Surrey, BC

 https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=2&status=15 

https://skyscraperpage.com/b132164/surrey/centre-block 47 office stories? 

As originally proposed, Surrey could have had an office tower that would even be noticeable if it were in Calgary or Seattle.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/10275-city-parkway-surrey-centre-block-office-towers

"Originally, the East Tower was to be 47 storeys while the West Tower was to be 19 storeys.  City staff say the two towers are now planned to be 45 storeys and 17 storeys, although architectural plans indicate the East Tower will be 42 storeys." https://storeys.com/surrey-centre-block-office-tower

If this reduction does happen, Surrey still might be the first city in BC to have an office tower over 40 floors and Burnaby over 45 office stories. Never mind the first 50 story office tower in BC, its difficult enough just to get office floors above 39 storis in BC.

At the very least, Surrey still might have an office tower that might rival the tallest in Bellevue,_Washington. 

Vancouver has heled back the urban scale of BC almost since the beginning. That's because for over a century, practically anything big in BC was in provincial Vancouver. But Vancouver or the VMV, can't stop Surrey, Burnaby and Coquitlam from rivaling some of the things in Vancouver, such as taller buildings.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Bellevue,_Washington#Tallest_completed_buildings

Vancouver

 https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=1&status=15 

No 40 story office towers on the horizon within the city limits.

https://skyscraperpage.com/b106925/vancouver/the-stack 

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/the-stack/35667 162.3 m / 533 ft Floors 38 https://www.skydb.net/building/134386807/the-stack/ 

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/harbour-centre/4144 , https://www.skydb.net/building/357382467/harbour-centre/ 

https://skyscraperpage.com/b63/vancouver/royal-centre

https://www.skydb.net/building/469710364/

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/id/4396  138 m / 453 ft Floors 35 

In accordance with an unofficial provincial backwater mentality or VMV agenda, Vancouver was able to hold back the urban scale of BC for most of its history. However, Vancouver wasn't able to prevent Burnaby, Surrey and Coquitlam from constructing taller buildings. 

Never mind Calgary and Seattle, strict Vancouver has only permitted 2 buildings to be taller than the 2 tallest in Bellevue,_Washington. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Bellevue,_Washington#Tallest_completed_buildings 

Reykjavík, Iceland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Reykjavik 

The BC part of Canada has more than 10 times the population of Iceland. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Region_(Iceland) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk#Roads Once an urban area is busy enough, there should be a 3rd or 4th lane each way, so that there can be a bus lane or express bus lane each way. Of course, a proper BRT system requires its own right of way. Thus, its usually separated from the general traffic lanes.

Reykjavík has some overpasses and a bridge that are at least 6 lanes wide. 

A key overpass with four lanes each way. This already has enough space for eight lanes.

This already has the space for three lanes each way. Nine lanes with enough space for 10. 

In contrast, the Knight+Street+Bridge between Vancouver and Richmond becomes a classic 2 lane each way BC bottleneck-chokepoint. Unless a parallel bus and bike bridge is built, it will remain as an inefficient crossing. A parallel bridge could have 2 express bus lanes and 2 HOV lanes, plus 2 wide bike lanes and 2 footpaths. Two truck lanes would also be good, since Greater Vancouver is supposed to be a major port region.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keflav%C3%ADk_International_Airport 

There is enough space for this to be a big airport, someday.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Keflav%C3%ADk+International+Airport/@63.9799068,-22.6378612,4682m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x4929fdfce2ab799f:0x27f88d0a15c328cd!8m2!3d63.9814869!4d-22.6281862!16zL20vMDRkMTlz!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDgxOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

The 14 lane George Washington bridge vs...

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH6Q8yWjYpM There are wider sections of freeways in the US, but the double deck GWB has the most lanes. 

Wow, in backwards Vancouver, or almost anywhere in backwater BC, just having 2 lanes each way is tough enough. A consistent 3rd lane each way could be for busses and a 4th lane for HOVs. Given that Greater Vancouver is supposed to be a major port region, several of the bridges should also have a truck lane each way. However, there is only one bridge in backwards BC that has 5 lanes each way. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Mann_Bridge#New_bridge Unfortunatly, it wasn't designed to have a lower deck. Such a lower deck could have had 2 freight train tracks, 2 commuter train tracks and even a provision for 2 BRT lanes. 

Essentially, in any proper big urban area, the bridges should not only provide at least 3 general lanes each way, but a bus and HOV lane each way. That's 5 lanes each way, plus on some crossings that are closer to port activity, there should even be a 6th lane each way. That's the case with the Sir_Leo_Hielscher_Bridges. Unfortunately, unlike Queensland, BC has been very reluctant towards bridge duplication or twinning. 

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/traveller-information/routes-and-driving-conditions/hov-lanes 

https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/bus-hov-lanes-different-2918490

https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/1d3fixq/hov_and_bus_lanes_how_to_deter_abuse/ 

While Australia has Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane as its major Pacific Rim gateways, Canada just has provincial Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert as port gateway cities. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Leo_Hielscher_Bridges#Design

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Gateway_Bridge_aerial4.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Leo_Hielscher_Bridges#Duplication A 12 lane crossing.

The Port_of_Brisbane and the Brisbane_Airport are excellent port facilities in Queensland. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Brisbane#Facilities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Airport#Rail Far away from the inept transportation planning in Greater Vancouver, Brisbane was able to do things correctly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_line,_Brisbane Unfortunatly, backwards BC just can't seem to properly plan big city type infrastructure.

The YVR-Canada_Line is a total embarrassment! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line#Stations Not 150 m, not 100 m, only a 50 m level clarence was allowed for the stations. Even the first 2 Skytrain lines only have 80 m stations, when they should have almost been twice as long. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line#Technology Aparently, the inept planning was due to cost saving measures. Thus, instead of designing the stations to be long enough to accommodate 5 car trains, they were only designed to ultimately have 2.5 car trains. Since 2009, the Canada_Line still only has 2 car joke trains. 

The Tilikum_Crossing in Portland vs the North_Arm_Bridge between Vancouver and Richmond. The Tilikum_Crossing accommodates 2 bike lanes, 2 footpaths, 2 MAX-LRT tracks, 2 articulated_bus lanes and even streetcars can cross on it. Such a fine bridge just hasn't been allowed in BC.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/NorthArmBridge.jpg 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Arm_Bridge#Details This bridge should have been wide enough to eventually accommodate 2 bike lanes, 2 footpaths and especially, 2 BRT lanes, the the Skytrain doesn't run on a 24hr schedule. 

Given that most of the bridges in BC are so narrow, there needs to be proper bus, bike & HOV bridges built.

Transportation infrastructure doesn't have to be such a sad joke in backwards BC. 

The missing element in urban infrastructure

If a bridge or tunnel is too narrow to accommodate bus and bike lanes, then a separate crossing should be built near it. Many bridges and highway tunnels don't have a provision for LRT or commuter rail, so then a rail crossing should be built near it.

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=the+missing+element

Missed Connections in Transportation Infrastructure

https://infrastructureinstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Missed-Connections-Final-Report-2025-02-11.pdf

https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/comments/1m2eav7/what_is_that_one_piece_of_infrastructure_that/ 

https://thecmigroup.ca/press-room/what-lurks-beneath-the-hidden-infrastructure-crisis/

 https://www.mammoet.com/resources/urban-plannings-top-three-challenges-and-how-to-beat-them/

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2017/11/the-five-is-of-failed-urban-planning/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275125003075 

https://metropolismag.com/viewpoints/scott-burnham-infrastructure-reprogramming/  

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=the+missing+element

Robert Moses managed to reshape New York City — and much of urban America — around highways, suburbs, and the automobile.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrGYNNT1LKo

The 15-30 minute city concept

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198222000641

Ideally, if most things are within 15 minutes, that's great.

https://unfccc.int/news/the-15-minute-city 

https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/industries/government-public/perspectives/urban-future-with-a-purpose/15-minute-city.html

Even in the case of urban sprawl, a lot of things can be built within 15-30 minute town centers.

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2024/10/15-minute-cities-canada

https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2025/04/from-the-15-minute-city-to-the-30-minute-region-rethinking-how-we-live-and-connect.html 

No matter how big a city or urban region is, 15-30 minute town centers can be built, but it can require a lot of work.

https://www.planetizen.com/news/2022/07/117975-could-la-be-15-minute-city

https://laist.com/brief/news/climate-environment/how-15-minute-cities-could-save-time-reduce-emissions-and-build-community 

However, sometimes people still have to get across town for various reasons. 

https://medium.com/sybarite/escape-to-a-15-minute-city-ce3707baf145 While its not impossible, to even establish 30 minute urban focal points in Greater L.A. can be challenging. If a person living in L.A. is within 15 minutes of walking or biking, or a bus or train trip from the stores and other services, that's great. However, a lot of people are still a 30-60 minute drive away from work & other places to get to. Thus, a 1 hour+ city is still unavoidable in some cases.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Urbanism/comments/1gtlylo/what_city_is_californias_best_option_for_a/

The urban-heat-island-effect

https://climateatlas.ca/urban-heat-island-effect 

As several places get hot for the summer, Vancouver is usually stuck with a truncated summer season.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/vancouver/v6c/june-weather/53286 Vancouver only got to have 2 days in June that were at least 30C.

 https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/heat-dome-to-bring-90-to-100-degree-temperatures-to-200-million-in-us-from-late-june-to-early-july/1905879 

https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/basic-page/urban-heat-islands

Can the SkyTrain in BC, Canada ever become a very high capacity system?

 Why BC, Canada Got it Right With its New SkyTrain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqo_KAEF81k 

The argument is that a mostly elevated train can move more people than an 8-10 lane elevated freeway, at much less the cost. However, any major urban grade-separated LRT system should be designed to eventually become a very high capacity conduit.

The first 2 lines only have 80 m stations, which are just a little more than half the length of a 152.5 m Montreal Metro station. Unfortunately, the line to Richmond only has a designed level clearance for 50 m stations, not even quite a 3rd of the length of a Montreal Metro station platform. 

While it might seem economical to opt for short trains and stations, the Skytrain stations should have still been designed to eventually become more like a proper big city train station allowing for much higher capacity. 

The first 2 lines can run the newest 5 car trains, but the 3rd line can only run 2.5 car trains, some day.

Burnaby 2050 sets the city’s long game

 https://www.straight.com/burnaby/burnaby-2050-sets-citys-long-game 

While Burnaby is smaller in area and population compared to Vancouver, its a lot bigger than tiny NW.

https://www.straight.com/burnaby/how-burnaby-approached-public-engagement-in-creating-its-latest-plan 

Unlike Vancouver, Burnaby can build taller than Vancouver, because it isn't bound by Vancouver's imposed height restrictions.

https://www.straight.com/burnaby/what-burnaby-builds-next-depends-on-urban-design-getting-it-right 

Unlike Vancouver, Burnaby has more than just a few kilometers of freeway going through it. The highway right of way was acquired when Burnaby was still mostly undeveloped. That's the same case for Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Langley & Abbotsford. 

https://www.straight.com/burnaby/in-defense-of-burnaby-middle-child-of-metro-vancouver 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Highway_1#Lower_Mainland_section There should eventually be an elevated, high-capacity interregional commuter train along BC_Highway_1. However, BC takes a very slow approach towards dealing with congestion and mobility.

Yaletown–Roundhouse station's fare gate capacity increased by 66%

 https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-yaletown-roundhouse-station-additional-fare-gates-completed 

The Canada line is such a watered down version of what should have been a proper big city airport and ferry rapid transit link. Just because this infrastructure project had to be scaled down during its first phase, the stations still could have been designed to eventually accommodate 5-6 car trains. Unfortunately, the stations were only designed to accommodate a 2.5 car train. While this perfectly fits in with the inept urban transportation mentality and especially fits in with the BC congestive transportation agenda, this is another sad result. 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-yaletown-roundhouse-station-fare-gate-expansion

Despite being downtown with several condominiums around, the Yaletown-Roundhouse_station is too small for an inner-city station.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaletown-Roundhouse_station#Station_information 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Yaletown_Roundhouse_Stn.jpg/1280px-Yaletown_Roundhouse_Stn.jpg 

There is barely enough level clarence beyond the short platform for another car. To remedy this inadequate situation, this line needs to have three full-size cars, not just some eventual 2.5 car joke of a train. 

https://www.eke-electronics.com/automatic-selective-door-operation-asdo 

Then eventually, once people got used to a 3 car train, an extra car could be added at each end, resulting in a 5 car train. Its a workaround that can eventually enable the 3rd line or the C Line to run 3-5 cars trains to meet demand. 

Then the Exp. Line and Mil. Line, or what could become A & B lines with standard 5 car trains. However, during the busy times, a 7 car train could be possible with selective-door-operation technology. 

It would have been better to have just built all of the Skytrain stations long enough for 5 car trains in the first place, with enough level track clearance for 10 car trains eventually.

Vancouver 450 ft and Fahrenheit 451

Was a 450 foot height restriction just by chance, or was it intentionally made to be very close to 451 Fahrenheit? Despite being around the same size as Paris, Boston & SF, Vancouver remains as a very restrictive city. 

Any tall building in SL City is under 450 feet. Honolulu is still stuck around the 450 foot maximum, while San Diego is stuck at 500 feet. Even Rio DeGennaro still has shorter buildings than Vancouver, BC. Washington, DC has strict height limitations like Paris. However, W,DC could eventually set up their own equivalent of La_Defense. Its a fine example of allowing tall buildings just beyond the city limits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451 (1953) By the 1950s, so many things were already banned, watered down or scaled back in provincial backwater Vancouver. Generations later, there was the No Fun City mind virus that further tried to cancel out things in such a small city with so much red tape and other ridiculous obstacles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451_(1966_film) By the mid and late1960s, the city made sure that its first office tower to have more than 29 floors wouldn't be until the 1970s. Its highly doubtful that Vancouver will have an office tower at, or over 40 stories by 2030. However, Burnaby and Surrey could, because they aren't under the extreme restrictions of the Vancouver Mind Virus (VMV). 

It wasn't until 1973 when Vancouver allowed its first building to be taller than the Los_Angeles_City_Hall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_City_Hall 

The Scotia_Tower (stump) is a good reference point to visualize the small scale of backwater Vancouver, as its about the same height as the Los_Angeles_City_Hall at 453'. 

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/scotia-tower/4396 453'

https://skyscraperpage.com/b65/vancouver/the-scotia-tower 452' 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Wall_Centre It opened in 2001 at 157.8 m (518 ft). Its 49 feet shorter than the Philadelphia_City_Hall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_City_Hall Opened in 1901 at 548 ft (167 m).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451_(2018_film) By 2018 it was quite apparent that Vancouver was in the process of allowing for more buildings over 450 feet. However, nothing has been permitted to reach 700 feet, so far. A tower over 1000 feet would help to water down its provincial mindset. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Vancouver_panorama_%2849988799796%29_%28cropped%29.jpg/3840px-Vancouver_panorama_%2849988799796%29_%28cropped%29.jpg

SF, Sydney & Auckland are just as scenic as Vancouver & warmer throughout the year. They all have taller building than what Vancouver currently permits. Seattle is just as scenic as Vancouver, but its allowed to function like a proper big city, because it doesn't have the imposed restrictions like Vancouver has. While its cold, damp & depressing like Vancouver during the fall & winter, Seattle usually gets noticeably hotter summers than Vancouver, BC. The tallest building in Seattle is the 76 story B of A office tower. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/LA_Skyline_Mountains2.jpg/1280px-LA_Skyline_Mountains2.jpg While the L.A. City Hall looks like a stump there, in Vancouver it would still be one of the prominent buildings.

Everything is so small or scaled back in Vancouver. Even the Greater Vancouver mountains aren't allowed to be as tall as the ones in L.A. While the San_Francisco_Bay & Port_Phillip Bay by Melbourne are big next to their cities, English_Bay in_Vancouver is so much smaller. Its even smaller than Elliott_Bay by Seattle. 

Vancouver really needs to have bus and HOV bridges built next to its mostly narrow & congested bridges. Only a 5 car Skytrain is the max on the first 2 lines and ultimately, just a 2.5 car joke of a train on the YVR-Canada Line. 

Selective+Door+Operation can allow a short train to have an extra car at each end, despite a shorter platform. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Vancouver_sunset_%28J%29.jpg/3840px-Vancouver_sunset_%28J%29.jpg 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Los_Angeles_with_Mount_Baldy.jpg/3840px-Los_Angeles_with_Mount_Baldy.jpg

Australia like the USA, has some big & tall cities on the Pacific Rim. However, Vancouver symbolically kept watering down its size, because that's how you demonstrate a reluctance towards proper urban planning & growth. 

Oddly enough, the imposed small scale Vancouver mentality & agenda wasn't adopted by most cities around the world. Officially, there is no Vancouver Mind Virus (VMV), but somehow something like it keeps manifesting, just like the BCMV. 

Despite its size, Canada has less than 1% of the worlds population. Its been difficult enough just for Canada to even have half of 1% of the worlds population. 

One expects Melbourne and Sydney to be proper big cities. However, Australia has big stuff at both ends of the country. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Leo_Hielscher_Bridges#Design Its a 12 lane crossing in Brisbane. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrows_Bridge_(Perth) 10 lanes with 2 commuter train tracks in the middle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Skytower It has 90 floors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q1_(building) Almost has 80 floors.

Perth Central_Park_(skyscraper) at 51 floors and 108_St_Georges_Terrace at 50. Very restrictive Vancouver still won't permit any office tower to have a 40th floor. Calgary and Seattle each have a few over 50 stories.

So far, provincial Halifax hasn't been allowed to be on a similar scale as Boston and Montreal. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_L._Macdonald_Bridge 3 lanes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._Murray_MacKay_Bridge 4 lanes. 

The scale of Vancouver is kept below that of Calgary & Seattle or even Auckland, in some ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_Gate_Bridge A classic 3 lane BC bottleneck-chokepoint. No parallel bus and truck tunnels and especially, no LRT tunnel. 

Provincial backwater Victoria isn't allowed to be on a similar scale of Wellington, NZ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Street_Bridge Another BC 3 lane wonder.

Golf courses and LARGE AI data server facilities

 https://www.reddit.com/r/nanaimo/comments/1t6spq5/about_that/ 

While the BC part of Canada is notoriously heavy on various restrictions and especially reducing the scale of things, golf courses and AI server farms might be in a special category. As land in urban areas continue to rise, several urban golf courses could be repurposed for housing or parks. Thus, golf courses might be better suited to be farther away from urban areas.

An AI_data_center can be problematic if its too close to an urban area. However, if its even out in the wilderness, an AI_data_center can cause environmental damage and other problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_data_center#Environmental_footprint 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_AI_data_centers 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_data_center#AI_data_centers_in_space

The urban trifecta of backwards Vancouver

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trifecta 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifecta#History 

Ideally, for some small thinking cities, the plan is to symbolically have mostly short buildings and short trains and mostly narrow bridges.

That seems to have been the goal of Vancouver over the past several decades. In contrast, Brisbane after its Expo 88, was able to really go into big city planning mode, because it doesn't have anything like the excessive Vancouver restrictions holding it back. 

1 The+Typical+Vancouver+Size+Stump+Building No office tower has been permitted to have a 40th floor. https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=The+Stumpy+Post+building+in+Vancouver Never-mind 40 or 50 stories, it wasn't even allowed to have 25 floors.

2 YVR-Canada+Line A 2 car joke of a train. 

3 Lions+Gate+Bridge A 3 lane joke of a bridge.  

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=backwards+Vancouver

Urban Tech Links:

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Urban+Tech+Links 

They are counterparts.

https://jf-databits.blogspot.com/search?q=Urban+Tech+Data ::

Old Pattullo Bridge and its Still Narrow Replacement

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_mNfn4zjcI 

Even in the 1930s there should have been some type of a big city vision, but with NW being so small and Surrey being so out of the way, this part of BC was on the urban periphery. Apparently, there was no concept of an emergency lane on the Pattullo Bridge. Still, in addition to the 2 narrow lanes each way, there should have been 2 lane for horses and wagons. Then, by the 1950s the PB could have had 3 wide lanes each way, pulse a strong traffic divider. Instead, the narrow PB was stuck with only two lanes each way, no safety divider and only 1 narrow sidewalk.

For most of its history, NW just saw it self as a provincial backwater. The lack of a big city vision in the early 1900s meant that it never bothered to absorb what would become the Tri-Cities. For most of its history, Surrey never considered that it could eventually become the largest city in BC. Of course now that has changed.

Despite being so small, NW has become a Metro Vancouver regional transit hub, because of the New_Westminster_station. 

Scott_Road_station is a transit hub for the South_Westminster area.

Surrey and NW really should have had a proper big city size bridge.

This is how the new road configuration could have gone for what should have been a 10 lane bridge, not another 4 lane BC joke. Even if it can eventually have 6 lanes, there is no provision for a lower deck for trains and busses.

This shows how existing key roads could have linked into a 10 lane bridge, all without having to widen the surrounding roads. Thus, no need for any major land expropriation.

2 lanes from Royal Avenue onto the new bridge and 2 lanes from the bridge onto Royal Avenue in New+Westminster.   

One lane onto and one lane off linking the bridge to the South_Fraser_Perimeter_Road in Surrey.

2 lanes onto McBride boulevard and 2 lanes onto the bridge from McBride in New+Westminster.  

From Columbia_Street_in New_Westminster, 1 lane onto the bridge, as well as 1 lane off the bridge. 

2 lanes from King_George_Boulevard onto the new bridge and 2 lanes from the bridge onto KGB in Surrey. 

2 lanes from Scott Road onto the new bridge and 2 lanes from the bridge onto Scott_Rd in Surrey.  

Things weren't properly explained to the public as to how important a wide big city bridge could have been possible and without having to widen the roads connecting to it.

Unfortunately, all of this is being funneled into just 2 lanes each way. Its as if someone symbolically wanted the new bridge to open without any bus and HOV lanes. That's how BC bottleneck and chokepoint planning works. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Vancouver_Regional_District  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Valley

Some day, the BC Lower_Mainland should be planned and developed to function more like a proper big urban area. 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Pattullo+Bridge+replacement

Value for Money – Vancouver-Style

 https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2026/04/09/ucs-93-value-for-money-vancouver-style/ 

This Vancouver ME$$ is the result of generations of inept urban planning.

40 years after Expo 86

 https://bcanuntoldhistory.knowledge.ca/1980/expo-86 

Unlike Brisbane, Vancouver doubled down on its various restrictions. Ideally, any tall building in Vancouver had to be shorter than what Brisbane allows. The bridges kepet narrow and unduplicated than what Brisbane allows. The trains are to be shorter than what Brisbane and most cities allow. 

It was almost as if since Vancouver couldn't build a wall around the city to keep people out, a strong level of symbolism was imposed instead. This urban symbolism was all about keeping things small & backwards whenever possible.

Burnaby, Coquitlam and Surrey have all started the process to allow for taller buildings than what Vancouver permits. That's because they are bound by the same restrictions that Vancouver imposes.

RAPID Regional Transit in the Sea to Sky: Connecting Vancouver to Squamish, Whistler, and Pemberton

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE_W5Vj6OeQ With Greater Vancouver having so many narrow bridges, there must be a regional network of bus and bike bridges, otherwise it all just remains a sad joke.

How bike lanes has affected Vancouver's urban infrastructure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvkifuIjq9I Many cities don't have to remove traffic lanes, because they build proper bike bridges. 

Bike Lanes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oez4TTpIQWg With Vancouver being so obsessed with removing lanes from bridges, it becomes much more difficult to have bus lanes on the narrow bridges. 

A bike bridge should be built next to the Burrard, Granville and Cambie bridges. Then there would be enough room for each of them to accommodate 2 bus lanes. Things are so mixed up in backwards Vancouver.