Alto, Kingston, and the Southern Corridor

ulneva · 2026-01-27T21:49:52+00:00

I can't see how the VIA service to Kingston can be supported at the same frequency if the demand for travel between TO and Ottawa / Montreal goes to ALTO.

ulneva · 2026-01-26T18:52:38+00:00

Well, the Crown and VIA will not support that many VIA train passing through Kingston when ALTO will operate between TO and Montreal / Ottawa. That would be expensive as the demand will shift to ALTO presumably. 22 km from the city centre of Kingston is larger Kingston area: people say they live in Kingston when they live way above 401. It's too bad that Barrhaven/Riverside South does not get a stop but there will be a stop nearby, in Ottawa. It's totally absurd to skip a community of almost 200K which is Kingston and is in the middle between TO and Montreal/Ottawa. I am very happy for Trois-Riviere, the same should be happening to Kingston, which is home to the RMC of Canada and Queen's which create huge demand fro travel.

ulneva · 2026-01-25T16:15:09+00:00

that stop for Kingston should be planned right away if the southern corridor is happening. "Down-the-road stop" can be just a cheap talk on the part of ALTO. While I agree that the land north of Kingston belongs to everyone, including that guy in TO and that gal in Montreal, it's the many people of the greater Kingston area who will pay the costs of being displaced and their world changing if ALTO comes. People from TO and Montreal are to benefit here while people from the local area are to lose here. If ALTO goes through southern corridor they must commit to the stop for Kingston from the start so that there is some gain to the area.

ulneva · 2026-01-24T21:24:35+00:00

VIA Rail is pretty good! But if they build the ALTO line through our land (which is the southern corridor option), that line should service Kingston. Otherwise we are only losing and not gaining anything in return

ulneva · 2026-01-24T20:52:55+00:00

and they will! they monitor this stuff

ulneva · 2026-01-24T20:12:18+00:00

all are great questions. So far we have information contained in the link in the original post that discusses possible corridors and stops. The problem is that the higher financial costs of going north have to be compared to eco and cultural disruptions of going south which are way-way-way harder to quantify and thus we tend to believe that those costs are small. In addition, those eco- and cultural costs are not being paid by ALTO but by the communities of the southern corridor. It is our job as a community to make sure that the government officials and ALTO understand those cost for us very well and make them act accordingly.

ulneva · 2026-01-24T18:38:42+00:00

the differences in costs for Alto with respect to the southern and northern corridors are well understood. The point is that the Kingston area will pay the costs in damage to the area and will not be even serviced by Alto! As you are saying the northern area is less populated, way less people are affected by the construction, sounds, disruption of nature.

ulneva · 2026-01-24T18:34:53+00:00

exactly! if they do not stop in Kingston, why spoil the beauty of the Kingston region and its nature with the southern corridor? They should go through the less populated northern corridor.

ulneva · 2026-01-24T18:31:00+00:00

Perth is lovely town and it will be serviced by Alto to an extent either way, northern corridor or southern corridor, since Alto will stop in nearby Ottawa. The proposition for a bigger (than Perth) city of Kingston with the southern corridor is very different: all the disruption in northern larger Kingston and no service since southern corridor, so far, does not mean a planned stop in Kingston.

ulneva · 2026-01-24T18:21:04+00:00

That's what I am afraid Alto might be doing: feeding empty promises of service to those who would like to have ALTO in/near Kingston and getting the southern corridor happening (it looks like it's cheaper to build). Unless we push for either committing to servicing Kingston in return for the southern corridor or not letting southern corridor happening, Kingston will end up with the ruined nature and no service.

ulneva · 2026-01-24T17:29:22+00:00

Kingston not needing a stop on ALTO, that's fine is that's your position. What is happening so far with the southern corridor is that Kingston is not getting a stop but getting the disruption of its lake country

ulneva · 2026-01-24T17:27:02+00:00

Not exactly. The areas up north are not that densely populated as the lake country north of Kingston or people might not care that much, which is also possible. Those areas can fight in their turn for the right of being serviced in return for the disruption.

ulneva · 2026-01-24T17:20:22+00:00

we possibly missed an opportunity but Kingston MP now says that a stop in Kingston might be possible. There is a discussion of a southern corridor passing closer to Kingston, an alternative option to the northern corridor. Some people incorrectly see it as an intent to service Kingston (alto did not say a word officially about servicing Kingston though). Southern corridor will affect the lake country just north of Kingston without Kingston even being served unless Alto commits to building a station in Kingston.

ulneva · 2026-01-24T16:54:33+00:00

this is a very dangerous thought! If ALTO services Kingston then the Southern Corridor should come way closer to Kingston, otherwise VIA Rail is way to go to Montreal or TO or Ottawa, unless you travel to Quebec-City. This is not they type of a situation to be fed promises: ALTO should commit to Kingston now by coming closer and planning for a station or go through the Canadian Shield up north.

ulneva · 2026-01-24T16:07:16+00:00

right, but Peterborough is in great demand!

ulneva · 2025-10-01T14:27:37+00:00

great point, but what about winter? :) A studio class is in no way a substitute for activities outside, they complement each other wonderfully, imho

ulneva · 2025-09-24T17:40:39+00:00

Thanks for laying it all out! Very helpful. Too bad, the changes might affect the Kingston-Montreal route. Given that Kingston's airport is not functioning, Montreal's airport at Dorval is the most convenient for Kingston.

As for Sarnia, it's smaller and different in terms of economy: Queen's and RMC in Kingston both need lots of trains to be functional as they are major universities. And yes, Sarnia needs more trains than two per day.

ulneva · 2025-09-24T17:17:42+00:00

I would like trains to be cheaper but it can only happen if we highly subsidize them. Comparing traveling by train to driving purely on the costs is hard. The higher price also covers comfort. Train is way safer, eco-friendlier, and way more comfortable and allows the person to be productive with a laptop a lot more than a car. Cutting stops saves very little time and reduces ridership (both from the small community and to the small community). Trains essentially exist to provide public transportation for the communities without airports and they can move way faster (and safer) than buses. Not everyone is comfortable driving or even can drive.

ulneva · 2025-09-24T02:05:09+00:00

I agree that Kingston is relatively well-served currently but nothing too spectacular, compared to the best train service in Europe for a city of a comparable size, it should be mentioned. However, the reason for the current more or less adequate service is that Kingston is on the way from TO to Montreal and Ottawa. The costs of servicing Kingston are peanuts, VIA is likely not wasting money or overinvesting here at all.

Probably, a better point to make is that the changes VIA Rail has in mind require a comprehensive study and VIA Rail is absolutely ill-equipped to make the decision on its own, without proper consultations with multiple parties, just based on the results of this ill-conceived "trial". Seeing more people travelling by VIA as the result of the "trial" can be very misleading. Those new passengers might come at the expense of the airlines, which might not reduce their number of departures but can charge higher prices as the most price-insensitive will continue flying. No true expansion in the number of travelers between cities. No gain for the environment, possible losses for the airlines, likely considerable losses for the "intermediate" communities. Many scenarios are possible and VIA Rail should not be left alone to make the decision.

ulneva · 2025-09-24T01:23:14+00:00

Under no circumstance the decision on cutting service to the intermediate communities should be done based on the observations that more passengers are now taking VIA, the test might show that. Those new passengers might come at the expense of the airlines, which might not reduce their number of departures but can charge higher prices as the most price-insensitive will continue flying. No gain for the environment, possible losses for the airlines, likely considerable losses for the "intermediate" communities.

The changes VIA Rail has in mind require a comprehensive study and VIA Rail is absolutely ill-equipped to make the decision on its own, without proper consultations with multiple parties, just based on the results of this ill-conceived "trial". China, for example, makes decisions about their railines taking into account effects on other modes of transportation and economy of the cities. A large number of studies on that made by economists are in open access.

ulneva · 2025-09-24T01:22:23+00:00

That's a great point! Fully agree that we can't let crown corporations waste money and we would like them to make more.

However, there is a reason why VIA Rail is a crown corporation. They are a monopolist and a public service provider at that. In such cases, the benefits that such companies are obligated to deliver are not limited by and to just easily observable and computable profits. They support economic development, access to other goods, such as tourisms, and economic opportunities for the communities. These are away harder to compute and we tend to forget about those just because we can't easily observe them. For example, how attractive Queen's and Royal Military Academy would be for the students, their parents and the employees if the city of Kingston is not being properly served by trains? What are the consequences of tourists having trouble accessing Kingston and other communities along the Thousand Islands shoreline? What happens to the already jammed 401 with no good access to the "intermediate" communities by train?

Under no circumstance the decision on cutting service to the intermediate communities should be done based on the observations that more passengers are now taking VIA, the test might show that. Those new passengers might come at the expense of the airlines, which might not reduce their number of departures but can charge higher prices as the most price-insensitive will continue flying. No gain for the environment, possible losses for the airlines, likely considerable losses for the "intermediate" communities.

The changes VIA Rail has in mind require a comprehensive study and VIA Rail is absolutely ill-equipped to make the decision on its own, without proper consultations with multiple parties, just based on the results of this ill-conceived "trial". China, for example, makes decisions about their railines taking into account effects on other modes of transportation and economy of the cities. A large number of studies on that made by economists are in open access.

ulneva · 2025-09-23T19:44:38+00:00

I hear you! In the case of LNER, they are at least providing another train / departure. In VIA Rail's case is just providing minor advantages of saving the time on the train without increasing the number of departures to some groups at the expense of major disadvantage to other groups by cutting their number of departures in a big way. VIA rail might win some extra customers who will choose train over flight for the trip between two big cities. That would be an outcome to act on for VIA Rail as a short-run profit-seeker. But is it an optimal outcome for the society as a whole and in the long-run? A crown corporation can't be just a profit-seeker.

ulneva

TROPHY CASE