F.1 32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

F.
REPORT TO
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
PRESENTED:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 12, 2016 - REGULAR AFTERNOON MEETING

ENGINEERING DIVISION
32 AVENUE CONNECTOR CYCLING PROJECT UPDATE
REPORT:
FILE:
16-136
5330-23-076
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council receive the 32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project Update report, including
information regarding a public information meeting as directed by Council for information and
direct staff to proceed with completing the Project as previously approved.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2013, Council adopted Township of Langleys Five-Year Cycling Improvement Plan.

One of the high priority improvements is installation of bike lanes on 32 Avenue in
Aldergrove, which had been commenced pursuant to the plan. At its meeting of June 27,
2016, Council directed staff to delay work on 32 Avenue until after the delegation of
Wade Rayner is heard. On July 11, 2016, Council passed the following resolution: That
the matter of a bike lane on 32 Avenue be referred to staff for a community forum.
As directed by Council, a public information meeting was held at Parkside Centennial
elementary school in Aldergrove on September 14, 2016. During the session, display boards
(Attachment A) provided background information. The information was used in presenting the
public with proposed the design concepts, and outlined implications on parking. Residents
were asked to complete a questionnaire and provide comments relating to the project. The
display boards and questionnaire were subsequently posted on the Township website from
September 15 to 23, 2016, to provide further opportunities for feedback for those unable to
attend the public information meeting.
A total of 111 persons attended the public information meeting, and 114 questionnaires were
submitted with the comments summarized (Attachment B). The comments provided related
primarily to on-street parking, safety, connectivity and consideration of other alternatives. Staff
has confirmed that while on-street parking will be reduced, based upon observed and recorded
demand for parking on the area, sufficient parking will remain to meet the needs of area
residents. Furthermore, the project will assist in achieving the goals and visions of the
Townships Sustainability Charter and Official Community Plan, including provision of more
sustainable and healthier modes of transportation and improving public safety.
One of the functional plans, adopted by Council in September 2013, to assist with the
implementation of the vision established in the Sustainability Charter and the Official Community
Plan, is the Five-Year Cycling Improvement Plan (Attachment C). The proposed cycling
infrastructure on 32 Avenue connector cycling project in Aldergrove, is ranked as the second
highest priority project for implementation, with $45,000 funding approved as part of the 2014
budget process. The total cost of the project, estimated at approximately $80,000, is to be
shared with TransLink pursuant to the Major Road Network and Bike Program.
PURPOSE:
To provide Council with an update on the 32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project and obtain
Councils approval to proceed with the installation, as anticipated in the Cycling Plan adopted by
Council in 2013.
32 AVENUE CONNECTOR CYCLING PROJECT

Page 2. . .
F.1
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
A memorandum, dated April 7, 2016 (Attachment D) provided Council with information

regarding the 32 Avenue cycling project, including implications on parking, proposed
construction schedule and notification to residents. Another memorandum was subsequently
provided to Council on June 23, 2016 (Attachment E) outlining a series of public consultation
sessions undertaken in support of the Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan, prior to Councils
adoption in September 2013.
As described in the April 7, 2016 memorandum, the 32 Avenue connector cycling Project
consists of installation of bike lanes on 32 Avenue from Provincial Highway 13 (264 Street) to
276 Street and on 276 Street from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway. The Project is part of the
Five-Year Cycling Improvement Plan, endorsed by Council in September 2013 (Attachment C).
On June 10, 2016, a notice of construction letter was sent to local residents fronting 32 Avenue
from Highway 13 to 276 Street and 276 Street from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway.
At the June 27, 2016 regular evening meeting, Council passed the following resolution:
That the delegation received from Wade Rayner regarding the 32 Avenue bike
lane be heard in the July 11 Regular Evening Meeting, and that staff be directed
to delay work on 32 Avenue in Aldergrove until after the delegation is heard.
And subsequently, at its July 11, 2016 regular evening meeting, Council passed the following
resolution:
That the matter of a bike lane on 32 Avenue be referred to staff for a community
forum.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
In June 2008, Township Council adopted the Sustainability Charter as a high-level, long-term
policy document to guide and commit the Township and the community to a sustainable future.
The 2015 Cycling Plan and the Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan are consistent with the
goals listed in the Sustainability Charter as follows:
Provide and support community based leisure opportunities

Nurture a mindset of sustainability
Invest in effective infrastructure
Integrate transportation and community planning
Reduce energy consumption
In the Council approved Aldergrove Community Plan, the Aldergrove Core Area Plan developed
the following goals and objectives:
Encourage walking, cycling, and transit access to jobs, shopping and other destinations
Incorporate built form, layout and open space design that supports walking, transit-use
and cycling for everyday travel needs
Prioritize walking, cycling, and transit use within the downtown
The Townships Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan was endorsed by Council in 2013 after a
series of community consultation sessions highlighted below:

Page 3. . .
F.1
January 27, 2011: Public Open House to gather feedback for the proposed Ultimate
Cycling Network
March 29, 2012: second Public Open House to present the proposed Ultimate Cycling
Network Infrastructure
June 19, 2013: third Public Open House to seek input on 2015 Cycling Network and
Infrastructure, and Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan
In addition, the draft 2015 Cycling Plan was posted on the Township website for public
information and input from February 16 to April 13, 2015. The 2015 Cycling Plan was endorsed
by Council on July 20, 2015.
The 32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project is ranked second of eight high-priority projects
outlined in the Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan because it continues the cycling route on
Fraser Highway to the west and provides a connection to Abbotsford. The cost of the project is
shared between the Township and TransLink as part of the Major Road Network and Bike
(MRNB) program. As part of the 2014 Budget, Council approved funding $45,000 of the
approximate $80,000 total estimated project cost, with the remaining funding provided by
TransLink.
Public Information Session:
A Public Information Session was held at Parkside Centennial Elementary School in Aldergrove
from 5:00pm to 8:00pm on September 14, 2016. During this session, display boards
(Attachment A) provided background information, presented the design concept, and outlined
the parking implications for the 32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project. Residents were asked to
complete a questionnaire to provide their comments on the project. The display boards and
questionnaire were later posted on the Township website from September 15 to 23, 2016.
On September 14, 111 people attended the Public Information Session. A total of 114
questionnaires were submitted by September 23. Attachment B provides a detailed summary of
the comments received from the Public Information Session and online consultation. Of the
114 questionnaires submitted 75 expressed concerns with the project and 39 were generally
supportive of the project. The following provides a high level summary of the input received:
Parking:
Concerns were expressed with the validity and accuracy of the parking surveys and residents
would have to cross the street or park further down the block. There was also concern
expressed with the impact on parking supply for larger events and the impact to guest parking.
The parking surveys undertaken on four separate occasions indicated that at most 52 cars were
parked in the available 273 parking spaces on 32 Avenue and 276 Street which represents a
19% utilization rate. With the removal of 110 on-street parking spaces on the north side of
32 Avenue and west side of 276 Street, there were would remain 163 on-street parking spaces
with an anticipated utilization of 32%. A higher demand for parking may be present during
special events and may result in parking utilization increasing on 32 Avenue and other nearby
roads. On-street parking on only one side of a road is a common occurrence throughout the
Township and the Lower Mainland. Based upon the observed existing usage, with the removal
of on-street parking on the north side of 32 Avenue and the installation of bike lanes, sufficient
on-street parking will be available for the use of residents and their guests. This is in addition to
off-street parking that is typically available on private property.

Page 4. . .
F.1
Safety:
Concerns were raised with the proximity of bicycle lanes adjacent to parked cars, more cars
being parked near driveways on the south side, concerns accessing parking on the opposite
side of the street, and the lack of cycling facilities on Highway 13.
Staff has not found any research that correlates damage to parked vehicles from adjacent
cycling activities. The multi-family driveways on 32 Avenue already have parking restrictions
implemented to address issues exiting driveways. Safety will be significantly improved on the
north side of 32 Avenue by removing parked vehicles that block visibility at existing driveways.
In 2010, the school/park zone on 32 Avenue from the 26900 block to 272 Street was traffic
calmed and has a posted speed limit of 30km/h. The traffic calming measures were constructed
to accommodate future cycling facilities with a small portion in the reduced speed zone at
270 Street being shared by cyclists and motorists.
There is currently no cycling connection Highway 13 from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway. Staff
is discussing with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) the implementation of
cycling facilities at this location.
Input was received that bike lanes would improve safety for cyclists by providing a lane for their
exclusive use, provide a safer route to local destination within and through Aldergrove, and
would promote cycling as an alternative mode of transportation.
Connectivity:
The Township cycling plan envisions connecting various communities within the Township such
as Aldergrove and Murrayville. West of Highway 13, this connection has been provided via
Fraser Highway. However, in the core of Aldergrove, the existing width of Fraser Highway does
not allow for the installation of bicycle lanes which would be needed as per Transportation
Association of Canada (TAC) guidelines. As 32 Avenue is the nearest east/west connection
between Highway 13 and 276 Street it is the best alternative route.
Input was received that 32 Avenue is an important connection for cycling in the Township that
would support community based cycling, nurture a mindset of sustainability, create a
cost-effective low-impact transportation route, encourage physical activity of cycling and to
promote stewardship and sustainability. The cycling facility would provide improved access to
local schools and parks.
There was some concern that counts had not been undertaken of the current usage of the route
by cyclists and that usage appeared to be low. It is common that cycling activity is low in areas
where facilities are not provided or in areas where the routes are not continuous, safe and
convenient. The Township has not undertaken cycling counts due to the large number of routes
within the Township, the effort and costs involved as they are manual counts, and that counts
would not necessarily reflect the usage once the facilities are in place.
Alternatives:
Input was received that alternative designs or routes should be pursued that allowed for both
cycling facilities and the retention on-street parking on both sides of 32 Avenue. These included
suggestions of using 24 Avenue, 29 Avenue or Fraser Highway, having a bicycle lane on one
side, or using a share the road standard on 32 Avenue.

Page 5. . .
F.1
The existing width and traffic volume on Fraser Highway between 270 Street and 273 Street
does not accommodate on street bicycle lanes as per TAC guidelines. 24 Avenue is too far to
the south to serve local destinations and would be more difficult to connect the existing routes
on Fraser Highway west of Highway 13.
29 Avenue, while it services some school and parks, does not serve the area north of
Fraser Highway, is not continuous from Highway 13 to 276 Street, would be more difficult to
provide a connection between 29 Avenue and Fraser Highway on Highway 13 and would have
the same issues with respect to on-street parking as 32 Avenue. 29 Avenue would be suitable
to serve the area south of Fraser Highway and should be considered as an additional route, and
not an alternative route to 32 Avenue. As such, 32 Avenue is the most direct and appropriate
route as noted in the Cycling Plan.
32 Avenue was constructed to a 12.8 metre width and currently has two travel lanes and two
parking lanes. The existing width is insufficient to add two 1.5 metre cycling lane without the
removal of parking from one side of the street. Installing an on-street bike lane on one side of
the street would not accommodate cyclists going in both directions. Installing a share the road
standard where cyclists and motorists use the same travel lane is not recommended as the
traffic volume threshold exceeds TAC guidelines.
Previous Consultation:
Concern was expressed that insufficient public consultation had been undertaken prior the
notice of construction being sent to residents. Some attendees at the information sessions
expressed a desire to have a discussion forum as opposed to an information session.
As noted previously, the Townships Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan and 2015 Cycling
Plan went through a series of community consultation sessions. Staff posted notices on the
Townships website, social media, and local newspapers advised residents of the input
sessions. Residents were also provided opportunity to provide their comments and input at the
Public Information Session.
Public input was also received that the Public Information Session was unnecessary as plans
had been previously, discussed, presented and approved, the parking concerns were
insufficient to justify a delay and need for a session, the need for improved cycling facilities in
the Township is evident, the project supports the Sustainability Charter, the Aldergrove Core
Area Plan, Regional Infrastructure Plan for cycling and the Township Cycling Plan.
Next Steps:
Public input is an important factor to be considered in the design and implementation of projects
in addition to the goals and objectives of adopted plans such as the sustainability charter,
community plan and cycling plan. The primary concern of the public is a reduction in on-street
parking which based upon observed surveys, will continue to be sufficient to meet the needs of
area residents. As the project will assist the Township in achieving the goals and visions of
more sustainable and healthier modes of travel, and the project will improve safety for cyclists,
staff recommends proceeding with the Project.

Page 6. . .
F.1
Local residents will be notified of construction through newspaper advertising, Township

website, social media postings, as well as letters to directly affected residents along 32 Avenue
from Highway 13 to 276 Street and 276 Street from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Cordeiro
MANAGER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
for
ATTACHMENT A
32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project Public Information Display Boards
ATTACHMENT B
32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project Public Information Questionnaire

Summary
ATTACHMENT C
September 3, 2013 Five-Year Cycling Improvement Plan Council Report
ATTACHMENT D
April 7, 2016 Memorandum to Council
ATTACHMENT E
June 23, 2016 Memorandum to Council
Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project
Please take some time to view the display boards, speak to sta, and complete a feedback form.
Display boards contain:
i Seek public feedback
i Provide project background information
The objective of this session is to:
32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project
Welcome to the Public Information Session
ATTACHMENT A
F.1
Nurture a mindset of sustainability Encourage sustainable transportation by allocating road space to cyclists
Strengthen our economy Cycling is a low cost alternative to the motor
vehicle and simulates local business
Invest in eective infrastructure Dedicated cycling infrastructure is an
ecient use of road space
Reduce energy consumption Cycling is the most energy ecient form
of transportation
Promote stewardship Provide appropriate cycling infrastructure to
create a transportation environment where use of a private motor vehicle
is an option, rather than a necessity
x
x
x
Municipal Town Centres concentrate services oriented to the needs of a

municipality and higher density housing, and encourage walking, cycling,
and transit access to jobs, shopping and other destinations.
Incorporate built form, layout and open space design that supports walking, transit-use and cycling for everyday travel needs.
To prioritize walking, cycling, and transit use within the downtown and to
create safe, convenient, and pleasant access for people of all ages and
abilities while accommodating vehicle travel and access to businesses,
residences, and other downtown destinations.
Aldergrove Core Area Plan
Aldergrove Community Plan
x
x
x
x
x
Sustainability Charter
Township of Langley Plans and Policies
F.1
January 27, 2011: first Public Open House to gather feedback for the proposed
Ultimate Cycling Network
March 29, 2012: second Public Open House to present the updated Ultimate
Cycling Network and the proposed Ultimate Cycling Network Infrastructure
June 19, 2013: third Public Open House to seek input on 2015 Cycling Network
and Infrastructure, Five-Year Cycling Improvement Plan and 2018/2022 Cycling
Network and Infrastructure
The draft 2015 Cycling Plan was posted on the Township website for public information and input from February 16 to April 13, 2015
x
x
x
x
x
Network Coverage/Connectivity: Cycling routes providing backbones of the

Ultimate Cycling Network will be recognized as the first priority.
Addressing Gaps: Filling in gaps in the network would increase connectivity
and function, resulting in the increased usage of the cycling network.
Lane Use/Demand: Priority will be given to cycling routes in higher density
and higher demand areas.
Cost: Low cost projects will be considered first in implementing the network.
Integration with Other Projects.: Higher priority is given to cycling routes that
could be integrated as part of other projects.
Eight High Priority Projects were identified using the following criteria:
Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan
x
x
x
x
Public Consultation
Township of Langley 2015 Cycling Plan
F.1
Cycling Network Maps
F.1
32 Avenue Connector Project was ranked as the No. 2 project in the Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan .
The project consists of constructing bicycle lanes on 32 Avenue from Provincial Highway 13 (264 Street) to 276 Street and on 276 Street from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway .
The construction of the project is cost shared between the Township and TransLink as part of the Major Road Network Bicycle program.
As part of the 2014 Budget, Council approved funding $45,000 of the $77,000 total estimated project cost.
x
x
x
x
Project Background
Design Drawing 1
F.1
Cross Sections:
Design Drawing 2
F.1
Currently 244 on-street parking stalls available on 32 Avenue from Highway 13 to 276 Street and 29 on-street parking stalls on 276 Street from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway
In total, there are 273 on-street parking stalls in the study area.
Sta undertook 4 parking surveys from 2013 to 2016.
The highest utilization rate observed is 19% at midnight Thursday January 28, 2016.
The north side of 32 Avenue has fewer parking stalls (97 vs. 147) and removal will have a smaller impact on parking supply. On the west side of 276 Street there are 13 stalls that will be removed to facilitate the construction.
Post construction, there will be 163 on-street parking stalls available.
Using the highest number of parked vehicles from the surveys (52 cars), it is anticipated that the highest utilization rate will be approximately 32% of available stalls which will be sucient for the neighbourhood.
Parking availability and demand is broken down by 2-block sections, shown in maps below.
Parking Map 1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Parking Study
Parking Implications
F.1
Parking Map 2
On-Street Parking Implications
F.1
Bike lanes are already in place on Fraser Highway from the City of Langley to Highway 13 in the Township of Langley and in the City of Abbottsford.
Cycling facilities on 32 Avenue and 276 Street will provide an alternative connection other than Fraser Highway.
This corridor is a vital connection of a Fraser Valley cycling route that spans the length of Fraser Highway from Surrey Central through to Abbotsford.
On-street parking stalls will be reduced from 273 to 163. However, utilization rate will be approximately 32% of available stalls which will be sucient for the neighbourhood.
Sta is discussing with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure about the potential implementation of cycling facilities on Highway 13 from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway. This would provide a connection between the cycling facilities on 32 Avenue to the cycling facilities on Fraser Highway west of Highway 13.
x
x
x
x
x
Parking Study
Summary of Benefits
F.1
Next Steps...
F.1
Engineering Division, Township of Langley

20338 65 Avenue, Langley, BC V2Y 3J1
604.533.6098
EngInfo@tol.ca
Mail or in
person:
Fax:
Email:
Please fill out a feedback form before you leave or

submit a completed feedback form on or before 4:30pm
September 23, 2016 using any of the following methods:
Thank you for Attending the Public Info Session
F.1
F.1
ATTACHMENT B
32 Ave Connector Cycling Project Public Information Session
Questionnaire Results
111 people attended the Public Info Session
114 questionnaires were received
Question 1: Was the information provided helpful?
Yes: 79
No: 29
Question 2: Please provide your comments.

Comments Received:
The whole proposal right from the beginning seemed very one sided, in favor of the bike
lane and not the home owners.
The fact that there was NO information about the cyclists and the number of them that
would be using this new bike lane was ridiculous. How can you not have that
information when that is the sole reason for this whole issue and proposal???
Who is this bike lane really benefitting?? Its not the home owners and tax payers that
park on 32 Ave. Thats for sure.
I fail to see the benefits:
o For locals, the stretch of road in question is already walking distance.
o Commuters INTO Aldergrove are insignificant as far as I know. Commuters OUT
of Aldergrove usually go distances making bicycling impractical for most.
Commuters going THRU Aldergrove fact the same challenge.
The first priority should be to grow the business sector of Aldergrove beyond the stretch
along Fraser Hwy. Doing so would then encourage more cycling amongst locals, then
justifying (and subsidizing) a bicycling infrastructure.
How much will my property value go down?
Virtually all biking down in Aldergrove is recreational. If you live here, you need a car.
This is an important issue for those of us that live on or near 32 Ave. To lose over half
the parking is an issue.
Many of the 2 storey single lots have 3+ vehicles. What was the date + time of studies
done?
What is the rate of ICBC claims for parking in front of your house vs across the street + a
few houses down?
What other options are there? Can we put a bike lane on 32 Ave + keep our parking or
put a bike lane on a different street?
If this is a very important street, widening should be done.
Aldergrove has very little to offer. What we do have is large lots and ample parking. I
dont want to see a Willoughby situation.
32 Ave has A&W, Tim Hortons, Fox & Hounds, 2 churches, 1 park and many many
townhouse complexes. On parade/festival days, birthday parties, BBQs the lack of
parking, the devaluing of my property will be a real and on-going concern.
The idea that residents will be biking to work/shop is not realistic. What we usually see
is families taking their little ones out, and they use the sidewalk.
Cyclists do not follow rules i.e. riding 3-4 abreast.
F.1
There is no need for an additional bike lane to facilitate the few cyclists using 32 Ave.
This is a residential neighbourhood. 32 Ave is not intended to be a thoroughfare.
This is bullying!
I think we should only have one bike lane on the north side. We have so many
townhouse + apartments on the south side that use the on street parking.
I did not understand slide #4 (3 maps)
I believe the cycling community is already well served by 32 Ave and no physical
changes are needed.
I dont agree with the bike lanes because our house is already lacking parking space.
Our house has frequent gatherings and were afraid they will have to park farther than
they would like to.
I think that a bike lane is no good. There should be a sign instead that say Share the
Road.
No bike lane but rather have a sign that says Share the Road.
I am very concerned about the no parking on 32 Avenue with the new bike lanes.
Driveways filled up when there are visitors, etc. and there will be nowhere for them to
park.
There is too much at stake for this to go through. You are putting our children and
neighbors at risk. It is not worth injuries or fatalities for this proposed bike lane.
Do your homework people!!! We have to live here and deal with the outcome.
Elimination of parking is a main problem. Currently in our area there are vehicles parked
on both sides of the street. Elimination one side results in all vehicles being on one side
which will cause a first come first serve and having to park down the street from our
actual property.
The bike lane being beside parked cars is also a concern to damage being made to
those cars from the bike riders such as scratches, dents, mirror broken, etc.
No study had been done on the amount of cycling traffic on either 32 Ave or Fraser
Highway.
From personal observation, I see almost no cycle traffic (approximately 1 every 2 weeks
in good weather). Others have reported similar scant numbers.
In terms of a connector route, the distances between areas of interest (High Street to the
east, Murrayville to the west) is considerable, beyond what most cyclists I have spoken
to would consider, regardless of a connection.
Regardless of the choice of route, the justification for having a cycling route/dedicated
bicycle lane seems lacking. Even if the cycling traffic doubled, it would still be scant and
not worth the cost and disruption.
While bike lanes make sense in theory, I think they would have a negative impact on 32
Ave in practice.
Theres often not enough parking as it is. When there are soccer and baseball
tournaments 32 Ave is packed. If were going to invite sports teams to our community,
we should make sure theres parking.
Im also concerned about parking once the pool/skate/rec center is up and running.
During Cops for Cancer in recent years, bike riders moved into travel lanes for cars
and were irritated, when concern was voiced.
Theres always too much traffic near 32 + 264 where Tim Hortons + A&W have their
drive through(s).
I am not in favour of the proposed bike lanes along any part of 32 Ave.
F.1
I believe there is not enough bike traffic to engage this and I do not wish to encourage
more bikes on 32 Ave; with the pool, Spray Park, school, ball diamonds fields the road
and surrounding roads are busy enough.
More money should be spent on crosswalks getting children from this area to the middle
school.
I find that this would be a waste of our taxpayers dollars and the future taxes we will be
paying.
Have never seen a lot of cyclists in these areas (in over 20 years of living here). I
believe any funds available would be better spent on more important issues (path
through Parkside Park, etc.)
I oppose the project strongly. Already in most areas along 32 Ave there is problems with
parking space. Eliminating parking on one side will not help this issue.
The road is plenty wide enough on both sides for cyclists to share the road with
automobiles. Also as a resident, I personally do not observe enough bicycles on the
road to justify such a waste of budget. I DO NOT WANT MY TAX DOLLARS GOING
TOWARDS THIS!
The information was not complete. How many cyclists currently use 32 Ave? Compare
that with homeowner usage.
I have lived in Aldergrove for the last 12 years. I have not seen many cyclists on 32 Ave
except families with small children riding the sidewalk. My seven year old child rides on
the sidewalk with me. This is a waste of money.
Aldergrove needs a better Rec Center, Aldergrove Lake restored, and most importantly
Better Transit. We need better-bus service to Abbotsford and Gloucester Estate before
TransLink needs to make a cycling lane.
My teenage son will have to park on the south side of 32 Ave. The Township is putting
him in danger when he leaves the house to get in his car to go to work.
I attended the meeting at City Hall in July. I was led to believe there would be a
discussion here today.
I feel the money allocated for bike lanes could be better spent if it was spent on traffic
calming measures, making the neighborhood safer for all. The neighborhood could be
bike friendly.
This street is no longer safe for pedestrians with the high volume of speeding traffic.
There are no sidewalks on 264 St at 32 Ave.
The public could be better informed had a letter been delivered to each house during the
planning. I look at the city website only to claim my home owners grant.
I attended the city planning meeting the Pub Liquor Store was being discussed. I
suggested that access to the store only be from Fraser Hwy. Did not happen. With all
the development on the Abbotsford Langley border there is more traffic. It wasnt long
ago a child was hit in front of the school. Hence the speed bumps were installed. The
whole street needed the calming. Make the street safer for all not just a few cyclists.
Im not against cyclists just not at the expense of losing my street parking.
I was expecting a discussion rather than an information session. The people from TOL
dont help at all. They didnt provide information during the planning stage. I do not look
at the city website.
Im not against bicycles. I think the money could be better spent on traffic calming
making the neighborhood safer for all. Make the neighborhood bike friendly.
There is NOT enough parking in front of the pub when there is a sporting event. LEAVE
THE PARKING AS IS.
Bad idea! If 32 Ave was twice as wide I could maybe see the sense in this plan.
F.1
I am not happy with these plans or how this has been handled.
I do not see many cyclists on 32 Ave. Instead of putting in a bike lane we need speed
bumps from 272 to 276 on 32 Ave as traffic is speeding & it is dangerous.
I am not happy with parking being taken away no N side of 32 across from 27272 Twin
Firs complex.
Loss of parking very important! The money would be much better spent to totally
enclose the swimming pool.
Not enough information provided to residents prior to pushing this through. We pay
taxes. Should we not have a say how that money is spent? The speed of traffic on 32
Ave between 272 St and 276 St makes it extremely dangerous for bikers!
Look at alternate route of 29 Ave more sporting facilities and venues to cycle to.
If set on 32 Ave keep parking both sides do a Share the Road program.
It explained the future plan but not what we can do about extra parking (visitors; adult
children with cars).
I think a better route would be 29 Ave where there are more public facilities. It is a very
wide street and could accommodate two bike lanes easily.
As a resident of this area for seven years, I see very little bike traffic on 32 Ave.
Elementary kids use sidewalk and middle + high school students go to 29th. That should
be where bike lanes go that is where I see the majority of bike traffic.
32 Avenue needs its parking. With so many townhouse complexes street parking is
essential for visitors, children with vehicles, etc.
Another option is to make Fraser Highway one side parking only through downtown
Aldergrove and put bike lanes there. The two sided parking there is crowded +
dangerous. Would cost Township less to have bike lanes continue in a straight line
along Fraser Hwy.
Information provided was very one sided. During council meeting a Share the Road
option was provided however not mentioned as an option.
My vote is no to losing parking on north side. Currently there are 3 vehicles with
another on the way for our single drive. On south side there is a yellow curb no parking.
I feel a Share the Road program would benefit all in the community. I would also
recommend slower speed signs for the safety of both drivers and cyclists.
When the lane is put in to the road, it is going to tighten up 32 Ave and there is going to
be too much traffic because the road is smaller.
Plus when they close Fraser Highway (downtown) all traffic flows through 32 Ave to get
to destinations. Too much less parking spaces are going to be provided when lane is
put in.
I thought it would be much more helpful if the Township provided statistics on cyclist
traffic. That may be counter-productive to this agenda but would have been more
transparent.
I strongly oppose this proposal for many reasons.
1) I feel this is a waste of my tax dollars for something that will only benefit a small #
of people (as shown by the single digit cyclists who use it daily).
2) I feel the lack of parking may impact the future property value of my home.
3) I feel this is a slap in the face to suggest this will promote the use of transit when
we have the least service in all of Metro Vancouver.
4) I dont believe there was sufficient notice given for this session nor where enough
people notified by mail.
After hearing the discussion we think that the bike lanes would be safer on 29th Ave
because 32 Ave is the preferred emergency route for first responders as well as 29th Ave
has several public facilities compared to 32 Ave.
F.1
My recommendation would be to make the bike lanes on 29th Avenue instead of 32nd
Avenue. Its too busy of a street for bikers (32nd Ave). As well too dangerous for bikers
as it is the emergency response route.
29th is calmer and would be better as it is closer to baseball park, library, etc.
No bike lane but rather have a sign that says Share the Road.
Original plan when traffic calming planned was for one bike lane. This was never put in
place.
Number of cyclists passing along 32 Ave does not justify the second bike lane.
Make the whole of 32 Ave Bike Friendly (which it is currently although not signposted)
by adding more bumps along the road.
Crossing guard on 270 St + 32 Ave will have a more difficult time as bikes merge into
crossing.
What will delivery vans and support services (e.g. Telus) do for parking?
We do not have any bikes along our street. I stood outside for a few hours and I did not
see any bikes and that was from 7:30am to now.
These are my concerns: safety for crossing the street when having to park across.
Ending at 264th Hwy: no bike lanes safe to Fraser Hwy. No Plans for bike lanes at the
school crosswalk. No discussion for alternate routes.
Fraser Hwy will be best option for current bike lane or 29th Ave.
Residential/community will NOT use the bike lanes for their children. Commuter and
adult cycling group will be the ONLY users and they can stay on Fraser.
I have more to say 2018/2022 plan yet lines disappeared in 2016?
Should a child or teen be hurt using the new bike lane on 32nd due to parking change the
TOL will have a lot of families to answer to. We all need our needs met not one group.
I am so opposed to this project for a few reasons:
1) It is so unsafe for our kids to use a split bike lane!!!!!
2) 32 Ave??? 29 Ave where the schools/com centre/skate park/ball field etc. all
makes way more community sense.
3) This is serving an elite & small # of commuters not community members we did
not ask for this.
4) I will lose all parking in front of my house & with a street intersecting
perpendicular across the street, I dont even have the option of parking here!
5) We have school routes that all our kids walk every day from this north side to
Fraser Hwy that have no sidewalks even but a bike lane is a priority???
I believe the Township does not need a bike lane. I want my tax money spent on
NEEDS not wants.
The bicycle lane should be relocated along 29th Ave to connect residents with the most
amount of services available to them. There is one elementary school located on 32nd
Ave vs 4-5 with Jackman Park/Skate Park.
Build separated bicycle lane to encourage non-cyclists & inexperienced cyclists to adopt
daily commuter riding as an alternative to single occupancy vehicles. A separated
bicycle lane from car-traffic will encourage families with young children to utilize the
bicycle lane because of increase in physical safety (no threat of being doored by a carowner on the street).
A separated bicycle lane (with cement stanchions etc.) will be used much more
frequently than an unprotected bicycle lane (painted lines on the street) especially in a
community like Aldergrove where there is tension between drivers & commuter cyclists.
Get City of Abbotsford to pay for part of the project construction costs as the lane
overlaps onto the 276th side of the street belonging to the City of Abbotsford. It is my
understanding that the east side of 276th St is the municipality of Abbotsford, so why are
F.1
we paying to put bike lanes on the east side of 276th St? Use the money instead for a
crossing at 29th and 264th.
32nd Avenue is the route of choice when Fraser Hwy is busy, as it often is, given the
number of accidents on Hwy 1. Emergency vehicles often use it to avoid the congestion
on Fraser Hwy. When asked where the cyclists that would use 32nd Ave are coming
from and where they are going to, the TOL staff were not able to answer the question.
This raises the question Why are we building a bike lane? Just to be part of a bike
network?
So if the purpose or intent is to increase people using bicycles, why not create a bike
lane where one might actually be used, from Aldergrove to Gloucester?
We also had a lengthy discussion about the option of 29th Avenue, which I gather is also
being developed but not as a priority. This left many of use scratching our heads as this
street is not as busy as 32nd, has more facilities on it (schools, the new recreation centre)
versus 32nd Ave which will only have the one school and tennis courts now that the pool
is closed. The response was it was not as favorable an option because of having to
cross 264th. This seems a bit silly as both options have to cross 264th.
It also appears to be a bit short sighted given the Townships future plans to apply for
expansion of Aldergroves boundaries to the south, making 29th Ave an even more
appropriate option both for local cyclists and for those cyclists passing through
Aldergrove.
The use of 32nd Avenue seems to have considered parking on 32nd Avenue, but it does
not seem to have considered the amount of traffic that 32nd Avenue has. Yet another
reason NOT to add cyclists to this mix.
Finally as someone who routinely drives in Vancouver, with the cyclists there, I was not
reassured by the TOL staff answer that education would be used to ensure cyclists
follow the rules of the road here in Langley. Education is the same thing that
Vancouver is using and is grossly ineffective as cyclists routinely ride down the road,
slow down as they see the light changing and then ride across the pedestrian crosswalk
to avoid stopping for the light. I see this EVERY time I am in Vancouver. Every time.
My thoughts on this project are:
1) People do not own the parking in front of their homes. This should not be an issue.
Houses along 32 have ample garage and driveway parking, or complexes have their
own parking and guest parking. As such removing one side of the road for a bike
lane should not negatively impact the parking situation. I know there is a lot of
issues with the public around this, but there is street parking available in a
reasonable amount and at reasonable distance. Should people choose to utilize
there on property parking space for extra vehicles, campers etc. then they can use
the available street parking, which may be on the other side of the road.
2) I really dont think bike lanes are needed in this area. The info doesnt show the
current use of expected use of the lane and at this point, while it will connect to
Fraser it does not connect to 264, which I think would be a much more useful route
to improve. As it is I do not cycle to work down 264, which I very easily could do.
The reason I do not cycle 264 is threefold: there is no protected bike lane, the truck
and vehicle traffic moves so quickly and closely to the shoulder and often uses the
shoulder to pass. Ultimately this would be a route that needs to be improved to then
assess where the feeder cycling traffic is coming from for the smaller routes.
3) I am sure you are sick of hearing, it would be nice to see more improvements on the
rec center over any bike lane work. Please enclose the pool.
F.1
I would have liked to see some stats on the projected use of the bike lane by cyclists. I
take Fraser Highway through Langley and Surrey to work every day and hardly see any
cyclists using the lane.
I didnt move from the city to the suburbs just to have my street parking taken away!
Even though the parking spaces are not always in use doesnt mean theyre not wanted.
I honestly believe money could be better spent on improving public transit. Were not
Vancouver! I dont think cycling will ever be as big here as it is there. Why waste the
money?
I feel that a bike lane on 32nd Avenue eliminating parking on the North side entirely and
in-part on the South side of the street is not warranted at this time. I think two things
need to happen:
o First, more recent parking surveys need to be done. In addition to more recent
parking surveys taken, there should be bike usage surveys done to find out
current bike usage to ensure the actual future usage of the proposed bike lanes
on 32nd Avenue.
o Secondly, I feel that if a bike lane is going to be put in place that the location of it
needs to be re-evaluated. It could go on 29th Avenue, providing access to many
more schools and amenities along this route. Or even 28th Avenue as Councillor
Fox and my husband discussed.
The 32nd Avenue Residents are not against the cyclists, but at the same time dont want
to lose street parking as it is utilized constantly, especially on evenings, weekends, and
during community and special events. The Residents of 32nd Avenue want what is best
for all Aldergrove Residents and TOL taxpayers, and not just a few occasional cyclists
that travel up our street.
Stats were done 4 times to monitor parking percentage on north side of 32 Ave by
cycling group. Why were cycling stats not done as well by TOL staff? As cycling group
numbers could be biased.
29th Ave would be a better alternative for this cycling connector route as the road is
wider and could accommodate all lanes.
We are opposed to the proposed 32 Ave Connector Cycling Project as it will cause even
MORE of a HAZZARD to anyone leaving our Townhouse complex. It is already difficult
to exit our complex due to parked cars blocking the view of oncoming traffic.
We also feel that the added bicycle lane in no way benefits our
neighborhood/community.
I cycle regularly and find travelling along 32 Ave to be fine as it. If the provided parking
spaces are being underutilized, it means that there is usually a fair amount of open
space to cycle in.
While the parking in front of my house may have been underutilized when you took the
parking survey. I regularly have 3-4 vehicles park on the north side of 32 Ave (guests). I
would be inconvenient to lose those spaces.
I also question how many people will use the cycling lanes if they are put in. Hardly ever
do I see cyclists use the existing lanes on Fraser Hwy (west of 264 St).
Communication and consultation by way of public meeting etc. is important and has
improved but perhaps Township could work to better engage this diverse population
through the use of technology. In communities near us (i.e. Maple Ridge, Surrey) it is
less about seeking out the business/projects of our local government and more about
engaging/informing residents (e.g. email sign-up of departments/areas of interest), as it
is happening.
The parking survey implied that parking level usage is less than what we have
witnessed. Following the lane installation, it is presumed parking stalls will remain
F.1
unused at 70% (on average) but in areas of higher density, parking may actually be a
premium. Given the typical work week is less common than it once was, perhaps a
survey Sunday evening might have provided another perspective. During the spring
through fall seasons, particularly on weekends, the central core of 32nd is fully utilized
with sporting events and activities, leaving it congested in this area. It also may be
assumed by the overall average, that this project will have little impact on the residents
of this street/neighbourhood but we are not of that opinion. 32nd Ave contains a mix of
residential population densities and contains homes with adequate parking on their
property, townhomes with parking limitations, park and recreation areas with parking at a
distance and properties that do not face 32nd and have no rear access.
Aldergrove is a unique community and as long-time residents, we have seen the
downtown core struggle to survive. Limited shopping and few destinations exist here,
major grocery shopping options are at opposite ends of town 264 & Fraser Hwy, 275 &
Fraser Hwy and even farther afield. In recent years, we have seen the addition of 100s
of new homes at the far edges of Aldergrove and over the boundary into Abbotsford.
This translates into traffic and congestion, with few travel options but for Fraser Highway
and often 32nd Avenue (and side streets), as options. It is not feasible to add bike lanes
on Fraser Hwy through the downtown core, therefore, 32nd was one of the next best
options.
A preferred method of responding would be with an online fillable form.
The Sustainability Charter and Aldergrove Community Plan provide a foundation from
which to build on and engage the community.
We are agreeable to projects/improvements that elevate this community and the shared
funding is extremely beneficial.
Our concerns, in particular relate to pedestrians and from a safety perspective is that
attention be paid to areas where there is inadequate sidewalks and buffer from traffic:
o A high priority is the corner of 264 and 32nd Ave, where the right lane/shoulder
and walking area meet. This is particularly dangerous for pedestrians, while
vehicles at speed, often overdrive the corner, leaving pedestrians to jump out of
the way.
o A high priority in the future: installation of sidewalks and improved shoulders
along Fraser Hwy from 273 to 276 Streets. This area contains a significant
senior population and many find this route unsafe to travel to grocery shop, either
by walking or when utilizing motorized equipment, due to the uneven surface and
gravelled area.
We are unclear as to why the curb is painted yellow on 32 Avenue, east of 272B Street,
near a townhouse complex.
It is hoped that those families that lose parking (on the north side) directly in front of their
residence, requiring them to navigate the crossing of 32nd and those with additional cars
parked in front of their residence, will adjust.
I would like Share the Road or have it go down 29th Ave to 28th Ave.
A bike lane on 32 Ave will cause parking issues for all residents.
I do not want to lose my parking and especially if my guests and service people wouldnt
park in front of my house but have to J-walk down the street to get to my house due to
the non-parking on the other side of the road in front of my house. Sharing the road
would/could be a solution to this.
Public consultation (from the residents living on the street) should have been done long
time ago. The answer given to this was that the information was available on the
website. How/why would you check the website if you dont know there is something
F.1
pertaining to you? Then you get a letter saying there will be no street parking on your
side of the street the very day construction has begun! Unacceptable!
If the goal of the bike lanes are to get people using alternate means of transportation,
where are they biking to? There is no destinations on 32 Ave. All the places (i.e. the
new community center, school, library) are on the other side of town/Fraser Hwy. So it
would be better served perhaps along 29th or 272nd?
I feel my tax dollars would be better spent to improve the intersections at 268 +32 and
also Fraser Hwy where there has been so many terrible accidents and not putting in bike
lanes that a handful of people would perhaps use to inconvenience a large stretch of
road and people who live there.
I do not want a bike lane on 32nd there is no enough space. Share the Road.
Concerns raised by residents of 32nd Ave were either ignored or shot down. One
concern was one cycle lane will be outboard of the parking lane placing cyclists out into
the road cyclists are notoriously disrespectful of traffic rules, an area the Township is
totally lacking in law enforcement.
The mayor agreed to property tax increases to pay for something we dont want.
Smacks of mayor moon beam. Oh well, theres an election coming and he just made of
bunch of enemies. As a bunch of children riding out in the street, think that one thru.
While on paper at least, the available parking on both sides of the street may support
removing all parking on the north side of 32nd, the human reality in my opinion does not
support it. While my wife and I are not opposed to bicycle lanes in general and suppose
there is a real need for them for a safety point of view it irks me that for the sake of a
very few cyclists, who may at some time in their life want to cycle from Vancouver to
Abbotsford, long time tax paying residents of the Township of Langley should have their
daily routines and lives totally upheaved and disrupted. Street parking is essential to all
of these residents for safety reasons as well. Not having to cross a busy street with
young children, the elderly and incapacitated. As well there residents use the street as
extra parking for friends and relatives (such as ourselves) for gatherings and visits.
Having viewed the statistical analyses and the plans I think there could be more room for
compromise and adjustments with the understanding that you cant make everyone
happy. Minimizing the interruptions would be the best way for all. An idea I proposed at
the information session involved splitting the bike lanes. For example, a bike lane
eastbound from 264th, on the south side of 32nd, would carry cyclists right around the
curve at the east end of 32nd and onto 276st street uninterrupted. As the bicycle lanes
coming from Abbotsford appear to use 276th Street/Station Road heading south off
Fraser Highway the westbound cycle lane could be brought down 28th on the north side
to 272nd then over to 29th and up to 264th.
Again while the statistical data may not support this idea the residential make up in my
mind does. The north side of 32nd, from 264th all the way to 276th (with the exception of
Parkside School and Jackman Park) are all single detached homes all fronting on 32nd.
The south side only has single detached homes fronting 32nd from just east of 264th up to
about 269th? And from there it is townhouse complexes with no frontage on 32nd right
through to 276th and mostly businesses on 276th to Fraser Highway. The parking along
these townhomes is hardly used especially from 272nd up to 276th thus the human
disruption would be less. I am aware of the count of parking spaces on both sides of the
street showing more space available on the south side, and that even with the
elimination of spots there would still be something like 110 spots on the south side
available with about 70% of those not used at any given time of day. Again with the
looks good on paper theory, if 70% of 130 sports are not used and available it would be
F.1
something like 50% of spots on the north side would be available from non-usage. Still
lots either way but fewer 32nd Avenue residents would be disrupted.
As an aside, there was interest from residents in a share the road system but were told
that based on Canadian standards there was not enough room to do it. A safety
concern I suppose however it is curious that those standards have been somewhat
abrogated at the intersection of 32nd and 270th east where the curbs have been extended
out thus narrowing the road for crossing to Parkside school. This roughly 30 or so
meters are designated share the road as the Township does not or will not spend the
money to remove those curbs. Safety seems to have taken a back seat here or if that
section can be designated share the road why cant all of 32nd Ave. Just a thought!
32nd + 276 St are very busy roads with busiest constant traffic that bypass Fraser Hwy in
Aldergrove. Your brainchild creator seems to not really consider safety. This route
only has 1 school on it, there as 28th St + 29Th St would be a more practical, logical +
safe route. Three schools + the Community Center is more sensible route than 1 school
+ an emergency route.
This option: use of 32nd Ave for a proposed bike lane safety issues as traffic takes
the corner of 32 and 276 St like a race track also the buses do as well.
For the past 2 years we have never seen anyone on bikes!!
29th Ave would have more uses schools, parks, library and new community center.
Too many people that use 32nd for parking including use will lose this. Also is used for
emergency vehicles.
I have own my home for over 13 years now and also own multiple business within the
community. If you take away my parking, I will have no way of loading and unloading my
recreational trailer/motorhome especially my race car not being street legal, so cannot
drive it to my trailer down the street where I would have to park due to the town house
with no parking in front of it. I also have a special needs daughter who has service
providers that come on a regular basis and park in front of our house. Share the Road
would be the solution.
We are concerned that residents whose parking is displaced will be forced to park along
the south side of 32 Avenue and that it will gradually progress eastward and encroach
upon the stretch of road adjacent to Bertrand Estates (27044 32 Avenue).
Its been noted that there is allegedly 240 parking stalls along 32 Avenue of which close
to half are located on the north side of 32 Avenue, we would be remiss if we dont note
that there is not now nor ever has been an equal number of bicyclists using this
connector at the same time. By this we mean that it does not meet the test of
reasonableness to permanently displace 100+ residents for a lane that would facilitate
limited/sporadic volume of traffic at any given time truth be told, TOL studies should
demonstrate that vehicles and bicycles would be able to share the roadway if cyclists
remained single-file.
There are several options available to traverse the hamlet including 29 Avenue and 24
Avenue from 272 Street to 264 Street in fact 24 Avenue could be made permanent
without any displacement or restrictions imposed and 28 Avenue from 276 Street to
272 Street.
On a separate note but one that can be encompassed into the current dialogue is the
serious curtailment of street lamps operating along 32 Avenue, as a high density
residential complex whose members walk and cycle along 32 Avenue we think it poses a
danger and/or risk to our citizens as they are far less visible to traffic coming into and
leaving multi-tenant developments in the area as well as the potential for increased
criminal activity under cover of darkness.
With the amount of bike traffic I think the money would be better spent towards transit.
F.1
I do not think that 32nd is the right place for the bike lanes there isnt that many bikers
that come down 32nd and by building a bike lane I dont they will get used.
I think that 29 Ave would benefit more with the bike lane they have the community center
right over there.
I oppose the bike lanes. I live next to a church, and they park all over the streets 3 times
a week. Very poor public consultation, its a stupid idea for Aldergrove. The only people
on bikes I see on 32 Ave are crackheads. The bike lanes are unnecessary and a waste
of resources. High risk of Auto-pedestrian Accidents with people jaywalking daily if this
happens. Ive spoken with many of my neighbors. Well stick together and make it hard
for the City to perform the work. No bike lanes needed.
We have multiple cars parked in front of our house at all hours (aside from people work
8-5ish). When did you do your counts? When everyone is at work? How many bikes
did you count? I see 5 bikes every Sunday once in the am. I wouldnt want my kids
riding their bikes on 32. People speed to avoid Fraser Hwy. Perhaps put more speed
bumps on 32.
I am opposed to the bike lane. It is not needed or desired by local residents.
Many townhomes on this street, affects hundreds of residents on 32nd Ave. Many
children, multiple vehicle families, deletes parking for everyone in area. Not sure if bike
lanes benefit area. Wouldnt guess that many people would use this route on a bike in
place of a car. Mostly affecting working families negatively. Would also affect property
values. Emergency response could be hampered as cars attempt to park in townhouse
complexes.
I am opposed to the bike lanes. My family lives in a townhouse on 32nd Ave. We have a
parking spot and use the road for extra parking for my husbands work vehicle. As I last
enquired with our Strata there are no paid parking spaces available. There is very little
extra parking in our complex which leaves only the road. This is the case with many
others. There are townhouse complexes all down 32nd. Where are we to park? Where
are my family/visitors to park?
I am a regular visitor to Aldergrove and especially to the area in question. I know from
going to school and having many friends in the Valley that public transit is limited at the
best of times and families need multiple vehicles. This means parking on this road is
very limited as well. I am yet to see a biker on that road at many times during the day.
This is not required. According to the Township Aldergrove Bicycle Routes, the only
place needed is 32 Ave from the NE corner of Philip Jackman Park to 276 (Station Rd).
Why change it? A better route would be the existing route on 264A St to 28A Ave and
then to 28th Ave and onward to 276 St.
I think its ridiculous to put bike lanes on 32nd Ave. I have lived here for 10 years and am
a stay at home mom and hardly ever see bikes on this street. I feel it is a waste of
money and unsafe for drivers, kids playing and any bikers that may be around. I also
rely on parking on the street, for many reasons this idea is a total waste of tax payers
money and a complete waste of time.
As a regular visitor to Aldergrove, with family residing on 32 Ave, I know the area well.
As a small town, with very limited public transit options, most residents need more than 2
cars to commute to and from work, leaving very limited parking available on the street. I
have yet to see regular bike commuters in Aldergrove yet I know many that would use
an actual transit option. With the numerous townhouse complexes with multiple
vehicles, street parking is further limited.
I do not believe the proposed bike lane will be utilized as the connector it is intended to
be:
F.1
The Township has statistics on parking utilization and traffic counts, but it unable
to provide any statistical information on the number of cyclists.
o The roadways that this project is to connect (Fraser Highway) are much more
dangerous to cycle on with a much greater volume of traffic, driving at much
higher speeds and with very little protection ( some white paint and signage)
afforded to the cyclist. Any cyclist brave enough to commute on Fraser Highway
(or Highway 13) should be happy to ride down 32nd Avenue even without a bike
lane.
o 32nd Avenue could easily (and inexpensively) be designated as a share the
road bicycle friendly route that would not involve any impact to parking currently
available to residences.
By limiting parking to only the south side of 32nd Avenue residents and guests will be
forced to travel (sometimes a fair distance) to a safe crosswalk or more likely jaywalk
across the street. This is a significant safety hazard especially on dark and rainy fall and
winter days.
Relocating the bicycle lane to the south side of Aldergrove (28th or 29th Avenue) would
better serve the community by providing access to 3 public schools, the library, sports
fields, and future recreation facility. This could also include a multi-use lane that would
provide a safe walking path along 264th to shopping (shoppers, save on foods) as well
as cycling from Fraser Highway.
The bike lanes are in the wrong spot. They should be on 29th Ave when they are more
accessible to amenities.
The bike lane idea on 32nd Ave is a total waste of money. The only infrastructure that
will be accessible by this bike lane is Parkside Elementary. If the bike lane was moved
to 29th Ave it would make Shortreed, Betty Gilbert, ACSS, Community Centre, new rec
centre, Skate Park, soccer fields, Aldergrove Athletic Park all accessible. With larger
roads there would also be less impact on parking for residents if the project was moved
to 29th.
I am led to believe there have been traffic studies done on 32 Ave regarding number of
vehicles that drive down 32 Ave. I/we had not been told of any studies on number of
bikes that travel down 32 Ave daily. Also I would be interested in some numbers as to
accidents, injuries in vehicle vs bicycle scenario on 32 Ave. I have lived in Aldergrove for
41 years and can truthfully say I remember 2 pedestrian related accidents on 32 Ave.
The Share the Road philosophy has worked excellent for the past 41 years and there is
no reason it should not be able to carry on this way on 32 Ave.
The other major concern I have is the safety of cyclists using the bike lanes. My kids will
definitely not be riding in a bike lane that is directly adjacent to the driving lane on the
eastbound and westbound lanes. It is far too dangerous for any child to be riding in
those lanes. I debated this point with Township staff in attendance at the public forum.
The Township member named Richard (?) that took the lead in the discussions agreed
that the lanes were unsafe and stated in front of 30 or so people included in the
discussion that he would not let his own child ride in the bike lane. If we are building
these bike lanes for cyclist safety, then the Plan is a definite fail as your own Township
employee would obviously agree.
I coach young sports in Langley Township and am totally on board with youth fitness. I
am not opposed to bike lanes in the right situation however I do whole heartedly believe
the 32 Ave Connect Project is not the right situation. I do not live on 32 Ave but feel that
the removal of parking for residents is absurd. Not only the lack of parking for residents
on a typical day, but also on days when they have family functions. Also the loss of
parking for the JW hall on the few times they meet every week, the special events like
o
F.1
Remembrance Day at the Legion which use all of 32 Ave down to Parkside to park for
the ceremony, as well as all sporting special events. The impact on the community to
please a very small group of cyclists that dont generally live in the area or do business
in the area is totally unfair to all affected residents and taxpayers.
In all my years living on 32 Ave there has been minimal bike commuters or cycling clubs
using this road. There are many Townhouse complexes that use street for parking. In
addition with an insufficient transportation service many families have multiple cars and
also use the street for parking. In my mind the bike lane would be best served on 29th
Ave where there is access to the community centre, ACSS, BGMS via ACSS foot paths
as well as the sports fields by BGMS.
I am against bike lanes on 32nd Avenue for reasons as follows:
o This is a small rural community therefore there is no need for specified bike
lanes. We will never have the population of Vancouver, Surrey or for that matter
Walnut Grove.
o 32nd Ave has many townhouse complexes (roughly 8) that swing from Fraser
Highway to 264th St. As transit is extremely poor in this area the majority of
resident do require 1-3 vehicles to get to school or work. Townhouse complexes
usually limit 1 vehicle to park in the complex sending the other vehicles to park
on 32nd Ave.
o Safety will be a major issue poor lighting in a lot of areas long dark winters
o Losing 140-167 parking units is brutal if these changes occur...which once was
an amicable street and roadway will cause tension and arguments amongst
residents will argue which could lead to vandalism to vehicles.
o This project should be connected to 29th Ave where all the amenities are being
constructed e.g. community centre, ice arena, library, secondary and middle
school, and athletic fields.
o Ask TransLink to reallocate the funding to improving the side street on 268th
leading to Fraser Highway. There is lots of daily pedestrian traffic with no
sidewalk very dangerous.
o As one travels throughout municipalities there is SHARE the road signs. This
would be ideal for 32nd Ave. Vehicles and bikers have co-existed for many many
years KEEP this option.
o Keep bikers on back country roads e.g. on several occasions driving to and
from Ft Langley there are many bikers riding in packs very content on the back
country roads.
o Should not have to lose parking 365 days 24-7 when bike traffic is so low.
During the winter with winds, rain or snow when bike traffic is curtailed, parking
would remain non-existent. POOR planning.
The route along 32nd Ave will take you past 3 venues Parkside Elementary School, the
park attached to the school and the Aldergrove outdoor swimming pool. After the new
Community Centre, outdoor pool and ice arena are built, this route is going to drop to
two venues, the school, which is closed for 2 months of the year and the park. As it is
now the pool is closed for approximately 9 months of the year.
To change the bike lane route to use 29th Ave seems to me to be the route to use. It will
take you past 8 venues on 29th Ave alone. These venues are the existing community
centre, the high school (ACSS), access to the middle school (BGMS), library, the skate
board park, the mountain bike bowl, access to the community sports fields, and access
to the new community centre on a route that has lot less traffic than the Fraser Hwy.
Continuing east on 29th Ave will take you to 272nd St where a right turn will take you
down to 28th Ave at which the riders could use the pedestrian crosswalk to get over
F.1
272nd St, something the elementary school kids do every day. Travelling along this
street will take you past Shortreed Elementary school and in connection with 276th St
which leads to the Fraser Hwy at which you have a choice of going east or west on the
Hwy.
If the same route is used for going west on 28th Ave, the safety of the bikers is
guaranteed for crossing 272nd St by using the pedestrian crosswalk at 29th Ave and
272nd St. I realize that there will be a cost in supplying some form of safely crossing
264th St, but the monies used to revamp the corner at 264th and the Fraser Hwy, so that
cyclists can get to 32nd Ave, could be used to offset the cost of supplying a crossing at
29th Ave.
It is my understanding that the east side of 276th St is the municipality of Abbotsford, so
why are we paying to put bike lanes on the east side of 276th St? Use the money
instead for a crossing at 29th and 264th.
I know that the municipality does not have to supply on street parking, but in this area of
32nd Ave there are 7 townhouse complexes, and whether you like it or not people own
more than 1 or 2 vehicles. Townhouse complexes supply 1 or 2 spots per unit at the
most. Where does the worker who brings his truck from work, as a necessity, or a family
with teenagers who drive, park their vehicles? How about when people have company
are they supposed to park blocks away or are we supposed to give up visiting? Are we
supposed to ruin the synergy on streets behind us and on 32nd Ave as things now stand?
We now share parking and no one complains about who parks in front of their home.
Taking away all parking on the north side is going to impact community spirit as people
begin to argue and fight over who parks where. Dont tell me that this wont happen
because it will and out peaceful street community will be no more.
Additional reason for NO permanent bike lanes:
o 32nd Ave seems to be an emergency response route for police, fire and
ambulance because it is the fastest way to get from one side of Aldergrove to the
other. This is due to lack of stop lights and traffic. Making the changes you want
to this street will decrease the width of the driving lanes and make it harder for
response vehicles to get to where they need to be and harder for people to get
out of the way.
o I have lived in Aldergrove since 1974 and in this home since 1979 and only once
has a bicycle rider been hit on this street. That was a young boy crossing the
road at 270th to get to school. This accident resulted in traffic calming on 32nd to
keep our children safe. Since traffic calming has been in effect, traffic has
subsided greatly because the street is no longer a quick parallel route to the
Fraser Hwy.
o Cyclists on the street seem to number no more than 5 fellows on a Saturday or
Sunday morning riding west on 32nd Ave, then there is no one until the following
weekend, if any. Cyclists, en masse, are not a common sight along 32nd Ave, so
if there are large numbers of riders, as stated by the cycling people, they must be
taking what they consider a safer route than riding along 32nd Ave. Have you
talked to them and found out how they are getting around the bottle neck in
Aldergroves downtown core and added that to your plan?
I frequently cycle to my job in Gloucester and find absolutely no difficulty in cycling along
32 Ave. There is never the need to share the road and I never feel unsafe. I rarely see
another cyclist. Where I do feel unsafe is the Hwy 13 overpass of Hwy 1, and along 56
Ave to 276 St. If you are adamant on spending money to improve cycling, spend the
money where there are safety issues: provide a safer cycling route from Aldergrove to
F.1
Gloucester; and improve the street lighting along Fraser Hwy between 232 St and
Station St.
Or better yet, spend the money on safety improvements for our children walking and
cycling to and from the middle & secondary schools. Particularly: add sidewalks and full
coverage street lighting along 268 St between 32 Ave & Fraser Hwy, and through the
neighborhood between Fraser Hwy and 29 Ave; add full coverage lighting along 32 Ave;
and add a fully functioning traffic light at 268 St & Fraser Hwy.
If this project proceeds, the TOL will effectively be promoting this route as the
recommended safe route, when in fact the route will be incomplete and bandied
together and will create more distractions for the cyclist and driver; it will lead cyclists
into a false sense of safety. Of particular concern: there is no connection from 32 Ave to
Fraser Hwy at Hwy 13, requiring cyclists travelling westbound to cross a very busy Hwy
13 or ride on the wrong side (east side) of Hwy 13 where there is no shoulder or
sidewalk and where cars turning, weaving and merging: there will be a sharp turn from
eastbound 32 Ave to southbound Station St, cars but this corner all the time; the cycling
lane starts and stops at the 270 St crosswalk bulge requiring cyclists to merge into
traffic, leading to potential accident; the offset intersection of 32 Ave & 268 St will
become even more difficult to navigate, currently cars turning north or south from 32 Ave
get passed along the shoulder, now they will be passed by drivers going into the bike
lanes; there will also now be an even tighter awkward right turn from 268 St southbound
to 32 Ave westbound; there is a lack of adequate lighting along 32 Ave which will make it
very difficult to see cyclists on the dark and wet winter days.
Instead, I recommend this cycling route be located to the south of Fraser Hwy, either
along 28 Ave or 29 Ave, so as to connect all of the major public facilities in Aldergrove:
Shortreed Elem, Betty Gilbert Middle & Aldergrove Secondary Schools, Kinsmen
Community Centre, Aldergrove Library, new pool 7 arena, existing arena, and
Aldergrove Athletic, Aldergrove Rotary & Creekside Parks.
Finally why it is ok to remove parking from in front of the residences along 32 Ave but
not ok to remove parking in front of the businesses along Fraser Hwy. They dont own
or have the right to the parking in front of their property any more than we do. We pay
the same taxes they do. Most have parking at the back of their properties and all have
side streets close by where they can park. In fact, less properties and less parking
spaces would be affected along the 4 block stretch of Fraser Hwy than along the 1.5
mile stretch of 32 Ave.
I 100% agree with the plan to remove the on-street parking in favor of bike lanes.
The future of the community needs a viable active transportation option and this bike
lane will be great. Our kids need a safe place to ride to get to school.
The fact that someone has to park across the street should have no bearing on future
plans of our community.
Im disappointed this meeting/info session had to happen. I think its the responsibility of
town council to have vision and to lead the community.
I think the arguments against the bike lane are insufficient to justify this meeting.
I think the delay of implementing the Cycling Plan is an overreaction.
32 Ave is a vital connector of cycling routes from Abbotsford to Langley Township,
Langley City, and then to Surrey.
Parking survey indicates sufficient parking supply, so no negative parking impact was
expected if no major land use change is planned in the area.
The provision of cycling infrastructure improves livability and health of the community for
the years to come.
F.1
I rode in from by Aldergrove Park via Lefeuvre Fraser 276 32. On 276 there was
1 parked cars. On 32 between 276 and 270 there were only 13. 6:30pm on Wed Sep
14.
This is an important connecting route and needs bike lanes.
This bike facility on 32 Ave is a vital link in the local and regional cycling network.
Its time for Aldergrove to step into the 21st century. The bike lanes are a step in that
direction. Safety for our cyclists should be a priority.
I myself am handicapped & ride a 3 wheel bike. Each time I head toward the park with
my children, I feel unsafe as I look behind me and dodge around cars heading east, then
I play the same scary game heading west because my bike is so wide.
I think the bike lanes are necessary, they are a step towards a safer community. Please
make this happen and not let all these Aldergrove homeowners with illegal suites stop
this progress.
I have no negative comments. Just want to know if sidewalks or curbs were bring
moved and also what would take place at 270th +32nd, the school Xwalk + narrowed
roadway.
Living right on the front of the property I notice people think that school speed limits +
times are the norm and not park speed + times. Maybe more needs to educate that from
270th to 272nd is a 7 day a week Park Speed Zone.
The mathematics regarding remaining parking post-bike-lane construction was
especially illuminating: that 70% of parking spots would still be empty. This type of
scenario building is extremely helpful, because it shows that impact to the residents in
terms of parking will be non-existent, while the benefit to the cycling community will be
enormous: 100% increase in connectivity in this area.
Please proceed with creating cycling network coverage and connectivity in this area to
provide and support community-based opportunities, to nurture a mindset of
sustainability, to create cost-effective low-impact transportation routes, to integrate
community-mindedness, to encourage physical activity of cycling, and to promote
stewardship.
As a cyclist, this planned route is exactly what Im hoping for. Thanks.
I support the bike lanes on 32nd Ave. As the plan affirms, this is a high priority cycling
route for Langley, and is a direct connection to many destinations and other cycling
routes. This is important many locals want to cycle more but they need safer routes to
do so 32nd Ave will help make this happened.
I hope that Council approves this project because it is positive for the majority. The
residents of 32nd Avenue will still have parking on their street (lots of it) AND Langley
residents will have a new option for healthy, active transportation.
I often think about taking my niece and nephew out cycling in Langley, but we need
more safe routes like this to make that feel possible.
I think the bike lane along 32 Ave is a great idea. We need to promote biking as much
as possible.
Would be great to have bike lane beside the sidewalk and parking next to bike lane.
Much safer to cyclists.
I agree with the addition to the bike lane to connect Langley with Abbotsford. The
increased traffic and lack of cycling lanes with the increasing popularity of cycling for
recreation and community. I feel like adding more cycling lanes will bring more people to
the community and provide a safe place for everyone.
I am for the bike lane being put in on 32nd Avenue. I think it would be a great alternate to
the already narrow Fraser Highway for cyclists. It will be an overall benefit to the
community, making it safer for everyone on the roadway.
F.1
I am in favor of the cycling lanes along 32 Ave.

I believe there will still be ample parking for residence as well it will benefit others in the
community.
Bike lanes are important so the cyclists are able to experience their ride in a designated
area without feeling that they are in the way of vehicles. Also promotes an alternative
mode of commuting for those who wish to.
Please proceed with this project. Bike lanes are vital for our communities growth. It will
also be safer to ride with our kids.
As a Langley resident who is a motorist and a cyclists, I fully support the TOL
Sustainability Charter, the Aldergrove Core Area Plan and the Regional Infrastructure
Plan for cycling. I believe that Langley is a progressive municipality that is building
necessary cycling infrastructure for the present and future.
I encourage TOL to proceed with the cycling connection on 32nd Avenue as it is an
important link in the overall regional plan. TOL professionals have done their due
diligence with community input at the appropriate states. It is now the time to execute
the plan.
Street parking on 32nd Avenue should not be an issue. I believe that municipal staff
have already struck a compromise by retaining parking on one side of the street. TOL
research shows that post construction street parking will only be approximately 32%.
Given that land development along 32nd has already been completed, there should not
be an increase in parking demand in the future. Also, analysis of Google Satellite
images of 32nd Avenue clearly shows that all single family dwellings have ample parking
on their properties for multiple vehicles. The 32nd Avenue Connector Cycling Project is a
good example of a compromise that all parties can live with. Local residents will retain
street parking that more than meets their needs and cyclists will gain a safer passage to
points east of Aldergrove.
It must be noted that Jackman Park and Parkside Centennial Elementary border on 32nd
Avenue. The addition of cycling lanes would provide cyclists with a safe passage to
these two locations.
In conclusion, an attitude of entitlement for public street parking should not be a barrier
to a project that benefits the greater population.
My family and I walk down 32nd frequently. Talking to our friends who live just off of 32nd
and they laughed when they were told about the big debate. 19% of parking being used.
No one will even notice a bike lane taking parking spots.
A bike lane would provide more access to the nearby parks and schools. Also it would
reduce the reason to drive in a town that revolves around vehicles.
From the date of the engineering information slides it is obvious that there is ample
parking and that removing parking from the north side of 32 Avenue will not create a
shortage of parking on that street.
Please continue to build the bike lanes and connect our community with other cycling
lanes in the region.
I feel we need this 32nd Avenue link, as parts of Fraser Highway are unsafe for bike
travel.
There is also a school nearby and this may encourage the pupils to feel safe to ride to
and from school, and may also make the parents of these kids feel more comfort about
them riding to and from school. And we need to continue to make roads in our
community safe for people that ride bikes and pedestrians.
As far as the issue over parking is concerned, there appears to be lots of parking even
with the changes the TOL is making to 32nd.
I love biking and these will improve greatly the Township healthy initiative.
F.1
I am excited to see this put into practice and I support this fully.
Yes to bike lanes. What about 260th to 29th + a crossing on 264th?
It will offer a safer way to travel through Aldergrove. This should happened to keep the
kids safe.
I think this is a very smart plan for the transportation infrastructure in Aldergrove.
This plan will provided a more convenient and safe way for cyclists to travel through
Aldergrove. It will also provide a safe place for children to go up and down 32nd Ave
especially with the school and park on 32nd Ave.
I am excited to have bike lanes, as I find it unsafe to bike along the road when drivers
drive too quickly.
While roadside parking does not affect me personally, as we have ample parking for our
vehicles in our complex and while the survey indicates that there is sufficient parking on
the south side of 32nd, I wonder if the survey results would be different during peak
entertainment times, such as Christmas Day. When so many people are entertaining,
roadside parking might be more valuable and it may create problems if there isnt
enough. I personally, would rather have bike lanes, but I can understand some of the
neighbours concerns regarding parking availability.
This is an important upgrade to the cycling infrastructure for the whole Fraser Valley.
Navigating downtown Adergrove has been a problem for me on bicycle and a safe,
designated route will solve most of the traffic headaches currently experienced. Both car
drivers and cyclists will benefit from a designated route where the predictable traffic
patterns will greatly increase safety.
The objections of residents, saying that parking spaces will be lost, was clearly only a
perception, not backed up by the facts of actual usage.
Although no longer living in the area where the cycling infrastructure project will occur, I
used to cycling in this area and found it both unsafe to cyclists and to motor vehiclists to
not have property infrastructure in this area. The downtown stretch of road in Aldergrove
contains hidden driveways and dense, unpredictable traffic that increases the likelihood
of injury for all users of the road. Due to the unsafe condition of this roadway, cyclists
are either forced to cycle in the middle of the lane (causing frustration for vehiclists) or to
cycle on the sidewalk (causing frustration for pedestrians). The 32 Avenue bypass
provides a safe compromise for all users in the Aldergrove area, by eliminating these
issues.
From a strategic infrastructure development standpoint, this route will be one of many
essential projects dedicated to creating the necessary cycling infrastructure linkages in
the Metro Vancouver area. This provides the opportunity for Aldergrove and TOL to be
at the forefront of change, driving forward the adoption of healthy and eco-friendly
transportation.
Great to see the plans for bike lanes to fix this gap in the cycling network. Bike lanes
right next to (narrow) parked car lanes scare me through. If there are any parked cars, I
usually bike right on the edge of the bike lanes, closer to the car lane. I think these bike
lanes need buffers. Too many cyclists get injured (or killed) from getting doored.
Especially inexperienced cyclists are at risk, since they often dont understand the
danger.
Separation between moving cars and bike lanes is also something that will usually get
more people out on their bikes. Would be nice if thats possible here, while ensuring
optimal safety at intersections (good sight lines etc.).
It looks like an excellent plan. It is important to have a safe bike route through
Aldergrove.
F.1
The addition of cycle lanes on 32nd Avenue are much needed improvements to the local
cycle network and will enhance accessibility and safety. Even though I am a nonresident, I travel to Langley (including by bicycle) and the addition of cycle lanes helps
me access the City and safety reach downtown shops and services.
I support the Citys efforts to implement cycle lanes on 32nd Avenue and I hope that City
Council approves the project.
Providing cycling as a safe and viable choice for transportation should not be an option
for cities to incorporate in city planning and design. It has to be accepted as a way of life
that will be supported and promoted in all cites in this day and age.
We need to focus on having dedicated bike lanes that can help connect continuous parts
of Fraser Highway. Whats this already approved? This sounds like a really good start
to a progressive plan for the future.
Critical link to connecting Abbotsford to Surrey. Cycling is amazing!
Bicycles and other forms of active transportation are very important in building a healthy
community. Please proceed with the bike lanes on 32nd Ave as has been previously
approved by council.
I cycle from my home on 50th Ave to Chilliwack to visit relatives. I use 240th Street,
Robertson Crescent, 264th Street and 32nd Ave. Avoiding Fraser Hwy as there is too
much traffic travelling at Hwy speed. I then used Fraser Hwy East of 276th Street as at
that point there is enough shoulder to feel comfortable. Bike lanes on 32nd Ave would be
a great improvement as in this day and age drivers seem to have too little time to stop,
let alone look to see if it is safe to proceed onto roadway.
I have lived in Langley all of my life (56 years) and there seems to be a stigma in the
Aldergrove area. Businesses dont seem to flourish. Maybe this 32nd Ave bike lane to
open minded forward thinking people would be a welcome spark in realizing the benefits
in keeping up to speed with areas west of us with safe and comfortable designated
cycling lanes. Please proceed: 32 Ave Connector Cycling Project.
I want to write in regarding the 32 Ave bike lanes, and all bike lanes in TOL in general. I
support HUBs ungap the map campaign and TOL in creating a connection around
Aldergrove by placing bike lanes on 32nd. However, I do have one concern. My concern
is that by placing the bike lanes immediately adjacent to parked cars you are creating
what is known as a dooring lane. In this case, on a traffic calmed 32nd Ave I actually feel
that the side along the parked cars would be safer with a shared lane, using sharrows
placed out a safe distance from the parked cars. The threat from being doored is
greater than the threat being rear ended. I support the bike lane on the opposite side
that is not adjacent to parked cars. If the side adjacent to the parking is to have a bike
lane, it should have a buffer of significant width that cyclists are not riding dangerously in
the door zone. This goes for all TOL bike lanes adjacent to parked cars. Door zone bike
lanes are not safe.
After reviewing your display boards, I want to expand on my comments. I was not aware
of the measurements on 32nd until I looked closer at the display boards. From what I can
tell there is adequate space to install safe bike lanes on both sides, by narrowing the 2
vehicle lanes from 12 feet (3.6m) to 10 feet (3m). 10 foot travel lanes for cars are safer,
and encourage slower driving, whereas 12 foot lanes encourage people to drive faster.
32nd is no truck route, so there is no justification for such wide lanes. By narrowing the
lanes you gain 4 feet, which you can use by placing a buffer between the parked cars
and the adjacent bike lane, this is the safest option. Residents sited concerns of safety
crossing the street, narrower lanes will mean a shorter distance they need to cross, and
have traffic calming effects. Additionally, installing marked crosswalks would ease the
concerns of residents who claim they would have to jaywalk if they had to park on the
F.1
opposite side of the street once parking is removed. Currently the only section with
sufficient crosswalks is the section adjacent to the school and the park. 264-270 has no
marked crossings, the same as 272 to 276. 270 to 272 has 3. I think that if the TOL
makes these changes it will make the project safer for everybody, and ease some
concerns from residents.
I support putting in bike lanes as you describe in your Display Board posted on your
website.
My concern is: what is the cyclist to do at the intersection of Hwy 13 and 32 Avenue? I
would not recommend that the cyclist cross Hwy 13 when heading west. Im also unsure
of how an eastbound cyclist, say riding eastbound along the Fraser Hwy would merge
onto 32 Avenue eastbound, unless walking their bike across the intersection of Fraser
Hwy and Hwy 13. I did have a look at the map showing the Ultimate Cycling Network
Infrastructure, and it seems to imply a short off street trail that joins Hwy 13 between the
Fraser Hwy and 32 Avenue.
F.1

5(325772
0$<25$1'&281&,/
35(6(17('
)520
68%-(&7
SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 - REGULAR AFTERNOON MEETING

FIVE YEAR CYCLING IMPROVEMENT PLAN
ATTACHMENT C
5(3257
),/(
13-105
8330-02
5(&200(1'$7,216
7KDW Council endorse the 2013 Cycling Network and Infrastructure, the Five Year Cycling
Improvement Plan, and the updated Ultimate Cycling Network and Infrastructure; and further

7KDW Council consider and refer the matter of increasing the Township annual cycling funding
from $80,000 to $200,000 to the 2014 budget deliberations.
(;(&87,9(6800$5<
The Township has been developing a strategic long-term Cycling Plan that has included
consultation with other agencies, adjoining municipalities, cycling groups and the general public
during open houses held on January 27, 2011 and March 29, 2012. On June 25, 2012, Council
adopted the Ultimate Cycling Network and Ultimate Cycling Network Infrastructure. Staff has
developed a 2013 Cycling Network, 2013 Cycling Network Infrastructure and a Five Year
Cycling Improvement Plan (5 Year Plan). A public open house was held on June 19, 2013 to
gather feedback for the proposed 5 Year Plan. A total of 8 high priority projects have been
identified with a total estimated cost of $1.4 million.
Based on the current level funding ($160,000), half of which ($80,000) is provided by TransLink,
the projects could be completed in 9 years (2022). In order to complete all 8 projects in 5 years
(2018), the current funding level would have to be increased to $280,000 per year. The
Township would contribute $200,000 and TransLink would contribute $80,000.
The comments received at June 19, 2013 open house are summarized in Attachment A.
Attendees were generally supportive of the work proposed in the Five Year Cycling
Improvement Plan and for increasing the funding. There was a request and petition received
that request the addition of Zero Avenue to the 5 year plan. Due to the current road standard
staff is not supportive of signing and marking Zero avenue as a cycling route.
The Ultimate Cycling Network and Infrastructure maps have also been updated to be consistent
with updated Neighbourhood Plans. The Ultimate Cycling Network is a visionary plan that is
estimated to cost $55 million for on-street Cycling Facilities and an additional $25 million for offstreet Cycling Facilities. The estimated costs do not include land acquisition, utility relocation,
drainage work that may be required.
385326(
The purpose of this report is to provide Council an update regarding the results of the public
input received on the proposed Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan (5 Year Plan) and to seek
Council endorsement of the 2013 Cycling Network and Infrastructure, Five Year Cycling
Improvement Plan and the updated Ultimate Cycling Network and Infrastructure.

Page 2. . .
F.1
%$&.*5281'+,6725<
In 1994, the Township of Langley (Township) developed a Community Connections Report with
a goal of promoting Township and Community cycling routes geared towards recreational
cyclists. The Master Transportation Plan (MTP) Values and Visions report was produced
which identified the importance of promoting alternative modes of transportation such as
cycling. A series of workshops were held to examine, develop and confirm the Transportation
Vision and Principles, and to encourage the public to identify high-priority transportation related
issues, constraints, and opportunities. An interim bicycle network was developed based upon
the feedback received from the public which was endorsed by Council in April of 2004.
As part of the MTP, adopted by Council in November of 2009, a draft bike route map was
presented to Council for information. The draft bike route map was used as a basis for
consultation with other agencies, adjacent municipalities, user groups and the public in the
development of an Ultimate Cycling Network adopted by Council on June 13, 2011.
',6&866,21$1$/<6,6
As part of the development of the Cycling Plan, the following has been undertaken:
Inventory existing cycling Infrastructure.

Develop the Ultimate Cycling Network Infrastructure maps.
Identify required infrastructure upgrades.
Estimate capital and operating costs of upgrades.
Update the Ultimate Cycling Network maps.
Hosting a Public Open House on March 29, 2012 to see public input on the updated
Ultimate Cycling Network and the Ultimate Cycling Network Infrastructure maps.
Revising the Ultimate Cycling Network and Ultimate Cycling Network Infrastructure maps
based on public input.
Council adopted the Ultimate Cycling Network and Ultimate Cycling Network
Infrastructure maps on June 25, 2012.
Development of a 2013 Cycling Network and 5 Year Cycling Improvement Plan
Updating the Ultimate Cycling Network and Infrastructure maps to ensure consistency
with evolving neighborhood plans.
Hosting a Public Open House on June 19, 2013 to seek input on the 2013 Cycling
Network, the 2013 Cycling Network Infrastructure, the Five Year Cycling Improvement
Plan and the 2018/2022 Cycling Network and 2008/2022 Cycling Network Infrastructure
maps. Information was also presented on potential costs and funding sources, future
education and promotion activities. The comments received from the open house are
summarized in Attachment A.
2013 Cycling Network and Infrastructure:

The 2013 Cycling Network map (Attachment B) identifies the existing network of cycling routes
in the Township. It includes funded projects such as Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing
(BICCS) projects, a Cycling Infrastructure Partnerships Program (CIPP) project and a
Community Recreation project scheduled to be constructed by the end of 2013.
The 2013 Cycling Network Infrastructure map (Attachment B) identifies the type of infrastructure
on existing cycling routes. On-street facilities are classified as bike lanes, wide curb lanes,
paved shoulders, paved/gravel shoulders, or shared roads. Off-street facilities include shared
use trails, multi-use paths and greenways. The 2013 Cycling Network includes 64 centerline
kilometers of on-street cycling routes and 72 kilometres of off-street cycling routes.

Page 3. . .
F.1
Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan

A total of 8 high priority projects have been identified for the Five Year Cycling Improvement
Plan (Attachment C) which will provide linkages between communities. Priorities are assessed
based upon factors such as connectivity, addressing gaps in infrastructure, adjacent land
density, construction cost and integration with other projects. The 5 Year Plan does not include
cycling facilities that could be constructed as part of development projects or capital road
projects. This 5 Year plan will add another 41 centerline kilometers on-street cycling routes to
the existing cycling network increasing the total to 105 kilometres of on-street facilities.
The total cost of 8 projects is estimated at $1.4 million. Based upon the current level of funding
($160,000 per year) half of which ($80,000) is provided by TransLink, the projects would be
completed by 2022. Based upon an increased level of funding ($280,000 per year) the projects
could be completed in a five year time frame by 2018. The Township would contribute
$200,000 and TransLink would contribute $80,000.
The 2018/2022 Cycling Network map and 2018/2022 Cycling Network Infrastructure map were
presented to the public at the open house (Attachment C). Public input received indicated
general support the funding level increase.

Zero Avenue
Requests at the open house and a 157 name petition (Attachment D) were received from the
Greater Langley Cycling Coalition (GLCC) to add Zero Avenue between 196 Street and 276
Street to the 5 Year Plan. Signing and marking a cycling route indicates this road is considered
adequate for all types of cyclists. All existing cycling routes have been examined and upgraded
to the minimum requirement of the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) guidelines on
bikeways. There are liability concerns with signing and marking a route that does not meet TAC
guidelines.
The existing road geometry on Zero Avenue does not meet the Transportation Association of
Canada (TAC) guidelines required for signing and marking the road as a shared road cycling
route. Issues include the narrow road width with little or no shoulder, significant vertical grades,
limited visibility, and high traffic speeds. Share the Road signage is typically used on wide
curb lanes or shared roads. Shared Roads are a regular travel lane shared by motor vehicles
and cyclists in single file, mainly used for low volume and low speed local streets. In order to
meet TAC guidelines for a cycling route, paved shoulders a minimum of 1.5 metres wide would
be required on both sides of Zero Avenue estimated at a cost of $5 million excluding the costs
of land acquisition, drainage works and utility relocation. Staff does not support designating,
signing and marking Zero Avenue as an active cycling route until the issues noted above are
resolved.
The British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act (the Act) defines a person operating a cycle on a
highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle. Legally cyclists can ride on any
road as long as they obey the rules of the road. That being said, cyclists can still ride on Zero
Avenue at their own discretion.
Updates of Ultimate Cycling Network and infrastructure:
Since the Ultimate Cycling Network and Infrastructure maps were adopted by Council in June
2012, the maps have been updated to ensure consistency with evolving neighbourhood plans.
In addition, updates have been made to reflect comments from external agencies, adjacent
municipalities and the public as seen in Attachment E.

Page 4. . .
F.1
Financial Implications:
The capital construction cost of the Ultimate Cycling Network is projected to be:
$55 million for 361 centreline kilometres of on-street routes.

$25 million for 158 centreline kilometres of off-street routes.
Excluding land acquisition, drainage works and utility relocation.
Approximately $15 million of the cost has been including in the Development Cost
Charges (DCC) program.
The operations and maintenance cost has been estimated to be:
$1.2 million per year for the Ultimate Cycling Network.

Includes street sweeping, road marking, signage maintenance, bike symbols and
pavement repairs.
$206,000 per year for the 64 kilometres of routes in the 2013 Cycling Network.
The maintenance of the existing 64 kilometres of routes is currently unfunded.
Additional funds are required to meet existing maintenance requirements which will
increase each year as additional infrastructure is constructed.
Next Steps
The following have been updated for Councils review and endorsement:
The 2013 Cycling Network and Infrastructure maps (Attachment B).

the Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan (see Attachment C).
Updates of Ultimate Cycling Network and Infrastructure maps (Attachment E).
As a next step, staff will be working on the Cycling Plan report which will discuss various topics
such as maintenance policies, education and promotion and the provision of end of trip facilities
Additional survey or open houses may be conducted to gather public input before presenting the
Cycling Plan report to Council anticipated for the spring of 2014.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Cordeiro
MANAGER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
for
ATTACHMENT A
Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan Open House Questionnaire Results
ATTACHMENT B
2013 Cycling Network and Infrastructure maps (2)
ATTACHMENT C
Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan and Maps (2)
ATTACHMENT D
Petition Letter from GLCC
ATTACHMENT E
Ultimate Cycling Network maps (4) and Ultimate Cycling Network

Infrastructure maps (4)
F.1
______________________
ATTACHMENT A
)LYH<HDU&\FOLQJ,PSURYHPHQW3ODQ
2SHQ+RXVH4XHVWLRQQDLUH5HVXOWV

people attended the Open House
Questionnaires were received
1. Have you viewed the display boards?
Yes:
No:
2.
Was the information presented on the display boards helpful?

Yes:
No:
3.
Do you support the proposed 2018/2022 Cycling Network map?

Yes:
No:
4.
Do you support the proposed 2018/2022 Cycling Network Infrastructure map?

Yes:
No:
5. Do you feel cycling should be a priority for the Township of Langley?

Yes:
No:
Important:
6.
Do you support increasing annual capital cycling funding the current level of $160,000
to $270,000?
Yes:
No:
7. Please provide comments:

Would suggest moving 0 Ave to a shared road classification. Staff has expressed
concerns of safety on the road and so do cyclists. Township needs to address high
traffic volume and speeds so that 0 Ave becomes safer for the high volume of
cyclists using the route.
The ultimate buildout calls for paved shoulders, but this does not serve current or
even 20 years of needs.
$200,000 will be spent on the Allard Crescent-River Road route in 2013 for cycling
numbers that are matched on 0 Ave. These 0 Ave cyclists are not requesting a TBone Steak treatment throw them the bone by traffic calming 0 Ave in the 5 year
plan and installing Share the Road signage. Attached is a 157 name petition
requesting the signage. Original copy of petition filed with Legislative Services.
Whitish-grey plastic poles on side of road on 0 Ave between 200th and 207th.
Apparently they are very hard to see and considered dangerous by cyclists. Suggest
they be made of orange material or more reflective tape added to them. This
comment was made to me by a cyclist, but I have not personally seen them.
Support the initiatives being proposed regarding end of trip facilities.
Educational component is critical how is the Recreation Department being brought
on board to further this initiative? They can be a key delivery vehicle for the program
Connecting along 68th Avenue Surrey will be installing bike lanes on 68th Ave to
196th St in next several years would like to see connection
Support bike lanes. Whenever people asked to rate livability of a community, bike
lanes are something people want even if they only go for a bike ride a few times a
year.
I see 0 Ave is a lane and probably one of the most popular Langley roads for cycling.
There is no bike signage on 0 Ave. I think I recall seeing signage about respecting
slow moving implements and to watch for wild life (including geese). As mentioned
there are more cyclists than any of the above mentioned on 0 Ave.
I am pleased that there is some planning being done.
F.1
If possible at railway crossings install asphalt paths from the road to the tracks. See
diagram.
Install Share the Road signs on 0 Ave due to the large number of cyclists who use
this roadway.
I am most concerned with the safety of cyclists in Langley. I commute from 0 Ave to
Fraser Hwy via bike on 200th Street. From 36 Ave to Fraser Hwy is a nightmare. I am
forced to use the sidewalk. I know this is City of Langley territory. But in the
township, from 20th Ave to 40th Ave need to be addresses. We desperately need
adequate paved shoulders or bike lanes.
157 name petition provided by John Evanochko regarding 0 Avenue
Inter-municipal Connection
Future Bridge
Recreation Centre
203 201
ST ST
$
88 AVE
FORT
LANGLEY
GL
OV
#10
HWY
$
$
$
ST
$248
272 ST
$ $
ft
240 ST
275 ST
264$
ST
268
ST
232 ST
$
#13 HWY$
248 ST
272 ST
ra
224 ST
$ ST
260
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
ALDERGROVE
232 $ST
ST
$
$
HW
29 AVE
256 ST
$
224 ST
272 ST
16 AVE
#13 HWY
216 ST
16 AVE
208 ST
24 AVE
204A ST
26 AVE
$
16 AVE
BROOKSWOOD
FRA
SER
276 ST
W
Y
H
#1
0
216 ST
$
$216
ROBERTSON CR
ES
$
208 ST
HW
Y
HW
Y
48
AV
E
204 ST
208 ST
HW
5
CR 8
ES
206 ST
#1
0
#1
204 ST
200 ST
GLOUCESTER
200 ST
$
$
56 AVE
196 ST
SE
R
16 Ave
203 ST
198B ST
202A ST
211
ST
199 ST
32B AVE
20 AVE
FR
A
222 ST
24 Ave
223
ST
221A
ST
48 AVE
32 AVE
HW
Y
56 AVE
40 AVE
201 200 ST
ST
Kwantlen
48 Ave
28 AVE
64 AVE
52 AVE
32 Ave
72 AVE
#1
65
AVE
MURRAYVILLE
40 Ave
68 AVE
Langley
City
Exchange
56 Ave
HW
Y
Trinity
Western
WILLOWBROOK
62 AVE
Willowbrook
Exchange
64 AVE
#1
72 AVE$
196 ST
76 AVE
72 Ave
64 Ave
ER
$
80 AVE
83 AVE
WILLOUGHBY
80 Ave
RD
84 AVE
$
$
Carvolth
86 AVE Exchange
272 ST
FRASER RIVER
216 ST$
204 ST
200 ST
96
#1
HW
Y
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
AV
E
T
212 S
208 ST
88 AV
School
93 AVE
198 ST
WALNUT
GROVE
202 ST
88 Ave
96 AVE
92A AVE
Rail Crossing
Existing Bridge
96 Ave
Transit_Hubs
Railroad
Funded Projects - RouteType

Commuter/Recreational
Community
Existing RouteType
Community
ge
104 Ave
Road Grade >= 5%
id
Ears Br
Golden
____________________
AttachmentF.1
B
Legend
$
$
$
8 $AVE
2013 Cycling Network

Version Date: September 2013
0.5
Print Date: Date: 12/09/2013

Path: N:\Maps\Custom Maps\Transportation\Trn_20130001_NetworkCyclingPlan\2013_2018_NetworkCyclingPlan_AllRoutes.mxd
5
Kilometres
272 St
264 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
216 St
256 St
$
$
208 St
R$
200 St
0 Ave
IV E
4D
$
26
$
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
The data provided has been compiled from various sources and is not warranted
as to its accuracy or sufficiency by the Township of Langley. The user of this
information is responsible for confirming its accuracy or sufficiency.
Legend
F.1
Road Grade >= 5%

FutPathSym
Golden
Existing Bridge
Future Bridge
Recreation Centre
208 ST
RD
232 ST
211
ST
212
ST
$
$
W
Y
H
#10
HWY
216 ST
#1
0
202A ST
204 ST
WY
272 ST $
ft
$
248 ST
240 ST
268
ST
52 AV
48
AV
E
ROBERTSON CR
ES
HW
216 ST
5
CR 8
ES
56 AVE
264$
ST
ra
SE
R
204 ST
FR
A
56 AVE
275 ST
$ $
232 ST
216 ST
GLOUCESTER
48 AVE
222 ST
223
ST
221A
ST
52 AVE
40 AVE
56 AVE
MURRAYVILLE
48 Ave
64 AVE
AVE
203 ST
206 ST
201
ST
#1
H
Kwantlen
40 Ave
272 ST
64
65 M
AVE UF
CR F O
ES RD
62 AVE
Langley City
Exchange
56 Ave
72 AVE
Trinity
Western
HW
Willowbrook
Exchange
64 AVE
#1
0
WILLOWBROOK
68 AVE
72 AVE$
ER
$
199 ST
200 ST
GL
OV
208 ST
76 AVE
72 Ave
196 ST
80 AVE
76 AVE
64 Ave
83 AVE
WILLOUGHBY
80 Ave
FORT
LANGLEY
84 AVE
216 ST$
Carvolth
Exchange
272 ST
86 AVE
198 ST
20
1 ST
203
$ ST
204 ST
FRASER RIVER
$
88 AV
96 AVE
T
212 S
88 Ave
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
WALNUT
GROVE
93 AVE
202 ST
92A AVE
School
96 Ave
Rail Crossing
Railroad
Cycling Infrastructure Type

Bike Lane
Wide Curb Lane
Paved Shoulder
Paved/Gravel Shoulder
Shared Road
Off Street Trail
idge
Ears Br
104 Ave
Transit Exchange
256 ST
276 ST
272 ST
$
$
#13 HWY
$ ST
260
$
$
ST
$
232
224$ST
$
$
16 AVE
208 ST
16 AVE
24 AVE
204 ST
204A ST
29 AVE
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
26 AVE
$
200 ST
196 ST
196 ST
ALDERGROVE
24 AVE
20 AVE
16 Ave
24 Ave
BROOKSWOOD
28 AVE
32 AVE
32 AVE
$
$
32 Ave
216 ST
32B AVE
$
$
$
264 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
216 St
256 St
208 St
2013 Cycling Network Infrastructure

0.5

Path: N:\Maps\Custom Maps\Transportation\Trn_20130001_NetworkCyclingPlan\2013_2018_InfrastructureCyclingPlan_AllRoutes.mxd
5
Kilometres
272 St
$
$
$
200 St
R$
IV E
4D
$
26
$
0 Ave
8 $AVE
$
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
32 Avenue Connector
216 Street Connector
Brookswood Connector
Telegraph Trail Connector
McKinnon Crescent Connector
Northeast Langley Connector
South Langley Connector
Total
Willowbrook Cycling Project
Project Name
No.
41.0
4.0
13.6
248 Street, Telegraph Trail, 80 Avenue, 240

Street, River Road
200 Street
1.2
2.6
4.8
8.2
2.8
3.8
Length (km)
Allard Crescent, McKinnon Cres
Telegraph Trail, 216 Street
216 Street, Crush Crescent, 72 Avenue, 56

Avenue
208 Street, 36 Avenue, 202 Street, 204
Street, 44 Avenue
32 Avenue, Highway 13, 276 Street
203/202B Street, 66 Avenue, Willoughby

Way, 197 Street, 197B Street
Road Name
High Priority Project List
1,400,000
140,000
810,000
170,000
20,000
30,000
110,000
100,000
20,000
Cost Estimate ($)
15
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
Prioritization Score
___________________
Attachment C
F.1
RD
$
$
ST
$248
272 ST
$ $
ft
240 ST
275 ST
264$
ST
268
ST
232 ST
$
#13 HWY$
248 ST
272 ST
ra
$
$ ST
260
$
$
2
!
(
268 ST
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
ALDERGROVE
232 $ST
29 AVE
256 ST
$
272 ST
16 AVE
#13 HWY
216 ST
224 ST
208 ST
16 AVE
204A ST
24 AVE
26 AVE
$
16 AVE
HW
BROOKSWOOD
FRA
SER
276 ST
#1
0
#10
HWY
W
Y
H
208 ST
HW
Y
216 ST
224 ST
ROBERTSON CR
ES
204 ST
206 ST
ER
GL
OV
216 ST$
204 ST
HW
Y
198 ST
203 201
ST ST
202A ST
#1
0
ST
#1
48
AV
E
198B ST
$
$216
HW
5
CR 8
ES
GLOUCESTER
199 ST
211
ST
208 ST
56 AVE
203 ST
201 200 ST
ST
204 ST
200 ST
SE
R
200 ST
HW
Y
196 ST
FR
A
222 ST
32 AVE
223
ST
221A
ST
48 AVE
32B AVE
196 ST
16 Ave
56 AVE
MURRAYVILLE
4
!
(
20 AVE
Kwantlen
40 AVE
8
!
(
64 AVE
3
!
(
24 Ave
72 AVE
#1
65
AVE
48 Ave
28 AVE
7
!
(
68 AVE
52 AVE
40 Ave
HW
Y
Trinity
Western
WILLOWBROOK
Langley
City
Exchange
56 Ave
#1
76 AVE
62 AVE
32 Ave
200 ST
72 AVE$
Willowbrook
Exchange
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
FORT
LANGLEY
5
!
(
83 AVE
80 AVE
64 AVE
88 AVE
WILLOUGHBY
64 Ave
School
272 ST
84 AVE
1
!
(
Recreation Centre
FRASER RIVER
$
Carvolth
72 Ave
Future Bridge
AV
E
86 AVE Exchange
80 Ave
Existing Bridge
96
#1
HW
Y
ProjectNumber
Rail Crossing
93 AVE
T
212 S
208 ST
88 AV
202 ST
88 Ave
6
!
(
WALNUT
GROVE
96 AVE
92A AVE
Railroad
Transit_Hubs
96 Ave
Proposed Project - RouteType

Commuter & Recreational
Community
Future Funding Project - RouteType
Community
Existing RouteType
Community
ge
104 Ave
F.1
Road Grade >= 5%
id
Ears Br
Golden
Legend
$
$
$
8 $AVE
2018/2022 Cycling Network

0.5

5
Kilometres
272 St
264 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
216 St
256 St
$
$
208 St
R$
200 St
0 Ave
IV E
4D
$
26
$
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
Legend
F.1
Road Grade >= 5%

FutPathSym
Golden
Existing Bridge
Future Bridge
Recreation Centre
208 ST
RD
ER
232 ST
$
$
W
Y
H
#10
HWY
216 ST
#1
0
202A ST
211
ST
212
ST
204 ST
WY
$
272 ST $
ft
$
248 ST
240 ST
264$
ST
268
ST
48
AV
E
$
HW
SE
R
ROBERTSON CR
ES
ra
52 AV
216 ST
204 ST
FR
A
5
CR 8
ES
56 AVE
275 ST
$ $
232 ST
216 ST
GLOUCESTER
56 AVE
222 ST
223
ST
221A
ST
48 AVE
40 AVE
56 AVE
MURRAYVILLE
52 AVE
48 Ave
64 AVE
AVE
203 ST
206 ST
272 ST
$
$
#1
H
Kwantlen
40 Ave
72 AVE
Y
$
201
ST
64
65 M
AVE UF
CR F O
ES RD
62 AVE
Langley City
Exchange
56 Ave
Willowbrook
Exchange
Trinity
Western
HW
WILLOWBROOK
68 AVE
64 AVE
#1
0
199 ST
200 ST
72 AVE$
GL
OV
208 ST
76 AVE
72 Ave
196 ST
80 AVE
76 AVE
64 Ave
83 AVE
WILLOUGHBY
80 Ave
FORT
LANGLEY
84 AVE
216 ST$
Carvolth
Exchange
272 ST
86 AVE
198 ST
20
1 ST
203
$ ST
204 ST
FRASER RIVER
$
88 AV
96 AVE
T
212 S
88 Ave
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
WALNUT
GROVE
93 AVE
202 ST
92A AVE
School
96 Ave
Rail Crossing
Railroad
Cycling Infrastructure Type

Bike Lane
Wide Curb Lane
Paved Shoulder
Shared Road
Off Street Trail
idge
Ears Br
104 Ave
Transit Exchange
256 ST
276 ST
272 ST
$
$
#13 HWY
$ ST
260
$
$
ST
224$ST
$
$
16 AVE
208 ST
$
232
204 ST
16 AVE
204A ST
24 AVE
29 AVE
26 AVE
$
200 ST
196 ST
196 ST
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
ALDERGROVE
24 AVE
20 AVE
16 Ave
24 Ave
BROOKSWOOD
28 AVE
32 AVE
32 AVE
$
$
32 Ave
216 ST
32B AVE
$
$
$
264 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
216 St
256 St
208 St
2018/2022 Cycling Network Infrastructure

0.5

5
Kilometres
272 St
$
$
$
200 St
R$
IV E
4D
$
26
$
0 Ave
8 $AVE
$
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
F.1
__________________
Attachment D
F.1
FOIPPA s. 22
F.1
FOIPPA s. 22
F.1
FOIPPA s. 22
F.1
FOIPPA s. 22
F.1
FOIPPA s. 22
F.1
FOIPPA s. 22
F.1
Road Grade >= 5%
F.1
Transit_Hubs
Rail Crossing
Railroad
id
Ears Br
Golden
RouteType
Community
Existing Bridge
Future Bridge
ge
104 Ave
___________________
Attachment E
Legend
Recreation Centre
203 201
ST ST
$
FORT
LANGLEY
RD
GL
OV
199 ST
211
ST
#10
HWY
$
$
$
ST
$248
272 ST
$ $
ft
240 ST
275 ST
264$
ST
268
ST
232 ST
$
#13 HWY$
248 ST
272 ST
$
$
$ ST
260
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
ALDERGROVE
29 AVE
276 ST
W
Y
H
ra
232 $ST
256 ST
$
224 ST
272 ST
16 AVE
#13 HWY
216 ST
16 AVE
208 ST
24 AVE
204A ST
26 AVE
$
16 AVE
HW
BROOKSWOOD
FRA
SER
204 ST
#1
0
216 ST
198B ST
208 ST
224 ST
ROBERTSON CR
ES
$
206 ST
HW
Y
ST
HW
Y
48
AV
E
$
$216
#1
HW
5
CR 8
ES
202A ST
#1
0
208 ST
GLOUCESTER
204 ST
203 ST
200 ST
56 AVE
200 ST
$
$
SE
R
196 ST
201 200 ST
ST
196 ST
ER
$
$
HW
Y
FR
A
222 ST
32B AVE
16 Ave
223
ST
221A
ST
48 AVE
40 AVE
32 AVE
56 AVE
MURRAYVILLE
20 AVE
Kwantlen
48 Ave
24 Ave
$
$
64 AVE
52 AVE
28 AVE
72 AVE
HW
Y
#1
65
AVE
Langley
City
Exchange
40 Ave
68 AVE
#1
Trinity
Western
WILLOWBROOK
62 AVE
56 Ave
64 AVE
76 AVE
72 AVE$
Willowbrook
Exchange
32 Ave
WILLOUGHBY
64 Ave
72 Ave
$
$
83 AVE
80 AVE
Carvolth
86 AVE Exchange
88 AVE
216 ST$
204 ST
$
FRASER RIVER
$
198 ST
200 ST
AV
E
84 AVE
80 Ave
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
272 ST
#1
HW
Y
School
93 AVE
T
212 S
208 ST
88 AV
202 ST
WALNUT
GROVE
96 AVE
92A AVE
88 Ave
96
96 Ave
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
264 St
256 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
216 St
208 St
200 St
$
$
R$
IV E
4D
$
26
$
Ultimate Cycling Network

0.5

5
Kilometres
272 St
8 $AVE
0 Ave
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
ge
216 ST$
FORT
LANGLEY
RD
ER
GL
OV
199 ST
$
$
ST
$248
272 ST
$
264$
ST
240 ST
#13 HWY$
248 ST
272 ST
$
$
$
$
232 $ST
276 ST
$ ST
260
224 ST
275 ST
ft
268
ST
W
Y
H
#10
HWY
$ $
206 ST
232 ST
$
$
$
272 ST
216 ST
208 ST
224 ST
16 AVE
16 AVE
204A ST
16 AVE
26 AVE
24 AVE
#13 HWY
196 ST
256 ST
204 ST
#1
0
216 ST
29 AVE
201 200 ST
ST
208 ST
ST
$216
203 ST
HW
Y
ra
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
ALDERGROVE
198B ST
202A ST
211
ST
$
$
$
$
204 ST
HW
FRA
SER
200 ST
48
AV
E
$
HW
Y
ROBERTSON CR
ES
#1
0
208 ST
200 ST
#1
BROOKSWOOD
5
CR 8
ES
GLOUCESTER
$
56 AVE
20 AVE
16 Ave
HW
24 Ave
28 AVE
SE
R
32 AVE
32 Ave
FR
A
222 ST
32B AVE
223
ST
221A
ST
48 AVE
40 AVE
56 AVE
MURRAYVILLE
Kwantlen
48 Ave
HW
Y
64 AVE
#1
65
AVE
196 ST
52 AVE
40 Ave
Langley
City
Exchange
56 Ave
72 AVE
68 AVE
HW
WILLOWBROOK
62 AVE
Willowbrook
Exchange
64 AVE
#1
Y
Trinity

Western
72 AVE$
76 AVE
64 Ave
80 AVE
72 Ave
WILLOUGHBY
83 AVE
86 AVE Exchange
204 ST
$
Carvolth
FRASER RIVER
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
88 AVE
84 AVE
80 Ave
Rail Crossing
Railroad
200 ST
AV
E
School
272 ST
#1
HW
Y
93 AVE
203 201
ST ST
198 ST
Recreation Centre
WALNUT
GROVE
T
212 S
88 AV
208 ST
202 ST
88 Ave
Future Bridge
96 AVE
92A AVE
96
96 Ave
Existing Bridge
PathType
Off Street
On Street
Transit Exchange
Road Grade >= 5%
id
Ears Br
Golden
104 Ave
F.1
Legend
$
$
Ultimate Commuter Cycling Network

0.5

Path: N:\Maps\Custom Maps\Transportation\Trn_20130001_NetworkCyclingPlan\2013_2018_NetworkCyclingPlan_Individual.mxd
5
Kilometres
272 St
264 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
256 St
216 St
208 St
$
$
200 St
R$
0 Ave
IV E
4D
$
26
$
8 $AVE
$
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
ge
Carvolth
86 AVE Exchange
$
FORT
LANGLEY
RD
ER
GL
OV
#10
HWY
$
$
ST
$248
ft
272 ST
264$
ST
240 ST
#13 HWY$
248 ST
275 ST
272 ST
$
$
$
$
ALDERGROVE
29 AVE
276 ST
$ ST
260
$
$
224 ST
ST
$ $
232 ST
HW
Y
$216
268
ST
W
Y
H
#1
0
232 $ST
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
256 ST
272 ST
216 ST
208 ST
224 ST
16 AVE
16 AVE
204A ST
16 AVE
26 AVE
24 AVE
#13 HWY
196 ST
204 ST
208 ST
#1
0
216 ST
203 ST
206 ST
198B ST
ra
HW
48
AV
E
$
204 ST
HW
Y
FRA
SER
200 ST
#1
BROOKSWOOD
5
CR 8
ES
GLOUCESTER
ROBERTSON CR
ES
208 ST
20 AVE
16 Ave
56 AVE
200 ST
HW
24 Ave
28 AVE
32 AVE
SE
R
32 Ave
32B AVE
40 AVE
FR
A
222 ST
48 AVE
223
ST
221A
ST
52 AVE
56 AVE
Kwantlen
48 Ave
HW
Y
64 AVE
#1
65
AVE
201 200 ST
ST
202A ST
211
ST
199 ST
MURRAYVILLE
40 Ave
Langley
City
Exchange
56 Ave
72 AVE
68 AVE
HW
WILLOWBROOK
62 AVE
Willowbrook
Exchange
64 AVE
#1
Y
Trinity

Western
196 ST
76 AVE
72 AVE$
64 Ave
72 Ave
80 AVE
83 AVE
WILLOUGHBY
84 AVE
80 Ave
FRASER RIVER
88 AVE
$
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
216 ST$
204 ST
200 ST
Rail Crossing
Railroad
272 ST
#1
HW
Y
AV
E
93 AVE
T
212 S
208 ST
88 AV
School
Recreation Centre
198 ST
WALNUT
GROVE
203 201
ST ST
202 ST
88 Ave
Future Bridge
96 AVE
92A AVE
96
96 Ave
Existing Bridge
PathType
Off Street
On Street
Transit Exchange
Road Grade >= 5%
id
Ears Br
Golden
104 Ave
F.1
Legend
$
$
8 $AVE
Ultimate Recreational Cycling Network

0.5

5
Kilometres
272 St
264 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
256 St
216 St
208 St
$
$
200 St
R$
IV E
4D
$
26
$
0 Ave
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
F.1
Legend
ge
Carvolth
86 AVE Exchange
$
FORT
LANGLEY
RD
ER
GL
OV
199 ST
$
$
ST
$248
272 ST
264$
ST
240 ST
#13 HWY$
248 ST
272 ST
$
$
ALDERGROVE
232 $ST
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
29 AVE
256 ST
272 ST
16 AVE
216 ST
208 ST
224 ST
16 AVE
16 AVE
26 AVE
24 AVE
#13 HWY
204A ST
196 ST
276 ST
$ ST
260
$
$
224 ST
275 ST
$ $
232 ST
216 ST
ft
268
ST
W
Y
H
#1
0
206 ST
ST
ra
204 ST
#10
HWY
202A ST
HW
Y
HW
203 ST
$
$216
211
ST
FRA
SER
204 ST
48
AV
E
ROBERTSON CR
ES
200 ST
HW
Y
BROOKSWOOD
5
CR 8
ES
#1
16 Ave
GLOUCESTER
208 ST
#1
0
208 ST
HW
20 AVE
56 AVE
200 ST
24 Ave
SE
R
28 AVE
32 AVE
32 Ave
FR
A
222 ST
48 AVE
32B AVE
223
ST
221A
ST
52 AVE
40 AVE
56 AVE
MURRAYVILLE
Kwantlen
48 Ave
HW
Y
64 AVE
65
AVE
#1
198B ST
201 200 ST
ST
72 AVE
Langley
City
Exchange
40 Ave
HW
68 AVE
56 Ave
WILLOWBROOK
62 AVE
Willowbrook
Exchange
Y
Trinity

Western
64 AVE
#1
72 AVE$
196 ST
76 AVE
72 Ave
64 Ave
80 AVE
83 AVE
WILLOUGHBY
84 AVE
80 Ave
FRASER RIVER
88 AVE
$
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
216 ST$
204 ST
200 ST
Rail Crossing
Railroad
272 ST
#1
HW
Y
AV
E
93 AVE
T
212 S
208 ST
88 AV
School
Recreation Centre
198 ST
WALNUT
GROVE
203 201
ST ST
202 ST
88 Ave
Future Bridge
96 AVE
92A AVE
96
96 Ave
Existing Bridge
PathType
Off Street
On Street
Transit Exchange
id
Ears Br
Golden
104 Ave
Road Grade >= 5%
$
$
8 $AVE
Ultimate Community Cycling Network

0.5

5
Kilometres
272 St
264 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
216 St
256 St
$
$
208 St
R$
200 St
0 Ave
IV E
4D
$
26
$
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
Legend
F.1
Transit Exchange
Rail Crossing
Railroad
Cycling Infrastructure Types

Bike Lane
Wide Curb Lane
Paved Shoulder
Shared Road
Off Street Trail
Golden
idge
Ears Br
Existing Bridge
Future Bridge
Recreation Centre
School
208 ST
20
1 ST
203
$ ST
204 ST
RD
ER
GL
OV
232 ST
211
ST
212
ST
$
$
$
W
Y
H
216 ST
#1
0
204 ST
272 ST $
ft
$
264$
ST
268
ST
48
AV
E
$
HW
SE
R
ROBERTSON CR
ES
ra
52 AV
248 ST
240 ST
216 ST
204 ST
5
CR 8
ES
56 AVE
275 ST
$ $
232 ST
216 ST
GLOUCESTER
203 ST
222 ST
56 AVE
FR
A
40 AVE
223
ST
221A
ST
48 AVE
56 AVE
MURRAYVILLE
52 AVE
48 Ave
64 AVE
AVE
64
65 M
AVE UF
CR F O
ES RD
62 AVE
199 ST
200 ST
208 ST
202A ST
#10
HWY
206 ST
WY
$
201
ST
$
$
#1
H
196 ST
72 AVE
Kwantlen
40 Ave
272 ST
Trinity
Western
HW
Langley City
Exchange
56 Ave
Willowbrook
Exchange
#1
0
WILLOWBROOK
68 AVE
64 AVE
72 AVE$
76 AVE
76 AVE
64 Ave
80 AVE
72 Ave
WILLOUGHBY
$
$
80 Ave
83 AVE
FORT
LANGLEY
84 AVE
216 ST$
Carvolth
Exchange
86 AVE
198 ST
272 ST
FRASER RIVER
$
88 AV
T
212 S
88 Ave
93 AVE
202 ST
92A AVE
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
96 AVE
96 Ave
WALNUT
GROVE
104 Ave
Road Grade >= 5%
256 ST
276 ST
272 ST
$
$
#13 HWY
$ ST
260
$
$
ST
224$ST
$
$
16 AVE
208 ST
204 ST
200 ST
$
232
196 ST
16 AVE
204A ST
24 AVE
29 AVE
26 AVE
$
196 ST
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
$
$
ALDERGROVE
24 AVE
20 AVE
16 Ave
BROOKSWOOD
24 Ave
32 AVE
28 AVE
216 ST
32 AVE
32 Ave
32B AVE
$
$
$
264 St
256 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
216 St
208 St
$
$
200 St
Ultimate Cycling Network Infrastructure

0.5

5
Kilometres
272 St
R$
IV E
4D
$
$
26
$
8 $AVE
0 Ave
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
rs Bridg
e
208 ST
232 ST
$
$
$
W
Y
H
#10
HWY
216 ST
#1
0
206 ST
RD
R
VE
LO
G
$
$
248 ST
240 ST
275 ST
ft
272 ST $
$ $
232 ST
216 ST
264$
ST
$
ROBERTSON CR
ES
256 ST
276 ST
16 AVE
16 AVE
24 AVE
204A ST
29 AVE
26 AVE
$
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
272 ST
ALDERGROVE
#13 HWY
$
$
ST
$
232
224$ST
$ ST
260
216 ST
ra
Y
48
AV
E
WAY
216 ST
HW
216 ST$
208 ST
211
ST
212
ST
203 ST
204 ST
$
204 ST
52 AV
5
CR 8
ES
204 ST
$
$
56 AVE
GL
OU
CE
STE
R
200 ST
GLOUCESTER
196 ST
199 ST
202A ST
196 ST
SE
R
198 ST
32 AVE
BROOKSWOOD
222 ST
56 AVE
24 AVE
16 Ave
223
ST
221A
ST
48 AVE
32B AVE
196 ST
FR
A
32 AVE
WY
$
64 AVE
MURRAYVILLE
40 AVE
20 AVE
272 ST
$
$
#1
H
56 AVE
24 Ave
72 AVE
Y
$
Kwantlen
48 Ave
28 AVE
AVE
52 AVE
32 Ave
HW
64
65 M
AVE UF
CR F O
ES RD
62 AVE
Langley
City
Exchange
40 Ave
Trinity
Western
WILLOWBROOK
68 AVE
56 Ave
#1
0
76 AVE
72 AVE$
Willowbrook
Exchange
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
20
1 ST
203
$ ST
204 ST
FORT
LANGLEY
83 AVE
80 AVE
64 AVE
WILLOUGHBY
64 Ave
School
72 Ave
Future Bridge
Recreation Centre
FRASER RIVER
$
Carvolth Exchange
76 AVE
Existing Bridge
272 ST
84 AVE
80 Ave
96 AVE
88 AV
86 AVE
WALNUT
GROVE
T
212 S
88 Ave
Transit Exchange
Rail Crossing
Railroad
93 AVE
202 ST
92A AVE
Road Grade >= 5%

Bike Lane
Wide Curb Lane
Paved Shoulder
Shared Road
Off Street Trail
96 Ave
$
$
Ea
Golden
104 Ave
F.1
Legend
$
$
$
264 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
216 St
256 St
$
$
208 St
200 St
R$
IV E
4D
Ultimate Commuter Cycling Network Infrastructure

0.5
Printed Date: September 13, 2013

Path: N:\Maps\Custom Maps\Transportation\Trn_20130001_NetworkCyclingPlan\2013_2018_InfrastructureCyclingPlan_Individual.mxd
5
Kilometres
272 St
$
26
$
0 Ave
8 $AVE
$
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
rs Bridg
e
208 ST
RD
VE
LO
G
232 ST
211
ST
212
ST
$
$
W
Y
H
#10
HWY
216 ST
#1
0
208 ST
206 ST
216 ST$
204 ST
$
$
248 ST
240 ST
275 ST
ft
$
$
264$
ST
$
$
$
256 ST
29 AVE
276 ST
272 ST
$
$
#13 HWY
$ ST
260
$
$
ST
$
24 AVE
$
$
16 AVE
16 AVE
D
204A ST
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
26 AVE
$
216 ST
ra
224$ST
ALDERGROVE
272 ST $
$ $
232 ST
216 ST
$
232
216 ST
$
$
204 ST
ROBERTSON CR
ES
$
204 ST
200 ST
WAY
196 ST
52 AV
5
CR 8
ES
48
AV
E
56 AVE
GL
OU
CE
STE
R
BROOKSWOOD
GLOUCESTER
HW
196 ST
203 ST
199 ST
32 AVE
SE
R
24 AVE
16 Ave
32B AVE
FR
A
56 AVE
222 ST
32 AVE
223
ST
221A
ST
48 AVE
40 AVE
202A ST
64 AVE
56 AVE
20 AVE
Kwantlen
48 Ave
24 Ave
WY
$
196 ST
AVE
52 AVE
28 AVE
$
$
#1
H
MURRAYVILLE
32 Ave
72 AVE
198 ST
20
1 ST
203
$ ST
204 ST
$
64
65 M
AVE UF
CR F O
ES RD
62 AVE
Langley
City
Exchange
40 Ave
272 ST
HW
Trinity
Western
WILLOWBROOK
68 AVE
56 Ave
#1
0
76 AVE
272 ST
72 AVE$
Willowbrook
Exchange
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
FORT
LANGLEY
83 AVE
80 AVE
64 AVE
WILLOUGHBY
64 Ave
School
72 Ave
Future Bridge
Recreation Centre
FRASER RIVER
$
Carvolth Exchange
76 AVE
Existing Bridge
84 AVE
80 Ave
96 AVE
88 AV
86 AVE
WALNUT
GROVE
T
212 S
88 Ave
Transit Exchange
Rail Crossing
Railroad
93 AVE
202 ST
92A AVE
Road Grade >= 5%

Bike Lane
Wide Curb Lane
Paved Shoulder
Shared Road
Off Street Trail
96 Ave
$
$
Ea
Golden
104 Ave
F.1
Legend
$
$
$
264 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
216 St
256 St
$
$
208 St
200 St
Ultimate Recreational Cycling Network Infrastructure

0.5

5
Kilometres
272 St
R$
IV E
4D
$
$
26
$
8 $AVE
0 Ave
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
F.1
Ea
Golden
e
$
208 ST
RD
VE
LO
G
232 ST
$
$
$
W
Y
H
#10
HWY
216 ST
#1
0
$
$
248 ST
240 ST
275 ST
ft
$
$
WAY
264$
ST
48
AV
E
$
$
ra
52 AV
5
CR 8
ES
ROBERTSON CR
ES
256 ST
276 ST
16 AVE
16 AVE
24 AVE
204A ST
29 AVE
26 AVE
$
32 AVE
FRASER HWY
272 ST
ALDERGROVE
#13 HWY
$
$
ST
$
232
224$ST
$ ST
260
$
$
216 ST
216 ST
204 ST
56 AVE
GL
OU
CE
STE
R
272 ST $
$ $
232 ST
216 ST
203 ST
204 ST
200 ST
GLOUCESTER
196 ST
HW
24 AVE
BROOKSWOOD
199 ST
211
ST
212
ST
206 ST
SE
R
16 Ave
202A ST
204 ST
32 AVE
196 ST
216 ST$
208 ST
32B AVE
56 AVE
222 ST
32 AVE
FR
A
40 AVE
223
ST
221A
ST
48 AVE
20 AVE
64 AVE
56 AVE
24 Ave
WY
$
Kwantlen
48 Ave
28 AVE
$
$
#1
H
AVE
52 AVE
32 Ave
72 AVE
MURRAYVILLE
40 Ave
272 ST
HW
64
65 M
AVE UF
CR F O
ES RD
62 AVE
Langley
City
Exchange
56 Ave
Trinity
Western
WILLOWBROOK
Willowbrook
Exchange
#1
0
196 ST
76 AVE
68 AVE
64 AVE
University
Parks and Greenways
Regional Park
83 AVE
80 AVE
72 AVE$
64 Ave
272 ST
FORT
LANGLEY
WILLOUGHBY
72 Ave
School
FRASER RIVER
$
Carvolth Exchange
76 AVE
Future Bridge
Recreation Centre
198 ST
20
1 ST
203
$ ST
204 ST
84 AVE
80 Ave
Existing Bridge
88 AV
86 AVE
96 AVE
T
212 S
88 Ave
93 AVE
202 ST
92A AVE
Transit Exchange
Rail Crossing
Railroad
WALNUT
GROVE
96 Ave
Road Grade >= 5%

Bike Lane
Wide Curb Lane
Paved Shoulder
Shared Road
Off Street Trail
rs Bridg
104 Ave
Legend
$
$
$
$
$
Ultimate Community Cycling Network Infrastructure

0.5

5
Kilometres
272 St
264 St
248 St
240 St
232 St
224 St
216 St
256 St
$
$
208 St
200 St
R$
IV E
4D
$
26
$
0 Ave
8 $AVE
$
8 Ave
Disclaimer:
F.1
ATTACHMENT D
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
DATE:
APRIL 7, 2016
FROM:
FILE NO:
5330-23-076
SUBJECT:
The purpose of this memorandum is to inform Mayor and Council of the upcoming
commencement of construction of the 32 Avenue Connector Cycling project in Aldergrove. The
project consists of constructing bicycle lanes on 32 Avenue from Provincial Highway 13
(264 Street) to 276 Street and on 276 Street from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway.
This project is part of the Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan, endorsed by Council on
September 23, 2013. The construction of the project is cost shared between the Township and
TransLink as part of the Major Road Network Bicycle program. As part of the 2014 Budget,
Council approved funding $45,000 of the $77,000 total estimated project cost.
With the construction of the bicycle lanes, the existing parking lane on the north side of
32 Avenue and on the west side of 276 Street, as shown in Attachment A, will be eliminated.
On-street parking is currently allowed on both sides of 32 Avenue from Highway 13 to
276 Street and on both sides of 276 Street from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway.
Parking capacity was estimated assuming a 7.0-metre vehicle length along with parking
restrictions related to driveways, fire hydrants, stop signs, intersections, crosswalks, and bus
stops as per the Township Highway and Traffic Bylaw 2010 No. 4758. There are currently 244
on-street parking stalls available on 32 Avenue from Highway 13 to 276 Street and 29 on-street
parking stalls on 276 Street from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway, resulting in a total of 273 onstreet parking stalls in the study area.
Staff undertook 4 parking surveys from 2013 to 2016 (see Attachment B), summarized below
with the highest parking utilization rate observed being 19%.
Date
Time of Day
No. of Parked Vehicles
Utilization Rate
Wednesday Afternoon
October 13, 2013
13:45 15:45
31
11%
Thursday Morning
December 17, 2015
9:30 10:45
33
12%
Saturday Afternoon
January 23, 2016
12:00 15:00
49
18%
Thursday Midnight
January 28, 2016
23:30 2:30
52
19%

April 7, 2016
Page 2. . .
F.1
The north side of 32 Avenue has fewer parking stalls (97 vs. 147) and removal will have a
smaller impact on parking supply. On the west side of 276 Street there are 13 stalls that will be
removed to facilitate the construction. As part of a previous traffic calming project fronting
Parkside Centennial Elementary School in 2010, curb extensions were constructed at
32 Avenue and 270 Street with the anticipation of installing bicycle lanes necessitating the
elimination of parking on the north side of 32 Avenue.
Post construction, there will be 163 on-street parking stalls available. Using the highest number
of parked vehicles from the surveys (52 cars), it is anticipated that the highest utilization rate will
be approximately 32% of available stalls which will be sufficient for the neighbourhood.
Staff is discussing with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure the potential
implementation of cycling facilities on Highway 13 from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway. This
would provide a connection between the cycling facilities on 32 Avenue to the cycling facilities
on Fraser Highway west of Highway 13.
Unless otherwise directed by Council, staff will proceed with the construction of 32 Avenue
Connector Cycling project in the summer of 2016. Local residents will be notified of the
upcoming construction through newspaper advertising, Township website, social media
postings, as well as letters to directly affected residents along 32 Avenue from Highway 13 to
276 Street and 276 Street from 32 Avenue to Fraser Highway.
Attachment A
Project Drawings
Attachment B
Parking Survey Results
HIGHWAY 13
Bike Lane (WB & EB)

Signing & Marking
FRASER
HIGHWAY
32 AVENUE
2014 MRNB APPLICATION - 32 AVENUE CONNECTOR PROJECT
270 Street
DRAWING 1 OF 2
Bike Lane (WB & EB)

Signing & Marking
F.1
________________
Attachment
A
2014 MRNB APPLICATION - 32 AVENUE CONNECTOR PROJECT
DRAWING 2 OF 2
F.1
15:45
Capacity
10:30
9:30
Capacity
Time
31
1
22
2
31
5
3
22
3
2
31
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
South
31
22
10
11
11
11
11
11
23:30
0:00
0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00
Capacity
North
Hwy 13 to 266A St
South
22
Hwy 13 to 266A St
South
North
Hwy 13 to 266A St
South
North
Hwy 13 to 266A St
North
Capacity
Thu Jan 28, 2016
Date:
Time
Sat Jan 23, 2016
Date:
Time
Thu Dec 17, 2015
Date:
Time
Wed Oct 23, 2013
Date:
19
2
South
19
3
3
South
10
19
South
22
North
19
South
266A St to 268 St
22
North
266A St to 268 St
22
3
2
North
266A St to 268 St
22
1
North
266A St to 268 St
Parking Survey Results
22
3
South
22
2
2
South
22
South
19
North
22
South
268 St to 270 St
19
North
268 St to 270 St
19
1
1
North
268 St to 270 St
19
7
North
268 St to 270 St
20
10
South
20
8
7
South
10
10
10
20
South
North
13
13
13
13
13
12
20
South
32 Ave
270 St to 272 St
North
32 Ave
270 St to 272 St
0
0
0
North
32 Ave
270 St to 272 St
0
0
North
32 Ave
270 St to 272 St
5
0
South
5
0
0
South
South
North
South
272 St to 273 St
North
272 St to 273 St
2
2
3
North
272 St to 273 St
2
0
North
272 St to 273 St
30
2
South
30
1
1
South
30
South
19
North
30
South
273 St to 275 St
19
North
273 St to 275 St
19
2
2
North
273 St to 275 St
19
2
North
273 St to 275 St
20
0
South
20
1
1
South
20
South
13
North
20
South
275 St to 276 St
13
North
275 St to 276 St
13
2
2
North
275 St to 276 St
13
0
North
275 St to 276 St
12
0
West
11
0
East
1
0
West
12
0
0
West
11
0
0
East
1
0
0
West
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
West
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
East
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
West
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
East
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
West
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
East
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
West
276 St
32 Ave to 31A Ave 31A Ave to Fraser Hwy
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
East
276 St
5
0
0
East
276 St
5
1
East
276 St
110
20
21
21
21
21
21
13%
15%
14%
17%
18%
18%
30%
Utilization Rate
Total
163
273
30
50
30
51
31
52
31
52
31
52
31
52
Post Construction
18%
19%
19%
19%
19%
19%
32%
Utilization Rate
Weather: Overcast
Total
163
273
25
36
29
42
29
38
33
46
32
48
32
49
Post Construction
North+West South+East
110
11
13
9
13
16
17
12%
11%
20%
Utilization Rate
Weather: Overcast
Total
163
273
20
33
17
29
Post Construction
110
13
12
11%
19%
Utilization Rate
Weather: Snow
Total
163
273
19
31
Post Construction
110
12
Weather: Overcast
F.1
_________________
Attachment B
F.1
ATTACHMENT E
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
DATE:
JUNE 23, 2016
FROM:
FILE NO:
5330-23-076
SUBJECT:
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide Mayor and Council with information regarding
works currently underway to implement the Townships Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan,
endorsed by Council in 2013 after a series of community consultation sessions, highlighted
below:
x January 27, 2011 Public Open House
x March 29, 2012 Public Open House
x June 19, 2013 Public Open House
In addition, the plan and proposed infrastructure improvements were posted on the Township of
Langleys website for public information and input from February 16 to April 13, last year. The
complete notes and results of the public input received as part of the public information and
engagement sessions highlighted above are provided as Attachment A to this
memorandum. Furthermore, a copy of a 2013 report summarizing the public input received is
provided as Attachment B to this memorandum.
The proposed improvements currently underway on 32 Avenue from 264 Street to the
276 Street are intended to connect with existing infrastructure in the City of Abbotsford to
improve cycling connectivity, consistent with the Townships Cycling Plan approved by
Council. The associated costs for the cycling improvements are shared with TransLink as part
of the Major Road Network Bicycle program, with Townships share of funds approved as part of
previous years budget processes as early as 2014.
Installation of the cycling facilities currently underway necessitates removal of on-street parking
from north side of 32 Avenue and west side of 276 Street. There is on-street parking available
on the south side of 32 Avenue. Parking surveys were conducted on four separate occasions
between 2013 and 2016, confirming utilization of available on-street parking in the area is only
at about 20%. Upon completion of the works, utilization is expected to increase to about 30%,
meaning that approximately 70% of the on-street available in the area is not being used. A
previous memorandum distributed earlier in April of this year (Attachment C) provided
information to Council about the work undertaken to date and planned activities going
forward. Approximately 800 notification letters were mailed out to inform affected area residents
of the proposed improvements, complete with advertising in the local newspapers and postings
on the Townships website, as outlined in the April 2016 memorandum to Council.
Attachment A
Notes and public input for the public open houses of January 27, 2011,
March 29, 2012, and June 19, 2013
Attachment B
Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan Report to Council, dated September 23,
2013
Attachment C
32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project Memo to Council, dated April 7, 2016

F.1 32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

F.1 32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

F.

DECEMBER 12, 2016 - REGULAR AFTERNOON MEETING

In 2013, Council adopted Township of Langleys Five-Year Cycling Improvement Plan.

32 AVENUE CONNECTOR CYCLING PROJECT

A memorandum, dated April 7, 2016 (Attachment D) provided Council with information

Provide and support community based leisure opportunities

32 AVENUE CONNECTOR CYCLING PROJECT

32 AVENUE CONNECTOR CYCLING PROJECT

32 AVENUE CONNECTOR CYCLING PROJECT

32 AVENUE CONNECTOR CYCLING PROJECT

Local residents will be notified of construction through newspaper advertising, Township

32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project Public Information Display Boards

32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project Public Information Questionnaire

September 3, 2013 Five-Year Cycling Improvement Plan Council Report

April 7, 2016 Memorandum to Council

June 23, 2016 Memorandum to Council

Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

Display boards contain:

i Seek public feedback

i Provide project background information

The objective of this session is to:

32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project

Welcome to the Public Information Session

Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

Municipal Town Centres concentrate services oriented to the needs of a

Aldergrove Core Area Plan

Aldergrove Community Plan

Township of Langley Plans and Policies

Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

Network Coverage/Connectivity: Cycling routes providing backbones of the

Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan

Township of Langley 2015 Cycling Plan

Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

Cycling Network Maps

Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project

Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project

Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project

Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project

On-Street Parking Implications

Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

32 Avenue Connector Cycling Project

Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

Public Information Session32 Ave Connector Cycling Project

Engineering Division, Township of Langley

Please fill out a feedback form before you leave or

Thank you for Attending the Public Info Session

Question 2: Please provide your comments.

I am in favor of the cycling lanes along 32 Ave.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 - REGULAR AFTERNOON MEETING

FIVE YEAR CYCLING IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Inventory existing cycling Infrastructure.

2013 Cycling Network and Infrastructure:

FIVE YEAR CYCLING IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Five Year Cycling Improvement Plan

general support the funding level increase.

FIVE YEAR CYCLING IMPROVEMENT PLAN

$55 million for 361 centreline kilometres of on-street routes.

The operations and maintenance cost has been estimated to be:

$1.2 million per year for the Ultimate Cycling Network.

The 2013 Cycling Network and Infrastructure maps (Attachment B).