Alto High Speed Rail

[Kramata]

If you measure the 400 m Alto wants for the station platform from Union with the Google maps measure tool it looks even worse. If you are at the end of the train you're basically walking from Laurier Ave just to exit out of the nice looking station. Unless we're doing even deeper digging to centre it all and make it more of an escalator/elevator ride.

And as noted, Tremblay already has a 500 m platform.

[BGO]

Originally Posted by phil235

How so?

The building itself is amazing, should be for public use
Downtown location, close to Rideau station, tunnel could be built to link it
Underground parking on site, might be on the small side tho
Probably on the path of the futur tram Gatineau ottawa loop
Passenger drop off over 100m, space for it on the east side
Location better than union by the fact it should induce less traffic
My 2 cents

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no push here. We're not going to be tolling highways. The biggest beneficiary here are people who fly. If the consultations are close to accurate, staff at Alto are saying they want enough capacity (seat-kms) to allow for fares that are on par or lower than VIA. This is huge for people who fly regularly. Won't save any money for anybody who doesn't drive sole though. More options are always good though. The mere presence of HSR will force down air and bus fares.

The whole line has to be segregated and substantially grade separated. Which is exactly why they won't be spending billions unnecessarily or building such in locations with high geotechnical risk (like a place literally called "Sandy Hill").

Only in Ottawa do beneficiaries of a $60-90B project complain about getting stiffed because they get a terminus 5 km from the centre of downtown.

Not to get into WEF conspiracy territory but if we are serious about meeting our emissions goals a wholesale lifestyle change is needed. Our 20k a year driving habit has to go even with EVs. With gas tax revenue dissapearing tolls. Congestion and highway seem inevitable.

While I agree with your station location analysis but if we agree downtown adds significant value for Ottawa and given the intial route is Montreal to Ottawa there is an argument spending $3 Billion is good value.

I mean Ottawa does have this tendency but it's more universally Canadian Certainly I don't think only Ottawa whines for no reason but squeaky wheels do get the grease and perhaps we could get some transit upgrade dollars in lieu. Upgrading the LRT to heavy rail for example. By 2040 that won't be as ridiculous as it sounds.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Not to get into WEF conspiracy territory but if we are serious about meeting our emissions goals a wholesale lifestyle change is needed. Our 20k a year driving habit has to go even with EVs. With gas tax revenue dissapearing tolls. Congestion and highway seem inevitable.

That is WEF territory. Adjacent to the morons who think 15 min cities was sone scheme to trap people rather than just going back to neighbourhood conveniences of the Leave it to Beaver era. Most places just put a flat annual charge on a plate per year for EVs and call it a day.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

While I agree with your station location analysis but if we agree downtown adds significant value for Ottawa and given the intial route is Montreal to Ottawa there is an argument spending $3 Billion is good value.

I mean Ottawa does have this tendency but it's more universally Canadian Certainly I don't think only Ottawa whines for no reason but squeaky wheels do get the grease and perhaps we could get some transit upgrade dollars in lieu. Upgrading the LRT to heavy rail for example. By 2040 that won't be as ridiculous as it sounds.

First off, they have already said that all segments will be in construction concurrently. The start is offset by 2 years. But all segments are being built at about the same time. This means that Ottawa will only be a terminus for about 3 years. So there's no point designing something standalone. And they won't.

Next, an upgrade to Heavy Rail would be a massive and complex project since we designed a rail system with tight radii and low platforms. And it's not clear why Alto should pay for this.

These demands remind me a lot of the things I see at work with defence projects. Everybody sees a money tree they want to shake that they believe will rain dollars on them and their priorities. Recently the head of CUTA suggested that transit should be considered defence spending. Insisting that be Alto pay to convert the O-Train to HRT is not quite that level of crazy but it's enroute.....

[phil235]

Originally Posted by BGO

The building itself is amazing, should be for public use
Downtown location, close to Rideau station, tunnel could be built to link it
Underground parking on site, might be on the small side tho
Probably on the path of the futur tram Gatineau ottawa loop
Passenger drop off over 100m, space for it on the east side
Location better than union by the fact it should induce less traffic
My 2 cents

It is definitely an amazing building, and the transit connections would be similar to Union, as it really isn't that far away. I agree with your argument that a building like that in such a prime location should be dedicated to public use. And I think you are right that there is more room for drop offs and pickups than Union, though I'm not sure how that would induce less traffic.

I wonder about the suitability of the building for train station use, as it is essentially an office building, and it doesn't have the large floorplates and open spaces that you would normally associate with a station. I also wonder what the upper floors would be used for if it was converted. And I am no engineer, but it seems to me that the task of getting trains north of Rideau might be a challenge, as the LRT is really deep in that spot, and you likely wouldn't want to go even deeper for HSR. Maybe that isn't even a major issue, but I'm not sure how it could work.

[Richard Eade]

Truenorth00, I think that I get the point that you are trying to make; that ALTO should stick to its primary duty to get a High-Speed Rail (HSR) line, and only an HSR line, up and running for the best value possible – and not be dragged into spending more due to scope creep. And I could agree with such sentiment, if it didn’t limit what was possible.

I would argue that the utility of each station is very important. If, for example, ALTO can add a pedestrian bridge to directly connect an HSR station to a major transit node, then – even though that bridge is not strictly a part of the HSR mandate – I feel that the increased utility would make it a worthwhile addition.

I believe that you are looking at this as a ‘black and white’ issue. However, there are lots of grey issues that you don’t seem to be taking into account. I expect that ALTO will be taking a wider view of things. Hopefully, that will create a holistic plan that includes some of the elements that you might label as ‘Scope Creep’ right from the beginning.

[Richard Eade]

Phil235, the LRT is deep in that area because the designers decided that they wanted to go under the large sewer pipes that run under Sussex. Those two pipes are very old and 75-feet down. The worry was that digging above them might cause a collapse – which would have been very expensive to fix. Going under them was considered the safest option.

Those pipes would be parallel to a shallow underground HSR tunnel that continued under Mackenzie; and easily pass over the deep LRT tunnel. That is assuming that the HSR tracks were not planned to run directly above the sewer pipes.

That said, having those large sewer pipes running under Colonel By means that there would be the same concern about caving them in if you wanted to build shallow underground station platforms between the Rideau Centre/Rogers Centre Ottawa (formerly the Convention Centre) and the National Arts Centre. (Including just under the canal, where the roof of the station is the floor of the canal.)

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Phil235, the LRT is deep in that area because the designers decided that they wanted to go under the large sewer pipes that run under Sussex. Those two pipes are very old and 75-feet down. The worry was that digging above them might cause a collapse – which would have been very expensive to fix. Going under them was considered the safest option.

Those pipes would be parallel to a shallow underground HSR tunnel that continued under Mackenzie; and easily pass over the deep LRT tunnel. That is assuming that the HSR tracks were not planned to run directly above the sewer pipes.

That said, having those large sewer pipes running under Colonel By means that there would be the same concern about caving them in if you wanted to build shallow underground station platforms between the Rideau Centre/Rogers Centre Ottawa (formerly the Convention Centre) and the National Arts Centre. (Including just under the canal, where the roof of the station is the floor of the canal.)

The csst which runs in a line essentially colinear with university private is an issue as well, it sits 20 to 30 meters deep.

That requires either a deep long tunnel with a massive cavern or a surface station, for which every surface building becomes an obstacle.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Phil235, the LRT is deep in that area because the designers decided that they wanted to go under the large sewer pipes that run under Sussex. Those two pipes are very old and 75-feet down. The worry was that digging above them might cause a collapse – which would have been very expensive to fix. Going under them was considered the safest option.

Those pipes would be parallel to a shallow underground HSR tunnel that continued under Mackenzie; and easily pass over the deep LRT tunnel. That is assuming that the HSR tracks were not planned to run directly above the sewer pipes.

That said, having those large sewer pipes running under Colonel By means that there would be the same concern about caving them in if you wanted to build shallow underground station platforms between the Rideau Centre/Rogers Centre Ottawa (formerly the Convention Centre) and the National Arts Centre. (Including just under the canal, where the roof of the station is the floor of the canal.)

Okay, I didn't know the details of that. I guess the concerns about a collapse were pretty legitimate.

I thought the LRT was deep in that section to allow it to go under the canal. Regardless of the reason, would there be space between the LRT and the sewers to build a whole underground station (assuming you would be crossing the LRT line to get north of Rideau)?

[BGO]

Originally Posted by phil235

Okay, I didn't know the details of that. I guess the concerns about a collapse were pretty legitimate.

I thought the LRT was deep in that section to allow it to go under the canal. Regardless of the reason, would there be space between the LRT and the sewers to build a whole underground station (assuming you would be crossing the LRT line to get north of Rideau)?

I don't think they need to cross the LRT, could pass by the north.
For Connaught building, same traffic but less jam. Drop off east and west split the traffic. Would change sussex for a one way only.
Pretty sure 1 floor is enough high for a train station.
Upper floors could still be offices or other public use like a museum, stores, restaurants
Or even high end residences.
Obviously the building would need massive work.
Remember that the building is pretty much a copy paste of the nature museum for inside possibilities visualization

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by BGO

I don't think they need to cross the LRT, could pass by the north.
For Connaught building, same traffic but less jam. Drop off east and west split the traffic. Would change sussex for a one way only.
Pretty sure 1 floor is enough high for a train station.
Upper floors could still be offices or other public use like a museum, stores, restaurants
Or even high end residences.
Obviously the building would need massive work.
Remember that the building is pretty much a copy paste of the nature museum for inside possibilities visualization

Off topic, but back in the 1980s when Canada Customs was in that building they had a small public exhibit there on how customs and border operations worked. Now that that building partially houses the headquarters of the Canada Revenue Agency, I think the best use of the ground floor of the Connaught Building would be a Tax Museum that educates people about taxation in the same way the Bank of Canada Museum does with the economy. If you've ever been into that museum they do an excellent job, one of the most informative museums in the city. And gosh, do some Canadians need to be educated about taxes and government finances, equalization payments, etc.

[J.OT13]

I thought the depth was chosen to avoid the sandy soil as much as possible (only going through a narrow "vein") + the Canal.

Funny how the O-Train tunnel depth was chosen to avoid a collapse, but we still ended up with a collapse a few meters further east.

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Off topic, but back in the 1980s when Canada Customs was in that building they had a small public exhibit there on how customs and border operations worked. Now that that building partially houses the headquarters of the Canada Revenue Agency, I think the best use of the ground floor of the Connaught Building would be a Tax Museum that educates people about taxation in the same way the Bank of Canada Museum does with the economy. If you've ever been into that museum they do an excellent job, one of the most informative museums in the city. And gosh, do some Canadians need to be educated about taxes and government finances, equalization payments, etc.

I agree. It would be good to have a taxation museum. A lot of people just complain about taxes as if it's money flushed down the toilet, but providing a history of taxation, showing people where their money goes, explaining why Governmental debt isn't as bad as we think and comparing out debt to others might help.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by BGO

I don't think they need to cross the LRT, could pass by the north.
For Connaught building, same traffic but less jam. Drop off east and west split the traffic. Would change sussex for a one way only.
Pretty sure 1 floor is enough high for a train station.
Upper floors could still be offices or other public use like a museum, stores, restaurants
Or even high end residences.
Obviously the building would need massive work.
Remember that the building is pretty much a copy paste of the nature museum for inside possibilities visualization

That configuration makes sense. I'd kind of forgotten the link to the Nature Museum. You can definitely see how that could work. And it wouldn't be the only train station with offices above it, so probably doable.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

That configuration makes sense. I'd kind of forgotten the link to the Nature Museum. You can definitely see how that could work. And it wouldn't be the only train station with offices above it, so probably doable.

Yeah, most stations have offices above. Montreal Central (the head house) seems to be one of the very few without offices above. Of course they build a bunch of office buildings, and a hotel, above the tracks and platforms after the fact.

[rocketphish]

Alto's CEO answers questions about the high-speed rail project
Martin Imbleau talks about timelines, expropriation and his own 'recipe' for getting things done

Mélina Lévesque · CBC News
Posted: Mar 25, 2026 4:04 PM EDT | Last Updated: 1 hour ago

As Alto moves ahead with its plan to build high-speed rail between Toronto and Quebec City, landowners along the potential corridor are raising questions about what the project will mean for them.

Alto president and CEO Martin Imbleau joined Ottawa Morning on Wednesday to provide some answers.

Imbleau’s responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Q: How close are you to finalizing a route?
A: The first consultation is based on a fairly large corridor. Because there's so many options, we wanted to have the consultation ... on where the alignment could go.

We’re receiving so many comments: 250,000 people went online, 15,000 comments and 10,000 people showed up in person. It’s about to become the largest consultation in the history of the country. We're taking all of this ... and hopefully sometime in the fall we'll present the alignment between Montreal and Ottawa as precisely as possible.

Q: How do you respond to concerns from landowners worried about high-speed rail possibly disrupting their land?
A: When you build large infrastructure that are desperately needed like this, you always have three similar comments in the community: Where there's a station, communities are providing comments on where else the station should be; in a community where there's no station, of course [they're] mobilizing to get a station; and when the line crosses territory, people want to use the train but want the alignment to be elsewhere.

[These concerns are] very normal. That's why the consultation is taking place. That's the recipe to make it even better.

Q: When it comes to expropriating land, if people aren’t happy and not budging, what do you do in that case?
A: We will need to buy significant pieces of land, so we’re talking about thousands of properties. That process will probably start in 2027. If people are reluctant, there is of course some recourse with the expropriation process that could happen. But really, the intent is to have willing seller/ willing buyer agreements in due time.

Q: Cutting a train through existing communities means you’ll have to dead-end some roads. Any idea how many?
A: It’s a compromise, so first thing, you try to follow existing infrastructure. Second, you try to follow the limit of property so you don’t cut territory. But a train that runs at 320 km/h cannot have curves. It has to be very, very straight, so of course we’ll need to buy a significant portion of land, and compensation will be a big issue.

It’s thousands of crossings that we’re talking about.... In some communities we will have to move roads because the train cannot stop.

Q: What are you looking for as part of Alto’s field environmental assessments?
A: Environmental assessments are key.... Are there any concerns about wildlife that we're not aware of? So we're asking for landowners to have access to some of the fields to get there. You cannot do an environmental assessment without going on the field.

It’s a fairly large corridor, and so we do assessments on properties that could be on the alignment, or north or south of the alignment. We’re still not totally sure, so we try to do samples as large as possible and then narrow it down in the summer. We’ll probably be closer to an alignment that we intend to announce in the fall.

Q: If landowners are not interested in you coming on their property right now, can they say no thanks?
A: They will say no thanks and we'll see you later on, because at one point in time we'll have to have access to this, otherwise we cannot build it. I’m not a private project, I’m representing the state. I’m doing this for the public good. That’s why I’m asking for the collaboration of everyone, because we need this. It has to be built somewhere.

Q: Why can’t the project follow existing corridors such as Via Rail and Highway 401?
A: Via Rail is not a good option because it has so many curves and you follow the CN [Rail corridor]. It’s not greenfield, it’s brownfield. From an operation standpoint and construction, it’s very terrible because you need to stop Via and CN while you build adjacent to it.

I’ve heard so many times now, following the 401 and other highways. People think our highways are straight lines. It’s not the case. They have so many curves in it, and it’s densely populated east and west, or north or south of the highway. The [amount] of land we would have to buy would be significantly higher and the disruption would be higher.

We’re looking at all the options, none are rejected ... but it has to be straight and feasible, otherwise we’ll build a white elephant.

Q: When will this be built?
A: We start construction and mobilizing in 2029, and then real construction in 2030 here in Ottawa, in Montreal and in Laval. It will take six or seven years to build the first segment.

Q: What recourse is there for taxpayers if this goes over budget and over time?
A: First, they’ll fire me because I represent the state.

Second, I have a recipe and I’m pretty stubborn about my recipe.... Consult, then present an alignment, then do the environmental studies and engineering, then present costs that are reliable.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/al...ut-the-high-speed-rail-project-9.7141845

[DarthVader_1961]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Alto's CEO answers questions about the high-speed rail project
Martin Imbleau talks about timelines, expropriation and his own 'recipe' for getting things done

Mélina Lévesque · CBC News
Posted: Mar 25, 2026 4:04 PM EDT | Last Updated: 1 hour ago

As Alto moves ahead with its plan to build high-speed rail between Toronto and Quebec City, landowners along the potential corridor are raising questions about what the project will mean for them.

Alto president and CEO Martin Imbleau joined Ottawa Morning on Wednesday to provide some answers.

Imbleau’s responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Q: How close are you to finalizing a route?
A: The first consultation is based on a fairly large corridor. Because there's so many options, we wanted to have the consultation ... on where the alignment could go.

We’re receiving so many comments: 250,000 people went online, 15,000 comments and 10,000 people showed up in person. It’s about to become the largest consultation in the history of the country. We're taking all of this ... and hopefully sometime in the fall we'll present the alignment between Montreal and Ottawa as precisely as possible.

Q: How do you respond to concerns from landowners worried about high-speed rail possibly disrupting their land?
A: When you build large infrastructure that are desperately needed like this, you always have three similar comments in the community: Where there's a station, communities are providing comments on where else the station should be; in a community where there's no station, of course [they're] mobilizing to get a station; and when the line crosses territory, people want to use the train but want the alignment to be elsewhere.

[These concerns are] very normal. That's why the consultation is taking place. That's the recipe to make it even better.

Q: When it comes to expropriating land, if people aren’t happy and not budging, what do you do in that case?
A: We will need to buy significant pieces of land, so we’re talking about thousands of properties. That process will probably start in 2027. If people are reluctant, there is of course some recourse with the expropriation process that could happen. But really, the intent is to have willing seller/ willing buyer agreements in due time.

Q: Cutting a train through existing communities means you’ll have to dead-end some roads. Any idea how many?
A: It’s a compromise, so first thing, you try to follow existing infrastructure. Second, you try to follow the limit of property so you don’t cut territory. But a train that runs at 320 km/h cannot have curves. It has to be very, very straight, so of course we’ll need to buy a significant portion of land, and compensation will be a big issue.

It’s thousands of crossings that we’re talking about.... In some communities we will have to move roads because the train cannot stop.

Q: What are you looking for as part of Alto’s field environmental assessments?
A: Environmental assessments are key.... Are there any concerns about wildlife that we're not aware of? So we're asking for landowners to have access to some of the fields to get there. You cannot do an environmental assessment without going on the field.

It’s a fairly large corridor, and so we do assessments on properties that could be on the alignment, or north or south of the alignment. We’re still not totally sure, so we try to do samples as large as possible and then narrow it down in the summer. We’ll probably be closer to an alignment that we intend to announce in the fall.

Q: If landowners are not interested in you coming on their property right now, can they say no thanks?
A: They will say no thanks and we'll see you later on, because at one point in time we'll have to have access to this, otherwise we cannot build it. I’m not a private project, I’m representing the state. I’m doing this for the public good. That’s why I’m asking for the collaboration of everyone, because we need this. It has to be built somewhere.

Q: Why can’t the project follow existing corridors such as Via Rail and Highway 401?
A: Via Rail is not a good option because it has so many curves and you follow the CN [Rail corridor]. It’s not greenfield, it’s brownfield. From an operation standpoint and construction, it’s very terrible because you need to stop Via and CN while you build adjacent to it.

I’ve heard so many times now, following the 401 and other highways. People think our highways are straight lines. It’s not the case. They have so many curves in it, and it’s densely populated east and west, or north or south of the highway. The [amount] of land we would have to buy would be significantly higher and the disruption would be higher.

We’re looking at all the options, none are rejected ... but it has to be straight and feasible, otherwise we’ll build a white elephant.

Q: When will this be built?
A: We start construction and mobilizing in 2029, and then real construction in 2030 here in Ottawa, in Montreal and in Laval. It will take six or seven years to build the first segment.

Q: What recourse is there for taxpayers if this goes over budget and over time?
A: First, they’ll fire me because I represent the state.

Second, I have a recipe and I’m pretty stubborn about my recipe.... Consult, then present an alignment, then do the environmental studies and engineering, then present costs that are reliable.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/al...ut-the-high-speed-rail-project-9.7141845

Based on some recent news stories, the NIMBY crowds are stirring

[J.OT13]

Once the final routing is chosen and people realize they are not expropriating a 10km wide corridor, but a 60m wide corridor, I'm hoping it dies down a bit. In any case, push it through.

[Uhuniau]

Poilievre is coming out officially against high-speed rail, in a pander to the rural uproar.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Poilievre is coming out officially against high-speed rail, in a pander to the rural uproar.

Yeah, he really didn't need to come out against it, the thing will be long dead before a CPC gov gets elected. Carney will spend the 3.9 billion to buy votes in Quebec get them and then slow walk the project down the plank.....

I don't think there would be any electoral repercussions (NDP went full nutcase & PP isn't popular) and they will have an easy out of blaming cost increases from change of scope demands.

If the liberals were serious about this project, there wouldn't be so many open question public consultation about basic project concepts. Like how will road crossings be dealt with, or where the stations should be located (this is answered by math not the public), & etc.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Yeah, he really didn't need to come out against it, the thing will be long dead before a CPC gov gets elected. Carney will spend the 3.9 billion to buy votes in Quebec get them and then slow walk the project down the plank.....

I don't think there would be any electoral repercussions (NDP went full nutcase & PP isn't popular) and they will have an easy out of blaming cost increases from change of scope demands.

Or... they could actually build it!