RHVP Inquiry: What does the Spec know about Tradewind?

 Why not ask Tradewind Scientific?

Vincent J. Curtis

8 Sept 22

RE: Secret Red Hill documents reveal turmoil at city hall.  Matthew Van Dongen.  The Hamilton Spectator 8 Sept 22.

The curious thing about the released documents is why the Spectator didn’t simply ask Tradewind Scientific for their report directly?  The report of 2014 was apparently unsolicited and not paid for by the city.  It wasn’t privileged in any way.  Besides, it’s now obsolete, and only of historical value.  Why ask the city for a copy?

In no way was Tradewind’s unsolicited “report” to Gary Moore a secret.  We get unsolicited advertising in our inboxes all the time, and most get deleted.  The Tradewind “report” was nothing but a clever advertising ploy by Tradewind in the hopes of getting a contract from the city: here’s a sample of what we can do for you.

The problem is, the test protocol Tradwind would use, ASTM E-1859, is meaningless when used on the RHVP.  Besides, more than coefficient of friction obtained in a test protocol is at play in real world conditions involving traffic accidents.  Maybe that’s why Moore thought the report “made no sense” and hadn’t uncovered a road safety issue.  Hence, the deletion.

But somebody knew that Tradewind sent an email to Gary Moore in 2014, and revealed it in 2018.  Was that person connected to Tradewind in the hopes of getting a contract from the city?  Could there be a whiff of blackmail here, after a big deal was made of the prevalence of accidents on the RHVP by the Spectator in 2019?

What does the Spectator know that it’s not revealing?  Did Tradewind let the Spectator know of its adverse 2014 report that Moore deleted as “making no sense?”  Did the Spectator then go through FOIA to cover the fact that it got tipped off by Treadwind and already knew of the adverse conclusions?

Curious minds would like to know.

-30-