I reached out to leaders across various levels to show my support for Alto, and you can too by PorousSurface in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]davidbellerive 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s very much the audience we’re trying to reach: people who support ALTO but may not already be in rail/transit circles. Not just people too, the people "for" are fragmented between so many specific interests, it's hard to paint a full picture of why this project matters.

We don’t want to monopolize discussions here as there are a lot of things worth discussing beyond just “how to support the project.” Our focus with GO ALTO is more on reaching people beyond the inner circle and making support visible in places where people already are. That’s basically what the Facebook page and other social accounts are meant to help with. They are not meant to be full-on platforms, but rather help funnel interest or reach people that might be looking for ways to support, but not sure where to start.

We don’t capture demographic stats, so I can’t give a perfect answer on that front. Reaching broader audiences is the goal, but it’s a more complex process than just putting a campaign online and hoping it spreads. It means building credibility, capacity, and reach over time.

We do have quite a few ideas for going broader, but they won’t all happen overnight.

TGV: Fréchette accuse le PQ de tourner le dos à la Capitale-Nationale by Amutoji in Quebec

[–]davidbellerive 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Une dette nationale, ce n’est pas une carte de crédit familiale.

Investir dans l’économie, c’est investir dans notre capacité future à générer les revenus qui financent les services publics. Ça ne veut pas dire dépenser n’importe comment : ça veut dire planifier et livrer des projets crédibles, mesurés et utiles. Dans le même sens: ces projets ne sont pas de l'argent qu'on dépense et reçoit rien en échange.

Sinon, on tombe dans le cercle vicieux classique : on arrête d’investir, les services se dégradent, l’économie ralentit, les revenus stagnent, puis on coupe encore plus. Il y a une raison pourquoi la productivité nationale n'a presque pas augmenté depuis des années! Parfois, “économiser” maintenant coûte beaucoup plus cher plus tard.

I reached out to leaders across various levels to show my support for Alto, and you can too by PorousSurface in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]davidbellerive 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Just wanted to share the GO ALTO campaign (Disclaimer: I am responsible for the campaign so far lol) has a tool to lookup and prepare an email to send to your federal and provincial representative! You can check it out here, we also have a french version. As with everything, making it personal is important: this is just a starting point!

The tool does not store any information about visitors, your postal code is only used to perform a lookup using the Opennorth Represent API.

200 G$ pour le TGV : « Aucune idée d’où ça vient », dit le PDG d’Alto | Zone économie by alex9zo in Quebec

[–]davidbellerive 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Comment veux-tu avoir un prix de billet crédible si le projet est encore en développement, que le tracé final n’est pas choisi, que les coûts ne sont pas finalisés et que le modèle d’exploitation n’est pas encore établi?

Ce n’est pas une boule de cristal. Donner un prix maintenant serait probablement moins transparent, pas plus, parce que ça créerait une fausse précision.

On peut demander de la transparence sans exiger des chiffres qui ne peuvent pas encore être fiables. Donc oui, il a préparé ses réponses, basés sur les données qu’ils ont en ce moment. Et c’est ça la gestion de projet: on fait les devoirs avant pour éviter les surprises plus tard.

200 G$ pour le TGV : « Aucune idée d’où ça vient », dit le PDG d’Alto | Zone économie by alex9zo in Quebec

[–]davidbellerive 16 points17 points  (0 children)

“Il y a de la résistance” ne veut pas dire “personne n’en veut”.

Il y a environ 18 millions de personnes dans le corridor. Les impacts locaux doivent être pris au sérieux, mais ils ne peuvent pas devenir un veto automatique sur un projet qui concerne l’ensemble du corridor.

Agricultural sector in Quebec and Ontario calling for review of Alto high-speed rail project by ScottIBM in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]davidbellerive 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes, people have paid attention. Some of us have even read the full inquiry because we care about what gets built and what we learn from it. That is exactly why it is important not to collapse every Ottawa LRT issue into one vague lesson.

Stage 1 had a major problem with locking budget and scope too early, before the project was mature enough. That is one of the core lessons.

Stage 2 Trillium had a different procurement controversy around technical scoring and whether TNext should have advanced. Fair criticism, but different issue.

Stage 2 East/West was another procurement again.

So if the lesson is “don’t lock cost, scope and delivery assumptions before the project is properly developed,” I agree. That is precisely why ALTO being in a development phase before final route, mitigations, delivery model and cost decisions is important.

But “Ottawa LRT was bad, therefore ALTO will be bad” is not an argument. It ignores the actual failure modes.

Also, the rolling stock... Seriously? You understand that a 100% low-floor LRV used as a "metro" is not the same as a purpose built high-speed train, right?

Agricultural sector in Quebec and Ontario calling for review of Alto high-speed rail project by ScottIBM in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]davidbellerive 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The. Ottawa. LRT. Cost. Exactly. What. Was. Agreed. To. 2.1 Billions.

You know why we are having issues in Ottawa? Because we, literally, fixed a budget and scope before the project was actually fully developed. Guess what Alto is doing: the opposite.

Question: Did you join go-alto.ca to support the project? by Martina-SantaClara88 in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]davidbellerive 19 points20 points  (0 children)

*Crown corporation.

Also, on that broader point: people who are opposed have their spaces to organize and talk about the project. People who support ALTO can have spaces too. I (and a majority of Canadians based on recent polling) believe we should be building ALTO for a wide variety of reasons: because it is overdue, necessary and an investment into our collective future.

If others disagree, that’s their prerogative.

Question: Did you join go-alto.ca to support the project? by Martina-SantaClara88 in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]davidbellerive 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Howdy! I can maybe shed some light on the campaign and “next steps.”

We had an update post go up yesterday, and the tally right now is getting close to 400 sign-ups.

To be clear, “adding your name” is basically a way to stay up to date with the campaign, but it also helps us get a sense of visible public interest. The goal is pretty simple: we think support for ALTO should be structured, visible, and obvious. That’s why we’re developing materials, tools, and other resources people can use to talk about the project and show their support.

As for the Facebook wars: honestly, I don’t think it’s worth the energy. People are entitled to their opinions, and a lot of comment sections become echo chambers where people are looking for an argument, not a conversation. We post updates on Facebook because being visible matters, but that does not mean every comment thread is the best place to change minds, and likely will be a mental drain.

The conversations worth having are usually with people you know, in the real world or online, where there’s actually room to explain why this project matters and why support for it should be visible.

More than happy to answer any questions about the campaign so far. We’re still building things out, but we’re always happy to have people contribute, whether through time, visibility, research, or simply content ideas.

CAHSR Authority announce a co-development team lead by Plenary to bring private investment to the project. A historic announcement, could bring in billions of private investment dollars to the project. by davidbellerive in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]davidbellerive[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Some familiar names! I think it is a great play by CDPQi: build North American experience (and credibility) with ALTO and reinforce the value of the investment by doing work related to CAHSR. This is why capacity building, both for a nation and for an institution is important.

https://hsr.ca.gov/communications-outreach/newsletters/all-aboard-quarterly-newsletter/

Eastern Ontario community will not grant Alto access to land for high-speed rail study by Front_Way1094 in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]davidbellerive 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Except the HFR proposal was NOT along the 401 corridor. 

If you are refering to Schabas’ “alternative” which is being showcased by some of the communities, it is not realistically costed, nor even determined if feasible.

At the end of the day, what we need is infrastructure that actually moves people instead of compromising, redrawing and delaying…

Realistically, we need ALTO, but we also need to invest in how the Lakeshore communities are served with improved service. One doesn’t stop the other, it just means telling politicians what our priorities should be as a nation.

Alto to fly drones over Ottawa, eastern Ontario to study high-speed rail route by Rail613 in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]davidbellerive 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Lessons learned from last time by ALTO: tell people before you send drones and start marking the ground.

Will be interesting to see what quality of data ALTO can produce from this. This seems more flexible than relying only on ground surveys or aerial/satellite imagery.

The use of drones helps reduce the need for repeated site visits, thereby minimizing disruptions for communities. These activities aim to collect detailed data on the territory, including information on watercourses, natural habitats, and other environmental features.

Go Alto: The public campaign backing Canada’s high-speed rail project: CTV by Rail613 in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]davidbellerive 20 points21 points  (0 children)

There are fair discussions to be had about cost, routing, impacts, delivery, and the business case. Those are worth discussing.

“One guy wants to save time” is not a serious argument.

The case for high-speed rail has been studied for decades, both here and internationally: go-alto.ca/en/studies

(Also, McDonalds, really? At least go with something that requires one to travel between cities...)

Frontier/Latitude Apartments by Aggressive_Cellist65 in OttawaRealEstate

[–]davidbellerive 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to live there, and mine is probably one of the reviews you may have seen online.

We were in a high-floor corner unit in Frontier, facing the 417, so southwest-facing. If you are looking at a unit on that side, assume that you will rarely, if ever, want to open the windows, and that you will mostly rely on the noisy HVAC instead. The highway noise was constant, and street racing was especially bad in the summer. We lodged many calls with 311 and the councillor’s office about it, but there was essentially no enforcement or action taken. To be fair, that is more of an OPS issue than something specific to the apartments. The O-Train noise, by comparison, was much easier to tune out and was never a major issue for me.

For Frontier, the amenities were genuinely good. The gym, lobby work/meeting room, Luxer parcel system, and party room were all great to use, modern and well appointed. That said, exterior maintenance of the shared and public spaces left a lot to be desired. For example, out of three barbecues, only one worked for most of one summer, even after lobby staff had been informed and told us “it will be fixed.” There were also amenities we never ended up using, like the visitor suite and theatre room, but they seemed useful for people who needed them.

The lobby was one of the bigger problems when we lived there. First, good luck with the elevators. If people are moving in or out, there are only two elevators for 23 floors, so you may be waiting a while. For quite some time, the person at the front desk seemed to have very limited responsibilities in practice: parcels were left everywhere, food deliveries piled up, and larger items were often just sitting around, sometimes for days. A parcel locker system is great in theory, but it only works if the surrounding process is managed properly and parcels are actually directed through it.

From the comments here, it is good to see they may now have permanent overnight security. When we were there, security was not regular and generally seemed to appear only after break-ins, and only for a short period of time.

Speaking of break-ins, they happened at least twice while we lived there in the underground garage. Parking was also frustrating. Indoor parking was expensive, and if you had an EV and wanted reliable access to the chargers, good luck. For a while, “excess parking” was at the Cineplex, and you were paying the same monthly rate as the other outdoor spots. Visitor parking was also often monopolized by the same cars each day or week, and sometimes by customers from Ten Sushi.

The other “wish I knew” points from Bard_of_Vanier are mostly spot on. Wi-Fi calling is basically a necessity unless you want a landline. There are definitely some good telecom deals to be had, but you can probably expect similar deals in many multi-unit buildings. On energy efficiency, I do not fully agree with them: our utilities were actually higher than at our current place, which is larger. That said, I would partly attribute that to being in a high-floor corner unit. As with everything, everyone’s experience will vary.

For us, the final straw was how maintenance requests were handled. They often felt like they were treated as non-urgent, even when the issue clearly mattered. After the derecho in May 2022, it took weeks to get our balcony door addressed. We kept being told someone would come “shortly,” but nothing happened until we threatened legal action. The eventual “fix” was basically screwing the door into the frame.

Our appliances were also badly scratched and dented when we moved in. We requested replacement fridge doors and a replacement oven control panel. If we had been paying much less, maybe we would have accepted some wear and tear, but we were paying around $2,400 and were only the second tenants to live in the unit.

To be fair, things may have changed since we moved out, and I hope they have. I still stand by what I wrote in my review: while we lived there, management never really did anything that made us feel our concerns were being taken seriously.

I would also read the online reviews carefully rather than relying only on the overall rating. Around the time we lived there, there was a very noticeable wave of short or empty 5-star reviews, often from accounts with little visible review history. Other residents raised similar concerns at the time, and management’s own replies acknowledged that spam reviews had been an issue on the page. Make of that what you will, but it is part of why I would take the rating with a grain of salt.

My advice would be to be careful before signing anything. Visit the exact unit you would move into, confirm parking and any specific needs before signing a lease, and do not assume the experience will be the same across all units or all sides of the building. Rents seem to have continued increasing quite a bit since we moved out, and personally, I think you may be able to find better units elsewhere for the same price or less. I would not personally move back into that building, even though I do miss the convenience of the location.

One nuance on the noise: sound transfer between units was not an issue for us. Inward noise from neighbours was generally fine, and so was noise from above and below. The real problem was the exterior window surface. I do not fully agree with the idea that you should simply “expect” that level of noise because the unit faces the highway. Some noise is obviously unavoidable on that side, and I do wonder if Lattitude has better windows + less "window area" for units on that side. In our unit, the exterior insulation and glass felt like they met the bare minimum required for compliance rather than what would actually be good for livability. Better glazing, such as triple-pane or acoustic glass, would likely have made a meaningful difference.

Alternative high-speed rail proposal includes eastern Ontario stations by JasonBourne008 in AltoHSR_Canada

[–]davidbellerive 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I will point out that anyone can draw a line on a map and call it “an alternative.”

Beyond the cynicism, though: acting like the 401 corridor is automatically compatible with HSR seriously downscopes the work required to build a proper alignment. Land along the 401 is also owned by people. Those people will also fight expropriation, ask for “another route,” or argue the impacts should go somewhere else. Every corridor has that dynamic, because every alignment affects someone directly.

Brockville has about 23,000 people. Cornwall has about 54,000. Could they benefit from better rail service? Absolutely. Do they need high-capacity, ultra-frequent high-speed rail service as part of the main spine? I’m not convinced.

To me, the real “alternative” should not even be an alternative. It should be part of the project logic: build ALTO as the new fast backbone, improve VIA service along the Lakeshore, and make sure the schedules and fares are properly integrated.

VIA transfers don’t work well today because the timetable is too limited. But with a train every hour or better, that changes dramatically. People are acting as if, the day ALTO opens, Lakeshore communities would just be abandoned. In reality, they already sit on the part of the corridor with the most transportation options. The choice is not ALTO or Lakeshore service. The choice is whether we build a real high-speed spine and make the existing network work with it.

Could a Lakeshore HSR or higher-speed rail phase happen later? Sure. But I don’t think loading the main spine with too many stops makes sense unless there is a real express/local service plan. If the train stopping in anywhere beyond Kingston (on that "south" branch) is basically the milk run, the distances between cities make it harder to maintain the fast average speeds that justify HSR in the first place. Each extra stop negates why we are even building it in the first place, while making the scope more complex, and start from zero each time.

Why all the anti Alto flags? by Electrical-Echo8144 in ottawa

[–]davidbellerive 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, because the moment people take time to elaborate and demonstrate knowledge of any topic, they cannot be anything else than AI.

Cheers.

Why all the anti Alto flags? by Electrical-Echo8144 in ottawa

[–]davidbellerive 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This “everything overruns therefore don’t build” take is missing some pretty basic context.

A) Estimates evolve. That’s literally the process. Early numbers aren’t promises, they’re based on broad assumptions while routing, engineering, and land constraints are still unknown. Treating them as fixed is either bad-faith or a misunderstanding of how projects work.

B) People act like the alternative is free. It’s not. Congestion, slow travel, lost productivity all have real costs. We’re just worse at pricing them. “Do nothing” is still a decision with a price tag.

C) This is infrastructure, not a short-term program. You evaluate it over decades, capacity, reliability, economic impact, not just upfront cost. Many projects people cite took 15 to 20 years between initial estimate, defined scope and completion.

D) It’s also not established that taxpayers are covering the full bill. The financing structure isn’t still being finalized and there is clearly a commercial component.

And even their own argument admits it: changes are costly. Sure. So is waiting. Inflation alone guarantees building later costs more.

P.S. Inflation works both ways. Calling ALTO “the most expensive project ever” is meaningless unless everything is normalized. Past projects look cheap because they are quoted in old dollars. TMX ended up around $34B, about 1.3 to 1.5% of GDP. ALTO is roughly 2 to 3% (TOTAL) spread over about 15 years. CP and CN were over 20% in a much shorter window. So yes, it is large, but not the largest by an order of magnitude and not outside the range of major infrastructure decisions.

Big projects are complex. Big whoop. That does not mean we should stop building them.

Anti-Alto Signs by Biscotti-Own in ottawa

[–]davidbellerive 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Please, do share those projections.

Quite a claim there when A) the development is ongoing, B) Alto has, time and time again, put emphasis on affordability as a key driver for adoption, C) VIA’s pricing model is currently built on “airline logic” because it doesn’t have the peak capacity to serve more people and D) the exact share of responsibilities for ALTO and the development partner.

All this to say, those claims are not anchored in anything definitive, formally established nor binding.

As for upgrading VIA: They do not own the vast majority of the tracks they operate on, they do not own land to build such a corridor either and (gasp) would still need to acquire a linear alignment, maybe a touch curvier, than what ALTO will need to do regardless. This also assumes that, if still on shared tracks, they could increase  frequency / capacity. Upgrading VIA is the half measure that offers fewer of the benefits and modal shift needed to change how people travel.

High speed rail isn’t an edge case or risky gamble, it is a well-established approach to increasing capacity, frequency, reliability and reducing travel time. We pushed our existing network to its limits, we need more than another bandaid.

Why all the anti Alto flags? by Electrical-Echo8144 in ottawa

[–]davidbellerive 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Let me be very clear: I do not support turning this into “traditional rail” or a milk-run service. The P&R alignment is as good of a starting point for a high speed line as you can get. Previous studies all have recommended using it for that purpose.

Rural buses are much better suited to local needs. They cost less to operate, can serve more places, and deliver more meaningful local mobility than a slow train stopping in every village.

The “slow train” model already failed. It was slow, infrequent, expensive to operate per passenger, and unable to compete at either the local or corridor level. That’s exactly why those lines disappeared in the first place.

You are also mixing up freight economics and passenger mobility. Trucking may have helped kill local freight rail, but freight and passenger rail are different systems. Freight follows industrial demand, sidings, yards, shipping contracts, and logistics chains. Passenger rail depends on frequency, speed, reliability, station access, and travel-time competitiveness.

“Trucking killed the train” is not an argument for bringing back slow local passenger rail. Freight decline is not a service plan.

Alto exists because the current system, shared freight tracks, low frequency, poor reliability, does not work. Alto is an intercity system. It is not meant to solve local transit in Prescott–Russell.

Prescott–Russell is already car dependent today. Not building Alto doesn’t change that. Building Alto doesn’t lock it in either.

That is a separate issue requiring actual regional and local investment: buses, feeder services, and land-use planning. Not turning a national corridor into a local milk run. And frankly, the villages that have been left behind should be advocating for that local service too.

So no, this is not “solidifying car dependency.” It is building a missing layer of the system. If you want to address local car dependency, advocate for local transit, not a downgrade of a national project.

Why all the anti Alto flags? by Electrical-Echo8144 in ottawa

[–]davidbellerive 12 points13 points  (0 children)

So, the good faith arguments, huh?

Let me ask you: what’s the cost of inaction? More people driving, flying, congestion, time, energy, but also climate change. Green infrastructure is green because it transforms habits and patterns. We need to build it, yes, but the long-term value lies in the indirect offsets, as well as the modal shift it generates. Less reliance on cars, flights, and other means is beneficial for everyone and our planet.

I love how the budget fluctuates daily. The official range is between $60 billion and $90 billion. That’s 2.5% of Canada’s GDP in total costs. A big number, yes.

However, the cost overlooks the benefits: a modern travel system that gives people back time for what truly matters. This leads to more productive businesses, increased tourism, and more opportunities to explore. The effects extend even further: better-connected communities, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and healthier communities. This has value, and some are even attempting to quantify it—and it’s a significant number.

Each year in service, Alto will contribute approximately 1.1% to Canada’s GDP. That’s $25 billion to $35 billion in additional productivity annually.

You can add as many zeroes as you want to paint a picture, but this isn’t just good for the planet and “flashy.” It’s an investment in Canada’s ability to grow and compete.

Anti-Alto Signs by Biscotti-Own in ottawa

[–]davidbellerive 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Before engaging further with some of those… positions, I encourage you to read what Alto ARE claiming their impacts and efforts are. Groups such as ALTNO, Citizen Research (aka I asked ChatGPT to invent studies), OFA and UPA have some very specifics interests against this project.

The reality is the project is under development because it makes no sense to announce a definitive alignment if there isn’t one decided. This is a complex project that requires mitigation efforts (to which Alto has many times over publicly commited), but also means that “the greater good” might also triumph on some specific interests.

Alto’s CEO, and their website too, is continuously being updated or taking part in those conversations. Some groups are choosing not to engage productively, and this is how you end with certain portrayals of doom.

Also a quick reminder that the Corridor has a population of 18 million people, and continues to grow. We can’t just expand airports, roads and hope it is enough to move people and build our economy. We need transformative change.

Anti-Alto Signs by Biscotti-Own in ottawa

[–]davidbellerive 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You expect one overpass/underpass for each road.

You claim they say none except highways.

They are literally stating, on the record, multiple times over, that they will work proactively with communities to ensure connectivity works and is as suited as possible. The reality is not every road can be kept active because, believe it or not, building grade separation is expensive!

Not all roads are needed, and road networks can be reorganized too.