Change being the only constant is not a novel concept – it is a profound truth entrenched in Western thought for millennia. The pace of change we encounter today, be it technological, economic, or political, requires a new paradigm for dealing with emerging challenges, but also presents an opportunity for all of us to take a significant leap forward.

Our commitment to continued progress and success means we must always consider our priorities and programs to ensure our work not only reflects members’ desires and aspirations but also directly contributes to their individual and collective success.

We also considered how we communicate with our members and partners as part of this evolution, and I am excited to share this first edition of Ontario Infrastructure Quarterly, a new magazine issued by the Ontario Road Builders’ Association highlighting the province’s infrastructure industry, including the latest in construction and asphalt, as well as technical, regulatory, and innovation news and topics of interest.

We hope that this new publication, which consolidates ROADBuilder and ASPHALTopics, and takes a fresh editorial approach – including content and idea generation – will spark debate about timely issues and challenge long-held views about the industry.

If there is one phrase that captures where we find ourselves right now as an industry, it is this: the moment is here, and the clock is ticking.

Ontario is at a genuine inflection point. The scale of infrastructure commitments – across all levels of government and specifically into highways, roads, transit, defence infrastructure, and beyond – is significant. The 2026 Ontario Budget has allocated more than $94 billion over 10 years toward infrastructure projects.

The federal government has signalled dramatic increases to defence spending to meet – and potentially exceed – its NATO targets, much of which will be deployed towards dual-use projects that will largely be in the country’s infrastructure. While realizing these commitments is now paramount, there are no indications that these are aspirational numbers. They represent real projects which provide our industry, both builders and partners, a generational opportunity to shine.

In this inaugural edition of Ontario Infrastructure Quarterly, a consistent theme emerges: the challenge is not identifying what needs to be done – it is executing consistently within an ecosystem under increasing strain.

While realizing these commitments is now paramount, there are no indications that these are aspirational numbers. They represent real projects which provide our industry, both builders and partners, a generational opportunity to shine.

That means stronger collaboration between industry partners – constructors and public owners, as well as key stakeholders. It means procurement models that consider the realities of complex project delivery rather than simply driving toward the lowest number. It means a supply chain that is both resilient and can meet the building scale we aim to realize. And it means ensuring the regulatory environment is flexible and keeps pace with the urgency of the work, rather than becoming another bottleneck.

I am a firm believer in the power of collaboration and partnership, and this is why we have taken an intentional approach squarely focused on building and nurturing relationships with key partners and stakeholders. The growing alignment we can see and feel today among industry partners, including elected representatives and decision-makers, has been years in the making and is not something to take for granted.

Now is the time to build on this work by implementing the solutions we have collectively identified. In parallel, we will continue to work to address macro pressures the industry continues to face head-on: construction cost inflation is real, asset rehabilitation funding has not kept pace with the state of good repair, and the lack of a clear and predictable project pipeline makes it difficult to plan for the capacity this moment demands.

That said, I remain confident in the industry’s ability to rise to the occasion. Our members have always been defined by their ability to adapt, to problem-solve, and to deliver when the stakes are highest. The sophistication and resilience of this industry – built over generations – is precisely what Ontario needs right now.

I hope this edition of Ontario Infrastructure Quarterly captures important subjects in all dimensions of our industry, and the conversations we need to be having as we navigate this defining period together. As always, I welcome your feedback and look forward to continuing this conversation throughout the year.

There’s an uncomfortable truth at the heart of construction procurement – one that few say out loud, but almost everyone in the industry understands: If you fully price the risks of a project, you probably won’t win it.

In a traditional design-bid-build system, the contractor who most accurately captures uncertainty, poor geotechnical data, incomplete design, utility conflicts, and traffic staging complexity is often the one who loses. The winning bid is frequently the one that didn’t price all that risk. That should concern anyone who cares about how we deliver infrastructure. Because it means we’ve created a system where being a disciplined, responsible estimator can make you uncompetitive, while being overly aggressive, or selectively optimistic, gets rewarded.

The incentive problem no one wants to own

Public procurement still leans heavily on the “lowest compliant bid.” On paper, it’s defensible – objective, transparent, and easy to administer. In practice, it creates a perverse incentive: Contractors must choose between pricing the job properly… or pricing it to win. Increasingly, those are not the same thing. That doesn’t mean contractors are careless or acting in bad faith. It means they are responding rationally to the rules of the game. In a competitive market, if one bidder carries full risk and another doesn’t, the latter wins, every time.

Over time, this drives behaviour across the industry. Risk allowances get shaved. Assumptions get stretched. Known unknowns are pushed down the road. In some cases, projects are effectively in the red the day they’re awarded.

What happens after award isn’t an accident

Owners are often frustrated when projects become contentious, when change orders increase, disputes escalate, and claims emerge. But we shouldn’t be surprised. If a contractor wins a job that was underpriced at the outset, the only way to recover is through the contract:

• Scope boundaries are scrutinized
• Change opportunities are aggressively pursued
• Notice provisions are strictly enforced
• Claims become central, not exceptional

What should be a collaborative delivery environment becomes a commercial balancing exercise. And it doesn’t stop there. Field teams are under pressure to find efficiencies. Contract administrators tighten oversight. Quality and compliance become flashpoints – not because either side wants conflict, but because the financial structure of the job demands it. We’ve created a system where margin is often realized not through building – but through dispute resolution.

The myth of market correction

There’s a common refrain: contractors who underprice will eventually fail and exit the market. Sometimes they do. But often, they don’t. Large firms absorb losses across portfolios. Others rely on claims to rebalance projects. Some accept thin or negative margins simply to keep crews working and equipment moving. The result isn’t a cleansing of the market – it’s a steady-state environment where underpricing persists. And everyone adapts to it.

The real cost of “low cost”

The irony is that lowest-bid procurement often fails to deliver the outcome it promises. The lowest number at bid rarely reflects the final cost of the project. Instead, we see:

• Escalating claims and disputes
• Administrative burden on owners and consultants
• Strained relationships across project teams
• Delays driven by conflict rather than complexity

In other words, the system may appear efficient at award, but becomes inefficient in delivery.

So what needs to change?

This isn’t about abandoning competitive procurement. It’s about recognizing that how we compete matters. First, we need to move beyond pure low-bid selection. Even modest weighting for qualifications, past performance, and risk approach can change bidder behaviour.

Second, owners must take greater responsibility for the quality of tender documents. Incomplete design and poor information don’t eliminate risk, they simply transfer it into the bid, where it’s either overpriced or ignored. Third, we should expand the use of collaborative delivery models such as: progressive design-build, early contractor involvement, and alliance contracting where risk is surfaced and priced transparently, not competitively hidden.

Finally, we need to have an honest conversation about risk allocation. If contractors are routinely expected to absorb uncertainty they cannot quantify, we shouldn’t be surprised when they either price themselves out or fight to recover later.

A system worth fixing

The construction industry is full of capable, sophisticated players on both the owner and contractor side who want to deliver high-quality infrastructure. But the system they operate in matters. Right now, we are asking contractors to win work by not fully pricing it and then criticizing them when they try to recover that value after award.

That’s not a contractor problem. It’s a procurement problem. And until we fix it, we’ll keep getting exactly what the system is designed to produce: Not the lowest cost but the lowest number… followed by the highest frustration.  

“We are absolutely in the midst of an infrastructure moment,” said Matti Siemiatycki, director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto. “We’ve actually been in a moment for the last 10 years, but what’s different now is the balance between talk and action has shifted, and that shift is becoming more pronounced. There’s a real impatience and a desire to move quickly and at scale,” he added.

Ontario’s ambitions are building by the day. Where billion-dollar megaprojects once made for big headlines, it’s more common to see announcements made for initiatives that are orders of magnitude larger. “Now, we’re into $5 billion and $10 billion projects, and they’re being talked about as if they’re routine, which signals a fundamental change in both expectations and delivery pressure,” said Siemiatycki.

This is no longer a question of whether Ontario will build, but whether it can build fast enough – and effectively enough – to meet the scale of its own ambitions. This mounting scale and urgency are being driven by more than traditional planning cycles. Geopolitical shifts, trade pressures, and climate change challenges have underscored the value of reliable infrastructure systems (e.g., transportation, energy, communication, water, and sanitation) in supporting a resilient and self-reliant economy.

“There’s a confluence of goals to which infrastructure is being seen as the solution,” said Steven Crombie, the senior director of public affairs at the Ontario Road Builders’ Association. “Transit, energy, housing, state of good repair – all these demands are converging over the next decade, and they’re all competing for attention at the same time.”

Colliding priorities

The mission for Ontario’s infrastructure is two-fold: maintaining aging assets while expanding capacity to meet future demand. A glance across the pipeline reflects that dual focus on expansion and renewal – from the construction of Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass to the extension of the Yonge North Subway line, potential tunnelling along Highway 401, and the creation of key trade corridors in the Province’s Ring of Fire. The result is a system being asked to do two things at once – expand for the future while catching up on the past.

Rehabilitation continues to dominate the workload as aging infrastructure from the 1970s and 1980s comes due for repair and replacement, placing ongoing strain on available resources. From her vantage point as vice president of Tomlinson Infrastructure, Graziela Girardi says this attention to infrastructure asset renewal is both necessary and unavoidable.

“Much of the infrastructure was built in the ’70s and ’80s, so there’s been a strong focus on repairing and replacing those assets, and that work is absolutely necessary, particularly as those systems continue to age,” she said. “If the budget does not keep pace with the need, repairs get deferred, conditions worsen, and the long-term cost only increases.”

In short, says Siemiatycki, the tab is finally landing on Ontario’s aging infrastructure. “Expansion projects are important, but maintaining existing infrastructure is just as critical, particularly in rural and northern Ontario where options are limited,” he said. “Highways like Highway 11 and Highway 17 are vital economic corridors, and any disruption can have significant ripple effects on trade and the broader economy, especially for goods movement. Ensuring these assets remain in a state of good repair is essential.”

In many cases, that work is less visible, but no less critical, than the headline-grabbing megaprojects. There’s another layer to Ontario’s infrastructure moment. With record-breaking weather events becoming more of the norm, there is an escalating need to prepare Ontario’s assets for the climate challenges to come.

“These capital plans are in the billions of dollars and represent tens, if not hundreds, of billions in infrastructure needs just related to climate adaptation,” said Crombie.

Opening the wallet

Ontario may have big plans, but some wonder if its funding matches its ambitions, particularly given the industry’s rising costs. As Crombie notes, the Ministry’s rehabilitation funding has remained essentially flat at about $1.5 billion annually, “while construction inflation has significantly outpaced the consumer price index,” creating a widening gap.

In real terms, that means today’s funding is delivering less infrastructure than it did a decade ago. Less work can be done today, even if nominal budgets appear stable.

“There’s broad recognition that this needs to be addressed, not only by increasing the budget, but by indexing it to construction costs going forward,” said Crombie. Without that adjustment, the pressure doesn’t disappear – it shifts downstream, where projects are delayed, scaled back, or forced to absorb additional risk.

Deciding where to start

Ontario faces a near-endless list of aging assets in need of repair alongside growing pressure to build new infrastructure, creating difficult prioritization decisions. Choosing which projects to fund and pursue is a tension point in and of itself – and one that will likely persist over the coming years, as trade-offs become unavoidable.

“Infrastructure entails making hard choices; if you allocate scarce resources to one project, it means you’re not building another, and each project confers benefits on some people and costs on others,” said Siemiatycki. In that environment, prioritization becomes as important as funding itself.

Every investment is also a trade-off, he continues, “and just because something is big doesn’t mean it’s necessarily good.” These difficult trade-offs can motivate governments to extend consultations or move decisions through multiple layers of review to reduce the risk of making the wrong move.

“The real value comes from building the right project, in the right place, and ensuring it connects with the broader system, rather than simply building for the sake of it,” said Siemiatycki. “That’s what ultimately delivers the benefit.”

Adapting procurement models

If this is an execution moment, then how projects are delivered becomes just as important as which projects are selected. Ontario’s infrastructure moment is prompting a fresh look at established procurement models to identify where delivery strategies can be strengthened for all parties.

The industry is seeing this shift in action. Over the years, project owners have shifted back and forth between design-bid-build and P3 models, such as design-build-finance-maintain, as priorities change. Now, says Siemiatycki, the industry is moving again. “What we’re seeing more recently is a move toward more flexible approaches like progressive design-build and alliance models,” he said.

Construction manager/general contractor (CMGC) models are emerging as a popular choice for large projects. It’s a more collaborative approach, Crombie explains, where the construction manager works closely with the client to establish more accurate pricing.

We have found ways in Canada to make it slow and painful to deliver just about everything.

Matti Siemiatycki, Infrastructure Institute, University of Toronto

“This reduces the gap between initial price expectations and final project costs,” he added, which helps to manage risk on both sides. These models aren’t just about efficiency – they reflect a broader shift toward shared accountability in delivering complex infrastructure.

Still, says Siemiatycki, procurement models are only as effective as the people behind them. “We’ve been so focused on the delivery model, as if picking the right model will take care of everything,” he said, “but it’s about how you create trust, manage relationships, and how decisions are made in real time. Those are skills that haven’t necessarily been emphasized.”

For this reason, Siemiatycki believes there are benefits to creating more leadership training opportunities for project leaders, such as the one he is on the verge of launching at the University of Toronto. “You obviously need technical proficiency, but alongside that, you also need leadership skills,” he said. “Building that capacity would go a significant way toward improving project delivery, especially on complex projects.”

A call for consistency

There are several factors that make Ontario’s infrastructure moment a difficult one to meet, particularly from a business perspective. For one, says Crombie, an inconsistent pipeline of projects coming to market makes it difficult for road builders and other infrastructure stakeholders to maintain the teams and resources needed to pursue new opportunities.

“What government can do in the very short term is ensure that there is a steady pipeline of projects that continue to come to market – and of all sizes and of all regions – so that the industry itself remains robust,” he said, emphasizing predictability. For contractors, that predictability isn’t a luxury – it’s what allows them to invest in people, equipment, and long-term capacity.

“When we have ebbs and flows in investment, organizations are forced to upsize and downsize rapidly,” said Crombie. “And then what happens is that when projects come to market, they’re not as equipped as they otherwise could have been.”

Diversity of projects is equally important, says Girardi, especially when it comes to ensuring investments are distributed evenly throughout the province and not concentrated in one region. “There’s a lot of investment happening, especially around the GTA, but outside of that, the flow of work is much less consistent – like in Eastern Ontario, where we haven’t seen a steady pipeline of projects in recent years,” she said.

“Sustainability of work is critical. Companies need a steady flow of projects to maintain their operations, their workforce, and their presence in a region. If you’re only building one bridge a year, that’s not enough to sustain a business. You can’t attract and retain people in the industry if the work isn’t stable,” she added. “When things slow down, people leave – and when projects return, companies are forced to rebuild their teams.”

Bottlenecks and speed bumps

Even with stronger alignment and a more consistent pipeline, significant barriers remain. Pipeline inconsistencies and the resulting labour shortages are only some of today’s industry restraints. As many in the field can relate, the system is bogged down by increasingly multiplying and duplicating rules and regulations. This often leads to delays, disagreements, or decision paralysis when it comes to factors such as permitting, approvals, environmental considerations, and Indigenous engagement, all of which take time.

Individually, these steps may be justified – but collectively, they can slow progress to a pace that no longer matches the urgency of the moment. “We have found ways in Canada to make it slow and painful to deliver just about everything,” said Siemiatycki.

Further speed bumps surface when funding is available, but the projects aren’t ready to go, creating mismatches between capital and execution. Or when stakeholders lack coordination in the early phases of work, resulting in problems with design and planning that inevitably show up later down the road.

“If enough time isn’t spent on design, those issues show up during construction,” said Girardi. “Then, you’re stopping work, asking questions, and trying to resolve problems in real time – which slows everything down and adds cost.”

Full disclosure

Lack of information can also impede Ontario’s infrastructure plans. And whether because of poor coordination or the realities of working on decades-old infrastructure, Girardi says it is a familiar issue. In an environment where timelines are tight and margins are under pressure, those unknowns become more than technical challenges – they become business risks.

We’ve been so focused on the delivery model, as if picking the right model will take care of everything, but it’s about how you create trust, manage relationships, and how decisions are made in real time. Those are skills that haven’t necessarily been emphasized.

Matti Siemiatycki, Infrastructure Institute, University of Toronto

“When there’s less information available at the bidding stage, whether it’s soil conditions or what’s underground, you’re forced to make assumptions,” said Girardi. “If those assumptions don’t hold, then you’re dealing with additional costs, delays, and potential disputes.”

Unpredictability is a factor in any project, but it can be more pronounced in the province’s denser, more urban environments. Using roadworks in Toronto as an example, Girardi said, “As soon as roadwork begins, crews often encounter conditions that were not identified in advance, such as utilities or other underground constraints. Each time this happens, work must pause so the team can assess the situation and coordinate with multiple stakeholders, which creates delays across the project.”

The answer is in alignment

Ontario’s infrastructure moment is a call for stronger collaboration among all its construction stakeholders. Promisingly, there are signs that industry and government are coming together to address the roadblocks and speed bumps that may impede successful outcomes. Speaking from his public-sector dealings at ORBA, Crombie said, “There’s strong alignment right now between ORBA, senior ministry officials, and the political side of government on the need for continued infrastructure investment.”

For one example, he explains, collaboration on amendments to the general conditions, dispute resolution processes, or health and safety management.

“There are many areas where we work closely with senior officials, but when we have alignment between ministry officials, bureaucrats, and political leadership, it’s fantastic. It’s an opportunity ORBA shouldn’t pass up, and I believe they’ve been working very hard to build that alignment.”

With stronger alignment comes stronger, longer-term planning. This, perhaps above all else, is key in a time of unprecedented infrastructure demands, where coordination matters.

“Infrastructure is kind of like chess – you have to be thinking three moves ahead,” said Siemiatycki. “If you approach it one move at a time – making announcements for political reasons or short-term convenience – you might get a quick win and a bit of a sugar high, but just like in chess, the person thinking three moves ahead is going to come out on top. Infrastructure has to connect.”

Sequencing is no doubt key – as road builders can attest. Even when new roads or road repairs may benefit a community, poor sequencing can result in rework and delays that sour public opinion.

“The thing that drives people crazy about road building is when there’s no coordination,” said Siemiatycki. “They repave your street one year, then three months later, the hydro crew comes in, followed by sewer work, then gas. Suddenly, you’ve had three cuts in six months for different projects, and you’re left wondering why it wasn’t coordinated in the first place.”

Inspiration from outside our borders

Ontario is far from alone in its infrastructure needs. Within Canada and beyond its borders, there is a push to hone in on the right projects, procurement processes, and delivery methods to achieve similar objectives – and often under similar pressures.

Companies need a steady flow of projects to maintain their operations, their workforce, and their presence in a region … You can’t attract and retain people in the industry if the work isn’t stable. When things slow down, people leave.

Graziela Girardi, Tomlinson Infrastructure

To that end, there is a benefit to looking outside our borders – be it across the pond to the UK, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Spain, France, or Turkey – for lessons in infrastructure planning and delivery, particularly in how systems are structured. The differences are less about technical ability, says Siemiatycki, and more about planning culture, how disputes are handled, and how technical expertise is structured within institutions. That said, there is no single model to copy, as each region adapts to its own context.

“There are a number of lessons to be learned, but again, there are reasons why our system has developed over generations,” said Siemiatycki. “We likely need a Canadian solution to address the problems we’re facing.”

What we need to get right

The moment is here, and the clock is ticking. As Ontario pushes ahead with the construction and rehabilitation of its vital infrastructure, it will need to focus on strategies, expertise, and streamlined processes that support solid planning and long-term perspectives, ensuring projects connect and deliver value. The challenge isn’t identifying what needs to be done – it’s executing consistently across a system under increasing strain. It’s no small ask, but the industry is no stranger to rising to the challenge.

“I’d say that, without a doubt, the industry is capable of rising to the challenge,” said Crombie. “At the core of every successful construction organization is the ability to adapt. Contractors deal with a wide range of variables that are often beyond their control, such as fluctuations in project volume and broader market conditions. Managing that uncertainty is built into the fabric of the industry, and it’s what gives me confidence that we’ll be able to navigate the challenges ahead.”

Both Siemiatycki and Girardi share that same confidence in the industry’s ability to meet the moment, citing its continual evolution and growing sophistication.

“There is far more structure, documentation, and disciplined project management in place today than there was 20 years ago,” said Girardi, adding, “The industry has become much more sophisticated, and we have a strong and knowledgeable workforce on the contractor side. I am confident the industry is well equipped to meet the challenges ahead.”

The capacity exists within the industry. Whether the systems around it can match that capacity will ultimately define what this moment becomes.  

“Aggregate is the basic foundational ingredient to everything we build,” said Sharon Armstrong, executive director of the Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (OSSGA). “It’s in our homes, it’s in our hospitals, it’s in our roads.”

That’s just the aggregate. If a kilometre of new road is paved with hot mix asphalt (HMA), up to 12,960 tonnes of asphalt may be required. Depending on the vehicles used, this amounts to anywhere from 370 to 650 truckloads. Then there’s the equipment needed to quarry the aggregate. Some of it is hauled to the job site. Other trucks take aggregate to the asphalt plant to create asphalt pavement. That product is then transported to the job site, where a range of heavy equipment puts the road together.

All these elements, and many more, make up the supply chain that builds Ontario’s roads. It’s a supply chain that most people never see, but that matters nevertheless. And it matters more than ever, now that the Province of Ontario has committed $31 billion to expand the province’s road network to reduce highway gridlock. This investment represents a significant opportunity for Ontario’s road building industry.

Aggregate is very heavy. That’s why our industry motto is, ‘Don’t make gravel travel.’

Sharon Armstrong, Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association

“I think it will certainly create a lot more projects for our members, especially contractors,” said Donn Bernal, principal at Corfinium Solutions and technical advisor for the Ontario Road Builders’ Association (ORBA). “It’s all new work versus the standard renewal projects that are typically in place.”

However, it remains to be seen whether Ontario’s supply chain can meet the demands of this “infrastructure moment.” That demand comes at a time when many aggregate quarries are running out of materials, while opening new ones is a costly, lengthy, and complex process that can take a decade or more just to secure a licence.

The scale of demand

Ontario has fallen behind in repairing and expanding its infrastructure for decades. This is why the 2026 Ontario Budget has allocated more than $210 billion over 10 years toward infrastructure projects. Besides the $31 billion for roads, the province has earmarked $61 billion for public transit and $56 billion for healthcare infrastructure.

“We are in a situation right now where we are rebuilding,” said Armstrong. “We are looking at creating the infrastructure we need to repair what’s been done in the past, and to grow and become a stronger province in the future.”

When it comes to the state of Ontario’s highways, doing nothing is not an option. “The costs of gridlock are real,” reads the 2026 Ontario Budget document. “The Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis estimates that the economic and social impact of gridlock in Ontario was $56.4 billion in 2024, and could potentially rise to $108 billion annually by 2044 if no action is taken.”

Meeting this demand will require mobilizing materials on a massive scale, at a time when current demand is not trivial. Currently, the Ontario aggregate industry extracts and processes about 164 million tonnes of material annually, while supporting 41,000 direct and indirect jobs. On the paving side, Ontario uses between 7.4 and 8.2 million tonnes of HMA every year, with the broader road building sector employing 56,000 workers.

Looking ahead, the material requirements to meet the province’s infrastructure moment will test the limits of existing reserves. “Some estimates have us needing approximately four billion tonnes of aggregate over the next 25 years,” said Armstrong.

Supply chain realities: moving mountains and managing binders

For road builders, acquiring the necessary aggregate (and other materials) for asphalt pavement is the obvious hurdle. The hidden pressure point lies in the logistics. The closer these materials are to the job site, the better the economics and timing – and the reverse is equally true. This is the problem being faced by Ontario road builders, particularly when it comes to sourcing aggregate. The Greater Toronto Area alone consumes over 50 million tonnes of aggregate annually.

“Many of the pits and quarries in the area, especially in the GTA, are being depleted,” said Bernal. “This means that the aggregate needs to be obtained further away, which increases transportation costs and possibly [increases] the price of the material as demand grows.” For contractors, this means higher delivered material costs and increased pressure on project budgets.

Unfortunately, it can be difficult to open new quarries due to government regulations and resistance to new pits and asphalt plants by local communities. It can routinely take up to a decade to secure a licence, followed by additional years to acquire the necessary operational permits. “And if you’ve got neighbours nearby, certainly they’ll fight it,” said Bernal.

Right now, there are more than 21,000 truckloads of aggregate moving across Ontario on any given working day. As sources move further away, contractors face longer lead times and less flexibility in scheduling work. The greater the haul distance, the more it adds to project costs. In fact, OSSGA data indicates that it would consume approximately 2,624,000 extra litres of diesel fuel annually if every aggregate truck had to drive just one extra kilometre to a job site.

“Aggregate is very heavy,” said Armstrong. “That’s why our industry motto is, ‘Don’t make gravel travel.’ Traveling longer distances is expensive in terms of diesel fuel. But it’s also important due to greenhouse gases.” These logistics challenges can directly impact paving timelines and crew productivity on active job sites, particularly on projects with tight schedules and limited work windows.

Beyond aggregate, the other vital component of the paving supply chain is asphalt cement. Because asphalt cement is a petroleum product, its availability and price are tethered to broader global refining markets and competing demands for fuel. Given ongoing global geopolitical uncertainty, prices for asphalt cement are likely to remain volatile. Variability in binder pricing also makes it more difficult for contractors to price work and manage risk. Ultimately, these pressures show up on projects as higher costs, tighter schedules, and reduced margins. In some cases, material availability and haul distance can also affect which contractors are able to competitively bid on projects.

Recycling to the rescue?

One way contractors are working to offset supply pressures is through increased use of recycled materials. “Let’s say a municipality decides to take down a bridge,” said Armstrong. “They will often do the demolition. Then, using portable crushers on site, they will crush that material to create recycled aggregate and use it right in the project.”

In Ontario, recycled aggregate reportedly represents roughly seven per cent of all materials used. Exact volumes are difficult to determine due to materials being crushed and reused directly on demolition/construction sites. In road building, the same recycling approach is applied to old asphalt that has been removed prior to repaving. The resulting product is called recycled asphalt pavement (RAP), which has faced significant regulatory and public image issues due to a negative report by the Auditor General of Ontario.

“Since the AG report back in 2016, the receptiveness to RAP has certainly dwindled to the point that many contractors have either reduced or removed it from projects,” said Bernal. “However, I think we’re starting to come back around to it now that we’ve got newer testing that can help evaluate recycled mixes better.” To achieve long-lasting pavements that use RAP, asphalt producers are experimenting with advanced chemical formulations to make the resulting pavement durable in all seasons. “To get that balance, you have to be innovative,” said Bernal.

For contractors, recycling can help reduce reliance on virgin materials, but only if specifications and acceptance continue to evolve.

Supply chain strength determines success

The success of Ontario’s infrastructure plans will be shaped by its supply chains. In the areas of aggregate and asphalt cement, these supply chains are already under stress. Still, there are ways to help the situation. When it comes to aggregates, streamlining the quarry application process could help increase supply. “Right now, the time to get a licence is too long,” said Armstrong. “We need to be more nimble, and in order to do that, we need to take less than 10 years to get a new licence.”

Meanwhile, realigning project procurements so that many asphalt plants could supply materials would help. “Doing this would allow more small and regional plants to help out,” said Bernal. “If we are having an infrastructure boom, such a change would allow more contractors to participate.”

One thing is certain: Without a strong and responsive supply chain, Ontario’s infrastructure goals won’t be limited by planning – they’ll be limited by what can actually be built, and at what cost. As Ontario prepares to build for the next generation, the strength of its roads will depend entirely on the strength of the foundation beneath them.

Municipalities are already managing these pressures on the ground. A 2024 report by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) estimates that infrastructure renewal or new construction will top $290 billion over the next 10 years as jurisdictions across the province accommodate population growth, asset management, and climate adaptation. This tally includes $150 billion for rehabilitation and $100 billion for expansion. For municipalities, that translates into sustained, high-volume delivery across nearly every asset class.

It’s not all high-profile roads, tunnels, and underground initiatives, either. While provincial megaprojects may dominate headlines, the volume and frequency of work sits heavily on the municipal side, where projects are smaller in scale but ongoing and directly tied to how communities function.

“The municipal budgets are enormous,” said Patrick McManus, executive director of the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association. “The regional governments plus the City of Toronto have larger capital programs than the MTO every year.”

Feeling the pressure

It’s little surprise that Ontario’s major hubs are feeling this demand. At the City of Toronto, Jennifer Graham Harkness, chief engineer and executive director of engineering and construction, notes that the city invested in delivering nearly $2 billion worth of infrastructure projects in 2025 alone.

“We are absolutely in an infrastructure moment,” she said. “We have significant state-of-good-repair needs, while at the same time delivering infrastructure to support growth – all within a fully built-out, highly constrained environment.”

Delivering in that environment is not just about scale – it’s about precision, coordination, and timing. For Toronto, the transportation priorities are centred on maintaining and modernizing an already built-out system while improving how people move through it. That includes state-of-good-repair work across more than 5,600 kilometres of roads and roughly 900 bridges and culverts, alongside efforts to ease congestion through traffic signal optimization, transit priority measures, and construction sequencing.

When you open up a road, it’s like spaghetti underground. You’re digging around gas lines, water lines, electrical lines, and fibre optics. It’s a dog’s breakfast down there.

Patrick McManus, Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association

At the same time, the city is advancing safety through its Vision Zero plan, expanding cycling infrastructure, and supporting major transit builds such as the Ontario Line and Scarborough Subway Extension – all while managing construction impacts in a city where available space is limited and disruption is highly visible.

The Regional Municipality of York is also feeling the pressure – particularly as it moves to accommodate up to 2.06 million people and 989,200 jobs by 2051. Like many jurisdictions, York Region is managing shifting priorities between growth and rehabilitation, with asset management taking on an increasing share of available funding. “Ten years ago, about 15 per cent of transportation spending was on asset management and 85 per cent on growth,” said Brian Titherington, director, Transportation Infrastructure Asset Management for York Region. “Today, that’s closer to 30 per cent on asset management – and in 10 years, we expect that to flip.”

Within every municipality, infrastructure work spans both visible and underground infrastructure, from roads and bridges to traffic signals, culverts, and guide rails. Yet, as McManus points out, the most critical work often happens below grade, where systems must be in place before any vertical development can proceed. “It always has to be first,” he said. “Everything is centred around getting water, wastewater, and electricity in the ground before anything else can happen.”

It’s a sequencing reality that shapes every new project, whether it’s a new subdivision or urban intensification, where existing systems are frequently pushed to their limits. “We often run into situations where there isn’t enough water or sewer capacity for high-rises,” said McManus. “Before you can build, you have to upgrade the system and make sure the treatment plants can handle the demand.”

Aligning with provincial plans

Municipal infrastructure planning doesn’t happen in isolation – it is tightly linked to provincial priorities and timelines. In York Region, this alignment is formalized and embedded into long-range planning through the Transportation Master Plan, which includes major transit investments like the Yonge North Subway Extension while advocating for further bus rapid transit expansion. At the same time, the region is working with the province on projects such as the Bradford Bypass and Highway 413, including the local road and interchange improvements needed to support those corridors and ensure they function within the broader network.

In Toronto, that provincial alignment is shown at scale. The city is delivering one of the largest municipal capital programs in the country while partnering with the province on major transit expansions. At the same time, it continues to invest in state-of-good-repair across roads, bridges, and transit infrastructure, while managing congestion and coordinating construction in a fully built-out environment. This includes aligning timelines, sequencing projects, and ensuring that work across agencies supports a shared outcome. The result is a system where provincial investments are not just announced but translated into day-to-day improvements on the ground.

Stretching dollars

Multi-billion-dollar budgets are not always enough to keep pace, particularly amid construction cost inflation and shifting economic conditions. “Construction cost inflation has limited the region’s ability to add major projects to our 10-year construction program,” said Salim Alibhai, the director, Transportation Capital Delivery with York Region.

At the same time, the challenge is not just funding levels – it’s unpredictability, which for industry can be just as challenging as underfunding. Municipalities develop detailed long-term capital plans, but those plans can shift quickly due to economic pressures, changing tax revenues, trade issues, or political decisions. “When budget constraints hit, those plans can be scaled back, or sometimes cut in half, as councils reassess priorities and defer projects,” said McManus. “Those decisions can happen quickly, and there isn’t always a full understanding of the ripple effects.”

Those impacts extend well beyond individual projects, shaping how work is planned, staffed, and delivered across the industry. “It’s not just about dollars in and out – entire companies and workforces depend on that pipeline,” said McManus.

That uncertainty contributes to a start-stop cycle, where projects are delayed or cancelled, workforces fluctuate, and capacity is affected across the system. Over time, that volatility makes it harder to maintain the workforce and expertise needed to deliver consistently. “We’ve run through huge growth in capital budgets and infrastructure portfolios, but we’re only seeing a fraction of that money actually being spent,” said McManus, noting that labour hours dropped by nearly 25 per cent in 2025. “That’s directly tied to spending not happening.”

Even when funding is available, system capacity remains a constraint. There are only a finite number of contractors, engineers, municipal staff, and procurement teams available to deliver projects, and shortages in any one area can slow progress across the board. “We’ve heard from consulting engineers, from municipalities, and there just aren’t enough people across the system,” said McManus.

Inconsistent building

Municipal infrastructure delivery is further complicated by a lack of standardization across jurisdictions. Each municipality operates under its own specifications, contract terms, and construction requirements, meaning infrastructure is built differently from one jurisdiction to the next and, sometimes, even within the same region. For contractors, that creates complexity on every job, requiring time and resources to interpret and adapt to varying standards. The result is a system where efficiency is often sacrificed for local variation.

“You’d think backfill should be the same everywhere,” said McManus. “But everyone wants something different, so it’s never as simple as bidding one job and doing it the same way somewhere else.”

These inconsistencies are compounded by the realities of working in built environments. Limited space requires complex staging and traffic management, while incomplete or outdated underground information introduces uncertainty during excavation. Crews often encounter utilities or conditions that were not identified at the design stage, forcing projects to pause while conditions are assessed and plans are revised. When real-world conditions differ from assumptions, redesigns during construction can trigger delays, approvals, and cost escalation, making delivery less predictable from both a schedule and business standpoint.

Coordination complexities

Municipal infrastructure delivery also requires coordination across multiple stakeholders, and that coordination is not always seamless. In a system with this many moving parts, even small misalignments can have cascading effects. “We’re working in a web of projects, and that requires significant coordination across all divisions and everyone else building in the city,” said Harkness.

With limited road space, municipalities must manage traffic, detours, and overlapping construction activities, often within the same corridor. At the same time, planning processes can remain fragmented across departments and agencies. “The planning process is still disjointed,” said McManus. “Every department is planning independently. You’ll see a street opened up for sewer work one year, then reopened for road work, then again for utilities.”

We’re working in a web of projects, and that requires significant coordination across all divisions and everyone else building in the city.

Jennifer Graham Harkness, City of Toronto

That lack of alignment can lead to repeated work, inefficiencies, and frustration for residents and businesses, while also increasing costs and extending timelines. Projects are often dependent on multiple partners (e.g., utilities, municipalities, contractors, etc.), and if one party is not ready, the entire project can be delayed.

Taking action

To address these challenges, municipalities are taking steps to improve coordination and delivery by adopting more integrated approaches and creating clearer lines of communication. In Toronto, the city has established a Strategic Capital Coordination Office and a chief congestion officer role to help align projects across divisions and manage construction impacts. A Work Zone Coordination Unit supports traffic management during construction and responds in real time to minimize disruption.

“We’re constantly looking at how to minimize disruption to residents, businesses, and road users,” said Harkness. “We want to be out there solving problems with contractors in real time, not waiting, because that just slows everybody down.”

Toronto is also working to improve how project pipelines are communicated and to create more consistent engagement with industry, helping contractors better plan for upcoming work and reducing uncertainty around scheduling. These efforts reflect a broader shift toward more proactive, system-wide coordination rather than reactive problem-solving. York Region is taking a similar approach, focusing on coordination across municipalities, utilities, and the province. This includes bundling utility and roadway work into single contracts to reduce repeated construction windows, coordinating projects across jurisdictions and corridors, and staging asset management work over multiple seasons to improve efficiency.

“We’re incorporating utility work within construction contracts to minimize multiple work windows, and we’re deliberately advancing select asset management activities over multiple construction seasons,” said Alibhai. “This allows contractors to focus on pavement resurfacing as a standalone effort, improving outcomes while reducing disruption to communities.”

York Region has also introduced practical solutions to reduce disruption and improve outcomes, including infrastructure designed to balance environmental considerations with operational needs. In one example, York Region installed permanent wildlife crossings (i.e., salamander tunnels) under Stouffville Road in Richmond Hill, allowing seasonal migration to continue without requiring repeated road closures. In so doing, it has implemented a solution that combines long-term planning, environmental considerations, and coordination that spans multiple agencies.

This is just one example of how the region continues to strengthen collaboration with provincial partners and neighbouring municipalities. At a high level, Alibhai said, “A coordinated approach is essential to reduce impacts to the community, but it also creates timing challenges, as success depends on all partners being ready.”

Evolving procurement models

As with major provincial projects, how work is delivered is becoming just as important as what gets built. Procurement is evolving as municipalities look to better match delivery models to project complexity and reduce inefficiencies. Traditional low-bid models, for example, are being re-evaluated, given that they can transfer significant risk to contractors, particularly in underground work where conditions are uncertain and difficult to fully assess at the bidding stage. “When you open up a road, it’s like spaghetti underground,” said McManus. “You’re digging around gas lines, water lines, electrical lines, and fibre optics. It’s a dog’s breakfast down there.”

Success comes down to better coordination, clearer forecasting, and a real understanding of capacity across the system. Just as important, though, is consistency. If municipalities say they’re going to build, the industry is counting on them to follow through.

Patrick McManus, Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association

In response, municipalities are exploring alternative models that better align risk, expertise, and project complexity. In Toronto, for example, Harkness said, “We’re picking the contract method to match the project. We follow an open, competitive process, but we’re also adopting models like design-build and CMGC [construction manager / general contractor].”

These approaches are already showing results. Speaking to recent work on Toronto’s Gardiner Expressway, Harkness said, “We accelerated that project by 18 months from its original schedule – and we did that in partnership with the province. It has been a really good example of how we’re setting the mindset of working together to go faster and operating with a 24/7 mindset.”

York Region is also taking this moment to reevaluate its procurement and delivery models. According to regional staff, it is moving toward value-based procurement models that recognize contractor performance, experience, and understanding of project requirements, rather than focusing solely on the lowest cost.

Leading by example

Municipalities face no small challenge at this moment – meeting it will require greater consistency, stronger coordination, clearer pipelines, and continued collaboration across industry and government. The path forward is not about a single solution, but about improving how the overall delivery model functions as a whole. “Success comes down to better coordination, clearer forecasting, and a real understanding of capacity across the system,” said McManus. “Just as important, though, is consistency. If municipalities say they’re going to build, the industry is counting on them to follow through.”

Feedback from Toronto and York Region shows municipalities are listening. Moreover, they share a belief that their public and private sector partners are adapting alongside them. “The cooperation and the mindset of how we do this faster has really taken hold,” said Harkness. “As we’re changing how we deliver projects, contractors are adapting alongside us, and you see that in how teams are working together to solve problems in real time and keep projects moving.”

In many ways, municipalities are setting the pace for how = infrastructure is delivered across Ontario – and the success of the province’s broader ambitions will depend on how well that system performs.

Rather than stop and alert the owner, the crew keeps working, assuming it can be sorted out later. By the time it’s raised, the issue has already escalated into something far more difficult to resolve. On large transportation and other government infrastructure projects across Ontario – where multiple contractors and consultants are working under demanding schedules – the misconceived assumption that the issue will “sort itself out” almost always escalates into litigation.

“It’s never the case where you should just continue to work, fix the issue, and not tell the world,” said Ruso, principal and founder of RAR Litigation, a construction law firm with extensive experience in infrastructure disputes. “Make sure you communicate it and you do it in writing. Everyone needs to appreciate what the issue is.”

It’s a lack of communication that is at the heart of what Ruso sees driving disputes on Ontario infrastructure projects – and what separates the projects that run smoothly from those that end up in court.

What differentiates successful projects

Ruso says the projects that proceed most successfully are typically the ones where communication starts early and remains consistent throughout the job. Problems are identified quickly, expectations are clearly understood, and parties address issues before positions harden into disputes.

“Projects where there’s a robust pre-qualification process – so you know who it is that you’re working with – if you’ve worked with the subcontractors before, or you shortlist certain subcontractors that you know have the financial and the professional capability to perform the work, that is the recipe to ensure the project runs smoothly,” said Ruso.

Collaboration also plays an increasingly important role in how some projects are being structured contractually. Ruso points to growing industry interest in collaborative contracting models, such as alliance agreements and integrated project delivery (IPD), which are intended to align key project participants earlier in the process. “The core philosophy is to solve the project at the beginning before building it,” said Ruso.

These models bring owners, consultants, and contractors together earlier to identify risks, refine project planning, and improve alignment before construction begins. While collaborative delivery models are not a replacement for dispute management practices, Ruso says they can help reduce friction on complex infrastructure projects by addressing issues proactively.

Where disputes begin

The seeds of most disputes are planted long before shovels hit the ground, Ruso says. Incomplete tender documents, insufficient site investigations, unclear contract provisions, and procurement decisions based solely on price can create conditions where conflict becomes almost inevitable once work begins – particularly on large infrastructure projects involving multiple parties, evolving site conditions, and demanding schedules.

Many of the disputes Ruso handles involve parties who have never worked together before. Without established working relationships or clearly aligned expectations at the outset, disagreements can escalate more quickly once challenges emerge on site.

Most disputes ultimately trace back to one issue: money. When financing falters, payment slows. When payments stall, the trust behind the project begins to collapse – and friction follows. “It’s always the case that when a project isn’t sufficiently funded, the flow of payment is impeded,” said Ruso. “When there’s no money, there’s a lot more friction.”

In addition to non-payment, Ruso identifies several pressure points on projects that tend to escalate into formal disputes:

• Design deficiencies, where an insufficient base design leads to conflicting interpretations and unclear specifications
• Excessive scope changes through change orders that alter the agreed-upon scope of work
• Unforeseen schedule delays and disputes over who bears responsibility

As disputes escalate, communication often becomes more formal, and parties begin relying on the dispute resolution procedures set out in the contract. At that point, the dynamic shifts. “When claims begin, that’s when everybody starts getting their back up against the wall,” said Ruso.

Documentation and notice

For Ruso, the most consistent predictors of successful claims are two‑fold:

1. Whether notice was provided in accordance with the contract documents
2. The quality of the evidence supporting the claim

Courts are clear – failing to meet notice requirements can be fatal to a claim, particularly where notice provisions are treated as a “condition precedent” to advancing that claim. Just as critical is the documentation behind it: daily reports, photos, correspondence, and site records that establish when an issue arose and how it impacted cost or schedule. That’s why Ruso recommends that contractors assign someone specifically to contract compliance and project documentation – a role with no other responsibilities.

“Even if you have external counsel, external counsel can’t be with you in real time, all the time,” said Ruso. “It’s good to have someone who has no other responsibility than contract compliance and project documentation.”

This approach is agnostic as to whether the contractor has 50 employees or 5,000. While larger firms are more likely to have in-house counsel, every contractor – regardless of scale – benefits from involving external legal counsel early, before a dispute fully forms.

“The first time you call a lawyer shouldn’t be when the dispute entirely escalates,” said Ruso. “It should be early in the process, [where] they are assisting you, even if it’s behind the scenes, in preparing for a potential claim or lawsuit, such that they have all their ducks in a row.”

This is what makes a strong claim

The strength of any claim depends heavily on its preparation, which begins long before the claim is filed. A well-documented issue – where proper notice was provided in accordance with the terms of the contract – improves a party’s chances of successfully prosecuting its claim. “The dispute is crystallized to the extent that the party making the claim can clarify what the nature of the claim is and what the nature of their objection or issue or complaint is,” said Ruso.

A well-organized, well-evidenced claim signals to the other party that the issues are valid and the dispute is supported, which can prompt early discussions for resolution, he says.

Communication over confrontation

Ruso’s advice to contractors is straightforward: communicate early, document thoroughly, and treat every issue as though it may become a claim. “No longer is it the day that these things get managed at construction meetings, verbal representations, or back-of-the-napkin agreements,” he said. “They need to communicate, they need to document and evidence their file like they’re going to, in fact, be prosecuting a claim.”

Ruso warns that clients who are too aggressive at the inception of the project prematurely create long-term problems. Typically, those same clients are overly litigious. “If I have a client that’s too litigious, it becomes a concern to me, at least as counsel, that they won’t be around in 10 years,” he said.

Ruso is clear that involving legal counsel early is not about escalating tension. The most effective use of a lawyer, he argues, is as a shield rather than a sword. The goal is not to avoid disputes entirely – it is to prevent them from materializing into protracted and expensive litigation.

“The most successful files that I have been responsible for are files for which the other side doesn’t even know I’m involved,” he said.
Before engaging in litigation, consider partaking in early mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution procedures. These tools work best when the dispute is already well-defined.

Prompt payment and the Construction Act

One of the biggest factors shaping construction disputes in Ontario is the evolution of prompt payment and adjudication under the Construction Act. The Construction Act, formerly the Construction Lien Act, which received royal assent on Dec. 12, 2017, introduced the concepts of prompt payment and adjudication and came into force on Oct. 1, 2019 – has been further amended by Bill 216 (Building Ontario For You Act (Budget Measures) and Bill 60 (Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025) and came into effect Jan. 1, 2026.

Regarding adjudication, Ruso calls it “swift justice.” Adjudication provides an interim resolution to ensure that the parties can continue their work on a project on the basis of a binding determination. It is a structure Ruso says has meaningfully improved cash flow on projects. And as for prompt payment, Ruso explained, “A contractor on a multi-year project can ensure that it’s paid in accordance with the timelines under the Act, which are very aggressive.”

Ontario was the first province to implement these amendments, and others are following. British Columbia’s corresponding legislative changes are expected to take effect in spring 2026, Ruso says.

Practical advice for contractors

The issues that escalate into disputes are rarely unexpected – but they are often handled too late. Ruso offers three recommendations for contractors bidding and working on infrastructure projects.

First, ensure credit checks are performed and owner financing is confirmed. Second, read the contract in full – not just the key schedules – with legal assistance. Third, invest the time upfront to gather all available information before pricing the work. “Look at the document,” he said. “Basically, this is the document that will dictate whether or not you’ll be successful on a project.”

The difference is often not the issue itself – it’s how early it’s recognized and how well it’s documented.

Asphalt mix design in Ontario is good. It has produced pavements that perform well under demanding traffic and climate conditions, and the industry has built real technical depth around the Superpave volumetric framework over the past three decades.

So, when agencies and contractors started seeing premature cracking on pavements that met every specification requirement, it was worth paying attention to. The mix design was approved. The volumetrics were fine. The paving was done properly. And yet, a few years in, the surface was showing distress that nothing in the design process predicted. That pattern, consistent enough across enough jurisdictions to be hard to ignore, is what is driving interest in balanced mix design (BMD) here in Ontario and across North America.

The idea behind BMD is this: instead of designing an asphalt mix to meet volumetric targets and trusting that performance will follow, you add performance tests that directly measure how the mix behaves under the conditions that determine its service life. That includes rutting, cracking, moisture damage, and fatigue, evaluated in ways that are relevant to the climate, traffic, and position of the mix within the pavement structure. BMD does not replace volumetric design. It builds on it.

Where volumetrics falls short

Superpave was never meant to stop at volumetrics. The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) that produced it in the early 1990s did include performance and strength testing recommendations. Those tests were set aside during implementation, judged at the time to be too complex or too equipment-intensive for routine use. The volumetric framework that remained, air void content, voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA), and voids filled with asphalt (VFA), served well, and the industry built considerable experience around it.

But volumetric parameters describe the geometry of a compacted specimen. They do not measure how that specimen responds to repeated loading at high temperatures, or how it fractures under thermal stress in a cold January in Sudbury. In a sense, BMD is the industry returning to something it always intended to do, with better tools and more field experience to draw on. As the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has documented across its regional BMD peer exchanges, a growing number of state agencies are reporting premature cracking in pavements that met every volumetric target.¹

RAP is a big part of the conversation

Much of the practical motivation for performance testing comes down to the use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP). RAP is abundant in Ontario. Good Roads’ annual paving report, produced in collaboration with the Ontario Asphalt Pavement Council (OAPC) and the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA), estimates the province’s total RAP inventory at approximately 3.7 million tonnes, with current municipal utilization rates so low that the stockpile would take roughly 19 years to deplete.² Under the current Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS), RAP is capped at 15 per cent in surface course mixtures and 30 per cent in base course.³

Those limits exist for a reason. As RAP content increases in the asphalt mix, the aged and oxidized binder in RAP material stiffens the blend in ways that volumetrics does not fully capture. Rutting resistance may improve, but resistance to low-temperature and fatigue cracking can be compromised if the design does not account for these effects. Performance testing gives mix designers a direct way to evaluate the tradeoffs in high-RAP mixes, and it gives agencies a technical basis for approving those designs.

What Ontario is actually doing

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) has been clear that the province will not move to full BMD and mix performance testing (MPT) without retaining volumetrics and binder-grade testing alongside it, and that more study is needed before implementation.⁴ That is the right approach. Several U.S. states that moved quickly to adopt BMD specifications reported instances where lab-designed mixes passed performance criteria but failed during plant production.⁵ Building the correlation data and lab capacity before setting the specifications is exactly the kind of groundwork that avoids those problems.

What this means going forward

For contractors, the conversation about asphalt mix quality is going to evolve. Volumetric compliance will remain necessary, but whether it remains sufficient on its own is what is being worked out now. Contractors who want to propose higher RAP contents, or who are working with additives or modified binders, will find that performance testing is the tool that makes that case on technical grounds. That is worth understanding early, because building in-house capacity to run and interpret these tests is not something that happens in a single paving season.

For owners and agency engineers, BMD offers more direct assurance that what is being specified will actually perform over the design life, and it provides a technical framework for evaluating higher RAP contents and innovative mix approaches that volumetrics alone cannot fully support. It also connects to the sustainability accounting that procurement processes are beginning to require, as Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) frameworks and RAP crediting increasingly intersect with how mixes are evaluated. Getting the threshold values right for Ontario’s climate and materials is the work that has to happen next, and it has to be done here, with Ontario data. 

Sources

1. FHWA, Balanced Asphalt Mix Design: Eight Tasks for Implementation. FHWA-HIF-22-048, 2022. fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/asphalt/amdbmd/ ︎
2. Good Roads, OAPC, and MEA. 2025 Ontario Paving and RAP Report. Good Roads, 2025. goodroads.ca/news_articles/2025pavingreport/ ︎
3. Ontario Provincial Standard Specification OPSS.MUNI 310, Material Specification for Hot Mix Asphalt. Ontario Ministry of Transportation. ︎
4. MTO-OAPC Hot Mix Asphalt Subcommittee. Meeting Notes, December 5, 2024. Ontario Ministry of Transportation Technical Consultation Portal. tcp.mto.gov.on.ca ︎
5. FHWA. 2023 Rocky Mountain West Peer Exchange on BMD: Outcomes and Summary. FHWA-HIF-23-029, 2023. fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/asphalt/amdbmd/ ︎

Ontario’s Excess Soil Regulation (O. Reg. 406/19) has fundamentally changed how soil is managed across the province. On qualifying projects, every load must now be planned, classified, tracked, and documented from source to destination. What was once treated as a disposal issue is now a regulated, engineered process – one that carries implications for project timelines, costs, and risk.

The regulation is also changing how the industry views soil itself. Rather than waste to be removed, excess soil is increasingly treated as a resource to be managed, reused, and accounted for. For contractors and project leaders, that shift means new responsibilities, new workflows, and far less margin for error.

Application of regulation: who and what it covers

The regulation applies to any project moving significant volumes of soil: at least 2,000 cubic metres or approximately 200 truckloads. This includes municipal infrastructure projects, condo developments, transit projects, and large-scale excavation work. The project leader (e.g., municipality, developer) is ultimately responsible for regulatory compliance. However, contractors must adhere to the rules to ensure excess soil reaches its intended destination.

“The lines get blurred with how contracts are written,” said Ryan Moniz, vice president of XS Soil Solutions. “We’re seeing some municipalities take on that responsibility while others download it all onto the contractor.”

Qualifying projects must register with Ontario’s Excess Soil Registry, operated by the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority (RPRA). This digital system tracks the movement and reuse of excess soil from construction projects. The public online database enables regulators – and, in some cases, the public – to see where soil is coming from and where it’s going.

The importance of planning and documentation

A project must comply with the regulation once soil is moved. However, compliance preparation should start long before digging begins. Early engagement and planning are essential. It can take weeks or months to complete the documentation and get approvals to move forward. Failing to account for the time requirements can create project delays and cost overruns.

“Very frequently, we get calls to come out and qualify some soil so they can move it tomorrow,” said Moniz. “Now they must start planning four to six weeks in advance, or even more, to engage with a QP [Qualified Person] to understand their compliance responsibilities.”

The regulation requires completion of several planning documents before soil leaves the site. Project leaders must file notice on the RPRA Excess Soil Registry and an Excess Soil Management Plan (ESMP) with project details, soil quality, and reuse plans. In practice, this turns soil movement into a sequential, engineered process, and not a logistical afterthought. Depending on contractual responsibility, either the project leader or contractor must then submit the following documents, which are interdependent and to be completed sequentially:

• Assessment of Past Uses (APU): Determines potential contamination risks (Phase I Environment Site Assessment)
• Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP): Outlines how soil will be tested
• Soil Characterization Report (SCR): Classifies soil quality
  
• Excess Soil Destination Assessment Report (ESDAR): Identifies where soil will go

“These are all engineering documents, which take a considerable amount of time,” said Karim Hosny, founder and president of XS Soil Solutions. “They feed into the planning component, which is why it takes four to eight weeks to get your projects in compliance before you start moving material.”

Tracking soil from source to destination

Once the soil begins to move off-site on regulated projects, tracking becomes required to maintain compliance. Contractors are responsible for tracking every load of soil, including its origin, classification, management, and destination. They must then submit documentation for inclusion in the RPRA registry.

In effect, every load of soil now carries a documented history – from where it originated to where it ultimately ends up. Paper records and spreadsheets are acceptable methods of soil tracking. However, manual document management can be time-consuming and induce unnecessary risk. Digital online tracking tools have become widely used across the industry.

“Under the regulation, you must store your data for up to seven years,” said Hosny. “Digital software allows for proper document management and storage. A subway tunnel or bridge reconstruction project could go on for years, which will create a lot of data.”

Contractors are typically required to issue monthly soil reports to the project leader or contracting authority. If the soil plan changes during the project (e.g., design updates, new excavations), they have 30 days to update the planning documents on the RPRA registry.

Compliance challenges

Despite being in place for years, the regulation is still being interpreted differently across projects, creating uncertainty around how materials like bedrock are classified and managed. The Ministry of the Environment does not always provide guidance, allowing QPs to interpret the regulation as they see fit. This can lead to conflicting opinions between opposing parties.

“There are a lot of grey areas where the Ministry has left room for interpretation,” said Moniz. “When does slate or bedrock become soil? How is that defined and managed? Understanding how to manage rock is a very big pinch point in the industry.”

Gaps in enforcement have created uneven adoption of the regulation across the province. Some areas, particularly in northern Ontario, are not compliant because they lack regulatory oversight or education on the regulation. Issues can also arise when less experienced firms get involved with excess soil management.

Addressing costs and operational impacts

The regulation requires environmental assessments, engineering services, and documentation. Some contractors fail to consider the costs when pricing the job. Waiting too long to engage engineers will lead to rush costs for engineering, sampling, and lab work. This also creates site slowdowns, which means paying for idle equipment and crews. The RPRA also imposes registry fees, which vary according to project size.

“The RPRA fees are misaligned with the other services being provided,” said Moniz. “Compared to soil testing, report writing, and field work, RPRA fees are often higher than all those services combined. It’s essentially a tax to register and do the right thing.”

Securing approvals from the receiving site can create operational delays. Their QP must review and approve soil reports. Any issues or concerns on the receiving party’s end can delay the approval process and increase project timelines. There are also different costs in disposing of clean versus contaminated soil. Failure to properly identify soil conditions during the bidding process can mean losing money on the project.

“Early engagement with your QP is important, as it allows us to understand the complexities of the project, where efficiencies could be observed, what to expect in terms of the soil data, the levels of contamination, and how much is contaminated versus how much is clean,” said Hosny.

Integrating excess soil planning into your project strategy

To ensure compliance with the Excess Soil Regulation, project leaders and contractors should:

• Engage an experienced engineering firm or QP early on
  Integrate soil planning into the bidding process
• Identify potential receiving sites in advance
• Complete all documentation according to the regulations
• Invest in a digital tracking and documentation system
• Treat soil as a resource rather than waste

The regulation has fundamentally changed how excess soil is handled in Ontario. Projects that treat soil management as a planning exercise – not a disposal task – will be better positioned to control costs, avoid delays, and stay compliant as enforcement continues to evolve.

“Contractors have a lot of responsibilities and can’t be expected to know what’s happening with the regulations,” said Hosny. “Having a QP on retainer allows for the best consulting advice, as they understand the regulation and can help you navigate changes.”

In response, the province’s road building industry is striving to provide better protection for both workers and motorists through stronger safety cultures, improved training practices, and the growing use of smart work zone technologies.

“We are doing what we can to make sure our workers get home to their families and friends at the end of the day. That’s of the utmost importance to our company and our industry,” said Marc Maida, operations manager for the Mississauga-based paving firm Pave-Al Limited. “It’s about the safety of our people and it’s also about the safety of the public. You want to make sure that you’re not putting anyone at risk who is travelling through work zones.”

Travis Saunders, vice president of operations, Eastern Canada, for ATS Traffic, notes the buy-in for maximizing work zone safety is definitely there across the road building industry. “Now, it’s just about how do we get this done,” he said.

Safety improvements

Maida says there have been many improvements in work zone safety in the past 20 years. This includes more buffer areas being built into road construction plans as well as the greater use of heavy concrete or water-filled barriers to delineate and protect work zones. Maida says advance notice to motorists is one of the most effective ways to protect crews.

“Immediate and abrupt road closures can create panic in the travelling public, and sometimes that panic can result in negative impacts,” he said, adding Pave-Al frequently uses advance notification tools like variable messaging boards to alert motorists that they are approaching construction and they can expect delays or should use alternate routes. “What you don’t want are cars flying up at 100 kilometres an hour and drivers slamming on the brakes when they see brake lights,” he said.

For contractors, these changes are also influencing how projects are priced and planned. Safety measures that were once considered enhancements are increasingly being treated as baseline requirements, with more emphasis placed on traffic management strategies, advance communication and the integration of protective technologies from the outset.

Another important safety tool is automated flagger assistance devices (AFADs) – electronic, remote-controlled units that remove human flaggers from roadways, reducing the risk of injuries and fatalities.

“It gets the workers who are at the most vulnerable position out of the way of vehicles,” said Nick Turner, ATS Traffic’s director of business development. “We’ve taken a stance of pushing AFADs on every flagging job we can,” added Saunders. “We are prioritizing…technology that removes [people] from the side of the road.”

Saunders says he’d like to see Ontario follow the lead of other provinces like British Columbia, where it is mandated that road building contractors implement AFADs for traffic control whenever they can. Owen Heritage, managing director for Ramudden Services, says technologies like Intellitag – a cloud-based asset monitoring system designed to transform the way work zones are managed – are changing how work zones are monitored and managed in real time.

As soon as you enter a work zone, the risks of someone getting hurt, including yourself as a motorist, drastically increase, and I don’t think there’s enough education around that.

Travis Saunders, ATS Traffic

“A big issue on job sites is when people drive into work zones, resulting in incidents,” said Heritage. “This system provides live visibility and instant notifications, taking away that time gap between a problem and a fix.”

Ramudden’s Incursion Prevention and Warning System (IPWS) uses LiDAR to alert crews when a vehicle enters the work zone. “If somebody drives into a work zone, it notifies workers downstream that somebody’s coming who shouldn’t be there. It’s great for ramps and areas like that where people don’t see the motorists coming,” said Heritage.

While interest in these technologies continues to grow, adoption often comes down to cost, project scope, and owner requirements. As a result, contractors and traffic control providers are navigating how to balance innovation with practical implementation across a wide range of project types. At the same time, expectations around work zone safety are continuing to evolve, with both public agencies and contractors placing greater emphasis on proactive risk reduction rather than reactive response.

Safety culture

While new technologies can help advance work zone safety, the human element cannot be overlooked. It’s why, for road construction businesses like Pave-Al, instilling a powerful safety culture is so important.

“We’ve been working very hard for the last 10 years developing a strong safety culture that’s become deeply entrenched and is part of our day-to-day operation,” said Maida. “I think not only are companies more invested now in training and educating workers around site safety and traffic management, but unions are, as well. That’s something we welcome and encourage.”

That shift is also being reinforced by leadership at both the company and project level, where safety performance is increasingly tied to accountability, planning discipline, and day-to-day decision-making on site. Maida notes Pave-Al supports safety education and training through COR and IHSA programs for its workers, as well as those in supervisory positions.

Pave-Al’s strong commitment to safety was recognized at the Ontario Road Builders’ Association’s annual AGM and meeting in Toronto in February, when the company won a Routly Safety Award in Category 2. The award is given to contractors who accumulate more than 100,000 average person-hours without a lost-time injury for three consecutive years. Pave-Al has close to 300,000 person-hours without a lost-time injury.

Maida says while work zone safety is a day-to-day concern for everyone on the job site, it has to start with proper preparation. “Work zones create congestion and inherently they become high-volume traffic areas, so before we even set things up, it’s always at the forefront to delineate traffic and make sure that not only our work site is safe, but the public travelling through our site is safe as well.”

Maida says contractors are often responsible for key site safety decisions, including barriers and traffic delineation. He adds that work zone safety planning can happen early on, at project estimating or pre-project phases, and should continue throughout project execution to account for changing conditions. Increasingly, those considerations are being formalized earlier in the process, as part of bid strategy and project planning rather than being addressed once work is underway.

Public awareness lacking

Industry stakeholders note that improving work zone safety is not solely a contractor responsibility, but a shared one that depends on driver awareness, consistent messaging, and broader public understanding of how these environments function. Saunders and Heritage agree public awareness of safety risks associated with entering road building work zones is lacking.

“Your risks entering a work zone are far greater than just motoring along on a freeway or on a normal municipal road. As soon as you enter a work zone, the risks of someone getting hurt, including yourself as a motorist, drastically increase, and I don’t think there’s enough education around that,” said Saunders.

Heritage asserts this is especially important for people just starting to drive. “We need to do a better job of educating new motorists on how to interact with the work zone,” he said.

We need to do a better job of educating new motorists on how to interact with the work zone.

Owen Heritage, Ramudden Services

Maida says if there’s one thing he’d like motorists to keep in mind, it’s to try to be more patient. “People value their time, and you got to respect them for that. But we’re here to do a job that needs doing and work sites need to be kept safe and constructable, so what we’re asking of motorists is a little bit of patience,” he said. “That’s probably the biggest concern with the travelling public when we’re working out there.”

Maida maintains it’s only a small percentage of the motoring public that tends to lose their cool around work zones, but when they do, it can cause big trouble. “It’s those bad apples who can ruin it for everyone else,” said Maida. “I’ll give you an example. We had a freeway job last year that had two incidents where people were in traffic and just decided to pull a U-turn in the middle of the highway and got sideswiped. That creates an even bigger burden for the work site and the travelling public.”

As Ontario continues to invest in infrastructure renewal and expansion, the complexity and frequency of work zones is only expected to increase. For the road building industry, that makes ongoing improvements in safety practices, training, and technology not just important, but essential to keeping both workers and the travelling public protected. 

Picture this: it’s late Friday, and a construction team is wrapping up ahead of schedule. Then a call comes in – a site tablet is locked. Project files are missing. A ransom demand sits onscreen. The breach didn’t originate internally. It stemmed from a partner.

Specifically, a landscape subcontractor’s credentials – three years old and still active. It’s easy to overlook that kind of vulnerability. After all, we’ve spent decades perfecting the logistics of physical builds, ensuring safety, schedules, and specs align. But while you’ve been busy laying concrete and coordinating projects, a parallel reality has taken root. Your project’s digital infrastructure, its data, access points, and connected partners, has become just as foundational. And in many cases, far more exposed.

This isn’t an article that will suggest locking everything down so tight that no one can work. But it’s important to know that asking basic questions (such as, “Who has access to this?”) should feel as routine as a safety inspection on site.

Is their exposure your liability?

In 2023, a mid-sized Canadian civil contractor was hit by a ransomware attack traced back to a third-party environmental firm. That firm had retained access to cloud-stored documents after project closeout – on an unmanaged laptop using shared login credentials. No malice, just oversight. But the result? Project delays, reputational damage, and weeks of cleanup (Source: Canadian Underwriter).

Modern construction is deeply interconnected. Subcontractors, suppliers, material vendors, specialty trades, consultants… they don’t just show up with tools or deliveries anymore. They log in. They download specs. They join shared drives, submit bids through procurement platforms, and/or access project schedules in real time.

It’s not inherently bad – it’s actually efficient. But with each digital handshake, another access point opens. And very few general contractors, developers, design-build firms – even law firms – have a complete picture of who’s plugged into their systems, from where, and with what level of security maturity. When they connect to your environment, their exposure becomes your liability.

Cybersecurity vs. information security: the overlooked gap in construction

Let’s start with what’s really at stake. It’s not your systems or software; it’s information that can be converted into money. That’s what threat actors are after: plans, schedules, personnel files, bids, client information. In short, all types of data. Information security covers the full spectrum – digital data, physical documents, intellectual property, incident protocols, etc. Cybersecurity is a subfield of information security that only focuses on the technical controls (think firewalls, antivirus software, and the rest of the digital defenses).

Now here’s the disconnect: while your organization might have structured controls in place, what about the vendors and partners you both have access to, like files shared by owners, project managers, and lawyers? That’s often where things get murky.

Some are rock solid. Others still use personal Gmail accounts to access project portals. Some have no formal onboarding or offboarding process for user credentials. And some have never tested their incident response plan because, well, they don’t have one. So, no – if a subcontractor checks the “cybersecurity clause” in a contract, it doesn’t mean you’re risk-free. Because risk comes from how people behave when handling data.

Some of the tough questions to ask:

• Who manages user access on their end – and how often do they review it?
• Do they have an incident response plan for when they experience an incident? And within that plan, how quickly would you receive notification?
• Is there an actual person accountable for information security – not just an IT guy?
• Do they value the impact their security protocols might have on the contract – or are they just nodding through your compliance checklist?

You don’t need to get technical – just intentional

Leadership doesn’t need to know how the safety harness is engineered, but they do need to insist it’s worn. Information security is no different:

• Make individual access non-negotiable. Push for policies that eliminate shared logins across all subs and vendors.
• Set clear offboarding standards. Access for third parties should end automatically when the job does.
• Ensure your third-party suppliers value security. In your vendor qualification process, include questions about their security policies and procedures.
• Support healthy “cyber hygiene” for credentials between projects. Static passwords reused across sites are a silent liability.
• Short, consistent cyber-awareness talks. A few minutes a week can prevent thousands in downtime, just like daily safety talks prevent injury.
• Insist on mid-project access audits. Systems drift, and people accumulate privileges. Don’t wait for a breach to realize who still has keys.

When executives lead with clarity, the culture follows.

Addressing scope and capacity challenges

When you think about information security, your IT team probably comes to mind first – and for good reason. Because generally, they handle the technical defences: firewalls, malware scans, patching systems, and much more. But here’s the thing: IT departments juggle everything from complex network issues to user support. The bandwidth isn’t there to effectively oversee the full security picture.

This is because information security includes policies, physical security, and the human side of risk management, such as who has access to your job site’s sensitive info, how subcontractors are onboarded, or whether someone’s still using a shared login from last year. These areas often fall outside the IT team’s reach.

Consider administrative procedures, like access control policies or managing vendor risk assessments. These critical controls fall outside the traditional scope of IT teams, yet they play a vital role in protecting organizational data. Such responsibilities require a broader perspective to maintain consistent application and accountability across the enterprise.

It’s increasingly common to engage external firms that provide virtual chief information security officer (vCISO) services or similar advisory roles. These services work in tandem with IT – IT teams focus on operational efficiency, while vCISOs concentrate on security.

Outsourcing in this way allows companies to holistically approach security, complementing the technical controls managed by IT. It also helps bridge the gap between technology-focused teams and the broader organizational needs around risk management and regulatory expectations. In other words, it’s not about utilizing your internal IT team more. It’s about reinforcing the work they do with supplemental expertise.

You set the tone – make it count

Subcontractors reflect the environment that leaders create. If security shows up in RFPs, onboarding, project closeouts, and executive reviews… it’s taken seriously.

Ask the tough questions. Encourage better habits. Support the people trying to do it right. You’ll send a quiet, powerful message that security matters. Not just because of the risk, but because it’s part of doing the job well. When things go smoothly, and they will, it’ll be because the entire organization helped build a smarter, more resilient way of working. One decision, one expectation at a time.

You already hold the blueprint. Time to build accordingly.