Closed
Landfills and Other Obstacles in the Path of the
Project
The
technical obstacles in the path of this project,
of themselves, would necessitate a full Environmental
Assessment. At least three closed landfill sites
of unknown but a likely toxic content lie in the
path of or adjacent to this project. The disturbance
of one or more of these sites pose nightmarish scenarios
for the release of toxic materials into Hamilton
and Lake Ontario. This problem was not addressed
in the Consolidated Board decision to approve the
earlier expressway project in the valley.
In
its appeal of that decision, the Hamilton Region
Conservation Authority noted: "The lack of
any findings, or for that matter, the lack of any
evidence of the impact of the Expressway on the
Brampton Street Landfill site and on the bed of
the Red Hill Creek below that site, is troubling.
This should be a matter of major concern to any
group or authority dealing with the environment.
The Brampton Street Dump contains millions of gallons
of toxic liquid waste." (Petition of the
Hamilton Region Conservation Authority, 1985,
p.10).
It
is widely accepted that these landfill sites, along
with two others in the upper reaches of the watershed,
have contaminated the stream bed of Red Hill Creek
and Windermere Basin. The augmented flows in Red
Hill Creek resulting from "development"
of much of its upper watershed already pose a growing
hazard that these contaminated sediments will be
disturbed and released into the waters of Hamilton
Harbour and Lake Ontario.
The
straightening and channelization required by the
proposed expressway project will necessarily aggravate
these problems, as will further residential and
industrial development in the upper watershed which
the roadway project is intended to facilitate. In
this regard, it is worth noting that storm flows
in Red Hill Creek have been recorded at levels more
than 81 times the creek's baseflow.
The
Safety of the Proposed Interchange with the QEW
The
technical and safety issues facing the linking of
this expressway to the Queen Elizabeth Way are an
additional major concern. The earlier six-lane expressway
proposal envisioned the construction of a new interchange
between the two existing ones that are less than
two kilometres apart. It is quite troubling that
this unsafe, and unfeasible scheme was not criticized
in the 1985 majority decision of the Consolidated
Board.
The
current proposal apparently envisions a highly-complicated
joint interchange with an existing one where Highway
#20 joins the QEW. Aside from drawing attention
to the fact that for nearly all of its route, this
extremely expensive expressway project is less than
2 kilometres west of an existing provincial highway,
the conceptual design of this combined interchange
described by regional officials is extremely troubling.
It appears inevitable that it will require the location
of a new exit ramp less than 1.5 kilometres from
the on-ramp located at Burlington Street, and regional
officials have already admitted that it may require
further widening of the QEW in the area of the Provincial
Class One Wetland.
The
conceptual drawings also envision at least two points
where three ramps or lanes carrying vehicles travelling
at three widely different speeds will be required
to merge. In addition, the preliminary design anticipates
very large impacts on Confederaton Park, Hamilton's
only significant park facility on Lake Ontario.
The
1977-1985 Process Cannot be Considered an Adequate
Replacement
The
environmental assessment of the earlier expressway
proposal in Red Hill Valley conducted between 1977
and 1979 and submitted in 1982, and the Consolidated
Board Hearings in 1984 and 1985 that examined it,
are extremely troubling. Any argument that they
should be considered a substitute for a full and
proper examination of the current proposal should
be strongly rebuffed. We have noted above the opposition
to the decision by three of the four approval agencies,
as well as the disregard of the hazards associated
with the Brampton Landfill site and the impacts
on Hamilton Harbour. Beyond this, the applicability
of this process and decision should be rejected
simply because of the dramatic differences of opinion
expressed in the majority and minority reports.
The
further development of the assessment process in
Ontario since 1985 underlines the weaknesses of
the earlier decision-making process. It is clear,
for example, that the public input into the process
was severely restricted by financial restraints
imposed on both members of the public and agencies
such as the HRCA and the NEC which opposed the project.
Indeed, it is widely recognized that the Red Hill
hearings led directly to the implementation of the
current system of intervenor funding. Public review
and input into the preparation of the regional government's
Environmental Assessment Submission also falls far
below today's standards.
The
1985 decision is further tarnished by the poor treatment
accorded the testimony of the six independent expert
witnesses called by opponents to the project, and
by the absence of requirements for full disclosure
of documents. The evidence presented by the roadway
opponents of manipulation of the decision-making
leading to the Region's adoption of the expressway
proposal, and the inadequate attention paid by the
majority of the board to issues of need and the
no-build and minor alternatives are also troubling.
The
same is true of the failure of Regional officials
to make any mention in their Environmental Assessment
Submission of the proximity of closed landfills
(Upper Ottawa and Brampton) to the proposed expressway,
the dramatic shift in their main argument for the
road from traffic congestion to regional economic
stimulus, their embarrassing failure to identify
huge inadequacies in their population projections
and the resulting major recalculations that took
place in the period after the local political decision-making
but prior to the Consolidated Board hearings, etc.
Details of these shortcomings can be found in the
Supplementary Submissions of the Save the Valley
Committee (1985), a document that should be
thoroughly reviewed in any examination of the applicability
of any part of the 1985 process to the current expressway
project.
The
highly controversial assertion in the majority decision
that building an expressway through the middle of
Hamilton's largest park would improve it, and the
remarkable paucity of conditions imposed on the
proponent, also suggest that this decision cannot
be relied upon.
It
is also extremely troubling that the Hamilton Region
Conservation Authority found it necessary to accuse
the Ontario Municipal Board members who authored
the majority decision in 1985 of "improperly
limiting the future role of the Authority".
The HRCA noted in its appeal that the majority decision
ordered the hydrological work carried out in accordance
with the recommendations of a regional government
witness who only had access to conceptual drawings.
It
went on to state: "The Authority is mandated
by the Legislature to be responsible for the control
of flooding, erosion and filling within the area
of our jurisdiction. If the expressway is approved,
our ability to exercise our responsibility over
the undertaking when constuction drawings are prepared
has thus been effectively removed by the decision
of the OMB members."..."The position of
the OMB members indicates very clearly that they
were not in any way prepared to accept any legally
enforceable role of the Authority in the future
stages of the development of this project through
the Valley. Apart from flying directly in the face
of the intention of the Legislature, this raises
a significant issue as to the attitude of the OMB
members in relation to the role of the Authority."
(Ibid.,pp.21-22)
The
HRCA summed up the situation created by the Consolidated
Board majority decision that "the Authority
will retain legal responsibility for flood
and erosion control, but will not have any authority
to exercise the mandate given to it by the Legislature."
(p.23)
This
abbreviated discussion indicates serious shortcomings
in the 1985 decision. It certainly cannot be relied
on to meet the assessment needs of the currently
proposed expressway project.
Public
Interest and Concern Demands a Full Environmental
Assessment
The
future of the Red Hill Valley is a matter of great
controversy in the Hamilton-Wentworth community
and beyond its borders, a situation that has prevailed
for at least 25 years. This concern continues to
grow as individuals and organizations grapple with
the social, environmental and economic issues surrounding
the proposals to construct an expressway within
this large natural area that constitutes more than
one-third of all the parkland in the City of Hamilton.
An
opportunity for public comment in 1994 drew nearly
60 written and verbal submissions before the regional
Transportation Services Committee (unfortunately
these were not taken seriously and minutes of the
meetings were not taken). The recent public criticisms
of an expressway by the Bay Area Restoration Council
(October 1994), and the warnings issued about its
negative impact on the Hamilton Harbour Remedial
Action Plan, emphasize this growing concern with
the proposed project. So too does the intervention
by the Downtown Business Improvement Association
in support of greater environmental protection of
the Valley.
Environmental
organizations in the Hamilton-Wentworth area, virtually
without exception, have condemned the expressway
idea, and many, many individuals have written letters
to the media and public officials in defence of
the Valley. This outpouring of opposition to the
roadway and concern for its impacts requires that
a full Environmental Assessment process be undertaken
to thoroughly examine all aspects of the Regional
Government's expressway proposal. Friends of
Red Hill Valley call on you to require nothing
less.
