I don't understand the attitude of Tony Cecutti, the manager of roads and infrastructure, towards the use of the Python 5000 to repair potholes faster which lasted longer.
Current users of the machine, such as Thunder Bay, suggest the Python "can repair three times as many potholes as three-person crews do the traditional way." That would seem to suggest that nine crew and three trucks can be eliminated without any loss of time. That sounds like the cost of a $350,000 purchase would be recovered at most in a couple of years, likely less.
Mr. Cecutti said "that they were unable to get enough data to be confident it was better and faster than current methods." The response to that would be that current methods are obviously not working, so jump on the opportunity to explore other options.
Would it not be logical to talk to his equal in Thunder Bay and New York to get the the info straight from those currently using it? It's not rocket science. The fact that the "company's headquarters are in Western Canada, getting technical and other help would be a challenge," is such crap. Discuss that with the company. I'm pretty sure the company would bend over backwards providing any help that is needed. Include it in the contract.
There are airplanes in this country to get someone from point A to point B when needed. We even have telephones. I don't understand his reference to "a massive gap in the amount KPMG says the the city needs to spend to maintain city roads." All the more reason to look at cheaper alternatives. The reference to freeze thaw cycles is something we all understand. That doesn't change anything and is just a red herring.
Mr. Cecutti, just do your job.
Arne Suutari
Levack