I support the Alto project and see a high-speed rail station in Peterborough as a major opportunity for our city. Better rail connections to larger centres could strengthen our economy, expand transportation choices, and reduce our dependence on long-distance car travel.
That support does not mean ignoring legitimate concerns about farmland, ecosystems, or private property. The final route should minimize those impacts wherever possible, prioritize negotiated agreements with landowners, provide fair compensation where property is required, and be subject to rigorous environmental review.
We also shouldn't judge a high-speed network by whether every community along the route receives its own station. The better approach is to connect surrounding communities into major stations like Peterborough through better regional transit, including stronger intercity bus and rail connections.
Yes. Supporting Alto shouldn't mean giving the project a blank cheque. Before Peterborough enters voluntary agreements or provides permissions, Council should understand any impacts on roads, bridges, drainage, emergency access, utilities, staff time, liabilities, and municipal finances.
Where the project creates identifiable municipal costs, those responsibilities should be clearly addressed in agreements rather than quietly transferred to Peterborough taxpayers. That is simply good due diligence, and it is entirely compatible with supporting the project.
Yes. A project this large should involve meaningful consultation with municipalities, Indigenous communities, landowners, farmers, environmental organizations, and residents who will be directly affected.
To me, meaningful consultation means giving people a real opportunity to influence route design, mitigation, construction, and implementation. It does not necessarily mean everyone will agree with the final decision.
Peterborough should be at the table advocating for good station access, environmental protection, fair treatment of affected property owners, and strong connections between Alto and the rest of our transportation network. Consultation should help improve the project, not happen after all the important decisions have already been made.
Yes. Before entering voluntary agreements, I would want clear protections around cost recovery, road and infrastructure restoration, drainage, emergency access, construction staging, liability, and any additional demands placed on City staff or services.
Those safeguards should be proportionate to the actual impacts of the project. My goal would be to protect Peterborough taxpayers and municipal infrastructure while working constructively with Alto and other governments to make the project successful.
If elected, I would expect significant Alto requests and agreements affecting Peterborough to come to Council with clear public staff reports explaining the benefits, costs, risks, and alternatives. Residents should be able to understand what is being asked of the City and how major decisions were reached.
I would support route and construction decisions that minimize impacts on farmland, waterways, natural areas, and private property, while ensuring that direct municipal costs and liabilities are addressed fairly.
But I also think Peterborough should be planning now for how to get the greatest possible benefit from Alto. That means making the station easy to reach by Peterborough Transit, walking, and cycling, planning surrounding land use carefully, and advocating to the Province for stronger regional connections so people from nearby communities can reach the station without having to drive into the city.
If smaller communities are poorly connected to Alto, my answer is more public transportation, not less high-speed rail.