MD2 Eng Apr 26 · Potable water best practices address various approaches to enhance a municipality’s or water utility’s ability to manage drinking water delivery in a way that

Decision Making andInvestment Planning

Potable Water

Storm and Wastewater

Roads and Sidewalks

EnvironmentalProtocols

Transit

Multi-discipline

Innovations and Best Practices

National Guide to SustainableMunicipal Infrastructure

www.infraguide.ca

2

AN

INTE

GRA

TED

APP

ROA

CH T

O A

SSES

SMEN

T A

ND

EVA

LUA

TIO

N O

F M

UN

ICIP

AL

ROA

D, S

EWER

AN

D W

ATE

R N

ETW

ORK

S

An Integrated Approach toAssessment and Evaluationof Municipal Road, Sewerand Water Networks

This document is the second in a series of multi-discipline best practices which have beendeveloped with the combined efforts of variousTechnical Committees. For titles of other bestpractices in this and other series, please refer towww.infraquide.ca.

2

AN

INTE

GRA

TED

APP

ROA

CH T

O A

SSES

SMEN

T A

ND

EVA

LUA

TIO

N O

F M

UN

ICIP

AL

ROA

D, S

EWER

AN

D W

ATE

R N

ETW

ORK

S

Mul

ti-di

scip

line

An Integrated Approach to Assessment and Evaluation of Municipal Road, Sewer and Water Networks — November 2003 1

National Guide toSustainable Municipal

Infrastructure

2 An Integrated Approach to Assessment and Evaluation of Municipal Road, Sewer and Water Networks — November 2003

An Integrated Approach to Assessment and Evaluation of MunicipalRoad, Sewer and Water Networks

Issue No. 1.0

Publication Date: November 2003

© Copyright National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure 2003

ISBN 1–897094–56–6

The contents of this publication are presented in good faith and are intended as general

guidance on matters of interest only. The publisher, the authors and the organizations to

which the authors belong make no representations or warranties, either express or implied,

as to the completeness or accuracy of the contents. All information is presented on the

condition that the persons receiving it will make their own determinations as to the

suitability of using the information for their own purposes and on the understanding that

the information is not a substitute for specific technical or professional advice or services.

In no event will the publisher, the authors or the organizations to which the authors belong,

be responsible or liable for damages of any nature or kind whatsoever resulting from the

use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.

Why Canada Needs InfraGuide

Canadian municipalities spend $12 to $15 billion

annually on infrastructure but it never seems to

be enough. Existing infrastructure is ageing while

demand grows for more and better roads, and

improved water and sewer systems responding

both to higher standards of safety, health and

environmental protection as well as population

growth. The solution is to

change the way we plan,

design and manage

infrastructure. Only by doing

so can municipalities meet

new demands within a

fiscally responsible and environmentally sustainable

framework, while preserving our quality of life.

This is what the National Guide to Sustainable

Municipal Infrastructure: Innovations and Best

Practices (InfraGuide) seeks to accomplish.

In 2001, the federal government, through its

Infrastructure Canada Program (IC) and the National

Research Council (NRC), joined forces with the

Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) to

create the National Guide to Sustainable Municipal

Infrastructure (InfraGuide). InfraGuide is both a new,

national network of people and a growing collection of

published best practice documents for use by decision

makers and technical personnel in the public and

private sectors. Based on Canadian experience and

research, the reports set out the best practices to

support sustainable municipal infrastructure decisions

and actions in six key areas: 1) municipal roads and

sidewalks 2) potable water 3) storm and wastewater

4) decision making and investment planning

5) environmental protocols and 6) transit. The best

practices are available on-line and in hard copy.

A Knowledge Network of Excellence

InfraGuide´s creation is made possible through

$12.5 million from Infrastructure Canada, in-kind

contributions from various facets of the industry,

technical resources, the collaborative effort of

municipal practitioners, researchers and other

experts, and a host of volunteers throughout the

country. By gathering and synthesizing the best

Canadian experience and

knowledge, InfraGuide

helps municipalities get the

maximum return on every

dollar they spend on

infrastructure—while

being mindful of the social and environmental

implications of their decisions.

Volunteer technical committees and working

groups—with the assistance of consultants and

other stakeholders—are responsible for the research

and publication of the best practices. This is a system

of shared knowledge, shared responsibility and

shared benefits. We urge you to become a part of

the InfraGuide Network of Excellence. Whether you

are a municipal plant operator, a planner or a

municipal councillor, your input is critical to the

quality of our work.

Please join us.

Contact InfraGuide toll-free at 1-866-330-3350 or visit

our Web site at www.infraguide.ca for more

information. We look forward to working with you.

Introduction

InfraGuide –

Innovations and

Best Practices


INTRODUCTION

InfraGuide – Innovations and Best Practices


The InfraGuide Best Practices FocusMultidiscipline best practices are relevant to two or more Infrastructure sectors. The current best practice combines Potable Water, Storm and Wastewater, and Roads and Sidewalks.

TransitUrbanization places pressure on aneroding, ageing infrastructure, and raises concerns about declining air and water quality. Transit systemscontribute to reducing traffic gridlock and improving road safety. Transit bestpractices address the need to improvesupply, influence demand and makeoperational improvements with the leastenvironmental impact, while meetingsocial and business needs.

Decision Making and Investment PlanningElected officials and senior municipal administrators need a framework for articulating the value of infrastructure planning and maintenance, while balancingsocial, environmental and economic factors. Decision-making and investment planningbest practices transform complex and technical material into non-technical principles and guidelines for decision making, and facilitate the realization of adequate fundingover the life cycle of the infrastructure. Examples include protocols for determining costs and benefits associated with desired levels of service; and strategic benchmarks,indicators or reference points for investment policy and planning decisions.

Environmental Protocols Environmental protocols focus on the interaction of natural systems and their effects on humanquality of life in relation to municipal infrastructuredelivery. Environmental elements and systemsinclude land (including flora), water, air (includingnoise and light) and soil. Example practices includehow to factor in environmental considerations in establishing the desired level of municipalinfrastructure service; and definition of localenvironmental conditions, challenges andopportunities with respect to municipalinfrastructure.

Storm and Wastewater Ageing buried infrastructure, diminishing financial resources, stricter legislation for effluents, increasing public awareness of environmental impacts due to wastewater andcontaminated stormwater are challenges that municipalities have to deal with. Storm and wastewater best practices deal with buried linear infrastructure as well as end of pipetreatment and management issues. Examples include ways to control and reduce inflow and infiltration; how to secure relevant and consistent data sets; how to inspect and assesscondition and performance of collections systems; treatment plant optimization; andmanagement of biosolids.

Potable WaterPotable water best practices address various approaches to enhance a municipality’s orwater utility’s ability to manage drinking water delivery in a way that ensures publichealth and safety at best value and on a sustainable basis. Issues such as wateraccountability, water use and loss, deterioration and inspection of distribution systems,renewal planning and technologies for rehabilitation of potable water systems andwater quality in the distribution systems are examined.

Municipal Roads and SidewalksSound decision making and preventive maintenance are essential to managing municipalpavement infrastructure cost effectively. Municipal roads and sidewalks best practicesaddress two priorities: front-end planning and decision making to identify and managepavement infrastructures as a component of the infrastructure system; and a preventiveapproach to slow the deterioration of existing roadways. Example topics include timelypreventative maintenance of municipal roads; construction and rehabilitation of utilityboxes; and progressive improvement of asphalt and concrete pavement repair practices.

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

1.2 Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

1.2.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

1.2.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

1.3 How to Use This Document…. . . . . . . . . . .14

1.4 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

2. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

2.1.1 Common Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

2.1.2 Collateral Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

2.2 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

2.3 Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

3. Work Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.1 Task 1 — Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

3.1.1 Data Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

3.1.2 Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

3.1.3 Integration of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

3.2 Task 2 — Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

3.2.1 Critical Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

3.2.2 Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

3.2.3 Sewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

3.2.4 Water Mains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

3.2.5 Inspection Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

3.3 Task 3 — Condition Assessment . . . . . . . . .23

3.3.1 Condition Rating Systems . . . . . . . . .23

3.3.2 Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

3.3.3 Compliance with Current Service Level Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

3.3.4 Technology Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

3.4 Task 4 — Performance Evaluation . . . . . . .25

3.5 Task 5 — Rehabilitation/Replacement Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

4. Applications and Limitations . . . . . . . . . 27

4.1 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

4.2 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

5. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

FIGURE

Figure 3–1: Integrated approach to assessment and evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Table of Contents


TABLE OF CONTENTS


The dedication of individuals who volunteered their

time and expertise in the interest of the National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure is

acknowledged and much appreciated.

This best practice was developed by stakeholders

from Canadian municipalities and specialists from

across Canada, based on information from a scan of

municipal practices and an extensive literature review

conducted by the Centre for Expertise and Research

on Infrastructures in Urban Areas (CERIU). The

following members of the National Guide’s technical

committees provided guidance and direction in the

development of this best practice. They were assisted

by the Guide Directorate staff, CERIU and by R.V.

Anderson Associates Limited.

Municipal Roads Technical Committee:

Mike Sheflin, ChairFormer CAO, Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario

Brian AndersonOntario Good Roads Association, Chatham, Ontario

Vince AurilioOntario Hot Mix Producers Association,Mississauga, Ontario

Don BrynnildsenCity of Vancouver, British Columbia

Al CepasCity of Edmonton, Alberta

Brian CristCity of Whitehorse, Yukon

Michel DionAxor Experts-Conseils, Montréal, Quebec

Cluny MatchimTown of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador

Abe MouaketIM Associates, Toronto, Ontario

Tim SmithCement Association of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario

Sylvain BoudreauTechnical Advisor, NRC

Storm and Wastewater Technical Committee:

John Hodgson, ChairCity of Edmonton, Alberta

André AubinCity of Montréal, Quebec

Richard BoninCity of Québec, Quebec

David CalamCity of Regina, Saskatchewan

Kulvinder DhillonProvince of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Tom FieldDelcan Corporation, Vancouver, British Columbia

Wayne GreenCity of Toronto, Ontario

Salvatore MorraOntario Sewer and Watermain ConstructionAssociation, Mississauga, Ontario

Peter SetoNational Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario

Timothy TooleTown of Midland, Ontario

Bilgin BuberogluTechnical Advisor, NRC

Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Potable Water Technical Committee:

Carl Yates, Chair Halifax Regional Water Commission, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Fred Busch Mayor, District of Sicamous, British Columbia

Sukhi Cheema Government of the Northwest Territories

Normand DeAgostinisDuctile Iron Research Pipe Association, Anjou, Quebec

Tim Dennis City of Toronto, Ontario

David GreenHealth Canada, Ottawa, Ontario

Gordon Lefort IPEX Inc., Langley, British Columbia

Andre Proulx Delcan Corporation, Ottawa, Ontario

Diane Sacher City of Winnipeg, Manitoba

Piero Salvo WSA Trenchless Consultants Inc., Ottawa, Ontario

Ernie TingTown of Markham, Ontario

Michael TobaltTechnical Advisor, NRC

Working Group:

In addition, the three technical committees would like

to thank the following individuals for their participation

in working groups.

Brian AndersonOntario Good Roads Association, Chatham, Ontario

Gerry BauerR.V. Anderson Associates Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario

Don BrynildsenCity of Vancouver, British Columbia


Ken ChuaCity of Edmonton, Alberta

Ken CollicottR.V. Anderson Associates Ltd., Toronto, Ontario

Brian CristCity of Whitehorse, Yukon

Michel DionAxor Experts-Conseil, Montréal, Quebec

Paul GardonBureau de normalisation du Quebec, Quebec

John HodgsonCity of Edmonton, Alberta

Brad JohnsTown of Dryden, Ontario

Gregory KozhushnerCity of Calgary, Alberta

David KrywiakStantec, Edmonton, Alberta

Pierre LamarreVille de Laval, Quebec

Paul MarshDelcan, Toronto, Ontario

Brendan O’ConnellCity of St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador

Marek PawlowskiUMA Engineering Ltd., British Columbia

Michael RichCATT, University of Waterloo, Ontario

Mike SheflinFormer CAO, Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario

Veso SobotIPEX Inc., Toronto, Ontario

Vincent TamGovernment of the Northwest Territories

Roger TanguayColmatec Inc., Quebec

Ernie TingTown of Markham, Ontario

Carl YatesHalifax Regional Water Commission,Halifax, Nova Scotia

Acknowledgements


This and other best practices could not have been

developed without the leadership and guidance of

the Project Steering Committee and the Technical

Steering Committee of the National Guide toSustainable Municipal Infrastructure, whose members

are as follows.

Project Steering Committee:

Mike Badham, ChairCity Councillor, Regina, Saskatchewan

Stuart BriesePortage la Prairie, Manitoba

Bill CrowtherCity of Toronto, Ontario

Jim D’OrazioGreater Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association, Ontario

Derm FlynnMayor, Appleton, Newfoundland and Labrador

David GeneralCambridge Bay, Nunavut

Ralph HaasUniversity of Waterloo, Ontario

Barb HarrisWhitehorse, Yukon

Robert HiltonOffice of Infrastructure, Ottawa, Ontario

Joan LougheedCity Councillor, Burlington, OntarioStakeholder Liaison Representative

Saeed MirzaMcGill University, Montréal, Quebec

René MorencyRégie des installations olympiquesMontréal, Quebec

Lee NaussCity Councillor, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia

Ric RobertshawRegion of Halton, Ontario

Dave RudbergCity of Vancouver, British Columbia

Van SimonsonCity of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Basile StewartMayor, Summerside, Prince Edward Island

Serge ThériaultDepartment of Environment and Local Government, Fredericton, New Brunswick

Alec WatersAlberta Transportation, Edmonton, Alberta

Wally WellsDillon Consulting Ltd., Toronto, Ontario

Technical Steering Committee:

Don BrynildsenCity of Vancouver, British Columbia


Andrew CowanCity of Winnipeg, Manitoba

Tim DennisCity of Toronto, Ontario

Kulvinder DhillonProvince of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Wayne GreenCity of Toronto, Ontario

John HodgsonCity of Edmonton, Alberta

Bob LorimerLorimer and Associates, Whitehorse, Yukon

Betty Matthews-MaloneHaldimand County, Ontario

Umendra MitalCity of Surrey, British Columbia

Anne-Marie ParentCity Councillor, City of Montréal, Quebec

Piero SalvoWSA Trenchless Consultants Inc., Ottawa, Ontario

Mike SheflinFormer CAO, Regional Municipalityof Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario

Konrad SiuCity of Edmonton, Alberta

Carl YatesHalifax Regional Water Commission, Nova Scotia

Acknowledgements



In many Canadian municipalities, the roadrenewal program has driven renewal planningfor sewer and water systems. In some cases,a condition assessment and performanceevaluation of the existing sewers and watermains were not completed and it wasassumed that old sewers and water mainsshould be replaced when the roads werereconstructed. At the other extreme, someroad work has been carried out withoutexamining the condition of the piping below(putting the roadway investment at risk).However, in light of shrinking financialresources and the public’s demand for a moretransparent decision-making process, it isbecoming more important for municipalities toplan the renewal of their road, sewer, andwater systems using an integrated approach.

A systematic and proactive method should beused to ensure renewal programs are basedon sound data and are adequately funded. A five-phase approach is proposed forassessment and evaluation of these systems.

Task 1 — InventoryMunicipalities should compile a detailedinventory of their road, sewer, and watersystems following the guidelines presentedin the Best Practices for Utility-Based Data(NGSMI, 2003e). The inventory for each system must be structured to permit cross-referencing among the systems. The inventories should also be linked to ageographic information system (GIS) tofacilitate spatial analysis. The format andcontent of the inventories will vary amongmunicipalities. However, each municipalityshould adopt a plan for data collection andstorage that will eventually allow themunicipality to manage its systems proactively and in an integrated manner.

Task 2 — InvestigationAn inspection program should be developedfor the road, sewer, and water systems toensure the renewal programs are proactive in nature, based on sound data and areadequately funded. The frequency ofinspection of each component depends on its expected condition and importance. The results of each inspection should bedocumented to allow comparisons withsubsequent inspections so, over time,reasonable estimates of deterioration ratescan be made. Critical components should be dealt with more proactively than non-critical components.

Task 3 — Condition AssessmentCondition rating systems should be used to identify and prioritize the renewalrequirements for road, sewer, and watersystems. The number of performanceindicators in a condition rating system willvary depending on the size of the municipality,the available data and the specific conditionswithin each system. The condition ratingsystem should incorporate information on theneed to increase the capacity of the road,sewer, and water systems as well as addressnon-standard components. Some discussion is provided on condition rating systemsdeveloped in-house as well as proprietary and non-proprietary systems.

Task 4 — Performance EvaluationOnce the condition of each component hasbeen determined, a performance evaluationshould be conducted to project the investmentrequired over the next 10 to 20 years. Ideally,the performance level should be linked to the annual investment tracking both planned(proactive) and unplanned (reactive) tooptimize the renewal program for each system.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary


Task 5 — Renewal PlanOnce it has been established that a systemcomponent should be rehabilitated orreplaced, an economic analysis should beused to select the most cost-effective methodof renewal and the timing for its renewal. An economic analysis typically compares therenewal alternatives in terms of their presentworth. The renewal alternatives should alsoaccount for socio-economic impacts, risk,growth needs, changing regulations andpolicies, adjacent infrastructure condition as well as emerging technologies.

Applications and LimitationsAll municipalities across Canada shouldimplement an integrated approach toassessment and evaluation of road, sewer,and water systems. The practices must betailored to each municipality to reflect the size, age, and condition of the systems.Municipalities may be challenged to completean integrated system assessment andevaluation due to lack of data, tools,resources, and a standard approach. It isrecommended that existing publications(related to products, technologies,specifications or best practices) fromrecognized organizations be referred to by municipalities when applying this bestpractice.

EvaluationSeveral measures can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the practices used in a municipality for renewal planning of road,sewer, and water systems, such as trackingunplanned (reactive) spending, monitoring the data collection program, conducting pilot studies and, periodically, updating the renewal plan.

Executive Summary



1.1 Introduction

In the fall of 2001, the National Guide toSustainable Municipal Infrastructure(InfraGuide) conducted a survey ofmunicipalities, public utilities, and privatecompanies across Canada to identify the best practices used to inspect, assess, andevaluate the structural condition and capacityof roads, sewers, and water mains.

This survey revealed a wide range of practicesin use across Canada. It also revealed theneed for a network level approach toinfrastructure assessment and evaluation.Furthermore, it also became apparent the bestpractice for managing these networks shouldtreat them as an integrated system to better coordinate the renewal programs. A coordinated renewal program wouldminimize disruption to the public and minimizecosts to the municipality. It should also benoted that some communities have a formalcoordinating group to plan out capitalupgrades on streets such that restorationcosts and social impacts on the communityare minimized by consideration of one upgradefor all of the surface and undergroundsystems. This group typically includes allmunicipal utility services and well as hydro,telecom, cable and gas entities.

This document outlines the best practice for assessing and evaluating municipal road,sewer, and water networks using anintegrated approach.

1.2 Purpose and Scope

Many larger municipalities have separatedepartments1 responsible for road, sewer, and water systems. Furthermore, in somelarge municipalities, there may be separatedepartments responsible for planning, design,construction, and maintenance of each

system. In smaller municipalities, there may be only one or two persons responsible formanaging the entire municipal infrastructure.These factors create a significant challengefor municipalities in managing their systemseffectively in an integrated manner.

It should also be noted that the sewers andwater mains on a given section of roadtypically have a longer life expectancy thanthe road itself. In addition, sewers and watermains typically have a different service lifeexpectancy. This further increases thechallenge of managing these systems in anintegrated manner. Municipalities shouldrecognize that decisions made at any stage in the life cycle of one group of assets couldaffect the other assets.

1.2.1 Purpose

The best practice for assessment andevaluation of each system is generally welldocumented. Unfortunately, there is limitedinformation available on the integratedplanning for renewal2 of road, sewer, andwater systems. Integration provides anopportunity to exploit potential economies ofscale when more than one infrastructureelement requires renewal. This can maximizeeconomic and social benefits to the areaserved by the infrastructure. This documentpresents an integrated approach toassessment and evaluation of these threesystems.

An integrated approach to renewal planningwill help maintain a high level of service whileminimizing life cycle costs, impacts on theenvironment, and disruption to the community.In simple terms, the goal of every municipalityshould be to spend the right amount of money,on the right things, at the right time. This isconsistent with the InfraGuide’s sustainable

1. General

1.1 Introduction


1. General

An integratedapproach torenewal planningwill help maintaina high level ofservice whileminimizing lifecycle costs,impacts on theenvironment, anddisruption to thecommunity.

1. In some cases, a utility or private company may be responsible for one or more of the municipal systems.2. For the purposes of this document, renewal includes both rehabilitation and replacement/reconstruction.

municipal infrastructure principles of full lifecycle costs applied across social, economicand environmental dimensions in the pursuit ofsustainable infrastructure to minimize overallintended and unintended costs both today andfor future generations.

1.2.2 Scope

This best practice focuses on the integratedassessment and evaluation of the road, sewer,and water systems at a network level. Moredetailed investigation will be required toassess the condition and evaluate the needsat a project level. It should also be noted thatthis best practice focuses on the linearsystems only and does not address structures,such as bridges, pumping stations, treatmentplants, and reservoirs. Furthermore, thisdocument primarily focuses on the processused to develop an integrated renewal plan. It does not specifically address operation andmaintenance practices.

1.3 How to Use This Document

Section 2 outlines potential benefits and risksof implementing this best practice. Section 3presents a five-step process for assessmentand evaluation that is applicable to all types ofmunicipal infrastructure. Section 4 presentssome of the applications and limitations of thisbest practice. Finally, Section 5 describesmeasures that can be used to evaluate theeffectiveness of this best practice in amunicipality.

Readers should be aware that InfraGuide haspublished two other best practices that arerelevant to integrated renewal planning ofroad, sewer, and water systems. These arebriefly described as follows.

■ Coordinating Infrastructure Works outlinesthe best practice for coordinatinginfrastructure works. Five service deliveryareas are addressed: coordinationpractices, corridor upgrades, restrictivepractices, approval processes/bettercommunication, and technicalconsiderations.

■ Planning and Defining MunicipalInfrastructure Needs outlines the bestpractice for planning and defining municipalinfrastructure needs using five methods:strategic planning, informationmanagement, building public support and acceptance, exploring new andinnovative methods for continuousimprovement, and prioritization models.

1.4 Glossary

Assessment — The process used to describethe condition and/or performance of a systemcomponent.

Critical Component — Those components of the system where failure is not anacceptable risk.

Evaluation — The process used (after theassessment is completed) to determine theremedial measures necessary to improve thecondition and/or performance of a systemcomponent at the least cost to the community.

Full Cost Accounting — A system thatincludes all costs (including capitalinvestment, financing, renewal andrehabilitation, decommissioning, andoperational) across social, economic andenvironmental dimensions.

Life cycle cost — Costs over the full life cycle of an asset, from construction, throughoperation, maintenance and rehabilitation, to replacement/reconstruction.

Rehabilitation — Upgrading the condition or performance of an asset to extend itsservice life.

Renewal — Restoring the condition of anasset by rehabilitation or replacement/reconstruction.

Replacement — Replacing an asset that hasreached the end of its service life.

1. General


1.3 How to Use

This Document

1.4 Glossary


2.1 Background

Best practices for assessing and evaluatingroad, sewer, and water systems are generallywell documented. The TransportationAssociation of Canada (TAC) has published thePavement Design and Management Guide thatpresents information on the best practices forprogramming and optimizing pavementinvestments, in-service evaluation, structuraldesign, construction, and maintenance.InfraGuide has published Timely PreventiveMaintenance for Municipal Roads — A Primerand Priority Planning and Budgeting Processfor Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation.

For sewer systems, many municipalitiesacross Canada have adopted the sewercondition rating system developed by theWater Research Centre (WRc) in the UnitedKingdom. In addition, the Water EnvironmentFederation (WEF) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) have published amanual of practice entitled Existing SewerEvaluation and Rehabilitation.

For water systems, InfraGuide has publishedDeveloping a Water Distribution SystemRenewal Plan. The American Water WorksAssociation (AWWA) and the American WaterWorks Research Foundation (AwwaRF) havealso published several technical reports onwater distribution system renewal.

A formal process for assessment andevaluation of these systems will identify theshort-term renewal requirements. Over time, itshould be possible to monitor the deteriorationrate for the system components to facilitatelonger-term planning. An integrated approachto assessment and evaluation of the road,sewer, and water systems will further enhancerenewal planning.

2.1.1 Common Practices

The condition of municipal roads is morereadily apparent than the condition of buriedsewer and water systems. As a result,pavement management systems are generallybetter developed than management systemsfor sewer and water systems. Furthermore, the service life of roads is generally shorterthan that for the sewer and water systems.Consequently, in many municipalities, the roadrenewal program has driven the renewalplanning for the sewer and water systems.

Municipalities have not always made soundengineering decisions regarding the timing for renewal of sewers and water mains. This shortcoming stems from the fact thatcondition of the sewers and water mains isdifficult to ascertain since they are buried. As a result, in some cases, sewers and watermains have been replaced when the road was reconstructed even though the existingsewers and water mains were still in goodcondition. This conservative approach hasbeen adopted by some municipalities to avoidthe potential embarrassment of having toexcavate the road shortly after it wasreconstructed to repair a sewer or water main.These municipalities also argue that replacingthe underground services when the road isreconstructed will achieve cost savings andminimize disruption to local traffic andresidents.

2. Rationale

2.1 Background


2. Rationale

Over time, itshould be possibleto monitor thedeterioration ratefor the systemcomponents tofacilitate longer-term planning.

In other cases, municipalities did not replacedeteriorated sewers and water mains when aroad was reconstructed. Such a decision maylead to unnecessary costs and disruptionwhen the underground services had to berepaired or replaced while the road was still ingood condition. Municipalities should conducta detailed assessment of the sewers andwater mains to determine the optimum timingfor their renewal.

In light of shrinking financial resources andthe public’s demand for a more transparentdecision-making process, it is becoming moreimportant for municipalities to plan therenewal of their road, sewer, and watersystems using an integrated approach.

2.1.2 Collateral Impacts

One system may impact the other systems invarious ways.

■ Water main leaks and breaks canundermine adjacent sewers and the roadstructure leading to premature failure ofthese systems.

■ Sewer deterioration can undermineadjacent water mains and the roadstructure leading to premature failure of these systems.

■ Inadequate compaction around valve boxes,valve chambers, maintenance holes, andcatch basins can result in premature failureof the road at these locations.

■ Vibrations generated during roadresurfacing/reconstruction and excavationscan break deteriorated water mains.

■ If the road profile is raised significantlyduring reconstruction, earth loads on thesewers and water mains are increased,potentially exceeding design loading andincreasing the risk of collapse.

■ If the road profile is lowered duringreconstruction, the sewers and water mainsare more susceptible to freezing, and liveloads may also exceed design loading forthe buried infrastructure.

■ Road salt can accelerate the corrosion ofmetallic pipes and fittings as well as steelreinforcement in concrete pipes.

■ Stray electrical currents can accelerateelectrolytic corrosion of metallic watermains, force mains and appurtenances.

■ Some trenchless technologies for sewerand water main construction could damageroads if the technology is not well suited fora particular application or if it is notcorrectly applied.

■ Improperly sized or maintained stormdrainage could result in flooding and theresulting detrimental impact on roads.

■ Differential frost heave can occur if thetrench backfill is a different material thanthe road sub-grade.

■ Excavation within a roadway forconstruction/repair of a sewer or watermain can lead to premature failure of the road if the backfill is not adequatelycompacted or the pavement is not properly restored.

■ Different pavement structures cansignificantly impact future rehabilitationcosts of buried infrastructure.

2. Rationale

2.1 Background


2.2 Benefits

There are several benefits in an integratedapproach to assessing and evaluating road,sewer, and water systems in a municipality.

■ The approach minimizes life cycle costs,impacts on the environment, and disruptionsto local traffic and residents.

■ Infrastructure management is moreproactive, and a high level of service can be maintained.

■ Coordination among municipal departmentsis improved with increased opportunities forcross-training of municipal staff, and easierstaff transfers or changes.

■ Ensures that municipal services with splitjurisdictions are identified and considered.

■ Road, sewer, and water system work can be coordinated with growth-related needs.

■ Full cost accounting is improved.

■ Integration provides a consistent repeatableapproach to infrastructure management.Long-range planning is also improved interms of technical, financial, and riskmanagement.

■ Decision making takes into account bothintended and unintended costs to the publicand communities.

2.3 Risks

The potential risks of an integrated approachinclude the following.

■ Additional resources will be required toconduct an integrated assessment andevaluation of the systems.

■ Renewal costs could be high in the shortterm if the renewal programs wereunderfunded in the past. Municipalities may not fully appreciate that an integratedrenewal plan should help minimize life cycle costs.

■ There could be a lack of support for anintegrated renewal plan from stakeholders(e.g., operators, politicians, and the public)in those systems that have not experiencedsignificant problems.

■ Cost-sharing formulas that disadvantageone or more infrastructure elements couldreduce support for an integration program(i.e., to be effective, financial benefits andcosts should be determined in an open,transparent manner).

■ Staff support may be lost if there is anexpectation that the condition ratingsystems and other analytical tools cangenerate an optimum plan without inputfrom the municipal staff.

■ Assumptions made on infrastructurecondition could be wrong. Deterioration and condition data for some infrastructurecomponents is currently insufficient orunavailable.

2. Rationale

2.2 Benefits

2.3 Risks


Integration providesa consistentrepeatable approachto infrastructuremanagement. Long-rangeplanning is alsoimproved in termsof technical,financial, and riskmanagement. Additionalresources will berequired to conductan integratedassessment andevaluation of thesystems.


A systematic and proactive method should beused to plan the renewal of municipal road,sewer, and water systems in an integratedmanner. Figure 3–1 illustrates a pragmaticapproach for assessing and evaluating thesesystems. Although the inventory, investigation,condition assessment, and performance

evaluation can be completed independentlyfor the road, sewer, and water systems,significant efficiency can be achieved if therenewal alternatives are evaluated taking intoconsideration coordination of works over thelife cycle of each element.

3. Work Description

Figure 3–1:

Integrated approach to

assessment and evaluation


3. Work Description

Integrated Approach to Assessment and Evaluation

Task 1 – Inventorydata managementdata requirements

Task 2 – Investigationcritical components

preliminary assessmentdetailed investigation

Task 3 – Condition Assessmentstructural capacity

serviceefficiency compliance

importance

Task 4 – Performance Evaluationdeterioration rates

prioritization of needslevel of service

available fundingtimeframe for renewal

Task 5 – Renewal Planeconomic analysis

coordination with growth needsregulations

risk management

Updatedata

Figure 3–1: Integrated approach to assessment and evaluation

These phases are not necessarily distinct and do not always have to be conductedsequentially. For example, a detailedinvestigation of roads may not be done until after the condition assessment andperformance evaluation has been completed.In other cases, the inventory is compiled along with the inspection.

It should also be noted that criticalcomponents should be dealt with separatelyfrom the non-critical components throughoutall phases of the process. All components ofinfrastructure should be examined at afrequency that is shorter than half of itsexpected life. Critical components shouldreceive a more thorough inspection andcondition assessment on an increasedfrequency. Similarly, critical componentsshould be treated with a higher priority inthe evaluation and renewal planning phases.

3.1 Task 1 — Inventory

3.1.1 Data Management

This phase includes the compilation of aninventory of the road, sewer, and watersystems. The inventory should include thephysical attributes of each component as well as significant other features such asmeteorological and environmental data.InfraGuide has published a document entitledBest Practices for Utility-Based Data thatpresents a foundation and guide foridentifying, storing, and managing sewer and water system data. This best practice can be adapted for roads and other utilities.

The Best Practices for Utility-Based Datarecommends the use of a documented datamodel/data structure, data collectionstandards, standard data units, and standardlocation referencing. It makes suggestions for collecting and maintaining data, properlystoring data, and effectively managing thatdata. The best practice also recommendsmaintaining meta data.3

The data management plan should be updatedperiodically to reflect changing needs, newtechnologies, and new opportunities. In somecases, pilot tests can be completed to confirmthe feasibility and costs of some datacollection and management technologies.

In light of the significant amount of datarequired to conduct a detailed assessmentand evaluation of road, sewer, and watersystems, municipalities should compile theinventories in relational databases. Ideally, the databases should be linked to ageographic information system (GIS) tofacilitate spatial analysis of the systems. In addition, these inventories should becoordinated with other applications, such as maintenance management systems, toshare the inventory.

3.1.2 Data Requirements

Best Practices for Utility-Based Data identifiedseveral key data groups for sewer and water systems, including system attributes,operations and maintenance, performance,and meteorological, environmental, customer,and financial data.

The format and content of the databases willvary among municipalities depending on suchfactors as the size of the municipality, theavailable funding, the severity of the problemsor apparent inefficiencies, and the capabilitiesof the municipal staff. In some cases, it maytake several years for a municipality tocompile a comprehensive inventory of itssystems. However, each municipality shouldadopt a plan for data collection andmanagement that will eventually allow themunicipality to manage its systems proactivelyin a cost-effective manner.

3. Work Description

3.1 Task 1 —

Inventory


3. Meta data describe the source and accuracy of the inventory data as well as information on when data were entered and by whom, and how the data were acquired, etc.

3.1.3 Integration of Data

The database for each system must bestructured so the information tables can becross-referenced with each other as well aswith the databases for the other systems.Typically, the roads are divided into segmentsbounded by intersections. The sewers andwater mains should be linked to the roadsegments to facilitate an integratedassessment and evaluation.

When all the data for the roads, sewers, andwater mains have been entered into a mapenvironment (preferably on GIS), it is possibleto use spatial analysis to pull all the datatogether. This methodology eliminates theneed to tie each facility into the exact samereference points.

3.2 Task 2 — Investigation

3.2.1 Critical Components

The inventory can provide much neededinformation to help identify criticalinfrastructure. Consideration can be given to size, age, infrastructure function, inspectionhistory, maintenance history, operatorobservations and other important factors in a systematic way to establish integratedinspection and assessment programs.

Arterial roads are more critical than collectorand local roads since arterial roads havehigher traffic volumes. Similarly, watertransmission mains are more critical thanwater distribution mains, and trunk sewers aremore critical than collector and local sewers.The importance of each component should beindicated in the inventory. Several factors canbe used to identify critical components, suchas traffic volumes on roads, diameter ofsewers and water mains, potential costs offailure (in terms of repair costs and damagesto property and the environment), and impactsof service disruption on customers.

The primary objective of a renewal plan fornon-critical roads, sewers, and water mains is to minimize the life cycle costs recognizingthat occasional repairs are tolerable. On theother hand, the primary objective of a renewalplan for critical roads, sewers, and watermains is to minimize failures. As a result,renewal planning for critical components must be more proactive than that for non-critical components.

Furthermore, the renewal planning for thesewers and water mains located under criticalroads should be proactive recognizing thatsewer collapses and water main breaksshould be minimized under critical roads.

It should be noted that critical infrastructureservice life should be a prime consideration in the planning and design stages for newinfrastructure. This concept is important in the planning of replacement cycles.

3.2.2 Roads

The Pavement Design and Management Guide (TAC, 1997) outlines several methods for investigating and assessing the structuralcapacity, condition, roughness, and safety ofroads. The following paragraphs summarizemethods used to quantify the condition andperformance of roads. More detailedinformation is provided in the PavementDesign and Management Guide.

Structural CapacityThe structural capacity of a pavement istypically determined using field tests, such asthe Benkelman Beam, the Dynaflect®, and theFalling Weight Deflectometer. These testsmeasure pavement deflections under a load.

ConditionVisual surveys are commonly used to measurepavement distress. Pavement conditionsurveys should include the type of distress as well as its extent, severity, and location.Surface defects, permanent deformation anddistortion, cracking, and patching are the most common types of distress.

3. Work Description

3.1 Task 1 —

Inventory

3.2 Task 2 —

Investigation


The primaryobjective of arenewal plan fornon-critical roads,sewers, and watermains is tominimize the lifecycle costsrecognizing thatoccasional repairsare tolerable.

RoughnessPavement roughness is a primary indicator ofserviceability. The Riding Comfort Index (RCI)is commonly used in Canada as a measure ofserviceability. The International RoughnessIndex (IRI) has recently been gaining industryacceptance as well. A panel would drive alonga road, and their opinions on the roadwaywould form the RCI. In recent years, severalmechanical tools have been developed tomeasure pavement roughness.

SafetyPavement safety can be quantified in terms of skid resistance, ruts, light reflectivity of the pavement surface, and lane demarcation.There are several methods used to measureskid resistance. Visual inspections arecommonly used to assess ruts, lightreflectivity, and lane demarcation.

3.2.3 Sewers

Deterioration of sewers is manifested as:

■ structural defects (e.g., cracks, fracture,sags, deformation, open joints, displacedjoints);

■ service defects (e.g., protruding laterals,tree roots, silt, grease, encrustation,obstructions);

■ system surcharges and sewer backups; and

■ a high groundwater infiltration rate insanitary sewer systems.

Closed-circuit television (CCTV) is commonlyused to inspect sewers. Many Canadianmunicipalities have adopted the scoringsystem developed by the Water ResearchCentre (WRc, 1986) to quantify the structuralcondition and functional adequacy of sewers.

The National Research Council has publisheda guideline (NRC, 2000) for conditionassessment and rehabilitation of sewers that are larger than 900 mm in diameter. This guideline also describes several otherinspection techniques for large sewers (e.g., sonar, stationary camera, visual).(http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/catalogue/uir.html)

Some municipalities use flow monitoring and computer modelling to quantifygroundwater infiltration in sanitary sewersystems and to determine if there is sparecapacity. InfraGuide has published a bestpractice, Infiltration/Inflow Control/Reductionfor Wastewater Collection Systems (NGSMI,2003h). It describes the techniques commonlyused to assess the structural condition andhydraulic capacity of sewer systems.

3.2.4 Water Mains

Deterioration of water mains is evident withone or more of the following manifestations:

■ frequent breaks;

■ reduced hydraulic capacity;

■ a high leakage rate; and

■ impaired water quality.

Water main break records and hydraulicroughness tests are commonly used toquantify the condition of water mains.InfraGuide has published Deterioration andInspection of Water Distribution Systems —Best Practice (2003g). It uses a two-phaseapproach. The first phase involves apreliminary assessment of the waterdistribution system using data that should be collected by every municipality on a routine basis (e.g., water main break records,customer complaints, water quality). The second phase involves a more detailedinvestigation of specific problems based onfindings of the preliminary assessment.

3.2.5 Inspection Program

An inspection program should be developedfor the road, sewer, and water systems toensure renewal programs are based on sound data and are adequately funded. The frequency of inspection for each systemcomponent depends on its expected conditionand importance. The results of eachinspection should be documented to allowcomparisons with subsequent inspections so, over time, reasonable estimates ofdeterioration rates can be made.

3. Work Description

3.2 Task 2 —

Investigation


An inspectionprogram should bedeveloped for theroad, sewer, and

water systems toensure renewal

programs are basedon sound data and

are adequatelyfunded.

3.3 Task 3 — Condition Assessment

3.3.1 Condition Rating Systems

Condition rating systems should be used to identify and prioritize the renewalrequirements for roads, sewers, and watermains. Several performance indicators can be used to assess their structural conditionand functional adequacy. The followingtabulation summarizes the general categoriesof performance indicators:

The number of indicators to be included in a condition rating system will vary amongmunicipalities depending on the size of themunicipality, the data available, and thespecific conditions for each system.

Condition rating systems typically include apoint scoring system for each performanceindicator. Weighting factors can be applied toeach performance indicator to generate a totalscore for each component. The total scoresfor the components on a street segment canthen be added (with appropriate weightingfactors) to generate an overall score for eachstreet segment.

The total scores for each system can beranked so the components in the poorestcondition are easily identified. Similarly, theoverall scores for the street segments can be ranked. A sensitivity analysis should beconducted to assess the relative significanceof each performance indicator. Ideally, thecondition rating systems should be linked to a GIS to more easily assess any spatial trendsin the ratings for each system.

3.3.2 Capacity Analysis

Traffic studies should be conductedperiodically to identify the need to upgrade the roads in a municipality to accommodateprojected traffic volumes.

Hydraulic analyses should be conducted forsewer and water systems to provide input tothe development of a renewal plan. In somecases, it may be necessary to expedite therenewal of sanitary and combined sewersexperiencing high rates of infiltration toreduce the risk of basement flooding andoverflows.

Similarly, it may be necessary to rehabilitatean unlined water main that is heavilytuberculated in order to supply adequatewater pressures and fire flows. In some cases,it may be necessary to replace a water mainwith a larger diameter pipe if it does not haveadequate capacity, even if it was rehabilitated.

Master plans based on community planswhich outline future growth should beprepared and updated periodically to identifythe need for improvements to the road, sewer,and water systems to service projecteddevelopment/redevelopment. For complexlarger systems, computer models of thesystem are helpful in the preparation of themaster plans. Ideally, the computer models foreach system should be linked to the inventoryto facilitate periodic updates of the modelsand the assignment of capacity ratings.

Roads Sewers Water Mains

Structural/bearing capacityCondition/distress

Structuraldefects

Structural/break rates

Volume/capacityratio

Hydrauliccapacity

Hydrauliccapacity

Roughness/rideability

Infiltration Leakage

Safety Service defects Water quality

Importance Importance Importance

3. Work Description

3.3 Task 3 —

Condition

Assessment


Condition ratingsystems should beused to identify andprioritize the renewalrequirements forroads, sewers, andwater mains.

3.3.3 Compliance with Current ServiceLevel Requirements

An existing sewer or water main may not meet current service level requirements. In these cases, it is not practical torehabilitate the pipe, and replacement isnecessary. The timing for replacement of non-standard components will depend onavailable funding and whether the non-standard component poses a major risk to the municipality. Ideally, non-standard sewersand water mains should be considered forreplacement when the road is reconstructedto minimize costs, and disruption to localtraffic and residents.

A comprehensive renewal plan should alsoconsider risk management issues as well asthe possibility of implementing more stringentregulations.

3.3.4 Technology tools

Condition rating systems may be classified as proprietary, non-proprietary, or thosedeveloped in-house.

Systems Developed In-HouseThese systems are designed to make use ofexisting data and reflect the specific needsof a municipality. In-house systems are bestsuited for assessment of systems when only a few parameters are considered. Thesesystems are usually limited in terms of thesophistication of the rating system, thegraphical user interface, and the datastandards. It is difficult to compare thecondition ratings generated using an in-house system with the ratings generated using other systems. Nevertheless, in-housesystems are often used as a stepping stonetoward more sophisticated systems if such is required.

Proprietary SystemsSeveral proprietary systems are available forrating the condition of roads, sewers, andwater mains. The sophistication and cost of these systems varies over a wide range. Some can be customized to better reflect the needs of a municipality. Municipalitiesshould carefully review their current andfuture information technology (IT) needsbefore selecting a proprietary system. In some cases, the condition rating system is an add-on module to a maintenancemanagement system. The selection of aproprietary system should be based on areview of cost for software and upgrades, as well as other factors such as technicalsupport, vendor’s track record, and cost for customization.

Non-Proprietary Systems Several agencies and organizations havedeveloped condition rating systems thatreflect the experience of many experts. Some provincial transportation departmentshave developed condition rating systems for roads, and the American Public WorksAssociation (APWA) has developed a system(known as Paver) that has become a standardcondition rating system for roads. Similarly, the Water Research Centre (WRc) in theUnited Kingdom and the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) have developedcondition rating systems for sewers. Currently,there is no Canadian standard for conditionrating of water mains.

3. Work Description

3.3 Task 3 —

Condition

Assessment


3.4 Task 4 — Performance Evaluation

Once the condition of the road, sewer, and water systems has been quantified, aperformance evaluation should be conductedfor each system to project the investmentrequired over the next 10 to 20 years.

The cost to renew the system components thatare in poor condition (i.e., those that exceed athreshold) can be estimated. Consequently, thetime frame for renewal of these componentsdepends on the funding available each year.Several scenarios can be considered toevaluate the trade-offs between the level ofservice (i.e., the condition rating), the annualinvestment, and the time frame for renewal ofthe components that are in poor condition.

Renewal plans that are developed using thisnetwork-level evaluation should be checkedusing a top-down approach to ensure theinvestment will be sufficient to sustain thesystems over the long term. The long-termaverage annual renewal cost for a system can be estimated using the top-downapproach by dividing the total replacementcost for a system by its estimated lifeexpectancy.

If sufficient information were available toestimate the deterioration rate for eachsystem component, then it would be possibleto refine the projected renewal needs. In anyevent, the performance evaluation should beupdated periodically to reflect currentconditions.

More sophisticated performance appraisalsystems include an assessment of theprobability of the individual componentreaching its intended service life.

3.5 Task 5 — Rehabilitation/Replacement Plan

Once it has been established that a systemcomponent should be rehabilitated orreplaced, an economic analysis should beused to select the most cost-effective methodof renewal. An economic analysis typicallycompares the renewal alternatives in terms of their present worth.4

The following list describes some exampleswhere an economic analysis should be used.

■ Is it more cost effective to replace a watermain rather than continue to repair it?

■ Is it more cost effective to replace a sewerrather than complete several spot repairs?

■ Is it more cost effective to rehabilitate asewer or water main (to extend its servicelife) rather than replace it now?

■ Is it more cost effective to overlay a road to extend its service life rather thanreconstruct it now?

■ Is it more cost effective to replace a sewer or water main in conjunction with aplanned road reconstruction or defer thereplacement of the sewer or water mainas long as possible?

An economic analysis should account forintended and unintended socio-economicimpacts (e.g., disruption to traffic, businessactivity and residents). Several sources,including the USDOT (1997) and the AwwaRF(2002) identify a method for quantifying socio-economic impacts.

InfraGuide has published two documents that summarize the best practice for selecting technologies for rehabilitation and replacement of sewers and water mains(NGSMI, 2003a,b). Similarly, the PavementDesign and Management Guide (TAC, 1997)outlines an approach for optimizing investmentin roads.

3. Work Description

3.4 Task 4 —

Performance

Evaluation

3.5 Task 5 —

Rehabilitation/

Replacement Plan


4. Present worth analysis is a technique used to compare alternative schemes that have different costs over a certain planning period.The present worth represents the current investment that would have to be made at a specific discount (or interest) rate to pay for the initial and future cost of the works.

The long-termaverage annualrenewal cost for asystem can beestimated using thetop-down approachby dividing the totalreplacement costfor a system by itsestimated lifeexpectancy.

The selection of the preferred renewalstrategy for a component should not be basedstrictly on the economic analysis. The renewalplan should also account for other factors,such as risk, growth needs, environmentalimpacts and changing regulations andpolicies, as well as emerging technologies.

To maximize social and economic benefits,infrastructure needs should be examined toidentify areas where integrated renewalactivities could be concentrated:

■ geographic areas with significant renewalneeds could result in neighbourhoodrenewal programs; and

■ links requiring renewal work for severalinfrastructure elements could result incorridor upgrades.

Ideally, municipalities should use an integrateddecision support system to facilitate therenewal planning of road, sewer, and watersystems. Currently, there are only a fewproprietary systems available in Canada.

3. Work Description

3.5 Task 5 —

Rehabilitation/

Replacement Plan



4.1 Applications

All municipalities across Canada shouldimplement an integrated approach toassessment and evaluation of municipal road,sewer, and water systems. The practices mustbe tailored to each municipality to reflect thesize and age (i.e., condition) of the systems.

An integrated approach is particularlyimportant for those municipalities that have a significant backlog of renewal work to becompleted. Furthermore, an integratedrenewal plan is critical for those municipalitiesexpecting a decline in population and revenuebase. For those municipalities that are notexperiencing significant problems, anintegrated renewal plan should identifyopportunities for improving the management of their systems.

All municipalities should recognize thatintegrated planning of the renewal needs forroad, sewer, and water systems is an ongoingprocess of continuous improvement and notsimply a one-time event. It might take severalyears to compile detailed inventories andinspections of the infrastructure. However,during this period, systems will likely beexpanded, some elements will be replaced,and the other elements will have deteriorated.

The renewal plans should be updated everyyear or so to reflect current information. Overtime, as more information becomes available,the renewal plans will become more refinedand better integrated.

Municipalities should develop a plan forintegrated assessment and evaluation of theirinfrastructure. This plan should identify bothshort- and long-term goals. The short-termplan should recognize the realities of themunicipality’s current resources whereas the long-term plan should strive for a fullyintegrated renewal plan.

4.2 Limitations

Municipalities may be challenged to completean integrated assessment and evaluation oftheir road, sewer, and water systems due tothe lack of data, tools, resources, and astandard approach. Ongoing education of all stakeholders is necessary to develop and maintain an integrated renewal plan.Municipalities should strive to maintain anadequate complement of qualified and highlymotivated staff to manage their systems.

4. Applications andLimitations

4.1 Applications

4.2 Limitations

4. Applications and Limitations

All municipalitiesshould recognizethat integratedplanning of therenewal needs forroad, sewer, andwater systems isan ongoing processof continuousimprovement andnot simply a one-time event.


The following points describe severalmeasures that can be used to evaluate theeffectiveness of the practices outlined inSection 3.

■ Track both planned and unplanned spending and disruptions to confirm that the integrated approach is effective.Tracking should provide evidence that there are sufficient resources to manageunplanned work and that planned renewalactivities are more cost effective. It iscommonly accepted that preventivemaintenance of municipal infrastructure is generally more cost effective thanreactive maintenance.

■ Develop a plan to compile the inventory and conduct the investigations. This planshould outline a schedule and budget forcompletion of these activities. Review these activities periodically to ensurecompliance with the plan.

■ Conduct pilot studies to confirm theapproach to the data collection andinspection activities as well as to assessthe effectiveness of the renewaltechnologies.

■ Update the performance evaluation andrenewal plan every five to ten years toreflect the current conditions as well asaccount for the effectiveness of the variousrenewal technologies.

■ Track and compare the planned versusactual life cycles of the variousinfrastructure elements. This providesuseful data, which either validates theassumptions made or provides moreaccurate information for input into anupdated assessment. It may also provideinformation to affect change in design andconstruction practices, which ultimatelyresult in improved infrastructure life cycles.


5. Evaluation5. Evaluation

It is commonlyaccepted thatpreventivemaintenance ofmunicipalinfrastructure is generally morecost effective thanreactivemaintenance.


AwwaRF (American Water Works Association

Research Foundation), 2002. Costs of InfrastructureFailure. Denver, Colorado

NGSMI (National Guide to Sustainable Municipal

Infrastructure), 2003a. Selection of Technologies forSewer Rehabilitation and Replacement – BestPractice. Ottawa, Ontario.

NGSMI, 2003b. Selection of Technologies for theRehabilitation or Replacement of Sections of a WaterDistribution System – Best Practice. Ottawa, Ontario.

____, 2003c. Co-ordination of Infrastructure Works toMinimize Disruption and Maximize Value. Ottawa,

Ontario.

____, 2003d. Planning and Defining MunicipalInfrastructure Needs – Best Practice. Ottawa, Ontario.

____, 2003e. Best Practices for Utility-Based Data.Ottawa, Ontario.

____, 2003f. Developing a Water Distribution SystemRenewal Plan – Best Practice. Ottawa, Ontario.

____, 2003g. Deterioration and Inspection of WaterDistribution Systems – Best Practice. Ottawa, Ontario.

____, 2003h. Infiltration/Inflow Control/Reduction forWastewater Collection Systems – Best Practice.Ottawa, Ontario.

NRC (National Research Council of Canada), 2000.

Guidelines for Condition Assessment andRehabilitation of Large Sewers. Ottawa, Ontario.

TAC (Transportation Association of Canada), 1997.

Pavement Design and Management Guide. Toronto,

Ontario.

United States, DOT (Department of Transportation),

1997. The Value of Saving Travel Time: DepartmentalGuidance for Conducting Economic Evaluation.Washington, D.C.

WEF (Water Environment Federation) and ASCE

(American Society of Civil Engineers), 1994. ExistingSewer Evaluation and Rehabilitation (Second Edition).Alexandria, VA.

WEF Manual of Practice FD-6 et ASCE Manuals and

Reports on Engineering Practice No. 62. Alexandria,

VA.


ReferencesReferences


Notes

Documents

MD2 Eng Apr 26 · Potable water best practices address various approaches to enhance a municipality’s or water utility’s ability to manage drinking water delivery in a way that