METROTOWN EXCHANGE DRAFT FUNCTIONAL PLAN · 2016. 8. 30. · METROTOwn ExchangE dRafT funcTiOn plan 3 2 CHARRETTE PROCEss 2.1 Process Overview The functional plan development was

METROTOWN EXCHANGE DRAFT FUNCTIONAL PLAN March 22, 2012

with Durante Kreuk, Perkins + Will, and Vector Engineering Services

II METROTOwn ExchangE dRafT funcTiOn plan

METROTOwn ExchangE dRafT funcTiOn plan I

TAbLE OF CONTENTs1 BACKGROUND ________________________________________________________________________________________________1

1.1 Existing Conditions ____________________________________________________________________________________________1

1.2 Previous Plans and Site Studies ___________________________________________________________________________________1

1.3 Team ________________________________________________________________________________________________________1

1.4 Project Scope __________________________________________________________________________________________________2

1.5 Document Structure ____________________________________________________________________________________________2

2 ChARRette pROCess ________________________________________________________________________________________3

2.1 Process Overview ______________________________________________________________________________________________3

2.2 Goals and Objectives ____________________________________________________________________________________________3

2.3 Revised Options: Round One _____________________________________________________________________________________4

3 eVALULAtION OF OptIONs __________________________________________________________________________________7

3.1 Common Recommended Elements ________________________________________________________________________________7

3.2 Central Boulevard Rechannelization _______________________________________________________________________________9

3.3 Straight-curb Bus Bay Alignment _________________________________________________________________________________10

3.4 Layover Facility Redesign _______________________________________________________________________________________11

3.5 Option 1: Separated Beresford ___________________________________________________________________________________12

3.6 Option 2: Shared Beresford ______________________________________________________________________________________14

3.7 Option 3: Stantec Plan _________________________________________________________________________________________16

3.8 Evaluation of Options __________________________________________________________________________________________17

4 pReFeRReD OptION ________________________________________________________________________________________18

4.1 Landscape Recommendations ____________________________________________________________________________________19

4.2 Pedestrian Flow _______________________________________________________________________________________________19

5 NeXt steps: ResOLUtION OF OUtstANDING IssUes & DesIGN DeVeLOpMeNt ________________________________________20

5.1 Traffic Analysis on Central Blvd __________________________________________________________________________________20

5.2 Discussion with Metrotown Mall Management ______________________________________________________________________20

5.3 Station Building Design Modifications ____________________________________________________________________________20

5.4 Bus Re-routing at Willingdon/McKay _____________________________________________________________________________20

5.5 Pedestrian Access _____________________________________________________________________________________________20

5.6 AutoTurn Modeling Assumptions ________________________________________________________________________________20

AppeNDIX A MeetING MINUtes ______________________________________________________________________________21

AppeNDIX B WORKING AssUMptIONs ________________________________________________________________________39

AppeNDIX C BUs sWeeps ______________________________________________________________________________________40

Figure 1-1 Project Team _________________________________________________________________________________________1

Figure 1-2 Site Context __________________________________________________________________________________________2

Figure 2-1 Goals and Objectives for Metrotown Exchange Plan __________________________________________________________3

Figure 3-1 Intersection at East End of Exchange ______________________________________________________________________7

Figure 3-2 Intersection at West End of Exchange _____________________________________________________________________7

Figure 3-3 Central Boulevard Design _______________________________________________________________________________9

Figure 3-4 Straight Bus Bay Alignment ____________________________________________________________________________10

Figure 3-5 Layover Facility Image ________________________________________________________________________________11

Figure 3-6 Option 1 from Design Charrette _________________________________________________________________________12

Figure 3-7 Option 1 Plan and Section _____________________________________________________________________________13

Figure 3-8 Option 2 from Design Charrette _________________________________________________________________________14

Figure 3-9 Option 2 Plan and Section _____________________________________________________________________________15

Figure 3-10 2011 Stantec Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________16

Figure 3-11 Evaluation Summary __________________________________________________________________________________17

Figure 4-1 Preferred Option Plan and Section _______________________________________________________________________18

Figure 4-2 Primary Pedestrian Flow Diagram _______________________________________________________________________19

II METROTOwn ExchangE dRafT funcTiOn plan

METROTOwn ExchangE dRafT funcTiOn plan 1

1 bACKGROUND

1.1 Existing ConditionsThe Metrotown exchange is one of the most significant bus exchanges in the SkyTrain system, along with Surrey Central, Lougheed Mall and downtown Vancouver. As TransLink seeks to implement its vision to have 50% of all trips in the region by walking, biking, and transit by 2040, the importance of Metrotown will continue to increase. For TransLink to achieve its overall mode split goals, the regional town centres will be expected to achieve a higher mode shift away from private automobile use.

Metrotown SkyTrain Station offers unusual ridership patterns, due to the unique mix of land uses surrounding the station, including regional retail, major employment and increasingly dense residential. Due to the area’s retail strength, Metrotown experiences peak ridership on weekend and midday periods. The bus routes that serve Metrotown are important regional connections, with eleven routes terminating there.

1.2 Previous Plans and site studiesThree prior studies have been conducted of the Metrotown station and exchange in preparation for station redevelopment and expansion of the bus exchange. In 2007, Perkins + Will and Nelson\Nygaard produced the “Metrotown SkyTrain Station Transit Village Plan – Site Assessment & Design Concepts Report.” This report was followed in the same year with a report to explore the recommendations from the site assessment in more detail, the “Metrotown SkyTrain Station Transit Village Plan – Options and Evaluation.” In 2010, TransLink moved forward on finalizing the station building design with the expectation of refining the design for the bus exchange following that process. The 2011 station plan by Stantec (the “Stantec plan”) was accompanied by a functional plan for the proposed exchange, detailed in the “Summary Report – Metrotown Station Upgrades Concept Design Confirmation and Schematic Design.”

1.3 TeamThis report is the result of a stakeholder interview and design charrette process that involved the following key participants as shown in the chart on the right.

TransLink – Project Lead

Moreno Rossi, Marco Bonaventura, liana Evans

Nelson\Nygaard Transportation Design

Jeffrey Tumlin, Tim payne, Michael Moule, Emily Ehlers, danielle Rose

TransLink

Matt craigRachel Jamieson

Joanne proftVikki Kwan

Durante Kreuk Landscape

Jennifer Stamp

Vector Engineering Stormwater & Civil

Vic Sagorski

Perkins + Will Architecture

Martin nielsen

Coast Mountain bus Company

harjit Sidhu-KamboKen chow

Barry hogue

City of burnaby

Stu Ramseyian wasson

leah libsekaldoug louielou pelletier

Ed KozakJeremy Rennie

Project Oversight

Key Stakeholders

Consultant Lead

Key Consultants

Figure 1-1 Project Team

2 METROTOwn ExchangE dRafT funcTiOn plan

1.4 Project scopeThis project aimed to address the concerns of key stakeholders, primarily relating to the design and operational details of the Stantec plan. Following the presentation of the Stantec plan, the City of Burnaby raised several specific concerns with the proposed plan, including:

• A desire for better public open space and event spaces at the station

• A desire for Beresford street to be a neighborhood retail centre, a civic art corridor, and a memorable place at the heart of the city, as well as concerns that the bus facility as designed would compromise their vision for Beresford

• Concern that the real estate consumed by bus functions was excessive and disruptive to the pedestrian realm and overall vision for the area

• Concern that the exchange created a barrier between the Maywood neighbourhood and areas north of Central Boulevard

In addition, since the development of the Stantec plan, the City has developed a more detailed vision for significant changes to the Maywood neighbourhood. The first of these changes will occur with the development of to the parcel on the south side of the station, known as MetroPlace development, which will be the first major redevelopment in a series of planned projects for Beresford Street and the Maywood neighbourhood.

In order to address these concerns and others, TransLink initially asked the consultant team to evaluate the following options:

• Option 1: Shared Beresford: Focus the bus exchange around the station, with buses and cars sharing Beresford Street.

• Option 2: BC Parkway in Beresford: In order to avoid routing the BC Parkway through the exchange, this option had bicycles and cars sharing the Beresford right of way, which effectively separated the bus exchange. It included two sub-options:

1. Sawtooth curb

2. Straight-curb

• Option 3: Stantec Plan, with the BC Parkway separating the bus exchange from Beresford.

During the charrette process, any option merging the BC Parkway into Beresford was dropped completely due to concerns about interrupting the BC Parkway, and new alternatives emerged that are described in detail in this report. The option numbers were re-used, however. Later in this report references are made to option 1 and option 2, these are new options arising from the charette process and are not related to the above options.

Context

site

Metrotown Stn.

Bonsorrecreationcomplex

Public Library

civic square

Bonsorpark

Royal Oak Stn.

5 min/400m

10 min/800m

greenway / parkmall complextower

skytrain / BC parkwaybikepathwalking radius 0 50 100 200m

Maywood school

1.5 Document structureThe body of this final report is organized as follows:

• Chapter 2 provides a brief summary of the project background and scope

• Chapter 3 summarizes the charrette process, including all the goals and objectives that were developed, as well as most of the ideas that emerged in the charrette.

• Chapter 4 summarizes how each of the options that emerged in the charrette were evaluated, and describes how the charrette team arrived at one preferred option.

• Chapter 5 provides additional detail on the preferred option that was developed after the charrette.

• Chapter 6 describes additional next steps that are necessary before finalizing the project.

Figure 1-2 site Context

The context map from the Metro Place development shows the overall Metrotown context, including the BC Parkway, Metropolis, Maywood neighborhood, and recent office and residential tower developments. Source: Metro Place Project, Perkins + Will.


2 CHARRETTE PROCEss

2.1 Process OverviewThe functional plan development was structured around a four-day charrette held in October 2011 in Burnaby, near the station site. On 11 October 2011, the consultant team arrived and held separate stakeholder interviews, one with Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC) and another with the City of Burnaby later that same day.In the morning of October 12th, the entire group met to set goals and agree on evaluation criteria for the charrette process. The afternoon of October 12th included two teams studying two design options, with a pin-up presentation in the late afternoon. A full day of design charrette was held on October 13th, with a pin-up in the late afternoon. On October 14th, designs were refined among the consultant team and representatives from the City of Burnaby, CMBC, and TransLink, and a final presentation of the refined design solutions was made in the late afternoon.

2.2 Goals and ObjectivesThe workshop group agreed on the goals and objectives for the bus exchange, which are presented in Figure 2-1.

Goals Objectives

Usability: people first

• Wayfinding at Metrotown Exchange should be simple and intuitive, with a legible layout for bus-to-bus, bus-to-train, and bus-to-neighbouring development connections.

• The exchange is transparent and permeable, creating a clear view along key north/south street corridors in the station area.

• The exchange is a universally accessible, safe, and secure environment. The waiting environment provides adequate queue space, protection from the elements, transparency and high quality lighting, comfortable furnishings for passengers, and CPTED design elements.

• The exchange addresses the needs and hierarchy of all modes, including pedestrians and cyclists, transit, goods movement and vehicular travel, and is coordinated with the overall vision and future plan for the Burnaby City Centre.

• The exchange embraces a human scale with high quality furnishings, general amenities, and artistic elements.

• The exchange maximizes pedestrian connectivity north/south across the exchange while considering pedestrian safety issues and operational/functional needs.

• The exchange balances multi-modal levels of service in the station area, addressing the needs of all modes of transportation, while prioritizing pedestrians and cyclists.

Operations: transit efficiency

• The exchange protects and prioritizes bus turning movements while minimizing congestion delay for all modes and excessive bus circulation through the exchange area.

• The exchange provides functional layover and operator change-out space.

• The facility allows for effective management and maintenance of the exchange, while meeting pedestrian and cyclist safety requirements.

• Bus service is fully integrated with other modes

• The BC Parkway improves travel “through” and “to” the exchange, including secure storage facilities and convenient bike-on-transit integration. Additionally, all streets in the exchange area will provide a safe and comfortable space for cyclists.

placemaking: great places

• Metrotown exchange is a community asset, integrated with the public realm and iconic in form. The exchange area supports the City’s streetscape vision for an active and lively public realm, while maintaining the connection to the Metropolis at Metrotown Mall.

• The exchange utilizes sustainable infrastructure, distinct, memorable and iconic architecture, and high quality, long-term materials. Additionally, soft landscaping and transparency create a human scale environment.

• The exchange offers a consistent and integrated palette of colours, materials and surface treatments to create coherence across the network and to foster a distinctive identity for the facility.

• The exchange is a community amenity, not just a basic functional space.

• Individual transit facilities are designed to foster a distinctive identity that respects the local context while still conforming to network wide standards through the use of common, standardized components for a consistent passenger experience.

environment: leader in sustainability

• Lighting is dark sky compliant that also creates a safe and transparent exchange.

• Negative environmental impacts and energy consumption are reduced in exchange construction and operations, including on-site stormwater management.

• The exchange is designed to minimize absorption and radiation of solar energy, lowering its contribution to temperature increases in surrounding areas and minimizing its contributions to local and regional heat island effects.

Accountability: fiscally responsible

• The exchange aims to minimize ongoing maintenance and operational costs, including labour, materials and training, as well as consumption of natural and energy resources.

• High quality design and revenue-generating opportunities are integrated into the exchange facility and the public realm.

• The exchange has a resilient, responsive, and flexible design capable of aging gracefully and scalable to accommodate for future growth.

Figure 2-1 Goals and Objectives for Metrotown Exchange Plan


beresford street VisionDuring the course of the charrette process, the City articulated its vision of a new town centre for the entire Metrotown area. The City has two key visions for Beresford Street immediately south of and adjacent to the station: as an art walk and as a celebration street. The Beresford art walk will include several rotating public art installations. The first planned development on Beresford, Metro Place, will include public art. The art will be predominantly on the south side of the street. The development will provide a continuous facade along the street, with a 6-10 foot setback. There is the opportunity for displays, street trees, outdoor seating, and weather protection.

The “celebration streets” vision will provide Burnaby with a new gathering place to celebrate events and national holidays. Beresford Street will act as an outdoor living room, and will accommodate formal and informal gatherings. The City acknowledged that there is a challenge in developing a one-sided street, and would like to extend the art to the north side, with details such as pavement patterns and sculptures within the exchange.

2.3 Revised Options: Round OneDuring the 11 October stakeholder meeting with the City of Burnaby, the options to be evaluated in the charrette were slightly modified. Discussion during the stakeholder meeting centered on four decisions: (1) location of the BC Parkway, (2) bus bay curb alignment, (3) Busway and Beresford Street design, and (4) design of Central Boulevard. The refined concepts that were developed and evaluated in the charrette are as follows:

2.3.1. BC parkway OptionsTwo options were evaluated for the BC Parkway alignment: through the bus exchange or as a separate path along the south edge of the busway separating Beresford from the busway.

2.3.2. Bus Bay Curb Alignment OptionsThe charrette evaluated both a sawtooth and straight-curb alternative for the exchange busway.

2.3.3. Beresford street OptionsThe charrette evaluated two alternatives: a shared busway and vehicle right of way on Beresford, and a version with the busway and Beresford right of way separated by the BC Parkway (a refined version of the Stantec plan).

Art installation along the Canada Line in Richmond. Source: City of Burnaby

Beresford as a Great Street

Beresford art walkAn Outdoor Shopping Street

Celebratory streetBeresford Art Walk. Source: Metro Place Project, Perkins + Will. Celebratory Street. Source: Metro Place Project, Perkins + Will.


2.3.4. Central Boulevard OptionsDuring the stakeholder interviews, the group decided to look further into the possibility of narrowing and modifying the travel lanes on Central adjacent to the exchange in order to be able to widen the sidewalks and passenger waiting zones on the northern edge of the exchange, and potentially enhance the mall façade.

The charrette evaluated several modifications to Central Boulevard, including variations in lane width, number of lanes, on-street parking and bus pull-outs, an on-street bicycle lane, and removal of the center turn lane/median.

Specifically, the group studied three concepts:

1. Narrowing the lanes but maintaining the current layout (2 westbound lanes + 2 eastbound lanes and a center turn lane).

2. Reducing the number of lanes on Central Blvd, with one lane in each direction and a center turn lane. This would potentially create more room for the sidewalk and bus stop waiting area on the southern curb of Central Blvd through the exchange. This option would also potentially include parking on the north curb of Central Blvd alongside the mall.

3. Removing the center turn lane to gain sidewalk width on the south side of Central Blvd (north side of the exchange) while maintaining two through lanes in each direction.

2.3.5. Other key issues addressed in the charrette 2.3.5.1. Layover facility needs and passenger pickup/drop-off at the mall During stakeholder interviews, CMBC expressed concerned about the operational challenges of picking up and dropping off passengers at both the mall and the new bus exchange. There is also concern that high ridership routes with already long queues will lead to passengers preferring to wait at the layover facility.

Other concerns relate to the undesirable pedestrian environment of the existing layover exchange. The mall’s “front door” is hidden from street view, tucked in behind a long walkway. Access to the existing exchange does not meet TransLink Accessibility Guidelines and passengers with a disability cannot easily cross from the SkyTrain to the existing bus exchange. Crosswalks on Central Boulevard are limited, and there are high incidences of jaywalking.

At the end of the stakeholder interviews, there were strong sentiments towards limiting pickups and drop-offs to the proposed exchange, thereby removing most foot traffic from the existing exchange. See section 4.4 for more detail. This alternative was studied with the understanding that connectivity to the mall must be maintained.

2.3.5.2. Pedestrian access/crossing issuesThe Metrotown exchange is an active pedestrian environment, with complex movements to, from, within and across the exchange, as shown in the pedestrian flow diagram in Figure 4-2. New development in the Maywood neighbourhood will add additional foot traffic to the area. Making the area legible, comfortable and safe for the additional pedestrian demand is one of the primary project goals. (For detail on how pedestrian flows were addressed, see Section 4.2.)

The City is interested in pavement treatments that would unify the multiple pathways and create a visual connection across Beresford Street and through the exchange. This also connects to the need to create a strong visual corridor across the exchange, in line with the ends of Silver Avenue and Telford Avenue, which currently dead end at the exchange. The City would like to explore the options of moving station buildings to improve visibility north/south through the exchange.

The pedestrian needs of the site must also be balanced with the operational requirements of transit vehicles moving through the site. Due to the high volume of buses that will travel through the exchange, it is critical that crosswalk design meet TransLink standards for operator sight lines.

Landscaping reinforces the linearity of the site and enhances station identity without interrupting pedestrian views or circulation across the site. Source: City of Burnaby

Currently, the Metropolis entrance from Central Blvd. is hidden behind the bus exchange. Relocating most boarding and alighting functions across Central Blvd to the SkyTrain station could allow the mall to move its front door to the street.

Central Blvd is a pedestrian obstacle, but could be improved with corner bulges, and, if supported by traffic studies, a potential “road diet.”


2.3.6. street-level environmentThe City has been working to improve the form of the built environment at the street level, and would like the station and exchange to enhance and encourage this vision. In addition, the mall contributes to half of the transit ridership at Metrotown and it is important to provide a more inviting entrance to the mall on the street level, particularly with the removal of passenger pickup and drop-off from the existing exchange on the mall side of Central Boulevard. The City is interested in seeing designs that would enhance the mall’s prominence along Central Boulevard, potentially by widening the existing pathway. While not entirely meeting the goals of encouraging street-level pedestrian activity, the existing passarelle provides weather protected access between the SkyTrain station and the Metropolis at Metrotown.

The Metro Vancouver area has several excellent examples of SkyTrain stations and bus exchanges that are also engaging and high-quality pedestrian environments.

2.3.7. high quality materialsA key value emphasized by representatives of the City of Burnaby during stakeholder interviews and the design charrette is the use of high-quality design materials. There is also a strong desire from the city to see pedestrian barriers designed in a way that does not obstruct views or disrupt the aesthetics of the station area.

Pervious landscaping integrated with seating areas flank the elevated guideway in Richmond. Source: City of Burnaby.

Landscape and stormwater treatment enhances pedestrian environment under guideway in Richmond. Source: City of Burnaby.

Community news boards surround structural column in Richmond. Source: City of Burnaby. Guideway seating and other pedestrian amenities. Source: City of Burnaby.

Source of photos: Ian Wasson, City of Burnaby. Location of photos: Canada Line, Richmond.


3 EVALULATION OF OPTIONsThis section provides a detailed description of each element considered in the design charrette for the Metrotown exchange, including issues, options, and conclusions. This section starts with a description of the design elements where consensus was readily achieved, followed by a thorough analysis of the more controversial issues. Detailed meeting minutes are available in Appendix A.

3.1 Common Recommended Elements3.1.1. exchange connections to Beresford and Central In all options, roadway connections are made between Beresford and Central, both at McKay west of the exchange, and across from the Metropolis parkade entry, immediately east of the exchange. Both of these connections interrupt the BC Parkway and must accommodate high volumes of buses, bicycles, and pedestrians, so great care must be taken in their design.

To minimize transit delay, there should be a transit-only lane at the east entry to the exchange, along with a protected (signalized) left-turn lanes with transit priority, allowing buses to safely and efficiently access the exchange.

The exit of the exchange on the west end must also be designed with great care, allowing buses to reliably exit the exchange and continue either east or west on Central, or north on McKay, with minimal congestion delays. At the same time, it will be important to design the BC Parkway and other pedestrian crosswalks in such a way to minimize conflicts between buses and non-motorized travelers.

There is concern that northbound traffic at McKay and Central will block the busway exit. Signal pre-emption, whereby transit vehicles could manipulate signals for priority access, will likely be necessary to move buses smoothly out of the exchange. Heading northbound on McKay and approaching Central, there would need to be a right turn and thru traffic lane. Buses would not be limited to a single lane but would use the entire northbound approach to turn westbound or eastbound onto Central Blvd. (refer to Appendix C for bus turning movements at this location). McKay southbound approaching Beresford would be one lane, and would widen to include an extra left turn lane to keep traffic moving.

Prohibiting left turns off eastbound Beresford onto McKay may prevent vehicles from queuing in the BC Parkway crossing when the signal at Central and McKay is red. The intersection at McKay and Beresford would be signal-controlled.

Figure 3-1 Intersection at East End of Exchange

Figure 3-2 Intersection at West End of Exchange

Note: only Option 1 shown. Option 2 has similar configuration.Note: only Option 1 shown. Option 2 has similar configuration.


3.1.2. Accommodating private passenger drop-off/kiss and rideIn the first few years after the exchange is rebuilt, it may be practical to have the kiss and ride in a lay-by on Central, west of the bus stops. When the HandyDART needs to move onto the north side of Central in that space, it may be necessary to move the kiss and ride to another location. One potential location might be the curb space east of the exchange on Beresford and Central. Taxi stands could also be located along Beresford, east of the transit exchange. Realistically, passenger drop-offs will happen anywhere on the curb, but if passenger pickups, which take longer, are housed in a convenient location, compliance will be more likely, and enforcement more acceptable.

3.1.3. pedestrian access to the exchangeRaised crosswalks within the busway create operational challenges and passenger discomfort, and should not be used within the exchange. The crosswalks would be treated with a consistent paver design that would extend beyond the crosswalks to designate pedestrian crossings. The goal is to create an environment that feels urban and comfortable for pedestrians and protects transit from unpredictable pedestrian crossings without the use of restrictive fences surrounding the busway.

On Beresford south of the busway, there would be crosswalks on all sides of the three-way intersections, provided adequate bus spacing and bus clearance from the crosswalk can be achieved.

Operationally, buses need to be six meters behind the pedestrian crosswalks in the busway in order for one bus to see the crosswalk around another bus. However, to optimize operations and safety, 12.5m between buses and the crosswalk is ideal. Within the exchange, this 12.5m buffer has been maintained, except at crosswalk locations with a stop bar, where at least 6m is attained. In the bus bay, there should also be 21 meters between the nose of one articulated bus and the tail of another articulated bus.

3.1.4. enhance passenger waiting environmentThe passenger waiting environment should shelter riders from the elements, without obstructing bus operations or reducing visibility across the exchange.

Bus shelters near bus bays will be the length of articulated buses. It is important to keep trees back from bus loading zones to retain flexibility. Three meters is the optimal distance between tree plantings and busway curb edge. It is also important to keep trees two meters from the mezzanine to avoid conflict. Large, gracious trees with high canopies will improve sightlines from crosswalks and maximize the visibility of pedestrians crossing the busway.

3.1.5. Design details for BC parkway The BC Parkway would remain eight meters wide throughout the length of the exchange, with a four meter wide bikeway and a four meter wide pedestrian-only path. A 50 centimetre cobble/rumble strip and signage should separate the bikeway and the pedestrian path to prevent crossovers by cyclists or pedestrians. The bikeway will be broken with a strip of contrasting paving to alert bikers of an upcoming pedestrian crossing.

3.1.6. Green design strategies to manage onsite storm water runoffLarge rain gardens are included in the planned development on the south side of Beresford to control runoff. These rain gardens could be mirrored along the south edge of the exchange, potentially under the guideway. Landscaping under the station mezzanine would have southern exposure and could be watered through rainwater collection at the station. The location of BC Hydro ducts will determine the final orientation of rain gardens and plantings.

3.1.7. Adjustment of station buildings to improve view corridors through the exchange

If possible, station buildings should be positioned to allow for openings that correspond with the termini of Silver and Telford.

The bike parking station should be moved to the west adjacent to the elevators and stair access to the station. The planned retail near the west entrance can also be shifted over to clear the visibility from Silver through the station. The BC Parkway is currently shared by cyclists and pedestrians,

but in the future would have separated paths.The current bus platform is functional but uninviting.

The existing passarelle connects passengers directly from the station mezzanine to the second floor of the Metropolis Mall.

Pedestrian connections between the station and current bus exchange are poor.


3.2 Central boulevard RechannelizationCentral Boulevard is classified as a primary collector by the City of Burnaby. The street is 20 meters wide, curb-to-curb, and currently has two travel lanes in each direction, as well as a median/center turn lane. The pedestrian realm along the north side of Central ranges in width from 1.5m to 6m. The sidewalk on the south edge is narrow, particularly at the SkyTrain guideway columns. There are several approaches for improving Central for pedestrians, all of which are applicable to each of the exchange options:

3.2.1. Option A: eliminate bus pull-out laneIf buses need to pull out of the outside travel lane to reach their stops along Central, the transit passenger queue space is limited to 2.5 meters, making it tight for passengers and very difficult for other pedestrians circulating across the exchange. If buses stopped in-lane, operations would be more efficient. Buses would not have to merge back into traffic, then cross into one more lane to the left in advance of the left turn into the layover facility, which is a distance of less than one block. If buses stop in the curb lane, the sidewalk could be widened to approximately 6.5 meters. At the charrette, the City agreed to allow drop-off in the curb lane, but not boardings or layovers, so it may be possible to concentrate all boardings on the Beresford side of the exchange until there is no more capacity, and bus pull-outs added to Central later.

3.2.2. Option B: Narrow travel lanesThe travel lanes on Central are currently 3.5 meters wide. By narrowing the inner travel lanes, additional width could be gained for queue space and sidewalks at the exchange. Lane widths require the agreement of both the City (they control the streets) and TransLink (to ensure they are adequate for bus operations). Bus operators prefer 3.5 meter lanes to minimize damage to mirrors and ease operations. However, 3.5 meters may not be necessary for all lanes on Central. The City also noted that the buses pulling out of the drop-off only stops on the Central side of the future exchange will not operate substantially in either lane as they will be crossing the inside lane only to enter the left turn lane. This

may reduce the need for 3.5 meter wide lanes to accommodate bus through movements. Lane widths along Central could be adjusted to: • 3.5 meter curb lane

• 3.3 meter through (inside) lane

• 3.1 meter left-turn lane

3.2.3. Option C: Lane reduction on CentralRemoving one lane in either travel direction from Central would maximize the amount of space for pedestrian travel and queue space at the exchange, and would make Central less of a pedestrian barrier. By moving to a three-lane configuration, there would be room for bike lanes on the street, or parking and an additional three to six meters for pedestrian queue space on the south side of Central at the station site.

While there is ample width for bike lanes on Central under the three-lane configuration, such facilities might be undesirable due to conflicts with buses pulling away from the curb and crossing an on-street bike lane and the eastbound travel lane to get to the northbound left turn pocket and enter the layover facility.

While this option would be advantageous to pedestrian accommodation on site, the City would need to perform further study to determine if removing vehicular functionality on Central would meet their requirements, particularly given the significant growth planned for the town centre.

3.2.4. Option D: eliminate center turn lane on Central, maintain two lanes in either direction

This option was not considered in depth because it was determined that a center turn lane on this segment of Central is critical for bus operations. The median also provides an essential pedestrian refuge in crossing Central.

3.2.5. RecommendationThe City of Burnaby has not performed an analysis on the number of lanes necessary to maintain adequate level of service (LOS), or transit and automobile through-put, on Central Boulevard. The only data available shows peak hour peak direction volume on Central to be about 600 vehicles.1 The City believes there is the potential for a significant increase in total trips on Central and Beresford due to future development. An additional 5,000-10,000 people are expected to reside in the Maywood neighbourhood in the near future. It is also important to realize that this will also increase the number of pedestrians in the area significantly. There is a great need to accommodate pedestrian movements and access to the station and the Metropolis at Metrotown mall.

For the purposes of this report, two through lanes in each direction and one center, shared left turn lane are assumed, pending further analysis from the City. The existing north curb of Central will remain, and the south side of Central will be utilized for curb-side drop-off west of the west station house for three articulated buses. To lay over, buses will utilize a facility on the north side of Central within the current exchange, crossing only one lane of traffic to enter the left turn pocket and into the layover facility. In subsequent design phases, the travel lanes should be reduced to the minimum practicable width agreeable to the City and TransLink. Outside travel lanes are assumed to be 3.5m wide, while inner travel lanes and the shared left turn lane/median are 3.3m wide. The eastbound bus-only lane is 4.5m wide.

The rest of the south curb of Central at the exchange will feature two pull-in bays. Drop-off, layover, and pickup activities for community shuttles and HandyDART will take place in the west bay flanked by two curb extensions, which shorten the distance for pedestrians to cross Central. A second pull-in bay at the east end of the exchange will facilitate independent drop-off, layover, and pickup activities for two 12.3 meter long standard buses.

1 Stuart Ramsey, City of Burnaby, Stakeholder Meeting with the City of Burnaby, October 11, 2011.

Figure 3-3 Central boulevard Design

The approach to Central Boulevard is largely independent of the recommendations that follow. Future analysis determining if lanes may be reduced along Central would not invalidate the recommendations for the layover facility, bus bays, or Beresford Street.


3.3 Straight-curb Bus Bay AlignmentAnalysis performed during the charrette showed that a straight-curb bus bay alignment for the Metrotown exchange can serve all of the necessary bays in the exchange, while improving passenger queue space and urban design elements and maintain future transit operations flexibility. The sawtooth bay design proposed in Stantec 2011 does not provide any operational advantages over straight-curb bays. Given the length of the exchange between Telford and McKay, five articulated independent arrival / independent departure bus bays plus one standard independent arrival / independent departure bus bay are able to be accommodated (i.e. buses may enter the exchange, pull into any bus bay regardless of whether adjacent bays are full, and exit the bay as scheduled). A straight-curb alignment provides the operator with the most flexibility to alter vehicle size or stop location, as demand warrants. The straight curb alignment also makes the pedestrian space within the exchange deeper, meaning a gentler sweep of the bus turning westbound on Beresford. Instead of continuously turning 180 degrees, buses will make two 90 degree turns separated by a longer straight-away section. This will increase operator sightlines and improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

A deeper exchange also creates more space for pedestrians. While still providing full flexibility and meeting transit operational requirements, the straight-curb allows for a narrower pavement footprint. Compared to a sawtooth bay configuration, this arrangement allows Beresford to appear more “street-like,” with a 7.5 meter wide lane for buses to lay-by at the curb as well as safely bypass another bus. The straight-curb alignment also holds advantages for urban design; not only does it widen the available pedestrian realm, but it makes the exchange feel like an enclosed urban street. The east side of the proposed exchange will

Figure 3-4 Straight Bus Bay Alignment

also provide additional space for pedestrians, and curb bulb-outs along Central Boulevard shorten the street crossing distance.

In the long term, the Community Shuttles could be shifted onto Central, as shown in Figure 3-3, which would not be necessary until there are six routes operating with articulated buses. In the meantime, shuttles can operate on Beresford in the same lay-by for pickup and drop-off as the HandyDART. Figure 3-4 shows the long-term scenario with five articulated buses and one standard bus within the exchange and shuttles and HandyDART picking up and dropping off along Central Boulevard.


3.4 Layover Facility RedesignDuring the charrette, the team’s study of the operational needs for the exchange led to a groundbreaking shift from the Stantec 2011 plan’s functional concept. Previous plans envisioned two bus stops at Metrotown for each route—one north of Central at the mall and one at the SkyTrain station. New analysis re-envisions the existing exchange as a layover facility with passenger drop-off and pickup of only the electric trolley (Route 19). An option to relocate the trolley was considered; however, relocating Route 19 would be prohibitively complicated and costly due to the need to construct overhead trolley wire throughout the proposed exchange on the south side the new island. The remaining routes can be accommodated fully in the proposed exchange, with layover taking place in the redesigned existing exchange north of Central.

This redesign will allow a clear and consistent operational scheme to be communicated to passengers. It will also increase passenger safety, reduce pedestrian exposure to buses making complicated turning movements, and increase predictability among both bus operators and pedestrians. Pedestrians will have little cause to dart between buses in the layover facility, as only the electric trolley will utilize this area for drop-off and pickup activities and that operation will be at the north curb face, meaning passengers do not need to cross the pathway of any moving vehicles to reach the passenger pick-up and drop-off bay for route 19 . Assigning each route to a singular drop-off and pickup location will improve wayfinding and eliminate possible Central Boulevard crossings by passengers making SkyTrain to bus transfers.

In this new concept, routes coming from the east would drop off passengers on the south side of the proposed exchange, loop around and layover at the existing exchange, and would go back into the proposed exchange to pick up passengers. Routes coming from the west would drop off on the Central side of the proposed exchange, cross one lane of traffic, turn left to enter the layover facility, and then go back into the proposed exchange and pick up on the south side of the exchange. In total, the facility can accommodate the layover of 12 articulated buses and the pickup, drop-off and layover of two Route 19 standard trolleys. Full operational assumptions for the layover facility are detailed in the appendix. Design vehicle specifications can be found in Appendix B.

It must also be pointed out that the re-design of the facility envisions a complete re-build of the center island including removal of the escalator from the second level of the mall as the island would no longer serve a transit passenger function.

There are several attendant issues that the relocation of the layover facility and passenger drop-off/pick-up addresses. These issues are discussed below:

3.4.1. IssUe: simplify transit operations from the proposed stantec 2011 concept, minimizing the need for buses to loop around the exchange and cross unsignalized pedestrian crosswalks.

If each line only has one boarding location in the Metrotown station area, operations will be more efficient and less confusing to passengers. It may be desirable to have buses stop and layover in the same place to avoid looping. However, the City of Burnaby desires not to have buses in layover on Central Boulevard thus occupying a travel lane. This option would also imply a need for curb adjustments on Central to accommodate bus layover space out of traffic, rather than performing passenger pick-up and drop-off in lane.

3.4.2. IssUe: Maintain excellent transit access to the mall while promoting a street-level urban environment and providing an intuitive and clear layout for bus pickup and drop-offs.

The narrow pedestrian way west of the layover facility would be expanded to three times wider than its current width. The barrier between that path and the layover facility would be a low wall, to mirror the one used between the BC Parkway and the exchange busway and help differentiate the pedestrian realm from the transit realm. This will serve to funnel foot traffic to the north wall of the layover facility, to a mall entrance and pickup/drop-off for Route 19. The alley that is west of the layover facility could be separated from the walkway with low bollards, to send a message about pedestrian priority in that space, or the alley and pedestrian walkway could be converted into a generous shared space. The pedestrian way east of the layover facility extending from the Central Blvd crosswalk connects the mall and SkyTrain station. A retaining wall separates the layover facility and the walkway east of the layover facility. Between the retaining wall and colonnade, a minimum clearance of 3m is provided, refer to Figure 3-5.

Patrons traveling between the mall and the bus exchange or SkyTrain station would likely cross Central at the ground level, though some may still use the passarelle. For passengers crossing at ground level, the pedestrian environment could be improved as described in Section 4.1.

Figure 3-5 Layover Facility Image

2 13 December 2011 Translink Metrotown Functional Design Criteria

The proposed new layover facility accommodates future bus improvements. For more details, see the Appendices.

3.4.3 IssUe: Meet current and future demand for bus layover space.TransLink predicts a demand for 11 operational spaces, including seven spaces for articulated buses, two spaces for standard buses, and space for two trolleys at the Metrotown exchange.2 The layover facility redesign would accommodate the minimum functional design requirements, providing a total of 14 operational spaces, including four articulated bus spaces with independent arrival and independent departure; five articulated bus spaces with sequential arrival independent pull out; and three articulated bus spaces for first in / first out operations. There would also be , pickup and drop-off and layover space for two Route 19 trolleys, operating in a first in / first out fashion similar to operations within the current exchange. Note that the location of the route 19 operating area does not require and passenger/pedestrian mixing with transit operations traffic. The operating area is located against the north edge of the re-designed exchange. Refer to Figure 3-5 and the appendix for full operational assumptions of the layover facility. There would also be an operators’ facility on (what is currently) the pedestrian island in the layover facility.

3.4.4. IssUe: Create an enhanced pedestrian environment on Central by developing retail frontage along the southern edge of the planned layover facility.

By redesigning the interior of the exchange and wrapping the space between the layover facility and the sidewalk on Central, retail frontage could be developed. Central would become more of an urban street and less of a bypass route. This would potentially have the effect of moving the front door of the mall out to the street, and could be enhanced by the presence of on-street parking, if the City of Burnaby chooses to modify Central. This location would also be especially convenient for pedestrians traveling between the SkyTrain station and the Mall.

3.4.5. Recommendations• Concentrate all boardings and alightings around the new

Metrotown exchange under the SkyTrain station, with the exception of the #19, which will board and alight in the current exchange.

• Improve pedestrian connections to the mall with pedestrian crossings.

• Develop façade options for the mall.


3.5 Option 1: separated beresfordIn this option, the busway and Beresford are separated by the BC Parkway. It should be noted that the option numbers represent new options conceived at the charrette and are not synonymous with the option numbers outlined in Chapter 2.

3.5.1. IssUe: provide enough independent arrival / independent departure bus bays to accommodate current and future needs, while supporting an active pedestrian environment.

This arrangement would create a seven to nine meter deep pedestrian waiting area on the south side of the exchange. While the optimal depth depends on the amount of furniture, nine meters provides more flexibility for design of shelters, wind screens, and trees. The 7.5 meter wide busway is sufficient to allow buses to bypass each other for independent arrivals and independent departures.

3.5.2. IssUe: Allow Beresford street to be closed to motor vehicles for public celebrations.

This option allows the City to shut down Beresford without significantly impacting bus operations.

3.5.3. IssUe: safely accommodate BC parkway and pedestrian sidewalk without causing potential interference with bus operations or compromising the standard of a four meter wide separated bikeway and four meter wide pedestrian way.

This arrangement allows for a four meter bikeway and four meter pedestrian way, adjacent to a 7.5 meter straight-curb busway. There would be 1.8 meters remaining for separation between Beresford and the bicycle and pedestrian pathways, which could accommodate a row of small trees, and a one meter zone for separation between the busway and the paths. This 1.8 meter area would not be sufficient to accommodate a functional rain garden, since at least two meters are recommended for this location.

The pedestrian way could be designed to mirror the sidewalk on the south edge of Beresford, creating a more two-sided urban environment. The bikeway and pedestrian way should be separated to discourage modal conflicts. This option allows for each leg of the intersections along Beresford to have a crosswalk, but more effectively channelizes the pedestrians into designated crossings of the bikeway and busway at Telford and Silver. This minimizes bus

operator concerns and conflicts with pedestrians crossing the bike way.

3.5.4. IssUe: prevent undesired pedestrian crossings through the busway without installing unattractive barrier fencing.

Between crosswalks, there is a need for some form of barrier between the sidewalk, BC Parkway, and the busway. A fence would prevent crossing, but would also be an unwelcome and unsightly physical barrier in the neighbourhood. The aim is not to sequester residents on one side of the fence and transit riders on the other. This project will follow the best practice examples for pedestrian barriers. A low stone wall between the bikeway and the busway is an optimal solution, if it is well-designed (see image at right).

A rumble strip should be used to create separation between the bikeway and pedway. The pedestrian pathway would have benches and furniture to create a more inviting environment and effectively channel pedestrians into intersections at designated crosswalks. Low bollard lighting is a solution to provide maximum visibility of pedestrians in crosswalks without excessive overhead lighting.

Figure 3-6 Option 1 from Design Charrette

Through the Olympic Village in Vancouver, bicyclists and pedestrians have separated paths.


3.5.5. RecommendationThis option has efficient bus operations and improved roadway safety by minimizing conflicts among different users. While the separated exchange requires more total impervious surface or roadway space, it allows Beresford Street to feel more like a “street,” and to be closed for special events without requiring extensive rerouting of the transit system. During the charrette, it was decided that the pedestrian way should be on the southern edge of the path, to give pedestrians maximum sunlight exposure and to mirror the sidewalk on the south side of Beresford.

Figure 3-7 Option 1 Plan and section


3.6 Option 2: shared beresfordIn this option, the northernmost lane of Beresford Street would function as part of the Metrotown bus exchange. Bus bays along Beresford would accommodate pickup and drop-off movements. In this option, the BC Parkway would run east-west through the exchange plaza. The width of Beresford Street would be 13 meters to accommodate a four meter wide outside lane for buses, a 3.5 meter wide westbound lane for through traffic, and 5.5 meters for a travel lane eastbound plus parking. Landscaping would accommodate stormwater and provide thermal comfort and visual separation of the bike lane from other uses.

This option would provide eight meters of passenger queue space along Beresford’s north curb, separated from the four meter wide bikeway by two meter wide planters. There would be a remaining five to seven meters for pedestrian circulation between the BC Parkway buffer landscaping on its north edge and the station buildings. Issues related to the option are discussed below.

3.6.1. Issue: provide enough independent arrival / independent departure bus bays to accommodate current and future needs, while supporting an active pedestrian environment.

Bus operators would prefer to have a straight-curb alignment for bus bays when operating on a general purpose street. In this option, straight-curb orientation is especially desirable, allowing Beresford to function like a standard street with a bus-only lane. If a straight-curb on the north side of Beresford is used (instead of the sawtooth curb shown in the Stantec 2011 plan), there would be a larger buffer between the pedestrian way along Beresford and the bikeway, while still maintaining five meters of passenger queue space. This option also allows for a larger plaza immediately south of the station (and north of the bikeway).

3.6.2. Issue: Allow Beresford street to be closed to motor vehicles for public celebrations.

While closing the entire Beresford right of way for special events would be logistically challenging, it might be possible to close most of the street while maintaining access for the busway. It might be preferable in this option to shift the focal point of Celebration Streets westward to

the Burnaby Civic Plaza and the public library, located west of McKay, between Willingdon and McKay, to reduce conflicts between the community event and transit operations .

3.6.3. Issue: Accommodate passenger drop-off space and discourage illegal stopping / parking in the busway.

Bus operations in this configuration would be complicated by the presence of private automobiles in the busway, and there would be an increased potential for illegal stopping along the curb in the bus only lane. Signage and enforcement would be necessary to combat this issue.

3.6.4. Issue: safely accommodate eight meter wide BC parkway and pedestrian sidewalk through the exchange without interference with bus operations. Discourage jaywalking across Beresford.

This option requires buses to interact with the BC Parkway at the intersections on the east and west ends of the exchange. Depending on the volume of bicycles and pedestrians on the parkway, this could significantly hinder bus operations and lead to safety concerns from the operators due to the increase in conflicts with non-motorized traffic on BC Parkway.

This option does not allow for all legs of all intersections to have crosswalks across Beresford, which is seen by the city as a disadvantage of the plan. In order to accommodate six bays with appropriate spacing between the bays, crosswalks across Beresford could only be installed on the eastern side of the intersections along Beresford.

There is concern that pedestrians will be drawn away from the southern edge of Beresford by the presence of the pedestrian path of the BC Parkway, as it will have better solar exposure. This is problematic only in as much as it creates more congestion in the bus pickup and drop-off areas.

3.6.5. ConclusionsFrom a service delivery perspective, the shared Beresford option will be more challenging to implement and involve additional safety issues such as increased conflicts between buses and pedestrians, buses and autos, and bikes and pedestrians. A bus operating on Beresford shared with traffic is operationally more challenging than the independent busway in the separated Beresford Option 1. Routing the BC Parkway through the exchange also results in increased conflicts.

Figure 3-8 Option 2 from Design Charrette


Figure 3-9 Option 2 Plan and section


3.7 Option 3: stantec PlanThe 2011 Stantec Plan is shown as reference in Figure 3-10.

Figure 3-10 2011 stantec Plan


3.8 Evaluation of OptionsFigure 3-11 below provides an overall evaluation of how well each option supports the goals and objectives described in Chapter 3. The specific advantages of the preferred option, Separated Beresford, are provided below. It should be noted that the option numbers represent new options conceived at the charrette and are not synonymous with the option numbers outlined in Chapter 2.

In all categories, Option 1: Separated Beresford performance as well or better than the other options studied, making is the preferred alternative. More detail comparing Option 1 to the other options is provided below.

Figure 3-11 Evaluation summary

Goals

Option 1: Separated Beresford

Option 2: Shared Beresford

Option 3: Stantec Plan


Good Fair Poor


Excellent Fair Fair

Placemaking: great places

Good Good Poor

Environment: leader in sustainability

Good Good Good

Accountability: fiscally responsible

Very Good Fair Fair

3.8.1. Usability• From a transit passenger, path user, nearby resident, and visitor

perspective, the preferred option is a significant improvement on both the 2007 Metrotown SkyTrain Station Transit Village Plan—Options and Evaluation and 2010 Summary Report—Metrotown Station Upgrades Concept Design Confirmation and Schematic Design, and represents the optimal choice among the different options evaluated in this study.

• Potential passenger confusion – including having some passengers rush across Central to be assured of a seat by boarding the bus at its first pick-up – is significantly reduced by having buses board at only one location in the consolidated exchange.

• Crosswalks are provided along all key pedestrian desire lines, and by moving various station elements, sightlines are improved across the exchange.

• The exchange is widened as much as practicable to increase passenger queue area.

• By routing the BC Parkway separately, conflicts among modes are minimized.

• The plan proposes a high level of urban design amenity, in keeping with the City’s vision for the area.

• Potential concerns to be mitigated:

o Improved wayfinding will be necessary to help passengers find the stop for Route 19, the one bus that will not serve the consolidated exchange.

o Improved pedestrian crossings and walkways to the mall will be necessary to ensure that this major transit destination remains easily accessible with an intuitive pathway for bus transit customers.

3.8.2. Operations• The preferred option significantly improves bus circulation

throughout the exchange area, and provides enhanced driver facilities in the improved bus layover area at the mall.

• The design provides an optimal level of separation among buses, cars, through cyclists, through pedestrians, crossing pedestrians and transit passengers, while allowing the entire exchange area to be sufficiently permeable to pedestrians.

• Further work is required to define the operational feasibility of this concept given CMBC concerns with the layover facility.

3.8.3. placemaking• The functional plan identifies significant opportunities for

improved station facility design and public realm, along with sustainable infrastructure including full mitigation of on-site stormwater.

• As discussed in the charrette, both designs could facilitate major community celebrations, allowing for the full closure of Beresford Street, as well as a major public open space to the west of the exchange.


o Significant additional work must be conducted beyond this functional plan to ensure high quality design details.

o Funding must be identified to pay for a high level of design, including partnerships among different public agencies and private developers.

3.8.4. environment• The plan supports daylighting, stormwater management strategies,

energy management and climate comfort recommendations.


o Significant additional work must be conducted beyond this functional plan to ensure high quality design details.


3.8.5. Accountability• Due to more time efficient operations, the preferred concept

significantly reduces bus operating costs compared to the Stantec Plan, allowing for more sustainable bus operations. The preferred option results in somewhat improved operating costs compared to Option2 due to reduced bus delay due to traffic interference on Beresford.

• The plan considers reduced energy costs, along with better options for revenue-generating uses in the exchange area.




4 PREFERRED OPTIONThe following figures incorporate all of the technical recommendations above, along with additional precedent images to highlight design qualities.

Figure 4-1 Preferred Option Plan and section


4.1 Landscape recommendationsThe BC Parkway would remain eight meters wide throughout the length of the exchange, with a four meter wide bikeway and a four meter wide pedestrian-only path. A 50 centimetre cobble/rumble strip and signage should separate the bikeway and the pedestrian path to prevent crossovers by cyclists or pedestrians. The bikeway will be broken with a strip of contrasting paving to alert bikers of an upcoming pedestrian crossing. Custom wood slat benches at the BC Parkway crosswalk interfaces, directs pedestrians to crosswalks and prevents them from entering the bikeway. A planted strip separates the Parkway and the Bus loop. It is suggested that a combination of a public art fences and a low concrete walls will provide safety/ separation/ and a unique opportunity for human scaled public art. Consistent integrated palette of colours, high quality materials and surface treatments’ are used throughout to create a coherent and distinct identity for the exchange. Public art is also proposed in key locations throughout to further enrich the transit exchange.

The north/south relationship is essential for efficiency and safety in the Metrotown exchange; this is achieved by maintaining permeable and transparent views throughout the site. A contemporary paving pattern oriented in the north/south direction also encourages this pedestrian connectivity experience. Crosswalks are treated with a consistent paving design that extends beyond the crosswalks to prioritize pedestrian crossing and accentuate the north/south correlation. Not only is the north/south connection important, but also the bicycle and pedestrian parkway through the Metrotown exchange will link seamlessly into the 20 km long BC Parkway, providing further regional connectivity.

The preliminary landscape design for the exchange is thoughtful and sustainable. Narrow crowned trees on the north side of the exchange have been located 3m from the curb to allow for passengers exiting buses, while still providing a green buffer from the platform above. Rain gardens are used on the east and west sides of the exchange to mitigate the on-site storm water. The paving of the exchange is sloped to a central slot drain that in turn feeds the rain gardens, which would otherwise be dry under the platform during the winter. The pedestrian path is buffered from Beresford traffic by a 1.5m boulevard with street trees and modern lighting fixtures. Shelters that extend the length of an articulated bus are proposed along the south side of the exchange to provide rain protection for waiting passengers. Trees on the south side of the exchange have been located to allow for clear site lines for bus manoeuvring and to provide greenery and shade for transit users.

4.2 Pedestrian FlowAs shown in the Pedestrian Flow diagram, Figure 4-2, the preferred option accommodates a complex array of pedestrian patterns, including:• From surrounding land uses to and from SkyTrain and the

exchange

• Between buses and SkyTrain

• Transfers among different buses

• Across the exchange between Maywood and the mall

Figure 4-2 Primary Pedestrian Flow Diagram

ElevatorsStairs

Primary Skytrain and Neighborhood Connections

Primary Bus Connec-tions

Legend

Bike Path

Key Pedestrian Sight-lines

BAY 5BAY 3Busway

McK

ay A

venu

e

Silv

er A

venu

e

Telfo

rd A

venu

e

Lane

Central Boulevard

Beresford Street

BAY 6BAY 4BAY 1 BAY 2

SHUTTLE

BC Parkway

BAY 7 BAY 8

Stairs

Passarelle

Avg Weekday Bus Loop boardings

Average Weekday SkyTrain boardings

Metropolis at Metrotown Mall

Station Square Mall

9826

5737

Primary Pedestrian Flow Diagram

Slot drain collects water run-off to redistribute on-site. Source: Marshall’s Water Management


5 NEXT sTEPs: REsOLUTION OF OUTsTANDING IssUEs & DEsIGN DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Traffic Analysis on Central blvdSteps to reach decision on lane modifications for Central Blvd:• Constraints from the surrounding network to limit vehicle growth

• Increased vehicle connections between Central and Beresford

• Signal phasing changes

• Discussion with City Council

5.2 Discussion with Metropolis at Metrotown Mall Management

Discuss reconfiguration of layover facility, moving bus service out of that facility, and the potential for new retail development.

5.3 station building Design Modifications: TransLink to update station designs to incorporate changes to accommodate viewsheds off Telford and Silver.

5.4 bus Re-routing at Willingdon/McKayCMBC pointed out that Route 106 comes from the east but enters Metrotown from the west, so it may make sense to adjust its routing. The design of the exchange accommodates buses approaching from all directions.

5.5 Pedestrian AccessInvestigate wayfinding improvements to help passengers find the stop for Route 19, the one bus that will not serve the consolidated exchange.

5.6 AutoTurn Modeling Assumptions• AutoTurn analysis has been conducted throughout the exchange

and layover facility with 18m-long articulated buses.

• Standard bus turning movements have been analyzed throughout the exchange and for Route 19 buses entering and exiting the layover facility. A full AutoTurn test should be conducted using a standard bus, which has a greater outside turn radius than an articulated bus, for all movements in the layover facility.

• Bus turning movements throughout the exchange have been modeled at a design speed of 15km/hr. Bus turning movements require closer scrutiny to ensure they can be performed at 30km/hour, as well.

• In the layover facility, the AutoTurn design speed is 10km/hr, except for parked buses. Where buses are stationed 5m apart, turning movements have been modeled at an initial starting speed of 3km/hour; however, it is not the TransLink operational standard.

• Bus clearances through the exchange and layover facility may require closer scrutiny to ensure they meet minimum distances required by TransLink engineering.


116 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 415-284-1544 FAX 415-284-1554

www.nelsonnygaard.com

M E M O R A N D U M To: Marco Bonaventura, TransLink

From: Nelson\Nygaard

Date: December 15, 2011

Subject: Meeting Minutes and Notes from Metrotown Charrette

Table of Contents

Page

1 Meeting Minutes ................................................................................................................. 11.1 Stakeholders meeting with CMBC ............................................................................................. 11.2 Stakeholders meeting with City of Burnaby ........................................................................... 61.3 Objective-setting session ........................................................................................................... 101.4 Design Pin-up 10/12 ........................................................................................................... ...... 161.5 Pin-up 10/13 .................................................................................................................. ............ 201.6 Pin-up 10/14 .................................................................................................................. ............ 27

2 Working Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 313. Outstanding Issues for Verification .................................................................................. 35

Charrette Notes | October 2011 TransLink

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1

1 MEETING MINUTES The following memorandum documents an intensive workshop held 11-14 October, 2011 in Burnaby to shape a design for the bus exchange at the Metrotown SkyTrain station. This document is intended to capture the input and comments received at that workshop. Some of the concepts and agency input have changed since the time of the workshop, and those changes will be reflected in the project final report.

1.1 STAKEHOLDERS MEETING WITH CMBC October 11, 2011

10:00 am – 12:00 pm

Anmore Room, 15th Floor, TransLink Offices

1.1.1 Attendees TransLink

Moreno Rossi

Marco Bonaventura

Liana Evans

Matt Craig

Rachel Jamieson

Joanne Proft

Vikki Kwan

CMBC

Harjit Sidhu-Kambo

Ken Chow

Barry Hogue

Nelson\Nygaard

Jeff Tumlin

Tim Payne

Danielle Rose

APPENDIX A MEETING MINUTEs




1.1.2 Background There were several significant issues raised by the City during the 2006/2007 planning process. The City had hoped to see a public plaza space incorporated into the station area, there were issues with the layout of Beresford (disconnected by a now-demolished building), and there were concerns about the interaction between buses and the BC Parkway through the facility. While wanting the exchange to be a quality public space, TransLink was not supportive of designing the station to also serve as a major public gathering place. In the 2006 Transit Village Plan, the team had also discussed the potential for future mall redevelopment and creating an enclosed layover facility with a commercial façade on Central Blvd.

The 2010/2011 Stantec plan developed a concept to use both the existing and new exchange for passenger drop-off and pick-up. The new facility would only provide two bus layover spaces on Central, and would otherwise contain layovers in the existing facility. The new exchange was intended to be a through facility, with passenger drop-off primarily on Central Blvd, and pick up primarily on Beresford, but no layover on Beresford.

The Stantec plan station design creates three main station access points: a staircase and escalator in a similar site as the existing stairs on the east side, a new west entry with stairs and escalators, and a new elevator facility with two elevators, relocated east of the current single elevator. New crossing points across Central are intended to align with entrances, discourage midblock crossings. Station entry points are somewhat fixed and TransLink is hoping the pedestrian crossings stay somewhat fixed as well.

The current planning process will look in detail at the Stantec functional plan and develop three additional options, one of which narrows the Stantec design using a straight-curb alignment for the bus bays in the new exchange, and one that merges Beresford with the bus exchange and routes the BC Parkway through the exchange. This process will also look at an alternative where the BC Parkway is routed onto Beresford for the length of the exchange.

1.1.3 Issues discussed in the meeting

1.1.3.1 Wayfinding and signage: Best practices for helping passengers find their way

The biggest issue is communicating the proposed split exchange function to people and ensuring they will know where to find their bus and where to transfer. To identify the facility, there are a number of different elements that can be used. The best are the vertical ‘T’ marker and station entrance signs (on each part of facility). The plan will also need to find real estate for journey planning information on the plaza floor to explain the whole system. Beyond that, effective signage, communicating a consistent and coherent identity and legibility are key.

It will be most challenging to ensure that passengers understand what is over on the existing exchange and what is available in the new island exchange. The function of each part of the exchange should be obvious to people, with separate functions if possible.

1.1.3.2 Operations of mall layover facility and passenger circulation

CMBC brought up the concern that some routes with very high ridership queues will lead to passengers going over to the layover stop at the existing exchange to get a seat on the bus rather



than queuing at the new exchange under the SkyTrain. This may lead to additional pedestrian ground level crossings of Central Blvd.

The group discussed limiting the existing exchange to only passenger drop-off, with all pick-ups occurring at the new facility, as well as a discussion of moving all passenger pick-up and drop-off functions to the new facility. This may be a concern for the City, which is interested in maintaining connectivity with the mall, a significant activity centre. It is important to note that Metrotown Station has very different weekday and weekend ridership patterns. This is less of a commute-oriented station, with more ridership on weekends and midday. The routes that serve Metrotown are important regional connections, with 11 routes terminating at Metrotown, and over 50 trips departing from the exchange every hour (a little under one per minute) at peak with 800 to 900 boardings in the hour, an average of 17 boardings per trip.

1.1.3.3 Accommodating potential future expansion

CMBC noted that the existing exchange is currently at capacity for layover needs. The City does not want any bus layovers to take place on Beresford. This was discussed in the 2006 planning process, and the City rejected any proposed use of the segment east of the station (East of McKay) for layover space.

There are still numerous issues with space allocation for buses in the exchange that need to be resolved. The 2010/2011 Stantec concept will have all routes coming from the west going into the existing exchange, while routes arriving from the east would not use the existing exchange. It still seemed unclear how the Stantec functional plan would accommodate certain high capacity routes. CMBC and TransLink both expressed concern about the need for buses to loop several times around the new exchange to pick up/drop off at the new site, and layover in the existing facility.

CMBC also noted that there is already overcrowding for bus layover space in the existing exchange and that it is critical to resolve this issue to maintain the current service frequency.

It was pointed out by CMBC that there will be washrooms at the new SkyTrain facility for use by operators.

The original (Stantec) concept has routes coming from the east would drop off passengers on the south side of the new exchange, loop around and layover and pick-up on Central. An option is to also have these routes layover in the old exchange. There was still some discussion as to whether it would be best to also still provide pick up and drop off in the existing exchange.

CMBC pointed out that Route 106 comes from the east but enters Metrotown from the west, so there will need to be some thought given to detailed reroutings on the streets surrounding the station to make everything balance. One thought was that all routes could route down McKay instead of Willingdon. Since Willingdon has more oncoming traffic (four-way intersection), and McKay is currently a three-way intersection (and if connected to Beresford would still have lower volumes), a left turn at Willingdon is harder than at McKay, and these details should be considered.

1.1.3.4 Future expansion growth projections

The group discussed the growth projections for bus operations at the exchange. The City and CMBC have different expectations for the site, but the City has begun to understand why the exchange has lengthened from the 2006/2007 designs.




TransLink discussed several key factors that will make Metrotown a significant bus exchange in the transit network. It is a regional town centre with a significant activity centre. The Metrotown exchange is one of the most significant exchanges in the entire system, along with Surrey Central, Lougheed Mall and downtown Vancouver. TransLink’s vision is to have 50% of all trips in the region by walking, biking, and transit by 2040. The regional town centres will have to share a larger percentage of this goal. The Stantec plan accounts for a phased expansion of bus bays to accommodate short and long-term needs.

1.1.3.5 Straight-curb or sawtooth bays

The group discussed nose-to-tail dynamic allocation of bus bays with a straight curb alignment. TransLink expressed concern in making decisions dependent on new investments in technology without a well-developed business case, and the challenges of introducing a new system to passengers. CMBC also raised concern about accessibility, and the need for fixed bay assignments to accommodate people with visual impairments. There is also concern about the long queues for certain routes getting in the way of other routes’ operations.

Decision: To introduce dynamic assignment, there would need to be more study and the design charrette format does not allow time for this. NN suggested that the solution may be logically grouping certain routes together in bays in a straight curb alignment, rather than a technology based solution. The Stantec plan does already group into bays, but could not fit all of the necessary buses into a straight curb alignment.

1.1.3.6 Constraints along Central Blvd

Buses stopping on the north side of the new exchange will have to merge into traffic and make a left into the layover facility in a relatively short distance. CMBC is concerned because diesel bus drivers prefer not to layover in the bay. The group discussed signalization modifications at Central and McKay to prioritize bus movements through the road segment.

Currently, the pedestrian phase across Central is not protected and overlaps with the left turn, but this could become a protected phase to allow for buses to move across to the left lane and into the layover facility. Route 130 travels on a 5 minute headway and signal pre-exemption for an all red phase would probably make the intersection very congested. This issue will be studied more in the charrette.

Should routes from the east be laying over at the bays on the north side of the exchange to avoid going into the layover facility? CMBC is concerned because diesel bus drivers prefer not to layover in the bay.

There was also a discussion about traffic volumes on Central and the number of lanes needed to accommodate traffic. With the new development planned for the area, this will likely be a key issue with the City. A straight-line projection for traffic volumes will not aid in working towards TransLink’s 2040 goal.

1.1.3.7 Bike conflicts: Specific concerns about BC Parkway interaction with bus exchange

There are concerns with routing the BC Parkway through the exchange (option 3 in the charrette). It will mean widening the exchange significantly, and that the BC Parkway will need to cross the bus loop at two locations, where buses are making turning movements or queuing to leave at McKay. There are also long passenger queues that may spill over into the BC Parkway.



It was noted that many cyclists already use the bypass route on Maywood to avoid the Metrotown area. TransLink is working to upgrade the BC Parkway to make it a comfortable through route and provide station access. If the BC Parkway goes through the station area, there will be a lot of “cyclists dismount” signs. TransLink is working to promote cycling, so forcing cyclists to share space with bus passengers does not really meet their level of service goals for cyclists.

BC Parkway is intended to provide a 4 meter wide path for cyclists and a 4 meter wide path for pedestrians for 26 kilometres from Surrey to downtown Vancouver. There is already very high ridership, even in the rainy season. If the pathway though Metrotown is improved, then cyclists would not be forced to ride on Maywood to avoid the crowds. It is important also to provide station access for people who live between Patterson and Royal Oak. The path design at the Olympic Village is certainly best practice, but it consumes a lot of real estate.

1.1.3.8 Pedestrian access to the exchange

Decision: CMBC is concerned about the easternmost crosswalk on the southern side of the exchange (roughly at Telford). The crosswalk appears too close to the turn, and will cause concerns with the union about pedestrians in a blind spot.

Pedestrian access will be a particular challenge because pedestrian movements and desire lines must be accommodated or they will accommodate themselves. There are SkyTrain stations in the system where pedestrians cross fences to reach the station. However, there is also the concern that excessive crosswalks will limit bus efficiency, which is frustrating to passengers.




1.2 STAKEHOLDERS MEETING WITH CITY OF BURNABY Tuesday, October 11, 2011

1:30 pm – 4:00 pm

Burnaby City Hall

1.2.1 Attendees TransLink

Marco Bonaventura

Liana Evans

City of Burnaby

Stu Ramsey

Ian Wasson

Leah Libsekal

Doug Louie

Lou Pelletier

Ed Kozak

Jeremy Rennie

Nelson\Nygaard

Jeff Tumlin

Tim Payne

Danielle Rose

Perkins + Will

Martin Nielson

Durante Kreuk

Jennifer Stamp

Vector Engineering Services

Victor Sagorski

1.2.2 Background The City Council is familiar with the 2007 “Metrotown SkyTrain Station Transit Village Plan – Site Assessment & Design Concepts Report” and the “Metrotown SkyTrain Station Transit Village Plan – Options and Evaluation,” but the City is concerned that the new 2010/2011 Stantec scheme will raise significant concerns with the Council, in terms of the length of the facility, the character of the plaza, and the connection to the Maywood neighbourhood. Since this is now a funded project (recent approval of TransLink’s financial Supplement), there is urgency for all parties to find the optimal solution.



Now that Beresford will be a through street, the City has a strong vision for the character of the street and the development planned for that area. Beresford is viewed as a major link for the community, for all modes. The Maywood school is at the eastern terminus and Central Park at the western terminus of Beresford.

1.2.3 Beresford The City has two key visions for Beresford: as an art walk and as a celebration street. Beresford as an art walk would have several public art installations at any time that are captivating, interesting and accessible. The art would be both local and international. The first planned development on Beresford, Metro Place, will include public art. The art will be predominantly on the south side of the street. The buildings developed there will have a continuous street wall with a 6-10 foot setback. There is the opportunity for displays, outdoor seating, and weather protection.

The celebration streets vision will provide Burnaby with a new gathering place to celebrate events and national holidays. It will act as an outdoor living room, and will accommodate formal and informal gatherings. The City acknowledged that there is a challenge in developing a one-sided street, but would like to extend the art to the north side, with details such as pavement patterns and sculptures.

The City is envisioning a new town centre plan for the entire Metrotown area. Central Blvd and Beresford are two very different classes of streets. Central is a primary collector, maintaining 4 moving lanes of traffic at all times, and a significant number of dedicated left turn lanes. Beresford is a local collector (two levels below Central), and the City would expect to see only one moving lane in either direction and on street parking on the south side only.

The Maywood neighbourhood has very few access points. The City is hoping that in the future the mall can be broken up from a super block to reintroduce the grid street network. This would connect Maywood across the SkyTrain corridor and ease the heavy reliance on arterial streets. The Maywood neighbourhood also has very long blocks, so the City is looking for locations to establish pedestrian pathways east/west through the neighbourhood.

1.2.4 Central Blvd The vision for Central Blvd is one of a garden street, to provide a contrast to the urbanity of the Metropolis Mall development. The goal is to create a comfortable outdoor space on Central as well. The road allowance on the north side of Central Blvd (from McKay to the existing bus intersection) cannot be widened in the short- to medium-term because the tenants on that site have certain legal rights.

The City has not yet performed analysis on the number of lanes necessary to maintain adequate LOS on Central Blvd in the future. The only data available shows peak hour peak direction volume on Central at about 600 vehicles/hour. The City believes there is the possibility of a large increase in total trips on Central and Beresford due to future development. An additional 5,000-10,000 people are expected to reside in the neighbourhood in the near future. It is also important to realize that this will also increase the number of pedestrians in the area significantly, and that there is great need to accommodate pedestrian movements and access to the station and the Metropolis Mall. The City feels it would be necessary to develop and analyze traffic projections before making any decisions for modifications of the number of lanes on Central.




The idea of operating Central and Beresford as a two-way couplet was suggested. The City felt concerned that this would force a mixing of residential and commercial uses, and introduce too much of the regional center/CBD atmosphere of Central to the Maywood neighbourhood.

At present, Willingdon at Central is the governing intersection for capacity on Central. Willingdon spans the north/south distance of the city and will always be a primary arterial. One suggestion from NN was to maintain the number of lanes at the intersection, but to reduce the number of lanes on Central between Willingdon and McKay.

For the charrette, the team could evaluate three options on Central: two through lanes and a centre turn lane, two through lanes with no center turn lane, and 4 through lanes and a central turn lane (current). The City was willing to see the three-lane option evaluated, as long as the team acknowledged that further analysis of future traffic volumes may show that this is not a viable option for the city. The City agreed that the pedestrian environment along the south side of Central, and the width of the sidewalk, needs significant improvement, and that increasing width and pedestrian comfort is a key issue.

There was also some discussion of the potential for reducing the width of the lanes on Central to increase the sidewalk width, without having to modify the current number of lanes. Buses require 3.5 meters to readily pass another large vehicle while remaining in a travel lane with a reduced risk of clipped mirrors or other safety problems. However, 3.5 meters may not be necessary for all lanes on Central. The City’s standard is 3.5 meters for a curb lane, 3.3 meters for inside lanes, and 3.1 meters for a left turn lane. Central is 18 meters curb to curb, so there may be some width to be gained by narrowing the lanes. The City also noted that the buses pulling out of stops on the Central Blvd side of the future exchange will not travel in any of the lanes, but rather move across the lanes to merge into the left turn lane (On the following day, it was discovered that these comments about bus movements are not consistent with the bus routings that TransLink and CMBC are currently proposing). This may reduce the need for 3.5 meter wide lanes to accommodate bus through movements. The City agreed to look into the issue of lane widths, while also noting that 3.0 meters in all lanes, particularly the curb lanes, is too narrow for them to feel comfortable with.

The City feels it would be necessary to study the traffic projections in more detail before making any decisions for modifications of the number of lanes and lane width on Central. The City is also interested in exploring the implications of maintaining 2 through lanes in each direction and removing the left turn lane.

1.2.5 BC Parkway Decision: The City does not want to see the BC Parkway designed as an on-street facility on Beresford for the length of the exchange. There is a strong sentiment that the City and TransLink have a duty to maintain the high-quality design standards of a separated facility generally consistent with TransLink’s 2009 conceptual design.

This leaves the two options of accommodating the facility through the exchange, or on a separated pathway between the busway and Beresford. There is also the issue of whether a parallel pedestrian sidewalk, also of 4 meters, should be accommodated in the same space, or if it’s okay to expect pedestrians to walk either on the south side of Beresford or through the transit exchange.



To make Beresford seem more two sided, the group showed interest in looking into rain garden and street tree treatments on the north side of Beresford, and a sidewalk on the Beresford edge of the pathway.

To pursue the design of a shared busway/vehicle use on Beresford, the City would have to be okay with certain modifications needed to close the vehicle lanes for public celebrations while permitting buses to still move through the street. Rerouting might be possible. This option would also route the BC Parkway through the bus exchange.

There was concern from the City about the linear aspect of movement through the exchange, and the need to consider north/south pedestrian access, including widening the crosswalks or a potential pedestrian scramble if warranted at certain intersections. The City is interested in pavement treatments that would unify the multiple pathways and create a visual connection across Beresford and through the exchange. This also connects to the need to create a strong visual corridor across the exchange, in line with the ends of Silver Avenue and Telford Avenue.

The City also discussed plans a concept to create a civic space west of McKay and the exchange on Central, under the guideway. There is interest in pursuing a festival space extending out from the library and adjacent park across Central, under the guideway, and onto Beresford.

1.2.6 Mall to SkyTrain Passarelle Decision: The City does not want to see any additional passarelles built between the mall and the SkyTrain station, and would eventually like to see the existing passarelle decommissioned.

The City has been working to improve the form of the built environment at the street level, and would like the station and exchange to enhance and encourage this vision. It was also acknowledged that based on a recent survey and passenger counts, the Mall accounts for approximately 30% of the transit ridership at Metrotown. The passarelle also provides weather protection for SkyTrain to mall access.

Decision: The City is interested in seeing designs that would enhance the mall’s street level entrance, potentially by widening the existing pathway that runs along the east side of the existing bus exchange.

The group also talked about the mall’s frontage onto Central, including a potential retail wrap on the bus exchange/layover space in the future. It was noted that the current access to the exchange is not universally accessible.

1.2.7 Quality of materials and design The City is concerned about the potential use of low quality design materials and unsightly pedestrian fences. The City’s strongest feelings are about the quality of the materials and urban design. Since the City has changed the zoning for this area, doubling the permitted residential density, they would like to see a public plaza that is not integrated with the station, which was their hope for the 2006/2007 plan.




1.3 OBJECTIVE-SETTING SESSION Wednesday, October 12, 2011

10:00 am – 1:00 pm

Salon A, Holiday Inn Metrotown

1.3.1 Attendees CMBC, City of Burnaby, TransLink, Nelson\Nygaard, Durante Kreuk, Vector Engineering Services, Perkins + Will

Note: some attendees were not present for the full day.

TransLink – Liana Evans, Marco Bonaventura, Moreno Rossi, Rachel

City of Burnaby – Stuart Ramsey, Leah Libsekal, Lou Pelletier, Jeremy Rennie, Ian Wasson, Doug Louie, Ed Kozak. CMBC – Barry Hogue, Ken Chow, HarjitSidhu-Kambo

1.3.2 Agenda Goals and objectives agreement

Key tensions (Issues and Needs)

Performance requirements for station

Larger vision for station area

1.3.3 Goals and objectives agreement The City envisions Maywood becoming a higher density and pedestrian oriented neighbourhood. Beresford is seen as a place to serve the community, a busy pedestrian area with low volumes of vehicular traffic. It will also be a place to bring Burnaby into the next level of artistic expression and architecture, with high quality design details extending into the station and exchange. It will also be important to establish Maywood as a distinct neighbourhood with a safe and activated street on Beresford, highlighting sustainable transit access and green building practices.

Key tenets

Linkages Community Town centre integration Outdoor shopping street: Beresford as a Great Street/High Street Creative and exceptional urban design and architecture


Wayfinding at Metrotown Exchange should be simple and intuitive, with a legible layout for bus-to-bus, bus-to-train, and bus-to-neighbouring development connections.

The exchange is a universally accessible, safe, and secure environment. The waiting environment provides adequate queue space, protection from the elements, transparency



and high quality lighting, comfortable furnishings for passengers, and CPTED design elements.

The exchange is transparent and permeable, creating a clear viewshed along certain north/south street corridors in the station area.

The exchange addresses the needs and hierarchy of all modes, preventing conflicts and prioritizing pedestrian desire lines for exchange access.

The exchange addresses the needs and hierarchy of all modes, including pedestrians and cyclists, transit, goods movement and vehicular travel, and is coordinated with the overall vision and future plan for the Metrotown area.

The exchange invokes a human scale with high quality furnishings, general amenities, and artistic elements.

The exchange maximizes pedestrian connectivity north/south across the exchange while considering pedestrian safety issues and operational/functional needs. Balance multi-modal levels of service in the station area, addressing the needs of all modes of transportation, while prioritizing pedestrians and cyclists.


Meets facility operational needs to allow for effective management and maintenance of the exchange, while meeting pedestrian and cyclist safety requirements.

Integrates bus service with other modes

Design the BC Parkway to improve travel “through” and “to” the exchange, including secure storage facilities and convenient bike-on-transit integration. Additionally, all streets in the exchange area will provide a safe and comfortable space for cyclists.

Protect and prioritize bus turning movements while minimizing congestion delay for all modes and excessive bus circulation through the exchange area.

Develop functional layover and operator change out space.

Placemaking: great places

Metrotown Exchange is a community asset, integrated with the public realm and iconic in form. The exchange area supports the City’s streetscape vision for an active and lively public realm, while maintaining the connection to the Metropolis at Metrotown.

The exchange utilizes sustainable infrastructure, distinct, memorable and iconic architecture, and high quality, long-term materials. Additionally, soft landscaping and transparency create a human scale environment.

Adopt a consistent and integrated palette of colours, materials and surface treatments to create coherence across the exchange area and to foster a distinctive identity for the facility.

The exchange is a community amenity, not just a basic functional space.

Design the exchange to foster a distinctive identity that respects the local context while still conforming to network wide standards through the use of common, standardized components for a consistent passenger experience.




Environment: leader in sustainability

Use of lighting that is dark sky compliant that also creates a safe and transparent exchange.

Reduce negative impacts and energy consumption of exchange construction and operations, including on site stormwater management.

The exchange should be designed to minimize absorption and radiation of solar energy, lowering its contribution to temperature increases in surrounding areas and minimizing its contributions to local and regional heat island effects.

Accountability: Fiscally responsible

The exchange will aim to minimize ongoing maintenance and operational costs, including labour, materials and training, as well as consumption of natural and energy resources.

Integrate high quality design and revenue-generating opportunities into the exchange facility and the public realm.

The exchange has a resilient, responsive, and flexible design capable of aging gracefully and scalable to accommodate for future growth.

1.3.4 Key Tensions

Needs

Future service levels to meet increasing transit use throughout region

More frequent bus service, articulated buses, increased passenger queue space

4 routes that provide very frequent service and experience high ridership

Ridership increases from UPass program

Massive increase in ridership since 2007 plan

Transit vehicle needs

Staff facilities

Vibrant people places

Bicycle accommodation

Integrated mixed-use developments

On-site stormwater management

Wayfinding and passenger information

Accessibility

Issues

Current exchange limited in bus space (limited for articulated buses) and passenger queue space

Route #49 has seen significant growth with opening of Canada line

Shared bays with such frequent service is a non-starter

11 bus routes terminate at Metrotown currently, require layover space

Current exchange: inadequate and no room for expansion



Issues with Stantec plan:

Size of the exchange

Lacks space for people in the design

Narrow width

Sawtooth versus straight curb

Phasing -- Ability to meet needs for long term or build for current needs

Will all routes continue to provide service to new loop and existing exchange? Split service between old and new loop?

Length determined by:

signalized intersections

rail station

need for articulated buses

increase in Community shuttles

room for bus manoeuvring and bus sightlines

limited access opportunities from Central Blvd to south side of exchange

New exchange doesn’t have two L/O spaces on Central

Concern about interconnectivity to Maywood neighbourhood

Ability to develop shared queues?

Queuing problems for high ridership routes- crossing into exchange. Layover and pickup in the old exchange or only pickup in new exchange?

20-30% of bus customers going to the mall

Trolley pick up in the new exchange requires costly trolley overhead infrastructure

Reduce bus bays and create more public plaza space on the East end?

BC Hydro’s ownership of the corridor, what is their position? Not at odds with our intentions for the station

Utility covers can be raised but not lowered (currently not higher than Beresford)

TransLink functional requirements:

Exchange must address current capacity and accessibility constraints of the SkyTrain station, and interactions with bus loop

Need to shift passenger access and egress to more evenly balance on East and West ends of the station (Emphasize West for exchange access and neighbourhood access)

Simple and legible layout for user

Current exchange lease: SRW, can assume it will continue

Does the Stantec plan serve future needs or have the capability to expand?

Anticipates 20 years of growth in ridership across the region, hard to predict network beyond then or at the station level

Can it meet pop and employment growth and transit mode share from Transport 2040 goal?

Negative consequences of making it too small: spilling onto Beresford in the future




Current exchange is a pedestrian safety concern, especially backing buses into layover space

1.3.5 Performance requirements for the exchange

Operational needs

Separate operation functions half into old loop and half into new loop, limiting bus movements through the area.

Avoid left turns except at a signalized location

Pedestrian needs in the greater context

Serve desire lines with designated crosswalks to ensure safety

Align streets and crosswalks through exchange

N/S pedestrian connectivity

Avoid bike/pedestrian conflicts

Bicyclist needs

Continuity of the BC Parkway

Avoid bus/bike conflicts

Central Blvd

If Kingsborough eventually connects through the mall site, Central may change in its functional requirements

For now, maintain as a primary collector with 2 through lanes in each direction

City does not have formal standard for Level of Service

No standards or expectations for pedestrian LOS, though trying to shift towards a higher LOS

It was suggested that existing conditions are LOS A for cars and F for pedestrians

Process to reach decision for potential lane number reduction?

Constraints from the surrounding network to limit vehicle growth

Increased vehicle connections between Central and Beresford

Signal phasing changes

Need to discuss with Council

Mall entrance

Potential shift to ground level entry and away from passarelles

Future development at the mall site, breaking up the superblock

Evaluation criteria

Safety

Permeability



Phasing/lifespan

Connection to the surrounding environment




1.4 DESIGN PIN-UP 10/12

1.4.1 Option A: Straight curb bus bays on Metrotown Station site

In Option A, the bus exchange is housed within the Metrotown Station site. Beresford Street, south of the exchange remains a two-lane road; however, north-south connection is provided from Beresford Street to Central Boulevard at McKay and just east of Telford (mall parkade entry) Streets. The BC Parkway skirts the south edge of the transit exchange. Crosswalks across Beresford, the BC Parkway, the busway and Central Boulevard connect the station to the mall north of Central and the Maywood neighbourhood south of Beresford. Attributes of each transportation facility are described below:

BC Parkway

4m-wide for bikes, 4m-wide for pedestrians with a tree-lined or landscaped buffer between the busway and the BC Parkway

BC Parkway located south of the busway and north of Beresford Street

Separate busway from BC Parkway with plantings and trees

Busway

Straight curb bus bay alignment for six articulated buses

Pair buses (tandem bays) into three zones in a busway south of Metrotown Station. Each zone would have sequential arrivals w/independent departures

These zones need to be coordinated with Beresford and BC Parkway crosswalks (ideally, buses would stop 12.5 m from crosswalk to maximize sight lines so buses will not have to stop at each crosswalk and look for pedestrians; the minimum is 6 m.)

Could probably still fit two community shuttles and more flexible 40’ buses in this busway

Bus queuing area takes advantage of the entire plaza and would potentially be covered with a uniform overhang

Information: Straight curb holds advantages for urban design, not only does it widen the available pedestrian realm, but it makes the exchange feel like an enclosed urban street.

Pedestrian/bus conflict

o Information: Raised crosswalks should not be allowed in the exchange due to bus passenger safety concerns. From a pedestrian-first perspective, there will be a consistent paver treatment at busway pedestrian crossings to designate pedestrian crossings

Easternmost busway pedestrian crossing may be jeopardized by turning buses with poor visibility around the corner. It would be better to move that easternmost pedestrian crosswalk further west along the busway to allow better visibility and enhance pedestrian safety



Central Blvd

Move ground level station retail space to create the view from the residential area on Silver through the station to Central

Minimized lane dimensions on Central (while maintaining existing lane configuration) to provide additional pedestrian travel and queuing space on the north side of the station and south side of Central. Currently, there is very little (less than 3m) of sidewalk depth between the station columns and Central.

Minor lane reductions only pushed Central’s south curb north 1m. However, it only needs to be widened where the buses are stopping (with heavy off loads) and these could be spaced to avoid columns

In this concept, buses primarily drop passengers off on Central, north of the station. Question: Do buses need to pull into a separate drop-off and pick-up space on the south side of Central? It may be more efficient (in terms of time) to simply drop-off passengers from the travel lane. In this case, we can bump out the curb on the south side of Central to provide additional pedestrian space. This may also be better from a bus operations perspective, because buses would then only need to cross one lane of traffic to get to the current exchange (future layover facility) on the north side of Central.

Vehicular Traffic

Open up the Mall’s driveway and McKay from Central to Beresford for auto through traffic

Decision: Need signal on McKay for pedestrians & transit ops

Use signal phasing to minimize northbound vehicles queuing at Beresford at the intersection of McKay and Central. Perhaps ban right turns on red (or use a flashing red beacon) from westbound Beresford onto northbound McKay.

The Mall’s driveway through the exchange should have three lanes: 2 southbound lanes (the westernmost lane bus only) and one northbound lane.

Alternatively, this road could be bus only southbound into the exchange and Sussex (half a block to the east) could punch through from Beresford to Central.

Trees on both sides of Beresford to help create a sense of enclosure and enhance comfort for pedestrians

1.4.2 Option B: Shared Beresford Street (sawtooth bus bays) In Option B, Beresford Street south of the station functions as the bus exchange. Buses circle the station via two new connections. Just east of Telford, buses enter southbound and turn westbound on Beresford. Sawtooth bays along Beresford accommodate pick-up and drop-off movements before buses turn northbound on McKay and then either continue northbound on McKay to Kingsway or turn to travel eastbound on Central. The BC Parkway runs east-west through the station site, north of the shared Beresford busway and through traffic street. Central is modified to a three-lane, plus dedicated eastbound transit lane.

Combined Beresford/Busway:




Future curb alignment on south side of Beresford includes a parking lane. North of the parking lane is an eastbound through lane, then westbound through lane, then westbound sawtooth bus bays

Minimum depth at sawtooth bays for pedestrian queuing is 5m

However, 5m is not enough to accommodate weather protection and seating. The nicest place to walk would be under the guideway

Information: On the other hand, people will walk on the north side of Beresford due to solar exposure and this is more feasible with a straight curb.

Information: Sawtooth bays take up a lot of depth and interrupt the curb line. The straight curb would have more benefit in Option B—straight curbs would make Beresford function like a real street. If a straight curb on the north side of Beresford were used (instead of the proposed sawtooth curb), there would be a larger buffer between the pedestrian way along Beresford and the bikeway, and still maintain 5 m of pedestrian space/queuing space and a bigger plaza immediately south of the station (and north of the bikeway)

Information: Operators would prefer a straight to sawtooth curb on a general purpose street (like Beresford)

Information: Buses on Beresford shared with traffic is operationally more challenging that independent busway in Option A.

BC Parkway

Information: 4m bikeway through exchange, using landscaping for storm water, thermal comfort, and visual separation of the bike lane from other uses

Information: 4m pedestrian way south of the 4m bikeway

50 cm cobble on north edge of bikeway, break with rumble strip into 1.5 m queue areas

Information: 5m minimum between bikeway and columns, for seating and waiting and traversing

Central Blvd

One WB travel lane, one EB travel lane, and a left turn lane/median space + bike lanes (potentially) as well as an EB bus only lane

Push Central north by eliminating a lane and extending the station-side, south curb of Central for more pedestrian space

Information: Hold north curb of Central static. There is already a fairly generous (6m), if underutilized and oddly configured, sidewalk along the north side of Central.

Along the north curb line, insert parking pockets adjacent to the hotel and proposed retail in front of the existing exchange

Normalize northern curb edge of new exchange by removing some of the bulb-outs



With the existing 18m curb to curb dimension on Central, bike lanes could fit on Central.

Moving to a three lane configuration, plus bike lanes would open up 3-6 m for pedestrian waiting area on the south side of Central at the station site.

Decision: While there is ample width for bike lanes on Central under the three-lane configuration, they might not be desirable due to conflicts with buses pulling out and trying to cross the on-street bike lane and the EB travel lane to get to the NB turn pocket and enter the layover facility. Sightlines for buses could inhibit bike safety

Decision: Could also accommodate bikes on Central with a two-way cycle track on the north side of Central. This was rejected because it doesn’t provide a significant improvement (in terms of comfort, convenience or safety) above the BC Parkway through the station site and poor sightlines for buses entering the layover facility on the north side of Central. The problems with a two-way cycle track on Central would be greater than getting bicyclists through the exchange.

Information: The problem with Central is that is has no “friction,” i.e. nothing to slow traffic. A bike lane or on-street parking would ameliorate this and improve the street. The solar aspect / southern exposure of Central is great.

Information: On-street parking would also encourage retailers to rethink their Central frontage

Can there be 8 hour meters for commuter parking in the area?

Some concern for the traffic operations on Central if there are increased pedestrian crossings

Vehicular Traffic

Pedestrian crossings of Beresford on both sides of Telford and their intersection with the bikeway are still unresolved.

1.4.3 Layover Facility Complexity of drop-offs and pick-ups at both the old and new exchange is inconvenient,

but the mall is a significant destination

Information: If Central’s dimensions are reduced, it becomes less of a barrier to people trying to access the mall from the station area.

The current exchange on the north side of Central could become exclusively a layover facility, with the exception of the trolley.

o Buses could be parked nose to tail for layover.

o Opportunity to widen the currently narrow walkway to the main entrance to the mall

o Barren Central Blvd frontage at the existing exchange could be transformed into active retail frontage, moving the front door of the mall out to the street.




o Central becomes more of an urban street and less of a bypass route

1.5 PIN-UP 10/13

1.5.1 Bus Operations: Sawtooth vs. Straight Curb Decision: Wednesday evening breakthrough: The sawtooth bay design does not provide any operational advantages over straight curb bays.

Information: Given length of the south side of island and north of Beresford between columns and curbs cuts able to get 6 articulated independent pull-in/pull-out bays

With a straight curb, can also do tandem bays, mixes of 40s and 60s.

Bus operations curb line broken only by crosswalk locations.

Information: While still providing full flexibility, the straight curb allows a narrower pavement footprint. Under the sawtooth scenario, there would be an expanse of concrete when buses aren’t there.

Straight-curb reads more like a street with 7.5m wide pathway for buses to lay at curb and bypass, which is adequate. Given length and bus frequency, straight curb works out well.

Longer term looking at shifting community shuttles onto Central side, which won’t be necessary until there are 6 routes with artics being operated. For now, shuttles can be on Beresford. This space is shared for pickup and drop-off, rather than separating pickup and drop-off in two separate areas.

Two layover bays on Central won’t be occupied all of the time because of lower frequency operations.

Information: Because so many buses coming in and out on the west end of the station area, there will be a bus at the curb the (Beresford side) busway all of the time, and cars won’t pull into the curb lane.

Decision: Straight curb bus bays can better meet Metrotown station’s needs; therefore, both Option A and B will feature straight curb bays.

1.5.2 Option A Straight curb bus bays on Metrotown site Part 2

Building on the work from 12 October 2011, Option A was further refined:

Information: Central Blvd could stay the same or reduce lanes without significantly altering bus operations, BC Parkway configuration or Beresford.

Have enough space for 4m bikeway and 4m pedestrian way in this zone to accommodate bikes and pedestrians, 7.5m straight curb busway, 1.8m landscaped separation between Beresford and BC Parkway, .8m shrub zone on north edge of bikeway



4m pedestrian way could also function as a mirror of sidewalk on the south side of Beresford.

Bikeway and pedway should be separated to discourage modal conflicts, at least with a rumble strip or other visual separation.

At least 2m is necessary to accommodate a functional rain garden, which would be located on the south edge of the bicycle and pedestrian paths, along Beresford.

This Option more effectively channels the pedestrians at pedestrian crossings at each street serving Maywood, minimizes bus operator concerns.

Option A could be seen as a Parisian multi-way blvd, with the bikeway passing through it. The distinction between Metrotown looking like a transit exchange or a multifaceted blvd is in the details

Information: In Option A, the City could shut down Beresford without affecting bus operations.

Busway

Buses would have a separated entrance east of the station plus a two-way street at Mall parkade/new exchange entrance

Information: On the west edge of the station site at McKay, 2 signalized intersections. The challenge is opening McKay to two-way traffic, cars might queue and block busway exit, will need signal pre-emption on McKay for this to work. (i.e. a vehicle detection loop at the bus exit will clear queuing on northbound McKay then give the bus a green light.)

7m for pedestrians in bus waiting zone plus same depth on the other side by narrowing Central a bit.

Information: 8-9m depth is better for a pedestrian waiting area, depends on amount of furniture, 9m gives more flexibility for design of shelter, wind screen, trees, will be hard to get trees in, except maybe match to column spacing. Could play off that with landscape that matches with spacing of buses.

Allows for comfortable passenger accommodation without providing too much extra space. Efficient, functional convivial space, comfortable but not empty.

Information: Option A has smoother bus operations by minimizing potential vehicular interference and random pedestrian crossings, but on the other hand, it will make Beresford look less like a typical street and more like a bus exchange, by widening its overall dimension, and separating vehicles and buses.

Bus/pedestrian conflicts

Between crosswalks, there is a potential for barrier fencing between the sidewalk/ BC Parkway and the buses.

A fence would prevent crossing, but also be an unwelcome, ugly physical barrier in the neighbourhood




Information: TransLink has concerns about people crossing the busway/bus only lane in a disorganized way, there has to be predictability for the passengers on the bus. There have to be some limits. Fencing is done poorly here, and yet there are counter examples. Low stone wall at English bay, there is a win-win through good design. Doesn’t make pedestrians feel criminalized but addresses driver sight angle concerns.

There is some concern about the busway being fully permeable, kiss and ride, will happen all along Beresford and those people will jaywalk.

Combination of low fence and the rain garden would inhibit random crossing of the busway because people won’t step into the muck,

Decision: A low wall may be a compromise to aesthetically corral pedestrians. The low wall could be seating (if it doesn’t hinder BC Parkway or busway traffic flow). Artists could set up against the wall (since the bikeway will be on the north side this will interfere with bikeway operations, so let’s not suggest artists can set up here).

Design features should be used to encourage appropriate behaviour.

1.5.3 Option B Shared Beresford Part 2

Combined Beresford/Busway

Shared with bus ops and thru traffic.

Information: Width of street would be 13m to accommodate 7.5m for buses (and through traffic) WB and 5.5 for travel lane EB plus parking. Narrows 2-2.5m at crossing points- bulges on south side of street (in place of the parking), none on north side.

Crosswalks should be located at each of the streets intersecting Beresford (i.e. Teleford, Silver) to accommodate major destinations such as the station entrances and crosswalks at Central to access the mall. It is also necessary to limit the number of crosswalks so as not to reduce the possible number of bus bays.

Prioritized desire lines and modified pedestrian connections across the transit lane and BC Parkway to increase safety and predictability

Nudging the station house at Silver slightly to the east to maintain visual street connectivity.

Helps create a “place”

o Looks less like a bus exchange,

o Offers an opportunity for north and south neighbourhoods to relate to each other visually, through visual corridors, and functionally, as the station area would be narrower north-south and more permeable for pedestrians.

o Desire lines will be complex.

o Plaza provides a lot of space for trees and landscaping



Information: Hard to close Beresford for celebrations, but could close half the street, or maintain the celebratory aspect but not focus it in this area. At one point there was a civic plaza part of this scheme, rather than fit that onto the Metrotown site, move it west of McKay, between Willingdon and McKay along Beresford. The celebration street would then be related to the park and plaza at the library.

Buses closer to residents in this setup, hard to have a shopping street, unpleasant.

Shelters to be provided for north side of Beresford for pick-ups. A shelter wouldn’t be needed at sites reserved for drop-offs (south side of Central). Green roof on the shelter?

Bus/car conflicts

o Potential for illegal drop-offs in the bus loop in this setup,

o At King George Station, people pull in and still use the bus way even with signs and bollards, want to avoid that design.

o Ticket cars that drive in the busway.

o Differentiated pavement to keep cars off busway?

Concern about mixing bus and travel lane, can use curb space on eastern side of Mall driveway on Central for Kiss and Ride.

Bus/people conflicts

o A shared Beresford may also encourage jaywalking and people crossing in the blind spots’ of bus operators.

o Buses would have to cross the BC Parkway and depending on bike and pedestrian flow this could significantly hinder bus operations and/or lead to safety concerns

o People may not stick to the crosswalks once Beresford is built out

o Pavement patterns will help to communicate where people will cross, and provide openings along bike way

o Information: To accommodate sightlines on the eastern edge of the transit exchange, the straight curb makes the exchange deeper so the sweep of the bus turning WB on Beresford will be gentler. Instead of making essentially a continuous turning 180, buses will instead make two 90 degree turns separated by a longer straight section, increasing operator sightlines, especially of the crosswalks on Beresford.

o It was suggested that there might be the need for a crosswalk on the west side of Telford crossing Beresford as well as the east. This is a negative aspect of this option. With crosswalks on both sides of the cross streets extending from Beresford through the bus loop, there will be a loss of space for bus bays (due to required setback from crosswalks to bus bays).

Option B may be difficult for CMBC to sell to the Union

From a service delivery perspective, Option B will be more challenging to implement and involve additional safety issues, e.g. conflicts with bike




Option B is more permeable, and puts pedestrians first. On the other hand, with a few tweaks, Option A could address a lot of the place-making concerns, with the advantage of being able to meet the City’s objective of closing Beresford for festivals.

There is also concern about the conflict between bus traffic and the BC Parkway in Option B. Option A separates pedestrians and cyclists from the busway and can utilize design details such as a low wall to separate the BC Parkway from the busway.

BC Parkway

Option B places the BC Parkway in the middle of the exchange.

4m wide bikeway with 2m wide landscaped zones on each side.

8.5m for bus waiting space (circulation and passenger zones) south of the BC Parkway.

4.5 m between landscaping and station for circulation.

Widened walkway on north side of exchange to 7.5m by considering narrower street width on central. This 7.5m allows for circulation and trees

Placement of trees on north edge (along Central Blvd), have to ensure they are set back 3m from sidewalk, fit between load/unload zones. Species with a narrow crown.

Narrow the BC Parkway landscaped zones at the approach of intersection with vehicular traffic to prevent bottlenecking.

The 2m buffer on north of bikeway may not be needed? A narrower barrier could work and would gain 2m of space for passenger circulation.

Having less permeability will encourage cyclists to use it (unimpeded flow). If pedestrians are walking all over the bike path, fast traveling bicyclists will avoid that path. But some permeability is necessary for pedestrians and transit riders to access the station and mall.

Central Blvd

Three lanes, parking bulges on north side of central, south side of central mostly continuous bus stops, drop-off and layover, may be some opportunities for bulges (which would decrease the pedestrian crossing distance and increase visibility).

This is a variant to the established standard for Central Blvd. Three-lanes would entail removing vehicular functionality, but the advantage is that it would be good for people first.

Decision: From a transit ops perspective, the south side of Central will not work as Kiss and Ride. Need to find an alternative location

Some thought it would be beneficial to take community shuttles out of the south side of Central and keep available for Kiss and Ride.

At the Holiday Inn vehicle access and gap in median on Central, people will want to cross the street. To accommodate the left turn pocket a median refuge may work, though it would have limited sightlines for pedestrians as buses made their left turns.

Extra looping around for buses from east, laying over and pickup on north side of exchange. Information: It may be desirable to have buses stop and layover in the same place to avoid looping. This option would require a layover on Central,



which doesn’t seem feasible. In 5-lane Central option, the transit lane is inset so buses could layover there without blocking a lane on Central.

Both Option A and B show options for Central and Beresford, which could be mixed and matched. In many ways, they involve separate decisions, e.g. three- or five-lanes on Central and Beresford shared with buses and automobiles.

In large part, what happens on Central Blvd is a decision to be made by the City of Burnaby. Beresford can be redesigned independently of decisions for Central Blvd reconfiguration. It is more critical in the near term to solving Beresford traffic issues.

Action: The City and TransLink will verify minimum lane widths on Central, Beresford, McKay and the new north-side link east of Telford.

1.5.4 Layover Facility

Pick-up and drop-off at two proximate stops

If each line only makes one stop at the Metrotown station and not two (one at the station and one at the mall), operations will be more efficient and less confusing to passengers.

Information: With a single drop-off or pickup, passengers will only have one location for catching their bus. By having two pickup locations (especially for high ridership routes) in close proximity, it is likely passengers will cross the street to get on the bus at its first stop in order to get a seat on the bus.

Only one stop at the Metrotown station means mall patrons will have to make an additional trip across Central

This potential inconvenience could be diluted if Central were a more pleasant place

Most bus passengers would be dropped on the west end of the exchange

The Route 19 trolley will continue to serve the mall directly in the exchange (on the north side of Central) so lines wouldn’t need to be replaced.

The current exchange would be dedicated exclusively (with the exception of Route #19) to layover activities. However, if recovery is less than 3-5 minutes, buses will recover in their drop-off position in the new exchange rather than going into the layover facility (current exchange).

Goals for reconfiguring the layover facility

Simplify ops for transit

Simplify passenger wayfinding

Maintain close connection between TransLink facility and mall

Buses all go in new exchange for p/u and d/o and recovery (if less than 3-5 minutes)

No p/u or d/o in layover facility (except for Route 19)




Attributes of proposed layover facility

Information: Can handle 10 sequential pull ins and with independent pull outs of articulated buses and 3 more first in first out basis

With the proposed layover facility redesign, 10m of potential retail space will be available on the Central Blvd edge of the facility.

The driver’s facility will be rebuilt in the middle of the layover island. That island cannot be removed due to structural beams.

Remove pedestrian access escalator

Full perimeter walkway around the layover facility

Will have walkways to Metropolis Mall

Need for commercial loading for the new proposed retail on Central, through it could be restricted to middle of the night only

Information: The mall is a major destination, and this layover facility design creates new retail opportunities on Central (in a sense, extending the mall onto the street). The pedestrian access walkway from Central to mall (east side of layover facility) could be widened as well.

Changing bus operations in the layover facility to counter clockwise might not be feasible and will have to be reviewed. The Trolley Overhead Group at CMBC will also need to be consulted regarding this change to operations.

Except for Route 19, all buses would be empty, thus minimizing pedestrian conflicts in this area



1.6 PIN-UP 10/14

1.6.1 Option B: Shared Beresford Part 3 Decision: Less desirable from an operational and place-based standpoint

1.6.2 Preferred Option A: Straight curb bus bays on Metrotown station site Part 3

Landscape:

As planned, large rain gardens on south side of Beresford, picking up rainwater from parking

On Thursday, bikeway was on south side and pedway on north, but was swapped, to give pedestrians better advantage of sunlight, and to be consistent with BC Parkway vis-a-vis positions Parkway to the east and west of Metrotown Station, where the bike path is on the north edge.

1.8 m strip on the south edge of the BC Parkway could be landscaped with a swale

4m pedestrian way, with benches and furniture. Soft signal to move people into intersection easily, guide to openings. Also looking at bollard lighting, super visible pedestrian crossing in busway.

Rumblestrip between bike and pedway, 4m asphalt bikeway, 900mm planted strip, fence and wall and signage and lighting to avoid having a monotonous condition for the block length.

Paired trees on either side of crosswalks, visual cue to reinforce where crosswalks are

Information: Bus shelters near lay-bys will be the length of artics, not having trees the whole way along

Will be able to figure this out in final design details, important to keep trees back to retain flexibility (2m back currently).

2m on north edge of exchange to avoid conflict with the mezzanine, perhaps buffering around columns. 3m is a good minimum, to edge of grate, for people with mobility devices

Large, gracious trees with high canopies will improve sightlines from crosswalks and maximize visibility of pedestrians crossing busway

Have a rain garden underneath the station mezzanine and pipe to the roadway to water those plantings, which would get southern exposure

Question: Limitation of rain garden is that there are locations where the BC Hydro duct may be located underneath, which may interfere with rain garden depth (how much clearance is needed?)

Is there an opportunity for public art to include Burnaby and the neighbourhood w/o stealing the thunder from the art walk, perhaps integrate art into furnishings, etc.?




Information: Already have 4 crosswalks in the current layout, and are all in the midst of bus turning movements, in this one, the sightlines are better

Traffic:

Intersection at mall driveway and Beresford could potentially be unsignalized, but might cause some delay for buses, not sure if it’s high volume. Three-way stop control would allow light traffic to get onto Beresford more quickly.

At McKay and Central, the busway exit needs to be signalized, and is a little more challenging in the five-lane Central option.

With a five-lane Central, there seems to be consensus to let drop-off buses stop in the lane (Action: TransLink, please verify [done later])

Pickups on Central will change character of trees there and will need shelters. Might have to limit trees to where crosswalks bulb out. Need to sort out where these trees will fit.

On McKay northbound approaching Central, there would be a right turn and a left/thru lane, but buses would use the whole northbound approach. McKay SB to Beresford would flare to include an extra lane at the Beresford approach, to keep moving thru traffic behind a left turning vehicle. This signal would have 4 primary phases, with a pedestrian scramble when buses are moving out. Design will require significant additional effort and modeling.

On westbound Beresford at McKay there would be room for a (signalized) right turn lane onto McKay if there’s no on-street parking provided in that spot on Beresford.

To avoid vehicle queuing on McKay spilling onto BC Parkway intersection, left turn movements of eastbound traffic on Beresford turning onto McKay should be banned. Decision: Prohibit left turns off Beresford onto McKay. Traffic on McKay today is virtually non-existent and is always going to be local.

Kiss and Ride:

Kiss and Ride could be located along curbs on east side of Mall driveway on Beresford or on Central.

In first few years, it may be practical to locate Kiss and Ride in lay-by on Central east of the proposed bus stop drop-off locations, but over time that space might be needed for bus operations.

Busway:

Information: Sight lines north-south across the station would be improved if the westernmost station house was moved to clear the viewshed extending from Silver north towards the mall.

o One option is to move bike station against elevator stair entrance and fare gates, clear the sightlines. Shift bike station over so Telford would have a clear view. There are also advantages with bike storage under the stairs

o Information: The minimum is 6m between crosswalk and waiting bus, but 12.5m provides optimal sight lines so that buses will not have to stop and look for pedestrians at each crosswalk.

2.1.1 Jaywalking mitigation strategies



Across Central—With crosswalks along Central located conveniently and in accordance with pedestrian desire lines, there should be minimal, random pedestrian crossings. Additionally, the passarelle will remain, at least in the short term. The crosswalk at the Holiday Inn Driveway across Central would need to be signalized. NEED TO CHECK: Can buses still pull in and out with the proposed curb bulges in place?

Across loop—A variety of landscape treatments will funnel pedestrians wishing to access the Metrotown station from Maywood into sanctioned pedestrian crosswalks. Potential treatments include a low, aesthetically pleasing wall potentially with seating to prevent pedestrians from crossing the busway at random. Bioswales or other landscape treatments could also effectively prevent pedestrians from criss-crossing the station site. A rumblestrip or 50cm cobblestone edge between the bike and pedway would also help communicate the pedestrian zone and the bikeway.

Transit Exchange

East stair surge area is very narrow and at grade, need to lengthen if possible

If not doing drop-off/pick-up in existing facility, people coming from mall will use passarelle or cross Central to get to bus stops, creating flow conflicts. Need to be conscious of that

1.6.3 Layover Facility Part 3 Information: Barry Hogue noted that CMBC Operations is pleased with the

proposal of having only Route 19 perform drop-offs and pick-ups in the layover facility.

Barry Hogue also reported the following from an outside discussion with CMBC Operations staff:

o Happy with the driver’s facility in the middle of the island

o CMBC Operations staff had concerns with the Stantec plan of passenger pick-up at both the existing and new exchange, and are pleased that issue is resolved in this concept.

o There are always operator concerns about crosswalks, but it’s not an insurmountable issue.

o Bus operators liked the idea of pulling into a designated bus lane

o Drop-off on west side of station is great

In this proposed alternative, the narrow pedestrian way west of the layover facility has been expanded to 3 xs wider with a barrier similar to the barrier between the busway and BC Parkway in the new exchange. In this plan, there won’t be anything to attract people into the layover facility and instead they will be funnelled behind the layover facility to the mall entry and the bus stop for Route 19.




Might consider a shared surface with the mall alley and this pedway using low bollards at some point

In this layout, there will be room for 10 articulated bus layover spaces, with sequential arrival independent pull out, and an additional 3 bays with first in first out ops

Perceptions from the City’s representatives Desire to see details, but prepared to recommend to the director that most of the City’s

major concerns have been adequately addressed

Reconfiguration of Civic Square should be considered– perhaps its design treatment could extend across the SkyTrain/BC Parkway area?

For the scope of this project, N\N will resolve the connections between the Metrotown station and Central and Beresford east and west of the station, and provide some indication of design intent.

Action: The City will provide specific guidance about lane widths, or articulate the process whereby lane widths are determined

The wall between the bikeway and busway needs to be comfortable and not sever Maywood from the station. The City would like to see additional design details before signing off.



2 WORKING ASSUMPTIONS The following working assumptions inform the revised configuration of the transit exchange

2.1 Proposed curb adjustments in preferred Option A (Please refer to PDF attached)

2.1.1 New north-south street east of Telford Avenue connecting Beresford Street and Central Boulevard and facilitating transit access to the exchange

2.1.2 7.5m-wide one-way SB busway

2.1.3 One through lane SB and one through lane NB 3.5m-wide each

2.1.4 Straight curb 7.5m-wide WB busway immediately adjacent to the Metrotown Station

2.1.5 At McKay, busway veers north (8m-wide shared through traffic lane) to Central Boulevard

2.1.6 McKay extension north from Beresford Street to Central Boulevard

2.1.7 On McKay, one NB 3.5m-wide through lane plus a shared transit/auto lane from the exchange approaching Central Blvd

2.1.8 Two SB lanes (one left-turn only lane) at Beresford.

2.1.9 Inner travel lanes are 3.3m wide

2.1.10 Outer travel lanes are 3.5m wide

2.1.11 Straight curb on north side of Beresford with a right turn pocket at McKay Avenue

2.1.12 Parking lane with intersection bulb-outs on the south side of McKay

2.1.13 Straight curb along north side of Central Boulevard (with WB parking lane, WB through lane, shared left turn lane, EB travel lane, EB bus-only lane (with bulb-outs) (this may cause delays for the one WB through lane).

2.2 Layover facility

2.2.1 Curb adjustments

In general, the curbs of the center island are shrunk to allow 1 meter clearance to the columns and the curbs become straight. The outer curb line is expanded inward toward the center 3 to 10 m depending on location. Most of the expansion is for wide walkways around the perimeter of the center. The front of the exchange, along Central Boulevard is moved inward 4.2 meters to provide depth for potential retail space. The drawings depict this better than words. (Note: geometry will need to be checked - can buses manoeuvre into position independently?)

2.2.2 L/O positions, Route 19 and HandyDART

Layover positions vary based on the phase of the project

2.2.2.1 Phase 1 Route 19 using 12.3 meter trolleys

Layover thirteen (13) articulated bus spaces, of which 10 are sequential arrival with independent departure and three are first in/first out spaces. See description by bay in 2.2.4




Route 19 – Two trolleys share bay 3 that will fit two 12.3 meter trolleys, exactly as today’s operation, just in a different location and orientation. Location is immediately outside the lower mall entry.

HandyDART – Uses bay 2 just ahead of Route 19. There may be a more optimal location, but this was an unknown when we first laid out the facility.

2.2.2.2 Phase 2 Route 19 using 18.3meter Articulated Trolleys

Layover thirteen (13) articulated bus spaces of which 10 are sequential arrival with independent departure and 3 are first in/first out spaces. See description by bay in 2.2.4.

Route 19 – Utilizes bays 2 and 3 (to fit the 18.3 meter trolleys) bays, immediately adjacent to each other and with full independent arrival and departure. The main operation bay, bay 2 is to the west of the mall entrance, with the second bay, bay 3, directly in front of the entrance. From a customer perspective this is exactly backwards. From an operations perspective it makes some sense, fortunately this decision is neither final, nor fatal and can be revisited without modifying the facility physically.

HandyDART – would utilize the back part of the very long eastern Route 19 bay, bay 3, which places it adjacent to the mall entry. This requirement was unknown when the facility was first laid out.

2.2.3 Assumed Dimensions

2.2.3.1 Buses – Articulated Bus is allowed a space 3 meters x 19 meters, or somewhat larger than the physical envelope of the bus.

2.2.3.2 Spacing between Rows of Bus – Rows of layover buses were assumed to be one meter apart.

2.2.3.3 Clearance to curb – In most cases bus layover spaces were assumed to be 0.3 meter from the curb line, except at the north face proximate to the back wall of what, we hope, will become street front retail. There the buses are assumed to be 1 meter away from the curb to facilitate driver access.

2.2.4 Operational Assumptions

See drawings for bay numbers, the discussion below assumes that all buses in the layover area are articulated buses, thus presenting the most conservative set of operating assumptions. Today, only one route, one bus, is an articulated coach, the balance are 12.3 meter coaches. So the described operating assumptions only apply if all buses are artics. If standard length coaches are mixed in the operating assumptions become less conservative.

2.2.4.1 Bay 1 – Under most operating conditions will be independent arrival and departure, depending on the operating choices for Route 19 in phase 2; it could become sequential arrival/independent departure as it competes for pull in space with Route 19 buses in Bay 2.

2.2.4.2 Bay 2 – Phase 1 is HandyDART, Phase 2 is Route 19

2.2.4.3 Bay 3 – Phase 1 is Route 19, Phase 2 is Route 19 and HandyDART

2.2.4.4 Bay -4 – Sequential arrival, unless Bay 5 is vacant, then independent arrival, always independent departure.



2.2.4.5 Bay 5 – Sequential arrival, unless bay 6 is vacant, then independent arrival, always independent departure.

2.2.4.6 Bay 6—Independent arrival and independent departure

2.2.4.7 Bays 7 , 8 and 9 -- If Bays 4,5, and 6 are not being utilized, these bays share the same operating characteristics as the bays immediately north, Bays 4, 5, and 6. If Bays 4, 5, and 6 are being utilized these bays become First in—First out, If Bay 7 is the only bay used, it is independent pull in and out.

2.2.4.8 Bay 10 – Independent arrival and independent departure

2.2.4.9 Bay 11 -- Sequential arrival, unless bay 10 is vacant, then independent arrival, always independent departure.

2.2.4.10Bay 12 -- Sequential arrival, unless Bay 11 is vacant, then independent arrival, always independent departure.

2.2.4.11 Bay –13 Independent arrival and independent departure

2.2.4.12Bay 14 -- Sequential arrival, unless bay 13 is vacant, then independent arrival, always independent departure.

2.2.4.13Bay 15 -- Sequential arrival, unless Bay 14 is vacant, then independent arrival, always independent departure.

2.3 Proposed Retail Space

2.3.1 The re-purposing of the exchange provide an opportunity to re-purpose a space that is approximately 10 meters deep and 70 meters long for retail use, except for footprint space dedicated to a ventilation structure and a mechanical room structure.

2.4 Pedestrian Pathways, Central Blvd to Mall/Route 19

2.4.1 West Entry -- The exchange re-design significantly widens the pathways into the Mall. On the west side of the exchange the new pathway expands from its scant 1 meter to an approximately 5 meters and is buffered by a 1 meter wide landscape strip which also functions as a pedestrian barrier to discourage entry into the bus loop. For further study, this pedestrian access could be elevated a meter, +/-, or left at street level to blend into a sort of Woonerf with the Mall loading bay egress that is immediately adjacent to the west.

2.4.2 East Entry -- The east access would provide a wider opening for this pathway to the Mall with a nearly 7 meter wide path, 4.2 meters of which is uninterrupted by columns. The path would retain the vertical profile of the current path, and present a greater opening at street/sidewalk face onto Central Boulevard. The vertical drop into the exchange with whatever method is used to protect people from stepping off the edge, guard railing, etc. will prohibit pedestrian access into the exchange from this walkway. A design detail that has not been completed is accommodation of pedestrians from the elevation of this walkway down to the elevation of the exchange, to access Route 19. The walkway is at the same elevation as the Mall entrance but approximately 1 meter above the surface of the exchange.

2.5 Jaywalking Strategies – Current Exchange




2.5.1 Perhaps the biggest challenge is to discourage pedestrians from using the bus driveway as an entry into the loop or a short-cut to route 19 or the mall entry if arriving from the west. This can best be facilitated by changing the pavement surface and posting the driveway, which has been narrowed from its nearly 16 meters to 11 meters. The pavement surfaces could be further enhanced by use of pedestrian crossing paint markings. As a last resort signing will also be required. Finally, some level of enforcement may be necessary to ensure people do not form bad habits while there are fewer buses actually using the loop for layover. While not recommended at the outset, if continued pedestrian incursion into the bus loop becomes a significant safety issue due to the attractiveness of the Route 19(bays 2 and 3) next to the Mall entrance, access to the bus bays could be controlled through use of glass panels and doors that only open at the bus doors and only when buses are loading. This type of design has been used in some exchanges as a method to deter pedestrian incursion into an operating area. The design of Bays 1, 2 and 3, should allow for this possibility should it become necessary. Another preventive measure is to require operators not post a route head sign while in layover. This is to prevent customers from entering the layover facility to seek out their bus, rather than walking above or across Central Boulevard to reach the exchange.

2.6 Jaywalking Strategies – Central Boulevard

2.6.1 Central Boulevard will have all the attendant issues of any urban arterial in an area with highly varied pedestrian desire lines and limited crossings. Well marked and placed pedestrian crosswalks will aid substantially in guiding pedestrians to cross in the intended locations as will signal operations that have short cycle times to minimize pedestrian wait times, thus discouraging the alternative of jaywalking. Even so, jaywalking in urban environments is a given, the degree of jaywalking will depend on the degree of enforcement applied to Central Boulevard.



3. OUTSTANDING ISSUES FOR VERIFICATION

3.1. The proposed options operate under the following lane width assumptions, all of which will be validated or refined in the design phase of the project, before the final report:

3.1.1. Inside travel lanes – 3.3m (3.1m is not sufficient)

3.1.2. Outside travel lanes —3.5m

3.1.3. Shared bus/auto travel lanes –4.5m

3.1.4. One-way busway allowing one bus to pass another bus –7.5m

3.1.5. Parking lane -2.5m (2m parking lane is not acceptable)

3.2. The proposed options assume the following lane configurations:

3.2.1. Two-lane Beresford Street with parking on the south side of the street. In Option A, the eastbound lane is 3.3m wide; the eastbound parking lane is 2.5m wide; and the westbound lane is 3.5m wide. In Option B, dimensions would vary.

3.2.2. Central Boulevard either remains five lanes or has one westbound parking lane (2.5m), one westbound through lane (3.3m), a shared left turn lane/median (3.3m), one eastbound travel lane (3.3m), and one eastbound bus-only lane (4.5m).

3.2.3. New connections between Beresford Street and Central Boulevard

3.2.3.1. North-south street east of Telford Avenue connecting Beresford Street and Central Boulevard and facilitating transit access to the exchange

7.5m-wide one-way SB busway

One through lane SB and one through lane NB 3.5m-wide each

3.2.3.2. McKay extension north from Beresford Street to Central Boulevard

One NB 3.5m-wide through lane funnelling into a shared transit/auto lane approaching Central Blvd

Two SB lanes (one left-turn only lane 3.3m-wide and one through lane 3.5m-wide) at Beresford.

3.2.4. Busway is 7.5m wide


APPENDIX b WORKING AssUMPTIONs1.1.1. proposed curb adjustments in preferred Option 1 • All street and lane dimensions are at the discretion of City of

Burnaby.

• New north-south street east of Telford Avenue connecting Beresford Street and Central Boulevard and facilitating transit access to the exchange

• 7.5m-wide one-way SB busway

• One through lane SB and one through lane NB 3.5m-wide each

• Straight curb 7.5m-wide WB busway immediately adjacent to and south of the Metrotown Station

• At McKay, busway veers north (7.5m-wide shared through traffic lane) to Central Boulevard

• McKay extension north from Beresford Street to Central Boulevard

• One NB 3.5m-wide through lane funnelling into a 7.5m-wide shared transit/auto lane approaching Central Blvd

• Two SB lanes (one left-turn only lane) at Beresford.

o Inner travel lanes are 3.3m wide

o Outer travel lanes are 3.5m wide

• Straight curb on north side of Beresford with a right turn pocket at McKay Avenue

• Straight curb along north side of Central Boulevard (with two WB through lanes, shared left turn lane, EB travel lane, EB bus-only lane (with pull-ins)

1.1.2. Layover (L/O) facility1.1.2.1. Curb adjustmentsIn general, the curbs of the center island are shrunk to allow 0.5-1 meter clearance to the columns and the curbs become straight. The outer curb line is expanded inward toward the center 0.5 to 8 m depending on location. Most of the expansion is for wide walkways around the perimeter of the center. The front of the exchange, along Central Boulevard is moved inward 3 m to provide depth for potential retail space. The drawings depict this better than words.

1.1.2.2. L/O positions and Route 19• Layover 12 articulated bus spaces, of which five are sequential

arrival with independent departure, four are independent arrival with independent departure, and three are first in/first out spaces. See description by bay in 2.2.4

• Route 19 – Two trolleys share Bay 2/3 that will fit two 12.3 meter trolleys, exactly as the operation in the current exchange, just in a different location and orientation. Location is immediately outside the lower mall entry.

1.1.2.3. Assumed Dimensions• Buses – Articulated Bus is allowed a space 3 meters x 19 meters,

or somewhat larger than the physical envelope of the bus.

• spacing between Rows of Bus – Rows of layover buses were assumed to be one meter apart.

• spacing between Buses – Articulated buses are arrayed 5m apart, i.e. the distance between the nose of one bus and the tail of the proceeding bus is 5m. While this distance is less than the TransLink facility design standard, it is still operable at the desired lowe r speeds of the layover facility (3 km/hour or less, at the pull-out from the curb).

• Clearance to curb – In most cases bus layover spaces were assumed to be 0.3 meter from the curb line, except at the north face proximate to the back wall of what, we hope, will become street front retail. There the buses are assumed to be 1 meter away from the curb to facilitate driver access.

1.1.2.4. Operational AssumptionsSee drawings for bay numbers, the discussion below assumes that all buses in the layover area are articulated buses, thus presenting the most conservative set of operating assumptions. Today, only one route, one bus, is an articulated coach, the balance are 12.3 meter coaches. So the described operating assumptions only apply if all buses are artics. If standard length coaches are mixed in the operating assumptions become less conservative.

Bay 1 – will be independent arrival and departure, even if Bay 2/3 is occupied by Route 19 trolleys

Bay 2/3 – Two Route 19 trolleys located 3m apart for first in / first out operation.

Bay 4 – Sequential arrival, unless Bay 5 is vacant, then independent arrival, always independent departure.

Bay 5 – Independent arrival / independent departure

Bays 6 , 7 and 8 – If Bays 4 and 5 are not being utilized, these bays become capable of facilitating independent departures. Buses in Bays 6 and 7 arrive sequentially, while buses in Bay 8 would arrive independently of other operations. If Bays 4 and 5 are being utilized these bays become First in—First out, If only Bays 6 and 8 are in use, Bay 6 becomes independent pull in and out.

Bay 9 – Independent arrival and independent departure



Bay 12 – Independent arrival and independent departure



All turning movements for buses entering and exiting the layover facility are graphically shown in Appendix C. Between the vehicle sweeps and the west wall of the layover facility, there is a 1m buffer. On the west end of the exchange, a buffer of at least .6m has been maintained between the wall and vehicle sweeps. Articulated buses in Bays 1 and 4-12 are placed 5m apart, while the two trolleys in Bay 2/3 are placed 3m apart. Vehicles park parallel to the curb without infringing on the plane of the curb.

1.1.3. proposed Retail spaceThe re-purposing of the exchange provide an opportunity to re-purpose a space that is approximately nine meters deep and 70 meters long, except for footprint space dedicated to a ventilation structure and a mechanical room structure.

1.1.4. pedestrian pathways, Central Blvd to Mall/Route 191.1.4.1. West Entry The exchange re-design significantly widens the pathways into the Mall. On the west side of the exchange the new pathway expands from its scant 1 meter to an approximately 3-4 meters and is buffered by a .7 meter wide landscape strip which also functions as a pedestrian barrier to discourage entry into the bus loop. For further study, this pedestrian access could be elevated a meter, +/-, or left at street level to blend into a sort of Woonerf with the auto/truck access that is immediately adjacent to the west.

1.1.4.2. East EntryThe east access would provide a wider opening for this pathway to the Mall with a nearly 6 meter wide path, 3.1 meters of which is uninterrupted by columns. The path would retain the vertical profile of the current path, and present a greater opening at street/sidewalk face onto Central Boulevard. The vertical drop into the exchange with whatever method is used to protect people from stepping off the edge, guard railing, etc. will prohibit pedestrian access into the exchange from this walkway. A design detail that has not been completed is accommodation of pedestrians from the elevation of this walkway down to the elevation of the exchange, to access Route 19. The walkway is at the same elevation as the Mall entrance but approximately 1 meter above the surface of the exchange.

1.1.5. Jaywalking strategies1.1.5.1. Current ExchangePerhaps the biggest challenge is to discourage pedestrians from using the bus driveway as an entry into the loop or a short-cut to route 19 or the mall entry if arriving from the west. This can best be facilitated by changing the pavement surface and posting the driveway, which has been narrowed from its nearly 16 meters to 11 meters. The pavement surfaces could be further enhanced by use of pedestrian crossing paint markings. As a last resort signing will also be required. Finally, some level of enforcement may be necessary to ensure people do not form bad habits while there are fewer buses actually using the loop for layover. While not recommended at the outset, if continued pedestrian incursion into the bus loop becomes a significant safety issue due to the attractiveness of the Route 19 (Bays 2 and 3) next to the Mall entrance, access to the bus bays could be controlled through use of glass panels and doors that only open at the bus doors and only when buses are loading. This type of design has been used in some exchanges as a method to deter pedestrian incursion into an operating area. The design of Bays 1, 2 and 3, should allow for this possibility should it become necessary. Another preventive measure is to require operators not post a route head sign while in layover. This is to prevent customers from entering the layover facility to seek out their bus, rather than walking above or across Central Boulevard to reach the exchange.

1.1.5.2. Central BoulevardCentral Boulevard will have all the attendant issues of any urban arterial in an area with highly varied pedestrian desire lines and limited crossings. Well marked and placed pedestrian crosswalks will aid substantially in guiding pedestrians to cross in the intended locations as will signal operations that have short cycle times to minimize

pedestrian wait times, thus discouraging the alternative of jaywalking. Even so, jaywalking in urban environments is a given, the degree of jaywalking will depend on the degree of enforcement applied to Central Boulevard.


APPENDIX C bUs sWEEPs









Documents

METROTOWN EXCHANGE DRAFT FUNCTIONAL PLAN · 2016. 8. 30. · METROTOwn ExchangE dRafT funcTiOn plan 3 2 CHARRETTE PROCEss 2.1 Process Overview The functional plan development was