710 Expansion
Introduction
For over forty years the planning of extension of 710 state routes has been in the planning, the main aim was to ease traffic congestion and to facilitate air quality within the metropolitan area of Los Angeles County .The department of transportation in California and metropolitan transportation authority of the county of Los Angeles came up with proposal of a tunnel concept by extending the SR-710.With over 15.2 m in diameter and 17.7 km in length, the tunnel would stand to be among the world’s largest highway tunnels .This project has been challenged by a lot of opposition from communities neighboring it and also geotechnical conditions like unconsolidated alluvium, earthquake faults, many seismic hazards among others. From positive results from geotechnical feasibility, the project is getting into detailed environmental and engineering studies as part of the PAED process. My aim in this paper is to bring out a complete research report on the expansion of the 710 tunnel which will help the communities on making a decision on whether they will oppose or propose the 710 extension project.
The original occupants of South Pasadena were the native Hahamog-na American tribe, a clan of Tongva nation that inhabited the basin of Los Angeles. These communities were hunters and gatherers. South Pasadena became the first suburbs of Los Angeles.
In 1959, California state came up with a plan of free and express ways and extend the 7, the now SR-710 from its original long beach destination to Huntington destination, around 1960,the state notified the cities of Los Angeles, Alhambra and South Pasadena that alternatives of the planned tunnel exact path were been evaluated. In 1964 November, The highway commission of California picked the Meridian route as the freeway route which was later reconsidered. In 1965, the segment of SR-7 freeway from I-10 to Boulevard valley was opened. Since then completion of the segment between Los Angeles and Boulevard has been a subject to court actions, many administrative proceedings and lastly legislative initiatives.
In 1973, after passage of Californian Act of environmental Quality, (CEQA) and the National environmental act of protection (NEPA), the city was granted an injunction to prevent the construction of the freeway until a complete report of environmental impact (EIR) was presented. Between 1973-1992 the Caltrans submitted the report four time, each report been rejected by Federal highway Administration (FWHA).In 1998 the injunction was lifted with the federal Highway Association accepting an alternative EIR and gave a Record of Decision (The consensus that committed the financing of the bigger portion of the project by the federal government).During this time south Panasena filed a petition citing lack of protection of the environment, air and historic properties.
On 1999 July 19th, a preliminary injunction protecting the proceeding of construction of the 710 freeway project by the Caltrans was issued by the district court of the United States. Judge Pregerson rule was based on substantial and numerous violation of the federal law including violation of the Historical preservation Act, Environmental Protection Act and Clean air Act. Since then no attempt has been made by the Caltrans to convince the Judge on his ruling but instead they agreed with the court’s decision.
Controversy.
South Pasadena, in conjunction with broad national coalition, local and state organization opposed the extension of the 710 freeway. The 1960 proposed route would have traversed through the city’s center as well as El sereno and Pasadena neighborhoods thus displacing more than 1000 homes .In 1999, the United States judge Pregerson of the district court issued an injunction inhibiting the construction of the extension. The financial boost for the war against the implementation of the project majorly came from the residents themselves who service legal bills (from their general bills) that come along with the fight against the freeway making it a local election issue. For five times, South Pasadena has been cited by the National Trust for historical Preservation as one of the most endangered areas.
Litigation over extension of the 710 freeway has run for over forty years .The Caltrans proposed an alternative route of boring a tunnel under the city, having initially bought properties in the initially proposed route the Caltrans opted to auction them to partially finance the project. Due to the South Pasadena real estate boom the properties appreciated to over $300 million. However the Pasadena city has filed a lawsuit citing failure to protect clean air, historical properties and environment thus until a final report is released by Catalans this remains a dream.
Recent Epidemiological studies on the project.
Ultra fine particles have been identified as possible causative materials for the observed increase in mobility and mortality due to increment in particulate matter concentration. Zhu et al conducted a study on the distribution and concentration of ultra fine particles in the interstate 710(large area of traffic producing diesel) in 2001 and found to be 6-220nm black carbon and carbon monoxide levels were also determined. It was concluded that the rise in this parameters beyond normal were the reason behind the high mortality rate, and if the project was to be implemented then there would be an increment of deaths due to the above mentioned factors.
Stake Holders
Stake holders in this project include Highway commission of California which drafted the meridian route, the Federal Highway administration which was managing the highways, district court of the US, which gave the injunction ruling. Metropolitan transport authority, local community and the Caltrans also were part of the 710 extension saga.
Current Status
Tunnel Feasibility study: In 2007 March, Caltrans and Metro came up with plan for another more detailed feasibility study which through Congressman Schiff Adam received funding from the federal government. The city council in late 2007 approved a reviewed resolution fixing ‘route neutral’ on the sound reach description that the city would not reject regarding a failed tunnel alternative. A geotechnical feasibility study was started by the Caltrans and Metro with the city taking part by being represented in the technical advisory and Steering committee. In late 2007 SCAG issued a draft excluding the surface 710 route from the plan, but incorporated completion of the tunnel in the part of regional transportation plan unfunded project. The city requested the SCAG to incorporate 710 tunnel in to the strategic project plan since its funding was not available and would not be available any time soon.
In 2008 march 12th, Metro issued a long range transportation draft for the County of Los Angeles. Metro incorporated what they referred to as “710 Gap Closure” project in their plan but as an unfunded potential project. Later there was a delayance of the approval by the metro board to see if the half cent tax bill on LA County sales would be passed and signed to law to enable the funding of the project. Later AB2321 was signed by the governor placing the long range transportation plan on ballot; voters approved it by a very small margin. The city’s California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit is still continuing.
Conclusion.
It is quite evident from the above discussion which is backed up by relevant statistics that the 710 freeway expansion will do more harm to the communities where the freeway passes. This project has faced a lot of rejection including court injunctions indicating how disastrous the project is.
The Expansion of the XL pipeline
Introduction.
XL pipeline is a transportation system used to transport oil, diluted bitumen from Canada to northern US specifically to Texas. Today two phases of this project are in operation as the other one is under construction while the other one is awaiting approval by the US government. When completed the pipeline will be 3462 km plus the controversial 1897 km,it will have a delivery of 590000 barrels a day. Phase one was completed in 2010 phase two in 2011 while the last two phase (comprise of the extension) are facing criticism from US congress members, environmentalists and oil refineries.
Historical Background
The XL extension project was proposed in 2008 by the Canada National Energy board by 2010 march, the board approved the project. On July 2010 Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the environmental impact draft was insufficient saying that the original states department report was shoddy since it dint tackle oil spill response, green house concern and safety issues. In 2011 a report was released indicating that the project would not cost any significant environmental threats but would affect cultural resources. Later Global labor institute presented their report on the employment impact, economy, environment and energy dependence and other areas. In December 2011 a bill was passed by the congress to the Obama administration to make a decision on the XL pipeline within sixty days, but President Obama rejected it citing the decision had prevented full feasibility on the impact of the pipeline.
Controversy.
Environmental issues: Different groups have raised concerns about the environmental impact of the project with the main issues being the oil spilling along the pipeline and also the emission of the green house gases from extraction of oil sands. Also concerns that the pipeline would pollute the air and critical water supplies and harm migratory birds and wildlife were also presented which later led to protests outside the White house In 2011,But still Mr. Russ CEO TransCanada insisted it was the most safest pipeline to be build.
Conflict of Interest: On May 2012, The US selected board (ERM) to write a statement after the environmental protection agency found out earlier versions by contactor Cordno to be inadequate. Later it was revealed by mother Jones magazine that the state had hidden biographies of study’s authors to undisclosed their previous contracts of work with other oil companies due to economic interests
Economic issues: The CEO TransCanada projected 20000 US workers would get jobs, Later President Obama said that the project would only create only 2000 jobs during construction, something that could take a year or two, that estimate came under very heavy attack while the long term jobs weren’t criticized
Epidemiological impact of the project.
The project was coming with serious environmental and health impacts that would affect the human population on the path of the pipe. Oil spills would pollute water supplies like the Ogallala aquifer which feeds two million people and supports twenty billion dollars in agriculture. Polluted water would definitely bring in water borne disease which would have wiped the people. Again some sections of the pipeline would cross an active seismic region, which could trigger earthquakes and thus killing people. Increment of carbon dioxide in the air from the pipeline would cause respiratory disease to the neighboring people thus affecting their health
Stake holders.
Initially the project was developed by two parties, ConocoPhillips and TransCanada. As for now TransCanada is the owner of the pipeline system since it purchased ConocoPhillips share. In case parties wish to make commitments in the ownership of the project they only have 15% combined ownership.
Current Status:
In 2011, Bill McKibben an environmentalist and global warming activist forwarded the question about the pipeline to James Hansen a NASA scientist who said that that was a game over for the world. McKibben and other scientists launched an opposition which coalesced with non violent arrest at the white house but vowed to continue to challenge President Obama decision. Later in 2011 thousands of environmentalists surrounded the white house to convince the president to block that project. In 2012 October activist Daryl, Green and Jill Stein were arrested for criminal trespass in Texas in connection with the pipeline.
Conclusion.
Reference.
B.Badiru, Adedeji. Project Management for the Oil and Gas industry. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2013.
Barbara A. Israel, Eugenia Eng. Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. San Fransisco: John Wiley & sons, 2012.
C.A.Brebbia. Sustainable Development and Planing. Southampton: WIT Press, 2013.
council, National research. Improving Health in The United States. Washington D.C: National Academic Press, 2011.
S.Hamilton, Michael. Energy Policy Analysis. New york: M.E.Sharpe, 2012.
