[hawc]

Ah so it's about flooding. Makes sense. Although it's strange they went to all this trouble rather than just setting up pylons when it occasionally happens once every year or two. Plus once the lower Don is redesigned it should stop flooding altogether. Pretty big make work project.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Ah so it's about flooding. Makes sense. Although it's strange they went to all this trouble rather than just setting up pylons when it occasionally happens once every year or two. Plus once the lower Don is redesigned it should stop flooding altogether. Pretty big make work project.

The lower Don project won't prevent flooding in this stretch.

AoD

 

[hawc]

That's funny then.

"Hey this road floods after every big rain, what should we do to fix it?"

"Block off the road."

Perfect! Solved.

 

[DSC]

That's funny then.

"Hey this road floods after every big rain, what should we do to fix it?"

"Block off the road."

Perfect! Solved.

Frankly, it seems the best and most cost-effective answer. Firstly it really does not flood often, secondly there are easy alternatives and thirdly to fix it would cost TONS of money as it would either mean widening/deepening the Don or raising the road. Fairly cheap to install gates and signage - though they did rather f-up, See: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/th...ock-right-on-the-busy-bayview-bike-trail.html

Installing gates sounds like a good and cost-effective option to me.

 

[Northern Light]

Installing gates sounds like a good and cost-effective option to me.

I dunno.............with only 2 buildings actually fronting Bayview and having car access from same; and all are comparatively small........non-residential buildings.....

1 of those sites actually has non-valley access routes (Audi) off Labatt

I'm thinking maybe just removing Bayview south of River and turning it all into park space would work better........

So maybe at the cost of buying one property, that's within the regulatory floodplain......

You gain about 1ha/2.5 acres of park on Bayview itself (counting only the section from Gerrard to Queen inclusive, you would actually pick up a bit more on either side.

Plus you pick up the 0.4ha/1 acre of 300 Bayview.

Not a bad way to pick up almost 4 acres of new park. The Audi site is another 0.7ha or about 1.7 acres.

Add that in and your closing in on a six acre park.

 

[44 North]

I dunno.............with only 2 buildings actually fronting Bayview and having car access from same; and all are comparatively small........non-residential buildings.....

1 of those sites actually has non-valley access routes (Audi) off Labatt

I'm thinking maybe just removing Bayview south of River and turning it all into park space would work better........

So maybe at the cost of buying one property, that's within the regulatory floodplain......

You gain about 1ha/2.5 acres of park on Bayview itself (counting only the section from Gerrard to Queen inclusive, you would actually pick up a bit more on either side.

Plus you pick up the 0.4ha/1 acre of 300 Bayview.

Not a bad way to pick up almost 4 acres of new park. The Audi site is another 0.7ha or about 1.7 acres.

Add that in and your closing in on a six acre park.

Ah yeah that'd be fantastic for opening up the valley to the lake. It really is a throttle point for what should be a green gateway.

 

[evandyk]

The lower Don project won't prevent flooding in this stretch.

AoD

Maybe not prevent entirely, but I would think that with the mouth opened to much greater flow and the larger flood plains right at the bottom, you'd need a lot more rain to flood it than you do today?

 

[Northern Light]

Maybe not prevent entirely, but I would think that with the mouth opened to much greater flow and the larger flood plains right at the bottom, you'd need a lot more rain to flood it than you do today?

In the modelling.

This is the change to the 2-year flood, in the narrows:

Before:

After:

(as noted, weir position changes outcomes.)

But yes, its safe to say there's a substantial reduction in upstream flooding coming.

However, note that in the above, you still see flooding of a small section of Bayview every 2 years or less.

***

Regulatory floods (at 10 year, 25 year and 100 year levels show much higher flooding).

***

One reason the flooding is not reduced more; is that the CN bridge (and future o/l bridge), is a limiting factor on outflow.

For all the gory details, follow this link:

https://trcaca.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/app/uploads/2018/10/17173845/AppN.pdf

The relevant models start in/around p. 12

***

One other thing to keep in mind, the Flood Protection land form that protects the West Don Lands also has the effect of keep more water in the valley, where previously it would have spread much further.

 

[44 North]

One reason the flooding is not reduced more; is that the CN bridge (and future o/l bridge), is a limiting factor on outflow.

It's pretty noticeable when on the dvp or trail how tight that bridge makes the river. Imagining the area of the watershed, volume of water in a very heavy rain, then this one constriction. Do wonder if it's ever been thought of to create an arcing channel/diversion to the west. Only about 100m long, tunneled through the rwy berm. I think it's already been done where the bike trail is in the past, but this would just be another west of that one.

 

[Northern Light]

It's pretty noticeable when on the dvp or trail how tight that bridge makes the river. Imagining the area of the watershed, volume of water in a very heavy rain, then this one constriction. Do wonder if it's ever been thought of to create an arcing channel/diversion to the west. Only about 100m long, tunneled through the rwy berm. I think it's already been done where the bike trail is in the past, but this would just be another west of that one.

To the best of my knowledge, tunneling has not been considered.

****

The structure of the bridge itself has been look at..........

As has the possibility of removing Bayview.

But neither has ever reached a high level of consideration, so far as I am aware.

Knowledgeable though I am in this area, its certainly possible its been look at, at one time or another.

 

[hawc]

I dunno.............with only 2 buildings actually fronting Bayview and having car access from same; and all are comparatively small........non-residential buildings.....

1 of those sites actually has non-valley access routes (Audi) off Labatt

I'm thinking maybe just removing Bayview south of River and turning it all into park space would work better........

So maybe at the cost of buying one property, that's within the regulatory floodplain......

You gain about 1ha/2.5 acres of park on Bayview itself (counting only the section from Gerrard to Queen inclusive, you would actually pick up a bit more on either side.

Plus you pick up the 0.4ha/1 acre of 300 Bayview.

Not a bad way to pick up almost 4 acres of new park. The Audi site is another 0.7ha or about 1.7 acres.

Add that in and your closing in on a six acre park.

You'd have to put River back to two lanes southbound between Bayview and Gerrard. Because you couldn't have Bayview Avenue terminating at River with only one lane and that lane being a left turn lane where it meets Gerrard. Traffic is already backed all the way up Bayview on most days now because of the fact its gone from 2 lanes to 1 lane. Unless the objective is to just totally frustrate motorists and make them absolutely hate driving - I can never tell anymore.

 

[Northern Light]

You'd have to put River back to two lanes southbound between Bayview and Gerrard. Because you couldn't have Bayview Avenue terminating at River with only one lane and that lane being a left turn lane where it meets Gerrard. Traffic is already backed all the way up Bayview on most days now because of the fact its gone from 2 lanes to 1 lane. Unless the objective is to just totally frustrate motorists and make them absolutely hate driving - I can never tell anymore.

I wouldn't personalize it that way.

Certainly, there is a desire and a public policy objective to discourage commuters from driving into downtown and to choose transit when and where practical.

Transit needs to be improved further, obviously; but I don't see the volume of cars carried by Bayview south of River as all that large, I expect between general modal shifts and changes to Bayview further north in the years ahead, there would not material pressure on River.

Bayview further north is going to see the Cloverleaf w/the Bloor/DVP removed in one fashion or another (nothing is done til its done, but it is being looked at in earnest by the City). Either the connections to Bayview (for cars) will be removed, or an at-grade intersection will be created.

The Bayview/Bloor ramp is going to get a multi-use trail down it.

I fully expect to see Bayview narrowed through the valley to one lane each way with turn lanes as appropriate; though that may be a bit further off.

 

[hawc]

Bayview further north is going to see the Cloverleaf w/the Bloor/DVP removed in one fashion or another (nothing is done til its done, but it is being looked at in earnest by the City). Either the connections to Bayview (for cars) will be removed, or an at-grade intersection will be created. The Bayview/Bloor ramp is going to get a multi-use trail down it.

Wait what? There's going to be no more Bayview/Bloor exit off of the DVP???? That's crazy.

 

[Northern Light]

Wait what? There's going to be no more Bayview/Bloor exit off of the DVP???? That's crazy.

There is no intention to remove the DVP exit to Bloor.

But the connection to Bayview may be removed or made at-grade.

 

[hawc]

There is no intention to remove the DVP exit to Bloor.

But the connection to Bayview may be removed or made at-grade.

Hmmm... I can't picture this. Are you able to do a quick mark up on this Google map to show which parts might be eliminated?