To P3...their iPods to watch CNN, but it’s undeniable that we’re all more connected—and thus more able to affect each other—than ever before. If I can affect starving children

renewcanada.net $900

Green building technology goes

vertical

The forgotten third dimension of Asset

Management

Ministers Cannon and Flaherty on

funding for cities

Bill Power: Ontario’s BILL 51 is changing planning

January/February 2008

Top 10The

This Year’s Biggest Infrastructure projects

To P3 or

Not to P3?The debate

continues onpage 21

Contents

44

32

14

About the Cover

42

J A N U A RY / F E B R U A RY 2 0 0 8

FeAtureS 14 the top 10 Canadian

Infrastructure Projects Our annual list names key players and financing details for Canada’s biggest projects. By John Leckie

38 Watch Your Assets The conclusion of a three-part series on asset management. By Leo Gohier

44 Wall-to-Wall Gardening The role living walls can play in greening a building. By Eddie Wu and Ashley Smith

trANSPortAtIoN 21 Making a Connection Bridge and gateway

projects: To P3 or not to P3? By Jason Magder

24 Port’s New Authority Problems and solutions for the port of Oshawa, Ontario. By Miles Andrew Baker

25 the Need for Speed Rapid rail’s place in Canada’s transportation plans. By Tanya Gulliver

CItY buILDING 28 bill Power Ontario takes the right steps towards

changing planning practices. By Glenn Miller

32 Money for Municipalities A look at what’s got cities so frustrated, and how the feds have responded. By Mira Shenker

DePArtMeNtS 4 editor’s Note The world really is flat.

By Mira Shenker

5 Letters FCM President Gord Steeves, Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and more.

8 opening Shots The UN Climate Change Conference, Ontario’s bridges and infrastructure groups.

10 reLocate Jobs gained and lost in the industry.

12 reMind The value—and headache—involved in revitalizing heritage buildings like Toronto’s Union Station. By Kerry Freek

27 reFinance The continuing rise in popularity of infrastructure funds. By Krista F. Hill

37 Community Profile Okotoks, Alberta.

42 StormWatch The fourth in a series of articles on “renewal engines.” By Storm Cunningham

46 the LeeD List Four new CaGBC certifications.

48 reevents The Ontario Economic Summit, CCPPP National Conference and much more.

50 Closing Shot Why Art Matters. By Todd Latham

Construction underway at the Winnipeg

International Airport—a $572 million

redevelopment project that comes in at

number 21 on the Top 100 Projects list.

The full listing is included in subscribers’

copies of this issue. To receive a copy

please call 416-444-5842, ext. 112 or

email [email protected].

25

January/February 2008 reNew Canada 3www.renewcanada.net

January/February 2008 volume 4 Number 1

reNew Canada is publishedsix times a year by We Communications Inc.

editor’s Note

By Mira Shenker

GoinG Global in 2008

Proud members of:

www.renewcanada.net

eDItor Mira Shenker

PubLISher Todd Latham

vP PubLIShING Ray Blumenfeld

CIrCuLAtIoN Kerry [email protected]

ADvertISING Todd [email protected]. 416.444.5842, ext. 111

Miles Andrew [email protected]. 416.444.5842, ext. 116

CoNtrIbutorS Storm Cunningham, Leo Gohier, Tanya Gulliver, Krista F. Hill, John Leckie, Jason Magder, Glenn Miller, Ashley Smith, Eddie Wu

Art DIreCtIoN& DeSIGN Donna Endacott

FINANCe Jane Addie

We Communications Inc.

NeW ADDreSS: 11 Prince Andrew Place, Toronto, ON M3C 2H2

Phone: 416.444.5842 Fax: 416.444.1176 Toll Free: 1.800.344.7055

ReNew Canada subscriptions are available for $39.95/year or $69.95/two years.

©2007 We Communications Inc. All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may not be

reproduced by any means in whole or in part, without prior written consent from the publisher.

"ReNew Canada" and "ReThink. ReBuild. ReNew" are Trademarks of We Communications Inc.

Printed in Canada on Stora Enso Fortune paper. 100% Canadian. 30% recycled content

(10% post-consumer) manufactured acid-free and elemental chlorine-free (ECF).

Undeliverable mail return to: 11 Prince Andrew Place, Toronto, ON M3C 2H2

Canadian Publications Mail Product Sales Agreement 40854046

ISSN 1715-6734

A recent op-ed in the Montreal Gazette called “There’s No Such Thing as a

Foreign War Anymore” was a reaction to recent events in Pakistan, examined in the context of the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Today’s soldiers are connected to home via the worldwide web, it said; they can text their families and check newsfeeds.

But I’m guessing most of them don’t even know what happened to Benazir Bhutto, just one mountain range over from where they’re fighting.

This has nothing to do with infrastructure renewal in Canada. Not directly, anyways. But in this technological age, every person and event is connected. Yet, with all this global connection, the average person tends to use technology mostly just to connect to family and friends. Harvard business professor Pankaj Ghemawat just wrote a book called Redefining Global Strategy in which he discusses, among other fun facts, that 90 per cent of the world’s telephone calls, web traffic and investments are local. We don’t care that much about what’s happening beyond our own towns. But we should. If those of us working on roads and bridges in Canada don’t relate to what’s happening in Pakistan, we’re closing our eyes to the future of this—and every other—industry: globalization.

Communications technologies—like the cell phones those soldiers are texting on—are part of a knowledge economy that has raised expectations for a world-class city, changed the way we do business and, in a more profound way, the way we relate to the world. A delegate to last November’s Toronto Forum for Global Cities asked the mayors of Bordeaux, Torino and Toronto to comment on information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure—they hadn’t mentioned it in their presentations. Toronto Mayor David Miller said it goes without saying that ICT is critical to any city’s economic success. Fibre wire has become essential infrastructure. In our May/June 2007 issue, Lorraine Thomas wrote about how with no roads connecting any one of Nunavut’s 25 communities to each other or to any other jurisdiction in Canada, broadband is Nunavut’s de facto highway. A community like Iqaluit can now connect to a major hub like Vancouver, New York or Paris. Nobody does anything in isolation anymore.

Canadians are involved in more global infrastructure projects and funds than ever before—on Export Development Canada’s Top 50 International Projects list (to be released as a supplement to our March/April issue) Canadian companies are working on roads and power plants in Algeria, urban regeneration in Bahrain, water rehabilitation in Trinidad and Tobago, housing in Russia, countless projects in the United States, and the list goes on.

We’re also all connected to these and other countries like never before—by the only crisis to affect every single person on the planet. When Bill Clinton spoke at the Ontario Economic Summit in Niagara (see page 48), he said the only way to fight the affects of global warming is through mass global cooperation. He’s not talking on a NATO scale—he means every leader of every country coming together, along with the private sector, towards the common goal of reducing our GHG emissions.

That’s not a level of cooperation that will be easy to achieve. Actually, Clinton himself seemed dubious as to whether it can actually happen. But Canada can affect the emissions of emerging countries right now—clearly, based on the broad spectrum of countries on the upcoming Top 50 International Projects list, Canada is playing a major role in development internationally. Engineers, consultants and suppliers for these projects can promote smart design based on LEED standards.

Soldiers in Afghanistan may not be using their iPods to watch CNN, but it’s undeniable that we’re all more connected—and thus more able to affect each other—than ever before. If I can affect starving children in developing countries by playing online word games (check out freerice.com), Canadian engineering firms and developers should certainly be able to be a positive influence on their infrastructure.

if those of us working on roads and

bridges in Canada don’t relate to what’s

happening in Pakistan, we’re closing our

eyes to the future of this—and every

other—industry: globalization.

4 reNew Canada January/February 2008 www.renewcanada.net

FeAture CoNtrIbutorS

Letters

Thank you for supporting ReNew Canada. Call 416.444.5842, ext.111 to be part of the

March/April issue. The deadline is February 15, 2008.

www.renewcanada.net

Tanya GulliverTanya is a freelance writer/grad student/community development consultant and university instructor in Toronto, Ontario.pg. 26

Glenn MillerGlenn is director of Education and Research with the Canadian Urban Institute in Toronto. He is also editor of the Ontario Planning Journal.pg. 28

IN thIS ISSue:

Leo GohierLeo has a Civil Engineering degree as well as a Public Administration degree and is director of IDx. pg. 38

a Call For Action

Aecon 16

Atlantic Industries Limited 25

Blakes, Cassels & Graydon 17

BOMA Toronto 45

Canadian Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute 11

Canadian Water Treatment 31

CANECT 2008 34

Cement Association of Canada 22

CH2M Hill 26

Corpfinance International Limited 39

CSPI 43

Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited 40

Earth Tech 45

Enbridge Gas Distribution 33

Energy Matters Summit 48

Export Development Canada 29

Federation of Canadian Municipalities 36

Gartner Lee 10

Giffels 31

GLOBE 2008 47

Golder Associates 26

Goodmans LLP 13

Government of Ontario 30

Gowlings Lafleur Henderson LLP 9

Halsall Associates Limited 46

Harfan 27

IBI Group 10

Jacques Whitford 24

John Laing Infrastructure 7

Macquarie Group Limited 20

Magazines Canada 41

Miller Thomson LLP 2

MMM Group 19

Multiview 27

Municipal DataWorks 18

PricewaterhouseCoopers 42

RCCAO 28

RIVA Online 40

Strategy Institute 38

Terrasan 35

Toronto Economic Development Corporation 13

TSH 19

UMA 23

URS Canada 23

Wardrop Infrastructure 42

WeirFoulds LLP 52

XCG 34

Zurich 51

Across Canada, m u n i c i p a l

infrastructure has reached the breaking point. We can see the consequences in every community: p o t h o l e s a n d

crumbling bridges, water treatment and transit systems that can’t keep up with demand, traffic gridlock, poor air quality and a lack of affordable housing.

How did we get here? Canadian municipalities build, own and maintain most of the infrastructure that supports our economy and quality of life. Yet, for the past 20 years, they have been caught in a fiscal squeeze caused by growing responsibilities and reduced revenues. As a result, they were forced to defer needed investment. Municipal infrastructure has deteriorated, with the repair bill climbing from an estimated $12 billion in 1985 to $123 billion today. We call this the municipal infrastructure deficit, and it’s a national problem.

Action is clearly needed, but first we need to know the size of the problem. This fall, FCM (The Federation of Canadian Municipalities) asked Dr. Saeed Mirza of McGill University’s Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics to survey municipal governments to determine their infrastructure needs. Our report, Danger Ahead: The Coming Collapse of Canada’s Municipal Infrastructure, released in November, pegged the deficit at $123 billion, generating news coverage across the country and drawing exasperated responses from federal Cabinet ministers.

Let’s be clear: our report did not point fingers at the federal government. In fact, we have always acknowledged the importance of federal investments in municipal infrastructure. Beginning in 2004, with the full refund of the GST municipal governments pay, followed by the transfer of a portion of the gas tax, the federal government began delivering funds for municipal infrastructure. The current government has also stepped up with money for infrastructure, close to $18 billion of it

directly targeted to municipalities.Is it enough? The Budget 2007

investment of approximately $18 billion over seven years is important, but it is clearly not a solution to the massive and growing municipal infrastructure deficit. These measures help municipal governments deal with some of their most pressing needs, but they do not provide the long-term solution needed to eliminate the deficit.

Municipal governments invest most of the public funds directed to infrastructure, but even with all the money invested by all governments over the past decade, the problem grows worse. This deficit compromises Canada’s competitiveness, lowers our quality of life, undermines public health and hinders progress toward environmental sustainability. It also hampers our cities and communities in the global competition for educated and skilled people. No single order of government can defeat this problem. It will take a long-term effort by all governments, starting now and led by Canada’s national government.

Gord Steeves President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

The budget 2007

investment of

approximately $18

billion over seven years

is important, but it is

clearly not a solution

to the massive and

growing municipal

infrastructure deficit.

—Gord Steeves

Jason MagderJason is a reporter for The Gazette newspaper in Montreal. He has been covering news in and around the city for six years. pg. 21

Krista F. HillKrista is a partner in Torys LLP’s Corporate Department and co-coordinator of its Infrastructure and Energy Group. pg. 27


Letters

www.renewcanada.net

What do you think?We welcome your feedback. Letters should be sent to [email protected].

FiGhTinG DeFiCiTS wiTh ParTnerShiPGordon Feller’s article “Partnering-By-

Numbers” (November/December 2007) highlights exciting examples of Canadian infrastructure projects that would not have otherwise been possible without utilizing the P3 model. Unfortunately, to date, many municipalities have not taken advantage of public-private partnerships to combat significant issues facing their infrastructure.

Provincial governments have downloaded a significant amount of responsibility onto their municipal counterparts over the years without increasing revenue transfers. As a result, our ever-growing municipalities are not only struggling to invest in much needed infrastructure projects, such as transportation; they are unable to properly address the imminent dangers associated with aging current infrastructure in serious need of repairs and improvements.

The province of Ontario, for example, is leading the way through the establishment of a legislative framework to allow such projects to move forward. Creating municipal public-private partnerships would create similar benefits to those seen at the provincial and federal levels, such as greater expertise and reduced costs through competitive bidding. Moreover, by entering into P3s, Ontario’s municipalities would be better able to control their overall debt load while establishing their own policies and priorities when it comes to major infrastructure creation and rehabilitation.

The benefits of P3 projects are clear and do not have to be simply limited to the federal and provincial governments. Municipalities should also seriously consider P3s as a way to combat their infrastructure woes.

Morty Gross borden Ladner Gervais LLP toronto, ontario

Photo:D

epartm

entofFinanceCanad

a

Speaking at the recent CCPPP conference in Toronto, Minister Flaherty said, “I would like to remind some municipal leaders that when it comes to infrastructure, the Government of Canada is doing the heavy lifting. We have made a substantial financial commitment.”

reThinkinG renewalThe Government of Canada is

launching a new era of infrastructure renewal in Canada. We are investing a record $33 billion over seven years in our Building Canada plan. This is new money to build roads and improve public transit, rehabilitate bridges and water systems and to upgrade our international gateways, ports and airports.

If we are going to make the most of this investment, we need to rethink the traditional government approach to building and modernizing infrastructure. Many would agree that governments can no longer afford to finance, build and maintain every single infrastructure project in the country. Our government believes the private sector can and must play a bigger role through the use of public-private partnerships (P3s).

P3s have been used on a limited scale here in Canada, but it’s time to open the door to greater possibilities. That’s why our government is setting up a $1.26-billion national fund for public-private partnerships, the first initiative of its kind in Canada, and providing $25

million over five years to set up a federal P3 Office. The office will evaluate individual projects and assess whether a P3 is the best avenue to pursue.

Specifically, all projects seeking $50 million or more in federal contributions will be required to assess and consider the viability of a P3 option. This approach will allow us to modernize our infrastructure much quicker and at lower risk and lower cost to the taxpayer.

I truly believe that when contributions by other levels of government and the private sector are taken into account, we should be able to leverage a $33 billion federal investment in infrastructure into a $100 billion fund. By any measure this is an historic investment that will go a long way towards closing the infrastructure gap in Canada.

No matter the issue, this government will continue to look beyond the tired, old approach of past governments and seek out innovative solutions to the problems facing Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast.

Jim Flaherty Federal Minister of Finance

It is with pleasure that I read [Mira Shenker’s November/December 2007]

article, “GTMA Mission to Europe.” Working closely with the cement and concrete industry, I know how far advanced Europe is in comparison to Canada. Incineration, while it is taboo here, is fully supported in Europe. I’d like to ask if you are aware how long has incineration been used in Europe.

Finally, I recently returned from a trip

to India, a country that could really use sustainable technologies to help address their waste and landfill problems. Missions such as this should be encouraged throughout the world—by sharing information, we can protect our resources for future generations everywhere.

Yours truly,

Muktha tumkur built environment Standards toronto, ontario

editor’s Note: The first waste incinerators in Europe were built in 1876 in Great Britain, but the technology has changed over the years—dioxins are no longer a concern in any modern plant and some waste streams can be used as energy sources. As of 1999, around 12 per cent of energy used in the European Union for cement production came from waste. Even so, landfilling is still by far the number one option for waste disposal in EU Countries. Our publisher, Todd Latham, just came back from a mission to Holland focused on waste-to-energy technologies. Look for coverage in our March/April issue.

bUrninG QUeSTion


opening Shots

Infrastructure reporting from across Canada. Send your news and announcements to [email protected].

MonStER FAciLitY GoES EnViRon-MEntALScheduled to open this month, the Toronto Congress Centre North (TCC North) is a re-purposed building that has incorporated the latest applied ecology and environmental design. The facility’s trade and convention space is now over one million square feet—the largest of its kind in Canada. TCC North features zero-waste construction to an 800-foot long glazed curtain wall, green roof technology, generators that can sell power back to the city, grey water recycling, motion sensor lighting, linen and paper free operation and more. Phase one will be completed in April. Details at torontocongresscentre.com

So Hot RiGHt noWInfrastructure stocks were one of the hottest investment trends of 2007, and experts are expecting that trend to extend beyond 2008 (see page 27). CIBC World Markets’ index of 18 Canadian infrastructure stocks outperformed the S&P/TSX composite by 37 percentage points in the past two years and 20 percentage points in the past year. “Years of underspending in Canada’s infrastructure assets have created a huge funding gap, but also a great investment opportunity,” said CIBC economist Benjamin Tal in a report. “With both public and private money now pouring into the sector at an unprecedented pace, Canadian infrastructure companies are entering a golden era, with growing pricing power largely offsetting any cost pressures. Profit margins and valuations will continue to respond accordingly.” Details at cibcwm.com

inFRAStRUctURE’S SUPERGRoUPH.W. Lochner Inc., a Chicago-based transportation engineering firm, and Canadian MMM Group Limited have formed a corporate partnership to pursue large-scale public-private partnership (P3) transportation projects within the U.S. The new strategic alliance is called the Lochner MMM Group, LLC. The firms’ projects include airports built or under development in Ecuador, Hungary, Colombia and Oman; transit systems in Trinidad, Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver; toll roads in Ontario, British Columbia and New Brunswick; major highways in Massachusetts, Florida, Utah, Kentucky and other U.S. locations; and institutional buildings in Ontario and Alberta. The value of transportation projects currently undertaken by the two firms exceeds $5 billion.

RAZED QUARtER to RiSE AGAinGriffintown, the old industrial quarter southwest of Old Montreal, is set for redevelopment. With principal guidelines now approved by the city, this rundown section of town may see 3,900 residential units, social and affordable housing, retail and offices, plus preservation of 12 heritage buildings—subject to community consultations with Devimco, the project developer. Designed by urban planners Daniel Arbour and Associates, the project would integrate the Lachine Canal waterfront and extend Rue de la Montagne. The plan also includes a network of new green spaces, public areas, a tram service and a bike path.

Un AGREES on ADAPtAtion FUnD“Governments decided that funding for adaptation projects in developing countries, financed by the Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism (CDM), would begin under the management of the Global Environment Facility,” reports ReNew Canada correspondent Laura Zizzo, who attended the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali from December 3-14 as a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation. The decision allows entities that meet certain criteria to gain access to this US $54 million fund to finance approved adaptation projects. But there’s currently no structure to review individual decisions made by the Adaptation Fund Board. “With so little money available for so many adaptation needs,” says Zizzo, “this may present significant challenges in the future.” Look for more about the UNCCC in our March/April issue.

Photo:cogeco

bricks and other residue from the former building is stockpiled and recycled on-site for reuse in the new tCC.

BRiDGinG tHE GAPOn December 31, 2007, representatives of the Infrastructure Investment Coalition (IIC) met with Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to discuss, among other things, recommendations in their recently released report, Ontario’s Bridges: Bridging the Gap. MMM Group’s Bob Nairn, who wrote the report, indicated that the State of Missouri has solicited proposals to secure a single contractor to rehabilitate more than 800 of the state’s bridges, and suggested a similar P3 approach for Ontario. This would help accelerate the repair of bridges at a set price, with potentially lower life cycle costs. It’s an idea they’ll also present in a scheduled January 23 meeting with Jim Bradley, Ontario’s transportation minister and David Caplan, Ontario’s public infrastructure renewal minister.

The RCCAO’s Andy Manahan says it was made clear to Flaherty that construction labour and management strongly support Ontario’s innovative approach to financing. In Flaherty’s year-end statement, he said 2008 would be a tougher economic year for Canada. “I encourage municipal leaders and provincial leaders to get on with the job of implementation because the money is there. When the money is spent, then we can talk about what’s next,” he said. In response to that statement, Manahan says it was suggested they start discussing the design of future infrastructure programs now, and that an advisory council be established with representation from the construction industry to provide advice on P3 projects. The group discussed how the federal P3 office could help to set parameters for these projects and suggested that smaller P3 projects be funded.

“The minister agreed with us and bemoaned the fact that Canadian-based investment and pension funds are making investments in infrastructure outside of Canada,” says Manahan.

In their upcoming meeting with provincial ministers Bradley and Caplan, the IIC’s focus will be on the bridge study as well as a transportation financing study by Harry Kitchen to be released on January 21 or 22. To download a copy of Ontario Bridges, visit rccao.com.

From left: bob Nairn (MMM Group) richard Lyall (rCCAo), Phil rubinoff (rCCAo), Jim Flaherty, Dick Coyne (President, GtSWCA and IIC member), Andy Manahan (rCCAo).


reLocate

office as a partner in the firm’s Energy Markets Group. Chamberlain’s environmental and energy law practice focuses on the regulatory framework required to develop energy, waste, wastewater and water supply facilities. He has expertise in a broad range of matters from obtaining approvals for generating facilities and other significant infrastructure projects to participation in First Nations consultations related to such projects. Chamberlain, formerly of Aird & Berlis LLP, brings extensive experience with environmental assessment, energy and environmental regulatory matters, brownfield redevelopment, environmental aspects of corporate transactions, defence of environmental prosecutions, and counsel regarding litigation related to environmental assessment and other environmental approvals. He is a Certified Specialist in Environmental Law. Details at blgcanada.com

GtMA’S nEW cEo AnD cooBoard chair Lou Milrad has been appointed as the new CEO for the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance. Mr. Milrad will

continue to serve as chair and assume the additional responsibilities of CEO effective

nEW BoARD MEMBER REPoRtS to PoRtYannick Chiasson has been appointed to the board of directors of the Sept-Îles Port Authority for a period of three years. Chiasson has worked as a sales representative for Xerox Corporation and is currently the owner and chief executive officer of YAKA Inc., a company dealing in property management and office equipment. Details at tc.gc.ca

ocEtA coo PRoMotEDOCETA Chief Operating Officer Kevin Jones has been promoted to the position of president and chief executive officer, replacing Dr. ed Mallett. Jones joined the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement in 1997 as VP of Marketing and Business Development and has been very successful in extending OCETA's interests into new program areas such as industrial eco-efficiency and Brownfield remediation. In March 2007, Jones was appointed COO and since then has demonstrated his capabilities and readiness to lead the organization in its next stage of development. Details at oceta.on.ca

nEW PARtnER At BLGBorden Ladner Gervais LLP has announced that Adam Chamberlain has joined its Toronto

Lou Milrad

February 1, 2008. John Jung will move into the role of president and chief operating officer effective immediately. Milrad is a business lawyer with over 30 years experience advising public and private sector management and professional and trade associations boards on a variety of business, policy and legal issues that include public-private partnerships, procurement and partnering initiatives. Jung has been with the GTMA for nine years as vice president of International Marketing, and for the past six months has been serving as Interim President & CEO. Details at greatertoronto.org

REtiREE JoinS 3tiERrichard J. taggart, retired Weyerhaeuser Company executive vice president and chief financial officer, was elected to 3TIER’s

board of directors at their meeting on October 23rd. “3TIER’s vision of providing the best information to make renewable energy possible is something I believe in at both a business and personal level,” said Taggart, who has spent more than 30 years in positions of increasing responsibility at Weyerhaeuser. Details at 3tiergroup.com

richard J. taggart


Digging for value in heritage

buildings like Toronto’s Union

Station.

hundreds of thousands of wasteful buildings are immense,” said Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller at this year’s Green Building Festival (GBF) in Toronto.

A 2001 Heritage Canada report called Exploring the Connection Between Built and Natural Heritage Preservation makes a similar observation: preserving buildings eliminates demolition and new construction waste, and conserves embodied energy in existing building materials. Up to 33 per cent of our landfill is rubble from construction and demolition waste. About 21-23 per cent

of pre-1920 heritage building stock has been demolished in the past 30 years, and 14 per cent of older buildings are currently at risk. Our country’s existing building stock contains an incredible amount of embodied energy—something we can tap into with a little reinvestment.

Ironically, these buildings are in demand. “There’s congruence between the desires of people and the need to save energy,” says Borgal. “In cities like Markham, the

Picture a run-down Victorian home: old drafty windows, crumbling walls and lost heat, not to mention years of

structural issues. Not exactly an image that leads to thoughts of energy-efficiency. But skilled hands and out-of-box thinkers may find value in some aspects of the building.

For architects and engineers, dealing with an historical building can be a challenge. “It’s easier to erase the site and do something that’s quick and simple to design,” admits Chris Borgal of Goldsmith Borgal & Company Architects (GBCA). Many of GBCA’s past projects have included adaptive reuse and restoration. Their work on a Beaux Arts building, the North Toronto Station (now an LCBO), required sensitivity to the building’s historic situation and landmark status, and rethinking traditional planning and design. “The process of working with existing buildings takes more time up front,” Borgal continues. “There’s an issue about creativity.”

There’s an issue about perceived value, too. “With LEED, you get one point for saving a historical building,” says Borgal. “You also get one point for a bicycle rack. But if you save a 40,000 square foot heritage building—albeit you might only save the walls and the floors—the savings are so much more than the value of a few bicycles. The whole thing is distorted.”

Canada is still figuring out how to combine natural and culture resource conservation, an approach adopted long ago in Europe and the United States, but new to our builders and planners. “The energy savings of retrofitting

design control requirements are that you build pseudo-Victorian neighbourhoods that duplicate what we’re tearing down elsewhere. They actually want the very thing that will save energy: restoring existing houses.”

While Miller touched on the tremendous financial and environmental benefits, plus huge emissions savings, it was GBF Chair Anne Auger who reminded the delegates of the social importance of preserving our heritage buildings, and spoke of the “sense of place” that heritage buildings provide to a community—definitely a growing concern. In fact, this coming year’s International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) conference is “spirit of place.”

“There are many aspects to preserving a community’s soul,” says Borgal. “It’s energy conservation, preservation of resources, preservation of community’s sense of self, enhancement of community’s self respect, creation or maintenance of a social context that would otherwise be lost.”

Toronto’s Union Station is certainly accomplishing that. Most Torontonians have a story to tell about Union Station, and it certainly helps to define the city’s spirit. But this designated national historic site and heritage railway station is past due for an upgrade. Six years of talks with the Union Pearson Group, a private consortium willing to invest $150 million into the project, fell apart in 2006. For the time being, the city council has agreed to continue to retain architects, lawyers and consultants (a cost of up to $4.2 million), but there is still no final

Rend

ering:CityofToronto

Toronto attempts to move forward with plans (shown in this rendering) to revamp one of its oldest buildings

(inset: under construction in December 1917).

Six years of talks with the

Union Pearson Group, a private

consortium willing to invest

$150 million into Union Station,

fell apart in 2006.

reMind

By Kerry Freek

WELL-AGED inFraSTrUCTUreDigging for value in heritage buildings like Toronto’s Union Station.

Inset:CityofTorontoA

rchives,Fonds1172,S

eries2,item49


to offset some restoration costs by investing in a lower-level retail area budgeted at $137 million, with more assessments to be made in early 2008. The station may qualify as a retrofit, but retrofits often include elements of new construction.

“Our analysis shows that if we introduce a significant retail component, we will be able to cover the cost of not only putting the retail in there, but also have a fairly significant contribution to the state of good repair towards the heritage and pedestrian improvements,” says Parmar.

Funding for the Union Station heritage and transportation portions is expected to come from a handful of public stakeholders, including the TTC, GO Transit, VIA Rail, and both provincial and federal governments. The city is investigating prospective private partners to finance the lower-level retail section. “It’s a public-private partnership, broadly defined,” says Parmar. “It’s clearly separated between transportation and heritage on the public side, and retail on private side.”

The city will tackle green issues at a design charrette in early 2008. Some benefits exist because it’s a heritage building. For one thing, the embodied energy savings and reduction in construction waste through the use of an existing structure. Other benefits are not so obvious: for instance, the building’s Great Hall already

utilizes windows near the top of high ceilings, which ventilate in the summer climate without using much energy. GBCA has worked on a handful of heritage projects that demonstrate good climate control. “Many heritage buildings had towers with hatches. Open the windows; open the hatch. The air flows up through the hatch and out of the tower,” says Borgal. “History taught us how to do it.”

We can also adapt and change what worked historically to fit our current and future needs. The city has discussed the possibility of a green roof and photovoltaic (solar) panels over the huge train shed, working closely with GO Transit, who owns that section of the building, and Parks Canada to ensure heritage requirements are upheld.

The city is working hard to preserve its “spirit of place.” With a little extra work, this heritage building retrofit might increase the building’s efficiency, cut costs and shave energy peaks, but also allow Toronto to keep a gem that defines its culture.

plan for funding, which has some councillors worried. While the city council voted 39 to five in favour of the $388.3 million plan, a Toronto Star article quoted Councillor Michael Walker as saying, “Here we are spending $270 million on the hope that rental in this mall is going to pay for [the station’s revitalization] in the future. It’s all driven around a lot of pixie dust.” Plans to preserve this Beaux Arts-style landmark face more than just funding barriers. As with any older structure, there are complications.

“Currently the building is in a state of disrepair,” says Jodie Parmar, director of Business and Strategic Innovation for the City of Toronto. A thorough building commission audit revealed that $180 million is needed over the next 20 years to repair the station, including everything from the cracked marble floors to the copper roofs.

Another challenge is flow. “GO Transit has added significant traffic to the station, and its ridership is always increasing,” says Parmar. “We need to make improvements to pedestrian flows, as well as access and exit points.” To this end, the city’s plan includes $101 million in repairs and $150 million in heritage and transportation improvements.

Finally, rethinking this space means finding a way to fund its redevelopment. The city plans

Kerry Freek is assistant editor at reNew Canada magazine. [email protected]

reMind


Putting together a list of the Top 100 Infrastructure Projects in Canada isn’t easy, but we’ve set out to create the

most comprehensive list possible, using the same criteria we decided on back in 2005. The projects have to be under way at the time the list is published. Once the project is completed and being used for its intended purpose, it drops off the list. The decisions become a little more difficult when a project is entering into the mop-up phase, where most of the work is done but a little bit remains before the project is 100 per cent complete. In these cases, we’ve decided whether the project still has far enough to go before completion to be on 2008’s list.

The projects we have selected break down into close to a dozen categories, ranked according to the estimated cost of the project. That usually means the top of the list will be dominated by energy projects like the two nuclear generating station redevelopments, Hydro-Québec’s hydro electric developments and several pipeline projects. The Bruce A nuclear project had slipped to number two on this year’s list, but an extra billion dollars in costs pushed it back into the top spot for the second year in a row.

Project cost is probably the most objective way to rank the projects, but it results in some interesting projects getting overlooked while big budget projects like Bruce A stay in the spotlight. That’s why it’s important to read through our Top 100 supplement—a project that ranks 70 or 85 on the list may be one of the most interesting.

There’s only one brownfield redevelopment project on the list this year (the Britannia Mine Remediation Project in British Columbia), mostly because many of these project involve spending less than the $65 million that the Sheldon M. Chumir Centre in Calgary (Number 100 on the list) will cost. A project like the Evergreen Brick Works (which, at a cost of $55 million, comes in at Number 107)

doesn’t get listed. This project, involving the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the City of Toronto and du Toit Allsopp Hillier architects is transforming the old Don Valley Brick Works in Toronto into an environmental discovery centre. Similarly, smaller projects among the host of hospital projects flowing out of Infrastructure Ontario this year didn’t make the list. These are interesting because of the way Infrastructure Ontario has tweaked the public-private financing model to make projects more attainable for contractors. Instead of looking at long-term design-build-finance and operate deals, these projects are set up so the contractor has to finance only the construction period and gets paid when the contract is complete. The long-term operation of the project is handled separately. That way, contractors who may not have the size to finance a long-term deal have the opportunity to get involved. The larger of these projects—Sault Ste Marie, Henderson Hospital in Hamilton, Bluewater in Sarnia, Hôpital Montfort in Ottawa, Sunnybrook in Toronto, Trillium Health Centre in Mississauga—made the list.

Beyond cost, the overriding philosophy behind the project selection is to showcase the infrastructure that provides the foundation to allow the Canadian economy to run efficiently and grow. Roads, highways, rail lines and public transportation projects allow for the efficient movement of people and goods. Educational institutions help develop the skilled and knowledgeable workforce necessary to compete internationally. Hospitals and healthcare projects are there to help keep people healthy and able to contribute. Water and wastewater projects help ensure the country maintains and improves the quality of precious water resources, and energy projects provide the power to carry out the many activities to keep the economy running.

By John Leckie

Top 10The toP 10 oF 2006

1. Lester B. Pearson international Airport, $4.4B

2. Eastmain-1 Hydroelectric Development, $2B

3. canada Line, $1.8B

4. niagara tunnel Project, $985M

5. University of toronto expansion, $850M

6. Red River Floodway Expansion, $690M

7. Sea-to-Sky Highway improvements, $625M

8. the William osler Health centre, $550M

9. Seymour-capilano Water Utility Projects, $450M

10. Halifax Harbour cleanup, $330M

toP 10 oF 2007 (new additions in red)

1. Bruce A Units 1 and 2 Refurbishment, $4.25B

2. Eastmain-1 Hydroelectric Development, $2B

3. canada Line, $1.8B

4. Golden Ears Bridge, $1.1B

5. niagara tunnel Project, $985M

6. Montreal Metro Expansion, $803M

7. canaport LnG, $750M

8. Portlands Energy centre, $730M

9. Red River Floodway Expansion, $690M

10. Sea-to-Sky Highway improvement, $625M


2Eastmain-1-A and Rupert Diversion, $5BThis massive, controversial undertaking will divert nearly 50 per cent of the flow of the Rupert River, one of the largest rivers in Northern Quebec, into the Eastmain River to the north where it will be used to generate power in the 768-megawatt Eastmain-1-A generating station as well as adding to the production of the nearby Eastmain-1 powerhouse. It will then pass through the 125-megawatt Sarcelle generating station (being constructed as part of the project) and go on to add to the output of the Robert-Bourassa, La Grande-2-A and La Grande-1 generating station.

To accomplish this, the project includes four dams, a spillway on the Rupert River, 74 dikes, two diversion bays covering about 346 square kilometres, a 2.9-kilometre-long tunnel connecting the two bays, a network of canals—totaling about 12 kilometres—to facilitate flows in portions of the diversion bays and hydraulic structures on the Rupert to maintain post-diversion water levels along about 48 per cent of the river’s length. The project also includes construction of a new drinking water plant in Waskaganish.

Hydro-Québec has spent a good deal of time fending off complaints from environmental groups such as Rupert Reverence and the Sierra Club of Canada, who say the project is “destroying the Rupert River.” Contrary to environmentalist’s views, Hydro-Québec says navigation, fishing and snowmobiling will continue in the area, fish habitat will be preserved and the free movement of fish will be maintained. Certainly, the utility has learned from its mistakes in the past, making considerable effort to minimize the amount of land flooded by the project, protect wildlife habitat and maintain water levels.

The signing of the Paix des Braves agreement between the Quebec government and the Cree of Quebec in 2002 both allowed the project to go ahead and led to closer co-operation with the Crees on the project. The Boumhounan Agreement, signed at the same time, sets out a number of funds for the benefit of the Crees, as well as guaranteeing them $300 million worth of contracts for the project. Cree contractors are heavily involved in all phases of the construction. The project will be under way until late 2011 or early 2012.

1Bruce A Units 1 and 2 Refurbishment, $5.25BThis potentially make-or-break test for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.’s CANDU reactors involves replacement of most of the major components of Units 1 and 2 of the Bruce A plant in Kincardine, Ontario, brought online in the late 1970s. It may also prove a test case for the project management capabilities of a private company, Bruce Power, on a major nuclear restoration project. Previous projects of this nature in Ontario have been run by Ontario Hydro or its successor Ontario Power Generation and have shown a marked tendency to fall behind schedule and exceed cost estimates by a wide margin. So far the Bruce project is on time and on budget. The project is running so well that Bruce Power has upped the ante and now expects to replace all 480 fuel channels in Unit 4, similar to the planned work in Units 1, 2 and 3. The firm had intended to install new steam generators in all four reactors but only put new fuel channels in Units 1, 2 and 3. Without the new fuel channels, Unit 4 would be expected to remain operational until 2017 but with the change in plans, its operational life will be extended to 2036.

The last of the eight original boilers was removed from Unit 1 in December and moved to the Western Waste Management Facility. The fifth new boiler was lifted into the unit Dec. 7 and the three remaining new boilers were to be installed through December and January.

By John Leckie

Top 10The

Alberta clipper Project, $2B 3

Actual construction on this project won’t start until later this year, but land access, engineering and initial procurement have been under way for some time. The project is a crude oil pipeline providing service between Hardisty, Alberta, and Superior, Wisconsin. The 1,607-kilometre segment is expected to be in service by mid-2010 with an ultimate capacity of up to 800,000 barrels per day.

Here are the top 10 projects for 2008:


canada Line, $1.8BThe Canada Line (earlier known as the RAV Line) is Vancouver’s major public transit project leading up to the 2010 Winter Olympics. Most elements of the line are already in full swing, which means full inconvenience for motorists, pedestrians and merchants along the route. The project includes an underground tunnel from the Waterfront Station in downtown Vancouver to south of 64th Avenue. Three-quarters of the tunnel is being constructed by the cut-and-cover method where a trench is excavated, the concrete tunnel is constructed in it and the trench is backfilled and the ground or roadway overhead is restored.

The project is using a tunnel boring machine to dig twin tunnels beneath False Creek, running beneath Davie and Granville Streets and coming out north of Pender Street. The machine made one run through the route from June 2006 to April 2007 and then returned to the start to dig the second tunnel, expected to be completed this March. With almost all the activity underground, this part of the project has been going on 24 hours a day, six days a week. Beyond the tunnel, the line will run on an elevated guideway into Richmond and to the Vancouver International Airport. The project will include a total of 16 stations—four in Richmond three on the Sea Island section going to the airport, and nine in Vancouver.

4

The driving force for this project is the growing supply of crude from oil sands projects, which will increase by as much as 1.8 million barrels a day by 2015. Increased capacity is required to move the crude in the U.S. Midwest market. Enbridge Inc. will invest $2 billion in the Canadian portion of the 36-inch diameter pipeline and the $1-billion U.S. portion of the project will be taken on by Enbridge Energy Partners L.P. Most of the Canadian portion of the pipeline will be adjacent to Enbridge’s existing main line and within its right-of-way. One side benefit of the project for Enbridge is that it hopes to get its right of way to a uniform

36 metres for its entire corridor. The right-of-way is as narrow as 18 metres in some portions now. About 65 kilometres of the Clipper project will involve a new right-of-way.

Enbridge is confident the project can proceed in staged increments to bring capacity online when it is required.

When considering projects for this list, it’s often debated whether pipelines should be considered infrastructure. For the purposes of the Top 100 list, they are, because they perform a function similar to roads, highways and rail lines: they provide the means to move goods or commodities across the country.

While the oil sands projects at one end of the pipeline and the refineries at the other are both considered industrial projects and not infrastructure, the roads, ports and airports that allow access to those projects are, and so should the pipeline that allows them to move oil or gas to the refinery.

when considering projects

for this list, it’s often debated

whether pipelines should be

considered infrastructure.


Keephills 3 Generating Plant, $1.6B This project involves a 450-

megawatt, coal-fired generating plant adjacent to the existing Keephills power plant. Epcor and TransAlta are equal partners in the project. Epcor will handle the construction of the plant and TransAlta the long-term operations while each will market their share of the plant’s power output independently. The two firms used the same arrangement successfully on the Genesee 3 power plant. The past year has included a lot of preliminary activity after approval was given to the project by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board in February. Excavation and piling got under way shortly after approval and will continue until July 2008. At the end of 2007, some

1,600 piles had been driven. Some concrete has already been poured for the boiler house, turbine hall and stack. The concrete contains up to 25 per cent fly ash from the Genesee Generating Station, adding to the strength and the environmentally friendly nature of the project. Steel for the boilerhouse is expected to begin arriving in the early part of the year and work will continue on the turbine generator foundation and the cooling water pump house. The turbine generator foundation is scheduled to be completed by July and the main structure will begin to take shape after that.

The Keephills plant will use supercritical boiler technology, which produces 24 per cent less carbon dioxide while producing the same amount of power as existing units. The plant expects to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury between 60 and 80 per cent as well. TransAlta and Epcor examined the application of gasification with carbon capture and sequestration for the project but found the process had not reached acceptable standards for reliability, cost competitiveness or operation at this time. The plant is expected to be operational in 2011.

5

transMountain Pipeline Expansion, $1.5 billionThe project involves installing a second pipeline, adjacent to an existing pipeline, over a 158-kilometre section of the existing TransMountain system between Hinton, Alberta, and Jackman Hill, British Columbia. Two pumping stations will be built along the route. The project will increase the TransMountain systems capacity to 300,000 barrels per day from its current level of 260,000 barrels per day when this phase of the project is completed in 2008. It will require 45,000 tonnes of pipe, to which 7,000 welds will be applied. More than 75,000 cubic metres of rock will be moved during construction.

In addition to protecting ground squirrels in the area, the project also has developed protection plans for 19 species of rare mosses and lichens found along the route of the pipeline.

6


7

This is another make-or-break project for CANDU, this time with a public agency (NB Power) in charge. And the project is about to enter the crucial stage, an 18-month shutdown (beginning in April) during which key reactor components including fuel channels and connecting feeder pipes are replaced. Once that work is completed, the unit is expected to be able to operate for another 25 to 30 years.

A number of activities are already well under way. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is carrying out the engineering for the project.

Key refurbishing materials are being procured, manufacturing qualification of the calandria tubes is going on, and the manufacturer is putting retube tooling through integration testing. The retube tooling is being shipped to the AECL office in Saint John, N.B. where mockups and tooling will be set up for detailed training of the retube staff.

The project has experienced a strong turnaround in support in a fairly short period of time.

“With all the hustle and bustle going on

around the station as we make the final preparations for the outage, it can be easy to forget that less than two and half years ago, we were still fighting to make sure the Point Lepreau Generating Station would even have a future,” says Ross Galbraith, business manager with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 37. “Not only are we just about to begin the refurbishment outage, the government has also authorized a feasibility study to examine the potential for building a second unit.”

Point Lepreau nuclear Generating Station Refurbishment, $1.4B


8Golden Ears Bridge, $1.1BThe Golden Ears Bridge project involves far more than just construction of a six-lane bridge. It includes 13 kilometres of roadwork and interchanges and overpasses on either side of the Fraser River, near Mission, British Columbia.

This is the only design, build, finance and operate project in the Top 10. Golden Crossing Contractors, a joint venture of Bilfinger Berger (Canada) Inc. and CH2M Hill Canada Ltd., are the design builders; Capilano Highway Services Company will be the operator when the project is completed. Financing was supplied by Depfa Bank PLC and Dexia Credit Local with Computershare Trust Company of Canada serving as security trustee. The developer made a $50 million license fee payment to TransLink (The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority) at financial closing and will not receive payments for the project until it reaches substantial completion. TransLink

will be responsible for toll collection once the bridge is in operation and will use the revenues as well as the subsidy for the existing ferry service to make payments to the developer.

The design of the bridge, done by consulting associates Buckland & Taylor, is an adaptation of the firm’s design for the Alex Fraser Bridge, which spans the Fraser River west of the Golden Ears crossing. When it was built in the 1980s, the Alex Fraser was the longest cable-stayed bridge in the world. Taking advantage of new design concepts, the Golden Ears Bridge will have a much lower design profile.

One of the challenges of the project was developing a foundation design capable of dealing with the deep layers of soft silt in the Fraser River. For the solution, designers turned to Vietnam, adapting the large-bored piles used on the My Thuan Bridge. This method requires less specialized equipment and has less impact on the marine environment than conventional methods.

The first bridge deck cables are about to be placed and the first bridge tower will soon be completed, with work well under way on several overpasses. Girder installation is being completed on the south approach to the bridge and is set to begin on the north approach. As the year moves on, more of the land-based aspects of the project will begin to reach completion. The overall project is expected to be completed in early 2009.

niagara tunnel Project, $985MThe tunnel boring machine,

Big Becky, is well on its way along the 10.4-kilometre path, 140 metres below the city of Niagara Falls, traveling at a blazing 12 to 15 metres a day. The 130-metre-long, 2,000-ton machine will bore a 14.4-metre-diameter tunnel, about 1½ times the size of the rail tunnel under the English Channel. As the machine advances, the tunnel is reinforced with a combination of steel ribs, wire mesh, rock bolds and shotcrete that varies depending on conditions. Later, a waterproof membrane and cast-in-place concrete line will be added to complete the tunnel. It will require about 400,000 cubic metres of concrete to accomplish the task. At the end of the project, 1.6 million cubic metres of rock will be removed, most of it finding its way into Ontario’s brick industry. Big Becky is scheduled to finish up its job during 2008 and the rest of the construction will carry on for another year.

This is the third diversion tunnel to carry water from above the falls to the Sir Adam

9

Beck Generating Station. The other two, built in the 1950s are above the new tunnel.

When completed, the new tunnel is expected to enable the generating station to increase its output by about 1.6 million kilowatt-hours, enough to power a city of 160,000 homes.


John Leckie is a freelance writer and editor who has written extensively about the construction industry. he also compiled last year’s top 10 and top 100 lists.

Vancouver convention centre Expansion, $883MThe Vancouver Convention Centre leapfrogged a number of other projects into the Top 10 because of major cost escalation in the past year. Originally anticipated to cost $495 million in 2003, it jumped to $565 million, $615 million and $683 million until it reached its current figure. British Columbia’s auditor-general raked the provincial government over the coals for its handling of the project in his report last October. The problems started with a budget that could charitably be called wishful thinking, developed without significant design work and a total miscalculation of the cost escalation for construction in B.C. leading up to the 2010 Olympics. Construction costs in the province have been going up at 11 per cent a year while the project has been under way—the estimate was based on four per cent. The scope of the project has been expanded during the process and there is considerable time pressure to get the building completed in time to act as the media and broadcast centre for the Olympics and Paralympic Games. Changes have been made in the organization in an attempt to contain costs for the remainder of the project. So far, the $883-million figure has remained intact for about six months. The province of British Columbia is contributing $540.7 million to the project, with the federal government paying $222.5 million and Tourism Vancouver $90 million. Commercial revenues from the site are expected to raise $30 million and the federal government is putting in another $2 million for sustainability initiatives. The 1.1-million-square-foot addition to the existing convention centre is expected to draw some of the larger conventions that could not be accommodated in the existing facility to Vancouver.

Close to 60 projects are new to this year’s Top 100 list. They come from eight different provinces and the majority of them are in the energy, hospital/healthcare or transportation category. The majority of these projects are publicly financed. Of the total, 65 were financed by one or more layer of government, 12 were privately financed and the rest were one of the many forms of public-private partnership. There are clear indications that various levels of government are becoming more comfortable with public-private partnerships as they become more familiar with the way these arrangements work. They’re getting better at adapting P3s to meet their needs—witness Ontario’s use of them for its hospital projects—and they are likely to make up a larger portion of the Top 100 list in years to come.

A full index, broken down by province and project type and including further details on the financing and major players involved can be found in the top 100 supplement, which vIP readers and subscribers will find at the centre of this issue. to obtain a copy of the top 100, email [email protected]. visit top100projects.ca to submit projects for 2009's top 100 list.

10


The bridge will be financed by one or more private companies who will make their money back by charging a toll to cross the bridge. Transport Canada’s Mark Butler, who is working directly on the gateway project, says P3s save the government money, while helping out the private sector. “Simply put, P3s allow a government to use funds for other things that are not eligible for P3s, such as investing in health care and education,” he says. “It’s the best of both worlds. You can use private financing for design, build and operation, but at the same time, you maintain oversight and ownership of the project. So you have public oversight, yet you’re not using public funds to actually build the project.”

What makes the Detroit-Windsor corridor different is that it will be the first P3 for the state of Michigan. While the state hasn’t confirmed it’s fully on board with the P3

I t has taken seven years to get to this point, but Transport Canada says by this time next year, companies will be

bidding to build a new bridge linking the cities of Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan.

In between now and then, a lot of preliminary work is needed. The project involves four levels of government: the government of Ontario and the Canadian government, the U.S. government and the state of Michigan. Add a private corporation and coordinating this project becomes very complicated.

Transport Canada plans to use a public-private partnership to build the new gateway to the U.S. The six-lane bridge will have a dedicated lane for users of the NEXUS/FAST system to fast-track across the border. There will also be a number of toll plazas as part of the project, but Transport Canada has yet to determine how many.

concept, it has expressed interest to Transport Canada. “The state of Michigan doesn’t have a lot of experience with P3s. In fact, they would have to go through some legislation in order to allow a P3,” says Butler. “But I think Michigan is interested in P3s and is talking to the U.S. federal government about it.”

Butler says the preferred option is for one company to take charge of the entire project, which would be built both in Canada and the U.S. However, the state of Michigan might choose to hire a private company to work only on the portion of the bridge that would be in the U.S. Those details will be worked out next year.

In the meantime, Transport Canada plans to unveil the design of the project—and its estimated cost—in the spring. Design plans will detail which portion of the bridge will be on U.S. and Canadian soil. According to

transportation

Gateways and bridges are in need of renewal and financing -- P3s look like a preferred option.

By Jason Magder

MakinG a connEction

Photo:Transp

ortCanad

a

The Ambassador: This bridge, opened in 1929, is the busiest international border crossing in North America and part of a major project that made it to number 70 on our Top 100 list.


Butler, a request for proposals will be ready in about a year’s time.

This project is part of a $33 billion investment Canada’s government is making over a period of seven years, called Building Canada (see page 6). The program stipulates that any major project, in the range of $25 million and more, must consider a partnership with the private sector.

Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities Lawrence Cannon said in the coming years, many more major infrastructure projects will involve P3s. “Never has the winning combination of transportation and public-private partnerships been more promising than today – not only with the Detroit River crossing project, but with the full range of infrastructure development that will take place across the country as the Building Canada Plan rolls out over the coming years,” Cannon told the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships (CCPPP) during its 2007 national conference in Toronto (see page 49).

A look at Quebec’s newest projects would suggest that Cannon is right. Coming a little late to the game, Quebec has embraced partnerships in recent years. Two years ago,

the province committed to building two new superhospitals in Montreal through P3s. The combined total cost of those projects is expected to exceed $2 billion. Now, a new toll bridge linking the island of Montreal and the city of Laval to the north will be a P3. Construction of a 7.2 kilometre four-lane extension of Highway 25 between

Henri-Bourassa Boulevard in Montreal and Highway 440 in Laval, including a 1.2 kilometre six-lane bridge across the Rivière des Prairies, will cost around $400 million.

Joanne Devlin, a spokesperson for the province’s transport department, says the new bridge is desperately needed because the population of Laval, Quebec’s second-largest city, is booming. She says a P3 is the way to get this bridge built on time and on budget.

Earlier this year, the Quebec government completed work on a subway link from Laval to Montreal. The project (number six on last year's Top 10 List) cost about four times the original cost estimate.

Quebec’s first foray into P3s for roads was the Highway 25 extension. After a scathing report of the province’s infrastructure which

showed that almost half of both provincial and municipal overpasses are structurally deficient, Quebec announced it will spend $10 billion on its road network over the next five years. The province’s plans for massive investments in its bridges and highways will likely include more P3s.

Ontario is also making a sizeable investment in its infrastructure—$50 billion over the next 10 years. Amy Tang, a spokesperson for

“In the United Kingdom, the company hired to work on

part of its underground has gone bankrupt. The government

has had to pay out £2 billion. That’s a massive loss.”

—Toby Sanger

transportation


Ontario’s Minister for Public Infrastructure Renewal, David Caplan, says some upcoming projects may take the form of P3s, but the government has not yet decided what its policy on P3s will be with respect to this program. What she will say is that the government recognizes there are advantages to working with private companies.

But Toby Sanger, an economist with the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) cautions P3s don’t guarantee a project will cost less. In fact, he says there have been disastrous experiences around the world that show P3s don’t work. “In the United Kingdom, the company hired to work on part of its underground has gone bankrupt,” he says. “The government has had to pay out £2 billion. That’s a massive loss.”

Closer to home, Sanger says the city of Ottawa used P3s to provide two new sports facilities. Earlier this year, both companies went bankrupt, and the city had to prop up one of them with more money, and take over ownership of another facility.

Sanger says CUPE is against P3s because they’re not only bad for its members, but for Canada. “There is a lot of pressure for us to get into [P3s] also,” he says. “P3s are great for investors. They have low risk and high return. But the problem is that the public sector is getting ripped off on this and the price will be paid by future generations as well.” Sanger says requiring a guarantee by companies contracted out for public projects can guarantee that projects get built on budget and on time, and resorting to P3s is a lazy way for government to shirk its responsibility for the good management of building projects.

David McFadden, a Toronto lawyer who sits on the CCPPP board, disagrees. “The fact is governments have not been able to get projects done on time. P3s allow you to have as significant cost savings just because the project is being delivered on time and on budget.” The cost saving of completing projects on time usually makes up for the slightly higher borrowing costs in the private sector, he says.

McFadden points to the recent completion of Edmonton’s Ring Road in October, ahead of schedule, as a good indicator of the efficiency of P3s. He says, “The fact is there is an infrastructure crisis all over Canada. We’re a bit late, but we’ve started to makes massive investment, but none of that would be possible without P3s.”

Look for more on the P3 debate in our March/April issue To comment on P3s, email [email protected].

Jason Magder is a reporter for the Gazette newspaper in Montreal. he has been covering news in and around the city for six years.

transportation


with David Crombie about to issue

his report on the port of oshawa,

Miles Andrew Baker takes a look

at 20 years of forced inaction.

PoRt’S new aUThoriTy

At the moment, David Crombie controls Oshawa’s future. For the last 20 years, acres of port

land have been tied up in various legal states, leaving the city unable to revitalize its harbour front. Now Crombie will decree what belongs to whom, who needs to sell, and what the heck is going to happen to the Port of Oshawa.

“The issue is governance,” says Tom Hodgins, commissioner of development services for the City of Oshawa. “The city doesn’t own or control most of the land around the harbour. It’s controlled by the federal government and harbour commission. And it’s not a normal piece of property where private interests come in and follow the zoning bylaws.”

That’s where David Crombie steps in. The former mayor of Toronto, member of parliament and federal cabinet minister was appointed by Minister Cannon as a representative and facilitator of discussions around the divestiture of the Port of Oshawa. Hodgins says this is a positive step for the city—before this appointment, the municipality had nothing to do but wait for the federal government to act.

“Oshawa has had an active port since the 1930s,” says Paul Stewart, senior planner with the City of Oshawa. “On the west side there has been a number of industrial activities like storing coal and salt, and then, over time, the east wharf development occurred and it’s more actively used today.” But Stewart adds that, after a tour of the port, most would agree it’s underutilized.

In the early 1990s, the city began involving stakeholders in a rigorous planning process for a mixed-use harbour in Oshawa. The city brought the plans to the federal and provincial governments hoping that it would grease the wheels of progress—but it didn’t. Issues of control and ownership stalled implementation indefinitely. “What we’re planning to do now is resolve the

governance,” says Hodgins, “then we will re-engage the city because then we would be able to deliver on the vision.”

It’s not quite that simple. Any port in operation since the 1930s will have contamination issues, and this one is no different. Without the resolution of governance issues, there have been few environmental assessments, a critical step in the development process. But Hodgins isn’t worried about that—after all, Oshawa won a CUI Brownie award for best overall project earlier this year.

It’s in every party’s best interest to resolve the issues. Once they do, the federal government can unload land that they pay to maintain—the port divestiture program has already saved $270 million—and Oshawa gets the power it needs to start making more money for the federal government. Unfortunately, even after Crombie’s report is released later this month, an ideal, mixed-use harbour is a long way away. “We’re hopeful that we’ve inundated Mr. Crombie with enough information about the vibrant port we envision,” says Oshawa Mayor John Gray. “And we’re hopeful that his recommendations will be supported by the ministers in Ottawa.” Gray also hopes that other jurisdictions will support his plan to open up the redevelopment project to bids from the private sector. “That way we bring the best in the world to Oshawa and get it done quicker. Hodgins is confident that this project will move forward and realize the vision the city wants. “We don’t have a timeline, but it’s one of the municipality’s top two priorities.”

Miles Andrew baker works at reNew Canada. his last article, about energy efficient retrofits, appeared in the November/December 2007 issue. [email protected]

transportation


Transportation planners consider rapid rail as

an alternative to highway and even air travel.

CanaDa’S neeD For SPEED

In Europe and parts of Asia, high-speed, or rapid, rail has increasingly become an area of infrastructure investment

and development. Yet in Canada, rapid rail is a minimum of ten years away from operation—even if development started today. The most likely Canadian possibilities for future rapid rail transit are the Edmonton-Calgary, Quebec City-Montreal, Montreal-Ottawa, Ottawa-Toronto, Toronto-Windsor and Toronto-Montreal corridors.

While Japan is the originator of high-speed rail as it is known today, China recently catapulted into first place when more than 6,000 kilometres of lines opened in April 2007—more track lines than all the European countries combined.

The biggest barriers to Canada’s development of high-speed rail, according to Russell Goodman, managing partner, Transactions of Private Equity at PricewaterhouseCoopers, are market size, proximity, and cost and technology options.

“Our population centres are simply too small and too distant from each other to support the kind of ridership and investment that governments and private sector partners have typically been looking for,” says Goodman. “In the U.S. northeast, the high-speed corridor has a population of almost 50 million, and the cities are in fairly close proximity to each other. Compare this

to the Montreal-Toronto corridor, with its population of 10 to 12 million over a 500 kilometre distance, says Goodman. “This means that the project economics are highly challenging, and to date, insurmountable.”

Jay Ramotar, deputy minister of Transportation and Infrastructure in Alberta, says his government is currently looking at the feasibility of developing high-speed rail in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor (including Red Deer) but emphasizes that it is only at a preliminary stage. “We have done a high-level feasibility study and are still reviewing that work,” he says.

Depending on technology, a high-speed rail development can cost anywhere from $2-16 billion, he says. In a recent panel presentation at the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships’ annual conference, Ramotar presented four options for high-speed rail: the Talgo T21, the Acela/Jet, TGV and MagLev.

The Talgo T21, with speeds of 200 kilometres per hour, costs about $2 billion for a 300-kilometre track. MagLev—magnetic levitation trains—are the fastest high-speed rail technology and can go as fast as 500 kilometres per hour or more, but they’re also the most expensive with an average cost of $16 billion per 300 kilometres of track..

These pricey trains would be practical only for long distances such as Montreal-

Tres Grand Vitesse: TGV (French for fast train) is common in Europe. Fortune Magazine reported in November 2007 that ten European countries have high-speed track and if current projects are completed, they’ll have 9,300 miles by 2020—a tripling of today’s network at a cost of about $200 billion.

By Tanya Gulliver

transportation


tanya Gulliver is a freelance writer/grad student/community development consultant and university instructor in toronto, ontario.

Toronto. On the other hand, Goodman says development of rapid rail in closer proximity city pairs like Edmonton-Calgary, Quebec City-Montreal, Toronto-Windsor could allow for “significant displacement of the automobile and some displacement of air travel” with less financial impact.

According to Ramotar and Goodman, the benefits of high speed rail include reducing congestion on highways, reductions in CO2 emissions, the economic benefits of connecting big cities in the various corridors, delaying the need for expansion of the highways, and displacement away from crowded air traffic routes at prime times.

Ramotar believes that if Alberta moves forward with a high-speed rail project, it will do so in a public-private partnership as cost is such a significant challenge to development. The P3 model is one that he feels has been successfully used in Alberta in the development of ring roads. For high-speed rail the private sector would be responsible for designing and building infrastructure, plus financing the project, including purchasing the trains and maintaining and operating the system. The public sector’s role would include process development, feasibility studies and preliminary engineering, capital contributions as well as defining the corridor and acquiring the rights-of-way.

The latter, according to Goodman, is not well understood. “The high-speed options require dedicated rights-of-way, which cannot be shared with freight track,” he says. “Even if you could acquire pre-existing rights-of-way, all crossings would need to be elevated, even for farmers’ crossings that are rarely used. The higher the speed, the greater the land width needed for the corridor. This means acquiring lots of adjacent land, at least in some areas. In addition, there are significant jurisdictional issues that range from federal through to provincial and municipal.”

Ramotar says that any high-speed rail development is likely to take about five years for the government to purchase the rights-of-way and land needed for the corridor, and then another five years for the development of the tracks, purchases of the trains, and so on.

“That means a lot of different people must agree on a lot of different issues,” says Goodman. “Since they each have their own interests to protect, getting such a project done is very complicated indeed.”

transportation


inFRAStRUctURE FUnDS on The RiSE

The Macquarie Group, headquartered in Australia, was one of the first to recognize the opportunity for private sector investment in infrastructure assets back in 1996. Now,

more than 10 years later, this trend is exploding. Private equity firms are establishing specialized infrastructure

funds or groups. Goldman Sachs has committed more than US$6.5 billion in capital to its first infrastructure fund. The Carlyle Group has raised its first US$1.2 billion infrastructure fund, which will invest in transport and water projects in Canada and the U.S. Carlyle also formed a US$685 million renewable energy infrastructure fund with Riverstone Holdings. Morgan Stanley established an infrastructure group and announced that it was establishing an infrastructure fund. In February 2007, it agreed to acquire a significant interest in two Montreal container terminals. GE and Credit Suisse announced that they intend to establish a US$1 billion joint venture, Global Infrastructure Partners, to invest in infrastructure assets, and JPMorgan also established its own infrastructure group.

In Canada, Brookfield Asset Management recently formed its dedicated infrastructure fund, Brookfield Infrastructure Partners, and seeded it with some existing assets.

It’s not just big investment banks and asset managers looking for opportunities in this sector. Alinda Capital Partners, an independent, U.S.-based infrastructure fund managed by a group of former Citigroup employees, recently acquired UE Waterheater Income Fund in Canada.

Infrastructure funds will also be competing with another class of investor—pension funds. The infrastructure asset class offers long-term, inflation-indexed returns, which typically demonstrate

reFinance

By Krista F. Hill

stability over time—perfect for pension plans. Since 1999, Borealis Infrastructure has been identifying and managing infrastructure assets on behalf of OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System). Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan has been investing in infrastructure assets since 2001, and the CPP (Canadian Pension Plan) Investment Board formed an infrastructure group in 2006.

The growth of infrastructure funds, a trend that accelerated last year, will continue in 2008 and beyond. Private equity firms, seeing the success of other investors, will likely form their own specialized infrastructure funds or groups.

Most current infrastructure and pension funds focus on existing assets in OECD countries, but with more funds being raised and competition for infrastructure assets intensifying, these funds may look beyond the traditional definition of infrastructure to assets that have infrastructure-like characteristics and returns. Financing greenfield or brownfield developments might become the new trend.

As the trend grows, infrastructure funds will need to search further and wider afield for investment opportunities, including in emerging markets. Evidence of broadening horizons can be seen in the recent establishment of infrastructure funds focused solely on India by Blackstone Group, Citigroup and JP Morgan, among others.

Billions of dollars have been amassed to invest in infrastructure assets. Canada, with its stable government and low political risk, is well-positioned to continue the trend.

Krista F. hill is a partner in torys LLP’s Corporate Department and co-coordinator of its Infrastructure and energy Group.


When Ontario brought in its first planning act some 60 years ago, the goal was to instill some order

into post-war growth. This groundbreaking legislation not only set out basic ground rules and responsibilities for directing changes in land use, but was instrumental in launching planning as a professional discipline in the province. As the volume and pace of development increased, however, it wasn’t long before planners who relied on a well-thumbed copy of the Planning Act and a passing acquaintance with the Municipal Act found themselves overwhelmed with a plethora of new statutes designed to regulate natural resources, the environment and a host of other emerging issues. Complexity spawned specialization, which in turn encouraged a silo mentality among the institutions engaged in planning and development. Not the best way to tackle the challenges of sustainability.

how ontario’s

bill 51 launched a

quiet revolution in planning

Bill Power

By Glenn Miller

City building

The Construction Industry Voice

RCCAO25 North Rivermede Road, Unit 13

Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5V4

T he Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario was formed in late 2005 by bringing together major contractor associations and construction unions. Collectively, we aim

to facilitate dialogue and ensure that the voice of the construction industry is clearly heard and understood by key decision-makers. RCCAO will work with all levels of government to seek out solutions to a variety of challenges facing our industry and the communities that we build in. Encouraging more strategic infrastructure investment and seeking ways to fast-track priority infrastructure projects are primary objectives of this labour-management construction alliance.

RCCAO has most recently released “Ontario’s Bridges: Bridging the Gap” that conservatively estimated that $2 billion is required over the next five years to rehabilitate local bridges. The report urges the Ministry of Transportation to take a leadership role and review all municipal records to ensure that bridge inspections have been undertaken and acted on. Better asset management is required along with innovative solutions to tackle the growing problem of aging bridge infrastructure.

A number of other reports have been commissioned by RCCAO that will be released in early 2008: (1) Financing Public Transit and Transportation; (2) Streamlined Building Permit Processes and (3) Prioritization of Transportation Projects in the Toronto Region. The last report will provide a technical analysis of the MoveOntario 2020

announcement and is a follow-up report by Dr. Soberman of his 2006 report on Transportation Challenges in the GTA.

Two reports on Water and Sewer System Asset Management and Financing are available at RCCAO’s web site www.rccao.com.

The RCCAO is an alliance of:

• Greater Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association

• The Heavy Construction Association of Toronto

• Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association

• Toronto Residential Construction Labour Bureau

• The Residential Low Rise Forming Contractors Association of Metropolitan Toronto and Vicinty

• Residential Carpentry Contractors Association - RCCA

• L.I.U.N.A. Local 183

• Toronto and Area Road Builders Association

• Carpenters Union Central Ontario Regional Council

• Ontario Concrete & Drain Contractors Association

For more information please contact RCCAO’s executive director, Andy Manahan, at

[email protected] or by calling 905-760-7777


City building

The introduction of Bill 51 (the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006), which became law a year ago on January 1, 2007, promises to break down those silos, offering planners, developers and municipal officials alike the opportunity to work across disciplines and see their work more holistically.

The first hint that Bill 51 has been designed to deal differently with the planning agenda is the bold declaration in Section Two of the provincial interest in “development that is designed to be sustainable.” Beyond that, it identifies “sustainable design” as a defined term, throwing out a challenge to the planning profession while positioning itself to keep pace with the rapid transformation of the marketplace to accommodate greener development. In effect, the province is saying, “What does sustainable design mean? Well, we haven’t worked that out yet, but if what you are doing doesn’t work for us, we reserve the right to intervene.” While it’s still too early for this provision to have been tested, as public pressure builds to put some teeth into the concept of sustainability, this wording gives the government the option of weighing in on controversial plans that fail to measure up.

Although such subtleties may still lurk below the radar for the majority, Bill 51 changes everyday planning practice in three important areas. First, there is now a greater onus on municipalities to keep their plans and policies up to date. There are also provisions to make the approvals process more transparent and accessible.

Second, Bill 51 introduced reforms to the operations of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), including a provision that the Board must pay greater attention to provincial and municipal policies. The threshold for appeals to the OMB has been raised in a number of important areas. These include provisions for the definition of what constitutes a

“complete application,” potentially giving municipalities more control over their own destiny. They can now refuse to accept or consider a development application until all required background reports have been received. Municipalities also get to dictate what is required, although developers can seek Board direction on this point.

Third, the act controversially gives municipalities the ability to regulate built form during the site plan approval process. This gives urban designers the opportunity to dictate the character, scale, appearance and design of structures, although the OMB continues to reject urban design guidelines that have not been enshrined as council

in effect, the province is saying, “what does

sustainable design mean? well, we haven’t worked

that out yet, but if what you are doing doesn’t work

for us, we reserve the right to intervene.”


watertreatment.ca

Complete coverage, completely water.

TREATMENTCanada’s Complete Water Magazine

In print or online.

The ontario Professional

Planners institute questions

whether new municipal powers,

like conditional zoning,

are too open ended.

Statement. Several organizations fear the law of unintended consequences. OPPI, for example, questions whether new municipal powers such as conditional zoning are too open ended, particularly with respect to the regulation of natural features.

Perhaps the strongest language is reserved for some of the provisions related to energy: the Pembina Institute cites exemptions of energy-related projects from the Planning Act as a problem, largely because provisions in the Environmental Assessment Act could see energy projects proceeding without adequate oversight from either statute. Still, since the “supply, efficient use and conservation of energy” is now enshrined as a matter of provincial interest in the Planning Act, as the province continues to search for new ways to expand energy generation, necessity might well take priority over mitigation.

Overall, however, the response to Bill 51 has been overwhelmingly positive. Heavyweight organizations such as the Toronto Board of Trade, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and even representatives of the development industry have found good things to say about the new legislation—although real estate and homebuilder organizations continue to fret about the impact of increased provincial control over planning and development on prices. In southern Ontario, where municipalities are settling in to the challenge of updating official plans to accommodate the Growth Plan, the next big challenge will be to find the dollars to implement the province’s commitment to intensification.

policy in official plans. The innovative aspect of this new provision is an opening to include “sustainable design” features as required elements. Taken together with other expanded powers, such as the ability to address building orientation for the sake of solar gain and the option of including energy investments as allowable costs in community improvement plans, this potentially advances the cause of conservation and integrated energy planning.

Municipalities have also been given greater say in determining and protecting built form boundaries, as well as tools to help respond to infrastructure investments funded by the province. New tools to encourage intensification include the power to establish minimum heights and densities, conditional zoning and the ability to introduce tax increment financing and grant programs. The quid pro quo is a greater emphasis on protecting employment lands in the face of pressure to allow residential development. The toolbox has also been expanded to allow the use of conservation easements to achieve environmental and watershed management goals.

Not everyone is this enthusiastic. The Ontario Home Builders Association (OHBA) is on record with concerns about the potential for lengthier approval times. Although the OHBA applauds efforts to streamline and improve the quality of OMB decisions (the act addresses the need to upgrade the qualifications and compensation for Board members, for example), the increased complexity and extra workload for the Board could prove counter productive, the association suggests. A number of organizations, like the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, have articulated concerns about the provisions to protect employment lands and associated challenges in terms of compatibility with other legislation like the Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy

Glenn Miller, FCIP, rPP, is director of education and research with the Canadian urban Institute in toronto. he is also editor of the ontario Planning Journal, the professional practice magazine of the ontario Professional Planners Institute. Glenn is a frequent contributor to reNew Canada.

City building


while citizens enjoy a 1 per cent GST reduction, cities are still looking for funding.

FUELLinG CanaDa’S EconoMic EnGinE

Unprecedented. That’s the word being used in every speech about the federal government’s $33 billion

investment in Canada’s infrastructure. And it is. But that’s not helping local governments feel better about their cities’ aging bridges and water pipes. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) is warning that the nation’s road and bridge network is near collapse. Their frequent reports have watched the municipal infrastructure deficit snowball from $44 billion 10 years ago to $60 billion and now, according to their most recent report, $123 billion. The report, called Danger Ahead, found not only are municipal governments lacking essential infrastructure, but they don’t have the tax base to develop it.

Mayors across Canada have been more than vocal about the need for more federal support and a bigger share of tax revenues.

Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities Lawrence Cannon says the new Building Canada plan is a direct

response to the concerns of municipal leaders, as articulated by the FCM. “When [FCM] released their last report they said the deficit was $60 billion; the plan is in response to that,” says Cannon. In meetings following the release of Budget 2006, FCM presented a deficit of $60 billion and asked for more predictable, flexible funding. Cannon says his government has delivered.

Cannon calculated that with private sector investment, and provincial and municipal contributions, the value-added effect of the $33 billion should come out to between $50-and-$60 billion.

To provide more stable funding, the gas tax rebate has been extended to 2014—the House of Commons just adopted a motion to make it permanent. Cannon says they’ve also given cities the independence they wanted by making rules less stringent and complex. “The federal government puts in 25 cents out of every dollar and doesn’t get involved in gas tax transfers,” he says.

Base funding for cities—$25 million per year per jurisdiction for seven years—is also adaptable, says Cannon. “The province gives us a description of their infrastructure plan and identifies projects and we accept that they’ve done the due diligence,” he says. “We don’t get involved with how allocated funding is spent by cities. We just send the cheque and they execute their plan.”

But local leaders say they’re still waiting on those cheques. Mississauga’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program is McCallion’s model example of stalled funding. “BRT was announced in April,” she says. “It’s now December and still there’s no money flowing.” When she asked Cannon, he told her funding was approved in April. McCallion says, “I told him: no, it was announced in April, then you forced us into a lengthy negotiation.”

And so the argument comes around to red tape. Mississauga finally signed the contract for the BRT project in mid-December, but it’s

By Mira Shenker

City building

Illustration:Rob

inWattie


still contingent on the signing of a separate agreement between Canada and Ontario. That cheque won’t be sent until the province signs—a risk McCallion says Mississauga isn’t willing to take. “They want us to spend the money and hope. It’s a farce,” she says.

Negotiations and contracts for large-scale projects are bound to be complex, but McCallion says governments should do their homework before making flashy announcements, then follow through without letting bureaucracy slow down the process.

At last November’s CCPPP conference, Minister Cannon said, in Toronto’s case, the holdup is at the municipal level. He said funding for Toronto announced in 2004 has been in limbo because of the city’s refusal to sign an agreement that had it paying $20 million into GO Transit’s corporate business plan. “I wouldn’t call them arduous or not” said Cannon when asked about negotiations with the city, “it just seems to be more difficult in Ontario.”

While funding for large-scale projects may get tied up, Infrastructure Canada’s Gerry Maffre says money is consistently flowing to municipalities. Cities get a cheque every quarter from the gas tax fund.

But Laval Mayor Gilles Vaillancourt says

the last amount received by Laval from the gas tax rebate is still “not enough to correct the situation.” A study released last February by the Conference Board of Canada called Mission Possible says Canadian cities are facing a fiscal crisis: they collect less than 12 per cent of all money raised by government, yet they’re asked to take on more services and cope with rising populations.

When downloading is coupled with an estimated federal surplus of $6.4 billion (for the first three months of the 2007-08 fiscal year) mayors start venting to the media. Media favourite McCallion says, “We were hoping that Minister Flaherty’s economic statement would have a large contribution for cities but instead it included breaks in income tax and corporate tax.”

Half of the Building Canada Plan’s $33 billion is actually for cities. While

that may be “unprecedented,” it’s not impressing local governments who want to increase their tax base. On December 3, Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien and a group of city councillors marched to Parliament Hill as a message to the federal government to transfer a 1 per cent GST reduction, meant for Canadian citizens, directly to municipalities or via the

provincial government—a demand in line, ideologically, with Toronto Mayor David Miller’s aggressive but unsuccessful One Cent Now campaign. Quebec mayors are also lobbying for the power to claim that 1 per cent of the GST forfeited by the feds.

Most vocal of all has been McCallion. The papers have also covered her frequent lambasting of the Harper government, favouring her for a TKO in the final round against Flaherty.

“We don’t get involved with how allocated funding

is spent by cities. We just send the cheque and they

execute their plan.” —Lawrence Cannon

City building


But Cannon says no such boxing match is being held. “There’s no big hiccup; from a governmental perspective everything is normal,” he says. “We now have four jurisdictions that have signed the agreement [for the Building Canada plan]. We’re moving a month at a time in terms of agreements.” He says the increased media coverage is partly the result of the high volume of projects moving forward in the area Greater Golden Horseshoe in Ontario. “I don’t view this as being at odds or at loggerheads,” says Cannon.

Neither does McCallion. “What the local media is doing is trying to bring to citizens’ attention the great need for infrastructure funding, whatever the level of government,” she says. During a discussion about infrastructure financing at last October’s Toronto Forum for Global Cities (see page 49), the Toronto Board of Trade’s Carol Wilding said, “There isn’t the revenue available to do the job—we need a mayor to tell people that.” It looks like McCallion is up to that challenge, and she’s doing it through the press. She’s convinced the way to reach the federal government is to first reach the people, and says her Cities Now campaign gets taxpayers on the federal and provincial governments’ backs—“and that’s when

they’ll listen.” She says, “In Mississauga, we’ve taken the issues to the people and said, look: this government is giving you a tax break and we have to take back some of it in order to invest in infrastructure that’s needed to keep your quality of life at a reasonable level.”

Vaillancourt, who also represents the Quebec Coalition for Infrastructure Renewal, says, “The population knows this is an urgent situation and they’re willing to pay.” According to a recent poll by his coalition, infrastructure is now a number one priority for Quebequers. For 98 per cent of respondents it’s ahead of healthcare, education and the economy.

Cannon says infrastructure is also a high priority for the federal government, and now

that FCM has released a new report, he’ll meet with them again to problem-solve.

If the FCM—and cities—get their way, it will mean a bigger piece of tax revenues—that’s what The Conference Board’s 2007 report recommends. But the report also calls on cities to better manage the money

they’re already raising. If the federal government agrees, they’ll have to keep it to themselves. “I have an arms-length relationship with municipalities and I don’t question whether they’ve made the right decisions,” says Cannon. Unfortunately for him, that doesn’t go both ways.

City building

Mira Shenker is the editor of this magazine. to weigh in on this ongoing discussion, email [email protected]

“In Mississauga, we’ve taken the issues to the people

and said, look: this government is giving you a tax

break and we have to take back some of it in order to

invest in infrastructure.” —Hazel McCallion


Brownfield and Impaired Real Estate

Terrasan management assesses each brownfield or urban renewal site and initiates economic studies, environmental engineering, remedial action planning and architectural design to strengthen the viability of the project. Detailed consultations are carried out to align the redevelopment plan with the municipal objectives. Terrasan addresses each redevelopment site for its uniqueness to the community, the economics, and the future revitalized outcome.

Terrasan Corporation

Terrasan Environmental Solutions Inc

94 Brockport Drive Toronto, ON Canada M9W 5C5

Phone 416.201.9982 Toll Free 1 866 84-TERRA

Foundations for Urban Renewal

Terrasan Corporation is a privately owned property development company that focuses on urban renewal, impaired, and brownfield real estate. With its seasoned management team, Terrasan Corporation identifies, acquires, and develops environmentally or geotechnically impaired properties and brings about well planned

Terrasan works with municipalities, land owners, banks, and real estate investors to implement environmental remediation solutions within all urban renewal and brownfield land parcels. The specific business case brings the investment strategy for market redevelopment. Terrasan’s investment forms the foundation for the re-development master plan including vibrant new residential communities, mixed use commercial and industrial projects.

Terrasan Corporation creates vibrant new communities and integrates the investment strategy with municipal economic development and community sustainability goals.

Terrasan Corporation revitalizes urban clusters, brownfields, waterfront and marine properties and reinforces the economic development goals of a the community. Terrasan bridges the old industrial uses to vibrant new mixed use and commercial investments that bring and reinforce economic renewal.

and architecturally advanced urban renewal projects that revitalize contemporary urban communities.

Terrasan Corporation has allocated capital to purchase, remediate and develop derelict, idle, underutilized, and brownfield properties and it assumes a lead role in new urban economic development.

Community Profile

Community Profile is a new column that features different Canadian communities and their infrastructure issues.

okoTokS, alberTaThe Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) calls okotoks the model municipality for sustainability in Canada.

The Town of Okotoks was one of the first m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n

the world to establish growth targets linked to infrastructure d eve l o p m e n t a n d t h e environmental carrying capacity of the Sheep River. When it adopted a Municipal Development Plan (MDP) in September 1998, carrying capacity (the ability to draw water, infuse treated effluent based on provincial regulations) was identified as approximately 30,000 people. A build-out municipal boundary was established, with a comprehensive set of targets and initiatives identified to ensure build-out population could be reached in an environmentally, economically, socially, and fiscally healthy way.

Okotoks joined the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program in 2000. A partnership between FCM and international association ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability), PCP is a network of 151 Canadian municipal governments who have committed to reducing greenhouse gases and acting on climate change.

Photo:Tow

nofOkotoks

Founded: 1904

Population: 17,145

Capital budget: $37.7 million (2007)

Major industries: None

employers: Town of Okotoks and School Division

Awards: In 2000, Okotoks won the FCM Sustainable Communities Award in the planning category, for its sustainable community plan. In 2006, it won in the energy category.

• All municipal buildings have been retrofitted, reducing energy consumption by 30 per cent. Eco-efficient features are now standard for new facility design.

• The leading municipal user of certified renewable energy sources in Alberta—the town participated in the AUMA Energy Aggregate Program in 2004, buying 80 per cent of its energy from renewable sources.

• The Drake Landing Solar Community, a 52-home subdivision, incorporates solar seasonal storage technology.

• A newly expanded and upgraded wastewater treatment plant goes beyond current Alberta environmental standards.

FCM Funding: In 2002 and 2003, Okotoks sent their CAO, Richard Quail, to participate in the Community Energy Missions, where he was inspired by many ideas and decided to apply them to the community. In order to finance a feasibility study of his ideas, Okotoks submitted a funding request to the FCM’s Green Municipal Fund (GMF). “FCM funding in the initial phase for the project feasibility was instrumental in helping us to fund that financial gap,” says Quail. The Town received $100,000 in 2003

to pilot a 50-home seasonal solar district heating demonstration project. Because of the favourable results of that study, the town applied again and received over $2.4 million in 2004 for a capital project to demonstrate the concept of solar seasonal storage technology in a 74-home subdivision.

richard Quail says: “FCM funding in the initial phase for the project feasibility was instrumental in helping us to fund that financial gap.”

infraStats

Find out more: okotoks.ca, iclei.org, sustainablecommunities.fcm.ca —staff


Part one of this series dealt with the need to move towards an externally-focused structure, and presented an

alternative reporting structure to city council that would promote this external focus within the organization. This structure, in turn, would provide the proper links between the triumvirate made up of the community, elected officials and the bureaucracy. It was concluded that the traditional focus on technical and financial advancements was insufficient, and that structural reform needed greater scrutiny to deliver high-quality services.

Part two of this series dealt with the next logical step: how do you get individual

departmental silos, traditionally based on professions like planning, finance and engineering to work together in the new environment required by the current AM challenges? The concept of the A2C2 Factor was introduced: Accountability and Authority, Control and Communication. Policies and procedures put huge demands on senior management’s limited resources and lead to a structure that becomes more internalized over time. Even if the organizational structure was changed at the council and staff levels to a form similar to the one described in part one, the benefits would not be optimized if the service delivery model remains essentially

as it exists today. It was concluded that traditional organizational structures do not address the A2C2 Factor appropriately.

Part three deals with the most visible component of AM: money. It’s worthwhile here to repeat a mantra that is unfortunately not widely recognized in the world of AM: assets primarily exist to provide a service. By extension, AM should therefore be focused on service and levels of service, with an appropriate balance of risk management and criticality.

It all starts with money and ends with money: first you budget, then you spend—to deliver services. These are two distinct processes, and we must differentiate between

waTCh yoUr ASSEtSLeo Gohier is back with the final instalment of his three-part

series on organizational structures and policies.


the two. Although this sounds pretty obvious, most often these are considered the beginning and the end of a single financial process since the same people involved in defining and controlling the budgeting process are also the same people controlling and monitoring the spending of that budget. And yet, the former (budgeting) is an internally-driven process while the latter (spending) is purely externally-driven, such as delivering a service to the public. Should the rules around funding and spending be broken? No, they should be rewritten.

issues with the

traditional budgeting

process

• Based on planned expenditures, not planned outcomes

• Provides poor value to managers as expenditures are made

• Too rigid and prevents fast response

• Stifles strategy and innovation

• Focuses on stabilizing expenditures, not timely investments and stable revenues

• Focuses on figures, not service and Levels of Service

• Limited room, if any, for long-term and life-cycle strategies

“We know in our hearts that we

are in the world for keeps; yet we

are still tracking twenty-year

problems with five-year plans,

staffed with personnel working

with one-year appropriations.”

—Harlan Cleveland

• Time-consuming and expensive

• Confrontational rather than consensus-based

• Negates accountability of service providers

• Lack of sense of ownership, influence and control by operating managers

• Preserves historic costs rather than meeting actual demands

• Internalized (process-oriented) rather than service-based

traditional Budgeting

Following the money process helps determine how well it addresses the A2C2 Factor. The traditional budgeting process is a cat-and-mouse game, with one party trying to control expenditure levels while the other party tries to get the funding required to deliver the same level of service as the previous year.

American diplomat, educator and author Harlan Cleveland was right when he stated that: “We know in our hearts that we are in the world for keeps; yet we are still tracking twenty-year problems with five-year plans, staffed by two-year personnel working with one-year appropriations. It’s simply not good enough.”


It just changes the rules by which delivery of services is provided. As a result, managers are now evaluated on performance measures that are externally focused, like outcomes, rather than how well they followed internal policies and procedures. This, in and of itself, requires a major restructuring and cultural shift within the organization. Do rules need to be broken? No, they need to be rewritten.

The main debate of “centralization vs. decentralization” needs to be reviewed in light of putting “service” first, that is, the service itself and not the asset that supports that service. Policies and procedures surrounding financial planning and spending need to reflect this external focus on service delivery, if we are to meet the significant infrastructure challenges that await us in the future. This requires a major shift in culture, authority, accountability, and commitment.Details about Beyond Budgeting at bbrt.org and renewcanada.net.

Does an alternative exist? Yes, but it requires a dramatic shift in organizational culture and structure. It is called the “Beyond Budgeting” approach, or BB for short. It is an ongoing performance improvement process that measures where you were, where you are and, more importantly, where you are going. It is focused on the client, the customer, the taxpayer, the recipient of the service or the resident of the community. It reflects what people want, need and expect, by making resources available in a timely and sensitive manner. These all sound like very noble goals, but how can they be achieved in real life when the current structure is fundamentally based on internal controls? By delegating, decision-making and authority.

Traditionally, delegation is found within a strict regime of compliance and control. Under BB, power is transferred from central service silos to the people actually delivering the services. Operating managers and their teams now have the authority to use judgment and initiative as required by the ever-changing nature of their clientele, the challenges they face and the service that they offer. They are not constrained by some specific plan or agreement, and they are judged by the outcomes of their decisions and not how well they followed internal protocols and processes. In other words, they are enabled

Leo Gohier has a Civil engineering degree as well as a Public Administration degree. he has successfully developed and implemented programs focused on building sustainable communities and continues to do so at IDx Inc. visit renewcanada.net for pdfs of all three articles in this series.

and encouraged to make decisions on the spot rather than being dictated to and directed. This shifts accountability to the service provider (where it should be) by providing the necessary tools and autonomy required to get the job done as easily as possible, as a result of having an organizational structure that is externally focused and has a better balance between accountability and authority.

Simply put, accountability is determined by the rules of engagement. If controls come before service delivery, there can be little room for creativity and flexibility when required in real life. Basically, it becomes a question of following the rules, or else you can’t do what you should be doing or it is difficult and time-consuming to do so. Under this scenario, it is not only unfair but really impossible to level accountability at anyone.

If controls come after service delivery (for instance) accountability can be assigned since there is authority and flexibility to do what needs to be done.

It should be noted that this does not mean that operating managers automatically get a blank cheque to do as they please. There are obviously legislative requirements that must be met, as well as a required transparency in the use of public funds. However, BB does not necessarily throw a cover over transparency.


In the past three issues of ReNew Canada, this column has provided readers sneak peeks into content from my new book,

Rewealth! (McGraw-Hill, April 2008). This column will cap that four-part series with an insight that could greatly increase the success of many projects or programs. It’s an emerging community revitalization organizational model I refer to as a “renewal engine.”

The importance of understanding renewal engines varies depending on the player. For a private redeveloper of property, or someone who renews infrastructure for a living,

helping communities create renewal engines could mean greater profitability. Creating renewal engines could help representatives of regional or provincial agencies focused on economic growth or environmental improvement more efficiently implement plans at the community level. Communities that create their own local renewal engines could end up with rapid, resilient renewal.

All four of these columns deal with universals: key factors that can drive revitalization in any community, of any size, anywhere in the world.

This column is about the “universal model”—how communities effectively organize their revitalization activities. Making decisions according to renewal rules will help keep the focus on renewal rather than sprawl, which boosts a community’s economy and quality of life simultaneously. The rules help ensure that renewal happens in an integrated manner to achieve efficiencies and synergies, and that business, government, academic, NGO, and citizen stakeholders are engaged. But rules are only rules: reliable processes turn them into solutions.

The renewal enGine

StormWatch

By Storm Cunningham

Cultural Resource: The Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, Spain, was part of the city’s renewal engine.

Photo:G

uggenheimB

ilbaoM

useum


Those processes are creating a shared vision of your community’s future; creating a culture that attracts and nurtures redevelopment and restorative investment; and creating partnerships for projects that help the community achieve its vision.

These three processes need a home. Creating a renewal culture of policies and regulations that favor renewal over sprawl requires sustained effort, and partnering requires a forum where potential partners can explore potential projects in private, and the community can be assured that those projects will reference their vision.

The ideal home for these solution creating processes is a renewal engine. It’s a model that has been emerging for some two decades, starting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in the mid-1980s. Bilbao, Spain created the model again in the early 1990s, and dozens of other communities have done likewise since then. But none of them had a template to work from. Each created theirs from scratch, using intuition and common sense, rather than guidelines. As a result, none was designed or managed perfectly.

My studies of these spectacular revitalization successes revealed both their best practices and their mistakes. In Rewealth! I’ve compiled the best of each into an ideal, universal model and provided insights into the best ways to manage such efforts for the long term. The rules, processes, and model outlined in these past four columns might sound complicated, but they are the simplest success principles behind the messy, often-contentious practice of achieving rapid, resilient renewal of a community or region.

Here’s the basic template for a renewal engine. It should be permanent: if you want your renewal to be resilient, your renewal engine must be there for the long term. It should be non-profit and public-private: for-profit public-private redevelopment companies have a valuable place in the scheme of things, but they are not renewal engines. The public must take psychological ownership of the organization, and that requires a non-for-profit model. Lastly, it should be apolitical: elected leaders must be effectively engaged, but the renewal engine must not be dependent on them.

The presence of a renewal engine gives provincial and federal agencies a way to efficiently implement their plans and programs at the community level in a way that involves all stakeholders, and all aspects of the community, from natural resources, to cultural resources and infrastructure; it gives private redevelopers

and real estate investors a safer and more efficient environment for their activities. No longer will they fear an election outcome, or worry that a project might be cancelled or delayed at the last minute by a stakeholder (like an environmental or heritage group) that wasn’t properly engaged from the beginning. A renewal engine can speed approvals, thus boosting return on investment and safety simultaneously. Those qualities can make a community a money magnet for restorative development.

The rules, processes and model outlined here are not a revitalization plan: that

requires professional designers, planners and partners. What a properly designed and managed renewal engine does is imbue a community or region with an enhanced capacity to renew itself.

Storm Cunningham is the author of The Restoration Economy (2002) and ReWealth! he is Ceo of the resolution Fund and founder of revitalization Institute. [email protected]

StormWatch


Green technology goes vertical

The practice of planting ivy to climb up the walls of buildings has existed for centuries. Now, the trend

towards sustainability and green building practices can lead to the development and use of living walls as a means of filtering and improving a building’s indoor air quality. Green walls are a living, breathing, regenerating type of cladding that can be as simple as a living art installation or as complex as a biological air filter.

The first category of living walls is simply a vertical garden with all the benefits customary to a garden. Green walls, both indoors and out, decrease local CO2, increase local humidity, trap dust, reduce noise and create a habitat for urban wildlife. Interior green walls can boost morale and productivity. The fresher indoor atmosphere keeps building occupants more alert and create a feeling of overall health. Exterior

green wall installations reduce solar gain (the entrapment of heat by passive solar gain on the building surface) and, by extension, building energy costs; provide protection from the effects of UV radiation and acid rain; and help lessen the building’s contribution to the heat island effect (when forest is replaced with concrete and asphalt, causing urban centres to become warmer than nature areas).

The second major category of living wall goes beyond these basic benefits by employing microbes within the planting substrate as a bio-filtering mechanism that removes potentially harmful hydrocarbons from a building’s ambient air. The bio-filtration system is structurally similar to the first type but is a closed loop system, controlling the circulation of the indoor air through the building’s mechanical equipment. Airborne, potentially harmful

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are drawn through the vegetative wall and then metabolized by microbes that naturally exist within the plant roots and planting medium before being re-circulated throughout the building. Plant species are specifically chosen for their VOC metabolic prowess and CO2 and water are the by-products of the decomposition process.

Although the technology of biofiltration has been around for at least three decades, the practical application of green walls is a relatively new technology, so it’s not entirely trusted or proven. Alan Darlington and Michael Dixon, founders of Air Quality Solutions, have worked at correcting the historic problems of invading mosses and the clogging of porous lava rock by eliminating the use of moss and changing the base wall material. They’ve also decreased problems associated with high local humidity by

By Eddie Wu and Ashley Smith

Images:TheH

OK

Build

ingGroup

Exterior Decorating: Musee du Branly in Paris

the science behind the ivy: a living wall schematic


changing from a misting to a drip water distribution system. They’ve been able to prove that continuous operation of a green wall doesn’t increase the amount of spores and allergens in the air, an issue that was a major roadblock to commercial success.

Despite the technical advances and positive findings of Darlington and Dixon it does not appear that there has been a dramatic increase in green wall installation over the past decade. Given the vitality of the environmental movement and the public acknowledgement that traditional HVAC filtering systems do not do much to alleviate sick building syndrome, it’s surprising that living walls have made little headway. It’s also surprising that outdoor green walls are not more prevalent given that it’s common knowledge they increase insulation and reduce building energy costs while providing an urban habitat and an aesthetically pleasing cladding system.

Arguably it’s the building designer’s responsibility to educate themselves and the client about the green wall systems and move passed this apparent hesitance to work with this technology.

WHERE tHE GREEn WALLS LiVECanada life assurance building Toronto, ontario built: 1994 naturairaire.com

University of Guelph-humber Gielph, ontario built: 2006 ooguelph.ca/atguelph

nidus Centre St. louis, Missouri built: 1996 labs21century.gov

Musée du quai branly Paris, France built: 2006 inhabitat.com

eddie Wu is a senior landscape architect and an industry-leading advocate of sustainable design solutions at the hoK Planning Group in toronto.

Ashley Smith is a landscape architect focused on

environmentally sustainable projects at the hoK Planning

Group in toronto.


tHE LEED® LiSt SPonSoreD by

This column reports on new leeD®-certified projects in Canada using information from the CaGbC. leeD® is administered by the Canada Green building Council. cagbc.ca.

This column sponsored by halsall. halsall’s purpose-driven approach to sustainability consulting focuses on connecting each client’s success factors to practical solutions. with our solid technical foundation, we provide green advice for forward-thinking building, community and policy development. halsall.com

4 nEW LEED® cERtiFicAtionS Total leeD® Projects in Canada: 88 5 Platinum, 33 Gold, 30 Silver, 20 Certified

certified: november 6, 2007, leeD® Canada-nC 1.0 Platinum

owner: Toronto and region Conservation authority

LEED® consultant: enermodal engineering ltd.

toronto and Region conservation, Restoration Services centre

Project highlights include an energy cost performance of 66 per cent better than the Model National Energy Code for Buildings. Exemplary performance in green power is achieved. Indoor potable water use is reduced by 80 per cent through composting toilets, waterless urinals and low-flow lavatories. Over 50 per cent FSC certified wood is used. Excellent indoor environmental quality is achieved through CO2 monitoring, increased ventilation, low-emitting materials, occupant controllability and other strategies.

certified: october 15, 2007, leeD® Canada-nC 1.0 Platinum

owner: University of Calgary, Campus infrastructure

LEED® consultant: Green building Services

child Development centre, University of calgary

Project highlights include an energy cost performance of 66 per cent better than the Model National Energy Code for Buildings. Continued energy performance is ensured through best practice commissioning and implementation of measurement and verification strategies. Indoor potable water use is reduces by over 55 per cent through dual-flush toilets, waterless urinals and low-flow lavatories, and grey water reuse. Indoor environmental quality is optimized through construction air quality management, CO2 monitoring, increased ventilation, low emitting materials, improved thermal comfort and many other strategies.

certified: october 5, 2007, leeD® Canada-nC 1.0 Platinum

owner: enermodal engineering ltd.

LEED® consultant: enermodal engineering ltd.

Enermodal Engineering Limited, calgary office

Project highlights include optimized energy performance through a reduced lighting power density of greater than 35 per cent below ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2004 standards (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers energy standards for buildings); achieving daylight responsive controls in all regularly occupied spaces within 4.5 metres of windows; and using ENERGY STAR® rated products for more than 90 per cent of eligible equipment and appliances. Over 60 per cent of materials were regional and a composting program was set up for organic food waste. Indoor environmental quality was achieved through many strategies including low-emitting material, construction IAQ management plan and controllability of systems.

certified: october 4, 2007, leeD® Canada-nC 1.0 Goldowner: alberta infrastructure and Transportationtenant: alberta Tourism, Parks, recreation and Culture, Tyrrell Field Station at Dinosaur Provincial ParkLEED® consultant: Designworks architecture

Dinosaur Provincial Park Expansion

Project highlights include an energy cost performance of 41 per cent better than the Model National Energy Code for Buildings. Indoor potable water use was reduced by over 50 per cent through waterless urinals, dual-flush toilets and low-flow aerators. Over 60 per cent of the materials used are regional. Indoor environmental quality was achieved through multiple strategies, including construction air quality management, low-emitting materials, controllability of systems, and green housekeeping. The project also involves reuse of an existing building structure.

Photo:A

lbertaTourism

ParksR

ecreationandC

ultureP

hoto:Rob

ertLemerm

eyer

Photo:Tom

Arb

an


reevents

ontARio EconoMic SUMMit noVEMBER 13-15– niAGARA-on-tHE-LAKEBill Clinton focused his opening remarks on the need for a sense of urgency—a call that was echoed in every session of this three-day summit. The panel on the infrastructure challenge, moderated by ReNew Canada’s editor Mira Shenker, was no exception. The discussion centred on steps industry players can take to expedite infrastructure renewal. The summit buzzword was “partnership.” Collaboration between all levels of government, all sectors and stakeholders and all countries is needed to take on the unprecedented challenges we’re facing globally. Details at occ-oes.com.

the Infrastructure Panel, from left: Marvin Devries (trojan technologies), Perrin beatty (Canadian Chambre of Commerce), William Spurr (bombardier), David Livingston (Infrastructure ontario).

Photo:O

CC

DoW JonES inFRAStRUctURE SUMMit noVEMBER 14 — nEW YoRKReNew Canada publisher Todd Latham moderated an international panel of finance experts at the Dow Jones Private Equity Analyst Infrastructure Summit. Over the course of the one-day event, over 140 delegates discussed a wide variety of private investment strategies and case studies on U.S. and foreign infrastructure projects. Latham’s panel, Lessons Learned: The View from Abroad, focused on sharing gained knowledge from successful (and unsuccessful) infrastructure investments in Canada, Australia and Europe and the huge opportunities that are available in the nascent U.S. market. Details at infrastructure.dowjones.com.

Photo Left: Steven Feldman, Co-head, Infrastructure Group, Goldman Sachs & Co. (right) being interviewed by Jon hilsenrath of the Wall Street Journal on the investment bank’s decision to raise a $6.5 billion infrastructure fund.

Photos:D

owJones

Photo right: Publisher todd Latham speaks to George Fowlie of Westwind Partners Inc. and robert Stevens of trident holdings (left to right) about a $300 million deep water container terminal and logistics park being developed within the Melford Industrial reserve located on the Strait of Canso, Nova Scotia. Construction begins this spring.


Photo:E

milyG

ove

the CCPPP’s Jane Peatch talks to reNew Canada's ray blumenfeld, todd Latham and Mira Shenker while Canadian Water treatment editor John Nicholson chats with John Willms of Willms & Shier, LLP.

Photo:E

milyG

oveP

hoto:Em

ilyGove

the reNew Canada party fills Gilbert's LLP space on the fifth floor of toronto's historic Flatiron building.

reevents

REnEW cAnADA’S AnnUAL PARtY noVEMBER 29 – toRontoThanks to the over 200 people who came out to the Flatiron Building in Toronto to help us celebrate our second anniversary. We’ll be choosing a new venue for next year’s party as we seem to have outgrown this one. This year, the ReNew Canada team is moving to a new office space and taking on international infrastructure news and projects. Look for our e-newsletter to start showing up in your inbox, and visit the newly relaunched renewcanada.net for exclusive subscriber only content and resources. Oh, and Happy ReNew Year.

ccPPP nAtionAL conFEREncE noVEMBER 26-27 – toRontoThe Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships (CCPPP) couldn’t have asked for a better turnout to their 15th annual conference. In fact, attendance was so high they had to create an overflow room. Ministers Lawrence Cannon and Jim Flaherty made predictable speeches—both cited P3s as a key element in rebuilding and renewing Canada’s infrastructure. Cannon spoke mostly about the Building Canada plan and the need to invest in, among other assets, gateways and border crossings. Flaherty referenced a recent poll conducted by the CCPPP showing that 63 per cent of Canadians believe the private sector can play a role in helping provide funding for badly-needed infrastructure. Most attendees were happy to hear both ministers talk positively about P3s, although TD Securities’ Doug Turnbull said he’d like to see less talk and more action from the feds. “I’d like to see more project flow,” said Turnbull; “less squabbling over whose fault [the infrastructure gap] is and more RFPs.” Details at pppcouncil.ca.

Photo:D

avidLee

bruce Miller (Morrison hershfield) with rCCAo’s Andy Manahan and revitalization Institute’s Storm Cunningham. (see page 42)

conStRUct cAnADA noVEMBER 28-30 – toRontoWith 1100 exhibits, 450 speakers, 200 presentations and demonstration and 23,461 attendees, it’s fair to say that Construct Canada is a monster of a show. The show filled the entire floor of the south building of the Metro Convention Centre, and attendees particularly enjoyed the complimentary beer in the afternoon. Details at constructcanada.com.

Photo:M

ilesAnd

rewB

aker

visitors fill the tradeshow floor at the MtCC.

PUBLic-PRiVAtE PARtnERSHiPS noVEMBER 19-20 – VAncoUVER With both union and private sector representatives on the same panel, you knew there’d be some interesting discussions on P3s. The Canadian Institute organizers seemed to have planned this as the predominant discussion over the two days focused on the merits of the private sector as operators of traditional public sector facilities such as hospitals and water treatment. Other sessions of this ReNew Canada-sponsored event delved into innovative strategies used to optimize P3 performance. Details at canadianinstitute.com/ppp.

James bennett of John Laing Infrastructure speaks in vancouver on a panel about P3s in healthcare. Looking on from left: John hunter of J.hunter Associates, Damian Joy of bilfinger berger bot, Marcy Cohen of hospital employees union and Dave Ingram of Fraser health.

Photo:Tod

dLatham

Jack Davis of Calgary health region, far left, moderates a panel on Canada’s expanding P3 market with, from left: David Livingston - Infrastructure ontario, Pierre Lefebvre - Partenariats public-prive Quebec; Larry blain - Partnerships bC and Jay ramotar - Government of Alberta.


Closing Shot

todd Latham is the publisher of this magazine. Details on Dutch water treatment, waste-to-energy technology and all-too-familiar transportation infrastructure

issues as well as additional pictures from this mission can be found at renewcanada.net

By Todd Latham

I recently had the privilege of travelling through Holland for four days on an international press mission. I

saw progressive water and infrastructure technologies, witnessed highly organized waste and energy programs at work and listened to the wonderfully fluent officials and business people describe their competitive advantages—“We know water, we’re Dutch!” On the final day of our tour, we visited the offices of a large Dutch consulting engineering firm in one of the oldest cities in the Netherlands, Deventer (population 66,000). It was raining and we were all feeling tired as our bus pulled up and stopped in front of two massive blue and yellow heads. The words of artist and poet William Blake ran in large script around the right head (pictured above).

To celebrate its 50th anniversary in 1996, Witteveen + Bos, an employee-owned firm and supporter of art programs in the country, commissioned Jan Snoeck to create these talking heads. The piece was given to the city and installed in a public space in front of the company’s headquarters in the heart of downtown. The artwork quickly became associated with the company who later gave miniature replica sets of the heads to clients and key suppliers.

This idea was brilliant on two levels: it’s smart marketing and, more importantly, it’s good karma for the city and the pedestrians who walk by the structure every day. This is not just another statue

TalkinG heaDS, MakinG SenSe

Photo:Tod

dLatham

To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wildflower:

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour.

—William Blake, Auguries of Innocence

or plaque, this is art with a sense of intellectual whimsy—its message of communication engaged me. While it’s true that a piece comprised of two giant heads and a philosophical inscription is not going to fix leaking pipes or crumbling bridges, art can be a low-cost, high-value way to change a mind or brighten a day.

There were other bold examples of Dutch expression on the trip (mostly architecture), which contrasted with how little public art we see in Canada. Giant nickels and apples as signposts for communities are a start, but we could (and should) elevate our creativity a bit. Public art can be a source of civic pride, or it can lead to an outcry. Either way, it asks us to rethink our everyday routine by awakening our senses in a different way than the typical stop at Timmy’s on the way to work.

Cities that support art for art’s sake inspire innovation in people and organizations. These are the kinds of cities that attract thoughtful, talented youth. Art creates dialogue—this particular work of art suggests we keep talking, and listening.


Documents

To P3...their iPods to watch CNN, but it’s undeniable that we’re all more connected—and thus more able to affect each other—than ever before. If I can affect starving children