Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)

[Frankietls]

Since immigration is stalling and the carbon tax is gone I guess this is the new wedge issue for the Conservatives to rally their base. The Liberals are expected to complete their majority sooner or later so there is nothing to lose for PP to dip into this, throw and see what sticks kind of strategy. I have hard time imagining this issue will gain traction in long term no matter how they try to package this.

 

[elibroftw]

Okay so I've come to the conclusion the primary benefit of alto is basically to spend $90B to allow people to move up to 2 hours away by train to wherever they work. (I've implied a lot but basically flying roundtrip can be done in a single day for business meetings).

And why would people do that to themselves? That's right because rent is too expensive in the city they work or they want to raise a family and houses are too expensive in the city they work.

The correct solution is spending $90B building so much PBRs like the commies did in Vienna, that private land lords have zero price control. Build some fantastic family sized rentals all across the GTA go train line (I'm looking at you mimico).

It's absurd the Federal government is able to expropriate land for HSR but can't expropriate land next to a commuter train station to build family oriented apartment buildings?

 

[SFO-YYZ]

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

I believe this Abacus survey was paid for by the AltNo group - they wanted to get real world data to show how much Canadians, Ontarians, and Quebecers absolutely all oppose this project.

And once again, Abacus survey data backfired on them:

62% of Albertans support Alto, vs 18% oppose.
58% of Conservative voters support Alto, vs 25% who oppose.

These two data sets alone should tell you how out of touch the federal Conservatives are on this issue.

 

[crs1026]

Okay so I've come to the conclusion the primary benefit of alto is basically to spend $90B to allow people to move up to 2 hours away by train to wherever they work. (I've implied a lot but basically flying roundtrip can be done in a single day for business meetings).

And why would people do that to themselves? That's right because rent is too expensive in the city they work or they want to raise a family and houses are too expensive in the city they work.

The correct solution is spending $90B building so much PBRs like the commies did in Vienna, that private land lords have zero price control. Build some fantastic family sized rentals all across the GTA go train line (I'm looking at you mimico).

It's absurd the Federal government is able to expropriate land for HSR but can't expropriate land next to a commuter train station to build family oriented apartment buildings?

We all have our favourite “for the same money, Ottawa could do xxxxx” arguments. I’m not sure I find any of them compelling, especially when they devolve into subjective or intangible measures that are not quantifiable beyond opinion.
I would say that if we are falling back into arguing for Alto on the level of national productivity or gdp, or even emissions, we have likely lost the argument. Those are good things to debate in the faculty lounge, but they are pretty abstract.
And comparing to competing objectives such as health care or housing or education or r&d does not really debate the scaling of resources and deliverables in those sectors, and does not speak factually to the imperatives in transport infrastructure..
However, it’s fair to look at finding the money by curtailing other tangible commitments that government are committed to or very likely to make.
The price tag, while massive, is not more than will be spent on the alternatives.
One such argument can be found here. I’m not advocating for this one as written, but it is an example of narrowing the analysis to more focussed alternatives.
The other obvious comparison is to airport investment. It would be good to see exactly what it would cost to expand airports in YYZ, YUL etc as the alternative to Alto. I would even go so far as to compare projected all-inper seat costs for the two modes, although that too has intangibles in the equation.
We could buy a lot of Gryphen jets or Icebreakers for the cost of Alto, but I would not trade one for the other.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

It does bring benefits by reducing carbon emissions from trips that would otherwise be done by car or by air

PP doesn't care about emissions, he cares about being able to drive your car everywhere.

Basically his policy as the opposition is to oppose anything that the Liberals are in favor of.

 

[MidtownKW]

Okay so I've come to the conclusion the primary benefit of alto is basically to spend $90B to allow people to move up to 2 hours away by train to wherever they work. (I've implied a lot but basically flying roundtrip can be done in a single day for business meetings).

And why would people do that to themselves? That's right because rent is too expensive in the city they work or they want to raise a family and houses are too expensive in the city they work.

The correct solution is spending $90B building so much PBRs like the commies did in Vienna, that private land lords have zero price control. Build some fantastic family sized rentals all across the GTA go train line (I'm looking at you mimico).

It's absurd the Federal government is able to expropriate land for HSR but can't expropriate land next to a commuter train station to build family oriented apartment buildings?

This isn't the primary benefit. There are dozens of flights between Toronto and Montreal each day, a dozen or more between Toronto and Ottawa. I have no idea how many car trips, but it's significant.

This is not commuter rail, which you can see from the station placement- the intent of this is not to make Peterborough a massive bedroom community. The intent is to displace flights, which has huge benefits for capacity-constrained Pearson, and to displace car and air trips, which will have huge environmental and cost benefits.

 

[reaperexpress]

Okay so I've come to the conclusion the primary benefit of alto is basically to spend $90B to allow people to move up to 2 hours away by train to wherever they work. (I've implied a lot but basically flying roundtrip can be done in a single day for business meetings).

And why would people do that to themselves? That's right because rent is too expensive in the city they work or they want to raise a family and houses are too expensive in the city they work.

The correct solution is spending $90B building so much PBRs like the commies did in Vienna, that private land lords have zero price control. Build some fantastic family sized rentals all across the GTA go train line (I'm looking at you mimico).

It's absurd the Federal government is able to expropriate land for HSR but can't expropriate land next to a commuter train station to build family oriented apartment buildings?

Your conclusion is false. There is more to life than just commuting. For example, I travel frequently between Toronto and Ottawa because I live in Ottawa but have many friends and family in Toronto.

Besides, the high speed rail doesn't help much with housing sprawl, since it is not planned to have many intermediate stations. It is mostly for the purpose of getting from one city with expensive housing to a different city with expensive housing.

Your characterization does not seem to be based on reality. I suspect you started with your conclusion and worked backwards to cherry-pick evidence to support it (ignoring all contradictory evidence)

 

[nfitz]

Your conclusion is false. There is more to life than just commuting. For example, I travel frequently between Toronto and Ottawa because I live in Ottawa but have many friends and family in Toronto.

Besides, the high speed rail doesn't help much with housing sprawl, since it is not planned to have many intermediate stations. It is mostly for the purpose of getting from one city with expensive housing to a different city with expensive housing.

That said, they'd be crazy not to have a couple more stations at each major population centre to run high speed commuter trains, that don't go even half-way to the next major population centre. We see this elsewhere - like Seoul, and HS1.

 

[McGillicuddy]

That said, they'd be crazy not to have a couple more stations at each major population centre to run high speed commuter trains, that don't go even half-way to the next major population centre. We see this elsewhere - like Seoul, and HS1.

Commuter services are properly understood as a provincial and municipal responsibility. If the provinces want to come up with their own money, I'm sure ALTO will let them buy into the project.

 

[micheal_can]

Commuter services are properly understood as a provincial and municipal responsibility. If the provinces want to come up with their own money, I'm sure ALTO will let them buy into the project.

Unless ALTO prevents people in Peterborough from boarding to go to Toronto, there will be segments that will operate like a commuter service.

 

[reaperexpress]

That said, they'd be crazy not to have a couple more stations at each major population centre to run high speed commuter trains, that don't go even half-way to the next major population centre. We see this elsewhere - like Seoul, and HS1.

At the very least, including more intermediate stations along the line for an overlaid regional service would help provide some tangible benefit to the communities the line passes through, which would reduce political opposition. The current Alto plans seem to be only 1 or 2 trains per hour in each direction which is only about 10% of the capacity of a high speed line. It's pretty common for high speed services to only a small proportion of a high-speed line's capacity, hence why many other countries use the spare capacity to run fast regional trains on the line.

Here's a summary I made of the conventional services on high-speed railways in the Netherlands (starting at 7:00 in the video). At the time there were up to 5 conventional trains per hour on the high speed line, and just 1 or 2 high-speed trains. There are now up 6 conventional trains per hour (still 1 or 2 high speed).

Commuter services are properly understood as a provincial and municipal responsibility. If the provinces want to come up with their own money, I'm sure ALTO will let them buy into the project.

I agree that a local service would fall under Provincial jurisdiction, but I'm not convinced Alto would allow the Province to operate any service on the high speed tracks even if they did offer funding. They seem pretty adamant that they want no infrastructure shared with Metrolinx or the RTM even if it means increasing the project budget by billions of dollars and leaving 90% of the railway's capacity unused.

In addition to a Toronto-Peterborough GO service, Montreal's St-Jérome and Mascouche lines would benefit massively from a direct connection to downtown via Alto's proposed Mont-Royal tunnel rather than their current circuitous route around the mountain or a transfer to the metro.

 

[crs1026]

The suggestion that Alto could share its track with a regional rail service is something that one should not assume as a slam-dunk. It's doable, sort of, but....

Where this is the case overseas, it's the result of already having infrastructure in place that enables this.

Any regional or commuter train stop on a high speed line would need safety and security measures to keep the local passengers separated from the through high speed trains passing through. That might involve additional trackage, platforms separated from the main line, extra signalling, all sorts of fencing and barriers. Likely staffing for security reasons.

If a province were willing to pay for this, perhaps Alto would accommodate. But it's not a small cost. It would take its own design and construction effort. It wouldn't just happen. It can't be simple whistle or flag stops along the HST line.

I'm not sure Ontario would actually be willing to foot this bill. It certainly isn't an Alto responsibility to build this in at Alto's expense.

- Paul

 

[urbanclient]

the intent of this is not to make Peterborough a massive bedroom community.

Even if not the main intent, I don't see any problem with commuters using Alto to get to work.

 

[crs1026]

Even if not the main intent, I don't see any problem with commuters using Alto to get to work.

In principle, sure. But consider 100 Peterboro commuters wanting to board an early train to commute to Toronto. There may not be 100 people getting off in Peterboro on that early train to free up 100 seats. Is it reasonable to haul 100 empty seats from Ottawa to accommodate the commuters who only pay for the Peterboro-Toronto part of the trip?
What may make more sense is a train that lats over in Peterboro at night to address the commuter need. Quite doable - but now you need a layover facility, a crew base, and a train that isn’t Alto’s to operate.
Quite doable logistically - but would Ontario pay the cost?

- Paul

 

[StreetcarRider]

A few of thoughts.

First , as to costs, remember that the Cadence bid was so low that the government evaluators could scarcely believe it was credible. Apparently every other bid was much higher:

Winning Toronto-Quebec City high-speed rail bid was so low officials feared it was impossible, documents reveal - The Logic

Feds triple-checked bid from group that includes AtkinsRéalis and Air Canada to make sure the massive project will get done

thelogic.co

Second, HSR is often uneconomic for commuting. For example, in Japan, unmarried women used to commute by Shinkansen when the only way to keep their jobs in distant cities was to meet the societal expectation to live with parents, who were in another city. For another example, Brightline in Florida sought to shed south-Florida commuters (once the Orlando station opened) because the longer-haul journeys were so much more lucrative

Third, narratives about this project seem to turn on what it's being compared to. Another use of $90B? Expected benefits? Return on investment? How much similar projects cost elsewhere? Improvements that will be needed to other transportation options if the project is cancelled? Skill/industry development? Global competitiveness? Climate change implications? Seems to me we should all think critically about the comparisons on offer.