After ReNew Canada’s annual Top 100 report came out in January 2012, our research team asked a few industry insiders for some feedback. Our Top 100 is ranked purely by project cost (they stay on the list until completion). We asked our insiders whether they think the top 10 for 2012 represent the best or just the biggest.

The Canadian Electricity Association’s Geoff Smith focussed in the energy sector, saying, “While these projects are exciting and innovative, the fact that many maintain their spot on the list year after year reinforces the principal challenge faced by Canada’s electricity sector–that needed infrastructure projects are often subject to unnecessary regulatory delays. Our preference would be for [more of] these projects to graduate from the Top 100 and move to the completed list.”

Doug Salloum with the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering was more concerned about longevity than the speed in which projects can be delivered. No matter what the sector, Salloum says one question should always be asked: will the infrastructure asset last long enough to be of value to Canadians? According to Salloum, “If an infrastructure project fails within 50 or 60 years of completion, it’s either because it wasn’t built right or else because it wasn’t the right thing to build.” Salloum supports the environmental benefits of low-carbon hydroelectricity projects and public transit. However, he cautioned that expanding energy capacity encourages increased electrical demand, a scenario that could end up relegating energy efficiency to the backseat.

“With regards to building the right thing, it’s all about public consultation,” continued Salloum. “And that consultation needs to start at the conceptual phase, not after a government has already decided that new infrastructure is needed.”

Salloum’s example of a project that broke this rule? The Turcot Interchange project, our number seven. “This project famously missed the boat,” he said. “Consultation didn’t allow for public input on the fundamental concepts of the future interchange. As a result, the interchange is being designed to accommodate more, rather than fewer, single person vehicles.”

Elisabeth Arnold, principal at Sustainable Community Development, made a similar comment about the Turcot project. “The Turcot Interchange is not a sustainable solution,” she said. “The responses to the bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement, City of Montreal, and the recommendations of citizens have missed some key opportunities to improve the modal split by failing to include meaningful transit and cycling infrastructure in the project despite the additional $1.5 billion cost of the project.”

Arnold took a triple-bottom-line approach to her evaluation of the top 10 projects, weighing environmental, social, and economic impact. While the Turcot rated at the lowest end of the scale, Arnold ranked Toronto’s two transit initiatives at the highest end. Both the Spadina subway extension and the Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown light-rail transit (LRT) project received the highest rating across all indicators because “they provide an alternative to single occupancy automobile use, with the corresponding environmental, social, and economic benefits [going] to individual commuters and residents of the City of Toronto as a whole.”

Canada West Foundation’s Casey Vander Ploeg decide that the top 10 projects were, in fact, not the best 10. He chose from the entire list to create his own top 10 based on how unique and innovative they are. Highlights from his list include the York VIVA Bus Rapidway for its design concept, Swan Hills ISCG Power Project for finance, technology, and concept, and the Niagara Tunnel Project for technological innovation.

According to Vander Ploeg, the VIVA project scored highly on his personal favorites list because the concept is innovative. “It helps public transit to better compete with the private automobiles on the ‘free’ road,” he said. “The dedicated bus lanes ensure a time advantage during congestion, and that makes public transit a more attractive option.” This project highlights an innovative way that communities are building cost effective infrastructure now, with an eye toward long-term planning.

The VIVA Rapidways are being designed to accommodate Light Rail Vehicles if they eventually replace the current bus system. By building the initial infrastructure as a system of dedicated lanes, the region can avoid having to completely reorganize its public transit system in the future.

Vander Ploeg chose the Swan Hills project in part because of the unique technology being deployed at the site. Instead of mining the coal, the project injects non-potable water and carbon dioxide into the ground, gasifying the coal. This gas is piped up through a well, refined, burned and turned into energy through a turbine, and then the emissions are captured via a carbon capture and storage facility. The captured emissions are being sold to an oil sands project for enhanced oil recovery, further reducing the quantity of fresh water required for oil extraction.   

While each of these industry professionals has taken a different method when reviewing their Top 10 projects, what is interesting are the common trends. These included a focus on projects that are sustainable, innovative, and work towards providing Canadians with reliable, cost-effective infrastructure assets.

Our researchers never sleep. As the team at ReNew Canada continues its work on the 2013 report on Canada’s Top 100 biggest infrastructure projects, we’re taking a break to fill you in on a few major developments that occurred after we released the 2012 report. We’re also releasing a few details about some of the new projects we’ll be adding to the list.

Transit in Toronto

There’s been more shuffling at Toronto City Hall, with yet more massive shifts in transit policy. In October 2010, Toronto’s mayor, Rob Ford, cancelled Transit City, a plan initiated by the previous administration. A network of light rail transit (LRT) lines across Sheppard and Finch Avenues, part of Transit City, was cancelled, with that funding redirected to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. Running the entire line underground, coupled with the inclusion of the Scarborough RT into the project description, took the project cost from $4.6 billion to $8.4 billion, making it the biggest infrastructure project in Canada, and our number one for 2012.

However, Mayor Ford had only signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. This is different than the memorandum of agreement (MOA) McGuinty has with Toronto’s former mayor and Transit City champion, David Miller. Ford’s MOU with the Province had to be ratified by Toronto City Council before it would become a binding commitment between the two parties. In February 2012, Council voted 24 to 19 in favour of supporting a plan proposed by Councillor Karen Stintz to build the a network of LRT lines across Finch avenue West and Sheppard Avenue East.

All this shuffling leaves the cost for the Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown LRT at an estimated $6.5 billion, with approximately $1 billion earmarked for each of the new LRT lines.

Port Hope Area Initiative

While the change in scope for transit in Toronto is the largest shift in public policy that we have seen this year so far, financially the biggest change goes to the Port Hope Area Initiative. Based on a decade-old cost, ReNew Canada had pegged the cost of the massive brownfield cleanup at $260 million. However, in January 2012, less than a month after the release of the Top 100 2012 edition, the government released a new cost: $1.28 billion. Over ten years, the federal government will remediate 1.7 million cubic metres of historic low-level radioactive waste left over from radium and uranium processing in the community from 1933 to 1988.

New projects

Although we don’t want to reveal all of the new projects that will be on the upcoming Top 100, here are a couple of interesting projects that we will be featuring.

BC Hydro is undertaking an ambitious upgrade of the 65 year old John Hart Generating Station, located at Campbell River on Vancouver Island. Operational since 1947, the John Hart station is in need of seismic upgrades, turbine replacement, and new environmental controls. A new 2.1-kilometre (km) pipe will also be built to replace the existing 3 1.8-km spillways. Currently, the facility consists of six turbines that produce a combined 121 megawatts (MW) of power. These turbines will be replaced with three turbines, each producing 46 MW. According to Chris O’Riley, executive VP of generation for BC Hydro, there is strong local support for the project. O’Riley also said, “We will continue to ensure all First Nations and key stakeholders are involved as this project proceeds to next steps.”

The $400-million Quebec City Arena Project will also have a place on the Top 100 for 2013. Years in the making, an agreement was finally reached between the provincial and municipal governments and Quebecor media to build the 64,000-square-metre facility. Eventually, the goal is to move an NHL team into the arena, although currently there are no plans for a team to move to Quebec City. The terms of the deal stipulate that Quebecor will pay the municipal government to manage the facility, with rent costing the company $4.5 million annually with an NHL team and $2.5 million without. The naming rights for the facility were also sold to Quebecor for $63.5 million if the firm succeeds in moving an NHL team, or $33 million without. The project should begin construction in September 2012, with a completion deadline of 2015.

Alberta’s Pioneer Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project has been scrapped. The pilot, part of the federal and provincial investment in new technologies for carbon capture, was tied to TransAlta’s Keephills 3 coal-fired power plant.

The Pioneer project, located about 70 kilometres west of Edmonton, was awarded government funding in October, 2009. It secured $342.8-million from the federal government, through its $1-billion Clean Energy Fund and its $27-million ecoENERGY Technology Initiative. Alberta committed $436-million from its CCS technology fund. It also had a $5-million (Australian) pledge from Australia’s Global CCS Institute, a not-for-profit organization.

CCS projects had been becoming increasingly popular in the prairie provinces. The Top 100 list for 2011 included one CCS pilot—Alberta’s Project Pioneer, the first-ever CCS project to make it onto the Top 100. In 2012, two more projects joined the list.

While many projects on ReNew Canada’s Top 100 projects are well past the environmental review phase, certain projects could still see the benefits of the federal government’s recent changes to the environmental review process. Budget 2012 sets out a number of issues it will address to move projects through the environmental assessment (EA) phase faster than the current regulatory system allows. There are four key changes being made to the regulatory framework of the EA process:

1)      Establish and set timelines for major energy projects

2)      Reduce duplication and regulatory burdens

3)      Strengthen environmental protection

4)      Enhance consultation with Aboriginal peoples

For major energy projects, such as the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric project, approved in March 2012, the reduction of duplicated testing and report processes could dramatically reduce the timeline to project approval. By establishing set timelines for project reviews, the government is attempting to reduce the financial burden and risk to developers, with the intent of creating a more positive atmosphere for investment.

While reducing overlapping regulations is important, as is providing an accurate timeline for approval, it remains to be seen how the regulatory changes will impact projects that have cross-jurisdictional boundaries, such as pipelines or transmission lines.

As for the Top 100 projects, one project that stands to benefit substantially from these changes is the Site C Clean Energy Project in British Columbia. Because the review process is in the early stages, a reduction is reporting requirements alone could potentially ensure that this project is approved faster.

Of course, major regulatory overhauls don’t happen overnight. A shift towards these changes should probably be expected to take four years or more to fully implement. With hundreds of projects in various stages of development across the country, coordinating the shift to a new regulatory structure is going to be a challenging task.

The changes will have their most significant effect on future projects on the Top 100 list. The budget document highlights the NaiKun Wind Energy Project, a proposed $1.6-billion wind farm that is to be located off the coast of British Columbia. We put it on the Top 100 list in 2010, but  removed it when significant development hurdles, including delays in the necessary environmental approvals, stalled the project. If these changes are implemented, this project could easily return to a spot in the top 10 projects.

Calculating the economic value of a museum or sports venue is harder than a bridge or power plant. Does that make these projects any less important?

At $195 million, the Vancouver City Centre Transmission Project wasn’t big enough to make this year’s Top 100. The project, which includes a new Vancouver substation and new underground transmission line, is the largest investment that BC Hydro has made in Vancouver in 30 years. It’s an investment equal to the $190 million being spent on the new Winnipeg Stadium, which was also too small to make this year’s list.

Is BC Hydro’s investment more important for Vancouver than this sporting complex is for Winnipeg?

Winnipeg’s stadium is moving forward, but other social infrastructure projects haven’t been so lucky. The Royal Alberta Museum was removed from this year’s Top 100 after funding fell through; Quebec City is having trouble sealing the deal on a new hockey arena. Museums, sports complexes, and parks are often seen as extras, investments that should not be made if basic public works assets still need attention.

But some would argue that creating a world-class city means investing in those amenities. Without those spaces to attract what author and academic Richard Florida calls the “creative class,” to drive tourism and draw event promoters, a city’s economy suffers. It can also be an opportunity to create iconic buildings that help brand a city, or attract global interest.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to monetize a strong brand. And not every arena or arts venue will benefit a city. There have been many sport and entertainment complexes proposed and built that some have argued were not worth the investment of the public’s tax dollars.

In February 2011, when federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty publicly floated the possibility of using the federal gas tax to fund a hockey arena in Quebec City, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who lobbied for years to have part of the federal gas tax dedicated to road repair and maintenance, came out against it, saying it could lead to more wasteful spending on future sports arenas. Quebec City’s planned $400-million hockey arena (for a team that doesn’t play in the city anymore) could have made this year’s Top 100, but with plans to move ahead still unclear and funding not entirely secured, it’s being held over until next year. The project’s final budget should be known in spring 2012. Some argue this type of spending in irresponsible in a province where transportation infrastructure desperately needs upgrading and replacement. At the time, Tasha Kheiriddin wrote in the National Post, “It is unjustifiable to spend public money on a pro sports arena.” She cited a study conducted by two U.S. professors showing these types of investments do not, in fact, yield the returns they claim. “Worse yet,” she wrote, “they risk turning into boondoggles like the Toronto Skydome, which cost taxpayers over $400 million before being sold to Rogers Communications for a scant $25 million.”

Another potential boondoggle: sports venues built for big, one-time events that then become money pits. Ontario is hoping the infrastructure it has chosen to build to accommodate the 2015 Pan Am Games will avoid that pitfall, serving the region long after the Games have ended. The Athletes’ Village (worth $1 billion, but it’s an entire development, not a single project, so it didn’t rank on the Top 100) is only speeding up work that Waterfront Toronto was planning already—that’s according to Infrastructure Ontario.

One Pan Am project in question was Hamilton’s stadium. The Ontario provincial government rescued the $152.1-million Ivor Wynne Stadium rebuild project in January 2011 by offering an extra $22.5 million to fill a funding gap. The province had already promised to contribute about $35 million to the project.

The opportunity to host the Pan Am Games was seen as a major win for Ontario. The boost to the province’s economy is expected to be substantial. However, major investments in projects like these with no promise of such a significant economic gain are always going to be a hard sell.   

This year’s list has the biggest-ever total: $114.2 billion in infrastructure projects. This isn’t all new investment—it includes 71 projects that were on last year’s Top 100. A project remains on this list until it is completed, which means some will continue to rank for a few years, maybe even a decade.

Even so, the 29 new projects added to the list this year represent an additional $30 billion in infrastructure investment in Canada. To put that into perspective, the federal government’s Building Canada plan to help fund infrastructure will invest 
$33 billion over six years.

The sectors in which that new $30 billion is being spent—and the types of projects within those sectors—may provide insight into current and future industry trends.

P3s and high security

New to the list this year, the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) is responsible for the collection of electronic intelligence to support the defence and foreign policy of the Canadian government, as well as the protection of electronic information and communication.

The project highlights a trend already prevalent in Ontario: the use of public-private partnerships (P3s) to fund high-security projects. In Ontario, every new courthouse is being constructed through a P3 model, usually a design-build-finance-maintain contract. Five of these justice P3s are currently featured on the Top 100. Together, the projects represent $1.8 billion in federal infrastructure spending. In Ontario, secure facilities have a total contract value of $1.6 billion.

The new facility for CSEC (number 35 on the Top 100), a federal project, is being developed using a P3 model, as is the new RCMP E Division Headquarters project (number 32). The new facility will act as the hub for the collection of electronic intelligence by the Canadian government. As such, building security is paramount for ensuring the CSEC can successfully fulfill its role. The use of private contractors for running many of the facilities operations after construction marks the first time that operations and maintenance work will be handled by a private company within a high-security federal facility. The use of private contractors for this project has prompted some CSEC personnel to voice their concerns publicly.

Concerns have mostly been around allowing staff from private companies into high-security sections of the facility. CSEC employees worry that allowing employees from private companies into secure rooms represents a security risk because these people will not have taken the same oaths as CSEC’s full members.

Bidding wars

The replacement of the Montreal subway’s rolling stock, number 11 on this year’s list, has seen its share of problems associated with the procurement process, including an international scandal, the introduction of specific legislation, and a letter from a foreign head of state. The issue began when the Government of Quebec decided that the City of Montreal and the Province did not have to tender this project internationally. This was based on a belief that because Bombardier, who now holds the contract with partner Alstom, are the unique supplier of these types of rail cars in Canada, they are exempt from the requirement to use a bidding process.

While this may be true, it appears that Spain’s Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles and China’s ZhuZhou Locamotive had both expressed interest in bidding on the project. They have repeatedly stated that $2.6 million per car is extraordinarily high—an argument supported by the fact that Bombardier reportedly built subway cars for Chicago’s subway system at $1.5 million per car and has given no justification for the difference in price. Spain’s Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero even wrote a letter to Quebec Premier Jean Charest expressing his displeasure.

The deal has resulted in a new law in Quebec’s National Assembly awarding the contract to the consortium, but there is still the threat of a legal challenge from the two foreign companies seeking access. An interesting aspect of this contract has been the shift in perspective on the part of the Charest government. In the past, Charest has been a proponent for developing new trade agreements to facilitate this type of contract, but now seems to be taking a more protectionist stance in his own province. Despite ZhuZhou’s purchase of industrial land and commitment to building the cars in Canada for almost $1 million less per unit, the Charest government remained committed to purchasing from Bombardier. Whether this decision will result in future problems for Bombardier internationally has yet to be seen.

This issue highlights an important question: how can governments create transparent, independent, and effective bidding processes for large projects? While the process for procuring the subway cars for this project has been seen by many observers as a fumbled approach not to be repeated, other governments, notably the Government of Canada, have recently made transparency a cornerstone of the procurement process.

Recently, the federal government announced the winners of two shipbuilding contracts worth more than $30 billion. The process the government used to facilitate the bidding process drew as much attention as the announcement itself. With three main shipyards (in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Quebec) bidding on the contracts, regional politics was set to be a staple of the contracting process.

Hoping to avoid any perception of political interference, the Harper government charged several high-level bureaucrats, along with consulting firm KPMG, with establishing a system free of federal and regional political interference. It involved retaining tight control over the bids submitted and the evaluation system for determining the winners, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and the loser, Quebec. In structuring the process, the government ensured that ministers would not be allowed to lobby for one bid over another. Moreover, within the system itself, only a very small group of individuals knew which bids were submitted by the three shipyards. During the review process of the bids, most bureaucrats and consultants were unaware of which bid they were reviewing because the bid papers were titled with numbers and not the name of the company involved. This extra step in the process made it easier for the bureaucrats in charge of the process to focus on the merits of the bids without being distracted by political stakeholders.

Pulling rank

The Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project, once number four on the Top 100, was bumped to number one after an administration change for the City of Toronto led to the cancelation of the Transit City plan. Initially the project was going to cost $4.6 billion. Now, it will cost $8.2 billion, a difference of $3.6 billion (or $360 million per each additional 10 buried kilometres of track). This decision had the added effect of cancelling the other three planned light rail lines under Transit City, which allowed the province to reallocate the funds for these lines to the Eglinton project.

Regional transit authority Metrolinx originally bought four tunnel boring machines (TBMs) for this project, but may need another two to four now that an additional 10 km will be tunnelled. Spacing columnist John Lorinc calls the decision to bury the entire Eglinton line “the single most expensive infrastructure mistake in Toronto history.”

A less obvious consequence of this change is its effect on the engineering associated with a project of this scale. Burying the Eglinton line has one major hurdle to cross before it will be completed: how will the LRT cross the Don Valley? Prior to the change, the Transit City plan had the Eglinton line emerging from a tunnel in the east end of Toronto and continuing on a dedicated right-of-way along Eglinton Avenue and over the Don Valley. But now that all new transit must be tunnelled, the TTC and Metrolinx are confronted with a complex, and potentially very expensive, engineering challenge. Essentially, without a right-of-way there are two options available for this project: bridge or tunnel.

Tunnelling under the Don Valley presents a challenge because of the grade associated with the Valley’s geography, while a bridge could be a potentially very expensive option depending on the outcome of an EA.

More tunnelling also means more soil to dispose of—potentially unsellable soil if it has been contaminated. ReNew Canada met with chief project manager, the Toronto Transit Commission’s (TTC’s) Peter Allibone, and Jack Collins, VP of rapid transit implementation for Metrolinx, at the corner of Black Creek and Eglinton where contractors are already on site, working on the tunnel’s first launch shaft. Collins said the soil at those depths should be clean, and said it’s actually quite easy to find a buyer for excess soil on these types of projects. In fact, they have already sold a portion to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for a special project.

While both Allibone and Collins said the original EAs completed for the bulk of the project will remain valid—new EAs will only be done for the additional sections—it’s clear that changes to a project that diverge from a long-term plan create a host of challenges, some of them unforeseen.

Toronto’s decision to change a project that was part of a larger plan for the city raises a complex issue: what effect can local politics have on project development, engineering, and cost? Due to the nature of the Top 100 list (projects remain on the list until they are completed), over the years, other long-term projects have moved up in the ranking due to changes in scope or cost overruns. Still more projects have been removed from the list because funding fell through due, at times, to a change in political administration.

Carbon capture

The Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Demonstration Project will refurbish Unit 3 at the Boundary Dam coal power station. This will be the world’s largest project to use CCS for enhanced oil recovery, with the potential to capture an estimated one million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) annually.

The largest source of CO₂ in Alberta comes from burning coal for energy generation. Sitting on about 1,000 years worth of cheap energy, Alberta has a pressing desire to develop its coal resources without significantly increasing the resulting CO₂ emissions.

CCS projects are becoming increasingly popular in the prairie provinces. The Top 100 list for 2011 included one CCS pilot—Alberta’s Project Pioneer, the first-ever CCS project to make it onto the Top 100. This year, two more projects made the list.

An abundance of oil in the west, but criticism of the resulting environmental damage, has prompted this surge in investments in the developing technology.

The federal government allocated funding to CCS in its 2008 budget, Alberta has created a $2 billion fund for CCS projects, and SaskPower is investing $1 billion in Boundary Bay (the project cost in total is $1.24 billion, putting it at number 28 on the Top 100).

Saskatchewan sits on about 300 years’ worth of coal reserves. That, along with the low cost of energy produced by coal, is pushing the Province to find new ways to develop this resource without the resulting environmental impact. Adding to their challenge, the federal government recently introduced new regulations surrounding coal power plants. The new regulations mandate that any new facility completed after 2015 must have emissions comparable to a high-efficiency natural gas plant. To meet these regulations, Alberta and Saskatchewan are focusing on developing cost-effective CCS systems.

Money from Alberta’s CCS Fund ($285 million) is being invested in the Swan Hills In-Situ Coal Gasification project (number 19 on this year’s list). The project turns underground coal into gas. Emissions from the project will be captured and piped to nearby oil projects for use in enhanced oil recovery operations.

CCS technology currently remains economically unfeasible, which is why government funding is necessary to move these types of projects forward. Aside from the benefit of sequestering more carbon, projects of this nature are incredibly important for building up the engineering, research, and experience levels of Canadian companies.

The winds of change

At a cost of between $750 million and $900 million, the K2 Wind Project is the first of its kind to break into the top 40. Wind projects of this scale are becoming increasingly common (see “Wind Development in the Top 100”, page 18).

Across Canada, individual provinces are pursuing renewable energy through different mechanisms. Ontario is using a Feed-in Tariff program to encourage the development of renewable energy sources, such as wind. In Alberta, where the energy market is unregulated, wind companies are using innovative methods to ensure their projects are economically viable. Greengate Power Corporation is bringing additional revenue for its project, Blackspring Ridge I (number 55 on the Top 100), by providing renewable energy credits to a California-based utility, Pacific Gas & Electric.

Many new wind projects grace this year’s Top 100 list, and even more such as the 366-megawatt Seigneurie de Beaupre Wind Farm in Quebec, are expected to be on next year’s list.

Nuclear: beyond generation

The Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) may have only narrowly made the list this year (at $260 million, it’s number 97 on the Top 100) but it is no less significant. The first project of its kind to appear in this report, it is dedicated to the clean-up and long-term management of historic low-level radioactive waste in the Ontario municipalities of Port Hope and Clarington. The project is a joint effort led by Natural Resources Canada in partnership with Atomic Energy of Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Low-level radioactive waste in Canada is an ongoing, expensive issue. Canada has a long history of mining and refining radioactive minerals. But, similar to the history of most mining industries in Canada, safety and environmental monitoring practices have changed substantially over the decades. The Port Hope and Port Granby projects reflect the increased awareness of the public risks from a long history of refining radioactive products in the area.

The Port Hope area has been managing low-level radioactive waste since radium was first refined in the area in 1932, followed by uranium refinement in the 1940s and 1950s. Removing contaminated waste from the area began in the mid-1970s with the transfer of over 100,000 tonnes of contaminated soil from Port Hope to Chalk River Laboratories. It wasn’t until the federal government established the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) in 1982 that a national long-term clean-up plan was put into motion.

As part of that plan, the LLRWMO tried to find a community willing to host a waste management facility. When that didn’t happen, the Township of Hope agreed to store the waste locally and the PHAI was born. There are two distinct projects under the initiative: the Port Hope Project and Port Granby Project. Long-term waste storage facilities will be built at each location and will be designed to contain the waste for hundreds of years. To hold the waste, a mound consisting of more than twenty above- and below-ground layers will be constructed, with the contaminated soil housed in the centre of the mound.

In nuclear energy generation, facility owners typically deal with radioactive waste, paying to store it on site, or at another facility’s site. In this situation, the company responsible for refining the mined uranium from the 1930s to 1970s, Eldorado, is no longer in operation. “You can’t get blood from a stone,” says Mark Giles with the PHAI. “Those responsible for waste are normally held accountable for cleaning it up, unless that company no longer exists. The Government of Canada took on the responsibility—it was, after all, a crown corporation.” The company was originally privately owned, but the federal government purchased it in the 1970s.

Projects to manage low-level radioactive waste have been conducted since the 1980s in locations across Canada, mostly in the west and northwest. But this is the largest such operation ever to be undertaken.

Record investment

These are just a few of the trends and notable projects based on almost a year of research and interviews on the part of a team dedicated to Canada’s infrastructure industry. A more thorough breakdown, by sector and sub-sector, including details on funding sources, can be found in this year’s Top 100 report, which was circulated with this issue.

The Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project was approved and granted an Environmental Assessment (EA) Certificate by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. This $1.4-billion project will connect Burnaby, Port Moody, and Coquitlam, British Columbia by an 11-kilometre light rapid transit line. Included in this project are elevated and at-grade guideways, a two-kilometre tunnel, six stations, power substations, train operating systems, parking facilities, and a vehicle storage and light maintenance facility.

A report prepared by British Columbia’s EA office includes 157 guidelines that must be followed during construction. Six key commitments were laid out in the report and include:

• Install erosion and sediment control structures to prevent the introduction of silt, sediment and/or sediment-laden run-off into creeks.
• Re-vegetate affected riparian habitats and ensure the survival of plant material in re-vegetated areas, including the control of invasive species.
• Undertake a noise and vibration management plan that will set out site-specific measures to mitigate noise and vibration related impacts to residents and businesses.
• Provide municipalities with 72-hours advance notice of construction work scheduled beyond municipal noise bylaw hours.

According to the project proponents, the Evergreen Line should remove around 60,000 cars from the road by 2020 as well as reduce greenhouse gas output by 18.3 kilotonnes.

We asked a varied group to review this year’s 
Top 100 and, using their own criteria, 
to choose their own top-ranking Canadian projects.

Juneau chose his number-one project because, like many projects on the Top 100, it shows that we can actually complete big undertakings. His top pick is the Red River Floodway Expansion (#29). “This [brownfield] project would have been very difficult to start without the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) impetus.”

He ranks Quebec’s Autoroute 30 (#11) second for similar reasons. Also started, or restarted, with the support of the CSIF, this project has had its share of roadblocks. “Many were skeptical,” says Juneau. But it’s a top project in his estimation because it represents the work of a project champion, in this case at the federal level. “Serge Marcil, a former federal MP representing one of the relevant ridings, worked very hard to get the project underway,” says Juneau.

Like ReNew Canada, Henderson focused on the numbers, but used his clean energy background to rank his top projects.

“The numbers tell the tale,” says Henderson. The total capital financing requirement for clean energy projects in the Top 100 is $23 billion. “Energy ranks just behind transportation in terms of importance to our country’s infrastructure pipeline,” he says.

Henderson chose projects that represent future opportunities for developers and the public sector. He says large hydro will become more important as sites in Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia offer the potential of cost competitive base load electricity supply.

NaiKun Wind Energy (#5)

“Environmental and stakeholder issues will need to be addressed to green light many of these projects,” says Henderson. “However, the pace of development may be slower than the industry would prefer. Power authorities will be very careful in committing to large projects.”

Henderson says larger-scale wind power projects will come online regularly, and biomass electricity generation is on the cusp of breaking through technical and economic barriers that will unleash the more effective use of Canada’s biomass feedstocks.

But Shin cautions, “Infrastructure projects that may seem oriented towards environmental and social sustainability at first glance can actually bring with them a host of concerns.” While no infrastructure project is without impact, Shin’s analysis shows that some of the Top 100 have done a better job of taking environmental, social and economic impact into account than others.

Shin’s top five are: Alberta Schools Alternative Procurement (#33), Sydney Tar Ponds Cleanup (#51), Rivers District Community Revitalization (RDCR) Project (#78), Fort McMurray Water Reclamation Facility (#79), and the University of Calgary’s Energy Environment Experiential Learning building (#80).

Juneau also zeroed in on the RDCR, saying he was tempted to list this project as his number one. “I strongly believe that infrastructure programming can and should be used to revitalize challenged neighbourhoods in our major cities, for the benefit of the country as a whole.”

The Sydney Tar Ponds Cleanup (#50) made everyone but Henderson’s list (Henderson was focussed on energy projects). What’s so great about this project? It’s certainly seen its share of controversy, from disagreements between the Sierra Club of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia on which method of environmental impact assessment to use to clean up the tar ponds, to which remediation method to use.

Fort McMurray Water Reclamation Facility (#79)

“Many would only want to say that this project is long overdue, period,” says Juneau. “But it still deserves to be recognized, given how painful it was to get it started and executed. Let‘s hope that all the relevant lessons have been or are being learned.”

Shin, too, found the pros far outweigh the cons. The environmental and social impact remains to be measured. Prolonged use of the treated site and environmental and weather conditions may cause the materials used to stabilize the contaminants to erode, limiting the effectiveness of remediation. As a result, continuous monitoring of the site is required in order to ensure the contaminants have not reassembled. But the economic benefits of the project are clear: it will raise property values and, as exposure to toxins is reduce, it has the potential to decrease health costs.

Another project everyone ranked high is the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (#53). It’s being built to LEED Silver certification, for starters, but Bowerbank and Shin both note the project’s social impact as its winning characteristic.

“Its cutting-edge architecture could be influential nationally and internationally, much like Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Bilbao design,” says Shin.

Juneau, who made the museum his number nine, says, “Truth be told, I liked this project when its promoters first sought infrastructure funding, but in light of the mandate of the CSIF and limited funds, the [Red River] Floodway was a better fit. There has been an evolution and the tenacity of the Asper family has been rewarded.”

Alberta Schools Alternative Procurement (#33)

Plans to fund a national student human rights education and travel program would attract 20,000 Canadian Grade 9 students to the museum annually. Once implemented, such a program would have a long-term impact on the importance of human rights in communities across Canada. This may have an impact on international visitors similar to the equality- and tolerance-oriented exhibit at the Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam. As Bowerbank says, “It does something for the Canadian psyche.”

Bowerbank likes the international element of this project and says “it’s an opportunity to highlight how important the triple bottom line (environment, social and economy) has become.”

But, as Shin points out, the museum has come under criticism for being constructed on one of Manitoba’s richest First Nations artefacts sites. To make matters worse, the area wasn’t fully excavated before construction took place since not all artefacts could be collected and analyzed. Continued investigation is difficult given Manitoba’s allegedly weak heritage regulations and increased development in the surrounding area in recent years.

Henderson’s pick, NaiKun Wind Energy (#5), made Shin’s shortlist as well as Bowerbank’s top ten. Shin says that while the turbines will displace 450,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per year and partnerships were formed with the First Nations to provide short and long-term employment, it may hurt the area’s ecological diversity. It’s listed as an “important bird area” under BirdLife International. “Environment Canada data was omitted in environmental assessment of black scoter staging for up to a month during spring time in the area,” says Shin.

University of Calgary’s Energy Environment Experiential Learning building (#80)

Shin also has concerns about the St. Joseph Wind Farm (#21). Although it would contribute $500,000 annually to municipal coffers of Montcalm, Mantioba, it’s already been delayed by more than a year as a result of Babcock & Brown’s financial troubles in late 2008. The delay has also pushed back the power purchasing process. The project’s new backer, Pattern Energy, has approached the province for help with financing the project. A delayed construction schedule could prevent it from qualifying for federal stimulus subsidies, which requires that wind turbines be operational by March 2011.

In other renewable energy projects, Bowerbank likes Hydro-Québec’s Eastmain-1-A/Sarcelle/Rupert Project, making it his number two.

“I like the scale of [this project] and we need to consider its economic benefit,” says Bowerbank. “When it comes to water projects, there’s always some concern because they’re so intrusive of waterways.” But, he says hydro is big for Quebec and the benefits to the community outweigh any negatives.

Shin prefers British Columbia’s Harrison Hydro Project, the long-term benefits of which include improved communications infrastructure; improved health and safety for residents; displacement of the costs, risks, CO₂ generation and noise pollution associated with operation of the two diesel generators currently used to supply electricity to the communities; expanded economic development and employment-creation opportunities.

Even so, Shin notes that the project’s environmental benefits were criticized by the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. The region’s forests would be threatened by roads and transmission lines. In 2008 the provincial Ministry of Environment officially lodged a laundry list of complaints, including threats to red-legged frogs’ habitat, old-growth forests and fish-bearing rivers.

The Fort McMurray Water Reclamation Facility (#79) made both Shin’s and Bowerbank’s list.  Beyond its use of biological nutrient removal technology and a composting facility to further reduce its environmental footprint, Shin says it also has “good news story potential.”

Canadian Museum for Human Rights (#54)

Juneau focused on gateways, something the others didn’t consider. He ranked the Windsor Gateway (#99) and the Dorval Interchange Redevelopment (#69) as his number three and four. Of the Dorval Interchange, he says, “This is a more focused gateway project, but access to one of Canada’s key airports just has to be improved. Further projects will be required to support this goal, but this is a critical step.”

Both he and Bowerbank singled out Toronto’s Spadina Subway Extension (#3) as one of their top ten. “I wanted to have a least one project that includes a strong element of interregional connection,” says Juneau. “This subway line does just that by connecting Toronto to York Region and at the same time serving the needs of York University.”

Juneau concludes, “There’s much more to think about, and more research needs to be done into whether this level of activity is greater than in previous periods, how we set priorities and select projects, and whether we need more overall coherence when many projects are pursued in the same sector.”

There are many more factors by which these projects could be ranked—for instance, are they appropriately integrated into urban and regional development? Do they contribute to a community’s revitalization? Are they employing Canadian companies and firms? Those questions will have to wait for next year.

André Juneau, former deputy minister of Infrastructure Canada and recent Canadian director at the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Chris Henderson, president of Lumos Energy, and advisor and partner to Aboriginal communities across Canada developing clean energy generation projects.

Melissa Shin, managing editor of Corporate Knights magazine.

Andrew Bowerbank, president and chief strategy officer of EC3 initiative, and former executive director of the World Green Building Council.

In this year’s Top 100 list, our first ten projects represent $26.49 billion in infrastructure investment—in the game of infrastructure development, that puts them at the top.

When construction officially began in May 2009 on Hydro-Québec’s renewable energy project along Northern Quebec’s Romaine River, Quebec Premier Jean Charest said, “Today, we are launching the biggest construction project in Canada.” We agree—after all, it is our number one project for the second year running.

Not only is this a massive construction site, generating about 975 jobs for each year of construction, it will pump $3.5 billion into Quebec’s economy through new contracts and the purchase of goods and services—this according to CVTech Group, the builder on the project. Hydro-Québec says the Romaine project will generate economic spinoffs in the range of $3.5 billion for Quebec as a whole and $1.3 billion for the Côte-Nord region.

As with all mega-projects, it’s not all roses. The problem is expressed pretty clearly in Monopoly’s newest spinoff, Monopoly City. The game lets players build their “dream cities” and screw other players by putting “known hazards” like power plants in their “districts.”

There are plenty of real-life players who feel they are losing the game for exactly that reason—and this September through October, a group of 28 of them ran 42 kilometres each from Matagami, near the Rupert River in northern Quebec, to the Romaine River on Quebec’s lower North Shore as a statement against the Romaine project’s four dams. When completed in 2020, the Romaine hydro complex will produce 1,550 megawatts of hydroelectricity. The Alliance Romaine’s point: hydroelectricity isn’t as green as people may think. They’ve got Sierra Club Québec’s support, but the project’s progress hasn’t slowed. Hydro-Québec recently awarded the project’s first major contract to Thirau ltée, a subsidiary of CVTech Group Inc., which started construction this fall.

Romaine is just one of the four projects this public utility has on our list. In fact, our number two project is another one of Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric stations, this one in the James Bay Territory. Before Romaine got started, the Eastmain-1-A/Sarcelle project along the Rupert River was Quebec’s biggest construction site. This is all part of Hydro-Québec’s $9.1-billion plan to increase annual hydroelectric output by 15.8 terawatt hours (TWh) between 2006 and 2014. After commissioning, the Eastmain-1-A/Sarcelle/Rupert Project will provide 8.5 TWh at a cost of less than five cents per kilowatt hour (kWh).

The proposed changes to Montreal’s Échanger Turcot Interchange (#10).

Quebec’s not the only province that can do hydro—the Wuskwatim Generation Project (number six), located at Taskinigup Falls, about 45 kilometres southwest of Thompson, is the biggest construction project in Manitoba right now. Quebec is also not the only province to experience pushback. In August 2009, protestors from the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation (NCN) set up a blockade to deny workers access to the Wuskwatim dam site. That dispute was over the lack of NCN members employed at the site. Non-profit environmental organization, Manitoba Wildlands, has also spoken out against the project, saying that neither the project proponents nor the government followed environmental impact statement guidelines, and that only token attention is paid to potential effects from the transmission and roads.

Ontario continues to develop its hydro megaproject in Niagara. The Niagara Tunnel Project was bumped into our Top 10 (from number 14 last year) due to unforeseen challenges with tunnel boring. Big Becky, the massive boring machine digging what will be one of the largest tunnels in North America, has run into some unforeseen geology and is behind schedule. Subsurface rock conditions are different from the baseline established within the design-build contract, causing delays and budget increases. The tunnel’s alignment had to be revised to avoid excavating a softer, red shale knows as Queenston shale.

Despite these difficulties, hydro is still the form of renewable energy making the biggest mark on our list. Other renewables are not as strongly represented as they might have been in our Top 10. While British Columbia’s Naikun Wind Energy Project made number five, an Ontario offshore wind prospect at Lake Erie was cancelled before it began. Canadian Hydro Developers were considering a deal with Wasatch Wind Inc. to acquire a 4,400-megawatt offshore wind project. The project was eligible for the Ontario Green Energy Act’s feed-in-tariff 20-year contract at a price of $190 per megawatt hours. But in a statement, Canadian Hydro said, “Based on the growth opportunities available, offshore wind is not a priority at this time.” It may also have tipped the scales that the company’s potential backer, Australian investment firm Babcock & Brown, is having financial difficulties. The firm is being liquidated by creditors and has sold off its North American wind power division, including St. Joseph Wind Farm in Manitoba (number 20 on our list) to an American investment firm. On top of these struggles, the Canadian Wind Energy Association says tight capital markets and the global recession have made this a less-than-impressive year.

Paul Taylor, president and CEO of B.C.-based NaiKun Wind Energy Group Inc., isn’t worried about the wind market—neither is ENMAX, which has a 50 per cent equity stake in the $2-billion NaiKun Wind Energy Project.

Taylor says, “Wind has had a rough year in B.C. with the clean power call being stalled. But a lot of the issues seem to be cleared away now and the medium to long-term outlook for wind is positive.”

But Taylor says that until government establishes a regime that properly prices carbon, it will be difficult for renewables to compete with more traditional generation projects—one such project appears in our number eight spot: the Keephills 3 Generating Plant. Alberta is taking advantage of new federal funding for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects. Project Pioneer, which would capture and store up to one million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, will apply for a piece of the $779 million to help make Keephills 3 the world’s first large-scale carbon capture and storage facility. Before Project Pioneer can get underway, work on the plant has to be completed. And part owner Capital Power, formerly Epcor, recently announced a $100-million cost increase and extended construction timeline for the project.

Over half of our Top 10 are energy projects. What makes up the other four? Transit and transportation, of course.

Aside from massive transit investments in Ontario thanks to Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and Metrolinx projects—and a pile of new federal and provincial funding—transit didn’t make a large impact on our Top 10.

Transportation work, on the other hand, represents $5.56 billion of the investment on our Top 10. Our number ten project is the reconstruction of the Turcot Interchange, a 40-year-old expressway network that snakes around the city like a series of luge tracks. It’s the largest structure of its kind in Quebec, with average traffic in excess of 280,000 vehicles per day. The Ministère des Transports (MTQ) project involves the reconstruction of the Turcot, De La Vérendrye, Angrignon, and Montréal-Ouest interchanges, reducing the number of raised structures and constructing as many sections as possible at ground level or on embankments. The project also calls for the relocation of the railway tracks and Autoroute 20 to the north, toward rue Pullman, opening up former rail yard properties for future development.

Critics, including the Bureau d’audience publiques sur l’environnment (BAPE), have argued that the current plan will encourage car use and increase pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, instead of encouraging public transit. Because this project will have a major impact on how the city functions, work has been postponed until a solid development plan is formed.

Originally the project was meant to be partially financed by private-sector partners, but Montreal Mayor Gérald Tremblay reportedly argued at BAPE hearings that using a P3 strategy would result in restricting the flexibility of the project’s design and execution. In June 2009, Transport Québec announced it won’t pursue a public-private partnership (P3) model for funding the reconstruction project.

Another project that at one time considered the P3 approach, the Port Mann / Highway 1 Project (PMH1), went from number seven on last year’s list to number four this year. The widening of 37 kilometres of highway, including twinning/replacement of the major Port Mann Bridge crossing of the Fraser River,  was listed at $1.6 billion on last year’s Top 100, but Hatch Mott MacDonald has confirmed that the cost is now $2.46 billion.

After being unable to reach a final agreement with Connect BC Development Group, Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Kevin Falcon announced that the Province of British Columbia will move forward with a design-build, fixed-price contract. “We said from the beginning that this was a very challenging capital market environment, and that executing the project would involve complex negotiations,” said Falcon. “We commend Macquarie Group for being able to arrange committed debt and equity for the project through unprecedented turbulence in global markets, and for assembling a first-class team of consortium partners. Unfortunately, the parties could not agree on final terms.” Falcon said Partnerships BC, the provincial body that facilitates P3s, counselled the Province not to proceed.

The new contract signed with Kiewit-Flatiron in March 2009 ensures that cost overruns or construction delays are the responsibility of the contractor, not the Province. Completion is still scheduled for 2013 and MMM Group’s Peter Overton says the project is back on track. “Construction started as we reached just 40 per cent design completion, and we continue to work to an aggressive submission schedule to deliver the effectively completed design by the end of 2010.”

But Overton says design challenges abound, not the least of which is mobilizing and integrating a wider team of 340 staff from 16 firms, each with their own style, into a single cohesive group. Additionally, much of the Lower Mainland is a sensitive aquatic environment. Ground conditions are highly variable, requiring the expertise of three geotechnical firms. Highway widening and new interchanges are being squeezed onto already-occupied land. “Despite early identification of property requirements, acquisition, appeals and negotiations with property owners is an extended process resulting in late scope refinements and impacts on the onshore design,” says Overton.

Ontario’s Windsor-Essex Parkway (number seven) will attempt to do what Port Mann couldn’t: succeed as a P3. This 11-kilometre stretch will connect Highway 401 to the planned Detroit River International Crossing, and ultimately to the U.S. Interstate system. This is a critical link for international trade—the current Windsor crossings account for 28 per cent of Canada’s trade with the United States. The project is in its beginning phases, with a request for proposals about to be released. This is interesting because it’s a departure from Health Care P3s (or AFPs, as they’re called in Ontario), which is what Infrastructure Ontario (IO) has been doing very well—as indicated by the 14 Health Care AFPs on our Top 100 list facilitated by IO.

Another thing you’ll see next year in the Top 10: a ton of TTC projects in Toronto. There are at least three scheduled to start construction in spring 2010. The majority of those health care AFPs will be complete by next year, leaving room for potentially more transportation, or even water and wastewater projects.

Every year, the Top 100 list provides a snapshot of industry trends and investments. For a more comprehensive breakdown of the entire Top 100—distributed as a supplement to this issue—look for our Top 100 report in spring 2010.