‘Mr. Red Hill’: Former city engineering boss at centre of parkway controversy faces questioning at inquiry

For years, Gary Moore was the man with all the answers to any question about the controversial Red Hill Valley Parkway that is now under the microscope of a judicial inquiry.

Moore was manager of design on the curvy, valley-climbing road that opened in 2007 after years of environmental protest and delay. In later years, as the city's top engineer, he co-authored academic papers on the novel perpetual pavement" construction of the parkway and shared in related industry awards.

If city traffic staffers wanted to make a change to the Red Hill, they ran it by Moore first. If councillors had parkway questions, they asked the shoot-from-the-lip engineering boss sometimes jokingly referred to as Mr. Red Hill."

Moore sometimes seemed exasperated by those questions, once sarcastically telling The Spectator local politicians believed he had the words Red Hill tattooed on my a--."

Moore retired in 2018 - but he now faces a slew of new questions as one of the central figures in an $18-million judicial inquiry into the safety of a collision-prone parkway long rumoured to be inexplicably slippery.

Moore appeared in public hearings last week to talk about early parkway construction and will be called to testify again this summer.

This is the first time the public is hearing from Moore on the Red Hill controversy. He declined The Spectator's interview request for this story through a law firm representing the City of Hamilton, noting he won't make public statements while inquiry hearings continue.

But previously confidential emails, collected for the judicial probe and published on the inquiry website, appear to portray a proud parkway parent who fiercely defended the Red Hill - and at times, resisted suggested safety improvements over several years that he deemed unnecessary.

The judge-led probe now underway was requested by city council in 2019 after a new engineering boss - Moore's replacement - stumbled across troubling Red Hill friction test results that had been kept from public view for years.

Over the five years the report was buried, the parkway saw more than 200 crashes with injuries and four fatalities.

That Tradewind Scientific report found notably lower friction on the Red Hill compared to the older Lincoln Alexander Parkway and recommended more study and possible remedial action." But that didn't happen until the report resurfaced in 2019, triggering a speed limit cut and fast-tracked repaving.

The city has told the inquiry it cannot find any evidence to show Moore shared the Tradewind report - or followup recommendations to improve friction from consultant Golder Associates - with any other city staff at the time.

Determining who knew what and when about that report, as well as whether its suppression represented a public safety risk, is one of the major jobs facing inquiry commissioner Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel. He is also looking more broadly at parkway construction, safety and the role of the province, which did separate road testing.

Moore will face questions about that missing Tradewind report later this summer - as well as about conflicting public statements suggesting past friction testing showed no concerns, but also that a formal friction report did not exist.

For example, at the end of 2015 - the same year 19-year-old best friends Olivia Smosarski and Jordyn Hastings died in a crossover crash on the Red Hill - Moore was asked in a city council meeting about rumours shoddy asphalt was to blame for perceived slippery conditions.

Moore replied unspecified testing found (the asphalt) was holding up exceptionally well" and that we have no concerns about the performance of the surface mix." He did not mention concerns outlined in the Tradewind report.

Two years later, a Spectator investigation found collisions were happening twice as frequently on the Red Hill compared to the Linc.

For that story, Moore acknowledged friction tests had been done on the roadway, but argued the results were inconclusive. He claimed no formal report existed, just a chart in an email.

Moore has never answered Spectator questions or agreed to interview requests about that report. He declined an interview request for this story through a law firm representing the City of Hamilton, indicating he won't make any public statements while inquiry hearings continue.

But for the first time, Moore's early opinion on the controversy can be glimpsed in emails collected by the inquiry and posted online as part of a 1,200-plus-page summary. The emails paint a picture of a blunt Red Hill defender whom other city staffers appeared leery of crossing when it came to the parkway.

The accuracy and context of facts included in the emails and summary document can still be challenged by inquiry participants and witnesses. Wilton-Siegel will publish a final findings of fact" and recommendations at the end of the inquiry, which is still months away.

Emails collected by the inquiry help explain why Moore didn't return Spectator phone calls after February 2019: senior city staff told him not to speak to the media.

But a draft email found in Moore's account suggests he felt the Tradewind Scientific report findings did not represent a public safety concern.

The Tradewinds report only recommends that additional studies be considered ... It was my assessment at the time that additional precautionary actions from an Engineering stand point were not required," Moore wrote in an apparent planned email to senior city staff after the city went public with the contentious report and an apology.

Moore's draft email complains he did not receive a heads up" about the explosive council meeting or a chance to explain his actions to councillors directly. The city has told the inquiry it cannot prove the draft email was ever sent.

Collected emails spanning several years show Moore defended the design and construction of the parkway to colleagues and residents - and that other city staffers worried about how he would react to proposed safety changes.

In 2013, traffic staff exchanged worried emails about the prospect of having to arm wrestle" the engineering boss over recommendations contained in an early safety review of the parkway from engineering company CIMA.

That same year, a city road operations supervisor circulated an email reporting complaints from police about the parkway being very slippery" in rainy conditions. Another supervisor chimed in to suggest the addition of slippery when wet" signs.

Moore defended the parkway asphalt in a reply email, arguing it was built to provide long term" skid resistance. There is no pavement that provides grip when the road is covered with water and the speeds are excessive (hydroplaning)," he wrote. These are high performance pavements that were tested when they were put down."

Still, emails show Moore asked Golder Associates to look into friction testing on the parkway as part of a larger evaluation of the road six years after construction. That request ultimately resulted in the Tradewind Scientific report.

That friction report was delivered to Moore in 2014 - along with companion recommendations from Golder to do microsurfacing" on parts of the parkway to deal with the apparent low friction.

During a followup CIMA safety report in 2015, draft recommendations were circulated suggesting the potential addition of new lighting, slippery when wet" signs and friction testing on the Red Hill.

Internal emails show Moore criticized those proposals:

• The sign should say drive according to road conditions. The road is not slipperier when wet any more than any other road," he wrote in one email.

• On more lighting: There is no sense at looking at ... something that can't and won't be considered."

• On the proposed friction testing: There is no basis, nothing to compare to and no other agency in Ontario including the MTO doing this! It means absolutely nothing, except proving potential exposure to legal actions and confusion!"

Those emailed comments did not reference the existence of the Tradewind test results from 2013.

Moore's apparent opposition to Red Hill changes appeared to worry some city staffers, according to emails contained in parts of the summary document that have yet to be tested in public hearings.

In one email to traffic staffers about a planned report on the parkway, an operations manager notes it will recommend the guiderail and lighting review and asphalt testing. All the things Gary argues against. Despite that I believe them to be prudent and required that we do this ethically and technically responsibly ...

We can prevent some of these accidents from occurring and we should take action."

The inquiry summary suggests Moore's relationship with both city staff and paid consultants will be a theme. It has already come up in public hearing testimony.

For example, former city manager Chris Murray was asked by inquiry lawyers why he referred to Moore's spirited" nature in an evaluation of the engineering boss in 2017. Gary is very direct ... he's a challenger," replied Murray, who added while he appreciated the former engineer's honesty, his blunt approach can create some problems, just in terms of relationships."

But Murray also emphasized he had never witnessed Moore bullying other staffers to get his way.

During his first appearance at the inquiry, Moore was asked by an inquiry lawyer about a free trip provided to the engineer and his wife in 2009 to attend a ceremony recognizing the Red Hill project.

The trip was paid for by parkway construction consultant Golder, and the flights and hotel stays were worth $880.

An inquiry lawyer asked Moore if he had considered the city's conflict of interest policy when he accepted the trip, or whether he considered it a gift or benefit.

Moore replied he considered the trip a work thing" that involved him representing the city, not a gift.

Matthew Van Dongen is a transportation and environment reporter at for The Spectator. mvandongen@thespec.com