[Surrey] Things you'd like to see improved

[Metro-One]

Yep, which includes improving street furniture, sidewalks, median displays, road markings, and the general road quality and garden quality in the area.

right now the roads in Surrey Central have a very industrial feel to them, due to there incredibly poor shape. All the brown fields with old dying or uncared for trees and garbage don't help either...

Sometimes i fee like Central Surrey is from the movie "Land of the Dead." There is the one golden tower (SFU) that stands out and everything else around it is dirty and decaying in feel.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Disagree. Overpasses are costly, ugly, and create major CPTED issues. They should not exist in a downtown area. Traffic should be accustomed to slowing down and handing over priority to pedestrians in a City Centre.

I wouldn't call them major if done correctly. I'm also not refering to 2 person wide designed overpasses. If you haven't, I'd strongly suggest traveling to Las Vegas and taking a look at how they have designed such overpasses.

I do agree though that costs would most likely be prohibitted. It's not just a matter of traffic being accustomed to slowing down though. 90-95% of traffic congestion in Downtown Vancouver is actually a result of pedestrians and bycicles. If you removed both, the streets would flow extremely well actually. So I am simply looking towards ideas that can benefit both. Let's face it you won't get rid of cars, no major city on the planet has and will be able to do this within the next 25 years and industry is already quite sure that in 10-15 years, cars will be near if not 0 pollution so it suddenly becomes a fairly non-factor. I think both need to co-exist.

And for reference, downtown Vancouver itself actually utilizes overpasses and underpasses quite a bit through the heart of Vancouver. Bental center with underground under major roads through the complex. Pacific Center through overpass. It doesn't simply need to be intersections, but a method of creating major pedestrian (and note I said major) cooridors at different grade crossing major roads is pretty much a requirement at some stage.

Easier to plan for it now rather than having to retrofit in the future.

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Vancouver's poor signal timing will not be an issue in Surrey. No. 1, we don't have a bunch of flashing pedestrian crossings yet, and though some may be built, there will never be as many as there are in Vancouver. No. 2, we have boulevards, and though it's not the best solution, pedestrians can at least jaywalk and wait in the middle safely till they can cross the whole road. It's not perfect but at least its an option right now.

Yet is the key word. You're right though I doubt it would become an issue simply due to how Surrey does design its newer infrastructure. My caution though comes from cities like Langley and Coquitlam. Very wide roads with left lanes and everything much like Surrey but due to messed up light timing it is a nightmare to drive (or even as a pedestrian travel) through those cities at busy times.

I tried walking from Coquitlam Center abour 5 blocks and it took me 15+ minutes because I had to sit there at 2 major intersections waiting for the 25 different combinations of cars crossing to have their turn. Then when we could cross we had barely enough time to cross Lougheed before the light turned red. Had I been an elderly person I'd have maybe made it half-way before the light turned red.

I just don't want to see that or 200th street Langley happening to KGB in Surrey.

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Everyone can be accommodated, cars, bikes, and pedestrians. It just takes a little patience on all users fronts, and some creative traffic management by engineers.

Absolutely. I also think creative traffic management means not mixing all 3 at the same time. Vancouver in many ways is doing things so wrong lately. Mixing cars with bikes with pedestrians. We have a lot of space right now in Surrey even in downtown Surrey for things to be done right. I couldn't imagine how bad things would be if KGB was expanded to say 3 lanes either direction + 2 rapid bus/transit lanes + 1 bike lane either direction + expecting major pedestrian traffic to travel through intersections to get to the rapid bus/transit.

Try driving down No 3 road Richmond and you'll be frustrated the first time you realize Richmond decided not to make bus lanes wide enough for a bus so that every time one stops it blocks 50% of the through traffic lanes. It's horrible.

[GMasterAres]

Also of note to Paradigm, take a look at the Highline in NYC.

http://www.thehighline.org/

Now admittedly we don't have an old elevated rail line we can turn into a pedestrian cooridor but we could.

Imagine the possibility of something of this nature being built then new construction in the area being designed to "connect" to such an elevated walk way.

It can be done through creative architecture. Example being the commercial Concord building being built so 1 side meets the Infinity/Concord development to the North and the 2nd side meets KG Skytrain Station 1 full storey higher.

Now you make that 2 storeys higher and you can suddenly extend it over KGB and on towards Surrey Central mall. Just trying to think a bit outside the box. You'll also note that the Highline does actually have a closing time. Same can be in effect to help reduce the crime risks associated with a funnelled pedestrian overpass. So basically during peak periods you're getting a large pedestrian group off the main roads and in the mix with car traffic. As the night gets later, car traffic and pedestrian traffic reduces, you close down the elevated walkways, and people move to the streets.


Many ways you can do it.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by metroXpress

Definitely more pedestrian-friendly streets around the city core. Shops, businesses, and even housing should be more transit-oriented. (...if we can more mass transit stations) Focus less on widening all roads because we don't want another automobile city.

Yes. We still need to widen a lot of roads in Surrey just to bring them up to acceptable capacities but I agree city wide that just running around widening things doesn't solve anything if you don't look at all the traffic impacts. The problem in Surrey is that right now there is still a lot of bad infrastructure that was neglected for decades and they're just trying to play catch up.

Because budget wise you can't do _everything_ at once, it can take years just to even catch up.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yep, which includes improving street furniture, sidewalks, median displays, road markings, and the general road quality and garden quality in the area.

right now the roads in Surrey Central have a very industrial feel to them, due to there incredibly poor shape. All the brown fields with old dying or uncared for trees and garbage don't help either...

Sometimes i fee like Central Surrey is from the movie "Land of the Dead." There is the one golden tower (SFU) that stands out and everything else around it is dirty and decaying in feel.

Especially if you go 1 block off KGB to the ring roads or in between. 1 block away and for sure it feels like I'm in South-East Burnaby.

[rbostyle]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Yes. We still need to widen a lot of roads in Surrey just to bring them up to acceptable capacities but I agree city wide that just running around widening things doesn't solve anything if you don't look at all the traffic impacts.

The roads are already far too wide. What needs to be done, is to paint narrower lanes. I'll use Scott Road as an example because I drive parts of it every day. It's likely wider than Granville or Oak, but the structure on those routes permits for way higher capacity due to narrow lanes. For Scott's 2 lane + left turn alignments, you could easily have 3 full lanes in both directions. No left turn lanes required, just regulate which cross-streets drivers may make left turns onto.

That said, there are exceptions, and most high-traffic routes should have at least 2 lanes (where many still do not.)

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by rbostyle

The roads are already far too wide. What needs to be done, is to paint narrower lanes. I'll use Scott Road as an example because I drive parts of it every day. It's likely wider than Granville or Oak, but the structure on those routes permits for way higher capacity due to narrow lanes. For Scott's 2 lane + left turn alignments, you could easily have 3 full lanes in both directions. No left turn lanes required, just regulate which cross-streets drivers may make left turns onto.

That said, there are exceptions, and most high-traffic routes should have at least 2 lanes (where many still do not.)

Surrey already goes with 3.0m wide lanes in the right lane, in order to accommodate a 1.3m bike lane in spots. That's far too narrow in both cases. 3.3m should be the minimum lane width for all arterial roads. Also, how the heck are you going to fit any left turn lanes if you turn Scott Road into a 6 lane road with no room for anything else. The medians are there for a reason, to provide pockets for left turns. Getting rid of this instantly throws us on Knight Street or something in Vancouver.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Especially if you go 1 block off KGB to the ring roads or in between. 1 block away and for sure it feels like I'm in South-East Burnaby.

the ring roads dont lead any where really right now and there still not completely
there alot better for locals to drive on to avoid KGB and will be more use when finished. Living in central i would always use whalley blvd to 108 then get on if i was heading out towards new west.
Persoonally once compelete and shops and more housing moves along those it would be nice to see them use a communtiy shuttle along them to get people around the city centre easy with out walking all the way across or having to go to skytrain to get from gateway to king george.

Oh on that note i was looking at some stuff showing that surrey wants to create to majors nodes around gateway and king george and grow between those two

[crazyjoeda]

Surrey can't give pedestrians the same priority as cars through out the whole city. Remember Surrey is nearly three times the size, so improvements giving pedestrians improved priority should be focused in the cities town centres. But all major streets need to have sidewalks through the whole city, far to often I see people walking on the shoulder as cars speed past. Speeding is another Surrey problem especially in semi-rural streets.

[metroXpress]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Sometimes i fee like Central Surrey is from the movie "Land of the Dead." There is the one golden tower (SFU) that stands out and everything else around it is dirty and decaying in feel.

Totally. Eventually, that huge parking lot outside of Central City has to go and make way for green space or even street vendors/markets!!



It would never be a pedestrian-friendly King George Boulevard if people are sandwiched by cars from the parking lot and the road.

[metroXpress]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Yes. We still need to widen a lot of roads in Surrey just to bring them up to acceptable capacities but I agree city wide that just running around widening things doesn't solve anything if you don't look at all the traffic impacts. The problem in Surrey is that right now there is still a lot of bad infrastructure that was neglected for decades and they're just trying to play catch up.

Because budget wise you can't do _everything_ at once, it can take years just to even catch up.

Yes, you are right that certain sections do need to have an increase in capacity. And for short-term plans, widening roads is a cheaper option than increasing public transit.

[xd_1771]

I really think that 2 lanes + left turn lanes (even without right turn lanes) is much more efficient than 3 lanes without any turn lanes.

To leave out right turn lanes in the city centre (where 1. there would be more than one lane anyway, and 2. the "parking" lane/side of the street could be turned into a right turn lane easily just the same as an urban environment anyway) wouldn't be so bad, but there are definitely those chronic situations especially in Fraser Heights (where no traffic moves at all due to the pedestrian-blocking-right turner scenario) that absolutely have to be solved; aside from the traffic benefits there would also be some obvious environment benefits with keeping traffic moving. Pedestrians would still get the same priority and cars would have to yield also with right turn lanes, but cars can be at least kept moving where they need to go without anybody blocking anybody. That I think needs to be a main focus for Surrey.

I also really like the idea of using pedestrian overpasses, but perhaps on a limited basis only (they could be especially useful in the city centre [a-la-Calgary or Winnipeg] or crossing very, very major corridors, but I agree that to overuse them would look absolutely horrid).

We have to face it, all cities will have their major throughfares that are so busy that one modification may ruin it for everyone. This I think is a major problem with Knight Street with its lack of left turn lanes and heavy truck use. There's no point denying it, all cities will have these kind of major throughfares, and in Surrey, King George Highway is exactly one of those. In fact, I think that KGB is one of the best designed among such roads in the greater Vancouver area - specifically, how turn lanes are complete and traffic is always moving on KGB efficiently; it's a very busy throughfare and while we do want to put pedestrians first I fear that actually working to actually stop (or significantly slow down) the traffic would have some severe consequences on the entire City of Surrey. What I think we should do with King George is keep it this way, but give more priority to mass travel (i.e. in the 3-lane-per-direction sections, convert it for 2+1 HOV instead), and explore ways to make the city pedestrian friendly without ruining it for everyone else.

There's one more idea I have, and that's the use of underground underpasses for roads. This could be a seriously useful way to keep traffic separated on routes that require such traffic to be moving, but saving space above to use as pedestrian space. I see this a lot in the Philippines (though it happens overhead as well as underground) and I think it's a very effective, space-saving solution for keeping traffic moving while leaving space for everything else such as development. The intersection I had in mind is King George/Fraser Highway, creating one of these underground ramps as a 1 or 2 lane ramp from SB KGB to EB Fraser Highway. I know this is more of a traffic-oriented improvement, but think of the other side: the King George roadway overhead could then be narrowed, which would allow for increased pedestrian space and development space, shorter crosswalks, and a more friendly urban lifestyle. It could also help out traffic on Fraser Highway, which I think right now is so much worse than a major problem; Fraser Highway is most likely one of the worst (in design, traffic, and choice of route) in the entire lower mainland. Not that I want to get rid of it, but I do want to get rid of the problems (though a much better upgrade for Fraser Highway would be some sort of rapid mass transit separate from the road rather than road improvements).

[go_leafs_go02]

I do know that Surrey is thinking of putting in additional bus queue jumpers at KGB/88 Avenue to replicate much like what went in at KGB/96 Avenue this past summer.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I really think that 2 lanes + left turn lanes (even without right turn lanes) is much more efficient than 3 lanes without any turn lanes.

Haha lots to tackle here, but I definitely agree with you here. I don't know if it is actually more efficient, but it sure as hell seems like it.

Also, to pick up on rbostyle's point of narrowing lanes, I actually like them at their current width. Generally, urban planners believe that narrower lanes cause drivers to be more cautious and thus slow down, but from my experience in Vancouver, drivers just keep on acting like they own the road, resulting in a far more dangerous experience for all. Their lanes are horrendously tiny; drive past a bus and you feel like one miscalculation could ram you into full speed oncoming traffic. Richmond No. 3 Road is just as bad.

Our arterial roads are one of the features I appreciate of Surrey. They are green and pleasant to drive along, traffic doesn't slow down much thanks to dedicated right and left turn bays, the boulevards help reduce anxiety of driving into oncoming traffic thanks to the separation, and the lane widths allow enough space for all the get through safely.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

We have to face it, all cities will have their major throughfares that are so busy that one modification may ruin it for everyone. In fact, I think that KGB is one of the best designed among such roads in the greater Vancouver area - specifically, how turn lanes are complete and traffic is always moving on KGB efficiently; it's a very busy throughfare and while we do want to put pedestrians first I fear that actually working to actually stop (or significantly slow down) the traffic would have some severe consequences on the entire City of Surrey.

This really depends on your definition of "ruining it for everyone". Is a delay of 15 seconds "ruining"? I know when you are in a car, trying to get somewhere quickly, any red light can feel like an eternity, but that's exactly it - it feels long. It might not actually be that much of a delay.

I don't think we should be deliberately slowing down cars per say. The first, and number one priority needs to be the safety of all road users - bar none. From there, the street hierarchy, unique to each area, and in fact every block, should come into play. 102 Ave is a pedestrian first area. Cars stop for people and sometimes have to wait a good 20 to 30 seconds at peak times to cross. However, it is expected.

With time, cars will come to expect a bit of a slow down once they hit 100 Ave because they are now moving through a City Centre. That's just the reality of the situation. King George cannot remain a "highway" through this section. It must be pedestrianized and far more urban.

What we should remember though are the alternate routes that will be available in the near future. The Ring Roads will be complete, as will through connections for 132 and 140, which should give drivers an alternate (though perhaps not necessarily faster). For trucks, well they'll have the SFPR, which should reduce truck traffic on King George and 108/104 headed to Hwy 1.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

There's one more idea I have, and that's the use of underground underpasses for roads.

The costs outweigh the benefits. It's way too expensive. An overpass/underpass was examined for KG and 88th, but it is simply cost-prohibitive, especially once the land acquisition is factored in (these things take up way more space than a regular intersection.

We must remember the ultimate goal here. We're trying to build a city that people want to be in, not just drive through as fast as possible.

[invisibleairwaves]

On the subject of widening roads, there is one major project that does need to be done regardless of the pedestrian focus, and that's Fraser Highway from 148th St. to Whalley Boulevard.

Another street with some issues for both pedestrians and drivers is City Parkway. In parts, it looks like it's meant to be a pedestrian-friendly, low-traffic street, but in others it looks more like a road in Port Kells. The intersection at 104th Ave. doesn't even line up. And it would be nice to see the parking lot access road next to the mall get connected to City Parkway, and turned into a real city street with sidewalks on both sides and slightly wider lanes. Would make a great first step towards developing that parking lot. City Parkway has the potential to turn into the city's main retail and entertainment street if they do it right.

[PROSTSHOCKER]

I have keen advice for Surrey if they truly want Whalley to become the next big urban centre in the area.

Before 2006, there was a very popular coffee shop in Langley City. The Ethical Addictions coffee house was situated near langley central and on the first major corner of the main strip. The shop was open until 1-2 am every night and had featured local indie and punk bands. It had become the popular go-to spot for youth and young adults/college students in the area. I remember seeing Mariana's Trench play there a couple nights once and CR Avery.

Artists from Langley Fine Arts School in Fort Langley would come down there to do their field studies, 30 year old slam poets would recite their pieces and socialize with staff prior to their on stage shows later that night, skateboarders and punks would line up outside joking and smoking every night, college students from sfu emily carr and ubc would stop by there on their commutes home to relax and do homework. It had become a local forum for youth, and regulars began to connect and break down social barriers. Yet the local business community jacked up the rent to promote a circulation of tenants of the space based on complaints that young hooligans were loitering everywhere late into the night. Before closing up shop, regulars of the coffee house created a documentary of its final hours and showed it at local youth centre where nearly a hundred people gathered to reflect on their favourite haunt for the last time. The space eventually became a Source for Sports retail store. Langley City had ceased having an interesting spot for youth to hang out and socialize. Groups of teens just wandered aimlessly late at night doing god knew what instead of chilling out in a packed coffee. Today the most activity i see among my age group in langley are the drug dealers and teen mothers loitering at the Langley Centre bus depot. It's incredibly depressing.

--------

If Surrey seriously wants to become a cultural centre they need to realize that its those young hooligans, artists, and skateboarders are key for their urban success. You can't build a thriving cultural centre unless you promote the growth and proliferation of young cultural entrepreneurs to create the cool areas to live in. Just slapping on a university campus won't do much at all because all those students could potentially just get on the skytrain or hop on a bus at the end of the day to go home. You need more than just classes, student residences, Surrey should probably square off the area around those sites and attempt to create a thicket of business zones for younger people. Maybe some artist run centres and social houses would pop up.


But uh yeah, thats just my rambling and im pretty sure i brought this up before lol

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by rbostyle

The roads are already far too wide. What needs to be done, is to paint narrower lanes. I'll use Scott Road as an example because I drive parts of it every day. It's likely wider than Granville or Oak, but the structure on those routes permits for way higher capacity due to narrow lanes. For Scott's 2 lane + left turn alignments, you could easily have 3 full lanes in both directions. No left turn lanes required, just regulate which cross-streets drivers may make left turns onto.

That said, there are exceptions, and most high-traffic routes should have at least 2 lanes (where many still do not.)

I actually think the wider lanes are a good thing. Firstly, until Surrey can divert all truck traffic off those main roads such as Scott Road, you can't really shrink them more. Secondly, there is only so narrow you can go and accomodate a bus. Try driving down Oak or Grandville two streets you just named. Busses on the outside right lane OFTEN will come into the middle lane just to avoid smashing their mirrors into poles. I've been nearly side swiped 100+ times in the last 3 months on Oak alone. This contributes in part to a large stacking of cars in the center lane (also to avoid left turners on non-left turn lane intersections) and makes for a highly stressful drive. And let's be real too, there is a higher per-capita ownership of SUVs and pickup trucks in Surrey compared to Vancouver, and these also need slightly wider lanes than you can get away with compact cars.

My stress level drops 10 fold in Surrey.

Not to mention to effectively widen those streets without actually "widening" them, you'd have to destroy all the center boulevards and they're to me kind of a staple of Surrey.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

the ring roads dont lead any where really right now and there still not completely
there alot better for locals to drive on to avoid KGB and will be more use when finished. Living in central i would always use whalley blvd to 108 then get on if i was heading out towards new west.
Persoonally once compelete and shops and more housing moves along those it would be nice to see them use a communtiy shuttle along them to get people around the city centre easy with out walking all the way across or having to go to skytrain to get from gateway to king george.

Oh on that note i was looking at some stuff showing that surrey wants to create to majors nodes around gateway and king george and grow between those two

That's a good point. As a long time Surrey resident I'm the same way. If I head to New West I'll typically jet down Fraser Highway (I live on FH) then take Whalley Blvd to 108th. Sometimes I'll even turn off earlier onto 140th and jet down connecting to KGB at 112th. It's not as intuitive for people not from the area but I do think in time these connectors will be better utilized.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

Surrey can't give pedestrians the same priority as cars through out the whole city. Remember Surrey is nearly three times the size, so improvements giving pedestrians improved priority should be focused in the cities town centres. But all major streets need to have sidewalks through the whole city, far to often I see people walking on the shoulder as cars speed past. Speeding is another Surrey problem especially in semi-rural streets.

Try anywhere for speeding. There isn't a human being in Vancouver that drives 50 on their roads. The average speed on Oak/Granville/Cambie/Burrard is 80 yet the signs posted are 50. I've been passed by cops doing 80 just normal and they only ever pull over 16 year olds driving Japanese sports cars. They do have sidewalks though so you're right, more sidewalks would be a good thing.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Try anywhere for speeding. There isn't a human being in Vancouver that drives 50 on their roads. The average speed on Oak/Granville/Cambie/Burrard is 80 yet the signs posted are 50. I've been passed by cops doing 80 just normal and they only ever pull over 16 year olds driving Japanese sports cars. They do have sidewalks though so you're right, more sidewalks would be a good thing.

I'm a large advocate of speed limit review and upping speed limits where you know that 80 in a 50 is possible and is the norm. It's actually more dangerous to everyone to have a law abiding citizen going 50 km/h on Oak or wherever, while everyone else is going 70 - 80 km/h.

Yes, you'd need to perhaps do some upgrades to make it safer, but expecting traffic to slow down to 50 km/h is simply not feasible, unless you time the lights on purpose to co-ordinate them for 50 km/h flow.