Inquiry reveals concerns about parkway before completion
Red Hill Valley Parkway Inquiry hears testimony about friction, a failed test strip and other early problems
The day before paving was to start on the surface of the Red Hill Valley Parkway, the engineer in charge of quality control for the project called the Ministry of Transportation with concerns.
This was on July 31, 2007, and Ludomir Uzarowski, of the consulting firm Golder, asked about a rumour he’d heard about a particular quarry’s aggregate not being approved for use by the province in its stone mastic asphalt (SMA) paving — the same type of asphalt mix that was to be used on the parkway the next day. He learned that the MTO had concerns about early age friction on SMA roads.
In fact, a joint MTO-industry task force was already studying the concerns — and the ministry would later place a temporary moratorium on SMA on its highways. Yet those involved with the Red Hill project appear not to have been aware of this, according to testimony during the first phase of the Red Hill Valley Parkway Inquiry.
The friction concerns did nothing to halt or delay paving the surface of the road. Instead, Uzarowski decided to request friction testing once the road was complete.
“I was pretty convinced by the end of this conversation that we would have to do friction testing,” Uzarowski said about that July 31 phone call. Paving began the next day.
The impetus for the inquiry was the discovery of a differing 2013 friction test report that was never shared with council or the public. It came to light in 2019, years after
fatal crashes and amid safety questions about the parkway, including an award-winning investigation by The Spectator. Public hearings began the last week of April.
The first phase of testimony, before commissioner Herman Wilton-Siegel, is focused on construction. Testimony has revealed, for the first time publicly, that there were concerns about the parkway before it was even completed. Uzarowski’s July 31 phone call was not the first, or last, concern raised.
Gary Moore, the city’s former engineering boss, has been at the centre of the controversy because he’s the one who received (and seemingly didn’t share) the 2013 friction report. But Moore, who is testifying at the inquiry this week, was largely not involved in the day-to-day construction, the inquiry has heard. That was Marco Oddi, senior project manager for the Red Hill and current manager of construction.
Testimony and emails shared as inquiry exhibits reveal several instances where Oddi misrepresented or ignored concerns.
Failed test strip
Back on July 25, 2007 — just days before paving was set to start — a test strip of the asphalt mix was placed on a Mud Street ramp and Uzarowski found it failed. Specifically, the test strip was too thin and it had poor air voids — something that can also cause durability and friction issues.
On July 31, the same day as the MTO call, Uzarowski emailed Oddi, representatives from Phillips (the engineering firm that was the contract administrator) and Dufferin Construction, which had won the contract to pave the parkway.
“The test strip is not acceptable. We recommend that a new test strip be completed,” he wrote. “We understand that Dufferin Construction intends to place the SMA mix on the main line tomorrow. Dufferin Construction should be aware that the test strip has not been approved and the paving will be at their entire risk.”
Uzarowski and others have testified that test strips are not used on every road project and in ones where they are used, it’s not uncommon for them to fail. Rather, they are seen as opportunities to improve.
“The test strip is not to penalize the contractor, but to give them the opportunity to learn how to finetune the production, placement, compaction to meet the specification,” he said.
Uzarowski said in this case he could only give his advice to do another test strip, not order it. Only the city could have made it a requirement, which they (Oddi) did not. Dufferin went ahead with the warning that if the road didn’t meet specifications they would have to rip it up and replace it or they could be paid less if the job didn’t meet the required specifications.
Witnesses, including from Dufferin, Golder and the city, have also explained that almost no paving project goes perfectly.
“We take what we learn and adjust,” said Paul Janicus, who was a quality control manager on asphalt projects for Dufferin during the Red Hill paving. He called it a “constant process.”
‘Tricky’ asphalt mix
By 2007, the Red Hill Valley Parkway had already been a longtime coming. It faced delays over the years due to political funding uncertainties, environmental concerns, an injunction and protests. The road used a perpetual pavement design, a newer practice in Ontario at the time, designed to be longer lasting.
Moore was the main proponent of choosing perpetual pavement and selecting SMA as the surface layer. Uzarowski was tasked with doing the feasibility study for the project. Both Moore and Uzarowski have published papers about the road that didn’t mention concerns.
SMA is a “tricky” asphalt mix, the inquiry has heard. It tends to be stickier and has to be compressed when it’s hot in order to reach proper compaction. It is more expensive, but when done right, is more durable, especially for high-volume roads. Back in the summer of 2007, it was the first time the City of Hamilton had used SMA and was the first or second time Dufferin had worked with it, as well.
Oddi told the inquiry that the team working on construction, including Golder, the city and Dufferin, was very collaborative. Many things were agreed to in person at the site and he doesn’t recall any big problems.
“We had an atmosphere at Red Hill where everyone was allowed to give their opinion, state their perspective,” he said. “In the end we were always proceeding in the same direction.”
But Oddi also repeatedly told the inquiry that he could not recall specifics. He often deferred to the expertise of Moore and Uzarowski.
There are several documents referenced in emails that are missing. And Oddi was accused of misrepresenting information by the commission’s lawyer Andrew Lewis.
This includes claims that the aggregates used in the mix had been approved in writing by Golder, when there is no such record, and an email in which Oddi falsely claimed the test strip “met the contract specifications.”
Oddi argued that because Uzarowski didn’t demand the test strip be removed from the road, it did meet some specifications and was fine.
Other challenges
Some of the early challenges in the paving had to do with the specific aggregate used in the mix. The DEMIX-Varannes quarry in Quebec was a “sister company” to Dufferin and it was recommended for use by Peter Gamble, Dufferin’s manager of plants, equipment and technology.
The aggregate was recommended in Quebec, but back in 2007 it wasn’t on the MTO’s designated source materials (DSM) list — a pre-approved list of materials that can be used on provincial roads. Since the Red Hill was a municipal project, being on the DSM list wasn’t required.
Gamble said he recommended the aggregate because he knew it was good quality, it was available and “economical.” Uzarowski demanded a number of tests and ultimately found the aggregate to be very high quality.
Yet he still had lingering doubts the day before paving began when he called the MTO. During that same conversation about early low friction on SMA, he also asked about using non DSM list products. Part of the MTO approval process to get on the DSM list involves friction testing.
Ultimately, after the Red Hill, DEMIX-Varannes was successful in getting on the DSM list.
Among the issues that arose before paving began were inconsistent results between tests done by Golder and Dufferin, where Golder found the aggregate was breaking down in an ignition oven. Dufferin used a different testing method. Ultimately, Uzarowski was satisfied because the asphalt doesn’t get as hot as an ignition oven during paving.
Once paving was underway, there were also tests that showed low compaction in portions of the road. Compaction is achieved by using heavy rollers to press the hot asphalt mix before it cools.
Uzarowski testified that it was his job to put as much pressure as he could on the contractor. And they worked to improve paving as it went, including adding more rollers, keeping the distance between the pavers and the rollers as close as possible, monitoring temperature and reducing the amount of water used in the rollers (this can reduce temperature).
On Aug. 9, Oddi sent the email to Dufferin stating that the “Varennes DEMIX aggregates have been approved for use” in the paving project and that the trial batches “met the specified requirements.” There is no record of Golder providing written approval for the aggregates and there is no mention of the test strip failure.
“What you said wasn’t true,” Lewis said during questioning.
“The intent wasn’t to create this lie,” Oddi answered.
Uzarowski, or anyone at Golder, was inexplicably not included on Oddi’s email. At the inquiry, Uzarowski was invited to speculate and suggested it was perhaps because “overall he had a reputation for being difficult.” Oddi said he couldn’t remember why he sent that email.
Ultimately, the project was completed in mid-August and Phillips was paid in full for the work.
Based on that phone call from Uzarowski on July 31, the MTO agreed to do friction testing. This happened Oct. 16, 2007, the month before the road opened.
It showed five spots with skid resistance numbers slightly below the standard. Uzarowski testified that this was expected, because the road wasn’t yet opened. Once the road had regular traffic wearing down the top of the road, exposing aggregate underneath, he anticipated friction would immediately increase.
Uzarowski forwarded the results to Moore and Oddi at the city, but that was the end of it. Oddi recalled Uzarowski telling him the results were good. The parkway opened in November.
But that was not the end of friction testing on the parkway, including testing by the MTO that is expected to be explored as the inquiry continues.