Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[go_leafs_go02]

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.

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.

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.

[xd_1771]

the introduction of curb-side HOV/Bus only lanes during peak periods would be appropriate on 104 Avenue

Well, we can agree on something somewhat though I thought such lanes should be newly constructed and double as dedicated turn lanes. An HOV application wouldn't be too useful. The speed increases would be negated by the need for right turns onto other roads and onto property in several areas.

There's also the issue of the fact that with the opening of tolls on the PMB, there will be a lot of freeloaders not coming from the highway but coming from Surrey that may redirect via 104th and 108th Aves. NDP MLA Harry Bains was concerned about this, as he mentioned himself in a recent news article. As attractive as it might be to do this within the existing road width to improve transit commutes, there are community-wide effects (congestion on alternate roads) that one of my main concerns is that a lot of people are blind to consider.

From my observations on 108th Ave it's arguable that there are more trucks using that because of the far easier right turn onto King George Highway NB. However, there are length and width restrictions on this corridor, which probably make for the reason why most of the larger trucks use 104th. That doesn't mean that all that traffic is headed in that direction. SFPR is a bypass, not a primary, direct, and signed connection to what will become one of the largest city centres in the Lower Mainland (bold because that's essentially what makes 104th so important and I don't think a lot of people are realizing this).

Where is this room for expansion for 104 Avenue?

I was referring to a limited application of right turn lanes and bus bays at select intersections that would significantly improve the movement. I'm aware that the City of Surrey mandates that road widening and expansion beyond the set cross-section is set by the owner of the property within the property line and I think that is a bit dumb. There are a lot of places that are pretty much empty grass where there is room to make significant improvements, but the City has not been active in pushing them on with their own funding. I could argue that there's a gas station on 104th @ 152nd which has a property entrance that deserves a right turn lane, one of which could be constructed extremely easily because there's nothing in the way there.

it has room to re-allocate itself up to 108 Avenue or down to 100 Avenue or even 96 Avenue.

And there will also need to be widening done on several north-south connecting corridors. I guess it's not morally wrong to trash an entire community with congestion then.... I'm trying to speak from a realistic perspective: I'm not the only oppositionist here. Think of the people.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

First of all, do not use YOUR website to try to prove YOUR point.

All we have to do is look at this post to show just how unrealistic and how much you will go out of your way and skew data:

http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/07/13/...expectations-of-88-of-surrey-population/

Whoah! xd_1771 is the infamous Darryl Dela Cruz???? Oh my!!!

You know...we almost lost a valuable and informative forumer because of you, if you are Darryl. You and that "Skytrain for Surrey" group is really hurting your cause because of its extremely biased and selective reporting...

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

There's also the issue of the fact that with the opening of tolls on the PMB, there will be a lot of freeloaders not coming from the highway but coming from Surrey that may redirect via 104th and 108th Aves. NDP MLA Harry Bains was concerned about this, as he mentioned himself in a recent news article. As attractive as it might be to do this within the existing road width to improve transit commutes, there are community-wide effects (congestion on alternate roads) that one of my main concerns is that a lot of people are blind to consider.

What you will see the first day of Port Mann tolling is, yes, pandemonium, of drivers trying to avoid the tolls. It is literally impossible to predict exactly what will happen, but Pattullo will not be worth it to many drivers, and you'll see people pay the price to take the new Port Mann. Golden Ears bridge did not work that way since you'd still have to get over the Pitt River bridge and back onto the Mary Hill Bypass which is quite congested.

It will take weeks, perhaps months, for traffic to balance itself out, and yes, I think you'll see increased volumes on 104 Avenue and Pattullo Bridge, but those volumes will primarily be off-peak periods when people aren't losing much time taking Pattullo to avoid paying $3. In what you are concerned with is rush hour traffic, in which Pattullo is near capacity at this point, and cannot take much more traffic. You'll see its rush hours extended somewhat, but the Port Mann will be flowing freely much of the day over the structure (although congestion will occur likely in the peak periods still)

Originally Posted by xd_1771

From my observations on 108th Ave it's arguable that there are more trucks using that because of the far easier right turn onto King George Highway NB. However, there are length and width restrictions on this corridor, which probably make for the reason why most of the larger trucks use 104th. That doesn't mean that all that traffic is headed in that direction. SFPR is a bypass, not a primary, direct, and signed connection to what will become one of the largest city centres in the Lower Mainland (bold because that's essentially what makes 104th so important and I don't think a lot of people are realizing this).

What large trucks are typically destined for City Centre in Surrey? Most industrial areas are located along the SFPR, and these trucks going for those areas are presently forced to go via 104 or 108 avenue to King George to get to River Road or South Fraser Way, and ultimately to areas to the west. I am concerned with those traffic signals that will be on the SFPR - it should have been a limited access freeway from the get-go.

[theQ]

Translink announced that they've found money for phase 1 of the KGB B-Line.

"Phase 1" is to include Guildford to Newton only, with no $$$ for the Newton to White Rock portion.

This'll be great for me, as I take the 321 every day and it's FULL...

There were other announcements as well...

http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-of-th...ortation-Plan/Base-Plan-and-Outlook.aspx

[Gordon]

These announcements are good news. Hopefully when the government releases the results of the audit the parties will announce that some sort of long term funding sources have been identified.

[nname]

Originally Posted by theQ

Translink announced that they've found money for phase 1 of the KGB B-Line.

By "founded" it means they cut other service for it (ie. weekend service on SkyTrain).

I find it funny that it goes from 95,000 hours in 2009 to 65,000 hours in 2011 to now only 40,000 hours. I wonder if this hours takes the cuts to 320 and 321 into account or not.. By looking at this number, most likely the service will be less than even the 2011 proposal as it is less than 2/3 of the hours. I wonder what the service will look like...

This kind of service on a 30-minutes route will get around 40,000 annual hour:
Early morning: every 15-20 minutes
Peak hours: every 7-8 minutes
Mid-day: every 10 minutes
Evening: every 10-15 minutes
Late night: every 30 minutes
Weekend daytime: every 15 minutes
Weekend late night: every 30 minutes

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by nname

By "founded" it means they cut other service for it (ie. weekend service on SkyTrain).

I find it funny that it goes from 95,000 hours in 2009 to 65,000 hours in 2011 to now only 40,000 hours. I wonder if this hours takes the cuts to 320 and 321 into account or not.. By looking at this number, most likely the service will be less than even the 2011 proposal as it is less than 2/3 of the hours. I wonder what the service will look like...

This kind of service on a 30-minutes route will get around 40,000 annual hour:
Early morning: every 15-20 minutes
Peak hours: every 7-8 minutes
Mid-day: every 10 minutes
Evening: every 10-15 minutes
Late night: every 30 minutes
Weekend daytime: every 15 minutes
Weekend late night: every 30 minutes

Here I thought that skytrain was already pretty busy on weekends, I went to downtown to the Grey Cup train and I had to stand on the way home for most of east Van.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Here I thought that skytrain was already pretty busy on weekends, I went to downtown to the Grey Cup train and I had to stand on the way home for most of east Van.

I'm sure they'll plan on running extras on heavy flows to and from downtown, like Canucks games, Lions games, and Whitecaps games on weekends.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

I'm sure they'll plan on running extras on heavy flows to and from downtown, like Canucks games, Lions games, and Whitecaps games on weekends.

The service has always been great after Canucks and Lions games in my experience. Even when both teams play at the same time (like once a year).

[David]

I've found that weekend Skytrain service is above average as it is, so that is one area where I think it would be acceptable to cut some service hours. I live near Holdom Station, and if I take the train on weekends during the daytime, its usually a nearly-empty new MKII train, but again, it is the M-Line. I love how frequent Skytrain is, but I think its acceptable to have to wait a bit longer for a train to arrive on weekends if thats where they can find some savings.

[jsbertram]

The problem with cutting Skytrain service - even if its only on weekends - is that it becomes easy for someone standing on a windy platform in the rainy winter to think to themselves "If I had a car, I'd be there already".

Once you reach the tipping point of waiting more than 20 minutes for the next train, Skytrain customers start thinking they'd rather be in a warm car getting somewhere, even if it means spending thousands more per year on an old beater than what they'd spend on transit.

[osirisboy]

haha yup and thats why I drive everywhere I go, unless I can walk. I would rather spend more time and/or money in my nice warm cozy car in traffic than dealing with waiting around in lousy weather for a bus/train

[nname]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Once you reach the tipping point of waiting more than 20 minutes for the next train, Skytrain customers start thinking they'd rather be in a warm car getting somewhere, even if it means spending thousands more per year on an old beater than what they'd spend on transit.

By the scale of the change (3.8%), I think the worst you are going to see is every 8 minutes on the Millennium Line and Surrey. Or maybe it'll be every 7 minutes to match the Canada Line.

The funny thing is they say they can save 0.5 million annually by slashing 45,000 hours from SkyTrain. So for each hour in service reduction, they only saved about $11

[BCPhil]

Good news about the first phase of the B line and the rapid bus. I hope there is a good transfer point between the B Line and the TCH rapid bus. Once rapid (bus) transit starts to take shape SoF, we can really gauge where the demand is and how big it will be for rail transit.

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

What large trucks are typically destined for City Centre in Surrey? Most industrial areas are located along the SFPR, and these trucks going for those areas are presently forced to go via 104 or 108 avenue to King George to get to River Road or South Fraser Way, and ultimately to areas to the west. I am concerned with those traffic signals that will be on the SFPR - it should have been a limited access freeway from the get-go.

That was exactly my point. Almost every truck coming down 104 ave turns North on King George and heads for Scott Road/South Westminster or further away. Almost no trucks go into the City Center itself. There is nothing there but retail. I bet the Van Kam on Grace Road sees double the trucks daily that the entire City Center sees for deliveries in a week. The trucks that cut across Surrey further south (on 88) are either going into Central Newton where there is some light industry or cutting across to the 91 to get to the industrial in Delta and Anacis Island or further.

When the SFPR opens, even the first phase, so many trucks will disappear off 104 and 108. Maybe even some cars.

Even if a lot of drivers do skip the Port Mann and try for the Pattullo, the nightmare will be on King George and not 104. People skipping the Port Mann likely have a longer commute, meaning they will have to hit the Pattullo earlier than say someone going over it to get to New West and Burnaby. Meaning they will hit the bridge earlier than the route's regular users in the morning, and later than the regulars in the evening. That should balance out when the bride is busy, and keep traffic from backing up on 104. Also, commuters skipping the Port Mann from the East (those that would use 104 ave) would likely use the SFPR too. Sure it has lights, but between 176 St and the Pattullo, the SFPR will have fewer lights than 104 Ave/King George.

[nname]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Good news about the first phase of the B line and the rapid bus. I hope there is a good transfer point between the B Line and the TCH rapid bus. Once rapid (bus) transit starts to take shape SoF, we can really gauge where the demand is and how big it will be for rail transit.

Don't get your hope up. I might be incorrect, but I think the plan is to run the bus from Carvolth to Braid non-stop.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by nname

Don't get your hope up. I might be incorrect, but I think the plan is to run the bus from Carvolth to Braid non-stop.

I wouldn't be surprised if they throw up a bus stop at 156 Street within the on/off ramp - although the lack of transit connections would be significant.

There is the 501, 509, 590 combo that runs from Walnut Grove to Surrey Central...

[tybuilding]

With the new bus exchange does that mean that there will be a new intersection at 71 ave and KGB and a new 71 ave to 136B ST? Or will 70 Ave be constructed with 136B upgraded to the bus exchange?

These upgrades will be helpful in my plan for local street bike routes crisscrossing Surrey. One of the best routes is 70 Ave west of KGB to 121 ST, eventually connecting to Delta.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

I wouldn't be surprised if they throw up a bus stop at 156 Street within the on/off ramp - although the lack of transit connections would be significant.

There is the 501, 509, 590 combo that runs from Walnut Grove to Surrey Central...

You are right cause i also recall from way back there was plans for a small transit exchange at 156. With on/off ramps for buses only at 156 street.
which can be seen and told here
http://www.pmh1project.com/Design%20Draw...0Street%20Interchange%20-%2020120608.pdf

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

You are right cause i also recall from way back there was plans for a small transit exchange at 156. With on/off ramps for buses only at 156 street.
which can be seen and told here
http://www.pmh1project.com/Design%20Draw...0Street%20Interchange%20-%2020120608.pdf

That's what I was talking about. They could incorporate the 156 exit in some way to allow transfers to and from the rapid bus service. It would be nice if Tranlink owned the empty property on the corner 156 St and 104 Ave and moved the 160 St park and ride there, and put in a proper bus exchange. It could act as the terminus of the Surrey B line and transfer point between local service and the B line and Rapid Bus. Then the 501, 509 and 590 could use the dedicated transit ramps on 156 St instead of using the 160 Ave exit.

But seeing as there is no exchange there, or money for one, they could have the rapid bus (west bound) exit the TCH at 160 Ave, then turn onto 156 St and back onto the freeway at 156 St.

But I guess you could also just expand 509 service to most of the day (which acts like a rapid bus between Walnut Grove and City Center).

Also, is there any indication if they will have the buses that go through the Walnut Grove exchange go through the new Rapid Bus park and ride, or is the park and ride only for Rapid bus? Also, what kind of buses do you think they will use on the rapid bus service?