@urbanclient
May I suggest that you refrain from disparaging other members.
I get that discussions can become heated and their can be legitimate disagreements on both substance and perspective.
However,
@Urban Sky whatever faults may be fairly ascribed to him........ignorance on the subject of intercity is rail is not one.
He's among the more expert members here, not merely in the sense of policy wonk or well-informed outsider, but as an insider and professional.
That said, even were it not so, you can argue why someone's perception may be askew or you think their 'facts' are incomplete or even erroneous, but just do that with evidence, not attacking the person.
****
Urban Sky's essential facts are correct here; but I don't have a problem with taking issue with the manner of presentation of them. Which is to say. I think Mx has consistently under-delivered on all of its projects, be they local rapid transit, or GO.
They're consistently late, consistently over budget and above all else they are opaque at all times, not allowing a fair or honest discussion/critique of their work as they barely engage in any meaningful disclosure at all; and when they do, they still eschew accountability.
We can and should expect better.
In respect of project ambition, it really does depend on what you choose to include in the project and when you choose to measure its inception from etc etc.
The comparisons to international projects is fair, in principle, but is a bit more nuanced that you make it out to be, if also still a bit more damning, in my judgement than Urban Sky is inclined to concede.
But lets exchange those views civilly, please.
Thank you Northern Light for the insight. Everyone, please feel free to correct me if you think my argument or numbers are wrong.
Urban Sky: "You are describing the built network [...] as every single advanced network I can think of evolved gradually and/or steadily (rather than through a single „big bang“ project), like I described below"
Urban Sky can be an expert in the field as well as an insider. However, that doesn't preclude him from not being aware of projects in Europe, Asia and Oceania that are somewhat or very much so larger in scope or ambition than GO Expansion. It doesn't preclude him from not knowing best practices on transit projects. This is demonstrated in the way he responded to me bringing up the Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Region intercity railway, for which the most authoritative sources are only available in Chinese and must be translated. To actually have a nuanced and deep understanding of these various other projects like Sydney and Pearl River, one must do the research on their own time as I do not want to, nor is it reasonable to expect me to be comprehensively teaching others the intricacies of a project so far-removed from Toronto. Is it wrong for me to presume that Urban Sky would look into comparable projects himself if he has the confidence to praise GO Expansion to this extent?
One other thing it appears that Urban Sky has forgotten is that the GO Rail network has existed in its current line naming scheme for nearly 14 years (since the Georgetown line became the Kitchener line) and has seen gradual growth since then (growth of ~90km in total network size and growth of ~130km in track ownership since 2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GO_Transit_rail_services#History). Most recently, a track was added to West Harbour for through running trains to and from Niagara. This undermines Urban Sky's argument that we cannot compare GO Expansion to projects in Eurasia or Oceania because they are not a single "big bang".
The GO Rail network is and has been a work in progress. To imply that GO Expansion (or GO Transit rail services in general) did and does not evolve gradually or steadily would be erroneous in my opinion. Metrolinx itself said "delivery may be phased between 2025-2030" in the 2018 business case.
To further my point, GO Expansion is not a greenfield project with zero pre-existing infrastructure. It is mostly a double tracking/electrification/grade separation project, in that order of precedence. Most of the at-grade crossings on the Lakeshore lines will NOT be grade separated by the end of phase 1 or phase 2 of the GO Expansion as they have not been deemed necessary. When I bring up tunnelling/double tracking/grade separation/electrification projects like the municipal run intercity rails in China or Sydney Metro, they are actually more ambitious in a specific area than GO Expansion. They all have
full grade separation, with no level crossings like GO rail.
The other point I would like to make is that if someone from Metrolinx says tomorrow "we are going to build 3000km of electrified rail in the GTA in one go by 20xx." Do we go out and say that this is in fact the most ambitious regional rail project the world has ever seen? Or is it essentially puffery and does not mean anything substantive.
Due to the fact that Metrolinx is so opaque and prone to overpromising, we must then adjust our interpretations so as to not take their statements at face value. Therefore, when we judge whether or not a project is ambitious or not, we should try our best to ascertain what exactly Metrolinx is actually able to deliver. It definitely helps to have insiders. For example, if one day Metrolinx promises 30km of new automated subway, but they only order enough track materials for 10km, we can reasonably infer that 30km of subway is not happening.
I am at least vaguely aware of counter-arguments and further dives into nuance that can be made in regards to the points I have made. For example, Sydney Metro Northwest reuses 13km of track and 5 stations from the existing Sydney Trains network. What galls me is Urban Sky offhand dismissing any counter arguments to claims he has made without much explanation or providing evidence that he actually has knowledge of the counterexample projects I have brought up. Feel free to try to bring up sources to prove the Sydney Metro and Pearl River Delta networks cost more and were better supported financially from the start (a real possibility!)
Don't tell me that those projects are
less ambitious or are disqualified from comparison simply because they are too slowly phased or not "big bang" enough, especially when GO Expansion was meant to expand service in phases over 5-7 years according to Metrolinx itself, and especially when Sydney and Pearl River built more, better, and faster. More line length, fully grade separated with automated platform doors,
and faster project timelines.
GO Expansion presumably called for 150km of double tracking on existing single tracked corridors and ~280km of electrification on existing corridors. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To claim this is one of the most ambitious regional rail network projects, Urban Sky should bring extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is solidly on him to prove that GO Expansion is one of the most ambitious regional rail projects on the "planet".
"Without knowing the staging of the various projects which led to the network, it is impossible to compare your examples to what we are trying to achieve here" he says. Your perceived absence of evidence [countering your argument] is not evidence of absence. Refusing to look into evidence or even deigning to acknowledge arguments brought by others that may be counter to your beliefs and bringing up German and Japanese examples that conform to your beliefs does not actually validate your beliefs. This is confirmation bias.
Lastly, seeing as I am not super active on these forums and never got to read about Urban Sky's professional credentials and insider knowledge, I would like to ask, what exactly does Urban Sky do? He said "what we are trying to achieve here" in reference to GO Expansion. This leads me to wonder if he is in Metrolinx or a consultant for Metrolinx directly involved in the GO Expansion.
www.thetrillium.ca
