r/AltoHSR_Canada

1. The CTF “Taxpayers Foundation” always criticizes any government expenditure and believes no government executives anywhere should ever get a bonus. But they never complain that banking, CN, CPKC, Air Canada, or consulting engineering company execs get bigger bonuses (and salaries). Or it’s impossible to attract/retain good people without paying them.

2. Right now is the HSR planning stage. If you were building a house, you would spend the first months/year finding the land and “designing” the house. Long before you dug the hole or even poured concrete. Same with Alto HSR.
   Sigh.

Hi everyone, I've been lurking in this sub and PSPP I feel is getting the hate he doesn't deserve. He opposed the project for several reasons. The biggest one is monetary, Canada has 120% debt to GDP ratio and yes even though we want to separate and form our own country, we are peaceful people and won't play dirty. We will pay our share of the debt and so the more debt Canada has, independent QC has to pay for it.

The other reasons have largely been discussed here, the loss of arable farmland, the likely expropriation of citizens especially those in Mirabel who was traumatized by the failed airport project but the biggest one that hasn't been discussed is a threat to our culture. You see culture and language are very important here in Québec. Because of rising cost of living, people from other parts of Canada migrated to Québec in droves and drive up our housing cost, exhausted our healthcare, infrastructure and education resources. Also we become more and more anglicized, it is impossible not to hear English in any corner of Montréal now also impossible to get a job if you don't speak English.

We slowly keep losing our ability to fully live in our own language, French, in our home. The TGV would make it easier for Anglo Canadians to make their way here and drown out our culture and language even more.

Having said that, PSPP isn't a radical. He is just someone with a different political belief than most of you. He's actually an intelligent and very nice guy. Do you know he is very well educated, he has a law degree from McGill and MBA from Oxford. Do you know his first case as a lawyer he defended the indigenous people of Bolivia, he did so good that the corrupt govt there threaten to kill him if he didn't leave the country.

Do you also know he played as a goalie for the Oxford hockey team and won the English collegiate cup with them? He's actually really good in a lot of sports. He was a junior tennis champion in Québec, his father was Québec table tennis president for a long time and so PSPP is good at that too. He's also a father to three young children, he said his family is everything to him even more than politics. Also you know before he took over the PQ, they polled at 10%, he had to rebuilt the party using political rookies but they shine thanks to his guidance and supportive leadership.

The bottom line is he's not some kind of separatist in the jungle ala Joseph Kony or Jonas Savimbi, hes a relatable guy with different politics than you but he doesn't deserve the hate he's getting.

Most of the concerns around expropriations seem to pertain to rural communities and it's not clear to me what property owners in urban areas should expect.

I'm very close to De La Concorde station, the existing railway is roughly 20 meters from my door.

Right now I feel like the most likely thing is that I won't be affected, but this is based on the assumption that the 60-metre right of way won't apply to more densely populated areas where the train is going to be traveling at much slower speeds.

I don't mind moving, trains are cool, but what I'm currently understanding is that I may or may not receive a letter from Alto in the future telling me not to renovate/etc. Further down the road I will be offered an amount that may or may not be fair but that I will have basically no choice but to accept.

Am I correct, or am I "à côté de la track" both figuratively and literally?

If you follow both sides of the debate, you may have noticed posts linking to a survey by “Common Ground Research,” which presents itself as an independent group collecting public opinion about Alto.

The questions guide responses toward particular outcomes, but the bigger concern involves how the survey functions. The sample depends on link-sharing and offers no protection against multiple submissions. There is no obvious “contact us” section or statement about affiliation. Some questions aim to inform about “potential harm” without noting any possible benefit, as well as your voting preferences. Another asks about “what fare would you pay for ALTO,” a question needing far more context.

After my investigation and work with others on the GO ALTO discord, we spotted patterns: the earliest mention of this group and survey comes from Lindsay Davidson, who also collaborates with Citizen Research. The survey circulates only within Anti-ALTO groups. The group’s site is a standard Squarespace template registered on June 13, with default social links to Squarespace’s own accounts.

This reflects my personal view, but I value evidence-based, methodologically sound data gathering. Here, they rely on a convenience sample while likely asserting that it is A) representative and B) not aimed at a specific outcome.

TL,DR: be cautious about this survey, the claims that will come out of it, and the lack of clear methodology.

The city is supportive of HSR and even signed an NDA to get in on early plans/discussions.

There is not much new here…when Alto decides on the precise line, then we will all know. And some conservation and farmland will be required.

If PQ wins and cancels Alto in Quebec, what 4-5 stops should Alto build in Ontario?

-If Parti Quebec akaa the Bloc/separatist in Quebec win and block HSR/TGV in Quebec, where or what should ALto place these stops in Ontario?

Toronto> Peterborough> Ottawa

Since

Montreal, TR, Laval, and Quebec City will be removed, that got me thinking, where should the gov't put those 5 stops in Ontario?

Maybe make like a hub model?

Perhaps add on GTA suburbs like Brampton, Markham, Vaughan, Barrie, Oshawa

OR should it reach further out to like to Hamilton, London, KW?

Or maybe run it to Niagara Falls to link up with NY some day?

Or what about running it West to like Thunder Bay Winnipeg, Calgary Vancouver?

What stops would you add and where and why?

Edit 1: For people saying Quebec cannot stop it b/c it is a federal project, this is technically true. However Carney said he won't build it over their objections. Also Quebec could slow the project massively by slow walking permits, denying local police help for protest, Environmental Assessment could stall the project for years, zoning permits would be delayed by Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec (CPTAQ), endless lawsuits, province controls the environmental and land-use certificates necessary to begin construction. If the Quebec government refuses to grant local permits or cooperate with federal expropriation processes, it creates a massive legal and logistical bottleneck.

View Poll

“When I first heard about the project back in January, when I heard about the southern route, it was devastating. I remember falling to my knees in my house, wondering what was going to happen and whether they were going to just plow through these communities”

Is this copypasta?

Tl;dr: Cancelling contracts is bad for creating new ones. Thus cancelling ALTO could have consequences for Alberta’s rail plan among other rail projects in Canada.

I commented in response to someone about the consequences of ALTO being cancelled due to NIMBYism, and wanted to share my own thoughts/industry experience here.

With large infrastructure projects like ALTO, contractors take on a lot of risk to sign on the job (hiring staff, subcontracting, relocating people, etc.), and thus are less likely to sign if they perceive a high risk of cancellation with little compensation. Risk of cancellation is always written in contracts, but bidding contractors often measure the risk of cancellation based on the jurisdiction’s own history of cancelling projects.

The less faith contractors have that the project lead (e.g. ALTO/Gov of Canada) can manage risk (including political risk), the less likely they are to take on a project unless there are generous cancellation clauses. Remember, private companies have their own reputations to maintain, taking on projects that get cancelled and having to lay off hundreds of people is bad for their reputation.

Now… if a project like ALTO was to be cancelled over NIMBYism, it will have enormous consequences on the future of rail transit expansion across Canada for decades to come. No contractor would want to sign on Alberta’s rail expansion projects for example if they fear the Government of Canada will bend the knee to NIMBYs and cancel the project (the Federal Conservative Party will have a horrible reality check with this if they win and cancel ALTO). The only reason they would sign is if they’re guaranteed more compensation in case of cancellation (which can increase the project’s cost, which in turn decreases the probability that it starts construction at all). This also means talent avoids Canada for other more reliable jurisdictions. So we lose both the investment and the know-how for building rail. We’re already seeing something like this play out after Metrolinx divorced with Deutsche-Bahn.

And finally, if we tried to revive ALTO again after killing it, the project cost would balloon enormously unless we somehow guarantee the project cannot be cancelled again (wouldn’t really work in our current political system). In other words, every time we cancel a major project, the more difficult it becomes for future generations to build the same project.

I was wondering why can't we have small town stops along the way not served by HSR. Like build the stations but only normal train serves them and HSR doesn't stop at these stations. This way you could convince many small communities to get on board.sorry if it is a silly one.

Alto has published two What We Heard reportscapturing feedback from thousands of participants across public and Indigenous consultations for Canada’s high-speed rail project.
 
This input is already helping shape the next stages of planning, from corridor refinement to potential route analysis and station planning and will continue to guide decisions as the project moves forward.
 
The reports highlight key themes, questions and ideas expressed by the general public, civic society stakeholders and Indigenous communities. Topics included community and environmental impacts, property and agricultural considerations, station locations, local benefits, and future travel needs.
 
Consultations with Indigenous communities, ongoing since October 2025, also reflect perspectives on land, cultural heritage, environmental protection and meaningful participation as the project advances.
By the numbers:
 
26 open houses |10,000 + attendees
31 roundtable discussions
 
10 virtual sessions
324,000 + visits to the online platform
Nearly 20,000 comments received
Following the review of the findings, the Minister of Transport directed Alto to develop a plan to assess a southern route option between Peterborough and Ottawa that includes a potential stop in Kingston that would interconnect with VIA Rail services, subject to technical feasibility and project requirements.
 
While the consultation with Indigenous communities is ongoing, another phase of consultation will take place this fall as part as continued efforts to continue the conversation with Canadians, based on a narrower corridor for the central segment (Ottawa-Montréal). Consultation will follow subsequently for the western and eastern segments.
 
For more on how the project advancing through a step-by-step planning process, read our latest blog