expo line station review: needs and priority assessment

Expo Line Station Review:Needs and Priority Assessment

TransLink Planning DivisionMay 2007

2

Preface

The Expo Line Station Review is a high-level assess-ment of the needs and priorities at each of the Expo Stations. This report summarizes the evaluation of each station in terms of passenger access and move-ment, capacity, station environment and amenities, and integration with local community under current and future demands and offers an overview of the range of needs and potential improvements. The document is summary in nature and is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of station investment needs. Rather it is a beginning step in prioritizing investment to inform planning improvements at SkyTrain Stations. Following from this review, further technical work will be required to scope the improvements and address costing, phasing and prioritization.

3

01 IntroductionIntroductionPurpose and Scope of InquiryProcessEvaluation Method and Criteria

02 MethodPurpose and Scope of InquiryProcessEvaluation Method and Criteria

03 Station Evaluation Results Common Issues and FindingsHigh Volume StationsMedium Volume StationsLow Volume Stations

04 Summary of Findings

05 Next Steps

AppendixSummary Evaluation TableStation Evaluation TablesRidership GraphsMaps of Connecting Bus RoutesOrthographic Photos of Station Area

04

08

21

61

67

Contents

4

The Expo SkyTrain Line is the backbone and trunk line of Greater Vancouver’s rapid transit network. This line, from Downtown Vancouver to Surrey Centre, carries far more passengers than any other line in the network and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Fifty-f ve million people board the SkyTrain through Expo Line Stations each year. This study reviews the 20 Expo Line Stations as well as the SeaBus facilities on both sides of Burrard Inlet. The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the issues and opportunities at each station and provide recommendations on investment needs and priorities.

The report is structured into f ve main sections. The Introduction provides an overview of the context for this review. The Methods section sets out the purpose, scope, process of inquiry and the evaluation framework. The evaluation framework is structured into f ve catego-ries: basic station description, passenger access, passen-ger environment and amenity, capacity, and community integration.

The Station Evaluation Results are outlined in the third section. Common issues shared by all, or most, of the stations are f rst presented followed by a detailed analysis of each station, starting with the highest volume stations.

A summary of the f ndings and the prioritization of the stations is set out in the Discussion section. Finally, recommendations stemming from this study are outlined in the f fth section.

Background

The Expo Line opened in 1986 and was originally com-prised of 15 stations, connecting downtown Vancouver, Burnaby, and New Westminster. In 1990 SkyTrain was extended south of the Fraser River and the Columbia and Scott Road stations were added to the network. In 1994 SkyTrain arrived at Surrey City Centre with the opening of Gateway, Surrey Central, and King George stations.

In 2002 the rapid transit system was further expanded and the Expo Line was linked at Broadway and Colum-bia Stations to the Millennium Line. The SeaBus, which connects to the Expo Line at Waterfront Station, opened in 1977 and was the f rst link in the rapid transit net-work, pre-dating the Expo Line.

As the transit network continues to grow, particularly

01 Introduction

5

with expansion of rapid transit, the role of the Expo Line will become increasingly important. Building an inte-grated rapid transit system through the region will serve to increase the importance of the Expo Line. New lines do not diminish the demand on the trunk line; rather they expand demand.

Much has changed since the Expo Line opened in 1986. The population of the region has increased by more than a third in the last two decades and the economy has boomed. SkyTrain ridership has exceeded expecta-tions. Annual boardings on the Expo Line have more than doubled since the system was opened. Between 1996 and 2006 ridership grew by 31% and continues to increase at a rate faster than population growth. The original stations (Waterfront to New Westminster) are now over twenty years old. SkyTrain has had impor-tant success in shaping the areas around the stations. In the past twenty years growth and change around many of the stations, particularly Stadium, Main, Broadway,

and Metrotown, has been signif cant. As a result of changes in land use, population distribution as well as changes to the transit and transportation network, the roles and functions of certain stations have evolved. For example, Metrotown has grown into a major regional town centre with signif cant amounts of retail, off ce, and residential space and is a major transit hub. As a result of the growth around the stations and throughout the region, many of the stations experience passenger volumes that surpass their intended design. As such, congestion and crowding are issues at several of the stations and on the line overall. Increasing the number of vehicles helps address the overall system crowding but the benef t of investment in new trains is not fully realised due to the conf guration of some of the Expo Line stations.

When the Expo Line was developed, it was clear that the designers envisioned stations that provided more than a utilitarian transportation function. In 1984, the design-ers of the Expo Line set out the following principle in the Station Design Manual:

“Stations serve not only transportation needs; they also help a community establish a particular style, a standard of excellence, and a pride in its achievements. At their best, transit stations become focuses of community interaction and growth.”

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Historical Annual Expo Line Boardings

Average Daily Boardings

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Expo Canada (2010) Millennium toVCC

Evergreen(2011)

6

A transit station is much more than a transportation fa-cility, it is a public space. Designing successful stations involves drawing on urban design principles to create vibrant urban places and important community features, which will increase ridership by helping establish transit as a desirable mode. A transit station can be a place where people feel comfortable, safe, and relaxed. It can be a place that provides access to shops and services that are integral to our daily lives.

The original designers also understood that transit sta-tions should evolve and change over time and a principle objective was to use features in the station that were f exible and extensible. The stations, based on a “kit of parts” featured common elements to create a unif ed image across the system. As such, the stations share a common look and feel. The intention was also that the stations f t in with the local context and be easily main-tained and adapted.

These founding principles are strong but they have not been fully realised. While neighbourhoods have grown and usage patterns have changed, the stations them-selves have not evolved. They remain, with but a few exceptions, exactly as they did when f rst opened.

Over the past few years investment needs and opportu-nities have been identif ed at several of the Expo Line stations. Some of these projects have been initiated by TransLink, while others have been initiated by munici-palities or private developers.

TransLink Initiated Projects

• Two of the stations, Broadway and Surrey Cen-tral, are part of TransLink’s Urban Transportation Showcase Program’s Transit Villages project, with seed money from Transport Canada. In partner-ship with the municipalities, a Transit Village plan is being developed for each station area to create a neighbourhood that better embraces and capitalizes on the SkyTrain station. These plans are also ex-amining the design and function of the stations and recommending ways to enhance access, capacity, and passenger experience. These recommendations are summarized in this report.

• Transit Village plans are being developed for two additional stations in Burnaby, Metrotown and Edmonds.

• At Main Station, local area growth as well as recent changes to the bus network and relocation of the inter-city bus terminal have heightened the need to improve access, particularly from the east side. A planning study is currently underway to examine options for improvements at the station.

• The TransLink has been developing an “Access Transit” Plan to make sure that the transit system is accessible for as many people as possible, including those customers with physical, cognitive, or other mobility diff culties. The plan provides a number of recommendations for improving access and connec-tivity within and between its transit facilities.

The Expo Line study is related to a number of other initiatives currently underway, such as a planning study at Main Station that looks at options to improve access to the station.

7

• A Regional Wayf nding Study is underway to assess needs and develop a strategy for a comprehensive wayf nding system.

• Planning is underway to ensure that the regional transportation system can support the needs of Van-couver residents and visitors leading up to and during the 2010 Olympics and to maximize the positive legacies for the system from this event.

Municipally Initiated Projects

• The City of North Vancouver is proceeding with a Waterfront Development Project to revitalize the waterfront area at Lonsdale Quay, the bus exchange and the SeaBus terminal. TransLink has partnered with the City of North Vancouver on a conceptual design plan for improvements to the station.

Developer Initiated Projects

• In New Westminster a signif cant redevelopment is underway on sites surrounding New Westminster Station. Plans to integrate the station with retail development are being developed.

• In Surrey a large development adjacent to King George Station has spurred investigation into how the proposed development and the station can be integrated.

• There is a proposed development of a soccer stadi-um at the current location of the Waterfront Seabus station. If the development moves ahead Waterfront

station and passenger movements in the station area will be signif cantly altered.

The continued importance of the Expo Line as the trunk-line of the transit system, the past and continued growth in ridership, the land-use changes around the stations, and the variety of recent initiatives pertaining to the sta-tions has made clear the need for a systematic review of all the Expo Line stations. It is timely to evaluate each station in relation to the others and to assess the extent to which stations are meeting passenger needs. While some key stations will be clear priorities for improve-ment from TransLink’s perspective, development and municipally driven initiatives will create opportunities for synergies for improvement. This review provides an opportunity to systematically identify the needs and opportunities at Expo stations.

Joyce-Collingwood Station: A signif cant bus-train transfer point.

8

Purpose and Scope of Inquiry

This study reviews the 20 Expo Line Stations as well as the SeaBus facilities on both sides of the Burrard Inlet at Waterfront Station and Lonsdale Quay. The purpose of this assessment is to identify and evaluate the trans-portation needs and performance of the stations under both current and future conditions. Through this study, recommendations will be made on investment needs and priorities and additional technical study.

This study will identify, at a high level, ways in which the stations need to be upgraded to ensure that access, capacity and the passenger environment are optimized. Station operations, customer amenity and environ-ment, integration with transit services and facilities, and integration with the local area and community will be evaluated under existing conditions. Each station will also be evaluated in light of projected conditions based on growth forecasts for the areas that logically use the station, development plans and potential of the station area including municipal intentions for station area rede-velopment, and changes and growth in the overall transit network that may impact the station.

The detailed evaluation criteria used for this evalua-tion will be described in greater detail in a later section. However, the types of questions being considered in this study include:

• How do passengers move through the station and are these movements optimized?

• Are access points and routes easy to navigate and of suff cient capacity?

• Do stations meet accessibility standards and guidelines?• Is there convenient access for those with mobility

constraints or who cannot manage stairs?• Are there direct and suff cient linkages to nearby

destinations? • Is the time and effort required to transfer between

modes minimized? • Is it a comfortable and pleasant experience being in

the station? • What types of passenger amenities are offered?

The study is summary in nature and does not include a detailed proposal for each station. Cost estimates are only preliminary and will be ref ned as more detailed cost information becomes available. In addition to the station complexes, the evaluation looks at access to the station from the surrounding area and integration of the station with adjacent developments. However, the fo-cus of this review is primarily on the stations. Unlike the Transit Villages projects being undertaken through the Urban Transportation Showcase Program, the mandate of this study does not include an integrated assessment of the broader station area. The evaluation includes the overall convenience of connections to and passenger experience within adjoining bus facilities, where ap-plicable. The scope of the review does not include an evaluation of bus facility operations.

The evaluation looks at the station including the platform, access routes and TVM level and bus exchange as well as how the station relates to the surrounding community.

02 Method

9

Process

The Expo Line Station Review is an internal review, being led by the TransLink Planning Division. A working committee has been formed to provide direc-tion, support, and technical input on all aspects of this review. This committee is composed of representation from relevant stakeholders from across TransLink and subsidiaries.

Specif c activities of the committee have included:

• Conf rming the review process and study param-eters;

• Reviewing and providing input on evaluation criteria;

• Identifying information requirements and collecting and processing information within individual area of expertise;

• Reviewing & evaluating stations; • Identifying possible interventions and order of

magnitude costs;• Prioritizing stations for investment; and• Identifying further technical work required.

Input has also been received from staff from across TransLink and subsidiaries and the Cities of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and Surrey.

To establish a context for the analysis, related reports

and documentation were reviewed, such as the SkyTrain Attendants Focus Group report, the Transit Village Plans for Metrotown, Broadway-Commercial and Surrey Central stemming from the Showcase project and the Greater Vancouver ALRT Design Manual.

Data on the performance of each of the stations was col-lected through site visits and through consultation with TransLink and municipal planning staff.

Each station was assessed according to a framework comprised of several categories in which the stations would be evaluated. The station evaluations were then used to arrive at the recommendations and conclusions outlined in this report.

Evaluation Framework

This section describes the evaluation parameters and provides rationale for the criteria used to assess each of the Expo Line Stations. It will serve as a framework for the f ndings discussed in subsequent sections.

The evaluation framework and information collected for the review are grouped under f ve categories:

• Basic Description• Passenger Access• Passenger Environment and Amenity• Capacity• Community Integration

The evaluation looked at the role of the station in the network. For example, Burrard Station is a Metropolitan Core station serving the Central Business District.

10

With the exception of the basic description, the analysis under each of the above categories is classed according to a scale ranging from Very Good to Poor. A system of circles with varying degrees of shading has been used to classify each station on a four point scale, with the darkest circle indicating the poorest level of perfor-mance and an open circle denoting the highest level of performance. The exact meaning of each of these circles varies according to the category and is described later in this section.

BASIC STATION DESCRIPTION

The basic description of each of the stations compiles key station facts that offer an overview of the station and its function in the network and highlights the relative importance of each of the stations on the Expo Line.

Role in the Network

The stations play different roles in the regional trans-portation network. For this evaluation, the stations have been classif ed into f ve categories:

• Metropolitan Core: These are stations in the down-town peninsula.

• Regional Town Centres: Stations located in a major centres for jobs, housing, culture and recreation as identif ed by the Greater Vancouver Regional district’s Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) and municipal Off cial Community Plans.

• Municipal Town Centres: Local centre for jobs and housing as identif ed by the LRSP

• Major Hub: While all of the stations have connect-ing bus routes, several of the stations are major bus

The Expo Line (in red) in the context of the regional network. The dark circles indicate the relative passenger volumes at each station.

11

and intermodal hubs.• Local Neighbourhood Stations: stations serving

primarily lower density residential uses. In some cases a station may fall into more than one category. For example, Waterfront station acts as both a Core station and a Hub. These cases have been noted in the analysis.

Passenger Activity

The total passenger activity for each station is def ned as the number of people entering the station (boardings) and the number of people exiting the station (alightings). The data is presented for average weekday passenger activity between 6am and 2am . This data was collected through passenger count surveys completed in 2003 and 2005. All stations were surveyed in 2003. In 2005 data was collected at eight of the stations and f gures for the remaining twelve stations are based on the 2003 counts and adjusted to estimate 2005 ridership levels.

Estimating passenger activity for 2021 at each of the stations presents challenges. The EMME model da-

tabase that is used to forecast future activity on roads and transit infrastructure provides forecasts at the line or network scale, however is not sensitive enough to provide an accurate projection of growth on a station by station level.

The EMME model forecasts for the Expo Line take into account growth on the system due to general population and employment growth as well as growth due to overall transit network changes. It is projected that ridership on the Expo Line will grow by 30% by 2021.

To determine 2021 estimates for individual stations the 30% growth factor was applied to the 2005 pas-senger count data. Each station was then assessed as to whether growth would be below, at, or above the 30% system average. Two main factors were consid-ered in this analysis of the expected ridership increase at each station. First, changes in the transit network and second, land use changes. Anticipated changes in the role of each station in the regional transit network as well as changes to the bus services connecting at the station were reviewed. Staff at the Cities of Vancouver,

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Gateway*

Patterson*

Royal Oak*

Nanaimo*

29th Ave*

King George*

22nd Street*

Columbia

Scott Road*

Edmonds*

Stadium*

New Westminster*

Surrey Central

Waterfront*

Joyce

Main

Burrard

Granville

Metrotown

Broadway

2005 Station Volume

Minimum Projected Growth

Possible Projected Growth

Expo Line Station Volumes2005 Sum of Boardings, Alightings, and TransfersProjections for 2021

* 2005 estimates are derived from data collected in 2003

12

Burnaby, New Westminster and Surrey provided input on the land use changes, development and population growth expected in the station area. This forecasting method allows us to arrive at ballpark projections of 2021 volumes.

The stations were then grouped into three categories of passenger volume increase.

• Signf cant growth: Greater than 10,000 more total boardings and alightings per day.

• Medium growth: Between 5-10,000 more total boardings and alightings per day.

• Low growth: less than 5,000 more total boardings and alightings per day.

Raw numbers are used rather than percentages because a smaller percentage increase at a large volume station represents far more people than a larger percentage increase at a lower volume station.

Bus Volumes at Station

The number of buses departing from the station within 24 hours indicates the importance of bus activity at this station. This f gure is also a proxy for the total number of passengers connecting between buses or to SkyTrain.

Planned Station Upgrades

The basic description of each station also indicates

whether a plan is currently being developed for each sta-tion and/or whether upgrades are budgeted or complet-ed. For example, recently, a number of the stations have been examined under different TransLink processes. Broadway/Commercial, Metrotown, Edmonds, and Sur-rey Central are all part of the Transit Village components of the Urban Transportation Showcase. Through this project, Transit Village plans are being developed for the station and local neighbourhood.

Main Station has long been identif ed in TransLink plans as a priority for access improvements. There are also stations, such as King George and New Westminster, that are under functional review because of proposed development adjacent to the station or because the area has become a municipal priority for change. In these cases, TransLink staff has been working with developers and municipalities to ensure plans maximize benef t to the station. There may be an opportunity to coordinate station improvements identif ed through this review with processes and projects already underway and vice versa.

PASSENGER ACCESS

The nature of passenger access in a station determines how people get to and from the platform. Within the category of passenger access, there are three compo-nents, Elevators, Escalators and Passenger Movement.

The evaluation looked, not just at the availability of elevators and escalators, but also at the quality of access.

A plan for Surrey Central is be-ing developed through the Ur-ban Transportation Showcase.

13

The directness and convenience of routes to and from the station for wheelchair users or those who cannot otherwise manage stairs, will have a major impact on accessibility. Additionally, small-scale features of the stations such as entrances, f oor surfaces and hand rails determine how easily passengers with visual or mobility impairments can move through the stations. Although the objective of this review is not to undertake a detailed accessibility analysis, signif cant limitations to acces-sibility are noted.

Elevators

Elevator access is an important component of acces-sibility for people not able to manage stairs, such as wheelchair users or people with strollers. Availability of elevators has been classed from very good to poor based on the level of convenience of access to elevators going from the ground plane to the platform, with very good

indicating convenient access via a singular elevator and poor indicating the lack of functional elevator access. Evaluation criteria are found in the box below.

There are other qualitative aspects of elevator provision that determine the level of access. Factors such as speed, location, transparency, size, and directness (i.e. are two elevators required) contribute to whether the elevator is easy and comfortable to use. These factors were also taken into account in the analysis.

Escalators

Escalators provide convenient and manageable access from the ground plane to the platform (and vice versa) for the majority of users. Many people unable to navigate stairs are able to use an escalator, such as the elderly, persons with diff culty walking, and passengers with small children or heavy items. The standards outlined in the Station Design Manual used to develop the Expo Stations indicate that an escalator should be the primary circulation element in the up direction for any vertical rise of three metres or more. According to these same guidelines, down escalators should be provided for a ver-tical change of eight metres or more. The guidelines set minimum standards. However, for many people walking down stairs is as diff cult as walking up stairs. Therefore, ascending and descending escalators are desirable wher-ever viable; At lower volume stations the cost of installing a descending escalator may not be justif ed relative to other investment needs. For the purposes of this review,

Escalators provide conve-nient access from the ground plane to the platform for most passengers.

Evaluation Criteria: Elevator Access

Very Good: Access via a single elevator in a convenient location.Good: Requires more than one elevator.Functional: Access is provided but is incon-venient or in a poor location.Poor: No functional elevator access is provided

14

the optimal standard for escalator provision is provision of ascending and descending escalators to inbound and outbound trains. At high volume stations, it is desirable to have an escalator wide enough to accommodate pass-ing, to assure convenient access to the station.

The availability of ascending and descending elevators is assessed for both the primary and secondary station entrances. Escalator access is evaluated on a four point scale with very good indicating continuous ascending and descending escalators to inbound and outbound trains and poor indicating no continuous ascending or descending escalators.

Passenger Movement Within the Station

An important measure of the quality of passenger ac-cess is the directness of the route passengers take when moving within the station, including transfers between trains or between modes. Transfers are a signif cant

disincentive to taking transit, introducing disruption for passengers. It has been shown that passengers associate a time-penalty when a transfer is introduced. Therefore, when transfers are required, minimizing the time and effort it takes to transfer between modes or trains can mitigate negative perceptions regarding transferring and transit in general.

Every station and its context are different; as a result, specif c standards are not set out for passenger move-ment. Rather, at each station the question is asked whether movement within the station are as easy and as quick as possible. Are there impediments to movement, such as interference with TVM lines, or the positioning of retail uses? Is the bus exchange well integrated with the station? Is it obvious where to catch the bus and is the path there convenient? Does the bus exchange design minimize conf ict between buses and transferring passengers? Does the design minimize conf ict between bus queues and other passengers? The benchmark is whether the transfer disruption for passengers has been minimized or if there are changes that could ease trans-fers. The four point scale was used with poor indicating signif cant conf icts in passenger movement within the station and/or indirect or inconvenient transfers between trains and the bus and very good indicating direct and convenient passenger movements and transfers.

PASSENGER ENVIRONMENT AND AMENITY

The passenger environment and level of amenity has a

VCC-Clark Station: Il-lustrates how transparency allows for natural light and brighter station environment

Evaluation Criteria: Escalator Access

Very Good: Continuous ascending & descend-ing escalators to inbound & outbound trainsGood: Continuous ascending escalators to inbound & outbound trainsFunctional: Continuous ascending escalator to only one platform (split platform stations only)Poor: No continuous ascending or descending escalator access

15

major impact on the attractiveness of transit. Stations should be designed to be comfortable, positive and inviting. The evaluation of passenger environment and amenity has three components: the station environment, the bus exchange and the level of amenity provision at each of the stations. Station Environment

Transit stations that are designed to be pleasant and safe, are necessary to create a positive passenger experience and ultimately to increase transit mode share. Many of the new Millennium Line stations demonstrate that it is possible to create transit stations that are comfortable, attractive, and generally pleasant places. The evalua-tion of the quality of place was rooted in a number of questions: • Do the station aesthetics create a positive image?• Are the station furniture and building materials at-

tractive and of a high quality?• Is the station infrastructure such as furniture, pas-

senger information boards, stairs, station walls and facade in good repair?

Poorly maintained facilities create an environment of neglect and detract from the passenger experience. The quality of lighting also shapes the station environment. Bright and direct artif cial lighting can create a harsh and unfriendly environment. Opportunities for indirect and natural light should be maximized.

The level of transparency can have a signif cant impact

on the passenger environment. The use of transparent materials (e.g. glass) and/or an open station design can enhance the passenger environment while also improv-ing the functionality of a station. For stations at grade or above ground transparent design allows for greater natural light and views. This can help create a sense of openness and connection to the local neighbourhood. In all stations, transparency contributes to personal security by enhancing sightlines, increasing “natural surveillance”, and making passengers feel less vulner-able. Transparency also greatly improves wayf nding by increasing the visibility of the path to key destinations and transfer points. When people can easily see through to where they are going they are less reliant on signage.

Bus Exchange Environment

Many SkyTrain passengers arrive or depart the station via bus, especially at the stations outside of the down-town core. Nobody likes to wait for the bus. Providing a quality, comfortable facility where passengers wait for their bus connection contributes to a positive transit experience helping to retain passengers and attract new riders.

To evaluate the environment of the bus exchange or on-street stops adjacent to the station a number of questions were asked including: Is the waiting area comfortable and pleasant? Is the area protected from wind, rain, and the summer sun? Are there adequate places to sit? Is the exchange well-connected to the station?

Transit station in Copenhagen illus-trates clear and consistent display of passenger information

16

Station Information and Amenities

The level of provision of passenger information and amenities such as retail units, bicycle storage, tele-phones, and public toilets, impacts a station’s function-ality and convenience. The evaluation of the level of information and amenity provided at each of the Expo stations looked at the following areas: • Wayf nding, a broad term covering how people f nd

their way to a destination, is a system of signage and other visual clues to enable navigation of an area. Transit stations present a number of way-f nding problems: passengers must f nd the station entrances from the street, determine which platform to go to and which side to stand on, f nd the elevator or escalator if they have mobility diff culties, how to transfer from the train between trains or between modes, and f nd the appropriate station exit for a desired destination. The quality of wayf nding and passenger information in the station area has a great impact on the ease with which passengers can navi-gate the transit stations.

• Related to wayf nding is the provision of informa-tion for passengers. This includes schedule informa-tion – both real time and published, system and area maps, fare information, bus connection information, information about local amenities and the communi-ty. The purpose of providing information is to equip customers with the knowledge they need to help them use the transit system to their best advantage.

The priority is to provide functional information that passengers can readily understand and apply, for example: number of minutes until the next train, next bus, time of the last train/bus, how long their trip will take, service disruptions, fare and payment options, system and local area maps, etc. Other “value added” information can serve to enhance the passenger experience such as news and weather, description of a public art installation.

• Suff cient and conveniently located Ticket Vend-ing Machines (TVMs) are necessary to assure that passengers can easily purchase fare to board at the stations.

• Secure, sheltered bicycle facilities provide a place for people to leave their bikes and encourage people to integrate cycling and transit in their trip patterns. They should be easy to use, located for convenient access, secure, well-lit, clearly marked and pro-tected from the weather. At a minimum suff cient, solid, and sheltered bike racks should be provided. At larger stations a bicycle storage room or lockers could be incorporated into the station.

• Retail units providing convenience stores, food outlets, coffee shops, dry cleaners, drug stores, or bank machines, enable passengers to accomplish a quick errand or get a bite to eat while they are en route. Transit becomes more convenient and desir-able when it is easy to do some quick shopping on the way home.

• Other desirable amenities include telephones, toilets and adequate seating.

The use of natural materials and indirect lighting, as seen in this Millennium Line station, can create a positive passen-ger environment.

17

Stations were evaluated on a four point scale with poor indicating signif cant def ciencies in even basic informa-tion and amenities such as bicycle storage or wayf nd-ing and very good indicating the full provision of basic amenities as well as some value-added features such as ATMs, retail units or covered bicycle shelters.

CAPACITY

Adequate capacity of the platform, access routes, TVM level and bus stops is important for ensuring eff cient passenger movement and positive passenger experience in the station.

Platform Capacity

The station platforms have similar structure and dimen-sions. It is only at a few of the busiest stations that the volumes on the station platform can be problematic. In these stations, platform crowding occurs at the peak of the peak hour; when system delays occur, these stations experience a backlog. Most stations experience volumes far below those at the busiest stations, such that platform capacity is unlikely to be an issue at the majority of Expo stations for the foreseeable future.

Platform capacity was evaluated according to the level of crowding currently experienced during peak and off-peak hours and whether measures to either increase capacity or, where possible, better distribute passenger

load along the platform will be needed in the short, medium or long term.

Access Route Capacity

Thousands of people move through the stations each day and the escalators, stairwells, walkways, and elevators must have suff cient capacity to comfortably, eff ciently, and safely accommodate these passengers. Passenger volumes are not evenly distributed throughout the day – the station must be designed to handle the demand on the station during the busiest hour.

The capacity of the station access routes is assessed in terms of whether there is suff cient capacity under current passenger volumes or whether there is over-crowding and congestion in getting in and out of the station and on and off the platforms. As the stations are designed to a uniform standard the access routes gener-ally have the same dimensions and comparisons can be made.

TVM or Mezzanine Level Capacity

At most stations ticket vending machines are located either at the entrance level, or on an intermediary mez-zanine level. In busy times passengers queuing to use the TVMs can block the passageway for people trying to get to or from the platform. This evaluation looked at whether there is suff cient space around the TVMs to allow for eff cient passenger movement through the

Commercial Station: Retail within the station area can create better community integration.

18

mezzanine level.

Bus Exchange/Stops Capacity

There must be adequate space in the areas where pas-sengers wait for buses in order to ensure movement of passengers and other pedestrians through the area. Ensuring suff cient space also contributes to making pas-sengers comfortable which is especially important as the wait for buses is, on average, longer than the wait for the SkyTrain.

The box below describes the scale used to classify the capacity on the platform, on access routes, on the TVM or mezzanine level and also at the bus waiting areas.

At the two busiest stations (Broadway and Metrotown) a level of service analysis of pedestrian activity was un-dertaken of the platform and access routes to determine whether the stations meet expectations under existing conditions. TransLink’s Transit Infrastructure Design Guidelines set out Level of Service C as the recom-mended design capacity and D is tolerated only for short bulk arrivals. The Guidelines state that design pedestrian volume should be based on the most critical period when the maximum pedestrian f ow rate occurs.

COMMUNITY INTEGRATION

The interface between the neighbourhood and the station has a direct impact on passenger experience and func-

tion of the station and affects the attractiveness of taking transit. The connection between the station and the surrounding area affects the ease with which passengers arrive at the station and the extent to which the station is a positive neighbourhood feature. When a station is integrated with the neighbouring development, there is opportunity to create positive street activity, contributing to the vitality and security of the area. As a prominent physical structure that can have a signif cant visual impact on the surrounding community, the architectural design of the station should allow the station to form part of the neighbourhood fabric. Community integra-tion can be enhanced through both physical and visual connections. The design of the station should relate to the adjacent development and vice versa. Community integration also refers to how the station relates to other transportation facilities (e.g. cycling facilities, side-walks). Passengers arrive and depart transit stations in a number of ways: bus, foot, bike etc. Connections between the station and the surrounding area should be

Evaluation Criteria- Capacity

Very Good: No signif cant crowding. Good: Crowding may occur in peak hours; it does not interfere with station functioning. Functional: Signif cant and regular crowding in peak hours. Poor: Insuff cient under current conditions. Se-vere congestion can occur leading to back up.

19

clearly evident and of a high quality.

The quality and extent to which the station and the sur-rounding community are integrated was evaluated on three broad parameters and classed on a scale from very good to poor. First, there should be direct and convenient routes and paths along key desire lines connecting to nearby desti-nations. Routing should be simple and straightforward not circuitous. The focus of this aspect of the evaluation was on whether such connections exist.

Second, the paths, sidewalks, and crosswalks should be built to a high standard. The quality of the paths leading to the station will have a signif cant impact on the con-venience of using transit as well as the accessibility of the station. When paths are built to a high standard, pas-sengers should be able to navigate seemlessly from the surrounding neighbourhood to the station. Connections should be paved, well-marked, suff ciently wide, and landscaped to suit the context. The focus of this aspect of the evaluation was on the quality of the connection.

Third, the station should be well integrated with adjacent land uses. The station should open to adjacent develop-ments and not ‘turn its back’. Likewise, buildings and places that are next to the station should be oriented towards the station. Blank walls abutting the station are an extreme example of a lack of integration. The focus on this aspect of the evaluation is on how the station building relates to adjacent development.

Safety and Security

Station design affects the real and perceived feelings of safety and security which in turn have an important impact on passenger experience. If the area is poorly lit or lacking appropriate surveillance, transferring between modes or waiting for the bus or train can leave passen-gers feeling vulnerable, particularly at night or at times when few people are around.

The principles of Crime Prevention Through Environ-mental Design (CPTED) were used to assess whether the design of the stations, including the bus loop, en-trances and platforms, enhance or detract from personal

Safety and Security Evaluation Criteria

Very Good: High levels of natural surveillance throughout the station and station area. Positive station image with clear hierarchy of space in the station area. Good: High levels of natural surveillance through most of the station; absence of problem areas such as indefensible ‘nooks and crannies’. Functional: No signif cant ‘problem areas’ but natural surveillance may be notably diminished in some areas. Poor: Signif cant ‘problem areas’ with limited natural surveillance.

Transit stations should be designed to maximize sightlines and minimize secluded areas and blind spots

20

security. An area can be designed to reduce opportuni-ties for crime by maximizing the visibility of activities within the station. The primary focus of the CPTED evaluation was whether the station was designed to foster high levels of natural surveillance. Are there good sightlines within the station and between the street and the station? Are there secluded areas and blind spots, recesses and other places where people can hide? Is the elevator located within sight of other passengers? Does the lighting contribute to a sense of security? Is passen-ger activity distributed through the facility to allow for natural surveillance? Are waiting facilities located so that passengers can see and be seen by other passengers and staff? Is visibility maximized through transparent building materials?

The assessment also looked at whether the design and

Summary: Expo Review Evaluation Framework

1. Passenger Access

2. Passenger Environment & Amenity

3. Capacity 4. Community Integration

• Elevators • Station Environment

• Platform • Presence of connections

• Escalators • Bus waiting area

• Access routes

• Quality of connections

• Passenger movements/transfers

• Provision of amenities

• TVM level • Relation to adjacent community

• Accessibility • Safety and Security

image of the station discourages unacceptable activity in the station area. A well-maintained station shows that the station is cared for and can discourage crime. Clear delineations between the station and surrounding area enhance the perception that the station is a secure area and can increase passenger vigilance over activities in the area.

21

TransLink’s Access Transit initiative, which assesses barriers to access and mobility for those with disabili-ties and identif es steps to remove those barriers, has identif ed a range of accessibility related needs pres-ent at Expo Line Stations. While this review does not represent a detailed accessibility assessment it warrants mentioning several of the barriers present at the Expo Stations: • Inconsistent provision of tactile strips at the platform

level and coloured striping on the stairs for those with visual impairments.

• Handrails are frequently too low and not adequately provided. For example at Burrard Station the hand rail is only provided on one side of the stairs. At Granville Station at the platform level, the hand rail does not extend fully around the corner.

• Circuitous access routes to and from the platform for wheelchair users and others requiring use of an elevator. Accessible routes to the station are frequently not clear.

• Some stations have ramp slopes that are too steep (e.g. Scott Road).

• Curb ramps may be inconsistently provided (e.g. Metrotown).

Elevators and Escalator Provision

The elevators at the stations are slow and, in some sta-tions, not large enough to handle the demand or incon-veniently located. For example, at Metrotown Station it is commonplace for queues to develop as people wait

This section provides a summary of the evaluation of each of the stations. Many of the Expo stations have a similar design and as a result, there are a number of f nd-ings that are common to all the stations. The common f ndings will be discussed f rst according to the main categories of analysis identif ed in the previous section: Passenger Access, Passenger Environment and Amenity, Capacity and Community Integration. Discussion of the needs and opportunities at each station follows, from the busiest station to the least busy. For brevity, in most cases the station by station analysis will not restate the common issues and f ndings.

Supporting documents including the evaluation spread-sheets for each station, and the passenger activity analysis are found in the Appendix A. The results for all stations have also been synthesized in Table 3.1 on page 26 to allow for ease of comparison.

Common Issues and Findings

PASSENGER ACCESS

Accessibility

TransLink has been recognized for providing a high level of accessibility compared to other transit systems, however there remain aspects of station accessibility that should be improved. There are a number of barriers that are shared by many of the Expo Line stations that pre-vent the full use of the system by those with disabilities.

03 Station Evaluation Results

22

for the elevator and often times the elevator is not large enough to f t everyone waiting. The elevators are also dark and enclosed and therefore vulnerable to inappro-priate use or vandalism.

Due to cutbacks in scope and budget that took place when the stations were built, escalator provision is not consistent across the system. Ascending escalators are generally provided, but not in all situations. For ex-ample, many of the split platform stations only have upwards escalators to the inbound platform. With the expansion of reverse commuting, there is increased need for ascending escalators to both platforms. There are only a few instances of descending escalators.

Potential Improvements: Passenger Access

• In coordination with the Access Transit initiative, in-clude accessibility upgrades in station renovations. Pursue small-scale accessibility improvements such as coloured and/or tactile surfaces on the platform and stairs. Identify longer-term strategy to improve the overall accessibility of Expo Stations, including coordinating with municipalities to pursue accessi-bility improvements in the station area.

• Upgrade of elevators: Options to increase the speed, replace and/or relocate the elevators should be ex-plored. A transparent material for the elevator and elevator shaft should be considered.

PASSENGER ENVIRONMENT AND AMENITY

Transparency

There is a lack of transparency at most of the Expo Line stations. This is particularly evident when you contrast these stations with the Millennium Line stations which use glass and open design to create a bright, open and inviting station environment. In the Expo stations the building materials are predominantly opaque which interferes with sightlines and natural wayf nding, dimin-ishes the natural light within the stations (at both the platform and the street level) and breaks the connection with the local environment.

The solid elevator banks are problematic in several ways. In many of the centre platform stations, for ex-ample at Broadway Station, the elevator creates a barrier in the middle of the platform that blocks sightlines and creates blind corners. It also narrows the platform and creates an obstacle passengers must walk around. The lack of transparent materials means passengers cannot see into or out of the elevators decreasing the actual and perceived level of personal security.

The use of painted steel mesh screens for station house enclosures and at the mezzanine and platform levels is a common feature in the Expo Line Stations. When the stations were constructed, the mesh was used to pro-vide greater transparency than a solid building mate-rial. However, compared to glazing used in the newer stations, it obstructs views, diminishes natural light and

Metrotown Station: Small elevators result in pas-senger queues. Opaque elevator banks limit visibility

23

creates a cage-like feel that detracts from actual and perceived safety. For example, at 22nd Street station the metal screening on the platform obscures expansive views of the region. At Main Station the conf guration and building materials prevent a direct visual connection between the mezzanine and the southbound bus stop.

Weather Protection

Passengers are afforded inadequate protection from the elements at many Expo Line stations. Many bus bays lack shelters. Some shelters are constructed of metal mesh or have no back, providing inadequate horizontal weather protection from wind and rain. At some stations the positioning of the bus bay relative to the shelter makes it diff cult for passengers to both queue and remain protected from the weather. Bus exchanges have the need for greater waiting space and in some cases a conventional bus shelter leaves many waiting passen-gers exposed to the elements. A more extended canopy may be needed to provide adequate coverage and make passengers feel more comfortable. For bus exchanges positioned underneath the guideway, such as Joyce sta-tion, water from the guideway often drips onto passen-gers creating a negative passenger experience.

Wayf nding

Wayf nding at the Expo Line stations is generally poor. This is particularly true at Burrard, Granville, and Wa-terfront, underground stations which are inherently less

visible and but yet are used frequently by tourists and other casual users as well as Columbia where transfers create more complex passenger movements. There is minimal signage and/or the signs are diff cult to see. For example, at Granville Station the sign for the Granville Mall entrance is obscured by two commercial signs.

There are also wayf nding problems within stations. For example, at Metrotown the Platform LED displays are too far away from the entrance to be read so passengers are unable to tell if the eastbound train is a Millennium Line or Expo Line train. At Broadway, the signage does not adequately direct people to the bus connections.

Other issues with signage include inconsistent standards, out of date information and signs that do not account for the needs of people with visual or other disabilities. The Access Transit project has identif ed a range of passenger information and wayf nding needs in order to enhance the accessibility of the system, including increasing the on-street signage, enhancing the visibility of the station, offering more detailed information about accessibility services at the station, providing more information about the station area and more visual and tactile information about the location of particular bus routes.

Passenger information

The amount of information provided to passengers at the Expo Line stations is sparse. Where information is

Stand-alone bus shelters at Joyce Station

24

provided it tends to be diff cult to locate and decipher. There is no uniform structure for information provision, such as design and location of displays. Maps, includ-ing bus stop placement, local area, and system maps, are diff cult to understand for those not familiar with the station and station area and are out of date at some locations.

Schedule information, either static or real time, is gener-ally not provided. A passenger cannot f nd out how long it will take to get from one station to another. Simple details like this can greatly enhance the passenger experience by, for example, letting them know whether the next train will arrive soon enough to make a bus connection at another station or enabling passengers to call ahead and let someone know at what time they will arrive at their destination station.

Architectural Quality and Station Aesthetics

The station aesthetics and architectural quality of a station inf uence whether transit is viewed as a safe, convenient and desirable mode of travel. The Expo Line stations were built to a functional level and aesthetics were not afforded a high priority. The architecture is closed and utilitarian and does not integrate well with the surrounding area. Now, at twenty years old, many stations have a “rough around the edges” appearance. The stations, particularly when contrasted to the Millen-nium Line stations, feel old and dark. Amenities

Station amenities include benches, garbage recep-tacles, information boards, telephones, water fountains, newspaper boxes, cycling facilities and washrooms. The amenities at the stations are dated and in some cases maintenance is an issue.

Cycling facilities are inconsistently provided and often appear to be an afterthought. Bicycle parking is often insuff cient, not secure and unprotected from the weather. Although the Expo Line is located along the B.C Parkway, a regional cycling route, connections and wayf nding to nearby cycling routes are not evident.

While washrooms are available at most of the stations they are only available to the public upon request and the majority of passengers are not aware this option ex-ists and there may not be personnel immediately avail-able to open them. The provision of a public washroom was identif ed as an important amenity through the Showcase Transit Village project at Broadway/Commer-cial. Cost and security present barriers to the installation of public washrooms. However the City of Vancouver is considering self-cleaning public washrooms at this location.

The provision of retail at the stations is also considered an amenity. Ten of the twenty stations have commercial retail units built into the stations or integrated into a development with adjacent commercial units. Oppor-tunities exist to upgrade and expand the existing retail

Royal Oak Station: Solid, uninteresting building materials and minimal sta-tion furniture create a bleak station aesthetic

25

units and to incorporate retail into those stations that do not currently have any retail space. TransLink staff is currently working with BCRTC staff to expand the role of retail at Expo Line stations.

Potential Improvements: Passenger Environment and Amenity

• Replace the metal screens with clear glazing. In addition to improving the passenger environment, glass panels will also reduce the noise impact of the station on the surrounding neighbourhoods. Therefore, the new glass panels may be prioritized in stations with nearby residential, such as Joyce Station.

• Improve wayf nding system and passenger informa-tion to increase the convenience of service connec-tions and enhance the visibility of station accesses.

• Update station furniture such as benches, informa-tion boards, clocks and garbage cans.

• Assess and develop bicycle facility standards that address the quantity, quality and placement of bicycle storage as well as wayf nding to nearby cycling routes. A framework is needed to assure a high standard of cycling facility provision across the network.

• Improve weather protection to assure consistent shelter from the elements at all stations.

• Upgrade lighting to allow for greater indirect and natural light.

• Maintenance and station infrastructure standards

should be developed to assure that aging station amenities are maintained and/or replaced. This initiative would build on the 2002 Transit Infra-structure Design Guidelines for bus facilities. The adequacy of the maintenance budget should also be evaluated.

CAPACITY

The Expo stations have similar structure and dimen-sions. Overall, the evaluation revealed that most sta-tions have suff cient capacity; crowding may occur in some areas during the peak hours but does not interfere with station functioning. Several of the busiest stations (e.g. Broadway, Metrotown) do experience capacity constraints. Level of Service analysis of the stairs, escalators, elevators, and passerelles at Broadway and Metrotown Stations revealed that the level of service for pedestrian activity is at level E or F, under normal conditions during the peak periods. The platforms also experience levels of service of E and F. When there is a delay in the system and train intervals are longer than normal the platform crowding can become extreme.

This does not meet TransLink’s Transit Infrastructure Design Guidelines which set out Level of Service C as the recommended design capacity and D is tolerated only for short bulk arrivals. The Guidelines state that design pedestrian volume should be based on the most critical period when the maximum pedestrian f ow rate occurs.

Nanaimo Station: The painted metal caging seen here typif es the materials used for building facades at Expo Line Stations.

26

Even at the busiest stations, platform capacity con-straints primarily result from an unbalanced distribution of the volume along the platform due to the conf gura-tion of platform access points, rather than insuff cient platform capacity. Meaning, while the end of the platform with the primary exit/entrance experiences Level of Service F, the other end of the platform may be relatively empty. In these cases, platform crowding may be mitigated through efforts to redistribute the passenger load along the platform, by opening up another entrance, for example. The increasing use of longer trains may also help use the existing platform capacity.

Another factor for poor distribution along the platform is that the roof does not extend the full length of the platform. As a result, parts of the waiting area are not weather protected. The sections of platform without a roof also collect snow, detracting from the convenience and accessibility of the platform. With the greater use of longer trains planned for 2009, passengers will be able to board and unload along the full length of the platform. The full platform area will need to be used in order to maximize use of the longer trains. This is a greater issue at high volume stations such as Metrotown and Broadway where use of the full length of the plat-form is needed. At 29th Avenue Station passengers must pass through the roof ess area when going to or coming from the covered walkway that connects the east and west side of the guideway. As a result the uncov-ered area is also problematic here.

At some stations with centre-loaded platforms, the fenc-ing along the outside of the guideway does not extend the full length of the platform. As longer trains are increasingly used it will become important to assure the fencing extends the full length of the platform. Trans-Link is currently addressing this issue.

Projected volumes were used to determine whether ca-pacity was anticipated to become an issue at any of the medium and lower volume stations in the foreseeable future. The projected volumes at most stations are so far below the current volumes at the busiest stations, it is fair to conclude that capacity will not be a signif cant issue at most Expo stations in the foreseeable future.

Potential Improvements: Capacity

• Extend roof ng to full platform length to maximize use of existing platform capacity and assure stations can accommodate longer trains.

• Where needed, reconf gure entrances to more evenly distribute passengers along the platform.

COMMUNITY INTEGRATION

Many Expo Line stations lack strong physical and visual connections to the surrounding neighbourhoods. Paths leading to the station are sometimes indirect and incon-venient. For example, at Edmonds Station the neigh-bourhood immediately to the southwest is cut off from

27

the station and accessible only via a circuitous route. This route is nicely landscaped but it is, nonetheless, an indirect way to access the station. Paths at some stations appear to be installed as afterthoughts, have a piecemeal appearance and may not correspond with desire lines. At all stations connections to nearby cycling routes (e.g. BC Parkway) are not evident from the station and im-mediate station area.

The paths, walkways, and sidewalks connecting to the stations are often of a poor standard, too narrow, poorly maintained or insuff ciently designed for the level of ser-vice required around a SkyTrain station. This detracts from the attractiveness of taking transit, contributes to a sense that the station is not part of the community and poses physical barriers for those with mobility issues. For example, at Metrotown Station there is a large unde-f ned and unpaved area, which is often muddy, at the ap-proach to the at-grade entrance. This area is unpleasant and for those with mobility issues challenging to walk through and leaves a perception of neglect.

The poor quality of the areas immediately around many of the stations also contributes to the disconnect between the station and the community. For example, at Broad-way the space at grade below the station is an under-utilized ‘dead space’ and the adjacent lane to the west features blank walls, garbage and parked cars creating a poor urban environment. To the east, a blank wall of the adjacent development abuts the station, creating a visual and physical barrier between the station and the

neighbourhood.

Potential Improvements: Community Integration

• The stations and areas immediately surrounding the stations should be assessed for opportunities to improve connections with the surrounding commu-nity and overall accessibility of the stations. This will include working with municipalities to assess issues with the quality of the connections, such as sidewalks and paths, leading to the station.

To build ridership, stations need to be safe and comfort-able facilities where passengers are provided the infor-mation and amenities needed to conveniently use the network. This section has highlighted the issues shared by a number of the Expo Line stations and outlined a range of improvements to address these def ciencies in the realm of access, passenger environment and ame-nity and community integration. Some of these station improvements are more urgent than others. It is not feasible to undertake all upgrades at once. A brief dis-cussion of some of the considerations for prioritization is found in the f nal section of this report.

The following section outlines the key f ndings from the individual station analyses. In most cases, issues are not mentioned again if they have already been described in the common issues section. Table 3.1 provides a sum-mary of the detailed f ndings of the station by station analysis.

Broadway Station: With an alley on the west side and a blank wall on the east side, Broadway station is not well integrated into the neighbourhood fabric.

28

Tabl

e 3.

1: S

umm

ary

of f

ndin

gs o

f sta

tion

by s

tatio

n an

alys

is

29

the City of Vancouver, a transit village plan, for both the station and the surrounding area, is being developed for the Broadway/Commercial Station. Working with the City of Vancouver and TransLink and with inputs from the public and local stakeholders, the consultant team retained for this project produced a Site Assessment re-port from which recommendations were made for design interventions and capital upgrades to the station. The project is proceeding with the design phase of station modif cations.

Issues and Constraints

The most pressing issues and Broadway Station pertain to passenger capacity and crowding, local station context and access, and wayf nding.

The Broadway platform is frequently congested, particu-larly during the peak hours when crowded trains leave people waiting on the platform or when there is a delay and the wait between trains is longer than scheduled. The position of the entrance contributes signif cantly to the crowding as passengers are concentrated on the northern end of the platform. Access to the station is from Broadway only, there are no entrances connecting the station to the south, east, or west.

The passerelle to Commercial Station creates a choke point, which is exacerbated by the position of the large elevator column, which passengers must walk around. The elevator column also limits sightlines and narrows

Broadway Station is the busiest station in the rapid tran-sit network, with close to 50,000 people moving through the station each day. Broadway is part of the Broadway/Commercial transportation hub, connecting the Expo and Millennium SkyTrain lines and buses on the Broad-way corridor, including the 99 B-Line, the most heavily used bus in the region. Approximately 125,000 people a day move through this hub.

In the future, Broadway-Commercial will continue to be a major transfer point with the western expansion of rapid transit along Broadway.

Broadway Station is one of the highest priorities for signif cant capital investment. A number of recommen-dations have emerged from the Transit Village project. With funding from Transport Canada, TransLink, and

HIGH VOLUME STATIONS

Broadway

Broadway Station Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt

ON OFF

Broadway Station: Signif cant crowding occurs on the north end of the platform during peak hours.

30

the platform.

The desire line for passengers approaching from the south of the northbound #20 bus stop is through a ser-vice lane behind the McDonald’s and CIBC. This lane is dominated by blank walls, garbage and parked cars, creating a poor urban environment. The concourse level of Broadway Station extends only half the length of the platform level, leaving an area of underutilized dead space below the southern platform area at street level. On the north side of Broadway, the connection from the B-line to the station complex is not direct.

Although most passengers on eastbound #9 buses use Broadway rather than Commercial station, the current routing for the #9 terminating at Broadway-Commercial Station unloads passengers on Commercial and con-tributes to volumes in the passerelle. This routing also requires the #9 buses to use constrained layover space along Grandview Highway.

Despite its proximity to the 10th Avenue Bikeway and Central Valley Greenway, the station does not reach out to these corridors.

Wayf nding at the station is diff cult. A particular chal-lenge is that the Millennium Line doubles back on itself, creating ambiguity at this station. There are many obscured sightlines and multiple changes of direction and elevation are required to transfer between Broadway Station and Commercial Station and the buses. In addi-

tion, the wayf nding system does not recognize the im-portance of the 99 B-Line as a rapid transit connection.

Potential Improvements

Broadway station requires a comprehensive station renovation to address def ciencies in access, capacity and passenger environment. Elements of this renovation include: • Relocate elevator to eliminate bottleneck and

open sightlines.• Create a new station entrance at 10th Avenue to

open up the station to the community and reduce unauthorized use of the emergency exit.

• Transform the lane into a public plaza • Increase bicycle parking and storage• Remove two bays of the concrete wall on the east side to open mountain views • Widen the passerelle to Commercial Station.• Daylight the platform by introducing skylights to

existing roof system or replace the existing roof entirely.

• Modify short-turn routing for the #9 bus so that pas-sengers unload at the Broadway station entrance, al-leviating pressure on constrained layover space and allowing for a more direct connection to Broadway Station.

• Improve passenger f ow from the B-line to the sta-tion complex on the north side of Broadway

• See “Common Issues and Findings” for Potential Improvements common to all Expo stations.

Broadway Station at a Glance

Role in Network: Major HubTotal Boardings & Alightings: 47,000Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 1Peak Hour (16:45-17:45): 5,397# of connecting buses (24hrs): 1,141

Future Considerations: Increased impor-tance as major transfer point with western extension of rail rapid transit

31

Close to 40,000 people a day use Metrotown station, making it the second busiest SkyTrain station. At the heart of the largest Regional Town Centre, Metrotown Station is an important destination for workers, resi-dents, and shoppers. It is also an important bus hub – passenger volumes through the bus loop are more than 50% of the SkyTrain volumes.

Looking ahead, the area around Metrotown will experi-ence growth. Redevelopment and intensif cation par-ticularly in the Maywood neighbourhood will increase demands on this station.

Metrotown Station is one of the Urban Transportation Showcase Transit Village projects. Site assessment

and data collection have been completed and a draft conceptual plan is under development. The reports and analysis produced for the Transit Village project provide a comprehensive discussion of the issues and opportuni-ties at this Station.


Metrotown Station has, functionally, only one entrance at the east end of the platform. Signif cant congestion occurs on the single staircase and single ascending esca-lator to/from the mezzanine level. Similarly, the passe-relle linking the station to Metropolis Mall, Metrotower off cer buildings and the bus loop is too narrow to accommodate current passenger volumes. A compound-ing problem is that this walkway is at a different grade than the station mezzanine, requiring three steps, which interrupts passenger f ow. The mezzanine level, where the ticket vending machines are located, also becomes congested and people buying tickets block access to the escalator and passerelle.

Entry from the west side of the station is possible only via elevator. As it is the only access point on the western side of the station, the elevator is in heavy demand and there are often queues.

The vast majority of passengers enter at the east end of the platform which loads passengers disproportionately on the platform, creating signif cant congestion at the east end and at the top of the stairs. This problem is

Metrotown

Metrotown Station Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt

ON OFF

Metrotown Station: Signif cant crowding occurs on the walkway leading to the station.

32

compounded when two trains are unloading in the sta-tion at a time.

There are signif cant accessibility issues at Metrotown station, impacting persons with disabilities. The eastern entrance is not accessible to people in wheelchairs or with baby strollers. The elevator provides an accessible entrance to the ground level. After crossing Central Boulevard to the mall or bus loop, passengers are fun-neled into a 1.2 metre wide pathway edged by a metal railing on both sides. At this width, a wheelchair user cannot comfortably pass a single pedestrian approach-ing from the opposite direction. Passengers instead tend to cut across the bus loop which can interfere with bus circulation.

Transfer volumes at this station are signf cant- almost half the passengers arriving by SkyTrain transfer to bus. Currently the bus loop is located across the street from the station. Transferring passengers either use the passe-relle, contributing to congestion in the elevated walk-way, or an at grade crossing such as the narrow pathway described above, which is neither direct nor convenient.


Signif cant investment is required to upgrade Metrotown Station to accommodate current and projected passenger volumes and better integrate the station with surround-ing developments. Through the Transit Village project, staff from the City of Burnaby and TransLink and the consultant team have developed a series of recommen-dations, broadly summarized here.

• Rebuild the eastern entrance to expand the mezzanine, widen the passerelle, and eliminate the grade change between the passerelle and the mezzanine.

• Extend the platform and build a new entrance at the western end to increase platform capacity, distribute passenger loads, and connect to destinations to the west of the station.

• Relocate the primary bus exchange underneath the station to minimize the transfer time and distance for passengers.


Metrotown Station at a Glance

Role in Network: Regional Town CentreTotal Boardings & Alightings: 39,800Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 2Peak Hour (Sat, 14:00-15:00): 4250# of connecting buses (24hrs): 684

Future Considerations: Signifi cant area growth with redevelopment of Maywood neighbourhood and Station Square.

The walkway leading to the bus loop is indirect and narrow. Some routes leading to the station are of poor quality.

33

station. This station has received some signif cant upgrades re-cently. A new entrance provides access to the platforms from Dunsmuir Street and also provides an elevator to the station, which did not previously exist. This third en-trance will provide more routing options for passengers. Lighting in the station has recently been upgraded.


As an underground station, there are challenges in creat-ing a positive station environment at Granville Station: opportunities for interesting views are limited, there is no natural light and wayf nding is complex. Although the new Dunsmuir entrance has higher ceilings and a much brighter feel, in general the passenger environment at Granville Station is uninteresting. Solid blank walls contribute to a bland, utilitarian feel. Dropped ceilings constructed of a metal grill create a closed-in feel.

Given the importance of the downtown stations to the transit network, especially for tourists and other casual users, the def ciency of the wayf nding is a signif cant concern here. The prominence of the SkyTrain signage is often surpassed by commercial signage, such as that of The Bay. Within the station, maps, signage and infor-mation orienting the passenger within the local area is minimal or even confusing. For example “buses” signs do not give a clear direction on the bus bay locations. The future Canada Line transfer will be across the street

Granville Station is the busiest downtown station and the third busiest on the Expo Line, serving the central business district, major retail destinations, and the entertainment district. Bus/train transfers at this station are signif cant; more buses connect at Granville than any other station. However its primary function is not as a train/bus transfer point as downtown is the major origin/destination.

In the future, the role of this station will evolve. With the completion of the Canada Line, Granville station will be a transfer from the Vancouver City Centre sta-tion. The population and, to a lesser extent employment, in the downtown core will continue to grow. There is large employment growth potential to the east of the

Granville

Granville Station Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt

ON OFF

Signage indicating the station entrance is diff cult to see.

34

Granville Station at a Glance

Role in Network: CoreTotal Boardings & Alightings: 37,600Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 3Peak Hour (16:30-17:30): 4,050# of connecting buses (24hrs): 2,180

Future Considerations: Canada Line transfer point.

from the existing station. There are currently no plans for an underground connection. This will present ad-ditional wayf nding challenges.

An elevator has recently been added via the Dunsmuir Street entrance making the station fully accessible for the f rst time. However, wayf nding to the elevator from the platform is inadequate. Passengers exiting inbound trains are offered no visual cues on the location of the elevator.


• Granville Station, and the other downtown stations should be prioritized for wayf nding improve-ments both inside and outside of the station. The prominence of bus transfers and station entries need particular attention. Connections between the Expo Line and the Canada Line will be complex. Way-f nding will be an important element of ensuring convenient transfers between lines.

• Secure bike storage should be integrated into the station, as done at major stations in other cities.

• Feasibility of creating a more open station environ-ment through, for example, removing the dropped ceiling should be explored.

• In the future explore options for underground con-nection between the Expo Line and the Canada Line.


The dropped ceiling darkens the station environment. Angled wall panels along the length of the escalator can be visually disorienting.

35

Burrard station functions well and has a pleasant station environment. The entrance is through a landscaped plaza covered with a glass atrium. This f oods the station entrance with natural light and creates a welcoming atmosphere. Because of the atrium, the station is also highly visible, relative to other underground stations. New retail units in the mezzanine add to the liveliness of the station and increase passenger amenity.


The station experiences extreme peaks in passenger vol-umes. While it has only one entrance, the station func-tions without any crowding for the majority of the time. However, when a full train, particularly a four car Mark II, arrives the escalators become congested and there is delay for passengers exiting the station. In such cases, passengers have not cleared the station when the next train arrives. As more SkyTrain cars and longer trains are introduced this issue may be heightened. Platform capacity is generally adequate although crowding can occur at the heaviest volume times, requiring the ‘ends’ of the platform to be used as an overf ow area.

Bus connections are problematic at Burrard station. Northbound buses drop passengers mid-block on Burrard, across the street and just south of the station entrance. Many passengers choose the most direct, and dangerous, route and run across the street rather than walking to the intersection and crossing at the crosswalk. Bays for departing buses are dispersed from

Burrard Station is the primary station for people com-muting to jobs in the central business district and is the fourth busiest station on the system. With over 5,000 people moving through the station between 7:45-8:45 am, this station experiences the most extreme peaks in the system. More people move through Burrard within a one-hour period than any other station.

Employment in the CBD has not been growing at nearly the rate of residential growth, evidenced by the conver-sion of off ce buildings and sites to residential towers. Unless this trend is reversed, growth at Burrard station is expected to be much slower relative to other stations in the network.

Burrard

Burrard Station Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt

ON OFF

The glass atrium at Burrard Station allows for natural light to f ll the sta-tion entrance.

36

each other, distant from the station, and many require awkward street crossings. These bays are also diff cult to locate. This is the most signif cant wayf nding issue at the station. Completion of the Canada Line will greatly reduce the number and complexity of bus transfers at this station.

Another wayf nding shortcoming is the lack of signage for the station itself. Despite not being covered by a building, for those who don’t already know where they are going, the station can be diff cult to f nd.

Elevator access is provided from the platform to the mezzanine and street level. At the platform level, the elevator is located away from passenger activity, through a narrow door into a corridor. A door is propped open to allow access to the corridor. However the door can be easily closed, limiting surveillance of the elevator area. The elevator is also diff cult to locate at the street level.

Burrard Station at a Glance

Role in Network: CoreTotal Boardings & Alightings: 33,000Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 4Peak Hour (7:45-8:45): 5443# of connecting buses (24hrs): 502

Future Considerations: Moderate growth, bus transfers may decline with Canada Line


• Burrard station, along with the other downtown Vancouver stations should be prioritized for way-f nding improvements, especially bus/train transfers for casual users.

• Secure bike storage could be integrated into the station, as done at major stations in other cities

• Ensure door from the platform to the corridor lead-ing to the elevator can be secured open to increase security for those using the elevator.

• Additional study is warranted to monitor station functionality during peaks and identify potential functional issues if peak volumes grow.

• Study the need and feasibility of providing a second entrance via an underpass to Park Place.


Congestion occurs at the escalators during peak hours causing pas-senger delay.

The elevator is located through a narrow door, removed from other passenger activity.

37

Main Street Station is the f fth busiest station on the Expo Line, with over 22,000 passengers moving through it on an average weekday. It is a key transfer point, connecting to three of the highest volume bus routes in the system (#3, #8, #19). It is also the connec-tion to other transportation facilities including Pacif c Central Station with its inter-regional buses and trains.

In the future, usage of this station will continue to expand as the Olympic Village is constructed and Southeast False Creek and False Creek Flats redevelop. In addition, a number of improvements to the #3 bus service are being implemented through the Main Street Transit and Pedestrian Priority component of the Urban Transportation Showcase project that will deliver more

passengers to Main Station. A future city streetcar may connect here, creating additional demands on this station.


Main Station has long been recognized as a priority for capital investment. It is one of the most def cient stations in terms of quality of access for all users and proceeding with plans to upgrade this station f ts with TransLink’s commitment to make the transit system accessible.

This station was built as part of the demonstration pre-build line and therefore differs from most other Expo Line Stations. It has a narrower platform width, the roof lacks hoop trusses and metal meshing and it is nested under a commercial building. The station platform spans Main Street with entrances on both the east and west sides of the street. At the east entrance by Thornton Park there is stair-only access. More than half of the passengers entering and exiting the station use the eastern entrance, and the long f ight of stairs is a signif cant accessibility constraint. In addition, there is no station house at the eastern entrance and the ticket vending machines are located on the platform. This can cause congestion on the platform and presents diff culty for fare enforcement.

At the western entrance an escalator is provided from a

Main Station

Main Station Total Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt

ON OFF

Main Station connects to three of the highest volume bus routes in the system.

38

mezzanine, which is only accessible from the street via stairs. Passengers not able to manage stairs must use the elevator, located at the far west end of the platform. For a passenger transferring from a northbound bus this represents a 100 metre walk and the need to cross Main Street with a long signal delay.

Bus connections are made on the east and west sides of Main Street at Terminal. The truncation of the #3 route has increased the number of passengers transferring at Main Station. The environment for waiting passen-gers is often dark (because of the guideway) and lacks proper weather protection. The shelters and benches provided are more than several metres from the bus stops, so passengers tend to stand on the sidewalk.


Main Station is in need of a major station renovation.

Elements include:

• Construction of a station house at the east entrance with escalator and/or elevator access from the ground plane to the platform.

• Integration of the western entrance with the south-bound bus stop and escalator access from ground plane to mezzanine.

• Passenger amenity improvements, including weather protection, under the guideway at on-street bus stops.

• Upgrade existing elevator to improve speed, trans-parency.


Main Station at a Glance

Role in Network: Metropolitan Core Total Boardings & Alightings: 22,600Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 5Peak Hour (16:00-17:00): 2,100# of connecting buses (24hrs): 833

Future Considerations: Signifi cant area growth (e.g. Olympic Village and develop-ment in False Creek Flats), future city street car.

No escalator is provided from the street level at the west entrance. Passengers using the east entrance must use a long f ight of stairs.

39

The impetus for a relatively new transit-oriented devel-opment located on former industrial lands, Joyce Station can be classif ed both as a neighbourhood station and a major bus transfer. It has the sixth greatest passenger volumes on the Expo Line. Moderate population and employment growth is projected for the area over the next 15 years. Its status as a key bus transfer will be heightened as the #43 is converted to a B-Line.


The principle issues at Joyce pertain to bus exchange ca-pacity and the implications of a future B-line expansion on passenger f ow. The existing bus exchange is over capacity and one on-street bus bay is being used, located

on Joyce to the south of the station house. Bus-loop capacity issues will increase when the #43 is converted to a B-Line route and the station’s status as an important bus transfer spot is heightened. With the new B-Line the loop will also need to accommodate articulated buses.

Currently, the interface between the buses and the sta-tion house is problematic. Queuing for the #41 buses positioned at Bay 1 at times blocks the north-east entrance to the station. The painted metal mesh along the north-east station house wall creates a barrier to the most convenient route to the Bus bays. Future bus rout-ing may involve increasing passenger activity at the east entrance which currently does not have an elevator or escalator.

The weather protection in the waiting area is inadequate. During poor weather there is a signif cant drip from the guideway onto queuing passengers. The provision and condition of the station furniture is poor. Wooden benches in the bus waiting area are exposed to weather and in poor condition.


• Build a full east station house including elevator/es-calator access.

• Opportunities to improve access by reconf gur-ing the bus routing in the loop should be assessed, including integrating the new B-Line transfer at the east station entrance.

MEDIUM VOLUME STATIONS

Joyce-Collingwood

Joyce Station Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt

ON OFF

This station’s importance as a bus transfer will grow with the expansion of B-Line service.

40

Joyce Station at a Glance

Role in Network: Neighbourhood Total Boardings & Alightings: 22,400Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 6Peak Hour (16:45-17:45): 2,212# of connecting buses (24hrs): 381

Future Considerations: Increased importance as bus transfer with conver-sion of #43 to B-line.

• Weather protection in the bus waiting area should be improved, possibly extending a canopy to cover the entire bus exchange.

• Opening up the western station house to improve sightlines and passenger movement is recommend-ed.

• Opening up a door in the metal caging on the north-east station facade would improve passenger transfer movements between bus and SkyTrain.

• Wayf nding from the station house to the on-street bus bay on Joyce need be improved.

• Replacing the metal mesh station enclosure with glass panels is important at this station in order to limit the noise impact on the surrounding neigh-bourhood.


41

ter which conveys its status as an important transporta-tion hub. With a number of retail units in the foyer, the station provides a lively passenger environment and convenient access to amenities.


With several services connecting at this hub, wayf nding is of paramount importance. The signage on entering the foyer of the CPR station directing passengers to the SkyTrain, SeaBus or West Coast Express depar-ture is clear. However, there is a lack of signage in the TVM area regarding the ticketing location for West Coast Express. This can create confusion, particularly for f rst time users of West Coast Express. The future Canada Line transfer will be outside the fare-paid zone, introducing additional complexity. There is inadequate signage directing transferring passengers as well as passengers requiring elevator access. With high tourist use at this station, passenger information and wayf nding and passenger information is particularly important.

There is no elevator access provided at the western exit to Canada Place; adequate wayf nding is key to assuring a convenient passenger experience for those who require an elevator.

SeaBus and West Coast Express unloading can create surges in the station. The foyer in the CPR building can become crowded, particularly when an arrival of a Sky-Train converges with the arrival of a SeaBus and/or West

The seventh busiest station, Waterfront is Vancouver’s transportation hub and houses the terminus stations for SkyTrain, SeaBus, WestCoast Express and a number of regional bus routes. In 2009 it will also be the northern terminus of the Canada line.

Looking ahead, the population and to a lesser extent employment in the downtown core will continue to grow reinforcing the important status of this station in the transportation network. A potential soccer stadium proposed in the immediate area would have signif cant impacts on the station design and function.

The entrance to this station is through an architectur-ally distinct building that was formerly a CPR station; the transit facilities themselves were added to the CPR structure later. Overall, the facility has a strong charac-

Waterfront

Waterfront Station Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

42

Waterfront Station at a Glance

Role in Network: CoreTotal Boardings & Alightings: 21,900Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 7Peak Hour (16:30-17:30): 3,378# of connecting buses (24hrs): 404

Future Considerations: Potential soc-cer stadium, future Canada Line transfer

Coast Express. The space allocated to TVMs is narrow and crowding can occur. The most severe crowding oc-curs on the opposite side of the foyer, beyond the TVM area, where streams from West Coast Express, SkyTrain and SeaBus converge, creating complicated passenger f ows.

The doors marking the transition between the CPR building and the entrance to the West Coast Express, SkyTrain and Seabus facilities create a barrier and a choke point. These doors are not propped open and swing shut as passengers pass through, which interrupts passenger f ow, is inconvenient for passengers and can cause diff culty for those with mobility issues.

At the base of the escalators leading to the SeaBus, there can be conf icts with the stream of passengers exiting the SeaBus and passing in front of the escalator. The rope intended to separate these conf icts is frequently moved.

There are basic bicycle racks offered outside this station. In light of its status as a major transportation hub, the absence of secure bicycle storage is a def ciency.


• Waterfront Station, along with the other downtown stations should be prioritized for wayf nding im-provements.

• Secure bike storage should be integrated into the station, as done at major stations in other cities.

• Through improved wayf nding and possibly a permanent railing, redirect passengers exiting the SeaBus to pass behind, rather than in front of the escalator leading to the SeaBus.

• Between the TVM area and the SkyTrain, Sea-Bus and West Coast Express, look at feasibility of keeping doors open. At a minimum, these doors should be propped open all the time and ideally, the transition/entrance would be fully open and barrier-free. Replacing the doors with a roll-up gate would provide a solution.

• Enlarge the space allocated to TVMs to reduce crowding.


43

Future Bus Rapid Transit and rail extension will also increase the importance of this station.

Surrey Central is part of the Urban Transportation Show-case Transit Villages project and a plan for improve-ments to the station and local area are under develop-ment. The plan generated through this process focuses on the development patterns in the area surrounding the station, rather than the station itself. As a newer station, the issues at the station itself are modest relative to some of the older stations. Changes to the station will be required as the street network and bus exchange are modif ed.


The primary issue at Surrey Central Station concerns the integration of the station and bus exchange with the sur-rounding community. There is poor pedestrian access to Central City due to the position of the bus exchange and surface car park. Desire lines are blocked by a metal fence at the walkway south of the recreation centre. Entrances to the station are on the south side only. Al-though there is a covered area in the bus exchange, the queuing area is exposed to weather.

Potential Improvements • Relocate bus loop to the east of the station. • Add a station entrance to connect to new bus loop. • Create a well-def ned queuing area in a

Surrey Central is the heart of Surrey City Centre, conceived as the downtown for the City of Surrey and South of Fraser area. It is a primary employment, retail and residential centre in the region. As a result of its proximity to the Central City Tower, the SFU Campus and key east-west connectors to residential areas this station is the major origin and destination for transit us-ers in Surrey. As a Regional Town Centre and major bus transfer, this station has an important role in the transit network. Currently it experiences the eighth highest passenger volumes on the network.

Over the next 15 years, it will be the site of signif cant employment and population growth. This station’s role in the network will also grow as bus service South of the Fraser expands to meet current and future demand.

Surrey Central

Surrey Central Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt

ON OFF

44

weather-protected area• As the area north of the station redevelops or if

the bus loop is moved, it will be necessary to reas-sess the station entrances and access.

• Additional bicycle storage is needed. • Capitalize on synergies created by the Urban Trans-

portation Showcase Project to improve the station. • See “Common Issues and Findings” for Potential

Improvements common to all Expo stations.

Surrey Central Station at a Glance

Role in Network: Regional Town CentreTotal Boardings & Alightings: 20,300Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 8Peak Hour (17:00-18:00): 2,177# of connecting buses (24hrs): 609

Future considerations: signifi cant area growth, reconfi guration of local street network, Bus Rapid Transit and possible rail extension.

45

New Westminster Station is the primary station serv-ing New Westminster’s downtown and Regional Town Centre. The area continues to expand with a growing population base living in new residential towers in the downtown and along the waterfront. Currently it has the ninth highest passenger volumes along the line.

Signif cant population and employment growth is expected in the station area in the next f fteen years. A signif cant redevelopment is being planned in the im-mediate station area which will dramatically alter how the station relates to the surrounding community. There is an opportunity to upgrade the passenger experience in this station as the surrounding area is redeveloped.


The primary issues at this station relate to access and passenger environment. The conf guration and location of the bus exchange is not optimal for passengers. There is a higher proportion of pedestrian activity and desti-nations on the 8th Ave side of the station, meaning the bus loop is “behind” the station for most people. In the exchange, there are narrow waiting areas and not enough shelters. The paved surfaces in the bus loop are uneven, creating accessibility challenges. The landscaping in the bus loop creates an environment of neglect-- for exam-ple, what were formerly landscaped planting beds have been paved. Bicycle racks are found on the 8th Avenue side of the station only and not in the bus loop area.

The elevators are convenient for transferring bus pas-sengers but are more diff cult to access for passengers arriving/departing on foot from 8th Avenue. A fenced off space underneath the 8th Avenue entrance creates a perception of disuse and diminished access. Pigeons sit-ting on metal bars underneath the guideway create issues of cleanliness and maintenance at the mezzanine level.

The use of clear glazing in some areas at the platform and mezzanine level illustrates how transparency can improve the passenger environment.

New Westminster

New Westminster Station Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

46


• The bus loop in New Westminster need be exam-ined for increased weather protection and improved passenger experience, including improved landscap-ing.

• The sawtoothed bays on 8th Ave are no longer in use and could be removed to widen the sidewalk and narrow the street.

• It is recommended that improvements be coor-dinated with the development that is planned to encompass the station. As the area redevelops there will be an opportunity to address a host of issues at this station outlined in the Common Issues section including: wayf nding and passenger information, transparency, station furniture and lighting. See “Common Issues and Findings” for Potential Im-provements common to all Expo stations.

New Westminster Station at a Glance


Future considerations: signifi cant area growth, development planned for station area

47

Stadium-Chinatown Station provides access to the eastern area of downtown and two large sports stadiums. It is the 10th busiest station on the Expo Line experi-encing very heavy volumes outside of peak when there are events at BC Place and GM Place. Two new bus connections were added at the east entry of the station in 2006 (C21, C23). However, relative to other stations bus transfer volumes are low. Most passengers depart or arrive at the station on foot.

The area will continue to experience signif cant popula-tion and employment growth over the next f fteen years as the east side of downtown grows. There is a rede-velopment underway on the parking lot adjacent to the north side of the station.


The platform at this station spans a signif cant grade change so the eastern entrance is below the platform and the western entrance is above the platform. Access from the Expo Boulevard entrance (GM Place) is via stairwell only. Elevator access is provided from the Beatty/Dun-smuir entrance, but not from the Pacif c Boulevard en-trance. Although signage at the lower entrance points to an elevator in an adjacent development the routing is so circuitous and diff cult to f nd that it is of minimal util-ity. Given the street conf guration and the grade change it is also very diff cult to access the elevator at the upper entrance. TVMs are not provided at street level so pas-sengers have to get off at the mezzanine to purchase a ticket then get back on the elevator to access the plat-form. Transfers are relatively direct, however, wayf nd-ing is an issue as there are no signs directing passengers to buses. From the platform it is diff cult to determine

Stadium-Chinatown

Stadium Station Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

48

Stadium Station at a Glance

Role in Network: CoreTotal Boardings & Alightings: 17,200Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 10Peak Hour (16:00-17:00): 1,736# of connecting buses (24hrs): 120

Future Considerations: development and growth to the east will increase us-age of eastern entrance.

where to connect to buses. Weather protection is not provided at the bus stops outside of the station. Lighting in the TVM area is inadequate.


• Modify emergency exit to provide access to the platform from Expo Boulevard.

• Install an ascending escalator at Expo Boulevard. • Improve wayf nding for persons requiring elevator

access from Expo Boulevard. • Improve lighting in the TVM area. • See “Common Issues and Findings” for Potential


49

Situated in one of Burnaby’s municipal town centres, Edmonds Station is close to one off ce tower and a me-dium-high density residential area. Passenger volumes are medium—it is 11th amongst the 20 Expo Line sta-tions. Plans to integrate this station into the local com-munity and improve access are being developed through the Urban Transportation Showcase project.

It is envisioned that the station area will continue to grow as a mixed-use area with a range of housing types, commercial development and community services.


Integration of the station with surrounding developments is the greatest need at this station, particularly access to the residential community south of the station. Pedestri-ans must pass over the guideway on a pedestrian walk-way. There is no direct access from the southern side of the station to this community. The connection to and

from eastbound trains is complex and requires multiple sets of stairs, bridges or elevators.

Due to the grade changes, there are accessibility chal-lenges at the station. Passengers who cannot manage stairs to pass over the guideway via the walkway must navigate a circuitous ramp outside of the station to the east. Other accessibility concerns include the ramps leading to the parking spaces and the west end of the kiss and ride parking lot; they are either too steep or involve a signif cant cross-slope. The pedestrian and cyclist connections to BC Parkway and surrounding trail network are not clearly marked.


• Opportunities to provide direct access between the adjacent neighbourhood to the south and the eastbound platform should be explored.

• Upgrades to wayf nding at this station should also include enhancing pedestrian and cyclist con-nections to the BC Parkway.


Edmonds Station at a Glance

Role in Network: Municipal Town CentreTotal Boardings & Alightings: 15,600Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 11Peak Hour (7:45-8:45): 1,838# of connecting buses (24hrs): 409

Future Considerations: Moderate station area growth at this municipal town centre.

Edmonds

Edmonds Station Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

50

The passenger volumes at Scott Road are akin to a moderately busy neighbourhood station; however Scott Road is not integrated into a neighbourhood but instead functions as an important Park and Ride and bus transfer point. Situated between major roads and with very little development within walking distance, the majority of passengers boarding at Scott Road arrive by bus or via the Park and Ride facility.

A Neighbourhood Concept Plan has been developed by the City of Surrey that encompasses Scott Road Station. According to this plan, residential and commercial uses in the vicinity of the station are expected to increase in the coming f fteen years. However station boardings and alightings will remain moderate.


Scott Road Station has signif cant accessibility bar-riers. An elevator is provided only from the Park and Ride side of the station. To get to the bus loop a person requiring the elevator must arrange a transfer through

HandyDart in advance.

The station is surrounded by several busy roadways and is enclosed by security fencing making pedestrian and cycling connections to the station diff cult. Signage is inadequate. There is limited weather protection in the bus loop. The bus bays currently being used require passengers to wait on small islands in the middle of the exchange.


• Improve accessibility of the bus loop. A crosswalk should be installed underneath the platform across Scott Road. Currently, barriers are in place to prevent pedestrians from crossing illegally here. Al-ternatively, an elevator could be installed to connect the bus loop and the platform.

• Improve pedestrian access and environment through the park and ride and on the path under the guide-way to the Home Depot.


Scott Road Station at a Glance

Role in Network: Park and RideTotal Boardings & Alightings: 14,700Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 12Peak Hour (16:30-17:30): 1,624# of connecting buses (24hrs): 200

Future Considerations: Moderate station area growth and increase in bus transfers as south of fraser region grows

Scott Road

Scott Road Station Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

51

The 13th busiest station on the Expo Line, Colum-bia Station is the Expo-Millennium transfer point for passengers traveling between Surrey and the eastern Millennium Line stations. In peak periods half of the passengers in the station are transferring, the other half are either exiting or entering the station.


This station was not designed to be a transfer station. With side platforms, the station design is not ideal for convenient transfers, which presents unique wayf nd-ing and passenger movement challenges. An ascending escalator is provided to the inbound platform only. Pas-sengers wishing to transfer from Surrey to the eastbound Millennium Line must descend to the mezzanine level and then go back up a full f ight of 36 stairs to get to the other platform. Alternatively, passengers can take the elevator down, walk to the other elevator, and go back up again or use the east entrance to Fourth Street.

Elevators are provided from the mezzanine to the plat-form level. An elevator is also provided in the mall to the TVM level, but this elevator is not the property of TransLink and has been out of service for an extended period of time. Therefore, there is no access to the sta-tion for people who cannot manage stairs. No escala-tors or elevators are provided at the entrance off Fourth Street. Bus connections are distant from the station en-trance. Bicycle facilities at this station are inadequate.


• Improve the entrance through the mall. • Ensure functioning elevator access is provided. • Install ascending escalator to the Eastbound platform. • Improve cycling facilities. • Look at opportunities to relocate bus stops to make

transferring easier and quicker.• See “Common Issues and Findings” for Potential


Columbia Station at a Glance


Future Considerations: Area will grow signifi cantly as downtown New Westminster continues to redevelop.

Columbia

*transferring passengers have been counted as boardings

Columbia Station Total Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday*

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt

ON OFF

52

The shelters provided for waiting passengers at the bus loop are set back from the ID poles. Passengers tend to wait for the bus in a queue at the pole and are not pro-tected from the weather when doing so. The bus loop sidewalk is narrow and often crowded, making it dif-f cult to pass. A peculiar feature is the curb-cut located where passengers unload at the backdoor of the bus. This forces unloading passengers to step down further than the standard curb.

Situated on a hill, there is the potential for expansive views of the Fraser River and the lands to the south from the platform– on a clear day mountains in Washington State are visible. The current station design, particularly the metal grating, limits these views.


• Widen sidewalks in the bus loop. Remove curb cut in the bus loop unloading area.


22nd Street is situated on the southern edge of a low-density residential neighbourhood in New Westminster, with little retail, commercial, or higher density residen-tial within walking distance. The 14th busiest station on the Expo Line, it functions primarily to connect pas-sengers to buses serving Richmond, New Westminster, Burnaby and Annacis Island. The area is expected to remain a relatively low density residential neighbour-hood with limited growth.


New Westminster is at the geographic centre of the region, situated between Surrey and Burnaby and as a result experiences signif cant volumes of vehicle traf-f c. There is a signif cant amount of congestion around this station. High traff c volumes on Marine Way and 20th Street do not create an environment conducive to walking. The pedestrian environment in the immediate station area and connections to the surrounding neigh-bourhood are poor.

22nd Street Station at a Glance

Role in Network: NeighbourhoodTotal Boardings & Alightings: 12,300Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 14Peak Hour (17:00-18:00): 1,430# of connecting buses (24hrs): 363

Future Considerations: Minimal station area growth

22nd Street

LOW VOLUME STATIONS

22nd Avenue Total Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

53

diff cult to locate. Pedestrian access from the bus stop at East Whalley Ring Road is through the park and ride lot, with inadequate pedestrian markings. The bus stop positioning on the west side of KGH encourages jay-walking. A fence on KGH is designed to force passen-gers to walk down the block to cross at the intersection, increasing the time and distance required to transfer. With increased development on the west side, the open-ing of Holland Park as a special-events oriented venue, access to the station from the west side will become increasingly important. There is signif cant queuing at the KGH bus stop and the Kiss and Ride area during peak hours but a lack of weather protection and seating in these areas. Circulation in the Kiss and Ride can be problematic. Generally, the accessible routes to the sta-tion are not evident.


• Advance plans to open up the station to the new development on the northern side of the station.

• Examine options for improving access on the west side of KGH.

• Improve connections across the park & ride. • See “Common Issues and Findings” for Potential


King George

King George Station at a Glance


Future Considerations: Signifi cant area development, increased bus service, future busway, possible future rail extension to Guildford

A Regional Town Centre and signif cant bus transfer point, King George is the eastern terminus station on the Expo Line.

Currently the 15th busiest station on the Expo line, jobs and to a lesser extent population in the immediate area are expected to grow over the next f fteen years. The site north of the station is under development and efforts are being taken to enhance the physical and visual con-nections to the new development. Growth in the transit network will impact this station signif cantly in the fu-ture, including, improved bus service, and future busway and a possible future rail extension to Guildford.


The primary concerns at this station relate to access from the surrounding area. There is poor access to the station from the west due to King George Highway (KGH), a wide arterial with poor pedestrian environ-ment. Bus bays are not clustered together, and are on opposites sides of KGH and the station, making them

King George Total Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

54

weather. There is no escalator at this station. How-ever, given the low passenger volumes and small grade change, it is unlikely that an escalator here will become a priority for investment. In spite of its location along the BC Parkway, cycling facilities and connections to the bike route are inadequate. The west end of the plat-form has inadequate light. There are currently no TVMs at the east entry.


• There is opportunity to improve the cycling parking at the station to support the BC Parkway regional bike route.

• As station aesthetics are upgraded, opportunities to improve the appearance of the covered walkway should be explored.


29th Avenue Station at a Glance


Future Considerations: Minimal area growth

29th Avenue

The 16th busiest station on the Expo Line and signif -cant bus transfer point, 29th Avenue is a neighbourhood station serving a residential community in East Vancou-ver. Adjacent to a neighbourhood park, the station has a pleasant atmosphere. There are no retail or employment destinations within walking distance of the station.

The area is likely to remain largely residential in the long term and projected population and employment growth is minimal.


Consistent with the other stations on the Expo Line, 29th Avenue has issues with aesthetics and passenger experience. The east and west side of the guideway are connected by a walkway caged with an unattractive chain-link fence. The roof extends for only part of the platform, leaving much of the waiting area exposed to

29th Avenue Total Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

55

Nanaimo

The 17th busiest station on the Expo line and important bus transfer point, Nanaimo Station serves a residential community in East Vancouver. There are limited retail and employment destinations near the station. Like 29th Avenue, the BC Parkway travels along the SkyTrain guideway at this point and connects with Nanaimo Sta-tion. The population and job growth forecasted for the station area is low.


Heavy use of the metal mesh gives the station a dated and closed appearance. The station has one entrance fronting Nanaimo Street, set back, behind the bus loop. Pedestrians must cross through the bus loop to access the station. The crosswalk and connection to the signal-ized intersection are not direct and sight-lines for those needing a wheelchair accessible route are problematic. There is insuff cient weather protection in the waiting

area of the bus loop. An ascending escalator to the plat-form is provided to the inbound platform only. Access to the outbound platform is only via a 44-step f ight of stairs or elevator.


• Increase the weather protection in the bus loop. • Improve cycling facilities in order to enhance con-

nection with the BC Parkway. • Improve pedestrian connections to the station,

through improved crosswalks, increased wayf nding etc.

• Increase transparency on the north wall of the west-bound platform to enhance visibility and views.


Nanaimo Station at a Glance

Role in Network: NeighbourhoodTotal Boardings & Alightings: 9,500Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 17Peak Hour (8:00-9:00): 950# of connecting buses (24hrs): 267

Future Considerations: Minimal area growth

Nanaimo Total Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

56

A neighbourhood station in southern Burnaby, Royal Oak primarily serves commuters during the peak hours. Population, retail, off ce and industrial growth is projected for the area in the next 15 years. Only one Community Shuttle route connects at this station, so transfer activity is minimal.


Provisions at this station are fairly minimal. There is a single entrance and no escalators are provided. The primary issues relate to accessibility and connections to the surrounding area. There are poor connections to the north side of the station towards Kingsway. The location of the ramp providing wheelchair access to the station is hidden by landscaping and therefore is hard to see when standing in front of the station. Connections to the BC Parkway are not convenient

Royal Oak Station at a Glance


Future Considerations: Increased densities and greater mixed use development expected in this area.

at this station. For example, on the west side of Royal Oak across from the station house the BC Parkway is frequently congested and has poor turning radii for cy-clists. At the station, the Parkway ends at a staircase and requires an inconvenient crossing at Beresford.

The weather protection at the bus stop as well as the lighting around the station are inadequate.


• Convert the emergency exit to a proper entrance to allow access to the West side of Royal Oak Avenue.

• Add weather protection at the bus stop. • Consider improving the lighting around the station. • Increase visibility of the ramp. • See “Common Issues and Findings” for Potential


Royal Oak

Royal Oak Total Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

57

Patterson

Patterson Station at a Glance

Role in Network: NeighbourhoodTotal Boardings & Alightings: 7,500Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 19Peak Hour (7:45-8:45): 861# of connecting buses (24hrs): 95

Future Considerations: Moderate area growth

Located within the Metrotown Regional Town Centre, Patterson station functions as a neighbourhood station. Surrounded by medium-density residential and a large park, passenger volumes at this station are the 2nd low-est on the Expo line. Only one bus route connects at Patterson, which means this station has a minimal trans-fer role. Moderate population and commercial growth is expected in this area over the next f fteen years. In many respects this station functions well. Entrances are provided on both sides of Patterson Street.


The western entrance of the station is isolated with poor sightlines and no oversight at night. There is no weather protection at the bus stop on the south side of the station.


• The cycling facilities at Patterson should be im-proved to better connect to the BC Parkway.

• Connections and wayf nding to nearby destinations such as Central Park, Swangard Stadium should be enhanced.

• Views from the platform could be enhanced by opening up sight lines to the park and to Vancouver.


Patterson Total Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

58

Located at the northern edge of Surrey City Centre, Gateway station has the lowest passenger volumes of all Expo line stations. It is integrated into an off ce tower and is adjacent to several high-rise residential towers. Most of the land close to the station is low-density and underdeveloped, however signif cant population and job growth is expected in the area in the next f fteen years.


Access from the south side of the station is indirect and 108th Avenue acts as a barrier. The positioning of the bus stops on 108th and 134th encourages jaywalking across busy arterial roads. This will become a larger is-sue as the lands to the south redevelop. The access ramp is removed from the bus stop and diff cult to f nd.

Gateway Station at a Glance

Role in Network: Regional Town CentreTotal Boardings & Alightings: 7,400Expo Line System Rank (6am-2am): 20Peak Hour (16:00-17:00): 757# of connecting buses (24hrs): 213

Future Considerations: Signifi cant area growth

Gateway


• As area develops, examine feasibility of a south entrance.

• Provide signage to better indicate ramp location or add a new ramp closer to the bus stop.


Gateway Total Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00 0:0

0

Time Interval Start

Tota

l Cou

nt ON OFF

59

Lonsdale Quay is a major transportation hub for the North Shore of the Burrard Inlet and the northern ter-minus for the SeaBus, a 3.2 km passenger ferry linking North Vancouver with downtown Vancouver. There are currently two SeaBus vessels, each carrying up to 400 passengers, and serving an average of 17,700 passengers on a typical weekday. A third SeaBus is proposed for 2008/2009 operation, to meet TransLink’s policy objec-tive of providing 10-minute peak period service linking regional town centres and on major corridors and to accommodate increased demand. Increased demand for SeaBus will result from new residential development in Lower Lonsdale. In early 2006, the City of North Van-couver initiated a Waterfront Project, which is focused on increasing access to and overall amenity of the North Vancouver waterfront. Improving the SeaBus Gateway

is an important component of these broad strategies. TransLink and the City of North Vancouver are partner-ing on a study to identify concepts for improvements to the station and station area.


• Lonsdale Quay is a signif cant transportation hub and major point of arrival in North Vancouver how-ever the terminal lacks a sense of place and identity. Ceilings are low and limit natural light creating a dark and dingy passenger environment. The ceiling leaks in some areas. Passenger information is inad-equate and not conveniently placed.

• To the east, linkages between the terminal and the Quay are not inviting. Signage is understated and weather protection is inadequate.

• To the west, connections to the park and waterfront are not optimized. The Kiss and Ride is poorly or-

Lonsdale Quay

Lonsdale Quay Total Passenger VolumesAverage Weekday

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:0

0

11:0

0

12:0

0

13:0

0

14:0

0

15:0

0

16:0

0

17:0

0

18:0

0

19:0

0

20:0

0

21:0

0

22:0

0

23:0

0

0:00

Time

Tota

l Cou

nt

SouthboundNorthbound

60

ganized and results in a poor passenger environment during congested periods.

• Northern access to the station is currently treated as a ‘backdoor’ to the Quay. However, this entrance will become more important as development occurs in Lower Lonsdale. The bus loop entrance and ICBC loading area interfere with convenient pe-destrian access. Grade changes to the North result in signif cant access and wayf nding challenges. Elevator access from the terminal to street level at Esplanade is not clear.

• Cycling connections to and through the facility are not clear.


• Consider reconf guring the bus loop to improve ac-cess from the North and facilitate transfers between bus and SeaBus

• Improvements to the ceiling between the bus loop and the SeaBus building would create a brighter passenger environment. Opportunities to improve space between the SeaBus and the bus loop should be explored.

• Strengthened cycling connections to and through the station.

• Improved availability and placement of real-time bus and SeaBus schedules.

Lonsdale Quay at a Glance

Role in Network: HubTotal Boardings & Alightings: 15,268Expo Line System Rank : N/APeak Hour (16:17-17:16): 768# of connecting buses (24hrs): 153

Future Considerations: Signifi cant devel-opment in station area

61

04 Discussion

Summary of Findings

The Expo Line has been the single most traveled line in the regions rapid transit network and is the backbone of the region’s rapid transit. As a result of changes in land use, population distribution and the transportation network since the Expo Line was built, the function of stations have also evolved and some stations play a more central role in the system than what was expected when they were designed. Its role as the region’s trunk line will continue and become more signif cant with the introduction of new rapid transit lines. The aspirations for the line set out in the original design guidelines rec-ognized that the system would change over time and the common station features should be f exible and exten-sible. This review conf rms the need to upgrade existing infrastructure along the Expo Line to enhance system eff ciency and ensure the stations can meet current and future demands.

The investment needs identif ed for the Expo line fall into three main categories.

• Major functional/access upgrades: Several stations are in need of major functional upgrades to address pressing access and capacity constraints.

• Targeted access upgrade: Some stations have isolated problems relating to passenger access and movement that warrant targeted improvement.

• System-wide upgrade: There are a range of issues

that need addressing in all stations. All of the sta-tions suffer from a common set of problems with respect to passenger environment, amenity and access such as wayf nding, weather protection and transparency, escalator and elevator provision as well as community integration.

Factors for Establishing Priority

A number of factors are considered in establishing how the line’s needs should be prioritized and addressed.

Current and Projected Station Volume

Passenger volume is the logical starting point in priori-tizing stations for further analysis and investment. First, stations with high passenger volumes are most likely to suffer from capacity problems. Second, issues at these stations impact the greatest number of people. By exten-sion, improvements to these stations will benef t more passengers than investment at lower volume stations.

Future growth in passenger volumes need also be taken into account when prioritizing stations. Stations anticipated to experience signif cant growth in passenger activity, as a result of land use or transportation network changes, may receive a greater priority than their current volume would indicate in order to assure the station can meet expected future demand.

62

Role of the Station

In addition to station volume, the role of the station in the network will impact station priority. Stations that act as hubs may warrant a higher priority because of the far-reaching impact these stations have on the function of the regional network. Investing in high visibility stations also offers TransLink an opportunity to develop marquee stations that showcase a range of innova-tions and best practices in station design. For example, Broadway-Commercial will continue to play a central role as a transportation hub in the regional network. Im-provements to this station will be highly visible and will establish positive and high prof le precedents for good station design.

Type of Need

The nature of the def ciency is also a primary consid-erations when prioritizing investment needs. Improve-ments that are critical to the safe and eff cient function-ing of the facility will be prioritized ahead of aesthetic improvements. Some stations do not meet even basic standards of access. For example, at Scott Road there is no access from the bus loop to the platform for those who cannot manage stairs. At Columbia Station, full elevator access is not provided. These stations may warrant receiving a high prioritization, irrespective of passenger volumes, in order to assure basic levels of ac-

cessibility are achieved throughout the system.

Development in the Station Area

At some stations there may be opportunities to f nd syn-ergies between station improvements and development planned in the station area. To make the most of these opportunities, plans for development in the immediate area of the station need to be taken into account in the station prioritization. Coordinating station improve-ments with development in the surrounding station area also presents opportunities for better community integra-tion and possibilities for cost-sharing. New Westmin-ster, Surrey Central, Lonsdale Quay are examples of stations that may warrant receiving a higher priority if station improvements can be coordinated with plans for development in the station area.

Economies of Scale

Some station improvements maybe grouped together in order to allow for economies of scale. Wayf nding must be coordinated across the system to create legibility and consistency. Updating station furniture, improving weather protection, or replacing the metal mesh with glass panels are initiatives that may benef t from econo-mies of scale in planning, materials and labour. When prioritizing stations for improvements, opportunities to maximize economies of scale must also be considered.

63

Station Prioritization

Based on these factors, it is possible to group the Expo Stations in Tiers for investment. Rough cost estimates for the changes recommended for each of the stations are summarized in Table 4.1 below.

Tier 1

The f rst tier is comprised of high volume stations that have urgent investment needs for major functional or access upgrades. These needs require attention in the short-term to assure the ongoing functioning at key nodes of the regional transportation network. Tier 1 stations are Broadway, Metrotown, Main, Joyce and Wa-terfront. Improvements at these stations will benef t a large number of people and are critical to the operational eff ciency and passenger experience of the system.

At Broadway Station, the conf guration of the entrances and location of the elevator result in crowding on the platform and choke points in the passerelle. The eleva-tor needs to be moved from the north end of the plat-form to eliminate the bottleneck and open sightlines. A new station entrance is needed on 10th Avenue. In the medium-term, major capacity upgrades are required.

At Metrotown Station, the west entrance is incomplete and the east entrance is overloaded, resulting in extreme crowding in the passerelle, mezzanine, stairwell and escalator. A full west station house is needed including

improved access for wheelchair users and others with mobility constraints. To improve the convenience of transfers and alleviate congestion in the passerelle, the bus loop should be relocated underneath the station.

At Main Station the east side entrance, used by over half the passengers at this station, has stair access only. Escalator access is provided at the west station entrance but from the mezzanine level only. A station house needs to be provided at the east end of the platform including escalator and elevator access. At the west station house, southbound bus stops need to be better integrated with mezzanine. Escalator access to the mez-zanine is needed.

At Joyce Station the eastern entrance needs a full sta-tion house. In addition it will require integration of bus facilities at the east entrance to accommodate future B-Line service and potentially a second east station house bus loop.

Waterfront Station is treated as a Tier 1 station due to its status as an intermodal hub. A hub study is currently underway. If a proposed Whitecaps stadium moves ahead at this site the importance of addressing invest-ment needs at this station will be heightened.

Improvements at these stations are necessary to make the most of our existing infrastructure investments. These are high prof le stations and will set a visible example of good station design contributing to a positive

64

image of transit in the region. Conversely, neglecting these needed improvements would have signif cantly negative impacts on the functioning and image of the transit system.

The investment required at Tier 1 stations is signif -cant. To minimize disruption it is preferable to under-take renovations at each station at one time. However, improvements can also be phased based on cost and availability of capital. Tier 2

The second tier is comprised of medium and high vol-ume stations that do not need major functional upgrades to the entire station but either have targeted access def -ciencies or have development planned in the station area and as a result there is an opportunity to integrate station improvements with changes in the adjacent areas. The following stations are included in this tier:

Surrey Central Station needs new escalators, stairwell, and elevator to mezzanine from eastern side of City Parkway to integrate with a reconf gured street grid and bus routing. Improvements are planned for the sur-rounding development through the Urban Transportation Showcase and eff ciencies will be gained by integrating station improvements with this process.

Columbia Station needs an ascending escalator to the outbound platform as well as a functional elevator from

Columbia Street in order to address basic accessibility requirements at this station.

Scott Road Station needs elevator access to the bus loop in order to improve the basic accessibility of the station. This can be achieved through either a new elevator from the platform or a crosswalk at the station and Scott Road.

Lonsdale Quay needs improvements to the conf guration of the bus loop for increased transfer eff ciency, repair/improvements to the ceiling between the bus loop and the SeaBus station and improved access from north side of the station. The City of North Vancouver is undertak-ing a planning effort to increase access and amenity of the waterfront. As such, it is opportune to address sta-tion improvements alongside this process.

New Westminster Station does not have urgent ac-cess-related needs. However, because there is a major redevelopment planned in the immediate station area, there will be the need to ensure that the station is well integrated with the new development. It may be ef-f cient to upgrade the passenger environment through weather protection, greater transparency, etc. during the redevelopment.

Edmonds Station needs improved connections with the adjacent residential community through a new south en-try. This station warrants receiving Tier 2 prioritization because it is integrated into the Showcase project and

65

Station Type of Invest-ment Need

Description of Investment

Tier 1

Broadway Major Functional/Access Upgrade

Phase 1: New south station entrance, move elevator, expand con-course, add glazing, system-wide upgrade*Phase 2: Major capacity upgrades

Metrotown Major Functional/Access Upgrade

Rebuild east entrance to expand mezzanine, extend platform and build new west entrance, move bus exchange below guideway, system-wide upgrade*

Main Major Functional/Access Upgrade

Construct full station house at east entrance with elevator and escala-tor, integration of bus stop and western entrance including escalator access from ground to mezzanine, system-wide upgrade*.

Joyce Targeted Access Upgrade

Add full station house at east entrance with elevator/escalator, recon-f gure bus loop, system-wide upgrade*.

Waterfront/SeaBus System-wide Up-grade

Wayf nding improvements, system-wide upgrade*

Tier 2Granville System-wide Up-

gradeWayf nding improvements, system-wide upgrade*

Burrard Targeted Access Upgrade

Wayf nding improvements, possibly add second entrance, system-wide upgrade*

Surrey Central Targeted Access Upgrade

New entrance from mezzanine to new transit plaza east of City Parkway. Reconf gure south entrance. New off-street bus layover, system-wide upgrade*

New Westminster Targeted Access Upgrade

Improve access through integration of station with new surrounding development, system-wide upgrade*

Edmonds Targeted Access Upgrade

New south station entrance, system-wide upgrade*

Scott Road Targeted Access Upgrade

Improve access from bus loop to platform, system-wide upgrade*

Columbia T argeted Access Upgrade

Provide elevator access from street level to TVM level, system-wide upgrade*

Lonsdale Quay Targeted Access Upgrade

Improve connections to the bus loop, ceiling between the bus loop and SeaBus, availability and placement of passenger information, system-wide upgrade*.

Tier 3Stadium System-wide Up-

gradeSee description of system-wide upgrade below*

22nd Street System-wide Up-grade

See description of system-wide upgrade below*

King George System-wide Up-grade


29th Avenue System-wide Up-grade


Nanaimo System-wide Up-grade


Royal Oak System-wide Up-grade


Patterson System-wide Up-grade


Gateway System-wide Up-grade


*System-wide upgrade may include accessibility, wayf nding and weather protection improvements, replacing the metal mesh with glazing, updating station furniture, improving bicycle facilities and possibly elevator and/or escalator upgrades.

Table 4.1 Summary of the three station tiers and investment needs

**Scale of investment estimates are only preliminary and will be ref ned as more detailed cost information becomes available.

66

therefore eff ciencies can be gained from the planning processes already underway.

Aside from wayf nding, Granville and Burrard stations do not have urgent def ciencies. However, due to the high volume of passengers passing through these sta-tions, especially casual users such as tourists, as well as the unique wayf nding and passenger environment challenges they face as underground stations, Granville and Burrard warrant receiving prioritization for wayf nd-ing and lighting initiatives that may be undertaken on a system-wide basis.

Tier 3

The remainder of the stations fall into the third tier and include: Stadium, 22nd Street, King George, 29th Avenue, Nanaimo, Royal Oak, Patterson, Gateway. The third tier is comprised of stations that are generally of lower volume and do not have urgent infrastructure or access needs. However, the passenger experiences at these stations would be signif cantly improved through system-wide deployment of upgrades to address a range of issues shared by all Expo stations. In many cases, ad-dressing these shared issues across all stations will allow for economies of scale.

All stations need major wayf nding improvements par-ticularly for bus/train transfers and to locate entrances at downtown stations. There is a lack of transparency, which limits sightlines, natural wayf nding and cre-

ates a dark station environment. Passengers transfer-ring to buses are regularly rained on in poor weather, as weather protection is inadequate at many stations. Cycling facilities are often inadequate and inconsistently provided. Station furniture is dated and contributes to a poor station aesthetic. These issues need attention on a system-wide basis in order to bring the stations up to a regional standard of passenger experience. Standards need be developed to assure that station infrastructure is maintained in a state of good repair. Provision of escala-tors is inconsistent. Standards for escalator and elevator provision need to be developed and in many stations escalator and elevators need upgrading. Many stations lack even ascending escalators to both platforms, only a few stations have any descending escalators. The station elevators are slow, cramped, lack transparency, often inconveniently located, and generally unpleasant to use. The integration of the stations with the surrounding community needs strengthening, with particular atten-tion to the adequacy of the connections to the stations.

67

05 Next Steps

Planning and Implementation Strategy

The results of this study indicate the need to dedicate resources towards upgrading the Expo Line stations. On-going investment is needed to ensure stations can meet current demands and those associated with the expan-sion of the system.

Upcoming annual plans will need to address the press-ing needs at Tier 1 stations. These stations already face access and capacity constraints and investment is needed to assure they can meet future demand. To address the Tier 2 and Tier 3 stations a longer-term planning and funding strategy needs to be developed as part of the 10-year Strategic Plan. Such a strategy should be f ex-ible enough to respond to changes and opportunities that occur over time.

An assessment of the most cost effective phasing and implementation approach is needed. Several station retrof t projects are currently in the planning stages and will generate additional information which will help to establish the range of anticipated costs associated with the station improvements. However two additional cost-ing exercises would be valuable for better determining costs to upgrade the stations. First, further work needs to be done to determine the cost of the suite of system-wide upgrades for a typical station. Second, further exploration is required to determine the extent to which some of the system-wide improvements will benef t

from economies of scale when done on a system-wide basis rather than station-by-station.

Infrastructure Design Guidelines

While improvements to the stations will need to be phased and generally done on a station-by-station basis, the changes must be made within a consistent design framework. Design Guidelines/Standards need to be developed to ensure consistency in station retrof ts.

Partnership Opportunities

The f ndings from this review suggest the need to work closely with municipalities to better integrate stations with the surrounding area, identifying opportunities to maximize the positive community benef t from transit stations and working towards a consistent quality of access for all users of the stations. In moving forward on upgrading the Expo Line stations and Lonsdale Quay SeaBus station, opportunities for partnerships and joint investment should be explored. Interest on the part of municipalities in cost sharing investment in the stations and station areas should be determined. New retail op-portunities may be created at some of the stations and there may be possibilities to leverage private investment. Moving forward to prioritize and address the needs identif ed in this study presents a complex planning challenge. Any initiatives or projects that relate to our stations need to involve multiple internal and external stakeholders and take a collaborative approach..

expo line station review: needs and priority assessment

Documents