[SpongeG]

good to hear - nice to see it finally getting back to what it used to be

[Whalleyboy]

i was reading the surreys latest council decisions and came across this. looks like they might actually start doing something there now soon.

Development Permit No. 7910-0076-00
Station Tower Developments Ltd.
c/o Dundee Realty Management Corp. (Dawn Surette)
13401 - 108 Avenue
Development Permit No. 7910-0076-00 be approved

[Diet Butcher]

Where do you find the best place is to read the latest council decisions directly?

[Whalleyboy]

i just go right to the surrey home page they have a link to the latest council decisions right on it

[SpongeG]

offensive?

http://suckcity.tumblr.com/post/839924498/aaaaaauuuuuuggghhhhhhh-bobbydigital-i-must

[SpongeG]

woot!!!

Hello Surrey, British Columbia!!! We would like to take a moment to announce that the Surrey, BC location in Canada, located at: 2285 160th Street, Unit F8 & F9, Surrey, BC V3S 9N6 is NOW OPEN!!!! Please, stop on by if you are in the area!!!
August 3 at 11:29am

(five Guys now open)

[bulliver]

offensive?

http://suckcity.tumblr.com/post/839924498/aaaaaauuuuuuggghhhhhhh-bobbydigital-i-must

Why would that be offensive?

[SpongeG]

it was posted on scout as an insult - or thats how i read it
pompous scout blog site thing we are better than you and paying $15 for a slice of cheese is what we do scout blogspot people place

[worldwide]

they have that shirt for east Van too... it goes something like renfrew commercial victoria main clark hastings broadway eastvan

[bulliver]

it was posted on scout as an insult - or thats how i read it


I see, I didn't bother looking at the blog, thought you were talking about the tshirt itself ;)

[g35]

So...that's supposed to be offensive to Surrey/Surreyites? Cause I don't care and I want it.

[SpongeG]

out of context it's fine

but the blogger was basically slagging surrey by linking to that t-shirt...

seems lots of vancouver bloggers always bash on surrey - it gets tiresome

[Whalleyboy]

out of context it's fine

but the blogger was basically slagging surrey by linking to that t-shirt...

seems lots of vancouver bloggers always bash on surrey - it gets tiresome

it really is getting tiresome. I think its just there jealous of how nice surrey is getting these days lol

[jhausner]

I take it as flattery. As soon as someone feels the need to knock another down, that's when they envy them and their position. If you don't envy someone you have no need to even spend any time on them.

[tybuilding]

I see that there are movies in Holland Park every Saturday night in August. I think I will have to check that out.

[invisibleairwaves]

I take it as flattery. As soon as someone feels the need to knock another down, that's when they envy them and their position. If you don't envy someone you have no need to even spend any time on them.

Or it's because Surrey really does suck.

I live here too, and I've accepted the fact that it's a lousy town. Sure, it can improve, and it shows strong signs of doing so, but we're living in denial if we think the rest of the region envies us at all. Let's stop being so sensitive about it.

[Whalleyboy]

I disagree with that Surrey is great we have alot to offer sure it may not be as compact in a downtown area like Vancouver but as a whole city we got a lot

[go_leafs_go02]

I disagree with that Surrey is great we have alot to offer sure it may not be as compact in a downtown area like Vancouver but as a whole city we got a lot

I disagree. Surrey is miiles behind Burnaby, New West, and Vancouver.

[cornholio]

I have lived in Surrey and I also agree that Surrey has a long way to go to be in the same category as every city on the Burrard peninsula plus the North Shore plus Richmond.

Its where you live if your A) born there and dont know any better, B) move there and dont know any better, C) move there because you work south of the fraser and cant get a comparable job else where.

I suspect this will be the case for a very very long time, plus generally as Surrey improves so does every other place in the region. It will be tough for Surrey to escape its position of being second class to most of the metro regions(mind you its a large part of the metro and on its outside edge so keep that in mind and it does have its wealthy enclaves but those dont count as they dont represent whats available for the average joe), this century.

edit: I should add that if you have a family and dont have a load of cash then Surrey is one of the few options that are affordable, so in that sense Surrey is good. Also I have nothing agaisnt Surrey, its not that bad but a good chunk of cities in the metro are simply nicer(and more expensive as a result)

[theQ]

I need to add my 2 cents to this conversation.

My wife and I moved to Central City 14 months ago. I work in Surrey and my wife works in White Rock. We've lived all around the lower mainland (in the past 5 years) and we looked at many places before deciding where to buy. We moved here from Quebec a few years ago, so I didn't really give much credibility to local reputations.

This is what we found.
Langley, though quite nice, it's in the middle of nowhere and we like to have easy access to the city.

New Westminster, not bad, we looked at several places on the Quay and in "uptown", the area along Columbia is picking up and the Quay is a nice place to walk, but I definitely wouldn't say it's "miles ahead of Surrey" by any stretch. There are no real malls in New Westminster, the largest grocery store is a small Safeway and there are also rough areas.

Burnaby
I'll admit, I like Burnaby, it's quite a nice city. There isn't really a downtown which I think will mean that Surrey will overtake Burnaby as a more important business hub in the future. The area around Metrotown is nicely built up but in a suburban way. Again, "miles ahead of Surrey" I don't really think so.

Ten years ago I lived in Yaletown for a year before heading back east. At the time it wasn't as built up as it is now, there were a few new buildings and lots of old ones. There were prostitutes (male and female) on the street corners and several borded up buildings. It was (and still is) impossible to walk more than a few blocks without somebody begging for money.

I find Central City to be much like Yaletown was when I lived there in the late 90s. There are new buildings and lots of investment happening, but there is still a seedier side. We've found Central City to be quite safe, the parks are very nice and get lots of use, the festivals are great and the mall/sfu are beautiful. The library that's now going up is looking good and when city hall moves in the area will be even nicer.

As far as the rest of Surrey is concerned, South Surrey is very large and very nice, it's not just a "little enclave" and Fraser Heights area is also quite nice and would compare favourably to any ritzy area in the rest of the lower mainland.

All this to say, I think anybody that says that Surrey is far behind the rest of the lower mainland either has an inflated view of the rest of the area, or an under-appreciation of Surrey. When I travel through the lower mainland, most cities seem quite comparable. I really like Surrey and I'm sure that I will stay here, I won't pretend the Surrey is "the Best" but it compares favourably and I'm happy to defend it. I'm also curious what things will look like in 3 - 5 years when the new city hall is finished, when the RCMP have finished their headquarters. When the new hospital has been built, when the library is finished and and old hospital has been expanded. The look and feel of Central City is actually quite futuristic, and all levels of government are spending Billions of $$$ on Surrey. Logically, that's will have to have a positive impact of the neighbourhood and on the city as a whole.

[go_leafs_go02]

I need to add my 2 cents to this conversation.

My wife and I moved to Central City 14 months ago. I work in Surrey and my wife works in White Rock. We've lived all around the lower mainland (in the past 5 years) and we looked at many places before deciding where to buy. We moved here from Quebec a few years ago, so I didn't really give much credibility to local reputations.

This is what we found.
Langley, though quite nice, it's in the middle of nowhere and we like to have easy access to the city.

New Westminster, not bad, we looked at several places on the Quay and in "uptown", the area along Columbia is picking up and the Quay is a nice place to walk, but I definitely wouldn't say it's "miles ahead of Surrey" by any stretch. There are no real malls in New Westminster, the largest grocery store is a small Safeway and there are also rough areas.

Burnaby
I'll admit, I like Burnaby, it's quite a nice city. There isn't really a downtown which I think will mean that Surrey will overtake Burnaby as a more important business hub in the future. The area around Metrotown is nicely built up but in a suburban way. Again, "miles ahead of Surrey" I don't really think so.

Ten years ago I lived in Yaletown for a year before heading back east. At the time it wasn't as built up as it is now, there were a few new buildings and lots of old ones. There were prostitutes (male and female) on the street corners and several borded up buildings. It was (and still is) impossible to walk more than a few blocks without somebody begging for money.

I find Central City to be much like Yaletown was when I lived there in the late 90s. There are new buildings and lots of investment happening, but there is still a seedier side. We've found Central City to be quite safe, the parks are very nice and get lots of use, the festivals are great and the mall/sfu are beautiful. The library that's now going up is looking good and when city hall moves in the area will be even nicer.

As far as the rest of Surrey is concerned, South Surrey is very large and very nice, it's not just a "little enclave" and Fraser Heights area is also quite nice and would compare favourably to any ritzy area in the rest of the lower mainland.

All this to say, I think anybody that says that Surrey is far behind the rest of the lower mainland either has an inflated view of the rest of the area, or an under-appreciation of Surrey. When I travel through the lower mainland, most cities seem quite comparable. I really like Surrey and I'm sure that I will stay here, I won't pretend the Surrey is "the Best" but it compares favourably and I'm happy to defend it. I'm also curious what things will look like in 3 - 5 years when the new city hall is finished, when the RCMP have finished their headquarters. When the new hospital has been built, when the library is finished and and old hospital has been expanded. The look and feel of Central City is actually quite futuristic, and all levels of government are spending Billions of $$$ on Surrey. Logically, that's will have to have a positive impact of the neighbourhood and on the city as a whole.

Good post. Surrey is up and coming, and is pretty much the next place where growth can occur. I'm excited to see what City Centre looks like, but I still feel like a continual cycle will occur with problem areas in Surrey developing, being dealt with, and then popping up in a new area. I see a trend being Whalley was the problem - Newton will be the problem, and Cloverdale will follow once Newton has run it's course.

City Hall up there will be huge, I also know some potential expansion to the Rapid Transit network is in the works (Skytrain extension).

I just honestly think Surrey is too large for it's own good. That popped up in the amalgamation thread a few weeks back. There are three distinct urban areas that completely feel like they have nothing in common with eachother.

[SpongeG]

nice

so many people slag surrey and yet they never go there - or if they did it was like in the 90's or just passing through - they are really doing something there ad its cool to see - having all the festivals and events going in that park are great and keep growing and getting better every year

[tybuilding]

nice

so many people slag surrey and yet they never go there - or if they did it was like in the 90's or just passing through - they are really doing something there ad its cool to see - having all the festivals and events going in that park are great and keep growing and getting better every year

A great article about Holland Park:

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/08/02/holland-park-becoming-surreys-gathering-place/

[g35]

nevermind this post

[Whalleyboy]

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/08/23/exclusive-sneak-peek-at-the-surrey-outpatient-hospital/
whole bunch of pictures of the new outpatient hospital

[allan_kuan]

I look at the colour schemes and it reminds me of something that would be used in older buildings and furnishings like the sixties and seventies. =S

EDIT: now that I read the beginning of the article, it makes a bit more sense... colour-based wayfinding... now that's different. =O The exterior on the other hand still looks a little odd with all the brown and white and purple clashing with each other.

[metroXpress]

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/P1050786-150x150.jpg

Wood panelings are quite popular. Reminds me of VCC.

[metroXpress]

Surrey allowed the installation of electronic billboards.

This one shown is on 152st, on the lot of Guildford Rec Centre.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_jUc6REKQAPM/THwJlys6YPI/AAAAAAAAAGg/-Y3xH6vfXD8/s800/DSC02783.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_jUc6REKQAPM/THwJmKbwj6I/AAAAAAAAAGk/h0reEicQBTE/s800/DSC02784.JPG

[Whalleyboy]

theres a couple of those around

[LeftCoaster]

Wow, thats a pretty prevocative ad.

[sryboy]

The Province newspaper had the following article about the planned 6 lane Puttullo replacement Bridge. I wonder if it will be tolled?
Surrey and New Westminster residents will soon get a look at TransLink’s plans for a new, six-lane Pattullo Bridge, slated to cost between $800 million and $1 billion.

And the “preferred option” for the new bridge sees access moving from Royal Avenue to Front Street on the New West side.

“We have a couple of open houses coming up on Sept. 14 and Sept. 21,” said TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie Wednesday. “What we will have are a couple of options to look at but one of them will be TransLink’s preferred option. It will show how the bridge will line up, what the road accesses will be and so on.”

Hardie said the preferred option is about 100 metres upstream from the current bridge.

The access on the Surrey side would be “not much of an issue,” he said, although it would require changes to Scott Road and 128th Street.

“In New Westminster right now we connect to the bridge by McBride Boulevard, Columbia Street and Royal Avenue,” he said. “The preferred option that we want to get reaction from the public to changes that a little bit. We would connect via McBride, East Columbia and Front Street but not by Royal Avenue.”

He said after hearing from the public at the open houses, TransLink will come up with a plan for approval by Surrey and New Westminster councils and municipal staff.

Hardie said that while work done on the Pattullo, ending in early 2009, “is good for another 10 years,” TransLink wants the new bridge open earlier than 2020.

“We want to have it in place well before that so, I would say, 2015 to 2016 would be a good target for us to have a new one ready to go,” he said.

Hardie said there’s been no decision on whether or not the bridge will be tolled.

“If we can find some other way to pay for it that doesn’t involve tolls, we’ll take that route. On the other hand if it will take tolls to build it, we definitely need to build it. So tolls will be considered but no decision has been made.”

The open houses are Sept. 14, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at Chuck Baillie Community Centre at 13458-107A Avenue, Surrey, and Sept 21, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Justice Institute at 715 McBride Boulevard, New Westminster.

dinwood@theprovince.com
© Copyright (c) The Province


Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/Plans+lane+Pattullo+Bridge+unveiled/3470913/story.html#ixzz0yKsTwtUI


http://www.theprovince.com/Plans+lane+Pattullo+Bridge+unveiled/3470913/story.html

[SpongeG]

i thought it was going to be tolled?

there was a huge outcry from surrey when it was announced cause it was going to be tolled and the only bridge out of surrey that would be free was the alex fraser

[Whalleyboy]

well i read some where a while back watts said she would be approving a toll bridge unless it was so great and connected to everything so well its insanely worth it. So shes kinda black mailing translink i think lol

[sryboy]

TransLink’s plans for a new, six-lane Pattullo Bridge, slated to cost between $800 million and $1 billion.[/url]


They should just build a 4 lane replacement bridge at $400 million and spend the rest of the money (the other $400 million )on expanding light rail and getting people out of there cars...

[go_leafs_go02]

They should just build a 4 lane replacement bridge at $400 million and spend the rest of the money (the other $400 million )on expanding light rail and getting people out of there cars...

Look at the Massey tunnel to see what 4 lanes does to you.

[Smooth]

They should just build a 4 lane replacement bridge at $400 million and spend the rest of the money (the other $400 million )on expanding light rail and getting people out of there cars...

I'm pretty sure that building a 4 lane bridge instead of a 6 lane bridge would not cut the costs in half.

[SpongeG]

oops wrong thread

[go_leafs_go02]

http://secure1.city.surrey.bc.ca/traffic/images/96-kgbv-cam1-4CIF.jpg

red pavement!!!

[SFUVancouver]

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_jUc6REKQAPM/THwJlys6YPI/AAAAAAAAAGg/-Y3xH6vfXD8/s800/DSC02783.JPG


Wow, thats a pretty prevocative ad.

No kidding; that's a dangerous ad. The private investigator industry must bear some responsibility for the awful spousal murders/"honour killings" that seem to keep happening in this region.

[mr.A]

my pic.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/4995892353_842de88180_b.jpg

[vansky]

surrey probably got more trucks than the rest of the metro

[idunno]

Keep in mind that's a probably the construction site parking lot, where almost everyone drives a truck. I'd say that's pretty standard everywhere.

[worldwide]

tradespeople generally drive trucks. they carry big things, heavy things, things covered in mud etc

[Whalleyboy]

So looks like surrey wants to be a training Centre for another team
Soccer wave to hit Cloverdale?

By Kevin Diakiw - Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: September 16, 2010 4:00 PM
Updated: September 16, 2010 4:30 PM

Negotiations are underway to bring the Vancouver Whitecaps FC to Fraser Downs Racetrack and Casino, The Leader has learned.

The city is currently talking with the team about locating a soccer training facility at the city-owned property, which is currently home to the harness racing track, a casino and the annual Cloverdale Rodeo and Exhibition.

The Whitecaps are currently playing games at Swangard Stadium in Vancouver and training at SFU in Burnaby. Surrey wants to move that training facility here.

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts would not discuss specifics, but confirmed talks are ongoing.

"At this point in time, all I can say is we're in discussions," Watts said.

There is also $17 million in provincial money available for the creation of the facility, which would also serve as a training centre for international soccer.

It is not yet clear whether the track, casino or rodeo would still be part of the Fraser Downs facility.

The survival of harness racing at Fraser Downs has been in doubt of late, as racing days this year have been cut, and next year's schedule is yet to be determined.

Kevin Falcon, the Liberal MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, wants the city's standardbred track to go wherever it needs to in order to survive.

But he wants the Cloverdale casino to stay right where it is.

The ministry in charge of gaming said races at Vancouver's Hastings Park (which features thoroughbred racing) and Fraser Downs (standardbred) may merge.

"I'll let the experts figure that out, but I want to make sure any decision that's made supports a strong, bright future for the horse racing sector," Falcon said.

The president of the BC Lottery Corp. told a Vancouver newspaper in April that if either track (Hastings Park or Fraser Downs) closes or relocates, the slot machines at each respective facility will go as well.

Falcon has issue with that.

"I would argue that that is not going to be the case," Falcon said Thursday. "That will be a decision that I can assure you is going to be made after I as MLA have an opportunity to sit down with the minister responsible and make sure any decision that is being made is defensible and justifiable."

A well-placed source said the casino has been in discussions over relocating to another site in the city, one of them at 54A Avenue near 152 Street.

Watts would not confirm any such discussion.

"I can't discuss or divulge confidential information," Watts said.

Falcon said he'll want to see compelling evidence that the Cloverdale casino has to be moved.

"I am not going to acquiesce to a wholesale move unless I believe it's in the best interest of Surrey and Cloverdale in particular," Falcon said. "I happen to believe it's a great location on Highway 15, which is a four-lane freeway to one of the busiest borders in the country.

"I'd be open to hear of they have a better location, I certainly haven't heard of one."

Discussions continue.

[xd_1771]

http://secure1.city.surrey.bc.ca/traffic/images/96-kgbv-cam1-4CIF.jpg

red pavement!!!

Looks to be enough space there for a dual left turn as well. IMO a lot of the left turn lanes in Surrey which are often one lane, short and coupled with short-as-hell turn signals have to be improved immediately. In some places it's not too bad (the operations at 152nd and 104th often work out quite well actually), but there are just some places where it's a total nuisance (these examples are where I am in Guildford, there's probably a lot of worse ones too).
- Try turning left from 152nd northbound onto 102A west going into the Guildford Mall parking lot. Backed all the way to 100th and beyond :P the left turn signal only let about 4-5 cars through each time too. They could really use a dedicated flyover/offramp here but a much, much longer left turn signal could really solve it.
- Another good example is 154th south at 104th. With all the cars trying to turn left taking up only one of the lanes, 154th gets a longer signal than 104th - causing 104th to back up east & west blocking operations at 152nd and 156th. A dual-left-turn with protected signals would work really well in this situation and possibly improve 104th).
- And yet another good (and now nearly impossible to solve) situation: 104th eastbound turning left onto 156th north. Long left turn signal, but if you don't get through that signal, you're toast: there's a wall of westbound cars and a lot of slow trucks climbing the hill only to make the signal one-at-a-time trying to get through there. This causes cars to often back up in the left lane well past 154th. Because of another left-turn-lane in the opposite direction to the local 155A and little room on the sides to widen, this area is toast. If they bring back the off ramp from 152nd north to east 110th into Fraser Heights, this problem would be somewhat mitigated.

I have connections with Mayor Watts, maybe I should bring this problem and some others into focus for the city.

@vansky: SFPR will likely remove a lot of the trucks, but that's not going to solve the aformentioned left-turn-lane problem.

[Whalleyboy]

connect on and off of 140th street are pretty bad too actually. I was really hoping when they widened the road around 100th ave they would ad turn signals but they didnt

[xd_1771]

connect on and off of 140th street are pretty bad too actually. I was really hoping when they widened the road around 100th ave they would ad turn signals but they didnt

Surrey seems to be a bit lazy on its highly-important road transportation network lately.
I mean, Surrey is not Vancouver. Vancouver can take losing left turn signals because you really DON'T need a car to get around. Here, you pretty much do.
I know a lot of places that could use (as well as easily and for not much cost be upgraded to include) dual left turn lanes, right turn lanes, four-laning, six+ laning (like some portions of 200th).

Here's a list of the really small (or big) things that I think Surrey really needs in terms of transport - and it's hefty long, mind you:
-Dual left-turn-lanes from 88th WB to Scott SB, coupled with improved turn signals (I sat there on the eastbound lanes for 2 minutes waiting for the left turn signal to finish despite nobody actually turning left one night).
-100th Ave. between 152nd and 160th (four-laning would really be nice here, a right turn lane from 156th SB to 100 WB, and left turn signals on 100th)
-154th Avenue south of 100th (it's a mess during school days; left turn signals, right turn lanes, a widened roadway and improved (or better, elevated) crosswalks could solve this.
-154th Avenue just north of 104th should be reconfigured for better left turn lanes & a better signal
-Expanded 156th from under overpass to 104th for a longer right turn lane
-Longer left turn lanes on 154th SB approaching 100th
-Right turn lane on 152nd northbound approaching 100th
-Expanded left turn from 152nd NB heading onto 108th WB
-64th Avenue four-laning from 152nd east to current 4-lane section (like Fraser Hwy btwn. 168th and 180th or so) and the addition of right turn lanes at 152nd
-Underground/elevated offramp from 152nd northbound to Guildford Town Ctr. or improved turn signals
-Full six-laning of 152nd from Highway 1 to 96th
-Full six-laning of 104th through to 156th (or if they can afford it, Highway 1)
-Full six-laning of King George from 108th to 72nd in Newton
-Improved King George & 72nd intersection (dual left turns)
-Addition of left-turn-signal and longer left-turn-lane from 156th southbound to Fraser eastbound, and removal of left turns from 156 NB > 88 WB to accomodate this)
-Dual left turns from Hwy 10 EB onto 120th NB
-Removal/shortening of all red-to-green delays at traffic signals at night
-Extension of red-to-green delays at certain intersections (i.e. 152nd and 104th) to further accomodate last-minute left turns in the DAY ONLY
-Right turn lane from 152nd SB to 88 WB (using some space to the east)
-Four-laning 160th from north of Hwy 1 to at least 96th
-Left turn lanes on 108th at 150th & Oriole Drive
-Expanded left-turn lanes at King George at the 104th intersection, as well as an expanded 104 WB to King George SB left turn lane
-Left turn signals at 160th and 108th in Fraser Heights
-Right turn lanes at same intersection (crosswalk traffic causes right turning to block intersection esp. on school days)
-68 WB to King George southbound gets two left turn lanes
-King George SB to 78 EB gets two left turn lanes
-Right turn lanes at 88th and King George, expanded 88 WB to King George SB left turn lane (single lane is fine if the signal is long enough)
-104th WB to 140 NB: right turn lane
-104th at 148th, both directions on 104th: right turn lanes
-104th EB at 150th: right turn lane (except buses)
-Dual left turns from 104th EB onto the northbound 160th (rightmost lane for Hwy 1 traffic to the new loop on-ramp, leftmost for straight/Fraser Heights traffic, rather than a mix of the two in one lane)
-Left turn signal - 160th SB at 104th (north of the interchange)
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) - 152nd SB at Fraser Hwy
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) - 160th SB at Fraser Hwy
-Right turn lanes on Fraser Hwy at 156th St, 160th St, 164th St, 168th St, 184th St, 188th St
-Long, dual left-turn-lane & signal on Fraser Hwy EB @ 64th Ave
-64th should also be 4-laned in that area and west to Route 15
-4-lane the King George Highway from Route 99 to just past 24th Ave
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) King George SB to 24th EB
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) 152nd NB & SB at King George
-Expanded acceleration lane - 32nd Avenue onramp to Route 99
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) - 168th NB at Fraser Hwy
-All directions have right turn lanes at 120th & 72nd
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) - 72nd WB @ 120th, 120th SB @ 72nd
-All directions have right turn lanes at 128th & 72nd
-Right turn lanes in both directions on 104 at 154th
-Right turn lane on eastbound 104 @ 156th
-Lots of pedestrian overpasses to replace lots of major crosswalks (i.e. where the new crosswalk traffic lights are in the Johnston Heights area). There is a large lack of pedestrian overpasses in Surrey IMO and it would help make the city more accessible.

[invisibleairwaves]

Surrey happens to be both car-dependent and terrible at roadbuilding. Not a good combination at all.

The pedestrian overpass suggestion is a good one, but first we'd need, you know, sidewalks. Surrey is just appalling at this. Only the most brand-new areas of town were built with any sort of consideration for pedestrians, and even then they totally half-ass it sometimes.

[Whalleyboy]

Surrey happens to be both car-dependent and terrible at roadbuilding. Not a good combination at all.

The pedestrian overpass suggestion is a good one, but first we'd need, you know, sidewalks. Surrey is just appalling at this. Only the most brand-new areas of town were built with any sort of consideration for pedestrians, and even then they totally half-ass it sometimes.

I dont full blame surrey all that much in horrible road building. You got take note of the low taxes and being close to three times the size as Vancouver doesnt really help.
Also i read a while back Surrey is well aware of its horrible side walkness lol. This is why they make sure all new development adds sidewalks every where. For the longest time there was no rule or need for side walks in surrey it was a suburb.


Surrey seems to be a bit lazy on its highly-important road transportation network lately.
I mean, Surrey is not Vancouver. Vancouver can take losing left turn signals because you really DON'T need a car to get around. Here, you pretty much do.
I know a lot of places that could use (as well as easily and for not much cost be upgraded to include) dual left turn lanes, right turn lanes, four-laning, six+ laning (like some portions of 200th).

Here's a list of the really small (or big) things that I think Surrey really needs in terms of transport - and it's hefty long, mind you:
-Dual left-turn-lanes from 88th WB to Scott SB, coupled with improved turn signals (I sat there on the eastbound lanes for 2 minutes waiting for the left turn signal to finish despite nobody actually turning left one night).
-100th Ave. between 152nd and 160th (four-laning would really be nice here, a right turn lane from 156th SB to 100 WB, and left turn signals on 100th)
-154th Avenue south of 100th (it's a mess during school days; left turn signals, right turn lanes, a widened roadway and improved (or better, elevated) crosswalks could solve this.
-154th Avenue just north of 104th should be reconfigured for better left turn lanes & a better signal
-Expanded 156th from under overpass to 104th for a longer right turn lane
-Longer left turn lanes on 154th SB approaching 100th
-Right turn lane on 152nd northbound approaching 100th
-Expanded left turn from 152nd NB heading onto 108th WB
-64th Avenue four-laning from 152nd east to current 4-lane section (like Fraser Hwy btwn. 168th and 180th or so) and the addition of right turn lanes at 152nd
-Underground/elevated offramp from 152nd northbound to Guildford Town Ctr. or improved turn signals
-Full six-laning of 152nd from Highway 1 to 96th
-Full six-laning of 104th through to 156th (or if they can afford it, Highway 1)
-Full six-laning of King George from 108th to 72nd in Newton
-Improved King George & 72nd intersection (dual left turns)
-Addition of left-turn-signal and longer left-turn-lane from 156th southbound to Fraser eastbound, and removal of left turns from 156 NB > 88 WB to accomodate this)
-Dual left turns from Hwy 10 EB onto 120th NB
-Removal/shortening of all red-to-green delays at traffic signals at night
-Extension of red-to-green delays at certain intersections (i.e. 152nd and 104th) to further accomodate last-minute left turns in the DAY ONLY
-Right turn lane from 152nd SB to 88 WB (using some space to the east)
-Four-laning 160th from north of Hwy 1 to at least 96th
-Left turn lanes on 108th at 150th & Oriole Drive
-Expanded left-turn lanes at King George at the 104th intersection, as well as an expanded 104 WB to King George SB left turn lane
-Left turn signals at 160th and 108th in Fraser Heights
-Right turn lanes at same intersection (crosswalk traffic causes right turning to block intersection esp. on school days)
-68 WB to King George southbound gets two left turn lanes
-King George SB to 78 EB gets two left turn lanes
-Right turn lanes at 88th and King George, expanded 88 WB to King George SB left turn lane (single lane is fine if the signal is long enough)
-104th WB to 140 NB: right turn lane
-104th at 148th, both directions on 104th: right turn lanes
-104th EB at 150th: right turn lane (except buses)
-Dual left turns from 104th EB onto the northbound 160th (rightmost lane for Hwy 1 traffic to the new loop on-ramp, leftmost for straight/Fraser Heights traffic, rather than a mix of the two in one lane)
-Left turn signal - 160th SB at 104th (north of the interchange)
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) - 152nd SB at Fraser Hwy
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) - 160th SB at Fraser Hwy
-Right turn lanes on Fraser Hwy at 156th St, 160th St, 164th St, 168th St, 184th St, 188th St
-Long, dual left-turn-lane & signal on Fraser Hwy EB @ 64th Ave
-64th should also be 4-laned in that area and west to Route 15
-4-lane the King George Highway from Route 99 to just past 24th Ave
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) King George SB to 24th EB
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) 152nd NB & SB at King George
-Expanded acceleration lane - 32nd Avenue onramp to Route 99
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) - 168th NB at Fraser Hwy
-All directions have right turn lanes at 120th & 72nd
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) - 72nd WB @ 120th, 120th SB @ 72nd
-All directions have right turn lanes at 128th & 72nd
-Right turn lanes in both directions on 104 at 154th
-Right turn lane on eastbound 104 @ 156th
-Lots of pedestrian overpasses to replace lots of major crosswalks (i.e. where the new crosswalk traffic lights are in the Johnston Heights area). There is a large lack of pedestrian overpasses in Surrey IMO and it would help make the city more accessible.

Alot i agree on there but there some thing I'd add

-First of repave 108 ave it so bad right now lol
-add a small island thing along 108 ave sort of like the one they have on 88th in some areas.
-Along with that it would be nice to see them fix up the intersection on 108ave by guildford park
-Expand 80th all all the way through from king george to fraser and make 4 lanes from 120th to fraser.
-I'm gonna sound bad here for this but i'd like to see the 105 connect that will cut through hawthorn park be built(I havent seen much ever said about this so it seems like there keeping it on the low so they dont have a huge fight like they did with 84)
-Also i'd like to see 84th ave complete. It doesnt even go through the park....

-I do know 100th ave is in the planning for one day being widen. The first area they are gonna work with is around green timbers.
-Plans for making of 104 ave and King George to 6 lanes is in planning too although it would be 4 normal lanes plus 2 HOV lanes.
-The removal of red lights at night i think is a nice idea actually the new one on 104ave has really slowed down the people racing down that road.

I have saved a road work planning thing from the city so i've read about those.

[invisibleairwaves]

While we're on the subject of repaving, anyone want to start a pool on how long it'll be before 140th and Fraser gets ripped up and repaved again? My money's on a month.

[xd_1771]

Alot i agree on there but there some thing I'd add

-First of repave 108 ave it so bad right now lol
-add a small island thing along 108 ave sort of like the one they have on 88th in some areas.
-Along with that it would be nice to see them fix up the intersection on 108ave by guildford park
-Expand 80th all all the way through from king george to fraser and make 4 lanes from 120th to fraser.
-I'm gonna sound bad here for this but i'd like to see the 105 connect that will cut through hawthorn park be built(I havent seen much ever said about this so it seems like there keeping it on the low so they dont have a huge fight like they did with 84)
-Also i'd like to see 84th ave complete. It doesnt even go through the park....

-I do know 100th ave is in the planning for one day being widen. The first area they are gonna work with is around green timbers.
-Plans for making of 104 ave and King George to 6 lanes is in planning too although it would be 4 normal lanes plus 2 HOV lanes.
-The removal of red lights at night i think is a nice idea actually the new one on 104ave has really slowed down the people racing down that road.

I have saved a road work planning thing from the city so i've read about those.

100th Avenue could use some widening at least up to 156th and preferably up to 160th; the one-lane red light lineups at 154th often back up to 156th and block operations there. As for 104th & King George, I'm quite fine with 4 normal + 2 HOV lanes (considering how well it works on Hwy 1 right now), as long as they don't remove existing 6-normal-lane sections of King George for it. What I meant with removal of red lights is removal of that small delay between the red and the green that gets annoying when there's nobody trying to beat the left turn or whatever (i.e. at night) on most minor intersections. They seem to program new ones with explicitly long ones no matter what time of day - especially at the new 104th light.

[Whalleyboy]

no the current area of six lane on king george would be made to go 6 normal plus 2 hov so in total 8 lanes

[xd_1771]

no the current area of six lane on king george would be made to go 6 normal plus 2 hov so in total 8 lanes

EIGHT LANES--
That would be epic :cool:

[NewfBC]

The passport office is moving to Central City Mall (or they're opening another one, which I doubt!). On the main level. Large space. They've relocated a number of businesses that were in the location.

http://www.centralcity.ca/images/floorplanNew.jpg

It's in the 'L1' area.

Ron.

[xd_1771]

An old link (Feb 2010, found on google) of some of the major road projects in Surrey for the next few years (http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/02/04/major-road-projects-in-next-few-years/). You can see here that the on-going 96th 4-laning is expected to continue to 168th, King George south of the overpass between Surrey/South Surrey will be 4-laned and your 84th connector will be built :D 64th will be widened from 177th to 184th which would really improve the route, but there's still a need for more left turn lanes on the Fraser Hwy.

[Whalleyboy]

Here i got something else for you to read if you'd like Click here (http://metrosurrey.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/road-map.pdf) Its Surrey's maxim road allowance in areas

[xd_1771]

Here i got something else for you to read if you'd like Click here (http://metrosurrey.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/road-map.pdf) Its Surrey's maxim road allowance in areas

I absolutely love you for this. They seem to be planning a new connector from just east of Fraser Hwy @ 168th following the power lines to 140th. I don't doubt that they could extend this west to Nordel Way and east to 15 and create a new arterial connector between the 91 and the 1 :D

There's also another light-blue-highlighted connector following the railway tracks south of Hwy 10. Beginnings of a freeway there? ;)

I really like the blue highlighted roads though. You pretty much know where most of the six-laning will happen. A six-lane 152nd thru from Hwy 1 to Fraser excites me

[Whalleyboy]

I'm kinda disapointed that they arent gonna expand 80th/ I know it goes past a creek bed but it would be on of the best roads to take the easy off 88th and 64th

[xd_1771]

Guildford should really be paid attention to - expecially the 104th/154th light. Pesky as hell.
That single light was backing up traffic all the way past the Guildford overpass & 150th today, possibly even past 148th - no one was getting through 152nd either. Traffic eastbound had to deal with the side street/154th getting a longer green light overall and westbound getting the advanced-left-turn pretty much all the time. Yet when my C74 bus passed the intersection, it was freaking crystal clear until just past the 156th intersection. WTH IS THIS, REALLY--that light annoys me. Largely. They NEEEEEEEEEEEEED to pay attention to that light, right now.

[tybuilding]

EIGHT LANES--
That would be epic :cool:

I agree that some of upgrades on your lists may be needed. But adding major road network capacity just allows for more and more cars. Surrey needs to focus on adding connections where they can take place and focusing efforts on getting people out of their cars and into public transport or active transportation.

What is up with that light blue line up the Hydro corridor from 80th Ave @ Fraser Hwy? No thanks!

[dleung]

So glad I don't live in the suburbs, esp Surrey. Even in Richmond, the worst traffic I have to deal with is while trying to find a parking spot on alexandria road during lunchtime/dinnertime.

[Whalleyboy]

see i am for roads not just for cars but better connections of people. Although green paths would be nice less people walk on them as compare to the sidewalks on streets. There is a safer feeling walking on streets for people then walking along green way paths.

[BCPhil]

96 ave has been closed for over a month so far between 164 and 176 and will be closed for a few more weeks.

[tybuilding]

see i am for roads not just for cars but better connections of people. Although green paths would be nice less people walk on them as compare to the sidewalks on streets. There is a safer feeling walking on streets for people then walking along green way paths.

Its nice to have both as they both serve a purpose. Streets work well after dark if one needs it, Greenways do not (though if they are lighted it helps). Greenways are very popular during the day for recreation running and walking. Go along the Serpentine Greenway or the one paralleling 96 Ave and you will see lots of use.

I posted this on the pedestrian/cycling forum

I found this link for Walking and Cycling in Surrey City Centre: http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/06/0...plan-revealed/

It is pretty cool I hope we will see all of that. It will probably take many many years though.

This is what is happening now and for the next 5 years though: http://www.civicsurrey.com/2009/04/1...rreys-history/

[Whalleyboy]

I've been waiting for a the quibble creek green way path to get done for a long time. I wish they could get it done already.

[tybuilding]

VIDEO: Surrey claims success in Whalley

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/09/22/bc-surrey-whalley-police-crime.html

[Whalleyboy]

compared to what it was years ago I'd agree it is a success

[xd_1771]

96 ave has been closed for over a month so far between 164 and 176 and will be closed for a few more weeks.

160th southbound (heading out from Fraser Heights) was a parking lot this morning so we went over to 96th assuming it was open - had no idea it was closed for some months. 88th westbound was also a parking lot as a result of this.
Which means I was late to school today :sly:

[Whalleyboy]

it sucks but its gonna be worth it

[xd_1771]

it sucks but its gonna be worth it

I see. Why are they doing it anyway? Four-laning of sorts maybe?

[Whalleyboy]

yeah there making it 4 lanes. 96 ave will be 4 lanes all the way through from scott road now.

[xd_1771]

yeah there making it 4 lanes. 96 ave will be 4 lanes all the way through from scott road now.

I didn't think they'd 4-lane it past 160th actually. This is very good :notacrook:
I really hope it doesn't turn into a Fraser Highway though with too many terribly-timed traffic lights, long lineups and a lack of right turn lanes!

[Whalleyboy]

Nothing on development i just want to say surrey has released it new web page. Its now available in apparently 50 different languages. Apparently its the first multilingual city in the west to be that way.

[Whalleyboy]

oh and here is a concept of the green wall on the south surrey library
http://www.surrey.ca/images/pageImages/SemiahmooGreenWall-resize.jpg
http://www.surrey.ca/city-government/7207.aspx

[Whalleyboy]

new info on the tower going up where the night and day is on king george
http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7909-0145-00.pdf

[officedweller]

new info on the tower going up where the night and day is on king george
http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7909-0145-00.pdf

Thanks.

18 storeys, but 136.3m (443 ft?)
Maybe the medical offices only option takes to full height, but it is not described.

The design incorporates a tower, which sits on top of a 3-storey podium. The building form incorporates two ellipses shifted on a central spine.

...

Proposed Land Use Configuration

 The three floors of the podium will offer the main component of the proposed land uses, including labs, a pharmacy and coffee shop at the ground floor, restaurant and lounge at the 2nd floor and primarily medical offices at the 3rd floor.

 Along with the main component of land uses within the podium, the applicant proposes a combination of one of the following three (3) options:
o Medical offices only; or
o Medical offices and care facility; or
o Medical offices and multiple residential housing.

 For the care facility option, 138 suites could be designed for single occupancy and 7 suites designed for double occupancy, for a total of 145 suites. These suites will be intended for the 4th to 10th floors of the building. These suites would accommodate a bed, minimal furniture, a closet and bathroom, but no kitchen facilities. A common dining room and lounge are proposed at the second floor for the care facility, with access to a patio with southern exposure.

 The care facility suites proposed on the 4th to 10th floors of the building can easily be combined and adapted to accommodate self contained multiple residential units, which will include kitchens. These units would result in 76 units total, with 3 bachelor units and 73 1-bedroom units.

 The project has been designed with full accessibility in mind. All major entries/exits have been designed for accessibility. More than 20% of the units in the care facility are barrier-free and accessible via wheelchair. All office units are wheelchair accessible. Elevator and call buttons shall be wheelchair accessible. Public amenity rooms shall be accessible. Public washrooms provided at the amenity rooms shall be barrier-free. A passenger drop-off/pick area has been provided for both the care facility/multiple residential housing component and the medical office component to further enhance accessibility.

 The 11th to 16th floors of the building are intended for medical offices, with the 17th floor to have medical offices, a common amenity area and a roof top patio. The 18th floor will house the boiler room, another common amenity area, a roof top patio and the cooling tower.

 The medical offices only option requires 220 stalls. The option with medical offices and multiple residential housing requires 226 stalls and the option requiring the most parking is the medical offices and care facility at 230 stalls.

 The developer proposes to construct as part of the development 327 stalls in 4 levels of underground parking, which would exceed the minimum requirement by 97 stalls.

[xd_1771]

oh and here is a concept of the green wall on the south surrey library
http://www.surrey.ca/images/pageImages/SemiahmooGreenWall-resize.jpg
http://www.surrey.ca/city-government/7207.aspx

Will it be similar to that wall that has a projector shining random images at Chuck Bailey? (You can see it from the SkyTrain) Or will it just be a static painted wall?

[tybuilding]

Will it be similar to that wall that has a projector shining random images at Chuck Bailey? (You can see it from the SkyTrain) Or will it just be a static painted wall?

A green wall would be a living wall with plants.

[Stingray2004]

oh and here is a concept of the green wall on the south surrey library
http://www.surrey.ca/images/pageImages/SemiahmooGreenWall-resize.jpg
http://www.surrey.ca/city-government/7207.aspx

Frankly, after walking/cycling past that place so many times I had no idea what the hell they were doing and was taken aback when they ripped up the landscaping adjacent to the building inclusive of mature yucca plants.

Lo and behold, today it has officially been completed and it actually doesn't look that bad:

http://www.greenovergrey.com/photo-gallery/images/Project-Semiahmoo-Library-Largest-Outdoor-Green-Wall-in-North-America.jpg

Source: http://www.greenovergrey.com/photo-gallery/photo-gallery.php

North America's Largest Outdoor Green Wall Unveiled

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Oct. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Green over Grey Designers have completed planting the largest and most biologically diverse outdoor green wall in North America. It is located in Surrey, BC, Canada, covering the Semiahmoo Public Library and RCMP Facility.

The unique design is nearly 3,000 square feet and consists of over 10,000 individual plants representing more than 120 unique species. It includes ground covers, large perennials, shrubs and small trees.

"This will be our first large-scale green wall in Surrey," says Mayor Dianne Watts. 'It will be a beautiful living work of art that will cover the existing concrete wall and provide many environmental benefits, including saving energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating a new ecosystem in the heart of Semiahmoo."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/north-americas-largest-outdoor-green-wall-unveiled-105421538.html

[Whalleyboy]

wow thats actually quite impressive.

[xd_1771]

Not what I expected at all, seems impressive!

[Whalleyboy]

where you expecting just a plain green wall? you should know Surrey doesnt look for normal

[SpongeG]

lets hope they maintain it - the one at the wholefoods in vancouver looks kinda gross now dead plants in parts, dying plants, they have to keep up a lot of maintenance

odd choice for a publicly funded building - but it looks nice

[xd_1771]

where you expecting just a plain green wall? you should know Surrey doesnt look for normal

Wasn't actually expecting it to be covered with plants I mean :D

[Whalleyboy]

well civicsurrey has found stuff on the knight and day town area.
A new 18-storey, mixed use tower, proposed by Circadian Projects, appears ready to set a new standard for high density development in the City Centre. The development, at 9677 King George Boulevard, the current site of the Knight and Day restaurant, incorporates all the elements to be desired in new towers, such as interesting architecture, mixed-uses, street frontage, enhanced public green space, and LEED certification.

The design of the tower, led by Atelier Pacific, echoes the wide curves of the Central City tower, while adding a bold and modern podium and red vertical stripe. It is certainly far more interesting than the Infinity/Park Place towers, and definitely more unique than the D’Corize or CityPoint towers.

The podium, an essential component of the successful towers in Downtown Vancouver, incorporates a pharmacy, labs, and a coffee shop at the ground level, a restaurant and lounge on the second floor, and medical offices on the third floor. Even more importantly, these variety of uses will be accessible directly from the street, meaning a more engaging and exciting pedestrian experience.

The mixture of uses in this tower goes beyond the podium level however. Centred around a medical space theme that functions particularly well with the project’s proximity to Surrey Memorial, the tower is being designed to maximize leasing options. Plans include a possible care facility from the 4th to 10th floors, medical office space from the 11th to 16th floors, and a commons area and rooftop patio on the 17th floor. The floor plans can be changed to accommodate residential leases as well, if the market does not warrant a full medical tower.

The project will retain and enhance an existing creek on the west side of the property. A new public green space, with paths and a gazebo, will be constructed fronting onto this creek area. 84 new trees will be planted in the area, replacing the 1 mature tree that will be removed.

The development expects to meet LEED Silver certification. Green building features include tower orientation to ensure maximum daylight, on-site storm water management with bioswales, on-site renewable energy with a solar thermal water system, low e-glazing windows, low flow fixtures, LED lighting, energy efficient appliances, and recycled construction materials.

All in all, the project truly sets a new standard for developments in the City Centre. Most towers following Central City haven’t come close to that building’s success. This development however builds on Central City’s best elements, taking that standard to the next level with bolder architecture, even greater mixed uses, more active street frontage, and incorporating some of the most advanced green building technology available. There’s no doubt in my mind that if constructed, this will be the new bellwether for high density towers in the City.p
pictures all there
http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/10/27/proposed-tower-sets-new-standard-for-city-centre/

[officedweller]

Looks OK - not actually as nice as was described before as two ovals.

It's also being proposed as either all office, all residential or mixed office and residential.

I'll bet the renders, with large pane glass, shows the office version and a residential version will have operable windows and won;t look as sleek.

[mr.A]

my pic.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/5126585099_5a918b7761_z.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1310/5127185456_2cfa803cc4_z.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/5126577343_d8d8e40540_z.jpg

[officedweller]

Nice!
But is that green glass? Maybe the concrete won't be painted beige?

[xd_1771]

This is an on-going e-mail conversation between me and a Gateway Program representative concerning the 6-lane bottleneck/narrowing at the 104th/160th interchange as part of the new Highway 1 expansion plans, immediately adjacent to the Guildford area. This is a choice that concerns me largely about how it will affect the Guildford area.

Original message
Greetings from SkyscraperPage,
The forum members of Skyscraperpage's Vancouver subforums have noticed a possible mistake or flaw in the diagrams related to the 160th/104th interchange design (see: http://pmh1project.com/inforoom/documents/20091209FraserHeightsProjectUPdate-Final_000.pdf

page 3, http://www.pmh1project.com/inforoom/documents/20101021FHE-CombinedDisplayBoards-FINAL.pdf

). Does this 500m section which appears to have only 6 lanes in the diagrams (2 regular + 1 HOV) reflect on the actual design of the interchange or is this just a mistake in the drawings? We have been supposedly promised 4 lanes (3 regular + 1 HOV) throughout to the bridge from 200th Street and this would be a major disappointment on our part if this were to happen. We would like to point out this mistake because of fear that it could adversely affect traffic patterns approaching the new Port Mann Bridge, specifically and especially with the amount of trucks coming from Highway 15 and then being forced to merge yet another lane into the left to avoid exiting (i.e. a Grandview-Willingdon situation with bigger distancing). We would appreciate an honest and punctual answer on this matter.

Best wishes from SkyscraperPage Vancouver,
Daryl Dela Cruz (member: xd_1771)
Dear Daryl,
Thank you for your email regarding the future lane configuration at the 160 Street interchange.

There will be three general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction between the 152 Street interchange and the 200 Street interchange. Near the 160 Street interchange, the outside westbound lane will be an exit-only lane and will drop off at the 104 Avenue/160 Street exit. It will be picked up again on the other side of the interchange where there is a two lane 104 Avenue/160 Street on-ramp to Highway 1 westbound with one of those lanes becoming a highway through-lane. A similar situation will exist in the eastbound direction.

I appreciate that you have concerns about traffic flow in this area. This configuration was designed in recognition of the high volume of traffic exiting and entering Highway 1 at 160 Street, which is the last westbound exit before the Port Mann Bridge. If four lanes in each direction along Highway 1 were to be maintained through this area, it would mean that a ten lane section of highway would be required both immediately west and east of the 160 Street interchange, which is not warranted based on the future design traffic volumes. Extensive traffic modelling was conducted to simulate this laning configuration, and the results have shown that it will operate very well.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Regards,
Alicia

Alicia Richards
Community Relations Coordinator
Transportation Investment Corporation
Suite 1420 - 1111 West Georgia Street Vancouver BC
Office: 778-783-1220| Mobile: 604-828-7900| Email: arichards@ticorp.caI have studied the various diagrams concerning this area and I am very concerned about how traffic will actually negotiate this pattern. There are a few more questions I would like to ask and concerns I would like to point out as noticed by me and other members on SkyscraperPage.

It seems that this plan creates a lot of weaving. What worries me the most is in the eastbound direction just before the interchange; I am afraid that taking the two lanes of traffic from Highway 7, merging into one before adding on to the highway, and then forcing those travelers to merge onto the highway in no more than ~1200m concerns me largely, and I fear that traffic will suffer the most in this section. The westbound traffic pattern faces a similar effect; though it may seem more acceptable at first, when the amount of trucks coming from Highway 15 is considered it becomes known that trucks will have to change lanes twice, creating a Grandview-Willingdon effect though it is spread over 1800m.

I am a resident of the Guildford area and I actually do appreciate how the extra lanes for the ramps can actually benefit my own travel in and out of the Guildford area on Highway 1 as my residence is closest to this exit, but I am extremely worried about the consequences this could face on Guildford. There are already major traffic issues on 104th; the only acceptable route into Fraser Heights at 156th often results in the eastbound left turn lane backing up long past its' boundaries despite a long advanced signal. Combined with the often terrible lane layout light timings and at 154th as well as the lack of proper right turn lanes at intersections, this section of 104th for most of the day is a major traffic problem. I am extremely worried that if traffic patterns increase rapidly to the point where this bottleneck becomes severely congested, traffic will look to using 152nd and 104th as a part of the highway which will severely detriment the development of Guildford and the main routes in and out. These sections of road are crucial as connection roads to Highway 1 from Guildford, but to actually use these sections of road as a part of Highway 1 will block any suitable access into Guildford and deter business and residential development, and clog up local streets (possibly including my own) even more.

I have looked thoroughly at the construction of the new overpass and there doesn't appear to be any expansion room to add that fourth lane when necessary if traffic volumes do indeed suffer from this bottleneck. The last thing I would like to ask is why have no future expansion predicaments been made at this location? I wouldn't mind a temporary reduction to 6 lanes at 104th, but the lack of expansion options is what bothers me about this area the most. If any problems arise from the choice to bottleneck this section of highway to 6 lanes, I fear these problems will become permanent and persistent and largely affect my own way of life.

Many thanks for your reply,

Daryl Dela Cruz (member xd_1771)
SkyscraperPage Vancouver

[go_leafs_go02]

As I've said before, I can understand their situation in certain regards with merging in to the highway, but I am a strong proponent to having through lanes not come and go due to weaving problems. 1/4 cars do not exit at 160 Street heading westbound at this time, nor do I expect that to be.

Sounds like they don't want to do 10 lanes around there because it isn't warranted - even though in that email they mentioned that's what would make sense to do to ensure the thru lanes under the 160 Street overpass be retained as 3+1HOV.

Either way, I guess we'll see how this works when it's complete. I think it'll fail miserably to be honest. Remember, the Alex Fraser Bridge only warranted intersections at first - looks like those all lasted less than a year minus 72 Avenue (which besides is simply caused by political reasons - Hello Delta) gongshow.

If they only had provisions to ensure that the 160 Street overpass has room for widening in case they are mistaken - because traffic modelling doesn't prove accurate 100% of the time. Then I'd be OK. However, once built, we're screwed since you can't widen anymore. They designed the bridge with room for 8 lanes, which include the 2 offramp/onramp lanes to 104 Avenue that go under 160 Street.

Asinine to say the last. This bugs me like crazy. I don't even drive through there, I can just see what it's going to be.

[xd_1771]

As I've said before, I can understand their situation in certain regards with merging in to the highway, but I am a strong proponent to having through lanes not come and go due to weaving problems. 1/4 cars do not exit at 160 Street heading westbound at this time, nor do I expect that to be.

Sounds like they don't want to do 10 lanes around there because it isn't warranted - even though in that email they mentioned that's what would make sense to do to ensure the thru lanes under the 160 Street overpass be retained as 3+1HOV.

Either way, I guess we'll see how this works when it's complete. I think it'll fail miserably to be honest. Remember, the Alex Fraser Bridge only warranted intersections at first - looks like those all lasted less than a year minus 72 Avenue (which besides is simply caused by political reasons - Hello Delta) gongshow.

If they only had provisions to ensure that the 160 Street overpass has room for widening in case they are mistaken - because traffic modelling doesn't prove accurate 100% of the time. Then I'd be OK. However, once built, we're screwed since you can't widen anymore. They designed the bridge with room for 8 lanes, which include the 2 offramp/onramp lanes to 104 Avenue that go under 160 Street.

Asinine to say the last. This bugs me like crazy. I don't even drive through there, I can just see what it's going to be.

This is one of the two things that I'm worried about the most. I pointed this out in the reply e-mail. The other thing that worries me is how this could indirectly - and may I remind you, permanently - affect Guildford Town Centre; it's businesses, transportation, and the all-important 152 St - 104th corridor that is for most of the day ALREADY a bottleneck and could just get worse.

[jhausner]

When you look at the new overpass designs, they are being built to accomodate 1 additional lane each direction including the one at 160th. That would allow them to push another lane through there if not 2 more since they are only extending it by 1 lane conceivably.

I don't know if I agree though that 1/4 of the cars don't exit at 160th from Highway 1 heading Westbound. I believe it is that amount if not more. Also keep in mind they are modeling not just rush hour but they model 24/7 and traffic models adjust consistently throughout the day and what day of the week you're in.

The major bottle neck anyway isn't 160th it's always been 152nd and with the collector lanes and doubling of the on-ramp capacity at 152nd alone you're going to probably reduce congestion by 50% alone right there. Even today when you get on at 160th you typically (not always but typically) will bottle up nearer to 152nd so 2 additional lanes I don't think is warrented yet for 160th.

I think it will be fine and to me it looks like they are building the overpasses to accomodate additional lanes so we're good. They wouldn't build a bridge that can expand lane wise if they weren't going to build the overpasses to also.

[golog]

City Center Library is looking good.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it in a few movies, especially those in the sci-fi/futuristic genre

[Whalleyboy]

City Center Library is looking good.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it in a few movies, especially those in the sci-fi/futuristic genre

Gotta love Surrey for that its has the really future like building in central but then if you head over to cloverdale we got the old school like main street.

[SpongeG]

Concord Pacific moves its reclamation mastery from Vancouver to Surrey

By Barbara Gunn, The vancouver Sun November 8, 2010 1:27 PM Comments (1)

In the coming years, the Surrey City Centre neighbourhood will bear no resemblance to the neighbourhood that long preceded it. And heavyweight developer Concord Pacific is front and centre in that transformation, by going up — quite literally.

...

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Concord+Pacific+moves+reclamation+mastery+from+Vancouver+Surrey/3785991/story.html#ixzz14jXTr1U9

[red-paladin]

Concord Pacific moves its reclamation mastery from Vancouver to Surrey

By Barbara Gunn, The vancouver Sun November 8, 2010 1:27 PM Comments (1)

In the coming years, the Surrey City Centre neighbourhood will bear no resemblance to the neighbourhood that long preceded it. And heavyweight developer Concord Pacific is front and centre in that transformation, by going up — quite literally.

...

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Concord+Pacific+moves+reclamation+mastery+from+Vancouver+Surrey/3785991/story.html#ixzz14jXTr1U9

"Park Place – so named for the nearby Holland Park – will incorporate some 12,000 square feet of commercial space, and eventually be adjacent to additional Concord Pacific offerings.

Longer-term plans, Murray notes, will see the developer inserting an additional four towers into the Surrey City Centre area, bringing to about 2,300 its residential contribution."


Sweet.

[invisibleairwaves]

Woah...

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/11/08/46-storey-tower-envisioned-for-100-ave/

Nice tower, but pretty meh at street level. Odds of this one actually being built?

[Whalleyboy]

i'm keeping high hopes for this tower cause if it doesnt get done next building to go there will not be aloud to be so big

[red-paladin]

Woah...

Nice tower, but pretty meh at street level. Odds of this one actually being built?

Here's the photo from that link:
http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/KGD-100-ave-view-2-323x500.jpg
http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/11/08/46-storey-tower-envisioned-for-100-ave/


This one, 9677 King George Boulevard, from an article on the same site, is even better!

http://www.civicsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/medtower20-500x375.png
http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/10/27/proposed-tower-sets-new-standard-for-city-centre/

[Whalleyboy]

is it just me or does Surrey really likes its nonsquare buildings