No Bike Lanes on Bloor: The Bloor Street Transformation Project
In August 2008, an application for investigation was filed on behalf of two cycling advocacy groups alleging that in misclassifying the Bloor Street Transformation Project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA), the City of Toronto contravened the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The applicants argued that as a result, the city failed to hold broad public consultations or consider design alternatives that would make more room for cyclists on the redesigned street.
The purpose of the project is to beautify Bloor Street in Toronto between Church Street and Avenue Road by widening and resurfacing sidewalks and reconstructing the road. The road construction, which will retain the four existing traffic lanes, will be paid for by the city. The remaining work will be paid for through a city loan to the members of the Bloor Street Business Improvement Area (BSBIA). The project was classified in 2001 under the MCEA as a Schedule A project (which, being the lowest classification, does not require public consultation). After the MCEA was revised and approved by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in 2007, the project was re-classified as a Schedule A+ project.
Since the estimated cost of the project is $25 million, the applicants argued that the project exceeds the MCEA threshold and requires at least a Schedule B designation and perhaps even a Schedule C designation. The applicants argued that if the project had been properly classified as a Schedule B project, the public would have been consulted and able to promote the consideration of cycling infrastructure in the street’s redesign. The applicants also alleged that the city is ignoring directions in provincial planning laws and policies that require consideration of cyclists’ safety in municipal planning decisions. Furthermore, the applicants submitted evidence of the adverse impacts of motor vehicle pollution to support their claim that the project would cause environmental harm.
In August 2008, a group called the Concerned About Bloor Coalition (CABC) announced it would seek a judicial review (JR) of the city’s classification of the project. Two months later, Ontario’s Divisional Court dismissed the JR application, concluding that the classification of the project was reasonable and that the project appeared to ft within Schedule A in 2001 and, subsequently, within the new Schedule A+.
On October 21, 2008, MOE denied the application for investigation, stating that it had already considered the applicants’ concerns and received the relevant environmental assessment documents from the city. MOE went on to describe the obligations of a proponent under the MCEA, noting that “the description of the undertaking is determined by the proponent and may be defined in broad terms or in very specific terms.” In MOE’s opinion, the city complied with the MCEA and, therefore, an investigation into whether a contravention had occurred was unwarranted.
ECO Comment
While we believe that MOE’s decision not to investigate was reasonable, the ECO is troubled by some of the implications of the application and the MCEA process followed by the City of Toronto.
For more than a decade, the ECO has raised concerns about consultation processes used for projects approved under Class EAs. In our 2007/2008 Annual Report, we noted public complaints about problems and deficiencies with proponent consultation processes, and MOE’s apparent lack of interest in promoting fairness and adherence to Class EA requirements outlined in approval documents such as the MCEA.
This application also illustrates how difficult it can be for the public to gain access to (or even learn about the existence of) EA approval documents. The ECO is disappointed that MOE was slow to provide documents requested by the applicants, forcing them to make requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The ECO is also concerned that MOE provided the public with incorrect information about the MCEA and the EAA on a number of occasions and that MOE staff were confused as to the proponent of the project, the legal status of the BSBIA and its relationship to the city.
These observations suggest that MOE does not have sufficient resources to properly monitor the large number of Class EA approvals being issued under the EAA, and that MOE staff need better training and information about the nuances of the MCEA and other Class EAs. This review also demonstrates that MOE continues to rely on a complaint-based compliance model, and the ministry is reluctant to prosecute proponents for failures to comply with the terms of approvals under Class EAs and the EAA. The ECO urges MOE to develop an enforcement policy that applies to alleged contraventions of the EAA.
The ECO believes that the city could have undertaken a more transparent consultation process in this case, and MOE should have dealt with this aspect of the application more thoroughly. Some of the applicants’ concerns could have been avoided, in part, if the MCEA required municipalities to publicize the classification of all MCEA projects. The ECO urges MOE to review these provisions of the MCEA and consider ordering appropriate amendments.
The application raises broad societal implications related to the sharing of roads by motorists and cyclists. While its straightforward street grid and relatively flat topography give Toronto the potential to become a great cycling city, this potential is unlikely to be achieved without leadership and support from the Ontario government to develop a cycling infrastructure. We urge Ontario ministries that oversee municipal planning to encourage municipalities and planners to engage cyclists in their deliberations on planning and uphold the spirit of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. To facilitate improved planning that promotes cycling and walking in Ontario communities, MOE should consider ordering the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) to prepare modifications of the MCEA, as it did in 2007 to promote public transit.
| Recommendation 4:
The ECO recommends that MOE consider ordering the Municipal Engineers Association to amend the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to explicitly promote cycling and walking as modes of transport. |
| This is an article from the 2008/09 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2009. "No Bike Lanes on Bloor: The Bloor Street Transformation Project." Building Resilience, ECO Annual Report, 2008-09. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 35-37.
