Alto’s high-speed rail project: A Plan B is needed

Jacques Roy is professor emeritus of logistics and operations management at HEC Montréal.

Jean Mercier is an adjunct professor in the department of political science at Université Laval.

Pierre Filion is professor emeritus at the school of planning at University of Waterloo.

The Crown corporation Alto is managing the high-speed rail project between Quebec City and Toronto. Normally, such a major project would be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. However, according to Alto, an analysis is impossible because current estimates of the rail’s construction costs are too preliminary. Based on high-speed rail projects elsewhere in the world, Alto claims the cost will range from $60-billion to $90-billion for the 1,000-kilometre route. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has recently released a report estimating the construction to cost between $75-billion and $113-billion.

The Alto and PBO forecasts are optimistic given the recent extreme cost overruns of the Californian and British high-speed rail projects, and to a lesser extent of a recent French line project between Bordeaux and Toulouse. Also, the recent election of the Parti Québécois (which is opposed to Alto’s project) has only increased the need to examine this project carefully and rationally.

Toronto-Quebec high-speed rail project could cost more than Ottawa’s estimate, PBO says

Via Rail’s current record for on-time performance is unacceptable. However, there is another solution – conventional trains on existing rail rights-of-way: the high-frequency rail. In its most recent promotional document, Alto opposes the high-frequency rail, claiming that it would cost nearly as much as the high-speed rail – between $45-billion and $75-billion – without citing any supporting studies.

However, the high-frequency rail project proposed by Via Rail was projected to cost $12-billion in 2021, with dedicated tracks (without interference from freight trains), using existing rail rights-of-way (without agricultural expropriation) and electrifying the entire route.

Alto assumes the high-frequency rail must travel at 200 kilometres an hour, which requires rebuilding the entire infrastructure to avoid railroad crossings. This was not part of the original high-frequency rail plan, which called for trains to slow down at railroad crossings to comply with Canada’s speed limit of 177 km/h. Even at an average speed of 150 km/h, the high-frequency rail would be very competitive with cars. Alto did not compare the high-speed rail’s costs to those of Via Rail’s high-frequency rail, but rather to another, slower high-speed rail. No wonder people prefer the 300 km/h high-speed rail.

Opinion: Sadly, we might be repeating Britain’s high-speed rail mistakes

In any public transportation project, we must also assess the direct benefits to users (time savings and cost savings from not using a car) and the benefits to society (reductions in GHG emissions, traffic congestion and traffic accidents). Alto’s most recent estimate for the direct benefits is $49.5-billion over 60 years. These benefits are insufficient to justify investments of $60-billion to $90-billion, let alone costs that are likely to exceed $125-billion.

So, Alto adds indirect benefits to the equation, such as the creation of 50,000 jobs over the decade it will take to build the high-speed rail line. However, it might be possible to create just as many jobs by investing in other infrastructure maintenance projects (hospitals, schools, urban public transit, roads, etc.) which are priorities today.

Alto also cites indirect benefits such as hypothetical productivity gains and agglomeration effects that could amount to $24.5-billion annually in the long term. However, Alto is extremely vague about how the high-speed rail could generate such benefits. A study by the C.D. Howe Institute published in 2025 estimates the present value of the benefits over 60 years (not annually as in the case of Alto’s projections) from a potential high-speed rail line – including the oft-cited agglomeration effects – to be in the range of $15-billion to $27-billion. Furthermore, the same study puts the economic benefits of the high-frequency rail at $11-billion to $17-billion, which is close to those of Alto’s high-speed rail.

Opinion: Unlike Via, high-speed rail would be a money saver, not a sinkhole

These benefits are based on ridership projections that vary widely depending on the source. Alto forecasts up to 24 million passengers in 2055 and 43 million by 2084, according to its most optimistic scenario. A recent study by McGill University, however, forecasts ridership of 10.5 million passengers in 2050, which could rise to 17.5 million when strong induced demand is factored in. But long-term forecasts are always uncertain – let’s not forget the 50 million passengers originally projected for Mirabel Airport.

Our main concern is that the exorbitant costs and questionable estimations of Alto’s high-speed rail will lead to its abandonment, as has happened in the past. It would be wiser and more pragmatic to carefully evaluate the efficient, reliable and less expensive option represented by the high-frequency rail. That way, when in-depth studies show that Alto’s high-speed rail is too costly for the expected benefits, the government will have an alternative solution to propose.