Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'll admit that I spent most of those thirty minutes getting lunch, and the car was merely gone/towed by the time I left.

No, I'm saying ban all parking - one car whose driver is literally out to lunch shouldn't screw up everything behind it. A busway would likely also have to deal with right-turns (now cutting across from the lane beside them) and pedestrians.

i do think that whatever time "rush hour" starts, a 30min window before hand should be included i.e. 6:30-10:00, 2:30-7:00. that way it gives a buffer before the important time actually starts. it follows the same idea as, "want people to show up on time, tell them it starts 15mins earlier than it does."

i also think Broadway, when the bus-lane is in effect, should get advanced right turn arrows, before the movement of pedestrians, to help clear out right turners so that buses in their bus-lanes get a clearer path through.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by dpogue

This project is going to be super confusing for having a "Main Street station" and a "Granville station" that are not the existing Main Street or Granville stations.

Pretty sure they've seen the problem - for Main, it'll likely be something like Main-Broadway/Mount Pleasant, with the existing one turning into False Creek Flats.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Wait, first problem, single entrance points for all stations again???

Second point, does that cryptic remark regarding Cambie Station mean that it will have 2 entrance points (a new one plus existing Canada Line), or (very worryingly) they are adding no new entrance point and relying entirely on the existing entrance for the entire hub????

While we all hope Cambie gets two, I highly doubt GNW or Main will be any more crowded than (for example) Yaletown-Roundhouse. For those kinds of stations, four tiny entrances like New York or London's are prone to crowding even off-peak, and two big ones are mostly overkill.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i do think that whatever time "rush hour" starts, a 30min window before hand should be included i.e. 6:30-10:00, 2:30-7:00. that way it gives a buffer before the important time actually starts. it follows the same idea as, "want people to show up on time, tell them it starts 15mins earlier than it does."

i also think Broadway, when the bus-lane is in effect, should get advanced right turn arrows, before the movement of pedestrians, to help clear out right turners so that buses in their bus-lanes get a clearer path through.

With eight hours of the day blocked off, it seems easier for everybody involved to just not have parking. Ditto King Street in Toronto - with those kinds of rules, one might as well close it off to cars altogether.

Sure, but then you've got eight lights before yours comes back: buses, left turns, right turns, everybody else (rinse and repeat for cross-traffic), buses again.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i also think Broadway, when the bus-lane is in effect, should get advanced right turn arrows, before the movement of pedestrians, to help clear out right turners so that buses in their bus-lanes get a clearer path through.

That's not as much of a benefit as it might seem because right turns are permitted on a red light, and pedestrians have a delayed walk signal when oncoming traffic has the advance left turn. So there's already an opportunity for right turning cars to clear out of the lane.

It might be more effective to post the rightmost lanes as "right turn only except buses", since it would eliminate the problem of cars going straight sitting at the red light and blocking right-turning cars behind them from being able to take advantage of their ability to make their turn on a red light.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Perhaps a "scramble" intersection? Should eliminate the turning lane/pedestrian conflict altogether, albeit at the cost of one more light change for everybody.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That's not as much of a benefit as it might seem because right turns are permitted on a red light, and pedestrians have a delayed walk signal when oncoming traffic has the advance left turn. So there's already an opportunity for right turning cars to clear out of the lane.

It might be more effective to post the rightmost lanes as "right turn only except buses", since it would eliminate the problem of cars going straight sitting at the red light and blocking right-turning cars behind them from being able to take advantage of their ability to make their turn on a red light.

your idea is flawed because people wont be turning right at the same time someone is turning left since most people don't stay in their nearest lane like they should. so that means the advanced left, is only the advanced left. also, since there are no advanced arrows going right on most intersections, people are thick as bricks and sit there when they could go. when N/S has advanced left, E/W should get an advanced right, and vis-versa.

you aren't taking into account the human factor. without an actual light telling people they can do it, they more often then not, wont.

also, an advanced right could work like Howe & Georgia, only the pedestrians are slowed down. you wont get that happening with how things are, but if you really did want to clear out traffic/congestion that is what needs to be done. especially at intersections like Granville/Broadway, Cambie/Broadway. at the bare minimum. too many peds, too many cars, too many oblivious drivers.

also, i think all arterial streets should be No Stopping 6am-7pm, No Parking 7pm-6am. Mon-Sat, then No Stopping 10am-3pm Sun. i also think streets that are 6 lanes wide, should be painted to be 6 lanes. it is such a waste of space to have a 6-lane street, with only 2 lanes painted. that is crazy. it would literally only take paint in most cases.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree with you there. Hopefully I am wrong and they are using this as a chance to build a second entrance. ������

Sadly a closer look at that document reveals that it will indeed be the single existing entrance...

Seriously, this will be a hub station with 4 platforms on two individual lines and the building at the north west corner was designed to accommodate a station entrance. It really isn’t too much to ask for this hub to have 2 entrances kitty corner to each other.

I thought the new Translink CEO said they weren’t going to underbuild again? (As is they learned from the Canada Line). Yet we are now getting an LRT is Surrey that makes the Canada Line look gold plated and a subway hub with a single entrance with only 6 (7)? faregates?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Seriously, this will be a hub station with 4 platforms on two individual lines and the building at the north west corner was designed to accommodate a station entrance. It really isn’t too much to ask for this hub to have 2 entrances kitty corner to each other.

I am guessing it comes down to where do they put the actual entrance? Do they eat up sidewalk space? Do they expropriate land? Or do they convince one of the building owners to let them use some of their building? If so, will they let them have the space for free as a symbiotic relationship, or would they lease it to TransLink?

In Ottawa most of our downtown station entrances will be inside existing office buildings, but the city has not released details of the deal that was made to do so. I do know those buildings have been advertising that they will have a direct connection as a benefit to potential lessees though.

[WarrenC12]

I've walked by the future site of the "Great Northern Way" station a few times recently. Has anybody seen what that might look like? Having both a station and the direct transition from above ground to underground will be interesting. It doesn't make sense to have the station above ground (like Marine Dr for example) as there's nothing at higher levels of any interest, and there's no major roads to cross. Maybe the station itself will be ground level?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

your idea is flawed because people wont be turning right at the same time someone is turning left since most people don't stay in their nearest lane like they should.

(a) You are not seeing many of the same drivers I do,
(b) It's not JUST during the left turn phase that drivers can turn right, and
(c) If the rightmost lane is right turn only, then right turners won't delay people going straight through because they won't be in the same lane.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I've walked by the future site of the "Great Northern Way" station a few times recently. Has anybody seen what that might look like? Having both a station and the direct transition from above ground to underground will be interesting. It doesn't make sense to have the station above ground (like Marine Dr for example) as there's nothing at higher levels of any interest, and there's no major roads to cross. Maybe the station itself will be ground level?

If they do build the "Great Northern Way" station at grade then it will probably look like the Moody Station and or Sea Island Stations since both are at grade stations!

[scryer]

Okay this thread is going all over the place.

Building one entrance for Broadway City-Hall is a huge mistake. That is a no-brainer, it's under-building, etc.

There is only one saving grace for a single entry station that I can think of, and that would be building a hell of an underground pedestrian sorting network. I think that Translink is assuming that anyone arriving N/S to BCH station is arriving by the Canada Line and therefore they don't need to use the fare gates at the street entrance. I know I'm playing a little devil's advocate here but I am just trying to put together the reasons behind under-building this one station so that we can all write in to the government .

But yeah, building this mofo with one entrance is the definition of under-building.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

If they do build the "Great Northern Way" station at grade then it will probably look like the Moody Station and or Sea Island Stations since both are at grade stations!

Right but the station area is a transition from above ground to tunneled, all in a very small space. I assume they are going to demolish a few older buildings in the area, just curious.

Several houses were removed near Burquitlam to facilitate that process, and on the Port Moody side of the tunnel there wasn't much there already. This is a busier area.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am guessing it comes down to where do they put the actual entrance? Do they eat up sidewalk space? Do they expropriate land? Or do they convince one of the building owners to let them use some of their building? If so, will they let them have the space for free as a symbiotic relationship, or would they lease it to TransLink?

In Ottawa most of our downtown station entrances will be inside existing office buildings, but the city has not released details of the deal that was made to do so. I do know those buildings have been advertising that they will have a direct connection as a benefit to potential lessees though.

Thing is, there's a City-owned room at 507 West Broadway, and a vacant room in 510 West 8th (from back when they built the Canada Line) designed specifically for an interchange. True, it isn't really worth it for most other stations, but Cambie/Broadway is both an interchange and has enough space; there's literally no good argument to not having a second entrance other than the "one is safest" and "street interaction" garbage circulating around the various City Halls.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Thing is, there's a City-owned room at 507 West Broadway, and a vacant room in 510 West 8th (from back when they built the Canada Line) designed specifically for an interchange. True, it isn't really worth it for most other stations, but Cambie/Broadway is both an interchange and has enough space; there's literally no good argument to not having a second entrance other than the "one is safest" and "street interaction" garbage circulating around the various City Halls.

The easiest solution is to say that we will let you build an extra couple floors in return for building area in the ground floor for a skytrain station. Costs the city nothing and we get a nice new building purpose built for the skytrain with a bunch of commercial amenities (food court please!) and offices or rental condos on top. Its possible this will also offer a commercial parking lot for people to pay for parking and other bonuses such as increased security, included janitorial, etc.

New West did this very well above ground where they integrated the stations and the trains.

To a lesser extent Waterfront Station and VCC are well done too.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by misher

The easiest solution is to say that we will let you build an extra couple floors in return for building area in the ground floor for a skytrain station. Costs the city nothing and we get a nice new building purpose built for the skytrain with a bunch of commercial amenities (food court please!) and offices or rental condos on top. Its possible this will also offer a commercial parking lot for people to pay for parking and other bonuses such as increased security, included janitorial, etc.

New West did this very well above ground where they integrated the stations and the trains.

To a lesser extent Waterfront Station and VCC are well done too.

Yes, I love how New West made the station an actual destination. WE had a chance to do something like that with Broadway Commercial but only went halfway.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

...there's literally no good argument to not having a second entrance other than the "one is safest" and "street interaction" garbage circulating around the various City Halls.

I've never understand why a single access point is considered "safer". Surely in an emergency such as a fire or bomb the more exits the better. And in terms of personal safety, if there were a bunch of shifty looking creeps hanging around the only exit then I would surely being wishing for another one.

What am I missing?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I've never understand why a single access point is considered "safer". Surely in an emergency such as a fire or bomb the more exits the better. And in terms of personal safety, if there were a bunch of shifty looking creeps hanging around the only exit then I would surely being wishing for another one.

What am I missing?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that all the underground Canada Line stations do have at least a second exit for emergencies only.

But I get your point. I wish most of those emergency exits were public access, like at VCC and the one at 41st up to the East side of Cambie

[BCPhil]

Also, isn't it possible that in the scope of the RFP, the contractor isn't responsible for a dedicated entrance to the City Hall station, but there could always be a separate tender for a Canada Line "Station Improvement" to City Hall that adds another entrance, just to cut down on the sticker price for the new subway?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I've never understand why a single access point is considered "safer". Surely in an emergency such as a fire or bomb the more exits the better. And in terms of personal safety, if there were a bunch of shifty looking creeps hanging around the only exit then I would surely being wishing for another one.

What am I missing?

The idea is that one entrance means more eyes / flow concentrated at one point, discouraging crime.

This is wise at low flow stations but is not needed at heavier utilized stations, especially hubs.

Two entrances for a major hub (if not more) is standard, especially when below or above major intersection...

Look at Waterfront, Commercial-Broadway, Lougheed, even the underbuilt Bridgeport has a secondary entrance to the concourse level via the Casino / Parkade walkway.