To explore these questions, Canada West Foundation undertook an extensive literature review. Sources include federal, provincial, and municipal government reports, various national and provincial municipal association documents and research papers, articles and books authored by independent urban finance experts, infrastructure engineers, economists and other academics, and the recorded proceedings of various conferences. Statistical data included in the report come from annual financial reports of the various cities. Finally, the report also draws on previous Canada West Foundation research and public opinion polling.
The options chosen for this study are not all-inclusive. Building a "laundry list" of all available alternatives to finance urban infrastructure would produce a report so unwieldy that those with the most potential receive less play and even become lost. As such, the various options included for discussion depend on whether they have sufficient currency in the municipal community and among urban stakeholders, and whether they are employed in other jurisdictions, particularly the U.S. In other words, only those options that have appeared numerous times in the literature review can realistically be explored.
This study is intended to stimulate debate on the merits of various options to address municipal infrastructure and explore the barriers and opportunities of those options. But as discussed in the earlier Canada West study, the term infrastructure is not always well-defined and may differ between cities depending on the types of services delivered and the local definitions in play. In this study, we are concerned with the term infrastructure as it is employed by the cities themselves, which means the capital expenditures related to rehabilitating existing systems (but not necessarily routine maintenance) and making new investments for transportation (e.g., roadways, bridges, walkways, and transit), protection (e.g., fire, police, EMS, facilities and equipment), community (e.g., parks, recreation, cultural, and community services and amenities), general government (civic buildings, information technology, fleet), and utilities and environment (e.g., water supply, distribution, sanitary sewerage, storm drainage, flood control, and solid waste).
A number of the alternatives and approaches suggested in this discussion paper will elicit strong reactions, both positive and negative. This is intentional - it reflects a desire that the paper stimulate a vibrant, informed public discussion. While it is unreasonable to assume that each option will meet with unqualified support, at the same time, whenever an option is eliminated as undesirable or unworkable, the list of policy alternatives in the buffet necessarily narrows. In other words, at least some of these new options must be made to work. Failing that, the only alternative is the status quo - insufficient and crumbling infrastructure - and the costs that inevitably follow. Finally, it is important to realize that many of the options discussed here have been on the table for some time - they have been exhaustively discussed and debated. But the barriers to change are significant and progress is slow. Hopefully, this piece will help prompt forward momentum.