Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:
Public Sector Digest, November, pp. 1-3, 2004-11-01
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE. https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la
première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.
Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at
PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.
NRC Publications Archive
Archives des publications du CNRC
This publication could be one of several versions: author’s original, accepted manuscript or the publisher’s version. / La version de cette publication peut être l’une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l’auteur, la version acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l’éditeur.
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
A Summary of the Canadian survey on municipal infrastructure assets
Vanier, D. J.; Rahman, S.
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
NRC Publications Record / Notice d'Archives des publications de CNRC:
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=5c5095ca-bf82-4dc9-a13d-dfe8cfbc54bb https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=5c5095ca-bf82-4dc9-a13d-dfe8cfbc54bb
A Summary of the Canadian survey on municipal
infrastructure assets
Vanier, D.J.; Rahman, S.
NRCC-47046
A version of this document is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans:
Public Sector Digest, Nov. 2004, pp. 1-3
A Summary of the Canadian Survey on Municipal Infrastructure Assets Dana J. Vanier, Ph.D., National Research Council Canada
Saidur Rahman, Ph.D., National Research Council Canada
The full report can be found at http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/b5123.2
The three-year Municipal Infrastructure Investment Planning (MIIP - www.nrc.ca/irc/uir/miip) project is investigating decision support tools for strategic asset management for Canadian municipalities. Objective of Report: This report investigates: (1) the actual and sustainable “Level of Investment” expenditures for maintenance of municipal infrastructure; (2) the extent of asset management in practice today, and (3) the state of Canada's municipal infrastructure assets. This report is based on a survey sent to Canadian municipalities and on an asset management
framework consisting of six sequential questions whose answers determine an organization's maturity in asset management: what do you own, what is it worth, what is the deferred
maintenance, what is the condition, what is the remaining service life and what do you fix first. Background: Numerous sources have estimated the condition or age of the existing civil infrastructure. The same is true for extent of deferred maintenance or “maintenance gap”: • McGill researchers estimate Canada's governmental infrastructure debt as $125 billion; • the 1994 Canadian Auditor General's Report reports that National Defence has $1.7 billion in
deferred maintenance on an infrastructure asset base of $17 billion;
• the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) notes that in 1996 more than $44 billion was required to bring municipal infrastructure systems to an acceptable level;
• the Canadian Society for Civil Engineers projects the aforementioned FCM numbers to $57 billion in 2003 and $110 billion in 25 years;
• the National Highway System Condition and Needs Update calculates in 1997 that $17.4 billion was required to repair and modernize Canada's highways;
• the Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO) indicates that in 2000 there was $3.6 billion in deferred maintenance on an asset portfolio of $37 billion;
• a Canadian city of 750,000 indicates in their 2002 infrastructure strategy report that: • 13% ($2.3 billion) is in poor and critical physical condition;
• 17% ($3.1 billion) is in poor and critical condition with respect to meeting demand; • 8% ($1.4 billion) is in poor and critical condition with respect to functionality, and • NRCC estimates that Canada has a civil infrastructure portfolio valued at $5.5 trillion in 1999
constant dollars and that municipal infrastructure comprises 20% of this total.
Survey Methodology: A six-page survey was distributed electronically in November 2002 to every city, town and regional municipality or district with a population over 5000 people in Canada. There was limited distribution in the Province of Quebec. Responses were received from 67 asset managers (e.g. city engineers, public works managers). Based on the 545 original survey requests, 13% submitted responses. This report is the first of a number analyzing the results of the survey and presents only results related to the three objectives of this report.
Survey Results - Level of Investment: Respondents were unaware of suggested levels of maintenance expenditures (Federal governments in North American recommend that industry spend annually 2% to 4% of the current replacement value of its assets on maintenance: • 44% of respondents did not know that suggested Levels of Investment were available; • 23% were only vaguely familiar with these recommendations, and
Canadian municipalities desired more maintenance funding than they currently receive: • 77% of respondents desired the recommended 2% to 4% annual maintenance funding; • 70% were spending less than 2%;
• 9% of respondents desired at least four times as much as they currently receive; • 60% of respondents desired at least 50% more than they were currently receiving, and • 30% requested at least the same or a little more.
Survey Results - Status of Asset Management: Respondents had systems to record inventory:
• 28% of respondents did not have a system to record asset value; • 30% saved historical value of the asset;
• 58% saved the current replacement value;
• 31% of respondents were unable to provide their level of deferred maintenance, and • 27% could not identify what percentage was deemed “urgent”.
Condition-based assessment is used by half of municipalities, using techniques such as technical audits, condition objective criteria, visual inspection and operator evaluations. The primary criteria identified to determine remaining service life of assets were “age based” and “expert's knowledge”. The survey indicates that maintenance priorities were based on concerns regarding safety, condition, budget, regulations and health, in that order.
The National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure is known to 82% of respondents and 22% were actively participating in the venture. National initiatives such as the National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Partnership and Municipal Infrastructure Investment Planning project were recognized by 60% of respondents. Recognition of provincial initiatives (only 40%) did not extend past their borders; however, these were well known to their regional community. Survey Results - State of Canadian Municipal Infrastructure: It is concluded that:
• Canadian municipal assets were rated as 2.9 or “good” to “fair” from a range of 7 ratings (excellent = 1, very good, good, fair, poor, very poor and failed = 7);
• the condition of the assets tended to be skewed more to the better side of the range; • 50% of the assets were at least 30 years old, and
• 25% of assets were between 20 and 30 years old: -- therefore in 10 years, without any renewal, the proportion of +30 year old assets will be 75%.
The identified contributors to the current situation included the age of assets, political inaction, expanded need for facilities, and inflation. The respondents provided examples of opportunities to meet some of this challenge including life cycle costing tools, planned preventative maintenance, decision-support tools, long range planning and commitment to asset management.
Conclusions: In general, municipal infrastructure managers were able to provide reliable answers to the first three asset management “whats”: what do you own, what is it worth and what is the deferred maintenance. However, regarding the last three “whats”, researchers and practitioners should develop and standardize tools and techniques to determine asset condition, to predict remaining service life and to prioritize maintenance and capital renewal.
Many organizations ask “what is the state of Canadian municipal infrastructure?” or “What is the Gap?”. Although numbers are available from authoritative organizations, the important issue is not the amount of deferred maintenance, but rather is this amount sustainable? Perhaps, the
increased funding requested by the majority of respondents is indicative of an urgent requirement to increase funding for infrastructure maintenance.
