The study, released by Vision Transport and agricultural group Union des producteurs agricoles, says these savings could be made by modernizing existing tracks.

The study was conducted by Vincent Duguay, a master's student in research at the Ecole nationale d'administration publique, and Pierre DuSablon, an expert with extensive experience in the rail industry.

It examines two scenarios: a route serving the same 22 stations currently served by Via Rail, and an express route with stops only in major cities.

The authors say a modernized route serving intermediate stations, such as Saint-Hyacinthe or Drummondville, would reduce travel time to six hours and 40 minutes, while an express route would take five hours and 50 minutes.

Alto's high-speed rail proposal promises to connect Quebec City to Toronto in four hours and 30 minutes.

Currently, it takes eight hours and 40 minutes to travel from Quebec City to Toronto by rail, which is slightly longer than it takes by car.

The study's authors say their proposed project would still be faster than travelling by car.

"Farmers don't want to have their land expropriated only to find out, in the end, that it doesn't happen because it's going to cost too much," UPA president Martin Caron said. "So, can we look at other alternatives that will have much less of an impact and be much less expensive?"

Alto says it "cannot simply add more passenger trains to existing tracks" owned by other railway companies such as CN, CPKC or CFQG.

"Freight trains have priority on these tracks," Alto said in a statement.

"Slowing or interrupting freight trains during construction or operation would have serious consequences for the Canadian economy, including for businesses' ability to export goods, and for Canadian farm operations."

On its website, Alto says it chose to proceed with high-speed rail "based on an in-depth analysis that clearly demonstrated that only high-speed rail can fully meet the current and future mobility needs of the Toronto to Quebec City corridor."

Alto also says that speeds offered by a high-frequency service would not be fast enough to make commuters choose rail over driving or flying.

The new study includes five major proposals. The biggest and most costly includes doubling existing tracks along the entire route, which would involve adding tracks over 407 kilometres.

Currently, 37 per cent of the corridor has only one track, and passenger trains are regularly forced to pull onto a siding to let a freight train pass.

The second element of the plan involves upgrading the signalling system to reduce the distance between trains and increase maximum speeds to 177 km/h, up from 153 km/h. The third proposal would strengthen the Canadian Transportation Agency's authority to give passenger trains priority over freight.

Unlike the high-speed proposal, which would fence in both sides of the track and eliminate level crossings, Vision Transport's plan would retain the current 924 level crossings but require 533 of them to be secured with full barriers. Alternatively, it says it could be possible to replace one-third of the level crossings with overpasses, suggesting that would reduce the travel time between Montreal and Toronto by an additional eight minutes.

Finally, the fifth element of the plan is to replace the current rolling stock with tilting trains and tracks with steeper bank angles on curves, which would allow them to travel at higher speeds.

Alto estimates the cost of the high-speed rail project at between $60 billion and $90 billion. The parliamentary budget officer estimates a cost of $73 billion to $113 billion, while other independent industry sources put the price tag at $150 billion.

The modernization project presented by Vision Transport comes in at a cost of $9 billion to $9.4 billion, to which it adds a 20 per cent contingency reserve, bringing the initial cost to $11 billion -- a fraction of the Alto project.

The alternative proposal's costs would increase by $8.2 billion if it includes the cost of eliminating one-third of the level crossings "for reasons of acceptability, coexistence with local residents, and corridor modernization." With a 20 per cent contingency allowance, the total cost would be about $21 billion.

The project's authors also examined the electrification of the train they are proposing for the modernized line, which would represent an additional investment of $3 billion to $7 billion for overhead wires and rolling stock, for a total of approximately $30 billion.

Alto estimates that the cost of a high frequency rail project could be much higher than the numbers cited in the study, ranging from $45 billion to $75 billion.

Via Rail does not currently control all of the rights-of-way along its routes between Quebec City and Toronto.

"If we're already using the tracks and doubling them in various places, it's more accessible to people, and naturally, in terms of cost, it's much less expensive and will have a much smaller impact on everyone," Caron said in an interview with .

Quebec Premier Paul St-Pierre Plamondon has also opposed the Alto high-speed rail development, and campaigned against it before the Parti Quebecois was elected to form a minority government. The premier has said it could be a financial fiasco, noting that the Bloc Quebecois has estimated the project will end up costing $200 billion.

The UPA and its members oppose a route on the north shore, which would involve expropriations of farmland and traffic headaches. Caron recalls the massive expropriations in the 1960s to make way for the ill-fated Mirabel airport project. The airport never caught on with passengers, and its terminal was demolished in 2014.

This report by was first published Nov. 12, 2026.

-- with files from Pierre Saint-Arnaud in Montreal