Surrey/South Fraser Updates [Archive] - Page 10

SpongeG

Apr 14, 2011, 12:31 AM

Except streetcars are in essence what she's planning, NOT separated LRT.

This backfires even under existing conditions. Buses have to share the roads. BRT will have to share the roads. LRT will have to share the roads. People HATE the roads here and you are right. That is why we must create transit that is SEPARATED from the roads, such as a skytrain route. I'm not saying it has to be done everywhere, only where the road traffic and unreliability is so critical that grade-separated transit should be immediately required.

LRT doesn't have to be separated - they have LRT in portland that shares the roads - where it can be separated it is - whereas the streetcar in portland i don't think has any separated sections and it runs fine

but by making a separated route we are caving into the cars and making it easier for the cars and the whole point is to make it harder for the cars

xd_1771

Apr 14, 2011, 12:40 AM

We don't have to necessarily make it any harder for cars, all we have to do is show that the transit alternative is a better option.

Actually currently I'm fairly certain that it is already hard for cars. For this one I'm going to use the 104th Avenue example.
So, let's build RRT (or elevated/separated LRT) over 104th without improving 104th, which is a bad route as it is for both car travel and bus travel. People will be convinced to use the RRT over 104th because it is a vast improvement over road traffic; eventually it'll stick and the likelihood is there'll be no need to improve 104th anymore. If there wasn't a huge amount of local volume being moved 104th would be fine as it is even if SFPR weren't built.

LRT on the other hand would likely share road traffic and not be that much faster than the current bus services; in fact as far as I'm aware it'll likely be less frequent than the current buses that are already more than jam-packed with commuters. It wouldn't be a big benefit and wouldn't be the most viable option.

SpongeG

Apr 14, 2011, 12:46 AM

I really don't care I don't have to live in the hell hole called surrey lol

but i still think a street sharing LRT will give us much more system and is a better way to go in this case

xd_1771

Apr 14, 2011, 1:13 AM

What it won't do is make improvements where critically needed.
An expanded bus network combined with proper RRT routes and LRT routes in proper locations would be better for everyone would be a much better choice rather than outfitting every street every 8 blocks with streetcar tracks.

paradigm4

Apr 14, 2011, 1:59 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge downright lie.
We already have routes that are capable of accomodating Skytrain over, maybe under them. The terrain the SkyTrain would be travelling to is not nearly as hilly or as delicate as the ones in Vancouver. I highly doubt a Skytrain line at least between Whalley and Guildford and/or Newton would cost this much. We don't have to build long tunnels under green space like we did on cambie. We don't have to go straight through a mountain as with the Evergreen Line. I argue that the cost of LRT due to the required widening of road, acquisition of properties, and impact and all kinds of traffic, would actually be higher in these given routes, and in essence do NOTHING to benefit community-community movement because even then Surrey would not have a developed enough road and transit base to support the high movements between most communities.

I'm NOT saying that we have to build Skytrain EVERYWHERE, but those critical places that DO need some form of reliable, high capacity transit are in need of Skytrain and NOTHING LOWER. I would fully support an LRT plan across the entire city of Surrey but only if the Whalley-Newton & Whalley-Guildford routes are connected by RRT.

You're way behind on this argument. Nobody in the SoF believes that SkyTrain is appropriate for the area. It is, in fact, too expensive. The priority for the SoF is to get high quality transit in major corridors as fast as possible. The emerging centres need to be connected - once the infrastructure is in place, it will begin to transform through densification the suburban landscape. Now, we can either pay $1B for a 6km SkyTrain extension to Guildford, or use that money and build an entire LRT network connecting all the centres of Surrey, White Rock, and Langley. Most agree that LRT makes the most sense for the SoF.

For the record, any route - LRT, BRT, or SkyTrain - along 104th will require property acquisition.

paradigm4

Apr 14, 2011, 2:04 AM

"I think the general public is fed up with all of us sitting around a table trying to cobble our pennies together to pay for [transit]," she said. "I would like to see it done within a month or two. You need a sustainable transportation plan."

So she wants somebody else to pay for it? This mayor's council is seriously screwed up. They demand infrastructure spending but refuse to pay for it themselves. When it comes to helping to pay for another part of the region's transit, that's out as well.

What the mayors have consistently said is, give us the ability to raise revenues through sources other than property taxes. They simply are not the most effective method for revenues, nor are they are all tied to consumption of transport services. At the end of the day, the province needs to okay both a vehicle registration fee and a coherent regional bridge tolling strategy. Implement those two, we'll bring in huge wads of cash, transit expansion will be vast, and the region will experience a long awaited transition to a more livable and sustainable way of life. Roads will be freed for goods movement, people will have genuine transportation choice, and citizens bills on mobility will decrease thus freeing up capital for more expensive housing and other goods and services.

Whalleyboy

Apr 14, 2011, 5:43 AM

You're way behind on this argument. Nobody in the SoF believes that SkyTrain is appropriate for the area. It is, in fact, too expensive. The priority for the SoF is to get high quality transit in major corridors as fast as possible. The emerging centres need to be connected - once the infrastructure is in place, it will begin to transform through densification the suburban landscape. Now, we can either pay $1B for a 6km SkyTrain extension to Guildford, or use that money and build an entire LRT network connecting all the centres of Surrey, White Rock, and Langley. Most agree that LRT makes the most sense for the SoF.

For the record, any route - LRT, BRT, or SkyTrain - along 104th will require property acquisition.

Personally i think its just dumb to back track skytrain to go along 104ave. But skytrain to newton i would support as long as a LRT route to Langley via Guildford would be in the works. There is plenty of room to add LRT lanes along 104 ave with out removing car lanes. In fact i think most routes surrey has in mine for LRT has enough room to add seperated LRT lanes with out removing lanes on the road.

xd_1771

Apr 15, 2011, 5:09 AM

Remember No. 3 Road in Richmond when it had the BRT lanes?
Yeah, that's how wide 104th would have to be. I definitely didn't really like it in Richmond, and neither did a lot of people, and I think it might be the same deal on 104th.

I'd much prefer a setup similar to No. 3 Road now with the overhead Canada Line track running above and a very wide and beautified pedestrian space/path down below, then how it was back then with the BRT lanes in the middle and narrow sidewalks and all sorts of safety and reliability problems. I think more pedestrian movement between Guildford/Whalley would be favourable, as it would probably attract more commercial/shopfront development along an otherwise busy corridor and more pedestrian and cycling as well as car & transit movement. I have this really nice vision in my head of 104th turning into a more optimized version of Vancouver's Broadway (commercial-development & pedestrian-wise), it's quite fantastic to think about really. As 104th is a major corridor linking two major centres it'd probably be really wise to invest in such medium-scale development there anyhow, if proper options were made to support it.

Whalleyboy

Apr 15, 2011, 6:07 AM

personally i look at the render video at civic surrey and think its lrt looks fine along 104ave. You may claim its gonna mess traffic up but traffic still has 108 ave which is a nice 4 lane road. Plans to wide 100th ave to for lanes all the way through are also in works. Also there is one more road that the city seems to be very secretive about and its gonna be more for local travel between central and guildford then through travel and thats the 105 connector

invisibleairwaves

Apr 15, 2011, 6:29 AM

Wait, so Surrey wants to turn the most direct route between its future downtown core and one of its largest town centres into a two-lane road?

I give up on this town.

Whalleyboy

Apr 15, 2011, 6:34 AM

no it wants to turn it into a more pedistrain and transit friendly corridor

xd_1771

Apr 15, 2011, 6:51 AM

It's not viable.
Like I said, tolled PMB.
104th is the main east-west route for more than just Surrey traffic, and it is this traffic that will soon be further increasing, which is why at the moment LRT on 104th is NOT a viable option.
LRT on 108th perhaps is, because that is a route used by Surrey commuters mostly and not everybody else.

Whalleyboy

Apr 15, 2011, 7:01 AM

108 does not hold a node are between central and guidlford like 104. Traffic would be shift between the two roads its likely. Also note alot of the truck traffic that use 104 ave would also likely be shifted to SFPR. We can't keep putting people in cars first. The most direct route should be transit oriented first. Its the only other way to start pulling people out of there cars

xd_1771

Apr 15, 2011, 7:06 AM

Whalley is about to turn into a major downtown centre
The Port Mann Bridge is soon going to be tolled and the rates are going to be fairly high... a lot of people won't use it
Clearly you underestimate the fact that the situation in the next few years will get worse and to put LRT on top of a very busy route will only be the icing on the cake. I think this route will be serving more than just cars for long ways to come
It's bad enough already. An elevated RRT or such option would truly attract people en masse, I know lots of people (parents, people) who hate using at-grade options (whether bus or car or whatever) between Guildford & Whalley. But, this is just another at-grade option... it might be at least partially successful, but there's no way it could be fully successful. If a less permanent option such as BRT were opted for first, we will see how much it will get cars to stop using 104th. The reason cars still use that road is because the current transit is terrible. Even the slightest and cheaper improvement of an express BRT could change a lot, especially considering current ridership levels.

Most people get on 320 because it appears the most often. 320 also stops the most often. A new express route should first and foremost, between Guildford & Whalley, be advertised, before any such LRT (or RRT) action is taken. It will put existing transit users at ease and perhaps take on some new riders on the way. From there and there only, a new traffic model could be built and then decision made. This is a fragile area with all the projects coming in during the next few years, we need to plan AFTER those projects are done rather than during them, otherwise we won't really have a basis as to what we're doing and be doing too much at the same time, only to result in disaster. People who multitask too much are worse at it; this is the exact same way.

Invisibleairwaves is right, by then I won't be living in Surrey, but I have younger brothers and sisters who will and I feel that being late for a lot of things isn't the right future for them....

Whalleyboy

Apr 15, 2011, 7:13 AM

I like how some how your already calling it a failure when we have nothing to prove it will be around here. You can say things like the LRT in seattle sucks blah blah blah. But you should note canadians are way better at using transit options compared to USA. If you look at LRT in Alberta its pretty well used considering. People in metro Vancouver are even better at using transit then albertians anyways too so that gives me even more thought that this would work great!

Also yeah port mann is gonna be told which means likely a drop in traffic using 104 to get to the hwy

whiteshadow

Apr 15, 2011, 2:43 PM

Also yeah port mann is gonna be told which means likely a drop in traffic using 104 to get to the hwy

I agree... with a tolled Port Mann, I think 104th traffic will actually decrease. Here's why:
1. truck traffic from Pattullo to Hwy 1 will be moved to SFPR
2. Fewer people using 104th to get to 104/160th interchange w/ Hwy 1 to get onto Port Mann.
3. Many people will change their driving habits in order to find a more direct route to the Patullo/Alex Fraser for a free alternative... I see traffic shifting to Fraser Hwy & 96th.
4. More people will be interested in taking transit from Guildford to Surrey Central now to use transit to avoid tolls and a clogged Patullo.

As mentioned above, with 96 4-laned now out to the Golden Ears Bridge I see more cross-town commuters shifting to that road as a cross-town solution.

104th has almost nothing going for it in terms of development, with stuff happening in Whalley and Guildford but (next-to) nothing in between. Sure 104th may be cut down to 1 lane each way, but with LRT the traffic patterns can be shaped there and encourage people to use transit instead.

I honestly can't see 104th being akin to something like Hwy 1, where everyone lives on one side and works on the other. A downsizing to 1-lane + LRT for 104th should be OK.

xd_1771

Apr 15, 2011, 3:04 PM

GMasterAres

Apr 15, 2011, 6:00 PM

GMasterAres

Apr 15, 2011, 6:38 PM

Is a dastardly lie. If the city contributed so much a year to transportation, then the Guildford-Whalley segment of 104th would be moving again. But, on a serious note, NOTHING OF GREAT NEED has been improved in this city, and NOTHING will EVER be improved regarding transportation under her current plans. DEAL WITH IT. Oh wait, WE DON'T HAVE TO. We just have to stand up and show her ourselves that this is truly one of the wrongest and stupidest things to do. What I hate is that Diane Watts is actually right when she said that "I think the general public is fed up with all of us sitting around a table trying to cobble our pennies together to pay for [transit]." That's because we're all just lazy couch potatoes who sit down and really aren't doing anything about it. I say this is a wake up call for US to get up to ensure a PROPER and BETTER future Surrey, not a CRIPPLED one as she is planning. You will see me participating, oh yes you will.

You think it is a "dastardly lie"?

The city government itself doesn't pay that amount but she has always stated the city as in the city + the citizens contribute that much. I think the number is low actually.

Given translink's budget from collecting city based taxation at around $928 million in 2008-2009, if we were to guess the break down of their city based funding source follows roughly a percentage of population, Surrey holds about 20 % of the region's population so 20% of 928 million = $185.6 million in contributions.

These contributions are via:

Transit Fares: Every Surrey citizen buying a transit ticket = a Surrey citizen contributing to Translink (Also keep in mind all Skytrain travelers from Surrey have to pay at least 2 zones no matter what basically, and the vast majority buy 3 zone passes in contrast to people in Vancouver who almost always are buying 1 zone transit passes with the rare 2 zone).

Fuel Tax: Every litre of gas purchased by a Surrey citizen = a Surrey citizen contributing 12 cents per litre to Translink. I'm not taking into account all the ships, trains, and other commercial based vehicles that fuel up in Surrey so technically, due to business being driven by the city, are also contributing to Translink's pockets.

Hydro Levy: Every Surrey based business or resident that has electricity at their property = a Surrey business/citizen contributing $1.90 per month ($22.80 per year) to Translink

Property Tax: Every residential property owner in Surrey = a Surrey residential property owner (can be a citizen) contributing on average $210 per year to Translink (more expensive properties = more expensive per year cost)

Parking Sales Tax: Every parking spot purchased in Surrey = a Surrey contribution of 7% of the price sold contributed to Translink

So overall my number is $185 million based on just rough population matching which isn't entirely accurate, but is still higher than what the Mayor has stated. I'd say her number is probably not far off the mark. It may be a bit less but it could be a bit more than she has stated.

Also of note the above numbers are for 2008-2009. We have 2 years of inflation here to deal with too so the numbers would be higher today.

Regardless I believe her point is that Surrey citizens and the city itself is contributing probably in and around 20% of Translink's funding and not getting 20% of Translink's service. That's her point. I believe Surrey citizens would rather spend that money to _actually_ get some better service out here. If it means thumbing noses at Translink and going at it on our own then so be it.

Something would be better than nothing and Surrey has gotten nothing.

GMasterAres

Apr 15, 2011, 6:55 PM

As for 104th being more busy? I think the day someone from Langley drives over the new Port Mann and with very little traffic gets to Vancouver directly and within' 35-40 minutes, will realize going through Surrey down 104th then over the Patullo then through the mess of New-West/Burnaby to avoid $2 or $3, is quite stupid.

At the end of the day both sides are simply based in the world of speculation. The proof is in the pudding. As much as I disagreed with the bike lanes down Burrard bridge or in Vancouver for their taking away traffic lanes, I drive through Vancouver a lot and downtown and have noticed not much if anything has changed. That's taking an entire lane away from a bridge and major road in the 3rd most dense downtown core in North America, and you had little noticable difference.

Add LRT down 104th and you can also remove most if not all busses from the route and we all know busses actually contribute a lot to traffic jams. They are more efficient in the sense of moving people but the very stop and go nature makes them hold up car traffic making them street-use-inefficient.

Anyway this is my last big post on this topic since this is not a Transit thread. :)

xd_1771

Apr 15, 2011, 7:06 PM

There are some people who use that bridge every single day for commute in both directions. That`s a huge price to pay. A lot of people won`t be so willing especially if the distance of their work, from Pattullo Bridge, is quite short.

go_leafs_go02

Apr 15, 2011, 7:18 PM

There will be an SFPR connection to Pattullo Bridge that will be available as far as I know....

Why you would bother taking 104 to King George rather than SFPR is beyond me.

paradigm4

Apr 15, 2011, 7:46 PM

The Port Mann Bridge is soon going to be tolled and the rates are going to be fairly high... a lot of people won't use it

An elevated RRT or such option would truly attract people en masse, I know lots of people (parents, people) who hate using at-grade options (whether bus or car or whatever) between Guildford & Whalley.

A new express route should first and foremost, between Guildford & Whalley, be advertised, before any such LRT (or RRT) action is taken.

Please do some research and find evidence to back up your assertions. Lots of what you state is opinion and based entirely on assumptions and hearsay.

1. I agree that people are not used to tolls, nor will they appreciate the financial impact on their bottom line. I suspect a much higher number of people than modelled will not pay the toll. The question is, what will they do instead? My guess is that in the short term, they will take the Pattullo or shift onto transit. In the long term, especially with a tolled Pattullo, people will either move so that both their job and home are located on one side.

2. People don't hate "at-grade" transit. Hell, people don't know anything other than buses. Even the B-Line is a poor excuse for bus rapid transit - it's basically just a larger express bus. At the end of the day, the largest factor that will induce people to switch, other than TDM, is frequencies. Once you have any form of transit going every 12 mins or less, customers don't have to base their lives around a schedule anymore. Of course, it also needs to go to one's destination, but that's just implied.

The one advantage LRT has over BRT is that it can shape development as it provides a strong economic impetus for investment. Buses don't do that.

Rail of any form can also attract upper class choice riders, those feel as though they are too good to ride a bus.

RRT does all of this, but at a much higher cost, an investment that it not at all justified in terms of return for the community.

3. An express route between Guildford and Whalley does exist and has for quite some time. It's called the C74.

Add LRT down 104th and you can also remove most if not all busses from the route and we all know busses actually contribute a lot to traffic jams. They are more efficient in the sense of moving people but the very stop and go nature makes them hold up car traffic making them street-use-inefficient.

This is a very good point. I would also reiterate the SFPR factor, as most trucks that now travel down 104th to Hwy 1 will take the perimeter road instead.

invisibleairwaves

Apr 15, 2011, 11:00 PM

I think saying people don't want Skytrain in Surrey is a bit misleading. People don't want Skytrain as the main transportation system within Surrey. That doesn't mean people in general don't think extending Skytrain out to Langley could make a lot of sense. I for one, cost regardless, would be fine with Skytrain being extended out to Langley. The cost would be quite astronomical though so if we can come up with an alternative that will yield similar results, then I think we're on the right track.

I'm not completely opposed to Skytrain as some people seem to be, I'm more opposed to Translink doing any of this stuff in the future since they are so 1) Vancouver/Burnaby centric in thinking and 2) manage money and revenue sources about as well as Lehman Brothers did.

I was baffled by the "Nobody in the SoF believes that SkyTrain is appropriate for the area" comment. As a regular commuter on the Fraser Highway, I can tell you that I and many, many other people in the area would love to see a Skytrain extension down that corridor. It's been promised for a long, long time, and people are going to be pretty disappointed when they find out Watts wants to replace it with a lower-capacity, at-grade alternative.

Also: this bit: "Now, we can either pay $1B for a 6km SkyTrain extension to Guildford, or use that money and build an entire LRT network connecting all the centres of Surrey, White Rock, and Langley."

$1B to connect White Rock and Langley to Whalley via LRT? Important question here: would that LRT system be powered by unicorns, or by rainbows?

xd_1771

Apr 15, 2011, 11:15 PM

An express route between Guildford and Whalley does exist and has for quite some time. It's called the C74.
I ride this bus often
It's meant strictly as a Fraser Heights connection. A lot of times the drivers never let anyone on Guildford bound for Surrey Central - or at Surrey Central if people are bound to Guildford and not Fraser Heights. Even then it can get super crowded and nauseous.

Buses don't do that.
I can name a few cities elsewhere in the world where buses shape infrastructure.
Bogota, Colombia... Curitiba, Brazil... Johannesburg, South Africa... you want it, I name it. In all those cities around the world, BRT was chosen, and it works extremely well at moving people. It even does well to shape businesses and city travel patterns. We don't have any proof that it won't be the same way here. I can tell you this though: there are a LOT of people that ride the bus right now between Guildford & Whalley, a number that would gladly increase with BRT.

we can either pay $1B for a 6km SkyTrain extension to Guildford
This will definitely not cost $1B... it was proved earlier in this thread using the $/km scheme
I don't even think that the LRT network (at the moment) has plans to go everywhere in Surrey other than Newton, Guildford & Langley are in the works, so that's a perhaps invalid comment right there.

trofirhen

Apr 15, 2011, 11:16 PM

invisibleairwaves

Apr 16, 2011, 1:15 AM

Translink's capital cost estimates for Broadway LRT were between $1.1B and $1.4B, for a route that's shorter than either Surrey Central to White Rock or Surrey Central to Langley Centre. So either Translink's numbers are way off, or $1b to blanket Surrey in LRT is a completely nonsensical figure.

Whalleyboy

Apr 16, 2011, 1:35 AM

No, a lot of people don't want the tolls. 96th and Fraser Highway are further routes tan would otherwise be considered. I can see a potential increase in transit along the Guildford-Whalley route, but that is a bad thing. The buses are not built to handle the kind of movement and capacity that is required now, neither will be those tiny LRT trains.

Tiny!? did you even see the size of the flex street car when it was in vancouver during the olympics? personally i thought they felt roomier then the skytrains.

xd_1771

Apr 16, 2011, 1:38 AM

1 LRT system is going to replace about 8 chronically overcrowded bus routes... plus the LRT is probably not going to run as often.
The train also has to be much shorter or the stops/station platforms will take up way too much space. This would be going on top of a critical priority road, not as in the case of the Olympic Village line which rides on top of a grass strip really and nothing to compromise.

CoryHolmes

Apr 16, 2011, 3:46 PM

While I love the idea of LRT in Surrey, I don't think an at-grade system would be of much benefit for the dollar value compaired to SkyTrain.

I rode the C-Train in Calgary for almost a year and the did hell to the traffic whenever it crossed a major intersection. Now thinking of how well that would work on 104 Ave, with the LRT traffic arms swinging down and blocking off every single left-hand turning lane...

I agree that both the trains and the SFPR will do wonders for taking road traffic off of 104, but so many people still use it to access the bits of the city above 104 from the lower parts of it. That's a lot of north-south traffic that will get endlessly delayed by trains running every 10-15 minutes. If the trains don't run faster than that, then I don't think the system will get nearly as much use.

I'd love for LRT, but I still think SkyTrain will give us more bang for our bucks.

xd_1771

Apr 16, 2011, 5:57 PM

The trains would have to be running WAY more than 10-15 minutes apart to effectively replace the transit riders trying to make do on 8 different bus routes that are still all overcrowded in peak hours.

At which point even BRT would be a better solution, running every 5 minutes as what is usually scheduled when BRT service starts in a certain area. Unlike any of the other B-Lines in the metro, this one would have only two stops: Guildford and Surrey Central; no need to stop anywhere on 104th and cause traffic mess. Other buses would continue to exist for people who do need to get off in-between. I don't think there'd be any problem implementing it for the short term. It's not even half as long as the routes existing B-Lines serve either. You won't need nearly as many buses to implement it. And since people usually take the first bus available (why 320 is so popular), this would be a major hit among transit riders.

What we need to really prioritize, instead of bringing mass (rail) updates to major corridors that we can't even prove will work (at least in the short term), are transit movements elsewhere in the city, i.e. the residential neighbourhoods farther from buses. Fleetwood could really use a couple of community shuttle routes, such a place would be perfect for them. A new bus through Fraser Heights & Port Kells using the new connector between 176/104 & Golden Ears/96 would be a perfect addition to 1. calm C74 traffic, 2. help serve local and Port Kells bound traffic and 3. give a suitable alternative to the rapidbus or 501 or whatever. I would save LRT or RRT upgrades for the slightly longer term because of fragile nature of places due to other projects and inaccurate traffic models as a result.

Whalleyboy

Apr 17, 2011, 12:28 AM

A direct bus between central and guildford with no stops is just stupid.

xd_1771

Apr 17, 2011, 1:52 AM

A direct bus between central and guildford with no stops is just stupid.

I didn't say it would act as a complete replacement of current routes. It would be more of a much-needed and efficient reliever. Think of it, there is a fair majority of commuters in between that do not wish to get on or off anywhere in between. You can see this with the amount of people using the C74 or if you take note of when people get on and off the bus more often.

That should fuel the Guildford-Whalley movement well enough in the short term until other transportation & infrastructure projects in the Guildford area and such are complete; give it a few years, then a far more accurate travel pattern model can be completed and only then is when the decision should be made to build a more permanent form of expansion such as LRT or RRT.

Whalleyboy

Apr 17, 2011, 5:09 AM

But its a seems just like a waste of buses

xd_1771

Apr 17, 2011, 6:39 AM

Other routes can of course be adjusted accordingly in such a case. A lot of routes may get less busy, then less buses would be needed to use that route, or that route stops service to and from that area.

SpongeG

Apr 17, 2011, 6:41 AM

it could operate as an express - i knew someone who who lived in the west end and worked at guildford mall - his commute was killer that would have been appreciated by him

GMasterAres

Apr 18, 2011, 6:58 PM

Surrey is going to keep on growing as a commuter belt, so I also think it merits Skytrain expansion.

Questions: How far down do you see it going? All the way to White Rock Centre and Langley city centre? Will it be elevated, at grade, partially tunnelled? (only where necessary I presume, although I find the elevated guideways ugly. At grade is usually ok)

What would the cost be, ball park figure?

Is this purely an extension of Skytrain itself, or a system that links up at the existing Whalley terminus? (I'm think of regional express trains tather than actual Skytrain. There may be performance differences.)

Whatever the case, Surrey is becoming (on a smaller scale of course) the Mississiauga of Vancouver, and will have, in the future, dense areas within it, and a lot of commuter traffic.

I believe the highest cost for Skytrain is when it is elevated. For Surrey I could see extending it to Langley. I think it would make more sense to instead of spinning it down through 104th to Guildford, actually focussing on inner-city LRT for that route and just shooting Skytrain out down Fraser Highway to Langley. It is much more direct for one.

As for elevated vs not, I would imagine you would have to be elevated out to 168th. Once you get to 168th through Skytrain could be dropped down to at-grade which would reduce costs down and up the hill towards 180th. You'd then have to elevate it again to reach Langley terminus Willowbrook. Also down Fraser Highway elevated would allow you to not have to cut trees on either side. If they take it into account when they widen Fraser Highway then you can leave Green Timbers untouched and just elevate it over Fraser Highway itself. Not to mention you would't be "Cutting the city in half" as Mayor Watts stated in her address since the trees of Green Timbers are considerably higher and this is a corridor that will never be developed with buildings.

I honestly do think Skytrain extension down Fraser Highway to Willowbrook would be the only and best option for Translink regionally. Possible stations would be: 140th, 148th, 152nd, 88th Ave, 160th, 168th, 184th, 64 Ave, Willowbrook.

A 152nd street station would allow you to do an LRT L eventually from Guildford. West from Guildford down 104th to connect with Surrey Central. South towards White-Rock down 152nd to connect with Skytrain. Gives you a good transportation backbone and you are never too far away from the main backbone within the major city centers.

Cost? Probably $2 billion or so give or take a few hundred million. The stretch is about 15km total and at maximum you'd have 9 additional stations.

In contrast Canada line was technically 19km worth of track, had a lot of tunnels, and cost something around 2 billion. Millenium line is 20km roughly with 13 stations and cost around $1.1 billion give or take. So I'd say $2 billion for 5 km less and 4 less stations would be a good conservative estimation. A lot of the cost is in the elevated track portions and the service yard. If it was attached to the current Expo line and simply an extension then I would believe the cost quite a bit lower since you'd just have to buy more trains and extend so wouldn't need another service yard maybe just a yard expansion.

golog

Apr 18, 2011, 8:14 PM

Translink 2010-2011 Budget (http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/board%202011/2011%20business%20plan%20operating%20capital%20budget%20summary.ashx)
page 19 of 93 has the summary of expenditures and revenues

More and more of the budget is devoted to paying interest as the only way things are getting done is with Translink borrowing. Going from $2.1 billion to $2.3 billion of debt projected for 2011, and their budget assumption is 4.5% long term borrowing interest rate. Expect a train wreck when interest rates go up, or municipal revenues dip in a real estate bust.

The Evergreen line might go ahead, but everything thereafter including the Patullo will have to be done after establishing a revenue stream for Translink in proportion to the lower mainland's transportation needs. Ad-hoc P3s and tolling has proven to be a weak model around the world.

jlousa

Apr 18, 2011, 9:31 PM

Translink will be able to borrow at 4.5% for a long time to come, they have a very good credit rating and have now begun issuing bonds as well.

Also a real estate bust won't effect how much Translink collects from property taxes any more then a rise would help them.

xd_1771

Apr 19, 2011, 2:13 AM

CoryHolmes

Apr 19, 2011, 10:27 AM

paradigm4

Apr 19, 2011, 11:05 PM

I think that the better option for Langley & beyond would be to restart the interurban rail line idea (perhaps as a WCE-like Fraser Valley Express)... Skytrain is not meant as a highly regional distance form of transport, it is more of an urban form of transport. I don't think there's really enough volume coming from just Langley into the Vancouver area to make Skytrain suitable, and in addition all you'd be doing by shooting down Fraser Highway is making both Guildford & Whalley unhappy

I love that you are adamantly against LRT to Guildford, but despise SkyTrain for any other route!

At the end of the day, this discussion highlights the fact that for the SoF there is no clear route for transit head down. There's Guildford, then there's Newton, then there's Langley, and hell you could even add Coquitlam via the PMB to the list.

With this networked reality, I think it becomes quite clear that we should use our money to establish some form of rapid transit on all these routes. This is why I would support an immediate series of B-Lines for the SoF. They are cheap, they build ridership, and can be introduced quickly.

Long term though, I do see LRT replacing these B-Lines. With so many routes to choose from, SkyTrain will never - never - service them all. LRT achieves roughly the same goals with a much lower price tag, allowing rail to reach more communities for the same cost.

xd_1771

Apr 19, 2011, 11:42 PM

The thing about Skytrain is that it is an urban form of transport. It is meant to serve the routes in between the most dense areas that would prefer to have quick and efficient transport in addition to slower options such as walking or cycling. Newton and Guildford are centres meet those demands, at present, and will continue to do so with increased growth and traffic movement through the centres - spurred by a tolled PMB, Guildford Mall expansion and new RapidBus connections in Guildford, and increased residential and industrial growth as well as a potential for a major regional connection hub (if the needed Interurban is continued and built) in the Newton. There are other routes to centres that aren't nearly as dense or don't have as much planned development for them that makes them actually worth visiting or nearly as much density at present or planned. Those would be much more suitable to be served by local LRT connections (or regional interurban in the case of cities such as Langley & Cloverdale - in both cases there could be suitable alternatives if faster travel is needed such as the interurban train or highway-based rapidbus routes). So, technically, you are right by saying "SkyTrain will never - never - service them all" and that is why I am not in full support of such earlier proposals such as Skytrain to Langley on the Fraser Highway (which would additionally miss the major centres where it is needed)

At the end of the day
Oh, can you please stop saying that? Hearing this so often here has developed to become a slight pet peeve to me lately. Besides, a "day" is not the kind of timeline we are talking about here at all. Unless you really do expect all of this to be built in a day, in which case it would end up more of a finicky half-built project than anything useful.

invisibleairwaves

May 3, 2011, 5:30 AM

Whalleyboy

May 3, 2011, 8:47 AM

I have to say surrey is really sticking the not wanting plain looking buildings. That one looks awesome.

GMasterAres

May 3, 2011, 4:58 PM

I was poking around in the link that Whalleyboy posted in the Urban Village thread and found this: http://www.surreyhealthcarecentre.com/. Not sure if it's been brought up yet. 12 story office building on the north side of 96th Avenue and 137th. Interesting architecture and it looks like it has retail too.

http://www.surreyhealthcarecentre.com/graphics/coolrendering2.jpg

Interesting. That's located where that giant parking lot is right now. Excellent news and will link underground across 96th to the new Hospital expansion under construction.

GMasterAres

May 3, 2011, 5:34 PM

I love that you are adamantly against LRT to Guildford, but despise SkyTrain for any other route!

At the end of the day, this discussion highlights the fact that for the SoF there is no clear route for transit head down. There's Guildford, then there's Newton, then there's Langley, and hell you could even add Coquitlam via the PMB to the list.

With this networked reality, I think it becomes quite clear that we should use our money to establish some form of rapid transit on all these routes. This is why I would support an immediate series of B-Lines for the SoF. They are cheap, they build ridership, and can be introduced quickly.

Long term though, I do see LRT replacing these B-Lines. With so many routes to choose from, SkyTrain will never - never - service them all. LRT achieves roughly the same goals with a much lower price tag, allowing rail to reach more communities for the same cost.

I still stand by Skytrain out towards Langley. It is a regional backbone and it forms a good basis for basing other transit links off of. You can build a B-line feeding off a skytrain backbone, you can link LRT lines to it, you can decentralize some of your traffic (all people in Surrey now either drive to KGB or Scott Road causing a huge traffic burden on those 2 stations), etc. etc. Should it go all the way to Langley? I think that could be argued either way at this stage, but still as a backbone I'm for it. Could a non-Skytrain link to Langley work? If planned right it could for sure. But we need the discussion.

Also people seem to forget that Langley has a combined population as of 2006 larger than Coquitlam and its growth potential is very high so having Skytrain out that direction to me is as feasible as the Evergreen line. Heck in my biased opinion I think it more regionally important since Coquitlam already has a rapid transit line in the WCE and Langley does not.

At the same time I think Surrey needs more than just a Skytrain so it should absolutely be looking at alternatives such as LRT down the mentioned corridors and or revitalizing the interurban (which I don't think would serve as a link to Langley because it would not be faster than the car after Fraser Highway and Gateway are completed).

Either way, Translink is in charge of Skytrain and unless they magically get more funding (look at how difficult it has been just to get Evergreen going) I don't think we'll see expansion of Skytrain out towards Langley on any line for another 10 years. So really it rests on Surrey to do something. It has to do something. They want to build Surrey up as a second downtown or more accurately, Downtown Fraser Valley. So to do that you need to make more efficient transit links to Surrey center not just within Surrey but regionally also. I for one would love to see an LRT line extend from central Surrey out to Abbotsford airport. Maybe the interurban for that?

There are a hundred possibilities and no single possibility will be the best solution for all. We require dialog though and that is what the Mayor and Council is doing with the LRT towards Guildford and Newton. Spark discussion and debate.

This is a debate though that could go on forever with neither side ever agreeing with the other. :)

Zassk

May 3, 2011, 6:18 PM

Also people seem to forget that Langley has a combined population as of 2006 larger than Coquitlam and its growth potential is very high so having Skytrain out that direction to me is as feasible as the Evergreen line. Heck in my biased opinion I think it more regionally important since Coquitlam already has a rapid transit line in the WCE and Langley does not.

Yes, but what you're omitting is that we as a region want the Coquitlam area to grow. We are deliberately encouraging growth in that area for a variety of established reasons. We do not have the same motivations for growing Langley, and in fact, doing so contravenes many of our goals for the region.

The fact is that Langley is on the very edge of the Metro region; Whalley is actually closer to Vancouver than to Langley. And for that reason alone, Langley should be the last place that we want to encourage growth. Whalley needs to be connected by transit to all of the closer town centres first before Langley.

officedweller

May 3, 2011, 9:14 PM

That's right - Coquitlam is supposed to be the "downtown core" on the north side of the Fraser and Surrey is supposed to be the [larger] "downtown core" on the south side of the Fraser.
Coquitlam is just lagging a bit - in terms of commercial space (it's got lots of condo towers).

Whalleyboy

May 4, 2011, 12:48 AM

I still stand by Skytrain out towards Langley. It is a regional backbone and it forms a good basis for basing other transit links off of. You can build a B-line feeding off a skytrain backbone, you can link LRT lines to it, you can decentralize some of your traffic (all people in Surrey now either drive to KGB or Scott Road causing a huge traffic burden on those 2 stations), etc. etc. Should it go all the way to Langley? I think that could be argued either way at this stage, but still as a backbone I'm for it. Could a non-Skytrain link to Langley work? If planned right it could for sure. But we need the discussion.

Also people seem to forget that Langley has a combined population as of 2006 larger than Coquitlam and its growth potential is very high so having Skytrain out that direction to me is as feasible as the Evergreen line. Heck in my biased opinion I think it more regionally important since Coquitlam already has a rapid transit line in the WCE and Langley does not.

At the same time I think Surrey needs more than just a Skytrain so it should absolutely be looking at alternatives such as LRT down the mentioned corridors and or revitalizing the interurban (which I don't think would serve as a link to Langley because it would not be faster than the car after Fraser Highway and Gateway are completed).

Either way, Translink is in charge of Skytrain and unless they magically get more funding (look at how difficult it has been just to get Evergreen going) I don't think we'll see expansion of Skytrain out towards Langley on any line for another 10 years. So really it rests on Surrey to do something. It has to do something. They want to build Surrey up as a second downtown or more accurately, Downtown Fraser Valley. So to do that you need to make more efficient transit links to Surrey center not just within Surrey but regionally also. I for one would love to see an LRT line extend from central Surrey out to Abbotsford airport. Maybe the interurban for that?

There are a hundred possibilities and no single possibility will be the best solution for all. We require dialog though and that is what the Mayor and Council is doing with the LRT towards Guildford and Newton. Spark discussion and debate.

This is a debate though that could go on forever with neither side ever agreeing with the other. :)

See I'm still kinda at a toss up cause the amount of people in newton is alot. Plus if they go out to newton they could follow the old interurban route from there out to langley from there and actually hit downtown cloverdale sure it would be bit of a longer route but you'd hit newton langley and cloverdale all in one go with a single line. its actually only about and extra 5 km. if you dont believe me look here
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=204919430778929884696.0004a2687c89e1b8b1bb6&ll=49.143089,-122.744665&spn=0.035935,0.075703&t=h&z=14

GMasterAres

May 4, 2011, 8:26 PM

See I'm still kinda at a toss up cause the amount of people in newton is alot. Plus if they go out to newton they could follow the old interurban route from there out to langley from there and actually hit downtown cloverdale sure it would be bit of a longer route but you'd hit newton langley and cloverdale all in one go with a single line. its actually only about and extra 5 km. if you dont believe me look here
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=204919430778929884696.0004a2687c89e1b8b1bb6&ll=49.143089,-122.744665&spn=0.035935,0.075703&t=h&z=14

You do have a point. I'm just not sure how effective it would be unless Skytrain was pushing all the way out to South Surrey. Again I see it as a long distance backbone RRT solution rather than a point to point solution. The distance from Newton to Surrey Central is not that far so you could conceivably result in better service with either a B-Line or LRT.

I still see Skytrain as connecting cities then from there doing more cost effective regional transit. If you look at how Skytrain has been expanded throughout the region it has followed that style. Original was connecting Vancouver to Burnaby to New Westminster. They they expanded to connect the line to Surrey. You could argue the purpose of the Millenium was to connect Vancouver to Burnaby to Coquitlam but they just never finished the Evergreen portion. It did however give a link to north of the Hwy 1 corridor.

Canada line connected Vancouver to Richmond. So to me it just seems logical if they were to extend Skytrain out East it would be a connect Vancouver to Burnaby to New West to Surrey to Langley. Then from there you'd have your off shoots. Could the Skytrain out to Langley go through Newton or Guildford? Sure. But I think it would be quite a bit more expensive than if they just extended straight down Fraser Highway population difference or not. You'd be hitting Fleetwood which is growing rapidly and East Clayton in addition to Langley. You also have a lot of people going back and fourth. I know loads of people in Fleetwood who drive now either to Clayton or to Langley to go to restaurants. If they had a transit option that is less cars going east in addition to left going west during commute times.

The interurban goes too far out of the way I think and while it can end in the same destination, I just don't see it being the same as Skytrain. A suplement? Sure. But not a replacement. Either way I'm not a planner or engineer so I really don't have a clue what I'm talking about and could be completely wrong. :)

Any alignment design by Translink would be done with actual population projections and with those fancy population circles to determin if density near and around stations would make more sense. The interurban route seems very low-density to me if you follow it. The most dense area you hit is Newton. After that it is Cloverdale which I believe has less people int eh center than East Clayton does. Then after that Langley. There really is nothing in between. From Cloverdale to Newton you're 90% farmland and just a spattering of detached houses. It doesn't even go near Fraser Heights.

Down Fraser Highway though you hit some key population pockets. 140th, 148th 152nd, 160th, 168th, East Clayton, Langley. These pockets just to me seem more dense and seem to have more people in less sq.km around the line. Again I could be wrong though and who knows, this is all interesting debate anyway!

GMasterAres

May 4, 2011, 8:53 PM

Yes, but what you're omitting is that we as a region want the Coquitlam area to grow. We are deliberately encouraging growth in that area for a variety of established reasons. We do not have the same motivations for growing Langley, and in fact, doing so contravenes many of our goals for the region.

The fact is that Langley is on the very edge of the Metro region; Whalley is actually closer to Vancouver than to Langley. And for that reason alone, Langley should be the last place that we want to encourage growth. Whalley needs to be connected by transit to all of the closer town centres first before Langley.

I don't disagree that Coquitlam should be the focus for a downtown North of the Fraser. I actually think Evergreen should have been built 10 years ago. I'm just playing devil's advocate though and saying that it shouldn't be a 1 or the other but both and soon.

Regarding distances though, I'll have to disagree with you. Not sure what map you're looking at but my map clearly shows regardless of how you measure, Langley quite a bit closer to Surrey Central than Surrey Central to Vancouver.

As the Crow Flies:

Edge of Vancouver to Edge of Central Surrey = 16 km
Downtown Vancouver to Surrey Central = 22 km

Edge of Surrey Central to edge or Langley = 14 km
Surrey Central to Langley Willowbrook (density center) = 15 km

So right there from center to center you have a difference of roughly 7km

As the Skytrain flies:

Surrey Central to Downtown (Granville) = 26 km
Surrey Central to Willowbrook via Fraser Highway = 14.5 km
Surrey Central to Willowbrook via Guildford/Fraser Highway = 18.5 km

Here even more. You go down Fraser Highway and Skytrain line from surrey central to langley would be more than 12km LESS. If you even go via Guildford for a longer route it is still 7.5km LESS.

Heck if I measure from Surrey Central to Newton then follow the interurban to 64th and then down 152nd to Fraser Heights then down # 10 along the interurban again to Cloverdale then swing all the way out to 56th and 200th then up 200th to Langley center, then swing BACK to Willowbrook then = 23km which would still be 3 km LESS than the Skytrain line from Granville station to Surrey Central.

So any way you slice it, your distances are bass ackwards.

If I were to take a guess, I'd guess that you don't live anywhere near Surrey and very rarely actually adventure south of the Fraser. I'd guess that because I find a lot of people that don't live and/or frequent Surrey and South of Fraser have a warped sense of distance out here. For example, ask anyone in Vancouver how far Abbotsford is from Surrey and you'll probably hear comments like OH MY GOD ABBOTSFORD IS SO FAR AWAY!!! when the reality is that it takes me less time to drive even in traffic from Surrey to Abbotsford Airport than it does from Surrey to YVR. Who would have thunk it eh? Same with Langley. It isn't that far. It is 2 freeway stops to go from 200th the main hub street of Langley to Surrey. 2 stops. It's further to drive from one side of Burnaby to the other side than to go from Surrey to Langley.

My suggestion would be to download Google Earth and do a bit of exploring. I mean a lot of people I talk to South of Fraser think Port Coquitlam is a long way away from Coquitlam when the reality is they are next to each other. Or that Maple Ridge must take hours to get to from Coquitlam. The same ignorance is true down here. I'm just trying to reduce this notion of warped distances and bring things back to reality.

GMasterAres

May 4, 2011, 9:00 PM

Btw I have personal experience with warped senses of distance. My girlfriend who lives on Cambie in Vancouver always thinks that anything beyond Main Street east is hours away. Only in the past year has she started to realize it isn't actually far. She was surprised when she jumped on a bus at Bridgeport and was out to Delta in 20 minutes then 10 minutes later was in South Surrey. :)

Zassk

May 4, 2011, 9:00 PM

GMasterAres

May 4, 2011, 11:11 PM

All very interesting, but none of that changes the fact that SkyTrain isn't going to be built to 200th Street either north or south of the Fraser for many decades. That future is so far out that conceivably we might be replacing Expo Line itself with higher capacity technology by then.

SoF rapid transit is going to connect the closest town centres to Surrey first. Measured from Surrey Central, Langley is double/triple the distance of 3 other town centres that are all excellent candidates for TOD.

One day WCE-style commuter rail will come to the SoF, and Langley is sure to be a stop on that. To me, this should be Langley's focus. Not SkyTrain pipe-dreams.

Don't entirely disagree. I do think the amount of demand during commute times for a line to Langley isn't being taken into account though. Stand on 160th and Fraser Highway and watch the busses go by in the morning or in the evening commute. It will look like busses coming from UBC. Every single one will be packed. Heck probably packed more than many busses in Vancouver which often very quickly put up the "bus full" sign.

Then again I know you're right that not because of population but because of how Translink works, we would never see Skytrain out to 200th within the next 20+ years. Translink is built around playing catch up. They build everything well after it is needed. To build a line out to Langley would be being pre-emptive and Translink is simply not built that way.

So do I think it would happen? No. I think a line to Guildford is probably more realistic and I think ultimately regardless of what Surrey says or thinks, you'll see Expo line expanded to Guildford then terminating down Fraser Highway at 168th like they've said before. Given how Translink works though I would be surprised if that even happens which is why I think the Mayor is starting her own initiative.

I would put money that we will see a Broadway to UBC line before a study is even done out in South of Fraser. So all of the ideas for Skytrain I think are ultimately just pipe-dreams unfortunately. :cool:

Whalleyboy

May 5, 2011, 1:05 AM

You do have a point. I'm just not sure how effective it would be unless Skytrain was pushing all the way out to South Surrey. Again I see it as a long distance backbone RRT solution rather than a point to point solution. The distance from Newton to Surrey Central is not that far so you could conceivably result in better service with either a B-Line or LRT.

I still see Skytrain as connecting cities then from there doing more cost effective regional transit. If you look at how Skytrain has been expanded throughout the region it has followed that style. Original was connecting Vancouver to Burnaby to New Westminster. They they expanded to connect the line to Surrey. You could argue the purpose of the Millenium was to connect Vancouver to Burnaby to Coquitlam but they just never finished the Evergreen portion. It did however give a link to north of the Hwy 1 corridor.

Canada line connected Vancouver to Richmond. So to me it just seems logical if they were to extend Skytrain out East it would be a connect Vancouver to Burnaby to New West to Surrey to Langley. Then from there you'd have your off shoots. Could the Skytrain out to Langley go through Newton or Guildford? Sure. But I think it would be quite a bit more expensive than if they just extended straight down Fraser Highway population difference or not. You'd be hitting Fleetwood which is growing rapidly and East Clayton in addition to Langley. You also have a lot of people going back and fourth. I know loads of people in Fleetwood who drive now either to Clayton or to Langley to go to restaurants. If they had a transit option that is less cars going east in addition to left going west during commute times.

The interurban goes too far out of the way I think and while it can end in the same destination, I just don't see it being the same as Skytrain. A suplement? Sure. But not a replacement. Either way I'm not a planner or engineer so I really don't have a clue what I'm talking about and could be completely wrong. :)

Any alignment design by Translink would be done with actual population projections and with those fancy population circles to determin if density near and around stations would make more sense. The interurban route seems very low-density to me if you follow it. The most dense area you hit is Newton. After that it is Cloverdale which I believe has less people int eh center than East Clayton does. Then after that Langley. There really is nothing in between. From Cloverdale to Newton you're 90% farmland and just a spattering of detached houses. It doesn't even go near Fraser Heights.

Down Fraser Highway though you hit some key population pockets. 140th, 148th 152nd, 160th, 168th, East Clayton, Langley. These pockets just to me seem more dense and seem to have more people in less sq.km around the line. Again I could be wrong though and who knows, this is all interesting debate anyway!

My proposal wasnt bring back interurban but make skytrain to langley via newton along that route that route. it would hit the sullivan area of surrey which is another place that has been rapidly growing. Newton has huge growth in the population projects. Fleetwood is set to stlow in growth and stay put in its current area kinda.
I just think if we are gonna do skytrain why not just make more bang for the buck with a single line. It also hits cloverdale pretty central instead of off to the side along fraser. Cloverdale is also project to get some pretty big numbers down the line and thats likely gonna be spread all around cloverdale.

twoNeurons

May 5, 2011, 1:38 AM

It also hits cloverdale pretty central instead of off to the side along fraser. Cloverdale is also project to get some pretty big numbers down the line and thats likely gonna be spread all around cloverdale.

There's no reason to go through Cloverdale center. Its density and future TOD potential lies along the Fraser Highway.

Whalleyboy

May 5, 2011, 5:34 AM

I wouldnt say that really especially with the new west village going up where the mall was. Cloverdale heart has never really change. plsu you ad on top the fact the city wants to look to put alittle street car along the main street there which could pontentional connect to a skytrain at 64.

Whalleyboy

May 27, 2011, 7:22 AM

So it looks like watts want to try and remove some people at the party at scott road and 72 for canuck game wins and get them going at central instead

The white towels will be flying in Central City next week as Surrey plans a celebration for the Vancouver Canucks' challenge for the Stanley Cup.

Still in the extremely early planning stages, Mayor Dianne Watts confirmed with The Leader the city will be opening up the plaza at Central City, near 102 Avenue and King George Boulevard, for a family celebration spot for the remaining Canucks games.

"We're catering to families, and making sure there's activities for them as well," Watts said Wednesday. "The details are being put together."

Budgets are being analyzed, but it's expected there will be concessions, children's events and live entertainment, if funding allows.

Watts said it will likely be a free event.

"I think it's important that families have somewhere to go to enjoy the game and festivities as well," Watts said.

Vancouver is expected to face off against either the Boston Bruins or the Tampa Bay Lightning next Wednesday in a home game.

The City of Vancouver has also said it would make Rogers Arena available for away games. There will be a yet-to-be determined cost of attending the arena.

As to why Surrey needs its own party, Watts said there are many people who don't want to travel to Vancouver to take part in the celebration.

"We're catering to families that want to participate in the festivities, but don't want to drive into Vancouver," Watts said. "As a city of half-a-million people, I think it's important to do that."

Council will vote on the Surrey party Monday at its regular meeting.

"It's mainly just putting the program together," Watts said.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/news/122692939.html

SpongeG

May 27, 2011, 7:28 AM

nice - scott rd and 72nd is such an odd spot for the gathering - i wonder how it got started there

invisibleairwaves

May 27, 2011, 7:42 AM

Is the roadwork on 102nd going to be finished in time for that, though? It's completely closed off at this point. Can't imagine they'd try to hold an event on the plaza while the road is torn up.

If this is really going to be more of a family event, I don't think it's going to draw many people away from Scott and 72nd. To be honest, if Watts wants to hold a kid-friendly party, Holland Park or somewhere out in Cloverdale might be a better choice. The plaza has the Central City pub right there, and if they try to attract that crowd instead, they might pull some people away from Scott and 72nd.

xd_1771

May 27, 2011, 3:02 PM

I find it odd how it almost seems that she thinks every Surreyite wants to drive in Vancouver. The Skytrain is right there and it's probably way faster!

invisibleairwaves

May 27, 2011, 3:38 PM

I find it odd how it almost seems that she thinks every Surreyite wants to drive in Vancouver. The Skytrain is right there and it's probably way faster!

I actually think it's nice that she acknowledges the reality that most Surreyites drive to get to Vancouver. Metro Van has enough mayors that are completely in denial of car traffic already. Besides, the Skytrain is only faster if you live in downtown Whalley, and most families in Surrey don't.

BCPhil

May 27, 2011, 9:10 PM

I actually think it's nice that she acknowledges the reality that most Surreyites drive to get to Vancouver. Metro Van has enough mayors that are completely in denial of car traffic already. Besides, the Skytrain is only faster if you live in downtown Whalley, and most families in Surrey don't.

I would say that is the whole reason behind the Scott and 72nd celebration. It is locals within walking distance that walk to the intersection. It might have grown to attract people that actually drive/travel there join the celebrations, but the area around there has one of the highest concentrations of Canuck pride in Surrey. If you walk around Scottsdale on a game day in the afternoon before a game, everyone is wearing a jersey and every car has a Canucks flag. (because of multiple flags per car, absolute numberwise, there are more flags than cars). Scottsdale is like Vancouver's version of Calgary's Red Mile... but it's in Surrey.

So I don't think anything that the city of Surrey organizes will detract or take away from the celebrations that happen in "Canuckdale" but give people elsewhere in Surrey a chance to take part in their own celebrations.

I do think Holland Park would be the better site. Next week the weather is supposed to improve, so the grassy field could take it. They could set up one of the stages they use for the culture day (or whatever it was) and use it as a screen. But I guess this is really a job for the future city square... so I hope this is the first year of our Canuck Dynasty.

tybuilding

May 27, 2011, 9:34 PM

I went to the 72nd & Scott celebration on Tuesday, I was only a few blocks away that night. It is a strange phenomenon indeed. In the intersection there was lots of pedestrians, some people playing the drums, lots waving flags and banners. The Scottsdale Mall at the movie theatre was home to people driving circles around the parking lot cheering, waving flags and honking horns.

102 ave is pretty torn up for a celebration site, pretty small right now. What is the project that is happening now? It looks like a really large diameter storm sewer replacement right now.

SpongeG

May 27, 2011, 11:19 PM

in case no one hasn't seen what goes down there...

YlB55Exyvhw

g35

May 27, 2011, 11:41 PM

Whalleyboy

May 28, 2011, 1:08 AM

Scott/72 popular in large part due to

a) lots of young people in the area...25-and-younger
b) lots of Indo-Canadian families in the area. Common stereotype in Canada seems to be that immigrants don't like hockey. Whether that's true or not it's not the case here. In fact they may have an even greater interest in it than the majority Caucasian population in the lower mainland (anecdotal). They don't participate in organized hockey in large numbers but they sure support the Canucks.

Just my guess
I dont think its they have great interest i think its there just bigger on big celebrations. I have many indo canadian friends and they alway tell me they party so much compared to white people.

Is the roadwork on 102nd going to be finished in time for that, though? It's completely closed off at this point. Can't imagine they'd try to hold an event on the plaza while the road is torn up.

If this is really going to be more of a family event, I don't think it's going to draw many people away from Scott and 72nd. To be honest, if Watts wants to hold a kid-friendly party, Holland Park or somewhere out in Cloverdale might be a better choice. The plaza has the Central City pub right there, and if they try to attract that crowd instead, they might pull some people away from Scott and 72nd.

I think the pub being there is partly why it has better chances of getting a far better crowd then at holland park. While watts might not say anything she likely knows. One just needs to see how busy the pub is during winterfest. It helps draw in the young adults to the area since there interest include drinking and partying.

Seeing how this is a new thing they would rather use central plaza then the whole holland park since they probably doubt it will draw that large of a crowd.

Personally i hope they get some big screens and play the game outside for crowds to gather amd watch it there. If only city hall and the civc plaza was done lol

Whalleyboy

Jun 12, 2011, 10:17 PM

Looks like central brewery is finally set to build there expansion bewery in bridgeview
http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7911-0022-00.pdf
Its nice to see them try and but less parking stalls then the law requires

sryboy

Jun 12, 2011, 11:17 PM

go_leafs_go02

Jun 12, 2011, 11:33 PM

What an odd place to have a Brewery? :shrug:

depends if it's meant to be just for industrial, or as a tourism type of place too.

It's a stone-throw away from the future SFPR, it's a few blocks from Pattullo Bridge, it's a km or 2 from City Centre in Surrey, a km or 2 from downtown New West - and the future road network will give easy access to the Alex Fraser Bridge, the Pattullo, and Highway #1 towards the Fraser Valley.

Whalleyboy

Jun 13, 2011, 8:13 AM

Its mainly industrial really since the central one will also be staying

GMasterAres

Jun 14, 2011, 1:44 AM

Yah it's just so they can accomodate brewing expansion. The pub itself will still be at Central.

twoNeurons

Jun 14, 2011, 4:33 AM

I dont think its they have great interest i think its there just bigger on big celebrations. I have many indo canadian friends and they alway tell me they party so much compared to white people.

Actually, there's a LOT of indo-Canadian fans of hockey. They may not have grown up playing it as much and don't have a long history with the game, but the game is an excellent fit for Indian males, it's a rough and tough man's game with fast paced action, perfect for young testosterone filled macho Indian guys.

This came from several Indian friends of mine. The game is broadcast in punjabi for a reason, folks.

whalley13

Jun 14, 2011, 9:33 PM

Ball hockey is prolly the no. 1 indo canadian sport, participatory wise.....i think central city is a great idea....scott road is not really kid friendly with lots of young, but friendly drunks. Have drank a few pints on centr city patio, during the game broadcasts and it has been awesome, friendly civil experience....great idea watts!!

Whalleyboy

Jun 15, 2011, 7:50 AM

the whole thing at central has been a great idea from what i've seen. It nice that the pub is there for us older people but at the same time it has remained great for families to come to.

metroXpress

Jun 16, 2011, 10:28 PM

Also great seeing how the stores at Central relocated to the newer side of the mall. Bed Bath Beyond is no longer the only shop in that new corridor. Plus, the new Passport Canada office is busier than ever.

xd_1771

Jul 5, 2011, 4:49 AM

So... who's got power?

BC hydro power line tower went loose and then fell into the Fraser River. I was out for some 30 minutes, expected power on was 11PM but I was back at 9:15. The majority of Whalley still has no power. At least one accident (King George & 102)

Looks like it was either of these towers (http://bit.ly/ml08hA) that fell in
EDIT: Mostly power on now. Looks like it was that tower and another one that fell in.

EDIT 2: News1130 Twitter says the closure is constrained now to between just west of port mann and around the United-Schoolhouse area. If i'm right that means that the PMB is operating. I hope they get it fixed before tomorrow morning, otherwise it is double traffic mayhem for everyone. The Port Mann was bad enough today with an accident just west, it'll really throw a lot of people off if it happened a 2nd day in a row.

hollywoodnorth

Jul 5, 2011, 5:24 AM

So... who's got power?

BC hydro power line tower went loose and then fell into the Fraser River. I was out for some 30 minutes, expected power on was 11PM but I was back at 9:15. The majority of Whalley still has no power. At least one accident (King George & 102)

Looks like it was either of these towers (http://bit.ly/ml08hA) that fell in
EDIT: Mostly power on now. Looks like it was that tower and another one that fell in.

AM730Traffic RT @Translink: Power outage in Surrey, Scott Rd & Gateway Stn currently do not have elevator or escalator.It's not known when power will be restored. ^jk 59 minutes ago · reply · retweet · favorite

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/249600--hydro-tower-collapse-causes-massive-power-outage-in-surrey

SpongeG

Jul 5, 2011, 5:31 AM

i was just reading on news 1130 - strange

I am in coquitlam and the power never went out but around that time my TV shut itself off twice, the lights flickered a little bit, my PC was fine just the TV did something weird. I wonder if it was related.

Hydro tower collapse causes massive power outage in Surrey

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/249600--hydro-tower-collapse-causes-massive-power-outage-in-surrey

News1130 listener Kirk and his fiancee were enjoying a coffee and a stroll in Coquitlam's Maquabeak Park
when two sets of power lines came down around them. Neither were physically injured, but his fiancee experienced tingling sensations.

"There's two sets of power lines, and we were under the first set," he told News1130 in a live interview. "When the other set started to fall, we just had to run, we were afraid of the other set falling down."

go_leafs_go02

Jul 5, 2011, 5:41 AM

Port Mann is now shut in both directions. Detour via Pattullo.

Imagine if this happened during the day or around the rush hours? Yikes.

xd_1771

Jul 5, 2011, 5:53 AM

Port Mann shut down!? In b4 104th Avenue mayhem :| (Thank goodness it's at the moment late evening)

Power is back to most people, the powerout toll was up to 30,000 and above earlier, as of recently it's now down to some 2000-4000. I got my power back around 30 minutes after I was off. Most people expected to be on by 10-11 but this may be worse than we thought.

I hope they get it fixed before tomorrow morning, otherwise it is double traffic mayhem for everyone. The Port Mann was bad enough today with an accident just west, it'll really throw a lot of people off if it happened a 2nd day in a row. Not to mention Guildford movement would crumble this time around, because there isn't even a PMB to use. 104th would stop in both directions along with 108th and the like having to handle all that volume. I won't be able to get anywhere, and I have an appointment tomorrow in Richmond.

usog

Jul 5, 2011, 6:34 AM

Lights still flickering every now and then over here in Whalley, I'm wondering how the hell one of those towers just goes off and crumples.

SpongeG

Jul 5, 2011, 6:42 AM

hwy #1 is closed from brunette in coquitlam to 160th in surrey

Evacuations in Coquitlam after tower fell

By Cheryl Chan, The Province July 4, 2011 11:23 PM

A hydro tower toppled into the Fraser River in Surrey Monday night, shutting down Highway 1, plunging more than 25,000 Metro Vancouver residents and businesses into the dark, and causing some evacuations in Coquitlam.

While power has been restored to most Surrey homes, more outages are expected in Coquitlam tonight as the felled tower is now threatening other towers in the area.

The massive high-voltage tower was located on an embankment about a kilometre downstream of the Port Mann Bridge, near King and McBride, and went into the water live, said marine co-ordinator Jeff Olsson.

Highway 1 has been shut down from Brunette Avenue to 160th until tension lines could be secured.

The first collapsed tower is threatening to down a second tower in Surrey, said police spokesman Sgt. Peter Thiessen at around 11 p.m.

Coquitlam RCMP have begun evacuating a handful of open businesses in the United Boulevard area, between King Edward Street and Baird Streets, including employees of a waste management facility, as a safety precaution.

“We just don’t know how much tension there’s going to be and what the domino effect will be at this point,” said Coquitlam RCMP Staff-Sgt. Dale Hockley.

B.C. Hydro told police it plans to shut power down for a couple hours in Coquitlam at around 12:30 p.m. to ensure there is no danger.

...

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/Evacuations+Coquitlam+after+tower+fell/5049040/story.html#ixzz1RD7hqLTX

In a statement, B.C. Hydro said the collapse of the 230 kV transmission tower was caused by “the increased and unexpected erosion along the Fraser River due to higher than usual flows.”

There are unconfirmed reports saying there was a sinkhole underneath the toppled tower.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/Evacuations+Coquitlam+after+tower+fell/5049040/story.html#ixzz1RD8vshSU

SpongeG

Jul 5, 2011, 6:48 AM

AM730 Traffic
Due to the power outage near the Port Mann, United boulevard & the Maryhill bypass are closed also.

bigbadbrent

Jul 5, 2011, 7:33 AM

Drive BC has tweeted and updated their website saying:

Highway 1 Both directions - Closed in both directions at Cape Horn Interchange because of Hydro Lines Down. Traffic is stopped. Eastbound Detour available via Brunette ave to the Pattullo bridge. Westbound detour via 160th to the Pattullo Bridge. Highway is not expected to re-open for 24 hours. Confidence low. Next update at 6:00 am July 5th. Updated on Mon Jul 4 at 10:21 pm. (ID# 116070)

Hydro Lines Down Highway 7 Both directions - Closed in both directions from Brunette Avenue to Pitt River Road because of Hydro Lines Down. Westbound detour will be via Barnett Hwy to Vancouver. Eastbound on Hwy 7 to the Golden Ears Bridge and then Hwy 1. Highway is not expected to re-open for 24 hours. Confidence low. Next update 6:00 am. Updated on Tue Jul 5 at 12:21 am. (ID# 116071)

Going to be a really crappy commute tomorrow....goodluck everybody!

xd_1771

Jul 5, 2011, 7:51 AM

Highway is not expected to re-open for 24 hours.
Oh joy, tomorrow's rush hour in Guildford is going to be a gong show, looks like I'm going to miss that appointment in Richmond after all.

I expect no less than a straight backup on 104th through from 160th to Whalley & King George to Patullo, 108th & 100th conditions no different, local residential streets gridlocked by traffic jumpers, transit experiencing 45 min+ delay, and Pattullo in a deep freeze in WB direction.

SpongeG

Jul 5, 2011, 2:13 PM

hwy #1 has reopened as of 7:05 am - a few hours earlier than they thought but traffic is said to be a mess in surrey as the word spreads i am sure it will ease up

go_leafs_go02

Jul 5, 2011, 3:25 PM

hwy #1 has reopened as of 7:05 am - a few hours earlier than they thought but traffic is said to be a mess in surrey as the word spreads i am sure it will ease up

My commute into Surrey was far better than normal.

SpongeG

Jul 5, 2011, 3:45 PM

yah cause people avoided hwy #1 all morning - they had the global news standing on hwy #1 just before 160th west bound and there was hardly any cars he said

xd_1771

Jul 5, 2011, 4:14 PM

Apparently the transit commute was very busy between 6-8AM, the Skytrain and Surrey bus routes were more crowded than usual. I can imagine people on board the 320 took quite a beating this morning, and on the train platform there were apparently quite a few trains going by before you could get on.

go_leafs_go02

Jul 5, 2011, 4:48 PM

One thing I've noticed that the MOT does is set really long timelines for closures.

Example, today's gongshow that shut down Highway #1:

1 AM Today: DriveBC BC Transportation
#BCHwy1 is expected to remain closed from Brunette to 160th for 24 hours, next update at 6:00 am.

6 AM Today: DriveBC BC Transportation
#BCHwy1 & #BCHwy7 remain closed in the vicinity of the Port Mann Bridge. Estimated time of opening 9:00 am, confidence low.

7:30 AM Today: with little/no warning, the Port Mann Bridge is open in both directions.

Exact same thing happened with the mudslide last week.

Slide happened Wednesday morning.

MOT said, oh we might get lucky and have it all open Friday morning at midnight.

Towed that line, then said, oh we might get lucky and have it open Thursday at 1 PM.

10:15 AM that morning, suddenly the road is surprisingly open.

It is a good strategy to have if you think about it. You make sure drivers aren't trying to wait till the road is opened right near the closure or detour point, as well you get pats on the back for "such great work" and stuff. Set low expectations, and then surprise them with a sudden completion and re-opening.

tybuilding

Jul 5, 2011, 5:29 PM

My commute this morning was great out of Surrey, same as it is usual though, I bike across the Alex Fraser in the morning and the Patullo in the afternoon. It is nice when you can bypass the lineups of cars on a bike. But you can only do that legally though when you have bike lanes or separate paths.

xd_1771

Jul 5, 2011, 6:09 PM

It is a good strategy to have if you think about it. You make sure drivers aren't trying to wait till the road is opened right near the closure or detour point, as well you get pats on the back for "such great work" and stuff. Set low expectations, and then surprise them with a sudden completion and re-opening.

I would use this strategy only on a very limited basis when it comes to the Port Mann Bridge.
It should be considered that the alternatives to the future 10-lane Port Mann are lower capacity 4 lane roads (whether be 104th or the future SFPR). If this happens early and people are not aware that the PMB has reopened when it does there could be problems, i.e. by the time they figure out there will already be overcrowded buses and the alternate roads - including, potentially, local roads through Guildford - may have already suffered traffic disaster. People on the 1 should be made to stay on the 1 as much as possible unless there is absolutely NO way it can be reopened on time.

SpongeG

Jul 5, 2011, 7:06 PM

they just showed a guy on the news he was commuting in from aldergrove - i think he was somewhere in surrey - it had taken him 3 hours to get to the point he was at in surrey and he still wasn't at work

Whalleyboy

Jul 10, 2011, 1:10 AM

I found this
http://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/PLR_7911-0075-00.pdf
its about the two tower going up by the ultra tower its got pictures but to lazy to deal with it right now
It says first phase could be done by 2014 which is nice

thread made
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5342743#post5342743

whalley13

Jul 11, 2011, 9:47 PM

signs are up for "connected" the condo project at old yale and 132... one block west on 132 a developement proposal sign is up for a sales office...looks like that will be another condo project too :)

SpongeG

Jul 19, 2011, 3:52 AM

stumbled upon an old article was interesting

Putting a centre in the sprawl

FRANCES BULA

Surrey Central SkyTrain station confronts the senses with mediocre suburbia: acres of parking lots, buses roaring to and fro, the occasional drug dealer, a smattering of nondescript retail operations, and a stream of traffic on the eight-lane King George Highway next door.

The only hint of urban sophistication is the curved tower on a far side of a parking lot – a combination shopping mall, university and office building designed by renowned B.C. architect Bing Thom. Nearby, another building designed by him is under construction, a library whose curved horizontal lines complement the tower.

But in spite of this uninspiring raw material, Surrey is determined to change the view into Canada’s first successful suburban downtown.

“It’s important for us,” says Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts, whose city is geographically the largest in B.C. with a population approaching half a million. “If you don’t have one, there’s no heart. You don’t have that sense of place. People like to live in a place where they feel they belong.”

To create that downtown, she’s promised to move Surrey’s city hall from its current semi-rural location to Surrey Central, along with building the library and a performing arts centre nearby. She’s also offered tax breaks for those who build projects in the designated downtown core. And the city’s planners are busy figuring out how to attract small retailers and renaming streets.

Ms. Watts isn’t the only suburban politician trying to go urban. As Canada’s growing metropolitan regions continue to absorb tens of thousands of new people every year, mayors and planners in the largest suburbs – those that would be listed as major Canadian cities if they weren’t classified as satellites – are figuring out how to transform their one-time bedroom communities into independent urban centres.

Places like Surrey in B.C. and Scarborough, Mississauga and North York in Ontario are at different stages of this transformation, with unique targets for population and jobs in their future downtowns. Growing at rabbit-like rates and with populations already between half and three-quarters of a million people, each is preoccupied with the same question: how do you build a downtown where none existed before?

Many have tried in Canada. None have truly succeeded.

The Scarborough Town Centre is a giant mall on one side of its rapid-transit stop and a collection of tall towers with swathes of empty, open space between them on the other side. There’s a thin band of townhouses and apartment towers on the outer edge of the small centre.

North York’s “downtown” consists of a long, narrow strip only two blocks deep on either side of Yonge Street – immense towers facing Yonge, a layer of lower-rise apartments just behind that, and then traditional suburban single-family houses beyond.

...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/property-report/putting-a-centre-in-the-sprawl/article2034484/