MOOSE JAW — The City of Moose Jaw failed to make “compelling arguments” that rebuilding the Thunderbird Viaduct benefited the neighbouring rail companies, which is why it must pay for most of the reconstruction, a national report says.
The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) released a decision in late December that summarized the arguments between the municipality and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) Limited about who should pay for the Fourth Avenue bridge upgrade project and apportioned the costs between those two parties and Canadian National Railway (CNR).
Of the estimated $25.17 million expense, the city must pay 85 per cent ($21.9 million) for work on the basic grade separation, while of the remaining 15 per cent, CPKC must pay 15/16ths (over $3 million) for work on the basic grade separation and CN must pay 1/16ths (over $200,000) for work on the basic grade separation.
Furthermore, Moose Jaw must pay all the costs to refurbish the bridge’s historic pieces and maintain the costs of the substructure, superstructure and retaining walls. Meanwhile, CPKC and CN must maintain the railway approaches, track structure, railway drainage and communication venues for their respective lines under the Viaduct.
Arguments
During mediation, the city argued that the proposed project was “tantamount to a new rebuild” and that the CTA should apportion costs equally between the three parties, the report said.
Furthermore, the city argued that it and CPKC benefited equally from a grade-separated crossing that prevented vehicle and railway traffic from being impeded by an at-grade crossing, the document continued. Moreover, the city stated it was undertaking this project to extend the Viaduct’s service life and, secondarily, to keep it operational and increase the load capacity.
However, CPKC argued the project focused more on preserving and renovating the existing structure, so the CTA should consider the project a rehabilitation or maintenance initiative, which, based on the 1929 agreement, was the city’s responsibility.
CN did not make any submissions.
“… the agency finds that the proposed project is a reconstruction with significant improvements of such magnitude that it constitutes a rebuild of the superstructure of the bridge, for which the 1929 agreement does not apply,” the CTA wrote, noting that the improvements would, among other things, increase the bridge’s lifespan to 60 years from 15.
CTA’s analysis
The agency agreed with the city that the proposed project was a reconstruction initiative, while saying its interpretation of what constituted maintenance and reconstruction “has evolved” since 1989 because it had adopted new cost apportionment guidelines in 1990.
“The agency is of the opinion that maintenance means those ongoing works necessary to keep a facility in good repair and in an as-constructed condition, while reconstruction means building again to a higher standard, qualitative change, modification, improvements and/or alterations that add to the value or improve the original design of the structure,” the report said.
CPKC argued that the bridge would not be built to a higher standard since a report from AECOM Canada Ltd. concluded that the project’s load target would be 13.6 tonnes to 18.2 tonnes. However, the report acknowledged that the project would address “inherent structural deficiencies of the current design.”
Meanwhile, the city provided a report — that the agency accepted — from Associated Engineering (AE), the main project contractor, which said the capacity would increase to 34 tonnes.
The evidence the city provided “does not support its position,” in particular, the AE condition survey, which listed all the project’s controlling factors, the CTA said. That list did not include ensuring the Viaduct remained operational long-term; instead, it said the structural condition and live load capacity were the project’s two primary factors.
Furthermore, the survey report recommended a project — which the city chose to pursue — that had the highest capital costs of the options presented, as it would address both primary controlling factors, the decision continued.
CTA determined that the city selected the project to fulfill its needs, specifically, to improve the bridge’s load capacity so heavy city vehicles could use it.
“… the agency finds no compelling arguments here. The evidence demonstrates that the project is being undertaken to meet the needs of the city, and therefore, the agency finds that the project is due to road development,” the organization added.
Bridge history
The city and CPR shared the construction costs in 1909 to build the first Fourth Avenue bridge, which was made with steel trusses and girders and wooden structures connecting the steel to the road, with a load capacity of 13 to 15 tonnes, the CTA report said.
In 1929, both parties agreed to replace the wooden portions with concrete while retaining the existing steel trusses and girders over the CPKC rail lines. In that agreement, the city paid to construct the new bridge and CPKC reimbursed the municipality for half the cost, to a maximum of $70,000.
Furthermore, the city would maintain the bridge, including the wearing surface or bridge’s flooring, while CPKC would keep the steel span, abutments and piers in good condition.
In 1965, the parties reconstructed the north approach to modify the Viaduct’s configuration, with the CTA’s predecessor ordering The Railway Grade Crossing Fund to pay up to the lesser of 50 per cent of the cost or $120,500 and the city to pay the rest.
In 1989, the CTA’s predecessor ordered the replacement of the steel truss and girder span over the rail lines, with CPKC ordered to reconstruct and maintain the steel truss, girder spans, piers and abutments and the city to maintain and pay for the asphalt wearing surface and the decorative features.
In 2005, based on a condition survey and load evaluation report, the city limited loads on the Viaduct to 10 tonnes.
