking-lot-heavy strip malls that would be quickly torn down with new construction that would address these issues.

My take on this is that if you remove the additional car lane and add wider sidewalks and bike lanes, you'll probably just get a car dominated area which is now "only" 4 lanes, with a few more bike riders and the same buildings. I don't think there's gonna be a strong incentive for change in some of those buildings any time soon.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Well, it's not the greatest street to walk on, but it's not bad either. I wouldn't necessarily say it's unpleasant, just OK.

BTW, most of the time the street speed is pretty slow already. It's often a lot slower than say Richmond or Adelaide, when there's the least bit of traffic. Now those streets are often genuinely unpleasant to walk on.

Parts of the street are nice to walk along, some not so much so.

Jarvis street is not slow at all, save for south of Queen Street. A great majority of cars exceed the speed limit en masse while others fly up or down even quicker. Ironically, mid and late evening when traffic is light is when the speed limit is most often observed.

 

[Eug]

Jarvis street is not slow at all, save for south of Queen Street. A great majority of cars exceed the speed limit en masse while others fly up or down even quicker. Ironically, mid and late evening when traffic is light is when the speed limit is most often observed.

Well, I used to live downtown and drive uptown. (I only rode my bicycle to work once in a while, when the weather was good on days when I had more flexible hours.) So I'd use Jarvis a lot to get to work. During the peak of rush hour my two lanes would move quickly, but the three lanes (even north of Dundas) going the opposite direction were sometimes packed. Perhaps its faster when it's near rush hour but not quite peak.

It's going to be that much worse for them when that centre lane is killed.

 

[Peepers]

512 & 514 Jarvis Street

I noticed that 512 & 514 Jarvis - two architectural gems designed by E.J. Lennox are on the market for nearly $7 Million and the listing states "suits...Dev Site" which to me means that these buildings are at risk of being torn down I hope that I am wrong but the high price seems to preclude these being sold as private residences or B&B's (their current use). It will be an outrage if developers are allowed to start tearing down the beautiful Mansions that are left on Jarvis.


http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=8025262

 

[adma]

Then again, "dev site" doesn't necessarily factor them out, especially when they already have have heritage status. Remember that all those mansions across the street and on Wellesley Place were "dev sites" a decade ago.

I highly doubt Kyle Rae would blithely allow them to be torn down,