Skip to content

LETTERS: City gods shine on some roadways

‘The other day, while returning from the Ocean Park Library, I decided to drive along 20 Avenue.’
13795884_web1_20-avenue-letter
Letter writer says driving on Surrey’s 20 Avenue is a pleasant driving experience. (Aaron Hinks photo)

An Open Letter to the City of Surrey.

The other day, while returning from the Ocean Park Library, I decided to drive along 20 Avenue.

I live in a subdivision bordered by 148 Street and 24 Avenue, and the traffic along those two corridors has become notoriously congested.

What a pleasant experience driving along 20 Avenue. The wide, evenly paved road, the spacious landscaped single-family homes. To make the experience even more pleasant, construction crews were installing new sidewalks. Whether these sidewalks are needed or will be used is, I expect, completely beside the point. It makes the road look nice and has the advantage of discouraging widening the road.

Surely the gods in the Surrey planning and engineering departments have smiled on this road.

Which leads me to my question: Why? Why has this main road been excluded from development while 24 Avenue has become a commercial strip of malls, multi-family dwellings, schools, community centre and freeway access? And all of it done with seeming little consideration or compensation for the residents who live aside this dumping ground of urban development.

If the answer is the zoning process, then I say there is something seriously wrong with a zoning process that has placed an inappropriate burden of development on one road. Not only is this a lazy and callous planning practice, it is unprofessional and prejudicial.

In the 27 years I have lived in this area, I have seen this road ripped up several times to accommodate the latest expansions sanctioned by the city. This overuse and abuse of an essentially simple country road demonstrates the complete lack of imagination, fairness and equality that seems to permeate city planners.

I don’t expect the gods of the planning and engineering departments will look favourably upon my challenge, but perhaps they might consider some amendments.

For instance: How about some lighting along the section of 24 Avenue that intersects the Sunnyside Urban Forest? This portion is not only dark, it is dangerous. And what about adding a sidewalk on 148 Street from 24 Avenue to the access road to South Surrey Recreation Centre complex? Currently there is no safe pedestrian access to this park area.

Before I forget, what the heck was the engineering department thinking when they added a bike lane to 148 Street between 26 and 28 avenues? A two-block bike lane? Seriously? Not only is the bike lane extremely narrow, making it a hazard, but the paved road was in perfectly good condition prior to this engineering folly.

It is time to stop using 24 Avenue as the primary site for expansion, and to look at other streets and avenues as areas to bear an equal burden of development.

However, if the city has still more plans to concentrate more congestion and growth in this area, they should inform the residents who are impacted so that we can decide whether we wish to continue living in this city.

Carol Prokop, Surrey