News   Dec 12, 2025
 755     0 
News   Dec 12, 2025
 1.7K     6 
News   Dec 12, 2025
 819     0 

Alto - High Speed Rail (Toronto-Quebec City)

Why exactly would transit users complain about Tremblay. Especially after the LRT? In the Transitway days, I get it. The ride was uncomfortable. Today? It's fairly painless. It's a bigger pain getting to GO trains at Union than it is to get to the LRT at Tremblay.
Well minus the lack of whether protection, enclosed environment, food stalls and other facilities that you might want to engage with after a 4+ hour train ride or whilst waiting for your train.
And functionally there's not much of a difference whether you're on the LRT for one stop or four.
And what about 0? There's a ton of stuff in Toronto whether its hotels, sports arenas, or the convention centre that's a short walking distance if not directly connected to Union. Particularly useful if you want to catch the train to the hockey game. Same thing applies to Montreal.
Realistically, you'll take what you get. Because what matters is getting it built. Not perfection. And if they can shave a few billion off the price tag by avoiding a certain stop or routing with minimal ridership loss, that is what they will do.

Also, at no point in this announcement, did anybody suggest that the Montreal stop wouldn't be in the core. So I have no idea where the speculation about Cote de Liesse is coming from.
Yes, which is why now is the best time to make noise about this to make sure this mistake isn't made. Maybe they're not going to, maybe travelling to Montreal via Laval (however that's going to work) is simply an option and not even the preferred option. Whatever it is its better to make noise about this now before a final decision is made, instead of what usually happens on this forum which is complaining after a decision has been made and we spend years chatting about what we should've done with 20/20 hindsight.
 
Right. And Tremblay has been that way before most of us were born. So what's the deal here? You think they should spend billions to rectify this?

Also, it's pretty hilarious that somebody who lives in the middle of nowhere wants to complain about Tremblay being in the middle of nowhere. Give it a decade or two and there will be more people living and working within a kilometre of Tremblay than your town. If there aren't already.
I'm walking distance of the VIA station, which is in town which is more accessible than the Ottawa station... There are plans to triple the population here with ten storey towers near the train station. So might be even densier than in Ottawa unironically.
 
I'm walking distance of the VIA station, which is in town which is more accessible than the Ottawa station... There are plans to triple the population here with ten storey towers near the train station. So might be even densier than in Ottawa unironically.
Wake us up when it happens. If we're all alive then. We've already been through how little growth your town has had over the last few decades. Good on them for thinking ahead. But that doesn't make those dreams the least bit realistic.
 
Last edited:
And what about 0? There's a ton of stuff in Toronto whether its hotels, sports arenas, or the convention centre that's a short walking distance if not directly connected to Union. Particularly useful if you want to catch the train to the hockey game. Same thing applies to Montreal.

Ottawa isn't Toronto. That shouldn't be a surprise. Heck, we'll see if the Senators end up playing within sight of Parliament Hill in our lifetime. And if the arena happens at Lebreton Flats, it's still 3 stops from Rideau Centre. Not walking distance from anywhere that a downtown HSR station would be. Would it be nice to have a station at the Old Ottawa station. For tourists maybe. For most of the people who actually live in Ottawa, they are getting there by LRT or a cab and it's not at all clear that the Old Ottawa Station would be better.

Yes, which is why now is the best time to make noise about this to make sure this mistake isn't made. Maybe they're not going to, maybe travelling to Montreal via Laval (however that's going to work) is simply an option and not even the preferred option. Whatever it is its better to make noise about this now before a final decision is made, instead of what usually happens on this forum which is complaining after a decision has been made and we spend years chatting about what we should've done with 20/20 hindsight.

Thankfully, $90B projects aren't being decided by who makes the most noise.
 
The federal press release is here:


From the above:

View attachment 702312
View attachment 702313

*** skipping the quotes ***

View attachment 702316

Here's the landing page for the Alto public consutlations:

Reading over the News Release, the thing that caught my eye was that they are highlighting that this first segment spans two provinces. It reminds me that as a federal project, its primary focus is interprovincial transportation. While there will be a lot of intraprovincial riders as well, by in large, that should be a provincial responsibility. I know a lot of people are complaining that it should have been extended to London prior to Quebec City, one has to look at the potential interprovincial ridership. The proposed end service will link the Provincial Capitals of the two largest provinces to the National Capital. It also happens to serve Canada's second largest city, because it is convenient to do so, and it will drive a lot of additional interprovincial ridership.
 
Reading over the News Release, the thing that caught my eye was that they are highlighting that this first segment spans two provinces. It reminds me that as a federal project, its primary focus is interprovincial transportation. While there will be a lot of intraprovincial riders as well, by in large, that should be a provincial responsibility. I know a lot of people are complaining that it should have been extended to London prior to Quebec City, one has to look at the potential interprovincial ridership. The proposed end service will link the Provincial Capitals of the two largest provinces to the National Capital. It also happens to serve Canada's second largest city, because it is convenient to do so, and it will drive a lot of additional interprovincial ridership.

I think if they concede at all to provincial demands, we'll go down the path of enshittification of this thing and end up adding a whole bunch of unnecessary stops. It's way too easy for some MPP in Madoc to start insisting that their town get a stop for fairness. And then it'll be some MP from Oshawa. And so on. And once the stops are there, the service demands will start.
 
Building the Ottawa-Montreal leg first is what many have always argued for, as it's the shortest (therefore cost containable, least risky and fastest to deliver), does meet the inter-provincial criterion, has definite ridership potential, and doesn't require or trigger the political opinions of those towards either end of the proposed line. Fewest landowners to consult.

A quick look at the map left me noting that it's only 12 miles as the crow flies from the old M&O line west of Vankleek Hill to the old North Shore line near Grenville. And that line passes through Laval. Sure there's a river in the way, but there are islands also. Twelve miles is not a huge amount of new land to acquire or environment to assess or new route to clear. Just saying.

- Paul

1765561548349.png

definite
 
Building the Ottawa-Montreal leg first is what many have always argued for, as it's the shortest (therefore cost containable, least risky and fastest to deliver), does meet the inter-provincial criterion, has definite ridership potential, and doesn't require or trigger the political opinions of those towards either end of the proposed line. Fewest landowners to consult.

A quick look at the map left me noting that it's only 12 miles as the crow flies from the old M&O line west of Vankleek Hill to the old North Shore line near Grenville. And that line passes through Laval. Sure there's a river in the way, but there are islands also. Twelve miles is not a huge amount of new land to acquire or environment to assess or new route to clear. Just saying.

- Paul

I would have preferred Dorval. But I can appreciate they are being pragmatic and routing whatever way is needed that will get this thing built. Even if they have to terminate at Cote de Liesse in Montreal. Better to get it built than add years of fights and billions over another tunnel. Only to get it cancelled by the next government. Less risk when shovels are in the ground. Terminus extensions inside cities can always be added later.
 
Better to get it built than add years of fights and billions over another tunnel. Only to get it cancelled by the next government. Less risk when shovels are in the ground. Terminus extensions inside cities can always be added later.

It may even be politically astute to underpromise and let the lower level politicians demand that it be extended to the core - rather than leading with a route downtown and having the same politicians complaining that the route is wrong.

- Paul
 
It may even be politically astute to underpromise and let the lower level politicians demand that it be extended to the core - rather than leading with a route downtown and having the same politicians complaining that the route is wrong.

- Paul

Maybe Quebec should be made to pony up if they want that downtown station, after they gave away the MRT. From a purely functional standpoint, I don't think the ridership losses between Cote de Liesse and Gare Centrale would be worth the multi-billion a second tunnel and Gare Centrale station integration might cost.
 

Back
Top