A tale of two tracks
- Nov 21, 2025
- 6 min read
Two transit agencies pursue similar projects - with very different levels of transparency
Background: Railway double-tracking
One of the strengths of railways is that they can handle bi-directional train traffic on a single track, as long as trains pass each other at safe locations. The same cannot be said for most other network systems, like roads, water pipes, or electrical wiring.
The flexibility of single-track railways is great for rail operators because it means they can run trains while avoiding the cost of an additional track, which in some places can cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars per kilometre. As such, single-track railways are common in places like western North America where distances are vast and the cost of building a track really adds up. They're also found where space is constrained, or anywhere where low-frequencies mean that two tracks are unnecessary.
Even the most well-managed single-track railways have limits though, and it eventually becomes too difficult to handle lots of trains on just one track. The solution is to add a track, which is why almost any busy railway you'll encounter anywhere in the world has at least two. Adding an additional track to a single-track railway is known as double-tracking, and is one of the most important, yet underappreciated public infrastructure upgrades. Double-tracking may not be sexy, but it's key to unlocking high-frequency, high-reliability rail service.
Two double-tracking projects
Recently, I've been keeping tabs on two double-tracking projects: one in Canada and one in Switzerland.
In Toronto, the regional transit agency Metrolinx has been double-tracking a 15 kilometre section of the Stouffville GO Line, a commuter line running through east of the city, since at least 2019. Part of it opened in 2025, but about half of the segment remains under construction. This work will enable trains to run every 30 minutes in both directions, rather than roughly hourly today.
In northwestern Switzerland, the national railway SBB recently double tracked a four kilometre segment of the Basel - Delémont line, in just five months over the summer of 2025. This allows for trains every 15 minutes between Basel and Délemont, compared to every 30 today.
SBB's project has been delivered more efficiently than Metrolinx's but that's not what I find noteworthy here. Rather, it's the contrast in how these two agencies share information about their projects that stands out.
Very different levels of project transparency
Metrolinx has a lot of rail, metro, and bus projects underway and provides information about its rail projects on a line-by-line basis. If you dig through their website, you'll find a page where they describe their work on the Stouffville line with a two-paragraph section about the aforementioned double-tracking work, alongside information about nearby station upgrades and grade separations. Here it is, in it's entirety.
All this tells the reader is that there's a double-tracking project going on, and it will enable better service. Elsewhere on the site, there is some information about construction impacts to customers, but there is essentially no detail about the scope of the project, the cost, the timeline, or the overall context.
Let's contrast this with what I see coming out of SBB.
SBB operates a national railway and provides information about their projects on a regional basis. On their website, you'll find a section with information about on-going projects in the Basel area, including the double-tracking project on the Basel - Délemont line. There's an entire page providing detailed information on the project's purpose and scope, the timing of construction disruptions, the cost and timeline, and some cool timelapse videos of construction progress. There's even an individual contact person provided.
Images: SBB
Public transparency matters
The point of this post isn't to admire SBB or dunk on a North American agency for not doing a good enough job. There are plenty of commentators focusing on the political and technical shortcomings of US and Canadian transit.
My goal here is to highlight that the lack of transparency common to North American transit agencies has a corrosive impact. Openness about what a public agency is doing is critical not only to building support for that agency's mission, but also for holding it accountable. Put another way, not talking about something is a great way to ensure that there's no urgency to do it, or that it can be easily altered, delayed, and corrupted.
This dynamic is deeply entrenched in Toronto, and is symptomatic of the mismanagement and politicisation of transit projects there. Toronto's transit agencies are reluctant to share meaningful detail about what they're doing, largely because they've often been unable to meet deadlines or stick to promises, and want to avoid backlash from the public and politicians. In this climate of tepid fear, it's "safer" to avoid saying much about anything, rather than risk making a public statement that later turns out to be wrong.
In the case of the Stouffville Line double-tracking project, there's a lot of information that Metrolinx could share but doesn't. What exactly is the scope of work? What is the construction plan? How much does it cost? What specific improvements will this project deliver for riders? Even I can't figure out when construction started or when the project is supposed to complete. Failure to share this kind of information suggests that Metrolinx views the public as a potential antagonist rather as much as its primary constituency.
Within Metrolinx, this lack of transparency means that there has been little urgency to complete this project. During my time working with the organisation, there were multiple reports of the imminent opening of the Stouffville Line's second track but none of these pronouncements turned out to be true. It was too easy to push a track or signal test back, or for a contractor to miss their scheduled work window, because the project simply did not command attention.
And so for years, a nearly complete second track has just sat there. During my most recent visit I could see that it still hadn't been tamped - buried in gravel - at least a year after the track was first laid. Notice the exposed cross-ties of the left track below.
In contrast, SBB pursued a very aggressive construction strategy, but shared a tonne of information about it to the public. It shut down the entire line between Basel and Délemont for five months to complete this double-tracking, cutting off rail access to Basel for around 80,000 people in Canton Jura and severing the main route from Basel to Geneva. Good project management and a record of on-time construction are undoubtedly important in maintaining support here, but I believe that being clear with the public about what is going on plays a major role as well. As a result, coverage of the project has been almost entirely positive.
People react poorly when they're kept in the dark
Let me be clear that while these are two similar projects, there is a gigantic difference between Metrolinx and SBB, and between Toronto and Switzerland. Metrolinx has struggled to deliver new transit projects for most of its 19-year existence, while SBB has been running a rail network for 125 years. Toronto is a single city with a small rail industry, while Switzerland is a country with a large one. There is more institutional experience in Switzerland, and while Metrolinx has a lot of room to improve, they're still a young agency in a young city.
But Metrolinx is unpopular, that unpopularity is bad for its mission, and the contrasting communication surrounding these two projects illustrates a big part of the problem. People know when their government is letting them down. When they feel they're being deceived, they get even more frustrated. Polling from September 2025 indicates that the Ontario public remain positive on transit construction, but are sour on Metrolinx.
Images: Mainstreet Research
I would contend that while it might upset some politicians, Metrolinx would be better off in the long-run by being more transparent with the public about its goals, its work, and indeed its struggles, many of which are genuine. Not only is it missing opportunities to proactively sell the upside of a project like this, it's also engendering hostility by failing to be honest. Hostility that, in the long run could imperil efforts to build more public transport and make the city a better places to live. Transparency doesn't have to mean the undoing of public support for a good cause. It should, in fact, be the root of it.
