Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

Q-67. Is UFP air pollution systematically measured?
A-67. No. Government regulation of UFP remains rare, although it is increasing.

Q-68. Can the single Kenmore monitoring station be used to extrapolate regional UFP estimates?
A-68. No. Being one collection point, and being only for the coarse (PM10) and fine (PM2.5) standards, that station?s data can?t be used for regionally extrapolated ultrafine (PM0.1) estimates. Those existing standards don?t address UFPs, and UFP?s public health risks are different. Harvard School of Public Health Associate Professor Dr. Jonathan Levy says, ?The more that we learn, the more it seems that it [ultrafine diesel particulate matter] is contributing to health effects that are different from the other pollutants that we regulate.? (See ?Breathing Dirty Air?, WFXT, 24 April 2008.)

Q-69. Are UFPs more harmful to health than fine and coarse particles?
A-69. Yes. That is the consensus opinion among experts working with particulate matter. There are too many studies to list here, but these two findings are typical.

■ ?. . . Both coarse and fine particles cause harmful health effects, although fine particles (especially the ultrafine ones) tend to be more dangerous.? (?Scientific Facts on Air Pollution \ Particulate Matter \ Conclusions on Particulate Matter (PM)?, 31 August 2005, after peer review by GreenFacts, an independent, non-advocacy, multi-stakeholder non-profit organization dedicated to providing non-specialists with unbiased scientific information on environmental and health topics, and based on quotes from ?Health Aspects of Air Pollution with Particulate Matter?, World Health Organization, 10 April 2003.)

■ ?. . . The size distinction is important as the particle size reflects in part, the penetration potential into the respiratory tract. [Regarding] all particles that can enter the nose and mouth with breathing . . . ultrafine particles are more insidious as they are capable of deep penetration and deposition into the lung cavity (?Ultrafine Particle Deposition in Humans During Rest and Exercise?, Christopher C. Daigle et. al., Inhalation Toxicology, 6 May 2003, pages 539-552. Departments of Medicine and Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA).​

Q-70. Is permeability an absolute characteristic?
A-70. No. A given material can be non-permeable for water, yet permeable for UFPs; so buildings can deflect rainfall, while allowing UFP matter to pass through, even when windows and doors are kept shut.

Q-71. What do public health officials know?
A-71. Public health officials know that UFP risks pose the greatest urban public health problem in the developed world, leading to a wide range of illnesses and premature death, and that UFPs are most dangerous within a few blocks of their sources. Many studies focused on specific illnesses, age groups, weather conditions, traffic patterns, etc., while collectively validating the general risks to public health.

Q-72. Why should this project be held responsible for UFP air pollution?
A-72. For people who work or live at or near I-90 Parcels 16-17-18-19, Columbus Center itself increases UFP exposure by capturing UFP air pollution from the tunnels running 6 blocks east and 6 blocks west, concentrating it, and then exhausting it via Columbus Center?s 5 vents.

Q-73. Can Columbus Center?s UFP air pollution be eliminated by fresh air intake filters?
A-73. No. On a community-wide basis, fresh air intake filters offer only a marginal improvement, because (a) most buildings have no such facility; and (b) even in buildings with fresh air systems, most UFP-laden air enters via other routes.

Q-74. What happens at Causeway Street and Spaulding Hospital?
A-74. People who work and live near I-93, such as on Causeway Street and at Spaulding Hospital, suffer greater exposure than people along I-90, because of higher traffic volumes.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I think we should all live in hermetically sealed bubbles...life would be so much safer. I can't help but imagine that Ned will show up at the next public hearing in a clear plastic globe.
 
Re: Columbus Center

What do these assertions mean about the Big Dig? There you have all the particles from the tunnels collected and distributed in a few places.
 
Re: Columbus Center

And I recall the Sierra Club asking that scrubbers be installed in the Big Dig vents -- something I still think would have been a good idea.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ron Newman said:
And I recall the Sierra Club asking that scrubbers be installed in the Big Dig vents -- something I still think would have been a good idea.
Click to expand...

Ron, the technology for controlling UFPs is to reduce their emission from sources, with most of the focus being on diesel engines. If you can reduce the fine particulates from diesels, you'll get some of the UFPs as well.

Nobody tries to scrub the atmosphere; you'd throw more pollutants into the atmosphere powering the control technology than you would take out through scrubbing. IMO, Ned gets as much UFP exposure from the Mass Pike and the MBTA tracks now as he would after Columbus Center was built.
 
Re: Columbus Center

NED TESTS NEWLY DEVELOPED "COLUMBUS CENTER RESISTANT" APPAREL ON A RECENT TRIP THROUGH THE POLLUTION CLOGGED STREETS OF BOSTON

jakegyllenhaalpatrickcrwj4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

"push for full rehabilitation of the razed construction area."


Can't wait to see how that turns out. NAWWWT!
 
Re: Columbus Center

Having the homeless perform union work brings a new dimension to being scabs.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Indeed ;->!

My guess is that they'd do the job no worse but for a lot less money and more quickly than the unions.
 
Re: Columbus Center

buju b said:
Indeed ;->!

My guess is that they'd do the job no worse but for a lot less money and more quickly than the unions.
Click to expand...

Well, we know Republicans won't do the work, they might break a well manicured nail. Though I'm sure Halliburton will take on the job.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Columbus Center countdown
South End News ● May 29, 2008 ● by Scott Kearnan

ColumbusCenterMay292008.jpg


The Columbus Center construction site, which started work in November 2007, remains largely abandoned. Photo: SEN staff

At a meeting of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association on May 27, Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) executive director Alan LeBovidge told the nearly two dozen residents in attendance that the agency would be in talks with the developers of the Columbus Center for project for just one more month.

LeBovidge said that the MTA, which is currently leasing the land to developers of the luxury condo/retail project, would entertain conversation for one more month to determine whether to grant an 18-month "continuance on any further construction" the developers requested in March. He also said that if the developers, a union between the local Winn Development and partners CalPERS (California Public Employees? Retirement System) and MacFarlane Partners, indicate construction will resume as planned at the end of that continuance, the request will be granted and interim measures will be taken to clean up the messy construction eyesore for local residents.

But if the developer is unable to provide assurance of continued progress, said LeBovidge, the MTA will assume that "this [construction] is not going to happen" and will press for full rehabilitation of the razed construction area.

LeBovidge?s reassurances were met with a mixture of hope and skepticism from the residents in attendance, many of whom live on Cortes Street. That street directly abuts the construction site and residents have been given postponed promises of progress in the past. With construction halted while Columbus Center developers look for new funding, these residents have been vocal about the practical and aesthetic consequences resulting from the long hiatus on work: eliminated parking spots, felled trees, and trash dumping, to name a few.

LeBovidge acknowledged their concerns about the stalled construction, and cut the tension with humor as the meeting commenced in a conference room in the South Cove Plaza apartment building. "I got nervous when I saw this," began LeBovidge, indicating a rectangular, cardboard box sitting on a table. "I thought you might put me inside and saw me in two."

The Columbus Center project has long been beset with problems in its development, most specifically ballooning construction costs - more than a decade a go, developers said the seven-acre project could be built for around $300 million. Now, that?s grown to an estimated $800 million.

Construction, which began in November 2007, came to a total standstill, however, when the developers said they were unable to move forward without anticipated state funding for the project. In March, developers requested the 18-month continuance from the MTA because, they said, around $35 million in state grants and loans they felt essential to the project?s "capital structure" remained in limbo. In early April, two weeks after the moratorium was requested, the Patrick administration denied the project a $10 million MORE grant, in part because the developers had stopped construction. The next day, MassHousing announced that it would no longer be closing on $20.6 million in loans it had previously approved for the project. As of now, the project?s future is uncertain, although the developers did say in late April that they?d continue "minimal work" on the site in order to keep it "in play" ("Columbus Center Still in Limbo," May 1).

The back and forth has frustrated local residents, some of whom support the ultimate goal of the project but who are all left with the ramifications of a seemingly inactive, seven-acre construction zone on their front steps.

Clarendon Street resident and longtime critic of the project Ned Flaherty recently authored a petition to circulate among Bay Village and South End residents, outlining the impact of the Columbus Center construction zone on locals. The petition urges the decision makers to whom it is addressed - including LeBovidge and Mayor Thomas M. Menino, among others - to "ensure that the project owners - not the tollpayers or taxpayers - immediately finish and pay for all work to secure and restore the turnpike, sidewalks, streets and neighborhoods to their pre-construction conditions."

"When the [developers] halted construction in March... [decision-makers] promised they?d secure and restore the seven-acre construction site to the condition it was in summer 2007," said Flaherty via email. "But here it is the start of June 2008, and nothing?s been done."

Something may be done soon - interim clean-up measures are already underway. Jessica Shumaker, spokesperson for the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), confirmed that developers are paying Project Place, a South End nonprofit that provides employment opportunities for city homeless, to conduct cleanup of the sidewalks and construction zone while residents wait on the verdict of the project?s future. She said the Project Place efforts should be helpful in addressing resident concerns while respecting that the project?s future remains uncertain. "We are very concerned that the sidewalks are restored and some of the parking restored," said Shumaker.

Clean up will begin within the week and workers will visit the site three times a week to maintain it, Suzanne Kenney, executive director of Project Place, said.

Despite the frustration, many Cortes Street residents are excited to finally see some movement on the cleanup front. "I have to say, the BRA was really responsive. I?m very happy with it," said Lynn Andrews, a resident who emailed the city department about trash dumping she had observed at the site. Andrews reported, corroborated by several other Cortes Street residents, that a mattress, chair, and old television were among objects she saw disposed on the sidewalk outside the construction zone. While they were quickly removed, she said that she feared the inactive site might be viewed as a free-for-all dumping zone and worried the situation would escalate.

But critics like Flaherty wonder how much cleanup work the Project Place team can reasonably accomplish, and whether it is appropriate for them to be the crew in use. Flaherty noted that the developers, in the initial proposal, had promised that all project labor would be paid at union-scale wages with benefits. "The BRA is responsible for enforcing that union-scale promise for all the project?s workers, including workers from Project Place ... The Mayor?s redevelopment staff should enforce the promises that these developers made to get his approval," Flaherty said in his email.

The individuals working with Project Place do not receive union scale; according to Kenney, they are paid an hourly minimum wage with potential for bonuses and incentives. Alan Eisner, spokesperson for the Columbus Center project, responded to Flaherty?s concern by saying, "Yes, we are using Project Place personnel, and that was part of an agreement that the developers made with the City of Boston during the permitting process. It?s the only non-union activity that?s been contemplated."

Speaking more generally to the point of the Columbus Center?s future, however, Eisner said that there has been "no change" in determining how the project will move forward.
END

"Things are as they were last time," said Eisner, referring to a May 1 meeting with the BRA where the developers did not provide any information regarding newly secured funding.
 
Re: Columbus Center

stellarfun said:
Ron, the technology for controlling UFPs is to reduce their emission from sources . . .
Click to expand...
The technology isn?t limited to only emission reduction. Two approaches exist for remediating UFP air pollution from the I-90 and I-93 transportation corridors: (1) reduce the creation of emissions at their sources (engines in vehicles and trains), and (2) scrub the air as it passes from the tunnels, through the project, into the community.

stellarfun said:
IMO, Ned gets as much UFP exposure from the Mass Pike and the MBTA tracks now as he would after Columbus Center was built.
Click to expand...
You missed my answer #72, posted yesterday, but repeated here for your convenience:

For people who work or live near I-90 Parcels 16-17-18-19, Columbus Center increases UFP exposure by capturing UFP air pollution from the tunnels running 6 blocks east and 6 blocks west (underneath Back Bay, South End, and Chinatown), concentrating it, and then exhausting it via Columbus Center?s 5 vents.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Yesterday?s news is further evidence of the public health risks posed by the 5-vent scheme in California?s Columbus Center.

The Natural Resources Defense Council has sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to protect public health of people working or living near high-traffic roadways such as Boston?s I-90 and I-93.

The suit seeks to force EPA to monitor the locations where people?s health is most damaged by very high concentrations of fresh pollutants. Currently, EPA strongly discourages monitoring such locations, preferring regional averages that mask the ?hot? spots.

Regarding people who work or live near high-traffic roads, EPA spokesman Matt Haber admits, ?We don?t have an answer yet. It?s a huge issue in which science is not as good as it is for the general population.?

See ?Suit targets air quality along freeways; Environmental groups want to force the EPA to do more comprehensive monitoring? (Los Angeles Times, 29 May 2008, www.latimes.com/features/health/la-me-air29-2008may29,0,1365896.story)
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned Flaherty said:
The technology isn?t limited to only emission reduction. Two approaches exist for remediating UFP air pollution from the I-90 and I-93 transportation corridors: (1) reduce the creation of emissions at their sources (engines in vehicles and trains), and (2) scrub the air as it passes from the tunnels, through the project, into the community.


You missed my answer #72, posted yesterday, but repeated here for your convenience:

For people who work or live near I-90 Parcels 16-17-18-19, Columbus Center increases UFP exposure by capturing UFP air pollution from the tunnels running 6 blocks east and 6 blocks west (underneath Back Bay, South End, and Chinatown), concentrating it, and then exhausting it via Columbus Center?s 5 vents.
Click to expand...

There is no practicable technology currently available that can scrub the volume of air that is present in these tunnels. If you know of such, please provide a citation.

To vent a tunnel in the event of a fire, the recommended exhaust capacity is 100 cubic feet per minute per highway lane foot. So assuming a 600 foot long tunnel 90 lane feet wide, that would require a scrubber able to handle 5.4 million cubic feet of air every minute. Do you think such a scrubber might be bigger than Columbus Center? Or maybe tall enough to be the new Tommy Tower?

I didn't miss your answer #72. I stand by my earlier answer.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Dear Ned,

May we please have our thread back?

Calling this "California's" Columbus Center is a disingenuous red herring, and that sort of approach makes you seem like Ann Coulter talking about gay marriage--all frothy and unburdened by reason. While I respect your general point, all this carrying on by you is causing me to associate a good thing (clean air in our cities) with an odd combination of annoyance and apathy.
 
Re: Columbus Center

California's Colmbus Center?

Are you trying to get us going?
 
Re: Columbus Center

I hope the city makes the "developer" plant a high and substantial screen between the Pike and Cortes. I assume (foolishly) that there is a performance bond that covers the remediation and that the surety has been put on notice of a potential default!(?)
 
Re: Columbus Center

Does Ned repeat his comments over and over? Sorry I can't be bothered reading this pointless dribble, I'm just curious what this muppet carries on about.

I second Chumbolly I want the thread back.
 
Re: Columbus Center

stellarfun said:
There is no practicable technology currently available that can scrub the volume of air that is present in these tunnels.
Click to expand...

Such scrubbing systems aren?t pre-built, stored in warehouses, or sitting in the aisles at Home Depot; each has to be custom designed and fabricated for a specific application. Experts who work in this tell me that the technology does exist, and can be adapted to clean the I-90 and I-93 corridors as soon as agreed to by some mix of the owners: State of Massachusetts, Turnpike Authority, City of Boston, California pension plan, etcetera.

But, rather than argue the fine technical points further myself, I will identify and then post here some information, firms, and people, so anyone who cares can study further on their own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top