McGillicuddy
Active Member
Most Canadians aren't voting in the Terrebonne byelection.
|
|
|
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
micheal_can
Senior Member
I highly doubt this project will have any bearing on any of the 3 by elections. This piece reads like it is someone trying to connect something to something that are not likely to be connected.
nfitz
Superstar
Timid? Sounds to me the issue is they are going to run through a densely populated area without a stop.
The MRC has a population of over 180,000. It's close to the MRC with Repentigny in it - another 135,000+. That's over 315,000 people and no station. With only Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City stations east of Montreal. The back rivers are a huge obstacle to driving, and it takes forever and 2 trains to get from there to Central Station. Laval is no easier to get to (and further west than Central Station!).
That they aren't putting in more local stations (obviously with much more limited local services) is perverse - and so the Liberals paying for such stupidity shouldn't be a surprise. There should be one in Joliette to serve Joliette and D'Autray - another 125,000.
Meanwhile Peterborough get's one? With 130,000 people?
On the other hand - how the Toronto Star doesn't think that the Liberal's won't be able to retain their majority by not winning any of the three ridings (with all the previous MPs being Liberal)? I don't know. The two in Toronto are pretty safe. That they know so little about Toronto that they think it's not a shoe in, makes me wonder how much the Toronto Star knows about Lanaudiere!
Urban Sky
Senior Member
If I had to come up with a communications strategy to derail any project from within, I’d definitely poach ALTO’s communications and stakeholder relations teams. Stressing at every occasion that hell would rather freeze over than them considering any additional stations is just mindnumbingly self-defeating and also doesn’t give much confidence about the ability of the remaining team to pull this once-in-a-lifetime project off…
generalcanada
Senior Member
Well thats because theyre mandated not to. The government themselves are the only ones who can make that decision. I dont think thats fair. If smiths falls wants a station for the cost of 10 minutes of TOR-MTL then they can make the case to carney themselves
Urban Sky
Senior Member
You can always explain what the constraints for adding new stations are, but to just declare that they are not interested and will not consider it under any circumstances is an unprovoked own-goal and rightly riles up local communities and taxpayers. Similarly, the entire mandate the liberal government has provided to ALTO is a monument to hubris, ignorance and incompetence…
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
I will repeat my conviction that Alto is the second-highest transportation priority for Ontario - Quebec, so deserving in its own right. But not #1.
The problem is that the highest priority - reducing highway congestion for regional travel - is getting neglected rather than addressed, and Ottawa if anything is ducking out on its previous role in that one.
It's a repeat of what happened with Blue 2-UPX vs GO, where government fixated on the sexier aspect of transit in the Georgetown Corridor but were miserably late and myopic about the less sexy, but much more impactful, demand for regular GO service. So UPX opened in 2015 but we are still waiting for quality GO service in a half-finished corridor that should have seen faster completion and 2WAD implementation.
It's unlikely that the exact communities demanding a stop on Alto would even get a regional rail stop, but maybe some would....and at least Ottawa could point to something good happening just down the road - and those getting a stop would pivot from being opposed to the whole idea to celebrating that they are getting something useful (Peterborough certainly has this opportunity available, and Northumberland-Frontenac-Kingston, and some Quebec locations also)
In Ontario, and likely in Montreal, the reason for highway congestion is not the number of through Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec motorists.... it's Cobourg to Oshawa or Kitchener to Mississauga. Or Beaconsfield to Laval. We may want Alto to take market share from highways, but in pure numerical terms a couple billion dollars spent on GO or legacy VIA will take more cars off the highway than $50 billion spent on Alto,
So long as Ottawa can't point to what it is doing to fix these interests, the people there will see Alto as all inconvenience and no gain.
A healthy dose of WIIFM would help.
- Paul
The problem is that the highest priority - reducing highway congestion for regional travel - is getting neglected rather than addressed, and Ottawa if anything is ducking out on its previous role in that one.
It's a repeat of what happened with Blue 2-UPX vs GO, where government fixated on the sexier aspect of transit in the Georgetown Corridor but were miserably late and myopic about the less sexy, but much more impactful, demand for regular GO service. So UPX opened in 2015 but we are still waiting for quality GO service in a half-finished corridor that should have seen faster completion and 2WAD implementation.
It's unlikely that the exact communities demanding a stop on Alto would even get a regional rail stop, but maybe some would....and at least Ottawa could point to something good happening just down the road - and those getting a stop would pivot from being opposed to the whole idea to celebrating that they are getting something useful (Peterborough certainly has this opportunity available, and Northumberland-Frontenac-Kingston, and some Quebec locations also)
In Ontario, and likely in Montreal, the reason for highway congestion is not the number of through Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec motorists.... it's Cobourg to Oshawa or Kitchener to Mississauga. Or Beaconsfield to Laval. We may want Alto to take market share from highways, but in pure numerical terms a couple billion dollars spent on GO or legacy VIA will take more cars off the highway than $50 billion spent on Alto,
So long as Ottawa can't point to what it is doing to fix these interests, the people there will see Alto as all inconvenience and no gain.
A healthy dose of WIIFM would help.
- Paul
Last edited:
MisterF
Senior Member
A station in Smiths Falls (or anywhere else along the line) wouldn't add 10 minutes. It would add zero minutes because most trains wouldn't stop there.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
GO transit can serve up to Kitchener, Niagara Falls, Bowmanville, but beyond that what Ontario needs to take traffic off the highways is true inter-city rail.
I posted something in this regard over in the Northlander thread.
It's a shame CN owns the best tracks for inter-city rail within Ontario, Toronto - Montreal. Inter-city travel to places like Kingston, Cornwall, Belleville.
I honestly wonder if we took all the money we're putting towards Alto and put to improving the existing Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa VIA rail service, what would that look like? Widening the CN corridor to allow for more track sharing between VIA and CN?
generalcanada
Senior Member
care to expand on the liberal governments role in this? as far as im concerned they just told them "build a high speed rail line between tor-qc in this time frame with stations at these cities". everything else is up to alto?
Is it about how the plan changed like last year?
Mihairokov
Senior Member
So, looking at the access request map, is it reasonable to assume ALTO is looking at building through Vankleek Hill, crossing at St Andrews? It seems like there's a pretty straightforward path running Bourget-Vankleek Hill-Saint David-St Andrews.
The Laval Station first makes sense if they then run the line through St-Eustache/Boisbriand after this crossing.
The Laval Station first makes sense if they then run the line through St-Eustache/Boisbriand after this crossing.
generalcanada
Senior Member
well if they chose a southern route its not impossible. but still. the point remains. we have discussed slower commuter rail running alongside hsr on the same track before but if they really want a station, they should have to make the case to the government thesmelves
ericmacm
Active Member
I agree, it will likely have zero bearing on Terrebonne or any other, this media piece is trying to make a connection that probably doesn’t exist. As of today, 338 shows the Liberals pulling ahead in Terrebonne, now favoured over the BQ with a 64% likelihood of winning, but still well within tossup territory. BQ was shown as being ahead from Sept 2025 to March 2026, but started a significant downward trajectory in January 2026.
EDIT: I just realized the article is an opinion piece so it effectively means nothing anyway.
Last edited:
StreetcarRider
Active Member
There's a new comment in the Globe calling for Alto to be cancelled.
I looked up the author and found this individual to have a consistent, published opposition to high-speed rail. Interestingly, one of this person's articles published 17 years ago contains a list of previous cost estimates for a Windsor-to-Quebec-City high-speed train. Ready?
"... Each study merely becomes fodder for the next. ... There have been 16, at last count [as of 2009], on the Quebec City-to-Windsor corridor, with stops in 1989 (estimated cost of construction: $2.4 billion), 1990 ($5.3 billion), 1991 ($7.1 billion) and 1995 ($18.3 billion, including interest and inflation). Did that eye-popping 1995 report finally bury the idea? Nope. ..."
"Unnecessary at any speed"
I looked up the author and found this individual to have a consistent, published opposition to high-speed rail. Interestingly, one of this person's articles published 17 years ago contains a list of previous cost estimates for a Windsor-to-Quebec-City high-speed train. Ready?
"... Each study merely becomes fodder for the next. ... There have been 16, at last count [as of 2009], on the Quebec City-to-Windsor corridor, with stops in 1989 (estimated cost of construction: $2.4 billion), 1990 ($5.3 billion), 1991 ($7.1 billion) and 1995 ($18.3 billion, including interest and inflation). Did that eye-popping 1995 report finally bury the idea? Nope. ..."
"Unnecessary at any speed"
SFO-YYZ
Active Member
I’d really caution against reading too much into media pieces on HSR at this stage of the project, especially “opinion” pieces that masquerade as something representative of the general public’s sentiment on this project.
For example, connecting HSR to the Terrebonne by election is just idiotic and lazy journalism. I live in Montreal and have lots of discussions with my québécois friends. The biggest issues in Quebec elections have and will always be the economy, the French language, and Quebec’s never ending sovereignty questions. All other issues take a secondary role. The Bloc has a good chance in a place like Terrebonne because they are always champions of Francophone language, culture, and sovereignty. HSR whether it’s built or not has very little weight in the Quebec electoral balance.
What would push HSR to the top of the Quebec electorate field of vision is if the federal government (conservative or liberal) funds part of Alto but cancels the Montreal-Quebec segment. That would most definitely push HSR into a sovereignty issue and would be weaponized by the separatist parties - PQ, QS, and BQ - as representative of Canada’s neglect of Quebec (since all separatist parties in Quebec support building HSR and rail infrastructure within Quebec).
For example, connecting HSR to the Terrebonne by election is just idiotic and lazy journalism. I live in Montreal and have lots of discussions with my québécois friends. The biggest issues in Quebec elections have and will always be the economy, the French language, and Quebec’s never ending sovereignty questions. All other issues take a secondary role. The Bloc has a good chance in a place like Terrebonne because they are always champions of Francophone language, culture, and sovereignty. HSR whether it’s built or not has very little weight in the Quebec electoral balance.
What would push HSR to the top of the Quebec electorate field of vision is if the federal government (conservative or liberal) funds part of Alto but cancels the Montreal-Quebec segment. That would most definitely push HSR into a sovereignty issue and would be weaponized by the separatist parties - PQ, QS, and BQ - as representative of Canada’s neglect of Quebec (since all separatist parties in Quebec support building HSR and rail infrastructure within Quebec).