[Surrey] Things you'd like to see improved

[jhausner]

Figured rather than flood the Quattro thread with my rantings, I'd start a new topic generally about things we'd like to see improved in Surrey. Could spark some good discussion and interesting ideas.

Why not!

So taking from the other thread, my thoughts were some more entertainment in Surrey Central in the way of chain restaurants and a movie theater. Respondants countered the concept of population, already established businesses not wanting to water down their own business (dilute the pool of potential customers), and even the notion of support local vs big chains.

All of which are valid in my books. My rant was more sparked because of this:

Surrey Central:


vs

Metrotown:


vs

Downtown Vancouver:


Yes granted Downtown Vancouver has a good 70 year head start on Surrey, but it illustrates the point I'm trying to make. With increased population comes increased demands for entertainment. If you search for night clubs for example, downtown you have 45. In Surrey Central you have 2.

And yes I know some will argue "Well night clubs just bring an increase in disorderly conduct." and yes they can be contributors to crime and possible gang violence but that hasn't stopped Vancouver downtown from having 45 of them.

Am I being inpatient? Maybe. Maybe not. We've all seen how quickly (Clayton, Morgan Heights) Surrey can build an entire town center. In less than 5 years Morgan Heights alone has grown drastically not just in residents but in 'entertainment' for those residents. I don't think Surrey central should take a decade or 2 just to get a few more restaurants or a single movie theater.

Seems a bit crazy to me!

Ok now let's continue the discussion.

[Whalleyboy]

Surrey has pub in central not clubs. It needs real night clubs something not as much like mirage with needing to dress up. More like what central use to be when it had a dance floor.

With the brewery planing to move i kinda hope they re expand central pub there and turn it more club like again with a dance floor.

Also I'd wish they'd hurry up on figuring out about an arena to bring something more in to Surrey. I've said this before but we could look into and ECHL league team here. They have alot of west coast teams and as it stands there is only one ECHL team in canada and that Victoria and i could see it starting a good rivalery for that league. Plus its a smaller league with only 19 teams right now so a chance of expansion could come more in canada since we all know us canadians love our hockey lol

[Metro-One]

Yeah, some good dancing venues would be great for Surrey.


One thing that Surrey really needs to improve on is their zoning, IMO it is honestly the most disjointed community in Greater Vancouver. In a ten minute drive you will go through several farm / housing sprawl transitions, with the road going from a two lane farming road, then into a 2 lane road with curbs, then a 4 lane road, then into a a wide 2 lane road without curbs, then a 4 lane road again, then a farm road again, etc... all within a few blocks. the inconsistency drives me nuts! Thank Goodness highway 10 and 15 are now consistent.

Of course this sprawling has created terrible road conditions in Surrey. The roads are often beat up and will have no side walks or curbs, they will just slump off into gravel (and I am talking about in the urban areas, i expect that in the rural).

Even in Surrey Central the roads are in terrible condition. 104th for example is amazingly beat up and needs to be re-paved and have an overhaul in sidewalk design, street furniture and just overall presence. The same goes for King George and many other roads in the area.

Of course every community around here has its share of poor roads and street presence (Kingsway near Crystal Mall in Metrotown could use a good paving), but the % in Surrey seems exceptionally high. The finishings are just terrible.

And poorly maintained lane markings is a problem seen throughout metro Vancouver (which is especially bad for a city with many days of wet streets. makes it almost impossible at night to see such faded, reflector-less markings).

I just feel having higher quality streets and sidewalks in Surrey would help the local aesthetics and pedestrian atmosphere. Right now most of the streets look like they belong in the middle of a heavy industrial park.

[geoff's two cents]

First and foremost, in my opinion, Surrey needs a walkable, urban street grid. I'm not even a huge fan of Metrotown in this regard (that enormous mall doesn't help), but a glance at the maps above shows that Surrey has a long, long way to go before it even reaches Metrotown standards.

I would like to see planning for road construction and refurbishment integrated as fully as possible into every future development proposal, except of course in those (very) few areas of Central that already adjoin a more or less urban-scale walkable street. I have yet to see any concerted effort toward this; that beautiful medical tower proposal on King George is a good example of this.

Since this is a wish-list thread with no necessary basis in reality, in an ideal universe the city's arcadian plans for their civic square district and Surrey Central Skytrain station renovation would include the enclosure of the station and creation of a "destination" à la Waterfront station. A Bing Thom glass box would be nice. This would of course include provisioning for intercity bus transportation, demolition of buildings along 135 St., provision for a (long-term) future north-south subway line under 135 St., and shifting the entire street southward, perhaps to line up with the Surrey Central mall access road. One day I'll actually take the trouble to map this out.

[Whalleyboy]

104 is a great road compare to 108. i lost a break caliper bold the other day driving on 108

Also i have to agree surrey need a better grid even looking at there plan build outs of the roads in central it still seems to be not enough
heres to pictures of mine i have



You can still se way to many big gaps

[trofirhen]

I'd like to see the King George Highway and other major streets take down some of their telephone poles, put in aesthetic curbs and roadsides, and just make it look crisper and more attractive.

This has a subliminal effect on people who live / work / or vist there.

Some attractive planting would go a long way, too.

[jlousa]

I'm an outsider with little interest in surrey besides well wishes. I think Surrey is trying too hard at swinging for the fences and is getting constantly struck out. It appears most of the major projects are government projects with the private sector not following suit at anywhere near the same pace.
Spending money on fixing the road system into a grid system is probably the single biggest thing they could do to improve things long term, even if there is no immediate benefit. At the very least the city should be securing rows everywhere possible to complete the grid when a application comes forward. The other thing is encourage more organic growth, instead of going from single story strip malls straight to 40 storey towers, perhaps build up to mid rises first. The city would be much better served with 20 12 storey buildings then it is with 6 40 storey buildings.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm an outsider with little interest in surrey besides well wishes. I think Surrey is trying too hard at swinging for the fences and is getting constantly struck out. It appears most of the major projects are government projects with the private sector not following suit at anywhere near the same pace.
Spending money on fixing the road system into a grid system is probably the single biggest thing they could do to improve things long term, even if there is no immediate benefit. At the very least the city should be securing rows everywhere possible to complete the grid when a application comes forward. The other thing is encourage more organic growth, instead of going from single story strip malls straight to 40 storey towers, perhaps build up to mid rises first. The city would be much better served with 20 12 storey buildings then it is with 6 40 storey buildings.

My sentiments exactly. New West, for instance, has had it tough since the 1960s, but its urban (not suburban) infrastructure has in my opinion been a large part of its rebound over the last decade or so. Cities these days are chic; large-scale suburbs on the order of Mississauga or Surrey are less fashionable than they used to be. A walkable street grid is one of those intangibles that separates an urban from a suburban experience.

It's obviously not the whole answer, but it helps explain New West's relative success vis a vis Surrey for a post-1990s, first-buyers-generation like mine which values such things. Given that New West shares many of Surrey's "problems" (less affluent population, higher crime rate, etc.), and especially given the zest with which Surrey's mayor is calling for large-scale changes, the simple fact of a street system which makes it easier to walk than drive (though ideally not at the expense of the latter) seems to be an important and oft-overlooked difference between successful and unsuccessful cities.

Unfortunately, it's likely Surrey's apparent quest for tax revenue at all costs (to fund its downtown renaissance) by rubber-stamping sprawling, underprovisioned, pedestrian-unfriendly, un-urban construction in places like Clayton (and soon Tynehead and, imo, Morgan Creek) will have an adverse effect on its outside perception as a "city."

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm an outsider with little interest in surrey besides well wishes. I think Surrey is trying too hard at swinging for the fences and is getting constantly struck out. It appears most of the major projects are government projects with the private sector not following suit at anywhere near the same pace.
Spending money on fixing the road system into a grid system is probably the single biggest thing they could do to improve things long term, even if there is no immediate benefit. At the very least the city should be securing rows everywhere possible to complete the grid when a application comes forward. The other thing is encourage more organic growth, instead of going from single story strip malls straight to 40 storey towers, perhaps build up to mid rises first. The city would be much better served with 20 12 storey buildings then it is with 6 40 storey buildings.

I agree with both you and Geoff.
Surrey is that place I still sorta sarcasticly make fun of, but really I'm wishing them good luck, Diane Watts sure has a vision!
I'm just more focused on Vancouver, South Burnaby and New West.

[crazyjoeda]

Lets start with side walks on all major streets and maybe some decent bike routes.

Many major streets in Surrey don't even have sidewalks. Forcing people to walk on the shoulder as cars speed past at 80k+.

And if you've ever cycled in Surrey you would know that the infrastructure is probably the worst in the Metro and most cycle routes run along side major roads where traffic moves fast and almost nobody would ever want to ride. Example, last year the city spent months upgrading the 32nd Avenue to include a cycle path which no one has or will ever use because 32nd is a busy truck route linking Highway 15 with Highway 99. We need proper safe streets to cycle on.

Whalley needs more transit oriented development around the Skytrain stations before any extension of the Expo line is considered. Rapid transit has been in Surrey for over 20 years and the city has done very little to develop the land around the stations. Compare Surrey Central to stations in Burnaby and even Richmond and the development is an epic failure and hugely disappointing. And Surrey Central is probably the most developed Surrey station! Scott Road is just a park and ride.

BTW: I live in Surrey

[invisibleairwaves]

I'll echo the calls for road improvements, not just in the city centre but across the city. I wish I could blame old, unimproved roads for all the problems (and they're responsible for a LOT of them), but even the new construction has been a mess. Everything reeks of half-assed planning. Intersections with crosswalks on only three sides, missing sidewalks on newly-rebuilt arterials, "improvements" that just make traffic flow more convoluted and slow...Surrey has to improve its road network, but they have to do it right. I have no faith that they will.

Also a must: Surrey absolutely needs its own police force. This is long overdue.

[xd_1771]

Right turn lanes.
A whole bunch of goddamned right turn lanes, absolutely everywhere and with an absolutely critical need for them to be everywhere due to the grid layout of the city.
I made a list somewhere of all the road upgrades we could use here (a long list), where the hell is it...

Heavy traffic light/timing improvements at certain intersections (especially 104th & 154th and 152nd & 102A, I hate you....)

I'd like to see a Skytrain Extension/new line into Guildford & Newton (via Whalley) as well.

EDIT: Ah, here's that list. I'm going to make a few revisions on it to touch up and provide more reason:
The more important, specific upgrades:
-Dual left-turn-lanes from 88th WB to Scott SB - because that single-lane left turn signal is goddamned long and often unnecessary and all you eastbound travellers know it. There's plenty of room.
-100th corridor
-Four-laned 100th throuh to 160th from 152nd
-Four-laned 100th through Green Timbers
-Right turn lanes 156th SB > 100 WB, that prick is making me late for school and other occasions and there's plenty of room
-Left turn signals on 100th, because certain intersections are just about over capacity on the left turn lanes (i.e. 156th)
-Center lane/proper left turn lanes at all intersections (not just major ones)
-154th Avenue south of 100th (it's a massive mess during school days)
-A widened roadway and improved (or better, elevated) crosswalks
-Proper left turn signals @ 100th, properly timed to account for both the huge left turn backup in the SB direction approaching the intersection & the rush coming from the school
-Right turn lanes on 154th NB, 100th WB
-154th Avenue just north of 104th should be reconfigured for better left turn lanes & a better signal (to allow for shorter 154th phases, longer 104th phase)
-Right turn lane southbound 156th @ 104th (now the only good route out of Fraser Heights and therefore very busy - I hope the upgrades there include a right turn lane)
-Right turn lane on 152nd northbound approaching 100th (This really wrecks havoc on all the straight moving traffic, which misses out on a lot of the lights)
-64th Avenue near 152nd intersection:
-4-laning at least from 152nd east to current 4-lane section (better yet all the way to Fraser Highway)
-Right turn lanes at 152nd
-Longer left turn lanes (single lane is fine, but they need to be longer and so do the signals)
-Underground/elevated offramp from 152nd northbound to Guildford Town Ctr. or improved turn signals at 102A (either are needed)
-Newton town centre area:
-Improved King George & 72nd intersection (dual left turns, perhaps? and/or designed for faster through movement with wider lanes, right turn lanes - there's usually quite a bit of slow-down here)
-68 WB to King George southbound gets two left turn lanes
-King George SB to 78 EB gets two left turn lanes
-Addition of left-turn-signal and longer left-turn-lane from 156th southbound to Fraser eastbound, removal of left turns from 156 NB > 88 WB to accomodate this as it is redundant)
-Dual left turns from Hwy 10 EB onto 120th NB (With such a short left turn lane, little room and an undivided highway before it it could be pretty nasty, though I'm not entirely sure)
-Removal/shortening of all red-to-green delays at traffic signals at night (Because honestly, how much traffic would be worth the additional 4-5 seconds anyway especially if you're in a hurry)
-Extension of red-to-green delays at certain intersections (i.e. 152nd and 104th, that's a nasty one) to further accomodate last-minute left turns in the day only
-Right turn lane from 152nd SB to 88 WB (using some space to the east to shift 152nd) - this one's a rather nasty one also for straight travellers
-Thorough four-laning 160th from north of Hwy 1 to at least 96th, with proper centre lane/left turn lanes (this one looks like it's approaching capacity also, an extra lane could be very useful)
-Left turn lanes on 108th at 150th & Oriole Drive (Not very heavy left turn areas but probably necessary anyway)
-King George & 104th:
-Dual left turn lane from King George SB > 104th EB (because honestly, lengthening the signal or the left turn lane isn't going to do anything better. This one has reached capacity)
-Expanded left-turn lanes on 104th (especially WB > SB, that one is way too short and often backs up past)
-Right turn lanes and yield slip lanes! (Especially 104th WB > King George NB, that one is an extremely nasty one due to trucks who often take up BOTH the straight through lanes just to turn right and other heavy right turn traffic)
-160th & 108th, Fraser Heights:
-Left turn signals
-Right turn lanes where possible (this place is a huge mess in the mornings, I often see cars cutting through the business complexes just to turn right, clogging up the parking lots - and a lot of right turn traffic using the intersection is blocked by school-bound pedestrians taking with it the rest of straight-through traffic, right through to the end of the signal which is right after the pedestrian signal ends. Nope, no movement for straight traffic, at all)
-Right turn lanes at 88th and King George, expanded 88 WB to King George SB left turn lane (single lane is fine if the signal is long enough)
-104th corridor:
-104th WB to 140 NB: right turn lane
-104th at 148th, both directions on 104th: right turn lanes (this one's a much busier one)
-104th EB at 150th: right turn lane (except buses) (this one's also very very busy due to the mall)
-Dual left turns from 104th EB onto the northbound 160th (rightmost lane for Hwy 1 traffic to the new loop on-ramp, leftmost for straight/Fraser Heights traffic, rather than a mix of the two in one lane - this is something that could seriously help a lot because of Port Mann traffic often clogging up this lane, forcing traffic to use 156th left turn lane which is often crowded up past 154th already anyway)
-Right turn lanes in both directions on 104 at 154th (especially westbound - eastbound may not fit)
-Right turn lane on eastbound 104 @ 156th
-Fraser corridor:
-Dual or longer left turn lanes- 152nd SB at Fraser Hwy
-Longer left turn lanes - 160th SB at Fraser Hwy
-Right turn lanes on all intersections of the Fraser Hwy - 156th St, 160th St, 164th St, 168th St, 184th St, 188th St
-Proper bus bays that don't result in buses blocking up the road
-Very long, dual left-turn-lane & signal on Fraser Hwy @ 64th Ave in both directions
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) - 168th NB at Fraser Hwy (This one is usually extremely busy, 168th is a popular shortcut route and this intersection comes after a long uphill stretch)
-South Surrey incl. King George:
-4-lane the King George Highway from Route 99 to just past 24th Ave
-Expanded left turn movement (longer/dual) King George SB to 24th EB
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) 152nd NB & SB at King George
-Expanded acceleration lane - 32nd Avenue onramp to Route 99
-Scottsdale:
-ALL directions have right turn lanes at 120th & 72nd
-Expanded left turn movement (preferably dual) - 72nd WB @ 120th, 120th SB @ 72nd
-ALL directions have right turn lanes at 128th & 72nd

The options/larger concepts:
-Full six-laning of 152nd from Highway 1 to 96th
-Four-lane, highway standard 152nd from 88th and south towards South Surrey(right turn lanes, shoulders if possible, sidewalk barriers from road [has this ever been done in BC?])
-Full six-laning of 104th through to 152th (or if they can afford the money/space, Highway 1)
-Full six-laning of King George from 108th to 72nd in Newton (better yet, further)
-Full six-laning of King George through to Pattullo (once new Pattullo is done)
-Highway standard Nordel Way (add shoulders, add more right turn lanes - the left turn lanes in certain places are a great start)
-Expanded 108th Avenue (left turn/centre lane, right turn lanes where possible especially King George Highway and 140 Street)
-And jeez, with 96th becoming a major corridor in Surrey, will you at least give it some right turn lanes--
-And of course, finish 4-laning Fraser Highway. Both through Green Timbers and near 176th.
-Better yet, grade-separate 176th. Dual left turns won't cut it, there's way too much traffic there and an interchange (even a simple SPUI) would be extremely useful.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

Lets start with side walks on all major streets and maybe some decent bike routes.

Many major streets in Surrey don't even have sidewalks. Forcing people to walk on the shoulder as cars speed past at 80k+.

And if you've ever cycled in Surrey you would know that the infrastructure is probably the worst in the Metro and most cycle routes run along side major roads where traffic moves fast and almost nobody would ever want to ride. Example, last year the city spent months upgrading the 32nd Avenue to include a cycle path which no one has or will ever use because 32nd is a busy truck route linking Highway 15 with Highway 99. We need proper safe streets to cycle on.

Whalley needs more transit oriented development around the Skytrain stations before any extension of the Expo line is considered. Rapid transit has been in Surrey for over 20 years and the city has done very little to develop the land around the stations. Compare Surrey Central to stations in Burnaby and even Richmond and the development is an epic failure and hugely disappointing. And Surrey Central is probably the most developed Surrey station! Scott Road is just a park and ride.

BTW: I live in Surrey

Actually i'd say gateway 1st and king george 2nd(just recent). both far more developed then central. If anything central is the worst of the three central.

Gateway has the 5 towers built up around it with one office tower

King george has had the current tower being built for it the old ugly apartment and the compass point in and it has the little tower/complex right behind it

Central mean while has well central and a mall...okay library and city hall are coming now but that has is all inside investment from the city.

Also to taking about the city side walks i will admit surrey does badly need to work on its pedestrian walking areas. But the city has already taken note of this they are working on fixing it. Old rule had it building werent responsible to look after that but the city has made it so that now they are.

Also for biking green route there is stuff there dealing with too right now there working on finishing the quibble creek green way around central and thee gonna connect to the greentimber green way

I am gonna go out and say i disagree with right turn ways. If Surrey want to become more city centre like they need to not give as much right away to cars people walking is what comes first. The fact that cars have so much more right of way it what makes surrey keep spreading out so much. Yes some road work should be done to keep roads up to date and more smooth but we shouldnt go over board on putting cars needs first. People walking/biking around the city should come first.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I am gonna go out and say i disagree with right turn ways. If Surrey want to become more city centre like they need to not give as much right away to cars people walking is what comes first. The fact that cars have so much more right of way it what makes surrey keep spreading out so much. Yes some road work should be done to keep roads up to date and more smooth but we shouldnt go over board on putting cars needs first. People walking/biking around the city should come first.

Agreed. Left turn bays make sense, and they are one of my pet peeves about Vancouver's street network. Those left turners slow down everything, simply encouraging most dangerous darting back and forth between lanes.

Right turn bays make sense at really busy intersections with few pedestrians (most of Surrey), but at least in the City Centre, we should begin moving away from that form. When Holland Park was rebuilt for example, the corner right turn bay was filled in and is now a plaza. In some ways, having that ROW for the right turn bays will actually help us build a wider, more enjoyable pedestrian experience as demand warrants.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Agreed. Left turn bays make sense, and they are one of my pet peeves about Vancouver's street network. Those left turners slow down everything, simply encouraging most dangerous darting back and forth between lanes.

Right turn bays make sense at really busy intersections with few pedestrians (most of Surrey), but at least in the City Centre, we should begin moving away from that form. When Holland Park was rebuilt for example, the corner right turn bay was filled in and is now a plaza. In some ways, having that ROW for the right turn bays will actually help us build a wider, more enjoyable pedestrian experience as demand warrants.

There are actually a lot of really busy intersections with a lot of pedestrians during certain times of day, especially some such as 160th and 108th. A lot of cars turn right at that intersection and have to stop to wait for pedestrians - and there's always pedestrians during school days because of nearby Fraser Heights Secondary. This causes that right turning car to block every single other car wanting to go straight even though there's absolute clearance up ahead. The lineups sometimes become really long. And of course, due to the timing of this light, by the time the pedestrian signal ends, the rest of the light also ends, so we're all out of luck. This is what I meant when I pleaded my case here about right turn lanes; even if we are supposed to put pedestrians first, we should also consider that we are not just trying to keep pedestrians moving, we're trying to keep everyone moving, no matter what priorities we set for who.

[jhausner]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm an outsider with little interest in surrey besides well wishes. I think Surrey is trying too hard at swinging for the fences and is getting constantly struck out. It appears most of the major projects are government projects with the private sector not following suit at anywhere near the same pace.
Spending money on fixing the road system into a grid system is probably the single biggest thing they could do to improve things long term, even if there is no immediate benefit. At the very least the city should be securing rows everywhere possible to complete the grid when a application comes forward. The other thing is encourage more organic growth, instead of going from single story strip malls straight to 40 storey towers, perhaps build up to mid rises first. The city would be much better served with 20 12 storey buildings then it is with 6 40 storey buildings.

Those are 2 big suggestions I see all over the place by people in Surrey. The first being the road system. There are very little choices when it comes to moving North <> South or East <> West. Surrey has been Snafued into a bit of a corner throughout due to a lot of cul-de-sac and A/B Avenue developments, but in the city centre it really needs to start hacking up better road layouts.

As for the flat to 40 storey highrises absolutely. You need to start getting people moving in and things moving into the area. Look at the two quickest to be developed building projects in the center lately. D'corize and CityPoint. Both projects are not involving mega multi-phased 40-9000 storey highrises but rather more reasonable towers in a reasonable timeframe for reasonable prices. Those are people that _have_ moved in and have brought more people to the area than Infinity 1, 2, and Urban Village. I'd rather see 10 towers 15-25 storeys being built than 2 towers 40 storeys right now.

Once you get that foothold and you bump up the area population by 10,000 or so, businesses will see the potential and things will move in driving demand for the higher towers.

Vancouver didn't get tall towers over-night. It took 50 years. Most towers in the West End are actually fairly modest.

[jhausner]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Agreed. Left turn bays make sense, and they are one of my pet peeves about Vancouver's street network. Those left turners slow down everything, simply encouraging most dangerous darting back and forth between lanes.

Right turn bays make sense at really busy intersections with few pedestrians (most of Surrey), but at least in the City Centre, we should begin moving away from that form. When Holland Park was rebuilt for example, the corner right turn bay was filled in and is now a plaza. In some ways, having that ROW for the right turn bays will actually help us build a wider, more enjoyable pedestrian experience as demand warrants.

The thing that stikes me every time I travel to Las Vegas is the overhead walkway design at their major intersections. I'd actually rather see the city consider moving towards this style of handling pedestrian traffic at major intersections rather than overly-complicating the intersection with multi-lights, right turn bays, queueing, etc.

You don't need them at _every_ intersection, but you pick some major spots like say Fraser Highway, 100th, 102, 104, and 108, and you're golden. While left turn lanes are a major contributor to traffic issues in Vancouver and I'm a big hater of driving in Vancouver for that reason, I've found recently that flashing green light pedestrian crossings also contribute a huge amount by simply stopping natural flow.

It also makes for an impossible task for traffic planners to do their job. How do you plan for traffic flow from 1 street through a few following streets when you have 5-10 flashing greens in between that can go red randomly. If you find a way so that the bulk of pedestrian traffic can bypass the road intersection through overpasses or underpasses, you can at the very least help reduce conflict.

Just a thought though. I know it costs more to put in walking overpasses than a simple cross walk or intersection, but it could be done if the city wanted.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by jhausner

The thing that stikes me every time I travel to Las Vegas is the overhead walkway design at their major intersections. I'd actually rather see the city consider moving towards this style of handling pedestrian traffic at major intersections rather than overly-complicating the intersection with multi-lights, right turn bays, queueing, etc.

You don't need them at _every_ intersection, but you pick some major spots like say Fraser Highway, 100th, 102, 104, and 108, and you're golden. While left turn lanes are a major contributor to traffic issues in Vancouver and I'm a big hater of driving in Vancouver for that reason, I've found recently that flashing green light pedestrian crossings also contribute a huge amount by simply stopping natural flow.

It also makes for an impossible task for traffic planners to do their job. How do you plan for traffic flow from 1 street through a few following streets when you have 5-10 flashing greens in between that can go red randomly. If you find a way so that the bulk of pedestrian traffic can bypass the road intersection through overpasses or underpasses, you can at the very least help reduce conflict.

Just a thought though. I know it costs more to put in walking overpasses than a simple cross walk or intersection, but it could be done if the city wanted.

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.

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.

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.

[Whalleyboy]

things like the widening of 140th all the way through are being done to help traffic aviod the city centre so they can build king george out as a better walking street then it is today. Things like that are smart planning in my mind The city centre should aviod pleasing traffic and more focus on people walking around it. Its the only way we have a chance to be more like big city city centres

[metroXpress]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

things like the widening of 140th all the way through are being done to help traffic aviod the city centre so they can build king george out as a better walking street then it is today. Things like that are smart planning in my mind The city centre should aviod pleasing traffic and more focus on people walking around it. Its the only way we have a chance to be more like big city city centres

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.