Charles St GRT terminal redevelopment

[ijmorlan]

I thought it had been remediated previously. IIRC the underground utilities in the area were all encased in concrete to reduce the risk of contamination, and this delayed the LRT construction, but the utilities were encased in concrete when the area was remediated.

I doubt...even in the 80s, the site would have been able to have been occupied like that when contaminated.

I am probably wrong, but I vaguely seem to recall back in the mid 80's when this thing was proposed and built that there were some issue, but they were sort of swept the issues under the rug because of the build type - not residential, and heavy vehicles spewing fumes and noxious liquids for 19 hours a day.

It’s hard to see how the condition of the soil under the pavement can have much effect on bus operations.

But I have the same question about a lot of these things. I don’t understand how it can be OK to leave a site contaminated indefinitely but not OK to pave it over permanently and entomb the contamination under a concrete foundation.

On the other hand if the issue just the expense of cleaning all the soil dug up to place the deep foundation of a large structure then I understand.