https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2m4n1tUYVM This is heading northbound and shows the proper wide sidewalk that's on the east side of the bridge.
For some reason the sidewalk on the west side of the bridge was made too narrow. Had the sidewalk been as wide as the one on the east side of the bridge, the Vancouver planning department wouldn't have likely reduced a lane. Of course if the city would ever build a proper bike bridge beside the Cambie Bridge, then perhaps the 6th lane might be reactivated.
A 6 lane Cambie bridge is better than a 5 lane version, or a former 6 lane Burrard Bridge reduced to 4. If both bridges had bike bridges next to them, then 2 lanes of each original 6 lane bridge could have been for busses. However, that goes against the congestive planning agenda that is backwards Vancouver.
The late 1950s, 6 lane Iron Bridge should have had 2 wide emergency lanes and 2 wide shoulders. Then, the Iron Bridge could have been gradually modified to have 4 lanes each way, plus a bus lane each way. However, having a 10 lane bridge is what a big city would do. Unfortunately, Vancouver city planning has become so engrossed with perpetuating a small city agenda over the decades.
When most of the regional bridges were built, there was no concept or interest in having them wide enough for bus lanes and wide emergency lanes and wide shoulders. Congestive transportation planning or stunted infrastructure, is one of the best ways in demonstrating a local reluctance to properly build big for the future. Who knows where all the money went over the decades, because it doesn't look like enough of it went towards building wider bridges and having longer trains and stations.
