[PL1]

Are there any plans for a better Beltline - Bayview connection near Brickworks? I ask because I encountered some marked cycle connections here that are notably dangerous. It seems like a pretty common desire path for northbound/southbound travel, since the two trails diverge more east/west once reaching this area. Now take a look below where some maps recommend crossing to bridge the trail gap.

Bike Share map:
View attachment 573125

Looking Southbound:
View attachment 573123

Looking northbound:
View attachment 573124

The Bayview MUP runs entirely on the east side of traffic. In this particular spot, the path splits from the road to travel underneath the Bayview Bloor ramps to DVP. Continuing to ride on Bayview (as is a suggested cycling route) would mean riding the shoulder with no barrier, crossing multiple slip lanes with 60+ km/h traffic and sight lines often reduced by twists in the roads and tree coverage.

Now I can’t see many mistakenly missing the safer route unless they’re coming from the Beltline trail. The only safe connection between these two trails requires a little detour into Brickworks followed by the signalled crossing at its entrance. It’s not obvious in the trail, the various cycling maps will convince you the shortest passage is in the middle of high speed traffic.

I’d like to contact the right people about correcting this on maps or improving the cycle network, but first I’d like to know if anyone has any more context I’m missing.

I can't comment on getting this corrected. However, there is a path along the other side of Bayview beginning at the corner of the south lot and extending south to the Beltline. I've only run it, so I can't comment on quality for cycling. Reachable by crossing Bayview at the signals at the Brickworks. I've marked it in yellow here.

 

[MisterF]

Now I can’t see many mistakenly missing the safer route unless they’re coming from the Beltline trail. The only safe connection between these two trails requires a little detour into Brickworks followed by the signalled crossing at its entrance. It’s not obvious in the trail, the various cycling maps will convince you the shortest passage is in the middle of high speed traffic.

The Brickworks diversion is how I ride this route. It's easy and direct and takes you right to the lights to cross Bayview. The problem is that wayfinding is basically nonexistent so the turn from the Belt Line to the Brickworks connection is very easy to miss.

I can't comment on getting this corrected. However, there is a path along the other side of Bayview beginning at the corner of the south lot and extending south to the Beltline. I've only run it, so I can't comment on quality for cycling. Reachable by crossing Bayview at the signals at the Brickworks. I've marked it in yellow here.
View attachment 573162

I've done that trail after missing the turn to go through the Brickworks. It's perfectly fine to ride. Gravel with the occasional puddle after it rains but generally consistent with the other multi use trails in the area.

 

[Northern Light]

Are there any plans for a better Beltline - Bayview connection near Brickworks?

To the best of my knowledge there are no near-term plans for work on cycling connections/paths/improvements here.

****

There are many medium or longer term options that have been floated in the past, but they are not currently moving forward.

Notably, removing the cloverleaf w/Bayview entirely (DVP exit to Bloor remains, but connection to Bayview is either terminated entirely, or exists only Bayview NB to DVP, no connection to SB Bayview.

Also considered has been some form of 'regularizing' the intersection of Bayview and Bloor (ie. adding traffic lights).

This would require major alterations to the existing ramp design with one or two sets of lights, or raising Bayview to meet the ramp (given the railway presence here, along w/the river, lowering the ramp to meet Bayview is non-viable so far as I'm aware.)

The idea of putting an MUP adjacent to the Bloor ramp, on the hill, has also been given some consideration; but without a regularized Bayview/Ramp interchange, it would have to come down on the west side of Bayview unless given its own free standing bridge.

None of the above have ever been E.A.'ed nor truly designed, just loosely discussed.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Are there any plans for a better Beltline - Bayview connection near Brickworks? I ask because I encountered some marked cycle connections here that are notably dangerous. It seems like a pretty common desire path for northbound/southbound travel, since the two trails diverge more east/west once reaching this area. Now take a look below where some maps recommend crossing to bridge the trail gap.

It's amazing how those planning our bike paths see crossing Bayview as an impossible barrier to connectivity. Mind you, the entire Bayview separated bike path system seems like a disjointed mess. For example, why is there no legal and safe way for cyclists traveling northbound on Bayview to enter the River St. bikepath without having to ride all the way to the crossing at Pottery Road? Of course all cyclists including myself just cross at River and take our chances, but this is a controlled intersection - as such there's no reason a left turn onto River cannot be added for cyclists northbound on Bayview.

 

[Northern Light]

It's amazing how those planning our bike paths see crossing Bayview as an impossible barrier to connectivity. Mind you, the entire Bayview separated bike path system seems like a disjointed mess. For example, why is there no legal and safe way for cyclists traveling northbound on Bayview to enter the River St. bikepath without having to ride all the way to the crossing at Pottery Road? Of course all cyclists including myself just cross at River and take our chances, but this is a controlled intersection - as such there's no reason a left turn onto River cannot be added for cyclists northbound on Bayview.

Now now............ LOL

Staff are well aware of the issues here....... this was a relatively quick install with no road reconstruction.

I want you to try to draw the safe crossing in, without moving the traffic lights, the islands, or the slip lanes.

I think you'll find it more than a bit challenging.

*****

Major enhancements are planned for the River Street MUP and its intersection with Bayview, ~2028 or so.

Also, you can safely and legally cross at Rosedale Valley Road.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Also, you can safely and legally cross at Rosedale Valley Road.

My typo, I mean RVR.

I want you to try to draw the safe crossing in, without moving the traffic lights, the islands, or the slip lanes. I think you'll find it more than a bit challenging.

Is that the best our planners can do, ask the public if they can do it better, and if not, to shut up and wait?

We both know that 2028 means 2030, about a decade from the installation of the current bike path. That's what's so frustrating, everything takes forever.

 

[Northern Light]

Is that the best our planners can do, ask the public if they can do it better, and if not, to shut up and wait?

I am not a Planner and wasn't speaking for one either.

No one told you to shut up or was otherwise so rude. Why must you take things to extremes?

We both know that 2028 means 2030, about a decade from the installation of the current bike path. That's what's so frustrating, everything takes forever.

Everything costs money. You're already looking at another high property tax increase this year, plus a stormwater or parking tax. How much more do you want to pay to do everything all at once, assuming the planners and construction staff to design and carry out the work could be found.

You make it seem like there's no construction going on in the City. There's this giant project ongoing down in the Portlands with a relocated/recreated river, and new/realigned roads, the Gardiner is undergoing reconstruction, University Avenue is undergoing significant work, near you, Gerrard is about to be rebuilt, and so is Bloor.

Stuff is happening all over the place.

At River/Bayview staff could have waited until there was money to do everything all at once...........then there would not be any MUP on Bayview or River until 2028.

Or they could do what they did and put the most in that they could with the money and time available, pending reconstruction at a future date.

You can look at it as getting the optimal solution 10 years late; or an interim solution 10 years early.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Most desired right now is an update on maps, but the city publishes one cycling map and it’s not the same as what appears on Google Maps or the Bike Share map.

I showed the Bike Share one in my previous post, here is Google Maps:

And here is the city’s map:

The PDF map from the City is shown at such a distance that only one thick line is drawn over/adjacent to Bayview. It’s the least incorrect but that’s not necessarily helpful.

 

[Mind_the_gap]

I've never seen anything like this before at a MUP/roadway crossing - it's like a German level-crossing signal for trains/trams:

First, the amber signal lights up:

Then, double red:

Then they alternate:

Source:

(Cheshire, Connecticut)

At this point, just install a BC-style flashing green. I was expecting a train to appear.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You can look at it as getting the optimal solution 10 years late; or an interim solution 10 years early.

I suppose so, a glass half full. So to speak.

No one told you to shut up or was otherwise so rude. Why must you take things to extremes?

Shut up and wait is an expression. No rudeness intended. A more polite expression might be; the city is doing their best, so you just have to wait.

 

[Nadnev]

Christine Hogarth MPP, says the Bloor bike lanes are causing congestion!

Sign her survey to let her know your thoughts on the bike lanes.

 

[afransen]

I've never seen anything like this before at a MUP/roadway crossing - it's like a German level-crossing signal for trains/trams:

First, the amber signal lights up:
View attachment 573313

Then, double red:
View attachment 573314

Then they alternate:
View attachment 573315
View attachment 573316

Source:

(Cheshire, Connecticut)

At this point, just install a BC-style flashing green. I was expecting a train to appear.

The flashing green signal from Vancouver seems like a more obvious solution. Flashing green indicates potential pedestrian crossing. Someone pushes the button and it turns red. You run a red light, that's pretty unambiguously illegal. This kinda sorta red light gets mixed up with red lights and flashing red railroad crossings. Just a silly overengineered design that should never have made it past a couple of pilot projects.

 

[DSC]

I can't comment on getting this corrected. However, there is a path along the other side of Bayview beginning at the corner of the south lot and extending south to the Beltline. I've only run it, so I can't comment on quality for cycling. Reachable by crossing Bayview at the signals at the Brickworks. I've marked it in yellow here.
View attachment 573162

We cycle the 'yellow line' path quite often - it runs beside the fenced-off dog run area. It's not perfect as it can be 'damp' but overall an 8 out of 10.

 

[DSC]

The watermain and sewer construction on The Esplanade has just about finished east of Lower Sherbourne and is moving to the section going west from Lower Sherbourne to Lower Jarvis (where it stops). I assume the rebuilding of the road with the raised bike track will start when all the Toronto Water work on the street is completed - estimated as mid-August.

 

[UntitledCyclist]

The city's "new" ESRI-based cycling network map that replaced their old Google Maps one has been brought up a bit recently. I've been trying to make the most of it, and appreciate the work that went into building it.

However there are a lot of strange things in this map, some of which I think could be easily fixed. I've been communicating with the Cycling dept about it, but I am not convinced they care about my opinions.

First off, using the mobile version via browser (in my case Firefox or Chrome on Android) as there is no standalone app, is horribly hard to read street names on and generally navigate. There is no full-screen option, and the fonts never get any bigger, even at maximum zoom.

Contrast this to Google Maps, which uses colour and fonts to much better effect.

No, the city is not Google and they are working with more limited tools and resources, but it doesn't mean you can't learn from others.

The lack of full-screen? The bizarre clustering of bike lanes into single pins with a number when zoomed out? These things make no sense in the context of this mapping tool.

The teardrop bike-lane markers look like Bike Share dock logos, at least in the old Bike Share app which most people still have.

The city map also has "bike stations" in the filter, which everyone I have spoken too thinks means bike share spots. They actually mean underground bike parking stations. I don't think these are numerous or well known enough, so maybe this will help with that, but it's confusing.

To me, pie in the sky, but synergizing (i.e. combining) this app with Bike Share OR differentiating the style and nomenclature would be preferred.

Another weird thing: I looked at another city map based on the same ESRI platform, and it was much better!

Look at this desktop version of a "Cool Spaces" map for the current heatwave (right) and contrast it with the same area on the cycling map (left)

You can see both are ESRI maps with all the same deets at the bottom. BUT the cycling map has a smaller window, with no full-screen button. The cooling map is bigger and has such a button.

The use of colour on the cooling map is superior (to my eyes) compared to the greyscale used on the cycling map.

Maybe UX folks wanted to mute the cycling map colours to make the lanes themselves more prominent, but I don't think this was the right choice. The readability of the street name fonts etc. on the cooling map is just better at the same zoom as the cycling equivalent.

Anyway, some of these seem like minor quibbles, but when you're trying to use this map on the road, in the sun on a phone screen it comes nearly unusable.

This is why most people use a tool like Google Maps, but sadly the information it uses for bike lanes is not accurate or held to any accountability. The city should keep working at this until it's great.