Alto High Speed Rail

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by urbanforest

https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2026/06/22/government-considering-high-speed-rail-stop-in-kingston-ont/


I’m from the Kingston area and have family there, but this still doesn’t sit right with me. This kind of politicking will deliver a slow-high-speed train and wreck budgets and timelines.

We've added three stations with Laval, a suburban Toronto station and Kingston. I'd like to know how much time this adds.

[Richard Eade]

I am amused by the protests that this is political interference in what should be a purely technical choice of routing. The original (limited) routing guidance that ALTO was given was likely conceived by politicians. Seriously, would there be a technical reason for inserting a Laval stop between Ottawa and Montreal?

It is starting to sound, to me, as if the routing is gradually reverting to the current one. I think that, EVENTUALLY, ALTO’s routing will be revamped to become a fast line between Toronto and Montreal – one that follows the Seaway, on tracks that are parallel to the freight tracks. It will, likely, have stops at P.E. Trudeau Airport (Dorval) and Kingston, as the train travels between Gare Centrale in Montreal and Union Station in Toronto.

This will be justified because it will be less expensive, and will create a faster link between the two largest cities on the line. The route will cut through less ‘virgin’ territory (although it will still need land to widen the corridor) so it should be much less controversial.

As far as I can see, this makes more sense for a high-speed line between Toronto and Montreal. Going from Toronto, to Peterborough, to Ottawa, to Laval, to Montreal is somewhat longer, and likely slower, than a straighter run between the two termini, that has one less stop.

But where does it leave Ottawa?

I think that, EVENTUALLY, there will be a decision that a new corridor between Ottawa and Laval is not the best way forward. This will be informed by the determination that the Toronto-Montreal line follows the Seaway. Since that southern route (along the Seaway) will already require tunneling to get the trains to Gare Centrale, boring another tunnel from Laval to Gare Centrale would be wasteful. Using a slightly straightened and upgraded run beside the existing VIA route from Ottawa to Montreal would take those trains to a junction with the southern route, at Dorval – meaning that only one tunnel is needed. This will be a ‘higher-speed’ line, but, likely, not more than 250-300 KPH.

That said, there is obviously some pressure to have a stop in Laval. This might force a second tunnel, heading north from Gare Centrale. If so, then ALTO might continue planning that new corridor from Ottawa to Laval.

(Personally, I think that a better high-speed routing between Montreal and Quebec City would be along the south shore, and the ALTO tunnel between Levis and Quebec should be combined with The Third Link.)

I do not expect that the more direct, northern, route from Toronto to Ottawa – through Peterborough – will get the green-light. I expect that, in the future, to get to Ottawa, one would take a high-speed train to Kingston and then transfer to a VIA train.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by urbanforest

https://ottawa.citynews.ca/2026/06/22/government-considering-high-speed-rail-stop-in-kingston-ont/


I’m from the Kingston area and have family there, but this still doesn’t sit right with me. This kind of politicking will deliver a slow-high-speed train and wreck budgets and timelines.

It's probably going to kill Corridor East 2.0 as well.

Without Kingston as an originating hub, how much ridership would Corridor East have in a post-Alto world?

[harls]

Ottawa not being included in a first phase HSR line is certainly a choice.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We've added three stations with Laval, a suburban Toronto station and Kingston. I'd like to know how much time this adds.

Two of those are enroute and in areas where the train would run slower anyway. Impact is likely to be minimal. I would estimate under 10 mins net per stop. Kingston, however......

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I am amused by the protests that this is political interference in what should be a purely technical choice of routing. The original (limited) routing guidance that ALTO was given was likely conceived by politicians. Seriously, would there be a technical reason for inserting a Laval stop between Ottawa and Montreal?

There's half a million people in Laval and a wider catchment is probably looking at a million. It's particularly ridiculous and ignorant to be in the Ottawa forum arguing against Laval. Keep doing this and you'll end up with a good case to skip Ottawa too.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

It is starting to sound, to me, as if the routing is gradually reverting to the current one. I think that, EVENTUALLY, ALTO’s routing will be revamped to become a fast line between Toronto and Montreal – one that follows the Seaway, on tracks that are parallel to the freight tracks. It will, likely, have stops at P.E. Trudeau Airport (Dorval) and Kingston, as the train travels between Gare Centrale in Montreal and Union Station in Toronto.

This will be justified because it will be less expensive, and will create a faster link between the two largest cities on the line. The route will cut through less ‘virgin’ territory (although it will still need land to widen the corridor) so it should be much less controversial.

The idea that building through more densely settled area would somehow be cheaper is something.....

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

As far as I can see, this makes more sense for a high-speed line between Toronto and Montreal. Going from Toronto, to Peterborough, to Ottawa, to Laval, to Montreal is somewhat longer, and likely slower, than a straighter run between the two termini, that has one less stop.

People who fixate on Toronto-Montreal almost never travel much or bother looking at current demand out of Ottawa to Toronto and Montreal.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

But where does it leave Ottawa?

I think that, EVENTUALLY, there will be a decision that a new corridor between Ottawa and Laval is not the best way forward. This will be informed by the determination that the Toronto-Montreal line follows the Seaway. Since that southern route (along the Seaway) will already require tunneling to get the trains to Gare Centrale, boring another tunnel from Laval to Gare Centrale would be wasteful. Using a slightly straightened and upgraded run beside the existing VIA route from Ottawa to Montreal would take those trains to a junction with the southern route, at Dorval – meaning that only one tunnel is needed. This will be a ‘higher-speed’ line, but, likely, not more than 250-300 KPH.

That said, there is obviously some pressure to have a stop in Laval. This might force a second tunnel, heading north from Gare Centrale. If so, then ALTO might continue planning that new corridor from Ottawa to Laval.

(Personally, I think that a better high-speed routing between Montreal and Quebec City would be along the south shore, and the ALTO tunnel between Levis and Quebec should be combined with The Third Link.)

I do not expect that the more direct, northern, route from Toronto to Ottawa – through Peterborough – will get the green-light. I expect that, in the future, to get to Ottawa, one would take a high-speed train to Kingston and then transfer to a VIA train.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by harls

Ottawa not being included in a first phase HSR line is certainly a choice.

Where does it say that?

[Richard Eade]

Reading through the ‘What We Heard’ report (from the general public), there seemed to be a lot of support for a station integrated into the P.E. Trudeau Airport. However, apparently, the Airport Administration declared a preference for an off-site connection to the REM, voicing concerns about site disruptions and constraints. I found that surprising. While I can understand that they worry about the period during construction, I would have thought that the long-term benefits would have been worth the short-term turmoil.

Check out the reports:
General public: https://www.altotrain.ca/sites/default/files/2026-06/public-consultation-report-june-2026.pdf
Indigenous: https://www.altotrain.ca/sites/default/f...ations-consultation-report-june-2026.pdf

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Where does it say that?

It has already been confirmed that Ottawa - Montreal will be the first phase.

[GeoNerd]

Stopping a $60-$90 billion dollar high speed train system in a town with metro population south of 200k is just bonkers.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I am amused by the protests that this is political interference in what should be a purely technical choice of routing. The original (limited) routing guidance that ALTO was given was likely conceived by politicians. Seriously, would there be a technical reason for inserting a Laval stop between Ottawa and Montreal?

I think that there are a couple of obvious reasons for Laval. One, as was pointed out, is the large and growing population north of Montreal. It's also a good jump-off for the Laurentians and tourism.

Second, the route into downtown Montreal is going to be complicated and will undoubtedly take a long time to build. By including Laval, you may be in a position to open a functional line years earlier and serve the Montreal metro before a downtown station is complete.

Kingston, on other hand makes no sense. It will slow the route considerably for the sake of relatively few riders. If you want to add catchment, save the money you'd spend diverting to Kingston and continue west of Toronto where there is many times the population.

[J.OT13]

Choosing Kingston eliminates the northern route, which in turn runs into more opposition and further slows down the trains by curving south to go back north.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Where does it say that?

I'm referring to Rich's post of not including Ottawa.

As far as I can see, this makes more sense for a high-speed line between Toronto and Montreal.

[Richard Eade]

Exactly. The northern route between Toronto and Ottawa seems to be being dropped. I expect that Peterborough will also get dropped; replaced by Kingston. And, since the route will then be following the water, I suspect that turning north toward Ottawa will also be dropped; with the line simply following the water to Montreal (Dorval).

Something to note: There is already a fully grade-separated rail corridor from Dorval Station to Gare Centrale. (Although it is shared with freight trains.) It is currently a 21-minute trip. VIA Rail time from Fallowfield Station to Ottawa Station is 20 minutes.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Exactly. The northern route between Toronto and Ottawa seems to be being dropped. I expect that Peterborough will also get dropped; replaced by Kingston. And, since the route will then be following the water, I suspect that turning north toward Ottawa will also be dropped; with the line simply following the water to Montreal (Dorval).

Something to note: There is already a fully grade-separated rail corridor from Dorval Station to Gare Centrale. (Although it is shared with freight trains.) It is currently a 21-minute trip. VIA Rail time from Fallowfield Station to Ottawa Station is 20 minutes.

I expect that they might add Kingston while keeping Peterborough. Ottawa has already been confirmed.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I expect that they might add Kingston while keeping Peterborough. Ottawa has already been confirmed.

Yeah, there is a bit of a difference between dropping Peterborough and dropping Ottawa. For example, one is bigger by a factor of 20.

Keeping Peterborough and adding Kingston is a worst case scenario.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I expect that they might add Kingston while keeping Peterborough. Ottawa has already been confirmed.

Why on earth would you want to make a (supposed) high-speed train travel north-east from Toronto to Peterborough; then turn east-south-east to cut through a large number of farm fields – where all of the area politicians have come out AGAINST having a rail line cut through their area – to go to Kingston; then turn the train north-north-east to Ottawa? The originally proposed ‘southern option’ was bad enough, but to take it further south to Kingston is folly.

A rail corridor already exists between Toronto and Kingston, and it runs parallel to the lake shore – although not in a particularly straight line. The 401 is better for straight (mostly), and it tends to avoid built-up areas. And, once east of Kingston, the tracks do a fairly good job at straightening out. This could be a faster – and less contentious – route between Toronto and Montreal.

Peterborough was mentioned, I believe, only because it just happens to be on an old rail corridor/highway that leads more directly from Toronto to Ottawa. If the train gets redirected to Kingston, then Peterborough is no longer ‘on the way’.

As for Ottawa being ‘confirmed’, that is a bit of a stretch. So far, the entire exercise is purely a study. Nothing has been ‘confirmed’. There have been many studies about a high-speed train in this area, and so far, no track has been laid.

Also, the most that they have said is that an Ottawa – Laval link would be the first to get built – if anything gets built. It is possible, assuming it does get built, that the Ottawa – Laval link will be the only segment that even gets built. Remember, a change of government could derail the entire proposal.

[lrt's friend]

Kingston over Ottawa???????

Indeed going to Kingston is so far out of the way, if Ottawa is included.

The question has to be posed.? What is the point of Alto if we exclude or don't prioritize VIA's most successful route (Toronto to Ottawa).

The whole point of Laval was to build a single route into downtown Montreal. Ottawa-Montreal via Laval and Montreal-Quebec City via Laval.

The second question: Is this the beginning of the unravelling of the whole project after spending hundreds of millions?

[urbanforest]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I am amused by the protests that this is political interference in what should be a purely technical choice of routing. The original (limited) routing guidance that ALTO was given was likely conceived by politicians.

Elected officials created Alto with a mandate to build a train from Toronto to Quebec via a series of specific stops. They also gave Alto funding to do the technical work required to get this project shovel ready.

That is how our system of government works. Overstepping that process and giving new directions that conflict with the mandate that Alto was given when it was created by the government is indeed political interference. This behaviour is not surprising but it is worrisome because it could erode the overall viability of the project.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

But where does it leave Ottawa? [.....] I expect that, in the future, to get to Ottawa, one would take a high-speed train to Kingston and then transfer to a VIA train.

I am amused and befuddled that you believe Alto was conceived and should continue to be driven by political interests and simultaneously believe that Ottawa would ever be cut out of this project. Just look at an electoral map...

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Stopping a $60-$90 billion dollar high speed train system in a town with metro population south of 200k is just bonkers.

Not much more than building when at all to a city of 900k most of whom live in low density housing and have private vehicles and most of those are travelling to a non urban location on the other end.

There are some arguments to take the more direct Montreal to Ottawa route and perhaps build a line from Ottawa south to intersect. Or skip Ottawa altogether but as others said there is actually more demand from Ottawa to Toronto then Montreal to Toronto. Two solitudes and all.

[Nouvellecosse]

I'm also not seeing the issue with "political interference." Any project driven by a significant percentage of public subsidy and that would never be viable based purely on the private sector business case is a political project. It's politicians deciding to do something they believe people want and would benefit from using the political system since it can't be achieved solely through the economic system. So if they want to alter the mandate of the project, that's just a change rather than "interference" which would imply something external, while the political mandate is not only internal but core to the project. The only relevant question to consider is whether a change is good and improves the project or not. If it isn't, then it's bad because it doesn't improve the project, not because it's political.