Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Perhaps, but there isn't going to be any 'excavation' (aka Cut and Cover) because the city council has decreed no Cut and Cover tunnels ever again after the Cambie fiasco.

...except perhaps for University Boulevard. Though, that technically is outside the city boundaries.
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Document...0Line%20RT%20Study%20Design%20Guide.ashx

The RRT Alternative operates primarily in a bored tunnel with an elevated section between Great Northern Way and VCC- Clark Station to connect with the existing system. A section on University Boulevard is assumed to be cut and cover.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Perhaps, but there isn't going to be any 'excavation' (aka Cut and Cover) because the city council has decreed no Cut and Cover tunnels ever again after the Cambie fiasco.

The area talked about (the westren 'S' curved bit) is on the UEL so it is not subject to Vancouver bylaws. The path it follows is also on a very wide bolivard with a very wide median.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Old&New

I assumed following the street would make excavation easier, thus less costly... Would it not?

Yes, but the street that has been selected for this is Prince Edward Street (in line with the Great Northern Way station), which is 2 blocks to the east of what you have illustrated.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

...Once you're under 10th Ave, the station can be between Main St and Kingsway, with entrances from both Main and Kingsway sides....

Oh God please let them do this. More than the station length, the most unforgivable sin committed by the Canada Line IMHO is having only one lousy access point to most of the underground stations.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Oh God please let them do this. More than the station length, the most unforgivable sin committed by the Canada Line IMHO is having only one lousy access point to most of the underground stations.

The most egregious of these is the Vancouver City Centre station; that there is no direct access to Robson St. is unforgivable.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

The most egregious of these is the Vancouver City Centre station; that there is no direct access to Robson St. is unforgivable.

Budget cuts caused all of the Canada Line station fiascos (including the absence of a station at Nelson & Granville, a terrible oversight in my opinion). In the end, we may see the same fate for the Broadway Line, and the same sorts of compromises as a result. But I will be glad if it is built in any case.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by bardak

The area talked about (the westren 'S' curved bit) is on the UEL so it is not subject to Vancouver bylaws. The path it follows is also on a very wide bolivard with a very wide median.

UBC and UEL don't have to worry about NIMBYs and tight construction space under the Boulevard. It's their land to build whatever way they want.

I can see the station at Blanca being built right up to the properly line at 10th & Blanca so the TBM tunnels coming from Alma connect to the east side of the station and the cut 'n cover tunnels coming from UBC connect to the west side of the station.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Budget cuts caused all of the Canada Line station fiascos (including the absence of a station at Nelson & Granville, a terrible oversight in my opinion). In the end, we may see the same fate for the Broadway Line, and the same sorts of compromises as a result. But I will be glad if it is built in any case.

It was not budget issues that lead to the lack of entrances. Some of the project team were ideologically opposed to what they called "octopus stations" - stations with multiple entrances. This was a design mandate from the early days of the project, long before they were trying to penny pinch. Time to ensure that this does not happen with the Broadway Line.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

UBC and UEL don't have to worry about NIMBYs and tight construction space under the Boulevard. It's their land to build whatever way they want.

I can see the station at Blanca being built right up to the properly line at 10th & Blanca so the TBM tunnels coming from Alma connect to the east side of the station and the cut 'n cover tunnels coming from UBC connect to the west side of the station.

If the government takes the lead on the project (as they are doing on Evergreen Line) then the City of Vancouver's bylaw against cut & cover is not binding, is it?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by racc

Some of the project team were ideologically opposed to what they called "octopus stations" - stations with multiple entrances.

Good lord, really? Why on earth would they think that? Is there some issue with them of which I was previously unaware?

I grew up with Toronto subway stations which all seemed to be as convenient to access as you could possibly want, and it seems bizarre to me that anyone would purposefully think to design them otherwise.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by Zassk

If the government takes the lead on the project (as they are doing on Evergreen Line) then the City of Vancouver's bylaw against cut & cover is not binding, is it?

I don't think there's even an actual bylaw against cut and cover in Vancouver. That would be rather unheard of.

At the same time, the threat of class action lawsuits and vociferous opposition from the Broadway corridor merchants and residents like what happened to Cambie Street will make such a requirement de-facto mandatory, regardless of legal standing, and if not that then at the very least morally binding as the Broadway line also passes through the riding of the premier. =O

Originally Posted by racc

It was not budget issues that lead to the lack of entrances. Some of the project team were ideologically opposed to what they called "octopus stations" - stations with multiple entrances. This was a design mandate from the early days of the project, long before they were trying to penny pinch. Time to ensure that this does not happen with the Broadway Line.

Really? That's also new to me. At the same time, it makes some sense in that a single point of access is much easier to supervise for things like crowd control, fare evasion, and the opening and closing of the stations themselves. In comparison, some Expo Line stations have had their fire exits used to no end that TransLink never really checks them anymore in fact, like 29th Avenue Station, Metrotown Station, Columbia Station, Edmonds Station, and Broadway Station (before rebuild). Other stations that are just hard to police with multiple entrances are Granville Station, Main Street Station, Stadium Station, and Surrey Central Station. Not surprisingly, a lot of these stations are getting rather extensive retrofits at all of their entrances for the upcoming implementation of the Compass smart-cards.

Arguably, though, it'd still be very convenient if they did build multiple entrances up and down the Canada Line. Vancouver City Centre is high on the list (lack of connection to Robson, as you said), but there's also Aberdeen (entrance faces the mall but awkward bus stop placement behind the station entrance), Brighouse (no entrance to the north side residences), Lansdowne (no entrance facing the mall?), Marine Drive (no entrance towards Marine and Cambie), Oakridge (no entrance on north-east side despite empty gas station lot and wide boulevard), Broadway (inefficient transfers from westbound B-Line and Cambie bus), and Bridgeport (entrance faces bus loop and casino but doesn't face any potential developments along Garden City Road).

[racc]

^^^ Yep, they actually said this in the early RAV consultations. The main reason they gave is wanting the elevator access near the other access.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by racc

^^^ Yep, they actually said this in the early RAV consultations. The main reason they gave is wanting the elevator access near the other access.

I don't see how that's relevant. Existing stations with multiple access points still only provide one barrier-free access point - so it's not as if they'd require more elevators for more access points. And they're already required to do most of the work anyway to provide alternate emergency evacuation exits - why couldn't they have just widened those up a bit during construction to allow general use?

"Ideological argument" against multiple access points, particularly for some of the busiest stations, just sounds ridiculous to me.

[theho]

One thing to note about the difficulty of doing cut and cover along 10th ave is the VGH hospital complex. There are inter-building tunnels and all sort of hospital utility running under the road. I imagine it would be quite the logistical headache to dig around it all. Tunnelling presumably avoids that difficulty.

[twoNeurons]

I'd love to know what "idealogy" that is.

If you only provide one access point to control entrance, you ironically allow for multiple "illegal" entrances through emergency exits. Whereas if you provide for multiple "legal" entrances (think like Joyce station) you obviate the need for the metal emergency stairwells.

Faregates, ironically, will do LITTLE to stem the tide of determined fare evaders as the emergency stairwell leads right to the platform in many stations. These doors are continuously propped open.

Perhaps the idea behind having one entrance is to have a "grand" access or reduce the need for multiple fare machines. However, especially for stations which have a mezzanine, that can be taken care of with smart design.

Perhaps the ideological reason is that it's more expensive to make things work with multiple entrances.

[racc]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Perhaps the ideological reason is that it's more expensive to make things work with multiple entrances.

It was not cost. It was very early in the process. One concern was security at lightly used entrances but there are many solutions to that. I'm not even sure that this would be an issue at all on the Canada Line as it does not pass through high crime areas.

[TransitFreak]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I'd love to know what "idealogy" that is.

If you only provide one access point to control entrance, you ironically allow for multiple "illegal" entrances through emergency exits. Whereas if you provide for multiple "legal" entrances (think like Joyce station) you obviate the need for the metal emergency stairwells.

Faregates, ironically, will do LITTLE to stem the tide of determined fare evaders as the emergency stairwell leads right to the platform in many stations. These doors are continuously propped open.

Perhaps the idea behind having one entrance is to have a "grand" access or reduce the need for multiple fare machines. However, especially for stations which have a mezzanine, that can be taken care of with smart design.

Perhaps the ideological reason is that it's more expensive to make things work with multiple entrances.

As everyone alluded to, part of the early design process, through CPTED. Consensus among those surveyed was glass exterior, improved lighting, reduced barriers, and one common entrance, with a storefront presence (e.g. Jugo Juice) would provide a safer travel environment. Ironically, shorter platforms was also suggested, so that you weren't too isolated from the entry/exit point. All of this was considered in conjunction with provisions for faregates in the design of the Canada Line stations.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by TransitFreak

Consensus among those surveyed...

Ah, the general public designed the stations. Why are we paying the planners, then? What's the point of having expertise if we're not going to use it?

[Old&New]

So is it possible to realign the line from broadway to 10th Ave instead?

[TransitFreak]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Ah, the general public designed the stations. Why are we paying the planners, then? What's the point of having expertise if we're not going to use it?

Well...expertise told us that cut and cover would provide reliability regarding hitting construction deadlines, and the public/businesses were somewhat disappointed with that decision...

Also, off-topic, but to illustrate the point, expertise in the provincial government offered up the HST to promote economic growth and competitive balance within Canada for businesses, and the public too was somewhat disappointed with that decision...

Expertise is required for designing large projects like this, but if the public isn't given a voice in the matter (real or otherwise), it's hard for them to 'buy in' to the project, no matter how good the merits of the project/idea is..

Also, expertise tells us that $0.02 gas tax and $23 Property tax will provide Translink sustainable funding, but....you get my drift