A lot of smoke, and fire too, around the Red Hill fiasco

It’s hard to know where to start when it comes to the “lost” Red Hill Valley Parkway friction test. The questions are numerous and troubling, and the answers are bound to be damning — at least for individuals involved in handling the report. And possibly for Hamilton City Hall overall.

In case you’ve been away this week, here’s the situation. Ever since the parkway was opened in 2007, there have been ongoing concerns about parts of the road being “slippery.”

A Spectator investigation in 2017 found a higher than normal number of accidents on some sections of the parkway. Between 2012 and 2015 there were 994 crashes on the parkway and Linc. Red Hill was the location of 668 while only 326 took place on the Linc.

Questions around design, lighting and especially road surface have persisted. But as late as Tuesday of this week, the word from city hall was that three different asphalt tests in 2017 showed results like generally good, average-to-medium or inconclusive.

That was before the “lost” report was found. Tradewind Scientific’s report found the parkway has “localized sections with quite low friction values” and it recommended “more investigatory work.”

The report’s author told The Spectator the findings should have triggered a closer look at the makeup of the asphalt itself.

That report was completed in 2013, but it didn’t come to light until recently. How did it get “lost?” Given the contents of the report, there are only two logical answers.

Either someone is guilty of gross incompetence and negligence or someone — perhaps some people — made a conscious decision to keep it secret.

The Spectator reported this week that at least one former senior city staffer appears to have known about the report and to have misled city council and The Spec when asked if there was any justification for concern over the road surface.

The Spec made an FOI request for friction test studies around the same time the city says it rediscovered the missing report.

We still haven’t received the information requested five months ago.

Is it coincidence that the “lost” report was found and made public at virtually the same time as the Spec’s FOI request was being fulfilled?

Now that city council has the 2013 report, it is not wasting time acting. The speed limit will be reduced, and a major repaving job is being moved ahead.

This is where some of the most damning questions come up.

What would have happened had this report been made public when it was received by the city? Would these and other safety enhancements have been made much earlier? Might the road’s safety record, which includes fatalities, be different?

Late yesterday, Mayor Fred Eisenberger said he supports an independent inquiry. He’s right. And it needs to be transparent. Any further efforts to withhold information will be fought tooth and nail.

The Spectator has been on the Red Hill safety journey for a long time, beginning with the first concerns, with coverage of accidents — often heartbreaking — since the road opened, with the extensive 2017 investigation and now with new revelations spilling out daily.

That journey is far from over. That it has taken this long to get answers is, in itself, tragic.

“Is it coincidence that the ‘lost’ report was found and made public at virtually the same time as the Spec’s FOI request was being fulfilled?”