I could never understand why we favour the installation of concrete sidewalks, as opposed to asphalt sidewalks.
Asphalt makes more sense, if only for the cost of savings.
When Falconbridge Road was resurfaces, a significant portion of the work was dedicated to construction of the concrete sidewalks. This work included forming, pouring, and finishing the concrete. It also involved tarping and guarding the new concrete from damage by weather or pedestrians during the lengthy curing time. Also, the driveways of homes and businesses could not be used for 24 hours.
If asphalt had been used, there would not have been any loss of use. The sidewalks could have been opened up within an hour. Further, the costs of construction, guard duty and protection from frost would have been minimized, if not eliminated entirely.
Another important consideration is the cost related to removing a concrete sidewalk versus asphalt.
In the Falconbridge Road case, many of the sidewalks had to be removed and replaced for deficiencies. In this case, the entire process, the inconvenience and the costs had to be repeated.
Concrete is damaged by salt. Road-grade asphalt does not seem to be significantly affected by salt.
Asphalt sidewalks, when they are ready to be replaced, can easily be ground up and recycled at the same location. This can be done at the same time and with the same equipment as the actual road resurfacing.
I belief that, over time, millions of dollars could be saved. The costs and benefits of this system should be reviewed and tested in the competitive bidding process. For example, if the asphalt only lasts half o the time, but costs one-tenth of the price, the taxpayer may find this acceptable.
Road construction workers who know their business could be asked for optional prices on future tender forms. No consultant required.
Any potential savings could be reinvested in our beautiful road system.
Joe Michelizza
Garson