The NEPA process is not all negative. Had it existed when the IHS was conceived, the system actually might have been built better in much more helpful locations due to increased public input.
That assumes your public input doesn’t consist entirely of unhelpful litigious NIMBYs and hardcore environmentalists, who tend to drown out other voices in these types of spaces. Agreed that NEPA isn’t a total negative, but because it’s so easy to challenge a big project, it usually winds up being a losing situation for everyone except the lawyers.
I disagree with your assessment of NIMBYs and environmentalists being the only ones showing up, given my experience with public involvement.
The flip side of your argument -- just building wherever without local input or concern for impact is just as destructive as being litigated into paralysis.
I mean, I attended a public meeting just the other night for a major bridge replacement and village downtown revitalization -- tens of millions in cost. It was well intended by the public, whose comments and questions were pointed and informed -- especially ensuring that the Village's snow removal practices were taken into account and pedestrian accommodations on the bridge. I don't think we would have been better off not putting sidewalks on the bridge or taking into account how business owners are responsible for clearing the sidewalks on their property.
Author
Topic: Chattanooga I-24 Improvements (Read 3077 times)