Two new bridges? Bring them on

Crossing the South Saskatchewan River is, for many Saskatonians, a regular and unavoidable part of life. It has been thus since Chief Whitecap advised John Lake to settle in a spot where a ferry could easily carry him across.

That spot is approximately where the Victoria Street or Traffic Bridge, now defunct, sits as a monument to poor planning and bad infrastructure maintenance. Rather, that’s where it would sit if a portion of it had not been removed.

Saskatoon has been waiting for a decision on what to do with that river crossing for four years. Even more crucial to the safe and smooth traffic flow of this growing city is a north bridge, also considered for several years.

Finally, after what has been a protracted period of discussion with the federal and provincial governments, we are getting new bridges. It is hard to imagine better news.

Last week, the three levels of government announced that $252 million would be spent on the two new bridges, with $60.8 million coming from the feds and $50 million for the province. The projects will fit into a public-private partnership or P3 model, which involves a contractor who will design, build and maintain the structures for 30 years.

Some pundits and observers have raised concerns about the model, and perhaps rightly so. The most significant problem would be if the contractor went out of business in the future, and a new maintenance contract had to be signed. Saskatchewan residents are likely to be leery of P3s, since few projects have been developed under this relatively new model. We are accustomed to governments doing it all.

However, in a province where most folks still want to park either two feet away from their destinations or for free (both would be preferable), some of the other options would not be palatable. Consider toll roads: a political non-starter, I would think.

The massive benefits of building the new bridges outweigh concerns over the P3 model, which may even bring its own benefits. The Traffic Bridge is now near collapse because of a lack of maintenance. If a company is contractually obligated to maintain the bridges, perhaps we will not see this problem again. Successive city councils were not able to manage it, so arguing the entire project should remain public doesn’t hold much water.

The Traffic Bridge, despite the well-intentioned arguments of some that it should be a pedestrian bridge, must carry traffic – partly to improve movement out of downtown, but also as a buffer against maintenance downtime on nearby bridges. Will the city delay maintaining the Broadway or University bridges because high traffic does not allow for it?

The north bridge, meanwhile, is crucial to the prosperity, comfort and safety of Saskatoon. The amount of traffic congestion in the north end is spectacular and entirely unacceptable. From a prosperity standpoint, goods and services must flow in a timely fashion through – and around – the city. People must have at least a reasonable shot at getting to work on time. How often do we hear on CBC Radio in the mornings that College Drive is backed up on the commute? Give up? Every Monday through Friday.

Community services that keep us safe, such as ambulance, police and fire, need to be able to get through traffic to their destinations. I have often wondered how this is possible when Millar Avenue, Warman Road and Circle Drive are completely jammed, bumper to bumper. How would a fire truck get through there?

Saskatoon is a growing and increasingly cosmopolitan place. An insufficient and, frankly, embarrassing road system is not going to support population growth, economic growth or a pleasant, courteous driving community. Let’s face it; road rage, discourteous driving and general commuting misery is no way to grow.

On the long, long list of important infrastructure investments, these are at the very top. We are so fortunate to be located on this beautiful river that defines the shape and contributes to the culture of our community. It is our finest feature. Along with it comes the need for bridges. Bring them on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not summer yet.
Has anyone investigated how SAD -- that sad winter malady -- may affect us in the summer when the sun never shines and every day brings cloud, rain and the threat of thunderstorms?
Tomatoes languish. Zucchini freezes. Only the lawn shows signs of growth -- of course, since it must be mowed.
It is a beautiful picture from the Broadway Bridge, though, isn't it?

Beautiful day downtown, especially due to Maria and Melinda, musical sisters hoping to busk across Europe.

Hero creation at the U of S

Big, bald, bespectacled Robert Buckingham cuts an imposing figure. When University of Saskatchewan security officers waltzed him off campus and out of his job, I would have paid good money to see him shake them off.

It’s unlikely he did so, having behaved with aplomb and integrity throughout the debacle that saw him stripped of tenure, pension, position and his executive directorship of the School of Public Health earlier this week.

It was a bold and dangerous move for Buckingham to publicly question the university’s administrators on the TransformUS process of cost-cutting and college amalgamation. After considerable deliberation among lawyers, academic leaders and others – according to president Ilene Busch-Vishniac – Buckingham was removed from his role. But far from an act of resolute managing, firing Buckingham and frogmarching him off campus was the act of petulant, arrogant and short-sighted administrators.

The resulting firestorm over public speech in academia has partly changed their minds. It wasn’t because they did the wrong thing and tried to right it. It was, like Nixon, because their mistake was caught – by a diligent media and international public opinion.

Buckingham has been partly reinstated, but it’s too late for that to mitigate public fury. Busch-Vishniac, who does not appear to have taken any personal responsibility for the fiasco, will not back down from firing Buckingham as executive director, which is where this issue really rests. Buckingham will not back down from his anti-muzzling essay, The Silence of the Deans, which started the whole thing. We have stalemate, to that extent.

But in the court of public opinion, the knives are out for U of S management, while Buckingham’s freedom of speech stance is garnering enormous support from students, academics, commentators, and apparently the provincial government.

What’s fascinating about this mess is how the U of S has in one mad act compromised the brand it was obsessively trying to defend, by insisting its leadership could not speak out about TransformUS and firing the first manager to do so.  

Their actions may have long-reaching repercussions. They could certainly affect the future recruitment of qualified professors – including Buckingham’s replacement -- and international and Canadian students. Even as the U of S tries to cut costs, such a public relations disaster may also affect the future funding it will increasingly need. These are issues the administration should have evaluated before attacking Buckingham.

Perhaps the entire event is unsurprising in an environment where speaking out, speaking up, or just speaking at all is becoming an increasingly rare act due to fears of reprisal. The federal government, for example, has also taken the approach of managing the message from all of its bureaucrats, and that includes scientists. Heaven help the journalist seeking information from a researcher, who must wade through layers of communications officials before saying anything – or nothing.

The right of the public to know what is going on at all levels of government and at tax-funded institutions is being trampled -- or at least, the effort is being made. If there is a positive outcome to this case, it will be that it shows muzzling policies can come back to bite the organizations that instituted them.

Busch-Vishniac needs to take a page out of Michael McCain’s communications playbook, and quickly. McCain, head of his family’s eponymous meat firm, was abject in his apology over his company’s listeriosis crisis a few years ago. His approach essentially saved his company. The buck stops at the president’s office, and she needs to apologize, personally and absolutely, to even have a hope that this will go away.

The U of S has done much more damage to its reputation than the brave and outspoken Buckingham could possibly have done himself. In the process, it has created a hero.  

Potash, round two

Apparently, potash companies don't absolutely have to charge $700 or more per tonne of pink gold to make some money on their commodity.
Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan managed to have a record-breaking first quarter this year, earning $732 million US, or 84 cents per share -- up from $444 million or 49 cents per share in the comparable quarter of last year.
Indeed, Potash Corp. sold $1.1 billion in potash.
All of this was on the back of a potash price greatly reduced from before the recession. Average sales were $366 US per tonne, applied to 2.8 million tonnes of potash.
The company often made the point, while the price was soaring, that high potash prices were necessary to drive future potash production -- expanding mines, and possibly opening greenfield mines, although Potash has pooh-poohed greenfields when other companies have threatened to open them.
It seemed like a good point, until this year's Q1 results are examined.
I have noted in a previous blog that farmers were finally forced to vote with their feet when the price got too high -- grassroots reaction to global commodity conditions. That did mean, of course, that many fields across the world were pining for nutrients a year or two later. However, it did drive down the delivered potash price considerably, and made it affordable again -- affordable enough to buy and spread.
On one point, the potash companies are absolutely correct, and it's a simple one: if we are to grow enough food to feed the world, fertilizers are crucial. Absolutely true. But farmers must be able to buy their inputs without going broke for this food-growing cycle to actually work.
And it looks like the cycle is even working for the potash miners.

Stupid turkey

Don't believe what you read in the recipe books. Or online.
Turkeys, especially frozen ones, have minds of their own -- even though they're supposed to be among the stupidest creatures on the planet.
The weekend before Christmas (OK, admittedly, I was leaving things a little late) I sallied forth to purchase the festive bird. I went to Safeway.
The wonderful Joan pointed me to the amazing 99 cent sale, and advised me to buy a certain brand that she had had considerable luck with. (Thank you Joan...you are in no way responsible for what was to come.)
It was in fact a frozen turkey. Normally, I'm much more organized and buy fresh fowl of whatever kind, but had not had time to order a fresh turkey...so there it was, in my cart, the frozen one.
On Wednesday -- having been advised to thaw the thing three days ahead of time in the fridge -- I removed the turkey from its freezing spot and placed it, in its wrapper, in a pan, in the fridge.
Friday, I ventured down mid-afternoon to poke it. It was like granite. No perceptible thawing at all.
So, I bathed the beast in icy cold water for a couple of hours, trying to spur some thawing. It did, in fact, begin to soften a little. But we were on our way to Mom and Dad's for Christmas Eve events, and back the bird went into the fridge.
Saturday morning, full of hope, I returned to the fridge.
Rock hard. Yikes. You've got to be kidding, I told the bird.
Out it came, and back into its cold bath. We changed the water religiously every 30 minutes, rolling the bird around, hoping against hope it would thaw enough to place in the oven by 1.30. Dinner was at six. Time was of the essence.
At noon I panicked and called a close friend with my dilemma.
"Oh," she said, "that happens to me every year. Don't worry, it will thaw enough, and eventually cook enough, to serve."
She always takes the bird out of its wrap after a few hours, to hasten the process. This did, in fact, help. I moved the legs, ran cold water into the cavity, cut my hands on the internal ice and FINALLY -- by about 1.30 -- it was at least thawed enough to stuff and cook.
Somewhat relieved, I slid my festive offering into the oven.
It browned. It smelled delicious. Things were looking up.
Well, they were until 5.30...when I tested the temperature and realized it still had 40 degrees to go. How long was THAT going to take? And the interior of the leg was bloody red. Bloody hell.
A quick check with Mom proved disappointing...yes, it had to be 180 degrees. So we waited, and waited. 160. 170. 175.
An hour later, it finally reached 180 -- and sure enough, the juices ran clear. It was done! But was it dried out like, well, an overcooked turkey?
Ken took over to make the gravy and carve the bird while I finished the buns and vegetables. The meat landed on the table, neatly arranged on its platter.
And it was delicious...tender...even, in spots, juicy.
But first it put me through nine hours of hell. Next time, fresh bird!! Next time, add an hour to the cooking time!! Next time, make roast beef!
Don't believe everything you read.
Happy new year.

Forests and potash

I haven't been good about blogging. Bad, in fact.
I'm working on this new thing -- I think it's going to be a newsletter, although it might become a website. Still working out the details on that, but it's kept me away from the blog and focused on the new product.
I think it's going to be directed at women in the 45 to 65 age group (pre-retirement, but in sort of middle age.) I have these theories, and I've been collecting stories in my head about women as they begin to gently age, and it's turning into a thing. I hope. Jan (Mrs. IV!) has been helping.


The financial crisis in the United States -- and therefore much of the world -- had its roots in a much earlier time than folk think.
My theory is that following commodity markets gives you a pretty sharp look into the economy's future. Maybe this isn't rocket science, I don't know; but if we had looked more closely at the Canadian lumber industry's crash, I wonder if we would have figured out that something was seriously amiss in the American real estate market well before everyone had to take a bath on their mortgages.
Lumber demand had been drooping substantially well before big companies like Weyerhaeuser starting closing mills, including those in Saskatchewan way back in 2006. Part of the problem was certainly the softwood lumber agreement, but even that likely emerged partly due to sagging demand for board feet. The US government was protecting what was left of its own lumber industry.
So, no one (ok, I exaggerate) in the US was building new houses, at least as far back as 2005. Why? Glut on the market? Or could Americans not afford such things? Either way, something was changing, even in the days when the American consumer was still, big time, king of the world from an economy-driving standpoint.
Then, sub-prime mortgages began to emerge. At the loss-leader lower interest rates that lured homebuyers into ownership and therefore through the door of the bank, they could (if marginally) afford homes. The big American dream was saved. For the time being.
Another thing that some open-minded economists are arguing is that Americans were not specifically going broke because of that home in the suburbs. It was because they still had to drive to work, and were spending stupid amounts of money on energy. No one can afford to live downtown or even near downtown, so they're out in the sticks and filling up the truck every week. Brilliant theory, actually. If they could have walked to work, they may have survived the financial collapse.
Everyone more or less knows the rest. All hell broke loose. Foreclosures continue to climb, to the point where banks aren't even putting all their newly-repo'd houses on the market, for fear such a glut would drive prices down even further. (The Globe and Mail reported on this this week.)
(Interestingly, things seem to be the worst in traditional tourist states like Nevada, Arizona, Florida and California (along with a few others). Maybe the values were just the most inflated in these regions; or maybe other recession weary-nations weren't sending their citizens off to warm American climes.)
Anyway, I've been musing that the Canadian forestry industry might have been the canary in the coal mine in this case. I've also been thinking that economists and forecasters may not put quite enough emphasis on the end-user when they make predictions.
Take the potash price crash of last year. Prices were at historic highs -- and they were very, very high. When the recession came along, farmers couldn't afford potash. Period. They tried other fertilizers that were less expensive; they grew crops that required less potash; they did other things like create business groups to buy fertilizer in greater volume, to cut prices.
How was it amazing that the price fell, along with demand? The recession hit in 2008. In 2009, millions of farmers around the world voted with their feet, walked away from potash, and gave everyone a very clear view of how grassroots market forces react.
Just like homebuyers walked away from new homes in the mid-2000s.
As an addendum, there's something seriously amiss in a society where people can't afford to live near where they work, and can't afford to get to work to pay for where they live. Parts of Canada are like that, too.
I don't know what exactly the nub of the problem is, but it's serious and it's going to take a long time to work out.