[afransen]

A bicycle highway, with overpasses and underpasses, would be the answer, but opposed by the anti-cyclist councillors.

We can't have them on every street. Most crossings will have to be at grade--we need to figure out how to design them for safety and flow.

 

[Northern Light]

This is a big improvement. I've heard from multiple novice cyclists that this is the worst spot along Bloor-Danforth.

The proper answer in this case really is the removal of the DVP on-ramp here, which isn't necessary.

Its negatives clearly outweigh any value.

There is no access to the Parkway for westbound drivers here, nor any exit.

The Parkway bound traffic can be handled via the Castle Frank/Bayview Access, w/modifications.

Parkway access from Dundas and Queen should also be removed, with that absorbed by the Eastern/Richmond/Adelaide ramp system.

Non-signalized highway access in an urban area is just dangerous and anti-urban.

****

That said, this is a good interim measure.

 

[smably]

That said, this is a good interim measure.

I would add the caveat, "assuming the signal timings are reasonable". I hope they get that right.

 

[christiesplits]

The proper answer in this case really is the removal of the DVP on-ramp here, which isn't necessary.

Its negatives clearly outweigh any value.

There is no access to the Parkway for westbound drivers here, nor any exit.

The Parkway bound traffic can be handled via the Castle Frank/Bayview Access, w/modifications.

Parkway access from Dundas and Queen should also be removed, with that absorbed by the Eastern/Richmond/Adelaide ramp system.

Non-signalized highway access in an urban area is just dangerous and anti-urban.

****

That said, this is a good interim measure.

I'm concerned this could cause more bottlenecks and accidents at the Broadview and Castle Frank intersections, which are already danger zones for pedestrians.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm concerned this could cause more bottlenecks and accidents at the Broadview and Castle Frank intersections, which are already danger zones for pedestrians.

I can't see any basis for that at the Broadview intersection.

The change I'm suggesting wouldn't increase total volumes of traffic, it would shift, one stream of traffic back to Castlefrank.

Certainly, that intersection would see an uptick in volumes, primarily in the PM peak.

But it would have to be redesigned anyway.

I think hardening the corners (reduced turning radii) on the north side, and introducing a crosswalk on the west side would serve to create a more amenable intersection for pedestrians.

I would also remove the current mid-block turn channel east of Castlefrank in any design, further augmenting safety.

As a busy intersection it will always have safety challenges.

But I don't think a modest uptick in volume for 3-hours a day is nearly the scale of issue of the existing on-ramp.

Also, if the on-ramp is removed, the entire 3rd lane of Eastbound traffic can be eliminated east of Castlefrank (its there to serve the on-ramp).

That could allow better quality separation for the bike lanes, and wider sidewalks across and on the approach to the viaduct.

I should add, the City is looking at removing the connection to Bayview Avenue, which would also help offset any volume of traffic increase connecting to the DVP.

 

[Regigate]

Now the trick is getting cyclists to follow the signal. I imagine novice cyclists will get hassled by impatient lycra brigade for stopping at the bicycle signal. This will only work if we are not needlessly delaying cyclists. This isn't a 2-phase intersection crossing, I hope.

In my experience, it's not the lycra-clad cyclists that are the problem when it comes to obeying bicycle signals (or, harrassing those who do); but rather the bike couriers (or, as is often the case on this stretch of road, the couriers riding electric scooters in the bike lanes).

This does look an awful lot like a two-phase crossing, or one that has the potential to be.

 

[AdamL]

In my experience, it's not the lycra-clad cyclists that are the problem when it comes to obeying bicycle signals (or, harrassing those who do); but rather the bike couriers (or, as is often the case on this stretch of road, the couriers riding electric scooters in the bike lanes).

This does look an awful lot like a two-phase crossing, or one that has the potential to be.

I think many experienced cyclists will continue to weave/merge on the approach and bypass the new crossing altogether. Most of the rest will cross when there's a gap, irrespective of the signals. And for those who want it, there will be a protected crossing. So cyclists will have a few options here, depending on their comfort level. Key thing is that traffic will be stopped for those who want it, and given that there's supposed to be bicycle detection, I imagine the signal timing will be reasonably generous to cyclists.

 

[AdamL]

I should add, the City is looking at removing the connection to Bayview Avenue, which would also help offset any volume of traffic increase connecting to the DVP

Really curious about this. Do you have any more info about what is being considered? What the rationale for removal is? Are they looking at an at-grade intersection here? The only other discussion of this interchange I've come across is in Evergreen's "People's Plan," which imagines the complete removal of the ramp.

 

[Northern Light]

Really curious about this. Do you have any more info about what is being considered? What the rationale for removal is? Are they looking at an at-grade intersection here? The only other discussion of this interchange I've come across is in Evergreen's "People's Plan," which imagines the complete removal of the ramp.

The connection to the DVP is not being considered for removal to my knowledge.

But the connection to Bayview is being looked at for total removal (the bridge would still be there), but the connections would not.

The idea is part of a project both to enhance habitat, but also to calm Bayview and make it much more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians in particular.

 

[AdamL]

The connection to the DVP is not being considered for removal to my knowledge.

But the connection to Bayview is being looked at for total removal (the bridge would still be there), but the connections would not.

The idea is part of a project both to enhance habitat, but also to calm Bayview and make it much more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians in particular.

I guess that would mean a departure from Bayview's current designation/function as a major arterial. The connection between the DVP and Rosedale Valley Road would also be severed, putting a lot more pressure on Bloor St E (which has already seen its capacity reduced west of Sherbourne) for moving traffic from the north core/midtown to the DVP. Any idea how much traction this project has at this point?

 

[Northern Light]

Its been a while since I asked anyone where this was at...............but in 2018, the plans under discussion looked like this:

Recreate Bayview Avenue to enhance its Scenic Street character, reinforcing its riverside location and the spacious nature of the Don Valley and enhancing the experience of the surrounding natural environment and ravine landscape for all modes of travel including where feasible pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. Re-harmonize Bayview Avenue’s relationship to the ravine landscape by prioritizing the health of the ravine’s ecological systems and providing protected active transportation infrastructure along the corridor.

The public report on all that is here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-114385.pdf

I can't say what the current state of this project is; but it was my impression that the railway bit was only very high-concept and hadn't moved very far...........

While some other bits had been looked at much more closely.

 

[AdamL]

The public report on all that is here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-114385.pdf

I can't say what the current state of this project is; but it was my impression that the railway bit was only very high-concept and hadn't moved very far...........

While some other bits had been looked at much more closely.

Thanks for the info!

 

[ShonTron]

The connection to the DVP is not being considered for removal to my knowledge.

But the connection to Bayview is being looked at for total removal (the bridge would still be there), but the connections would not.

The idea is part of a project both to enhance habitat, but also to calm Bayview and make it much more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians in particular.

It’d be nice to see the partial cloverleaf ramps removed, somehow, while maintaining access from the DVP to Bayview. It’s a very useful link to Leaside and over to River Street/Gerrard/Dundas. Maybe the northwest loop could be removed to improve the trail connection (its unpleasant and narrow as it squeezes by the ramp) with traffic rerouted to a modified southwest loop carrying DVP to southbound Bayview traffic as well, with a left turn across traffic coming from Danforth.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Bayview is a key distributor route for the DVP to access the east downtown.

I don't particularly see an issue with the cloverleaf as it is today, though i'm amenable to modifications. Pedestrian and cycling traffic is already detoured on the MUP around it. Perhaps removing the DVP-Northbound Bayview ramps, which are lower volume, or at least removing that access as a "slip" road.

Again though, I just don't see it as a priority. Bayview as it is through this section is generally fine and works for pretty much every road user in the area IMO. Lots of other spots in the city that need the money far more.

The MUP could probably be resurfaced and made a bit wider, since it's older and not up to modern standards though.

 

[Northern Light]

Bayview is a key distributor route for the DVP to access the east downtown.

I don't particularly see an issue with the cloverleaf as it is today, though i'm amenable to modifications. Pedestrian and cycling traffic is already detoured on the MUP around it. Perhaps removing the DVP-Northbound Bayview ramps, which are lower volume, or at least removing that access as a "slip" road.

Again though, I just don't see it as a priority. Bayview as it is through this section is generally fine and works for pretty much every road user in the area IMO. Lots of other spots in the city that need the money far more.

The MUP could probably be resurfaced and made a bit wider, since it's older and not up to modern standards though.

It will be no surprise that we disagree here.

1) There is no safe route for pedestrians or cyclists to climb up to Bloor; a physically separated multi-use path is required, with access down to the Bayview level.

2) The cloverleaf is just one more impediment to restoring nature, removing those ramps adds more than 4 hectares or 10 acres for habitat restoration.

3) The beltline and multi-user path both pass within metres of a noisy, polluting, imposing ramp structure; and the Beltline is currently precluded from having a southern extension that would connect it to Rosedale Valley Road.