Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

In case anyone was paying attention to the specifics,
The city wants to do a massive, 40m right-of-way
with two lanes of general traffic and bike lanes, a separate multi-use path, two segregated LRT lanes, and a median in between.

Over 50% wider than the 26m required for 4 lanes, bike lanes/path, and a SkyTrain guideway.

When did an additional 14m of width become "massive"? The park is 750m wide (0.75 km) at that point or 1.8% of the entire park width. 14m is nothing to do it right and you're gaining that 14m + some back with the park reclamation in the south so it's a net park gain.

They are cutting trees along a stretch of the park NOBODY but cars uses with 0 sidewalks and narrow non-existent cycling shoulders (I've ridden my bike along that stretch with my wife quite a bit, it is scary and dark).

To me this is a complete non-factor.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

I wish they wouldn't think that way about bike lanes. Even more experienced riders who want to go at a decent clip, don't want to get themselves killed. They also don't want to slow themselves down by puncturing a tire on the rocks, glass, etc. that are always thrown into the shoulder on roads like Fraser Hwy. Imo, it's better to get rid of the "bike shoulder" entirely (which should also make car drivers feel a little less safe going above the speed limit), and segregate the multi-use trail into bikes/peds using the added space.

Well said. It's a bit of a catch 22. We want to encourage people to ride bikes but at the same time you're never going to have a "bike rush hour" in many areas especially most of Surrey in the next decade or two so dedicating too much space is a bit overkill to me.

At the same time, I've ridden many of these bike lanes myself and you're spot on about the dangers or dodging not just rocks but other debris and even as a driver, when a cyclist is in a dedicated lane I notice most people swerve to give them extra space and/or slow right down.

I'd much prefer a dedicated bike/multi-use path for everything because again I think the likelihood of a "serious bike commuter" coming up on a "slow casual bike user" and causing problems is just such a non-factor worth worrying about given the odds of that happening.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by paulsparrow

Surrey obviously doesn't have an issue spending the money on signals as every block on any road has a set of lights now not to mention mid block cross walks everywhere. Thus the traffic jams.

Unlike Vancouver where I can travel from downtown north side to the Oak street bridge in 15 mins in rush hour traffic versus 8 blocks in Surrey because Vancouver doesn't put lights at every corner. Save money and move traffic.

In what fantasy world does it take 15 minutes to run from north downtown to Oak Street bridge?

Try 30-45 minutes even during non-rush hour.

That is unless your definition of rush hour is 2am on a Saturday morning.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by paulsparrow

Lets take 64th between 120 and KG. 9 four way intersections and 7 lights plus a mid-block crossing light.

120 - light
121 - no light
124 - light
125ish - ped cross light
126 - light
128 - light
130 - no light
132- light
134 - light
136 - light

Ok so comparing apples to apples.

Surrey 64th between 120 and 136
Blocks: 16 blocks
Distance: 3.3km
Lights: 7 traffic lights and 1 ped crossing
Crossings 4-way: 9

Vancouver King Edward between Granville and St. George Street (just before Fraser Street)
Blocks: 29 blocks
Distance: 3.3km
Lights: 8 traffic lights and 1 ped crossing
Crossings 4-way: 18

So given both stretches which I think are comparable (I could have used Cambie Street or Granville which has 1 light every block for about 6 blocks but I didn't) and they look fairly similar to me.

Only thing I left out is along that stretch of King Edward there are actually about 10+ 2-way crossings (where it is a block but not a straight through 4-way crossing) just 1 side crossing.

But at the end of the day you're just spouting nonsense given in the same city I could pull out of the air another 3.3km stretch on say King George between 96th and 80th and point out that stretch has: 5 4-way crossings and 6 traffic lights... or on the flip side like I said pull 3.3km between Broadway and 41st along Cambie and point out there are 24 4-way crossings and about 40 traffic lights..

So I don't get what you're trying to prove.

[CurtisVerbatim]

Originally Posted by paulsparrow

Lets take 64th between 120 and KG. 9 four way intersections and 7 lights plus a mid-block crossing light.

120 - light
121 - no light
124 - light
125ish - ped cross light
126 - light
128 - light
130 - no light
132- light
134 - light
136 - light

This is why I was sure to say that some roads do have more lights than every four blocks. Although even the example you cited has fewer lights than Granville st between 41st and Milton st, which is exactly the same length of road. i'm not exactly sure how many of those are pedestrian crossings and i'm not even going to list all the four way intersections it has. I still attribute Surreys traffic problems to the fact that there are not many routes that run the full length of the city.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by jhausner

...14m is nothing to do it right and you're gaining that 14m + some back with the park reclamation in the south so it's a net park gain.

When you think about it, it's this particular thing that makes it so evident that the city is trying to basically play everyone on this matter and disregard the stakeholders involved. Sure you can say the reclamation of borders is "park gain" but it's a bit of a misleading thing because at the end of the day, there is nature just the same in all of those bordered areas even today. We've seen from 96 Ave that at least some of the features the city wants to put in the 40m (drainage ditches) aren't even necessary. Whether or not you think transportation should be given the most priority over the forest, I think GTHS deserves some traction on this issue. Just like every aspect about proposed LRT, this issue has followed the untold mantra by the city that "You must follow our vision, we don't care about your concerns/issues."

(Also to clarify, Green Timbers is designated an "urban forest", not a park. It is set aside as public space in much the same manner as a park, but it is more for the purpose of preserving nature.)

[DKaz]

It typically takes me 20-25 minutes in the morning rush hour direction to get from midspan Oak St. Bridge to my office near Stadium-Chinatown Station.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by DKaz

It typically takes me 20-25 minutes in the morning rush hour direction to get from midspan Oak St. Bridge to my office near Stadium-Chinatown Station.

Which isn't north downtown so 30 minutes is reasonable for that stretch like I said (5 more minutes for the Stadium-Chinatown to get to say Waterfront or the Bental Center which is more accurately northern downtown) not 15. I'd imagine with construction season kicking in soon though the commute will go up a bit more on average. If you're in Fleetwood as your location indicates, I don't know how you can do that commute every day. How long does it take you an hour or more every day?

Probably the same though as taking transit as you'd have to take an unreliable Surrey bus then catch SkyTrain I'd imagine.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

When you think about it, it's this particular thing that makes it so evident that the city is trying to basically play everyone on this matter and disregard the stakeholders involved. Sure you can say the reclamation of borders is "park gain" but it's a bit of a misleading thing because at the end of the day, there is nature just the same in all of those bordered areas even today. We've seen from 96 Ave that at least some of the features the city wants to put in the 40m (drainage ditches) aren't even necessary. Whether or not you think transportation should be given the most priority over the forest, I think GTHS deserves some traction on this issue. Just like every aspect about proposed LRT, this issue has followed the untold mantra by the city that "You must follow our vision, we don't care about your concerns/issues."

(Also to clarify, Green Timbers is designated an "urban forest", not a park. It is set aside as public space in much the same manner as a park, but it is more for the purpose of preserving nature.)

Good point. To be honest though I think the issue has nothing to do with the row width (40m) or trees and everything to do with the plan to include LRT. The fact LRT is basically forcing the row width and as you said, seems to be Surrey's foregone conclusion, is just a convenient sticking point but the reality is those complaining don't actually care about trees, they care more about it being SkyTrain not LRT.

I'm in that camp. I don't care about the 40m or cutting down some trees. We're in a metro area of 2.5+ million people, a lot of trees have been cut down to build all the homes for everyone in the last 50 years. A few more won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things nor effect even our local environment in the grand scheme of balancing infrastructure for all the people to not be sitting in idle cars. I'd contend the amount of pollution removed from idling cars on Fraser Highway every day ought-weighs the tree loss from an environmental impact perspective.

What I don't want is LRT down Fraser Highway. I want SkyTrain if they are going to build any "rapid" style of transit besides BRT.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by CurtisVerbatim

This is why I was sure to say that some roads do have more lights than every four blocks. Although even the example you cited has fewer lights than Granville st between 41st and Milton st, which is exactly the same length of road. i'm not exactly sure how many of those are pedestrian crossings and i'm not even going to list all the four way intersections it has. I still attribute Surreys traffic problems to the fact that there are not many routes that run the full length of the city.

Very true. Even minor roads in Vancouver will cross far enough through the city that you can use them as 'alternate' routes or they can disperse traffic when accidents happen.

Surrey North (excluding Cloverdale and South Surrey) really only has a handfull of through roads.

North-South you have Scott-Road, 128, 132, King George, 152, 168, and 176th. Those are the only that traverse the full length.

140, 144, 148, and 160th do not.

East-West you have 104, 96, 77, 64, and Highway 10 though you could argue 72nd is also in that list as it terminates at ALR land.

So 7 "through" North-South routes to service 10km
and (6) "through" East West roads to service 11.25km

Compare that to Vancouver that has 7 "through" major North-South routes just in a 5km stretch and that doesn't include the about 40 other side routes that cross the majority of the city.

Or the 8 major east-west roads covering 6km of space.

Also missing is the fact many of the North-South routes in Vancouver are 2 if not 3 lanes wide and the East-West are nearly all 2 lanes wide vs Surrey where several of the major routes are still 1 lane or have choke points.

King George is the only road with 3 lanes and that's only through Surrey Central. Fraser Highway and 100th which are major city cross roads are still 1 lane only though some traffic heavy stretches.

Personally just having lived and grown up in Surrey, I think traffic and infrastructure woes would be best served by:

Short Term:

1) Widening the final Fraser Highway portion to 2 lanes through Green Timbers (already on the books)
2) Widening 100th to 2 lanes from 104th (Old Yale stretch) through to 160th.
3) Widening 160th to 2 lanes between Fraser Highway and HWY1
4) 2-laning and completing the "ring road" in Surrey Central:
- Push Whalley Boulevard south through to 96th to meet up with 138th
- Push Whalley Boulevard north from 108th to King George to meet up with University Boulrvard
- Widen Whalley Boulevard to 2 lanes the entire stretch
- Push University Boulevard through to 134th and widen to 96th

Medium Term:

5) Pushing through 84th Avenue between King George and 140th (tried to but they stopped due to NIMBY outcry)
6) Push through 103 Ave from Whalley Boulevard to either University Boulevard or all the way through to 132 street
7) Push through 105 Ave to Whalley Boulevard
8) Push through 107 Ave to University Boulevard
9) Widening 128 to 2 lanes from 88th to 104th and 64th to 68th

Long Term:

10) Widening 140th to 2 lanes for the entire length from KGB to 72nd
11) Widening 132nd to 2 lanes
12) Find a way to connect 92nd specifically between 140th and 152nd (people would likely fight this) but it would put a good cross road between 88th and 96th which right now is a large stretch)
13) Connect 80th Avenue between King George and 140th

Do the above and I think we'd be in much better shape not just near-term but long term in Surrey from a traffic standpoint if all the above is combined with improved transit service and bike infrastructure.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Good point. To be honest though I think the issue has nothing to do with the row width (40m) or trees and everything to do with the plan to include LRT. The fact LRT is basically forcing the row width and as you said, seems to be Surrey's foregone conclusion, is just a convenient sticking point but the reality is those complaining don't actually care about trees, they care more about it being SkyTrain not LRT.

While that would be nice, I actually wouldn't say that's necessarily (just yet). You might notice that in one of the interview videos, one of the GTHS members actually mentioned the interurban. So clearly there's no set preference within the society in terms of rapid transit.

[CurtisVerbatim]

They just started construction on the widening of 160th st between the freeway and 96th avenue. It's so typical that they leave the portion between 96th avenue and Fraser HWY narrow. they'll probably widen the rest in five years.

[CurtisVerbatim]

I think the plans are that 148th will curve to the west and continue as 92nd up to KGB. that will smooth out the intersection there and cut off the southern part of 148th ave that doesn't really go anywhere. same for 92nd ave east of that point. it just ends at 164th

[Sheba]

Some of what I think is priority road work

Short term:
Widen the final Fraser Highway portion to 2 lanes through Green Timbers (already on the books)
Widen 140th St to 2 lanes for the entire length from KGB to 72nd
Push University Blvd through to 134th St
Widen 104th to 2 lanes from Scott Road to 132nd St

Medium term:
Widen 128th St to 2 lanes from 88th to 104th and 64th to 68th
Push through 84th from 124th to 128th St (over the train tracks) and widen to 2 lanes between Scott Road and KGB
Push through 103rd from 133A St to Whalley Blvd and 138A to 140th St

Long term:
Widen 132nd St to 2 lanes
Push 80th through King George to 140th St and 152 to 156th St
Widen 160th St to 2 lanes between Fraser Hwy and 80th

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

While that would be nice, I actually wouldn't say that's necessarily (just yet). You might notice that in one of the interview videos, one of the GTHS members actually mentioned the interurban. So clearly there's no set preference within the society in terms of rapid transit.

The interurban is actually a good point.

Albeit likely... wrong.
http://www.okthepk.ca/publicArchive/...an/mapFvhr.htm

The interurban doesn't appear to have even ran near Green Timbers. I followed the map on google maps and the closest it gets is Scott Road station.

Maybe they meant the BC Hydro Right of Way?

Or something that never was the Interurban?

http://southofthefraser.com/explore/670-railbed-trail

Someone with more historical knowledge of the railbed trail might actually know what it was for, but it doesn't seem to be useful either.

Only the Hydro ROW appears to re-purposeable without logging more trees.

[xd_1771]

The interurban doesn't appear to have even ran near Green Timbers. I followed the map on google maps and the closest it gets is Scott Road station.

Exactly, which kinda suggests that many of them are as uninformed as many other local citizens on transit matters.

Someone with more historical knowledge of the railbed trail might actually know what it was for, but it doesn't seem to be useful either.

Said in the article:
"It would have been used to run logs when this area was cut down, in the 1920s."

So not anything for large-scale freight or passenger operations.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

While that would be nice, I actually wouldn't say that's necessarily (just yet). You might notice that in one of the interview videos, one of the GTHS members actually mentioned the interurban. So clearly there's no set preference within the society in terms of rapid transit.

Interurban is a pipe dream not to mention most of the GTHS members are uninformed and don't actually seem to know anything about traffic in Surrey. It will never and I mean never be reborn as a transit route. Not in our life times. But besides that, the interurban ran through Newton many many KM away:

http://www.surreyhistory.ca/bcerstations.html

So just "reactivating" the interurban would do nothing for traffic heading through the Central Surrey core. It would be like saying you can solve traffic over the Lion's Gate Bridge by opening a new rail line between Burnaby and New Westminster... I'm exaggerating, but clearly the two have nothing to do with each other and cover completely different areas. Nobody commuting from Surrey Central -> Guildford, Fleetwood, or Clayton Heights would benefit from an interurban line not to mention how to you connect it to SkyTrain. The best solution is a seemless transit backbone extension to Langley which = SkyTrain continuing so you don't need to change transit modes at any point.

As for rapid transit, I was speaking in the sense of LRT vs SkyTrain. BRT is a different animal and we don't have any true BRT in Metro-Vancouver and the current proposal I had seen was just B-Line which isn't BRT. A new B-Line service would only require the road to be widened for roads so if they decided to do B-Line in the interim with the plan to later do SkyTrain, then you could definitely widen Fraser Highway less than 40m (24-26 or whatever was posted earlier) and then later on build SkyTrain.

BRT would require teh same row as LRT so there is no difference between the two from a row-width perspective. Only difference really between true BRT and LRT would be the vehicles used and some minor infrastructure differences (tracks, power, etc. for LRT). If they decided on BRT the Fraser Highway cross-section would definately end up being the 40m wide.

So even a step from BRT -> SkyTrain would result in the widening being the 40m as illustrated from day 0 and once it is widened they wouldn't shrink it later if they went to SkyTrain.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The interurban is actually a good point.

Albeit likely... wrong.
http://www.okthepk.ca/publicArchive/...an/mapFvhr.htm

The interurban doesn't appear to have even ran near Green Timbers. I followed the map on google maps and the closest it gets is Scott Road station.

Maybe they meant the BC Hydro Right of Way?

Or something that never was the Interurban?
http://southofthefraser.com/explore/670-railbed-trail

Someone with more historical knowledge of the railbed trail might actually know what it was for, but it doesn't seem to be useful either.

Only the Hydro ROW appears to re-purposeable without logging more trees.

No what they are playing on is getting interurban re-activation enthusiasts on their side. What the GTHS is trying to imply is that if they were to re-activate the interurban route aka twin the tracks and make that the main rapid line, you would solve traffic issues by lessening the need to have rapid transit down Fraser Highway so that Fraser Highway through GT could remain 1 lane either direction.

It's basically the old argument of building rapid transit down Arbutus rather than Cambie when Canada Line was being debated. The truth is the rapid transit line needs to be on Fraser Highway for many reasons I won't get into but anyone with half a brain can see that just by looking at a map.

[paulsparrow]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Ok so comparing apples to apples.

Surrey 64th between 120 and 136
Blocks: 16 blocks
Distance: 3.3km
Lights: 7 traffic lights and 1 ped crossing
Crossings 4-way: 9

Vancouver King Edward between Granville and St. George Street (just before Fraser Street)
Blocks: 29 blocks
Distance: 3.3km
Lights: 8 traffic lights and 1 ped crossing
Crossings 4-way: 18

So given both stretches which I think are comparable (I could have used Cambie Street or Granville which has 1 light every block for about 6 blocks but I didn't) and they look fairly similar to me.

Only thing I left out is along that stretch of King Edward there are actually about 10+ 2-way crossings (where it is a block but not a straight through 4-way crossing) just 1 side crossing.

But at the end of the day you're just spouting nonsense given in the same city I could pull out of the air another 3.3km stretch on say King George between 96th and 80th and point out that stretch has: 5 4-way crossings and 6 traffic lights... or on the flip side like I said pull 3.3km between Broadway and 41st along Cambie and point out there are 24 4-way crossings and about 40 traffic lights..

So I don't get what you're trying to prove.

To my point. 64th has almost 1:1 ration of lights to 4 way crossings while what you picked out for Vancouver has a .4:1 ratio of lights to 4-ways. In other words if 64th had 18 4-ways there would be 18 lights.

Comparing KG by Bear Creek park is completely irrelevant because there are no roads through the park or over the creeks so from 76-88 there are no through roads. Nice try though

[CurtisVerbatim]

Originally Posted by paulsparrow

To my point. 64th has almost 1:1 ration of lights to 4 way crossings while what you picked out for Vancouver has a .4:1 ratio of lights to 4-ways. In other words if 64th had 18 4-ways there would be 18 lights.

Comparing KG by Bear Creek park is completely irrelevant because there are no roads through the park or over the creeks so from 76-88 there are no through roads. Nice try though

Troll?