The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs

[MisterF]

I guess the decision to include bike lanes came at the expense of widened sidewalks. Too bad. The preferred option in the EA was a better choice, imo.

Hasn't the "build it, they will come" approach to infrastructure been discredited since Mirabel?

No. If you build a new highway, more people will drive. If you build a new subway line, more people will take the subway. It's economics - if you make something cheaper, easier, or more convenient, demand goes up.

 

[Dilla]

Have a look for the official line from CIBC. He elected to leave.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

Now that there is a bike lane, there doesn't seem to be space left for widening the sidewalks.

Maybe not as much. The width of the bike lanes will not equal that of the vehicle lane. As I've already said, I don't really give a toot if the space goes to bikes or pedestrians, slowing the traffic down, and having less of it will be good for Jarivs St. It will make is more pleasant, and if those who see it as just somewhere to go through don't like it, I'm comfortable with that. Toronto will not become a better place to live by making it easy to drive right though it.

Cities change. That is part of what makes them exiting.

 

[maestro]

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.

Than please leave. Of that note, I've had many lanes of traffic deleted around me with, AFAIK, little fanfare. Of course, Eastern Avenue or Dundas Street through Riverdale don't carry the same prestige of Jarvis, they are major commuter routes for the east end of town. (there are other streets as well)

 

[Whoaccio]

I could care less if this project included biking lanes, I'd still be for removing the 5th lane for the reasons myself and others have already stated: That it will slow traffic down, making it a better, safer place for those who live in the area, as well as add space for pedestrians, trees, and the like.

The speed isn't changing. The design criteria for Jarvis keeps posted speed at 50km/h and design speed at 60 km/h. The pedestrian "boulevard" width isn't changing either. At least not notably. The width is going from 1.6m to 1.7. The trees and other pedestrian realm improvements are being carried out within the already established pedestrian area. Literally, a few centimeters are going to pedestrians that otherwise wouldn't if we don't remove the 5th lane. I can't wait to see all the trees we plant in those tens of centimeters.

Would you be for this project if it took out the 5th lane and didn't give cyclists a path? Do you just not want them to get anymore out of spite? Or are you saying you're all for street improvements, as long as that means only some trees which are kept to the side so as not to interfere with my being able to blow through the middle of the city?

I would be more amenable to removing the 5th lane if it actually went to the projects nominal goal of public realm improvements. Then again I might just be old fashioned that way, in this bold new world of planning symbolic handouts evidently matter more than actual project goals. I also don't know where you get the idea that the removal of the 5th lane will lead to more trees. The reports are quite clear that the overall road with won't change noticeably, with the space relocated to bike lanes. So, yea, I guess your last statement is somewhat accurate.

No. If you build a new highway, more people will drive. If you build a new subway line, more people will take the subway. It's economics - if you make something cheaper, easier, or more convenient, demand goes up.

(*smacks head*) Ugghh... I'm sorry, I thought it was implicit that we are assuming a project whose benefits don't exceed their costs isn't a success. Let me rephrase, I thought the "if you build, they will come and it will be a success no matter what" school of infrastructure was discredited with Mirabel (see: white elephant).

There are more than a few dozen cyclists who use Bloor Street, I'd throw out a guess and put it more into the thousands per da

I meant per hour, which could conceivably translate into thousands per day. Sorry for the confusion. Also, the project area was only about a km between Avenue Rd. & Mt. Pleasant (or Church?), not the whole of Bloor. So, ridership would probably be much lower than the whole of Bloor. It would also have minimal use as an E/W connection (1.2km...).

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

What I don't get is this blind faith some people have that every and all projects must include cycling lanes. Even the otherwise decent project to remodel Bloor St. got chewed out for daring to prioritize pedestrians and streetscape improvements over a few dozen bicyclist. There isn't a street cross section nowadays coming out of city hall that doesn't include bike lanes for fear of being labeled retro-grade Mike Harris spawn by Critical Mass types.

I don't think anyone expects that every street or street project will end up with bike lanes, but let's remember the City's plan that when the 1000 km Bike Plan is complete most Torontonians should be within 5 minutes of a bike lane or pathway. I think that gives cyclists, or want-to-be cyclists, certain level of expectations.
As for Bloor Street that seemed like an obvious east-west connection, at least to me. There are more than a few dozen cyclists who use Bloor Street, I'd throw out a guess and put it more into the thousands per day.

 

[Dilla]

The speed isn't changing. The design criteria for Jarvis keeps posted speed at 50km/h and design speed at 60 km/h. The pedestrian "boulevard" width isn't changing either. At least not notably.

Particularly during off peak hours the traffic down (or up, depending on who's getting the extra lane) Jarvis seems much faster than it is on Parliament, Sherborne, Church, Younge, Bay, etc.
I am certain that what causes this is the extra lane; it's the main difference between these streets. The average speed will almost certainly change, isn't that what you're so pissed about? If the speed isn't changing notably, then what's the issue here?

 

[GraphicMatt]

I biked Jarvis yesterday from Dundas to Adelaide on my way home at about 6pm. I made the right from Dundas, and pretty much from there to Adelaide it was a crawl. A bike lane would make it faster as a cyclist, I guess - I imagine that my experience yesterday was an anomaly.

Jarvis tends to bottleneck toward the bottom (after Queen) when it drops to four lanes. I actually take Sherbourne down to the Gardiner (from Shuter) for just that reason - it's more reliable.

The section from about Dundas to the top is where Jarvis currently feels like a highway.

 

[Glen]

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

Which of course means he was forced to vote.

Maybe not as much. The width of the bike lanes will not equal that of the vehicle lane. As I've already said, I don't really give a toot if the space goes to bikes or pedestrians, slowing the traffic down, and having less of it will be good for Jarivs St. It will make is more pleasant, and if those who see it as just somewhere to go through don't like it, I'm comfortable with that. Toronto will not become a better place to live by making it easy to drive right though it.

Cities change. That is part of what makes them exiting.

Following the discussion at Spacing, it seems that there is no room for sidewalk expansion.

Dylan Reid and Brent commented over a Spacing..........

There is no space, with bike lanes, to narrow the remaining car lanes and widen the sidewalk in the future. The current 5 car lanes are only 3.0 meters wide each. I can’t imagine they could be narrower given the speed cars can travel on Jarvis. Bike lanes are 1.5 meters each. Take out a car lane and put in bike lanes, and there is no extra room. The only way to widen sidewalks would be to take out a second lane of traffic

.

There is no more room to narrow the lanes. Right now there are five lanes at 3.0 m each, the practical minimum width for a traffic lane. The approved plan is to keep four lanes at 3.0 m, and convert the fifth lane to a pair of 1.5 m bike lanes (also the practical minimum width).

Unless the City’s roads department is suddenly willing to go with, say, 9-foot lanes (2.75 m), which would surprise me immensely. (If so, that would have been really nice to know when everyone was fighting for every last inch of space on St. Clair a couple years back…) There are 9-foot left turn lanes squeezed in a number of roads in the city, but no general purpose lanes that I am aware of.

 

[Dilla]

I'm surprised by this. I can't think of any other bike lanes in the city which are near 1.5 meters wide. Maybe Beverly? Have no exact measurements been released?

If this manages to slow down as well as have less car traffic on Jarivs, then that is a benefit to pedestrian life in the area itself, whether it increases sidewalk width or not.

 

[Tewder]

It's curious, I just came back from France where there are hardly car lanes to speak of never mind bike lanes and yet I could not believe how many do bike there and even in the very heart of Paris. There is a basic sharing of what little (and indeed precious) road space for circulation there is there, and none of it seems to cause too much concern or to compromise the lovely pedestrian experience either. It somehow all works.

I know that Canada is not France or that Toronto is not Paris, I get that, but maybe we are just overthinking the whole Jarvis Street thing in our jostling for that perfect scenario for every self-interested user of it. Take out the one extra car lane, expand the sidewalks (making for nice tree-lined avenues) and leave the resulting calmer road to be shared by cars and bikes alike in a sort of civilized and urban transportation entente cordiale. Those who don't like the slower pace will find the DVP not too far away or some other route that suits them better, and those who simply look to commute from Rosedale to downtown may actually find the extra few minutes imposed on them by an improved and more humane public realm to actually be more enjoyable anyway.

 

[Eug]

I dunno, but in way this seems almost pointless to me unless you can have bike lanes along Mount Pleasant as well.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Perhaps it's time to step back for a moment, calm our heels and take a few minutes to refresh our memories (and for anyone who may be new to this thread) to examine the proposed project as a whole. Below is a link to the Jan. 22-09 Jarvis Street Proposal. This is a 13MB .pdf file.

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/jarvis/pdf/2009-01-22_panel.pdf

A couple of areas of note:

* Jarvis Street traffic levels on pages 14-19

* "2. Traffic speeds in excess of municipal limits creates a perception of Jarvis Street being an unfriendly street for pedestrians and cyclists" (pg. 13)

* The removal of the centre reversible lane will result in some additional delay to motorists using Jarvis Street - this additional delay and the resulting improved streetscaping is not contrary to current City policies of creating pedestrian and cyclist friendly streets and creating an urban environment that encourages and supports walking, biking and transit (pg. 25)

If you really want to dig, the 2005 Jarvis Street Parking and Transit study is available here - http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/jarvis/index.htm

 

[MisterF]

The speed isn't changing. The design criteria for Jarvis keeps posted speed at 50km/h and design speed at 60 km/h.

People drive the speed that it's comfortable to drive, regardless of the speed limit or even the design speed. The more stuff there is to pay attention to, the slower drivers tend to go. One of the stated objectives of the Jarvis project is to 'address the traffic concerns of high speeds and volumes' by 'creating more friction along Jarvis by making the streetscape more visually appealing so it does not have the feel of a "highway"'. That's from the 2009 PIC display boards, page 29.

(*smacks head*) Ugghh... I'm sorry, I thought it was implicit that we are assuming a project whose benefits don't exceed their costs isn't a success. Let me rephrase, I thought the "if you build, they will come and it will be a success no matter what" school of infrastructure was discredited with Mirabel (see: white elephant).

White elephant? How about red herring? Actually straw man is probably more accurate... the merits of Mirabel has nothing to do with the merits of the Jarvis project, or more specifically whether adding bike lanes will attract more cyclists. WRT both your sentences, I never claimed anything to the contrary.

 

[Chuck]

It's difficult to say how the typical travel speed will change on Jarvis. At times of the day when traffic is flowing freely, it's the seamless traffic light sequencing and not the actual width of the road that permits cars to comfortably drive at 70 km/hr. Pedestrian timers also sustain these high speeds as drivers no longer have to worry about a light prematurely turning red and forcing high speed braking.

I hope that the traffic lights will continue to remain well sequenced, and that left turns are either banned or short left turn lanes added to keep traffic moving along. I think that this would be a good compromise.

I still sincerely hope that bike lanes will considered on other parallel streets. It would be fantastic if Yonge lost two lanes and received wider sidewalks and bike lanes from Front up to Hogg's Hollow. You see, I am not inherently pro car at all, I just think that Jarvis couldn't be a poorer choice for conversion. I think that to make 95% of streets super urban and leave 5% of streets to operate as effective vehicular routes is better than having 100% of streets functioning as quasi urban 4 lane arterials.

 

[Whoaccio]

People drive the speed that it's comfortable to drive, regardless of the speed limit or even the design speed. The more stuff there is to pay attention to, the slower drivers tend to go. One of the stated objectives of the Jarvis project is to 'address the traffic concerns of high speeds and volumes' by 'creating more friction along Jarvis by making the streetscape more visually appealing so it does not have the feel of a "highway"'. That's from the 2009 PIC display boards, page 29.

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.

White elephant? How about red herring? Actually straw man is probably more accurate... the merits of Mirabel has nothing to do with the merits of the Jarvis project, or more specifically whether adding bike lanes will attract more cyclists. WRT both your sentences, I never claimed anything to the contrary.

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.