Surrey Updates

[Whalleyboy]

if your just new to seeing the pics go to civicsurrey.com and you'll see way more photos there. It even has a rendering what it will look like when the second tower beside it gets put in

[Whalleyboy]

http://surrey.ca/culture-recreation/8047.aspx
surrey cultural plan is going on today at guidlford. Anyone planning on going? did anyone go to the first one?

[xd_1771]

What's in the plan? Anything regarding transportation in Surrey? Actual developments? Perhaps this'll involve the cultural aspect of the expanded Guildford Mall - at the moment that's what I'm thinking

[invisibleairwaves]

I'm a little curious about what's going on at the northwest corner of Fraser and 140th Street. Looks like some excavation...was there a gas station on that site? Decontamination work, perhaps? It wouldn't be a bad spot for some 4-story condos...

[whalley13]

I thought I read a while ago there was a proposal for a new gas station and retail at that location, that's prolly what it is....great location for it

[whiteshadow]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

I'm a little curious about what's going on at the northwest corner of Fraser and 140th Street. Looks like some excavation...was there a gas station on that site? Decontamination work, perhaps? It wouldn't be a bad spot for some 4-story condos...

Used to be a Petro Canada gas station. I think it closed down about 5 years ago. Its probably some further decon work.

[tybuilding]

http://formretail.catylist.com/jsp/listings/listing_overview.jsp?ID=55_2108984


http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/aboriginal-sprawl/
Paul Hillsdon writes:
You may also be interested to learn what the Tsawwassen have planned for their new treaty land. Apparently it’s a massive mall, larger than Metrotown, based on strip-style designs from Vaughan and Calgary. I’m sure the ALR activists will be up in arms over this.

Disappointing to see when they can build a mixed use development right away where there can be a town centre for the residents. See what I mean:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ellen_dunham_jones_retrofitting_suburbia.html

[BCPhil]

If it's their land, then it is their land. We can't really force them to stay poor so that we can have a couple extra hectares in the ALR that, as they are are pretty much unused.

That said, I don't think there will be any takers. It seems so far out of the way for almost everyone in Metro Vancouver. I mean to get there from Vancouver you have to travel through Richmond, and there is already pretty good shopping there, and that's if you don't also pass through Queensborough, Marine Way, Surrey Central City, South Surrey, Metrotown, or downtown. It is basically as far away from anyone as you can possibly get in Metro Vancouver. I don't think any big retailers will want to touch the bad press associated with building on farmland there, and there are dozens of better locations for smaller retailers. This project is just a pipe dream.

[Smooth]

Backdrop to Surrey news conference today...


http://yfrog.com/h866aroj

[xd_1771]

I am going to be rightfully ticked off if they do use this and this only rather than a proper RRT setup in between Whalley and Guildford...
It just won't do it, the traffic volume between centres is waaayyyy too heavy

But I would like to see a city-wide LRT network where the capacity need is not so critical

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

If it's their land, then it is their land. We can't really force them to stay poor so that we can have a couple extra hectares in the ALR that, as they are are pretty much unused.

That said, I don't think there will be any takers. It seems so far out of the way for almost everyone in Metro Vancouver. I mean to get there from Vancouver you have to travel through Richmond, and there is already pretty good shopping there, and that's if you don't also pass through Queensborough, Marine Way, Surrey Central City, South Surrey, Metrotown, or downtown. It is basically as far away from anyone as you can possibly get in Metro Vancouver. I don't think any big retailers will want to touch the bad press associated with building on farmland there, and there are dozens of better locations for smaller retailers. This project is just a pipe dream.

i don't agree - every outlet mall in the states or canada is a good distance from the city its closest too - Seattle Premium Outlets is almost an hour north of Seattle itself and its packed full every day, Canadians wait hours at the border to go shop there

the portland outlet centre is a long way out of portland at least 45 minutes south from portland, san francisco's outlets too are over 45 minutes outside of the city and they all thrive

this style of retail is built out of the way and is a draw for shoppers - people who like to shop will go out of their way to get somewhere

clearly some people are not into shopping, i happen to be but that doesn't matter, but shoppers are hardcore and probably stupid at times - driving 2 hours to save a few bucks on some ralph lauren shirts

[CoryHolmes]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I am going to be rightfully ticked off if they do use this and this only rather than a proper RRT setup in between Whalley and Guildford...
It just won't do it, the traffic volume between centres is waaayyyy too heavy

But I would like to see a city-wide LRT network where the capacity need is not so critical

If they do what? I missed the conference (and the news) all day yesterday, so I'm unclear what's ticking you off.

[tybuilding]

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=162194&page=29

Originally Posted by CLC

Vancouver Sun: Surrey looks to light rail to ease huge growth

SkyTrain is too expensive, Mayor Dianne Watts says

BY KELLY SINOSKI, VANCOUVER SUN APRIL 13, 2011 12:59 AM


Surrey is exploring the potential of building at-grade light rail on three of the city's major corridors, saying an extension of the SkyTrain line is not financially feasible.

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts said Tuesday the city will actively advocate for TransLink to build light rail across the city and is already investigating three routes: 104th Avenue between 152nd Street and City Centre (near the Surrey Central SkyTrain); King George Highway from City Centre to Newton (and eventually South Surrey); and Fraser Highway between City Centre and Langley.

"I don't want to have SkyTrain cutting our communities in half -that is going to destroy our city," Watts told nearly 500 people at her state of the city speech at the Sheraton Guildford Hotel.

"It's not just about moving people as far as you can from A to B; it's about moving people but also building a community.

"If we don't put in proper measures for transportation we're going to have a mess."

Watts argued the city, which pays $164 million into transportation each year, has seen its population double in the past 17 years, but hasn't had any expansions to its rapid transit line.

As Surrey develops into the region's second downtown, she added, the city needs a cost effective and efficient transportation system to accommodate the growth.

Another one million people are expected to move to Metro Vancouver in the next 30 years with 70 per cent of those settling south of the Fraser River. Building a SkyTrain connecting Surrey with Langley, she said, would be cost-prohibitive, compared with light rail and street cars, which would complement the existing SkyTrain and buses already in place.

TransLink has estimated the cost of light rail at $27 million per kilometre versus $127 million per kilometre for the Evergreen Line and $233 million for the UBC/Broadway line.

"To get around the city of Surrey by SkyTrain is not feasible. It [would cost] billions and billions and billions of dollars," Watts said.

The Canada Line, linking Vancouver and Richmond, cost $2 billion to build, while the Evergreen Line is set at $1.4 billion. TransLink had tentatively proposed building a sixkilometre SkyTrain from City Centre to Guildford and is now undergoing studies for the Surrey route.

TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said Watts's comments mirror what's been heard in the community so far. More public consultation sessions on rapid transit in Surrey will be held in the next month-anda-half, with a feasibility plan likely expected by the end of the year.

"It's very productive to have those concepts on the table," Hardie said.

The Surrey rapid transit project is part of a transportation strategy for the Metro Vancouver region, which includes the Evergreen Line connecting Burnaby, Port Moody and Coquitlam, and a proposed rapid transit along the Broadway corridor to the University of B.C.

Transit officials, the province and regional mayors continue to wrangle over ways to pay for future transit projects, including the long-awaited Evergreen Line, without raising property taxes.

Watts, who met with Trans-Link Tuesday afternoon, said she wants a funding strategy to be developed within the next few months, with design plans for light rail in place by next year.

"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."

Light rail is the only option for Surrey and Langley, she insists, adding that White Rock Mayor Catherine Ferguson and Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender agree. Unlike Vancouver and Burnaby, which are tight-knit communities with no more land base, Surrey is so vast and open that it needs more inter-modal types of transit, she said.

Watts argued light rail would help connect Surrey's town centres and boost economic activity, while creating a "vibrancy" in the city, which aims to develop 150 kilometres of new bicycle and pedestrian trails and paths by 2016.

"Transportation is critically important as we shape growth in our town centres. In order to create healthy communities, we need to provide safe and accessible walking and cycling opportunities," Watt said in her speech.

"At-grade rail is cost-effective and efficient, and would not only create a new transportation option, but also increase economic development and improve quality of life."

Watts added light rail is considered a key plank in the city's attempts to boost economic development.

Surrey is continuing to complete significant infrastructure projects in its Surrey Build program, which involves $2.8 billion in construction, including $800 million in new community projects and $2 billion worth of facilities being built in partnership with other levels of government.

The program is being funded through infrastructure fees, secondary suite fees, contributions from the Surrey City Development Corp., gambling revenue, grant money, leaseholds, parking fee revenues from the city's new parking authority and reserve money.

"We are redefining Surrey and creating B.C.'s next metropolitan core by fostering a strong investment climate and implementing innovative social, economic and community initiatives for our residents and businesses," she said.

Watts noted the city has seen more than $1 billion in construction activity in 2010, the crime rate is at a 10-year low, and since 2009, Surrey has helped 356 people get off the street and into permanent housing.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[xd_1771]

"To get around the city of Surrey by SkyTrain is not feasible. It [would cost] billions and billions and billions of dollars," Watts said.

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.

[Spork]

"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.

[SFUVancouver]

I think that Dianne Watts is absolutely correct in favouring LRT/streetcar over SkyTrain/RRT as the preferred mode of high capacity transit within the city and the broader South of the Fraser area. There just isn't the density of jobs, residents, and services to warrant SkyTrain/RRT connections beyond what is already in place. With that said, they should plan for a heirarchy of surface transit; B-Line bus routes to start with to build ridership along the identified LRT corridors, portions of the network where the trains will serve as local transit with numerous stops, portions that would operate on reserved rights of way in the medians that will allow them to travel at speed for the long distances with few intersections and fewer trip generators that define the road network south of the Fraser, and plans to reserve a feasible right of way from Surrey's downtown to Langley City so that an extension of SkyTrain could take place some time in the future if demand warrants without requiring a exceptionally costly land acquisition programme at that future date. A huge part of the success of any transit investment will be for the City to get busy installing hundreds upon hundreds of mid-block pedestrian intersections, sidewalks everywhere, pedestrian level lighting, and curtailing the use of right turn bays and the construction of cul de sacs, and the exceptionally long traffic light cycling at major intersections. They ought to also start banning the current practice of allowing commercial strip malls to have their buildings turn their back on the sidewalk and street and force everyone to maneouver to the stores' front doors via the parking lot.

I like that she also acknowledged that the transit needs North of the Fraser are different than South of the Fraser. Hopefully that will help dispell the myth that LRT/streetcar costs are fixed and vary little from one context to the next. I also really like that she is fed up with the endless fight about how to pay for major transit projects. Metro Vancouver represents half the province's population but surely does not see half the province's transportation budget. It's one more way that Metro Vancouver actually subsidizes the rest of the province and not vice versa. One last thought, I appreciate the Mayor Watts can identify that the city contributes $164 milllion a year to transportation, but to say that the city is not receiving its fair share of transportation spending overlooks that the lion's share of the $6 billion dollar Gateway Project directly benefits her city. That's a gigantic investment in roads, highways, and bridges, and it completely overlooks transit. Clearly there is money to go around, it's just a case of prioritizing where and how it is spent.

[xd_1771]

There are places where the ridership is more than enough to require full RRT transit immediately. Ever ridden the Whalley-Guildford segment? There are 7-8 bus routes that are every single day on peak and non peak hours filled to the brim with people. It's so bad that they have to use full-size buses on the C74 community shuttle route. Translink is barely doing anything to increase the frequency. To top it off, traffic on 104th is a nightmare, there is no way buses are getting around and making their stops on time.

Anything short of RRT, for the critical routes between Whalley & Guildford and Whalley & Newton, would be far, FAR from acceptable. As I have stated I do support LRT (as in, non-streetcar) connection for everywhere else. The thing i don't get about planning to use streetcars is they're not any different than BRT... they have to use the same roads, they're not as easily expandable, and much more expensive to build. Streetcars wouldn't be any different, they wouldn't benefit us at all vs BRT, and they would be stuck in doggone heavy traffic like everyone else (and traffic is an extremely serious problem in Surrey).

A huge part of the success of any transit investment will be for the City to get busy installing hundreds upon hundreds of mid-block pedestrian intersections, sidewalks everywhere, pedestrian level lighting, and curtailing the use of right turn bays and the construction of cul de sacs, and the exceptionally long traffic light cycling at major intersections.

Curtailing right turn bays and bus bays when they are extremely critical problems EVERYWHERE in this city? I think that's going just a bit too far. Have you ever thought that right turn bays and such are exactly what we really need here? You should try driving and/or taking the transit here, it's absolutely horrendous To support the removal of such things would likely basically mean the destruction of our city transportation-wise and only the major frustration and inconvenience of anyone else within it - if this was how the city was designed, it might work, but it's not that way. Such curtailing I believe are NOT required to make a city liveable and moveable. Such a system of converting Surrey immediately into a Vancouver could be viable but the way the city is right now it would NOT work right away. The reason it works so well in Vancouver is because it was like that from the very beginning. That is NOT the case here. We need some time to get used to BETTER transit options, NOW - and NOT crippled ones - before plans are undertaken to cripple our already heavily gridlocked roads a.k.a. the world's largest parking lot. Buses don't move well in parking lots either, remember that.

the city contributes $164 milllion a year to transportation

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.

[SpongeG]

the LRT would have the capacity of the skytrain its not a streetcar

the whole point of these and those worried about cars - is for drivers to get so pissed off at the conditions that they ditch their cars and use transit - win win again

[tybuilding]

Probably should discuss transit on this one: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5240513&posted=1#post5240513

[xd_1771]

the LRT would have the capacity of the skytrain its not a streetcar

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

is for drivers to get so pissed off at the conditions that they ditch their cars and use transit - win win again

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.