SkyTrain (Greater Vancouver) Network

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)#Network

The SkyTrain+bridges could have been designed to be proper multimodal crossings. Unfortunately, the BC way is to provide a half-assed attempt.

The Skybridge between NW & Surrey is one of the worlds best examples of inept urban planning. No foot & bike paths & especially, no bus lanes. Fortunately, the backward BC mentality wasn't able to reach & prevent Oregon from building the fantastic Tilikum_Crossing.

The first 2 SkyTrain bridges should have been designed to accommodate at least 3 tracks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)#/media/File:Vancouver_Skytrain_and_Seabus_Map.svg

The first 2 SkyTrain bridges also should have had a foot & bike path on both sides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_%28Vancouver%29#/media/File:Vancouver_SkyTrain_track_diagram_v3.svg 

Unfortunately, the North_Arm_Bridge for the Canada Line was also designed to not have at least 3 tracks & 2 bus lanes. There is only one combined foot & bike path, when there should have been 2. Fortunately, the Tilikum_Crossing's_Design allowed for 2 types of rail systems, bus access, with bike & footpaths on both sides. The Tilikum_Crossing in Portland is so well designed that such similar bridges should be built in Calgary & Edmonton, or even Winnipeg, some day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)#Rolling_stock 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Metro#Rolling_stock

Of course the SkyTrain always has the potential for higher capacity over the Edmonton_LRT, CTrain & MAX_Light_Rail, simply because its a fully grade separated system. The biggest mistake for the SkyTrain was that it wasn't designed to ultimately have a 152.4 m station, like the Montreal_Metro has.

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=SkyTrain 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=BC+SkyTrain

Such short platforms and trains for the SkyTrain-Canada Line

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/short-platforms-and-trains-is-the-skytrain-canada-line-under-built-and-nearing-capacity

Unfortunately the multibillion dollar Canada+Line was designed to have very short stations. Much shorter than any underground stations in Edmonton & Seattle, especially Montreal & Toronto. Planning & building proper big city size infrastructure in BC has mostly been difficult through the decades. There has been a multi-generational mindset & agenda to hold BC back. 

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-skytrain-richmond-tsawwassen

How could such a backwater BC agenda be so powerful since the 1800s? Well, if you can't build a wall around BC or generate a Star Trek like force field around Greater Vancouver, you can at least continually demonstrate a reluctance to build proper size infrastructure. Originally, BC was supposed to be a Whiteman's paradise. Thus, there was a strong resentment to build anything for nonwhites. Somehow, since BC was starting to be more multicultural since the 1960s & 70s, then even morso by the 1990s, one would think that there would be proper big city infrastructure built-up. 

Instead, it was like the White British Colonial mentality continued right into modern times. Hospitals & schools weren't being properly expanded. Most bridges or crossing were kept narrow. Unfortunatly, such narrow-mindedness also went towards the planning & building of short trains. It was as if there was such a resentment to plan & build big for nonwhites, so almost everything has been kept small or backwards in BC.   

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-light-rail-skytrain-mistakes-underbuilt

BC has had such a slow growth agenda for several decades. Thus, by symbolically building inadequate infrastructure, it is hope that frustrated people will go elsewhere, or don't even show up. WTH? Fortunately, this agenda hasn't taken over Edmonton & Calgary or Seattle WA & Perth WA. 

Most of the world is nonwhite & in most of the world the major cities are allowed to think & build big. Despite the size of Canada, it has less than 1% of the world's population. During the colonial times there was a strong KEEP THEM OUT mentality. However, while Canada has embrace multiculturalism for several decades, Canada has yet to contain 1% of the worlds population, let alone 2%. So much infrastructure, especially in backwards BC has been heled back or thwarted. Yet, the Pacific Rim has a big portion of the worlds population. 

Pacific cities like Auckland, Melbourne, Sydney & Brisbane, Seattle, Portland, SF, LA & SD, just don't have the same impose restrictions & inept planning like Vancouver & Victoria have.

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=SkyTrain-Canada+Line

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=C+Line

The BC SkyTrain

Even though there were apparent budget limits through the years, the first 2 SkyTrain lines still should have been designed with a provision to have at least 152.5 m long stations. The SkyTrain-Canada+Line should have been designed to ultimately have 160 m long stations.

Instead, the first 2 BC+SkyTrain lines only have 80 m stations & the joke that the Canada Line is, only has a 50 m limit.

https://www.railforthevalley.com/category/skytrain-and-the-canada-line

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=North+Shore-Metrotown+SkyTrain+Line

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=SkyTrain

Some Urban Trains

Fortunately, Toronto & Montreal had enough vision to plan & build 152.45m or 500 foot long subway & metro stations. Even Edmonton & Seattle have much longer underground train stations than the Vancouver-Richmond train or the YVR Canada+Line. The Vancouver C-Line is a fine example of congestive & inept planning and should be studied all around the world as a warning. It could be called the, FINANCIAL DRAINAGE LINE, or the, CATHETER LINE. That's because the ridiculous 50m stations aren't even quite a 3rd of the length of the 152.5m Montreal Metro trains & stations. Thus, it will be difficult to lengthen these very short stations.   

It's one thing if the C+Line was started off with absurdly, short 2.5 car trains, but at least the stations were already built to gradually accomodate 5 car trains, plus still have extra clearance for even 5 more coaches. That would have been a reasonable attempt of planning for future capacity, but that's something BC just isn't that good at. The stations should have been designed to be ultimately accomodate 10 car trains, not some quarter-length joke. 

Eventually, three 20m coaches could be linked together. Then an extra 20m coach at both ends of each 3 car, 60m train. While a five car, 100m train would seem too long for 50m, inadequate BC stations, a walkthrough train makes it a possibility. That and Selective_door_operation makes a 5 car train quite possible. 

It is very sad that the backward BC mentality never properly envisioned a 10 car train to provide a high capacity link between the Tsawwassen_ferry_terminal, Bridgeport_station & the YVR-Airport_station, Downtown_Vancouver, Park_Royal_Exchange and the Horseshoe_Bay_ferry_terminal. Only a properly functioning metropolitan region can do something like that. The Greater Vancouver Region just isn't at that level yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train

"The operation of the Central Circle is similar to the S-Train systems in Germany and other countries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Central_Circle#Opening_and_operation

http://mkmzd.ru , 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Moscow_metro_ring_railway_map_en_sb_future.svg ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Central_Circle#Stations ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Desiro#Desiro_RUS

"The line is operated by 33 Siemens ES2G Lastochka trains..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Central_Circle#Rolling_stock

Russians aren't afraid to use good German technology.

http://www.rzd-expo.ru/innovation/stock/railcar_rolling_stock/Desiro%20RUS.pdf

I wish that they would allow some of that German tech in BC but BC still strives to maintain and keep things at a smaller scale. 

The Moscow Circle Line is a much more recent development than the one in London. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_line_(London_Underground)#Map

"Since the beginning, platforms have been at least 155 metres (509 ft) long to accommodate eight-car trains. The only exceptions are on the Filyovskaya Line: Vystavochnaya, Mezhdunarodnaya, Studencheskaya, Kutuzovskaya, Fili, Bagrationovskaya, Filyovsky Park and Pionerskaya, which only allows six-car trains..."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Metro#Rolling_stock 

There is suppose to be secret deeper level subway around Moscow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-2#.22Underground_City.22_in_Ramenki

Of course when severe flooding occurs, the subways are among the first things to be affected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_European_floods#Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Desiro#United_Kingdom 

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/short-platforms-and-trains-is-the-skytrain-canada-line-under-built-and-nearing-capacity 

How in the hell is the 3rd SkyTrain line constructed to have such small stations, in-spite of increasing future demand? 

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-seating-configuration

No city has spent billions of dollars just to have 2 car trains, except Vancouver & Richmond.

http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/is-the-canada-line-a-classic-white-elephant

Apparently, the 50 m platforms are only long enough to accommodate 2.5 car trains as capacity demand increases. http://www.railforthevalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Canada-Rail-213-e14082980653651.jpg

Sure, in the early years, Montreal could run a little 3 car train, but their Metro stations were designed to accommodate a 9 car train during the very busy times & 6 car trains for intermediate demand. 

So the BC inept planning process never allowed for a future demand of at least 152.5 m or 500 foot long stations & platforms. Instead, they designed the max potential to be only 50m or 164 feet. That's pathetic & only adds to the deliberate bottleneck planning approach that backwards BC aspires to. 

30-100 year plans http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-tunnel-subway-transit-bc-mauro-chiesa-1.4050842 

As long as a line above ground & especially underground, has level sections of 500, 600 or 700 feet, then full length stations can be constructed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line#Stations

When BC planers only allowed for a 50m or 164 foot level section for each Catheter Line, 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-broadway-subway-line-not-the-greenest-idea-says-professor-1.3426082 ,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/broadway-ubc-subway-the-best-option-says-vancouver-mayor-1.1410711 , 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)#Future_expansion ,

http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Projects/Rapid-Transit-Projects/Broadway-SkyTrain-Extension.aspx ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)#/media/File:Vancouver_SkyTrain_track_diagram_v3.svg

If a system starts out with little trains but has designed the ability to triple or quadruple the length of the station platforms, then its just a matter of building that future extension right from the start or at some point later on. 

http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/the-subway-panacea-myth/

Chicago & BART can still run ridiculous 4 car trains but the capacity to run 10 car trains was built in right from the start.

SYDNEY and its metro

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

Not only does Sydney have much longer trains & platforms, they are double level trains! Its like BC has made sure that it must never match the capacity that NSW & New_England has allowed for.

TOP 10 of the most beautiful trains in Japan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45btZp_tFYE

V-BC strives to perpetually be one of the most stunted or underbuilt major cities on the planet. 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=SkyTrain-Canada+Line

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=YVR-Canada-Line

The O-Train Line 2 and 4 launch

"The lines will begin a five-day service on Jan. 6 (Monday through Friday) and will continue for a minimum of two weeks. Buses through routes B2 (formerly called Line 2 buses), 99 and 97 will run parallel seven days a week in case of any issues." https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2025/01/03/heres-what-to-know-before-o-train-line-2-and-4-launch

This makes a lot of sense & not just because Ottawa is far away from Vancouver & the backwards BC mentality. Trains & people can break down causing a disruption on the tracks. Plus, there is no urban rail or commuter rail line in Canada that's running 24hrs a day. This means that its a good idea to have an express bus route that closely follows each train line 24hrs a day.

Greater Vancouver seems to always be a sleep at the wheel, or just inept with proper urban planning. Once the public was informed that the Skytrain won't be a 24hr system. Therefore, it would be a good idea to have express busses running parallel to each line 24hrs a day. 

Unfortunatly, the backward BC planning mentality never allowed for the SkyBridge_linking_NW_and_Surrey_with_SkyTrain to have enough space for 2 bus-lanes, 2 bike-lanes & 2 footpaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skybridge_(TransLink) The bridge has none of that, as if to conform to a BC bottleneck agenda. 

The 4 lane Pattullo_Bridge and the 4 lane Queensborough_Bridge were never designed with wide sidewalks & 2 wide emergency lanes. For if they were, then a few decades ago both bridges could have provided 3 lanes each way & have adequate space for bike lanes. A 3rd lane each way would have been great for buses, but that might improve the congestion.

While the new Pattullo_Bridge will actually have wide sidewalks on each side, no serious consideration was given to having 2 bus-lanes, despite the Skytrain not being a 24hr system. So buses, trucks, ambulances & cars will all have to be funneled into only 2 lanes each way. Having 2 bus lanes & 2 wide emergency lanes would actually go against the BC bottleneck mentality.

Even considering budget limitations, the new Pattullo-Bridge should have been designed with a provision for a future lower deck & open with 3 lanes each way & have 2 wide emergency lanes. Apparently, having the Pattullo-Bridge-Replacement with only 2 lanes each way & no emergency lanes somehow will make it easier for emergency vehicles to cross. Of course its the opposite effect, but this is backwards BC.

Surrey, Delta & all of Langley, already have as many people, if not even more people than Ottawa, but the infrastructure is so lacking in BC. Thus, a new 4 lane bridge will be an instant chokepoint between NW & Surrey, Delta & Langley. A 10 lane bridge & a 10 car Skytrain is what a proper urban area of over 3 million people would plan for.  

While Vancouver has less people than Ottawa, the BC Lower_Mainland has more people than Calgary, Edmonton & Winnipeg, combined. Thus, its very strange that Vancouver & BC insist on a congestive planning approach.

The 4 lane Queensborough_Bridge in NW has enough space to accommodate a parallel 4 lane bridge. While some backwater BC types might freakout with an 8 lane crossing there, they don't realise that a 4 lane bridge is very limited. Thus, by having two 4 lane bridges, there could be a bus & a truck lane each way as well as 2 general lanes each way. Not having dedicated bus & truck lanes for what is supposed to be a major port is absurd, but its OK for backward BC. 

In backwards BC its desired to not have a rail transit component on any of the current road bridges. Indeed, most of the bridges are so narrow that there isn't enough room for either bus lanes or HOV lanes.

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

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

The BC carbon tax and the lack of proper big city infrastructure

The British_Columbia_carbon_tax doesn't seem to have greatly improved the transportation infrastructure for Vancouver, as it's the largest city and urban area in BC. It's very strange that the Greater Vancouver Metropolitan Region is still so far behind with its infrastructure, when compared to several other urban areas around the world. 

https://www.taxpayer.com/newsroom/b.c.-carbon-tax-not-reducing-emissions-as-promised

The first 2 Skytrain lines only have stations that are barely half the length of a Montreal Metro train. Indeed, the Montreal Metro & the Toronto Subway built most of their stations to be 152.5m or 500 ft long, not the 80m & 50m joke that is Skytrain. All of the Skytrain lines should have been designed to eventually accomodate 8-10 car trains. Despite Vancouver & backward BC not taking a big city planning approach, there is a potential remedy, in the form of Selective_door_operation technology. This would allow for the potential of 7 car trains with only the middle 5 cars accessing the short station platforms. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_carbon_tax#Effects

The Canada embarrassment Line was only designed to ultimately just have 2.5 car trains, not 5 & certainly not 8-10 car trains. The first significant challenge would be to adapt the extremely short stations to accommodate 3 car trains. Then again with Selective_door_operation, the middle 3 cars of a 5 car train could access the station. 

https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/content/just-facts-please-true-story-how-bc-s-carbon-tax-working

Most bridges in BC are so narrow that it's almost impossible to have a proper regional express bus network.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/clean-economy/carbon-tax

It's as if somehow not enough funds went towards The+Pattullo+Bridge+replacement. Despite having some good bike lanes & sidewalks on both sides of the bridge, when it opens it will be too narrow to accomodate 2 bus & HOV lanes. Thus, cars, trucks & busses will all have to squeeze into just 2 lanes each way. There didn't even seem to be any proper communication & planning to ensure that there would be 2 emergency lanes. So good luck in trying to get ambulances across what is supposed to be a major regional crossing. There is no provision for a lower deck, which could allow for rapid rail transit & extra truck & bus lanes. Thus, this new PB bridge is one of the best examples of the symbolic resistance in BC to build proper infrastructure that can accommodate future demand.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/sales-taxes/motor-fuel-carbon-tax

The 3 lane Lions+Gate+Bridge just might be the best example of congestive planning in modern human civilization. At least the Benjamin_Franklin_Bridge in Philadelphia has 7 lanes & 2 train tracks. The Sydney_Harbour_Bridge has 8 lanes & 2 train tracks. Homer_M._Hadley_Memorial_Bridge in Seattle is part of an 8 lane crossing with 2 LRT tracks. The 10 lane Narrows_Bridge_(Perth) also has 2 train tracks. The San_Francisco-Oakland_Bay_Bridge has 10 lanes with 10 car BART trains running under the SF Bay.

https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-carbon-tax-drama/

https://www.pembina.org/pub/bc-carbon-tax

https://cleanenergycanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Carbon-Tax-Fact-Sheet.pdf

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

Canada Line is so under-built

 https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-skytrain

50 m short SkyTrain-Canada+Line stations are so symbolic of the reluctance to have Montreal Metro & Toronto Subway length stations that are 152.5 m or 500 feet long. 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/short-platforms-and-trains-is-the-skytrain-canada-line-under-built-and-nearing-capacity

To allow Montreal & Toronto size stations in Greater Vancouver would be indicative of accepting & planning for big city type growth. Indeed, all the SkyTrain stations were deliberately built to be shorter than any underground stations in Edmonton, Seattle & Portland. Even the new underground stations in Calgary will be longer, that's because Calgary, like so many other proper cities, aren't under the control of a backwards Vancouver and backwater BC type agenda.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-2017-kevin-desmond-canada-line-built-skytrain

However, Vancouver & BC are all about congestive planning. Thus, building small & narrow provides great symbolism against building big. Of course who knows where all the decades of money went, because it didn't all go into the half-size infrastructure? It's quite a strange approach, have short trains & narrow bridges, but pay full price & hope that no one notices. This is terrible for people who would like to have proper size big city infrastructure.

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/transportation-old/canada-line-underbuilt-richmond-translink-ceo-1946514

Greater Vancouver should have had all of its Skytrain stations built to be at least 500 feet or 152.45 m. There should have been bus & HOV bridges built next to all of the narrow bridges, several decades ago. However, that would conflict with the madness of Vancouverization. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line#Canada_Line_Hyundai_Rotem_specifications

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line#Stations Wow, design & build a multibillion dollar train line that can only be expanded from an absurd 2 car train upto a 2.5 car train. No need to have a provision for a 6, 8 or 10 car trains. That's what a big city would do, but Vancouver & Richmond are all about taking a congestive planning approach. That's the backwater BC way.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/translink-adds-more-trains-to-its-canada-line-fleet

Just because the YVR-Canada+Line uses a different technology, all of the stations should have been designed to even have longer stations than the 80m stations on the first 2 SkyTrain lines. 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=SkyTrain-Canada+Line

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=YVR-Canada+Line

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=SkyTrain+bridges

Majority polled in Calgary and Edmonton are unhappy with the pace of population growth

 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/too-much-too-fast-majority-polled-in-calgary-edmonton-unhappy-with-pace-of-population-growth-9.6935121 

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.tunnelsandtunnelling.com/news/calgary-city-council-approves-green-line-lrt-construction/?cf-view

https://www.calgary.ca/green-line/stations.html

https://www.tunnelsandtunnelling.com/news/calgary-city-council-approves-green-line-lrt-construction/?cf-view 

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

15 minute SkyTrain service in Surrey this summer due to track replacement work

 https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-expo-line-surrey-gateway-station-track-switch-disruptions-summer-2025

For a line that first opened in 1985, it took until 2025 to try to start running 5 car trains of the latest generation of rolling stock. Considering that Greater Vancouver has a narrower road network than Montreal, the SkyTrain stations should have been designed to accomodate 10 car trains. 

While the Alstom_Mark_V vehicles look nice & modern, a 5 car train is a half-length reminder of how much nicer & better a 10 car train would look. 

Just because the SkyTrain is considered to be a Light Rail Vehicle, there still should have been a provision to eventually have the stations to be as long as the longest ones on the Montreal Metro. The Montreal Metro has 500 foot or 152.5m long stations, which can accomodate a 9 car train. Unfortunatly, the first 2 SkyTrain lines only have 80m stations, which are just barely over half the length of the longest STM stations. https://www.stm.info/en/info/networks/metro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societe_de_transport_de_Montreal#Connections_to_other_transit_services

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Metro#Rolling_stock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MR-63#Design While a 3 car joke of a train was possible, a 6 & especially a 9 car train is able to efficiently move more people around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MR-73

3 cars per trainset, operating as 6- or 9-car trains

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MR-73#Construction_and_entry_into_service

Apparently, in order to reduce construction costs, the first 2 SkyTrain lines have stations that are only 250 feet. Half the length of a 500 foot long Montreal train, but BC usually takes the half-assed option with its small-scale of infrastructure development. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)#UTDC_ICTS_Mark_I_fleet "The maximum based on current station platform lengths is a six-car configuration, totalling 76.2 metres (250 ft)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPM-10  (9 articulated cars per train)

Train length	152.43 m (500 ft 1+1⁄8 in)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPM-10#History  Approximately, a 500 foot train divided by 9 cars = 55.55 feet, or just under 17m.

Despite the SkyTrain cars not running on rubber tires, each 55 ft. coach is very close in length to the 55.6 ft Montreal Metro coaches. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovia_Metro#Vehicle "The second generation Innovia ART 200 cars are 16.7 metres (54 ft 9

+1⁄2 in) long each and come in articulated pairs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)_rolling_stock#Alstom_Mark_V

While the Mark 5 cars are about 55 feet, the C Line cars are almost 66 feet. Of course just like the first 2 lines, the C Line was also designed to not have 10 car stations, not even 5 car long stations. Since there was a real push to reduce construction costs, the stations only have a clearance to eventually accomodate a 2.5 car train. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)_rolling_stock#Summary

Thus, as a a further step backwards, the 3rd line had to even be much shorter than the 152.5m Montreal Metro stations. Despite being another cost-cutting measure, the C Line could have & should have had all of its stations designed with future level clearance to eventually be at least 3 times longer than the absurd 50m. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)_rolling_stock#Canada_Line_fleet

"The Hyundai Rotem cars are 3 metres (9 ft 10+1⁄8 in) in width and 20 metres (65 ft 7+3⁄8 in) in length..." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)_rolling_stock#Hyundai_Rotem_EMU

While the multi-billion dollar line wasn't designed to have 10 or even 5 car trains, this 2.5 car joke of a train must be corrected.

https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/metros/hyundai-rotem-to-supply-new-vancouver-skytrain-cars

Selective_door_operation (SDO) can enable trains that are longer than the 50m C Line platforms. So instead of just two 20m cars or a 20+10+20m, three 20m cars could stop at the absurd 50m stations. While the design limitations make it almost impossible to extend the ridiculous 50m platforms, even a 5-10m extension can make a significant difference. A 3 car walkthrough train would only be 60m, but that would form the middle key section of a 5 car train with SDO. That could be done by having an extra 20m car at either end of a 60m train. In theory, the middle 3 coaches would have direct contact with the absurd 50m platforms. SDO can allow a 100m train to use a 50m station. People going past more than a few stations would be advised to move to the very end cars of a 5 car train. Then work their way to the middle 3 cars to access their desired station.   

Just because the first phase of the C Line was designed to only have a 2.5 car train, the stations should have already been long enough to accomodate a 5 car train. Then, with significant future capacity in mind, there still could have been enough level clearance built to ultimately have 10 car trains.

SDO could also be used on the first 2 SkyTrain lines. Once 5 car trains become common, then planning for 7 car trains could be possible with SDO. While the C Line just doesn't have much level clearance to go beyond a 50m station, the first 2 SkyTrain lines could potentially have longer platforms to accomodate a 7 car train. Then with SDO, a 9 car train could be possible.

Of course the whole SkyTrain system should have been designed to have 8-10 car long stations, right from the start. Fortunately, anything like the backwards BC planning mentality never reached & prevented the Edmonton LRT from having longer strations. Especially, Toronto & Montreal & even Seattle, SF & LA. 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=SDO 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=SkyTrain

Capstan Station on YVR-Canada Line in Richmond

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/capstan-canada-line-station-in-richmond-to-open-friday-9984359 Why design the old & new stations to eventually accomodate 8-10 car trains? The Catheter Line wasn't even designed to officially accommodate enough space for 5 car trains. Thus, in accordance with the BC antigrowth mentality or slow growth agenda, the stations were only designed to eventually just have 2.5 car trains. However, even in 2025, the Catheter Line will still only be using 2 car trains. All the SkyTrain stations should have been designed to eventually be 150.5 meters long, just like the Montreal Metro stations, with even more long-term provisions. Unfortunatly, the first 2 lines only have 80m stations & the C+Line only has a clearance for 50m stations.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-capstan-station-canada-line-opening-date

The Vancouver_City_Centre_station is diagonally across the street from The+Bay+Building+in+Vancouver. However, despite being what is supposed to be a major underground station, its noticeably smaller than the underground train stations in Edmonton & Seattle.

It's been very difficult to get urban planners in BC to properly plan for future transportation demands. The main excuse is governmental budgetary constraints. Even if that's usually the case, at least build half the length of a proper size urban station, with a provision to eventually double or triple its length, for future demand. However, that would go against the Greater Vancouver congestion planning mentality. Thus, even if you have the skills, once you get to BC, you realize that several things are watered down & you must think small or backwards.

 https://bc.ctvnews.ca/video/c3050886-metro-vancouver-facing-population-boom With the Metro-Vancouver-population-expected-to-reach-4-million-by-2045, BC is so unprepared & inept, as usual. https://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/metro-vancouver-expected-to-push-past-4-million-by-2045-as-growth-accelerates-7717888

There seems to be an outright refusal in the Metro Vancouver Region to avoid building up to the same level of infrastructure as when Greater Toronto, Greater Montreal, Greater Seattle, Greater Sydney, Greater Melbourn & the SF Bay Area, all exceeded 4 million people.

Going into 2025, the SkyTran will still only have 2-4 car trains, not counting the old Mark 1 rolling stock. By 2025, every SkyTrain should have consisted of 6-8 car trains, not the two-car & four car congested joke that it is. 

There is no valid reason as to why the Greater_Vancouver Region can't eventually have an urban train system on par with the Montreal Metro & a regional train system that's as good & frequent as the GO Trains or the Caltrain.

The refusal to build proper bus & truck bridges to help the mostly narrow bridges, still seems to be a half-assed pipedream. Yet, the GV Region pretends that it will eventually have a good Rapid Bus Network without bus-bridges.

While the GV Region is supposed to be a major seaport, there is still a false_front approach to things. How can this false-front & half-ass approach still be the norm in backwater BC? Not only should all the freight-train bridges be at least double tracked, there should also be truck port bridges. 

The Oak_Street_Bridge, Knight_Street_Bridge & the Queensborough_Bridge are all so narrow, there is no room for truck & bus lanes. Therefore, a truck & bus bridge should be built next to all of them. Otherwise, everything can just continue to be funneled into only 2 lanes each way.

Of course the Arthur_Laing_Bridge wasn't designed to have 2 bus lanes & 2 truck lanes. Yet, a lot of trucks have to be able to get in & out of YVR. Why have any bus lanes when busses & trucks can all be funneled into only 2 lanes each way? Even though the C-Line doesn't run 24hr a day, the North_Arm_Bridge should have had two 24hr bus lanes & 2 bike lanes & a provision for a middle track. Instead, the narrow North-Arm-Bridge only has 2 tracks & just 1 bike lane.

Fortunately, watered down Greater Vancouver & backwards BC hasn't been able to get most place around the world to adopt such a ridiculously reduced infrastructure approach to things. 

The 3rd line should really be called the YVR-Canada+Line.

Officially, there is no A Line, B Line or C+Line, but that seems OK for backwards BC.  

Metro Vancouver transit facing 'drastic cuts'

 https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/metro-vancouver-mayors-council-demands-action-on-transit-funding-brad-west-9533754

After decades of imposing narrow streets, roads, highways & bridges, it's still difficult for the region to have a proper express bus network. Most of the bridges in the region need to have a bus & bike bridge built right next to them. 

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/this-is-not-a-bluff-translink-mayors-council-calls-on-b-c-political-parties-to-share-plans-to-avoid-transit-cuts-1.7041435

The first 2 SkyTrain lines still only have 80m stations & the 3rd line, the C-Line, only has 50m stations. In contrast, the Montreal Metro was designed to have almost 153m long stations. Thus, a 500 foot long station can accommodate a 9 car train. Unfortunately, the first 2 SkyTrain lines can only accommodate the newer 4 car trains with a potential for a 5 car train, someday. The 3rd line or the C-Line, can only accomodate a 2 car joke of a train, but it has the potential to become a 2.5 car joke of a train.

This absurdity of congestive planning must be challenged & stopped in backward BC. Unfortunately, there are some influential people that continually like to maintain the symbolism of short trains and narrow bridges. They don't want the Greater Vancouver Region to become a proper urban area. That mentality apparently justifies the inadequate or underbuilt infrastructure in the region. 

So now with looming transit cuts, the narrow roads & bridges will become even more congested.

https://www.rtands.com/tag/translink

The $2BN Megaproject Under Vancouver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4YFFtTEUQc

What Greater Vancouver Needs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZavPFZ9H1E

Whether its a bridge or a tunnel, Perth and Seattle have excellent wide crossings which allow for rail rapid transit. Fortunately, the congestive Vancouver mentality never reached into those cities.

https://www.highway99tunnel.ca/tunnel-construction Unfortunatly, BC missed another opportunity to have rapid rail transit through the tunnel.

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2024/09/17/highway-91-spun-out-richmond Even back in the 1980s, BC_Highway_91 should have been designed to be at least 4 lanes each way. 3 general lanes each way with the 4th as a bus & HOV lane. There also should have been 2 wide shoulders or emergency lanes. The Alex_Fraser_Bridge should have been designed to be at least 10 lanes wide. 3 general lanes each way & a bus-HOV lane & a truck lane each way. Plus, 2 emergency lanes & a provision for a lower rail transit deck. Unfortunatly, bottleneck or chokepoint planning won out. Plus, the symbolism for BC is to not properly plan for large, efficient infrastructure. 

How can the Greater Vancouver Region have an efficient express bus & rapid bus network, when the highways & bridges are kept narrow? Why wasn't the SkyTrain designed to eventually have 153m or 500 foot long stations like the Montreal Metro? That would be symbolic of a proper big thinking city wanting to have high capacity transportation corridors. BC is about taking the congestive planning approach instead.

Perth+and+Seattle have been able to do so much more, because they aren't under anything like the imposed Vancouver restrictions and the overall backward BC mentality.

BC SkyTrain expansion

 https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-expansion-program-sany-zein-bcrtc-translink

Why have a 9 car metro train like in Montreal when Vancouver can just have a 5 car Skytrain on the first 2 lines? That's because the first 2 lines only have a length of 80m. The extremely underbuilt Catheter Line is a fine example of financial drainage. The Catheter Line stations & the first 2 Skytrain lines should have all been designed to have at least 500 feet or 152.5m long stations. However, the C Line only has 50m stations so the little trains can only be expanded from 2 cars to 2.5 cars, not 5 cars & especially no 10 car trains. It's all about symbolizing the reluctance to build proper big city size infrastructure. One has to wonder where so much of the money has gone, because it hasn't gone into a full size system, only a half-assed infrastructure. 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-ceo-kevin-desmond-vision

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-extension-richmond-delta

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/george-massey-bridge-replacement-translink

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-vancouver-city-centre-station-second-entrance Conjestive planning really bites, but that's the BC way. The KEEP THEM OUT mentality has been around for such a long time, that not enough people pushed for a train in which the station lengths could eventually be doubled or even tripled. Combine that with a mostly narrow regional road network & you have the epitome of bottleneck planing.

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=SkyTrain-Canada+Line

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=C+Line

Canada's population and its lacking infrastructure

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2018005-eng.htm

Despite being the 2nd largest nation in overall area, Canada is far off from housing just 1% of the world's population. 

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/corporate-initiatives/levels/population-growth-2014-2027.html 

There aren't enough big cities in the vastness of Canada.

It's strange that Halifax hasn't become a big city like Boston or Montreal. Since the 2020s, a lot more people work from home and there isn't always an industrial base in major urban areas. More people are retiring and like people working from home, might like living in a town of 1000-10,000 people just as easily as a city with over a 1,000,000 people. The point being, that the top 30 towns in Canada could be built up to at least a million people each. Winnipeg has yet to have a million people. Then the top 10 cities could be built up to 5-10 population regions. Greater Montreal has yet to reach the 5 million point and the Greater Toronto Area has yet to reach 10 million people like Greater Chicago or, CHICAGOLAND. The San_Francisco_Bay_Area is getting close to having 10 million people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_municipalities_in_Canada_by_population Vancouver is only the 8th most populated city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_census_metropolitan_areas_and_agglomerations_in_Canada#List However, the Greater Vancouver Region is still the 3rd largest urban area in Canada. Yet, it's so far behind with the necessary infrastructure. Indeed, When Greater Toronto & Greater Montreal each exceeded the 3 million point, they had longer trains & wider roads. It seems that Vancouver & BC in general, have perpetually opted for a congestive planning approach.

Will Canada's Next Prime Minister be Pierre Poilievre? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dck8eZCpglc

Why is anti-immigration sentiment on the rise in Canada? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txyjmNXcWiU

https://www.norden.org/en/information/population-nordic-region

https://www.nordicstatistics.org/news/population-growth-in-the-nordics Whether its Canada or the Nordic_Countries, places with cold winters can accommodate a lot of people. However, without setting up the proper amount of infrastructure first, its utterly foolish.

Canada hasn't kept up with building enough school & hospital facilities, as well as the overall necessary  infrastructure. 

https://www.definitivehc.com/resources/healthcare-insights/top-largest-canadian-hospitals

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul's_Hospital_(Vancouver) , https://helpstpauls.com/why-give/new-st-pauls-hospital

https://www.infrastructurebc.com/projects/announced-in-procurement/richmond-hospital-redevelopment-project-phase-2-3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Health#Regional_hospitals 

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

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

https://www.infrastructurebc.com/projects/projects-under-construction/burnaby-hospital-phase-2-and-bc-cancer-centre-project/

Unlike the Montreal Metro which can accommodate 9 car trains, the strained Skytrain is only running 4 new-car trains & the inept Canada Line only runs 2 car trains. The Skytrain stations should have been designed to gradually accomodate 8-10 car trains. The Montreal Metro was built with 500 foot long or 152.5m stations right from the start. Apparently, to save money, the first 2 Skytrain lines only have 80m stations & the line to Richmond only has 50m stations, not 152.5m like Montreal. 

The inadequate new Pattullo-Bridge was designed to be so narrow that there won't be any emergency lanes. There won't be any bus lanes, even though the Skytrain doesn't run 24 hours. There won't be any truck lanes, despite the region being a major port. Thus, everything is supposed to be funneled into just 2 lanes each way. https://www.pattullobridgereplacement.ca/about/projectoverview Apparently, the bridge can eventually be upgraded, but to only 3 lanes each way. Of course there is no provision for a lower train & truck deck. This is another fine example of backward BC planning. Even if small-thinking NW only wanted 2 lanes each way for cars, there still should have been an extra 2 lanes each way so that there is a dedicated bus lane & a truck lane each way. 

2 lanes were removed from the Burrard Bridge, 1 removed from the Cambie Bridge & 2 lanes removed from the Granville Bridge. Many other cities can actually build bike bridges so they don't have to take away any traffic lanes from their bridges. 

Even the new Highway-99-Tunnel is designed to become just another BC bottleneck. There will only be 3 lanes each way & a bus-lane each way. However, there won't be any truck lanes & no emergency lanes. https://www.highway99tunnel.ca/project-overview-frt Of course there won't be any provision for a train tunnel, because the government doesn't see a good reason to connect the Delta ferry terminal with Richmond & the airport. They never bothered to have a train from Horseshoe Bay to Park Royal & downtown Vancouver either.

So while the Federal Government charges a carbon tax, Greater Vancouver is left with short trains & mostly narrow bridges. It's utterly foolish to not properly upgrade the infrastructure & build a lot of affordable housing, yet encourage a bunch of people to move into a country that hasn't kept up with building more housing stock. I thought that some of the carbon tax would help to properly upgrade the BC infrastructure, because backward BC just can't seem to even catch up to what Calgary & Seattle have. The trains in Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary & Seattle are all longer than the short Skytrains. Yet, there is more demand in Vancouver to have longer trains, due to the narrow roads & bridges. Frequent short trains arent enough, there has to be proper big city long trains.