Are EAs an urbanists worse nightmare?

[ssiguy]

Way back, things were built with no interest in the environmental impact and thankfully those days are gone. Now however it seems have gone to extremes.

To have a bike lanes now needs an EA even though all they are doing is painting the road a different colour and putting up a few planters.

EAs seem to take forever and they were once dispised by politicians but now they embrace them but for all the wrong reasons. They are now used as a delay tactic for building anything.

They can show the public they are interested in a project and get the kudos for it by saying they are starting the project by doing the required EA. Of course they take so damn long that they pass the next election. By then the politician is re-elected by showing they want to build their city/province/country without actually having to do the messy part of having to raise taxes to pay for it.

They seem to have become the 21st century rendition of the tried and true Royal Commission of the 20th. When politicians didn't want to take action but the public demanded they did they would get "serious" and strike a Royal Commission. It would last well past the next election and then would promptly make it's way to the filing room to collect dust with all the others.

I can see EAs for projects going thru new areas but really, EAs for projects going down a functioning street? What are they going to do if they find something, permanently close down the street? Look at the long tunnel Eglinton LRT..........did they really need a comprehensive EA when if they found something it wouldn't make hoot of difference? I can just see the mayor saying to be the people in the tony Uptown that "we found a lost stream under Eglinton so in order to save the stream we are cancelling the LRT and permanently closing down a 2km stretch of Eglinton Avenue."

The seem to have become more of a politicians wet dream and an environmental lobbyists solid source of income than a meaningful concern for the environment.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Way back, things were built with no interest in the environmental impact and thankfully those days are gone. Now however it seems have gone to extremes.

To have a bike lanes now needs an EA even though all they are doing is painting the road a different colour and putting up a few planters.

EAs seem to take forever and they were once dispised by politicians but now they embrace them but for all the wrong reasons. They are now used as a delay tactic for building anything.

They can show the public they are interested in a project and get the kudos for it by saying they are starting the project by doing the required EA. Of course they take so damn long that they pass the next election. By then the politician is re-elected by showing they want to build their city/province/country without actually having to do the messy part of having to raise taxes to pay for it.

They seem to have become the 21st century rendition of the tried and true Royal Commission of the 20th. When politicians didn't want to take action but the public demanded they did they would get "serious" and strike a Royal Commission. It would last well past the next election and then would promptly make it's way to the filing room to collect dust with all the others.

I can see EAs for projects going thru new areas but really, EAs for projects going down a functioning street? What are they going to do if they find something, permanently close down the street? Look at the long tunnel Eglinton LRT..........did they really need a comprehensive EA when if they found something it wouldn't make hoot of difference? I can just see the mayor saying to be the people in the tony Uptown that "we found a lost stream under Eglinton so in order to save the stream we are cancelling the LRT and permanently closing down a 2km stretch of Eglinton Avenue."

The seem to have become more of a politicians wet dream and an environmental lobbyists solid source of income than a meaningful concern for the environment.

It's an impact assessment that includes everything and everyone in its environment. It's about satisfying residents/businesses/whatever concerns and minimizing disruptions. It's not just about a stream. It's more relevant to an established urban community than some greenfield in the middle of nowhere.

[BretttheRiderFan]

It seems that your issue isn't with EAs themselves, but with the bureaucratic gridlock that tends to result from their use in contemporary Canada.

[ssiguy]

While my concern is also with the bureaucratic gridlock and environmentalist who are far more concerned with getting a government paycheque than they are about the environment, it is more than that.

Why do you need an EA for a bike lane. Why do you need one for an LRT going down an operating street? Why the hell do they need EAs for rail lines going down existing and operating rail corridors?

Let's say they were to find something for Toronto's current Downtown Yonge EA which will {hopefully} improve the pedestrian experience, what are they going to do, close Yonge Street and shut down the Yonge subway Line?

What's even more pathetic is that if nothing is done with the EA and the project is reignited 10 years later, they have to do another EA. Like somehow the ground has changed more in the last 10 years than it has over the last million.

They have become a politician wet dream like the Royal Commissions of the 20th. They make the politicians look like they are concerned and taking "decisive action" without having to get their hands dirty with having to tell Mr & Mrs Taxpayer that either their taxes are going up or the deficit is. These EAs take so ridiculously long that they always stretch past the next election. This is why politicians trying to get elected always talk about cleaning up the bureaucracy but NEVER say anything about cleaning it up at the EA department.

EAs are a politicians best friend and an urban activist's nightmare come true.

[kwoldtimer]

Re your LRT example, if K-W is any example, the construction on/off existing streets involves vast amounts of excavation, changes to street levels, potential impacts on stormwater runoff, potential flood plain impacts, and on and on. Evaluating potential environmental consequences of such construction, even in built-up areas, with a view to mitigating any impacts seems only prudent to me.

Re Yonge St, I am no expert, but I suspect that no, you don't shut it down, you mitigate/remediate. For example, I believe there was once a coal gasification plant located in the area once known as "The Ward" to the west of Yonge St, among other industries. What if, for example, there has been historic soil contamination by coal tar and what if groundwater has carried the contamination eastward (I am again thinking of an experience in K-W)? How would you know this and how could you plan to remediate it without an EA? Again, it just seems prudent to me.

[1overcosc]

Ontario has made changes to its laws to streamline and speed up the EA process, notably for transit projects with the new TPAP system.

[ssiguy]

That's good to hear.

When Vancouver built the Milllenium Line, Glen Clarke wanted all the political mileage he could get out of it so he gave the EA just 3 months for the entire 18km line. The few sections that had a few concerns were given a little longer but construction was well underway on every other area by then. When he was asked he just said that 2/3rds of the line was going right down the Lougheed Highway so what's the point?

I appreciate they are a necessary evil. Please don't get me wrong I STRONGLY support comprehensive EAs for new lands but sometimes it seems ridiculous. Seriously, a n EA for a bikeway on a current street? All they are doing is slapping down a few lines of paint with some flower boxes so what the hell is there to study? It just adds time to the project and makes it a lot more expensive.

The EA for Yonge when all they are going to do is simply put is widen the sidewalks and put up some planters ad lamps. I find it ridiculous that a little thing like that or a bike lane requires and E but the repaving of an entire street requires squat.

[Innsertnamehere]

TPAP has been around for a while, 6 months to completion. They removed the requirement for a full EA for bike lanes recently too.

Meanwhile they have an 8 year EA process for GTA West and a 6 year EA for HSR.

[MalcolmTucker]

Alberta doesn't use EAs as a catch all study like Ontario used to. That doesn't mean the functions are ignored, or that the process is much faster. It just looks faster because the project is approved much later in the study cycle. Also, since the study process aren't prescribed by a provincial act, there isn't the same chance of people tying up the project in the court if the politicians don't follow whatever arbitrary ranking system the EA consultants made up for their decision grid.

I believe the cost/benefit decisions of mode and route out of the EA is the main benefit of the TPAP, no?

[p_xavier]

I agree that EAs are being politicised in such way that they prevent projects.

At least for the Montreal REM, the 67km transit project will only have a 30 day EA.