104 Ave Corridor Planning [Surrey]

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Surrey wants FAR 4.5 on Guildford. Not sure how realistic 8-10 story buildings are with only BRT.

Broadway/10th? East Hastings? Five-minute buses will be fine in the interim.

[goldenboi]

Like I said in my above post, I don't see why 4.5 FSR should be acceptable with LRT, but unacceptable with BRT.

That being said, I think 4.5 FSR should be acceptable anywhere, and I think it should actually be encouraged. Density makes everything closer together, lessening the need for transportation of any kind.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Broadway/10th? East Hastings? Five-minute buses will be fine in the interim.

Note that Surrey Central has plenty of room to grow as is, unlike downtown, so it's going to suck most of the air in the room for a while. Even with the Mall, I would be skeptical about the current zoning being really that realistic, aside from some minor spots of high-density.

Probably also a good thing to reserve the valuable real estate near the Mall for a town centre more worthy of Guildford Mall.

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Like I said in my above post, I don't see why 4.5 FSR should be acceptable with LRT, but unacceptable with BRT.

That being said, I think 4.5 FSR should be acceptable anywhere, and I think it should actually be encouraged. Density makes everything closer together, lessening the need for transportation of any kind.

8-10 story buildings where cars are the primary form of transportation is going to turn the already fairly congested 104th much worse.

There is a limit to how high you can zone realistically without transit, and it largely has to do with the road capacity.


Willoughby at its densest, tends to max out at 6 stories. It's mostly closer to 3-4 story townhouses.

[Envder]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Like I said in my above post, I don't see why 4.5 FSR should be acceptable with LRT, but unacceptable with BRT.

That being said, I think 4.5 FSR should be acceptable anywhere, and I think it should actually be encouraged. Density makes everything closer together, lessening the need for transportation of any kind.

Rails add a feel of permanents they will be there for a long time were a bus does not have this same effect. Bus routes can be changed. Stops can even be moved around easier. For developers this can make then nervous of wanting to build in certain areas as they hear there is a stop there but its possible it could change since another developer built something one road over or so on.

Personally I see the loss of LRT along 104 ave and king george a huge loss for quicker growth in the areas. Sure they will still grow but it will now slow down.
Business people want some sort of solidness to and area they are putting their money in bus be it even BRT do not give that feeling.
Just look the moment LRT was canceled the guy holding on to the building on 104ave put it up for sale as it lost is business case of holding on. Yes sure it nices hes put it up for sale but don't think its going to be an easy sale.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Envder

Rails add a feel of permanents they will be there for a long time were a bus does not have this same effect. Bus routes can be changed. Stops can even be moved around easier. For developers this can make then nervous of wanting to build in certain areas as they hear there is a stop there but its possible it could change since another developer built something one road over or so on.

Personally I see the loss of LRT along 104 ave and king george a huge loss for quicker growth in the areas. Sure they will still grow but it will now slow down.
Business people want some sort of solidness to and area they are putting their money in bus be it even BRT do not give that feeling.
Just look the moment LRT was canceled the guy holding on to the building on 104ave put it up for sale as it lost is business case of holding on. Yes sure it nices hes put it up for sale but don't think its going to be an easy sale.

Looks pretty permanents to me. It'll get torn up for a SkyTrain anywhere between 5 and 15 years later, but BRTs don't move. Heck, TransLink doesn't even change the B-Lines.

If the developer's chickened out, somebody else'll buy it as soon as the BRT is announced. The market's fickle like that.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Looks pretty permanents to me. BRTs don't move - TransLink doesn't even change the B-Lines.

96 B is almost certainly never going to look like that. Again, there's so many other prime spots to develop, it might be a good idea to just wait on Guildford.

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by Envder

Rails add a feel of permanents they will be there for a long time were a bus does not have this same effect. Bus routes can be changed. Stops can even be moved around easier. For developers this can make then nervous of wanting to build in certain areas as they hear there is a stop there but its possible it could change since another developer built something one road over or so on.

I know, I know, everyone keeps saying this, but no one ever has any studies to back it up. Also, I don't buy that we can't have a BRT system with a sense of permanence. There are too many real examples all around the world.

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by fredinno

8-10 story buildings where cars are the primary form of transportation is going to turn the already fairly congested 104th much worse.

There is a limit to how high you can zone realistically without transit, and it largely has to do with the road capacity.

Again, my point is that BRT IS TRANSIT, and it should be enough to justify more density. If 104th gets more congested, that will encourage more people to take the BRT. As long as it has its own lane, it should be able to provide more than enough speed, frequency, and capacity.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Again, my point is that BRT IS TRANSIT, and it should be enough to justify more density. If 104th gets more congested, that will encourage more people to take the BRT. As long as it has its own lane, it should be able to provide more than enough speed, frequency, and capacity.

Yeah, we can only agree to disagree.

TBH, Guildford is in no rush to redevelop its lands. Just because transit is there, doesn't mean there's going to be massive redevelopments. Just ask Surrey Central.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Envder

Rails add a feel of permanents they will be there for a long time were a bus does not have this same effect. Bus routes can be changed. Stops can even be moved around easier. For developers this can make then nervous of wanting to build in certain areas as they hear there is a stop there but its possible it could change since another developer built something one road over or so on.

Can you tell me where in our region a B-Line bus route has "changed" to the extent that it proves this effect that buses cannot exhibit permanence?

You see where I'm going here, right? Because the answer is never. I cannot think of one time this ever happened. And there's a huge irony I find in this claim, given that the SNG LRT scheme would have actually removed one of the current 96 B-Line stops (104 at Whalley Blvd).

"Rails are more permanent" is a MYTH perpetuated by the numerous light rail/streetcar enthusiasts to get developers on their side. The real-estate crowd is happy to play along because rail means more government money and media attention going into the area and lots of free publicity for their projects. The LRT lobbyists are happy because it helps them perpetuate buses as an inferior transit mode, even though bus rapid transit systems in the real world have not only proven to be cost effective and often more practical--but can and do offer plenty of "permanence".

In most cases our B-Line routes did spur some permanent infrastructure that would be cumbersome and expensive to "move" around. The original 98 B-Line had the large, permanent bus shelters and dedicated bus lanes, which remained largely in place until Canada Line construction began. Our future B-Lines will also get significant permanent infrastructure thanks to TransLink's rework of the B-Line program. You wouldn't just move a large million dollar bus shelter.

I would even argue that the "permanence" of rail is a myth in practice, because sooner or later there is going to be something that knocks that "permanence" right out the window and the lack of flexibility presented by fixed infrastructure shows. Los Angeles's Metro Blue Line LRT is closing in huge chunks for much of the next year, as the line is not in a state of good repair and there are reliability and capacity issues that need to be addressed. I'd also point to the recent extensive repair/reconstruction of many of Toronto's streetcar tracks, which often decommissioned entire transit corridors.

[goldenboi]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Can you tell me where in our region a B-Line bus route has "changed" to the extent that it proves this effect that buses cannot exhibit permanence?

You see where I'm going here, right? Because the answer is never. I cannot think of one time this ever happened. And there's a huge irony I find in this claim, given that the SNG LRT scheme would have actually removed one of the current 96 B-Line stops (104 at Whalley Blvd).

"Rails are more permanent" is a MYTH perpetuated by the numerous light rail/streetcar enthusiasts to get developers on their side. The real-estate crowd is happy to play along because rail means more government money and media attention going into the area and lots of free publicity for their projects. The LRT lobbyists are happy because it helps them perpetuate buses as an inferior transit mode, even though bus rapid transit systems in the real world have not only proven to be cost effective and often more practical--but can and do offer plenty of "permanence".

In most cases our B-Line routes did spur some permanent infrastructure that would be cumbersome and expensive to "move" around. The original 98 B-Line had the large, permanent bus shelters and dedicated bus lanes, which remained largely in place until Canada Line construction began. Our future B-Lines will also get significant permanent infrastructure thanks to TransLink's rework of the B-Line program. You wouldn't just move a large million dollar bus shelter.

I would even argue that the "permanence" of rail is a myth in practice, because sooner or later there is going to be something that knocks that "permanence" right out the window and the lack of flexibility presented by fixed infrastructure shows. Los Angeles's Metro Blue Line LRT is closing in huge chunks for much of the next year, as the line is not in a state of good repair and there are reliability and capacity issues that need to be addressed. I'd also point to the recent extensive repair/reconstruction of many of Toronto's streetcar tracks, which often decommissioned entire transit corridors.

Thanks for saying what has been on my mind!

[rpvan]

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Again, my point is that BRT IS TRANSIT, and it should be enough to justify more density. If 104th gets more congested, that will encourage more people to take the BRT. As long as it has its own lane, it should be able to provide more than enough speed, frequency, and capacity.

That's definitely what we've seen with Broadway and the 99.

I can see the 104 Ave corridor transforming into something like the Broadway or Cambie corridors. With the implementation of BRT soon with the 96...traffic will not become so much of an issue IMO.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by rpvan

That's definitely what we've seen with Broadway and the 99.

I can see the 104 Ave corridor transforming into something like the Broadway or Cambie corridors. With the implementation of BRT soon with the 96...traffic will not become so much of an issue IMO.

I only hope they don't try to narrow 104th with bus lanes. Transit or not, that's part of the reason LRT was shut down, and 104th is the primary road into Whalley. We saw what happened when TransLink proposed narrowing Marine Drive for bus lanes.

[rpvan]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I only hope they don't try to narrow 104th with bus lanes. Transit or not, that's part of the reason LRT was shut down, and 104th is the primary road into Whalley. We saw what happened when TransLink proposed narrowing Marine Drive for bus lanes.

Agreed. 4 lanes for traffic should be kept.

There's more than enough room to add an additional lane on each side for BRT though. 104 Ave currently doesn't feature many businesses facing the sidewalk. Mostly empty lots or parking lots on each side east until you hit Guildford.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by rpvan

Agreed. 4 lanes for traffic should be kept.

There's more than enough room to add an additional lane on each side for BRT though. 104 Ave currently doesn't feature many businesses facing the sidewalk. Mostly empty lots or parking lots on each side east until you hit Guildford.

The western part of 104th doesn't really have space for more lanes due to various sections of buildings being built against the road, despite the parking spaces. Even areas on central 104th, like at 144th st, also have no room for extra lanes, so I'm not sure if bus lanes are even that viable without removing car lanes.

It's like the situation on Marine Dr.

[Cypherus]

I'll be the outlier here and promote LRT along this corridor. I also agree with McCallum about Surrey to Langley link via skytrain, as cities need to be connected to the region, but really think LRT was acceptable to interconnect Guildford and Newton to Central City. Most major cities have multiple layers of transit, because it serves different purposes. BRT does not galvanize development along corridors - never did. This is because BRT uses a system of roads that are subject to red lights, stop signs, and other traffic impediments.

A grade separated LRT system that does not bisect an arterial road would have been perfect for serving Guildford, but the City of Surrey wanted to rush LRT in its implementation and design it in a manner that excluded a proper risk assessment (i.e. cars crashing into trains).

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

I'll be the outlier here and promote LRT along this corridor. I also agree with McCallum about Surrey to Langley link via skytrain, as cities need to be connected to the region, but really think LRT was acceptable to interconnect Guildford and Newton to Central City. Most major cities have multiple layers of transit, because it serves different purposes. BRT does not galvanize development along corridors - never did. This is because BRT uses a system of roads that are subject to red lights, stop signs, and other traffic impediments.

A grade separated LRT system that does not bisect an arterial road would have been perfect for serving Guildford, but the City of Surrey wanted to rush LRT in its implementation and design it in a manner that excluded a proper risk assessment (i.e. cars crashing into trains).

Compared to the L Line as it was planned, what would you propose? What route would you use, how would you separate it from other traffic, etc?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

I'll be the outlier here and promote LRT along this corridor. I also agree with McCallum about Surrey to Langley link via skytrain, as cities need to be connected to the region, but really think LRT was acceptable to interconnect Guildford and Newton to Central City. Most major cities have multiple layers of transit, because it serves different purposes. BRT does not galvanize development along corridors - never did. This is because BRT uses a system of roads that are subject to red lights, stop signs, and other traffic impediments.

A grade separated LRT system that does not bisect an arterial road would have been perfect for serving Guildford, but the City of Surrey wanted to rush LRT in its implementation and design it in a manner that excluded a proper risk assessment (i.e. cars crashing into trains).

You're basically asking for Skytrain lite, like the Confederation Line?

As Skytrain is already a light Metro system, one would wonder why you'd not just spend an extra couple million and build Skytrain.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

A grade separated LRT system that does not bisect an arterial road would have been perfect for serving Guildford, but the City of Surrey wanted to rush LRT in its implementation and design it in a manner that excluded a proper risk assessment (i.e. cars crashing into trains).

Do you mean side of road alignment?

Anyways, I think it would have been okay if it were either middle of road in 104 and KGB, without diverting to Surrey Central Station, and putting the 90 degree turn underground in an underpass. King George Station could be the main transfer point to/from SkyTrain.

[rpvan]

Draft summary for the 104th corridor has been posted by the city: https://www.surrey.ca/files/Guildfor...lanSummary.pdf

Still obviously a long ways away from being the next Broadway, but nice to see the city getting started on this. Hopefully this means we begin to see a decent frontage developing on 104th in the coming years. Now that LRT has been canceled, an upgrade of the B-Line to a BRT system along the corridor would be a nice addition as well.