Washington's Dark Side Exposed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrhL0ih2XcI
A cold, crappy dark and damp fall and winter is common. It's almost as bad as Vancouver, Canada. However, it's important to point out that Seattle and Vancouver never froze over like Minneapolis and Winnipeg, Chicago and Toronto, NYC and Montreal, Boston and Halifax.
The REM vs. Reality: Does Montreal's new train meet expectations? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq1xpxOt7FM&t=596s
Montreal’s Biggest REM Expansion Yet! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G1oeIAfxDU&t=12s
How Montreal’s miracle metro could change everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHqqA0onn0
Evolution of the Montreal Metro & REM 1966-2030 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zvOk2t1EpE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D2CXdZ_4Ro
Unfortunatly, the first 2 Skytrain lines were designed to only have 80m stations and trains. The 3rd line to YVR and Richmond was only designed to have 50m stations. In contrast, the Montreal Metro has stations long enough to accomodate 152.4m long trains. Thus, the greatest mistake was to not enable the Skytrain to eventually become a very high capacity train system. Combine that with mostly narrow bridges and roads in Greater Vancouver and you have the epitome of congestive urban planning.
At least by late 2025 some of the new 5 car trains were out, along with some of the old 6 car little box trains on the 1st line. The 2nd and 3rd lines are still running 2 car joke trains, but that symbolically fits right in with the, KEEP BC SMALL AND BACKWARDS mentality.
A proper big city long-term plan would have been to allow for 10 car trains, with at least 5-6 car trains at the start when each line opened.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/deux-montagnes-rem-shutdown-9.7046184
https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/rem-service-disrupted-snowfall
https://montreal.citynews.ca/2026/01/15/snow-causes-rem-disruption/
https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/rem-down-due-to-tricky-weather-conditions/
https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/projects/rem
https://globalnews.ca/news/11615259/ontario-office-mandate-snow-day
As Australia & NZ get some intense summer weather, Canada is constantly reminded that winter isn't always a fun time. While its sunny and well above freezing in Vancouver & Victoria, Toronto & Montreal are stuck right in the middle of total winter conditions.
https://montrealgazette.com/news/weather/montreal-snowfall-warning-road-conditions
https://globalnews.ca/news/11614578/montreal-storm-road-conditions/
https://montreal.citynews.ca/2026/01/15/heavy-snow-montreal-winter-conditions/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/deux-montagnes-rem-shutdown-9.7046184
Victoria has been a provincial backwater for most of its history. Despite being in a mild winter setting, it's so small when compared to Edmonton, Winnipeg, Quebec City and Halifax.
https://www.onevictoriaplace.ca
https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=37&status=15
While Edmonton was eventually allowed to have a tall building, even by Toronto, Calgary and Montreal standards, Victoria was always supposed to have shorter buildings than Winnipeg, Quebec City and Halifax. That's part of the KEEP THINGS SMALL mentality on V. Island.
Victoria should have had its first LRT line by now, but that might improve urban mobility. Eventually, Victoria and Nanaimo will merge into one linear urban area. Eventually, the Comox_Valley_Regional_District will have over 100,000 people, the Regional_District_of_Nanaimo will have over 200,000 people, the Cowichan_Valley_Regional_District will exceed 100,000 people and the Capital_Regional_District will have over 450,000 people.
Of course there doesn't seem to be any big regional scale planning from Sooke to Courtenay. Perhaps the island's urban planners will wait until there is 800,000 and over a million residents on the island.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Island#Demographics
So, as more people discover that Victoria and Vancouver are the mildest winter cities in Canada, more people just might want to move there. Especially, when Canadian Snowbirds don't feel as comfortable with Florida, Texas & California.
https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship 123m or 403 feet in length.
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starship-nasa-saturn-v-sls-moon-rockets-comparison-2019-7
https://www.nps.gov/wamo/faqs.htm 169m or 555 feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument
Even the Skytrains in backwards Vancouver aren't allowed to be as long, due to such short stations. Of course the Montreal Metro can run 152.4m or 500 foot long trains, because of building longer stations in the first place.
The REM vs. Reality: Does Montreal's new train meet expectations? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq1xpxOt7FM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_FnM-e-8xs
This city could have been as big as Boston or Montreal by now.
https://macleans.ca/society/montreals-new-rail-line-is-the-future/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Paris_Express , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88nkbjsLbI8
| Formation |
|
|---|---|
| Capacity | 932 per train (8 cars set) |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP_14_(Paris_Metro)
| Train length |
|
|---|---|
| Car length | 15.04 m (49 ft 4 in) |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwsOVZ-j7hg
Oakridge_Park is on a much smaller scale than Metrotown, Brentwood and Lougheed. It will especially be on a much smaller scale than Parramatta in NSW.
Unfortunatly, the Oakridge-41st_Avenue_station was only designed to have 50m platforms, when it should have been at least 100m. Thus, the utter foolishness has meant that instead of allowing for a future level station clearance to accomodate 5 car trains, the Canada (embassament) Line was only designed to just have 2.5 car trains. While its extremely short stations might have been disguised as a cost saving measurer, there didn't seem to be any key people onboard to make sure that it could eventually become a proper big city train line. Its sad that a line which opened in 2009 is still only running 2 car trains. While the 2.5 car configuration is still a joke of a train, at least half of an extra coach-length is better than nothing. Plus, there should have been extra cars ordered by now so at least during the very busy times the trains could be operating at 1 minute headways. Unfortunatly, this goes against the Vancouver & BC congestion planning mentality.
Despite being built several years after the Sydney_Harbour_Bridge, the joke that is the Pattullo_Bridge was designed to only have 4 narrow lanes & only 1 sidewalk. Of course the replacement_bridge will only open with 2 lanes each way. It was as if someone really wanted to make sure that there won't be 2 bus lanes and no HOV lanes when the bridge opens. While the new bridge is designed to be expanded from a 4 lane joke to eventually having 6 lanes, it still won't be wide enough to accomodate 2 HOV lanes as well as 2 bus lanes. Of course the new bridge won't have any emergency lanes, just like the old bridge. However, it will have 2 bike lanes and 2 sidewalks. https://www.globalhighways.com/news/pattullo-bridge-completion-end-year Its only fitting that in backwards BC this new bridge wouldn't be designed to eventually have a lower deck to accomodate 2 bus lanes and 2 LRT tracks.
If the planners were afraid to symbolically have a wide bridge between NW and Surrey, the old Pattullo_Bridge should have been designed to eventually have a lower deck for trams, trucks and busses. Even when the SkyBridge between NW and Surrey opened in 1990, it wasn't designed to have any bus lanes or emergency vehicle lanes and especially, no bike and footpaths.
Is Vancouver the best city in North America? (2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8dmVUrNt38
One of the biggest mistakes in Vancouver & SW BC is to have short trains combined with mostly narrow bridges. Thus, the region doesn't get to have long, high capacity trains and there isn't a proper regional network of bus-bridges. The refusal to twin most of the bridges means that it's almost impossible to have a proper and efficient regional network of rapid-bus and HOV lanes.
While Montreal built the REM to augment their long-train Metro system, Vancouver should have allowed for enough clearance to eventually have 500 foot long trains. 80m-50m Skytrain stations are going to become inadequate, when there should have been a 152.4m provision so that the trains could eventually become as long as the ones on the Montreal Metro.
Is Regional Rail in the Future of British Columbia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PeIOVy6fFc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09pmnf8npA8
There was a time when no structure in BC was allowed to be as tall as Blackpool Tower. Then there was a time when no building in Vancouver was allowed to be as tall as the Seattle Space needle or the Calgary Tower. Even in late 2025, only one Vancouver building has been allowed to be taller than the Calgary Tower.
Burnaby, Coquitlam and especially Surrey, don't have such imposed height restrictions as stumpy Vancouver. Thus, Burnaby, Coquitlam and Surrey will all be having taller buildings than Vancouver.
If Montreal can ever have its equivalent of La_Defense or Canary_Wharf, then it might be able to have some tall buildings that would be impressive by Melbourne and Toronto standards. Perhaps even Chicago or NYC standards.
https://dailyhive.com/toronto/gta-families-move-to-calgary
If you move from Toronto to Calgary, you will still be in a real city. However, Calgary has about a 3rd of the population. The GTA is so much more vast and dense than Calgary. The Calgary_Tower is only a 3rd of the height as the CN_Tower.
For those that move from Toronto, Montreal, Calgary or Edmonton to Vancouver, you will be shocked to see mostly 4 lane bottleneck-chokepoint bridges. The few 6 lane bridges in Greater Vancouver have no proper bus or HOV lanes, so its the epitome of congestion planning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uot7oIA9-ZE The station platforms will be 80m, which can only accomodate a 5 car train.
Unfortunatly, even if this segment had 500' or 152.4m long stations like the Montreal Metro, the rest of the first 2 lines only have 80m stations. Thus, 80m is only about 52% of the length of a Montreal Metro station, which can accomodate 9 car trains. It's taken until 2025 for the SkyTrain to gradually start running 5 car trains. In theory, if two Vancouver 80m trains run at twice the frequency as one 152m Montreal Metro train, a similar capacity could be attained.
However, in the long run, it would have been much more cost effective to have the first 2 SkyTrain lines stations already roughed out to 152m, or a least have enough level clearance to eventually become twice the length. But that's what a proper big city would do, something that Vancouver is against.
Even as an initial cost saving measure, the YVR-Canada Line should have opened with 100m stations, instead of the inadequate 50m joke. Then it could immediately accomodate 5 car trains. The station platforms should have had enough level clearance to eventually accommodate a 160m long train consisting of 8 cars reaching both ferry terminals. Of course there seems to be no plan to connect YVR to both ferry terminals.
Its very difficult for BC cities to allow proper big city size infrastructure, because that would symbolize a pro growth initiative. Since the world is mostly composed of non-white people, a slow growth agenda became a clever way to symbolically demonstrate a refusal to build big. BC is multicultural, but Canada has less than 1% of the worlds population. Even in the 2020s, BC still retains some of its colonial outpost mentality. Just keep things small and backwards and try to remain a backwater for as long as possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G1oeIAfxDU
New REM metro line to Deux-Montagnes in Montreal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Oq-9kkZba8
Montreal's Metro Is Great...But Could Be Better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQQWM87alMY
Evolution of the Montreal Metro & REM 1966-2030 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zvOk2t1EpE
https://globalnews.ca/news/11528001/burnaby-apology-discrimination-against-chinese-community
Asia is the most populated part of the world and until recently, China had the biggest population. Thus, people from China or people who are of Chinese descent, live all over the world. There was a strong, KEEP CANADA WHITE agenda, right into the mid 20th century. Of course this mentality wasn't just directed towards Asians, but towards anyone who was nonwhite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_head_tax
It took until the 1970s for Multiculturalism to challenge the, KEEP CANADA AS A WHITE MAN'S PARADISE.
https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/canadian-multiculturalism-policy-1971
https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/multiculturalism
While Canada hardly has that much of a Pacific Coast, when compared to the US and Australia, the BC part of Canada should have had at least one major city on the scale of Montreal or Seattle, Brisbane or SF. Unfortunatly, Vancouver has retained several of its overlapping restrictions, which prevent it from being on a scale similar to that of Montreal, Seattle, Calgary, Brisbane & SF...
Despite Burnaby & Grater Vancouver being multicultural for several decades, so much of the restrictive BC mentality remains like an old disruptive computer program that hasn't been deleted. Unfortunatly, after the WW2 era, Greater Vancouver and BC continued with a backwater mentality. Just look at how much bigger things are allowed to be in Australia's 4 largest cities. Look at the scale of Seattle & Calgary & see how much of Greater Vancouver is still held back. Look at how big Edmonton as a capital is, while Victoria remains as a small provincial backwater.
Unlike Melbourne, SF and Toronto, backwards Vancouver made sure that it was one of the first cities to get rid if its streetcar and tram-train (interurban) network before the 1960s. To make matters worse, the Greater Vancouver Region had and still does, have a system of mostly narrow bridges.
There was such a push to have a tracks to tires agenda, no one seemed to realize that all the bridges should be wide enough to accomodate 2 bus lanes, or at least build a bus bridge or tunnel next to an existing bridge.
Just because Multiculturalism in Canada started to officially get going in the 1970s, the city & municipal councils and planning departments were still predominantly managed by people of European descent. For most of the Colonial and postcolonial history of BC, the main municipalities were Vancouver, Burnaby, NW & Victoria. It was that way right into the 1970s.
Since the predominantly White civic structure was firmly in place well into the 1980s, there was plenty of time to implement and maintain a social engineering agenda. An unofficial (White) Urban Livability Plan was cleverly devised by scaling almost everything down. Since BC can't control non-white immigration, "Livability" had to be symbolically quite visible. Livability was an ingenious way to impose various overlapping restrictions throughout the decades. How does the Livability agenda work? Suppose that there was a mostly subconscious mentality to refuse building up proper big city infrastructure for non-white people. Thus, by symbolically constructing inadequate transportation infrastructure, it becomes a way demonstrating that you are not properly building for the future, despite most of the world being non-white. Now, Burnaby & the Greater Vancouver region are so far behind now, its difficult to catch up to other proper metropolitan areas around the world.
Despite Canada being the 2nd largest country in overall size, it has such a small area on the Pacific_Rim and Asia is the most populated part of the world. By keeping most of the bridges narrow and the trains short compared to most cities, that fits right in with the symbolism of antigrowth towards a predominantly non-white world. Canada is nowhere near close to having 1% of the worlds population, but most of the world is non-white. Its been that way since the beginning.
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Burnaby+apologizes
Since BC started out as a British Colonial outpost, people of European descent were at the orchestrated top of the human hierarchy. Chinese and Asians & nonwhites in general were a concern to the White majority of early BC.
https://www.veterans.gc.ca/en/remembrance/people-and-stories/chinese-canadians
South Asians were also a concern to the colonial power structure.
https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/komagata-maru
https://www.canada.ca/en/parks-canada/news/2016/08/the-komagata-maru-incident-of-1914.html
Of course Indigenous and Black People were part of being categorized as a lesser class of human.
It took a very long time for the British_Empire to respect the people of a multicultural world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_British_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_British_Empire#Decline_and_decolonization
Multicultural Canada has less than 1% of the world's population. Yet, so many smaller countries are able to have a higher density and larger population than Canada.
Burnaby in Greater Vancouver is part of Canada's largest urban area on the Pacific_Rim. There are still many people who would like to thwart the scale of growth in Greater_Vancouver. They don't want the region to become as big and dynamic as Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Seattle, SFBA, Melbourne, Sydney & Brisbane.
A big & dynamic urban region means more Asians and more nonwhite people in general. Unfortunatly, some people are still too uncomfortable with that notion.
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Burnaby+apologizes
