Alto

2026-04-04T00:00:00+00:00

Introduction</a> </h1>
1</a></sup> high-speed rail (HSR) project. My initial reaction was very enthusiastic, but I hadn't grounded myself in many of the details. Since then I've been pondering and researching the project almost daily, while trying to get a feel for local and regional positions on the matter. My general impression toward Alto is one of high skepticism, at best, and public sentiment (which, admittedly, I've picked up on primarily from social media and reports around public consultations from Alto's representatives) isn't optimistic either. Between concerns about cost, environmental impact, land expropriation, urban-rural divides, corruption, and maybe some simple NIMBYism, there are a lot of different angles to consider from the "no" camp. I find myself with thoughts, which you're about to read (stop while you can).</p>

The "Nots"
The Back of the Envelope </a> </h1>
2</a></sup> are around $3.30 per ride for a single adult. There are lots of variables here, and those who've made similar trips before will likely attest to many mixed solutions they've come up with to save cash.</li>
The train and flight ticket prices are for a single adult</strong> - for a family, driving is by far the most affordable option.</li>
Time spent for the car assumes at least one short stop to stretch, use the washroom, etc., while for the flight it assumes you're at the airport at least an hour before departure. The train is simplest here.</li> </ul>
Item</th> Car</th> VIA Rail</th> HSR</th> Flight</th></tr></thead>

Fuel Cost (CAD)</td> 150</td> X</td> X</td> X</td></tr>
Ticket Cost (CAD)</td> X</td> 161</td> ?</strong></td> 493</td></tr>
Other Costs (e.g. bus, subway, in CAD)</td> 100</td> 50</td> 50</td> 50</td></tr>
Time Spent (hours, one way)</td> 4.5</td> 4.5</td> 2</td> 3</td></tr>
Attention</td> Occupied</td> Free</td> Free</td> Free</td></tr> </tbody></table>
It goes without saying that all</strong> of these options are expensive for someone earning the median or average incomes (using 2023's numbers^{3</a></sup>) of $45,400 or
$59,400 per year, respectively, so it's easy to understand how critics would
perceive this project to be by and for a much wealthier demographic. I don't see
any indication that Alto is expected to solve these problems of access and
affordability. There are also hidden factors baked into those options to
consider - for example, unless you use a carsharing service like
Communauto</a>, the first option means you need
to own and maintain a vehicle, which is a frustrating and expensive
barrier-to-entry for people to access many modes of living. When climate and
environmental consequences are considered, all of them tend to look even worse
(although Alto will be electric, which is a point in its favour). For
comparison, here's the table4</a></sup> from Wikipedia showing estimated times:</p>}
</p>
What Will an Alto Fare Cost?
5</a></sup> published by McGill in late 2025 (updated 2026), which my aforementioned friend pointed out. Notably, it is based on a survey which (after a data validation step) only includes 8,276 responses, all of whom are distributed among the cities with proposed stops - so, excluding the many communities along the route but without direct access, along with everybody further afield in other regions of the country. This seems fine for estimating ridership, station preference, and so on, but not other categories such as perceived benefits or concerns.</p>
The most interesting analysis there is the "Willingness to Pay" section, which suggests that prospective riders would only be willing to pay about $25 more per fare than for VIA Rail.</strong> Using our single-adult hypothetical from earlier, that'd mean the round-trip cost for Alto would be $186</strong>. That doesn't sound too bad, especially when you compare it to the flight.</p>
Two problems:</p>

Most people are going to compare costs, see that the train is more expensive, and choose to drive anyway - especially when the apparent flexibility of driving versus being bound to train and public transit schedules is considered (and despite potential parking fees);</li>
VIA Rail services seem unlikely to remain viable once Alto is complete</strong> - their 2023 annual report6</a></sup> mentions that 96%</strong> of passenger trips were taken along the Quebec City-Windsor corridor - unless there's a major re-imagining of their mandate.</li> </ol>
To reiterate, all of this is also assuming a single adult is making the trip - the argument falls apart pretty quickly with access to "cheap" fuel and a vehicle if you are going with friends and/or family. Will this be the case in 20 years when Alto is up and running? It's hard to say, but for now other forms of transportation are really expensive. Unless costs come down across the board, I don't see how Alto is going to be any more appealing than the decision to drive, even if it means taking 2.5 times as long (or more, with rush hour traffic).</p>
Which Problem Are We Solving?</a> </h2>
7</a></sup> (the organization slated to build Alto) includes SNCF Voyageurs</a> and Keolis</a> on the international side, and a post 8</a></sup> from the Japanese Embassy about hosting an Alto round table seems like further (if anecdotal) evidence of that. I'm not sure that speed is the actual priority, though. What's missing is a plan to push ticket prices down, and to increase reliability of alternatives to driving.</p>
</p>
I still want to look into other studies on this, but in my mind the threshold for choosing to ride the train every time as a family of four - assuming that something like VIA's policy9</a></sup> of children traveling for free is in effect for the trip, so only two adult tickets are required - comes in at about $200</strong>, or about 33% more than the driving estimate. This per-adult cost of about $100 is where I'd have to seriously consider leaving the car at home, keeping in mind that there's still a lot of other factors which make this kind of outing a fairly rare one. I'm assuming that people thinking about such a trip have the funds to allow those choices, though. To make it accessible to more people, it should be pushed much lower, with corresponding investments in higher reliability and more frequent service</strong>. Apparently there was a report10</a></sup> suggesting a similar model in 2015, at least on the expansion-of-service side.</p>
Speaking of VIA Rail again, their 2023 report listed operating expenses of $812.5 million and operating losses of $381.8 million, respectively. With ~40 million people, those operating expenses work out to a little over $20 per person per year, with current fare costs. You have to wonder what a version of the VIA Rail service running at two, three, or even five times that number would look like, assuming the difference was split between expanded service and subsidizing of the fares themselves. The main issue that comes to mind with the expansion aspect is increased emissions and further reliance on one type of energy (diesel). Maybe there's an approach where slower electrified services are easier to build? This would require a lot of the same safety measures that Alto HSR would to deliver power to the trains (so the tracks would still be fenced and impassable without going over or under), but removing the wide turning radius required for high-speed operation may make it easier to avoid routing through critical habitats and properties whose owners are opposed to the current proposals. If such examples don't exist yet, then maybe this is a chance for us to show the rest of the world a new example.</p>
Ultimately, I think that public services should not be expected to turn a profit</strong>, and if spending a little more means coming up with a solution that addresses this line of thinking, it may be the best path forward.</p>
Future Work</a> </h1>
International Studies and Other Media

High Speed Rail Performance in France: From Appraisal Methodologies to Ex-post Evaluation</a></li>
The impacts of high-speed rail expansion on short-haul air passenger transport - Evidence from German domestic and international traffic</a></li>
Spatial equity and high speed trains: the example of France</a></li>
Smart and Affordable Rail Services in the EU: a socio-economic and environmental study for High-Speed in 2030 and 2050</a></li>
The Development of High-Speed Rail in the Federal Republic of Germany Between 2002-2020</a></li> </ol>
I'll have to find and read publications around African proposals, along with Chinese and Japanese systems, too. If video essays are more your thing, there are at least eight focused on train infrastructure on the Wendover Productions channel 11</a></sup> (I can't recall which ones I've seen).</p>
Trains of Thought
Last Words </a> </h1>
12</a></sup> from the leader of the federal opposition, with very predictable content - a firm "no" to Alto, lamentation about no "projects" (pipelines) being built, and so on - which really seemed like a combination of points from The Nots</a>.</p>
I am not an expert on the inner workings of federal government, so I can't be sure of the presser's political expediency. However, given that it seems like more of the same rhetoric used in recent elections, I'd guess one of three outcomes, in order of likelihood:</p>

It is seen as opportunistic positioning and/or a continuation of favouring rural areas at the expense of urban ones - despite the CPC losing the interest of those ridings in the near term - and is largely ignored;</li>
It motivates the LPC to push the Alto project even harder to avoid a loss of confidence and a sudden election (although recent floor crossings 13</a></sup> suggest that maybe this isn't a problem);</li>
Two or more parties revisit the project and the budget, then consider possible alternatives for rail expansion alongside other big projects to shore up ailing industries and economic hardship.</li> </ol>
It's truly unfortunate that we're perpetually stuck in the middle of this back-and-forth dance. Maybe if plans to implement proportional representation in our electoral system (which, coincidentally, were promised and then cancelled by former PM Trudeau, who also happens to have announced 14</a></sup> the Alto project shortly before his retirement) hadn't been cancelled, we could have more transparency than it seems we're getting. It might also mean more creative approaches to solving the growing transportation challenges that people face every day.</p>
Special Thanks To </a> </h1>

Justin for:</p>

Amy for:</p>

Mitch for:</p>

Special Thanks To </a> </h1>

Justin for:</p>

Amy for:</p>

Mitch for:</p>

Yet Another (N)Vim Config

Introduction </a> </h1>
You can find my configs for everything here</a>.</p>

The Basic Vim Config
vim-gitgutter</li> </ul>
Switching to NeoVim
More?</a> </h1>
here</a>.</p>

Switching to NeoVim
More?</a> </h1>
here</a>.</p>

More?</a> </h1>
here</a>.</p>

The Birds Are Back

Backyard Ecology: Fauna

Caveats
Birds

Birds

Mammals

Thoughts on Backyard Ecology

Conclusion

My Journey Into Open Source

The Point?

ecocode

Alto