Charles St GRT terminal redevelopment

[neonjoe]

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.

I certainly wasn't there in the 80s to know what was done or what was swept under the rug.

But generally contaminated sites must be cleaned up if they are going to be occupied by people. The region seems to have gotten an exception for cleaning up the site along the tracks behind UW's buildings where the new trail runs on the "people are not staying here, they are only moving through" exception, but given that there are employees on the site of the GRT station and passengers waiting, I don't think the same exception would apply. I am not sure if "entombing" the ground would be an acceptable mediation, but that certainly doesn't apply at the bus terminal given it has grass and gardens and cracked concrete. There is also the risk of leaching from water seepage.

Like I said, I don't know what happened in the 80s, but my understanding is that should have been cleaned up. If it wasn't, that would be a shame, but it would also be a big piss off, I've spent a lot of time at that bus terminal waiting for buses. To be honest, I'm not thrilled about the trail behind UW...although I'll admit I don't know enough about the risks and specific contamination to have an informed understanding.

We do have to note that the terminal was built by the COK in the late 80s so things may be different. It wasn't transferred to the Region until the last round of service uploads during the municipal upheaval caused by Mike Harris.