Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)

[facepalming_brooklynite]

Again, these benefits disproportionally fall onto metropolitan rather than urban dwellers, who currently live far from highways or airports…

I don't think you meant "urban" here?
One could argue that the effects of not reducing carbon emissions disproportionally affect rural dwellers who are exposed to flooding and wildfires in ways that most Torontonians are not.
So reducing carbon emissions benefits everyone.

 

[Urban Sky]

The economy-wide returns for local transit and even HSR is supposed to exceed other types of infrastructure investments. I think the numbers published by Alto are actually huge underestimates of the true economic and social gains.

But leave it to us Canadians to somehow screw up a slam dunk win. I wouldn't be too surprised if there are commercial deficiencies regarding ticketing and pricing.

View attachment 726029

Economic impact of infrastructure investments across asset categories in Ontario

This report examines the long-term quantitative economic impacts of Ontario’s infrastructure investment across a range of asset categories.

www.ontario.ca

To provide some (Spanish) figures for HSR which I discussed previously here on UT:

That's fair to say. But IMO the cost per km should not be the same, if not more expensive for GO Expansion. GO should cost less per km.

Regional rail is supposed to cost proportionally less for more (local) benefits than HSR.

It depends on what you build: GO Expansion is basically a full rebuild of the entire GO network, with a complete replacement of signals amd realignment of tracks - all of which under the moving wheel and under extreme space constraint. Greenfield HSR construction can operate under much less onerous constraints…

I don't think you meant "urban" here?

Thank you for your correction. I’ve fixed this in my post.

One could argue that the effects of not reducing carbon emissions disproportionally affect rural dwellers who are exposed to flooding and wildfires in ways that most Torontonians are not.
So reducing carbon emissions benefits everyone.

Correct, but if your goal is to fight climate change, then a single HSR project is a very poor (i.e., ineffective or wasteful) choice to spend $100 billion on…

 

[urbanclient]

To provide some (Spanish) figures for HSR which I discussed previously here on UT:

It depends on what you build: GO Expansion is basically a full rebuild of the entire GO network, with a complete replacement of signals amd realignment of tracks - all of which under the moving wheel and under extreme space constraint. Greenfield HSR construction can operate under much less onerous constraints…

I don't fully buy that Spain analysis. Somewhat for Spain specifically, even more so for HSR in Canada and in general. China builds much less patronized HSR routes and somehow achieved 8% economic rate of return in 2015, and annual ROI of 6.5% in 2019.

For reference, HSR:

In 2015, China had 19,000 km, rest of world 13-18,000 km (depending on definition)

In 2019, China had 35,000 km, rest of world 15-24,000 km.

China currently has about 50,000 km.

World Bank, 8% EIRR in 2015, Page 20/101: https://documents1.worldbank.org/cu...16/pdf/Chinas-High-Speed-Rail-Development.pdf

Regional benefits supporting document:

https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/EAP/China/high_speed-rail-%20in-china-en.pdf

Yicai Global and Macro Polo, annual ROI of 6.5% in 2019, (I think this number is more reasonable, even if method unorthodox)

Methodology - MacroPolo

We first explain the approach and general assumptions used in our assessment, followed by details on how we derived the cost and benefit estimate for each component. General Approach and Assumptions To estimate the net present value of China’s high-speed rail (HSR) network that is operational at...

web.archive.org

Introduction – MacroPolo

digitalprojectsarchive.org

----------------------------------------

I want to point out that a built up grid (China), rather than a few lines here and there, can yield increasing per-km returns. Their short-haul flight market is tiny compared to HSR.

I don't know every detail of the Betancor et Llobet paper, but I assume they're saying massive debt incurred to build HSR, is a drag on both the government and overall economy, not to mention the money could've been better spent elsewhere?

At first glance, the different methods used seem to be tailored to opposite conclusions on HSR investment. If you want to say HSR is good for people and the economy you go for the former. If you want to say it's a white elephant, you do Betancor et Llobet, or something similar.

I am aware of some of the differences b/w methodologies and subject countries, but I can't make a definitive conclusion as it pertains to Canada right now.

EDIT: Notably, "regional benefits" (wider economic) seem to be missing from the Betancor paper (see document above). They only included time savings, willingness to pay of generated demand, avoided costs, accident reduction, and congestion reduction. That in itself is a big oversight in my opinion. By my rough math, it would make social profit go positive for Spain.

Does someone else already have insight on this?

 

[desperateAmbassador]

$90 billion over 15 yearsish? That's only $6 billion a year. Where's the wedge about the GTA spending similar amounts on transit over a decade? In the meantime, we are spending about $600 billion over 10 years for defence with the promise to increase defence spending - which would add about $450 billion more over a 10-year period. Which, unlike infrastructure, leaves us little non-term benefits (though I suppose an expensive-to-maintain naval base in Nunavut).

More expensive? $90 billion for 800 km of high-speed? That's about $110 million per kilometre. HS2 in Europe is costing over $185 billion for 230 km. That's 7 times HIGHER, at over 800 million per km!

HSR2 was also a disastrous example of cost overruns that resulted in a large section of it being cancelled. Hardly the example we want to be comparing ourselves to. There are numerous projects across mainland Europe and Asia that have been completed at a fraction of the cost. There is nothing inherent that would prevent us from achieving the same with significant reform.

As for your assertion that funding our military leaves our society with "little long-term benefits"... that's just a non-sensical thing to say. If anything the high-cost of military acquisition only reinforces my point: broken systems lead to high-cost, which leads to systemic inadequacy of our nations assets.

 

[Urban Sky]

HSR2 was also a disastrous example of cost overruns that resulted in a large section of it being cancelled. Hardly the example we want to be comparing ourselves to. There are numerous projects across mainland Europe and Asia that have been completed at a fraction of the cost. There is nothing inherent that would prevent us from achieving the same with significant reform.

The only way to drive down costs is to gain experiences and to learn from early projects. The ALTO way of hiring a consortium to tell us what kind of HSR technology and network we want and letting them build it as a single project is the exact opposite of that tried-and-tested approach (and of how virtually every single HSR nation has developed its network).

 

[desperateAmbassador]

To provide some (Spanish) figures for HSR which I discussed previously here on UT:

It depends on what you build: GO Expansion is basically a full rebuild of the entire GO network, with a complete replacement of signals amd realignment of tracks - all of which under the moving wheel and under extreme space constraint. Greenfield HSR construction can operate under much less onerous constraints…


Thank you for your correction. I’ve fixed this in my post.

Correct, but if your goal is to fight climate change, then a single HSR project is a very poor (i.e., ineffective or wasteful) choice to spend $100 billion on…

Worth noting that the entire capital cost of the Madrid Norte corridor is only slightly higher than the design/pre-con phase of ALTO is estimated to cost, without a shovel ever hitting the ground.

 

[urbanclient]

Worth noting that the entire capital cost of the Madrid Norte corridor is only slightly higher than the design/pre-con phase of ALTO is estimated to cost, without a shovel ever hitting the ground.

Setting aside capital costs, looking at benefits...

I found something from Alto: "Long-term productivity gains: Annual increase of between $24.5 billion and $35 billion (equivalent to 1.1% of Canada’s GDP)."

25. What will be the economic impact of the High-Speed Rail Network?
https://en.consultation.altotrain.ca/investing-in-a-sustainable-future/widgets/215141/faqs

Those long-term productivity gains weren't really factored in for the Spanish Betancor and Llobet 2015 working paper (not peer-reviewed).

A 1.1 percentage point boost would be significant if true, because Canada's real GDP growth has averaged ~1.7% per year since 2007.

*Alto's numbers could be inaccurate/exaggerated though, the 2015, 2019 reports imply a 0.0x% to 0.2% annual uplift for China.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Was watching YouTube and this got fed into my feed… another conservative rage bater trying to get people riled up on Alto:

But the funny thing is that the whole video backfired on the YouTuber when vast majority of comments called out his BS and how brain dead these “arguments” against HSR are in this day and age.

One of his talking points: “Alto runs somewhat contrary to our automobile centric society”… like wtf does that even mean. A lot of viewers called him out and for once, YouTube comments section actually gave me hope for humanity.

 

[txlseries4]

Looked but didn't see this get posted in the past week. Abacus conducted a survey "with 1,515 Canadians from March 19 to 24, 2026" on "High-Speed Rail in Canada: Broad Support, Limited Electoral Impact, and a Critical Funding Lens"

The only link I have for it is from an opposition group so uh, sorry... https://www.altno.ca/_files/ugd/f1a60d_f91a3f0ada144cb981f03a0da603e347.pdf

Most of the relevant slides with a few left out that didn't focus specifically on the project/topic

 

[micheal_can]

Was watching YouTube and this got fed into my feed… another conservative rage bater trying to get people riled up on Alto:

But the funny thing is that the whole video backfired on the YouTuber when vast majority of comments called out his BS and how brain dead these “arguments” against HSR are in this day and age.

One of his talking points: “Alto runs somewhat contrary to our automobile centric society”… like wtf does that even mean. A lot of viewers called him out and for once, YouTube comments section actually gave me hope for humanity.

.... The point of rail is to get rid of that society. We have destroyed so much in the last century in the name of the automobile.

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

Looked but didn't see this get posted in the past week. Abacus conducted a survey "with 1,515 Canadians from March 19 to 24, 2026" on "High-Speed Rail in Canada: Broad Support, Limited Electoral Impact, and a Critical Funding Lens"

The only link I have for it is from an opposition group so uh, sorry... https://www.altno.ca/_files/ugd/f1a60d_f91a3f0ada144cb981f03a0da603e347.pdf

Most of the relevant slides with a few left out that didn't focus specifically on the project/topic
View attachment 726124
View attachment 726125
View attachment 726126
View attachment 726127
View attachment 726128

And yet AltNO claims there is "weak support" for the project per their news release? WTF are they smoking?

New Survey Highlights Weak Mandate for Costly High-Speed Rail as Concerns Grow Over Environmental Impacts and Inadequate Public Consultation Process

/CNW/ - Canadians have not granted a clear mandate for the $90 billion Alto high-speed rail project, according to a recent nationwide survey (Abacus Data,...

www.newswire.ca

 

[ericmacm]

And yet AltNO claims there is "weak support" for the project per their news release? WTF are they smoking?

New Survey Highlights Weak Mandate for Costly High-Speed Rail as Concerns Grow Over Environmental Impacts and Inadequate Public Consultation Process

/CNW/ - Canadians have not granted a clear mandate for the $90 billion Alto high-speed rail project, according to a recent nationwide survey (Abacus Data,...

www.newswire.ca

These people do not care. They are using misinformation and selective omission to intentionally misrepresent the project. Their statement indicates that “only 25% of Canadians strongly support the project” and that “nearly 1 in 5 are unsure about the project”, and these numbers reference the survey data from a few posts up. Note that this doesn’t include the 37% that somewhat support the project, with only 11% somewhat opposed and only 7% strongly opposed.

Making the statement with the true numbers that indicate 62% of Canadians generally support the project and 18% of Canadians generally oppose the project does little for the opposition group, so they have to resort to misinformation and omission tactics. It shows how little they have to stand on to make their case.

Note that the statement from AltNo came out the same day that Poilievre announced opposition to the project. This was almost certainly a coordinated effort.

 

[nfitz]

As for your assertion that funding our military leaves our society with "little long-term benefits"... that's just a non-sensical thing to say. If anything the high-cost of military acquisition only reinforces my point: broken systems lead to high-cost, which leads to systemic inadequacy of our nations assets.

Benefits probably wasn't the best choice of words. I was thinking of capital benefits, rather than the more intangibles like social benefits. Perhaps assets would be a better word.

I suppose the 1800s Rideau Canal is a military asset that we still benefit from. But other big ticket items like Fort Henry, Fort York, and many warships, leave us nothing, but a tourist site.

112-gun warship built in Kingston, Upper Canada

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

The Toronto Star published my letter this morning in response to Pierre Poilievre's call to scrap high-speed rail.

Stephen Lewis’ words moved people and motivated them to take action

Readers share their opinions of the news making the headlines.

www.thestar.com

 

[Chris R.]

People (I think) are missing the point. This was always going to be a political wedge issue (PP or someone else) because it's $90 Billion dollars. Obviously politicians will seize on that.

I love HSR. I think it should be built. But the overton window among transit/urbanist types has shifted so far that we've lost complete touch with regular people.

Yes that's lifetime capital costs blah blah blah but the fact remains that is an enormous, asinine and wholly unreasonable amount of money. Over 2x more expensive than remotely comparable European projects, enough money to build and fund dozens of hospitals, thousands of housing units, or a million other priorities that regular people compare things too. Hell... Spacex (idiot CEO aside) built a rocket that does backflips and lands itself for a fifth of the total funding of this project.

If we don't fix the core issue: that the way we plan, cost and build transportation projects in North America is fundamentally broken, things will never be built because they will simply be too easy of targets to kill for the next guy in charge.

One thing people forget to include in their discussions around anything investment related from the government is ROI.

If the thing costs $90b but the ROI is $200b over the following multiple decades, then I and really everyone shouldn't care too much. That being said, if we do it more affordably and show that the ROI is there, that would certainly help, but the government essentially has unlimited money if you consider a debt-to-GDP ratio. If the government spends $800b but the economic benefit is $10trillion then the cost is low in the grand scheme because governments aren't households and their finances aren't the same.

It's a big thing I seem to see fiscal conservatives missing, is any semblance of fiscal criticism. "It's expensive" isn't an argument. "It's expensive for the ROI, which is why we should be doing this other plan we definitely have which will cost less and do more for the economy" is. And the latter is an argument I'd personally be very interested in.

As someone who isn't interested in the culture-war crap, I'm a liberal because I believe that we should help people, but if you can make a solid argument to improve the economy or the lives of average Canadians (something required to justify to many people additional spending on the lowest income folks) then I can be swayed to vote for the Conservatives. As it is though, they are saying stuff like "trans people blah blah the Olympics " and "We shouldn't build country building infrastructure projects because ideology!"

It's garbage, and should be called out as garbage. I'm interested in hearing how you will govern differently OR intelligent criticism that explains why decisions by the government is bad.

"You hate trains truck bros? I hate trains too bro" is he absolute lamest commentary. Just trash tier material.