RM of Portage la Prairie's Council is questioning a project proposed by Canadian Pacific Railway. They're proposing a $337,000 crossing upgrade on Municipal Road 41 West, just south of Simplot. However, Council felt that proposal is leaving more questions than answers.

While the proposal outlined the cost of the work would be split between the municipality, railway, and Transport Canada, just how much the RM would contribute remains unclear. While past negotiations have seen Transport Canada cover half of the cost, the railway covering 37.5 per cent, and the RM covering 12.5 per cent, CP has changed their policy in recent years. Under the new policy, CP and the municipality would each contribute 25 per cent.

Discussions with CP on this proposed project have been ongoing, and it's still unclear just what percentage Portage would need to pay for the work. Reeve Kam Blight says that's why they've decided to table the proposal until they're able to receive clarification.

"Before we commit to doing this, we need to make sure we have all the facts straight, what our requirements are, and what we have to do or don't have to be. It's a significant investment to put these in. I realize it is a cost-sharing agreement right now, but our portion isn't a hundred per cent specified as to what we're going to have to pay, so we want to get some clarification on that because we've heard some different numbers."

Part of the challenges with their discussions has been the necessity of the project. While the project isn't currently mandated, the cost-sharing opportunities are present. According to CP, that could change if Council chooses not to pursue this work at this time. While doing the work could save the initial cost, Blight notes it would mean they'd be responsible for the annual maintenance fees sooner, which are expected to be around $7,000.

The cost is only one of the questions being raised by Council, as many also questions just how necessary the project is to improve safety. While previous communications with CP included a traffic count to justify the need for crossing arms, rather than just lights and signals, Blight says many on Council felt their numbers were higher than what's actually seen at the crossing.

"I think Council's a little split on if this is a necessary step that must take place. There are a lot of costs involved in this. I think, to a certain extent, Council challenges some of those numbers for the traffic flows over that crossing."

Council's seeking clarification on several issues, and will likely bring the issue back to their next Council meeting.