Hume's take on this...
Curbing transit reviews a step on road to better way
Feb 11, 2008 04:30 AM
TORONTO STAR
Christopher Hume
In a world gone mad, every sign of sanity, no matter how small, is big.
So when news came late last week that Premier Dalton McGuinty and his cabinet have decided to limit the environmental assessment process on transit projects to six months, one couldn't help but cheer.
The sheer rightness of McGuinty's move stands out as a rare yet shining example of political leadership. McGuinty will be criticized for his decision, those who disagree will go on about how undemocratic it is, but it's a badly needed step we needed to take.
The reality is that environmental assessments have become a very handy device for NIMBYs and governments to stop transit development when it doesn't suit them.
Forgotten along the way is the fact that public transit is by definition more environmentally friendly than the alternative, the single-occupancy car. That never seemed to have been taken into consideration. But how can any public transit scheme that gets people out of cars be anything other than environmentally desirable?
It's true that assessments are meant to examine impacts on people as well as nature, economies as well as environments. But that can mean different things. A development might be good for the city, but bad for a neighbourhood. If you believe what you hear, that's usually the case.
That's why the subtext to the whole EA process had little to do with the environment and everything to do with politics. It can be manipulated to reach any conclusion, or prove any point. Mostly, though, it was a very effective way to delay, to stall indefinitely, to put off to the next decade what might cause political discomfort now.
But in truth there isn't a proposal of any sort, especially something as comprehensive as public transit, that doesn't offend somebody somewhere.
McGuinty's newly imposed limits will themselves become the object of NIMBY wrath. Indeed, within hours of the story appearing in the Star last Friday, emails had started to fly; the first came from Margaret Smith, she who has spent the last few years of her life trying to stop the St. Clair streetcar right-of-way.
"This regulation is a tragedy," she wrote, "and it should not be made law. Public consultation should be two-sided, meaningful and part of sustainable planning."
Who could argue with that? Of course, the community should be consulted. But what the Smiths of the world refuse to accept is that at some point a decision must be made, and that sometimes those decisions will not be popular with certain groups, maybe including the Smiths.
One can only imagine what would happen if we set out to build the Yonge subway today; the howls of outrage would be long and loud. Loudest of all would be merchants screaming about the damage construction would do to their businesses.
They'd probably be right, but does that mean the answer would be to cancel the subway?
These are hard choices, and the outcomes won't please everyone. No doubt, new streetcar lines will disrupt some people's lives. But in the long run, the city and its inhabitants will be better off. Given that public transit in the Toronto region has fallen two or three decades behind Europe and Asia, there's no time to waste.
The real debate should be about routes, transportation modes and why a city like Madrid can build subways at one-quarter what it costs us.
A big part of the extra expense is the EA process itself. Now McGuinty has removed a huge obstacle that stood on the road between Toronto and its future.
Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
