Surrey/South of Fraser Rapid Transit Discussion | Proposed

[Whalleyboy]

Just so you know plans are in works to widen 100ths ave to 4 lanes there is plans to make a new 105 a ave route between central and guildford which would also easy of traffic from 104. Also while making trucks take longer routes along SFPR for certain stops if it will take loads off city streets and make them much more friendly for transit and pedestrians its a sacrifice I'm sure many cities would be willing to take. Its up to cities which roads they like the trucks to use and when.

Oh and also SFPR is only gonna have its surrey section opened up in december so what happens then is not fair to judge how it will do. we have to wait when the full thing opens and hits the alex fraser and george massey to see what actually happens.

personally I think it will do good the only thing that gonna make surrey a mess for traffic is the toll port mann bridge. But once we get screwed in getting a new tolled pattullo bridge I'm sure traffic will calm right down all around as people will take what ever bridge is easier be it golden ears, port man, or pattullo since either way they are paying.

[WaxItYourself]

Originally Posted by Zassk

...no... SFPR doesn't connect at Port Mann...

But I expect it will still make quite a difference to Surrey avenues.

"This new four-lane route on the south side of the Fraser River will transform the Lower Mainland by saving time for commuters, the trucking industry and visitors. Once complete, the SFPR will also connect with major crossings along the Fraser River, including the Massey Tunnel, Alex Fraser Bridge, Pattullo Bridge, Port Mann Bridge and the Golden Ears Bridge."

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...034-000406.htm

Looking at the map though I don't see where the plans show a connection myself

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/SFPR...-issue-s56.pdf

I'm sure though, as this is again what it was planned for, that they will have something similar to the plans for 124th near the Pattullo Bridge

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/SFPR...-issue-s53.pdf

To not do anything like that is not working toward what the plan for the SFPR originally was.

[renthefinn]

The SFPR will not connect to Hwy 1. Nearest connection will be to Golden Ears Way.

[proudcanuck]

Originally Posted by renthefinn

The SFPR will not connect to Hwy 1. Nearest connection will be to Golden Ears Way.

From the drawings that I have seen, SFPR will roll into Hwy 15 so the 176th street interchange is the connection to Hwy 1.

To access Golden Ears Way you will have to exit at 104th Ave to access the Golden Ears Connector.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by proudcanuck

From the drawings that I have seen, SFPR will roll into Hwy 15 so the 176th street interchange is the connection to Hwy 1.

To access Golden Ears Way you will have to exit at 104th Ave to access the Golden Ears Connector.

Yes.

SFPR or Highway 17 will simply be the north portion of the 176 Street intechange. It will be at that point you can connect back to the Port Mann Bridge.

To access the Golden Ears Bridge from the Port Mann (for whatever reason you would want to take two toll bridges back to back over the same river) You'd be better off sticking to Highway 1 to 176 Street, heading south and getting on 96 Avenue/Golden Ears Way.

[xd_1771]

Whalleyboy: According to COSMOS, the indirect 105A/106 Ave corridor is being planned as a collector road. The majority of this route is planned to have a 24m ROW and two lanes (one/direction).

Please don't tell me you're serious that you think this is anything of a suitable excuse for adding east-west primary road capacity between Guildford and City Centre - unless you're dead serious that ripping up communities and parkland that will only add to the environmental and social impact is acceptable, and that an indirect series of two-lane community collector and distribution roads that also need to be built to harbour safe pedestrian and cycling facilities can acceptably handle the congestion load of 10-20,000 vehicles a day including large commercial vehicles.

[WaxItYourself]

I just got done looking at a map of the area. The tucks that currently go along the stop and go route of 104th can easily reroute down 100th ave and as has been stated there are plans to expand 100th to four lanes this is more than likely what is going to happen. Personally I find it to be a much more truck friendly road as it is. Quite a few of the trucks that would be headed from 1st down 104th to City Centre will now be taking the route down to the Patullo and getting off there. Dealing with trucks I think you're vastly overstating the problems that will occur as the result of narrowing 104th.

[Whalleyboy]

I'm sure it will be enough along with widening of 100th ave. I'm with waxityourself on thinking your blowing this way out of what it will be.
if we add lanes on 100th and build a new small collector road for local traffic we are getting more lanes added then taken away still.

[xd_1771]

The cost to widen 100th Avenue to safely accommodate large commercial vehicles and cyclists in addition to widenings as required at 154th, 156th and 160th Streets, turn lane infrastructure, and property acquisition would be far too intense to be worthwhile. Whatever 4-lane widening you mention, it is not in the city's 10 year servicing plan. As such, it is doubtful to think that such a widening is even planned nor will be ever feasible.

Also, how do you suppose the community is going to deal with that? You're thinking of taking thousands of vehicles including large trucks and forcing them along corridors near schools home to more than 3000 schoolchildren and growing, who will continue to have regular needs to cross the street and have to face toxic exhaust fumes.

[Whalleyboy]

also its not really gonna go inbetween a park

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The cost to widen 100th Avenue to safely accommodate large commercial vehicles and cyclists in addition to widenings as required at 154th, 156th and 160th Streets, turn lane infrastructure, and property acquisition would be far too intense to be worthwhile. Whatever 4-lane widening you mention, it is not in the city's 10 year servicing plan. As such, it is doubtful to think that such a widening is even planned nor will be ever feasible.

Also, how do you suppose the community is going to deal with that? You're thinking of taking thousands of vehicles including large trucks and forcing them along corridors near schools home to more than 3000 schoolchildren and growing, who will continue to have regular needs to cross the street and have to face toxic exhaust fumes.

Then let's stop talking about how to accommodate more cars & trucks, and discuss how to shift these trips into more sustainable modes. Building more roads is only a temporary solution until congestion re-balances. For that matter, there are many instances where the removal of roads leads to a reduction in traffic as the increased congestion provides an incentive for commuters to find different routes, modes, etc.

[WaxItYourself]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The cost to widen 100th Avenue to safely accommodate large commercial vehicles and cyclists in addition to widenings as required at 154th, 156th and 160th Streets, turn lane infrastructure, and property acquisition would be far too intense to be worthwhile. Whatever 4-lane widening you mention, it is not in the city's 10 year servicing plan. As such, it is doubtful to think that such a widening is even planned nor will be ever feasible.

Also, how do you suppose the community is going to deal with that? You're thinking of taking thousands of vehicles including large trucks and forcing them along corridors near schools home to more than 3000 schoolchildren and growing, who will continue to have regular needs to cross the street and have to face toxic exhaust fumes.

A number of Arterial Intersection improvements are listed on page 95 in this document for both 100th ave and 154th and 100th and 148th. This is the ares just before you get to Green Timbers Urban forest. - http://www.surrey.ca/files/ENG_-10-Y...lan-100112.pdf - They also plan to do widening along the Fraser Highway from 138th st to 148th in the short to medium term. Perhaps they plan on making those trucks turn on 96th instead of 100th in the short to medium term and then turning onto Fraser Hwy. I am fairly certain though that the city planners are aware of your arguments and what can be done to alleviate them.

[groovyg]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Then let's stop talking about how to accommodate more cars & trucks, and discuss how to shift these trips into more sustainable modes. Building more roads is only a temporary solution until congestion re-balances. For that matter, there are many instances where the removal of roads leads to a reduction in traffic as the increased congestion provides an incentive for commuters to find different routes, modes, etc.

Preach it, brother! As a grandmother (you know who I am), I DO CARE about the rotten legacy we are leaving future generations in our short-sighted reliance on the automobile......Go Sustainable!

[jhausner]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Then let's stop talking about how to accommodate more cars & trucks, and discuss how to shift these trips into more sustainable modes. Building more roads is only a temporary solution until congestion re-balances. For that matter, there are many instances where the removal of roads leads to a reduction in traffic as the increased congestion provides an incentive for commuters to find different routes, modes, etc.

Shifting trips is also a temporary solution until population increase. Both shifting trips and expanding road infrastructure aren't mutually exclusive. You can't do 1 without the other, not when populations continue to increase.

I think things need to hold off though until the SFPR is complete to see how much truck traffic is shifted. Shifting truck traffic to 100th ave is just dumb. If anything it would shift to 1 of Fraser Highway or 96th Avenue. 100th doesn't make sense as it isn't directly connecte to anything major. I've also heard people jump up and down saying "Well 100th is connected to the SFPR!!!!" No it isn't. Old Yale is which is a 1 lane country road and only indirectly. It is 104th Avenue that is connected.

So from an infrastructure standpoint 104th is the most connected East-West route in North Surrey (64th & Hwy 10 being the Newton/South Surrey routes). To me it is just a bit crazy to try and adjust this route right now and I still stand my the notion that you won't see 104th's road capacity decreased in the next 10-20 years.

Specific to your point though paradigm4, I do know where you're coming from and mainly agree. I realistically don't see it shifting as much as I'm sure you'd like to have shift, but I do agree there does need to be some shifting and some changing in habits. Without alternatives though, it will never happen. Still looking for that new LRT line. Heck still looking for that SkyTrain expansion. Or that <insert next translink promiss made 100 years ago>. Some of the shift too comes with facilities. I've been calling for a cinema in Central Surrey for years so that I don't have to go to Guildford or Strawberry Hills (or Langley).

[jhausner]

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

A number of Arterial Intersection improvements are listed on page 95 in this document for both 100th ave and 154th and 100th and 148th. This is the ares just before you get to Green Timbers Urban forest. - http://www.surrey.ca/files/ENG_-10-Y...lan-100112.pdf - They also plan to do widening along the Fraser Highway from 138th st to 148th in the short to medium term. Perhaps they plan on making those trucks turn on 96th instead of 100th in the short to medium term and then turning onto Fraser Hwy. I am fairly certain though that the city planners are aware of your arguments and what can be done to alleviate them.

Only viable alternative to 104th to me for trucks is 96th. It's a) already widened and b) way more connected than 100th. Unless the expansion includes 100th from KGB to 104th (Old Yale section) moving trucks to it is just imo silly. Not to mention what do you connect to in the East? It dead ends at 160th. What's the point of that?

96th in the East on the other hand turns into the Golden Ears Parkway and flows straight to the SFPR/176th and into Port Kells.

Again you won't see trucks on 100th. Ever.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Shifting trips is also a temporary solution until population increase. Both shifting trips and expanding road infrastructure aren't mutually exclusive. You can't do 1 without the other, not when populations continue to increase.

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Then let's stop talking about how to accommodate more cars & trucks, and discuss how to shift these trips into more sustainable modes. Building more roads is only a temporary solution until congestion re-balances. For that matter, there are many instances where the removal of roads leads to a reduction in traffic as the increased congestion provides an incentive for commuters to find different routes, modes, etc.

Hitting a major corridor with a wrecking ball that currently continues to serve the two fastest growing activity centres in the City of Surrey (as measured by TransLink) no matter what the sustainability practices we need to adopt is far from a smart solution. And I don't see how creating additional congestion as a result of the need to shift traffic so as to congest several different corridors is a pro-sustainability move either. Vehicles that need to travel a higher distance and face more congestion will use and/or idle-waste more gas and this will, if anything, increase harmful emissions.

We can't just think that every corridor in Surrey every 4 blocks is a major corridor that we can shift huge amounts of regional traffic onto. The contexts are far from the same. Think of what lies along the 96th Ave corridor: residential communities and at least two major secondary schools. I don't think the area residents would be happy about the idea of 96th Ave turning into the next 88th Ave. As for 100th Ave, it has far more setbacks than just lack of connectivity. I think that 15,000 vehicles a day and peak hour congestion through Green Timbers on what's supposed to be the city's major east-west cycling corridor is horribly high, and if there's any east-west corridor where capacity reduction should become a consideration, it's 100th Ave due to its nature as a connection that is more important to the local community than the region - and the fact that for a major east-west cycling corridor, it is horribly under-built (shared cycling lanes for several blocks and barely a dedicated cycling lane elsewhere.... ugh).

104th Ave is direct and simple and that's why many people use it in the same way that more than 60,000 vehicles a day use the restricted 4 lanes with no turn lanes on Vancouver's First Avenue (I checked Vancouver's traffic count database and I didn't even know First was pushing that many through its four lanes, which is ridiculous!). Automated GPS systems used by too many people nowadays and online mapping systems like Google Maps will recommend 104th because of that fact. There would be far more work and resources needed in terms of ensuring that traffic actually shifts in addition to the work of reconstructing roads to allow for that shift, if it could even be done so safely. The complexity of this situation is far under-mined by many of the people I have talked to. There's really no room for a senseless "it's okay" in this equation.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Shifting trips is also a temporary solution until population increase. Both shifting trips and expanding road infrastructure aren't mutually exclusive. You can't do 1 without the other, not when populations continue to increase.

I think things need to hold off though until the SFPR is complete to see how much truck traffic is shifted. Shifting truck traffic to 100th ave is just dumb. If anything it would shift to 1 of Fraser Highway or 96th Avenue. 100th doesn't make sense as it isn't directly connecte to anything major. I've also heard people jump up and down saying "Well 100th is connected to the SFPR!!!!" No it isn't. Old Yale is which is a 1 lane country road and only indirectly. It is 104th Avenue that is connected.

So from an infrastructure standpoint 104th is the most connected East-West route in North Surrey (64th & Hwy 10 being the Newton/South Surrey routes). To me it is just a bit crazy to try and adjust this route right now and I still stand my the notion that you won't see 104th's road capacity decreased in the next 10-20 years.

Specific to your point though paradigm4, I do know where you're coming from and mainly agree. I realistically don't see it shifting as much as I'm sure you'd like to have shift, but I do agree there does need to be some shifting and some changing in habits. Without alternatives though, it will never happen. Still looking for that new LRT line. Heck still looking for that SkyTrain expansion. Or that <insert next translink promiss made 100 years ago>. Some of the shift too comes with facilities. I've been calling for a cinema in Central Surrey for years so that I don't have to go to Guildford or Strawberry Hills (or Langley).

104 Ave isn't connected to SFPR either. 104 Ave is a no truck road west of King George all the way to Scott Road. Trucks do not drive from the TCH, down 104 Ave all the way to Tannery and the Fraser docks. They turn at King George, taking up BOTH lanes of traffic to do so (you can see it on the street view image even), and drive down, under Scott Road station to get to Scott Road and the Fraser Docks. Saying 104 ave is critical to truck traffic is ridiculous. What is critical is getting trucks OFF 104 Ave.

The SFPR will take trucks off 104 ave. My guess is you will see over a 80% decrease in trucks on 104 Ave in December. Just stand at the corner of of 104 and King George, and watch the trucks turn. They aren't going to City center, and it is illegal for them to continue down 104. They all turn. And it is a lot of city to drive through to get to that point.

Even with the lights on SFPR, it will be incredibly faster than taking 104 ave and King George. There will be no need for trucks to go down 104 ave any more (except the small handful of local traffic). It will only be cars travelling between City Center and the freeway.

And once it is open all the way through to Deltaport, then you will see similar drops in truck traffic on other streets, like 96, 88, and Highway 10. Talking about needing to widen other roads for trucks is going to be a moot point by the end of next year. You'll only need to worry about what is needed to transport the local community.

You need 100 widened just to handle traffic between Fleetwood and City Center. It can also handle traffic from the freeway heading into the south part of city center, you do have to turn eventually after all, not every destination is right on 104 ave. And 100 is already 4 lanes in many locations and space is reserved for full expansion almost everywhere. (And there aren't any schools fronting 100 Ave either).

[xd_1771]

The SFPR will take trucks off 104 ave.

is not a bad assumption to make. Truth spoken. However, there is no way to assess exactly how much truck traffic could be anticipate to move off 104th and 108th Aves and how much capacity will be needed to handle what's left and the growth. And, yes, there will be growth. The assumption that the opening of a bypass corridor will remove nearly all of the commercial traffic in between the highway that connects the city with the rest of the country and what is growing to become one of the largest business and regional centers in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley and make a capacity reduction on that corridor acceptable is just plain silly. It would be economic and political suicide. We need to look at the important base holds on both side of the map: City Centre and... ahem.... the rest of Canada. There's a reason why in a survey of several city corridors and entrances, 104th Ave saw the largest congestion growth rate in a yearly period. I may have made many observations myself but don't look at me, look at the published statistical data that reports what I just said.

Also, the direct alternative to the SFPR in case an accident or some other event were to force its closure is....

And there aren't any schools fronting 100 Ave either

And you don't know this community as well as I do. There are three schools that either do front or come within 1 block of 100th Ave, one of them being a major secondary enrolling 1400 students where you can expect hundreds of them to be interacting with the road during the morning, lunch time and after school hours. However, that's not really what I like to center my discussions on - because as I was mentioning, there are far more problems to deal with than just schools. Forcing 100th Ave (which, by the way, doesn't even connect to Fleetwood) to attain importance and become the shoulder for commercial traffic that won't disappear will destroy its already terrible (and in need of improvement) viability as an east-west cycling corridor, unless you propose the expropriation of significant parts of Kingston Gardens, T&T, and other properties in Guildford for the addition of a dedicated cycling lane while maintaining an existing road capacity that would need to grow. If there is any east-west corridor in this city that deserves a reduction in vehicular capacity in favour of a multi-modal context and to favour a viability to the local rather than regional context, it is 100th Ave.

The sad but true fact is 100th Avenue is just not an alternative - and it's never going to be one.

I'm going to have to be trusted with this assumption: the community will not tolerate such a modification on 100th Ave. An attempted re-purposing of 100th to a primary regional commuter arterial and (by need, to a) fully unrestricted commercial corridor - which essentially destroy its viability as an east-west cycling route and would need to include a widening through Green Timbers - will be met by fierce opposition from locals and school staff, MPs and MLAs, and cyclists. The political context is already difficult with the need to widen Fraser Highway through Green Timbers.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

is not a bad assumption to make. Truth spoken. However, there is no way to assess exactly how much truck traffic could be anticipate to move off 104th and 108th Aves and how much capacity will be needed to handle what's left and the growth. And, yes, there will be growth. The assumption that the opening of a bypass corridor will remove nearly all of the commercial traffic in between the highway that connects the city with the rest of the country and what is growing to become one of the largest business and regional centers in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley and make a capacity reduction on that corridor acceptable is just plain silly. It would be economic and political suicide. We need to look at the important base holds on both side of the map: City Centre and... ahem.... the rest of Canada. There's a reason why in a survey of several city corridors and entrances, 104th Ave saw the largest congestion growth rate in a yearly period. I may have made many observations myself but don't look at me, look at the published statistical data that reports what I just said.

Also, the direct alternative to the SFPR in case an accident or some other event were to force its closure is....

First of all, do not use YOUR website to try to prove YOUR point. All we have to do is look at this post to show just how unrealistic and how much you will go out of your way and skew data:

http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/07...ey-population/

Second, the rise might have been because to the south, 96 Avenue was closed for months on end, and then opened but a huge mess between 152 Street for 176 Street while the works wrapped up. That could easily shift 1000 vpd over to 104 Avenue temporarily. Today, 96 Avenue is rather quiet, and I bet volumes on 104 Avenue have dropped in the last year because 96 Avenue is complete and has room for capacity as a east-west connector from King George over to Highway 1 / 176 Street.

With regard to 100 Avenue, from 154 Street to 160 Street. The dedication to widen the roadway to 4 lanes is already there. They have the land for it. The only area where 100 Avenue would need some significant land acquisition is between 138 Street and 140 Street on the south-side. As that's part of City Centre, you'll see dedication occur there with re-development likely in the next decade. There are no plans for 100 Avenue to be widened in the City's 10-year plan, as shown earlier by a post, but as an arterial, it's ultimate build-out will include centre raised median, two travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.

100 Avenue has same amount of right-of-way at 150 Street as it does at 156 Street as well.

[xd_1771]

You know, I have as much ability to accuse you of being unable to accept the truth. I don't skew my data. I used the link because the data was not easily compiled elsewhere. It's there in the City of Surrey's website, in that link, if you want to view it manually.

The 96th Ave closure was in place between August and October 2010, long before July 2011.

96th Avenue remains a primary redirect corridor for TransLink buses during rush hour and several other vehicles trying to avoid Highway 1 congestion into Surrey. Aren't you a bit surprised that in the midst of significant changes resulting from Highway 1 construction that might (in the same way that construction might have discouraged the use of 96th Ave use) have discouraged the use of 104 Ave, traffic congestion levels still increased?

Well, if you can make a bet, so can I: I bet, with significant confidence, that when the Highway 1 construction completes and extra capacity opens east of 104th Avenue (allowing for smooth freeflow onto 104th), that the high congestion growth rates being seen by 104th Ave will increase yet again and traffic on 96th Ave will tank. Look at it this way: if there were no NCPs for Anniedale and Port Kells then there would be no need to widen 96th Ave either. There are reasons people are choosing it now that will disappear as the circumstances change. I always thought the widening was an unwise use of money. There's room for expansion to make minimal (and far more needed) improvements to 104th Ave, where the money could have been spent to make a true difference to more people. During the off-peak hours the new capacity on 96th isn't even used. I've seen this as well as you have.