Randall Denley: Ford and Carney don’t care if their transportation megaprojects make sense

"When it comes to major infrastructure projects, Ford (right) and Carney (left) share the same approach: build big, build fast, and don’t slow down for anyone," writes Randel Denley. Photo by Michelle Berg /Saskatoon StarPhoenix

Article content

Ontario Premier Doug Ford was busy this week selling his version of free trade in the U.S., but he has some salesmanship to do back in Ontario, where a couple of transportation megaprojects face increasing public opposition.

Article content

Article content

Article content

In the other, he should urge Prime Minister Mark Carney to listen to the concerns of rural Ontarians who fear that Carney’s Alto high-speed rail project will cut a swathe of destruction through their communities.

Article content

Article content

Article content

Article content

And on Wednesday, nearly 1,000 people, including farmers, citizens’ groups, and rural and federal politicians, demonstrated on Parliament Hill, expressing their concerns about expropriation of land in their regions to build the Alto project.

Article content

Opponents of the Alto high-speed rail project march through Ottawa toward Parliament Hill on Wednesday, June 10, 2026. Photo by Elliot Ferguson /The Kingston Whig-Standard

Article content

When it comes to major infrastructure projects, Ford and Carney share the same approach: build big, build fast, and don’t slow down for anyone. Both projects feel like the thinking behind them was “Sounds great. Let’s do it.”

Article content

In their haste, the two leaders have largely skipped the part where they explain why the project makes sense, after weighing the drawbacks against the advantages.

Article content

Ford has said he backs high-speed rail, but would prefer it used existing transportation routes; Carney has said he hasn’t decided whether to back Ford’s airport plan, yet. But neither project has anything resembling a feasibility study or a business case, at least one released to the public. Lacking those basic elements, how could anyone determine whether the ideas are good or not?

Article content

Article content

Even allowing for a degree of NIMBYism, the prominent Torontonians questioning the airport plan make a perfectly reasonable point, saying the expansion shouldn’t go ahead until the public has been consulted on a detailed plan.

Article content

Article content

It’s easy to see why people would support easier air access into downtown Toronto, but more difficult to imagine how the Billy Bishop expansion would work. The government envisions an airport capable of serving 10 million passengers a year, five times what it handles now. The Billy Bishop site is only 200 acres. By contrast, Pearson International handles 47 million passengers annually on a 4,613-acre site.

Article content

Put in context, expanding Billy Bishop makes less sense than it might seem. Pearson is expanding to handle 65 million passengers a year.  The provincial government spent $456 million to create a direct rail link from Pearson to Union Station downtown. One of the selling points of Alto is that it will reduce demand for air travel.

Article content

How many solutions do we need for the same problem?

Article content

All that said, the Billy Bishop expansion plan makes more sense than Carney’s rail plan — admittedly a low bar. At least the anticipated $5 billion cost of the enlarged airport will be covered by passengers, not taxpayers.