Water Main Break Sign of Aging Infrastructure?

Thursday, May 13, 2010 03:58 AM

Prince George, B.C.- A water-main break on George Street yesterday left numerous businesses without water for several hours, and George Street blocked off to traffic. In a city with lots of aging infrastructure the break is not likely to be the last.

The cause of yesterday’s break is not clear says Kevin Sanregret, the Supervisor of Utilities Operations for the City of Prince George “Typically we have a water- main break late in the year when the frost sets in, or early in the spring when the frost leaves. The frost was long gone, so we aren’t sure what caused this break.”

Sanregret says it took about three hours for the repair to be made.

The break occurred at 2^nd and George Street on a section of underground line that was installed in the mid to late 1950’s. Sanregret says there have already been 3 breaks in the older areas of town this year and a total of 7 breaks throughout the City since January. “We are on the high side of normal (numbers) for breaks this year.”

Yesterday, a six foot piece of the water main had to be replaced. Because the underground soil was saturated, it had to be removed, (15 truck loads) and fresh dry fill put back in.

Such breaks are not cheap. Utilities Manager, Marco Fornari says they can cost anywhere from $5 thousand to $10 thousand dollars to repair and the bill can be much higher if a road needs to be upgraded or resurfaced because of the excavation needed to get to the break.

Was the break a warning of things to come? The water mains and sewer lines have a life span and upgrades to the City’s aging infrastructure have been under discussion for some time. Unfortunately, says Councillor Cameron Stolz, not enough money has been put aside in the past to help pay for the work that needs to be done now and in the future “Right now we have an infrastructure deficit in Prince George in the neighbourhood of $123 million dollars. We have to start looking forward to see how we are going to deal with that infrastructure deficit.”

It had been hoped the Federal Government would come through with funding to help communities like Prince George upgrade critical infrastructure like water and sewer mains, but that hasn’t happened.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 03:58 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Eagleone on May 13 2010 5:22 AM

Downtown on George is below the 200 year flood plane... underground pipes would surely be saturated in water for long periods of time? Prime ground for rust is my thinking. Maybe we need to do what the shipping industry does and run electricity through the pipes to prevent the rusting process, but not sure how that could be done without it all going to ground....

Posted by: acrider54 on May 13 2010 5:36 AM

Aging infrastructure just like the roads. Another good excuse to raise taxes even more.

Posted by: gus on May 13 2010 6:25 AM

It is hardly an excuse to raise taxes. It is a very valid reason to raise taxes.

If there truly is an accounting in place that says we have an infrastructure deficit of $123 million, then it is obvious that too many past administrations have not done what they needed to do to avoid future generations paying excessive taxes.

The obvious question then becomes, what is a reasonable payment schedule into infrastructure replacement accounts which would reduce the deficit to zero over say a 20 year period and what would be the tax increase for that period?

If every city in the country expects bailouts from the feds for their poor handling of their affairs, it looks like our federal taxes will be going up as well. Hopefully someone is looking at this from the point of view of equity for all in this country!!!! I do not feel like paying higher federal taxes to bail out other cities who are not acting responsibly to not burden others in the country while at the same time taking steps to make our own community self sufficient.

Is there anyone at City Hall who has the guts to speak to this community about the true financial state of this community?

Posted by: pansy on May 13 2010 7:36 AM

yep
we let things get run down, then all of a sudden a pile of money is needed to bring the infrastructure up to date. Just like a house if you let it run down, then at some point you have to spend alot of money or condemn it.
I agree doesn't matter if its municipal, provincial or federal $$ - it's all tax payer's money.
Remember the government has no money - all government money is tax payers money!

Posted by: He spoke on May 13 2010 8:23 AM

Well, git er dun. We have spent 50 to 70k fixing broken lines, and all we have are patches on the system.

Get together a plan, and git er dun

Posted by: duffer on May 13 2010 8:44 AM

The inmates in charge now would rather spend $100,000,000.00 on a new police station and performing arts centre.

Posted by: northerngurl on May 13 2010 10:47 AM

Given that City taxpayers have recently been subjected to a recent tax increase, the thought or suggestion of doing it again is very concerning to me. When we talk about past administrations and their decisions to re-direct funds that were meant for infrastructure to other programs or areas, resulting in our current infrastructure crisis (yes, crisis…deteriorating streets, water lines, sewage lines, etc.), I wonder what our current administration is doing differently? We see much discussion, effort and dollars invested into beautifying our downtown; purchasing real estate without public consultation and involving what would seem to me to be a serious conflict of interest by our Mayor in such real estate dealings. I wonder how far the tax payers’ investment into the latest real estate venture involving the former PG Hotel would have gone to plan or begin to address the aging infrastructure problem, that really is an embarrassment to our City, more so then whether or not our sidewalks are swept and whether or not floral baskets are hanging from the lamp posts. It seems to this tax payer that our current Council is more concerned about downtown aesthetics, and neglect to consider that the very foundation of our City is crumbling beneath us, yet their actions suggest that as long as there is a fresh coat of paint and some air freshener sprayed, that nobody can see or smell the stink that is emanating from below.

Posted by: MrPG on May 13 2010 11:04 AM

How do you 'maintain' a water main? Don't you pretty much have to wait until it breaks before you fix it?

The tough thing is deciding whether it's more cost effective to repair or replace. For now, repairs would seem to be the cheapest option. If you start having breaks every week, the option to replace would become more viable.

Posted by: northerngurl on May 13 2010 12:11 PM

Tools that other Canadian cities utilize in ensuring their infrastructure is satisfactorily maintained include a consistent ranking system to evaluate the state and condition of existing infrastructure assets of all classes (i.e. drainage, streets, recreation facilities, information systems, etc.), a risk assessment methodology to help quantify the risk of asset failure and relate this risk to investment levels and life cycle cost analysis to support better decision-making and long-term planning. It would seem that Prince George utilizes a crisis driven system, that reacts in response when the situation becomes urgent (and I could argue dangerous in relation to the state of some of our community streets).

Perhaps implementing and adhering to a plan that diligently addresses the strengths and weaknesses of current infrastructure, would reduce some of the frustration that is currently realized by many residents of this City. I would suggest that before funds are invested into what would seem non-essential expenditures, our council needs to look at taking a progressive approach to infrastructure maintenance and asset management, and before dumping our money into new video recording equipment for Council meetings, etc, they need to implement a risk management methodology and invest our money where it is needed most.

Posted by: MrPG on May 13 2010 1:22 PM

"I would suggest that before funds are invested into what would seem non-essential expenditures, our council needs to look at taking a progressive approach to infrastructure maintenance and asset management, and before dumping our money into new video recording equipment for Council meetings, etc, they need to implement a risk management methodology and invest our money where it is needed most."

There's a loaded statement. Nobody can agree on what a 'non-essential' expediture is. Deciding on what to spend tax dollars on is what makes a good council vs. a bad one.

All anyone can agree on is that nobody ever seems to get it right according to their perspective.

Posted by: northerngurl on May 13 2010 1:52 PM

I hardly see how my comment is a “loaded statement” MrPG, and think that it is actually common sense (something which seems to be lacking among many of our past and current elected officials). I do agree that council has to decide what to spend our tax dollars on, and would recommend that they may want to take a similar approach as other progressive Canadian cities, where they have defined the problem related to insufficient revenues to maintain and expand infrastructure. Rather than increase taxes to suit the spending whim of the day, focus on the issue, develop solutions and find innovative ways to maintain and replace existing infrastructure. If our current municipal leaders do not know how to do this, I would suggest they do some research; it is not rocket science, as this is the current practice in some of our healthiest and most progressive Canadian communities. It would seem to me that this would be a better approach than ignoring the problem, diverting dollars meant for roads to other areas, purchasing abandoned buildings, spending a million bucks to fix up the Cenotaph, etc.

But as you stated, each person has their own perspective, and this is mine.

Posted by: MrPG on May 13 2010 2:17 PM

I agree with you in a general sense, I don't think anyone would disagree. Common sense should be just that, right?

What your posts are lacking are the details of how City council could do better. What should be cut or eliminated so that people don't have to pay more taxes? You point to 'progressive communities' but fail to mention what they are doing specifically which makes them so progressive.

Better yet, why not run for council with your ideas and see if they get you elected? If you have as much common sense as you say, it should be a slam dunk to getting elected to council.

Posted by: northerngurl on May 13 2010 2:40 PM

Let me provide you with a very simple analogy to help you grasp what this would look like MrPG. A person who owns a house that needs new shingles has a decision about the quality of shingles to install, or whether to install them at all. Depending on how much money they have to spend they may decide to invest in shingles that have a life of, lets say, 20 years. As time progresses, and the 20 year mark is approaching, the homeowner will assess the situation with their current shingles. They may even obtain an expert opinion about how much life is left in their shingles…perhaps the shingles will last the full 20 years, maybe a few years less or maybe a few years more. What the homeowner is doing is what could be called the “risk assessment” approach and “life cycle analysis” I mention in my previous postings. The homeowner asks themselves, what will happen if I don’t replace my shingles and they make the decision accordingly, considering their budget and the repercussions of the decision. Now apply this scenario to the bigger picture involving our City. If we know that a water main has a certain life expectancy, or a road or a bridge, or whatever specific infrastructure you want, we as a City need to assess this on an ongoing basis, we need to engage in the risk assessment associated with our decision (ie. What will be the worst case scenario if we don’t repair this bridge, or replace this roof, etc.) and act accordingly in the best interests of the community.

I hope I have provided you with some clarity.

Posted by: Loki on May 13 2010 4:28 PM

northerngurl: you are on the right track and have covered most of the issue in your parable. There is one key past of the system life cycle you mentioned that is never addressed, that is maintenance and renewal.

See [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_Development_Life_Cycle[/url]
Analysis, planning, design, implementation and maintenance

We have these grand infrastructure projects that get approved for design and construction. The design phase usually includes the requisite environmental studies et el. They plan for the entire implementation (construction) phase, but never do they account for wear and tear and maintenance over the life of the project.

We know that every object or system has an expected life. It seems that no one can see past their nose or the completion of the project. Take for instance the Carney street bridge. They knew 30 or 50 years ago that it was reaching end of practical life. So what did they do? They spent 10% of the replacement cost to repair it annually. Then we get to the point where it is as costly to repair as to replace. but of course it had to be doubled, so that added to the replacement cost. If all the major repairs were added up over the years, I am sure it would have been cheaper to build a new one at least 30 years ago.

Now I know my figures are not quite accurate, but I think they illustrate the folly.

Build it, maintain it, then replace it on schedule. It is a known time frame. Putting off the replacement only increases the costs due to inflation over time.

The same goes for other infrastructure elements such as water mains. They know the expected life span and should be planning to replace these at least after that period has expired or soon after. It is more costly to perform repeated emergency repairs than to simply replace an aging system with a planned approach. That is why the systems development life cycle was conceived. What that actual time frame is the engineers know. Access that resource.

Posted by: muckermike on May 13 2010 6:47 PM

Bravo Northurn Girl!!! Run for Mayor!! You;ll get my vote. I honestly believe you would do what you promised. Looking forward to more of your posts!!!

Posted by: muckermike on May 13 2010 7:02 PM

Bravo Northurn Girl!!! Run for Mayor!! You;ll get my vote. I honestly believe you would do what you promised. Looking forward to more of your posts!!!

Posted by: gus on May 13 2010 8:42 PM

Mr. PG wrote: "If you have as much common sense as you say, it should be a slam dunk to getting elected to council."

LOL ..... Boy, I thought you were smarter than that!!

Loki .... you have picked on once of the brst projects to pick at this time, the new bridge. Actually, the new bridges.

I am not sure what the life of the new bridge is supposed to be if we simply replace it once it goes. I do know that the piers, which are about 80 years old, were estimated to last at least another 50 years.

So, what would the cost of the bridge replacement be be 50 years from now and how much will we have to put way every year for 50 years to have that money available then, or close to that anyway?

Based on a 1.75% average inflastion rate over the next 50 years a simple replacement (not an upgrade of function) will cost about 2060$28 million.

In order to have that amount available at that time, plus some additional dollars to maintain the bridge over the 50 years, we would have to set aside say $300,000 per year into a fund that collects an average 3% interest a year.

So, a $300,000 per year tax increase which, I believe is between a half to one percent tax increase.

And that is just for the bridge.

How many still believe in sustainable development if we were to propose to operate our finances in that fashion?

Any wonder we operate on a debt based system instead of a saving based system?

Posted by: gus on May 13 2010 8:50 PM

BTW, if any of you are still wondering why our expenses to operate the city go up more than the rate of inflation every year, look no further than the fact that we are not providing enough money for preventative maintenance nor for simple replacement cost when infrastructure gives up the ghost.

It is not rocket science, as they say, but sure seems to be when one looks at some of the posts on here and how municipalities run our business for us.

It actually takes considerably more than COMMON sense to run a municiplity on a sustainable basis. Therein lies the rub. We have too many with COMMON sense when we need more than that.

Posted by: gus on May 13 2010 9:23 PM

Life cycle costing is a great theoretical exercise. The shorter the life of two or more products being considered, the easier it is to predict what the future might look like.

The longer that future is away, the more risky present investments for future scenarios become, especially if other benefits one could receive with the money set aside are not obtained.

Life cycle costing for a very limited scenario is fairly easy to figure out. But, put it into the context of limited funds at any given time with a multitude of interests one could assist and benefits one can receive from those expenditures, it becomes an onerous task that even a computer programmer would have difficulty defining.

The library was designed to take an addtional parking level below it. It was thought to be a good investment in the future expansion of the area. That was some 30 years ago that additional money was spent on larger footings more concrete and steel in columns that were larger in diameter to overcome their slenderness ratio.

Let us say it was $20 thousand additional. At a 3% per year investment that would be about $1 million now.

So far we have not gotten any use from the $20 thousand spent. It is not deposited in any account. It has not increased the value of the building. It cannot be applied to numerous purposes. It has singular purpose, and even that might be questionable with new structural codes in place after 30 years.

BTW, as has been said several times, the Police station has a similar investment in more expensive footings so that it could go up to 5 storeys. So does CNC. So does the gaming centre, which might be the first modern one to actually take advantage of that feature. City Hall had the same feature. It had 3 storeys added to it without having to increase the size of the columns and footings.

So, while life cycle costing is a nice theoretical exercise, in practice it relies more on the ability to read tea leaves ...... :-)

Posted by: Harbinger on May 14 2010 10:02 AM

Sure hope the city has a better attitude fixing leaky water mains than they do pot holes and cracks on our streets.

Posted by: SummerSoul on May 15 2010 5:55 AM

Where is all of that "stimulus spending" that Ottawa was supposed to be tossing about? You don't suppose it went into ephemeral projects like the Olympic fiasco rather that infrastructure, do you?

Posted by: MrPG on May 15 2010 3:28 PM

"Mr. PG wrote: "If you have as much common sense as you say, it should be a slam dunk to getting elected to council."

LOL ..... Boy, I thought you were smarter than that!!"

What are you talking about? According to everyone here, they have far more expertise than those running the City. With all the expertise on this site, there should be plenty of talent to run for the next City council. I'll be looking forward to their ideas.