It’s interesting how much flexibility the proponents will be allowed in proposing routing. Section 3.3 invites use of road, hydro, or utility corridors. That’s not a bad idea, it’s just less than definitive. There is a specific reference to Peterboro, at least.
Similarly, proponents have a lot of flexibility to propose reliability metrics and trip times (pg 31)
One wonders what the JPO has been doing all this time with its $79M budget. One was led to believe that the proposed route and trip times were laid down early, and the JPO was doing technical validation of engineering, cost, and operability and assessing marketability and likely demand/revenue scenarios, ultimately to validate ROI. It seems the scope has been thrown wide open with any and all proposals welcome.
That may not be a bad thing, but it certainly seems that Ottawa is unwilling to take a stand or cite expert opinion on any of the merits or parameters of the system, preferring to let proponents tell them what to buy and why.
As for the curiosity of the railfan community, the report indicates that proposals are not required to divulge what brand of rolling stock will be used, or even which company is contracted to provide it (but the proponents are welcome to do so if it helps their pitch).
It feels a bit like asking the server, “Is the fish good here?”
- Paul