In conversation with Saeed Mirza

Saeed Mirza is a professor of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics at McGill who has won awards for outstanding teaching and for contributions to the field of structural engineering. His special interest is the state of public structures like ports, bridges, roads and sewer systems. Mirza says their deterioration -- thanks to inertia on the part of governments and the engineering profession -- has created a crisis we can no longer afford to ignore.

You have issued frequent warnings about the state of North American infrastructure. What are you most concerned about?

The biggest problem is our underground infrastructure, which means our water supply and sewage disposal. Because they're underground, they don't receive the proper attention -- out of sight, out of mind. Politicians just don't spend enough money on this. For them, there are no brownie points in trying to repair a sewer or a water supply pipeline. But the quality of the water in many Canadian communities has become critical. Pipes are so perforated that we are losing 40% or more of the purified water. It is an economic loss on one hand, and a public health risk on the other. If aggressive elements like bacteria and parasites get into the pipes, we've seen what can happen. Walkerton (where seven people died last year because of E. coli in the town's water) and North Battleford (where recent deaths and illnesses have been linked to a water-borne parasite) will be nothing compared to what may happen. An epidemic is not an unlikely scenario.

What else worries you?

Our roads and bridges are in bad shape. These structures don't last very long. Our roads have a service life of 15 to 20 years and the way we build and maintain them doesn't help. One problem is the drainage of water underneath the pavement. If water gets into the subgrade -- the layer underneath the road -- and if it is not drained, it will freeze during the winter. As water freezes, its volume increases, which makes the pavement heave. When the spring thaw comes, that water melts, but the pavement is still distorted. It quickly breaks down as vehicles pass over it, and the result is the cracks you get in spring. As more and more vehicles pass, cracks become potholes. We have to create channels when we build roads, so that the water drains away.

What is the scale of the problem?

It may be more severe in the colder parts of the country, but crumbling infrastructure is a problem all over Canada. In 1996, we (McGill's Department of Civil Engineering) conducted a detailed survey of the municipal infrastructure in Canada, and we found that just to upgrade it to an acceptable level would cost $44 billion. If you add the cost of the provincial and federal infrastructure, the figure would be over $100 billion.

Some may say that our numbers are a shot in the dark, but the American Society of Civil Engineers conducted a survey about three years ago, and another one last year, both giving a failing grade to the U.S. infrastructure. They estimated that it would take $1.3 trillion to repair it. We are about one-tenth the size of the U.S. in terms of population; one-tenth of $1.3 trillion is $130 billion.

What's the worst case scenario?

If we don't take appropriate steps to halt the deterioration, it will continue at a very accelerated rate. It's a lot like cancer in a human being -- if it is arrested, the person will survive, but if not, it will spread everywhere. At some point, we will not be able to repair or rehabilitate our facilities; we will have to replace them, and at a very high cost.

What are the "appropriate steps" you refer to?

Civil engineers design things according to what the owners want, and the owners -- the various governments -- just want to consider the initial cost. The cost of maintenance is an afterthought. What I would like to see is that we design a structure with an eye on its total life cycle: from the time we build it and start using it, to maintaining it and repairing it. If there is a need for major rehabilitation, we do that, until the facility finally becomes obsolete. That should be in the governments' plans from the beginning. We also have to conduct detailed condition surveys on a yearly basis, or more often for an old structure. This is like going to your doctor for a checkup.

How much should be set aside for maintenance?

After building something, we have to set aside between two and four per cent of the total cost for maintenance. If you look at government budgets during the 1970s and '80s, whenever there was a financial crunch, what went first? Maintenance. They call it deferment of maintenance, but I believe that it should never be deferred. It should take place at regular intervals, so that our infrastructure does not deteriorate and end up costing us a lot more than maintenance programs ever did.

What about structures that seem to be constantly under repair? Doesn't that show that the government is being diligent?

Repairing something shows they haven't done what they should. Proper maintenance means filling the crack in the road as soon as it appears, before it spreads and becomes a pothole. Besides the financial cost of coming in and fixing it only after it gets bad, look at the costs to drivers. It could result in deaths on our roads; at the very least, there is the cost of more car repairs. Prevention means doing something before the damage starts. For example, one of the causes of the corrosion of steel on bridges is that chlorides from road salt get into the concrete. That destroys the passive layer which protects the steel, and once that is gone, all you need is oxygen and water to cause corrosion.

After all your warnings are governments finally starting to listen?

Nothing has really changed. For example, the 1993 Canada Infrastructure Works Program (which committed $6 billion to upgrading infrastructure in local communities) was more for creating jobs. The money was misspent in many cases, but it was a drop in the bucket anyway, compared to our actual needs. In 1996, we needed $100 billion for infrastructure; today, with interest rates, inflation and further deterioration, the figure could be $125 billion or more. I've written to the Prime Minister and the premiers, but short of polite responses, nothing much comes of it. We are still settling for band-aid solutions, like patching up potholes instead of maintaining our roads.

So how do we get out of the short-term, patching habit?

The philosophy we need to adopt is one of sustainable development. That means we use all of the resources at our disposal to ensure our quality of life, but not at the cost of the quality of life of future generations. When we conducted our study of Canada's infrastructure, we estimated that it would cost over $400 billion to upgrade it to acceptable levels in the year 2015, provided we don't do anything about it now.

What other solutions would you suggest?

In the U.S., they have done something very innovative. They have created State Infrastructure Banks, funded by money from the federal government, state governments, and other sources. The banks provide money for maintenance, repair, and targeted projects, and the result is they have accomplished a lot more in the few years since they initiated this program than they otherwise could have in 10 or 15 years.

If we look at our large international organizations, such as banks and insurance companies, their profits are in the billions. These institutions profit from the infrastructure maintained by the public sector, so I would like to see them participate in upgrading it. I'm not suggesting they give money away free; they could provide capital of $20 billion for a Canada Infrastructure Bank through low interest or zero interest loans for urgent projects.

What about the introduction of toll roads?

I think that has to come; the user must pay. Of course, that money has to be earmarked for infrastructure. The government collects a lot of money from gasoline tax, but not much finds its way into the roads. It goes into general government revenue.

Have you seen any promising signs of change?

Well, in Quebec, we have been trying to bring new technologies into rehabilitation. In the old days, when there was something wrong with a sewer pipe or water supply line, they would simply excavate the road. Now they use "trenchless technologies"; for example, they run a video camera through the pipe by pulling it from one manhole to the next, and find out where to make the repairs. The repair crew can then "inject" repair materials into the right spot. You don't have to tear up the road anymore.

What other new technologies are available?

There are materials being developed, such as advanced composites, which are more resistant to salt and cold weather. For example, an impermeable layer made of epoxy or composites can be placed on pavement to prevent salt from creeping in. That kind of technology has been available for at least 25 or 30 years, but it isn't being used. Governments don't want to spend money on these things because the initial costs are high. There is also inertia in the engineering profession. Our colleagues at private firms don't like to think along progressive lines. They're afraid of losing a project if they insist on designing something for the entire life cycle, because the owner of a building may go to an engineer who is willing to design it for much less, with an eye on the initial costs alone.

We have enough data to see how performance deteriorates with time, and we can use preventive measures to slow down that deterioration. Nothing in this world exists forever: we have to maintain what we build if we want it to last.

Saeed Mirza was interviewed by Montreal freelance writer Sylvain Comeau.