2000 Posts!

When John Buker asked me to post items for the rail for the valley group, I accepted, thinking it would be fun to write a few items on TramTrain. Well it is now 2017 and I am still writing about trams and TramTrain

Nothing has changed and my very first post is still pertinent today. The only difference today is that the tracks on the Vernon/Kelowna line have been ripped out and sadly so seems the fate of the E&N.

Zwei’s first post from Dec. 12, 2008..

What is Light Rail Transit or more commonly known as LRT? According to the Light Rail Transit Association (www.lrta.org) Light rail is a mode that can deal economically with traffic flows of between 2,000 and 20,000 passengers per hour per direction, thus effectively bridging the gap between the maximum flow that can be dealt with using buses and the minimum that justifies a metro. But there is more, by track-sharing with existing railways on their rights-of-ways, means that LRT can effectively and affordably service less populated areas, with public transport. Streetcars are also light rail, but operate on-street, in mixed traffic, with little or no signal priority at intersections. The main difference between LRT and a streetcar is the quality of rights-of-way, where a streetcar operates on-street, LRT operates on a reserved rights-of-way or a route that is reserved for the sole purpose of the light rail vehicle. A reserved rights-of-way can be as simple as a HOV lane with rails, to a lawned park like route with trees, hedges and flowerbeds. LRT, in it’s various forms is used in over 600 cities around the world and is the first choice of transit planners for affordable, customer friendly public transport.

The German city of Karlsruhe (City population 275,285) has taken light rail to a new standard, by track sharing with mainline railways and operating, what is called tramtrains. In Karlsruhe, one can board a tram, on-street, on the pavement and alight, on-street in Ohringen some 210km (130 mile) later, with the tram acting as a streetcar, light rail vehicle and a passenger train! Karlsruhe’s light rail network now extends over 400 km. (250+ mile) of route, servicing scores of small towns and villages with high quality public transit at very little cost simply because the tram can use existing railway tracks.

In British Columbia, tramtrain can be a useful tool for implementing a high quality ‘rail’ transit service, not only in Vancouver and the Fraser Valley, but in Victoria (E & N Railway) and the Kelowna/Vernon rail corridor as well.

The question is: Why does TransLink and the BC government reject modern LRT out of hand and continue to build with dated SkyTrain light metro?

What grieves me more than anything is the absolute reluctance to plan with modern light rail by TransLink, Metro Vancouver and the province. The still cling to the notion that transit is the “reelection express” and transit be designed to suit political needs rather than customer needs.

The SkyTrain Cult Is Today’s Version Of The Cargo Cult

The Cargo Cult is a millenarian movement first described in Melanesia which encompasses a range of practices and occurs in the wake of contact with more technologically advanced societies. The name derives from the belief which began among Melanesian’s in the late 19th and early 20th century that various ritualistic acts such as the building of an airplane runway will result in the appearance of material wealth, particularly highly desirable Western goods (i.e., “cargo”), via Western airplanes.

Millenarianism has been found through history among people who rally around often-apocalyptic religious prophecies that predict a return to power, the defeat of enemies, and/or the accumulation of wealth. These movements have been especially common among people living under colonialism or other forces that disrupt previous social arrangements.

The SkyTrain Cult is obsessed with SkyTrain and almost have attributed magical powers to the proprietary railway. The SkyTrain Cult refuse to face facts, but rather live in a world of fake news and alternative facts.

SkyTrain is just a railway, albeit an expensive railway.

The following is rather elegantly presented, but is full of misinformation, false assumptions and down right exaggerations of the truth..

To lay one’s cards on the table, I found the Surrey LRT ill planned and not sustainable, but to build SkyTrain instead is nothing more than insanity.

The following is from a person who is naive of modern public transit philosophy and has thrown his lot in with the SkyTrain Cult.

Only seven SkyTrain systems built in forty years, speaks volumes on the subject, but Millenarians pray to false gods and it is very hard to get someone out of a cult, just ask former members of Scientology.

And those European ideals? Providing an affordable and user-friendly transit service that will attract the motorist from the car, is what the Europeans strive for.

 

Opinion: Surrey’s obsession with light rail is a misguided pursuit of European ideals

Guest Author Jan 04, 2018

Written for Daily Hive by Sam de Groot, a lawyer in Vancouver with a longstanding interest in urban design and transport.

---

Itai??i??s time to call time out on Surreyai??i??s light rail transit (LRT) plan. In 2012, TransLink studied the costs and benefits of the various transit expansion options in Surrey, and LRT was found to be the worst option.

We need to heed that pivotal study that clearly identifies the gross shortcomings of the LRT option.

First of all, LRT is not that much cheaper than SkyTrain over the longer term because LRT has higher operating costs and lower fare revenue due to the forecast of lower ridership from its slower speeds through city streets. For instance, LRT on King George Boulevard to Newton, 104th Avenue to Guildford and Fraser Highway to Langley would have a net present cost of $1.63 billion.

SkyTrain along Fraser Highway to Langley with bus rapid transit (BRT) on King George and 104th would have a net present cost of $1.67 billion. And a pure BRT system on King George, 104th and Fraser Highway would have a net present cost of $0.82 billion.

This is all in 2010 dollars, with the project facing significant cost increases ever since these initial estimates.

Both LRT projects combined are now expected to far exceed $2 billion.

Secondly, LRT provides the least transportation benefit. The same 2012 study estimated that the LRT plan outlined above would result in 5.7 million hours of travel time savings per year, the BRT plan would result in 6.5 million hours per year, and the SkyTrain-BRT plan would result in 12.6 million hours per year. The dramatic superiority of the SkyTrain-BRT plan is due to both higher speeds and higher ridership.

It is no surprise then that the estimated cost-benefit ratio of the LRT option is a dismal 0.69 compared to 1.30 for the BRT option and 1.45 for the SkyTrain-BRT option.

A number below 1.0 means that for every dollar invested in the project, less than a dollar of benefit is realized including all the non-cash benefits like travel time savings and environmental benefits. Calculating cost-benefit ratios is no exact science, but it is useful for comparisons, and clearly LRT is the worst option.

For the rest of the Story Click.

“We do not have to watch reruns of Monty Python for our amusement, we just have to tune in to Vancouver’s transit planning for our entertainment”

It is now 2017 and the transit year is off with a dull thud.

The title comes courtesy of an old transit acquaintance from the UK who was badly burned by his Canada Line experience.

With the planned Pattullo Bridge replacement bridge having only 4 traffic lanes; the Surrey Hawthorne Park road debacle (where a new road is needed due to LRT taking up two traffic lanes); the ongoing Broadway Subway silliness and TransLink’s oppressive ongoing public relations program, 2018 will be a make or break year for transit.

My money is on a complete transit fiasco, as the amateurs planning the Surrey LRT; TransLink’s/City of Vancouver’s denial with subway costs (TransLink fired its best planner because of his opposition to the subway) and Burnaby mayor, Derek Corrigan, now head of the mayor’s Council on Transit, it will be a most explosive mix.

The main stream media both in Vancouver and Toronto, who have never honestly reported on transit in the region and rely on a blather of News Releases and ‘Yellow Journalism’ for their transit articles are firmly on side with TransLink, as they rely on TransLink’s largess with advertising revenue. If the news fits, they will print!

Then we have Kevin Desmond, the new American born CEO of TransLink, repeating the old saw that “SkyTrain pays its operating costs”.

Really?

But Desmond never mentions the annual subsidies paid to SkyTrain and the Canada line.

Subsidies you say? But how can a transit system pay it operating costs, yet receive a subsidy?

Fancy book work, Mr. Desmond.

So much more including the bad habit of giving percentage increases, without giving the actual numbers.

It is like listening to a used car salesman, selling a lemon.

After the fiasco’s of 2015 and 2016, I hoped TransLink for once, would travel a more honest road. Well, I guess you cannot teach a bad old dog new tricks.

Memo to Mr. Horgan: Clean up this vile and expensive mess called TransLink.

 

A Question Of Capacity Reprinted from the Light Rail Transit Association

A QUESTION OF CAPACITY

THE CAPACITIES of different modes of transport are generally quoted as 0-10 000 passengers per hour for bus, 2000-20 000 for light rail, and 15 000 upwards for heavy rail.

 

 

* Maximum capacity is only likely to be required for a few hours during peak hours, and even here there are likely to be variations both day by day and within each hour. The capacity required originates from the route’s social characteristics.

* As for the vehicles, buses have a comfort capacity equal to the number of seats, and a maximum capacity equal to seats plus standing load.

* In the case of trams, it is more complicated. The nominal maximum capacity is calculated at four passengers per square metre of available floor space (a reasonably comfortable level), plus the number of seats.

* As trams are designed to carry a large standing load, the ratio of standees to seats is quite high. The standing area is also important for the carrying of wheelchairs, pushchairs, shopping and sometimes bicycles. Some manufacturers quote maximum capacity using 6p/m2 while a figure of 8p/m 2 is used as a measure of crush capacity. This last figure is also employed to determine the motor rating of the vehicle.

* A further complication is that even when there are seats available, some passengers prefer to stand. This may be because they are only traveling for a few stops, that they want to stretch their legs, or may just prefer to stand.

* A tram’s comfort capacity can therefore be considered as the number of seats, plus the voluntary standees who may amount to up to 10-15% of the nominal maximum number of standing passengers.

ELASTICITY

* It is the difference between the average passenger load for any particular time and the crush load which gives light rail its Elasticity Factor, allowing it to cope with variations in conditions such as sudden surges or emergency conditions.

* Standing is made more acceptable by the design of track and vehicle, reducing the forces acting on the passenger to a minimum. This makes for a smooth ride, as well as ensuring ease of access, good support and the ability to see out without having to stoop.

* Where a route is mainly urban with short journey times, the number of vehicles required should be calculated on the nominal maximum. On longer journeys outside the central area, a lower level may be more appropriate, dependent on the route’s characteristics. Even on rural sections, there are likely to be a a number of short distance riders, and the loading factor will increase nearer to the urban area.

COMPRESSIBILITY

* While it might be thought desirable to offer every passenger a seat, it is in fact the ability to carry high loadings in a confined area (the Compressibility Factor) which enables light rail to achieve many environmental benefits, allowing large numbers of people to be carried without harming, and often improving, the features of a city.

* It is city centres where several routes combine that the most capacity is required. A typical situation could be a pedestrian street with six routes operating at 10-minute headway giving 36 double coupled trams per hour each with a capacity of 225. This gives a nominal capacity of16 200 passengers per hour which can be increased to 25 200 pph in extremis without extra vehicles.

Light rail is unique in this ability to operate on the surface with its capacity without detracting from the amenities which it serves. A further factor in setting the resources required is the need to lure motorists out of cars. The more difficult the traffic conditions, the higher the loading’s will be acceptable. It is however important that crush loads are not allowed for more than the shortest of periods on an infrequent basis, both to maintain customer satisfaction and prevent elasticity of the system being compromised.

* It is vital that public transport can cope with sudden changes in demand, such as extreme inclement weather or air quality violations which can cause private traffic to be halted. This is where the elasticity inherent in light rail is so beneficial in enabling an instant response in an economical fashion. A tram may be crowded, but its infinitelybetter than having to wait in the snow of smog untilextra vehicles are brought into service.

* It is this unique combination of Capacity, Compressibility and Elasticity rather than capacity alone which makes light rail so successful as an urban transport mode.

* Note Statistics are based on Karlsruhe, using GT/8 cars

 

Christmas Eve in Trondheim

Christmas eve and the dependable tram is ready to take one to Christmas festivities.

 

Numbered Line 1, it is operated by Boreal Bane, a subsidiary of Boreal Norge and is often simply called the GrA?kallen Line (GrA?kallbanen). GrA?kallbanen operates five tram cars, out of a total rolling stock of nine articulated tram cars built by Linke-Hofmann-Busch in 1984. In addition heritage cars from the Trondheim Tramway Museum are available for chartered tours.

The tram operates at 15 minute headway in the daytime on weekdays, and partly on Saturdays, otherwise at 30 minutes headway. The line has 21 stations remaining in use. The tram service is integrated into the city bus system with free transfers. The overall responsibility for public transport in Trondheim is managed by SA?r-TrA?ndelag county municipality, who subsidize the operations.

Previously there were three lines in Trondheim, including Ladelinjen to Lade and Singsakerlinjen to Singsaker in addition to tracks to Ila, Elgeseter, Trondheim Central Station and Lademoen. The line to Singsaker was closed in 1968 while the rest of the network was closed in 1983 and 1988, though the line to Lian was reopened in 1990.

Since 2004, the tramway has been the most northern in the world, following the closure of the Arkhangelsk tram system on 21 July 2004.Trondheim is also unique in that it is one of two rail lines in Norway built to metre gauge 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3a?i??8 in) (along with the heritage railway Thamshavnbanen) and in that the tramway is one of two in the world (along with the Cairo tramways) to use 2.6 m wide cars in combination with metre gauge.

The Return Of The Tram!

One of the recurring themes for the SkyTrain types is that big cities have subways and little cities have trams.

Well Berlin, the Capital of Germany with a population 3.7 million, is now investing in trams in the former “West” portion of the city as the old Communist “East” section retained the pre-war tramways.

This could be a lesson for Vancouver, in providing user-friendly transit, instead of politically prestigious and user unfriendly subways.

The subway isnai??i??t necessarily ideal for short trips………… Getting on a tram at street level is easier for people with limited mobility………

This is something TransLink and Vision Vancouver planners have failed to realize, transit that is easier to use is user-friendly and user friendliness is the prime reason people use public transport.

While East Berlin’s streetcars soldiered on under communist rule, West Berlin tore up the tracks. Now, the city is correcting its mistake.

While East Berlin’s streetcars soldiered on under communist rule, West Berlin tore up the tracks. Now, the city is correcting its mistake.

This spring, Berlin agreed to correct a 50-year-old mistake.Back in 1967, in a city divided between the powers of the Cold War, West Berlin canceled its last streetcar services, focusing its transit network on trains, subways, and buses. Meanwhile, East Berlinai??i??s streetcars soldiered on, resulting in a tram system that today is largely nonexistent in the cityai??i??s former western sector.But 28 years after reunification, the city has realized its error. Between now and 2026, the German capital is set to greatly expand its streetcar network, with the western region receivingmost (if not all) of the new connections. Starting in 2021, streetcars will roll back out along the western streets, with officials hopeful that they will streamline the local transit, and maybe even reduce crime in some areas.A quick visit to eastern Berlin makes clear why the western sectorai??i??s rejection of streetcars was a bad idea. European streetcars have never developed the bad reputation they often have in the U.S., and what survives of Berlinai??i??s longstanding pre-division network is still exemplary. Usually fully segregated from motor traffic, itai??i??s fast and clean, linking up well with the subway without duplicating its routes. Jump out of the subway at some key stations and youai??i??ll often find a carefully timed streetcar waiting there to whisk passengers away.

Recent modest enlargements to the network have also proved popular. When the streetcar was extendedto Berlinai??i??s Central Station in 2015, the city expected 20,000 passengers per day. The current number of passengers is actually twice that.The new lines will follow this model, extending from the existing network far into the west, to connect the Kreuzberg, NeukAi??lln, SchAi??neberg, Moabit and Charlottenburg districts to the cityai??i??s (formerly eastern) heart. None of these areas are poorly served for transit links, but the streetcars will certainly come in handy. Berlinai??i??s buses can get snarled in traffic at peak hours, while the sheer variety of routes mean that people tend to stick to the two or three lines they know well, or even avoid buses entirely.

The subway isnai??i??t necessarily ideal for short trips, even if Berlinai??i??s system is often considerably closer to ground level than in London or Paris, resulting in trains that are quicker to reach from the street. Getting on a tram at street level is easier for people with limited mobility, while it could also take some weight off an overburdened subway in a fast-growing city.Some drivers wonai??i??t be happy, however. Berlinai??i??s streetcars donai??i??t mingle with traffic, so they will take some space from existing car lanes along key routes. Still, the plan has some potential support from an unexpected source: users of a park that will likely get a new tram line through it.The current plan is to thread rails across Kreuzbergai??i??s GAi??rlitzer Park, a long sliver of parkland that covers the former platforms and sidings of a long-demolished railway station. Using parkland as a transit site might sound controversial, but in recent years the park has become a notorious sitefor drug dealing. Bringing the streetcar through the park might make it more difficult for dealers to use the park as shelter, meaning that so far, locals seem to be giving the plan cautious approval.The new trams should ultimately join up with other pending transit projects, including a new bike highway network. Berlinai??i??s drivers may be looking at less road space in some areas, but the cityai??i??s transit network could end up proving so effective that few will mourn the loss.

Their NDP May Do, What Our NDP Should Do!

The Scarborough subway soap opera continues.

What is interesting is that the NDP in Ontario may very well kill the now $3.45 billion, 5 km., one station subway for a much cheaper light rail line.

“There is a tipping point beyond which the unjustifiable becomes unsustainable.” and as TransLink and the Mayor’s Council on Transit are deeply afraid in releasing current cost estimates, one must be assured that the tipping point for the Broadway SkyTrain subway has already been past.

Memo to Premier Horgan; show some moral fortitude and kill the project, before the project kills TransLink.

Could the NDP stop the Scarborough subway in its tracks?

The Ontario Liberals and PCs are dug in deep on the transit plan but on the eve of an election what better way for the NDP to resonate with Toronto than by reverting to the original LRT plan, Martin Regg Cohn writes.

By Martin Regg CohnOntario Politics Columnist

Wed., Dec. 20, 2017

Itai??i??s not every day ai??i?? nor even every year ai??i?? that Toronto opens six new subway stations. More like every other decade.

Thatai??i??s a long wait for harried commuters. And an eternity for politicians in a hurry.

None of the politicians cutting the ribbons this month were in power all those years ago to cut the cheques. A timely reminder that they only ever benefit from the short-term election cycle, and rarely remain for the long-term investment horizon required to build subways.

Against that backdrop, the back and forth trajectory of transit construction in the GTA is easier to explain. Politicians come and go every few years, while their pet projects zigzag to their final destination:

Former finance minister Greg Sorbara drove the much-needed York University extension all the way to his own riding of Vaughan, a dubious terminus; ex-mayor Mel Lastman gave us the little-used Sheppard stub; the late Rob Ford begat the overbuilt Scarborough subway, with funding from his federal pal, then-finance minister Jim Flaherty; and Dalton McGuinty bankrolled much of it before bailing as premier.

A supporting role goes to Brad Duguid, the Scarborough cabinet minister who warned that any subway changes would be ai???over my dead body.ai??? Like other transit contortionists and extortionists, Duguid isnai??i??t running again, so he will be long gone by the time his legacy becomes our albatross. Two public servants who have danced around the Scarborough debate are also out of the picture ai??i?? chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat has quit, and the TTCai??i??s nimble CEO, Andy Byford, is New York-bound.

Who then will cut the next set of ribbons years from now?

A new cast of characters is driving the transit debate ai??i?? Premier Kathleen Wynne, Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown, the NDPai??i??s Andrea Horwath and Mayor John Tory. Despite their disparate ideologies, they have a shared allegiance to the dubious Scarborough subway extension that defies logical transit planning and fiscal prudence.

For the rest of the story click here.

 

 

A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!

RAIL FOR THE VALLEY WISHES ALL A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS

AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR

Fear of Subway Costs Grips Mayors Council

As our friend, Haveacow indicated some time ago, the Broadway subway is going to cost a lot more than many think.

Some years ago, Zwei entered into correspondence with a German transit Engineer, Wolfgang and he warned of subway construction and operating costs, which hobbled German transit authorities and also lead to the rebirth of the tram in Germany.

In Toronto, the TTC estimates that the cost to operate and maintain a one station 5 km subway is $40 million annually.

The last post now sees Vision Vancouver and the mayor, rushing ahead with subway plans, yet the very same council is afraid to release the estimated costs for the subway.

Memo to Premier Horgan: Enforce a moratorium on all subway planning until TransLink releases:

1. Total construction costs for a SkyTrain subway.
2. Ai??The annual maintenance costs for a SkyTrain subway.
3. Present passenger flows on the 99B buses on Broadway.

Planning by stealth never works and fear now grips the mayor’s Council on Transit as they are afraid of releasing the real costs of subway construction.

Thank you to Bob Mackin and the Breaker news!

 

Exclusive: Mayors got secret update last year on TransLink megaproject costs, but kept public in the dark

Bob Mackin

Internal TransLink documents obtained by theBreakerAi??strongly suggest the estimated costs for three Metro Vancouver transportation megaprojects have skyrocketed and the agency is grappling with how and when to break the news to the public.

Document obtained by theBreaker confirms TransLink and Metro Vancouver mayors are keeping secrets about megaproject costs.

The 2015-adjusted estimates were $2.53 billion for light rail transit in Surrey, $2.28 billion for a subway under Broadway and $1.1 billion to replace the 80-year-old Pattullo Bridge. Documents released to theBreaker on Dec. 11 under the freedom of information law confirm that the costs were further updated in 2016 and given secretly to the Mayorsai??i?? Council, ai???but not publicly released.ai??? Further estimates were crafted this year.

A March 9, 2017 communications plan said the cost pressures include rising real estate prices, inflationary pressures on contractors and a Canadian dollar that is lower in value than when the estimates were made for the regional mayorsai??i?? $8.08 billion, 10-year plan in 2014.

Specifically, the Broadway project is feeling increased pressure because of geotechnical assessment. The cost of an operations and maintenance facility is adding pressure to the Surrey-Newton-Guildford phase of Surrey LRT, along with utility relocation and the rising cost of land to accommodate corridor widths.

The communications document indicated that TransLink was planning to hold media briefings to provide in-depth information about the projects, business cases and updated costs. It contemplated holding a major media event in conjunction with the B.C. and federal governments. Development was underway on project websites and social media content, it said, was shared with mayors and the province.

Project cost estimates were censored from January updates to the Public Transit Infrastructure Fund steering board. The documents did show that more than $11.6 million had been spent on the Broadway project and $15.2 million on Surrey. Other documents warn that every year of delay adds $300 million to $500 million to capital costs.

An April 2 email from Sany Zein, TransLinkai??i??s infrastructure management and engineering vice-president, to TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond did not show dollar figures, but it said ai???the project inflation numbers are higher than recent GDP growth and higher than general recent inflationary growth; so some level of ai???hot marketai??i?? inflation is accounted for.

ai???The contingency percentages have been getting lower as the design definition improves.Ai??If interest during construction and internal labour charges are excluded from the gross total, the contingency value would represent a higher percentage.ai???

Inflation was estimated at 3.5% per annum for construction and 2.5% for systems prior to contract award, 2.5% for construction and systems during construction and 2.5% for management and professional services.

Donald Trapp, the ParternshipsBC project director, wrote April 7 to Zein that contingency estimates for construction costs ranged from 19% for Surrey-Newton-Guildford to 25% for Pattullo. Trapp also offered some optimism.

ai???Cost inflation for heavy civil does not follow residential/commercial domestic market trends,ai??? Trapp wrote. ai???Major projects attract contractors and consortia from around the world, and some areas (think Europe) the outlook is not secure; our projects will be very attractive.

ai???Cost control is achieved through proper management of the scope and schedule throughout the project from inception to substantial completion.ai???

TransLinkai??i??s Sany Zein

Final business cases were supposed to be completed and submitted for approval to the NDP government this fall. The documents estimated that, pending funding confirmation, construction work on all three projects could be underway by 2019. Pattullo and Surrey-Newton-Guildford could be completed in 2023 and Broadway in 2024.

An update on major capital projects is on the agenda for the Dec. 14 board of directors meeting at TransLink headquarters in Sapperton. It will be the swansong for Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson and Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner, who were replaced as the Mayorsai??i?? Council-appointed directors last week.

The regionai??i??s mayors chose Burnabyai??i??s Derek Corrigan to replace Robertson as chair and North Vancouver Districtai??i??s Richard Walton to replace Hepner as vice-chair.

Corrigan, a pragmatic, longtime NDP member, suggested that smaller municipalities are growing anxious.

ai???Both Gregor Robertson and Linda Hepner were very much focused on the big projects in their cities, so I think there was a feeling that maybe there would be a little more regional perspective if they got people in that were from more neutral ground,ai??? Corrigan told the Burnaby Now.

Vancouver’s Dirty Subway Politics Continue

A Vancouver reader to this blog received the following letter today from the City of Vancouver.

 

The gentleman received the letter one day past the RSVP Date and the city evidently got the bus route numbers mixed up, as well.

This continues the dirty subway politics practiced by Vision(less) Vancouver and with a former Vision(less) Councillor, now advising the Premier, more bad and expensive transit decisions may soon be coming from the Premier’s Office.

Why the hurry?

Could it be that the CoV and Vision Vancouver want to ramrod this $3 billion+ subway through before sticker shock becomes an issue in the region?

Dirty politics abound with transit issues and only the Premier and the Minister of Transportation can change this.

I am not holding my breathe.