Now Reading
Paving on Red Hill went ahead despite concerns about asphalt test strip failure

Paving on Red Hill went ahead despite concerns about asphalt test strip failure

Documents provided by the Red Hill Inquiry show that the paving of the project went ahead in the summer of 2007, even though the city’s paving consultant was not satisfied with a test strip that had been applied, as a final check before paving was to begin. Testimony and documents suggest that warnings about the test strip were either disregarded or simply failed to reach the contractor, Dufferin Paving before the paving was commenced.

David Hainer of Dufferin Construction, who was site superintendent in charge of the Red Hill paving was questioned Wednesday about the early days of the paving operation– specifically about the test strip that had been conducted immediately before paving was to begin. This was the test trip that Inquiry documents show the city’s consultant had warned had failed. But Hainer testified that he vaguely remembered being made aware that the testing results were good. When pressed on how he received that information, Hainer could not remember. He was then shown an email dated July 31, 2007, the day before paving began, on which he was copied, where Dr Uzarowski, the city’s paving consultant indicated that the test strip had failed and that any paving Dufferin performed “will be at their entire risk.” Mr. Hainer said that at that time 2007, he did not have a smart phone and would have been unaware of any emails unless he went into the office. He further testified that it was his habit to do directly to the jobsite most mornings.

The paving went ahead and was completed two weeks later, on August 13. Dufferin having completed its paving, left the project and dismantled the on-site asphalt plant. Somewhere during that period, Golder tested the pavement and found the stone mastic asphalt (SMA) that formed the top coat of the road had failed in a number of samples taken. Internal Golder emails show Dr. Uzarowski asking his colleagues, “What can we do now? How should we inform the client (Hamilton) that 9 out of 28 SMA samples are rejectable if the SMA paving has been finished some time ago and the plant and aggregate are already gone?”

The inquiry will resume its hearing next Monday.

View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

© 2022 The Bay Observer. All Rights Reserved.

Scroll To Top