Last edited:
Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay
- Thread starter philip
- Start date
- Status
JimboJones
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 935
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Columbus Center
TedG, regarding this specific instance, it's no secret that the (eventual) owners at Columbus Center will have obligations.
To answer your question about responsibility.
The sales team would provide some general information. As well, any and all obligations would be explained at length in any condominium documents. A buyer would be expected to read those documents and to engage an attorney to review them, as well.
A buyer's agent would be third in line in the list of responsible parties. Actually, fourth. There is still such a thing as "buyer beware". So, buyer is #1 responsible for knowing what he/she is buying, then the seller's agent, then the buyer's attorney, then the buyer's agent.
That's not an attempt by me to avoid responsibility, just the reality of the situation.
A real estate agent does nothing more than bring buyer and seller together.
That's why people think we get paid too much.
TedG, regarding this specific instance, it's no secret that the (eventual) owners at Columbus Center will have obligations.
To answer your question about responsibility.
The sales team would provide some general information. As well, any and all obligations would be explained at length in any condominium documents. A buyer would be expected to read those documents and to engage an attorney to review them, as well.
A buyer's agent would be third in line in the list of responsible parties. Actually, fourth. There is still such a thing as "buyer beware". So, buyer is #1 responsible for knowing what he/she is buying, then the seller's agent, then the buyer's attorney, then the buyer's agent.
That's not an attempt by me to avoid responsibility, just the reality of the situation.
A real estate agent does nothing more than bring buyer and seller together.
That's why people think we get paid too much.
JimboJones
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 935
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Columbus Center
If you're unable or unwilling to take responsibility, then, no, I wouldn't want to help you.
By the way, coffee? It's really hot, so if you spill it, you might get burned.
If you're unable or unwilling to take responsibility, then, no, I wouldn't want to help you.
By the way, coffee? It's really hot, so if you spill it, you might get burned.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,335
- Reaction score
- 5,972
Re: Columbus Center
Jeez, is anything worthwhile ever going to be built in Boston, with all these NIMBY's throwing up every obstruction they can dream of in their apparently over-abundant spare time? Thank God the Prudential Center and Copley Place were built before the age of NIMBYism. They certainly aren't sterling examples of good urban design, but at least they covered the Pike and the railroad. I guess those developments are poisoning the air and killing everyone just like Columbus Center would, eh?
Maybe we should tear them down so that everyone can breath clean air again, LOL.
Jeez, is anything worthwhile ever going to be built in Boston, with all these NIMBY's throwing up every obstruction they can dream of in their apparently over-abundant spare time? Thank God the Prudential Center and Copley Place were built before the age of NIMBYism. They certainly aren't sterling examples of good urban design, but at least they covered the Pike and the railroad. I guess those developments are poisoning the air and killing everyone just like Columbus Center would, eh?
Maybe we should tear them down so that everyone can breath clean air again, LOL.
Last edited:
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 11
Re: Columbus Center
A question: did the owners of Copley Place and the Prudential assume similar liabilities to those listed above for Columbus Center condo owners? (I don't know to what extent Copley or the Pru are divided among multiple owners.)
A question: did the owners of Copley Place and the Prudential assume similar liabilities to those listed above for Columbus Center condo owners? (I don't know to what extent Copley or the Pru are divided among multiple owners.)
Re: Columbus Center
I'm sure most people here who live in the city, in fact live in a condo. Amazingly, they do not hold a specific parcel of land beneath them in fee-simple ownership as a singular owner, but all land is held as tenants in common, via the condo association. The condo association charges monthly fees to maintain the land and common areas and insure the property...these are their primary responsibilities, though many offer additional services.
What all of that means is, everything you listed as being incumbent upon condo owners to take responsibility for, will in fact be maintained by the condo association and funded by monthly fees, just like at any other condo in this city. Whether the "common area" ownership is leasehold or freehold makes no difference for 99 years, until a new agreement is negotiated. None of this a some big scary burden for condo owners, other than they can expect relatively higher condo fees, of which they will be aware of before purchasing the unit....and as JimboJones explained, the state requires the seller to provide condo docs. Anyone foolish enough to not hire a lawyer to review documents, is hopefully wise enough to read them on thier own....
Secondly, Ned, you seem intent on "outting" people, and feel that if we don't sign our names and affiliations that we have something to hide. I don't really understand the fascination, my name or employer's name have little to do with my knowledge of specific concepts. I really don't care who you are by name....knowing you are a property abutter and community activist is plenty enough to qualify your opinions. I qualified myself by saying I work for an real estate equity provider , if that somehow isn't good enough, then please ignore my future posts.
My issue is that that you are using this site as an information clearinghouse, yet providing your own interpretations of what all the pages of ink mean. You can read every page of a document but if you have no knowledge of the concepts, it doesn't mean your opinion is as valid as an expert on the concepts who hasn't read a single page. There are plenty of experts of the various disciplines of real estate present on this site. Their interpretations of the evidence seem thoughtful, whereas your interpretations strike me as reactionary because it's a lot of words about a lot of topics that you aren't an expert on. Sort of like when my son the other day was diagnosed by a doctor of having "acute gastritis", and I asked in a concerned voice how serious it was, and he replyed, "its a stomach bug that should be gone in a couple of days".
Anyway, carry on with the regularly scheduled demonstration on how this project will rob the city and state, uses complex arrangements to protect shameless investors, will result in the future hardship of all future residents, and kill everyone who lives within a couple blocks....maybe....in 75 years....maybe, or a small % of maybe.
I'm sure most people here who live in the city, in fact live in a condo. Amazingly, they do not hold a specific parcel of land beneath them in fee-simple ownership as a singular owner, but all land is held as tenants in common, via the condo association. The condo association charges monthly fees to maintain the land and common areas and insure the property...these are their primary responsibilities, though many offer additional services.
What all of that means is, everything you listed as being incumbent upon condo owners to take responsibility for, will in fact be maintained by the condo association and funded by monthly fees, just like at any other condo in this city. Whether the "common area" ownership is leasehold or freehold makes no difference for 99 years, until a new agreement is negotiated. None of this a some big scary burden for condo owners, other than they can expect relatively higher condo fees, of which they will be aware of before purchasing the unit....and as JimboJones explained, the state requires the seller to provide condo docs. Anyone foolish enough to not hire a lawyer to review documents, is hopefully wise enough to read them on thier own....
Secondly, Ned, you seem intent on "outting" people, and feel that if we don't sign our names and affiliations that we have something to hide. I don't really understand the fascination, my name or employer's name have little to do with my knowledge of specific concepts. I really don't care who you are by name....knowing you are a property abutter and community activist is plenty enough to qualify your opinions. I qualified myself by saying I work for an real estate equity provider , if that somehow isn't good enough, then please ignore my future posts.
My issue is that that you are using this site as an information clearinghouse, yet providing your own interpretations of what all the pages of ink mean. You can read every page of a document but if you have no knowledge of the concepts, it doesn't mean your opinion is as valid as an expert on the concepts who hasn't read a single page. There are plenty of experts of the various disciplines of real estate present on this site. Their interpretations of the evidence seem thoughtful, whereas your interpretations strike me as reactionary because it's a lot of words about a lot of topics that you aren't an expert on. Sort of like when my son the other day was diagnosed by a doctor of having "acute gastritis", and I asked in a concerned voice how serious it was, and he replyed, "its a stomach bug that should be gone in a couple of days".
Anyway, carry on with the regularly scheduled demonstration on how this project will rob the city and state, uses complex arrangements to protect shameless investors, will result in the future hardship of all future residents, and kill everyone who lives within a couple blocks....maybe....in 75 years....maybe, or a small % of maybe.
JimboJones
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 935
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Columbus Center
I didn't mean to be a jerk in my comment about Mr Flaherty, I apologize if it came off too rude or unkind. Again, the keyboard had the best of me.
Having "handles" on website forums is what makes the Internet, the Internet. I've never seen it as anything more. People don't necessarily have anything to hide, they just like to be anonymous, at times.
Last thing I hope I ever write about this project (except for announcing "first closing at Columbus Center happened today!") is that, owning a condo on leased land or whatever the agreement is, here, is less than preferable and I, for one, would never do so. And, to contradict what I wrote earlier (somewhat), I would definitely caution my clients against doing so.
East Pier One or whatever they are calling it is also on leased land.
While this sort of arrangement is more common in other cities (and other countries, too, I think?), it's pretty much unheard of, in Boston.
Fear of the unknown would keep me from buying.
Now, please, I have to go watch a 17-year old sing and smile at the camera.
I didn't mean to be a jerk in my comment about Mr Flaherty, I apologize if it came off too rude or unkind. Again, the keyboard had the best of me.
Having "handles" on website forums is what makes the Internet, the Internet. I've never seen it as anything more. People don't necessarily have anything to hide, they just like to be anonymous, at times.
Last thing I hope I ever write about this project (except for announcing "first closing at Columbus Center happened today!") is that, owning a condo on leased land or whatever the agreement is, here, is less than preferable and I, for one, would never do so. And, to contradict what I wrote earlier (somewhat), I would definitely caution my clients against doing so.
East Pier One or whatever they are calling it is also on leased land.
While this sort of arrangement is more common in other cities (and other countries, too, I think?), it's pretty much unheard of, in Boston.
Fear of the unknown would keep me from buying.
Now, please, I have to go watch a 17-year old sing and smile at the camera.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: Columbus Center
Ground leases are very common in central London. Almost every property listing identifies whether the transaction is a freehold or leasehold, and if the latter, identifies the term remaining on the ground lease. Ground leases usually begin with a 99 year term.
Although many of these London leases appear to be private, their origin is as a lease from the sovereign. Most of today's lessors derive their rights from a monarch, and from that point of view (i.e. the sovereign owns all) were public. The lessor of many London ground leases today is, in fact, the Prince of Wales.
A ground lease from the Commonwealth (or its agencies or subdivisions) is a ground lease from the sovereign, and is not really different in its legal character. I expect that, as is the case in the London property listings, the remaining term on the ground lease would be clearly identified in the condo listings.
This archanalia aside, you might wish to view the attached treatise on ground leases from public entities: www.eura.org/pdf/cityofamsterdam2.pdf
Ground leases are very common in central London. Almost every property listing identifies whether the transaction is a freehold or leasehold, and if the latter, identifies the term remaining on the ground lease. Ground leases usually begin with a 99 year term.
Although many of these London leases appear to be private, their origin is as a lease from the sovereign. Most of today's lessors derive their rights from a monarch, and from that point of view (i.e. the sovereign owns all) were public. The lessor of many London ground leases today is, in fact, the Prince of Wales.
A ground lease from the Commonwealth (or its agencies or subdivisions) is a ground lease from the sovereign, and is not really different in its legal character. I expect that, as is the case in the London property listings, the remaining term on the ground lease would be clearly identified in the condo listings.
This archanalia aside, you might wish to view the attached treatise on ground leases from public entities: www.eura.org/pdf/cityofamsterdam2.pdf
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
You misunderstand both the problem and the solution.
None of the three complexes ? Prudential, Copley, Columbus ? ?poison the air? or ?kill people?, and delivering ?clean air again? wouldn?t occur if you tore down the buildings.
The problem is this: the tunnels below all three complexes capture UFP air pollution, concentrate it, and exhaust it through vents near homes and offices in the buildings above. The problem is not in the buildings themselves; it is in the MTA?s decision to move the untreated pollution from the railways and roadways below into the communities above through 3 open-air cavities and 11 high-powered vents.
A city-wide map, and an architect?s model of the vents, appear in forum message #617, on forum page 62, dated 3 April.
Hello, Charlie.
You misunderstand both the problem and the solution.
None of the three complexes ? Prudential, Copley, Columbus ? ?poison the air? or ?kill people?, and delivering ?clean air again? wouldn?t occur if you tore down the buildings.
The problem is this: the tunnels below all three complexes capture UFP air pollution, concentrate it, and exhaust it through vents near homes and offices in the buildings above. The problem is not in the buildings themselves; it is in the MTA?s decision to move the untreated pollution from the railways and roadways below into the communities above through 3 open-air cavities and 11 high-powered vents.
A city-wide map, and an architect?s model of the vents, appear in forum message #617, on forum page 62, dated 3 April.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
How Prudential was formed in the 1960s differed from how Copley was formed in the 1980s, which differed from how Columbus proposes to be formed in the 2010s. But those differences are not so important now, because on 3 April 2007 the Massachusetts Office of Inspector General directed the MTA to implement a uniform, statewide, fool-proof, documented, industry-standard approach to private ownership of public tunnels. On 14 December 2007, MTA adopted Tunnel Inspection Protocols to resolve the Inspector General?s concerns.
Today, all three complexes have equivalent (but not identical) requirements imposed upon their owners for tunnel liabilities and costs. Because this is completely new for the Pru and Copley owners, and Columbus is still plans on paper, there?s no historical experience to review yet.
Hello, Ron.
How Prudential was formed in the 1960s differed from how Copley was formed in the 1980s, which differed from how Columbus proposes to be formed in the 2010s. But those differences are not so important now, because on 3 April 2007 the Massachusetts Office of Inspector General directed the MTA to implement a uniform, statewide, fool-proof, documented, industry-standard approach to private ownership of public tunnels. On 14 December 2007, MTA adopted Tunnel Inspection Protocols to resolve the Inspector General?s concerns.
Today, all three complexes have equivalent (but not identical) requirements imposed upon their owners for tunnel liabilities and costs. Because this is completely new for the Pru and Copley owners, and Columbus is still plans on paper, there?s no historical experience to review yet.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Yes, every condominium association everywhere is funded by monthly fees from its unit owners. That?s no news, and it has no bearing on this issue. The problem is that all Columbus Center condominium owners share responsibility for legal liabilities and financial expenses incurred by ownership of tunnels for the interstate transportation corridor. Those liabilities and expenses create five unique problems:
■ The cost of inspection, maintenance, repairs, and upgrades is unknown.
■ The cost of replacing obsolete tunnels is unknown.
■ The cost of quarterly insurance premiums is unknown.
■ The costs could add crippling increases to the typical luxury condominium fees.
■ The liabilities themselves are extraordinary. For example, the 2006 tunnel collapse killed only one person, but resulted in 172 lawsuits, and settlements totaling $464 million. Columbus Center has only 443 condominiums, so the liability, based on historical experience, is already over $1 million per owner.
Hello, Atlrvr.
Yes, every condominium association everywhere is funded by monthly fees from its unit owners. That?s no news, and it has no bearing on this issue. The problem is that all Columbus Center condominium owners share responsibility for legal liabilities and financial expenses incurred by ownership of tunnels for the interstate transportation corridor. Those liabilities and expenses create five unique problems:
■ The cost of inspection, maintenance, repairs, and upgrades is unknown.
■ The cost of replacing obsolete tunnels is unknown.
■ The cost of quarterly insurance premiums is unknown.
■ The costs could add crippling increases to the typical luxury condominium fees.
■ The liabilities themselves are extraordinary. For example, the 2006 tunnel collapse killed only one person, but resulted in 172 lawsuits, and settlements totaling $464 million. Columbus Center has only 443 condominiums, so the liability, based on historical experience, is already over $1 million per owner.
Anywhere else, homes on rented property are not much different from homes on owned property. But Boston?s air rights condominiums are subject to whatever policies the MTA decides to adopt in the future, including state and federal mandates regarding inspection, repair, upgrade, and/or replacement of privately owned public tunnels. That?s a huge difference.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 1,502
Re: Columbus Center
According to CARB, in southern California, 55-60 percent of a person's daily exposure to UFPs comes from traveling for an hour or so in a vehicle on streets and highways. So as an automobile dealer, would I also now have an affirmative duty to notify a car purchaser that by buying and driving this car, he or she is going to put themselves at risk because every highway is in actuality, a so-called toxic zone? What of the affirmative duty on the part of the city of Boston to warn pedestrians and cyclists not to walk or pedal near busy highways for more than an hour every day, because these are so-called toxic zones for UFPs? Should the MTA put notices up on the Greenway informing users that the Greenway lies within a so-called toxic zone, and they should enter and use it at their own risk?
Helsinki is closer to Boston in climate than is southern California. Here are the results of a study looking at the incidence of strokes and air pollution. If you read carefully enough, you will note the correlation between fine particles and strokes.
02/15/2007
According to CARB, in southern California, 55-60 percent of a person's daily exposure to UFPs comes from traveling for an hour or so in a vehicle on streets and highways. So as an automobile dealer, would I also now have an affirmative duty to notify a car purchaser that by buying and driving this car, he or she is going to put themselves at risk because every highway is in actuality, a so-called toxic zone? What of the affirmative duty on the part of the city of Boston to warn pedestrians and cyclists not to walk or pedal near busy highways for more than an hour every day, because these are so-called toxic zones for UFPs? Should the MTA put notices up on the Greenway informing users that the Greenway lies within a so-called toxic zone, and they should enter and use it at their own risk?
Helsinki is closer to Boston in climate than is southern California. Here are the results of a study looking at the incidence of strokes and air pollution. If you read carefully enough, you will note the correlation between fine particles and strokes.
Stroke Journal Report
02/15/2007
Re: Columbus Center
Exactly....and to my knowledge no perspective owner has placed a unit under contract. It seems these costs will have to be investigated before forming the condo association. I still don't see what the big deal is.....if the condo fees are too high for someone, they won't buy there. If no one buys there, the developer is responsible....what is the problem?
As far as liability exceeding $1 million per owner, I'm sure you are aware that there is a reason condo associations purchase insurance, and are also aware that insurance can be purchased to insulate owners from large settlements.
Exactly....and to my knowledge no perspective owner has placed a unit under contract. It seems these costs will have to be investigated before forming the condo association. I still don't see what the big deal is.....if the condo fees are too high for someone, they won't buy there. If no one buys there, the developer is responsible....what is the problem?
As far as liability exceeding $1 million per owner, I'm sure you are aware that there is a reason condo associations purchase insurance, and are also aware that insurance can be purchased to insulate owners from large settlements.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 11
Re: Columbus Center
wait - the state was able to retroactively impose new liability on the owners of the Prudential and Copley Place, decades after they were built?
wait - the state was able to retroactively impose new liability on the owners of the Prudential and Copley Place, decades after they were built?
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
You?ve confused the harmful effects of short-term UFP exposure ? 1 hour of driving, pedestrian strolling, bike riding, park usage ? which have not been measured yet, with the harmful effects of long-term UFP exposure, which have been proven. To answer your question, no, it?s not necessary right now to warn people about short-term exposure, because there?s no data to give them. On the other hand: (1) MTA should notify the public that consistent UFP exposure from working or living near I-93 or I-90 vents has been proven harmful; and (2) MTA should cure the problem by scrubbing the vent exhaust.
Hello, Stellarfun.
You?ve confused the harmful effects of short-term UFP exposure ? 1 hour of driving, pedestrian strolling, bike riding, park usage ? which have not been measured yet, with the harmful effects of long-term UFP exposure, which have been proven. To answer your question, no, it?s not necessary right now to warn people about short-term exposure, because there?s no data to give them. On the other hand: (1) MTA should notify the public that consistent UFP exposure from working or living near I-93 or I-90 vents has been proven harmful; and (2) MTA should cure the problem by scrubbing the vent exhaust.
You have to consider the body of studies, not just one of them. Although this one Helsinki study did not find UFP to cause stroke deaths during Finland?s winter season, please recognize that: (1) they did link stroke deaths to fine particles during warmer weather; (2) those researchers studied only fatal strokes, not any of the other illnesses; and (3) other studies find ultrafine particles more dangerous than fine particles.
Last edited:
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Yes, the state did impose those new liabilities retroactively. Boston?s air rights developments are controlled by MTA leases which allow this, and owners can not prevent it. For example, on 6 March 2008, one Prudential air rights tenant (Hynes Convention Center) had to unexpectedly budget $300,000 for tunnel work.
And that $300,000 doesn?t perform much work, it?s solely to replace 42 ceiling hangars and do engineering studies for the larger tunnel repair project that now looms: replacement of the obsolete 1962 ceiling. Air rights condominium owners are subject to similar surprising ? and unavoidable ? expenses.
MTA requires that such funds be saved in advance, and does not allow costs to be billed to unit owners as one-time special assessments, such as most condominiums do for other unexpected repairs. Thus, air rights condominium owners must pay monthly fees to support: standard luxury condominium expenses, plus extraordinary and unique insurance premiums, plus reserve savings accounts for demolition, removal, and replacement of obsolete tunnels while the railways and roadways continue in operation. (Big Dig II, anyone?)
This is one of many issues considered by the commercial banks that, so far, decided not to issue any construction loans.
Hello, Ron.
Yes, the state did impose those new liabilities retroactively. Boston?s air rights developments are controlled by MTA leases which allow this, and owners can not prevent it. For example, on 6 March 2008, one Prudential air rights tenant (Hynes Convention Center) had to unexpectedly budget $300,000 for tunnel work.
And that $300,000 doesn?t perform much work, it?s solely to replace 42 ceiling hangars and do engineering studies for the larger tunnel repair project that now looms: replacement of the obsolete 1962 ceiling. Air rights condominium owners are subject to similar surprising ? and unavoidable ? expenses.
MTA requires that such funds be saved in advance, and does not allow costs to be billed to unit owners as one-time special assessments, such as most condominiums do for other unexpected repairs. Thus, air rights condominium owners must pay monthly fees to support: standard luxury condominium expenses, plus extraordinary and unique insurance premiums, plus reserve savings accounts for demolition, removal, and replacement of obsolete tunnels while the railways and roadways continue in operation. (Big Dig II, anyone?)
This is one of many issues considered by the commercial banks that, so far, decided not to issue any construction loans.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 11
Re: Columbus Center
Hynes is owned by the state, though.
Hynes is owned by the state, though.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
The Convention Center can generate revenues to pay for tunnel replacement more easily than condominium owners can, so the true impact of this arrangement has yet to be seen, but it?s coming.
The underlying problem (pun intended) of occupants above ground being responsible for privately owned public tunnels below ground remains the same for all air rights tenants. The fact that Hynes happens to be stated-owned has no bearing on the core issue; MTA treats the Convention Center Authority the same way it treats all its private tenants.
The Convention Center can generate revenues to pay for tunnel replacement more easily than condominium owners can, so the true impact of this arrangement has yet to be seen, but it?s coming.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 1,502
Re: Columbus Center
Ned, please; don't now start wearing an epidemiological hat. You apparently know little about exposure studies. How do you suppose that the California Air Resources Board which you cite with approval earlier in this thread was able to gauge a person's daily exposure to UFPs and determine that 55-60 percent of the total exposure came from driving in traffic? You don't suppose they just pulled that number out of the air (no pun)?
With regard to long-term exposure to UFPs, we've had this discussion before re: the 70 year exposure for cancer. I asked then -- and have yet to see a response -- if the long-term exposure isn't 70 years, then how long a period is it?
With regard to your claim that living or working near highway vents has "proven harmful", presumably with regard to UFPs, do you have an authoritative citation that supports your statement?
With regard to your claim that the harmful exposure to emissions from highway vents can be cured (presumably with respect to UFPs) by "scrubbing the vent exhaust", do you have an authoritative citation that supports that claim? Do you have a single example where a scrubber has been installed as part of a highway vent? (BTW, if the MTA were to follow your prescription, they would have to demolish the Intercontinental Hotel to install a scrubber on the largest vent building in the Big Dig.)
And finally, someone earlier suggested you might be less patronizing in your comments. I have a degree in the natural sciences, and I've authored environmental standards. I know, at least I hope I know, how to read articles in peer-reviewed journals; and having authored several articles, I hope I appreciate the limitations regarding the data and conclusions appearing in such articles.
Ned, please; don't now start wearing an epidemiological hat. You apparently know little about exposure studies. How do you suppose that the California Air Resources Board which you cite with approval earlier in this thread was able to gauge a person's daily exposure to UFPs and determine that 55-60 percent of the total exposure came from driving in traffic? You don't suppose they just pulled that number out of the air (no pun)?
With regard to long-term exposure to UFPs, we've had this discussion before re: the 70 year exposure for cancer. I asked then -- and have yet to see a response -- if the long-term exposure isn't 70 years, then how long a period is it?
With regard to your claim that living or working near highway vents has "proven harmful", presumably with regard to UFPs, do you have an authoritative citation that supports your statement?
With regard to your claim that the harmful exposure to emissions from highway vents can be cured (presumably with respect to UFPs) by "scrubbing the vent exhaust", do you have an authoritative citation that supports that claim? Do you have a single example where a scrubber has been installed as part of a highway vent? (BTW, if the MTA were to follow your prescription, they would have to demolish the Intercontinental Hotel to install a scrubber on the largest vent building in the Big Dig.)
And finally, someone earlier suggested you might be less patronizing in your comments. I have a degree in the natural sciences, and I've authored environmental standards. I know, at least I hope I know, how to read articles in peer-reviewed journals; and having authored several articles, I hope I appreciate the limitations regarding the data and conclusions appearing in such articles.
- Status