Category: Post-consultation

  • Two targets

    Two Targets

    Ridership figures in ALTO’s 2025-26 Corporate Plan and current public materials, side by side.

    In current ALTO materials

    ALTO’s Corporate Plan Summary 2025-2026 to 2029-30 — the formal accountability document submitted to the Minister of Transport for Treasury Board approval, signed by the Chief Financial Officer in January 2025 — cites a Project Outcome of at least 17 million annual passenger trips by 2059, defined to include “both Alto Passenger Rail Services and Local Services.”

    ALTO’s consultation website, as of May 6, 2026, continues to host a CEO opinion piece projecting 24 million passengers annually by 2055, “fully consistent with international outcomes.” A Globe and Mail editorial citing the same source extended this to 43 million by the 2080s. altotrain.ca

    Summary

    Two ridership figures currently appear in ALTO documents. The figure listed as Project Outcome #1 in the Corporate Plan submitted for Treasury Board approval is 17 million by 2059, defined to include both Alto Passenger Rail Services and the continuation of VIA Rail’s conventional Local Services. The figure in current public-facing materials is 24 million by 2055, rising to 43 million by 2084, presented in reference to Alto.

    The 17 million figure is the same target set in the 2023 Request for Qualifications, when the project was specified as 177 km/h High Frequency Rail at an estimated capital cost of $27.7 billion. It carries forward into the current Corporate Plan, which describes the project as 300 km/h high-speed rail at a Class 4 capital cost estimate of $60–90 billion. The Corporate Plan does not record a formal revision of the figure when the specification changed.

    This brief sets out what each document says, when each figure was published, and what other publicly available evidence indicates about ridership at the corridor scale. It does not draw conclusions about which figure is the operative one. The purpose is to make the documentary record visible.

    Download
    Two Targets — Full Brief (PDF)
    Documentary record of ALTO ridership figures across 2021–2026 publications
    Download PDF
    The Setting

    Why ridership figures matter for accountability

    A megaproject’s ridership projection anchors several other figures: the revenue model, the benefit-cost ratio, the modal-shift carbon argument, and the agglomeration economic case. When a ridership projection moves, related figures move with it.

    For ALTO, two ridership figures are currently visible in the public record. They appear in different documents, communicated to different audiences. This brief sets the two figures alongside each other, with the document trail and the available comparator evidence, and identifies the questions that would resolve which figure is the operative one.

    The brief is not an assessment of either figure on the merits. It is an assemblage of what has been published, in chronological order, with the structural definitions of each figure made explicit. Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.

    A note on dating the Corporate Plan

    The Corporate Plan Summary 2025-26 to 2029-30 carries a CFO attestation dated January 7, 2025. Several elements of its content, however, post-date that signature: it describes the February 2025 HSR announcement and Cadence selection, the March 2025 PDA execution, Stage 1 of Co-Development as having “occurred from April 2025 to July 2025,” and workforce figures “as of May 2025.” Appendix 12’s chronology ends with August 2025. The document was therefore finalised in approximately mid-2025, with the CFO attestation date preserved as the formal accountability anchor. References in this brief to the Corporate Plan should be read with that timing in mind.

    Side by Side

    The two figures, in their own words

    Both figures appear in current ALTO materials. Both are being communicated to different audiences in May 2026.

    Public Materials · May 6, 2026Corporate Plan to Treasury Board · 2025-26
    24 million by 2055, rising to 43 million by 2084

    From the Imbleau opinion piece originally published in the Toronto Star and La Presse on April 17, 2026, reposted on the consultation site as of May 6, 2026:

    “Alto’s projected 24 million passengers annually by 2055 is fully consistent with international outcomes, based on the modelling used worldwide.”

    The Globe and Mail editorial citing the same source extended this to “43 million by the 2080s, up from three million today.”

    This figure is referenced in connection with the project’s benefit-cost claims, the 1.1% GDP uplift estimate, and the 50,000-job projection.
    At least 17 million by 2059

    From the Corporate Plan Summary 2025-26 to 2029-30, Project Outcome #1, signed by the CFO January 7, 2025:

    “Significantly Increase Intercity Rail Passengers to at least 17 million by 2059 through both the new passenger rail services (NPRS Services) and Local Services through increased annual seat capacity.”

    The same figure appears in Appendix 9 (Long-term Outcomes) as: “up from 4.8 million in 2019, including both Alto Passenger Rail Services and Local Services.”

    This is the figure listed as a Project Outcome in the document submitted for Treasury Board approval.

    Three observations about the two figures, drawn from the documents themselves:

    The 17 million figure includes Local Services

    The Corporate Plan target counts “Alto Passenger Rail Services and Local Services” together. Local Services is the planning term, defined in the Corporate Plan’s glossary, for VIA Rail’s continuing conventional service in the Quebec City–Windsor corridor. The 24 million public figure, as presented, is referenced in connection with Alto. The two figures therefore measure across different scopes.

    The 17 million figure carries forward unchanged from the 2023 RFQ

    17 million by 2059 was the Project Outcome attached to the 2023 Request for Qualifications, when the project was specified as 177 km/h High Frequency Rail at an estimated capital cost of $27.7 billion. The same figure, with the same target year, appears in the Corporate Plan that describes the project as 300 km/h high-speed rail at a Class 4 cost estimate of $60–90 billion. Project Outcomes are formally established in procurement documents and are not trivially revised; the Corporate Plan does not record a revision to this figure on either the specification change or the cost-envelope change.

    The two figures use different baseline years

    The Corporate Plan cites a 4.8 million baseline from 2019 (pre-COVID). The Imbleau opinion piece cites “three million today.” VIA Rail’s 2024 Annual Report records 4.19 million corridor passengers, of which 3.34 million on Corridor East. The growth multiplier from each baseline to its corresponding target therefore differs.

    Document Trail

    When each figure was published

    The chronology below sets out the principal ALTO ridership figures in the public record, in order of publication.

    DateDocumentHeadline ridership figure
    December 2021 JPO Business Case Update v.002
    VIA / CIB internal (released via ATI, November 2025)
    405M cumulative30-year cumulative trips 2030–2059 for HFR Electric scenario, an average of approximately 13.5 million per year. BCR ~ 0.4. NPV −$21.1 billion.
    February 2023 Request for Qualifications (HFR)
    PSPC, 126 pp.
    17M by 2059The Project Outcome attached to the 177 km/h HFR specification at an approximate $27.7B capital cost. Zero operating subsidy was a parallel commitment.
    February 2025 HSR announcement
    Government of Canada
    Specification changeProject rebranded from 177 km/h HFR to 300 km/h HSR. Cadence selected as Private Developer Partner. $3.9B Co-Development Phase funding announced.
    March 2025 Fast Forward: Shaping Canada’s Future
    ALTO public document
    24M by 2055
    43M by 2084
    Stated baseline of “3 million today.” Used in subsequent ALTO public materials and consultation graphics; cited in the Globe and Mail editorial.
    CFO signature
    Jan 7, 2025
    (finalised
    mid-2025)
    Corporate Plan Summary 2025-26 to 2029-30
    Treasury Board submission
    17M by 2059Listed as Project Outcome #1. Defined to include “both Alto Passenger Rail Services and Local Services.” 4.8M (2019) baseline. CFO attestation dated January 7, 2025; document content references events through summer 2025.
    April 17, 2026 Imbleau opinion piece
    Toronto Star · La Presse · ALTO website
    24M by 2055Published one week before the consultation deadline. Described as “fully consistent with international outcomes, based on the modelling used worldwide.” Reposted on ALTO’s consultation site, where it remains as of May 6, 2026.

    The chronology has a feature worth surfacing on its own. The 24 million and 43 million figures first appear in the Fast Forward document of March 2025. The Corporate Plan, finalised in approximately mid-2025, references only the 17 million figure as a Project Outcome and does not mention, footnote, or otherwise acknowledge the higher Fast Forward figures. The April 2026 Imbleau opinion piece reverts to the 24 million figure for public-facing communications.

    In other words: since at least March 2025, the two figures have been running on parallel tracks. The lower figure has appeared in formal accountability documents (the Corporate Plan submitted for Treasury Board approval). The higher figure has appeared in public-facing communications (the Fast Forward document, the consultation website, the CEO’s opinion pieces, and external commentary citing them). Neither document has reconciled the two, and neither has stated which is the operative ridership target.

    Adjacent Disclosure

    The cost figure, in the same period

    The Imbleau opinion piece of April 17, 2026 contains the following statement on the project’s capital cost:

    “In order to finalize project cost, we need to know what is being built and where. We must choose the best alignment through consultation. Then comes detailed engineering for bridges, tunnels and the design; a 320 km/h train requires millimeter level precision.”

    The publicly cited Class 4 capital cost estimate is $60–90 billion. The Co-Development Phase funding of $3.9 billion has been approved and is being expended over fiscal years 2024-25 to 2029-30 per the Corporate Plan. The CEO’s statement above appears in the same publication on the same day as the 24 million ridership figure cited earlier in this brief.

    This brief makes no inference about the relationship between the cost statement and the ridership figures. They are presented here together because they appear in the same document and are part of the documentary record currently available to the public.

    Comparator Evidence

    Other publicly available ridership analyses for the corridor

    For context, three additional sources of corridor ridership analysis are part of the public record. Each uses a different methodology and a different scope.

    Munk School Global Economic Policy Lab (Toronto–Montréal segment only)

    The University of Toronto’s Global Economic Policy Lab published an analysis projecting 9.44 million annual passengers by year 20 and 10.45 million by year 30 on the Toronto–Montréal segment, which the GEPL identified as generating 57% of total corridor ridership. Scaled to the full corridor on the GEPL’s own segment-share assumption, this implies approximately 16–17 million by year 20. This is the only independent academic modelling exercise for the corridor that has been published with a disclosed methodology.

    JPO Business Case Update v.002 (December 2021, ATI release)

    The Joint Project Office Business Case Update released through Access to Information by the Canada Infrastructure Bank in November 2025 projects 405 million cumulative trips over 30 years (2030–2059) for the HFR Electric scenario, an average of approximately 13.5 million per year. The same document records a benefit-cost ratio of approximately 0.4 and a 30-year NPV of −$21.1 billion against a $27.7B capital cost baseline.

    VIA Rail Annual Report 2024 (current corridor baseline)

    The most recent published actual corridor ridership figure is 4,191,080 passengers in 2024, of which 3,336,057 on Corridor East (Quebec City–Toronto). The Montréal–Ottawa–Toronto segment alone carried 2,314,024 passengers. These figures were achieved with on-time performance averaging 51% for the year.

    No reconciliation between the ALTO 17 million Corporate Plan figure, the ALTO 24 million public figure, and these comparator analyses has been published.

    From the Documentary Record

    Five things visible in the public record

    Without drawing inferences about motive or intent, five observations can be made directly from the documents reviewed for this brief.

    1. The two figures have been running on parallel tracks since March 2025

    The 24 million figure was introduced in the Fast Forward document of March 2025. The Corporate Plan was finalised in approximately mid-2025; it references only the 17 million figure as a Project Outcome and does not mention or footnote the Fast Forward figures. Both figures remain in active circulation in May 2026: the 17 million figure in the Corporate Plan, the 24 million figure in the consultation website and the CEO’s April 2026 opinion piece.

    2. The two figures have different scopes

    The 17 million figure is defined as “Alto Passenger Rail Services and Local Services” combined. The 24 million figure, as presented in the Imbleau opinion piece, references Alto. The Corporate Plan does not break the 17 million figure into Alto-component and Local-Services-component shares.

    3. The 17 million figure was set under the previous specification

    17 million by 2059 was the Project Outcome attached to the 2023 RFQ for the 177 km/h HFR specification at $27.7B. The same figure carries forward into the Corporate Plan that describes the project as 300 km/h HSR at $60–90B, without a recorded revision to the target.

    4. The capital cost is also presented as a working figure

    The CEO has publicly stated that “in order to finalize project cost, we need to know what is being built and where.” The Class 4 estimate of $60–90 billion is, on this account, a working figure pending corridor selection and detailed engineering. The Co-Development Phase funding of $3.9 billion has been approved and is being expended.

    5. Independent ridership review remains unpublished

    The Parliamentary Budget Officer has not published a review of either the cost or the ridership figures. The only independent academic modelling exercise for the corridor with a disclosed methodology, the Munk School GEPL analysis, projects approximately 16–17 million for the full corridor by year 20 of operation.

    Where things stand · May 6, 2026

    Disclosure ledger

    The following items are, or are not, currently in the public record.

    Disclosed
    Corporate Plan ridership figure: 17 million by 2059, including Alto Passenger Rail Services and Local Services. Corporate Plan Summary 2025-26 to 2029-30, Project Outcome #1.
    Disclosed
    Public-facing ridership figure: 24 million by 2055, rising to 43 million by 2084. Fast Forward (March 2025); Imbleau opinion piece (April 2026); ALTO consultation website (current).
    Partial
    Definition of the 17M target. Disclosed in Appendix 9 of the Corporate Plan as including Local Services, but not surfaced in summary communications about the figure.
    Not disclosed
    Demand modelling methodology for either the 17 million or the 24 million figure. No model documentation, elasticity assumptions, modal-shift coefficients, or sensitivity analysis has been published for either figure.
    Not disclosed
    Reconciliation between the two figures. No public ALTO statement explaining the relationship between the Corporate Plan figure and the public-marketing figure, or stating which is intended to be the operative ridership target.
    Not disclosed
    The Alto-only share of the 17M target. The Corporate Plan does not break the 17 million into the share attributable to high-speed services and the share attributable to Local Services.
    Not disclosed
    Updated benefit-cost ratio for the current 300 km/h HSR specification at $60–90 billion capital cost against the 17M ridership target. The last published BCR (~0.4) was calculated against the $27.7B HFR specification.
    Not disclosed
    Door-to-door journey time projection from representative origin points, accounting for the now-likely suburban Toronto station and Tremblay Ottawa terminus. The 24M figure is presumed to assume downtown-to-downtown service that is no longer the operating reality.
    Not disclosed
    Independent demand audit results from the Parliamentary Budget Officer or comparable independent body, against either the 17M or the 24M figure.
    Download Full Brief
    Two Targets (PDF)
    Documentary record of ALTO ridership figures, with comparator analyses
    Download PDF
    Questions for the Minister and the PBO

    Six questions that would resolve the disclosure gaps

    The following questions, addressed to the Minister of Transport and to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, would surface the items currently undisclosed.

    Question 1 “Which is ALTO’s operative ridership target: the 17 million by 2059 figure in the Corporate Plan submitted for Treasury Board approval, or the 24 million by 2055 figure in the Corporation’s consultation materials and the CEO’s opinion pieces?”
    Question 2 “Will ALTO publish a breakdown of the 17 million Project Outcome figure into the share attributable to Alto Passenger Rail Services and the share attributable to Local Services?”
    Question 3 “Will ALTO publish the demand modelling methodology, elasticity assumptions, modal-shift coefficients, and sensitivity ranges underpinning both the 17 million and the 24 million figures?”
    Question 4 “What is the updated benefit-cost ratio for the current 300 km/h high-speed rail specification at the Class 4 capital cost estimate of $60–90 billion, calculated against the 17 million Treasury Board ridership target?”
    Question 5 “Has the Parliamentary Budget Officer been asked to review the ridership and cost figures underpinning ALTO’s benefit-cost case, and if so, what is the expected timeline for publication of that review?”
    Question 6 “Given the Corporation’s acknowledgment that ‘in order to finalize project cost, we need to know what is being built and where,’ what is the formal status of the $60–90 billion capital cost figure relative to the $3.9 billion in Co-Development Phase funding already committed?”
    Sources

    Primary documents

    1.
    VIA HFR–VIA TGF Inc. (Alto), “Corporate Plan Summary 2025-2026 to 2029-30,” submitted to the Minister of Transport for Treasury Board approval, signed by the Chief Financial Officer January 7, 2025. Project Outcome #1 (Executive Summary, Appendix 2, Appendix 9, Appendix 13).
    2.
    Martin Imbleau, “High-speed rail is not a leap of faith: Why it matters for Canada’s growth,” opinion piece published Toronto Star and La Presse, April 17, 2026; reposted on ALTO consultation website. altotrain.ca (retrieved May 6, 2026)
    3.
    ALTO, “Fast Forward: Shaping Canada’s Future with a High-Speed Rail Network,” explanatory document, March 2025.
    4.
    Public Services and Procurement Canada, “Request for Qualifications — High Frequency Rail Project (RFQ No. T8128-210188/C),” February 17, 2023. Project Outcomes including 17M ridership by 2059 and zero operating subsidy. 126 pages.
    5.
    VIA Rail Canada / Canada Infrastructure Bank, “JPO Business Case Update v.002,” December 2021. Released through Access to Information by CIB, November 2025. Source for 405M cumulative trips, BCR ~0.4, and 30-year NPV of −$21.1B for HFR Electric option.
    6.
    VIA Rail Canada, “Annual Report 2024,” published 2025. 2024 actual corridor ridership: 4,191,080 passengers; Corridor East subtotal: 3,336,057; Montréal–Ottawa–Toronto segment: 2,314,024.
    7.
    The Globe and Mail, editorial referencing ALTO ridership projections: “projected ridership numbers – 24 million trips annually, in the 2050s, rising to 43 million by the 2080s, up from three million today.”
    8.
    Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, Global Economic Policy Lab analysis of Toronto–Montréal HSR ridership: 9.44 million by year 20; 10.45 million by year 30 on Toronto–Montréal segment (57% of corridor).
  • Last mile

    The Last Mile

    What ALTO’s Toronto and Ottawa station decisions mean for urban residents — and for door-to-door travel times the marketing does not show.

    ⚠ Recent Developments

    On April 30, 2026, ALTO chief executive Martin Imbleau publicly confirmed that the Greater Toronto Area may receive two stations rather than one, with a suburban station built first because, in Imbleau’s description, a downtown station may take longer due to dense urban conditions. A timeline for the downtown station was not specified. CP24 / Canadian Press

    On May 1, 2026, federal Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon publicly indicated that the former Union Station on Rideau Street in downtown Ottawa is not an ideal location for the city’s high-speed rail terminal, citing geotechnical challenges. ALTO’s chief executive concurred separately on Radio-Canada that a downtown station would have to be underground and would slow trains. The existing VIA Rail station on Tremblay Road, east of the downtown core, has emerged as the operative option. Globe and Mail

    Critical Finding

    For urban residents in Toronto and Ottawa, ALTO’s marketed three-hour Toronto–Montreal journey is not a door-to-door figure. The station decisions now visible in the public record place the boarding and arrival points outside both cities’ downtown cores. The Toronto two-station framing defers the downtown station to an unspecified future timeline that may not arrive within this generation. The suburban station that gets built first will be the operational reality for the foreseeable future.

    The access and egress time this configuration adds at each end of every trip is not addressed in ALTO’s public materials. Door-to-door, the marketed three-hour Toronto–Montreal journey is closer to four and a half hours. The two-hour Toronto–Ottawa journey is closer to three to three and a half hours. The proposition that has carried ALTO’s political case — downtown to downtown in half the time — is not the proposition the disclosed station decisions deliver.

    Download
    The Last Mile — Full Brief (PDF)
    Extended urban impact analysis with Mirabel, HS2, and California high-speed rail precedents
    Download PDF
    The Setting

    What is at stake for urban residents

    Most public discussion of ALTO’s impacts has, understandably, focused on rural communities along the corridor — on farmland, on Eastern Ontario, on the small communities whose VIA service may be reduced or eliminated. That focus is appropriate: those communities sit directly in the path of a fenced sixty-metre right-of-way with three-metre security walls running for one thousand kilometres.

    ALTO is not only a rural infrastructure project, however. It is also an urban one — perhaps especially an urban one, since the project’s political case rests on the proposition that residents of Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal, and Québec City will be able to step on a fast train in their downtown and arrive in another downtown a few hours later. That proposition is the implicit promise behind the $60–90 billion price tag, the 51,000-job claim, and the $35 billion in projected GDP impact.

    The station decisions now visible in the public record — the Toronto two-station framing announced April 30, the Ottawa Tremblay-over-downtown signal of early May — bear directly on whether that promise will be delivered. They do so for urban residents who have not yet been a focus of the consultation conversation. The consultation that closed April 24 was overwhelmingly attended by residents of corridor communities along the proposed route. Urban residents at the corridor’s endpoints — the implied beneficiaries of the project — were largely absent.

    This brief is for them.

    Toronto

    Two stations, one of which is built first — and one of which is for later

    On April 30, 2026, ALTO chief executive Martin Imbleau told reporters that the Greater Toronto Area may feature two high-speed rail stations rather than one. The announcement was widely reported as a service expansion. Read carefully, it is something different.

    Imbleau’s framing was that a secondary station in a nearby suburb could ease the delays associated with constructing a downtown station — which, he indicated, would take longer to build given the dense urban environment. The suburban station gets built first because the downtown station is harder. The downtown station is to follow on a timeline that has not been specified.

    Three points follow from this disclosure that have not, in the reporting to date, been drawn out clearly.

    1. The downtown station has no timeline

    ALTO has not committed to a date by which a downtown Toronto station will be operational. It has not committed to begin construction of a downtown station at a specified point. It has not committed to designs, to a station location, or to a project envelope. The downtown station, at this stage, is a stated intent rather than a project deliverable.

    2. The suburban station will be the operational reality for the foreseeable future

    The Toronto–Quebec City eastern segment is, on ALTO’s own published timeline, the last segment to be built. Construction on the central Ottawa–Montréal segment begins in 2029. The eastern segment construction is to launch “simultaneously” with the central segment, but no completion date has been published. If the Toronto suburban station opens with the rest of the eastern segment, the downtown station — if it ever follows — would arrive years later.

    3. A second station that is never built remains a single suburban station

    Promises to build later infrastructure are common in public-sector mega-projects; their delivery is far less common. The federal commitment is to one station — the suburban one — with the downtown station contingent on technical, financial, and political conditions that have not yet been specified, let alone met. Until those conditions are met, the operational system has one Toronto station, in a location that is not yet identified, somewhere in the suburbs.

    ALTO has separately confirmed that Toronto’s Union Station is not the front-runner for the eventual downtown station either. At a Senate transport committee meeting in December 2025, Imbleau said the objective is a station “in the vicinity of Union Station,” without ruling Union itself out, but signalling clearly that it is not the leading option. The technical reasons have not been publicly explained, but the constraints are well understood: the Union Station Rail Corridor is already the busiest rail corridor in Canada, owned by Metrolinx and operated by Toronto Terminals Railway (a CN/CP joint venture), with platform and trackage capacity already constrained by GO Expansion. TorontoToday

    For an urban resident contemplating an ALTO trip from downtown Toronto, the question is therefore not “which downtown station will I leave from” but “which suburban station will I leave from, and how do I get there.” The published consultation materials identify a study corridor approaching Toronto from the east through industrial and agricultural areas, leveraging existing rail, highway, and utility corridors. The likely siting locations for a suburban station have not been disclosed; the candidates publicly speculated about include eastern Toronto, Pickering, Markham, and Scarborough.

    Ottawa

    How the downtown option was set aside

    Ottawa’s station decision is further along than Toronto’s, and the operative direction is now visible. Two locations were under consideration: the former Union Station on Rideau Street — the city’s grand 1912 Beaux-Arts terminal, currently the temporary Senate building, located steps from Parliament, the National Arts Centre, and the ByWard Market — and the existing VIA Rail station on Tremblay Road, built in the 1960s, located east of downtown along the city’s LRT line.

    Local consensus, as expressed publicly in the months before the consultation closed, favoured the downtown Rideau Street option. Mayor Mark Sutcliffe explicitly backed the downtown option in late January. Days before the consultation closed, the Ottawa Board of Trade, Invest Ottawa, and Ottawa Tourism issued a joint letter calling on ALTO to complete a feasibility study comparing both sites — including comparative ridership, catchment area, end-to-end journey time, and multimodal connectivity. The National Capital Commission, which manages the Rideau Canal and the surrounding heritage areas, expressed openness to collaborating with ALTO on a downtown station. Ottawa Business Journal

    On May 1, 2026, federal Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon, speaking with reporters at an unrelated announcement at Ottawa airport, indicated that the downtown Union Station option presents geotechnical challenges. He cited the 2016 Rideau Street sinkhole that opened during construction of the city’s LRT tunnel. ALTO’s chief executive, separately on Radio-Canada that week, told the broadcaster that a downtown station would have to be underground — which would slow trains and add complexity without growing ridership. CBC

    The Tremblay Road station, by contrast, is on the surface, on the LRT line, and has expansion capability. ALTO has not formally announced Tremblay as the chosen site — that announcement is expected with the narrower corridor disclosure in autumn 2026 — but the public signals from both ALTO and the federal minister now point in that direction.

    Three operational consequences of a Tremblay terminus are worth setting out, since they are not addressed in ALTO’s consultation materials.

    Tremblay is not within walking distance of the parliamentary precinct

    The station sits roughly four kilometres east of Parliament Hill. Arriving travellers reach downtown by LRT (approximately ten to fifteen minutes), by taxi or rideshare (similar time, traffic-dependent), or on foot (approximately fifty minutes). For business and leisure travellers whose destination is the central core — downtown hotels, the conference centre, the diplomatic district, ByWard Market — this is a meaningful door-to-door addition at every trip.

    The Tremblay catchment underperforms suburban Fallowfield

    Historical VIA boarding data — from 2001 when Fallowfield opened through 2019 — shows steady boarding growth at suburban Fallowfield while Tremblay’s share of Ottawa-area VIA boardings declined. The implication is straightforward: under existing intercity rail patterns, Ottawa-area passengers have voted with their feet for a station closer to where they actually live and park, and away from a station that requires a downtown trip first.

    A bridge crossing of the Ottawa River must still be built

    ALTO has indicated the corridor will cross the Ottawa River at a narrow point on a new rail bridge to enter Quebec. The siting and design of that bridge has not been disclosed; it is one of the largest engineering elements of the Ottawa–Montréal segment and will itself involve property acquisitions and environmental approvals on both sides of the river.

    Door-to-Door Reality

    The journey time the marketing does not show

    ALTO’s public materials cite headline travel times of approximately three hours between Toronto and Montréal, and approximately two hours between Toronto and Ottawa. These are train-on-track times: from when the train leaves the boarding station to when it arrives at the alighting station. They are not door-to-door times.

    The peer-reviewed satisfaction literature establishes that access and egress time at each end of a journey contributes independently to overall journey satisfaction and to mode choice — and that remotely-sited stations systematically underperform demand projections. Door-to-door time is what passengers actually experience and what they actually compare against alternative modes when deciding whether to use a service.

    For ALTO’s urban endpoints, the door-to-door reality with the now-likely station configurations is meaningfully different from the marketed train-on-track time. The table below sets out illustrative end-to-end times for three common journey types, comparing the marketed figure with a realistic door-to-door figure that includes access and egress at both ends.

    JourneyMarketed train timeRealistic door-to-door
    Downtown Toronto → Downtown Ottawa
    Suburban Toronto station · Tremblay terminus in Ottawa
    ~ 2 hours ~ 3 to 3.5 hours+ 30–45 min access (downtown Toronto to suburban station, GO or transit)
    + 10–15 min boarding buffer
    + 15 min egress (Tremblay to downtown Ottawa, LRT)
    Downtown Toronto → Downtown Montréal
    Suburban Toronto station · Northern Montréal/Laval terminus
    ~ 3 hours ~ 4.5 hours+ 30–45 min access (downtown Toronto to suburban station)
    + 10–15 min boarding buffer
    + 30–45 min egress (northern Montréal/Laval to downtown via STM/REM)
    Downtown Ottawa → Downtown Montréal
    Tremblay departure · Northern Montréal/Laval terminus
    ~ 1 hour ~ 2 to 2.5 hours+ 15 min access (downtown to Tremblay, LRT)
    + 10–15 min boarding buffer
    + 30–45 min egress (northern Montréal/Laval to downtown)

    Estimates above are illustrative and based on publicly disclosed station options as of May 2026. Final station locations on both ends remain under study. Access and egress times reflect typical transit and ride times to the parliamentary precinct in Ottawa, the financial district in Toronto, and the central business district in Montréal.

    The implication for urban residents is direct. The Toronto–Montréal trip the marketing presents as “three hours” is, in operational reality with the current station configuration, closer to four and a half hours door-to-door. That figure compares against the existing VIA service (approximately five hours, downtown to downtown) and against air travel (one and a half hours flight time plus approximately two hours of airport time, totalling approximately three and a half hours door-to-door from the central business districts). For travellers whose origin and destination are both downtown, ALTO with suburban stations at both ends will be modestly faster than VIA — but the gap is meaningfully smaller than the marketed figure suggests.

    For travellers whose origin or destination is itself in the suburbs — closer to the suburban station than to downtown — the ALTO configuration may be advantageous. This is, in effect, a reorientation of intercity rail toward suburban-to-suburban travel and away from the downtown-to-downtown framing that has been the marketing’s implicit promise. Whether that reorientation matches the demand profile underpinning ALTO’s ridership projections is a question the demand model documentation has not been published to answer.

    Legal Framework

    Bill C-15 and what it changes for urban property

    Most reporting on Bill C-15’s expropriation provisions has focused, reasonably, on rural land — on the farmers, the rural homeowners, the small-community residents whose properties sit in the path of the corridor. The framework, however, applies equally to urban property within ALTO’s eventual right-of-way and to any urban approach corridor that has not yet been narrowed. The legal mechanism is the same; only the property type differs.

    The High-Speed Rail Network Act, embedded inside Bill C-15 (the Budget 2025 Implementation Act), received royal assent in March 2026. It makes targeted amendments to the federal Expropriation Act for the ALTO project specifically. The four changes most directly relevant to urban property owners are these. Davies Howe

    No obligation to attempt purchase first

    The Crown is deemed to require the land for a public work, and the Minister proceeds directly to expropriation without first attempting a negotiated purchase. The standard requirement under the Expropriation Act — that the Crown must generally try to buy a property before expropriating it — does not apply to ALTO acquisitions.

    No in-person public hearings to contest

    The objection and public hearing process under sections 9 and 10 of the Expropriation Act is removed for ALTO acquisitions. Property owners retain a thirty-day window to file a written objection, but the in-person hearing process that would normally be available to contest the expropriation does not apply.

    Right of first refusal for ALTO

    Properties along the route may be subject to a registered notice of right of first refusal: if the owner wishes to sell, ALTO has sixty days to refuse or to buy. The mechanism applies to properties in the corridor under study and may attach before any individual property is formally identified as required for the project.

    Canadian Transportation Agency review excluded

    The construction of the railway lines is deemed approved under section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act, and the CTA is barred from rescinding that approval. The independent regulatory review that would normally apply to a major rail project is, for ALTO, not available.

    A Toronto expropriation lawyer interviewed by The Globe and Mail in November 2025 characterised the project as on track to be the largest number of expropriations in modern Canadian history by both dollar value and property count. ALTO chief executive Imbleau, in a CFRA interview on May 2, 2026, publicly estimated approximately 1,700 properties to be acquired across the corridor, of which approximately forty per cent — roughly 500 — would be farm properties. The remaining sixty per cent — approximately 1,200 properties — would not be farms. A meaningful share of those non-farm properties will be in the urban approach corridors into Toronto, Ottawa, and Montréal, and around station sites and bridge crossings. Globe and Mail

    As of May 2026, no list of urban properties potentially subject to acquisition has been published. The Toronto and Ottawa approach corridors have not been narrowed below the 10-kilometre study-corridor width. The two-station Toronto framing announced April 30 implies acquisitions around two station sites and along an approach corridor, the locations of which have not been disclosed. The Tremblay station decision implies acquisitions around the station and along the bridge approach to the Ottawa River, the location of which has not been disclosed. Property owners in those areas have not yet been notified individually because the corridor decisions that would determine which properties are affected have not been made.

    ALTO’s published timeline puts the corridor narrowing for the Ottawa–Montréal segment in autumn 2026, with formal letters to affected owners sent before public disclosure of the narrowed corridor. The Toronto–Ottawa segment is on a longer timeline with no published narrowing date.

    Cross-Cutting Findings

    Five patterns across the urban impact picture

    Looking at the disclosed information together, five patterns emerge that bear directly on what urban residents in Toronto and Ottawa can expect from the project as currently scoped.

    One area where commitment is concrete

    The procedural framework for property acquisition is now published. Compensation rules, independent appraisals, third-party cost coverage, and the legal sequence are all set out on ALTO’s Property Acquisition Process page. For the property owner who eventually receives a notice, the rules under which their property will be acquired are now clearer than they were before the consultation. This is a genuine procedural advance, even though the substantive decisions that determine which properties receive notices have not been made.

    The downtown-station gap

    For Toronto, ALTO has stated an intent to eventually have a downtown station but has committed to no timeline, no location, no design, and no project envelope for it. For Ottawa, the downtown option appears to have been set aside in favour of an existing suburban-fringe station. In neither city has ALTO published a true downtown station as a project deliverable with a date attached. The marketed downtown-to-downtown service is, in operational terms, suburban-to-suburban service with downtown-adjacent transit connections at each end.

    The door-to-door silence

    ALTO’s consultation materials, public communications, and benefit projections cite train-on-track times. They do not cite door-to-door times. The peer-reviewed mode-choice literature establishes that door-to-door time, not train-on-track time, governs the comparisons travellers actually make against alternatives. The ridership projections that anchor the project’s benefit-cost case have not been published in a form that allows the access-and-egress assumption to be examined.

    The local-consensus override

    In Ottawa, the downtown option was supported by the mayor, the Board of Trade, Invest Ottawa, and Ottawa Tourism, with openness from the National Capital Commission. The federal Transport Minister’s May 1 signal effectively overruled that consensus by characterizing the option as not ideal — without ALTO completing the comparative feasibility study the local stakeholders had requested. The decision was made before the analysis the local stakeholders asked for was published.

    The corridor-to-acquisition compression

    Urban residents whose properties may eventually fall within an approach corridor or station footprint cannot evaluate that possibility until the corridor is narrowed below the current ten-kilometre study width. ALTO’s timeline for the Ottawa–Montréal segment compresses corridor narrowing (autumn 2026), formal property-owner letters (before the narrowed corridor is publicly disclosed), and acquisition (late 2026 or early 2027) into a window of months. By the time urban property owners learn whether they are affected, the alignment will have been selected.

    Implications for autumn 2026

    What could still be disclosed before corridor narrowing

    ALTO’s working timeline puts corridor narrowing for the central segment in autumn 2026. Within that timeline, the disclosures urban residents need to evaluate the project cluster into two categories: items that ALTO and Transport Canada could publish now, and items that depend on broader federal decisions the acquisition framework cannot deliver.

    Deliverable now by ALTO and Transport Canada

    Door-to-door journey time projections For representative origin points in the GTA, the National Capital Region, and Greater Montréal, comparing the planned ALTO configuration against current car, air, and VIA travel. This is a single analytical exercise that could be published before corridor narrowing.
    Toronto downtown station criteria and contingencies A published statement of the conditions under which the downtown Toronto station gets built, including timing milestones, financial triggers, and the mechanism that ensures the downtown station is delivered rather than indefinitely deferred.
    Ottawa station selection rationale The technical and financial analysis underlying the apparent choice of Tremblay over the downtown Union Station option, including the comparative ridership and end-to-end journey-time analysis that the Ottawa Board of Trade, Invest Ottawa, and Ottawa Tourism formally requested.
    Urban property acquisition geography A published breakdown of the approximately 1,700 estimated property acquisitions by region, including the urban approach corridors into Toronto, Ottawa, and Montréal, with approximate counts and timing.

    Depends on broader federal decisions

    Procedural protections for urban owners Whether additional procedural protections apply to urban property owners, given that Bill C-15 removes the negotiated-purchase requirement and abolishes in-person public hearings to contest expropriation. This is a federal legislative question; the acquisition framework cannot deliver it.
    Meaningful consultation post-narrowing Whether the autumn 2026 consultation, which follows corridor narrowing, will accept input that materially reshapes alignment decisions, or whether it will accept comment only at the margin of decisions already made. This is a Transport Canada policy question.
    Independent transparency on the business case Whether the ridership projections, the demand model, and the access-and-egress assumptions underpinning the benefit-cost case will be released in a form that allows independent examination before construction begins. The May 2 working-assumption disclosure on the cost figure underscores how much remains unpublished.
    Where things stand · May 5, 2026

    Summary ledger

    In summary, against the disclosures urban residents in Toronto and Ottawa would need to evaluate the project:

    Disclosed
    Property acquisition framework: compensation rules, independent appraisals, third-party cost coverage, legal process. Published on ALTO’s Property Acquisition Process page.
    Disclosed
    Approximate corridor-wide acquisition count: 1,700 properties across the Toronto–Quebec City corridor, of which 500 are farms. ALTO CEO interview, May 2, 2026.
    Partial
    Toronto station configuration: two-station framing announced, but only the suburban station is committed; the downtown station has no timeline or location.
    Partial
    Ottawa station selection: Tremblay direction signalled, but no formal announcement and no published comparative analysis with the downtown option.
    Not disclosed
    Door-to-door journey times for representative urban origin points, comparing the planned ALTO configuration against current car, air, and VIA travel.
    Not disclosed
    Toronto suburban station candidate sites and the criteria for selection among them.
    Not disclosed
    Toronto downtown station criteria, timeline, and contingencies — the conditions under which it gets built rather than indefinitely deferred.
    Not disclosed
    Ottawa station rationale: the comparative ridership, catchment, and journey-time analysis the Ottawa Board of Trade, Invest Ottawa, and Ottawa Tourism formally requested.
    Not disclosed
    Urban approach corridor alignments for Toronto and Ottawa, including the Ottawa River bridge crossing point.
    Not disclosed
    Urban property acquisition geography: the regional breakdown of the 1,700 estimated property acquisitions.
    Not disclosed
    Multimodal connectivity at each station: timetable integration with GO, UP Express, TTC, OC Transpo, and VIA Rail.

    For the urban resident contemplating ALTO — not as an abstract national infrastructure project, but as a service they might use, near a corridor that may run near their home or workplace — the relevant disclosures are the ones that have not yet been made. The fall 2026 consultation is the next public window. By the time it opens, the central segment’s corridor will be narrowed and substantive alignment decisions will have been taken. Whether the consultation will accept input that materially reshapes those decisions, or whether it will accept input only at the margin of decisions already made, is a question the Minister of Transport has not yet answered.

    For urban residents, the time to ask the questions in this brief is now.

    Download Full Brief
    The Last Mile (PDF, 16 pages)
    Complete urban impact analysis for federal decision-makers, urban municipal leaders, MPs, and constituents tracking the urban impact file
    Download PDF
    Questions for Your MP

    Six questions that surface what has not been disclosed

    Federal MPs in Toronto, Ottawa, and the surrounding ridings will have constituents whose interests in the project are urban as well as rural. The following questions, addressed to the Minister of Transport via constituency MPs, would surface the disclosure gaps identified above.

    Ask your MP “What is the published timeline for the downtown Toronto ALTO station, what conditions must be met before it is built, and what mechanism ensures it is built rather than indefinitely deferred?”
    Ask your MP “Will ALTO publish door-to-door journey time projections for representative origin points in the Greater Toronto Area, the National Capital Region, and Greater Montréal, comparing the planned configuration against current car, air, and VIA travel?”
    Ask your MP “Will ALTO publish the technical and financial analysis underpinning the Ottawa station decision, including the comparative ridership and end-to-end journey-time analysis that the Ottawa Board of Trade, Invest Ottawa, and Ottawa Tourism formally requested?”
    Ask your MP “What is the geographic distribution of the approximately 1,700 properties to be acquired, and what proportion of acquisitions are expected in the urban approach corridors of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montréal?”
    Ask your MP “Given that Bill C-15 removes the requirement to attempt a negotiated purchase before expropriation and abolishes in-person public hearings to contest, what additional procedural protections will apply to urban property owners notified of intended acquisition?”
    Ask your MP “Will the autumn 2026 consultation, which follows corridor narrowing, include a meaningful opportunity to revisit the alignment, or will it be limited to comment on a corridor that has already been selected?”
    Sources

    Primary documents and reporting

    1.
    ALTO, “Map and Network,” ALTO project consultation materials, 2026. altotrain.ca/network-map
    2.
    Christopher Reynolds, “Toronto area could get two high-speed rail stations — not just one — says Alto CEO,” Canadian Press / CP24, April 30, 2026. cp24.com
    3.
    Bill Curry, “Ottawa train station isn’t ideal location for high-speed rail terminal, Transport Minister says,” The Globe and Mail, May 1, 2026. theglobeandmail.com
    4.
    Justin Ball, “Officials dim hopes for downtown Ottawa high-speed rail station,” CBC News, May 1, 2026. cbc.ca
    5.
    Cameron Mahler, “Sutcliffe backs downtown station for high-speed rail,” CBC News, January 28, 2026. cbc.ca
    6.
    “It’s going to hurt, but let’s make it work: Businesses support high-speed rail downtown,” Ottawa Business Journal, May 1, 2026. obj.ca
    7.
    “ICYMI: High-speed rail may not connect to Toronto’s Union Station,” TorontoToday, December 2025. torontotoday.ca
    8.
    Kelly Egan, “Ottawa’s original grand downtown train station under consideration for city’s high speed rail hub,” The Globe and Mail, January 2026. theglobeandmail.com
    9.
    Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025 (Royal Assent, March 2026); High-Speed Rail Network Act provisions. openparliament.ca
    10.
    Davies Howe LLP, “Bill C-15: Key Changes to the Federal Expropriation Act for High-Speed Rail Projects,” December 2025. davieshowe.com
    11.
    Bill Curry, “New expropriation powers in budget bill spark concern over high-speed rail megaproject,” The Globe and Mail, November 2025. theglobeandmail.com
    12.
    Priscilla Ki Sun Hwang, “How Alto plans to buy out property owners for its high-speed rail plans,” CBC News, May 1, 2026. cbc.ca
    13.
    Andrew Pinsent, “High-Speed Rail in Eastern Ontario: Rural Backlash, Land Expropriation and Next Steps,” CFRA / Substack, May 2, 2026. substack.com
  • 500 Farms

    Five Hundred Farms

    ALTO’s agricultural commitments measured against the public demands of Canada’s farm associations.

    ⚠ New Disclosure: ALTO CEO Confirms Acquisition Footprint

    ALTO chief executive Martin Imbleau has publicly estimated that approximately 1,700 properties would be acquired on the Ottawa–Montreal first segment alone — the initial phase of construction within the broader 1,000 km Toronto–Quebec City corridor — of which approximately forty per cent, or roughly 500, would be farmland. Land acquisition on this segment is to begin in late 2026 or early 2027, ahead of the 2029 construction start. Imbleau directly confirmed that some expropriation will be required. CFRA / Substack   CBC / Radio-Canada

    ALTO has not yet disclosed a comparable property or farm count for the remainder of the corridor (Ottawa–Peterborough–Toronto, and Montreal–Trois-Rivières–Quebec City). The agricultural footprint of the full network is therefore expected to be substantially larger than the figures above.

    Critical Finding

    Across the four major Canadian farm associations whose demands are operational rather than structural — OFA, UPA, CFA, and BFO — ALTO’s published agricultural framework substantively addresses one demand (tile drainage protection), partially addresses three (independent appraisals, third-party costs, qualitative crossings reference), and does not meet five (independent agricultural impact assessment before route selection; binding farm-access guarantees with minimum dimensions and spacing; protection of all actively farmed lands; recognition that HSR’s permanent impact is more significant than highways or transmission lines; and the four associations’ shared call for a project pause).

    The 500-farm figure is not, in percentage terms, large at the national or provincial scale. It is substantial in the geographic clusters where the alignment runs. ALTO’s chief executive’s disclosure forecloses the response that has been available until now — that agricultural impacts are speculative pending corridor selection. The associations are not asking for revisions to a framework whose existence they accept. They are, with the partial exception of NFU’s structural framing, asking for assessments that have not been done and protections that have not been committed.

    Two contextual findings frame the comparison that follows. The High-Speed Rail Network Act, enacted as Division 1 of Part 5 of Bill C-15 and given royal assent on March 26, 2026, modifies the standard federal expropriation regime for these acquisitions in four specific ways. And the most-cited academic survey of public support for the project — the Transportation Research at McGill corridorwide study (Zhang, Negm, El-Geneidy, 2025) — did not sample the rural communities along the corridor whose land would be acquired.

    Download
    Five Hundred Farms — Full Brief (PDF)
    Comprehensive demand-by-demand comparison of ALTO’s published commitments with the public positions of OFA, UPA, CFA, BFO, and NFU
    Download PDF
    The Footprint

    What 500 farms means in operational terms

    The May 2, 2026 disclosure is the first public quantification of the project’s agricultural footprint by ALTO itself, given in an interview with Andrew Pinsent published on Substack and aired on News Talk 580 CFRA. Three days later, Radio-Canada’s Mathieu Berger reported the same figures with a clarification on geographic scope: the 1,700 properties / 500 farms estimate applies to the Ottawa–Montreal first segment, not to the full 1,000 km Toronto–Quebec City corridor. The Pinsent interview also confirmed the acquisition timeline on this first segment.

    ~1,700
    properties to be acquired on the Ottawa–Montreal first segment
    Imbleau, May 2 interview
    ~500
    farm properties on the Ottawa–Montreal first segment (~40% of acquisitions)
    Imbleau, May 2 interview
    2026/27
    land buying begins on Ottawa–Montreal segment
    ahead of 2029 construction start

    Five hundred farms on the Ottawa–Montreal segment alone is not a small number for the affected agricultural communities. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture represents 38,000 farm families across Ontario; l’Union des producteurs agricoles represents 42,000 producers and 163,000 forest landowners in Quebec. As a percentage of the national or provincial farm population, 500 properties is a small share. As a count of farms in the specific geographic clusters along the proposed first segment, it is substantial — concentrated along the Ottawa–Montreal route through eastern Ontario and the agricultural regions of Quebec immediately east of the Ottawa River. The agricultural footprint of subsequent segments — Ottawa–Peterborough–Toronto, and Montreal–Trois-Rivières–Quebec City — has not been publicly quantified by ALTO; the cumulative total will be substantially larger than five hundred farms once the full network is mapped.

    Five hundred farm properties also represents a structural footprint at the landscape scale. With a 60-metre fenced right-of-way between three-metre security walls, no level crossings, and the engineering requirement that any tens-of-metres alignment adjustment requires approximately seven kilometres of straightening to recover, the corridor’s geometry is highly constrained. Five hundred farms means roughly five hundred site-specific severance, access, and drainage problems to solve, each shaped by local topography, the layout of the existing farm operation, and the position of the rail alignment relative to active fields, laneways, water sources, and farm buildings.

    ALTO’s published timeline now compresses what is operationally possible between corridor narrowing and acquisition. The Ottawa–Montreal corridor is to be narrowed from approximately ten kilometres to approximately sixty metres in autumn 2026. Formal letters to property owners affected by the narrowed corridor will be sent before the narrowed corridor is publicly disclosed. By the time agricultural impact assessment, mitigation framework development, and binding farm-access guarantees would have to be in place to meaningfully precede acquisition, the corridor will already be selected. Substantive change to the alignment will, by ALTO’s own engineering disclosure, no longer be possible at the metre or property scale once that selection is made.

    The Procedural Context

    A different regime applies to these 500 farms

    The 500 farm properties on the Ottawa–Montreal first segment do not sit within the standard federal expropriation regime that applies to other federal land acquisitions. On March 26, 2026 — 29 days before the ALTO consultation deadline of April 24, 2026 — the Budget Implementation Act, 2025, No. 1 (Bill C-15) received royal assent. Division 1 of Part 5 of that Act enacts the High-Speed Rail Network Act (HSRN Act), which establishes a project-specific statutory framework for the Toronto–Quebec City corridor and substantially modifies the procedural rights of affected landowners.

    Four operative provisions of the HSRN Act materially differ from the standard Expropriation Act regime that would otherwise apply:

    Section 17(2) — No required attempt to purchase

    Under section 4.1 of the standard Expropriation Act, the Crown must generally attempt to negotiate a purchase before resorting to expropriation. The HSRN Act removes this precondition for any “interest or right required for the high-speed rail network.” The Crown may proceed directly to expropriation without first attempting to buy the land.

    Section 17(3) — Ministerial discretion foreclosed

    The appropriate Minister “is deemed to be of the opinion” that the land is required for a public work, and “must” expropriate. The standard public-purpose determination is statutorily presumed rather than weighed on the facts.

    Sections 18(1) and 18(2) — Public hearing process removed

    Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Expropriation Act do not apply. The right to a public hearing before a hearing officer when an objection to expropriation is filed is removed. Affected owners retain a 30-day window to file a written objection under section 21 of the HSRN Act, but no hearing — no oral testimony, no cross-examination of the Crown’s evidence, no public record of the objection process.

    Section 23 — Market value exclusion

    Increases in value resulting from work undertaken after a prohibition-on-work notice has been registered are excluded from compensation. Owners who improve their land between notice and expropriation cannot recover the value of those improvements.

    The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, in its February 12, 2026 report on the relevant divisions of Bill C-15, recorded that “some witnesses highlighted the significant expropriation powers granted to the federal government as part of the HSR project, in particular emphasizing the removal of the public hearing process set out in the Expropriation Act.”

    The combined effect is that the 500 farms on the Ottawa–Montreal first segment will be expropriated under a more constrained procedural regime than would apply to any other federal land acquisition outside the HSR corridor. The framework ALTO has published — and against which this brief measures the agricultural associations’ demands — operates within this statutory context. The associations’ calls for independent assessment and meaningful consultation are made by communities whose standard procedural rights have already been narrowed by federal statute.

    The empirical gap

    The most-cited academic study of public support for the project — High-Speed Rail in Canada: Insights from a corridorwide survey and a financial analysis, published by Transportation Research at McGill (Zhang, Negm, El-Geneidy, 2025) — provides the headline finding that nearly 90 per cent of respondents perceive substantial benefits for Canada’s economy, international image, tourism, environment, and home regions’ growth. The figure has been cited as evidence of broad public support for the project.

    The McGill survey did not, however, sample the corridor landowners whose property would be acquired. Recruitment was conducted in October 2025 via paid advertisements on Facebook and Instagram targeting users within six Census Metropolitan Areas: Toronto, Montréal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Québec City, Trois-Rivières, and Peterborough. The survey did not sample the rural and small-town communities between these metropolitan areas — including the communities on the Ottawa–Montreal first segment where ALTO has now estimated 500 farms will be acquired. The 89 per cent benefits perception is a metropolitan-area finding; it does not speak for the people whose land would be taken.

    The same study records that even among its metropolitan-area respondents, around 30 per cent were moderately or extremely concerned about land acquisition and impacts on natural habitats. That concern figure, in turn, is generated from a sample that excludes the populations most directly exposed to those impacts.

    The combined picture

    The 500 farms on the Ottawa–Montreal first segment face a statutory regime that strips standard procedural protections, and an academic public-opinion record that was built without consulting them. The agricultural associations’ demands documented in the sections that follow — for independent impact assessment, binding crossing specifications, broader land-classification scope, and a project pause — are made in this context. They are demands made on behalf of communities that have been legislatively expedited and empirically unrepresented.

    ALTO’s Published Framework

    What ALTO has now committed to in writing

    ALTO has published, in two pages, the framework it intends to use for engagement with affected agricultural property owners. The Property Acquisition Process page sets out a four-step process applying to all property acquisitions: identification of required properties, direct communication with property owners, negotiations, and completion of the transaction. The Agricultural Land page sets out the elements specific to working with the agricultural community.

    Compensation: independent professional appraisals at the time of negotiation, with appraisal values explicitly excluding any reduction or appreciation in value caused by the project itself or by prior announcement of the project; market value plus agricultural and business losses; relocation costs where required; reasonable third-party costs covered by ALTO, including independent appraisal and legal fees.

    Infrastructure: pre-construction inspection of existing tile drainage systems with documentation of pre-construction conditions, repair or replacement of damage caused during construction, restoration of drainage function to pre-construction conditions, and replacement infrastructure at ALTO’s cost where changes are required. Topsoil to be stripped, stored, and replaced separately from subsoil. Three-metre security fencing along the future tracks, both temporary during construction and permanent before construction completion.

    Crossings: grade-separated overpasses and underpasses for people, vehicles, animals, and equipment, plus a parallel access road shareable with farmers; the long-term maintenance approach for grade-separated crossing structures is, in ALTO’s own published words, still being developed.

    Governance: an agricultural land trust under consideration as one approach to community benefits; collaboration agreements with associations under exploration.

    These commitments represent a meaningful procedural advance for ALTO. Before the consultation closed, the project had no written, public-facing acquisition framework. Owners and stakeholders had no document to point to. The framework now exists. The question this brief examines is whether the framework, as published, addresses what the major farm associations have publicly asked for.

    Comparison · Ontario & Quebec

    Ontario Federation of Agriculture & Union des producteurs agricoles

    On February 27, 2026, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and l’Union des producteurs agricoles issued a joint press release calling for an immediate suspension of the ALTO project. The release identified five operational demands directed to provincial and federal governments and to ALTO. Together they represent the agricultural producer community of the corridor’s two provinces. OFA/UPA

    The Association’s DemandALTO’s Published Commitment
    1. Stay out of prime agricultural areas. OFA describes Ontario’s farmland as a strategic provincial and national asset whose highest and best use is agriculture; the agriculture and agri-food sector contributes $51 billion annually to the Ontario economy and employs about ten per cent of the provincial work force. The proposed alignment is currently planned through some of the most productive farmland in Ontario and Quebec.ALTO’s published framework contains no commitment to stay out of prime agricultural areas. The May 2 estimate of approximately 500 farm properties on the Ottawa–Montreal first segment alone confirms that the alignment crosses substantial agricultural land. The framework references following existing property limits where possible, but this is a goal rather than a binding commitment, and the engineering constraints (60-metre right-of-way, 320 km/h alignment geometry, 7-km straightening recovery) limit how much this goal can be honoured in practice.
    Status:Not met
    2. Avoid breaking farms into smaller pieces; keep fields and farm operations whole. Severance — the bisection of a farm by the rail corridor with parts of the operation on each side — creates operational, drainage, access, and biosecurity problems that compound over the life of the farm.Aspirational language only. ALTO’s chief executive has stated publicly that ALTO will try to follow the existing limits of properties. There is no binding commitment to keep farm operations whole, no guarantee that severance will be avoided, and no compensation mechanism specific to severance impacts beyond the general agricultural-loss provision. The 60-metre fenced corridor with three-metre walls and no level crossings makes whole-farm preservation extremely difficult to deliver wherever the alignment crosses contiguous farm parcels.
    Status:Not meaningfully met
    3. Protect farm drainage systems essential for crop production. Tile drainage represents a significant long-term investment for farms; disruption affects both immediate productivity and long-term land value.Substantively addressed in the published framework. ALTO commits to pre-construction inspection of existing drainage systems with documentation of pre-construction conditions, repair of any damage caused during construction, restoration of drainage function to pre-construction conditions, and installation of replacement infrastructure at ALTO’s cost where changes are required. Temporary measures or compensation may apply during construction if drainage is affected. This is the closest match between an OFA / UPA demand and an ALTO commitment in the published framework. Enforcement during construction remains the operational test.
    Status:Substantively addressed
    4. Address farmers’ concerns about construction impacts and ongoing costs. Includes fencing, and the building, upgrading, and long-term maintenance of safe farm crossings for equipment and livestock.Partially addressed; the binding-specification demands are not met. On fencing: ALTO commits to install and maintain three-metre security fencing along the future tracks; temporary fencing during construction; permanent fencing before construction completion. On crossings: ALTO references grade-separated overpasses and underpasses, plus a parallel access road shareable with farmers. ALTO has not committed to crossing spacing standards, minimum dimensions, or any binding-specification requirement on crossings. The long-term maintenance approach for grade-separated crossing structures is, in ALTO’s own published words, still being developed.
    Status:Partially addressed
    5. Ensure agricultural impact assessments are independent, thorough, and publicly available. Without independent assessment, the operational implications of the corridor for agricultural production cannot be evaluated by farmers, by regulators, or by the public.No commitment in the published framework. ALTO’s published sequence is route first (corridor narrowed in autumn 2026), then letters to identified owners, then negotiations. There is no commitment to commission, complete, or publish independent agricultural impact assessments before the corridor is narrowed. The federal Impact Assessment Act process will provide one set of environmental and social assessments, but agricultural-specific independent impact assessment is not committed in the framework.
    Status:Not met
    Comparison · National Federation

    Canadian Federation of Agriculture

    On February 25, 2026, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture passed a resolution at its Annual General Meeting urging the federal government to immediately halt the ALTO project to allow for a thorough economic, social, and environmental impact assessment and meaningful consultation with affected agricultural, forestry, and rural communities. The resolution was put forward by UPA President General Martin Caron and seconded by OFA President Drew Spoelstra. CFA represents the federated provincial federations across Canada. CFA via OFA/UPA

    The Association’s DemandALTO’s Published Commitment
    1. Halt the project to allow for a thorough economic, social, and environmental impact assessment and meaningful consultation. The resolution conditions any subsequent agricultural protections on the prior assessment of whether the project itself should proceed in the proposed form.Not met. The project is proceeding to corridor narrowing in autumn 2026, with land acquisition on the Ottawa–Montreal segment to begin in late 2026 or early 2027. The published $60–90 billion cost figure has been characterized by ALTO’s chief executive (May 2 interview) as a working assumption rather than a cost estimate, with reliable cost estimates expected only in 2027 or 2028 after detailed engineering follows alignment selection. The project is not being halted for that work to be completed before route selection.
    Status:Not met
    2. If the project ultimately proceeds, properly sized agricultural and forestry crossings of minimum 10 metres. The 10-metre figure is specified in the resolution as the minimum that allows modern agricultural equipment, livestock, and forestry vehicles to cross safely with appropriate clearances.Not met as a binding specification. ALTO’s published framework references grade-separated overpasses and underpasses for people, vehicles, animals, and equipment, but does not commit to a minimum crossing dimension. The 10-metre minimum from the CFA resolution is not present in the framework. The long-term maintenance approach for grade-separated crossing structures is, in ALTO’s own words, still being developed.
    Status:Not met
    3. Fair, proportional compensation reflecting the permanent and more significant impact of the rail corridor compared to highways or transmission lines. The recognition that HSR’s impact is permanent and more significant than other linear infrastructure is the analytical foundation for the proportionality demand. The corridor will be fenced on both sides with three-metre walls, with no level crossings, in perpetuity.Partially addressed; the comparative recognition is absent. ALTO commits to compensation including market value, agricultural losses, business losses, relocation costs, and third-party costs. The recognition that HSR’s permanent impact is more significant than highways or transmission lines is not present in the framework. ALTO’s chief executive has compared the project to historical highway construction (May 2 interview), explicitly invoking the framing the CFA resolution rejects.
    Status:Partially addressed
    Comparison · Beef Sector

    Beef Farmers of Ontario

    On March 3, 2026, the Beef Farmers of Ontario formally endorsed the OFA / UPA position and called on the federal government and the Minister of Transport to immediately halt the ALTO project. BFO members voted strongly in favour of a resolution at the BFO Annual General Meeting on February 19, 2026. The BFO statement adopts the OFA / UPA five-point demand list and adds one specific BFO requirement. BFO

    The Association’s DemandALTO’s Published Commitment
    BFO’s additional demand: Protect all actively farmed lands, not only prime agricultural classifications. BFO writes that no lands currently in agricultural production should be impacted by the project — including marginal lands essential to livestock and forage production — unless comprehensive mitigation strategies, properly designed agricultural accommodations, and compensation that fully reflects both immediate and long-term operational impacts are secured in advance. Beef operations require contiguous land bases including pasture, hay ground, and grazing lands. Marginal lands by official classification often play essential operational roles in livestock and forage production.Not addressed. ALTO’s published framework does not differentiate between land classifications when describing acquisition. The 500-farm figure represents total agricultural property acquisitions, not categorized by classification. There is no commitment to broaden protection beyond prime agricultural land, no mechanism to recognize marginal-classification lands as operationally essential to livestock or forage production, and no guarantee that compensation will reflect the operational role of such lands rather than their tax or zoning classification.
    Status:Not met

    BFO’s additional demand sharpens the OFA / UPA list by requiring that protections apply to all actively farmed lands — pasture, hay ground, and grazing lands — and not only to lands meeting the formal prime agricultural classification standards. For livestock-based operations in particular, this distinction is operational rather than rhetorical: marginal-classification lands often carry the forage and pasture function that makes the rest of the operation viable. The framework’s silence on this distinction means that BFO members cannot evaluate whether their operations would be protected by the published commitments.

    Comparison · Structural Critique

    National Farmers Union

    The National Farmers Union has issued multiple statements on the ALTO project, including a national media release titled “Alto High Speed Rail: The Wrong Project, in the Wrong Way, at the Wrong Time” and an NFU-Ontario policy position dated March 2026. NFU’s position differs from those of OFA, UPA, CFA, and BFO in being structural rather than property-level. NFU vice-president of policy Phil Mount has additionally been quoted in The Globe and Mail (May 1, 2026) characterizing ALTO’s compensation framework as empty reassurances aimed at urban constituents seeking assurance that affected farmers will be treated right. NFU

    NFU’s ConcernALTO’s Published Commitment
    1. Transparency of the project’s underlying business case. NFU writes that ALTO has wrapped up its consultation process without releasing a feasibility study or business plan, and characterizes ALTO’s 2025 Explanatory Document as a marketing brochure rather than a substantive document. NFU notes that fully costed plans for HSR projects in 1995 and 2011 were rejected by parliamentarians once the numbers were published.The published framework does not address this concern, and the May 2 disclosure compounds it. ALTO has not released a feasibility study or business plan. ALTO’s chief executive has now publicly characterized the published $60–90 billion cost figure as a working assumption rather than a cost estimate, with reliable cost estimates to follow detailed engineering in 2027 or 2028 — after the corridor is selected. The federal benefit claims that depend on a cost figure (notably $35 billion in GDP impact and 51,000 construction jobs) inherit the working-assumption status.
    Status:Not addressed
    2. The public-private-partnership delivery model. NFU characterizes the partnership between ALTO (a Crown corporation) and Cadence (a multinational consortium including AtkinsRéalis, formerly SNC-Lavalin) as a delivery structure that severely limits public oversight and that, in the event of cost overruns, places taxpayers as the only party held accountable. NFU contrasts this with discrete private contracts for specific pieces of work with clearly-defined timelines and budgets.Not addressed. The acquisition framework does not speak to the project’s overall delivery model. Whether the framework itself can be enforced as committed depends on contractual mechanisms and oversight structures that are outside the scope of the framework’s published text.
    Status:Not addressed
    3. The absence of complementary public transportation infrastructure. NFU argues that successful HSR networks in other jurisdictions rely on a strong foundation of pre-existing complementary public transportation. Canada lacks that foundation: VIA ridership at approximately four million annually compared with the 1920s peak of fifty-one million; commuter mode share dominated by private vehicles in Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa; underdeveloped urban transit at the corridor’s endpoints.Not addressable through the acquisition framework. The published framework concerns property acquisition and engagement with agricultural producers. It does not speak to the broader transit-policy questions NFU raises. These are project-level rather than acquisition-level questions, and the framework neither answers nor purports to answer them.
    Status:Not addressed

    NFU’s structural objections occupy a different analytical register from the OFA / UPA / CFA / BFO operational demands. NFU does not say that ALTO’s compensation should be higher or that crossings should be wider; it says that the project as currently scoped should not proceed. ALTO’s published acquisition framework is therefore not the right document against which to measure the NFU position. The NFU position is, in its own terms, a position on the project itself — one that the May 2 working-assumption disclosure substantially reinforces.

    Cross-Cutting Findings

    Five patterns across the operational demands

    Across the four associations whose demands are operational rather than structural — OFA, UPA, CFA, and BFO — five patterns emerge.

    One area of substantive alignment

    Tile drainage is the only demand on which ALTO’s published framework substantively meets what the associations have asked for. Pre-construction inspection, repair-or-replace during construction, restoration to pre-construction conditions, and replacement infrastructure at ALTO’s cost where changes are required — these commitments respond directly and operationally to the OFA / UPA / CFA / BFO concern that drainage protection be guaranteed. The remaining test is enforcement during construction, but the published commitment is real.

    The binding-specification gap

    On the questions where the associations have asked for binding specifications — minimum 10-metre crossings (CFA), spacing standards, defined long-term maintenance commitments — ALTO’s published framework speaks in qualitative terms (“grade-separated overpasses and underpasses”, “parallel access road shareable with farmers”) without quantification. Imbleau’s May 2 acknowledgement that the long-term maintenance approach for grade-separated crossing structures is still being developed confirms the gap. Specifications that have not been committed at the framework stage will be very difficult to introduce after corridor selection, given the engineering constraint that alignment cannot be meaningfully moved at fine scales after that decision.

    The independent-assessment absence

    OFA and UPA’s fifth demand — that agricultural impact assessments be independent, thorough, and publicly available — is shared by CFA’s halt-for-assessment resolution and by BFO’s endorsement. ALTO’s framework contains no commitment on independent agricultural impact assessment. The federal Impact Assessment Act process will produce environmental assessments, but agricultural-specific independent assessment with the methodology, scope, and timeline the associations have asked for is not committed. The route-first sequence forecloses the possibility of an independent assessment informing corridor selection.

    The highway-comparison framing

    The CFA resolution’s compensation language calls for fair, proportional compensation reflecting the permanent and more significant impact of the rail corridor compared to highways or transmission lines. ALTO’s chief executive has, on the public record, invoked exactly the comparison the resolution rejects: the framing that the project must proceed in the same way large highways have been built in the past (May 2 interview). The comparison is not merely rhetorical: a fenced 60-metre right-of-way with three-metre security walls and no level crossings creates a more permanent severance than a highway of comparable width, where level crossings remain possible and where the right-of-way edge is not fenced as an absolute barrier.

    The pause demand

    OFA and UPA’s joint release calls for an immediate suspension of the project. CFA’s resolution urges the government to immediately halt the project. BFO calls on the federal government and the Minister of Transport to immediately halt the project. The four associations whose operational demands this brief examines are unanimous on the threshold question of whether the project should proceed in its current form ahead of the assessments they have asked for. ALTO’s framework is silent on this question because it is not within ALTO’s authority to answer; the Minister of Transport’s response to date has been to confirm the project’s timeline rather than to address the request for a pause.

    Implications for autumn 2026

    What could still be delivered before corridor narrowing

    ALTO’s chief executive has confirmed the project’s working timeline: corridor narrowing in autumn 2026, formal letters to property owners affected by the narrowed Ottawa–Montreal corridor sent before public disclosure of that corridor, land acquisition beginning in late 2026 or early 2027, construction beginning in 2029. Within that timeline, the items the associations have asked for cluster into two categories.

    Deliverable before corridor narrowing

    Independent agricultural impact assessment Commissioning, completion, and publication of independent agricultural impact assessments before the corridor is narrowed in autumn 2026 is operationally possible if begun immediately. The methodology, scope, and timeline would have to be specified now to allow completion within five months. (OFA / UPA / CFA / BFO)
    Binding crossing specifications Adopting a minimum 10-metre standard, plus a published spacing requirement, as a project commitment that will inform corridor narrowing rather than follow it. This is a single decision rather than a study; it could be made now. (CFA)
    Land-classification scope A commitment that protections apply to all actively farmed lands, not only prime agricultural classifications. This is a definitional decision; it could be made now. (BFO)
    Compensation recognition A published commitment that compensation will reflect the permanent and more significant impact of HSR compared to highways or transmission lines, with the methodology specified. This is a framework-level decision; it could be made now. (CFA)

    Depends on the project-level pause demand

    Pause for thorough assessment The four associations’ shared call for a halt to allow proper assessment is, by its own terms, conditional on the federal government’s willingness to pause the timeline. ALTO’s framework cannot deliver this because it is not within ALTO’s authority. The Minister of Transport’s response to date is the relevant indicator: as of May 2026, the project is proceeding on the published timeline.
    NFU’s three structural concerns Transparency of the business case; the public-private-partnership delivery model; the absence of complementary public transportation infrastructure. These are concerns about the project itself, and the May 2 working-assumption disclosure substantially reinforces the first of them. Whether they are addressed depends on decisions at the federal cabinet level, not at the level of ALTO’s published commitments.
    Where things stand · May 2026

    Summary ledger

    In summary, against the public demands of the major Canadian farm associations:

    Substantive
    Tile drainage protection (OFA / UPA / CFA / BFO): substantively addressed in ALTO’s published framework. Enforcement during construction remains the operational test.
    Substantive
    Independent appraisals at appraisal-date neutrality (overlaps with the spirit of the OFA / UPA / CFA / BFO compensation demands): substantively addressed.
    Substantive
    ALTO covers owners’ independent appraisal and legal costs (overlaps with the spirit of the compensation demands): substantively addressed.
    Partial
    Crossings — qualitative reference to grade-separated overpasses and underpasses (OFA / UPA item 4; CFA item 2): partially addressed; no minimum dimensions, no spacing standard, long-term maintenance approach still being developed.
    Partial
    Compensation — market value plus losses (CFA item 3): partially addressed; the recognition that HSR’s permanent impact is more significant than highways or transmission lines is absent.
    Not met
    Stay out of prime agricultural areas (OFA / UPA item 1).
    Not met
    Avoid breaking farms into smaller pieces; keep operations whole (OFA / UPA item 2): not meaningfully met.
    Not met
    Independent agricultural impact assessment, public, before route selection (OFA / UPA item 5).
    Not met
    Halt for thorough assessment (CFA item 1; OFA / UPA pause demand; BFO endorsement).
    Not met
    Minimum 10-metre agricultural crossings (CFA item 2): not met as a binding specification.
    Not met
    Protection of all actively farmed lands, not only prime agricultural classifications (BFO additional demand).
    Not met
    NFU structural concerns: not addressed by an acquisition framework, and substantially reinforced by ALTO’s May 2 working-assumption disclosure.

    ALTO’s chief executive has put the operational scale of the agricultural impact on the Ottawa–Montreal first segment at approximately 500 farms; comparable figures for the remainder of the corridor have not been disclosed. The public demands of the associations representing the farmers on those 500 farms — and on the farms across the rest of the corridor still to be quantified — are not, in the main, met by the framework ALTO has published. The associations are not asking for revisions to a framework whose existence they accept; they are, with the partial exception of NFU’s structural framing, asking for assessments that have not been done and protections that have not been committed.

    Download Full Brief
    Five Hundred Farms (PDF, 14 pages)
    Complete demand-by-demand analysis for federal decision-makers, farm associations, MPs, and constituents tracking the agricultural file
    Download PDF
    Sources

    Primary documents and statements

    1.
    Ontario Federation of Agriculture and l’Union des producteurs agricoles, joint press release, February 27, 2026. ofa.on.ca
    2.
    Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Annual General Meeting Resolution on the ALTO project, February 25, 2026.
    3.
    Beef Farmers of Ontario, statement on the ALTO High-Speed Rail project, March 3, 2026. ontariobeef.com
    4.
    National Farmers Union, “Alto High Speed Rail: The Wrong Project, in the Wrong Way, at the Wrong Time,” NFU media release; NFU-Ontario policy position, March 2026. nfu.ca
    5.
    ALTO, Property Acquisition Process page, published April 2026. altotrain.ca
    6.
    ALTO, Agricultural Land approach page, published February 17, 2026, updated April 2026. altotrain.ca/agricultural-land
    7.
    Andrew Pinsent, “High-Speed Rail in Eastern Ontario: Rural Backlash, Land Expropriation and Next Steps,” CFRA / Substack, May 2, 2026. Substack
    8.
    Mathieu Berger, “Montreal–Ottawa high-speed rail line could cross 1,700 properties, Alto predicts,” CBC News / Radio-Canada, May 5, 2026 — clarifies that the 1,700-property / 500-farm estimate applies specifically to the Ottawa–Montreal first segment. CBC News
    9.
    Bill Curry, “Ottawa train station isn’t ideal location for high-speed rail terminal, Transport Minister says,” The Globe and Mail, May 1, 2026 — carries the Phil Mount / NFU response to ALTO’s compensation framework. Globe and Mail
    10.
    Priscilla Ki Sun Hwang, “How Alto plans to buy out property owners for its high-speed rail plans,” CBC News, May 1, 2026. CBC News
    11.
    Budget Implementation Act, 2025, No. 1 (Bill C-15), Statutes of Canada 2026, c. 3. Royal assent March 26, 2026. The High-Speed Rail Network Act is enacted as Division 1 of Part 5; expropriation provisions discussed in this brief appear at sections 17, 18, 21 and 23 of that Act. parl.ca
    12.
    Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, Second Report (subject-matter study of Divisions 1, 2, 24, 28 and 29 of Part 5 of Bill C-15), February 12, 2026. sencanada.ca
    13.
    Zhang, B., Negm, H., & El-Geneidy, A. (2025). High-Speed Rail in Canada: Insights from a corridorwide survey and a financial analysis. Transportation Research at McGill, McGill University.