Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

sponsored by
News


ROAD WARRIOR: That odor is highway construction






Not long ago, the widening of U.S. Highway 95 was stalled in the northwestern Las Vegas Valley as a legal fight swirled around one central question: How safe will the widened road be for people's lungs?

Not very safe, contended the Sierra Club, which filed a lawsuit to stop the work. It claimed health risks to people living near U.S. 95 were not adequately considered before the plan was green-lighted.


Most Popular Stories
  • Traffic accident claims life of longtime, successful lawyer
  • TRAFFIC STOP: Shooting accounts conflict
  • One motorcyclist killed, another critically injured in accident
  • THE FACES OF JOBLESSNESS: Family had to get help for first time
  • NORM: Buchanan called 'larger than life'
  • NORM: Marie Osmond, manager battling
  • Nurseries fence out day laborers
  • Second person dies after being restrained by police
  • NORM: Agassi reveals bad vibes with Shields
  • REFUSING THEIR OWN MEDICINE: Vaccination policy spurs legal action




  • Nonsense, said local, state and federal officials backing the road plan. Everything that could have been done had been done, taking into consideration the science available at that time.

    "We do not think people are at risk today," Mary Peters, then the head of the Federal Highway Administration, said two years ago.

    "What we do think is we don't have the information to make a determination on this issue," she said.

    That was then. Now, with the lawsuit settled out of court and the widened freeway set to open new lanes before year's end, the science may have finally caught up to the question.

    And the latest news may make you want to hold your breath if you're within shouting distance of U.S. 95.

    A recent study, by the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine, found that kids living within one-third of a mile of a freeway since the age of 10 had "substantial deficits" in lung function by the age of 18, when compared to kids living at least one mile from an expressway.

    The New York Times termed it a "landmark" study and the largest examination of air pollution health effects ever undertaken.

    It was not just the sick that suffered lung deterioration, according to the study.

    "Otherwise-healthy children who were nonasthmatic and nonsmokers also experienced a significant decrease in lung function from traffic pollution," W. James Gauderman, the study's lead author and an associate professor at USC's Keck School, said in a prepared statement. "This suggests that all children, not just susceptible subgroups, are potentially affected by traffic exposure."

    The study was completed earlier this year and also funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board and other health groups.

    The study drew its findings from data collected from nearly 4,000 children living in Los Angeles-area communities like Anaheim, San Bernardino and Riverside, places not too different in topography and environment from the Las Vegas Valley.

    "This study shows there are health effects from childhood exposure to traffic exhaust that can last a lifetime," David A. Schwartz, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences -- which also partially funded the study -- said in a prepared statement.

    Gauderman hopes that the research will influence community planners and developers to be careful when picking where to put new homes, schools and highways.

    "The study provides further proof that regional air quality regulations may need to be adjusted based on local factors, including traffic volume," Gauderman said.

    "This is important because in areas where the population continues to grow, more and more children are living or attending school near busy roadways. This may be harmful in the long run."

    Especially in the case of U.S. 95, where three schools -- Western High School and Fyfe and Adcock elementary schools -- are well within a mile of new lanes.

    Still, officials at the Nevada Department of Transportation, which is widening U.S. 95, say the study wouldn't have altered their approach to fattening the freeway.

    Highway planners say jammed, idling traffic on the overburdened freeway is more of a pollution-generator than free-flowing cars and trucks.

    "We're reducing the amount of congestion. When you have congestion, you have more idling," said Scott Magruder, a Transportation Department spokesman. "The idling adds more pollution.

    "We feel strongly it (the widening) lessens the amount of pollution. If you're in the car for 15 minutes instead of 30 minutes, you're putting less pollution in the air."

    To see if that is so, the Transportation Department, as part of its 2005 settlement with the Sierra Club, has set up air monitoring stations along U.S. 95 to see what sort of impact the new lanes will have on air quality.

    Also included in the settlement were the installation of air filtration and monitoring equipment at the three nearby schools; relocation of a playground and three mobile classrooms away from the freeway; and the tweaking of a rebuilt Western to minimize pollution impact on students.

    Will the study change how the Transportation Department lays out roads in the future? Authorities aren't sure.

    "What's the solution? Do you just put in a buffer zone between homes and highways?" Magruder asked. "That would be something that would be discussed. The downside of that is it would be very costly" to buy excess land for such a zone.

    So what will it be, Silver Staters? Your kid's lungs or your car's lanes?

    If you have a question, tip or tirade, call the City Desk at 383-0264, or send an e-mail to roadwarrior@reviewjournal.com. Please include your phone number.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 4 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    George wrote on September 09, 2007 09:59 PM: A recent study, by the University of Quote: "Southern California's Keck School of Medicine, found that kids living within one-third of a mile of a freeway since the age of 10 had "substantial deficits" in lung function by the age of 18, when compared to kids living at least one mile from an expressway." Environmental concerns are important but the above quote doesn't define or indicate the extent of the health problems living near a freeway. News reports should be more specific than the above if proper decisions are to be made. Could the reporter provide more detail?


    Report abuse

    PT wrote on September 09, 2007 07:45 PM: Regarding the practice of the LVMPD shutting down all lanes of traffic while dealing with an accident: Yes, the PD's practice smacks of incompetence as well as incomprehension at the impacts to the city. This practice should be ended immediately. It seems that the PD officers have not been sufficiently trained to implement re-routing of traffic on a freeway in the event of an accident.


    Report abuse

    tabitha wrote on September 09, 2007 09:02 AM: If only it was just a matter of widening the freeway and keeping it moving. I have never lived somewhere, where every time there is an accident, the whole freeway or street gets shut down. Even with a fatality. The streets and freeways here are constantly getting shut down because of accidents. How hard is it to move things aside, and keep things flowing. How can it possibly take 7 hours to clean it up?


    Report abuse

    Sid wrote on September 09, 2007 04:57 AM: That is correct, if traffic keeps moving less polutant's are put in the air. Stop and Go traffic will pollute more. Widen the roadway and keep traffic moving.