Pre-feasibility Study Concerning the Replacement of the Existing Champlain Bridge

CONSORTIUM BCDE Prefeasibility Study Concerning the Replacement of the Existing Champlain Bridge Sectorial Report no 8 Financial Considerations and Methods of Delivery PJCCI Contract No 61100 February 2011 Les Ponts Jacques Cartier et Champlain Incorporée The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated Canada

Prefeasibility Study Concerning the Replacement of the Existing Champlain Bridge JCCBI Contract no 61100 Sectorial Report no 8 Financial Considerations and Methods of Delivery Date: February 2011

CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 SOMMAIRE EXÉCUTIF... 3 1. PUBLIC TRANSIT IN THE CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE AXIS... 5 1.1 THE OTHER CARRIERS AUTHORIZED TO USE THE RESERVED LANE... 6 1.2 THE OPERATING COSTS OF THE RESERVED LANE... 7 1.3 FUTURE GROWTH OF USE OF the RESERVED LANE... 7 1.4 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE AGREEMENTS TO BE SIGNED WITH PUBLIC TRANSIT ORGANIZING AUTHORITIES... 8 2. PUBLIC UTILITIES THAT ALREADY OR ARE LIKELY TO USE THE NEW STRUCTURE... 10 2.1 MTQ STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES... 11 2.2 BASIC PRINCIPLES for AGREEMENTS TO BE SIGNED WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES... 11 3. PROJECT EXECUTION MODES... 12 3.1 CONVENTIONAL MODE (designbidbuild)... 13 3.2 DESIGNBUILD... 14 3.3 PUBLICPRIVATE PARTNERSHIP... 16 3.4 EXECUTION MODES: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES... 18 3.4.1 Flexibility in dealing with changes during project execution... 19 3.4.2 Respect for the execution schedule... 19 3.4.3 Risks of cost overruns... 20 3.4.4 Design optimization for the whole project lifecycle... 20 3.4.5 Project financing cost... 22 3.5 COMPARATIVE SCHEDULE OF EXECUTION MODES... 22 4. ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL FLOWS... 24 4.1 THE FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS... 25 4.1.1 The Financial Crisis... 25 4.1.2 Uncertainty with respect to future rates... 25 4.1.3 Choice of a reference period... 25 4.1.4 Longterm interest rates... 26 4.1.5 Shortterm interest rates... 26 4.1.6 Type of financing... 27 4.1.7 Residual value... 27 4.1.8 Cost inflation... 27 4.1.9 Construction cost according to execution mode... 28 CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.1.10 Discounting of costs... 29 4.2 ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL FLOWS: BRIDGE OPTION... 29 4.3 ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL FLOWS: TUNNEL OPTION... 30 4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: BRIDGE OPTION... 30 4.4.1 Capital cost... 30 4.4.2 Longterm interest rates... 31 4.4.3 Shortterm interest rates... 31 4.4.4 Inflation rate... 31 4.4.5 Discount rate... 31 4.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: TUNNEL OPTION... 32 4.5.1 Capital cost... 32 4.5.2 Longterm interest rates... 32 4.5.3 Shortterm interest rates... 32 4.5.4 Inflation rate... 33 4.5.5 Discount rate... 33 4.6 ECONOMIC SPINOFFS... 33 5. CONCLUSION... 34 TABLE 1... 36 TABLE 2... 37 TABLE 3... 38 TABLE 4.1... 39 TABLE 4.2... 40 TABLE 4.3... 41 TABLE 5.1... 42 TABLE 5.2... 43 TABLE 5.3... 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY... 45 APPENDIX 1 DOCUMENT ATTACHED... 49 CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY ii

Copyright and confidentiality This engineering document is the work of the BCDE Consortium and is protected by law. This report is intended exclusively for the purposes mentioned in it. Any reproduction or adaptation, partial or complete, is strictly prohibited without the prior written authorization of the JacquesCartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated and the Ministère des Transports du Québec. REVISION AND ISSUE LOG Revision No. Date Description of the change and/or issue 00 20110224 Final version CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY I

CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter examines the socioeconomic aspects of the call for tenders. It looks first at the use of the reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge. It then considers the utility companies that use the bridge and the potential for expanding such use. It provides an analysis of various project execution modes, their duration and their financials flows. Finally, the economic impact of the projet has been estimated with the Quebec inputoutput model of l Institut de la statistique du Québec. The Champlain Bridge reserved lane is in service during the morning and evening rush hours, occupying the left lane in contraflow. It is separated from the common lanes by a series of cones that are installed and removed four times a day. During the morning peak, there are nearly 20,000 users of the reserved lane, an increase of 16% over the last five years. Future agreements with utilities should be based on the following basic principles: The public utilities must certainly pay their costs and provide revenues. The calculation method should reflect the savings for the public utilities resulting from using the bridge. This use must never interrupt traffic or be source of danger. Analysis of various execution modes indicates that each has its own advantages and disadvantages. It will be up to the client to specify its objectives and constraints and select the mode that best satisfies them. It is recommended that a value engineering analysis be conducted to facilitate the decisionmaking process. A simulation of the execution schedule by mode has made it possible to estimate that the project could be executed over 9 years and 9 months in designbuild mode, 10 years and 7 months in publicprivate partnership mode and 11 years and 1 month in traditional mode. Financial flow analysis demonstrates that execution in traditional mode generates the lowest flows, for both the bridge and tunnel options. The sensitivity analysis concludes that the designbuild mode is the most attractive, since it causes a slight reduction in capital investment. The economic impact study based on the intersectoral model of the Institut de la statistique du Québec concludes that execution of the bridge option would generate work equivalent to 10,580 personyears and an added value of $868 million for the Québec economy. Execution of the tunnel option would generate work equivalent to 15,582 personyears and an added value of $1.295 billion for the Québec economy. CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 1

CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 2

SOMMAIRE EXÉCUTIF Ce chapitre correspond aux demandes de l appel d offres traitant du volet socioéconomique. Il abordera d abord de l utilisation de la voie réservée du pont Champlain. Il sera ensuite question des entreprises d utilités publiques qui utilisent le pont et du potentiel de développement. Suivra une analyse de différents modes de réalisation, de leurs durées et des flux financiers qu ils génèrent. Enfin, l impact économique du projet sera évalué à partir du modèle intersectortiel de l Institut de la statistique du Québec. La voie réservée du pont Champlain est en service durant les périodes de pointe du matin et du soir, sur la voie de gauche en sens contraire de la circulation. Elle est séparée des voies banales par une série de cônes qui sont installés et ramassés quatre fois par jour. En pointe du matin, c est près de 20 000 usagers qui utilisent la voie réservée, une croissance de 16% au cours des cinq dernières années. Les principes de base des ententes à conclure avec les services d utilités publiques devront s orienter autour des principes de base suivants : Les services d utilités publiques doivent assurément assumer leurs frais et être une source de revenus. Le mode de calcul devrait tenir compte des économies que les services d utilités publiques réaliseront en empruntant l ouvrage. Ils ne doivent jamais être une source d interruption de la circulation ou une source de danger. L analyse des différents modes de réalisation permet de constater qu ils ont chacun leurs avantages et leurs inconvénients. Il appartiendra au donneur d ouvrage de préciser ces objectifs et ses contraintes et choisir le mode qui satisfera le mieux ces conditions. Il est recommandé de réaliser une analyse de la valeur pour faciliter cette prise de décision. La simulation de calendrier de réalisation par mode a permis d estimer que le projet pourrait se réaliser en 9 ans et 9 mois en mode designconstruction, 10 ans et 6 mois en mode partenariat publicprivé et en 11 ans et 1 mois pour le mode traditionnel. L analyse des flux financiers démontre que la réalisation en mode traditionnel est celle qui génère les flux les plus bas, autant pour l option pont que pour l option tunnel. L analyse de sensibilité conclut que le mode designconstruction devient le plus avantageux dès que son recours entraîne une faible réduction des coûts d immobilisation. L étude d impact économique issue du modèle intersectoriel de l Institut de la statistique du Québec conclut que la réalisation de l option pont procurerait du travail pour l équivalent de 10 580 annéepersonnes et aurait une valeur ajoutée de 868M$ pour l économie québécoise. La réalisation de l option tunnel procurerait du travail pour l équivalent de 15 582 annéepersonnes et aurait une valeur ajoutée de 1 295M$ pour l économie québécoise. CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 3

CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 4

1. PUBLIC TRANSIT IN THE CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE AXIS The reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge was commissioned in 1978. During the morning and evening peak periods, it is installed in the left lane of the direction opposite the main traffic flow. It is separated from the common lanes by a series of cones that are installed and removed four times each day. It allows buses to avoid the waiting lines that form in the morning and evening on the approaches to the Champlain Bridge. During the evening peak period, a traffic light under the A15/Bonaventure Interchange allows buses to enter the reserved lane in the direction of the South Shore. Over the years, major improvements have been made, including: commissioning of the Panama, Chevrier and Chambly parking lots; extension of the reserved lane to the Chevrier terminal; installation of the Downtown terminal at 1000 de la Gauchetière; construction of the exclusive reserved lane in the middle of the A10 between the Champlain Bridge and the Chevrier terminal; priority measures between the Clément Bridge and the Downtown terminal. All of these investments have made it possible to improve service and fix some traffic problems that were interfering with the smooth flow and reliability of the reserved lane. On an average weekday, the Downtown terminal and its surroundings experience a very large number of bus movements. There are in fact just over 1,900 bus movements entering and leaving this terminal. The great majority of these buses have used the Champlain Bridge to reach the terminal but not necessarily by using the reserved lane, since it is only in operation during rush hours. There are about 850 buses that use the lane every day, divided almost equally between the morning and evening. The common lanes of the Champlain Bridge are also used by about 1,000 buses making regular trips during offpeak hours or deadheading during peak hours. The other bus movements involving the Downtown terminal are organized by public transit operating authorities (PTOA) serving the western portion of the Montérégie region that do not use the Champlain Bridge. Nonetheless, some problems continue to create insecurity in this important public transit axis. Simply moving nearly 850 buses in contraflow on major highway every day, even if it s safety has now been demonstrated, makes this reserved route vulnerable in case of a major accident. The same is true for the traffic light during the evening peak period. Interrupting Montrealbound traffic on the A15 in order to give priority to the buses going to the South Shore causes serious traffic problems toward Montréal while substantially increasing the number of rearend collisions in the waiting CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 5

queue. Virtually every night of the week, the line of cars waiting to go across the bridge to Montreal extends past Milan Boulevard in Brossard, a distance of more than 5 km from the eastern abutment of the Champlain Bridge. The reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge is one of the three main access corridors to the island of Montreal for public transit, along with the Laval Metro and the Longueuil Metro. These three public transit axes have comparable levels of use, about 50,000 trips per day. The reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge, however, is the only axis whose continued existence is not assured. The reserved lane has nearly 20,000 users during the morning peak period and accommodates more than 50,000 trips every working day. It has recorded growth of more than 16% over the last five years. This increase is largely attributable to the funding offered to assist public transit services by the Ministère des Transports, which pays 50% of the cost of increasing the level of service. This program motivated the Réseau de transport de Longueuil (RTL), the CITOMIT and the Agence métropolitaine de transport (AMT) to increase their level of service in the Champlain Bridge axis. The RTL is the main user of the reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge. During the morning peak period, more than 265 buses and 10,900 users take this corridor. It also provides service for the metropolitan routes of the AMT with 30 bus trips toward Montréal carrying more than 2,500 users. The following public transit organizing authorities from the South Shore of Montréal make daily use of the reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge: The SaintJeand Iberville OMIT The SainteJulie OMIT The Le Roussillon CIT The Richelain CIT The ChamblyRichelieuCarignan CIT The Richelieu Valley CIT For these public transit organizing authorities, there are 148 bus trips with more than 6,400 users on board using the reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge during the morning peak period. 1.1 THE OTHER CARRIERS AUTHORIZED TO USE THE RESERVED LANE The reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge can be used by other carriers, but only under certain conditions. They must first qualify with the AMT to be authorized. The process is relatively simple. It begins with an application sent to the AMT. Once the carrier is authorized, it must make the necessary arrangements with the body that manages the reserved lane, the RTL, to train its trainers, who must then train the carrier s drivers. The training consists of theoretical and practical training and is at the carrier s expense. CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 6

Once the training is completed, the authorized carrier must make a list of its trained drivers and authorized vehicles and send it to the reserved lane manager, the RTL. It must also keep this list up to date and inform the manager of any changes. At this time only two public transit agencies have been authorized by the AMT to use the reserved lane. The TARSO adapted transport agency, which covers the municipalities of Candiac, La Prairie, Saint Philippe, SaintMathieu, Delson, SaintConstant and SainteCatherine on the South Shore of Montréal is authorized to use the reserved lane of the Champlain Bridge but only under certain conditions. Transdev intercity carrier also uses the reserved lane for its Montréal Sherbrooke link. 1.2 THE OPERATING COSTS OF THE RESERVED LANE The operating expenses of the reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge are assumed by the AMT at the rate of $800,000 per year. These costs essentially cover the management contract and supervision of the busway and as well as the lane marking contract (for placing and removing the cones). AMT then allocates the operating costs between the PTOAs based on their use of the reserved lane; use is obtained by multiplying the number of bus trips by the number of kilometres covered in each trip. Differences in driven kilometre are due to the fact that some buses take the reserved lane from the Chevrier terminal and others from the Panama terminal. Either 40% or 100% of their share of the operating costs is then charged to the agencies, depending on whether they are in the AMT territory or not. It should be noted that the territory of the SaintJeand Iberville OMIT is not part of the AMT territory and must therefore pay all of the operating costs of the reserved lane attributed to it according to the kilometres driven criterion. PJCCI does not currently charge any fees to the AMT or the other PTOAs for the use of the reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge. 1.3 FUTURE GROWTH OF USE OF THE RESERVED LANE In future years, there is no reason to expect a large number of new requests from carriers to use the reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge. There are no other public transit organizing authorities on the South Shore likely to use it. Future growth can come only from increased ridership for the PTOAs that currently use the reserved lane. The operating assistance program of the Ministère des Transports has fostered substantial growth of trips on the reserved lane, up some 16% over the last five years. The Québec government s objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in the 2020 horizon could result in improving this assistance program to promote the use of public transit. CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 7

Growth of the same order over the next few years would inevitably cause capacity problems for the reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge. For safety reasons, a minimum distance must be maintained between buses on the Champlain Bridge. It should be pointed out that certain time slots currently operate at full capacity. Increased traffic can come only from bus trips at other times during the peak period or larger capacity (articulated) buses. Some smallscale growth could also come from private carriers who must enter or leave the island of Montréal during morning or evening peak periods. According to information from the AMT, there are one or two such requests per year. Usually, they are withdrawn after the operating conditions have been explained. 1.4 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE AGREEMENTS TO BE SIGNED WITH PUBLIC TRANSIT ORGANIZING AUTHORITIES PJCCI does not charge the AMT for the use of the lane in contraflow for the reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge. It is the AMT that pays all the operating expenses like lane marking involving setting the cones and pays $800,000 per year for operating expenses. It is anticipated that the new structure will have two lanes dedicated to public transit. This section of the new structure could accommodate either a reserved bus lane or a guided public transit system. The division of responsibilities for operating costs and capital investments between the federal, provincial and municipal level can be understood as follows: The federal government is financially involved in the Champlain Bridge reconstruction project, because, among other reasons, the new structure must pass over or under the St. Lawrence Seaway with sufficient clearance for ships. It promotes interprovincial travel by both humans and merchandise. The provincial government is financially involved because it has a responsibility for financing capital investments for public transit and can assume up to 100% of capital investment costs for guided forms of public transport through the government assistance program for the public transport of passengers. It is also responsible for the main arterial road network. The municipal level (regional), i.e. the AMT and municipalities, is involved because it is partly responsible for public transit and must assume any operating deficits for public transit on its territory. AMT, by it s constitutionnal act, is a major actor in the planning and realisation of metropolitan public transit projects. The Agency has exclusive responsabilty in relation with commuter train services, extension of the metro system and other guided ground transportation systems. The Agency is also responsible for the management of public tansit metropolitan equipments such as the Champlain Bridge reserved lane. CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 8

Planning, financing of capital investments and the operations of public transit installations are not directly the responsibility of PJCCI and the federal government. On the other hand, they are indirectly involved because of the use of the Champlain Bridge for the reserved lane. These functions are thus entirely the responsibility of the Québec government, through the MTQ and municipalities. It is therefore these bodies that bear responsibility for assuming the costs associated with building and using the new structure for these functions. An initial division of capital costs and operating and maintenance expenses associated with reserved lanes for public transit and common lanes for regular traffic should be made between the MTQ and PJCCI or the federal government. It will then be up to the Québec government to divide them between the AMT and the PTOAs that will use this installation. Several scenarios for allocating the capital, operating and maintenance costs are possible, depending on the mode of project execution selected for building the structure. The preferred design at this time includes three common traffic lanes of 3.7m each, one right shoulder 3m wide and one left 1m wide and one 6.5m lane with a separating 1m barrier, dedicated to public transit. This means that about 70% of the bridge surface would be intended for automobiles and trucks and about 30% for public transit. The MTQ could assume the portion of the capital investment and maintenance and operating costs for the portion dedicated to exclusive use by public transit, with the remaining 70% the responsibility of PJCCI. The division of costs could also occur according to the specific responsibility of each of the levels of government. The portion of the cost of building the structure that is above or below the St. Lawrence Seaway would be the responsibility of PJCCI and the remainder be paid by the MTQ. The capital costs and certain maintenance and operating costs could be divided between PJCCI and the MTQ, either by average cost or marginal cost. The division of the contributions between the two levels of government by average cost would consist of separating the capital expenditures according to the area used for regular traffic on the one hand and public transit on the other. This would be, as described above, about 70% for PJCCI and 30% for the MTQ. The division of the capital investment according to the marginal cost method would consist in identifying the additional work required to add the two 6.5m lanes dedicated to public transit to a structure that contained only three regular traffic lanes and a shoulder. It would then be necessary to identify the capital cost of all these components and so determine the contribution of the MTQ and of PJCCI. The funding of the capital investments by both levels of government would result in the new structure being owned by PJCCI and the MTQ. CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 9

There is a precedent in the Montréal region for joint ownership of a single structure. PJCCI owns the portion of the Mercier Bridge crossing the St. Lawrence Seaway and MTQ owns the remainder of the bridge crossing the St. Lawrence River. There are also several structures crossing the Beauharnois canal on the St. Lawrence River that are jointly owned. Using the criterion of the specific responsibility of each of the levels of government, the operating expenses directly linked to the common lanes should be paid by PJCCI and those due to the section dedicated to public transit by the MTQ. The other expenses for maintenance and operating associated with the joint portions of the bridge could be allocated according to the method chosen for capital costs, i.e. average or marginal cost. PJCCI could also assume all of the capital, maintenance and operating costs and then lease to the MTQ the portion dedicated to public transit for the useful life of the structure. The amount of the rent paid by the MTQ would reflect the portion of capital, maintenance and operating costs associated with the portion of the structure dedicated to public transit. Allocating capital, operating and maintenance costs according to the average cost seems the easiest method to use, especially over a long period. After several years, the allocation of operating and maintenance expenses by use, i.e. regular traffic or public transit, could easily become a source of conflict between the two owners if the distinctions between the two functions have not been clearly identified at the very onset of the project. 2. PUBLIC UTILITIES THAT ALREADY OR ARE LIKELY TO USE THE NEW STRUCTURE Public utilities often take advantage of civil engineering structures to carry installations from one side of the river to the other. The existing Champlain and Île des Sœurs bridges are no exception to this rule. There are currently four public utility services that use either the Champlain Bridge or Île des Sœurs Bridge: HydroQuébec, Bell Canada, Ville de Montréal and a private optical fibre firm. The revenues received by PJCCI from this lease are not a major source of income, amounting to just over $50,000 per year. On the other hand, the JacquesCartier Bridge sees greater use by public utilities. It has installations from the following companies: Bell Canada, MTQ Telecom, Gaz Métro, HydroQuébec, a private cable company, Vidéotron and the Coast Guard. These leases earn PJCCI just under $300,000 per year. These leasing revenues remain marginal in relation to all the operating and maintenance costs assumed annually by PJCCI for these two engineering structures. CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 10

2.1 MTQ STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES The Ministère des Transports has established a series of standards for the use of its rightsofway by public utilities. They can be found in Volume IV, Chapter 3 of the MTQ Standards. The purpose of these standards is to define MTQ requirements with respect to public utilities installed within the rightsofway under its responsibility. Standard 3.4.4 Installation on or near an engineering structure stipulates that it is never advisable to install public utilities under a civil engineering structure. It may be done only as a last resort or in cases where the technology and its implementation do not allow an overhead or underground crossing. These exceptions are reviewed on a case by case basis. The standards also indicate that such installations affect the useful life of certain components of the engineering structure and have a direct impact on the performance of inspections, maintenance and rehabilitation. In exceptional cases, the public utility must comply with the specifications of the Structural Design Manual, Volume 1, Article 17, and «Related Structures." It must respect the technical requirements regarding the installation of conduits and ducts for public utilities on bridges and the design of anchoring systems that appear in the study coordinated by the centre for expertise and research on urban infrastructures. This standard prohibits the longitudinal installation of underground gas and petroleum products ducts within the rightofway of a highway. 2.2 BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR AGREEMENTS TO BE SIGNED WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES The new structure is expected to be in use only within a horizon of ten to fifteen years. It is difficult to predict what technology will be used for the data transmission that today crosses the river through optical fibre using public utility networks. The other products likely to use civil engineering structures, for example, petroleum products and electricity, are not expected to experience major increases in coming years. In the light of recent developments, it is reasonable to assume that use of this form of transport will not increase and the revenues generated do not justify dedicating space or installing equipment specifically for their use. The basic principles of the agreements to be signed with public utilities will have to reflect the following basic principles: Public utilities must of course assume the capital, maintenance and operating costs they cause in using the infrastructure and serve as a longterm source of revenue for the owner of the structure. The method for calculating the charges must take into account the savings the public utilities will achieve by using the structure instead of other ways of crossing the river (overhead or underwater cables). CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 11

The utility installations must never interrupt traffic on the new structure because of equipment breakdowns or maintenance work. Any equipment breakdown must not be a source of danger to users or to the integrity of the structure. In light of information obtained from the MTQ and PJCCI, leases for public utilities on a structure are not, at this time, a source of significant revenues for the owners while it is a certain source of by no means negligible disadvantages regarding maintenance of the bridge and the utility installations. The advantage for public utility companies consists of crossing a river while paying only a very small percentage of the cost they would incur if they had had to cross it with their own civil engineering structure. The amount paid by public utilities for the opportunity to use the new structure should better reflect the economic advantages they obtain by using it for their equipment, compared to crossing the river by building their own infrastructure. The owner of the structure has no interest at this time in accommodating the utility companies. They may become a source of problems for maintenance and for traffic on the new structure. The ultimate condition for dedicating space or installing equipment intended to accommodate public utility services is that they fully assume the additional capital and maintenance costs as well as provide significant revenue to the owner of the structure. Assuming that publicprivate partnership is the execution mode selected, the decision to accommodate or not the public utilities could be left up to the private partner, becoming a source of income for him that could be deducted from the total cost of the project. On the other hand, there would have to be a determination of what become of these public utility installations at the end of the PPP contract. 3. PROJECT EXECUTION MODES In developing a project, it is vital to define the needs and constraints as precisely as possible ( defining the project from the outset ), whatever execution mode is chosen for building the structure. Any change in the needs to be met will certainly be a source of delivery delays and cost overruns. It is therefore vital to prepare a complete and final draft project and establish a procedure that will manage such changes and minimize their financial impact. It is worth pointing out that in the past, certain largescale public projects were announced prematurely, before the studies necessary to define needs and costs had been completed. In such cases, it is therefore inappropriate to speak of cost or schedule overrun. CT 61100 PREFEASIBILITY STUDY CONCERNING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE 08 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS OF DELIVERY 12