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.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://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=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://dailyhive.com/vancouver/metro-vancouver-housing-growth-forecast-condos
For several decades, trains, bridges and buildings had to be half the size of what real cities allow. Vancouver and especially the Greater Vancouver Region couldn't build a huge wall, so the next best thing was to heavily impose a symbolic resistance to build big. Thus, by watering the scale of almost everything down by imposing a series of overlapping restrictions, Vancouver & BC remained stunted.
Then, things started to slowly change going into the 21st century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Wall_Centre Opened in 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Tower 2004
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Georgia_(Vancouver) 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Vancouver
While restrictive Vancouver started to allow some taller buildings, its still behind what many other cities permit. Especially that of what's in Melbourne, Sydney & Brisbane...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_One_Yonge Toronto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainier_Square_Tower Seattle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stantec_Tower Edmonton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telus_Sky Calgary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_sur_le_Parc Montreal
Since Burnaby, Coquitlam & Surrey aren't under Vancouvers imposed restrictions, they can build taller. Eventually, Vancouver will have to allow taller residential buildings, but its as if there is a strong mind virus determined to hold the scale of everything back.
Lions+Gate+Bridge Still, a 3 lane crossing with no plans for a bus, train & truck tunnel. Australia has no problem building tunnels near bridges.
YVR-Canada-Line Still, a 2 car train of a joke, when several cities will have 6, 8 or 10 car trains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrMISsHZ85s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway , https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/dlr
The DLR could have been built better right from the start so that more capacity and efficiency were in place since its first day. It was never meant to rival any section of a tube line in capacity per KM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway_rolling_stock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)
While the first 2 Skytrain lines only have 80 m stations which are slightly more than half the length of a Montreal Metro train station, there should have been enough level station clearance to eventually double the length of each station. The 3rd line to YVR only has a level station clearance of 50 m, vs. the 152.4 m Montreal Metro stations. The YVR-Canada-Line should have had enough level station clearance to eventually become 160 m in length.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)#Rolling_stock
Allegations remain as allegations.
However, in an unrelated matter, there was a case of total $HIT-BOX mismanagement and excrement. Billions of dollars wasted in a $HIT-PIPE DREAM. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/metro-vancouver-board-votes-to-pause-nswwtp-review-until-legal-dispute-settled-1.7594512
Then there is the case as to why the Canada+Line+is+so+under-built. Apparently, as a rushed and inept cost saving measure, the Canada+Line wouldn't have 152.4m long stations like the Montreal Metro or even the Edmonton LRT stations, which range from 125m to 130m. Despite its 2 billion dollar cost the Canada-Line wasn't designed with that much future capacity in mind. The ridiculously short 50m stations should have been roughed out or level for at least 100m, if not even 160m. That would have allowed for future 5-8 car trains.
Ultimately, as a long-term, high capacity link between YVR and the 2 main ferry terminals, the stations should have had a 200m level clearance. That would have allowed for ten, 20m car trains. Unfortunatly, no provision for a 10 car train, not even a 5 car train, just an absurd 2.5 car short train, someday.
$HIT-BOX mismanagement and opting for short trains is such careless urban infrastructure planning.
The BC Mind Virus is such a horrible thing, but it officially doesn't exist. Yet, the crappy approach to things endures.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Canada_Line_Train_201807.jpg/960px-Canada_Line_Train_201807.jpg , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line#Route An airport+line connecting Vancouver & Richmond to YVR should have started out with at least 5-6 car trains, then eventually, 8-10 car trains after eventually connecting to the 2 main BC Ferry terminals. However that's a problem, because backwards BC can't seem to allow for proper long-range, bigcity infrastructure planning & development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_777 Train length 64.98 m (213 ft 2 in)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merseyrail#Fleet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Metro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL_C30 Train length 70 m (229 ft 7+29⁄32 in)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL_C20 46.5 m (152 ft 6+45⁄64 in) Unlike Vancouver, Stockholm can run double-length trains. This is possible whenever longer stations are built, or at least have enough level clearance for future expansion.
The Montreal Metro in the 1960s could run ridiculous 3 car trains, but eventually realized that 6 car trains & especially 9 car trains can efficiently more more people. Thus, its a good thing that they planned to have 152.4 m stations right from the start.
While short trains and stations can initially be a cost saving measure, allowing for future level clearance can be more economically efficient, in the long run. Thus, even a tram premetro can eventually be turned into a tram-train.
Unfortunatly, in typical Vancouver fashion, the Canada+Line wasn't designed to have 10 car trains, not even 5 car trains. The 2 billion dollar joke of a train was only designed with a level clearance for 50 m stations that only can accommodate a 2.5 car train. For a line that had to be open by 2009, it's still only running 2 car trains, with no 2.5 car trains in sight as 2025 is winding down.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/NorthArmBridge.jpg/960px-NorthArmBridge.jpg A pathetic 2 car train on a bridge that should have 2 bike lanes & 2 sidewalks.
Indeed, just because the Canada Line was designed as if it was only to start out with short premetro train stations, there should have been a long-term plan to eventually have proper big city trains. One of the biggest mistakes for what should be a proper big city metro train, is to design short stations that are almost impossible to double, let alone tripple in length.
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Canada+Line+is+so+under-built
If you are visiting Vancouver or Victoria from Calgary or Edmonton, you will be shocked as to how narrow most of the bridges are in Greater Vancouver and Victoria. Edmonton was wise in the 1970s to have 125 m long underground LRT stations. Foolish Vancouver opted to only have 80 m stations on its first 2 lines and an absurd 50 m for the 3rd line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Calgary) , https://www.calgary.ca/green-line.html
https://www.calgarytransit.com/plans---projects/lrt/green-line.html
https://engage.calgary.ca/greenline/UndergroundStations Fortunatly, any underground stations in Calgary will be closer in length to that of the Edmonton LRT and not backwards Vancouver.
https://www.railjournal.com/regions/north-america/tunnel-preferred-for-calgary-lrt-green-line/
https://www.calgary.ca/green-line/stations.html
The main roads and bridges in urban parts of Alberta are allowed to be wider than their counterparts in backwards BC. So while people in the urban parts of Alberta are concerned or even angry about rapid growth, at least Alberta can easily build more urban infrastructure. That's because Albertal isn't affect by the (unofficial) BC Mind Virus (BCMV).
A timely example is a new bridge between Surrey & NW. Despite Surrey being expected to become the largest city in BC, the new bridge will only open with 4 lanes. No 3rd or 4th lane each way for busses, HOVs and trucks. Thus, all the road traffic at either end is funneled into just 2 lanes each way. Plus, there are no breakdown or emergency lane, just like the old bridge.
While this new bridge can eventually be widened to 6 lanes, there is no provision for a lower deck for LRT, busses and trucks. Despite SW BC being a seaport area, trucks are funneled onto mostly narrow bridges. There has been a lack of interest to build bus bridges next to almost all of the bridges in Greater Vancouver. Yet, there is a Half-A$$ED attempt to have a better regional express bus network. This regional Rapid Bus attempt will always be a joke, unless a series of bus bridges are built. The Half-A$$ED approach is to try to have bus lanes on 4 to 6 lane bridges. Designating 2 bus lanes would reduce the narrow bridges to only 1 or 2 lanes each way for general traffic in what is suppose to be a major seaport and urban area.
Most of the worlds population is non-white and for a big part of the history of BC, there has been a refusal to build up bigtime infrastructure for everyone. While some Albertains might wish that there was a wall built around their province or a force-field like out of Star Trek, BC is almost pretending like there is. Thus, the keep things small and backwards mentality.
Several decades ago, BC implemented a symbolic slow-growth approach. Despite BC not having any control over immigration, or trying to establish an internal passport & checkpoint system, to KEEP PEOPLE OUT, it opted for the next best thing. Stunt or scale back the urban infrastructure to project a strong symbolic reluctance to growth and thinking big.
When you realize how much larger things are allowed to be in Alberta, Washington State and even Western Australia & compare them to watered down BC, you see quite a difference. Despite BC & Canada in general, being multicultural, BCs cities keep finding ways to water the scale of things down. Canada has yet to have even 1% of the world's population, despite its size.
While there are good arguments to occasionally slowdown immigration, that can eventually become problematic, just like too much immigration. Even in the 2020s, some people in the former White colonial parts of the world still wish that Canada & Australia, etc., could be a White Man's paradise. However, that seems so impractical on a planet that mostly has a non white population.
https://humanrights.ca/story/chinese-head-tax-and-chinese-exclusion-act
https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chinese-head-tax-in-canada
https://royalalbertamuseum.ca/blog/chinese-head-tax-george-yees-story
https://www.musee-mccord-stewart.ca/en/blog/chinese-exclusion-act/
https://parks.canada.ca/culture/designation/evenement-event/exclusion-chinois-chinese
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/asian-heritage-month/important-events.html
https://stanleyparkvan.com/stanley-park-van-monument-komagata-maru.html
https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2022/10/05/vancouver-komagata-maru-memorial
https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/01/30/vancouver-komagata-maru-memorial-vandalism/
Even if Alberta were to eventually become its own country, it would be extremely unlikely that it could ever impose a White Man's Paradise Agenda. The same could be stated for backwards BC. However, something very peculiar has been happening in BC for several generations.
Several BC cities and municipalities play off each other with various slow-growth agendas. Vancouver being one of the most restrictive & backwards on the the planet. Somehow the legitimate anti freeway fears of the 1960s & 70s didn't get the city & region to still build a series of bus & HOV bridges. Plus, a long-term, high capacity urban rail system.
While Montreal planned for 152.4 m stations to accomodate 9 car trains, backwards Vancouver only built 80 m Skytrain stations for the first 2 lines. Then to top that, was a plan to build a line to Richmond with only enough level clearance for 50 m stations. The 1st line only started to run 5 car trains in 2025. Eventually, the 2nd line will also have 5 car trains. However, the line to the airport was deliberately designed not to have 5 car trains. Just a Half-A$$ED 2.5 car train, someday. WTH?
For Greater Vancouver to mostly have narrow bridges, one would think the all the stations could ultimately be at least as long as a Montreal Metro train station. Indeed, Greater Vancouver should have built for 10 car trains, but will only have 5 car trains on the 1st two lines & a 2.5 car joke of a train on the 3rd line. As of 2025, the 2nd & 3rd lines are still only running 2 car trains. Such a great way to symbolically show the resistance to eventually link YVR to both of the main BC ferry terminals.
The inadequate 3 lane Lion Bridge still has no bus & HOV tunnels near it. Urban parts of Australia never seemed to have a similar reluctance to build tunnels as does backwards Vancouver. Tunnels for Montreal & Seattle aren't a problem either. At least BC is slated to have a new and improved tunnel by 2030, that's only a couple of generations late.
Oh, if only people would stop moving to BC, especially Vancouver & Victoria. Well, that's not the case, its just that various BC cities want to only build urban infrastructure that is inadequate. Despite the frustrations that some people have in Alberta, at lest wider bridges, longer trains & taller buildings are allowed there. This watering things down in BC approach is symbolically indicative to refuse to properly build for a growing population.
Surrey should have already had at least 1 hospital the size of VGH. At least Surrey like Burnaby, can build up taller in what is still mostly a mountain wilderness province.
BC is a long way from New England & Southern Quebec. The restrictive urban planning measures in Greater Vancouver keep preventing it from becoming a proper big metropolitan area like Greater Boston and Montreal.
Calgary and Edmonton each should have hand an airport+line by now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(MBTA) Calgary will have its own version of a Green Line, eventually. https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Calgary+Green+Line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakridge-41st_Avenue_station
It's so sad that the Canada (Embarrassment) Line stations are only an absurd 50 m, when the Montreal_Metro stations are 152.5 m or 500 feet long. A 2 car Vancouver-Richmond train just can't match the capacity of a 9 car Montreal Metro train.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line#Stations "The five busiest stations have platforms 50 metres (160 ft) long, while the rest of the stations have 40-metre (130 ft) platforms that can be easily extended to 50 metres."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line#Canada_Line_Hyundai_Rotem_specifications "Train length: 41 m (134 ft 6 in)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Metro#Station_design "Platforms, 152.4 metres (500 ft) long and at least 3.8 metres (12 ft) wide..."
The Canada_Line is a total backwards BC embassesment. The argument for such short stations and trains was to save money. However, all the stations could have still been designed to be level long enough to eventually be extended to 160 m. That would be able to accomodate an 8 car train of 525 feet.
Unfortunatly, in accordance with backwards Vancouver transportation planning, the Canada (Embarrassment) Line stations are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_station_(Edmonton)
The multigenerational backwards BC thinking always gets in the way. An initial 2 billion dollar train line should have ultimately been designed to have 10 car trains. This line should have eventually linked YVR to both ferry terminals, but that would actually be efficient long-range transportation planning.
Edmonton has one tower thats taller than anything in BC. However, Burnaby and Surrey will eventually rival it. Despite more people wanting to move to Vancouver, perhaps to avoid the -20C to -30C Canadian winters. However, some people are determined to make sure that Vancouver never has any building taller than what's in Edmonton & especially Calgary & Seattle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton#Public_transit Unfortunatly, any underground train station in backwards Vancouver was designed to be shorter than the underground train stations in Edmonton & Seattle. While the trains in Vancouver can be more frequent, short stations keep the trains short and pathetic.
Despite the SkyTrain being a multibillion dollar system, the underground stations are only 80 metres on the first 2 lines. The Canada (embassament) Line only has 50 metre stations. In contrast, the Montreal Metro has 152.5 metre stations. At least the underground stations in Edmonton are in the 125 to 130 metre range and even longer in Seattle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Edmonton
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kurt-b/51118510836
https://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/vancouver/v6c/august-weather/53286?year=2025 The last day to be at least 25 C in Vancouver will be by the end of August or possibly very early into September.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/vancouver/v6c/september-weather/53286?year=2025 The last day to be at least 20 C in Vancouver could be during the 2nd or 3rd week.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/montreal/h3a/september-weather/2-56186_1_al?year=2025 Montreal might have its last 20 C day right at the end of September.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/toronto/m5h/october-weather/55488?year=2025 The last 20 C day in Toronto could be a week into October.
From mid September 2024 to mid April 2025 is how long it took for Vancouver to have its last 20 C day of the year to its first 20 C day of the year. That's a 7 month stretch without it even getting to 70 F.
Just like being one of the last cities to revive part of its streetcar system, Vancouver will be one of the last cities to really have a heatwave that lasts over a week. Indeed, its very tough for Vancouver to get to 35 C and even more rare to reach or exceed 40 C.
While Toronto is the most southern BIG city in Canada, Windsor is the most southern small city in Canada.
https://www.montrealgazette.com/news/article1084656.html
Handling of environmental-impact consultation for Trudeau airport expansion is ‘scandalous,’ activist says https://www.montrealgazette.com/news/article1058167.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_express_m%C3%A9tropolitain#Stations
https://rem.info/en/airport , https://rem.info/en/map
https://rem.info/en/travelling/stations/yul-aeroport-montreal-trudeau Length of each platform: 80 m
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/montreal-rem-vancouver-skytrain-comparison Montreal built a Metro with 152.5 m stations & a commuter rail system, then eventually the REM.
Vancouver & BC should have designed the SkyTrain to initially have all of its stations at 100 m with the capability to be expanded to at least 155 m. Unfortunatly, the first 2 lines only have 80 m stations & the YVR-Canada-Line only has 50 m stations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_rail_transit_in_Canada#Existing_systems
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/north-shore-wastewater-treatment-plant-project-review-delayed
So much money has been wasted that could have otherwise have gone towards a train & bus bridge or a tunnel across the inlet.
The+Ironworkers-Bridge will still have to be upgraded or rebuilt and it should be on the scale of the New Samuel-De_Champlain_Bridge. The New_Champlain_Bridge_in Montreal has 4 lanes each way, plus 2 train tracks. More things are possible in Montreal and Quebec, simply because they don't have anything like Vancouver's restrictions & the backwards BC B$ mentality to thwart them.
https://www.samueldechamplainbridge.ca/traffic-and-detours/
https://www.samueldechamplainbridge.ca/pedestrians-and-cyclists/
https://www.arup.com/projects/samuel-de-champlain-bridge-corridor/
Two bike lanes & 2 sidewalks are great, but the government really tipped their hand with this. Despite the SkyTrain not running 24hrs, the new bridge won't open with any bus lanes & no HOV lanes. Despite Greater Vancouver being a port region, there won't be any dedicated truck lanes & worst of all, no emergency or breakdown lanes.
Since there was such a push to only have 2 lanes each way, the new bridge still should have opened with 2 wide emergency lanes & 2 wide breakdown lanes. Thats 6 lanes already in place, with a provision to eventually add 2 more. However, that would go against the congestive planning agenda that is Greater Vancouver & backwards BC.
It's one thing to say or pretend to support bus & HOV lanes, but opening this new bridge without such additional lanes all fits in with the congestive planning agenda. Just like a 5 car SkyTrain squeezed into an 80 m station, is a far cry from a 9 car Montreal Metro train with 152.5 m stations. Thinking, planning & building big in BC goes against the congestive planning agenda.
Symbolism is very important in backwards BC. Thus, half-size infrastructure is one of the best ways to demonstrate an ongoing reluctance to accommodate growth & efficiency. There have been several decades, even generations where funding has only created half-size & HALF-A$$ED infrastructure. So the big question is, where did so much of the money go, when BC still needs proper size infrastructure?
This multigenerational backwards BC mind Virus is horrible!
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Pattullo+Bridge 4 narrow lanes & a narrow sidwalk.
https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Pattullo+Bridge+replacement 4 wide lanes with a central divider, pulse 2 sidewalks & 2 bike lanes.
