1. Development and Results of the First Canadian Infrastructure Report Card Dr. Guy Félio, P.Eng. OFNTSC – Rama October 25, 2012

2. BACKGROUND

3. Project Objective Develop a rigorous, repeatable assessment process for the condition of Canadas infrastructure to raise the awareness of the public, decision-makers and other stakeholders about current infrastructure issues and future trends. The results of this process would be published as a factual Infrastructure Report Card, not an advocacy document Project Started in July 2010 and report card expected to be published in September 2012.

4. International Perspective Several countries, including the USA, the UK and Australia have produced, and continue to create on a regular basis state-of-the-infrastructure report cards. – Although there are variations in how the letter grading is assigned, they all use a school type report to communicate the results. Most state of the infrastructure reports are aimed at awareness (the target audience may vary but in general includes the public and elected decision makers). The second main common objective of these studies is to influence senior government decisions.

5. In terms of lessons learned, three key issues stand out: – There needs to be rigorous evaluation (i.e., process) criteria from the beginning. – Multidimensional stakeholder involvement (i.e., from regions, sectors, professions, etc.) is essential. – No one should expect 100% accuracy International Perspective (continued)

6. Canadian Examples & Information

7. PROJECT GOVERNANCE

8. Project Structure

9. RCAB Composition Association of Canadian Engineering Companies - ACEC Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators - CAMA Canadian Automobile Association - CAA Canadian Construction Association – CCA (PSC) Canadian Council of Public- Private Partnerships - CCPPP Canadian Institute of Planners - CIP Canadian Network of Asset Managers – CNAM (Chair) Canadian Public Works Association – CPWA (PSC) Canadian Society for Civil Engineering - CSCE (PSC) Canadian Urban Transit Association – CUTA (Guest) Canadian Water and Wastewater Association - CWWA Federation of Canadian Municipalities – FCM (PSC) Engineers Canada Transportation Association of Canada – TAC (Observer)

10. METHODOLOGY

11. Data Sources Voluntary Survey – Questionnaire was adapted from the work of the Core Public Infrastructure (CPI) Advisory Committee created by Infrastructure Canada and active from 2008 to 2010. – Online or paper questionnaires Financial data from PS 3150 reports Roads (excluding bridges) Drinking water: purification and distribution Wastewater collection and treatment Storm water management

12. Data Sources (continued) Municipalities were asked to provide information for each of the four asset categories related to: – The management of the assets: asset management systems, inspection and condition assessment practices, and replacement value of the infrastructure – The (current) physical condition of the infrastructure – The capacity of the infrastructure to meet (current) demand

14. Sample question - Roads

16. Sample Condition Rating - Water Physical Condition Distribution System 5 – Very Good No structural defects. Little or no water loss through leakage. 4 - Good Minor cracking, spalling or signs of wear. Deterioration causing minimal influences on levels of service and less than 1 break/km/year. Equivalent to OFWAT condition grade 2. 3 - Fair Medium cracking, spalling or signs of wear. Deterioration beginning to be reflected in deteriorating levels of service and/or increased operating costs. Less than 3 breaks/km/year. Equivalent to OFWAT condition grade 3. 2 - Poor Fracture with deformation up to 10%. Nearing the end of useful life, further deterioration likely, affecting levels of service. Greater than or equal to 3-5 breaks/km/year. Equivalent to OFWAT condition grade 4. 1 – Very Poor Collapsed or collapse imminent. No residual life expectancy, requires urgent replacement. Equivalent to OFWAT condition grade 5.

17. ANALYSIS

18. Rating was done using physical condition only

19. RESULTS

20. Participation

22. Use of Asset Management The majority of municipalities reported using some type of asset management system, whether computerized or/and paper based. Drinking water90% of respondents Wastewater systems68.8% of respondents Storm water management50.5% of respondents Roads85.6% of respondents

23. Potable Water GOOD: ADEQUATE FOR NOW The infrastructure in the system or network is in good to very good condition; some elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention. A few elements exhibit significant deficiencies.

25. Wastewater Systems GOOD: ADEQUATE FOR NOW The infrastructure in the system or network is in good to very good condition; some elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention. A few elements exhibit significant deficiencies.

27. Stormwater Systems VERY GOOD: FIT FOR THE FUTURE The infrastructure in the system or network is generally in very good condition, typically new or recently rehabilitated. A few elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention.

29. Municipal Roads FAIR: REQUIRES ATTENTION The infrastructure in the system or network is in fair to good condition; it shows general signs of deterioration and requires attention. Some elements exhibit significant deficiencies.

30. Replacement costs AverageMedian(2-lane km) Highway$ 1, 854,000$ 2,063,000 Arterial$ 1,095,000$ 1,007,000 Collector$ 1,002,000$ 842,000 Local$ 689,000$ 583,000 Alley$ 436,000$ 258,000

31. LESSONS LEARNED

32. Not all municipalities have the data requested, and/or in the format required The glossaries in each section of the questionnaires were useful, but need expanded levels of details. There is also a lack of uniformity in definitions across the country; even though national guidelines may exist for some infrastructure classes or components, these are not consistently used. Questions requiring data on capacity to meet demand need to be improved Data Requirements

33. The online survey was the preferred tool by the majority of municipalities responding Time allocation and the period of the year to respond to the survey are important The call for participations was mainly done through the heads of Council (e.g., mayors) and CAOs of municipalities, with further invitations through professional associations networks For a first report card, the representation (on a population, demographics and geographical basis) is beyond the initial project expectations Data Collection

34. Targeting municipalities by population and geography may be a strategy to help with increasing the statistical representation Data Collection (continued)

35. With improved questionnaires, data analysis automation should also be developed, through for example templates and other database tools. 277 municipalities registered but did not provide data or their data could not be used. The national assessment of the infrastructure is therefore based on those that have data – the R.C. may overestimate the infrastructure condition The analysis was done at the national level. The potential for regional report cards, whether based on the current data or for future projects, needs to be explored Analysis

36. IN SUMMARY

37. MUNICIPAL ROADS FAIR: REQUIRE ATTENTION The infrastructure in the system or network is in fair to good condition; it shows general signs of deterioration and requires attention. Some elements exhibit significant deficiencies. POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS GOOD: ADEQUATE FOR NOW The infrastructure in the system or network is in good to very good condition; some elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention. A few elements exhibit significant deficiencies. WASTEWATER SYSTEMS GOOD: ADEQUATE FOR NOW The infrastructure in the system or network is in good to very good condition; some elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention. A few elements exhibit significant deficiencies. STORMWATER SYSTEMS VERY GOOD: FIT FOR THE FUTURE The infrastructure in the system or network is generally in very good condition, typically new or recently rehabilitated. A few elements show general signs of deterioration that require attention.

39. Why should we care today?

40. For Roads

41. Thank you Contact: Dr Guy Félio, P.Eng. Project Manager First Canadian Infrastructure Report Card E-mail: Guy.Felio@InfraSR.caGuy.Felio@InfraSR.ca Tel: +1 613.266.0023