My Position on Alto High-Speed Rail

My Position on Alto High-Speed Rail and Why I Don't Support the Project as It Is Currently Being Proposed
Over the past several days, I have spent a lot of time reading about Alto High-Speed Rail. I'll be the first to admit that some of the information is technical and not always easy to understand. And the more I have learned, the more concerned I have become. My position is that I don't support Alto as it is currently being proposed. Could new and credible information change my position? Of course. But based on what I know today, my answer is no.
First, Trent Hills Council has taken a stand, and I want to acknowledge what Council has already done. They raised serious concerns when preliminary corridor mapping showed that potential routes could affect Hastings and Campbellford, as well as rural lands and natural areas. Council asked for meaningful consultation, transparency, detailed technical information, environmental and economic assessment, and respect for property rights.
Council subsequently formally opposed the currently identified Alto study corridors through Trent Hills and asked that the Municipality be removed from the study corridor. I support Council for taking that stand. My concern is what happens next. A resolution doesn't mean the job is finished. Routes can change. Costs can change. Legislation can change. New information can come forward.
I would want the next Council to continue following this closely and continue speaking up when necessary. A resolution states our position, but continued advocacy demonstrates that we mean it.
RED FLAG #1 $60–$90 BILLION
This was one of the first numbers that really caught my attention. The federal government's current preliminary construction estimate for Alto is $60–$90 billion in 2024. While that is not a final project budget and the federal government says the total capital cost has not yet been determined because the scope is still being developed, $60–$90 billion is still an enormous preliminary construction estimate.
Alto is being promoted as providing faster and more reliable passenger travel, improving connections between major cities, encouraging economic growth, and providing a more sustainable transportation option. While those are benefits worth considering, here's the question I keep coming back to: Have we shown that this is the best use of that level of public investment?
Canada already has highways, airports, conventional passenger rail and other transportation options. Could existing passenger rail be significantly improved? Could existing transportation corridors be used? Could we achieve some of the same benefits at a lower cost and with less disruption? I don't know the answers to all those questions, but before spending this kind of money, I think we should.
At the same time, Canadians are dealing with homelessness and housing insecurity, food insecurity, substance-use crises, human trafficking and exploitation, health-care pressures, aging infrastructure and affordability. I'm not suggesting that cancelling Alto would automatically put $60–$90 billion into those areas. Government budgets don't work that way, but governments make choices. Budgets reflect
priorities. Perhaps, after seeing all the evidence and all the choices, Canadians would choose high-speed rail or perhaps they wouldn't.
RED FLAG #2 EXPROPRIATION: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE OWNER SAYS NO?
This is probably one of the things that bothers me most. The federal government's own information says the approximately 1,000-kilometre network could require the acquisition of somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 parcels of land. Transport Canada also says it anticipates that expropriation will be an important tool for acquiring the land required.
Now, the government has also said Alto wants to negotiate with property owners and that expropriation would be used when a negotiated settlement cannot be reached. But here's where I have a problem. The government's own information also says Alto does not have to prove that attempts to purchase a property were unsuccessful before seeking expropriation. I read those two things several times. I don't find that reassuring.
If I were in the position of a homeowner or farmer whose property may eventually be affected, I would want to know exactly what “last resort” means. I would want to know what happens if I don't want to sell. I would want to know what rights I have. And I would want those answers before decisions are made, not afterward.
There are compensation rights for property owners. The existing federal compensation regime remains, and affected owners can negotiate compensation and challenge the amount if they aren't satisfied. I think residents should know that too. But compensation doesn't answer every question.
RED FLAG #3 SOMETIMES THE OWNER'S ANSWER REALLY IS NO
Expropriation is a lawful government power, like it or not, I understand that. And an owner cannot necessarily stop a lawful expropriation simply by saying no, but to me, that makes government's responsibility even greater. Sometimes a homeowner's answer is No. My home isn't for sale. Sometimes a farmer's answer is No. My farm isn't for sale. Sometimes a business owner's answer is No. I don't want to relocate.
What is the price of a farm that has been in someone's family for generations? What is the price of separating farmland that depends on remaining connected? What is the price of leaving the home you planned to spend the rest of your life in? There may be a financial value assigned to the property. But that doesn't mean everything that has been lost can be replaced with money.
Not everything has a price. Government may ultimately have the legal authority to override an owner's refusal to sell. Having the legal authority to do something doesn't automatically make doing it right. In fact, I think that extraordinary power creates an extraordinary responsibility to prove why using it is necessary.
RED FLAG #4 CONSULTATION: WERE PEOPLE HEARD, OR SIMPLY HEARD FROM?
There has been consultation on Alto, true. The federal government reports 26 in-person open houses, 10 virtual sessions, 31 stakeholder roundtables, more than 10,000 participants and nearly 45,000 online comments. And there is at least one clear example of consultation contributing to further study.
Following the consultation process, the federal government directed Alto to look at another route option between Peterborough and Ottawa that could include Kingston. So, I'm not going to say consultation hasn't happened or that nothing has resulted from it.
My question is different. Were people simply given an opportunity to speak, or did they have meaningful influence? One of the questions I would continue asking is: What changed because residents spoke up? What I don't like is when people are left wondering whether the answer doesn't exist yet, whether the information isn't available to them, or whether their concern went anywhere after they raised it.
For a project this large, people deserve plain answers and total transparency. And if the answers aren't available yet, they deserve to be told that too. Trust shouldn't simply be requested. It should be earned through transparency, accountability and action. At this point, this process has not earned my trust.
RED FLAG #5 SOME THINGS CANNOT BE REPLACED
The environmental side of this project concerns me a great deal. Trent Hills isn't just houses, roads and fields on a map. We have rivers, creeks, streams, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitat, agricultural land, and natural areas that have developed over generations.
Our own municipal planning documents recognize the importance of these natural features and the connections between them. In fairness, there isn't a final Alto alignment yet and environmental studies are continuing. So, I am not going to tell people that Alto will destroy a particular creek, wetland or woodland in Trent Hills when we don't yet have the evidence to say that.
But I also don't think we should wait until everything has been decided before asking the environmental questions. High-speed rail needs a very specific type of route. The federal government's own information acknowledges that the geometry required for high-speed rail limits the range of possible alignments. That matters. Here's where I stand: Avoid the damage first whenever possible. Don't simply plan to mitigate it afterward. Mitigation isn't always the same as preservation. You can't instantly recreate a mature woodland somewhere else. A wetland isn't necessarily interchangeable with another piece of land. Wildlife habitat that has developed over generations can't always simply be moved.
High-speed rail is promoted partly as an environmentally sustainable transportation option. That's a fair argument, but if we're going to call a project environmentally beneficial, then let's look at all its environmental impacts, not just the emissions from operating the train. What about construction, land clearing, water crossings, wetlands, drainage, wildlife movement, habitat fragmentation, agricultural land, and the permanent footprint of the corridor? Those things matter too.
We cannot keep treating irreplaceable natural assets as though they can always be recreated somewhere else. Sometimes they can't.
And there is no ticket price, no matter how fast the train, that by itself justifies unnecessary destruction of something we cannot replace.
RED FLAG #6 FARMS, ROADS AND COMMUNITIES AREN'T JUST LINES ON A MAP
Trent Hills Council has already raised concerns about potential impacts on Hastings, Campbellford, agricultural lands, municipal infrastructure, private property and natural areas. We're not alone, the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus, representing 103 communities, has formally opposed Alto in its current form. It has raised concerns about agricultural and residential lands, municipal roads, infrastructure, service delivery, emergency response and environmentally sensitive areas. That matters to me, because when you look at a large corridor on a map, it can seem simple.
Life on the ground isn't. A farmer may need to move equipment between fields. A road closure can change how quickly emergency services reach someone. Drainage matters. Access matters. Road crossings matter. Municipal maintenance matters. And somebody eventually pays for infrastructure changes. These aren't little details to figure out after the big decisions have been made.
They should be part of deciding whether the project makes sense in the first place.
RED FLAG #7 WHO GETS THE BENEFIT AND WHO LIVES WITH THE CONSEQUENCES?
The federal government says Alto could provide faster travel, economic growth, jobs, better connections and environmental benefits. I'm not dismissing those arguments, they need to be considered, but there's another side to it. The greatest transportation benefits would naturally be experienced by the people travelling between the major centres the system connects. Meanwhile, some rural and small communities could have the rail corridor pass through them without having a station.
That raises a very simple question for me: Who gets the benefit, who pays, and who lives with the consequences? If someone's home, farm, community or natural environment is being significantly affected so that other Canadians can receive the benefit, then I think the case for doing that needs to be extremely strong. I haven't seen enough yet to convince me that it is.
RED FLAG #8 MOVING IT OUT OF TRENT HILLS ISN'T ENOUGH FOR ME
I support Trent Hills Council asking that the corridor be removed from our municipality, but if the route gets moved out of Trent Hills, I don't want to simply say: “Great. Problem solved.”
I don't want it out of our backyard just to put it in somebody else's. If another community is facing the same serious concerns about homes, farms, natural areas and municipal infrastructure that we objected to here, then we haven't necessarily solved anything. We've moved the problem and before I could support an alternative route, I would want clear and convincing information showing why that route makes sense and what the consequences will be. And if a neighbouring community is facing legitimate
concerns, I believe Trent Hills should be prepared to support them. That's what we would want them to do for us.
RED FLAG #9 HAVE WE FULLY LOOKED AT THE ALTERNATIVES?
Before asking where a new high-speed railway should go, I think we should keep asking another question: Have we proven that this is what Canada should build? The Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus has specifically asked the federal government and Alto to fully explore options using existing transportation corridors, including VIA Rail and/or Highway 401 corridors. That doesn't mean those alternatives would necessarily work better, but that's exactly why they should be properly compared. What could we do with existing passenger rail? Could existing corridors be used? What would the alternatives cost? How much land would they require? What environmental impacts would they have? What would we gain? What would we lose?
High-speed rail may be an answer. That doesn't automatically make it the best answer.
THE PEOPLE WHO WILL LIVE LONGEST WITH THIS DECISION AREN'T MAKING IT
This is probably the part of this issue that goes beyond Alto for me. We aren't making decisions like this only for ourselves. Our children and grandchildren will live with them long after many of us are gone.
They will inherit what we build, what we borrow, what we maintain, and what we destroy.
That's a huge responsibility. The cost of infrastructure doesn't end when the ribbon is cut, it must be operated, maintained, repaired, and eventually upgraded or replaced. And we have no idea exactly what transportation will look like 30, 50 or 75 years from now. Technology changes, people change how they travel, population patterns change, and our economy changes. So, I don't think the question is simply: Can we afford to build it? We should also be asking: Can future generations afford to maintain it, and will they still need it? Otherwise, we aren't necessarily giving them an asset, we may be giving them an obligation. And money isn't the only thing they inherit, they inherit the consequences of our decisions, and the communities we leave behind.
Some decisions can be changed later, and some can't. That's why I don't accept the idea that questioning a huge infrastructure project somehow makes someone opposed to progress. I am not opposed to progress, but I am opposed to confusing something new with progress. Real progress should leave the next generation stronger than we were. And hopefully with choices, not obligations they had no part in creating and losses they cannot undo.
TRENT HILLS NEEDS TO KEEP SPEAKING UP
I support the position Trent Hills Council has already taken. I want to see us continue following Alto closely. And I don't think Trent Hills should try to do this alone we have neighbouring municipalities and together we form the lower tier to Northumberland County. We have other Eastern Ontario communities
facing many of the same concerns. The Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus is already demonstrating what can happen when municipalities speak collectively. One municipality can raise a concern. Many municipalities speaking together are much harder to ignore.
If our concerns need to go through Northumberland County, take them there. If they need to go to Queen's Park, take them there. If they need to go to Ottawa, take them there. And if Trent Hills needs to help bring municipalities together around an issue that matters to our residents, then I think we should be prepared to do that too.
NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE A FIGHT, BUT SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO FIGHT
I don't believe an effective councillor is someone who fights with everybody about everything. Municipal government requires cooperation. You must work with other councillors, listen to staff, consider different opinions, and be prepared to compromise. Sometimes you don't get the vote you wanted, and you move forward. I’ve been there before, it’s disappointing but it’s democracy. Maybe most importantly, I don’t believe being cooperative means sitting quietly when something really matters either.
A councillor who fights everyone about everything isn't effective. But neither is a councillor who won't fight for anything.
Sometimes standing up for the people you represent isn't going to make everybody happy, stand anyway. To me, leadership isn't about avoiding disagreement, it's knowing when compromise makes sense, and when it doesn't.
Not every issue is a fight. But when one is, we need representatives who are prepared to fight for us.
When we know better. We need to do better.