For once, I think Bob Dunning has it mostly correct when he argues that pollution doesn’t magically end at Olive Drive. The point I have been making for some time is that there isn’t that much functional difference between the area that will be Nishi and the area that is inhabited to the east of Richards Boulevard along Olive Drive.
Mr. Dunning gets cute: “The only thing for certain is that 98.9 percent of Davis voters have never set foot nor eye on the Nishi Project and a majority of citizens don’t know for sure exactly where Nishi is located.”
Actually, I would argue almost every Davis voter has seen Nishi as it drives west on I-80, but probably didn’t realize they were looking at Nishi.
Bob Dunning in his column notes that the “most intriguing and disputed argument against Nishi” claims, “The City’s own Environmental Impact Report showed ‘significant and unavoidable’ detrimental health risks based on preliminary data from a nearby site.”
Even more alarming, “The conditions are even worse because the City’s report did not include the highly toxic ultra-fine metals from brakes and fuel additives and the soot from diesel trains that has 6 times more carcinogens than diesel truck exhaust.”
Worse yet, “Exposures to these airborne particles are associated with dramatic increases in asthma, permanent loss of lung function, cancer, heart disease, and prenatal development problems.”
Bob Dunning responds that “if this is truly all about ultra-fine metals from brakes on trains, why aren’t these same folks sounding the alarm about all the other areas in town that are similarly at risk?
“Take the east side of Olive Drive, for example, where the many people who reside there are locked between the railroad tracks and Interstate 80 in almost the exact same pattern of exposure as Nishi.”
This is a key point I have been making for some time – there is no real functional difference between Nishi and East Olive. People have been living on East Olive for decades – is there evidence of chronic health problems?
The Nishi opponents want more testing, which I continue to see as a delay tactic because testing isn’t going to answer the question posed above – what are the health impacts on East Olive? If you can show that there are some, then I think you have a valid point – if not, then I think this is a red herring.
For his part, Thomas Cahill argues that Nishi is worse than other spots.
I think he’s largely wrong.
In a response, he cites four key factors: traffic volume, freeway configuration, upwind versus downwind, and traffic patterns.
He argues: “The Nishi property exhibits the worst case for all four key factors.”
Like I said, I think this is flat out untrue.
There are many freeways with far higher volumes of traffic and the reality is that the braking issues at Nishi are variable and generally limited to peak hours.
Nevertheless, those two are subjective. There are two that are not subjective.
While Dr. Cahill has argued that the elevated section of the roadway makes Nishi more problematic, Dr. Charles Salocks argues that “the elevated section of roadway will result in greater dispersion of traffic-related contaminants than would occur if the residences were at the same grade as the freeway.”
As we pointed out in March, Dr. Cahill actually omits the key section from the LA Times article: “It’s also preferable to live near a freeway that is elevated above or sits well below your home. That vertical separation can help disperse pollutants. At-grade freeways, where lanes sit at the same level as surrounding buildings, are worse because they put vehicle tailpipes right next to people’s lungs.”
Moreover, Dr. Salocks showed that the 10-year wind direction only pushed pollution directly on Nishi from the SW about 5 percent of the time.
Thomas Cahill argues, “Freeways have limited impacts downwind, and in most cases, freeway influence has dropped to 10% in 500 feet.”
That is perhaps true, but there is something that Dr. Cahill is not saying. The particulate matter here does not sit over the top of Nishi. Instead, it floats much further away from the source and disperses. There is no evidence to support the idea that particulate matter will float over Nishi and stay there. Instead, it becomes dispersed.
Furthermore, an elevated road section actually helps it disperse more.
Rich Rifkin also makes a crucial argument here. He points out in his recent column: “Even if a person lived at that location for 70 years — no one will — and there were no mitigations and auto emission standards had never improved, the added lifetime risk for cancer would at most be 0.0235 percent higher at Nishi than for those living far from a freeway.”
He continues: “[T]he building design includes a high-tech filtration system that eliminates most airborne particles; and the site plan, which provides 16.9 acres of open space, includes a 100-foot-wide continuous urban forest that will reduce particulate concentrations by 79 to 99 percent.
“And third, according to the California Air Resources Board, the cancer risk from exposure to automotive exhaust has declined by 76 percent, making the past puny peril at Nishi essentially now practically zero.”
He argues: “Years ago, the CARB advocated against the construction of infill housing near freeways. But they have since reversed that position. Part of that is the dramatic decline in cancer-causing exhaust in the last 20 years. But the bulk of their position is that infill housing like Nishi reduces regional pollution, reduces commuting and is much better for the environment.”
That is not going to be enough for the hardcore opponents of Nishi – probably nothing will – but it doesn’t need to be.
The bottom line is that people have lived on the east end of Olive Drive for decades. For one, two, or three years of living in Nishi with mitigations in place, most students will be fine. If you have asthma or other health conditions, you may not want to live close to a freeway anyway, but, frankly, my wife has asthma and there are just times of the year when we can’t open our windows because the wind blowing from the north is pushing pollen and dust into our home.
Nishi will probably have better sealing than most homes in Davis and could ironically have better air quality than other locations when all is said and done.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“While Dr. Cahill has argued that the elevated section of the roadway makes Nishi more problematic, Dr. Charles Salocks argues that “the elevated section of roadway will result in greater dispersion of traffic-related contaminants than would occur if the residences were at the same grade as the freeway.””
Dr. Cahill is using deception here. He has continually argued that elevated roadways are more problematic, but the research says the opposite. How do the Cahill worshippers account for this?
> How do the Cahill worshippers account for this?
How dare you question the word of God.
> The bottom line is that people have lived on the east end of Olive Drive for decades.
And some of them have died . . .
Cahill’s done lots and lots of research. Seriously. Salocks is not a specialist in particle emissions, he’s a toxicologist.
Check the other alternative media outlet in Davis, on May 19th, for Cahill’s very tight and logical explanation about why Nishi is different than the other areas.
Dr. Salocks’ expertise is in risk assessment.
The wind data for the site tells us that the risk from the elevated freeway portion that is southwest of the site is overstated. You can look at the wind rose as presented to the Planning Commission in Dr. Salocks testimony. Or you can look at primary data such as the Touchtone weather station managed at the LAWR department on campus north of Nishi.
The wind rose shows that the wind comes from the southwest — the only direction that can carry particles from the elevated freeway over the Nishi site — about 5% of the time.
Counting the days at the LAWR site for wind direction in 2017 shows 19 days when SW was the prevailing wind direction. That is 5.2% of the time.
Removing those days when the wind speed was over 5 mph (higher wind speeds disperse the particles) actually leaves us with only 3.8% of the time that fine particle pollution from the elevated freeway would blow over the Nishi site.
The housing is as far from that part of the freeway as possible. There would be several layers of vegetation planted.
When the wind data is flawed and the vegetative mitigation is not accounted for, it’s hard to accept the conclusions Dr. Cahill draws.
Note also that the prevailing SW wind comes during the summer when many of the Nishi residents are not attending UCD. This lowers the risk exposure and should be accounted for the analysis. Dr. Cahill has provided no evidence that he made this correction.
Todd
My problem is not with Dr. Cahill’s research or expertise. It is with both his, and those who share his concerns failure to acknowledge that there are factors involved in risk assessment other than just particle counts.
So far, by my less than scientific count, they have disregarded information on : toxicology/mitigations ( both plant and structural)/ temporal factors ( likely duration of stay)/physiology/ epidemiology/and risks associated with travel alternatives.
Focusing on only one factor is less than a scientific approach in my opinion.
Several years ago I served on the jury involving the Woodland dentist who was convicted of inappropriately touching his female patients under the guise of relieving the pain associated with TMJ Syndrome. The defense lawyer, in my opinion, weakened his case by trying to argue two opposing ideas. First, he tried to argue that each accuser was crazy and making everything up, then he proceeded to present the benefits of massage for pain relief. His case amounted to claiming all of the women were liars, but just in case they were telling the truth, what the dentist did was perfectly legitimate.
My point here is that as I’ve listened to your argument for the last several months regarding the air quality concerns, I’m getting mixed messages. First, you try to dismiss the concern as the bogus opinion of a rogue scientist. But then I hear you say things like, “well, students won’t live there long anyway,” or, “if you have asthma, you probably don’t want to live next to a freeway.” Statements like this seem to acknowledge that there is a significant risk to the Nishi site.
What I do know is that if you’ve ever stood on the greenbelt near the Nishi site by the freeway during rush hour on a non-windy day, you will know there is a heavy exhaust smell. I don’t need a scientist to tell me that is not healthy for me to breathe.
When I hear conveniently chosen scientific facts like, “the wind only blows north x% of the time” without giving me what % of the time there is little or no wind (a high %, I suspect), I start to question the “science” I am hearing.
The argument that the pollution doesn’t magically end at Nishi is an empty one to me. That’s like saying people already have guns, so we shouldn’t move forward on gun control. Just because houses were built next to a freeway 20 years ago doesn’t mean we should keep doing it. By the way, I am sure there are lots of healthy students living on Olive Drive now, but who’s going to check in with them in 20 – 30 years to see if living so close to the freeway had any adverse effects on their health?
Stop trying to convince me that it is a perfectly healthy place to live. Stop trying to tell me that no one will live there more than a few years. Stop trying to tell me that no future residents will have children. Stop trying to tell me that no one who lives there will ever spend much time outdoors. To me, this comes down to an issue of choice. Just like smoking, if future Nishi residents are told the impartial risk factors of living there, and they still choose to live there, I suppose they should have that choice.
HI Grant,
Though you weren’t necessarily addressing the comments I’ve made on the Vanguard on this topic, I’ll answer the parts of your comments about which I have information or analysis available.
I don’t consider Dr. Cahill a rogue scientist. He has published research which I found very useful, and he has produced analysis and opinions. Those latter kind of merge together at times. I do not agree with the land use conclusions he comes to. I have seen cogent arguments against his risk assessment opinions. I think there are some aspects of his analysis that are causing him to overstate the risk.
That’s certainly arguably true. A big part of the argument against the first version of Nishi was the for-sale housing. Apartments marketed to students are very likely to have much shorter duration residency than rental units marketed to families (such as New Harmony) or s-f housing. Obviously not everyone; we’re discussing overall probabilities. I suppose someone could live at Nishi through an entire bachelor’s, master’s and PhD progression, but given the demographics it just seems unlikely.
There is a risk to living near a freeway or busy roadway. That risk should be mitigated. It is difficult to quantify the risk and it is difficult to quantify the mitigation.
….
In the same time period I presented, there was no wind speed or direction recorded 16% of the time. Vegetative mitigation at ground level is most effective during periods of low wind speed, by means of dense plantings close to the pollution source.
….
The reason I took this project on was to design as much mitigation as absolutely possible for a site that clearly has freeway pollution. All residential development near freeways, in my opinion, merit maximum mitigation. With this project, we have the opportunity to provide that from the start, with a couple of years lead time for the plants to grow before residential occupancy. For other sites, including some along I-80 in Davis, we would have to do remedial mitigation with much less space to work with. It is less healthy to live near a freeway or busy roadway than it is to live in other places. So as we come to understand the actual risks, we need to mitigate them. That should be built into every development project within 1000 feet of a freeway going forward. In my opinion, based on research that I have read: the risk is there, the mitigation is possible.
For the record, I have lived for three decades in a house that is 500 feet from the freeway.
…
The only thing I would add to that is that municipalities that are planning developments near freeways should mandate the maximum mitigation possible.
Thanks for your comment.
Grant
The commentary here has not been to criticize Dr. Cahill as crazy or rogue–he’s well respected in his field–but rather that he has significant shortcomings in this analysis and that he has consistently failed to adequately address those shortcomings. The questions raised are part of the scientific process. There is supposed to be a dialogue to resolve the issues, but the opponents of Nishi have failed to really engage in a dialogue. For them, this should be a one-sided conversation in which all of the rest of us should capitulate to their arguments. They got so fed up with the persistent insistence on dialogue that they picked up their things and set up a competing website. (Unfortunately, this has been a consistent pattern of this cadre of individuals for the two decades that I’ve lived in Davis.) And equally unfortunately, they have managed to confuse you (and probably many others) about the real issues being raised about their alternative analysis. It has worked for them in the past, so until the larger electorate catches on, we will have difficulty accomplishing important policy objectives.