Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction - Page 106

paulsparrow · #**2101** Posted **May 15, 2015, 4:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logicbomb

140th, 148th, 156th and 160th St will be widened to 4 lanes to improve N-S flow.

And in Surrey traditional fashion they will widen every other block while leaving the other blocks single lane. Just to make it pointless.

Sheba · #**2102** Posted **May 15, 2015, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logicbomb

There are plans to widen and rename 100th Ave between Whalley Blvd and 148th Ave. This would be the primary E-W corridor.
Two new local arterial roads. 102nd Ave would span from University Blvd to 144th St. 105th Ave would stretch from 154th St and terminate into an intersection at 142nd St @ 104th Ave.
140th, 148th, 156th and 160th St will be widened to 4 lanes to improve N-S flow.

Surrey needs to start consistently widening it's main grid roads to four lanes to keep traffic moving or it's going to turn into New West. I looked at the specific routes you mentioned and the N-S roads could easily be widened - they already alternate between four lanes and two lanes with wide shoulders. Some of Surrey's E-W grid roads have the bigger problem of starting and stopping at random locations - they needs to punch some of these through to have a complete grid.

CurtisVerbatim · #**2103** Posted **May 15, 2015, 10:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logicbomb

108th Ave cannot be widened any further from it's 4 lane configuration.

There are plans to widen and rename 100th Ave between Whalley Blvd and 148th Ave. This would be the primary E-W corridor.
Two new local arterial roads. 102nd Ave would span from University Blvd to 144th St. 105th Ave would stretch from 154th St and terminate into an intersection at 142nd St @ 104th Ave.
140th, 148th, 156th and 160th St will be widened to 4 lanes to improve N-S flow.

How much property acquisition will this require? A hell of a lot more than simply widening 104th Ave.

And guys,this is just the Guildford portion. You know that portion that would run through Fleetwood? Yeah.....

Property acquisition won't be a problem for 100th ave as well as 160th st as the city already planned for widening. its mainly just the alternate roads (102 and 154) that will need acquisition. These plans should all be taking place anyway regardless of LRT.

CurtisVerbatim · #**2104** Posted **May 15, 2015, 10:54 PM**

Speaking of reinforcing the street grid, lately I've seen surveying going on around Fraser Highway and Whalley Blvd. might they be extending Whalley Blvd through to 96th soon?

Whalleyboy · #**2105** Posted **May 16, 2015, 1:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logicbomb

108th Ave cannot be widened any further from it's 4 lane configuration.

There are plans to widen and rename 100th Ave between Whalley Blvd and 148th Ave. This would be the primary E-W corridor.
Two new local arterial roads. 102nd Ave would span from University Blvd to 144th St. 105th Ave would stretch from 154th St and terminate into an intersection at 142nd St @ 104th Ave.
140th, 148th, 156th and 160th St will be widened to 4 lanes to improve N-S flow.

How much property acquisition will this require? A hell of a lot more than simply widening 104th Ave.

And guys,this is just the Guildford portion. You know that portion that would run through Fleetwood? Yeah.....

Actually 105 ave long term plan would bring it from 132street to 154ave when I once looked. The only issue would be the tearing through hawthorn park. Which I think is why the city is putting this off and slowly going to punch it through. Just look how 84ave expansion got destroyed cause people where claiming it would "go right through" bear creek which was a complete load of ****.

Sheba · #**2106** Posted **May 16, 2015, 2:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Actually 105 ave long term plan would bring it from 132street to 154ave when I once looked. The only issue would be the tearing through hawthorn park. Which I think is why the city is putting this off and slowly going to punch it through. Just look how 84ave expansion got destroyed cause people where claiming it would "go right through" bear creek which was a complete load of ****.

They could start by joining 84th Ave between 124th and 128th (which would include a rail crossing), and 80th Ave between King George and 140th.

logicbomb · #**2107** Posted **May 16, 2015, 5:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Actually 105 ave long term plan would bring it from 132street to 154ave when I once looked. The only issue would be the tearing through hawthorn park. Which I think is why the city is putting this off and slowly going to punch it through. Just look how 84ave expansion got destroyed cause people where claiming it would "go right through" bear creek which was a complete load of ****.

Right you are. That old plan was identified in 2013, the new plan you made mention was introduced last year. The road is fairly close proximity to 104th Ave, and you'd essentially destroy Hawthorn, and be forced to acquire a fair number of properties (including a school, historic convent, and an entire townhouse complex).

This is what I proposed in February- a more realistic plan for a new cross-town road. The biggest knock on this thus far is that it does transect through a fairly new multi-townhouse development in Guildford. Though the older developments are more suitable (ripe) for acquisition so it can be worked around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CurtisVerbatim

Speaking of reinforcing the street grid, lately I've seen surveying going on around Fraser Highway and Whalley Blvd. might they be extending Whalley Blvd through to 96th soon?

Funny enough, they were doing the surveying back in 2010. This was a project that has continuously been pushed back due to some disagreement with Surrey Memorial. 2016 seems to be the new target date. We shall see.

CurtisVerbatim · #**2108** Posted **May 17, 2015, 12:38 AM**

Why would the hospital want to preserve Surreys disjointed road network?

logicbomb · #**2109** Posted **May 17, 2015, 6:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CurtisVerbatim

Why would the hospital want to preserve Surreys disjointed road network?

My bad, it's not with Surrey Memorial. Though a lot north of 96th and 138th Ave (13845).

CurtisVerbatim · #**2110** Posted **May 17, 2015, 6:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logicbomb

My bad, it's not with Surrey Memorial. Though a lot north of 96th and 138th Ave (13845).

oh so it's the parking lot. huh, I thought hydro owned that land but I guess they don't

go_leafs_go02 · #**2111** Posted **May 17, 2015, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CurtisVerbatim

oh so it's the parking lot. huh, I thought hydro owned that land but I guess they don't

No, it's privately owned land, and not owned by Fraser Health, City of Surrey or BC Hydro.

SOSS · #**2112** Posted **May 18, 2015, 6:52 AM**

How is this discussion regarding rapid transit?

CurtisVerbatim · #**2113** Posted **May 18, 2015, 7:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOSS

How is this discussion regarding rapid transit?

Well, minus the Whalley Blvd part the conversation is about alternate routing of a major artery once the LRT disaster starts taking shape.

trofirhen · #**2114** Posted **May 18, 2015, 12:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CurtisVerbatim

Well, minus the Whalley Blvd part the conversation is about alternate routing of a major artery once the LRT disaster starts taking shape.

LRT disaster is right. It's slow, under-capacity, and has a high ratio of vehicle collisions, and sort of cks
That said, although I prefer the Broadway line be built first, I think Surrey would do a lot better with Skytrain technology. It's just How much$$$$$ and / when, as are most things.

Sheba · #**2115** Posted **May 18, 2015, 5:25 PM**

It seems like everyone who isn't a Surrey politician thinks their LRT plan is a disaster.

Personally I think a better plan would be to extend Expo Line down Fraser Hwy with a new section / station annually for the next few years (well ok, starting after widening the road through Green Timbers). King George isn't so busy that it needs Skytrain anytime soon - the 96B Line and dedicated bus lanes would be enough. That just leaves something to be decided about Guildford.

All the comments about the road network are fair game - Surrey needs to improve their grid roads before starting on transit improvements.

Kisai · #**2116** Posted **May 18, 2015, 7:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOSS

How is this discussion regarding rapid transit?

http://www.surrey.ca/files/Economic_Benefits_of_Surrey_LRT.pdf
The conversation about the roadways actually comes up in news stories from the latest consulting report from Surrey.

Economic Benefits... yay, stuff that transit riders don't care about. This pretty much touts it as a useless "make-work" project.

There is something terribly ironic when you have the Skytrain hater on your side against the Surrey LRT.
http://www.news1130.com/2015/05/15/new-report-says-lrt-is-best-option-for-surrey/

KPELLY · #**2117** Posted **May 18, 2015, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kisai

http://www.surrey.ca/files/Economic_Benefits_of_Surrey_LRT.pdf
The conversation about the roadways actually comes up in news stories from the latest consulting report from Surrey.

Economic Benefits... yay, stuff that transit riders don't care about. This pretty much touts it as a useless "make-work" project.

There is something terribly ironic when you have the Skytrain hater on your side against the Surrey LRT.
http://www.news1130.com/2015/05/15/new-report-says-lrt-is-best-option-for-surrey/

LOL at his idea of "extending light rail into Vancouver"...

It still completely baffles me this guy gets airtime.

Sheba · #**2118** Posted **May 18, 2015, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kisai

http://www.surrey.ca/files/Economic_Benefits_of_Surrey_LRT.pdf
The conversation about the roadways actually comes up in news stories from the latest consulting report from Surrey.

Economic Benefits... yay, stuff that transit riders don't care about. This pretty much touts it as a useless "make-work" project.

There is something terribly ironic when you have the Skytrain hater on your side against the Surrey LRT.
http://www.news1130.com/2015/05/15/new-report-says-lrt-is-best-option-for-surrey/

Hmmm previously it was 'LRT is a great transportation plan' and now it's 'LRT is a great job creator'. Ooooh yeah I can see this really working out. Gee I wonder what Jordan Bateman has to say about it...

Kisai · #**2119** Posted **May 18, 2015, 8:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheba

Hmmm previously it was 'LRT is a great transportation plan' and now it's 'LRT is a great job creator'. Ooooh yeah I can see this really working out. Gee I wonder what Jordan Bateman has to say about it...

Haha.... Want to see how much of a camera-mugger Jordan Bateman is?
He used to support Light Rail:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080514141622/http://www.langley2020.com/light%20rail.pdf

Quote:

WHY LIGHT RAIL AND NOT SKYTRAIN?
Light rail is the preferred option for several reasons, including:
Cost. Light rail is far cheaper and would work with Golden Ears and 200th road
alignments.
Unobtrusiveness. Light rail is quiet compared to SkyTrain, and does not negatively impact
a neighbourhood with overhead cement routes.
Safety. A new light rail system would include drivers on every train, and allow us to use
cameras, undercover transit officers, police, and other safety measures to ensure safety
for users. The top complaint about transit remains crime issues; a new light rail system
allows us to put safety procedures in place from day one. To be successful, it must be
clean, safe, accessible and easy-to-use. If it is perceived to be used by an unsavory
element for criminal purposes, it will never be accepted by drivers.

But you know what's really funny?

Listen to arguments from places who have light rail and want something grade separated:
http://www.minnpost.com/letters/2015/05/suspended-monorail-would-solve-myriad-light-rail-issues

Quote:

Raymond D. Becker, St. Paul May 18th 2015

Did you know that a suspended monorail only costs one-fourth as much to build in half the time, has less maintenance than light rail and has never had an accident with a car in over 100 years of use?

Now I don't mean a "monorail" or a "gondola" but a light rail with the wheels above the cars instead of under it. Just think positive for a moment. No exposed overhead wires, no miles of utilities to relocate, soil conditions wouldn't make a much bigger impact than crossing a river, snow and ice would not slow it down and the only (that's ONE) fatality was an elephant about 100 years ago that got spooked and literally rocked the boat. We haven't even made one year with that kind of safety.

What about elevated stations? We already do that and for that matter, what business wouldn't mind making the allowances we made for the skyways (tax subsided, of course) and have customers dropped right in the middle of third floor instead of just outside the front door?

So there you have it — been in other countries for over 100 years, as quiet as light rail, cheaper to maintain, after the supports are in the spans can be trucked and hoisted into place from a central build site, and stop lights?! We don't need no stinking stop lights! You cannot hit a car from 20 feet up!

jsbertram · #**2120** Posted **May 18, 2015, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kisai

Haha.... Want to see how much of a camera-mugger Jordan Bateman is?
He used to support Light Rail:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080514141622/http://www.langley2020.com/light%20rail.pdf

The Internet Never Forgets!