Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,976
- Reaction score
- 2,319
Re: Columbus Center
Lol Tobes knows its not him....
Lol Tobes knows its not him....
Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay
- Thread starter philip
- Start date
- Status
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 756
Re: Columbus Center
What do you expect? If CalPERS admitted earlier that they needed subsidies due to rising construction cost, NIMBYs and many anti-CC members will jumped the instant that it is made public and criticize it. The project will be dead. It's not whether they lied or not, it's the fact that honesty leads them no where either. Ned, would you believe that CC could have a higher chance to be built had they admit it earlier. Of course not. It is a lose, lose situation. People can not predict the future. Did you think CalPERs would have needed subsidies had the economy not be in such a sad state?
Again you missed my point. Due to rising construction cost and collapse of the housing market, profit has definitely dropped for the developers. It is not surprising if it will take CalPERs many additional years than originally planned for them to make profit on this huge investment. Thus my analogy was meant to show the loss of production due to changes (in this case the economy).
Maybe force is too strong a word. But aren't requirements another way of saying that "developers must (i.e. forced) to comply with the existing rule." If CalPERS is a profit maximizing company, then they could have proposed a 70 story building with no park space to maximize profit in the area. The fact is that they must give up the potential profit that can be made in the area whether they do it voluntarily or not...unless you live in cities like Dallas and Houston where height limits can be lifted without any problems. Add a weakening economy, high risk of low returns, and strong opposition and you get a project that needs help in order to be built.
What do you expect? If CalPERS admitted earlier that they needed subsidies due to rising construction cost, NIMBYs and many anti-CC members will jumped the instant that it is made public and criticize it. The project will be dead. It's not whether they lied or not, it's the fact that honesty leads them no where either. Ned, would you believe that CC could have a higher chance to be built had they admit it earlier. Of course not. It is a lose, lose situation. People can not predict the future. Did you think CalPERs would have needed subsidies had the economy not be in such a sad state?
Again you missed my point. Due to rising construction cost and collapse of the housing market, profit has definitely dropped for the developers. It is not surprising if it will take CalPERs many additional years than originally planned for them to make profit on this huge investment. Thus my analogy was meant to show the loss of production due to changes (in this case the economy).
Maybe force is too strong a word. But aren't requirements another way of saying that "developers must (i.e. forced) to comply with the existing rule." If CalPERS is a profit maximizing company, then they could have proposed a 70 story building with no park space to maximize profit in the area. The fact is that they must give up the potential profit that can be made in the area whether they do it voluntarily or not...unless you live in cities like Dallas and Houston where height limits can be lifted without any problems. Add a weakening economy, high risk of low returns, and strong opposition and you get a project that needs help in order to be built.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
? The owners themselves publicly confirmed that costs, revenues, and profits rise and fall ? together ? with the economy, so that when housing values fall, costs decrease too, and when costs rise, housing values do, too.
? The owners themselves and a City-engaged Certified Public Accountant publicly confirmed that the proposal was both subsidy-free and profitable.
I didn?t create either of the above statements; the owners themselves confirmed that rising and falling economies would never be a problem, and that no subsidies would ever be needed.
The Turnpike Master Plan recognizes that economies fluctuate, and it addresses what should happen when economies sour:
There?s a keen distinction between the former owners and the current owners. The former owners submitted a subsidy-free proposal, knowing they would seek as many subsidies as possible later, when they hoped no one would notice. Then they sold their bait-and-switch business plan to CalPERS-CUIP. The 4-year storm of opposition from citizens, community groups, legislators, state agencies, and other towns arose from that bait-and-switch dishonesty more than from any other problem. Had the owners admitted to using subsidies from the beginning, the opposition generated by their dishonesty could never have occurred.
? The owners themselves publicly confirmed that costs, revenues, and profits rise and fall ? together ? with the economy, so that when housing values fall, costs decrease too, and when costs rise, housing values do, too.
? The owners themselves and a City-engaged Certified Public Accountant publicly confirmed that the proposal was both subsidy-free and profitable.
I didn?t create either of the above statements; the owners themselves confirmed that rising and falling economies would never be a problem, and that no subsidies would ever be needed.
The Turnpike Master Plan recognizes that economies fluctuate, and it addresses what should happen when economies sour:
?Ideally, air rights development should occur during strong economies that will support the best quality projects. A strong economy offers an opportunity to achieve projects that are both appropriate in scale and character and are also financially feasible. These Guidelines should not be compromised in response to weak real estate conditions.? (Turnpike Master Plan, MTA and BRA, 28 June 2000, page 35 of 101.)
No, neither CalPERS nor any other developer can ever propose that, because the Turnpike Master Plan (published 28 June 2000, adopted 21 December 2000) requires that every proposal include a 2-acre, contiguous park on Parcel 18 whenever the Parcel 16 skyscraper exceeds 150 feet.
Public opposition does not generate a need for subsidies; in fact, opposition diminishes the chance of subsidies. On the other hand, when proposals are Master-Plan-compliant, opposition is lower, and subsidies are more likely.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Suffolk83 now wants to read only news, with nothing repeated. And BostonObserver now wants to end discussions on this thread, with people discussing facts privately and then posting only their ?results.? But news articles alone aren?t very useful if they only repeat what the newspapers say, and conclusions aren?t very useful unless they include the debates about the underlying facts.
As others chime in on how to make this thread more valuable, it?s important to remember that MTA owns 70 parcels totaling 77 acres of air rights in urban Boston, and many of the principles and issues seen in this thread will recur citywide for decades to come.
For example, the One Kenmore team resumed writing their air rights proposal (3 acres, 1.4 million s.f.) on 27 March, and it will be published soon.
Suffolk83 now wants to read only news, with nothing repeated. And BostonObserver now wants to end discussions on this thread, with people discussing facts privately and then posting only their ?results.? But news articles alone aren?t very useful if they only repeat what the newspapers say, and conclusions aren?t very useful unless they include the debates about the underlying facts.
As others chime in on how to make this thread more valuable, it?s important to remember that MTA owns 70 parcels totaling 77 acres of air rights in urban Boston, and many of the principles and issues seen in this thread will recur citywide for decades to come.
For example, the One Kenmore team resumed writing their air rights proposal (3 acres, 1.4 million s.f.) on 27 March, and it will be published soon.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 756
Re: Columbus Center
Again you misread my reply. Reread that section again and you find out that I said the owners must comply, regardless of whether they voluntarily submit plans within the requirement or not, with the Turnpike Master Plan and thus are "forced" to give up potential profit that could be gained by building higher without a park.
On another point, didn't CC's original plan include two towers instead of one?
Again you misread my reply. Reread that section again and you find out that I said the owners must comply, regardless of whether they voluntarily submit plans within the requirement or not, with the Turnpike Master Plan and thus are "forced" to give up potential profit that could be gained by building higher without a park.
On another point, didn't CC's original plan include two towers instead of one?
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 756
Re: Columbus Center
Sometimes, I wonder if you even read my replies carefully. I know the the owners themselves stated that they did not needed subsidies. The point I'm trying to make is that had CC ever knew the economy were going to turn so sour so quickly and asked for subsidies from the start, they would not have received it and opposition to the project would have also grown at the point and thus no matter what they do in that current situation, they will lose. The severity of the economic downturn could have also played a role as they might not have expected to have the housing market plummet this much or the construction cost to rise so quickly in the recent years.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
It?s true that no owner will ever realize the profit from a high tower built without any park. But that potential profit which you imagine from that design does not even exist at this property, because it is forbidden by the Turnpike Master Plan. Since it doesn?t exist in the first place, no one can claim they were forced ?to give it up.?
The 9 March 2001 proposal shows two skyscrapers: 38 stories on Parcel 16, and 33 stories on Parcel 17. The project was re-proposed multiple times from 2001 through 2005. The MTA 99-year lease signed 2 May 2006 says ?approximately 35 floors? on Parcel 16, and ?approximately 11 floors? on Parcel 17. Although the height was reduced, the project?s gross square footage grew by 152,800 (11%), from 1,338,000 in 2001 to 1,490,800 in 2006.
Re: Columbus Center
What do you think this could possibly prove?
Could you detail for us, Ned, how many negative opinion pieces (not written by you, of course) and pieces in favor in each of the papers above? We all (including Winn) know you keep a clip book.
What do you think this could possibly prove?
Could you detail for us, Ned, how many negative opinion pieces (not written by you, of course) and pieces in favor in each of the papers above? We all (including Winn) know you keep a clip book.
kz1000ps
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,818
- Reaction score
- 10,260
Re: Columbus Center
a bit old, but I think it's worth posting..
Night Work Continues at Columbus Center
May 3, 2008
by Alison Lapp
The Boston Courant
A delay on the construction of the proposed Columbus Center would not give neighbors relief from the inconveniences of an active worksite, according to the developers.
An April 18 posting on the project's website states that "construction will proceed at a reduced level until full scale construction resumes," including night work occurring "intermittently on the Turnpike for the next 24 months."
The construction will happen despite the fact that WinnDevelopment, the developer of the proposed seven-acre project that would straddle the Mass Pike from Clarendon Street to Tremont Street, asked the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) for a continuance on such labor in March.
Turnpike spokesman Mac Daniel confirmed that the authority is negotiating the terms of the continuance with the developers. The MTA has said it will not grant the postponement unless developers secure the site, which they have committed to do.
"To minimize inconvenience to the neighborhood during this period, we'll be restoring parking and sidewalks," said WinnDevelopment spokesperson Alan Eisner.
The company requested the delay after the Commonwealth failed to approve $10 million in grants that developers were expecting.
The loss of the state money was the latest setback in a series of harships for the proposed condominium, hotel and retail project, which lost a major financier last year.
The $800 million complex, more than a decade in the making, has yet to find a new lender in today's depressed real estate market. Mayor Thomas Menino has said Gov. Deval Patrick indicated in a private conversation that he could restore state funding if developers secure the rest of their financing.
While looking for a backer, developers will slow construction, but, "We're not going to abandon the site because of the ability to potentially restate it," Eisner said.
The purpose of the work will be to "maintain the integrity of the site for future construction," he said, though could not describe the specific tasks engineers will need to perform.
Steps will "for sure" be taken to reduce disturbances from night work, he said, adding that he was uncertain of how that alleviation would be accomplished.
Negotiations for a new air rights lease from the MTA are ongoing, he said, stressing that developers still hope to see the project through to completion.
"We'll have a continuance on our current lease for 18 months, during which time we are going to rethink our capital structure with an eye towards continuing the project," Eisner said, "which will be a function of market conditions and the ability to receive funds that have already been committed at the state level for the project."
a bit old, but I think it's worth posting..
Night Work Continues at Columbus Center
May 3, 2008
by Alison Lapp
The Boston Courant
A delay on the construction of the proposed Columbus Center would not give neighbors relief from the inconveniences of an active worksite, according to the developers.
An April 18 posting on the project's website states that "construction will proceed at a reduced level until full scale construction resumes," including night work occurring "intermittently on the Turnpike for the next 24 months."
The construction will happen despite the fact that WinnDevelopment, the developer of the proposed seven-acre project that would straddle the Mass Pike from Clarendon Street to Tremont Street, asked the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) for a continuance on such labor in March.
Turnpike spokesman Mac Daniel confirmed that the authority is negotiating the terms of the continuance with the developers. The MTA has said it will not grant the postponement unless developers secure the site, which they have committed to do.
"To minimize inconvenience to the neighborhood during this period, we'll be restoring parking and sidewalks," said WinnDevelopment spokesperson Alan Eisner.
The company requested the delay after the Commonwealth failed to approve $10 million in grants that developers were expecting.
The loss of the state money was the latest setback in a series of harships for the proposed condominium, hotel and retail project, which lost a major financier last year.
The $800 million complex, more than a decade in the making, has yet to find a new lender in today's depressed real estate market. Mayor Thomas Menino has said Gov. Deval Patrick indicated in a private conversation that he could restore state funding if developers secure the rest of their financing.
While looking for a backer, developers will slow construction, but, "We're not going to abandon the site because of the ability to potentially restate it," Eisner said.
The purpose of the work will be to "maintain the integrity of the site for future construction," he said, though could not describe the specific tasks engineers will need to perform.
Steps will "for sure" be taken to reduce disturbances from night work, he said, adding that he was uncertain of how that alleviation would be accomplished.
Negotiations for a new air rights lease from the MTA are ongoing, he said, stressing that developers still hope to see the project through to completion.
"We'll have a continuance on our current lease for 18 months, during which time we are going to rethink our capital structure with an eye towards continuing the project," Eisner said, "which will be a function of market conditions and the ability to receive funds that have already been committed at the state level for the project."
JimboJones
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 935
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Columbus Center
Er, the South End News has also published editorials and/or columns in SUPPORT of the project, Mr Flaherty.
And I would say the actual articles in that paper have taken an even-handed and un-opinionated view of the development.
Er, the South End News has also published editorials and/or columns in SUPPORT of the project, Mr Flaherty.
And I would say the actual articles in that paper have taken an even-handed and un-opinionated view of the development.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: Columbus Center
Thanks! But I can get carried away. Ned does make some good points, and my "trial by fire" method at testing them can be taxing to others, I'm sure. I've pretty much reached my endpoint with the previous suggestion I made to Ned. With the exception of one last post on this thread (to follow shortly), I'll wait for some news before posting again.
Thanks! But I can get carried away. Ned does make some good points, and my "trial by fire" method at testing them can be taxing to others, I'm sure. I've pretty much reached my endpoint with the previous suggestion I made to Ned. With the exception of one last post on this thread (to follow shortly), I'll wait for some news before posting again.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: ENOUGH
B.O.,
My apologies. I can get passionate in trying to draw out "the truth", what ever that might be on any given day. I accept that I am a difficult person.
But, B.O., having read all of your comment history, you ought to consider contributing news, or photography, or something, anything, rather than treating this like a newspaper substitute. Until you do something "useful", you aren't in a position to judge the efforts of others as "useless". You might not like Ned, you might not like me, but we CONTRIBUTE more than just sniping. And everyone ought to thank Ned for bringing some action to a thread that would be dead, dead, dead, without Ned, Ned, Ned. Come now, don't alot of you look forward to seeing what provocation he will launch next?
Toby
B.O.,
My apologies. I can get passionate in trying to draw out "the truth", what ever that might be on any given day. I accept that I am a difficult person.
But, B.O., having read all of your comment history, you ought to consider contributing news, or photography, or something, anything, rather than treating this like a newspaper substitute. Until you do something "useful", you aren't in a position to judge the efforts of others as "useless". You might not like Ned, you might not like me, but we CONTRIBUTE more than just sniping. And everyone ought to thank Ned for bringing some action to a thread that would be dead, dead, dead, without Ned, Ned, Ned. Come now, don't alot of you look forward to seeing what provocation he will launch next?
Toby
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center
Also, Walz alluding to CC as a "bad project" is ridiculous. It seems to me that with the exception of Marty and her posse, most people think CC would be great for the economy and the quality of life in that area of the city. Declaring war...what a joke.
Also, Walz alluding to CC as a "bad project" is ridiculous. It seems to me that with the exception of Marty and her posse, most people think CC would be great for the economy and the quality of life in that area of the city. Declaring war...what a joke.
Re: Columbus Center
Regarding the level of support for Columbus Center in the South End...
Time and again, Ned contends that there is no popular support for the Columbus Center project. In my travels and conversations with people who live in and around the South End, I have yet to encounter anyone who opposes the project. That is not to say that some of my Chandler Street neighhbors don't oppose the project. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who don't like the proposal. But Ned's contention that there is a tiny cabal of cheerleaders who stand to profit from this project is simply false.
I've stated this before, but I feel compelled to repeat myself as Ned insists on trotting out the same inaccurate statements. It reminds me of the old Iraq-9/11 connection that the Bush administration shilled to the public in the run up to the war. It was never true, but if you say it often enough and with enough confidence, people eventually start to believe it's true.
Regarding the level of support for Columbus Center in the South End...
Time and again, Ned contends that there is no popular support for the Columbus Center project. In my travels and conversations with people who live in and around the South End, I have yet to encounter anyone who opposes the project. That is not to say that some of my Chandler Street neighhbors don't oppose the project. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who don't like the proposal. But Ned's contention that there is a tiny cabal of cheerleaders who stand to profit from this project is simply false.
I've stated this before, but I feel compelled to repeat myself as Ned insists on trotting out the same inaccurate statements. It reminds me of the old Iraq-9/11 connection that the Bush administration shilled to the public in the run up to the war. It was never true, but if you say it often enough and with enough confidence, people eventually start to believe it's true.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Publishers and editors chose and approved articles highly critical of the Columbus Center proposal in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Banker & Tradesman, South End News, and Boston Business Journal. That opposition on newspaper editorial pages ? combined with opposition by state legislators, at state agencies, by city councilors, from community groups, and from hundreds of individual citizens ? proves that the ?widespread support? you claimed doesn?t exist. After subtracting the people, organizations, and politicians who were offered some cash and prizes (or still hope to be offered some) in exchange, there is no public record showing significant public support.
There is no such thing as a categorically ?negative? or ?positive? opinion piece about Columbus Center, because the negative/positive continuum is always a judgment in the eye of the beholder. For example, every piece mentioning another public subsidy is viewed by the project owners as positive news, but by citizens and their legislators as negative news. So no, the pieces can?t be counted that way.
It is possible to count pieces as ?endorsing? versus ?opposing?, but that, too, misses the point, because a mere tally is not very informative. What is relevant is: when each opposing piece runs, which publication runs it, and what it actually says.
You don?t explain who you mean by ?we all.? You don?t explain how it is that those people authorized you to speak for whatever it is that they know. You don?t explain how it is that you know what employees at Winn Development know.
To know what Winn knows you must already be inside the firm, or its team, or have pretty deep corporate access there, and so you already know that much of the $110 million that the owners said they spent already was for four public relations firms over 13 years. In that case, the best way for you to answer your own question about the coverage is for you to get Winn?s answer yourself, and post it here for everyone else?s benefit. (No reason for me to reinvent the wheel when you can get it straight from that horses?s mouth.)
Especially revealing is the total of un-fact-checked, un-verified opinion pieces that Winn?s public relations firms got published as ?news? but which were proven false in other coverage and also in their own public subsidy applications. Winn tracks such coverage closely because they are invoiced for it, it is expensive, and it is part of their periodic reports to the managers at CalPERS-CUIP-MURC.
Since you know what Winn knows about what I know, this is easy for you to get.
Publishers and editors chose and approved articles highly critical of the Columbus Center proposal in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Banker & Tradesman, South End News, and Boston Business Journal. That opposition on newspaper editorial pages ? combined with opposition by state legislators, at state agencies, by city councilors, from community groups, and from hundreds of individual citizens ? proves that the ?widespread support? you claimed doesn?t exist. After subtracting the people, organizations, and politicians who were offered some cash and prizes (or still hope to be offered some) in exchange, there is no public record showing significant public support.
There is no such thing as a categorically ?negative? or ?positive? opinion piece about Columbus Center, because the negative/positive continuum is always a judgment in the eye of the beholder. For example, every piece mentioning another public subsidy is viewed by the project owners as positive news, but by citizens and their legislators as negative news. So no, the pieces can?t be counted that way.
It is possible to count pieces as ?endorsing? versus ?opposing?, but that, too, misses the point, because a mere tally is not very informative. What is relevant is: when each opposing piece runs, which publication runs it, and what it actually says.
You don?t explain who you mean by ?we all.? You don?t explain how it is that those people authorized you to speak for whatever it is that they know. You don?t explain how it is that you know what employees at Winn Development know.
To know what Winn knows you must already be inside the firm, or its team, or have pretty deep corporate access there, and so you already know that much of the $110 million that the owners said they spent already was for four public relations firms over 13 years. In that case, the best way for you to answer your own question about the coverage is for you to get Winn?s answer yourself, and post it here for everyone else?s benefit. (No reason for me to reinvent the wheel when you can get it straight from that horses?s mouth.)
Especially revealing is the total of un-fact-checked, un-verified opinion pieces that Winn?s public relations firms got published as ?news? but which were proven false in other coverage and also in their own public subsidy applications. Winn tracks such coverage closely because they are invoiced for it, it is expensive, and it is part of their periodic reports to the managers at CalPERS-CUIP-MURC.
Since you know what Winn knows about what I know, this is easy for you to get.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Several forum members are still wondering whether PM (particulate matter) air pollution is harmful, whether prior studies were peer reviewed, and whether City officials are requiring the Commonwealth to report the I-90 illness and death rates. Here are the answers.
Yes, it?s harmful. ? Estimated death rates from exposure to particulate matter were tripled last week by the California Environmental Protection Agency?s Air Resources Board (CA-EPA-CARB). CARB reviewed twelve of the most recent studies showing that exposure to particulate matter can cause premature death.
Based upon the most recent scientific literature, CARB estimates that in California alone, 14,000 - 24,000 people die prematurely each year from exposure to diesel particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. More research is needed to correlate the number of premature deaths to various particle sizes classified as regular, fine, and ultrafine, but existing studies generally indicate that the smaller the particle size the greater the public health risk. Over 1,000 research studies are now being published each year on this subject.
Yes, there were peer reviews. ? The methodology that CARB staff uses to quantify premature death and other health impacts from PM exposure is based on a peer-reviewed methodology developed in 2004-05 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their risk assessments. After studying eleven of the thousands of research projects on particulate matter, CARB based its approach on a peer-reviewed methodology developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This methodology is regularly updated by CARB staff as new epidemiological and related studies are published.
The methodologies and results were endorsed by CARB?s scientific advisors: Dr. Jonathan Levy (Harvard University), Dr. Bart Ostro (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), and Dr. Arden Pope (Brigham Young University). The research underwent an external peer review by experts selected through a process involving the University of California at Berkeley, Institute of the Environment.
The results of the peer review process are contained in the draft report, ?Methodology for Estimating Premature Deaths Associated with Long-term Exposures to Fine Airborne Particulate Matter in California? (CARB, 22 May 2008). The final report is scheduled for August.
Yes, the City of Boston is requiring the Commonwealth to report illness and death rates. ? The illness and death rates along Boston?s I-90 transportation corridor caused by regular, fine, and ultrafine particle sizes will be part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report now being jointly written by MTA and Meredith Management for their One Kenmore air rights proposal.
CARB Publications
? Press release: www.ARB.CA.gov/NewsRel/nr052208.htm
? Agency plans: www.ARB.CA.gov/Research/Health/pm-mort/pm-mort.htm
? Draft report: www.ARB.CA.gov/Research/Health/pm-mort/pm-mortdraft.pdf
Several forum members are still wondering whether PM (particulate matter) air pollution is harmful, whether prior studies were peer reviewed, and whether City officials are requiring the Commonwealth to report the I-90 illness and death rates. Here are the answers.
Yes, it?s harmful. ? Estimated death rates from exposure to particulate matter were tripled last week by the California Environmental Protection Agency?s Air Resources Board (CA-EPA-CARB). CARB reviewed twelve of the most recent studies showing that exposure to particulate matter can cause premature death.
Based upon the most recent scientific literature, CARB estimates that in California alone, 14,000 - 24,000 people die prematurely each year from exposure to diesel particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. More research is needed to correlate the number of premature deaths to various particle sizes classified as regular, fine, and ultrafine, but existing studies generally indicate that the smaller the particle size the greater the public health risk. Over 1,000 research studies are now being published each year on this subject.
Yes, there were peer reviews. ? The methodology that CARB staff uses to quantify premature death and other health impacts from PM exposure is based on a peer-reviewed methodology developed in 2004-05 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their risk assessments. After studying eleven of the thousands of research projects on particulate matter, CARB based its approach on a peer-reviewed methodology developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This methodology is regularly updated by CARB staff as new epidemiological and related studies are published.
The methodologies and results were endorsed by CARB?s scientific advisors: Dr. Jonathan Levy (Harvard University), Dr. Bart Ostro (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), and Dr. Arden Pope (Brigham Young University). The research underwent an external peer review by experts selected through a process involving the University of California at Berkeley, Institute of the Environment.
The results of the peer review process are contained in the draft report, ?Methodology for Estimating Premature Deaths Associated with Long-term Exposures to Fine Airborne Particulate Matter in California? (CARB, 22 May 2008). The final report is scheduled for August.
Yes, the City of Boston is requiring the Commonwealth to report illness and death rates. ? The illness and death rates along Boston?s I-90 transportation corridor caused by regular, fine, and ultrafine particle sizes will be part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report now being jointly written by MTA and Meredith Management for their One Kenmore air rights proposal.
CARB Publications
? Press release: www.ARB.CA.gov/NewsRel/nr052208.htm
? Agency plans: www.ARB.CA.gov/Research/Health/pm-mort/pm-mort.htm
? Draft report: www.ARB.CA.gov/Research/Health/pm-mort/pm-mortdraft.pdf
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Hundreds of South Enders and other Bostonians are on record opposing the prior and current proposals. Detailed issues and the identities of each person and organization are shown in the hundreds of opposition testimonials given at public meetings 2001-2003, and the hundreds of letters filed at government agencies 2001-2008.
If you never read those testimonies and letters, reading them now would identify the issues and the people you say you can not find on your own. If you did read them before, but simply forgot, then re-reading them now would refresh your memory.
But please do not say you ?have not encountered? anyone opposing the project, when hundreds of examples have been public record for most of the decade.
Hundreds of South Enders and other Bostonians are on record opposing the prior and current proposals. Detailed issues and the identities of each person and organization are shown in the hundreds of opposition testimonials given at public meetings 2001-2003, and the hundreds of letters filed at government agencies 2001-2008.
If you never read those testimonies and letters, reading them now would identify the issues and the people you say you can not find on your own. If you did read them before, but simply forgot, then re-reading them now would refresh your memory.
But please do not say you ?have not encountered? anyone opposing the project, when hundreds of examples have been public record for most of the decade.
- Status