Recently, a Kelowna resident mentioned that they had read a column I wrote in the National Post back in April about Alto, the proposed high-speed rail line, and asked why I had not shared similar information here locally.
I was somewhat surprised. I did not think a proposed railway thousands of kilometres away would be of much interest here in the Okanagan. Then again, taxpayers here will be helping to pay for it.
So, what exactly is Alto?
Alto is a proposed high-speed rail system connecting Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Montreal, Laval, Trois-Rivières and Quebec City. The government has since asked Alto to study adding Kingston to the route.
I confess that I was surprised to see Prime Minister Mark Carney jump aboard the Alto train.
After presenting himself as someone prepared to make tough choices with the public finances, continuing with a project of this extraordinary size is a head-scratcher.
Canada is entering a period of difficult choices over limited public dollars. We have major commitments to increase defence spending while an aging population will put growing pressure on health care and other public services. Against that backdrop, committing tens of billions to another transportation option in the most heavily serviced corridor in Canada deserves serious scrutiny.
We are also getting a clearer picture of just how expensive Alto could become.
The government’s estimate has been between $60 billion and $90 billion. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, however, estimates construction could cost between $75 billion and $113 billion, not including a potential Kingston addition.
Even that comes with an important warning.
The PBO found that high-speed rail projects in the United States and United Kingdom have historically cost roughly 4.5 times more per kilometre than comparable European projects. Canada may have more in common with those countries when it comes to land acquisition, permitting, litigation, design changes and project management.
Consider their experience.
California’s high-speed rail project was originally estimated at roughly US$33 billion. Its projected cost has since climbed as high as US$128 billion, approaching four times the original estimate, while completion of the full San Francisco-to-Los Angeles route remains uncertain.
In Britain, HS2 was originally envisioned as a roughly £33-billion high-speed network reaching Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. The northern sections were eventually cancelled, while the remaining London-to-Birmingham project is now estimated at £87.7 billion to £102.7 billion.
Why should Canadians assume our experience will look more like lower-cost European projects than what has happened in the United States or Britain?
As the Official Opposition Transportation critic, this concerns me for another reason.
The Toronto-Quebec City corridor is already the most heavily serviced transportation corridor in Canada. Canadians can travel between these communities by existing passenger rail, highways, buses and multiple airlines, some already supported by federal taxpayers.
Alto is not bringing transportation to communities that currently have none. It is adding another taxpayer-backed transportation option in an area that already has more transportation choices than virtually anywhere else in Canada.
Is making those trips faster worth potentially more than $100 billion?
This is not a Canada-wide transportation network. Its physical infrastructure would be concentrated in one corridor, while taxpayers in British Columbia and across the country would help pay for it.
Canadians are already struggling with higher living costs and record food-bank use. Meanwhile, the federal deficit has nearly doubled, from $36.3 billion in 2024-25 to a projected $72 billion in 2025-26.
Despite these pressures, Prime Minister Carney is continuing to move Alto forward even as the PBO estimates construction alone could cost as much as $113 billion.
Put another way, that represents roughly $10,800 for a Canadian family of four, for a train most Canadian families will likely never ride.
What is particularly troubling is that Canadians still do not have a completed government public cost-benefit analysis or business case demonstrating that Alto represents value for taxpayers. The PBO’s next analysis is expected to examine ridership and the financial viability of the system.
That matters because a McGill University analysis has already estimated Alto could require average annual public subsidies of roughly $1.28 billion for more than four decades, in addition to an initial government contribution.
Taken together, the McGill research and PBO analysis raise a basic question: how much will taxpayers ultimately be asked to pay, and for how long?
So, what are the alternatives?
For starters, do not build Alto.
Instead of tying up tens of billions in one long-term megaproject serving one corridor, Conservatives would focus on delivering better transportation outcomes sooner, including improving the passenger rail system taxpayers already support and partnering with provinces on infrastructure where there are real transportation gaps.
Here at home, one example is the critically needed upgrade to the 201 Forest Service Road between Penticton and Kelowna. A safer, reliable year-round alternative route would provide badly needed transportation resilience when Highway 97 is closed because of accidents, rockslides, wildfires or other emergencies.
Communities across Canada have similar needs.
Instead of concentrating an enormous amount of federal infrastructure spending in one already heavily serviced corridor, we should be asking whether those dollars could achieve more improving highways, bridges, transit, rail and other critical infrastructure across Canada.
Alto may ultimately allow some Canadians to travel between Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Quebec City a few hours faster.
But Prime Minister Carney has chosen to continue with Alto. Before committing Canadians to one of the largest infrastructure projects in our history, he should explain why this is a better use of potentially more than $100 billion than the transportation, defence, health care and other priorities Canadians have across the country.
My question this week: Had you heard of the Alto project previously, and what are your thoughts on it?
As always, you are welcome to share your thoughts on my Facebook page, by email at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca, or by calling toll-free at 1-800-665-8711.
