Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
You know, I have as much ability to accuse you of being unable to accept the truth. I don't skew my data. I used the link because the data was not easily compiled elsewhere. It's there in the City of Surrey's website, in that link, if you want to view it manually.
The 96th Ave closure was in place between August and October 2010, long before July 2011. |
the closure was in place, but construction works on there wrapped up earlier this year, well before July 2011. Take a look at City of Surrey aerial photography from 2011 to see what state 96 Avenue was in last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
96th Avenue remains a primary redirect corridor for TransLink buses during rush hour and several other vehicles trying to avoid Highway 1 congestion into Surrey. Aren't you a bit surprised that in the midst of significant changes resulting from Highway 1 construction that might (in the same way that construction might have discouraged the use of 96th Ave use) have discouraged the use of 104 Ave, traffic congestion levels still increased?
|
Not really. 104 Avenue has always had the same capacity going to it from Highway 1 in construction, although heading to the interchange was down to 1 lane from 2 for a few months.
To be honest, I've though, pre-rapid transit on 104 Avenue, the introduction of curb-side HOV/Bus only lanes during peak periods would be appropriate on 104 Avenue from King George to 156 Street for after the SFPR has opened, and truck volumes on there will have been reduced (to what amount, who knows)
108 Avenue is also a truck route, and those trucks destined for City Centre could be forced to use 108 Avenue over 104 Avenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771
Well, if you can make a bet, so can I: I bet, with significant confidence, that when the Highway 1 construction completes and extra capacity opens east of 104th Avenue (allowing for smooth freeflow onto 104th), that the high congestion growth rates being seen by 104th Ave will increase yet again and traffic on 96th Ave will tank. Look at it this way: if there were no NCPs for Anniedale and Port Kells then there would be no need to widen 96th Ave either. There are reasons people are choosing it now that will disappear as the circumstances change. I always thought the widening was an unwise use of money. There's room for expansion to make minimal (and far more needed) improvements to 104th Ave, where the money could have been spent to make a true difference to more people. During the off-peak hours the new capacity on 96th isn't even used. I've seen this as well as you have.
|
Where is this room for expansion for 104 Avenue? There is no additional ROW available at this point in time along the corridor. Check COSMOS for property lines to see how close the road edge on 104 Avenue comes to the edge of the right-of-way.
You really think traffic volumes on 96 Avenue are going to tank once the Port Mann project is done? 104 Avenue is still quite congested at points during peak periods, and yes, volumes on there likely will rise to a point. Nevertheless, you even said there's alot of extra capacity available on 96 Avenue that should LRT end up on 104 Avenue taking away one travel lane, it has room to re-allocate itself up to 108 Avenue or down to 100 Avenue or even 96 Avenue.
Threaded Mode