WR1 General Discussion, page-31226

No offence Handle, but that's not how these things work.

These documents are put together with respect to things that are desirable as agreed by stakeholders, to be achieved as and when in recognition that there are finite resources. They are (by and large) indicative plans based on the priorities of the time and as always, are subject to change.

Renard was up at running when this was put together, so do you think that the priorities of the Mis Cree have not changed since their community lost the economic benefits of Renard? 100% they have. As also based on the opportunity to build the road, to modify Renard and to build out Adina.

And regardless, the resources for the project will have changed if funding is available via a different funding pool. That not only enables one part of a desired projects to be done 'without cost', but also enables reprioritisation within the plan.

Plans change for better or worse, always. The longer the frame of reference for the plan - the more the plan changes.

The other key constraint will be non-financial resources. There is a critical pathway for these things. Roads do not take much effort, relative to railroads (and of course they cost significantly more). Roads get built all the time - railways very infrequently. There is a reason for that.

I would think that building a new railway is going to take a very extensive consultation process. It must cross plenty of trap lines and the route will be highly contentious. Everyone will prefer it doesn't travel through their land unless they receive clear economic benefit from it. Most won't.

Short critical pathway for the proposed road. Long to very long critical pathway for a railway. And it may never happen.

I've been around long enough in places that make decisions to know quoting old documents verbatim as to timeframes and cost is folly. The real merit of the document is in reaching agreement as to what needs to be done and relative priority based on known knowns, between key stakeholders.