What Kingston Actually Told ALTO
Parliamentary e-petition data exposes a 38:1 ratio of opposition to support — yet Alto’s CEO credits the “strong mobilization” as justification for the southern corridor.
Kingston Whig-Standard, April 3, 2026
“What we’re getting in the Kingston region is the southern corridor is preferable because it gets closer to Kingston… The mobilization is very strong. The message is received.”
Analytical Note
Imbleau’s characterization of Kingston’s “mobilization” as support for the project raises a critical question: which public voices is Alto counting, and which is it discounting? Parliamentary petition data — the most transparent, verifiable record of organized public opinion — tells a very different story.
Two petitions. One ratio.
Two e-petitions before the House of Commons directly address ALTO in the Kingston and Eastern Ontario region. Their signature counts diverge dramatically.
What the petitions actually show
E-7203 — with 11,682 signatures and nearly four months to run — calls for the project to be cancelled outright, with investment redirected to improving service on existing corridors. It is the largest ALTO-related petition before Parliament.
E-7257 does not endorse ALTO. It asks that if ALTO proceeds, Kingston be included and the route pushed further south. Even this petition explicitly acknowledges concerns about ecological harm. It is a route-modification request, not an endorsement of the project.
Key Finding
The pro-Kingston petition represents conditional route negotiation by Kingston-area residents who assume the project is proceeding. It cannot fairly be characterized as broad community support for ALTO. The anti-ALTO petition — 38 times larger — is an unambiguous call to stop the project. Treating the former as evidence of “strong mobilization” while the latter remains unacknowledged in public statements is a selective reading of public sentiment.
Broader Eastern Ontario opposition on record
Parliamentary petition data is consistent with a documented pattern of formal opposition that has deepened substantially through the consultation period. As of April 17, 2026, more than 70 bodies — elected representatives, county and municipal councils, and regional organizations — have positions on the record.
42
Bodies formally opposing
Federal, provincial, county, municipal, and organizational opposition
5 of 7
Eastern Ontario counties oppose
Hastings, Lanark, L&A, Frontenac, United Leeds & Grenville
26+
Municipal council motions
From Trent Hills to Tyendinaga, spanning the full corridor
1M+
Represented by EOWC
Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus Resolution 2026-02
County Councils Opposing ALTO
Hastings County · Lanark County · Lennox & Addington County · Frontenac County · United Counties of Leeds and Grenville · Northumberland County (opposes southern corridor; endorses northern)
Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus Resolution 2026-02 opposes ALTO in its current form on behalf of 103 small urban and rural municipalities representing over 1 million Eastern Ontarians.
Municipal Councils — selected
Opposing the current plan: City of Belleville · City of Brockville · City of Quinte West · South Frontenac · North Frontenac · Central Frontenac · Rideau Lakes · Tay Valley · Perth · Lanark Highlands · Mississippi Mills · Carleton Place · Beckwith · Drummond/North Elmsley · Stone Mills · Tyendinaga · Tweed · Trent Hills · Marmora and Lake · Madoc · Havelock-Belmont-Methuen · Douro-Dummer · Stirling-Rawdon · Bancroft · Addington Highlands · Faraday · Montague
Federal Elected Representatives
Opposes: MP Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings–L&A) · MP Scott Reid (Lanark–Frontenac) · MP Michael Barrett (Leeds–Grenville) · MP Chris Malette (Bay of Quinte) · MP Philip Lawrence (Northumberland–Clarke) · Leader Pierre Poilievre (Conservative Party) · Leader Yves-François Blanchet (Bloc Québécois)
Concerns raised: MP Mark Gerretsen (Kingston & the Islands)
Provincial Elected Representatives
Opposes: MPP Steve Clark (Leeds–Grenville)
401 corridor preference: Premier Doug Ford
Concerns raised: MPP Ric Bresee (Hastings–L&A) · MPP Ted Hsu (Kingston & the Islands) · MPP John Jordan (Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston)
For the complete current list with source citations and statements, see the Political Positions page.
What we are asking ALTO to disclose
Publish the full consultation methodology
Disclose how ALTO weights different categories of consultation input — open-house attendance, written submissions, online responses — and how it distinguishes unconditional project support from conditional route-negotiation comments.
Acknowledge the parliamentary petition record
Formally acknowledge e-petition e-7203 (11,682 signatures calling for ALTO’s cancellation) as part of the public record of regional sentiment in any consultation summary. It has not been referenced in any ALTO public communication.
Distinguish route negotiation from project support
Ensure that communications characterizing regional “mobilization” as project support accurately distinguish between unconditional endorsement and conditional route-modification requests. The two petitions cited above represent categorically different positions.
Sources underpinning this analysis
Petition signature counts retrieved April 4, 2026; counts may have changed as e-7203 remains open. This analysis is produced by the ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative, an independent, non-partisan citizen research project.