https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/fifa-world-cup-vancouver-hotel-tax-costs
https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/bus-network-improvements.aspx With so many narrow streets, its difficult to have a proper network of bus-lanes, especially on the bridges.
https://visionzerovancouver.ca/2024/07/10/take-action-add-bus-lanes-to-translinks-priority-routes Unfortunatly, most of the bridges in the Greater Vancouver Region are just too narrow. There was no logic to have enough extra width for future bus-lanes and HOV lanes.
https://www.biv.com/news/transportation/vancouver-new-dedicated-bus-lanes-translink-2024-9267523
Unless there is a regional network of new bus-bridges, Greater Vancouver will remain in a bottleneck or chokepoint nightmare. Stuck with only a half-assed express or BRT attempt. I suppose that would be impressive to Kelowna-Victoria-Prince+George-Kamloops (K-V-PG-K) standards. Unfortunatly, those aren't big league cities.
Of course the 3rd line, or the YVR-Canada-Line or the Canada (embarrassment) Line, still hasn't been expanded up to a 2.5 car train, let alone having 5 car trains. Right from the start, the trains should have consisted of at least three, 20m coaches, with a provision for 6 car trains. Apparently, because of budget cuts, the station platforms weren't built to be 60-100m long in the first phase, they are only a 50m joke.
The stations could have been roughed out to initially accomodate 3-4 car trains and eventually, 8 car trains. 8 x 20m= 160m. The Montreal Metro stations were built to accommodate a 152.5m train. Fortunately, Quebec doesn't have anything like a backward BC planning mentality to hinder it.
The YVR-Canada (embarrassment) Line doesn't have to be stuck as a symbolic example to not properly plan & build for longer trains in BC. This 3rd Metro-Vancouver rapid transit line doesn't have to be stuck with a 2.5 car train buildout. The incredibly short stations should be extended to 60m, which could accomodate a proper 3 car, walkthrough train. Then, with Selective_Door_Operation Technology, a 3 car train can become a 5 car train of 100m. Then, only the middle 3 cars would directly have access to the YVR-Canada-Line station platforms.
Unfortunatly, due to the shortsighted planning mentality that is Vancouver & BC, the underground stations don't have enough level clearance to be lengthened to 152.5m or 500 feet, like the Montreal Metro stations, which can accomodate nine, 55 foot cars. At least a 5 car, 100m or 328 foot train is still possible in short-minded Vancouver.
For some strange reason, the YVR Canada+Line wasn't designed to eventually provide a link beyond the Vancouver_International_Airport to Waterfront_station. Indeed, a 2nd phase of the inadequate line should have connected Waterfront_station with the Park_Royal_Shopping_Centre and the Horseshoe_Bay_ferry_terminal. Then the 3rd phase to connect the YVR-Airport_station with the Tsawwassen_ferry_terminal.
Like the Catheter Line, the George_Messey_Tunnel was designed to be inadequate, right from the start.
The George_Massey_Tunnel should have had at least 2 wide emergency lanes for future truck or HOV lanes. Plus, there should have been another tunnel section to accommodate a future express or rapid bus corridor & 2 tracks for a light rail train. Instead, cars, busses & trucks were all funneled into a 4 lane chokepoint. Ironically, over the past few decades, a bus & train tunnel or bridge should have been built, at least.
Express Bus lanes or Rapid Bus lanes vs. HOV & Truck lanes. Any bus lane has the potential to move many more people than any HOV lane. Any major port city & metropolitan area should have a truck lane as well as a bus lane. Thus any HOV lane would be more efficient in bussing people & trucking payloads.
Of course the new George_Massey_Tunnel still won't have a provision for a train section. No emergency lanes, but 2 bus lanes in addition to only 3 general lanes each way. Once again, backward BC gets its wrong. Greater Vancouver is suppose to be a major seaport. Unfortunatly, the new tunnel will only have 4 lanes each way & no HOV or emergency lanes, of course.
Even if there are only 3 general lanes each way, there should have been a provision for a truck lane in addition to a bus lane each way. That would be at least 5 lanes each way, but no emergency lanes & still no provision for 2 train tracks either.
Thus, the new tunnel will eventually have to have a bus & train bridge or tunnel next to it. That would allow the tunnel to have 3 general lanes each way & 1 HOV lane each way. A rapid bus & rail corridor would ensure 24 hour high capacity transit, even when the YVR-Canada-Line is shutdown overnight.
Unfortunatly, none of the 80m & 50m SkyTrain stations were designed to have 4 tracks. That would have allowed for a proper express & local train system. The BC mentality seems to be about keeping the trains as well as the roads inadequate to meet future high transportation demands.
The LG Bridge in Vancouver should have had bus, HOV & train tunnels near it decades ago. Surrey_and_Richmond also should have had proper bus, HOV & train tunnels, decades ago.
Why have 3 sets of tracks like the O'Hare_station in Chicago? Or, have at least have 2 tracks like at the SeaTac/Airport_station. The small-scale YVR-Airport_station just has a single track to make congestion more likely. The Vancouver_International_Airport should have had at least 4 long runways by now.
The multigenerational backwater BC mentality is a combination of overlapping restrictions and a, keep it small or backwards agenda. Why plan and build like a big city, when Vancouver can mostly do things that are only impressive to smaller places like, Kelowna-Victoria-Prince+George-and-Kamloops?
Short trains, mostly stumpy buildings and mostly narrow bridges, provides powerful symbolism for the antigrowth agenda. Building up proper size infrastructure is the opposite.
.jpg/500px-SkyBridge_from_SkyTrain_(5770458210).jpg)
.jpg/960px-Fraser_River%2C_Surrey_-_panoramio_(1).jpg)
#/media/File:Vancouver_064.jpg){kind=link}
