|
September
1996 Newsletter
Will
there be an Environmental Assessment?
The
Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE) is expected
to make a decision soon on the issue of an environmental
assessment (EA) of the north-south expressway. However,
it now appears likely that the project will be subjected
to a federal EA.
Last
summer and fall, more than a dozen organizations and many
more individuals wrote to the MOEE asking them to order
a full EA of the Red Hill Expressway project. They were
responding to a June 1995 decision by the Region to seek
an exemption of the project from EA.
Region's PAP
In
late February, the Region unveiled a "Proposed Assessment
Process" (PAP) for the expressway in the valley. They presented
this as an "alternative" to a normal environmental assessment,
and attached it to their request for an exemption. The PAP
was connected to the outpouring of demands for an EA that
preceded it. It was launched specifically to counter those
demands and put forward the argument that the concerns expressed
could be dealt with by the Region itself without holding
a full EA. In fact, the MOEE specifically instructed the
Region to follow this route and directed that the PAP be
presented to the public in a formal consultation process
before being submitted as part of the exemption order request.
Members of council, particularly the Chairman of Transportation
Services (Terry Anderson) displayed their contempt for this
consultation with the public by issuing wild statements
in the middle of the process declaring that they were going
to finish the road in three years (the region's PAP promises
to do two more years of assessment and design work), and
threatening to end the expressway at Brampton Street as
a monument to broken provincial government promises.
"Consultation"
The PAP was a 101 page document (plus six maps). Community
groups and members of the public were given one month to
comment on its contents, a deadline which most government
agencies failed to meet. It was accompanied by three open
houses and two public meetings, plus a "special interest
group" meeting a few days before the response deadline.
Thirty-one people filled out brief comment sheets and six
completed more detailed ones, while 16 submitted letters.
A report on this process was prepared by the Region in which
they concluded that 20% of the 153 people who went to open
houses or meetings demanded that no further assessment take
place and the region get on with building the expressway.
They concluded that a further 40% were opposed to the expressway,
while the remaining 40% allegedly indicated "qualified support
for the region's proposal". However, 13 of the 16 letter
writers (individuals and groups) opposed the expressway
as did five out of six of the full comment sheets. It should
be noted that opposition to the expressway was not an option
in any of the questions, so these were all "write-in" votes.
Recruitment
A major objective of the PAP was to recruit community members
to sit on an advisory committee to help design the expressway.
This was also the main purpose of the 'special interest
group' meeting attended by 36 people. Not one of the latter
group agreed to participate in deciding how precisely to
destroy Red Hill Valley. The region did get four recruits,
two of whom are known. One represents the Chamber of Commerce.
The second boasted in his/her letter of acceptance that
"one of our companies has land at Pritchard Road adjacent
to the cloverleaf, our investment group has a financial
interest in a property on Rennie Street and the Metropolitan
Hamilton Real Estate Board has appointed me to seek a seat
on the advisory committee." He/she further noted that "our
company was involved in preconstruction stages of the East-West
portion of the roadway and a section of the 403 in Ancaster.
As a graduate engineer, I feel comfortable in discussing
the environmental and physical aspects of this project,
as well as the social and financial implications."
Current
Status
Regional
staff dutifully reported the results of the public consultation
to council and suggested that a full environmental assessment
was "a valid option". Council ignored them and sent the
exemption order request on to the MOEE in May. Further comments
from the public were requested in June (again for a one
month period) but individuals were given no way of obtaining
either the request or any details about it which made commenting
rather difficult. A final decision on the exemption order
request is expected in September. Ministry officials say
that all letters and comments received in the last year
on the expressway will be considered.
Federal
Assessment
One
response to the PAP came from the federal government and
put the region on notice to expect a federal environmental
assessment of the entire north-south project. The Hamilton
Region Conservation Authority boycotted the entire process
because it is opposed to an expressway in the valley.
Major
Shortcoming
The
major shortcoming of the PAP and the public consultation
was the absolute refusal to deal with the three most critical
expressway issues: is there a need for the expressway?;
if there is a need, where should it be located?; and what
are the financial implications of the project? Questions
on these issues were ruled out of order. Staff did suggest
studies be carried out on the first and last, but council
ignored those recommendations.
Map
of the Route
The
proposed route through the valley was finally made public
in the PAP. It shows 22 crossings of the creek in a four
kilometre space, as well as the revival of the Greenhill
interchange (dropped in the 1994 version). It also calls
for a bridge structure crossing the escarpment and some
very minor changes to ramps. The QEW interchange is separated
from and just west of the current one at Highway 20. No
mention is made of the need to widen the QEW or construct
flood works over top of the wetlands although these MOT
demands were certainly known before the document was released.
Other
Approvals
The
PAP also lists four federal acts and eight provincial ones
to which the project is subject. An additional 23 provincial
policies/guidelines are also expected to affect the design.
The PAP calls for a watershed planning process to be implemented
in the valley as part of the design work, but makes clear
that the Region will not consider itself bound to follow
any conclusions it may reach. The Region's definition of
watershed planning is also quite strange since they assert
that the results of this "planning" will not be permitted
to affect the decision they have already made to build an
expressway in the valley, but may only be used to guide
design modifications.
Making Sense of the Year's Events
The results of the last year of discussions and manoeuvres
on environmental assessment are interesting. In the first
place, while the Region still maintains it has the necessary
approval to build the road, it has also admitted that it
requires an exemption from an EA.
Secondly,
the Region has been unable to recruit any significant support
for its opposition to further EA. On the contrary, demands
for a full EA have been presented from a very wide range
of organizations and individuals including the provincial
Bruce Trail Association, the Bay Area Restoration Council,
the Hamilton Naturalists' Club, Community Action for Parkdale
East, the East Hamilton-Stoney Creek Health Association,
the Task Force to Bring Back the Don River (Toronto), Transport
2000, and many other local and regional groups. Despite
a concerted counter-effort from the Region through its PAP,
not one of these organizations has abandoned its demand
for a full EA.
MOEE
in a Tight Spot
The
MOEE is now faced with a great deal of concrete evidence
of community opposition to the project, as well as literally
dozens of reasons for rejecting the exemption order request.
The community has succeeded in making granting the exemption
as embarrassing as possible. While other events indicate
that the current provincial government is highly unlikely
to take a decision towards protecting the environment, the
effort of the community has also resulted in the federal
government awakening from its long slumber on this issue
and putting the prospect of a federal EA on the table. The
events of the past year have also shown conclusively that
the regional council is completely unwilling to consider
any views other than its own. Whether one or both of the
more senior levels of government will fulfill their responsibilities
to the public remains to be seen.
|
