MASS_17

MassTransit_AprilMay_2017

APRIL/MAY 2017 | MassTransitmag.com | Mass Transit | 17 “We developed a response around these terms and really dug deep into what C-Tran wanted. We came up with fi ve diff erent concepts that C-Tran then narrowed down to three. Th rough some community engagement, C-Tran went out and essentially put the vote out to the public. Runyon explained that C-Tran put out a survey with the three concept ideas and presented it to the public. “C-Tran had their own idea of what they thought would be the No. one station, but the community overwhelmingly picked a diff erent design.” Th e ending design for the shelters and stations was called “Walking Sticks.” Th e name references the collection of vertical elements supporting a simple roof. Runyon explained the “walking” columns refl ect the speed of transit and the movement of people. “Th e infi ll elements — benches, signage, public art and wind screens — can be modifi ed to create a unique identity for each station. Th e shelter length, plus the amount and transparency of infi ll, can vary. Artwork and color can change to refl ect the unique response to each neighborhood, yet stay unifi ed in the Vine and C-Tran visual identity,” said Runyon. “Th e project cost $53 million,” said Selk. “Th ere were three separate contracts for this project, one was obviously for the BRT corridor itself, but also we expanded our maintenance facility and we relocated our transit center.” Th e Vancouver Mall transit center moved from one side to the other. Viggiano said that the Vine project exhibited innovation. “I think some of the most innovative pieces were just the design, especially around Clark and College, and they incorporated the stations into the college. Another nice piece of the project was that we built a new transit center at the Vancouver mall. Th e platform has a covered walkway into the mall.” Pivot designed the Vancouver Mall station to have six bays for fi xed-route buses, two for the Vine buses and a driver relief building. “It’s always new and innovative because the stations are custom designed so it makes it brand new,”said Runyon. “Th is (project) was custom in the fact that it listened to the owner and what the community wanted, developing a kind of community aimed response was important to that.” “We fi nished ahead of schedule and under budget,” Selk added. Managing Misconceptions Like many transit projects, there can be challenges that arise. Selk said that any new technology or transit option also comes with additional problems. “I don’t think that any of these big capitol development projects operate in a vacuum. Th ey are certainly full of challenges and this one was no diff erent. I think that when you undertake a project of this size, fi rst of all, not everyone is going to be on board with it,” said Selk. Viggiano said that initially they had to address misconceptions about the project from the public’s standpoint, “on how it might impact them and how it might impact their property access. A lot of it was making them understand that they would be involved in the design decision as it moved forward and that nothing had been already determined.” Th e corridor was originally planned to mesh with a light rail project that would come across the river from Portland, Oregon. “Th ey were going to share some of the downtown roadways — the light rail and the BRT. Th at project ended up being scrapped halfway through our plan and so we had to change our plan for the downtown area. When that project went away it actually changed some of the probably more innovative pieces of the BRT line,” said Viggiano. Selk said that projects like the Vine don’t occur without a bit of “backlash” or diff ering opinions on how they should go. “You’re also constructing things in a really busy travel corridor, which is not going to be without challenge. When people feel that you’ve been out there longer than you need to be or ‘why am I not seeing people working every single station, every single day?’ I mean it’s to be understood, but to kind of translate and educate folks as to why their travel lane may be closed down for a couple days can be a challenge.” “A lot of times people in the community think ‘oh you’ve already decided what you’re going to do and what I say doesn’t matter,’” explained Viggiano. “Overcoming that was a challenge I would say. Th e stakeholder committee that included a lot of people skeptical about the project eventually ended up supporting it.” “It is an important responsibility of the agency to get that information out to folks,” said Selk. “I think that we did a good job of that, but people do get frustrated and they get annoyed by things like that. It is also a new system; it’s brand new transit technology. So in addition to any sort of conveniences or different opinions that people might have had about it, there was a lot of By the Numbers January 8, 2017 Opening date $53 million Project cost 80% Federal 6% State 14% Local Amenities: Off-board fare collection Transit signal priority Wheelchair selfparking areas On-board bike racks 10 60-foot, low-floor hybrid buses 34 Stations WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff


MassTransit_AprilMay_2017
To see the actual publication please follow the link above