Northern Light
Superstar
Out. No new connections between the valley floor and Bloor.
|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
Out. No new connections between the valley floor and Bloor.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Before the 401, cyclists and pedestrians could get from Avenue Road & Wilson Avenue to Yonge Street & Sheppard Avenue by the Hoggs Hallow Bridge. It was originally known as the Yonge Boulevard Viaduct. The Toronto Bypass, today's Highway 401, was routed over the bridge (with an additional south truss bridge added) in December 1952.
Today, cyclists and pedestrians have to go downhill on Wilson Avenue to Yonge Street and then uphill on Yonge Street under the 401 to get to Sheppard Avenue.
See this video from 10 years ago...
Today, cyclists and pedestrians have to go downhill on Wilson Avenue to Yonge Street and then uphill on Yonge Street under the 401 to get to Sheppard Avenue.
See this video from 10 years ago...
UntitledCyclist
Active Member
That will add like 10 minutes to anyone's journey. Useful for commuters, in some cases, not for general passage across the intersection.
UntitledCyclist
Active Member
Can't disturb the dead! :/
Northern Light
Superstar
You and I would share a take on that......
But there are potential connections that would not see that be an issue.
Unfortunately, for various reasons, no detailed study was done on building them, and the package is now fixed (for the moment). Understanding that, I support going ahead rather than delaying the work to add scope.
But I do think, as a separate project, one or more new connections should be considered.
I'd like to see a trail and/or stairs w/bike channel explored at the corner of Parliament and Bloor. (S/W) I believe this can be done entirely on City property, and in any event w/o disturbing the decomposed.
***
There's already a stair case connection to Bloor at Mt. Pleasant. But its very much in need of an upgrade/rebuild:
Above, the access from Mt. Pleasant to the valley:
Below, the stairs going onwards to Bloor:
I would like to see wider stairs, with lights, and a bike channel.
In general I oppose lights in valleys/natural areas, as they are problematic for wildlife and intrusive to experiencing nature in the evening hours.
But since Rosedale Valley Road exists and has streetlights, I would make an exception here.
UntitledCyclist
Active Member
Thanks for these. Interesting on the lights question: I don't disagree there may be concerns around nocturnal wildlife, but I have always found it bizarre that for example the MGT has no lights along the trail. It's hardly a nature trail, running alongside Lake Shore Blvd mostly. Other lightless trails like the Beltline are "woodsy" but bordered by large homes on both sides. I imagine the lack of lights there stems more from resident NIMBYs who fear hoodlums congregating at night.
Northern Light
Superstar
I wouldn't argue against lighting on most of the trail, I would argue against it on the portion parallel to Unwin. which is a wildlife corridor.
The locals are divided on the point. Many oppose it for the reason you note, others because they don't want the light, at night, coming into their homes (in winter, the trees being leafless, there would be at least some light spread); Forestry is opposed, the fear is precedent more than anything, but also, they would be firmly opposed to lighting on the section south of Moore, in the valley, out towards Brickworks. The argument goes, if you light a portion of the trail, people will demand all of it, then, when the get to the end (Lower Don), they'll want lights there too, and so on)
turbanplanner
Senior Member
Tbh the parks dept is pretty bad at maintenance
Voltz
Senior Member
I wouldn't say 10 minutes, especially since it bypasses the road crossings, but I would agree it could have been designed better, such as ramps at each end that align with the bike lane and sidewalk.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I mean the problem is that Metrolinx built out all the major intersections in accordance with the original Eglinton Connects plan with 4 vehicle lanes AND bike lanes - including the intersection of Eglinton and the Allen..
So the immediate intersection is already "done".
The problem is that the City now has to go fill in the gaps between the stations, and instead of preserving the plan they originally worked with Metrolinx to approved about a decade ago, now wants to shift to a plan with only 2 vehicle lanes as it is cheaper (does not require full road reconstruction, only resurfacing).
Eglinton is plenty wide enough to maintain 4 vehicle lanes for drivers AND implement dedicated cycle tracks. It's not an either-or. The City just needs to cough up the money to do it right.
So the immediate intersection is already "done".
The problem is that the City now has to go fill in the gaps between the stations, and instead of preserving the plan they originally worked with Metrolinx to approved about a decade ago, now wants to shift to a plan with only 2 vehicle lanes as it is cheaper (does not require full road reconstruction, only resurfacing).
Eglinton is plenty wide enough to maintain 4 vehicle lanes for drivers AND implement dedicated cycle tracks. It's not an either-or. The City just needs to cough up the money to do it right.
turbanplanner
Senior Member
Side note, maybe it's just my experience but for whatever reason nobody seems to know that there are two turn lanes onto the allen north and the right one is always empty
DSCToronto
Superstar
I would have thought that most NIMBYs would want lighting to discourage hoodlums (who generally prefer the dark!)
Northern Light
Superstar
Actually, partial lighting produces the highest safety risk vs darkness.
Most criminals aren't wearing night-vision goggles, and are severely disadvantaged if they can't make out a would-be victim.
Also, petty crime is often opportunistic, ie. troubled teenage boys wandering down a trail who get a (not so) bright idea, when they see a cool car just over yonder.
If the trail is near pitch black, those same kids aren't on it, walking with flashlights.
To whit:
From: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353098441_The_Effect_of_Lighting_on_Crime_Counts
A further study cited in the above showed an interesting mixed result from turning out street lights entirely:
*****
Lighting a path, where the light is controlled and focused on the path, improves safety in respect of slip/fall/trip.
If the path is wide, and/or there is some lighting to its side, it may improve safety while on the path in respect of violence/robbery.
But the offset is that the adjacent area is dark and shadowed. The criminal (with any brains) waits in the shadow, unseen, while they get a really good look at their mark in the bright lights, assessing size, sex, whether they have a dog or a weapon,and whether they look like they have money and/or are distracted.
Lighting adjacent to a home's windows and doors can deter crime, because your highly visible at the moment you're trying to break-in to a property.
Its a very interesting mixed bag.
DSCToronto
Superstar
Yes, I see the 'shading' in all this but I still think that there are some bike routes that would benefit from lighting. - if done thoughtfully.
bearcat
Active Member
Isn't the plan four vehicle lanes and bike lanes for a large part of Eglinton? From Oakwood to Spadina, immediately adjacent to this? Or has that changed?
See here: https://www.toronto.ca/community-pe...ations/infrastructure-projects/eglintontoday/
The Metrolinx built segment from Avenue to Yonge is also three lanes wide, not four (and a major intersection, Yonge & Eg is three lanes). I don't think that comes down to the city not coughing up money? Was that not the original plan?
Maybe Doug Ford can cough up money for the other sections to keep four car lanes
Last edited: