Tag: ridership

  • 3 claims 1 fare

    Three Claims, One Fare

    ALTO makes three promises about the high-speed railway. All three depend on one number it has never published — the price of a ticket.

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Fare and Ridership Note 1 · Published August 2026
    The argument in plain terms

    ALTO promises three things at once: that 24 million people a year will ride the new railway; that they will save 9.3 billion hours of travel time, worth $49.5 billion; and that ticket sales will cover the cost of running and maintaining the line. Each promise sits in a different part of the report, backed by different evidence.

    All three depend on one number the report never gives: the price of a ticket. Cheap tickets fill trains, which is what the first two promises need. Expensive tickets bring in the revenue the third promise needs. A fare cannot be cheap and expensive at the same time, so the three promises pull against one another.

    Work out the single fare at which all three could hold, and it comes to about 19 cents per kilometre travelled — roughly $83 for a typical 428-kilometre journey. At that price the railway breaks even only if 24 million people ride it, and 24 million people ride it only if the corridor is generating about 74 million intercity trips a year, by all modes. On ALTO’s own population figures, the corridor will generate about 34 million.

    So making all three promises at once means making a fourth one that is never stated: that by 2055 the corridor would have to be generating more than twice the intercity travel that ALTO’s own population figures produce. Nobody forecasts travel on that scale, and that is exactly the difficulty.

    ⚠ How to read the fares on this page

    Fares here are given per kilometre travelled, because that is how railway revenue is calculated. A passenger-kilometre is simply one traveller going one kilometre, so a fare of $0.15 per kilometre means a passenger pays 15 cents for every kilometre of their journey. Multiply by 428 km — the average journey — for a rough ticket price: $0.15 is about $64, $0.22 about $94, $0.28 about $120, and the $0.193 break-even fare about $83.

    Modal Shift Notes and O&M Notes, referred to throughout, are earlier papers in this series and are available at citizenresearch.ca.

    2.19×
    how much more intercity travel the corridor would have to generate for all three promises to hold: 73.9 million trips a year against 33.7 million forecast
    §6.1
    $0.193
    the only fare at which all three could hold — about $83 a journey. At that price the railway carries about 11 million riders, not 24 million
    §6.1
    63%
    the most of its running costs the railway can recover from fares at any price. Fares pay about 63 cents of every dollar; the rest comes from the public
    §8
    Download
    Three Claims, One Fare — Full Brief (PDF)
    The complete arithmetic, set out step by step, with every figure sourced so that any part of it can be checked or rejected

    Download PDF

    The Three Promises

    Three claims that are only ever made separately

    Where this comes from. ALTO is the company proposing the high-speed railway. In August 2026 it published a report, Canada’s Moment: The Economic Opportunity of High-Speed Rail, making the three claims set out below. This page is a plain-language version of an independent check of those claims against published population and travel data — in effect, a fact-check of ALTO’s report. Every step of the arithmetic is shown so that any part of it can be rejected.

    Three numbers do the persuasive work in ALTO’s report Canada’s Moment. They appear in different chapters, rest on different evidence, and are never set side by side. Put side by side, they turn out to want opposite things from the price of a ticket.

    The Promise What it needs the ticket price to do
    1. Ridership. 24 million passengers a year by 2055, rising after that. Be low. The cheaper the ticket, the more people ride — and for a family of three or more, driving already costs almost nothing extra.
    2. Economic benefit. 9.3 billion hours of travel time saved, worth $49.5 billion. Be low. Every benefit counted in the appraisal — time, car costs, safety, congestion, emissions — depends on how many people actually switch to the train.
    3. Paying its own way. “The railway pays for its own operations and maintenance.” Be high. Most of the cost of running the railway stays the same whether the trains are full or empty, so covering it depends on how much each passenger pays.

    The first two promises pull the fare down. The third pulls it up. That is not a criticism of high-speed rail; every high-speed railway ever built faces the same squeeze. The criticism is that the report presents all three as true at the same time without ever showing the fare that would deliver them.

    Why These Are One Promise

    Everything runs through the ticket price

    Picture a single dial: the price of a ticket. Turning that one dial moves all three of ALTO’s claims at the same time, because all three are calculated from it. Turn the price down and more people ride, which automatically raises the total hours saved, because total hours saved is just hours per person multiplied by the number of people. But turn the price down and each ticket brings in less money, so covering the railway’s costs gets harder. The three claims are not three separate discoveries. They are three readings taken off the same dial — and ALTO’s report never shows you the setting it used.

    The fare is not a detail to be settled later, once the business case is agreed. It is the number the business case turns on. It enters the arithmetic twice, pulling in opposite directions, and everything else follows automatically.

    1 — The fare sets how many people ride

    The fare sets how expensive the train is next to driving or flying, which sets the share of trips that choose rail. Apply that share to the total number of intercity trips in the corridor and you have annual ridership.

    2 — Ridership sets both the benefits and the revenue

    Riders multiplied by the length of the average journey gives total passenger-kilometres. That single quantity drives the hours saved and the ticket revenue. There is no way to improve one without damaging the other.

    3 — So the first two promises are the same promise

    If the hours saved per passenger are held at ALTO’s own figure, the economic benefit is simply the number of riders multiplied by a fixed amount. The $49.5 billion is the 24 million riders, restated in dollars. That leaves two propositions, not three: one about demand, one about covering costs.

    Three numbers agreeing is not three checks passing

    If one team checked ridership, another checked time savings and a third checked whether fares cover costs — each using its own method — and all three agreed, that would mean something. That is not what happens here. All three start from the same unpublished ticket price, so of course they agree. They are three shadows cast by the same object. They will always line up, and their lining up is no evidence that the object is the right shape.

    4 — And two propositions have one joint answer

    Two equations with two unknowns — the fare and the number of riders — will usually have a solution. The claims are not inconsistent with one another. The question is what that solution demands of the corridor.

    The Travel Market

    How much intercity travel there is to win

    The corridor’s total travel market is its population multiplied by the number of intercity trips each resident makes on the routes the railway would serve. Modal Shift Note 3 puts the 2025 corridor population at about 14.9 million across the cities directly served, growing at 1.0 per cent a year, and puts intercity travel at about 1.68 trips per resident per year.

    20.1M
    people living in the corridor in 2055, on the central growth path
    Modal Shift Note 3
    33.7M
    intercity trips a year in 2055, by every mode — car, air, bus and rail combined
    20.1M × 1.68 trips each
    71%
    the share of that entire market ALTO’s 24 million riders would represent
    24.0M ÷ 33.7M

    Seventy-one per cent of all intercity travel — car, air, bus and rail together — is a share no high-speed railway is known to have won. It is worth being precise about this, because the famous European figures look higher and are not the same measure. Roughly 75 per cent of Madrid–Barcelona travellers choose the train over the plane, and more than 80 per cent on Madrid–Seville; those are shares of the rail-and-air market, which excludes the car. Against a car that costs its driver almost nothing extra to fill, no comparable share of the whole market has been recorded. Nor is 71 per cent a forecast that fails at some fares and works at others. As the sections below show, no fare produces it.

    What Each Ticket Price Delivers

    Three realistic fare levels, and what each one buys

    Modal Shift Note 3 sets out three combinations of fare and subsidy spanning the realistic range of policy, and reports the share of the market each one wins. The dollar figures are this note’s translation of those descriptions into a fare per kilometre; Note 3 publishes no dollar figures, so the translation is an inference. Every figure below uses the version most favourable to the project.

    The Fare Level What it delivers
    A — Heavy subsidy. $0.15 per km (about $64 a journey). Fares held at today’s VIA Rail levels, with $2.5–4.5 billion a year of public money covering construction costs. 13.5 million riders a year — 38–42% of the market. $27.8 billion of benefit against the $49.5 billion claimed. Fares cover 54% of running costs.
    All three promises:Not met
    B — Moderate subsidy. $0.22 per km (about $94 a journey). Fares matched to airfares, with $1.5–2.5 billion a year of public money covering construction costs. The arrangement the published business case appears to assume. 10.1 million riders a year — 28–32% of the market. $20.9 billion of benefit. Fares cover 64% of running costs — the best result available at any price.
    All three promises:Not met
    C — Minimal subsidy. $0.28 per km (about $120 a journey). Fares set by a private operator to maximise revenue, above airfare levels, with $0.5–1.5 billion a year of residual public support. Closest to a commercially structured P3; ALTO has published no payment mechanism. 7.3 million riders a year — 20–23% of the market. $15.0 billion of benefit. Fares cover 63% of running costs.
    All three promises:Not met
    ALTO as published. No fare stated anywhere in the report. 24.0 million riders a year — 71% of the market. $49.5 billion of benefit. Fares cover 100% of running costs.
    Fare required to produce this:Never published

    Even on the most generous treatment — the heaviest subsidy, mature ridership rather than the slower build-up of the opening years, and ALTO’s own hours saved per passenger accepted exactly as published — the economic benefit is $27.8 billion, not $49.5 billion. That is a reduction of 44 per cent arising from the ridership side alone.

    Paying the Running Costs

    Why cheap tickets cannot fix the finances

    Think of a gym. It pays rent whether 10 people turn up or 1,000 — that cost is fixed. It also buys more towels and cleaning supplies as more people come — that cost varies with use. A railway works the same way, and the split matters more than it might sound.

    Running a railway costs money in two ways. Some costs stay the same however many people ride — track, structures, signalling, stations, head office, and buying the trains. Others grow with the number of trains you run. On ALTO’s own figures, spread over the life of the assets at its own 3.5 per cent rate, the fixed block is $1,130 million a year, and 61 per cent of the total cost does not move with ridership at all.

    That is why cutting fares to fill the trains does not fix the finances. It helps a little at first — more passengers spread across the same fixed cost — and then makes matters worse, because each extra passenger is paying less. Cost recovery does not simply improve as fares rise. It improves, peaks, and then falls back.

    Chart: economic benefit delivered and share of running costs covered by fares, at each fare. Neither of ALTO's two claims is ever reached.

    Figure 2. Neither promise is ever reached. The economic benefit delivered (navy, left axis) and the share of running costs covered by fares (rust, right axis), at each fare. The two gold lines are ALTO’s two claims. Benefit falls steadily as fares rise; cost recovery rises, peaks well short of covering everything, then falls away as riders drop off. The fare that comes closest to one claim is far from the other. The chart shows cost recovery as a ratio, so its peak of 0.63 is the 63 per cent described here, and the gold line at 1.00 is fares covering costs in full.

    The ceiling is about two-thirds

    The turning point sits at a fare near $0.26 per kilometre, where fares cover about 63 per cent of running costs. The best of the three published levels reaches 64 per cent. At no price in the corridor as forecast do fares cover the cost of running the railway. Fares pay about 63 cents of every dollar; the remaining 37 cents comes from the public, every year, forever.

    And the best fare for the finances is the worst for the benefits

    The fare that comes closest to paying for the railway delivers roughly $16 billion of the claimed $49.5 billion in benefits. The fare that comes closest to one promise is nowhere near the fare that delivers the other.

    Against the cost of building it, nothing reaches a dollar

    Construction of roughly $75 billion, spread across 2027–2037 and discounted at 3.5 per cent, is worth about $57 billion in today’s dollars. Measured against that, every dollar returns 49 cents of benefit at fare level A, 36 cents at level B and 26 cents at level C. ALTO’s own published benefits return 86 cents — and that failure is ALTO’s own arithmetic, not this note’s. None of these figures counts the operating shortfall above, which the public would have to fund on top.

    The Three Promises Joined Up

    There is exactly one answer, and it is about the corridor

    The obvious next step is to check the promises one at a time and report that none of them survives. That is true, and it is set out below. But it is the weaker exercise, because it invites the reply that the whole thing is merely a disagreement with three forecasts.

    A short detour, because the next step depends on it. Suppose you are told two things about a bag of marbles: it holds 18 marbles, and there are twice as many red ones as blue. Neither fact on its own tells you how many are red. Put them together and there is exactly one answer — 12 red and 6 blue. Two facts, each loose on its own, can lock onto a single exact answer once you require both to be true at the same time.

    The same move works on the railway. “24 million riders” is one fact. “Fares alone cover the running costs” is another. Neither tells you the ticket price by itself — plenty of low prices might draw 24 million riders, plenty of high ones might cover costs. Require both at the same price, and as with the marbles there is only one price where that is possible.

    The stronger exercise is to solve the two propositions together and ask what corridor would satisfy them. Covering costs fixes a relationship between the fare and the number of riders; so does the ridership promise. Two equations, two unknowns, one answer.

    The one fare, and the one market, that satisfy all three

    Covering 100 per cent of running costs at exactly 24 million riders requires a fare of $0.1935 per kilometre. At that fare the train wins 32.5 per cent of the market. For 32.5 per cent to equal 24 million riders, the corridor must be generating 73.9 million intercity trips a year. It is forecast to generate 33.7 million. The ratio is 2.19×.

    There is only one such point, and it is worth being clear about why. Above $0.193 the railway covers its costs but carries fewer than 24 million people; below it, it carries more but cannot pay for them. Only at $0.193 do the two meet, and where they meet is fixed by the size of the market. The three promises do not contradict each other. They contradict the corridor.

    That unstated assertion has a value, and it can be put in whichever units a reader finds easiest to judge:

    Expressed as Required by the three promises, against the forecast
    Intercity trips a year, all modes 73.9 million required, against 33.7 million forecast — 2.19×
    People living in the corridor in 2055 44.0 million required, against 20.1 million forecast — more people on the Toronto–Québec City axis alone than live in Canada today
    Intercity trips per resident, per year 3.68 required, against 1.68 — corridor residents travelling more than twice as often as the evidence supports, at a time when remote and hybrid working push the other way
    Annual population growth, 2025–2055 3.7 per cent a year sustained for three decades, against a central forecast of 1.0 per cent and a high forecast of 1.6

    Anyone wishing to defend all three promises therefore has exactly one thing to defend, and it is a claim about demand rather than about engineering or financing. Cheaper construction, faster trains and a different discount rate do not reach it. Only a larger travel market does.

    The Gap That Does Not Close

    No ticket price escapes the problem

    Within the corridor as forecast, is there some fare — between the three levels above, or beyond them — that escapes the problem? There is not, and the reason is structural rather than a matter of forecasting.

    Two things happen at once as the price goes up. The number of riders the railway needs in order to break even falls gently and steadily, like walking down a slope — each rider is worth more, so fewer are needed, but that effect fades out gradually. The number of riders available falls away sharply, because once the train costs about what driving costs, people stop switching to it very quickly. A gentle slope and a cliff do not meet.

    Put more precisely: raising the fare lowers the number of riders needed to break even, because each remaining passenger contributes more. But raising the fare also lowers the number of riders available, and it does so faster. The first effect tails off gradually. The second accelerates, because once the train loses its price advantage over a car that costs almost nothing extra to fill, passengers fall away sharply. The second effect always wins.

    Chart: the market share the railway needs to cover its costs, against the share it can win, at each fare. The two curves never meet.

    Figure 1. The two curves never meet at any fare. The rust curve is the share of the market the railway would need to cover its running costs; the solid navy curve is the share it can actually win. The shaded area between them is the gap. The dashed navy curve is the same demand curve in a corridor generating 2.19 times as much travel — it touches the rust curve at exactly one point, $0.193, and that point sits on the gold line marking the 71 per cent share ALTO’s 24-million forecast implies. The chart labels this share “capture”, and the fare “fare yield, dollars per passenger-kilometre”.
    At this fare Market share needed, against market share achievable
    $0.15 per km — fare level A
    about $64 a journey    		 Needs 117.7% of the entire intercity market. Can win 40%. The railway would have to carry more trips than exist in the corridor at all, across every mode, simply to cover its running costs.
    $0.22 per km — fare level B
    about $94 a journey    		 Needs 57.3%. Can win 30%.
    $0.28 per km — fare level C
    about $120 a journey    		 Needs 39.8%. Can win 21.5%. This is as close as the gap ever comes: 1.85×, at about $0.29.
    $0.40 per km
    about $171 a journey    		 Needs 24.7%. Can win 12.1%. The gap has started widening again as the ridership base collapses.

    Read the last figures as the size of the gap: at every fare, the railway needs between roughly twice and three times the market share it can actually win. There is no fare at which it closes.

    What Would Have To Change

    Fixing one promise at a time

    These are the terms a proponent is most likely to reply in. Three of the four turn out not to reach the joint answer at all.

    A larger travel market — reaches all three

    A corridor population of 34.0 million by 2055, or 2.85 trips per resident, brings 24 million riders within reach. Covering the running costs as well takes the 44.0 million of the joint answer. This is the only repair that reaches all three promises.

    Longer journeys — does not move ridership

    An average journey of 793–1,259 km, against the 428 km assumed — meaning essentially every passenger riding Toronto to Québec City end to end, and at fare level A a journey longer than the line itself. It would help cover costs. It puts nobody extra on a train.

    Lower running costs — covers costs only

    Running costs 37–46 per cent below the O&M Note estimates, with the fixed block down from $1,130 million to about $564 million. Again, nothing on the cost side puts passengers on trains.

    A stronger switch to rail — the same claim in different units

    The whole demand curve lifted by a factor of 2.19 at every fare. This is arithmetically identical to a bigger market, and equally a claim about demand.

    This is the asymmetry the brief turns on. Repairs on the cost side rescue the cost-covering promise and leave the ridership promise exactly where it was, because nothing on the cost side puts passengers on trains. Only a larger travel market reaches all three, and both routes to one — more people, or a greater willingness to switch — are the same claim in different units.

    Where Things Stand · August 2026

    Summary ledger

    Taking the promises one at a time, in the corridor as forecast, at every fare examined:

    Not met
    24 million riders a year. The ceiling across the whole fare range is 13.5 million. At the break-even fare of $0.193 it is about 11 million.
    Not met
    $49.5 billion in economic benefits. The ceiling is $27.8 billion, and that figure accepts ALTO’s own hours saved per passenger without challenge.
    Not met
    Fares cover the cost of running and maintaining the railway. The ceiling is 63–64 per cent, at any price, in the corridor as forecast.
    Robust
    The ceiling on cost recovery is the solid half of this finding. It sits inside the range of fares the modelling actually covers, and needs no projection beyond it.
    Softer
    The ceilings on riders and benefits involve projecting beyond the tested range at fares below $0.15, and a proponent is entitled to challenge them. The joint answer at $0.193 does not depend on any such projection.
    Answerable
    A proponent who accepts a 73.9-million-trip corridor is entitled to hold all three promises at once — and should be asked to say so plainly.

    The three promises are not logically inconsistent with one another, and this brief does not claim they are. There is a genuine joint answer. The difficulty is that the answer describes a corridor that does not exist — and that the fourth promise, the one about how much travel the corridor generates, is the only one ALTO has never had to defend, because it has never been stated.

    That distinction is not a technicality. A single claim that says “this project needs more than twice the travel demand anyone forecasts” invites immediate scrutiny. Three separately sourced numbers that merely happen to agree do not. Splitting one unproven assumption across three chapters is what allowed it to travel through public debate unchallenged — and catching that before tens of billions of public dollars are committed is the whole point of a review like this one.

    Download Full Brief
    Three Claims, One Fare (PDF)
    The complete arithmetic with every step shown, for anyone who wants to check or reject any part of it

    Download PDF

    Limits

    What this brief does not claim

    The translation of the three fare levels into dollars is an inference

    Modal Shift Note 3 defines the three levels by how much subsidy they need and how they compare with airfares, not in dollars per kilometre. The $0.15, $0.22 and $0.28 figures are this brief’s reading of what those descriptions imply. Anyone who rejects the reading should supply the fares the business case actually assumes — and the conclusion holds across the whole range of fares, not only at those three points.

    The 428-kilometre average journey is an assumption

    Carried over from revised O&M Note 3. It matters a great deal: revenue and hours saved both rise and fall with it.

    The construction cost figure is not ALTO’s

    The $75 billion is the midpoint of the $60–90 billion range used elsewhere in this series. ALTO publishes no comparable figure. The returns per dollar should be read as indicative, and they measure benefits against construction cost alone.

    Nothing here depends on the 9.3-billion-hour figure being correct

    It is held at ALTO’s own value throughout. If it is correct, the findings stand as stated. If it turns out to be overstated, the benefit column falls further still and every conclusion here becomes firmer, not weaker.

    The model of the train service is coarse

    A single 450-seat train type, uniformly 65 per cent full over a 1,000-kilometre corridor, is a simplification. A real railway would vary train length and frequency by section, which would cut the ridership-related costs somewhat when ridership is low. It would not touch the fixed costs, which is where the problem lies.

    Sources

    Primary documents and companion notes

    1.

    ALTO, Canada’s Moment: The Economic Opportunity of High-Speed Rail, August 2026. The 24-million ridership forecast, the 9.3 billion hours of travel time saved and the $49.5 billion total benefit figure at a 3.5 per cent discount rate.
    2.

    ALTO, Canada’s Moment, August 2026. The claim appears three times: in the chief executive’s foreword, where revenues are expected to cover all operating and maintenance costs and to offset the ongoing public subsidies conventional passenger rail has historically required; in the executive summary, where operating revenues are expected to fully cover operating and maintenance costs, transitioning passenger rail from a publicly subsidised service to a commercially viable operation; and in the financial chapter, where the project is expected to operate on a self-sustaining basis. The same chapter distinguishes day-to-day operating costs from initial capital investment and lifecycle costs, and states that revenues do not cover all costs once those are included — the distinction examined in revised O&M Note 3, which finds the claim true for day-to-day operations alone, marginal once renewals are included, and failing once the trains themselves have to be replaced.
    3.

    Modal Shift Note 3 — corridor population, starting point and growth path; intercity trips per resident. The 1.68 figure is the 2025 baseline; the working range is 1.6–1.8. Using 1.68 is marginally conservative against this brief’s own conclusion.
    4.

    Modal Shift Note 3 — market shares of 38–42, 28–32 and 20–23 per cent for the three fare levels, which Note 3 calls Regimes A, B and C.
    5.

    Revised O&M Note 3 — infrastructure $1,016M, operations $700M and fleet $127M a year, spread over the life of the assets at 3.5 per cent real; the fixed and variable split giving $1,130M fixed and $8.91M for each train per day.
    6.

    Statistics Canada, The Daily, 17 June 2026 — Canada’s total population estimated at 41,417,056 on 1 April 2026, a decrease of 55,025 over the preceding quarter.
    7.

    Fare levels, service assumptions and the joint solution are set out in full in the PDF brief, including the two equations solved simultaneously in §6.1.
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative  ·  citizenresearch.ca  ·  Fare and Ridership Note 1  ·  August 2026
    Independent, non-partisan research on the proposed Toronto–Quebec City high-speed rail corridor. All figures are reconstructions from published sources and companion notes in this series; the arithmetic is set out in full so that any step can be checked or rejected. Corrections welcome.

  • At face value

    At Face Value

    Five numbers from ALTO’s economic report are now in wide circulation. Each one is either the top of a range or the middle of one. In every case the range exists. In every case it was not printed.

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Economic Claims Brief · Published August 2026
    ⚠ The numbers you will hear

    $49.5 billion in benefits · $24.5 billion in added GDP · 1.1 per cent of Canada’s economy · 50,000 jobs · 24 million riders a year

    None of these figures is invented. Every one comes from real modelling work by real economists, and each is accurate on its own terms. But each describes something narrower, or more conditional, than it sounds — and in every case the report prints one number where the work behind it reports a range.

    Critical Finding

    $49.5 billion is labelled an upper estimate — the good end of a range whose other end is nowhere in the document. $24.5 billion is a central estimate from a range its own modeller published as $14.8 billion to $41.0 billion. 24 million riders is prefixed “up to.” 50,000 jobs sits in a table headed “upper estimate” — and ALTO’s own appendix states those figures are not net economic gains.

    Meanwhile the report declines to publish a benefit-cost ratio — the single number that would tell you whether the benefits exceed the costs.

    The point of this brief is not that ALTO’s numbers are wrong. It is that they are being used as though they were settled, when the documents behind them show they are not.

    The document under examination
    Canada’s Moment: The Economic Opportunity of High-Speed Rail
    ALTO, August 2026 — 83 pages. All figures on this page are from that report or the studies it commissioned.
    Read ALTO’s report
    Number One

    “$49.5 billion in benefits”

    What you’ll hearWhat it actually is
    ALTO delivers $49.5 billion in benefits to Canadians. The upper estimate of benefits, added up over 60 years, adjusted downward for the fact that most of them arrive decades from now. Nearly four-fifths of it is saved travel time.
    In plain language — what “discounted” means

    Economists assume a benefit arriving in 2085 is worth less to us today than the same benefit arriving next year — the same reason $100 now beats $100 in twenty years. So future benefits get shrunk before they are added up. This is standard, required, and correct.

    It also does a great deal of work here, and the Initiative’s brief Hours Are Not Dollars sets it out in full. The report says ALTO saves 9.3 billion hours of travel time, and values an hour at $22.32. Multiply those together and you get $207.6 billion. The figure that appears in the benefit table is $38.4 billion. Discounting removes about 82 per cent of the face value, because most of those hours are saved by people who have not been born yet.

    In plain language — what “upper estimate” means

    The benefit table is headed “upper estimate.” Every narrative figure is prefixed “up to” — up to 24 million riders, up to 9.3 billion hours, up to 400 lives saved. An upper estimate is one end of a range. The other end does not appear anywhere in the 83 pages.

    There is one more thing about this number worth knowing. The report opens by making traffic congestion the problem — Highway 401, Pearson airport, journeys that are too slow and too unreliable. In the benefit table, easing congestion is worth $570 million out of $49.5 billion: about 1.2 per cent. Cleaner air is worth $27 million, roughly one part in two thousand.

    The problem the report leads with and the benefit the report counts are almost entirely different things.

    Number Two

    “$24.5 billion in added GDP”

    What you’ll hearWhat it actually is
    ALTO adds $24.5 billion to the Canadian economy. The middle of a range running from $14.8 billion to $41.0 billion, produced by a different model, in a different year’s dollars, and measured as an annual figure rather than a 60-year total.
    Can it be added to the $49.5 billion? No — the report says so on page 9

    The Initiative examined this figure in detail in Two Point Two Trillion. It is the number ALTO’s website states most confidently: the analysis “concludes that Alto will permanently uplift Canada’s GDP by 1.1%.” The study behind it is more careful, and it publishes its range.

    $14.8B
    the low end of the modeller’s published range
    Aviseo, Table 1
    $24.4B
    the baseline — the only figure that reached the public
    Aviseo, Table 1
    $41.0B
    the high end — nearly three times the low end
    Aviseo, Table 1
    In plain language — where this number comes from

    It comes from a computable general equilibrium model — a simulation of the whole Canadian economy that works out what happens to wages, prices, trade and output when you change one thing. These are legitimate, widely used tools. Governments run them all the time.

    The thing being changed here is a single assumption: that firms in Toronto, Montréal, Ottawa and Québec City become three per cent more productive because the train exists. That one assumption produces $21 billion of the $24.4 billion — 86 per cent of the total.

    In plain language — how three per cent was chosen

    The modellers say so openly, and deserve credit for it. Studies in Germany and Sweden found productivity gains of two to four per cent. So, they write, “it seems reasonable to consider a baseline scenario” of three per cent.

    They also tested two per cent and five per cent. Two per cent gives the $14.8 billion; five per cent gives the $41.0 billion. There is no scenario in which the productivity gain fails to appear at all — even the pessimistic case assumes a two per cent uplift across four city economies.

    One further detail. Because nobody yet knows where the stations will go, the modellers applied that productivity boost to the entire metropolitan areas of Toronto, Montréal, Ottawa and Québec City — standing in for the 30-kilometre radius around a station that the research actually supports. Peterborough, Laval, Trois-Rivières and Kingston appear nowhere in that calculation.

    Number Three

    “1.1 per cent of Canada’s GDP”

    What you’ll hearWhat it actually is
    ALTO raises Canada’s GDP by 1.1 per cent. 1.1 per cent of the Canadian economy as it was in 2019 — the last pre-pandemic year, used because 2020 and 2021 were distorted.

    The modeller says this plainly: the gain is “roughly 1.1% of Canada’s 2019 GDP.” Canada’s Moment drops the year. The website drops the year and adds the word “will.”

    Taken across the published range rather than the midpoint, the same calculation gives roughly 0.6 per cent at the low end and 1.8 per cent at the high end. One of those three numbers is in circulation.

    Number Four

    “50,000 jobs and $86 billion”

    What you’ll hearWhat ALTO’s own appendix says
    Building ALTO creates 50,000 jobs and adds $86 billion to GDP. These figures “represent spending-supported economic activity rather than net economic gains” and are “therefore not included in the benefit-cost ratio.”
    In plain language — why jobs numbers are not benefits

    If you spend $60 billion on anything — a railway, a bridge, a very large hole — people get paid to do it, and those people spend their wages locally. Counting that as a benefit of the project would mean any spending is a benefit, which cannot be right: the money had to come from somewhere, and would have employed someone else.

    ALTO’s appendix says this outright, and adds that the model used “does not account for potential constraints in the economy, such as labour shortages or capacity limits.” Most promoters present numbers like these as benefits and say nothing. ALTO explicitly refuses to — on page 80. The 50,000 jobs appear on page 5.

    The caveat is genuine and creditable. It sits in an appendix seventy-five pages behind the figure it qualifies, and it has not travelled with the number. The Initiative examines this figure in full in Where Do 50,000 Jobs Come From?, which rebuilds it from the annual spending and workforce figures HS2 and the Réseau express métropolitain both publish, and finds that roughly 18,000 of the 50,000 are people working on the railway.

    Number Five

    “24 million riders a year”

    What you’ll hearWhat it actually is
    ALTO will carry 24 million passengers a year. “Up to” 24 million a year by 2055 — the output of scenarios and sensitivity tests whose range the report describes but does not show.

    ALTO’s own methodology appendix explains exactly what it should have published. Sensitivity testing, it says, gives decision-makers “a range of plausible outcomes rather than relying on a single forecast.” The flowchart’s stated output is “a range of plausible ridership outcomes.”

    The report then prints one number.

    That number matters more than it looks, because four of the seven benefit lines depend on it — car running costs, road safety, congestion and greenhouse gases all flow from an estimate of 90.1 billion kilometres of driving avoided. And how much driving is avoided depends on who the new passengers are. Someone who switches from a car takes kilometres off the road. Someone who switches from a plane takes none. Someone making a brand new trip takes none. That breakdown is published nowhere.

    And One Number That Is Missing

    There is no benefit-cost ratio

    The standard test of whether a public investment is worth making is simple: divide the benefits by the costs. Above one, it pays. Below one, it does not.

    Canada’s Moment does not publish that number. Page 62 explains why: the cost estimate is too early-stage for the ratio to be meaningful. The same absence runs through ALTO’s public benefits page, examined in Many Benefits, One Missing Number.

    In plain language — what the cited manual says about early-stage uncertainty

    ALTO names a Metrolinx appraisal manual as the authority for two of its key figures — the subject of It Left the Rules Behind. That manual treats early-stage uncertainty as the reason to test and publish ranges — not as a reason to withhold them. Its instruction for the earliest project stage is to conduct sensitivity testing to understand the level of uncertainty.

    The same manual also requires early-stage rail costs to be marked up by 64 per cent before being compared with benefits, because rail megaprojects are systematically undercosted. That would put ALTO’s $60–90 billion into the comparison at roughly $98–148 billion. No such uplift is applied, and the concept is not mentioned.

    So the report does not divide the benefits by the costs, while placing $49.5 billion in benefits and $60–90 billion in costs on the same spread.

    It has been done before — on this corridor, at this stage

    In December 2021 the Joint Project Office — a body formed by VIA Rail Canada and the Canada Infrastructure Bank — completed a business case for High Frequency Rail, the slower and cheaper predecessor to ALTO along the same corridor. It was at a comparable point in its development.

    That document published a benefit-cost ratio.

    Project
    High Frequency Rail — the same Toronto–Québec City corridor, at a comparable stage of design
    Capital cost
    $27.71 billion in 2020 prices
    Benefit-cost ratio
    Approximately 0.13 — rising to about 0.4 on an expanded basis that also counts agglomeration effects and a resource correction
    Net present value
    −$21.1 billion over thirty years
    Public subsidy
    $37.1 to $42.2 billion over thirty years, under the delivery models assessed
    Parameters
    Drawn from Metrolinx and Ministère des Transports du Québec guidance — the same two sources Canada’s Moment cites five years later

    It was not published at the time. It became public in November 2025, when the Canada Infrastructure Bank released it under the Access to Information Act — almost four years after it was written.

    In plain language — what a ratio of 0.13 means

    A benefit-cost ratio of 1.00 means a project returns exactly what it costs. Above 1.00 it pays for itself in economic terms; below 1.00 it does not.

    A ratio of 0.13 means that for every dollar spent, about thirteen cents of measurable benefit came back. On the wider basis, which counts effects that are harder to measure, about forty cents. The Joint Project Office published those figures anyway, alongside the subsidy the project would need.

    Read this part carefully — these are not ALTO’s numbers

    0.13 is not ALTO’s ratio, and it is not an estimate of ALTO’s ratio. High Frequency Rail was a different project: slower, at $27.71 billion rather than $60–90 billion, assessed over thirty years rather than sixty. The Joint Project Office described its own results as preliminary. None of its figures transfers to ALTO by arithmetic, and this brief does not offer them as a forecast of anything.

    What the document establishes is narrower, and harder to answer: a benefit-cost ratio can be produced for a project on this corridor at this stage of design — because one was. Immaturity did not prevent it then, on a cost estimate roughly a third the size.

    There is one further detail worth recording. The same document, released under a different access request, comes back with one section withheld in full, the capital cost and revenue sentences cut off mid-clause, and the subsection headings of its Economic Case not shown in the table of contents. No exemption provision is marked against any of these.

    What Cannot Be Checked At All

    The benefit table cannot be audited by a reader

    Each row of the main benefit table gives you a quantity and a dollar value. The natural thing to do is divide one by the other and see what price has been put on an hour, a tonne of carbon, or a life. You cannot.

    The dollar figures are discounted. The quantities are not. And the prices that would connect them are referenced by source but never stated — only the $22.32 hourly value appears anywhere.

    One row does not appear to add up at all. The report says ALTO avoids up to 400 deaths and 26,000 injuries, valued at $610 million. Working backwards, that is roughly $1.2 billion before the time adjustment — which 26,000 injuries alone would exhaust at $50,000 each, a low figure by Canadian standards, leaving nothing for the 400 lives. Either the casualty counts and the money cover different periods, or the values placed on a life and an injury are far below what Canadian governments normally use. The report does not publish enough to say which.

    The Takeaway

    The same thing has happened to every number

    Top of a range
    $49.5 billion in benefits — the table is headed “upper estimate”; the lower estimate is nowhere in the document.
    Middle of a range
    $24.5 billion in GDP — the modeller published $14.8 billion to $41.0 billion. Only the midpoint travelled.
    Top of a range
    24 million riders — prefixed “up to,” from a process whose stated purpose is to produce a range.
    Top of a range
    50,000 jobs — in a table headed “upper estimate,” for figures the appendix says are not net gains.
    Not published
    The benefit-cost ratio — the one number that would put the others in proportion. The last time one was produced for this corridor, it took an access-to-information request to see it.

    This is the finding. Not that any figure is fabricated — none is. Not that the modelling is incompetent — the underlying studies are careful, and say so about their own limits. But wherever the underlying work reported a range, the document carries a single figure from the optimistic end of it, and it is that single figure which has reached councils, newspapers and the public.

    The ranges are not secret. Most of them are in ALTO’s own commissioned studies, sitting on ALTO’s own research page. They simply did not make it into the document that everyone reads.

    None of these figures should be repeated at face value, in either direction. They are the optimistic end of work that its own authors describe as uncertain — and anyone quoting them, for or against the project, should say which end of the range they are quoting.

    In Fairness

    What this brief is not saying

    Credit where it is owed

    The modellers were transparentThe economic study behind the GDP figure publishes its full range, states its assumptions, and explains how each was chosen. This brief is only possible because that work was published.
    ALTO refuses a claim it could have madeIts appendix states that the construction jobs and spending figures are not net economic benefits — a caveat most promoters simply omit.
    Some choices are genuinely cautiousThe value of an hour is held flat for 60 years rather than rising with incomes, which lowers the benefit total substantially. Safety benefits are capped after 20 years.

    And the limits of what we show

    Some arithmetic here is oursEvery figure attributed to ALTO, Aviseo, Metrolinx, the Joint Project Office or Transport Canada is quoted from the source listed below and can be checked there. Everything else is our own calculation from those published inputs: the $207.6 billion undiscounted time total, the 82 per cent that discounting removes, the 0.6 and 1.8 per cent at the ends of the GDP range, the $98–148 billion uplifted cost, and the casualty reconciliation. The reconciliations use assumptions about timing that ALTO does not disclose. They show the numbers cannot be reproduced from what is published — not that they are wrong.
    This is about disclosure, not competenceThe underlying modelling may be entirely sound. The objection is that a reader cannot tell, because the working is not shown.
    We do not say whyWhere a range or a caveat does not appear in the report, this page says so rather than inferring it. It makes no claim about why any particular figure was or was not published.
    A range is not a refutationThat the GDP figure could be $14.8 billion does not mean it will be. It equally could be $41.0 billion. The point is that one number is being presented as though the others do not exist.
    What To Ask

    Five questions for anyone quoting these figures

    1. Is that the top of the range, or the middle?

    For four of the five headline numbers, it is one or the other.

    2. What is the lower estimate?

    The benefit table is explicitly labelled an upper bound. Every range has another end.

    3. What is the benefit-cost ratio?

    Not published. It is the number that puts every other number in proportion — and one was produced for this corridor in 2021, so “too early” is a choice rather than a constraint.

    4. What price was put on a life, or a tonne of carbon?

    Referenced by source, never stated. Without them, no line of the benefit table can be checked.

    5. Where do the new passengers come from?

    Cars, planes, existing trains, or trips that would never have happened? A fifth of the benefits depend on the answer.

    Sources

    Primary documents

    1.
    ALTO, Canada’s Moment: The Economic Opportunity of High-Speed Rail, August 2026, 83 pp. Benefit table and value of time at p. 72; cost-benefit methodology at p. 73; GDP table and its “central estimate” note at p. 75; the roughly 100 simulations at p. 78; input-output caveat at p. 80; construction figures at Table A4, p. 81; ridership methodology at pp. 81–83; benefit-cost ratio at p. 62; non-additivity of the models at p. 9. altotrain.ca (PDF)
    2.
    Aviseo Conseil, An Overview of the Structural Economic Impacts of Alto: Computable General Equilibrium Modelling Approach, June 2026, 25 pp. Prepared on behalf of Alto. Published range at Table 1; productivity scenarios at Shock 1; labour-supply scenarios at Shock 2; geography assumption at p. 10. Available on ALTO’s research page.
    3.
    Metrolinx, Business Case Manual Volume 2: Guidance, August 2021, 222 pp. Cited by ALTO as the source of its discount rate and value of time. Sensitivity requirements at pp. 87–89; optimism-bias uplift at pp. 90–94; economic parameters at Table 5.8, p. 98.
    4.
    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 at p. 7; benefit-cost ratio, net present value and subsidy comparison at p. 8; appraisal parameters sourced to Metrolinx and MTQ guidance at p. 40; impact results and both ratios at Table 14, p. 43. The same document released as Annexe A to access request 22-2207 withholds section 9.7 in full, truncates the capital cost and revenue sentences mid-clause, and withholds the subsection headings of the Economic Case within its table of contents, with no exemption provisions marked.
    5.
    Transport Canada, Statistics on the social costs of collisions in Canada, and the underlying Ontario social cost model — used here as the comparison for standard Canadian casualty valuations. ALTO does not cite these and may have used others.
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative  ·  citizenresearch.ca  ·  Economic Claims Brief  ·  August 2026
    Independent, non-partisan research on the proposed Toronto–Quebec City high-speed rail corridor.

  • Nina’s commute

    Nina’s Commute

    ALTO’s economic report introduces a semi-retired nurse from Peterborough to show what high-speed rail changes. The corridor’s own ridership and fare data says otherwise.

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Corridor Communities Brief · Published August 2026
    ⚠ The scenario under examination

    On page 17 of Canada’s Moment, under the heading “What changes for Canadians,” ALTO introduces Nina — a semi-retired nurse living in Peterborough, invited to help train nursing students in Toronto. The report describes it as “an opportunity she would have declined in the past” because of the burden and unpredictability of commuting. With ALTO, it says, “that constraint is reduced” — letting her travel into the city twice a week without significant disruption to her routine, supplement her income, and pass on her expertise.

    It is a well-drawn illustration and the kind of person it describes certainly exists. This brief tests whether the journey it describes actually works, using the only published numbers available for that journey.

    Critical Finding

    On the only published assumption about ALTO’s service span — departures from 6 am — the first train of the day leaves Peterborough roughly 35 minutes too late to get Nina to a clinical placement. Nursing students take handover on the ward at 06:45. To be there, she needs to leave Peterborough around 05:25. She drives, exactly as she does today, which is the constraint the vignette says ALTO removes.

    On cost, the corridor’s own survey data puts willingness to pay for a Peterborough–Toronto trip at C$31 — the lowest value of any city pair on the entire route. Applying the published fare rule, two return trips a week comes to roughly $149–$178 weekly, or somewhere between a quarter and a half of what a part-time clinical teaching post pays after tax. ALTO itself discloses no fare anywhere in its 83 pages.

    And Nina is already inside the forecast she is meant to justify. The same research programme projects 269 daily boardings from Peterborough in every direction combined — about one fifth of a single 1,300-seat departure.

    The document under examination
    Canada’s Moment: The Economic Opportunity of High-Speed Rail
    ALTO, August 2026 — 83 pages. The Nina vignette appears at page 17.
    Read ALTO’s report
    The Market

    How many people make Nina’s trip?

    The most-cited independent study of corridor demand — High-Speed Rail in Canada, from Transportation Research at McGill — publishes a station-by-station table of projected daily boardings. It is the only public breakdown of its kind.

    The Peterborough row reads: 181 people a day to Toronto, 36 to Ottawa, 27 to Montréal, 9 to Trois-Rivières, 16 to Québec City. Total: 269 daily boardings — every direction, every trip purpose, everyone.

    269
    projected daily boardings at Peterborough, all destinations combined
    McGill, Prospective Daily Boarding table
    C$31
    willingness to pay, Peterborough to Toronto — the lowest of any pair on the corridor
    McGill, Willingness to Pay table
    35 min
    how much too late the first train is for a 7 am clinical start
    Initiative calculation, see below

    For scale: an ALTO departure of two coupled eight-car trainsets seats 1,300 people. Peterborough’s entire daily outbound demand is about one fifth of a single departure.

    Peterborough council was told the corridor would carry up to 72 trains a day. That is a corridor figure, not a Peterborough figure — and McGill’s own service design runs an express Toronto–Montréal train that does not stop at Peterborough at all. But even if a third of those 72 trains stopped, 269 boardings spread across 24 stopping trains works out to about eleven people per train.

    Three things should be said about this number before it is used. It is survey-derived stated preference, not observed demand — people saying what they think they would do. It is McGill’s projection, not ALTO’s: ALTO forecasts roughly 2.7 times McGill’s corridor total, and scaling Peterborough proportionally would give around 480 a day to Toronto rather than 181. And the source table contains a visible oddity — 886 people arriving in Peterborough from Toronto against 181 leaving for it, a fivefold asymmetry that is almost certainly a survey artefact rather than a real pattern. None of that changes the order of magnitude, and none of it is what breaks the scenario.

    The Timetable

    Clinical teaching starts at seven in the morning

    This is the part of the scenario that cannot be rescued, and it has nothing to do with money.

    Nursing students on a day-shift clinical placement take handover on the ward at 07:00. They are expected there at about 06:45. An instructor supervising them arrives before that. This is not a detail of one hospital’s policy — it is how bedside clinical education works, because it follows the shift.

    ALTO has published no timetable at all. The only public assumption about its service span is in the McGill financial analysis, which models departures between 6 am and 9 pm. Work backwards from a 06:45 ward start on that assumption:

    What the job requiresWhat the service offers
    06:45 — on the ward for handover
    06:15 — leave Union Station by transit
    06:10 — train arrives Toronto
    05:25 — train must leave Peterborough     		06:00 — earliest assumed departure

    On a 6 am train she reaches Union around 06:50 and a downtown hospital around 07:15 — a quarter of an hour after her students have taken handover without her.
    The first train of the day Leaves 35 minutes too late

    To teach a morning clinical placement, Nina drives — leaving Peterborough around five, exactly as she would today. The constraint the vignette says ALTO removes is the one thing ALTO doesn’t touch.

    One honest qualification. If Nina were teaching classroom or simulation-lab sessions rather than bedside clinical supervision, later start times are possible and this objection weakens considerably. The report describes a nurse with decades of experience in clinical practice, invited to help train the next generation — which in nursing education means supervision on a unit, at shift change.

    The Fare

    What the trip costs, and what the job pays

    ALTO discloses no fare, no average ticket price, and no revenue per passenger anywhere in Canada’s Moment. The only published basis for estimating one is McGill’s: a willingness-to-pay survey, with the financial analysis setting the standard fare at 1.2 times willingness to pay.

    For Peterborough–Toronto, willingness to pay is C$31 — the lowest single value in the entire matrix, lower than every other city pair on the corridor. Applying the published rule:

    Nina’s faresNina’s pay
    Round trip: $74–$89
    Two return trips a week: $149–$178
    A 26-week teaching year: $3,870–$4,620

    Before parking at the station, driving to it, or two TTC fares a day.     		An eight-hour clinical day at Ontario rates: $280–$440 gross
    Two days a week: $560–$880 gross

    Pay figures are from salary aggregators and are indicative only.
    Fare as a share of take-home pay Roughly one quarter to one half

    The vignette describes someone taking a part-time post to supplement her income. On the corridor’s own published fare basis, getting to the job would consume between a quarter and a half of what the job pays. For the person described, that is the difference between an offer worth accepting and one that isn’t.

    And it isn’t cheaper than driving

    Driving
    Fuel alone, 280 km round trip: about $36. Fuel plus wear at roughly 25¢/km: about $70. Hospital-district parking: $15–$25. All in: $50–$95.
    ALTO
    Fare $74–$89, plus station parking and two TTC fares. All in: $85–$110.

    The train costs more than the car for this journey, arrives too late for the shift, and still requires the car to reach the station.

    The Journey

    Door to door, the saving is ten to thirty minutes

    The corridor headline — journey times cut in half — is calculated on long city pairs, where the train’s cruising speed dominates the trip. Peterborough to Toronto is about 140 kilometres. On a leg that short, getting to and from the stations dominates instead.

    Driving todayWith ALTO
    Peterborough to a downtown Toronto hospital, door to door:

    1 hour 45 minutes to 2 hours 30, depending on the 401.     		Drive to station 15–25 min · park, walk, wait 15–20 min · train 40–50 min · Union to hospital 20–30 min

    1 hour 30 minutes to 2 hours 05
    Door-to-door saving About 10 to 30 minutes each way

    Real, but not a transformation — and it disappears entirely if she has to drive anyway to make a seven o’clock start.

    Station siting makes it worse rather than better. ALTO’s own materials point to a site outside Peterborough’s built-up area, and the McGill survey found that Peterborough respondents themselves prefer a car-accessible station away from downtown, near a highway or park-and-ride. Wherever it lands, Nina keeps the car. (Siting is unresolved; a downtown station would improve these timings.)

    The Pricing

    Revenue management points straight at her

    ALTO’s published FAQ states that the project plans to use revenue management — as most airlines and high-speed operators do — to match fares with demand and available seats, with the objective of maximising seat occupancy.

    Yield management prices Nina highest

    Airline-style pricing charges the most for peak, predictable, inflexible travel. Nina travels at peak, on fixed days, to a timetable set by a teaching term she cannot move. She is not the traveller who gets the cheap seat — she is the traveller the cheap seat is withheld from.

    Her city pair is the least valuable on the corridor

    An operator facing a $31 willingness to pay on a short leg and $110 on Toronto–Québec City has an obvious commercial answer, and it is not more Peterborough stops. The scenario depends on a pricing decision that runs against the operator’s stated pricing strategy.

    The Circle

    Nina is already inside the forecast she is meant to justify

    The vignette is offered as an illustration of what high-speed rail makes possible — a benefit the project would create. But the 181 figure comes from asking Peterborough residents how often they would use high-speed rail if it existed.

    The model has already counted the Ninas. There are 181 of them a day, in every trip purpose combined: commuters, visitors, shoppers, students, patients, people going to appointments, people going to the airport, tourists. The illustration does not add to the forecast. It is a description of one person inside it.

    That matters for how the vignette should be read. It is not evidence of demand. It is a portrait of a member of a demand estimate that the same body of research puts at a fifth of one trainload.

    In Fairness

    What this brief is not saying

    The vignette isn’t dishonest

    People like Nina existA faster, more reliable connection would genuinely help some of them. The objection is to the weight a single illustration is asked to carry in an economic case.
    A Peterborough station may be justified on other groundsRegional equity, development around the station, network structure. This brief addresses only whether this scenario demonstrates what it is offered to demonstrate.
    The report is candid elsewhereIts ridership figures are labelled “up to,” and its own tables are headed “upper estimate.” The vignette is where those qualifiers stop applying.

    And the limits of what we can show

    The fares are McGill’s, not ALTO’sALTO has published no fare. If its eventual fare is lower, the affordability arithmetic changes — and nobody can check, because the number does not exist.
    The 6 am service span is an assumptionIt is McGill’s modelling assumption, not an ALTO commitment. ALTO has published no timetable, so the clock test uses the only published assumption available.
    The pay range is indicativeOntario clinical instructor rates here come from salary aggregators and should be replaced with a collective-agreement figure.
    What Would Settle It

    Four questions

    1. What time does the first train leave Peterborough?

    Any service beginning at 6 am cannot deliver anyone to a seven o’clock shift change anywhere in Toronto. Hospitals, factories and construction sites all start before the corridor does.

    2. How many of the 72 daily trains stop at Peterborough?

    The figure given to Peterborough council was a corridor total. The station’s actual frequency has never been published.

    3. What is the fare?

    The scenario’s plausibility rests entirely on a number that appears nowhere in the 83 pages that contain the scenario.

    4. Was this scenario tested against the ridership model, or written independently of it?

    The corridor’s own survey data puts Nina’s entire market — Peterborough to Toronto, all purposes — at 181 people a day.

    Sources

    Primary documents

    1.
    ALTO, Canada’s Moment: The Economic Opportunity of High-Speed Rail, August 2026, 83 pp. The Nina vignette appears at p. 17 under “What changes for Canadians.” Ridership and route described in the executive summary; benefit tables at pp. 60 and 72. altotrain.ca (PDF)
    2.
    Zhang, B., Negm, H., & El-Geneidy, A. (2026). High-Speed Rail in Canada: Insights from a corridorwide survey and a financial analysis. Transportation Research at McGill, McGill University. Daily boardings at section I.3; willingness to pay at section I.4; fare rule, service span and fleet assumptions at section II. tram.mcgill.ca (PDF)
    3.
    ALTO, “Frequently Asked Questions,” altotrain.ca — statement of intent to use revenue management to match fares with demand and available seats. altotrain.ca
    4.
    Deny Sullivan, “High Speed Rail: Ridership forecasting,” 30 April 2026 — secondary commentary that first drew attention to the Peterborough rows and the directional asymmetry in the McGill boarding table. Substack
    5.
    Peterborough City Council resolution coverage, kawarthaNOW, 24 March 2026 — source of the “up to 72 trains per day” figure presented to council. kawarthanow.com
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative  ·  citizenresearch.ca  ·  Corridor Communities Brief  ·  August 2026
    Independent, non-partisan research on the proposed Toronto–Quebec City high-speed rail corridor.

  • Would an Alto stop help kingston

    Would an ALTO Stop Help Kingston?

    Kingston has one of the busiest stations on the network. The question that matters is not whether it gets a stop, but whether a stop would leave more people riding the train, or fewer.

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Policy Brief · July 2026
    ⚠ What has been said, and what has not been published

    On 22 July 2026 ALTO’s chief executive, Martin Imbleau, told CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning that Kingston will probably get a station, and that most ALTO trains would pass through without stopping.1 Neither the timetable nor the location of the station has been published.

    Those two missing facts are exactly the ones that decide the outcome. This brief therefore tests the range: today’s railway, a faster conventional railway using the existing station, and ALTO with a station either inside the city or a twenty‑seven‑minute drive north of it, at normal fares and at fares 25 per cent higher. Every number that goes into the model is listed, so any of them can be argued with.

    The short answer

    Of the options tested, only one leaves Kingston with more rail trips than it has today: a faster conventional railway serving the existing station, at about 12 per cent more. The best ALTO case — a station inside the city, at normal fares — roughly matches today. Every other ALTO case comes out below today’s service, by 8 to 17 per cent.

    The reason is simple. Speed is only one part of what makes a train trip worth taking. ALTO’s faster run to Toronto is worth about 10 per cent more trips on its own. But cutting the number of daily stops from eighteen to eight gives that back. Charging 25 per cent more gives it back again. Moving the station twenty‑seven minutes north of the city costs another 6 to 8 points on top.

    Running more trains cannot rescue it by itself. Even at eighteen stops a day, matching what Kingston has now, an out‑of‑town station at a premium fare still comes out around 9 per cent below today. And about 8 per cent of Kingston’s trips — Belleville, Brockville, Cobourg, Napanee, Oshawa — have no ALTO equivalent at any frequency, because high‑speed trains do not stop at those places.

    Download
    Kingston’s ALTO Ridership Analysis — Full Brief (PDF)
    Full method, all parameters, sensitivity ranges and break‑even tables
    Download PDF
    The Comparison

    Six versions of Kingston’s railway

    The table below is the whole brief in one place. The first row is what Kingston has today. The second is a faster conventional railway from the same station. The last four are ALTO, differing only in where the station sits and what the ticket costs.

    +12%
    faster conventional railway, existing station, same number of trains, normal fares
    the only option that grows ridership
    0%
    best ALTO case: station in town, normal fares, eight stops a day
    matches today, does not beat it
    −17%
    ALTO station 27 minutes north, eight stops a day, fares 25% higher
    central case for an out‑of‑town station

    Table 1 · Headline comparison

    OptionTo TorontoStops a dayFare premiumAnnual tripsChange
    Today’s service135 min18none450,000—
    Faster conventional railway, existing station95 min18none502,000+12%
    ALTO, station in town80 min8none449,0000%
    ALTO, station in town80 min8+25%403,000−10%
    ALTO, 27 min north80 min8none416,000−8%
    ALTO, 27 min north80 min8+25%376,000−17%

    All four ALTO rows assume eight stops a day and that today’s conventional service is withdrawn. They differ only in where the station is and what the ticket costs. No fare structure for intermediate stations has been published, so both possibilities are shown rather than assumed. The faster conventional railway is the 240 km/h new‑build line proposed under the High Performance Rail framework, serving the existing station.

    Starting Point

    Why Kingston already rides the train

    Kingston’s place among the busiest stations on the network gets cited as the reason it should have a high‑speed stop. But what produces that ridership decides whether a different kind of station would reproduce it. Four things do most of the work, and a high‑speed alignment north of the city removes two of them.

    It gets two sets of trains, not one

    Kingston sits halfway along the Toronto–Montréal mainline, and the Toronto–Ottawa trains use the same track as far as Brockville. So Kingston collects two timetables instead of one, and ends up with a level of service beaten only by the three biggest cities on the corridor. Frequency matters to ridership on its own, quite apart from speed: in intercity rail, a 10 per cent increase in service typically brings 4 to 7 per cent more trips.

    The station serves a region, not a city

    Napanee, Gananoque, Amherstview and the western Thousand Islands have no intercity rail of their own, so people drive to Kingston to catch the train. Ridership credited to a city of 132,485 is actually generated by an area several times larger; the Kingston census metropolitan area is 172,546.6

    The population is unusually inclined to take the train

    Some thirty‑nine thousand post‑secondary students study in a city of 132,485: Queen’s enrols 32,585, St. Lawrence College about 4,000 full‑time equivalents at its Kingston campus, and the Royal Military College of Canada 2,418.5 That is about twenty‑nine students for every hundred residents — against roughly twenty‑three in Sherbrooke and twenty‑one in Guelph, the two Canadian cities most often set beside Kingston on this measure.7 Many come from the Toronto and Ottawa regions and travel without a car. Kingston also has a large retired population, for whom avoiding the highway is the point of the trip, and an unusually high share of hospital, university, military and public‑sector jobs where travel is expensed and defaults to rail.

    But that ridership is hard to charge a premium for

    This travel is not spread evenly. It piles up at term boundaries, Thursday and Sunday afternoons, reading weeks and holidays, and it creates a matching flow of families travelling to Kingston. These are the travellers most sensitive to how often trains run and how far the station is from where they are going, and the least able to just drive instead. They are also the least profitable: peaked, price‑sensitive, and largely outside the weekday business hours a high‑speed operation’s revenue depends on.

    Two things worth being clear about

    The ridership figure itself is not published. Kingston’s standing as one of the busiest stations rests on statements by the operator and the Minister, not on released station‑level data. That is the first item on the list of things that should be published, at the end of this brief.

    Existing demand is not the same as new demand. Busy today proves Kingston already travels by train. It does not prove that a different station would generate additional trips. Only new trips add ridership to the corridor.

    There is also no flight from Kingston to Toronto. Elsewhere, high‑speed rail wins its premium passengers off aircraft. In Kingston those passengers are already on the train, so there is nobody to convert. Extra trips can only come out of cars, or be created from nothing.

    Both of the things that built Kingston’s ridership — frequent trains, and a station within the city, roughly ten minutes from the core and the university — are the two things a high‑speed alignment north of the city takes away. That is what the model is built to test.

    Method

    How the numbers were worked out

    Every trip is priced in minutes. Add up the time on the train, the time getting to and from the station at each end, the waiting created by having fewer trains, and the fare converted into minutes using what an hour is worth to that kind of traveller. Time spent driving to a station or standing on a platform counts for more than time sitting on a moving train, because people dislike it more. Journeys that involve changing trains carry an allowance for the change. That matters for one market in particular: ALTO reaches Montréal from Kingston by way of Ottawa, so some of those journeys involve a change, where a direct lakeshore railway does not.

    That total is the real cost of the trip. If it goes up, fewer people travel. If it goes down, more do. The response used here is roughly one for one: make the total 10 per cent better and you get about 10 per cent more trips.

    Travellers are split into four destinations and four types, each divided by whether they have a car available: thirty‑two groups, each worked out separately and then added up. That matters because a student without a car and an expensed public‑sector traveller react to a distant station in completely different ways.

    Table 2 · Everything the model assumes

    InputValue used
    Trips today450,000 a year through the station (tested from 400,000 to 550,000)
    Where people goToronto 58%, Ottawa 22%, Montréal 12%, other corridor stations 8%
    Who travelsStudents 30%, seniors and leisure 25%, public sector 20%, other 25%
    Share without a carStudents 85%, seniors and leisure 50%, public sector 15%, other 20%
    Worth of an hour$14, $20, $48 and $24 respectively, in the same order
    Time on the trainToday 135 / 120 / 160 min; ALTO 80 / 45 / 105 min (Toronto / Ottawa / Montréal)
    Getting to the stationExisting station 10 min by car, 20 by transit; ALTO 27 by car, 35 by shuttle
    How that time is weighted1.5 times if a car is available, 2.0 times if not
    WaitingHalf the gap between trains, weighted at 0.5, across a fifteen‑hour day
    ALTO fare premium25% in the central case; 0% and 40% also tested
    Sensitivity of demandOne for one in the central case (tested from 0.8 to 1.2)

    Far‑end access time is held identical in every scenario, which is a conservative choice: it gives ALTO the benefit of the doubt at the Toronto and Ottawa ends.

    Two possible futures for today’s trains

    Every service level is tested twice, because the answer depends less on ALTO than on what happens to the service Kingston already has.

    Replacement

    ALTO becomes Kingston’s rail service to Toronto, Ottawa and Montréal, and conventional service is withdrawn or cut below a useful level. Trips to Belleville, Brockville, Cobourg, Napanee and Oshawa lose their train altogether.

    Both together

    Today’s service keeps running at present frequency and ALTO is added on top. Travellers pick whichever is cheaper in total, and only the improvement over the better of the two creates new trips.

    What is assumed rather than known

    Four inputs are estimates, not published data: the number of trips today, where those trips go, ALTO’s journey times (the alignment for this stretch has not been published), and where the station would be. All four appear on the list at the end of this brief. The model also applies a constant response to a very large change in trip cost, which is at the outer edge of where this method behaves well. The direction of the results is solid. The exact sizes are indicative.

    Result One

    Where the speed gain goes

    Start with today’s service and change one thing at a time. This is the clearest way to see why a faster train can still end up with fewer passengers.

    Table 3 · One change at a time

    StepAnnual tripsChangeEffect of this step
    Today’s service, as it runs450,000——
    Cut the Toronto run to 80 minutes, change nothing else496,000+10%+10 pts
    Cut stops from 18 a day to 8449,0000%−10 pts
    Add a 25 per cent fare premium403,000−10%−10 pts
    Move the station 27 minutes north376,000−17%−6 pts

    The second row is the entire value of high‑speed running time at Kingston: about 10 per cent. Each of the three things that come with it takes back as much or more. This calculation already leaves out trips to other corridor stations, which a high‑speed line cannot serve at any frequency.

    Result Two

    More trains cannot fix it on its own

    Suppose the number of stops is the thing that gets negotiated. Hold the station twenty‑seven minutes north and the fare 25 per cent higher, and vary how often ALTO calls.

    Table 4 · ALTO at a station 27 minutes north

    Stops a dayAnnual tripsChangeRangeIf today’s trains stay
    6359,000−20%−17% to −24%0%
    8376,000−17%−13% to −21%0%
    10387,000−14%−10% to −18%+0.2%
    18408,000−9%−4% to −14%+1.6%
    12 (six each way)394,000−12%−9% to −17%+0.5%
    16 (eight each way)404,000−10%−6% to −15%+1.3%
    20 (ten each way)411,000−9%−3% to −14%+1.9%

    The range covers the whole plausible span of the model’s assumptions, at a 25 per cent fare premium. The bottom three rows read six, eight and ten as stops each way, which is the most generous reading available. It improves the result without changing the sign. The last column is the “both together” case, where today’s service survives: ALTO then adds almost nothing, because travellers only switch when it is genuinely better for them.

    The fare premium matters more than the timetable

    Table 5 · What moves the answer

    Stops a dayNormal faresFares +25%Fares +40%Station 25 min outStation 45 min out
    6−12%−20%−24%−17%−23%
    8−8%−17%−21%−13%−20%
    10−5%−14%−19%−10%−17%

    The last two columns hold the fare premium at 25 per cent and vary the drive from the station to downtown; the central case is 27 minutes. Notice that going from normal fares to a 25 per cent premium costs more than doubling the distance to the station.

    How many trains would it actually take?

    The more useful question is what it would take for an out‑of‑town ALTO station to be no worse for Kingston than the service it already has. At normal fares the answer is nine stops a day for everyone. At a 25 per cent premium, the answer falls apart.

    Table 6 · Daily stops needed just to match today, Toronto trips

    Who is travellingAt normal faresAt a 25% premium
    Public sector and institutional (expensed)913
    Other business and leisure927
    Seniors, leisure, visiting family948
    Students and young adults9no number works

    Forty‑eight stops a day is a train every twenty minutes all day. For students, no frequency at all makes up for a distant station plus a premium ticket, because their time is worth less than the fare increase costs them.

    One case runs the other way and should be said plainly: expensed public‑sector travel between Kingston and Ottawa is better off under ALTO in every scenario tested, because today’s service on that pair is slow and indirect. It is a real gain, and it is a small share of the total.

    Under the friendliest assumptions available — normal fares, a station twenty‑five minutes out, today’s trains kept running alongside, ten stops a day — the best figure the model will produce for an out‑of‑town Kingston station is about +8 per cent. Getting there means giving up the premium pricing the revenue case depends on everywhere else.

    Result Three

    What if you just made today’s trains faster?

    Now reverse the test. Keep the existing station, keep eighteen stops a day, keep normal fares, and change nothing but speed on the existing route.

    Table 7 · Speed alone, from the existing station

    Toronto journey timeTime savedAnnual tripsChange
    135 min, as it runs today—450,000—
    118 min, reliable 160 to 177 km/h13%471,000+4.6%
    95 min, a 240 km/h conventional railway30%502,000+11.6%
    80 min, upper bound for this station41%525,000+16.6%

    The last row applies high‑speed running time to the existing station. It is there to separate speed from station location, frequency and fare, not as a proposal.

    The comparison that matters

    Eighty minutes to Toronto from the existing station, eighteen stops a day, normal fares: about +17 per cent. The same eighty minutes from a station twenty‑seven minutes out of town, eight stops a day, fares 25 per cent higher: about −17 per cent.

    The time on the train is identical. The two outcomes are thirty‑four points apart, and every one of those points is station location, frequency and fare.

    Speed gives diminishing returns

    Roughly speaking, every 1 per cent cut in journey time buys about 0.4 per cent more trips. A 30 per cent time saving buys about 12 per cent more passengers. For most of Kingston’s travellers, time on the train is a minority of what the trip really costs them — fare, getting to the station and waiting make up the rest, and speed does nothing about any of those. The gain concentrates where an hour is worth most: on a 95‑minute conventional railway, public‑sector travel grows about 17 per cent, business and leisure 13, seniors and leisure 12, students 10.

    A conservative figure, and a warning

    These figures are cautious. The response to journey time implied here is weaker than the rail literature usually finds, because the fare term in the calculation dampens it. Using a more standard figure, the same 30 per cent time saving would give about +22 per cent rather than +12. Table 7 should be read as a floor, with the 95‑minute case plausibly worth anywhere from +10 to +25 per cent. The comparisons earlier in the brief are unaffected, because they compare like with like.

    The warning is that fares erode the gain fast in either direction. Raising tickets 10 per cent to help pay for an upgrade cuts the benefit from about +12 per cent to about +7 — two‑fifths of the speed gain eaten by a 10 per cent fare rise. That is the same mechanism that sinks the high‑speed cases, working here on the alternative. It is an argument for funding an upgrade from capital rather than from the farebox.

    What It Means

    A stop is not the same as service

    Three things set whether Kingston gains or loses, and speed is not one of them: how far the station is from where people are actually going, what the ticket costs, and whether today’s trains survive. Frequency cannot rescue the result on its own. At eighteen stops a day, matching today, an out‑of‑town station at a premium fare still comes out around 9 per cent down.

    A public debate about whether Kingston gets a station, and how many trains stop there, is a debate about the wrong variables.

    The two things ALTO has said do not fit together

    A station justified by strong ridership, but served by a minority of trains, has its timetable set by the express service rather than by the demand used to justify it. Table 6 shows why that is not a workable compromise: the frequency needed to make the station work at a premium fare is far above what an express pattern tolerates. The usual international answer is two tiers, express and semi‑fast, which needs somewhere for fast trains to overtake at the intermediate station. Whether the cost estimate includes that overtaking capacity is a question with two possible answers, and both are informative.

    A conventional railway does better here

    A new conventional railway built for 240 km/h, running typically at 200, serves Kingston without moving the station, without the fare premium high‑speed operation needs, and without cutting the number of trains that stop. It captures a smaller share of the theoretical time saving and a larger share of the ridership. That is the trade the tables above quantify.

    What Would Change the Answer

    Three commitments, and four documents

    None of this is a prediction that a Kingston station must fail. The results turn on assumptions, and those assumptions are all things the project could settle.

    Would help
    A station much closer to the core, or a frequent connection to it that is committed and timed to the trains rather than hoped for.
    Would help most
    Normal fares on Kingston journeys. Table 6 shows this is the single decisive variable. A premium fare is what makes the arithmetic unrecoverable for students, seniors and leisure travellers.
    Would help
    A binding commitment that service on the existing line is maintained, which turns the replacement case into the both‑together case, plus a published timetable, so frequency becomes a fact instead of an assumption.

    Four things that should be published

    Before any of these figures are treated as more than an order of magnitude, four inputs should be replaced with real data:

    Not published
    Station‑level boardings and destinations. This alone would settle both the number of trips today and where they go. A matter for the operator.
    Not published
    The calling pattern assumed for the Toronto–Ottawa segment — how many trains actually stop, and where.
    Not published
    The fare structure for intermediate stations. On the evidence above, this matters more than anything else on the list.
    Not published
    The station location, with the assumed travel time from it to downtown Kingston.

    The first sits with the operator. The other three sit with the project and its joint project office, whose report and business case remain unpublished.

    The finding that matters

    It is not that a Kingston station would fail. It is that the service Kingston already has is the benchmark the project has never been asked to beat — and on the assumptions set out here, it does not beat it.

    How to read the numbers on this page

    Every number here other than the two quoted statements is output from our own model, built on the parameters listed in the full brief. Those parameters are assumptions, not measurements, and the four listed above as needing publication are the ones that move the result. The model is set out so that any parameter can be replaced and the arithmetic re-run: the direction of the findings holds across the ranges tested, the exact magnitudes are indicative.

    Where ALTO has not published something — a timetable, a station location, a fare — we say so rather than inferring it, and we make no claim about why it has not been published.

    Sources
    1.
    CBC News, “Kingston probably getting high-speed rail stop, says Alto CEO,” 22 July 2026 — interview with Martin Imbleau on CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning. He says Kingston will probably receive a station, citing ridership, and that most ALTO trains would pass through without stopping, along with Laval and Trois-Rivières, to preserve express service between the larger cities. cbc.ca
    2.
    City of Kingston, Council Meeting Minutes 2026-06, 17 February 2026, Resolution 2026-73, carried as amended 9–2 — support for a southern route contingent on Highway 401 corridor development and on a stop being added in Kingston, as close to the urban core as possible. Examined in the companion brief Which Trains Stop in Kingston?
    3.
    Elasticity ranges: intercity frequency elasticities of +0.4 to +0.7 and journey-time elasticities of −0.6 to −0.9 are the conventional ranges in the rail demand literature, used here as reference values rather than as findings of this brief. The generalised-cost elasticity of −1.0 central, banded −0.8 to −1.2, is our own choice and is tested across that band throughout.
    4.
    Current journey times are as timetabled by VIA Rail. ALTO journey times are our assumption, since no alignment has been published for the Toronto–Ottawa segment.
    5.
    Queen’s University, 2025–26 Enrolment Report, as at 1 November 2025 — 28,561 full-time students, plus 1,704 part-time undergraduate, 1,389 part-time graduate and 931 online undergraduate, giving 32,585 in total. St. Lawrence College reports about 4,000 full-time equivalents at its Kingston campus. Royal Military College of Canada: 1,209 full-time and 587 part-time undergraduate, 276 full-time and 346 part-time graduate students, giving 2,418 in total. RMC’s part-time and graduate enrolment includes serving officers studying at a distance, so it is counted here on the same all-enrolment basis as Queen’s rather than as a resident population; on full-time enrolment alone the city total is about 38,000, and the ratio is about twenty-nine per hundred either way. macleans.ca queensu.ca (PDF)
    6.
    Statistics Canada, 2021 Census of Population — City of Kingston (census subdivision) 132,485; Kingston census metropolitan area 172,546, comprising the City of Kingston, South Frontenac, Frontenac Islands and Loyalist Township. statcan.gc.ca
    7.
    Comparators, on the same all-institutions basis where the data allow. Sherbrooke: about 40,000 students across eight institutions in a city of 172,950, roughly twenty-three per hundred residents. Guelph: 29,617 full-time equivalents at the University of Guelph in a city of 143,740, roughly twenty-one per hundred — a figure that excludes the Conestoga College campus and is therefore a floor. ocul.on.ca
    Download Full Brief
    Kingston’s ALTO Ridership Analysis (PDF)
    Full method, all thirty‑two market segments, sensitivity bands and break‑even calculations
    Download PDF
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative  ·  citizenresearch.ca  ·  Policy Brief  ·  July 2026
    Independent, non‑partisan research on the proposed Toronto–Quebec City high‑speed rail corridor.

  • A friendly witness

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Research Brief

    A Friendly Witness

    How a supportive submission to ALTO lists the things the project cannot deliver.

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Research Brief · Published July 2026 · On Trajectoire Québec’s memoir to ALTO, 24 April 2026
    Critical Finding

    Trajectoire Québec’s memoir endorses high-speed rail. But its nine recommendations describe downtown stations, affordable fares, more intermediate stops, preserved conventional service, and seamless local integration — the specification of a high-frequency conventional railway, not of a 300 km/h greenfield line. Measured against ALTO’s actual design, the memoir substantively meets none of its own recommendations, leaves one open (passenger experience), and runs into structural conflict, adverse economics, or the project’s own premise on the rest. The friendliest submission on the consultation file reads as a list of the project’s gaps.

    Two of the adverse assessments depend on ALTO’s unpublished plans — whether airport stations appear, and how central the endpoint stations finally sit — and could improve. The others follow from physics and economics: the severance and peripheral siting a grade-separated 250+ km/h alignment entails, and the cost and ridership figures in the Initiative’s reference-class work.

    Download
    A Friendly Witness — Full Brief (PDF)
    Recommendation-by-recommendation assessment of Trajectoire Québec’s memoir against ALTO’s actual design
    Download PDF
    The Endorsement

    An endorsement built on a poll, not a case

    Trajectoire was an early backer of VIA Rail’s high-frequency proposal (the TGF). Its memoir now supports high-speed rail — but conditionally, “dans la mesure où” the project delivers accessibility, integration, and equity. The memoir’s own narrative traces the shift from high-frequency to high-speed not to a technical or economic case but to a 2024 opinion poll it cites — 92 per cent preferring high-speed over high-frequency — and to the stated preferences of local mayors. What the organization asks for did not change when its endorsement did. It wanted a frequent, reliable, affordable, well-connected interurban railway before the pivot, and it wants one still. The recommendations describe that railway; the endorsement sits on top of it.

    9
    recommendations in Trajectoire’s memoir
    memoir summary of recommendations
    ~0.07
    ALTO benefit–cost ratio, central estimate
    Initiative reference-class analysis
    43 → 54
    community friction, before → after the consultation
    Initiative friction index
    Recommendation by Recommendation

    Nine recommendations, measured against the design

    The memoir’s own summary lists nine recommendations. Set against the design ALTO is advancing and the Initiative’s research record, each resolves into a verdict.

    Trajectoire’s RecommendationWhat ALTO’s Design Delivers
    1. Downtown stations, universally accessible, integrated with local and interurban networks. Central stations sit inside existing transit networks, enabling efficient connections and reducing car dependence to reach the train.A grade-separated alignment engineered for 250+ km/h — the speed all three RFP bidders independently proposed — cannot be threaded into dense downtowns at a cost the project will bear, which pushes stations toward the periphery. Trajectoire’s own examples — the pull of the downtown Palais station over Sainte-Foy, the car-inducing effect of Ottawa’s out-of-centre station — are the pattern ALTO’s design tends toward, not away from.
    Assessment:Structural conflict
    2. Urban integration with no impassable barriers for pedestrians and cyclists. The network should knit into the urban fabric without severing pedestrian and cycle routes or forcing long detours.High-speed track must be fully grade-separated and fenced along its length. That severance is the impassable barrier the recommendation asks the project to avoid — a condition of running trains at that speed, not an incidental feature. The Initiative’s forward friction measure captures the gap: a high-performance spine scores roughly 29 against ALTO’s ~65.
    Assessment:Structural conflict
    3. Affordable and accessible to all. A publicly funded project should serve the whole population, with fares that keep the train competitive with the car for youth, families, and seniors.Central cost near $143 million per kilometre, a benefit–cost ratio around 0.07, and low ridership (~0.29 trips per capita) in the Initiative’s reference-class work create structural pressure toward premium, cost-recovery fares — the opposite of the equity pricing the recommendation requires.
    Assessment:Contrary to the economics
    4. Tight cost control; private participation if needed; no crowding-out of urban transit. The project must not consume the federal funding that urban transit networks depend on.The same economics point to fiscal displacement — the exact crowding-out the recommendation fears. Nothing in the record indicates the tight cost control it asks for.
    Assessment:Contrary to the economics
    5. Stations at Montréal-Trudeau (YUL) and Québec / Jean-Lesage (YQB) airports. Direct airport connections would capture regional and international travellers and spare them a transfer.As far as ALTO’s public plan shows, airport stations are not included. This verdict depends on plans ALTO has not fully published and could change.
    Assessment:Not in the plan
    6. Amend ALTO’s mandate to provide more intermediate stations. More stops would broaden ridership and build social acceptance along the corridor.Every intermediate stop erodes the journey-time advantage that is the sole justification for a 300 km/h greenfield line over higher-frequency upgrades. The recommendation therefore asks the government to partially unwind the project’s premise. Trajectoire half-concedes this, proposing passing loops so express trains can overtake local ones.
    Assessment:Against the premise
    7. Preserve and improve conventional interurban service on the existing network. The corridor service Trajectoire once championed under the high-frequency banner must not be degraded.A separate greenfield line does nothing, on its own, to preserve or improve VIA’s conventional service. The Initiative has documented a benchmark substitution in ALTO’s costing material, where the high-frequency baseline is replaced by an undifferentiated “Conventional Rail.” The dual-asset move that would satisfy this — a new spine that also frees the legacy network — is the HPR framework’s, and ALTO does not offer it.
    Assessment:Unaddressed
    8. European / Asian-standard passenger experience, distinct from air travel. Simple ticketing, clear information, easy baggage, no airport-style check-in.An operational choice made late in delivery. The record gives no signal either way; it is fair to call this undetermined.
    Assessment:Open
    9. Secure social acceptability through rigorous, proactive consultation. Acceptability must be built through genuine, early, influential consultation.Community friction, on the Initiative’s index, rose from 43 to 54 after the consultation round — the process increased opposition rather than building acceptability. Measured against that movement, a supportive organization’s polite call for better consultation is a finding that the consultation so far has failed its own test.
    Assessment:Failing
    The Pattern

    A supportive submission describes a different train

    Set the recommendations beside one another and a single shape emerges.

    The recommendations describe high-frequency rail

    Downtown access, more stops, affordable fares, network integration, preserved conventional service — item by item, this is the value proposition of high-frequency conventional rail, the case the Initiative advances under the HPR framework, restated by an organization convinced it is endorsing something else.

    Even the friendly witness describes the gaps

    The friendliest submission on the consultation record describes the project by what it lacks. That matters precisely because the witness is favourable: the gap between what ALTO is and what its supporters want is not a partisan artifact. It is visible even to those cheering the train on.

    Structural, not merely contingent

    Two adverse verdicts — airport stations and endpoint centrality — depend on ALTO’s unpublished plans and could improve. The rest follow from the design itself: the severance and peripheral siting a grade-separated 250+ km/h alignment entails, and the cost and ridership economics in the Initiative’s reference-class work. Those move only with the choice of technology.

    Where Things Stand · July 2026

    Summary ledger

    In summary, against the recommendations in the memoir:

    Open
    Passenger experience (Rec 8): undetermined — an operational choice made late in delivery.
    Not met
    Downtown, accessible, integrated stations (Rec 1): structural conflict with a grade-separated high-speed alignment.
    Not met
    Urban integration without severance (Rec 2): the fenced, grade-separated corridor is itself the barrier.
    Not met
    Affordable fares for all (Rec 3): the economics push toward premium, cost-recovery pricing.
    Not met
    Cost control; no crowding-out of urban transit (Rec 4): the economics point to fiscal displacement.
    Not met
    Airport stations at YUL and YQB (Rec 5): not in the public plan — contingent on ALTO’s plans.
    Not met
    More intermediate stations (Rec 6): against the express premise of a 300 km/h line.
    Not met
    Preserve / improve conventional service (Rec 7): a separate greenfield line does not deliver it; the dual-asset HPR move is absent.
    Not met
    Social acceptability via consultation (Rec 9): friction rose 43 → 54 after the consultation round.

    Trajectoire Québec supports the train. Its recommendations, read against ALTO’s actual design, are not — in the main — met by the project as scoped. The organization is not asking for tweaks to a design it accepts; it is describing, recommendation by recommendation, a high-frequency railway that the high-speed greenfield line was never built to be.

    Download Full Brief
    A Friendly Witness (PDF)
    Recommendation-by-recommendation analysis for decision-makers, MPs, and constituents tracking the consultation record
    Download PDF
    Source

    The submission assessed

    1.
    Trajectoire Québec, Train à grande vitesse entre Québec et Toronto : une occasion à saisir pour améliorer les transports interurbains au Québec. Memoir presented to ALTO, 24 April 2026. trajectoire.quebec
    2.
    Assessment draws on the Initiative’s research record — the reference-class cost and ridership models, the community friction index, and Privy Council Office briefing note A-2025-00015, which confirms that all three RFP bidders independently proposed 250+ km/h greenfield alignments.
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative  ·  citizenresearch.ca  ·  Research Brief  ·  July 2026
    Independent, non-partisan research on the proposed Toronto–Quebec City high-speed rail corridor.
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Note de recherche

    Un témoin bienveillant

    Comment un mémoire favorable à ALTO énumère ce que le projet ne peut offrir.

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Note de recherche · Publié en juillet 2026 · À propos du mémoire de Trajectoire Québec à ALTO, le 24 avril 2026
    Constat essentiel

    Le mémoire de Trajectoire Québec appuie le train à grande vitesse. Mais ses neuf recommandations décrivent des gares en centre-ville, des tarifs abordables, davantage de gares intermédiaires, le maintien du service conventionnel et une intégration locale fluide — le cahier des charges d’un train à grande fréquence conventionnel, non d’une ligne neuve à 300 km/h. Mesuré à la conception réelle d’ALTO, le mémoire ne satisfait substantiellement aucune de ses propres recommandations, en laisse une ouverte (l’expérience client) et se heurte, pour le reste, à un conflit structurel, à une économie défavorable ou à la prémisse même du projet. Le mémoire le plus bienveillant du dossier se lit comme une liste des lacunes du projet.

    Deux des constats défavorables dépendent des plans non publiés d’ALTO — la présence de gares aéroportuaires et le degré de centralité des gares terminales — et pourraient s’améliorer. Les autres découlent de la physique et de l’économie : la coupure et l’implantation périphérique qu’entraîne un tracé dénivelé à 250 km/h et plus, ainsi que les chiffres de coûts et d’achalandage établis par les travaux de l’Initiative sur classe de référence.

    Télécharger
    Un témoin bienveillant — note complète (PDF)
    Évaluation, recommandation par recommandation, du mémoire de Trajectoire Québec au regard de la conception réelle d’ALTO
    Télécharger le PDF
    L’appui

    Un appui fondé sur un sondage, non sur un argumentaire

    Trajectoire a été l’un des premiers appuis de la proposition de train à grande fréquence de VIA Rail (le TGF). Son mémoire soutient désormais le train à grande vitesse — mais de façon conditionnelle, « dans la mesure où » le projet assure accessibilité, intégration et équité. Le récit même du mémoire attribue le passage de la grande fréquence à la grande vitesse non pas à un argumentaire technique ou économique, mais à un sondage de 2024 qu’il cite — 92 % préférant la grande vitesse à la grande fréquence — et aux préférences exprimées par des maires. Ce que l’organisme réclame n’a pas changé lorsque son appui, lui, a changé : un train interurbain fréquent, fiable, abordable et bien connecté. Les recommandations décrivent ce train; l’appui repose par-dessus.

    9
    recommandations dans le mémoire de Trajectoire
    sommaire des recommandations
    ~0,07
    ratio avantages-coûts d’ALTO, estimation centrale
    analyse sur classe de référence de l’Initiative
    43 → 54
    friction communautaire, avant → après la consultation
    indice de friction de l’Initiative
    Recommandation par recommandation

    Neuf recommandations, mesurées à la conception

    Le sommaire du mémoire énumère lui-même neuf recommandations. Mises en regard de la conception qu’ALTO fait avancer et des travaux de l’Initiative, chacune se résout en un constat.

    La recommandation de TrajectoireCe que la conception d’ALTO livre
    1. Gares en centre-ville, universellement accessibles, intégrées aux réseaux locaux et interurbains. Les gares centrales s’inscrivent dans les réseaux de transport existants, facilitant les correspondances et réduisant la dépendance à l’auto pour accéder au train.Un tracé dénivelé conçu pour 250 km/h et plus — la vitesse que les trois soumissionnaires ont proposée de façon indépendante — ne peut être inséré dans des centres-villes denses à un coût que le projet acceptera d’assumer, ce qui repousse les gares vers la périphérie. Les exemples mêmes de Trajectoire — l’attrait de la gare du Palais plutôt que de Sainte-Foy, l’effet incitatif à l’automobile de la gare excentrée d’Ottawa — sont le motif vers lequel la conception d’ALTO tend, et non dont elle s’éloigne.
    Constat :Conflit structurel
    2. Intégration urbaine sans barrières infranchissables pour piétons et cyclistes. Le réseau doit s’intégrer au tissu urbain sans couper les cheminements piétons et cyclables ni imposer de longs détours.Une voie à grande vitesse doit être intégralement dénivelée et clôturée sur toute sa longueur. Cette coupure est la barrière infranchissable que la recommandation demande d’éviter — une condition de la vitesse, non un détail. La mesure de friction prospective de l’Initiative résume l’écart : une dorsale à haute performance obtient environ 29, contre environ 65 pour ALTO.
    Constat :Conflit structurel
    3. Abordable et accessible à toutes et tous. Un projet financé par des fonds publics doit servir toute la population, avec des tarifs qui gardent le train compétitif face à l’auto pour les jeunes, les familles et les aînés.Un coût central près de 143 millions de dollars le kilomètre, un ratio avantages-coûts d’environ 0,07 et un achalandage faible (~0,29 déplacement par habitant) dans les travaux de l’Initiative créent une pression structurelle vers des tarifs élevés, de recouvrement des coûts — l’inverse de la tarification équitable qu’exige la recommandation.
    Constat :Contredit par l’économie
    4. Contrôle serré des coûts; participation privée au besoin; pas d’éviction du transport urbain. Le projet ne doit pas absorber le financement fédéral dont dépendent les réseaux de transport urbain.La même économie pointe vers une éviction budgétaire — précisément le risque que redoute la recommandation. Rien au dossier n’indique le contrôle serré des coûts qu’elle réclame.
    Constat :Contredit par l’économie
    5. Gares aux aéroports de Montréal-Trudeau (YUL) et de Québec / Jean-Lesage (YQB). Des correspondances aéroportuaires directes capteraient les voyageurs régionaux et internationaux en leur épargnant un transfert.À ce que montre le plan public d’ALTO, les gares aéroportuaires ne figurent pas. Ce constat dépend de plans qu’ALTO n’a pas entièrement publiés et pourrait changer.
    Constat :Absent du projet
    6. Modifier le mandat d’ALTO pour prévoir plus de gares intermédiaires. Plus d’arrêts élargiraient l’achalandage et bâtiraient l’acceptabilité le long du corridor.Chaque arrêt intermédiaire érode l’avantage de temps de parcours, seule justification d’une ligne neuve à 300 km/h plutôt que d’améliorations à plus haute fréquence. La recommandation demande donc au gouvernement de défaire en partie la prémisse du projet. Trajectoire le concède à demi, en proposant des voies d’évitement pour que les express dépassent les trains locaux.
    Constat :Contraire à la prémisse
    7. Préserver et améliorer le service interurbain conventionnel sur le réseau existant. Le service du corridor existant — celui que Trajectoire a autrefois défendu sous la bannière de la grande fréquence — ne doit pas être dégradé.Une ligne neuve et distincte ne fait rien, à elle seule, pour préserver ou améliorer le service conventionnel de VIA. L’Initiative a documenté une substitution de référentiel dans les documents de coûts d’ALTO, où le scénario à grande fréquence est remplacé par un « rail conventionnel » indifférencié. L’approche à double actif qui satisferait cette recommandation — une dorsale neuve qui libère aussi le réseau patrimonial — relève du cadre HPR, et ALTO ne l’offre pas.
    Constat :Non traité
    8. Expérience client aux standards européens et asiatiques, distincte de l’avion. Billetterie simple, information claire, bagages faciles, sans enregistrement de type aéroportuaire.Un choix opérationnel arrêté tard dans la réalisation. Le dossier n’offre aucun signal dans un sens ou dans l’autre; il est juste de le dire indéterminé.
    Constat :Indéterminé
    9. Assurer l’acceptabilité sociale par des consultations rigoureuses et proactives. L’acceptabilité se bâtit par une consultation réelle, précoce et capable d’influer sur le projet.La friction communautaire, selon l’indice de l’Initiative, est passée de 43 à 54 après le cycle de consultation — le processus a accru l’opposition au lieu de bâtir l’acceptabilité. Mesuré à ce mouvement, l’appel poli d’un organisme favorable à de meilleures consultations est le constat que la consultation a jusqu’ici échoué à son propre test.
    Constat :En échec
    Le motif

    Un mémoire favorable décrit un autre train

    Placez les recommandations les unes à côté des autres et une seule forme se dégage.

    Les recommandations décrivent un train à grande fréquence

    Accès au centre-ville, plus de gares, tarifs abordables, intégration aux réseaux, maintien du service conventionnel — point par point, c’est la proposition de valeur du train à grande fréquence conventionnel, la thèse que l’Initiative défend sous le cadre HPR, reformulée par un organisme convaincu d’appuyer autre chose.

    Même le témoin bienveillant décrit les lacunes

    Le mémoire le plus bienveillant du dossier décrit le projet par ce qui lui manque. Cela compte précisément parce que le témoin est favorable : l’écart entre ce qu’ALTO est et ce que ses partisans souhaitent n’est pas un artefact partisan. Il est visible même pour ceux qui encouragent le train.

    Structurel, non simplement contingent

    Deux constats défavorables — gares aéroportuaires et centralité des terminus — dépendent des plans non publiés d’ALTO et pourraient s’améliorer. Les autres découlent de la conception elle-même : la coupure et l’implantation périphérique qu’entraîne un tracé dénivelé à 250 km/h et plus, ainsi que l’économie des coûts et de l’achalandage des travaux de l’Initiative. Ceux-là ne bougent qu’avec le choix technologique.

    Où en sommes-nous · juillet 2026

    Bilan récapitulatif

    En résumé, au regard des recommandations du mémoire :

    Indéterminé
    Expérience client (rec. 8) : indéterminée — choix opérationnel arrêté tard.
    Non satisfait
    Gares centrales, accessibles, intégrées (rec. 1) : conflit structurel avec un tracé dénivelé à grande vitesse.
    Non satisfait
    Intégration urbaine sans coupure (rec. 2) : le corridor clôturé et dénivelé est lui-même la barrière.
    Non satisfait
    Tarifs abordables pour tous (rec. 3) : l’économie pousse vers une tarification de recouvrement.
    Non satisfait
    Contrôle des coûts; pas d’éviction du transport urbain (rec. 4) : l’économie pointe vers l’éviction budgétaire.
    Non satisfait
    Gares aéroportuaires à YUL et YQB (rec. 5) : absentes du plan public — tributaire des plans d’ALTO.
    Non satisfait
    Plus de gares intermédiaires (rec. 6) : contraire à la prémisse express d’une ligne à 300 km/h.
    Non satisfait
    Préserver / améliorer le service conventionnel (rec. 7) : une ligne neuve distincte ne le livre pas; le geste à double actif du cadre HPR est absent.
    Non satisfait
    Acceptabilité sociale par la consultation (rec. 9) : la friction est passée de 43 à 54 après la consultation.

    Trajectoire Québec appuie le train. Ses recommandations, lues au regard de la conception réelle d’ALTO, ne sont pas — pour l’essentiel — satisfaites par le projet tel que défini. L’organisme ne demande pas des retouches à une conception qu’il accepte; il décrit, recommandation par recommandation, un train à grande fréquence que la ligne neuve à grande vitesse n’a jamais été conçue pour être.

    Télécharger la note complète
    Un témoin bienveillant (PDF)
    Analyse, recommandation par recommandation, pour les décideurs, les députés et les citoyens qui suivent le dossier
    Télécharger le PDF
    Source

    Le mémoire évalué

    1.
    Trajectoire Québec, Train à grande vitesse entre Québec et Toronto : une occasion à saisir pour améliorer les transports interurbains au Québec. Mémoire présenté à ALTO, 24 avril 2026. trajectoire.quebec
    2.
    L’évaluation s’appuie sur les travaux de l’Initiative — les modèles de coûts et d’achalandage sur classe de référence, l’indice de friction communautaire, et la note d’information A-2025-00015 du Bureau du Conseil privé, qui confirme que les trois soumissionnaires ont proposé de façon indépendante des tracés neufs à 250 km/h et plus.
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative  ·  citizenresearch.ca  ·  Note de recherche  ·  juillet 2026
    Recherche indépendante et non partisane sur le corridor de train à grande vitesse Toronto–Québec proposé.

  • Undressing the addressable market

    Technical Brief · Corridor Demand

    Undressing the Addressable Market

    Alto’s demand case, read against the corridor’s roadside counts, its current population path, and the international reference class.

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Corridor Demand Brief · Published July 2026 · Independent, non-partisan research
    ⚠ New Finding · The 95-million figure has no published source

    Alto’s April 2026 commentary states that “ninety-five million intercity trips take place each year between the cities Alto will serve,” rising to 140 million by 2049. The figure has been repeated across government communications and press coverage since. It does not appear in Alto’s own explanatory document Fast Forward (March 2025), the Corporate Plan Summary 2024-25 to 2028-29, or the June 2026 What We Heard consultation report. No independent analyst — C.D. Howe, the Munk School, McGill TRAM — has adopted it. The denominator that anchors Alto’s modest-quarter framing is stated in a commentary without any published derivation.

    Key Finding

    95 M → ~25 M.  Alto’s 95-million-intercity-trips figure counts every trip, by every mode, over every distance, across the whole corridor. The market a high-speed line can realistically serve — the longer, station-to-station journeys where rail competes with air and car — is roughly a quarter of it, about 25 million a year; the rest is short, regional, and off-corridor travel no train could carry.

    Central independent ridership sits at 8–9 million a year, rising toward 10 at maturity — less than half of Alto’s 24-million target. The three markets a fast service actually converts (car, air, and existing rail) sum to about that level. The reference-class floor from comparable car-dependent corridors is 4–5 million. Alto’s 24-million target stands alone above every published independent forecast.

    Download
    Undressing the Addressable Market — Full Brief (PDF)
    Technical brief with methodology, tables, figures, and full source citations

    Download PDF

    The Claim

    Alto’s demand case, in its own words

    In an April 17, 2026 opinion piece published in the Toronto Star and La Presse and reproduced on altotrain.ca, Alto’s chief executive set out the demand case for the Toronto–Québec City high-speed line. Its central figures are a headline market of ninety-five million intercity trips a year across the corridor, rising to one hundred and forty million by 2049; a population of eighteen million reaching twenty-two million within fifteen years; and a target of twenty-four million annual passengers by 2055, presented as consistent with international outcomes. The piece is framed to reassure — its very title insists that high-speed rail is no leap of faith.

    This brief tests the claim on its own terms. It does not dispute that the corridor is large, that it is growing, or that its intercity system is under strain — all three are true. It disputes the inference the commentary draws from them: that a twenty-four-million forecast is therefore measured, modest, and safe.

    Read against three independent bodies of evidence — the corridor’s roadside traffic counts, the population path Statistics Canada now projects, and the international record of what comparable high-speed lines actually carry — the demand case rests on optimistic framing rather than measurement. Where the commentary offers large round numbers and a single favourable analogue, the evidence points to central ridership near a third of the headline, and to a growth story built on a population Canada has already walked back.

    What the Evidence Shows

    Six findings

    The findings rest on four independent methods, each built to be reproducible from public data: a reference class of comparable corridors, a modal-shift ridership model, a market-by-market demand build-up, and a re-basing on Statistics Canada’s current population. A fifth lens — the standard appraisal treatment of optimism bias — governs how all four are read.

    Central independent ridership is 8–9 million a year, not 24

    Rising toward 10 at maturity. The risk-adjusted floor from comparable car-dependent corridors is 4–5 million. Alto’s 24-million target sits above every published independent forecast of the corridor.

    The demand builds from three real sources, not a 95-million abstraction

    The market a fast service actually converts is measurable: the cars crossing the corridor, the air travellers on the competitive pairs, and the existing VIA riders it retains. Added together — roughly 2.8–3.5 million from car, 1.7–2.0 million from air, and about 3.3 million retained rail (VIA’s directly reported 2025 Corridor East ridership) — they come to about 8 to 9 million. The 95-million figure is an all-modes, all-pairs total that no service captures.

    The 95-million figure itself is unsourced

    Stated in the commentary without citation, and absent from Fast Forward (March 2025), the Corporate Plan Summary 2024-25 to 2028-29, and the June 2026 What We Heard consultation report. No independent analyst has adopted it. The denominator that anchors the modest-quarter framing is not just broad but unpublished.

    The demand-growth story reverses the per-capita trend

    Ninety-five to one hundred and forty million over 2026–2049 is about 1.7 per cent a year, faster than the corridor’s own population growth. The gap implies rising travel per resident — against the grain of hybrid work and videoconferencing.

    The population base is the pre-cap one

    Twenty-two million in fifteen years extrapolates the 2015–2025 immigration surge. Statistics Canada’s January 2026 projection is lower; on the current path the corridor is about 6.3 million people smaller by 2055 than the counterfactual Alto’s numbers assume.

    The one comparator offered is a best case

    Madrid–Barcelona is among the strongest high-speed successes on record. The honest reference class — the full distribution of high-speed outcomes, many of which undershot their forecasts — brackets the answer far below 24 million.

    Method 1 · Reference Class

    What comparable corridors actually carry

    Rather than model the corridor from assumptions, the reference-class method asks what corridors with similar car dependence, density, and trip lengths actually achieve once fast rail opens. Each candidate corridor is scored on a Car Dependency Index (CDI) — a composite of car mode share, population density, and transit provision at the endpoints. The Toronto–Québec City corridor’s high car dependence places it with reference cases that, rescaled to this line, carry the equivalent of roughly 4 to 5 million corridor trips a year at maturity. This is the risk-adjusted floor: what the evidence says the corridor is most likely to do before any speed, fare, or density assumption is layered on.

    Figure 1 — Comparable intercity-rail corridors plotted by their Car Dependency Index against annual ridership; the Toronto–Québec City corridor's high car dependence places it with reference cases carrying 4 to 5 million corridor trips a year.
    Figure 1 — The reference class: ridership against car dependency. Comparable intercity-rail corridors scored by their Car Dependency Index. The Toronto–Québec City corridor’s high car dependence places it with reference cases that, rescaled to this line, carry the equivalent of roughly 4 to 5 million corridor trips a year — the risk-adjusted floor.
    Methods 2 & 3 · The Three Markets

    Demand, counted not modelled

    A fast service on this corridor draws from three distinct current populations: the car market, the air market on the competitive city pairs, and the existing rail riders. Each is measurable from public data. Because they are distinct populations, they add without double-counting.

    The car market is read at the Highway 401 screenline where it crosses into Québec, after Ottawa-bound traffic has left via Highway 416 and Cornwall-local traffic has loaded, stripped of the 30 to 35 per cent commercial-truck share and short regional trips: roughly 8.8 to 11.0 million end-to-end car person-trips a year across the triangle at an occupancy of 2.0. Applying the road-market capture rates converts these into the rail ridership the car market alone would yield.

    Table 1 — Rail ridership drawn from the car market: per-leg car person-trips and rail capture rates for Toronto–Montréal, Ottawa–Toronto, and Ottawa–Montréal, summing to 2.8–3.5 million rail passengers per year from the car market.
    Table 1 — Rail ridership drawn from the car market. Capture rates are road-market shares from the modal-shift analysis at a moderate-fare regime; they express rail’s share of the combined car-and-rail market. Only Toronto–Montréal is confirmed by roadside counts; the Ottawa legs are demand-sized.

    The car market is only one of three. A fast corridor service also draws from the air travellers on the same city pairs, and it retains the passengers already riding the train. The corridor air market on the competitive pairs — Toronto–Montréal, Toronto–Ottawa, and the smaller Ottawa–Montréal — is on the order of 2.5 to 3.0 million point-to-point passengers a year, of which a fast train on these distances captures about two-thirds.

    Existing conventional rail is now reported directly in VIA’s 2025 annual results: 3.34 million passengers a year on the Corridor East service group (Québec City–Montréal–Ottawa–Toronto), within a Québec City–Windsor corridor total of 4.18 million. Essentially all of the triangle share is retained by a faster, more reliable service. VIA’s audited subsidy figures also fix the shape of the trip-length distribution: 48.51 dollars per passenger over 0.22 dollars per passenger-mile is an average trip of about 355 kilometres — roughly a third of the end-to-end corridor distance. Even the passengers already choosing rail are, on average, taking journeys well short of the full corridor.

    Table 2 — Where the corridor's rail ridership comes from: diversion from car (2.8–3.5M), diversion from air (1.7–2.0M), and existing VIA rail retained (~3.3M), summing to a central total of approximately 8–9 million rail passengers per year.
    Table 2 — Where the corridor’s rail ridership comes from (central). Car, air, and existing-rail travellers are distinct current populations, so the three sources add without double-counting. The rail line uses VIA’s Corridor East service group directly, rather than deriving a triangle share of the wider Québec City–Windsor total. The total is the central case around 2055; it rises toward 10 million at maturity as the ramp completes, and remains far below 24 million.
    Method 4 · The Population Basis

    The 6.3-million deficit

    Every ridership figure scales with the population beneath it, so the choice of population path is decisive. The brief uses Statistics Canada’s January 2026 projection (catalogue 17-20-0003), which incorporates the 2024–25 federal Immigration Levels Plan.

    Against the pre-2024 growth path that older corridor forecasts — and the commentary’s twenty-two-million figure — assume, this is materially lower: the corridor reaches about 19.8 million by 2055 on the current path, versus 26.1 million on the counterfactual, a deficit of 6.3 million. Because ridership scales with population, a forecast on the old path is inflated by roughly the same proportion the population has been cut — before any question of mode share or capture even arises.

    Figure 2 — Corridor population time series 2015–2060 showing four trajectories: pre-2024 counterfactual reaching 26.1M by 2055; Statistics Canada January 2026 central projection reaching 19.8M; high-growth 23.1M; low-growth 17.4M. Alto's CEO's 22M-in-fifteen-years forecast is marked as an outlier above the current path.
    Figure 2 — Corridor population: the 6.3-million deficit. The pre-2024 counterfactual (~1.8%/yr) reaches 26.1 million by 2055; Statistics Canada’s post-cap January 2026 projection (~1.0%/yr) reaches 19.8 million — a 6.3-million gap that every ridership figure scales with. The open diamond marks Alto’s own forecast of 22 million within fifteen years; its implied ~1.35%/yr growth runs above the current path.
    Triangulation

    Where Alto’s target sits against every independent forecast

    The three methods converge. The demand-side build-up sums to about 8 to 9 million a year; the bottom-up modal-shift model lands in the same place; the reference class puts a floor near 4 to 5 million. Set beside the full band of independent corridor estimates, Alto’s 24-million target stands alone above every one.

    Figure 3 — Independent corridor ridership estimates around 2055. Alto's published target of 24.0M is shown as an outlier above every independent forecast: Munk School 16–17M, C.D. Howe 12–21M, Federal Joint Project Office 13.5M, McGill TRAM 10.5M, and the Initiative's own central case at 9.2–12.1M.
    Figure 3 — Independent corridor ridership estimates against Alto’s target. Annual corridor ridership around 2055. Alto’s 24-million target stands alone above every independent forecast — the Munk School, C.D. Howe, the Joint Project Office, and McGill — and above the Initiative’s own central case (filled markers). The open markers plot the Initiative’s method on the pre-2024 population Alto’s numbers assume; even then it stays within the published band, so the distance is population basis, not method.
    The Claim, Audited

    Where the 95-million figure appears — and where it doesn’t

    A demand denominator on which a $60–90 billion capital commitment rests should be reproducible from published sources. Alto’s is not. The ninety-five-million and one-hundred-and-forty-million figures are stated in the April 2026 commentary without citation and are absent from every canonical planning document the corporation has published.

    PresentImbleau, M., “High-speed rail is not a leap of faith: why it matters for Canada’s growth” — Op-ed, Toronto Star and La Presse, April 17, 2026; reproduced on altotrain.ca. The single document in which the 95-million and 140-million figures appear. Stated without citation, methodology, or reference to any underlying study.

    AbsentFast Forward: Shaping Canada’s Future with a High-Speed Rail Network (March 2025) — Alto’s own public-facing explanatory document. Discusses ridership growth from ~3 million (2024) to 24 million (2055) and 43 million (2084), but does not reference the 95-million intercity-trip figure or provide any market-total denominator on that scale.

    AbsentVIA HFR – VIA TGF Inc., Corporate Plan Summary 2024-25 to 2028-29 (November 2024) — the corporation’s tabled planning document referenced by the Library of Parliament backgrounder on the project. Contains ridership targets (“17 million by 2059” for HFR, before the HSR rebrand) but no 95-million total-market figure.

    AbsentJune 2026 What We Heard Report on the corridor study area — Alto’s own summary of the January–April 2026 consultation, running to more than 130 pages. Does not reference a 95-million figure.

    AbsentQuarterly Financial Reports through Q3 2025-26 — Alto’s mandatory reporting to Parliament. Does not reference a 95-million figure.

    AbsentIndependent published analyses of the corridor — the C.D. Howe Institute’s All Aboard study (March 2026), the Munk School Global Economic Policy Lab’s HSR analysis, Transportation Research at McGill’s corridor demand modelling, and Michael Schabas’s Senate submission on Bill C-15 (January 2026, 65 pp.). None uses the 95-million figure.

    The finding does not, on its own, resolve whether the 95-million figure is defensible. It resolves whether the figure is auditable. On the public record as it stands, it is not: no derivation has been published, no methodology has been described, and no independent source has adopted it.

    Recommendation

    Three things follow

    The demand case that anchors a 1,000-kilometre corridor, a $60–90 billion capital commitment, and a multi-decade delivery programme cannot responsibly rest on figures that have not been made auditable. Three steps would meet the standard.

    Release the demand model for independent audit

    A forecast that anchors an alignment and a multi-decade capital commitment cannot responsibly remain unpublished. In particular, the derivation of the ninety-five-million and one-hundred-and-forty-million intercity-trip figures cited in the April 2026 commentary should be published alongside the underlying model.

    Adjust toward the reference class and current population

    Standard megaproject appraisal requires promoter forecasts to be adjusted toward the reference class rather than accepted at face value. Alto’s should also be re-based on Statistics Canada’s January 2026 population projection, rather than the pre-2024 path the current forecast assumes.

    Size the corridor decision to the audited demand

    Not to a ninety-five-million headline or a twenty-four-million target that no independent method reaches. High-speed rail need not be a leap of faith. But the demand case as currently stated is closer to one than the corridor’s own numbers allow.

    Download Full Brief
    Undressing the Addressable Market (PDF)
    Full methodology, tables, figures, basis and limitations, and complete source citations

    Download PDF

    Sources

    Primary documents and data

    Every figure in this analysis is drawn from the public sources or companion analyses set out below and is reproducible from them. Sources are grouped by the claim or quantity they support.

    1.The claim examined. Imbleau, M., President and Chief Executive Officer of Alto. “High-speed rail is not a leap of faith: why it matters for Canada’s growth.” Commentary, altotrain.ca, April 17, 2026. altotrain.ca. The source, stated without further citation, of the ninety-five-million and one-hundred-and-forty-million intercity-trip figures, the eighteen-to-twenty-two-million population claim, and the twenty-four-million passenger target for 2055.

    2.Alto planning documents in which the 95-million figure does not appear. Alto, Fast Forward: Shaping Canada’s Future with a High-Speed Rail Network (March 2025). VIA HFR – VIA TGF Inc., Corporate Plan Summary 2024-25 – 2028-29. Alto, June 2026 What We Heard Report on the corridor study area public consultation. All at altotrain.ca.

    3.Companion research, Citizen Research Initiative. Intercity Car Trips Between Toronto, Ottawa and Montréal (2026) — road-side measurement of end-to-end car travel at the Highway 401 Québec-boundary screenline, the per-leg car person-trips of Table 1, and the road-market capture rates of Table 2. HPR Research Report — Ridership (2026) — the demand reference class and Car Dependency Index (Figure 1); the modal-shift model, R = P × μ × s × φ(t); the population basis (Figure 2) and the 6.3-million deficit; and the triangulation against independent forecasts (Figure 3). All at citizenresearch.ca.

    4.Traffic and travel-demand data. Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Provincial Highways Traffic Volumes — annual average daily traffic on Highway 401, sections between the Highway 416 interchange and the Québec boundary. VIA Rail Canada, 2025 Annual Report (Montréal, March 2026): 4.40 million passengers system-wide and 986 million passenger-miles; 4.18 million on the Québec City–Windsor corridor and 3.34 million on the Corridor East service group; audited service-group subsidy figures implying an average Corridor East trip of about 355 kilometres. Statistics Canada, Air passenger traffic at Canadian airports (table 23-10-0253), together with airport-authority passenger statistics for Toronto Pearson, Montréal–Trudeau, and Ottawa Macdonald–Cartier. Transport Canada, Transportation in Canada annual report.

    5.Population. Statistics Canada, Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories, January 2026 vintage (catalogue 17-20-0003), which incorporates the 2024–25 federal Immigration Levels Plan; and Census of Population, 2021, for the corridor’s census-metropolitan-area populations. These underpin the 19.8-million (post-cap) and 26.1-million (pre-2024 counterfactual) 2055 corridor figures and the 6.3-million deficit.

    6.Comparator corridor forecasts. Transport Canada and the EcoTrain consortium, Updated Feasibility Study of a High-Speed Rail Service in the Québec City–Windsor Corridor (2011). Federal Joint Project Office and the VIA High Frequency Rail baseline (2021). Transportation Research at McGill (TRAM), corridor demand modelling. C.D. Howe Institute (2026), high-speed-rail scenario. Munk School Global Economic Policy Lab, corridor demand. Schabas, M., Alto High-Speed Rail: Conceptual Design and Business Case, Senate submission on Bill C-15 (January 2026). These supply the independent ridership band of Figure 3.

    7.Forecasting method and optimism bias. B. Flyvbjerg, “Survival of the Unfittest: Why the Worst Infrastructure Gets Built — and What We Can Do About It” (Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2009), and related work establishing reference-class forecasting; B. Flyvbjerg and D. Gardner, How Big Things Get Done (2023). HM Treasury (United Kingdom), The Green Book and its supplementary guidance on optimism bias. Oxford Global Projects, reference-class forecasting datasets and practice. UK National Audit Office, successive reports on High Speed 2 (HS2) documenting systematic optimism in demand forecasts and cost escalation.

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative  ·  citizenresearch.ca  ·  Corridor Demand Brief  ·  July 2026
    Independent, non-partisan research on the proposed Toronto–Québec City high-speed rail corridor.

  • 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 plannedA 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

    1
    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.
    2
    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.
    3
    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.
    4
    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.
    5
    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).
    6
    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.
    7
    A Straighter Line (June 2026). ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative — routing and reference-class demand-density analysis for the dedicated passenger spine.
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · citizenresearch.ca · Research Brief · June 2026
    Independent, non-partisan research on the proposed Toronto–Quebec City high-speed rail corridor.

  • Sixth in NA

    Sixth in North America

    What the ranking actually measures — and the route it does not describe.

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Research Brief · Published June 2026
    ⚠ Source: Disclosed under the Access to Information Act

    The slide below is page 206 of a 294-page record released by the Canada Infrastructure Bank under access request A-2022-005 — a request for all studies, analyses, and reports related to the federal government’s high-frequency and high-speed rail file, disclosed in part. The briefing deck it belongs to is stamped “Privileged and Confidential — Do Not Share and/or Copy,” and its own footer marks it “DRAFT.” Adjacent pages were withheld under the Act’s economic-interest and advice exemptions (s. 18 and s. 21). The deck, as disclosed, is posted in full here: Ministerial Briefing — HFR and HSR (PDF).

    The marking is part of the point: this is a draft analysis the department preferred not be seen, and it is the evidence being used to vouch for the corridor.

    Briefing slide: Success Factors, Where HSR Works Best, ranking North American city pairs by high-speed rail demand
    Section 4.2, “Success Factors: Where HSR Works Best.” Page 206 of the Canada Infrastructure Bank release, A-2022-005 (disclosed in part; marked DRAFT). The three highlighted bars are Toronto–Montreal, Toronto–Ottawa, and Montreal–Quebec City.
    The finding in brief

    The slide ranks Toronto–Montreal sixth among North American city pairs for high-speed rail demand. The ranking is real. What it measures is the market between two endpoint metros — not the route now being built.

    The number describes the direct Toronto–Montreal corridor. The alignment taking shape runs Toronto–Peterborough–Kingston–Ottawa–Montreal — a longer, meandering route. On the very methodology the slide cites, every one of those detours lowers the score rather than raising it. And the segment actually proceeding first, Ottawa–Montreal, does not appear on the chart at all.

    The Methodology

    What the ranking measures

    The “sixth in North America” figure comes from America 2050’s screen of tens of thousands of city pairs, a methodology published in full by the Regional Plan Association. It scores the market between two endpoint metros: downtown employment, population density, transit reach, and the existing air and road travel between them. On those inputs Toronto–Montreal scores well. The endpoints are large, dense, and already heavily travelled.

    Two features of that method decide everything that follows, and both are explicit in the source.

    It is calculated per mile. Adding distance without adding a major generator pulls a corridor’s score down, not up. The screen normalizes precisely so that longer routes cannot coast on length.

    Intermediate stations only help when they are themselves large. The report is clear that longer corridors out-rank shorter ones only when the cities in between are medium or large generators. Otherwise the additional miles are a penalty. The top-ranked corridor on the chart, New York–Washington, scores as it does because the dense intermediate cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore sit directly on the shortest path between the endpoints.

    The Route

    The corridor on the chart is not the corridor being built

    The favourable score belongs to the direct Toronto–Montreal market — the existing lakeshore line, the shortest path, with a dense string of intermediate communities along it. The alignment now taking shape is the opposite of that. From Toronto it runs north to Peterborough; then — assuming the Kingston stop and southern routing the federal government added to its consideration in June 2026 come to pass — it doubles back south to Kingston, climbs north again to Ottawa, and drops south once more to Montreal. The result is a corridor that zigzags between its cities rather than running directly between its endpoints.

    Map of the projected Toronto to Quebec City corridor showing the route meandering north and south between cities rather than following a direct line
    The projected Toronto–Quebec City corridor. Rather than following the direct lakeshore line, the alignment meanders — north to Peterborough, south to Kingston, north to Ottawa, south to Montreal, and on toward Quebec City.
    The direct corridor (what the bar scores)The alignment being built
    Toronto–Montreal, direct. The existing Lake Ontario lakeshore line, on the order of 540 km — the shortest path between the two endpoints. Toronto–Peterborough–Kingston–Ottawa–Montreal. Roughly 610 km via Ottawa — about 13 per cent longer for the identical endpoints, and longer still with a Kingston dogleg. (This path assumes the Kingston stop and southern routing added to federal consideration in June 2026 proceed.)
    Dense intermediate string. Oshawa, Cobourg, Belleville, Kingston — population and employment added steadily along the path. Sparse flanks, weak axis. Peterborough is small and the stretches on either side of it are thinly populated; reaching Ottawa means importing the Toronto–Ottawa axis the same chart ranks near the bottom.
    Highest possible per-mile score for these two endpoints. A lower per-mile score: more kilometres, less density per kilometre, and a low-scoring leg folded in.

    There is a particular irony in Kingston. It is the natural intermediate city on the direct corridor — precisely the stop that would have helped the Toronto–Montreal score. The chosen alignment runs north to bypass it. Now it is being considered for re-inclusion, bolted back onto a route designed to avoid it.

    On the Method’s Own Terms

    What each detour does to the score

    Re-run the published methodology on the alignment actually on the table, and the per-mile score falls below the sixth-place bar. Each of the route’s defining choices works against it:

    Length is a straight penalty

    Per-mile normalization spreads the same Toronto and Montreal endpoint demand over more kilometres. A longer, more circuitous route scores lower for the identical endpoints — that is what the normalization is designed to do.

    Peterborough adds miles faster than density

    Intermediate stops only lift the score if they add population and employment per kilometre faster than the corridor’s average. Peterborough is too small, and the stretches on either side are sparse, so it adds length faster than it adds riders — a net penalty.

    A Kingston dogleg is more of the same

    Re-adding the one city the alignment was routed to avoid means a southern detour off the northern line: a modest generator bought with extra kilometres — again, length outpacing density.

    Reaching Ottawa imports a weak leg

    Ottawa is the one genuine generator among the added stops. But reaching it is the Toronto–Ottawa axis the same chart already ranks near the bottom of its field. The detour swaps the strong direct Toronto–Montreal axis for a leg the deck itself scores as weak.

    Sequencing

    What is actually being built first

    There is a further mismatch between the headline number and the build. The first segment to proceed is not Toronto–Montreal at all — it is Ottawa–Montreal, confirmed in December 2025 as the opening phase, with construction targeted for 2029. Ottawa–Montreal does not appear anywhere on the chart.

    And by the government’s own account, it was chosen first not for demand but for buildability: a relatively short and straight portion of the overall route, since high-speed trains do not handle curves well — the same logic that led California to build its first section across the flat Central Valley, avoiding tunnelling and urban construction. A constructability rationale, not a ridership one.

    The corridor that scores sixth, Toronto–Montreal, is only realized once the full line is complete — including the Toronto–Ottawa leg that sits near the bottom of this very chart — work not expected to finish until the 2040s. So the headline ranking and the actual build diverge twice over: the number describes a market the first segment does not deliver, assembled from legs the chart scores unevenly, with the strongest part of the case deferred to last.

    In plain language

    Strip away the methodology and the point is simple. The federal government’s own briefing says high-speed rail makes the most sense between Toronto and Montreal — two large cities with heavy travel between them. It says nothing in favour of the winding route now being built.

    That route keeps collecting stops the demand evidence does not support: north to Peterborough, a proposed southern dogleg to Kingston, and Trois-Rivières on the Quebec leg. Each one adds distance and cost while the case for the line still rests on the direct Toronto–Montreal market. When stations are added that do not earn their place on the numbers, the usual explanation is political — spreading the visible benefits of a marquee project across as many communities as possible to assemble support for it.

    This is one of the central problems with the project, and it is a familiar one. Bent Flyvbjerg’s research on megaprojects — the body of work behind this Initiative’s reference-class approach — finds that large infrastructure projects routinely run over budget and under-deliver because their scope and routing are shaped by political bargaining and the need to sell the project, rather than by the demand evidence. A corridor designed around who gets a station rather than where the riders are is precisely the pattern that research warns about.

    In Summary

    What the slide does and does not say

    The “sixth in North America” finding endorses a Toronto–Montreal market. It says nothing in favour of the Peterborough-routed, Kingston-doglegged, Ottawa-and-Montreal-served alignment. On the methodology’s own terms, those inclusions are exactly the choices it would mark down.

    A strong endpoint market is a real asset. It is not the same thing as a strong route — and a briefing that uses the first to vouch for the second is measuring the wrong thing. That the slide is marked “DRAFT,” and that adjacent pages were withheld under the Act’s economic-interest and advice exemptions, only sharpens the question: this is the analysis on the record, and on its own terms it does not say what it is being used to say.

    A note on method. The deck describes its result as a “sample calculation.” The disclosed page does not show how the path was drawn or scored. The standard America 2050 methodology and the headline result both point to the direct corridor as the basis for the sixth-place figure; if the underlying calculation is obtained, the path it used is the detail to confirm.

    Anticipated Objection

    “Doesn’t the line serve all those city pairs — Toronto–Ottawa, Ottawa–Montreal, Montreal–Quebec — not just Toronto–Montreal? Combine them and the project makes sense.”

    It is true that a corridor serves a whole matrix of city pairs, not only its endpoints. But that observation concedes the point rather than answering it. The “sixth in North America” figure is the score for the direct Toronto–Montreal pair. The moment the case leans on Toronto–Ottawa, Ottawa–Quebec, and Toronto–Quebec, it is no longer resting on that figure — and those are precisely the legs the same chart rates weakest: Toronto–Ottawa sits second from the bottom, Montreal–Quebec City is last, and Ottawa–Quebec, Toronto–Quebec, and Ottawa–Montreal do not appear on it at all.

    Two things make “combine the figures” fail on the slide’s own terms. The bars are demand-strength rankings — built from population, GDP, density, and corridor length — not passenger counts that can be summed; a sixth-place pair plus a near-last pair does not add up to a stronger corridor. And because the screen normalizes per mile, stringing the one strong pair onto a longer, detouring alignment spreads the same demand across more track-kilometres, which lowers the score rather than raising it.

    The logic in fact argues for the line this brief describes. If the goal is to capture Toronto–Montreal and the markets in between, the alignment that does it best is the direct lakeshore corridor — it serves the sixth-place pair at full strength and threads a dense string of real intermediate cities (Oshawa, Cobourg, Belleville, Kingston) on the way. Adding up the pairs does not rescue the meandering route; it makes the case for the direct one.

    Sources

    Primary documents and statements

    1.
    Canada Infrastructure Bank, completed access-to-information release A-2022-005 (disclosed in part), “Success Factors: Where HSR Works Best,” draft briefing slide, page 206. Released under the Access to Information Act; deck marked “Privileged and Confidential — Do Not Share and/or Copy” and “DRAFT.” View the disclosed deck (PDF)
    2.
    America 2050 / Regional Plan Association, High-Speed Rail in America, January 2011 — the published methodology scoring rail corridors by ridership demand on a per-mile basis.
    3.
    America 2050, Where High-Speed Rail Works Best — the precursor study of city pairs that the briefing slide reproduces.
    4.
    Transport Canada / Alto, “Full speed ahead: Ottawa–Montreal chosen as starting point for Alto High-Speed Rail,” December 12, 2025. canada.ca · altotrain.ca
    5.
    “First segment of Canadian high-speed rail to be built between Montreal, Ottawa,” Trains, December 12, 2025 — carries the Minister of Transport’s rationale for selecting the segment as a short, straight portion of the route. trains.com
    6.
    “Ottawa-Montreal chosen as 1st segment of promised high-speed rail line,” CBC News, December 12, 2025 — remaining segments (Quebec City–Montreal and Ottawa–Toronto) to begin at a later, unspecified date. CBC News
    7.
    Federal government statement, June 22, 2026, indicating an additional stop at Kingston would be considered for the corridor.
    8.
    Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius & Werner Rothengatter, Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition (Cambridge University Press, 2003); Flyvbjerg, “Survival of the Unfittest: Why the Worst Infrastructure Gets Built — and What We Can Do About It,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 25, no. 3 (2009): 344–367; and Flyvbjerg, “Design by Deception: The Politics of Megaproject Approval,” Harvard Design Magazine no. 22 (2005) — on strategic misrepresentation, perverse incentives, and the political shaping of megaproject scope and routing.
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative  ·  citizenresearch.ca  ·  Research Brief  ·  June 2026
    Independent, non-partisan research on the proposed Toronto–Quebec City high-speed rail corridor.

  • The bill that has to balance

    The Bill That Has to Balance

    A plain-language guide to how we evaluated the cost of the proposed ALTO high-speed rail line — starting from one simple rule that every railway in the world has to obey, and following it through to a number the government’s own claims do not match.

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Financial Framework · Published May 2026
    ⚠ What this is

    This is the readable version of a longer technical paper. The full document and slide deck show every calculation; this post explains, in everyday terms, what we did, why, and what we found — with no maths background assumed.

    The short version: the project’s likely capital cost is roughly double what the government has stated; the trains cannot pay for themselves at any realistic ticket price; and the project’s headline ridership target of 24 million passengers a year sits outside the range that any comparable line has ever achieved.

    The one idea to take away

    Every operating railway in the world has a bill that has to balance every year. What it costs to build and run the line on one side; where the money to cover that comes from on the other. The money can only come from three places: ticket sales, a government subsidy, or value captured from land near the stations.

    You can argue about any single number. What you cannot do is leave one side of the bill short. If a proponent quotes you a low cost and a high number of riders but never tells you the subsidy, the subsidy is simply the part of the bill they haven’t shown you — it doesn’t disappear. Our whole method is just: fill in every blank on the bill using independent evidence, and see what the missing number turns out to be.

    Read in full
    A Framework for Independent Evaluation of the ALTO HSR Project
    The complete methodology, every rubric and dataset, and a slide deck version — all published and reproducible
    All documents Full PDF Slide deck
    Start Here

    The bill every railway has to balance

    Imagine your household budget. Whatever you spend has to be matched by money coming in — from your salary, your savings, a loan. A railway is no different, just bigger. There are two kinds of cost: the enormous one-time cost of building the line (paid off gradually, like a mortgage), and the ongoing cost of running it every year — staff, electricity, maintenance, replacing worn-out trains.

    Those costs have to be paid for. There are only three sources. Here is the whole thing on one line:

    The annual fiscal ledger

    Cost to build (yearly share) + cost to run = ticket sales + government subsidy + land value capture

    The left side is what the railway costs each year. The right side is where that money comes from. The two sides must be equal — that’s what “balance” means.

    In plain terms

    “Land value capture” means a railway can sometimes raise money from the rise in nearby land prices that a new station creates — for example by developing land around the station. It’s a real tool, but a modest one in Canada, and ALTO has named no such mechanism. So for ALTO that third source is effectively zero, which leaves only two: tickets and subsidy.

    Here is the consequence that does all the work. Once you’ve pinned down the cost, the ticket revenue, and the land capture using evidence, the subsidy isn’t a choice anyone gets to make — it’s whatever is left over to make the bill balance. It’s a leftover, not a decision. That single insight is why a project can claim to be “self-sustaining” and still, on its own numbers, need billions of dollars of public money a year. The subsidy was always there; it just wasn’t written down.

    The Method

    Seven steps to fill in the blanks

    To fill in each part of that bill honestly, we built a seven-step process. Each step answers one question using published evidence rather than the project’s own marketing, and each step shows its work so that anyone who disagrees can re-run it with their own assumptions. Here is what each step asked, and what it found for ALTO.

    1

    How hard is this to build?

    Engineering complexity, compared to rail lines around the world

    We scored the corridor’s technical difficulty against an international database of comparable projects. ALTO lands in the upper “High” band — among the most demanding corridors anywhere in the world. Hard things cost more and run late more often; this matters for every number that follows.

    2

    How smooth will getting it approved and built be?

    Community, consultation and consent risk

    We measured the friction the project faces from communities, landowners and the consultation process. The score lands in the band where comparable megaprojects’ cost overruns tend to cluster — another reason to expect the final bill to climb.

    3

    What will it really cost to build?

    Capital cost, calibrated against similar projects

    The government states $75 billion. Comparing ALTO to a reference class of similar railways and adjusting for its difficulty, our central estimate is $143 billion — nearly double — with a worst-case ceiling of $264 billion. The stated budget sits at the very bottom of the plausible range.

    4

    What will it cost to run, every year?

    Operating cost, built up from the actual assets

    Adding up staff, operations, maintenance and replacing trains as they wear out gives about $2.15 billion a year. To cover just that running cost from fares, the line would need roughly 12.5 million passengers a year — and even then it only recovers about 80 cents of every dollar.

    5

    How many people would actually ride it?

    Realistic ridership, and the subsidy that follows

    Based on how many travellers comparable lines actually pull off the roads and out of the air, a realistic range is 5 to 12 million riders a year, with a sensible target near 8 million. ALTO’s headline figure of 24 million sits outside that range entirely.

    6

    Is it worth it?

    Benefits weighed against costs

    Weighing all the benefits against all the costs gives a ratio of about 0.11 — roughly eleven cents of benefit for every dollar spent. To make the 24-million target pay, tickets would need to cost between $381 and $1,596 — and 24 million riders is unreachable anyway.

    7

    Would a serious gatekeeper approve it?

    Tested against Norway’s independent project-review system

    Norway runs big projects through two independent quality gates before funding. Run through those gates, ALTO fails most of the criteria at both stages — described as a textbook example of exactly the kind of project the Norwegian system was built to catch.

    What “reference class” means

    Rather than trust a project’s own optimistic forecast, you line it up against a large group of similar projects that have already been built, and ask: what actually happened to those? It is one of the most reliable ways known to forecast cost and ridership, precisely because it sidesteps wishful thinking.

    The Headline Figures

    Three numbers that frame the whole thing

    Cost to build
    $143B
    Our central estimate — against a stated budget of $75B
    Value for money
    11¢
    Of benefit returned per dollar spent (a benefit-cost ratio of 0.11)
    Ridership gap
    24M
    The stated target — against a realistic ceiling near 12M

    None of these is a guess plucked from the air. Each one is the output of one of the seven steps above, and each step publishes the data and the scoring behind it. The point of putting them together is simple: a project whose costs are understated, whose value-for-money is low, and whose ridership is overstated does not become viable just because its three weaknesses are described in separate documents.

    The Part Nobody Mentions

    No ticket price makes the bill disappear

    Here is where the “bill that has to balance” idea pays off. There is a temptation to think the subsidy could be designed away — charge higher fares, or fill more seats. So we tested the three obvious strategies. In every case, a large public subsidy remains. The only thing that changes is how the cost is split between the passenger and the taxpayer.

    Charge premium fares
    ~$1B / yr

    Trade-off:High ticket prices, so fewer riders. Lowest subsidy — but still about a billion a year.

    Match airline fares
    ~$2B / yr

    Trade-off:Prices in line with flying. A moderate middle path — roughly two billion a year.

    Deep discounts, fill seats
    ~$3.5B / yr

    Trade-off:Cheap tickets, more riders — but the lowest fares mean the largest subsidy.

    Notice what this means. Choosing among these isn’t a choice between “subsidised” and “unsubsidised” — every option is subsidised. It’s only a choice about who pays: the rider at the ticket window, or the taxpayer through the public purse. That is a perfectly legitimate political decision to make out in the open. What isn’t legitimate is pretending the choice doesn’t exist.

    And that is exactly why one specific government claim does not hold up. On 22 April 2026, the government stated the operation would be “financially self-sustaining” — meaning fares alone would cover running costs. But no realistic level of ridership produces enough ticket money to cover the $2.15 billion annual running cost. Measured against every comparable high-speed line operating in the world, that claim simply isn’t consistent with the evidence.

    The Bottom Line

    What the filled-in bill shows

    Put the seven steps together and the picture is consistent, not cherry-picked:

    Roughly double the cost

    The likely cost to build is about twice the stated budget — and the stated figure sits at the bottom edge of what’s plausible.

    Cannot pay its own way

    At no realistic fare do ticket sales cover even the cost of running the trains, let alone building the line.

    Eleven cents on the dollar

    The central value-for-money ratio is about 0.11 — far below the level at which a project is normally considered worthwhile.

    A ridership target out of reach

    The 24-million figure lies outside the range any comparable line has achieved, and the subsidy is required no matter what.

    Measured against Norway’s independent review standard — one of the most respected gatekeeping systems for large public projects — ALTO fails the majority of the tests at both the early-concept stage and the pre-funding stage.

    In Fairness

    This is a recommendation, not a verdict

    It matters how this is meant to be read. The seven-step process produces a recommendation, not a decision. The decision belongs to elected officials and the public — ideally informed by an independent authority such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

    The purpose of all this work is narrow and, we hope, fair: to put a balanced, contestable record on the table, so that the choice about which rail corridor Canada builds rests on evidence rather than on headline numbers. Every step publishes its rubric, its scoring, and its data. If you disagree with any finding, you are invited to re-run it under your own assumptions — that openness is the whole point.

    A good public investment can survive this kind of scrutiny. The questions below are the ones any major rail proposal should be able to answer plainly.

    1. On cost: If the stated budget sits at the bottom of the plausible range, what is the realistic central figure — and what happens to the case if the cost lands there?
    2. On the subsidy: Since fares cannot cover running costs at any realistic ridership, what annual public subsidy is the government planning for, and who decided how to split the cost between riders and taxpayers?
    3. On ridership: What evidence supports 24 million riders a year when comparable lines top out far below that — and what does the business case look like at a realistic 8 to 12 million?

    None of these questions presupposes opposition to passenger rail, which many people support. Each asks only that the project state plainly what its own numbers imply — so the public can weigh a real proposal rather than a hopeful one.

    Read the full framework
    A Framework for Independent Evaluation of the ALTO HSR Project
    The complete methodology, the seven-stage pipeline, and every rubric, score and dataset — published and reproducible
    All documents Download PDF
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative  ·  citizenresearch.ca  ·  Financial Framework — Plain-Language Edition  ·  May 2026
    Independent, non-partisan research on the proposed Toronto–Quebec City high-speed rail corridor.

  • Modal shift ridership

    Citizen Research Initiative · Modal Shift Analysis · Note 3

    The Ridership Envelope for the ALTO Corridor, 2035–2080

    What can the corridor actually carry? Population times trips-per-resident times modal share, scaled by a realistic phased opening — and measured against ALTO’s published 24-million target and every other independent forecast.

    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative · Modal Shift Note 3 · Published May 2026
    ⚠ What This Note Examines

    This note builds a 45-year ridership envelope from three multiplicands — corridor population, per-capita intercity trips, and ALTO’s modal share under three fare-and-subsidy regimes — using the modal-shift machinery from the two companion notes on rail–air and rail–car substitution, and scaling the result by ALTO’s announced three-phase opening.

    The resulting envelope is then compared against ALTO’s published forecasts, the McGill TRAM stated-preference projection, the Munk School GEPL model, the C.D. Howe scenario analysis, and the federal government’s own 2021 Joint Project Office business case.

    Summary

    The corridor population baseline is about 14.9 million across the directly-served CMAs in 2025. The 2024–25 federal cap on non-permanent residents produced a structural inflection — Toronto’s CMA shrank by ~1,000 people in 2024–25 after gaining 269,000 the year before — creating a credible lower trajectory (0.5%/yr) that did not exist in pre-2024 forecasts and bounding the upper trajectory (1.6%/yr) below pre-2024 expectations.

    Three regimes span the policy envelope: heavy subsidy ($2.5–4.5B/yr, ~38–42% capture), moderate subsidy at parity with air ($1.5–2.5B/yr, ~28–32% — the canonical business-case configuration), and minimal subsidy under P3 yield management ($0.5–1.5B/yr, ~20–23%). The combined envelope at mature operation runs from 6.1 to 25.7 million by 2080, central case 12.5 million. The 2055 reading — ALTO’s headline year — is 3.7 to 17.2 million, central case 9.2 million; the corridor is not yet at mature operation in 2055 under the announced phasing.

    ALTO’s published 24-million-by-2055 figure sits ~40% above the upper bound for 2055 and is incompatible with the announced phasing under any plausible ramp curve. Every forecast built from a disclosed methodology — TRAM, Munk GEPL, the federal JPO — sits within or close to the CRI envelope. ALTO’s published targets are the outlier against every other forecast for the corridor.

    Download
    Modal Shift Note 3 — Ridership Envelope Research Note (PDF)
    The full note with all figures and tables: the population trajectories, the three regimes, the phasing and ramp framework, the 2035–2080 envelope, and the comparison with every published forecast
    Download PDF
    1 · Framework

    Three multiplicands

    ALTO’s annual ridership in any year is the product of three quantities: the corridor population served, the average number of intercity trips each resident makes per year across air, rail and car, and ALTO’s share of those trips. Forecasting ridership therefore means forecasting each multiplicand and combining their realistic ranges into an envelope of outcomes.

    The two companion notes supply the modal-share machinery. Note 1 derives the air-substitution S-curve and locates the corridor’s three rail scenarios on it at travel time and price. Note 2 extends the framework to road–rail under a North American calibration anchored on VIA’s 13% rail share against road, and develops the price-ratio, group-size, gas-price and reliability sensitivities. What the two notes do not provide is the population denominator that converts share into absolute volume, the per-capita trip generation that scales the market with demographic change, the temporal phasing that distinguishes opening-year from mature ridership, and the explicit fare-and-subsidy regimes. This note adds those four pieces.

    Ridership = corridor population × intercity trips per capita × ALTO modal share, scaled by ramp-up. Each multiplicand has a defensible range. The envelope combines them.
    2 · Population

    The baseline and the 2024 demographic break

    ALTO directly serves CMAs from Toronto to Québec City. The 2025 baseline is about 14.9 million — Toronto (7.10M), Montréal (4.62M), Ottawa-Gatineau (1.55M), Québec City (0.86M), plus the smaller served centres (~0.8M combined).

    The 2024–25 demographic year produced a structural inflection. The federal Immigration Levels Plan announced in October 2024 was the first to cap temporary residents, requiring a multi-year drawdown. The effect on the two largest CMAs was immediate: Toronto’s CMA shrank by ~1,000 people in 2024–25, following a gain of 269,000 the year before, and Greater Golden Horseshoe growth collapsed from ~313,000/yr to ~40,000. This is a structural break from the baseline pre-2024 forecasts assumed — it invalidates the linear extrapolation of the 2022–24 surge.

    Table 1. Three population trajectories for the directly-served corridor CMAs, anchored on the 2025 baseline of ~14.9M. The central trajectory is the working assumption for the envelope; the upper and lower trajectories define the population-side bounds. Anchored on StatCan’s January 2026 projections (LG / M1 / HG scenarios) with a ~0.4-point corridor-CMA growth premium.
    TrajectoryAnnual growth20502080Driver
    Lower0.5%16.9M19.6MNPR drawdown is structural; aging accelerates
    Central1.0%19.1M25.7MNPR drawdown is one-off; immigration normalises
    Upper1.6%22.2M35.6MPre-2024 pace partly resumes after political cycle
    Corridor population: pre-2024 versus post-2024 trajectories, 2025 to 2080, showing the demographic correction the federal cap on non-permanent residents introduced
    Figure 1. Corridor population trajectories, 2025–2080, comparing pre-2024 (dashed) and post-2024 (solid) demographic assumptions on the same axis. The dashed lines represent the population input comparable published forecasts used; the solid lines reflect the 2024 federal cap and the StatCan data released January 2026. By 2080 the gap is striking — ~50M vs 35.6M (upper), 33.8M vs 25.7M (central), 23.1M vs 19.6M (lower). The post-2024 upper trajectory sits below the pre-2024 central across much of the horizon. Roughly 15 to 25% of the gap between the CRI envelope and the other forecasts is attributable to this single demographic correction alone.

    The trajectories are anchored on Statistics Canada’s official projections (released 27 January 2026), with a ~0.4-point corridor-CMA growth premium reflecting the directly-served CMAs’ historically faster growth — population-weighted ~1.8%/yr over 2000–2025 against the national 1.23%, moderated for Quebec’s projected demographic-weight decline and the Western redirection of interprovincial migration. The 0.4-point premium is a deliberately conservative reading, chosen so the envelope is not vulnerable to the argument that it underweights the corridor’s growth advantage.

    3 · Trip Generation

    Per-capita intercity trips

    The three principal pairs together carry ~19.9 million annual person-trips across air, rail and car (Note 2). Adding the secondary pairs and intermediate-station traffic brings the addressable market to about 25 million annual person-trips — against a 2025 population of 14.9 million, a per-capita rate of about 1.68 trips per resident per year.

    Over a 45-year horizon, competing effects roughly cancel. Hybrid work has structurally reduced corridor business travel below the pre-pandemic baseline, and AI-mediated meetings continue to erode marginal demand for in-person business travel — the literature consistently finds business travel adjusts more elastically to communication technology than leisure travel does. On the supporting side, urbanisation, economic concentration into the corridor, and rising affluence in the secondary centres lift demand. The net effect is roughly stable to mildly declining; this note uses a range of 1.6 to 1.8 trips per capita, central case ~1.7.

    4 · Modal Share by Regime

    Three fare-and-subsidy regimes

    ALTO’s share of the addressable market is the third multiplicand — and the dimension on which the corridor decision turns most directly. The aggregate share is a weighted blend across air, current rail and car markets on the three principal pairs, with realistic group composition (a mix of solo, couple and family travellers) rather than the solo-traveller readings that anchor the time-and-price geometry.

    A

    Heavy operating subsidy — low fares

    Fares at VIA-equivalent levels (rail-to-air ratio 0.4–0.5; per-person rail-to-car ~1.0 solo), capital absorbed into the public account. Annual subsidy $2.5–4.5 billion. Captures ~85% of the air market, ~100% of existing VIA demand, ~22% of the rail+car market on a group-weighted basis. Aggregate share: ~38–42%.

    B

    Moderate subsidy — parity with air (canonical)

    Fares at parity with air (rail-to-air ratio ~1.0; per-person rail-to-car ~2.0–2.4 solo). Annual subsidy $1.5–2.5 billion. Captures ~70% of air, ~95% of existing VIA demand, ~9–11% of rail+car. Aggregate share: ~28–32%. This is the configuration under which the 24-million headline is implicitly framed.

    C

    Minimal subsidy — P3 yield management

    Fares above air parity (rail-to-air ratio 1.1–1.4; per-person rail-to-car 3–4 solo, above 12 for a family of four). Annual subsidy $0.5–1.5 billion — still positive, because the fully self-funded P3 model is not survivable arithmetic at any modal share consistent with the framework. Captures ~50% of air, ~80% of existing VIA demand, ~4% of rail+car. Aggregate share: ~20–23%.

    Table 2. Three fare-and-subsidy regimes, with implied modal capture and aggregate share of corridor person-trips. The factor-of-two range across regimes operates independently of the infrastructure choice — the same physical asset produces double or half the ridership depending on the fare-and-subsidy decision. No regime delivers self-funding at any modal share consistent with the framework.
    RegimeFare structureAnnual subsidyAir captureCar captureAggregate share
    A — HeavyT–Mtl ~$80–130; rair ≈ 0.4–0.5$2.5–4.5B/yr~85%~22%38–42%
    B — ModerateT–Mtl ~$150–220; rair ≈ 0.9–1.0$1.5–2.5B/yr~70%~9–11%28–32%
    C — MinimalT–Mtl ~$220–350+; rair ≈ 1.1–1.4$0.5–1.5B/yr~50%~4%20–23%
    5 · Phasing & Ramp

    Opening-year is not mature-year

    Ridership in any specific year depends on three timing variables: the construction schedule, the segment opening sequence, and the ramp curve on each opened segment. The 2026–2034 period is consumed by consultation, environmental assessment, expropriation, design, P3 negotiation and enabling works — none of it revenue service. Canadian P3 megaproject experience (Eglinton Crosstown, Confederation Line, Ontario Line) suggests timelines slip rather than compress; the earliest plausible phased opening is ~2038, central scenario closer to 2040.

    Phase 1 — Montréal–Ottawa

    Opens first: shortest (~190 km), simplest engineering, but the smallest pair. Serves only the Ottawa–Montréal demand pool (~20% of corridor) — it cannot draw Toronto flows because Toronto isn’t connected yet. Early-year ridership is structurally small.

    Phase 2 — Toronto extension

    The demand inflection point. Adds ~450 km and unlocks Toronto–Ottawa and Toronto–Montréal — ~60% of corridor demand. Cumulative Phase 1+2 coverage is ~80%: the full Toronto–Ottawa–Montréal triangle. Plausible window 2042–2046.

    Phase 3 — Québec City extension

    The most schedule-vulnerable: the St-Lawrence crossing, Leda clay risk, an unsettled routing, and an unresolved federal-provincial cost-share with Québec. Adds the final ~20%. Window 2047–2052, with a credible permanently-deferred scenario.

    The ramp curve in the North American context is meaningfully slower than European comparators. Madrid–Barcelona took ~4 years to decisively overtake the air bridge, under conditions far more favourable to rail than ALTO faces; Brightline Miami–Orlando remains in financial ramp-up with bond ratings downgraded to CCC+. The envelope is calibrated against the Brightline profile for the lower and central cases and Madrid–Barcelona for the upper case.

    Table 3. Ramp factors applied to each opened segment — the fraction of that segment’s mature ridership realised in each year post-opening. Regime C (yield management) ramps slowest; Regime A (low fares) fastest. Applied separately to each phase, with each segment’s clock starting from its own opening year.
    Years post-openingLower (Regime C)Central (Regime B)Upper (Regime A)
    Year 115%25%35%
    Year 335%50%65%
    Year 555%70%80%
    Year 875%85%92%
    Year 10+90%95%100%
    Table 4. Phase opening schedule by scenario. The fare-and-subsidy regime correlates with delivery pace: heavily-funded projects face political pressure for early openings and federal cost-overrun absorption removes renegotiation friction; lean P3 structures slip. Phase 3 moves most widely because of the St-Lawrence crossing and the Québec cost-share. Defensible bounds extend each year by ±2–3.
    ScenarioRegimePhase 1 (Mtl–Ott)Phase 2 (Ott–Tor)Phase 3 (Mtl–QC)
    LowerC — minimal204220482055
    CentralB — moderate204020452050
    UpperA — heavy203820422046

    Under the central scenario, the corridor is at ~29% of mature potential in 2045, ~65% in 2050, and ~88% in 2055 — genuine full-corridor maturity is not reached until around 2060. ALTO’s 24-million-by-2055 figure is incompatible with the announced phasing under any plausible ramp curve: the corridor cannot be mature in 2055 if Phase 3 only opens in 2050. If Phase 3 is permanently deferred but Phases 1–2 complete, mature ridership is ~4.9 to 20.5 million across regimes — the more credible of the downside readings given Québec’s negotiating position.

    6 · The Envelope

    Ridership, 2035–2080

    Combining population, trip generation, regime and phasing produces the envelope below. The lower bound combines Regime C with the lower population trajectory and 1.6 trips/capita; the central case combines Regime B with the central trajectory and 1.7; the upper bound combines Regime A with the upper trajectory and 1.8 — each paired with its corresponding ramp curve and opening schedule.

    9.2M
    CRI central case at 2055 (Regime B)
    3.7–17.2M
    Full 2055 envelope across regimes and demographics
    24M
    ALTO’s published 2055 target — ~40% above the upper bound
    Table 5. ALTO annual ridership envelope, 2035–2080, in millions, with the three-phase opening sequence and ramp applied. Lower: Regime C × lower population × 1.6 trips/cap. Central: Regime B × central × 1.7. Upper: Regime A × upper × 1.8. The 2040 figures reflect Phase 1 alone; 2045 reflects Phase 2 just opening; 2050 reflects Phase 3 just opening. Full-corridor maturity is reached around 2060, not 2055.
    YearStatusLower (M)Central (M)Upper (M)
    2035Construction; no revenue service000
    2040Phase 1 (Mtl–Ott) opening years00.41.8
    2045Phase 1 maturing; Phase 2 opens0.52.89.2
    2050Phase 1+2 maturing; Phase 3 opens1.96.714.8
    2055Phase 1+2 mature; Phase 3 ramping3.79.217.2
    2060All phases near-mature plus growth4.810.218.7
    2070Mature plus sustained growth5.811.321.9
    2080Mature plus full forecast growth6.112.525.7

    Figures 2a–2c plot the year-by-year trajectory under each regime separately. Within each figure, the three lines are the demographic trajectories; the spread within a figure shows demographic uncertainty, and the spread across the figures shows the fare-and-subsidy choice — a policy decision, not an infrastructure one. The 24-million target is marked on each as a reference.

    Ridership trajectory under Regime A, heavy subsidy, low fares: lower, central and upper demographic lines against the 24-million ALTO target
    Figure 2a. Regime A (heavy subsidy, VIA-equivalent fares, $2.5–4.5B/yr). Aggregate share 38–42%. Phase openings 2038/2042/2046. The 2055 readings are 11.0 / 13.6 / 17.2M; the 2080 readings 12.5 / 17.5 / 25.7M. Even the most favourable combination — Regime A with upper demographic growth — leaves the 24M target ~40% above the trajectory at 2055.
    Ridership trajectory under Regime B, moderate subsidy, parity with air: the canonical business-case configuration against the 24-million target
    Figure 2b. Regime B (moderate subsidy, parity with air, $1.5–2.5B/yr) — the canonical configuration under which the published business case is implicitly framed. Aggregate share 28–32%. Phase openings 2040/2045/2050. The 2055 readings are 7.4 / 9.2 / 11.6M; the 2080 readings 8.9 / 12.5 / 18.3M. The target sits above the achievable range by a factor of ~2.1 to 3.2 at 2055.
    Ridership trajectory under Regime C, minimal subsidy, P3 yield management: fares above air parity against the 24-million target
    Figure 2c. Regime C (minimal subsidy, P3 yield management, fares above air parity, $0.5–1.5B/yr) — the configuration most consistent with the consortium’s announced commercial structure. Aggregate share 20–23%. Phase openings 2042/2048/2055. The 2055 readings are 3.7 / 4.6 / 5.8M; the 2080 readings 6.1 / 8.5 / 12.4M. Even the upper demographic falls below the McGill TRAM projection at 2055.

    Three patterns emerge. The regime choice (a policy lever) shifts 2080 central ridership by a factor of ~2 — 17.5M (A), 12.5M (B), 8.5M (C). The demographic choice shifts it by another factor of ~2 — 12.5M (lower) to 25.7M (upper) under Regime A. And the 24-million target sits above every plausible 2055 trajectory in every figure: the closest reading, Regime A with upper growth, produces 17.2M — 28% below the target. Reaching 24M by 2055 requires the most favourable regime, a demographic trajectory above the upper case, and a corridor fully mature by 2055 — three conditions that cannot all hold under the announced phasing. The Regime A upper trajectory does reach the 24M neighbourhood — but a full quarter-century later, in 2080.

    7 · Comparison

    ALTO’s target is the outlier

    The CRI envelope can be placed alongside the other published forecasts for the same corridor. The pattern is unambiguous: every forecast built from a disclosed methodology clusters near the CRI envelope, and ALTO’s public targets stand alone above all of them.

    Table 6. Published and modelled ridership forecasts for the corridor. Not strictly comparable across columns — ALTO’s 2055 figure assumes full-corridor completion well before 2055; the Munk GEPL figures are Toronto–Montréal scaled to a corridor equivalent; C.D. Howe applies sensitivity analysis to VIA’s forecasts; the JPO 2021 figure is for the predecessor HFR 177 km/h spec. The pattern is robust: every disclosed-methodology forecast sits within or close to the upper end of the CRI envelope, and well below the ALTO public targets.
    SourceMethodBy 2050By 2055By ~2080–85
    ALTO public targetsNot disclosed—24M (2055)43M (2084)
    ALTO Corporate PlanTreasury Board filing (incl. Local Services)—17M (2059)—
    McGill TRAMStated-preference survey, n ≈ 8,30010.5M—~19.7M (yr 50)
    Munk School GEPLDisclosed logit with induced demand~16–17M~18–19M—
    C.D. HoweScenario analysis on VIA’s forecasts12–21M——
    Federal JPO 2021Pre-procurement business case (HFR spec)~13.5M——
    Flyvbjerg adjustmentALTO −65% reference class—8.4M (from 24M)15M (from 43M)
    CRI envelopeModal-shift × population × regime1.9 / 6.7 / 14.83.7 / 9.2 / 17.26.1 / 12.5 / 25.7

    The dispersion among the disclosed-methodology forecasts is narrow — TRAM at 10.5M by 2050, Munk GEPL at 16–17M corridor-equivalent, the JPO 2021 at 13.5M, and C.D. Howe’s 12–21M range all sit in the same zone. The CRI central case sits on the conservative side of this cluster; the CRI upper bound sits centrally within it. The dispersion between the cluster and ALTO’s public targets, by contrast, is wide: the 24-million figure is ~40% above the CRI upper bound for that year, more than double the TRAM number, and 14% above the top of the C.D. Howe range. Notably, ALTO’s own Corporate Plan figure of 17M by 2059 — filed with Treasury Board — is ~30% below its public 24M figure and closer to the CRI upper bound; the reconciliation of the two ALTO figures is not publicly disclosed.

    Every forecast for the corridor built from a disclosed methodology — TRAM survey, Munk GEPL logit, federal JPO business case — sits within or close to the CRI envelope. ALTO’s 24-million public target sits 40 per cent above the upper bound at 2055 and is the outlier in the published literature.
    8 · Why the Gap

    Why the CRI envelope sits below the cluster

    The CRI central case sits below the disclosed-methodology cluster, and its upper bound sits centrally within it. This is not a forecasting error in those studies — they were built for different purposes, finalised on different timelines, and applied different assumptions where the modal-shift literature offers latitude. Six factors account for the bulk of the divergence, in roughly descending order of impact.

    1. The 2024 demographic inflection is post-cutoff for every other forecast

    The single largest source. Every published forecast was finalised before the federal NPR caps produced observable effects. The January 2026 StatCan data was not available to any of them. ~15–25% of the gap, before any other consideration.

    2. North-American modal-shift recalibration

    The comparators use European-anchored elasticities. Note 2 recalibrates the rail–car curve against VIA’s ~13% road share, shifting the inflection from τ₀ = 0.65 to 0.46. ~15–25% of the gap, largest on the road-substitutable share.

    3. Explicit phased opening

    The CRI envelope models each phase’s own opening date and ramp; the comparators assume an implicit step-change to maturity. ~30–40% of the gap at the 2050–2055 horizon specifically, converging by 2070–2080.

    4. Group-composition weighting

    Family and 3+ travel essentially cannot be captured by rail at any defensible fare. Most models use an average traveller; the CRI weights across realistic solo/couple/family proportions. ~5–15% of the gap, largest on the car-substitutable share.

    5. Canadian P3 vs European open-access pricing

    Madrid–Barcelona’s gains came from open-access competition (25–50% fare cuts). The Cadence monopoly concession, with Air Canada’s equity stake, eliminates that mechanism. ~10–20% of the gap, largest on the lower-end scenarios.

    6. Bottom-up vs top-down or stated-preference

    ALTO’s targets are top-down (subject to the Flyvbjerg ~65% optimism bias); TRAM is stated-preference (overstates realised behaviour). The CRI is built bottom-up from observed VIA shares. ~5–15% of the gap, operating as a multiplier on the rest.

    Taken together, the six factors are not independent surprises pushing the same way — they are mostly visible to the other forecasts too, but each embedded different assumptions where the literature offers latitude. The CRI envelope’s central case sits below the cluster because it applies all six defensible positions at once; its upper bound, by construction, relaxes the unfavourable end of each while staying internally consistent, and sits centrally within the cluster. By 2080, when the demographic, phasing and ramp factors have all played out, the CRI upper bound of 20.7M sits in the centre of the published cluster’s mature-state range. None of the comparators is wrong; each answers a different question. The CRI envelope answers a sixth: what realised annual ridership is consistent with current empirical evidence, the announced phasing, and the modal-shift literature applied to the Canadian context.

    Download Full Note
    Modal Shift Note 3 — Ridership Envelope Research Note (PDF)
    Reference document with the full framework, all six tables, the four figures, and the complete source list
    Download PDF
    Sources

    Principal sources

    1.
    Statistics Canada (27 January 2026). Population projections for Canada (catalogue 17-20-0003; dashboard 71-607-X-2022015), LG / M1 / HG scenarios. — and the 2024–25 demographic estimates and the federal Immigration Levels Plan (October 2024) cap on non-permanent residents.
    2.
    El-Geneidy, A. et al. — Transportation Research at McGill (TRAM), stated-preference corridor projection (March 2026), n ≈ 8,300. tram.mcgill.ca
    3.
    Munk School Global Economic Policy Lab, University of Toronto — disclosed logit corridor model with induced demand.
    4.
    Jones & Fariha (February 2025). All Aboard. C.D. Howe Institute scenario analysis. cdhowe.org
    5.
    Federal Joint Project Office (2021) pre-procurement business case (HFR 177 km/h specification), released through Access to Information, November 2025.
    6.
    Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M.S. & Buhl, S. — meta-analysis of rail-project ridership forecast accuracy (mean ~65% overstatement).
    7.
    VIA Rail Canada Annual Report 2023; corridor person-trip volumes and modal shares as developed in Note 2, Table 1. — and Brightline Florida (2024–2026) ridership reports and KBRA bond rating actions; Madrid–Barcelona AVE ramp and open-access pricing record.
    8.
    ALTO public communications (the Imbleau / Fast Forward 24- and 43-million figures) and the ALTO Corporate Plan filed with Treasury Board (17M by 2059, including Local Services).
    9.
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative companion notes: Note 1 — rail–air substitution and Note 2 — rail–car substitution, which supply the modal-share machinery; and the Modal Shift & Ridership synthesis brief that sets this note alongside Notes 1, 2 and 4.
    ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative  ·  citizenresearch.ca  ·  Modal Shift Note 3  ·  May 2026
    Independent, non-partisan research on the proposed Toronto–Quebec City high-speed rail corridor.