[ski82]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yes, actually, they are supposed to take this long. If you don't like it, talk to Congress (and the environmental groups). It's not private sector real estate (although, why don't you talk to a California developer and see what he has to say about how long development "should take.")

NEPA is a good thing. And the fact that EISs take so long is (somewhat) intentional. If this were a highway project through environmentally sensitive lands, you'd be damn happy it takes this long, because it would take you time to mobilize the opposition, and you'd be happy they were putting real time into studying it and pre-engineering it as well. As a matter of fact, if you lived along the West Corridor in Lakewood, you'd be damn happy the EIS takes two years, and you'd probably be trying to slow it down. You wouldn't give two sh*ts about "seeing construction start" - you'd want to make sure that the designers and planners of the project are taking all of the environmental (natural *and* human) consequences into account, and you'd want to be sure they are doing everything they can to minimize them.

What you have to understand about an EIS is that it's not really about the final report, it's about the process. And it *is* a deliberate process. And the alternative is much, much worse (at least from the enviormental standpioint).

I'm not sure I would mind terribly if we went back to the "good 'ole days" of Robert Moseses ramming projects down peoples throats; of highways tearing out whole neighborhoods, and whole cities for that matter; and of filling in mile after mile of wetlands for the next subdivision - all without any review process. Just remember, without this horrible, horrible government process, for every Fastracks project that gets done faster, you'd have three projects that you *hate* moving right along as well.

Ask the folks in Clear Creek County if they'd be willing to forgo the process to speed up I-70 improvements. I *dare* you to...

I think there is a happy medium somewhere in here. Everyone knew what they were getting for quite some time. And in a time where things can change so quickly, I don't think its unreasonable too think that the public can obtain information, interpret info, organize and act more quickly then 10 years ago either. But, in an age where a process takes the same amount of time but the environment changes more rapidly, you are bound to run into problems. From my observation, it seems like by the time a study is complete the thing that was studied is irrelevant and the plan has changed. Time for a new study. Rinse and repeat.