Tag: P3

Hours are not dollars

Hours Are Not Dollars

Almost none of ALTO’s $49.5 billion is money. It is time — and a saved hour cannot service a loan. Here is what that figure actually is, how it was built, and why it says nothing about who pays for the railway.

ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Economics Explainer · August 2026 · Companion to the audit It Left the Rules Behind

⚠ Where the Number Sits

In August 2026 ALTO published Canada’s Moment: The Economic Opportunity of High-Speed Rail, reporting $49.5 billion in benefits against a construction cost of $60 to $90 billion. Those benefits are not money in a bank account. They are mostly hours — time that travellers would have spent on the road or at an airport — stretched over sixty years and converted into today’s dollars.1

The tool that does the converting is called a discount rate. ALTO uses 3.5 per cent a year. Change that one number and the headline changes by tens of billions, without a single train or passenger changing.

In One Paragraph

The $49.5 billion is a measure of worth, not of funds. The tool that produces it, a discount rate, answers the question is this worth doing? It does not answer the question who pays, and how? Those are separate ledgers, and ALTO’s report is detailed on the first and thin on the second. This explainer sets out what the rate does, shows the arithmetic openly, and then follows the money to the place the appraisal never goes: the difference between what it costs the government to borrow and what a private partner needs to earn.

One finding runs against the grain and is stated here first. Two of the adjustments ALTO leaves out would have made its benefit figure larger, not smaller. The problem is not that the number is tilted. The problem is that a reader is given one number, no range, and no way to know that any of these choices were made.

Start Here

What a discount rate is, in ordinary words

Ask yourself a simple question. Would you rather have $100 today, or $100 in forty years? Almost everyone takes it today. The money is useful now, the future is uncertain, and by 2066 we will probably all be somewhat better off anyway, so $100 will matter a little less to us then than it does now.

Economists turn that instinct into a percentage. A discount rate shrinks future amounts back to what they are worth to us today, by a fixed amount each year. At 3.5 per cent, a benefit arriving sixty years from now counts for about 13 cents on the dollar. At 8 per cent, the same benefit counts for about one cent.

That is the whole mechanism. It sounds technical and it is arithmetically simple. But it matters enormously for a railway, because of when the money and the benefits arrive.

13¢

what a dollar of benefit in year 60 is worth today at ALTO’s 3.5 per cent

23¢

the same dollar at 2.5 per cent, the rate ALTO’s own cited manual requires be tested

1¢

the same dollar at 8 per cent, the rate identified in 2007 Treasury Board guidance

The timing is what makes this decisive. Construction money is spent early — from 2029 through the early 2040s — so it is barely shrunk at all. The benefits arrive later and keep arriving for sixty years, so they are shrunk heavily. Anything that changes the rate therefore hits the benefit side hard and the cost side hardly at all. A project’s whole case can move from comfortable to marginal without anything physical changing.

The Arithmetic, Shown Openly

How much the answer moves

The table below is the Initiative’s own arithmetic, not a re-run of ALTO’s model. It takes a steady stream of benefits running for sixty years, beginning fifteen years from now, and asks what that stream is worth in today’s dollars at different rates. The last column simply scales ALTO’s published $49.5 billion by the same proportion, to show the size of the swing.

Discount rate used	Value of the stream	Relative to 3.5%	$49.5B scaled
2.5 per cent	21.34	1.43×	$71.0B
3.0 per cent	17.76	1.19×	$59.1B
3.5 per cent — ALTO’s rate	14.89	1.00×	$49.5B
UK declining schedule	15.61	1.05×	$51.9B
5 per cent	9.11	0.61×	$30.3B
7 per cent	5.09	0.34×	$16.9B
8 per cent	3.90	0.26×	$13.0B

Assumptions, stated so the arithmetic can be checked: a level benefit stream of one dollar per year, sixty years of operation beginning in year 16, discounted back to a year-zero base. ALTO’s real benefit stream ramps up rather than running level, so the exact figures would differ; the proportions are what matter here. The scaled column is illustrative and is not ALTO’s number at those rates.

Read the middle rows first. At 8 per cent, the same railway carrying the same passengers saving the same hours produces a benefit figure roughly a quarter the size. At 2.5 per cent it produces one roughly forty per cent larger. Nothing about the trains changed. Only the parameter changed.

This is why appraisal manuals require the calculation to be repeated at more than one rate and the results published as a range. It is not a bureaucratic formality. It is the only way a reader can tell whether a case is robust or whether it depends on a parameter choice.

Where 3.5 Per Cent Comes From

A number with a family tree

ALTO’s report attributes its rate to one source: the Business Case Manual Volume 2: Guidance, published by Metrolinx, the Government of Ontario’s transit agency for the Toronto and Hamilton region.2 That manual sets a social discount rate of 3.5 per cent, alongside an evaluation period of five to sixty years.

The 3.5 per cent figure is not original to Metrolinx. It is the rate used by HM Treasury in the United Kingdom, and the Treasury publishes exactly how it was assembled. Three judgements are added together:

0.5 per cent for simple impatience. People prefer good things sooner. Half a percentage point is the allowance for that.

1.0 per cent for the risk that the future does not arrive as expected. Wars, pandemics, collapses. A benefit promised in 2080 might never materialise, so it is discounted a little further.

2.0 per cent because people in the future will be richer. If incomes rise about 2 per cent a year, our grandchildren will be considerably better off than we are, and an extra dollar will matter less to them than it does to us. This is the largest of the three, and the most contestable.

Those three add to 3.5.3

Notice what the rate is not. It is not a market price, an interest rate, or anything anyone can look up. It is a set of judgements about how much weight to give people who are not yet born — and every one of the three is disputed by serious people. That is not a criticism of the figure. It is the reason a serious appraisal shows what happens when the figure moves.

The detail that cuts in ALTO’s favour

HM Treasury does not apply 3.5 per cent forever. The rate steps down to 3.0 per cent for years 31 to 75, and 2.5 per cent thereafter,3 and the Treasury’s supplementary guidance instructs practitioners in the same terms: the standard 3.5 per cent for years 1 to 30, and 3.0 per cent for years 31 to 75.4 The reason is uncertainty: the further out you look, the less confident anyone can be in the parameters, and the lower the rate should be.

ALTO discounts a sixty-year stream at a flat 3.5 per cent throughout. Applying the stepped-down schedule instead would have made ALTO’s benefit total about five per cent larger, as the fourth row of the table above shows. This is a conservatism in ALTO’s favour, and it should be credited as one. It is recorded here because a reader assessing where a federal appraisal input came from deserves the whole picture, including the parts that do not fit a critical narrative.

The Canadian Comparison

What the federal government uses, and the gap where a manual should be

Canada has approached the same question from the opposite end, and it is worth understanding the difference, because it produces a far higher number.

The British method asks a question about values: how much should we care about the future? The Canadian method asks a question about alternatives: what else could this money have done? If public money invested elsewhere in the economy would have earned, say, 8 per cent, then a project has to clear that bar to be worth funding — otherwise the country was better off doing the other thing. That is what economists mean by the opportunity cost of capital.

Neither question is wrong. They are simply different questions, and the second one produces a much tougher test than the first.

The Treasury Board’s 2007 guidance identified 8 per cent as the appropriate rate, with sensitivity tests at 3 and 10 per cent, on that opportunity-cost basis.5 The current federal Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis still directs departments to use the opportunity cost of capital as the discount rate, permitting a social rate only in defined cases — including where impacts run fifty years or more — and requiring that even when a social rate is used, results using the opportunity cost of capital must also be reported.6

Two honest qualifications belong here, and neither is small. First, that federal policy governs regulations, not capital projects, so it does not bind ALTO. Second, the current edition of the Treasury Board guide is no longer published on canada.ca and is available only through an internal government wiki page,7 so the Initiative has not been able to verify the figure it now specifies.

And the federal manual for transport projects specifically? Transport Canada’s guide to benefit-cost analysis dates from 1994.8 Thirty-two years later, there is no current, public federal appraisal manual for a project of this kind. That absence is very likely why a national railway is being appraised using a provincial transit agency’s parameters — and it is a finding about the machinery of government rather than about ALTO.

Even the academic case for 3.5 per cent has conditions

The most cited Canadian argument for a 3.5 per cent rate comes from the economists Boardman, Moore and Vining, who reject the 8 per cent approach. So there is a respectable Canadian case for ALTO’s rate. But it is a conditional case, and the conditions are specific.

Condition one: the project runs under fifty years. Beyond that, they recommend a rate that steps down over time, for the same reason the UK Treasury does — nobody can see that far ahead with confidence.

Condition two: the project must not pull money away from private investment. The money for a public project comes from taxes or borrowing, and it would otherwise have been used by someone else. Some of it would have been spent, and some would have been invested — a business expansion, new equipment, a factory. Those two are not equivalent. A dollar diverted from someone’s spending costs the economy that one dollar. A dollar diverted from investment costs more, because that investment would have gone on producing returns for years afterwards.

And if the project does pull money from investment, there is a fix. Rather than argue about the rate all over again, you take the portion of the cost that displaced private investment and mark it up by 26 per cent before putting it in the calculation — because that is roughly what the lost investment was worth to the economy over time. Economists call the 1.26 multiplier a shadow price of capital. It is simply a way of using a generous discount rate honestly, instead of using it to pretend the money was free.5

ALTO’s appraisal period is sixty years, which fails the first condition outright. Whether a $60 to $90 billion draw on Canadian capital displaces private investment is a real question, not a technicality — and the mark-up would apply only to the share that does, not to the whole sum. Neither condition is mentioned in the report.

The pattern is the one the companion audit It Left the Rules Behind describes: a number travels, and the conditions attached to it stay behind.

The Precedent

The last time anyone published these numbers for this corridor

ALTO’s stated reason for publishing no benefit-cost ratio is that the cost estimate is not yet mature enough to support one. It is worth knowing that a predecessor project on the same corridor did publish one, at a comparable stage, and published the funding ledger alongside it.

In December 2021 the Joint Project Office — a body formed by VIA Rail and the Canada Infrastructure Bank — completed a Business Case Update for High Frequency Rail, the slower, cheaper predecessor to ALTO between Toronto and Québec City. It was released through access to information by the Canada Infrastructure Bank in November 2025.16

What the 2021 business case published	Figure
Capital cost, with electrification (2020 prices)	$27.71B
Projected revenue over 30 years (2019 prices)	$33.7B
Operations, maintenance and rehabilitation, 30 years	$32.5B
Net present value over 30 years	−$21.1B
Benefit-cost ratio	~0.13
Expanded benefit-cost ratio	~0.4
Public subsidy over 30 years, by delivery model	$37.1B to $42.2B

Source: Joint Project Office, High Frequency Rail Business Case Update V.002, 10 December 2021. Ratios at Table 14, page 43; capital, revenue, lifecycle and net present value figures in the executive summary, pages 7 and 8; subsidy comparison at Table 4, page 8.

A benefit-cost ratio of 0.13 means about thirteen cents of measured benefit for every dollar of cost. The wider figure of 0.4 is what the same table calls an expanded ratio, and the difference between the two is worth understanding, because it is the larger of the two numbers.

The expansion adds two items. One is agglomeration — the economic gain from businesses being better connected — worth $0.3 to $0.9 billion. The other, worth $5.6 to $7.6 billion, is a resource correction: the fares new passengers would pay, counted as a benefit because they arrive as revenue for the operator. That single item is larger than the journey time savings and all the external benefits put together. The business case itself notes that both are relatively new to Canadian economic appraisal, which is why it reports the ratio with and without them.

The same two sources, five years apart

The 2021 economic case states where its parameters came from: the social discount rate, the value of time and the value of external impacts were taken from a combination of Metrolinx and Ministère des Transports du Québec guidance. Those are the same two sources ALTO cites in 2026.

So the identical parameter lineage, applied to a $27.71 billion version of this corridor, produced a published ratio of 0.13. Five years later, on a project costing two to three times as much, the same two sources are cited and no ratio is published at all.

And it kept the two ledgers apart

The 2021 document also shows how the distinction this page has been drawing is meant to work in practice. Its net present value calculation used a discount rate of 2.5 per cent, sourced explicitly to the ten-year average of the 30-year Government of Canada benchmark bond — a financing rate, taken from what the government actually pays to borrow. Its economic case used the social parameters from Metrolinx and MTQ. Two questions, two rates, both disclosed, in a single document.

Three cautions, stated plainly. High Frequency Rail is not ALTO: different technology, different speed, a $27.71 billion cost rather than $60 to $90 billion, and a thirty-year evaluation rather than sixty. The JPO described its own results as preliminary. And none of these figures transfer to ALTO by arithmetic. What the document establishes is narrower and harder to set aside: a benefit-cost ratio can be produced for a project on this corridor at this stage of development, because one was.

One further point belongs on the record. The identical document was also released under a separate access request, and in that version the whole net present value section, the capital cost figure, the revenue figure and both ratios were blacked out — along with the subsection titles of the Economic Case within the table of contents, and the construction employment figure in the executive summary. No exemption provision is marked against any of it.17 Same document, same date, two releases, opposite outcomes.

Following the Money

Three different rates, and only one of them is in the report

Here is the heart of it. People use the phrase “the discount rate” for three quite different things, and conflating them is how an appraisal result gets mistaken for a financing plan.

1. The appraisal rate — 3.5 per cent

Used to decide whether a project is worth doing. No money moves because of it. It turns hours saved and collisions avoided into a single present-day figure so they can be compared with the cost. Nobody charges it, nobody pays it, and no bank uses it.

2. What it costs the government to borrow

Real money, actually paid. When the federal government borrows for thirty years it has been paying in the region of 3.7 to 3.9 per cent during 2026. Take off inflation, which the Bank of Canada aims to hold at 2 per cent, and the true cost of the money is roughly two per cent a year.9 If the state simply builds the railway and holds it, this is what the borrowing actually costs, and it is lower than the appraisal rate.

3. What a private partner needs to earn

Considerably more. If a pension fund or infrastructure investor builds the railway, it is putting its own money at risk — the risk that construction costs more than planned, or that too few people ride. It requires a return for carrying that risk, and that return is paid out every year for decades. This is the rate that decides what the public actually hands over, and it appears nowhere in ALTO’s economic report.

The gap between the second and the third is the entire public-private question. If the government borrows at 2 per cent and builds the railway itself, that is what the money costs. If a private partner builds it instead and needs 8 per cent, someone has to make up the difference — every year, for as long as the arrangement lasts. That someone is the public.

So a project can pass the 3.5 per cent test comfortably and still require very large annual public payments to get built. The appraisal will go on saying “worth doing.” It will never say who writes the cheque, for how long, or at what return.

Why the $49.5 billion cannot pay for anything

This is the point most easily missed, and it is not a technicality. Nearly all of ALTO’s benefit figure is not cash. It is hours of travel time, collisions that did not happen, tonnes of emissions avoided. These are real and they matter. But a saved hour cannot service a loan, meet a payroll, or renew a worn rail.

The money that actually funds a railway comes from two places only: fares, and government payments. ALTO’s report handles that second ledger in a few pages, supported chiefly by the operating margins of three foreign railways, and it publishes no fare, no revenue figure and no farebox recovery ratio. So the document is expansive about whether the project is worth doing and close to silent about how it would be paid for.

A Canadian Example, Fully Documented

How the Montréal REM is actually funded

The Réseau express métropolitain is a 67-kilometre automated light metro in Greater Montréal, built, owned and operated by CDPQ Infra, a subsidiary of the Québec pension fund manager. It is the clearest Canadian illustration of what the third rate looks like once it becomes money, and its terms are public.10

Who put up the capital

CDPQ Infra $2.95B; the Government of Québec $1.283B; the Government of Canada $1.283B; Hydro-Québec $295M; the regional transit authority $512M. The construction estimate rose from $6.3 billion in 2018 to $7.95 billion by 2023, an increase CDPQ Infra absorbed under its agreement.11

How the money returns

Not through fares. The regional transit authority pays CDPQ Infra 72 cents for every kilometre every passenger travels, indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index. That single rate covers construction, operation and long-term maintenance.12

If ridership beats forecast

The rate steps down. CDPQ Infra has described trips beyond 15 per cent above forecast being paid at roughly 57 cents, and trips beyond 40 per cent above forecast at the user fare itself.13

The two return targets

8 to 9 per cent for CDPQ Infra. 3.7 per cent for the governments. Both were set at the outset and publicly reaffirmed during construction.14

That pair of numbers is the whole point of this section, made concrete. The same railway, the same track, the same passengers — and two participants requiring returns that differ by more than double. The difference is not a rounding error in an appraisal. It is paid out, in cash, on every passenger-kilometre, for as long as the agreement runs.

Why this case and not another. The REM is not an analogy picked at random. CDPQ Infra leads Cadence, the consortium selected in February 2025 as ALTO’s private development partner. AtkinsRéalis — formerly SNC-Lavalin, a member of the group that built the REM and, with Alstom, of the group that supplies and operates its trains — is also a Cadence member. The other Cadence members are SYSTRA Canada, Keolis Canada, SNCF Voyageurs and Air Canada.18 The REM is the lead sponsor’s own model, which CDPQ Infra presents publicly as an innovative approach to delivering public infrastructure. That is what makes it the most informative available guide to how a private partner’s return might be priced here.

An important caution. ALTO is nonetheless not the REM, and this is not a prediction. Canada is to retain permanent ownership of the ALTO network, which was never the REM arrangement; the project is in a co-development phase running to 2029; and no payment mechanism has been disclosed. Cadence is a different group with different members and a different contract. The REM is offered as the one Canadian case where the arithmetic of a private partner’s return has been made public — which is exactly what has not yet happened for a project several times its size.

Notice what a payment mechanism does with risk. Because CDPQ Infra is paid per passenger-kilometre, a shortfall in riders is a shortfall in its own revenue — the investor carries the demand risk. Under a different structure, where the public pays for the railway simply being available, a shortfall in riders changes nothing the partner receives and everything the public pays.

Same railway, same disappointing ridership, opposite consequences. Which of those applies to ALTO has not been published.

Limits of This Explainer

What this does not claim

On the rate

3.5 per cent is not wrongIt is a mainstream, well-supported choice for long-lived public investment. This explainer does not argue that ALTO’s rate is too low.

Two omissions favour ALTOBoth the stepped-down schedule and the sensitivity test its cited manual requires would have produced a larger benefit figure. The omissions do not all run one way.

The arithmetic is illustrativeThe table uses a level benefit stream and a stated start year. It shows the shape of the sensitivity, not a recalculation of ALTO’s result.

The 2021 ratios are not ALTO’sHigh Frequency Rail was a different and cheaper project assessed over thirty years, and its authors called the results preliminary. Those figures are cited as evidence that a ratio can be produced at this stage, not as an estimate of ALTO’s.

On the comparisons

Nothing here binds ALTOMetrolinx guidance, UK Treasury practice and federal regulatory policy carry no legal force over this project. They are offered as points of comparison, one of which ALTO chose to cite itself.

The federal figure is unverifiedThe 8 per cent rate is documented from 2007 guidance through peer-reviewed sources. The current edition of that guide is not publicly posted, and the Initiative does not assert what it now specifies.

We do not say whyWhere the report does not state something — a fare, a payment mechanism, a sensitivity test, a range — this page says so rather than inferring it, and makes no claim about why any figure was or was not published, or about the intentions of anyone who prepared it.

This is a public report, not a business caseA submission to Cabinet in 2029 may contain material this document does not. What is examined here is what has been placed in public.

What Would Settle It

Two questions, answerable without releasing a model

1. Who absorbs it if the passengers do not come?

Not a forecasting question but a contract question. If a partner is paid per passenger, a shortfall reduces its return. If it is paid for availability, a shortfall costs the partner nothing and the public a great deal. Identical ridership, opposite outcomes — and ALTO has published neither the mechanism nor the cost of capital behind it.

2. What fare, and what revenue?

No fare level, average yield or farebox recovery ratio appears in eighty-three pages. Without one, the funding question cannot be examined by anyone outside the project.

Neither requires access to ALTO’s models, cooperation from its staff, or agreement about what the correct discount rate for a national railway ought to be. Both are answerable from work already done.

A third question — whether the calculation was ever run at any rate other than 3.5 per cent — belongs to the companion audit It Left the Rules Behind, which sets out the full list of tests the cited manual requires at this project’s scale and which of them appear in the report.

Sources

Primary documents

ALTO, Canada’s Moment: The Economic Opportunity of High-Speed Rail, August 2026, 83 pp. Discount rate, sixty-year appraisal period and price base in the Appendix A methodology box, sourced at footnote 65 to the Metrolinx manual; capital cost and AACE Class 5 estimate at pp. 5 and 65; direct-benefit tables headed “upper estimate”. Analysed in full in the Initiative’s companion brief Two Parameters, None of the Conditions, summarised at It Left the Rules Behind.

Metrolinx, Business Case Manual Volume 2: Guidance, August 2021, 222 pp. Economic parameters at Table 5.8: social discount rate 3.5 per cent, evaluation period five to sixty years, single blended value of time. Verified as the current edition, 21 August 2026. metrolinx.com

HM Treasury, Review of discounting in the Green Book: Terms of Reference, 16 December 2025. Sets out the derivation of the 3.5 per cent Social Time Preference Rate. The Treasury specifies four parameters — pure time preference, catastrophe risk, the elasticity of marginal utility and the growth rate — the last two of which multiply to the 2.0 per cent component described above as a single judgement. and the declining schedule of 3.0 per cent for years 31 to 75 and 2.5 per cent thereafter. gov.uk

HM Treasury, Green Book supplementary guidance: discounting, updated 5 February 2026. Instructs practitioners to use 3.5 per cent for years 1 to 30 and 3.0 per cent for years 31 to 75. gov.uk (PDF)

A. E. Boardman and M. A. Moore, “The Social Discount Rate for Canada Based on Future Growth in Consumption,” Canadian Public Policy, vol. 36 no. 3 (2010), pp. 325 onward. Records the Treasury Board Secretariat’s 2007 interim recommendation of an 8 per cent social discount rate with sensitivity rates of 3 and 10 per cent on a weighted social opportunity cost of capital basis; argues instead for 3.5 per cent, conditional on a horizon under fifty years and no crowding out of private investment, with a shadow price of capital of 1.26 applied to investment flows, and a declining schedule beyond fifty years. Canadian Public Policy

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis, in force since 1 September 2018. Requires departments to use the opportunity cost of capital specified in the TBS guide, with a social discount rate permitted in defined cases including impacts of fifty years or more, and requires opportunity-cost results to be reported in any event. canada.ca

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “Requirements for developing, managing and reviewing regulations,” canada.ca, page updated 26 November 2025, accessed 21 August 2026. States that the most current version of Canada’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals is available exclusively on the Cabinet Directive on Regulation GCwiki page. The 2022 edition remains catalogued in Government of Canada Publications as an archived document. canada.ca

Transport Canada, Economic Evaluation Branch, Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis in Transport Canada, Ottawa, 1994. Catalogued in the Transport Research International Documentation database. TRID

Bank of Canada, selected benchmark bond yields, accessed August 2026; Bank of Canada policy interest rate held at 2.25 per cent through mid-2026 against a 2 per cent inflation target. Long-bond yields move daily and should be checked against the source rather than quoted from this page. bankofcanada.ca

10.

Réseau express métropolitain, “Information about the agreement with the ARTM and its rate mechanisms.” Sets out the 72-cent per passenger-kilometre invoice to the regional transit authority, the reduction once ridership projections are exceeded, and the turnkey scope covering construction, operation and long-term maintenance. rem.info

11.

Capital structure as reported on award of the construction contracts: CDPQ Infra $2.95B, Government of Québec $1.283B, Government of Canada $1.283B, Hydro-Québec $295M, ARTM $512M, against a construction cost of $6.3B. The estimate was revised to $7.95B in September 2023, with CDPQ Infra absorbing the increase under its agreement with the Québec government. International Railway Journal

12.

Gouvernement du Québec, ARTM and CDPQ Infra, “Release of the management and implementation agreement and of the integration agreement for the Réseau express métropolitain,” 23 April 2018. Confirms the $0.72 per passenger-km base cost and annual indexation to Canada’s Consumer Price Index, and the cap limiting additional municipal costs to roughly $45 to $60 million a year in then-current dollars. quebec.ca

13.

CDPQ Infra, “7 myths about the REM de l’Est,” February 2022. Describes the ridership relief mechanism: the rate falls by about 20 per cent, to roughly $0.57, for trips above 15 per cent over forecast, and equals the user fare for trips above 40 per cent over forecast. Published in the context of a later project; the mechanism described is the REM’s. cdpqinfra.com

14.

Réseau express métropolitain, semi-annual project update, 3 June 2021. Reaffirms the 72-cent rate set in the 2018 agreement and states the performance targets: 8 to 9 per cent for CDPQ Infra and 3.7 per cent for the government partners. rem.info

15.

Discounting arithmetic in this explainer computed by the Initiative on the stated assumptions: a level annual benefit stream, sixty years of operation beginning in year 16, discounted to a year-zero base; the declining-schedule row applies 3.5 per cent to years 1 to 30, 3.0 per cent to years 31 to 75, per source 3.

16.

Joint Project Office (VIA Rail Canada and the Canada Infrastructure Bank), High Frequency Rail Project: Business Case Update, V.002, 10 December 2021, 150 pp., released by the Canada Infrastructure Bank under the Access to Information Act, November 2025. Capital cost breakdown and 30-year revenue at p. 7; benefit-cost ratio, net present value and the Table 4 subsidy comparison at p. 8; economic appraisal parameters sourced to Metrolinx and MTQ guidance at p. 40; incremental capex and opex at Table 9; other impacts at Table 12; impact results and both ratios at Table 14, p. 43; net present value assumptions, including the 2.5 per cent discount rate sourced to the ten-year average 30-year Government of Canada benchmark bond, at Figure 38, p. 85.

17.

The same document released as Annexe A to access request 22-2207 (148 pp., stamped Demande d’accès à l’information #22-2207 AI(D)). In that version, section 9.7 Net Present Value Analysis survives as a heading at p. 84 with pp. 84–86 otherwise blank; section 9.8 Financial Structuring at p. 87 is withheld in full; the capital cost and 30-year revenue sentences are truncated mid-clause at p. 21, leaving the grammar intact around the removed figures; and the subsection headings of section 7 Economic Case are withheld within the table of contents, together with the title of section 8 and all of its subsections, which appear as bare dot leaders against pp. 40–43 and 44–63. The construction employment sentence at p. 21 is severed in the same way: “an estimated ___ annual equivalent jobs could be created.” That figure — 71,000 to 96,000 annual equivalent — is disclosed in full in the Canada Infrastructure Bank release at note 16. No exemption provisions are marked against any of the severed passages. Both versions held by the Initiative.

18.

Cadence consortium membership and CDPQ Infra’s leadership role: Cadence, “About us,” and CDPQ Infra, “Alto high-speed rail,” both accessed August 2026; consortium announced as preferred private development partner 19 February 2025, co-development agreement signed March 2025. AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC-Lavalin) was a member of NouvLR, which held the REM engineering, procurement and construction contract, and of the group now operating as Pulsar with Alstom under the rolling stock, systems, operations and maintenance contract. cadence.info

August 21, 2026

Ready to tender

Ready to Tender, Not Yet Approved

Cadence has opened the procurement for the first segment of ALTO — while its own notice says the project is not yet approved.

ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Procurement Brief · Published July 2026 · ALTO consultation closed April 24, 2026

⚠ What the document says

On June 23, 2026, Cadence — the private partner chosen to develop ALTO — published a Preliminary Notice to Market for the Ottawa–Montreal segment, the first part of the line to be built. It sets out the contracts, the delivery models, and a tendering schedule that starts this summer. Cadence PNM

The same notice states that construction has “no official launch date” and that the entire build-and-operate phase is “subject to the government of Canada’s final confirmation of the investment.” In other words: the machinery to build this is being switched on before the decision to build it — and the money to pay for it — has been confirmed.

The point in one sentence

You do not need an access-to-information request to see this one. It is a public document, unredacted, published by the developer itself — and on its own pages it does two things at once: it commits the construction industry to a two-year tendering calendar for the project’s biggest contracts, and it confirms that the project is not yet funded, not yet finally approved, and does not yet have a confirmed start date.

This is the same sequence this Initiative has documented at every earlier stage: the commitment comes first, the decision that would justify it comes later. What is new is that it is now happening in the open, in the developer’s own words, rather than in a briefing note released years after the fact.

None of this settles whether high-speed rail should be built. It is a question about order of operations — whether a project should be this far into procurement before the public analysis, the final business case, and the funding decision are in place.

Read the source

Cadence Preliminary Notice to Market — Central Segment

A public document (document no. ALTO-CPDP-00000-PW-080000-500BC10-000001F), issued June 2026 by Projet Cadence Rail s.e.c. Available in French and English.

Download PDF

What it is

A tender calendar, not a green light

A “Preliminary Notice to Market” is a signal to construction firms: here is the work that is coming, here is roughly when it will be tendered, start putting your teams together. Cadence is careful to say it is not a formal call for bids and not a commitment to buy anything. That caution is worth taking at face value — but it cuts both ways. The document is not a decision to proceed; it is the paperwork that gets the supply chain ready to proceed. And it is being issued now, ahead of the decision that determines whether there is anything to proceed to.

The notice is explicit about that gap. It says construction is “contemplated to begin in 2029–2030, although no official launch date has been confirmed,” and that the build-and-operate phase — the phase where the line actually gets built — happens only “subject to the government of Canada’s final confirmation of the investment.” Yet the tendering timetable it publishes does not wait for that confirmation. It begins in the summer of 2026.

Summer
2026

first major tender opens (trains), with stations and the Montreal tunnel to follow through 2027

Cadence PNM, Table 2

2029–30

construction “contemplated,” but with no confirmed start date

Cadence PNM

Not yet

federal investment decision — the build phase is “subject to” it

Cadence PNM

The order here is the whole story. Under any ordinary reading of how a public project should work, the sequence is: decide whether to build it, confirm the money, then tender the work. This notice runs two of those steps in parallel — the tendering starts while the decision and the money are still described, on the same pages, as outstanding.

The Two Columns

What the notice commits to, and what it leaves open

The clearest way to read the document is to line up what it treats as fixed enough to build a procurement schedule around against what it says is still undecided. Both columns are drawn from the same notice.

Treated as ready to tender	Still described as undecided
The contract packages. The notice sets out more than seventeen contract packages (WP1–WP17) — trains, signalling, stations, the Montreal access tunnel, two major bridges, and the track itself — each with a delivery model already assigned.	The final route. The “more precise corridor” is still promised for autumn 2026. For the Toronto–Ottawa segment, the notice leaves open the choice between a northern route through the Canadian Shield and a southern route through farmland — unresolved.
The timetable. A tender calendar running from summer 2026 (trains) through 2027–2028 (tunnel, bridges, civil works), package by package.	The start date. Construction has no confirmed launch date; 2029–2030 is described only as “contemplated.”
The delivery company. A dedicated entity, “InfraCo,” led by CDPQ Infra, is to be the contracting party for all the builders, with a second company, “OpCo,” to run operations.	The funding. The entire build-and-operate phase is “subject to the government of Canada’s final confirmation of the investment” — which the notice does not report as having been given.
The technical spec. Design speed of 320 km/h; full electrification; no level crossings; a twin-bore tunnel roughly 15 km long and 9 m wide under the Riviere des Prairies and Mount Royal into Montreal.	The business case. No final business case has been published. The government’s own answer to Parliament in June 2026 was that the cost-benefit, net-present-value, and 30-year subsidy figures are “not finalized.”

Read together, the two columns describe a project detailed enough to hand contractors a two-year work plan, and unsettled enough that its route, its price, its business case, and its go-ahead are all still open. Those are not usually true of the same project at the same time.

The Machinery

What is actually being tendered

The notice divides the first segment into more than seventeen work packages. Most people following this issue do not need the package numbers — but the shape of the list matters, because it shows how much of the hardest and most expensive work is being brought to market before its design is finished.

The trains and the systems come first

The first tender out the door, in summer 2026, is for the rolling stock — roughly 60 trainsets. The signalling and control systems follow in the autumn. These are network-wide contracts: they are written for the first segment but carry options to extend to the rest of the line later.

The tunnel and bridges are tendered before they are fully designed

The single most demanding piece — the Montreal access tunnel, a twin-bore ~15 km bore under a river and a mountain into the downtown — is brought to market on an early-involvement basis because its design and ground conditions are not yet settled. Two major bridges (the Riviere des Mille-Iles and the Ottawa River) are in the same position. The riskiest, priciest work is being tendered at the point where the least is known about it.

The benefit numbers arrive without a source

The notice repeats headline figures — $24.5 billion a year in GDP, more than 50,000 construction jobs, 5,000 operating jobs — with no study, method, or citation attached to any of them. They are stated as facts in a document whose own government has told Parliament the underlying cost-benefit analysis is not finished.

Who Runs It

Who is in the room

The notice confirms the structure of the group that would build and run the line. This is a matter of public record from the document itself; it is set out here as fact, not as accusation.

Cadence is a consortium. The notice names CDPQ Infra (the infrastructure arm of Quebec’s public pension fund) as the lead infrastructure and equity member, with Air Canada as an equity member; SYSTRA and AtkinsRealis as the design leads; and Keolis and SNCF Voyageurs as the operations leads. The new delivery company, “InfraCo,” would be led by CDPQ Infra and would sit above and contract with all the individual builders.

Two features are worth noting plainly, both straight from the document. First, the same consortium that is designing the strategy also sits atop the company that will award and manage the contracts — while the notice’s own rules bar consortium members from bidding on the major contracts and require engineering firms to take part “as subcontractors.” Second, Air Canada — the airline whose routes this train is meant to compete with — is an equity holder in the developer, a position the notice describes by reference to the airline’s experience linking its flights with rail in Europe. Readers can weigh what those arrangements mean; the point here is only that the developer’s own notice puts them on the record.

The Fine Print

Three things easy to miss

The contracts would be in English only

The notice contemplates publishing the major contracts in English only, with French “courtesy versions” available on request — a notable choice for a federal project running through Quebec and Ontario. It justifies this by pointing to the English-language agreement Cadence signed with Alto.

You may not talk to the people who run it — except through Cadence

Firms taking part in the procurement are told they “must refrain from any direct communication” with “Project Stakeholders” — a category the notice defines to include landowners and communities — except as Cadence permits, on pain of disqualification.

A federal law puts the project largely beyond local jurisdiction

The notice cites the High-Speed Rail Act, which declares the railway a “work for the general advantage of Canada.” That designation places the project under federal jurisdiction and applies provincial and municipal law only “to the extent that such laws may validly apply” — the mechanism that narrows what municipalities and provinces can require.

None of these is hidden. They are in the notice, in plain sentences. They are collected here because, together, they describe a procurement that is moving quickly, keeping tight control of who may speak to whom, and operating under a statute that limits local say — all before the funding decision the same document says is still to come.

Where things stand · July 2026

Summary ledger

Reading the notice against the question a citizen would reasonably ask — is this project actually decided? — here is where the document leaves things.

Under way

Procurement. Tendering for the first segment’s major contracts begins summer 2026 and runs through 2028.

Under way

Delivery structure. InfraCo (led by CDPQ Infra) and OpCo are to be set up as the contracting and operating companies.

Stated but unsourced

Benefits. $24.5B annual GDP, 50,000+ construction jobs, 5,000 operating jobs — asserted with no study or method attached.

Not yet done

Final route. The precise corridor is promised for autumn 2026; the Toronto–Ottawa north/south choice is left open.

Not yet done

Business case. No final business case published; the government told Parliament the cost-benefit, NPV, and subsidy figures are “not finalized.”

Not yet done

Start date. Construction has no confirmed launch date; 2029–2030 is only “contemplated.”

Not yet done

The go-ahead. The build-and-operate phase is “subject to the government of Canada’s final confirmation of the investment” — not reported as given.

The top of that list is moving. The bottom of it is not. A procurement this advanced usually means a project this decided — and by the developer’s own account, this one is not. The notice asks the construction market to get ready to build something the government has not yet committed to build, at a price no one has finalized, on a route not yet chosen. The reasonable question for anyone following this is not whether the train is a good idea. It is why the building has started before the deciding.

Sources

Primary documents

Projet Cadence Rail s.e.c., Preliminary Notice to Market / Avis préalable au marché — Alto Project Central Segment, document no. ALTO-CPDP-00000-PW-080000-500BC10-000001F, dated June 23, 2026 (cover) / June 22, 2026 (milestone table). A public document issued in French and English. All quotations and figures in this brief — the tender schedule (Table 2), the “no official launch date” and “subject to…final confirmation of the investment” language, the WP1–WP17 package structure, the InfraCo/OpCo and consortium structure, the 320 km/h and tunnel specifications, the English-only contract approach, the stakeholder-communication restriction, and the GDP and jobs figures — are drawn from this notice. citizenresearch.ca (PDF)

Government of Canada, response to Order Paper Question Q-1191 (Scott Reid, Lanark–Frontenac), House of Commons, tabled June 17, 2026 — source for the statement that the project’s cost-benefit, net-present-value, and 30-year subsidy figures are “not finalized.”

ALTO / Cadence, statements that a more precise corridor is to be unveiled in autumn 2026, referenced in the notice’s appendix and in prior public communications.

This brief summarizes a single public document in plain language. It does not argue that high-speed rail should or should not be built; it examines the order in which this procurement is proceeding relative to the decisions that would authorize it. A fuller treatment of the notice appears in the Initiative’s Accountability Record.

July 3, 2026

Freight and the Vanishing train

The Freight Dividend and the Vanishing Train

Alto’s own freight report builds its economic case on removing passenger trains from the shared Toronto–Montreal corridor — the same line VIA Rail runs through Eastern Ontario.

ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Research Brief · June 2026

⚠ Companion to “VIA Rail on the Kingston Subdivision”

In April 2026 we set out how Alto would foreseeably erode intercity passenger service on the Kingston Subdivision. Alto’s own June 2026 freight report now supplies the missing piece from the proponent’s side: a business case in which that erosion is not a risk to be managed but a source of value to be captured. Read the April brief →

The finding in brief

In June 2026 Alto published a report, High-Speed Rail and Freight Capacity (CPCS in association with HDR), whose central benefit is the capacity freed by lowering the number of passenger trains on the shared CN corridor between Toronto and Montreal — the Kingston Subdivision that carries VIA Rail through Oshawa, Cobourg, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville and Cornwall.

The benefit grows as passenger service shrinks. In the report’s own words it “would be shared between passenger and freight, depending on the level of passenger rail services that may be maintained on the CN corridor.” The party positioned to decide how much survives is Alto’s own development partner, the Cadence consortium — also slated to operate the corridor’s existing passenger trains. The risk falls squarely on VIA Rail.

The report is right about one thing: separating passenger and freight traffic relieves both. But Alto achieves that separation by removing the passengers. A dedicated passenger spine along the same corridor achieves the same separation while keeping the lakeshore served — the constructive alternative set out below.

↓ Download the full brief (PDF)

The Freight Report

What the report claims

The report’s stated purpose is to show how Alto could “generate economic and strategic benefits for freight rail by lowering passenger traffic on the shared corridor.” It documents that the Toronto–Montreal segment runs on CN-owned track with a passenger-to-freight mix close to 50-50, and that passenger trains — because of higher speeds and precise scheduling — consume more track capacity than freight trains.

From this it assembles a set of claimed freight benefits: deferred or avoided capital investment in the CN corridor; headroom to “protect for” 55 per cent higher freight volumes over 30 years; induced freight demand and mode shift; new rail-adjacent industrial development; and roughly $90 million a year in avoided societal costs from shifting one daily intermodal train off Highway 401. Every one of these flows from the same source: fewer passenger trains on the shared line.

The Mechanism

The benefit is the removal of passenger trains

The report is explicit that the enabling condition is fewer passenger trains, and it ties the size of the avoided-investment benefit directly to how much passenger service is cut: the benefit “would be shared between passenger and freight, depending on the level of passenger rail services that may be maintained on the CN corridor.” Read plainly, the fewer passenger paths retained on the Kingston Subdivision, the larger the freight benefit Alto can claim.

The report then treats the retreat of passenger rail as an inducement to development, suggesting that reducing the volume of passenger trains may signal to industry that rail-adjacent parcels have become more desirable. Yet the same report opens with a disclaimer that its introduction is “not assumed to result in the discontinuation of local passenger rail services.” These two positions cannot both hold at full strength: the benefit is defined as the capacity released by removing passenger trains, while the disclaimer promises they will not be removed. The gap is bridged only by soft language — and by recasting intercity trains as “local offerings” that feed the high-speed line.

Who Benefits, and How

Who gains from fewer VIA trains

Freight does gain — that much is the report’s central claim: CN, the freight railway, avoids the spending it would otherwise need to expand its own line. But CN does not decide how much VIA service survives, and it is not the only party that gains. The consortium positioned to make that decision, Cadence, runs no freight and earns nothing from it — its stake is in Alto. So the pressure to thin VIA’s service comes not from freight alone, but from four further interests the report’s framing keeps in the background.

Alto’s ridership depends on it

Cadence is paid to fill Alto, whose business case rests on very high ridership: a target of 24 million passengers a year by 2055 — roughly eight times the three million or so the corridor carries today. The only independent modelling of the route (University of Toronto’s Munk School) projects about 9 to 10 million, and a reference-class adjustment for the ~65 per cent overstatement typical of rail forecasts lands near 8 million. As a single concessionaire with no open-access competition, Cadence has every reason to price for yield, not volume — making a cheaper conventional train on the same corridor competition to be minimized, not preserved.

It makes the case for building Alto look better

The report’s headline “avoided investment” benefit is explicitly larger the more passenger service is cut, inflating the benefit-cost ratio used to justify the project — the very project that gives the consortium’s contract its reason to exist.

It lowers the subsidy the government pays

VIA Rail’s Toronto–Montreal corridor service ran an operating shortfall of about $117 million in 2025 — roughly $50 of public subsidy per passenger, at a corridor cost-recovery ratio near two-thirds (VIA Rail, 2025 Annual Report). Shrinking that service, or folding it into the Alto concession, reduces what the federal funder pays; the party deciding the corridor’s future is also the party writing that cheque.

It sheds the cost of using CN’s track

Passenger trains on the Kingston Subdivision run on CN-owned track under access and cost-sharing arrangements — including, as the report notes, payments to CN to maintain track at passenger speeds. Moving intercity trains onto Alto’s dedicated line sheds those payments.

The gains flow to Cadence, to CN, and to the federal treasury. VIA Rail — and the passengers between Toronto and Montreal — bear the loss.

The Consequence

The risk to VIA Rail

What Alto describes is two passenger railways on one corridor. A dedicated high-speed line, built and operated by Cadence, would carry the fast intercity market. What remains on the Kingston Subdivision — the trains that serve Oshawa through Cornwall — is left as a residual “local” service, running between freight trains on CN-owned track, with no committed frequency and no protected floor.

Under the project’s public-private structure, even that residual service is not assured to remain with VIA Rail: the existing corridor passenger operations, designated the “Local Services” in the procurement, are slated to pass to the same Cadence consortium as feeders to the high-speed line. And this is not a distant hypothetical. VIA Rail’s corridor on-time performance has already collapsed — from 72 per cent to 30 per cent inside a single year — as passenger trains are squeezed on infrastructure the operator does not own.

The National Dimension

The risk reaches the whole network

The danger does not stop at the lakeshore. The Quebec City–Windsor corridor is not merely VIA Rail’s busiest route — it is the financial engine of the entire national network. More than 90 per cent of VIA’s passengers, and about 80 per cent of its revenue, come from this one corridor (VIA Rail, 2025 Annual Report). That revenue is what helps sustain the long-distance and regional trains connecting the rest of the country — Vancouver and Prince Rupert, the Prairies, Churchill, and the Maritimes.

Hand the corridor’s ridership and revenue to a private consortium, and VIA is left, in the words of the federal NDP transport critic Taylor Bachrach, with “the crumbs” — a fraction of the revenue it uses to operate rail across Canada. Alto’s own answer is that corridor services will “eventually” be “integrated with Alto services into a single network”; asked what the loss of that revenue would mean for VIA, the proponent did not say. The choice being made on the busiest corridor, in other words, quietly decides the future of passenger trains in places thousands of kilometres away. CBC News reported the warning.

A Constructive Alternative

A straighter, quieter line

The freight report identifies a real prize: separating passenger and freight traffic on the Toronto–Montreal corridor relieves the mixed-traffic conflict that degrades both. The question is how that separation is achieved. Alto achieves it by removing the passengers — routing a 300 km/h greenfield line inland through Peterborough and Ottawa, past the lakeshore communities entirely, and leaving VIA’s corridor service to wither.

There is a straighter, quieter way to reach the same result. Build a dedicated, lower-speed passenger spine along the existing Toronto–Montreal transportation corridor — the lakeshore route the CN Kingston Subdivision and Highway 401 already follow. Give passengers their own tracks, engineered for reliable service at conventional-to-higher-performance speeds (up to about 200 km/h), and the passenger–freight conflict is resolved the same way — by separation — but without deleting the service the corridor’s communities depend on. The strong Toronto–Montreal market runs fast and reliably on the direct line; Ottawa and Quebec City are reached on upgraded existing track; and Kingston, Cobourg, Belleville, Brockville and Cornwall stay on the intercity network rather than being bypassed. The routing and demand-density case for this spine is set out in our companion brief, A Straighter Line. And because the spine stays in public hands, the fare revenue from the country’s busiest corridor keeps flowing to VIA rather than to a private concession — sustaining, rather than starving, the national network it helps fund.

Alto as planned	A dedicated passenger spine
A 300 km/h greenfield line detouring inland via Peterborough and Ottawa, roughly 900 km of all-new track.	A direct passenger line along the existing lakeshore corridor, far less new build, largely alongside the rail line and Highway 401 already there.
Cobourg, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville and Cornwall are bypassed entirely.	The lakeshore communities stay on the intercity network, served on the way through.
Today’s VIA corridor service is demoted to a residual “Local Service,” slated to the private concession, with no protected floor.	The corridor service is the spine — upgraded, reliable, and kept in the public interest.
Freight relief is delivered by removing passenger trains from the shared line.	Freight relief is delivered by giving passengers their own dedicated line within the existing corridor.
Operated by a single private consortium pricing for premium yield, with a $60–90 billion cost baseline.	Operated in the public interest at affordable conventional fares, at a fraction of the greenfield cost.
Corridor fare revenue flows to the private concession, weakening the cross-subsidy that helps fund VIA’s national network.	Corridor revenue stays in the public system, where it can keep supporting long-distance and regional service across Canada.

In plain language

The freight report is right that passengers and freight should not have to fight over the same tracks. But there are two ways to end that fight: take the passengers away, or give them their own line. Alto takes them away — and prices the loss as a benefit.

The alternative keeps the trains and separates the traffic: a dedicated passenger spine down the existing Toronto–Montreal corridor, reliable and affordable, serving the lakeshore towns Alto would leave behind. It delivers the genuine freight dividend the report identifies — without the vanishing train.

Sources

Primary sources

High-Speed Rail and Freight Capacity: Potential Freight Benefits of Alto (June 2026). Prepared for Alto by CPCS in association with HDR. Cited pages: 5, 6, 8, 11, 18, 19. Read the report.

VIA Rail on the Kingston Subdivision: Service Erosion, Funding Collapse, and the National Rail Risk from ALTO HSR (April 2026). ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative. Read the brief.

VIA Rail Canada, 2025 Annual Report — Toronto–Montreal corridor operating shortfall of roughly $117 million, per-passenger subsidy of about $50, and corridor cost recovery near two-thirds.

On the ridership targets: this Initiative’s ridership analysis, setting Alto’s stated 24 million (2055) and 43 million (2084) figures against the corridor’s current ridership of roughly three million; the University of Toronto Munk School (Global Economic Policy Lab) independent projection of about 9 to 10 million; and the reference-class forecasting literature (Flyvbjerg) finding rail ridership overstated by an average of 65 per cent.

On the operating model and the transfer of corridor “Local Services” to the private consortium: Government of Canada, “Canada is getting high-speed rail” (news release, 19 February 2025); Transport Action Canada, “Cadence wins $3.9B High-Speed Rail development contract” (2025).

On the national-network risk: A. Kurjata, “NDP warns privatizing high-speed rail from Toronto to Quebec could kill passenger trains in rest of Canada,” CBC News (19 February 2025) — corridor revenue as roughly 80 per cent of VIA’s total; MP Taylor Bachrach’s warning on cross-subsidy of national service.

A Straighter Line (June 2026). ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative — routing and reference-class demand-density analysis for the dedicated passenger spine.

June 30, 2026

Estimated not simulated

Estimated, Not Simulated

The journey times behind ALTO were drawn from a spreadsheet of international averages — not from a model of the actual corridor. What that distinction means, and who set the target.

ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Research Note · Published June 2026 · Based on Access to Information release A-2025-00333

Critical Finding

A government record released under the Access to Information Act shows that, of the journey times prepared for the project, only the slowest case was produced by an actual simulation of the railway. That case was a 110 mph (177 km/h) train — a roughly four-hour Toronto–Montréal trip. Every faster time, including those near the speeds ALTO now markets, came from a spreadsheet that applied average speeds borrowed from intercity railways in other countries.

The technical memorandum describes those faster figures, in its own words, as “for information and comparison purposes.” And the email chain attached to it records the most senior Transport Canada official on the file directing that the times not assume Toronto speeds above 160 mph (257 km/h), because a higher figure was “not the intent of the Government.” The journey time, in other words, was managed as a policy and cost target — not derived as an engineering result.

The Record

What the document is

The release (A-2025-00333) was obtained under the Access to Information Act and provided to the Initiative. It consists of an email chain dated August 30 to September 4, 2023 among Transport Canada and Via HFR / Via TGF officials and their technical advisers, together with the attached memorandum “VIA HFR-TGF Journey Times.” It dates from the procurement period, when the project was still a high-frequency rail (HFR) programme under Transport Canada’s lead, before the February 2025 announcement re-scoped it as high-speed rail at 300 km/h.

The memorandum is the engineering note that sits beneath the project’s headline travel times. It is explicit about how those times were calculated — and it used two very different methods for two different parts of the answer.

The Distinction That Matters

Two ways to get a journey time

A train’s journey time is the single number a project like this is sold on — “Toronto to Montréal in X hours.” There are two fundamentally different ways to produce that number, and they are not equally reliable.

A simulation builds a digital twin of the real railway and “drives” a train along it. The software knows the actual track: every curve that forces the train to slow, every hill, every station stop, where the signals are, how fast the specific train accelerates and brakes, and whether other trains — including freight — are in the way. It runs the trip second by second on that line and reports how long it genuinely takes. The memorandum names the tool used for this: RailSys, drawing on the JPO’s 2021 Rail Operational Summary Report. It is the railway equivalent of a flight simulator, or of a mapping app with live traffic.

A spreadsheet estimate does something far cruder: it takes the distance, assumes an average speed borrowed from how fast trains run in other countries, and divides one by the other. It never looks at this corridor’s actual geometry, terrain, urban approaches, or shared freight track. The memorandum is candid that its faster figures are of this kind — an “estimated calculation based on the maximum permissible speed,” provided “for information and comparison purposes.”

Simulation — the RailSys tool	Spreadsheet estimate
Drives the actual route. Models every curve, gradient, station stop, signal and conflicting train on the real Toronto–Québec line, second by second.	Distance ÷ an assumed average speed. Takes the route length and an average operating speed benchmarked to comparable intercity rail abroad, and divides.
Knows the corridor. A curve too tight for high speed shows up as a slower section; a freight train ahead shows up as lost minutes. Constraints surface before construction, not after.	Blind to the corridor. Cannot see this line’s curves, hills, city approaches or freight sharing. The memorandum labels its outputs indicative only.
What ALTO simulated. Only the 110 mph (177 km/h) base case — roughly a four-hour Toronto–Montréal trip.	What ALTO estimated. Every faster time, including the 160 and 186 mph figures (257 and 300 km/h) closest to the marketed speeds.

The difference is the difference between “we modelled it and it works” and “we estimated it from comparables.” The first is a tested result for this railway. The second is an educated guess that a later, detailed study would have to confirm.

What Was Actually Run

The only simulated number is the slow one

~4 hrs

the only Toronto–Montréal time actually simulated (110 mph / 177 km/h base case)

RailSys, per the memorandum

Spreadsheet

the source of every faster journey time on the page

benchmarked to foreign averages

160 mph

(257 km/h) — the speed ceiling set as “the intent of the Government”

TC official, Aug–Sept 2023

The memorandum’s own tables make the gap plain. The single time it produced by simulation — the 110 mph (177 km/h) base case — is roughly 3:59 to 4:19 for Toronto–Montréal. The faster times on the same page, for a 186 mph (300 km/h) or 160 mph (257 km/h) train, run from about 2:40 to 3:10. But those faster figures are the spreadsheet ones. The four-hour trip is the only number anyone actually drove through the model. The under-three-hour trips that make high-speed rail attractive were never simulated for this corridor.

This matters because the public ALTO project is now built on 300 km/h (186 mph) running. Even the “calculated” 186 mph (300 km/h) times in this 2023 record trace back to the spreadsheet, not the simulator — and the simulator was only ever pointed at the slow case.

A second problem: not the door-to-door time

There is a second issue with these numbers, separate from how they were produced. Every figure here — simulated or estimated — is a train-in-motion time, measured platform to platform. It is not the door-to-door time that decides whether a traveller picks rail over flying, and door-to-door time depends on something ALTO has not settled: where the stations are. With downtown stations at both ends the corridor is competitive; with the suburban or peri-urban stations most consistent with the project’s cost structure, the advantage over air narrows or disappears. A separate academic submission to the consultation went further, noting that ALTO’s published times do not appear to even include the time for a stop in Ottawa — so the in-motion figures may be understated before the door-to-door question is reached. We treat that in full in The Station Location Problem and The Last Mile; the point here is narrower — the headline time is an estimate, and even taken at face value it is not the number that matters.

Who Set the Target

The journey time as a government decision

The instruction to hold the journey times down did not come from a technician. The email chain records that when a Toronto figure was put forward assuming sustained speeds above 160 mph (257 km/h), a Transport Canada official objected that it “assumes a full journey time from Toronto at speed greater than 160, which is not the intent of the Government,” and explained that the intent was to have bidders identify the segments with the lowest marginal cost for higher speed. The exchange closes on September 4, 2023 with the project director’s note: “No change to journey time agreed by Vincent.”

That official is Vincent Robitaille. According to Transport Canada’s own published biography, Robitaille has served as Assistant Deputy Minister – High Frequency Rail since December 2021 — the month the project’s governance passed to a Transport Canada–led integrated team — and he leads that team. His background before the role was in commercial policy and financing, not rail engineering: from 2018 to 2021 he was Director General of Transport Canada’s Centre of Excellence on Strategic Investments, working on the commercial elements and alternative financing of major transportation investments, and before that he led the public-private-partnership procurement of the new Champlain Bridge Corridor in Montréal. His credentials are financial and project-management designations (CFA, PMP, Certified Director, and an MBA). Transport Canada

Why the background is relevant, not incidental

This is an observation of record, not of motive. The person defining the journey-time ceiling as the Government’s intent — and steering bidders toward “the lowest marginal cost” rather than the fastest trip — is the project’s most senior Transport Canada official, whose professional expertise is procurement and project financing. It is consistent with a journey time being treated as a commercial and cost target to be managed, rather than an engineering output to be measured. The released record shows the target being set; it does not require any inference about why.

Two Years Later

The same official, now selling the fast times

In a public podcast interview in December 2025, Robitaille — by then leading the project for Transport Canada — described the corridor to a general audience in precisely the terms the 2023 record could not support with simulation: Montréal reachable in well under current rail times, a city you could reach for a day trip and return the same evening, trains “every half an hour,” the corridor as “commuting distance.” Those are the fast, frequent-service figures — the ones drawn from the spreadsheet.

The internal record from 2023 shows the same official holding the specification below those speeds — directing that journey times not assume sustained running above 160 mph (257 km/h), because faster was “not the intent of the Government” — and relying on benchmarked estimates for anything quicker. The public pitch and the internal caution are two years apart and point in opposite directions. The travel times now used to sell the project are of the kind the same official described internally, in 2023, as indicative.

The Bottom Line

A promise, or an estimate?

When a government tells the public “this train will get you there in X hours,” people reasonably assume engineers modelled the actual route and confirmed it. This record shows that, for the fast times, they did not. They did the back-of-an-envelope version — distance against speeds observed in other countries — and said so internally. A spreadsheet estimate is a hope; a simulation is the closest thing to a tested promise. The faster ALTO travels in its marketing, the further it gets from the only journey time anyone actually ran.

One caveat, stated plainly so the point is not overdrawn. The memorandum does say these estimates were always meant to be refined through later design and operational modelling by the eventual private partner. So the fair claim is not that the numbers were invented. It is that the detailed validation was deferred, and that as of this 2023 record the project’s faster journey times — including those near what is marketed today — had no corridor-specific engineering behind them, only benchmarked estimates. No simulation of high-speed running on the Toronto–Québec line appears anywhere in the released record.

Sources

Primary documents

Transport Canada / Via HFR (Via TGF), “VIA HFR-TGF Journey Times” (HFR JT note 20230831) and accompanying email chain, August 30 – September 4, 2023. Released under the Access to Information Act as file A-2025-00333.

Joint Project Office, Phase 2C Rail Operational Summary Report (2021) — the RailSys simulation source referenced in the memorandum for the 110 mph (177 km/h) base case.

Transport Canada, Briefing Documents 2025, biography: “Vincent Robitaille — Assistant Deputy Minister – High Frequency Rail.” tc.canada.ca

“From Bridges to Trains: Career lessons with Vincent Robitaille,” The Supply Chain Ambassador podcast, premiered December 3, 2025. Public interview; transcript auto-generated. youtube.com

June 2, 2026

Modal shift subsidy

Citizen Research Initiative · Modal Shift Analysis · Note 4

The Subsidy Frontier and the ALTO Operating Trilemma

High ridership and low subsidy are mutually exclusive on this corridor. A continuous-spectrum framework relating subsidy, fare revenue, ridership and net public cost — and the structural reason the published 24-million target sits outside every operating point on the frontier.

ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Modal Shift Note 4 · Published May 2026

⚠ What This Note Examines

This note extends Notes 1, 2 and 3 from three discrete regimes to a continuous subsidy spectrum, relating four quantities along it: annual operating subsidy, ridership, fare revenue, and net public cost. It identifies the welfare-efficient and revenue-maximising operating points, and adds full-cost accounting across three capital-cost scenarios.

The result is the corridor’s operating trilemma: high ridership, low subsidy, and P3 break-even cannot be achieved simultaneously. The choice among them is a single-degree-of-freedom political-economy decision — one that the published business case does not make explicit.

Bottom Line

The modal-shift framework from Notes 1 and 2, combined with the demographics of Note 3, produces a fixed frontier of (subsidy, ridership) combinations. The corridor cannot simultaneously deliver Regime A ridership (11–12 million) at Regime C subsidy levels ($0.5–1.5 billion/yr). Any public communication implying otherwise is selecting figures from different points on the frontier and presenting them as one outcome.

Ridership rises concavely with subsidy — from ~5M at $0.3B/yr to ~12M at $5B, hitting diminishing returns as it approaches the modal-shift ceiling. Revenue is hump-shaped, peaking at ~$1.29 billion at $1.9 billion subsidy. The marginal net public cost per added rider has a U-shaped minimum at ~$400/rider near Regime B. Different objectives select different optima: maximising revenue or minimising per-rider cost → Regime B; minimising total public cost → Regime C; maximising ridership under a fiscal cap → Regime A.

And the P3 break-even corner is structurally unreachable: against an achievable peak fare revenue of $1.29 billion, P3 break-even revenue is ~$4.3 to $5.0 billion — a gap of $3.17 billion/yr at peak revenue, even under the proponent’s own $75B capex base case. ALTO’s published 24-million-by-2055 target sits outside every point on the frontier and is incompatible with any defensible operating-regime choice.

Download

Modal Shift Note 4 — Subsidy Frontier & Optimisation (PDF)

The full note with all four figures and two tables: the trilemma, the ternary locus, the four-panel frontier, the scissors chart, the five optimisation objectives, and the full-cost accounting across three capital scenarios

Download PDF

The Trilemma

No operating regime achieves all three objectives

The corridor faces three ideal objectives that cannot be reconciled: high ridership (at the level of ALTO’s public targets), low subsidy (operating surplus), and P3 break-even (revenue covering operating cost plus private capital service). Every point inside the realistic operating frontier is achievable under some combination of fare, subsidy and modal-shift parameters; every point outside it is structurally infeasible.

The ALTO operating trilemma: a dashed outer triangle of three ideal objectives with a smaller solid feasible operating region inside, and Regimes A, B, C positioned within it — **Figure 1.** The ALTO operating trilemma. The dashed outer triangle marks the three ideal corners; the solid inner triangle is the realistic operating frontier. Regimes A and C approach their respective corners but cannot reach them; Regime B sits on the frontier edge, achieving the revenue peak. The P3 break-even corner is structurally unreachable: operating cost (~$1.8–2.5B/yr) plus private capital service ($2.49B/yr at the $75B base case) puts break-even revenue at ~$4.3–5.0B/yr, against an achievable peak of $1.29B at Regime B — a $3.17B/yr gap that operating-posture choice alone cannot close.

The operating locus in objective space, ternary view: a one-dimensional curve tracking the low-subsidy to high-ridership edge, never entering the P3 break-even corner — **Figure 2.** The operating locus in objective space, ternary view. Each operating point is mapped to barycentric coordinates of its normalised achievement of the three objectives. Two features stand out: the locus is a **one-dimensional curve**, not a region — the corridor has only one operational degree of freedom (the subsidy level); and it tracks the low-subsidy ↔ high-ridership edge closely, never entering the P3 break-even wedge. The maximum P3 score along the locus is ~0.30 under the $75B base case. The trilemma is not three symmetric tradeoffs but a single dominant tradeoff (ridership ↔ subsidy) with P3 break-even as a structurally unreachable third axis.

1 · Framework

From three regimes to a continuous spectrum

Note 3 developed three discrete regimes — A (heavy subsidy), B (moderate, at parity with air), C (minimal, P3 yield management) — producing aggregate corridor modal shares of ~40, 30 and 22% and requiring annual operating subsidies of ~$3.5B, $2.0B and $1.0B. This note extends that to a continuous subsidy spectrum to identify the optimisation properties of the corridor’s operating posture.

The framework relates four quantities along the spectrum: annual subsidy (the federal operating contribution for the chosen fare posture), ridership (the resulting modal shift across air, road and existing rail), fare revenue (riders × average fare), and net public cost (subsidy minus revenue, negative meaning self-financing). Each is anchored on Note 3’s central demographic 2055 scenario (corridor population 20.1 million, addressable trips 34.2 million). The mapping from subsidy to fare ratio is a smooth logistic reproducing the three regime anchors — ~1.3 at $1.0B (deep premium), ~1.0 at $2.0B (parity), ~0.6 at $3.5B (deep discount) — and the mapping from fare ratio to per-mode capture comes directly from the Note 1 and Note 2 S-curves.

2 · The Frontier

Ridership, revenue, and net public cost vs subsidy

Disaggregating the relationships folded together in Note 3’s regime summary reveals the corridor’s subsidy frontier across the continuous spectrum, with the three regime anchors (C, B, A) marked.

Four-panel subsidy frontier: ridership vs subsidy, revenue vs subsidy, net public cost vs subsidy, and marginal cost per added rider — **Figure 3.** The subsidy frontier at the central 2055 anchor. **(a)** Ridership rises concavely from ~5M at $0.3B to ~12M at $5B — diminishing returns toward the modal-shift ceiling. **(b)** Fare revenue peaks near $1.9B subsidy at ~$1.29B, then declines as fare cuts overwhelm ridership gains — a Laffer-like structure. **(c)** Net public cost crosses zero near $1.3B subsidy: below it the corridor runs a surplus, above it a net outlay rising to ~$4B at $5B subsidy. **(d)** Marginal net public cost per added rider has a U-shaped minimum of ~$400/rider near Regime B, rising to ~$1,000 at Regime A. The ~$85/rider reference line is an illustrative federal value-of-time figure.

Ridership is concave

The first dollars of subsidy buy many riders (the steep part of the S-curves); the last buy few (the saturating top). Marginal effectiveness falls sixfold — ~2.5M riders per $B at the low end, ~0.4M per $B at the high end.

Revenue is hump-shaped

At low subsidy the corridor is in the premium-fare zone where each rider pays more, so revenue rises with ridership; past the $1.29B peak, the fare reduction overwhelms the ridership gain.

Net cost flips at ~$1.3B

Net public cost transitions cleanly from negative (revenue exceeds subsidy) to positive at ~$1.3B subsidy — between the Regime C anchor ($1.0B) and Regime B ($2.0B).

3 · The Scissors

Revenue and subsidy versus ridership

Plotting the same data with ridership on the horizontal axis shows how subsidy and revenue diverge as the corridor moves up the ridership scale — and overlays the federal capital service ($2.49B/yr at the $75B base case), so each regime shows three quantities: operating subsidy, fare revenue, and full federal cost.

Scissors chart: operating subsidy rising convexly with ridership while fare revenue stays flat, with full federal cost and the three regimes marked against a modal-shift ceiling near 12 million — **Figure 4.** Subsidy and revenue against ridership, central 2055 anchor. The two curves form a **scissors**: subsidy (navy) rises convexly while revenue (terracotta) is essentially flat. At Regime C (6.1M riders) the corridor returns a ~$260M operating surplus — full federal cost ~$2.23B with capital service added. At Regime B (8.2M) it needs ~$710M net operating outlay — full federal cost ~$3.20B. At Regime A (11.2M), ~$2.42B net outlay — full federal cost ~$4.91B. **Capital service exceeds operating subsidy at every regime, even under the proponent’s base case.** The chart caps at the ~12M modal-shift ceiling; beyond it, each added rider requires sharply rising per-rider subsidy.

The scissors structure has direct policy implications. Below ~6.5 million annual passengers the corridor runs a net public revenue surplus — fare revenue exceeds the subsidy needed. Above that it crosses into net-public-cost territory, rising convexly with the target. By 11 million (near Regime A) the corridor needs ~$2.4 billion annually in net public outlay above its fare revenue. Beyond 11.5 million the curve steepens sharply — pushing toward the 24-million public target would require an entirely different operating regime than any of the three considered here.

4 · Optimisation

Five objectives, five different optima

The frontier supports several distinct optimisation objectives that each select a different operating posture. There is no single “optimal” point without first specifying the criterion.

**Table 1.** Optimal operating posture under different objective functions, central 2055 anchor. The five candidate optima span Regime C (minimum total public cost), Regime B (revenue peak, per-rider welfare efficiency), an intermediate position (total welfare under moderate social-value assumptions), and Regime A (maximum ridership). “Total welfare” includes ridership × value-of-time × emissions avoided − net public cost, and is strongly sensitive to the assumed social value per rider.
Objective	Optimal regime	Riders 2055	Subsidy	Revenue	Net public cost
Maximise fare revenue	Regime B (parity)	~8M	$1.9–2.0B	$1.29B (peak)	+$0.7B
Min. net cost per rider	Regime B (parity)	~8M	$1.9–2.0B	$1.29B	$400 marginal
Min. total net cost	Regime C (yield mgmt)	~6M	$0.5–1.5B	$1.26B	+$0.2B or surplus
Max. ridership s.t. cap	Regime A (heavy)	~11M+	$3.5B+	$1.08B	+$2.4B
Max. total welfare	Between B and A	~9M	$2.5B	$1.2B	+$1.3B

Four observations follow. Revenue-maximisation and per-rider welfare-efficiency converge on Regime B — not coincidentally, since the same marginal-revenue-equals-marginal-cost condition defines both the Laffer peak and the marginal-cost-per-rider minimum. Minimum-total-net-public-cost points to Regime C or below, where the corridor runs a small surplus but carries only 5–6 million riders — approximately the posture implied by the Cadence consortium’s announced commercial structure. Ridership-maximisation under a fiscal cap points to Regime A or beyond — but reaching the 24-million target would require pushing past Regime A into subsidy well above $5B/yr and modal share above the 40% ceiling, not feasible under the modal-shift framework. And total-welfare-maximisation is strongly sensitive to the assumed social value per rider: at the illustrative ~$85/rider federal value the optimum is at or below Regime C; only at a high $400/rider — crediting network effects, large emissions externalities, and agglomeration benefits — does it move between B and A.

There is no single “optimal” operating posture without specifying the criterion. The corridor decision is not one quantitative question but three sequential ones: whether to build at all, what fare posture to operate under, and how to communicate the chosen posture transparently.

5 · Full-Cost Accounting

Capital service dominates the operating choice

The subsidy frontier above considers operating subsidy only — but capital cost service dominates the corridor’s total fiscal commitment, and the capital cost itself is deeply uncertain. ALTO’s materials cite ~$60–90 billion, prepared without reference-class adjustment. The CRI’s reference-class analysis (Flyvbjerg methodology on the international HSR cost database, with corridor-specific complexity premia) produces three scenario points: $75B as the proponent-stated P50, $143B as the reference-class-adjusted P50 (after the 44.7% average rail-project overrun), and $264B as the P95 worst case — with the proponent’s $75B sitting at roughly the 25th percentile of the distribution.

**Table 2.** Full federal cost implications across three capital cost scenarios. Full annual federal cost = federal share of capital debt service + Regime B operating subsidy of $2.0B/yr (the welfare-efficient point). Full cost per rider = full federal cost ÷ 8M annual riders (Regime B central 2055). Debt service at 6% blended cost of capital, 40-year amortisation, 50% federal share.
Capital cost scenario	Total capital	Annual debt service	Federal share (50%)	Full annual federal cost	Full cost / rider
ALTO proponent-stated	$75B	$4.5B	$2.3B	$4.3B	$540
CRI reference-class central	$143B	$8.6B	$4.3B	$6.3B	$790
CRI P95 worst-case	$264B	$15.8B	$7.9B	$9.9B	$1,240

Capital dominates operating

Even at $75B, federal capital service ($2.3B/yr) exceeds Regime B’s operating subsidy ($2.0B). At $143B it’s more than double; at $264B, ~four times. The full-cost optimisation is dominated by the capital assumption, not the operating regime.

6 to 14× the benefit

Full cost per rider spans $540–$1,240. Against an illustrative ~$85/rider value-of-time, the corridor is 6 to 14× more expensive than the public benefit. Even generous $200–250/rider social values stay 2–6× below full cost.

Decide before committing

Once the capital is sunk, the A/B/C choice is second-order. The first-order question — whether to build at all — turns on which capital scenario materialises, and the realistic expected value sits between $143B and $264B.

ALTO’s composite engineering complexity score is 73–81 (upper part of the High band, approaching Extreme) — the Frontenac Arch crossing, the Napanee Limestone Plain karst, the Leda clay segment, the St-Lawrence crossing, and a Canadian P3 delivery record that includes Eglinton Crosstown (+280%), the Confederation Line (+57%), and the Ontario Line (+250% scope-adjusted). Under Flyvbjerg reference-class forecasting, a corridor at this complexity cannot be reliably costed from the lower-complexity international comparators the proponent’s estimate appears to draw on. The realistic expected capital cost is between $143B and $264B, producing a benefit-cost ratio materially below 1.0 across the full plausible range.

6 · Implications

What this means for the corridor decision

The subsidy choice is a policy decision, not a technical one

The same physical infrastructure produces materially different outcomes depending on the operating point. Regime C gives ~6M riders at a small surplus; Regime A gives 11M at $2.4B net public cost. That choice should be made explicit in the public business case rather than implicit in the procurement structure.

The welfare-efficient point sits near Regime B

Parity with air, ~$1.9–2.0B operating subsidy, ~8M riders, ~$400/rider marginal net public cost — also the revenue-maximising point. A welfare-maximising government and a revenue-maximising operator would converge on similar fares. The business case does not specify which objective is being applied.

Third, and most important: the public ridership targets cannot be reached from any operating point on the frontier developed here. The 24-million-by-2055 figure would require modal share above the 40% ceiling under heavy subsidy, plus upper-case demographic growth, plus full-corridor mature operation in 2055 — three conditions the modal-shift literature does not support simultaneously. The frontier brackets the realistic operating space; ALTO’s published targets sit outside it. An independent review should ask which point on the frontier the corridor is actually targeting, and what fiscal commitment and modal-shift assumptions that point implies.

High ridership, low subsidy, and P3 break-even cannot be achieved at once. The 24-million target is not the welfare-efficient operating point under any reasonable parameter choice — it is achievable, if at all, only under heroic assumptions about every operating, demographic, and modal-shift variable simultaneously.

Download Full Note

Modal Shift Note 4 — Subsidy Frontier & Optimisation (PDF)

Reference document with all four figures, both tables, the five optimisation objectives, the full-cost accounting, and the methodology and parameters

Download PDF

Methodology

Framework and parameters

The framework anchors on Note 3’s central demographic 2055 scenario (corridor population 20.1 million, addressable trips 34.2 million at 1.7 trips per capita) with the regime-coupled phase-maturity factor (Regime C ≈ 0.80, B ≈ 0.88, A ≈ 0.94, following a smooth logistic asymptoting to ≈ 0.96). The market structure is air 15%, existing rail 10%, road 75% of the addressable pool. The mapping from operating subsidy S ($B) to fare ratio r is a logistic, r(S) = 0.4 + 1.3 / (1 + exp(S − 1.8)), calibrated to the three regime anchors; the mapping from fare ratio to per-mode capture comes from the Note 1 air–rail S-curve at 3.0 h and the Note 2 road–rail S-curve at τ = 0.5. Average air fare $160 one-way; rail revenue = riders × (air fare × r). Net public cost = subsidy − revenue.

Capital cost scenarios ($75B / $143B / $264B) are derived from Flyvbjerg reference-class forecasting on the international HSR cost database with corridor-specific complexity adjustments (composite engineering complexity score 73–81). Capital service is computed at 6% blended cost of capital (combining federal debt service and private equity return), 40-year amortisation, 50% federal share. The CRI’s full capital cost analysis is documented separately at citizenresearch.ca.

Sources

Principal sources

ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative (2026). Modal shift between high-speed rail and air on the ALTO corridor (Note 1).

ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative (2026). Modal shift between rail and car on the ALTO corridor (Note 2).

ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative (2026). ALTO ridership envelope, 2035–2080 (Note 3) — the population, trip-generation and regime inputs this note’s frontier is built on.

Statistics Canada (2026). Population Projections for Canada (2025 to 2075), catalogue 17-20-0003, released 27 January 2026.

Transport Canada (2024). Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis of Transportation Investments — value-of-time and emissions valuation parameters. — and Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2007). Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals.

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M.S. & Buhl, S. — reference-class forecasting and the international rail-project cost-overrun database (44.7% average overrun).

ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative companion material: the Modal Shift & Ridership synthesis brief, which sets this note alongside Notes 1, 2 and 3.

May 24, 2026