|
|
|
- Thread starter hawc
- Start date
hawc
Senior Member
ADRM
Senior Member
If those pics are recent, I'm confused; do the new bike lanes stop shy of the point depicted here and merge back down closer to the riverside?
hawc
Senior Member
Yeah taken this morning. The bike lane in the first few pics snakes it's way down closer to the river not right beside the road. And in the last picture there the bike lane is non-existant because it's south of Rosedale Valley Road. It's actually a SUPER dangerous area to ride your bike. Especially southbound.
Northern Light
Superstar
I fail to understand how a sidewalk ( or multi-use trail) was not installed on the western side of Bayview, south of Rosedale Valley Rd.
Aside from creating a link between the Rosedale Valley multi-use path and Riverdale Park West; it would also be a logical extension towards sidewalk that serves the Bayview facing businesses south Gerrard.
This, to me, serves as proof that policies and principles are only worth the paper they are written on, and nothing more, if staff and councillors don't really believe in them.
Complete streets anyone?
Skeezix
Senior Member
I agree with you. It's ridiculous that there hasn't long been a path on the west side of Bayview south of Rosedale Valley Road. For all the reasons you stated.
The road allowance there is quite narrow, and the slope on the west side would likely make a path complicated and costly. Hopefully such a path would occur in the next phase of improvements to this corridor, but I am not holding my breath.
But, yeah, the fact that there is absolutely no safe way for a pedestrian or cyclist coming eastward on Rosedale Valley Road to turn right and travel southward is appalling. There isn't even a connection to the Lower Don trail on the other side of the river.
downtownordinary
Active Member
I know the Bayview road allowance is quite narrow south of Rosedale Valley Road and I drive through here during rush hour all the time. I often wonder whether Bayview could function as a 2 lane road + Multi-use path from Rosedale Valley to River Street as it currently does south of River. From my very anecdotal analysis it looks like it could.
ADRM
Senior Member
Yes - that stretch seems like the perfect example of the near-endless list of roads in Toronto that are never particularly busy and are thus ripe for transition into better, 21st-century uses.
Skeezix
Senior Member
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm sure it could.
However, I would add that the majority of the section from Rosedale Valley Rd to the River exit does have room for a sidewalk. The only real issue is the placement of the existing retaining wall that was put in Bayview was widened through here. That could be shifted by about 1M and create a full-sized sidewalk at its base.
I happen to like your idea better; I'm just open to w/e is politically feasible.
Skeezix
Senior Member
@Northern Light, you are correct that most of the section Rosedale Valley Rd to the River St exit does have room for a sidewalk, although if one looks at the City's property data mapping there is a pinch point where the Necropolis property comes quite close to the edge of the road. There is also a hydro tower on the west side of Bayview, roughly across from where the Lower Don Trail crosses over a pedestrian bridge from the east to west side of the river. Not sure if the tower is Hydro One or Toronto Hydro - suspect the former, and if so, not sure what kind of easements/other rights they have there. (There is another hydro tower further south, but there any path could presumably encroach into the park to sidestep the tower.) But, yeah, a sidewalk could be feasible at a (comparably) lower cost.
When I talked about the road allowance being narrow, I really meant between River St and West Don Lands. Ideally the path/trail here would connect further south than River. South of River St, @downtownordinary 's plan to wage war on the car and create traffic chaos (just joking) would not help, since Bayview is already down to two lanes at that point. But, practically speaking, it might be better to focus north of River St., as you suggest.
When I talked about the road allowance being narrow, I really meant between River St and West Don Lands. Ideally the path/trail here would connect further south than River. South of River St, @downtownordinary 's plan to wage war on the car and create traffic chaos (just joking) would not help, since Bayview is already down to two lanes at that point. But, practically speaking, it might be better to focus north of River St., as you suggest.
hawc
Senior Member
ADRM
Senior Member
Fantastic (minus the lightpoles littering the bike lane up and down).
hawc
Senior Member
Now the only problem will that little stretch from River to Rosedale Valley Road. That section is absolutely terrifying. Fast, blind crests and corners and no shoulder whatsoever. I can't believe no cyclists have been killed there.
