This posting is primarily for Hamiltonians interested in the RHVP inquiry. This is an email sent to Spec reporter Nicole O'Reilly who is covering the Red Hill Valley Parkway Judicial Inquiry.
Vincent J. Curtis
22 July 22.
Ms. O’Reilly;
As you probably are painfully aware, I’ve written often and extensively about the RHVP. I’ve followed your excellent reporting carefully on the inquiry, and take particular interest in the friction testing, which seems to be the heart of the controversy, to the exclusion of other, balancing, interests.
On May 12, 2019, I wrote the following fragment:
“As lawyers argue over the significance of friction test results, we will observe another risible show of Arts majors grappling with science. At issue will be the significance of the test procedure as well as the significance of the test results.
Tradewind Scientific is a company that provides various services to airports, and the first item listed on their home page is: Friction measurements and condition reporting. The company does not say what test protocol they use for measuring friction, but ASTM E-1859 is the one that would be most widely recognized for validity and significance of results. The test protocol has significance with respect to runways, but its significance with respect to curving highways is much more in doubt.
Coefficient of friction is a result of the nature of both interacting surfaces, in this case a rubber tire and the asphalt. ASTM-E-1859 provides for a pair of tires being braked in longitudinal fashion, and its results are significant only for longitudinal friction. The protocol claims no significance for friction in a lateral movement, as when a car is subject to lateral forces in a curve.”
In my career, I’ve used and interpreted many ASTM test protocols - far more than the average lawyer. It is important not to extend the significance of a test result beyond what is claimed in the written protocol. ASTM E-1859 is intended to test runways, using tires comparable to those used on aircraft, and in straight-ahead, or longitudinal braking. Its significance for a lateral skid with passenger car tires and tread design is unknown and the E-1859 protocol is careful not to say anything about highways and passenger car tires.
In my view, Tradewinds was trying to secure a testing contract with the city. Had they secured one, they could have used that as a sales point in many major cities and even the province. Never mind the test results would have unknown significance, the safety aspect would stampede municipalities into contracting for Tradewind’s services.
Moore was perfectly right to question the test results offered by Tradewind. The balance of interests of environmental concerns versus road safety was already built into the road, and asphalt is but one variable in a very complex equation. Even if Tradewind’s numbers proved to be significant, there are other means of addressing the side-sliding issue, such as reducing speed limits. That’s a lot cheaper than repaving or resurfacing.
Moore did nothing wrong by not acting on something unusual, and highly questionable, namely a test and conclusion with no North American validity or context. He was acting in the city’s best interest.
We’ll soon see if the lawyers are humble enough to recognize that they don’t know engineering and the business of building and maintaining major roads better than the engineers do.
-30-
For a fuller account of the origins of problems on the RHVP, check out my blog post of 22 Feb 19, "I blame the wackos."
No comments:
Post a Comment