I believe staff are currently working on this fencing issue. I also heard that yes, it's Transport Canada who decided this, but my guess is some of the details in the media are probably a bit off. For instance, the prevailing assumption that the requirement is 6'. (I think it's the reporting that the "current construction fence will stay" and that fence is about 6' that may be causing some confusion.)
That said, there's not a lot of other detail forthcoming. I gathered that there's a balance of liability being weighed. If the operator assumes all liability along this corridor, they'll want to go with TC's recommendation. If the region wants something less, they'll probably have to take on liability.
One of the things that surprised me was that GrandLinq was looking to run the train up to 70km/h through this corridor. I didn't think that was likely given the distance between stations (and Seagram Drive station right in the middle) but I guess these vehicles can accelerate pretty well.
I think a speed limit could be negotiated, but it would require redefining the service standard. And have an impact on service hours. Maybe other knock-on effects.
That said, there's not a lot of other detail forthcoming. I gathered that there's a balance of liability being weighed. If the operator assumes all liability along this corridor, they'll want to go with TC's recommendation. If the region wants something less, they'll probably have to take on liability.
One of the things that surprised me was that GrandLinq was looking to run the train up to 70km/h through this corridor. I didn't think that was likely given the distance between stations (and Seagram Drive station right in the middle) but I guess these vehicles can accelerate pretty well.
I think a speed limit could be negotiated, but it would require redefining the service standard. And have an impact on service hours. Maybe other knock-on effects.