[
Paywall - Google the title and you should be able to see the entire article if it does not render]
Wall Street Journal Op-Ed: Why It Takes So Long to Build a Bridge in America -
There's plenty of money. The problem is interminable environmental review. (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303789604579195592650374168)
QuotePresident Obama went on the stump this summer to promote his "Fix It First" initiative, calling for public appropriations to shore up America's fraying infrastructure. But funding is not the challenge. The main reason crumbling roads, decrepit bridges, antiquated power lines, leaky water mains and muddy harbors don't get fixed is interminable regulatory review.
QuoteInfrastructure approvals can take upward of a decade or longer, according to the Regional Plan Association. The environmental review statement for dredging the Savannah River took 14 years to complete. Even projects with little or no environmental impact can take years.
QuoteRaising the roadway of the Bayonne Bridge at the mouth of the Port of Newark, for example, requires no new foundations or right of way, and would not require approvals at all except that it spans navigable water. Raising the roadway would allow a new generation of efficient large ships into the port. But the project is now approaching its fifth year of legal process, bogged down in environmental litigation.
QuoteMr. Obama also pitched infrastructure improvements in 2009 while he was promoting his $830 billion stimulus. The bill passed but nothing much happened because, as the administration learned, there is almost no such thing as a "shovel-ready project." So the stimulus money was largely diverted to shoring up state budgets.
Fuck the planet.
The problem is not specifically "interminable envrionmental review" so much as it is more generally "interminable litigation". Environmental issues are just one thing that happens over. You also have issues of human environment, aesthetics, historical preservation, etc.
You have a court case, then an appeal, then another appeal, then another appeal... then a new court case, and a new appeal, etc. Shit takes years because people that want to stop a project (who exist for every project under the sun) are permitted to drag it out. Our legal framework for such things strongly favors people who want to stop them. Things don't happen because NIMBYs always have the upper hand.
We should round up all the Nimbyans and march them to Oklahoma.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 24, 2013, 11:21:37 PM
The problem is not specifically "interminable envrionmental review" so much as it is more generally "interminable litigation". Environmental issues are just one thing that happens over. You also have issues of human environment, aesthetics, historical preservation, etc.
I disagree. The expense and time associated with preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is the bigger issue - and federal agencies can take their time in the review process.
Getting through litigation in the federal courts does take time (especially a long FEIS and Record of Decision), and the Court has to read same, but if the opponents lawsuit is dismissed, then there is usually only one appeal left, to the appropriate federal circuit court of appeals (the Supreme Court seldom is interested in hearing appeals in NEPA highway cases).
Quote from: Duke87 on November 24, 2013, 11:21:37 PM
You have a court case, then an appeal, then another appeal, then another appeal... then a new court case, and a new appeal, etc. Shit takes years because people that want to stop a project (who exist for every project under the sun) are permitted to drag it out. Our legal framework for such things strongly favors people who want to stop them. Things don't happen because NIMBYs always have the upper hand.
Clearly there are people that want to stop projects for reasons of NIMBYism, but in the case of highways, there are plenty of groups that oppose any and all improvements to highways (including, but not limited to widening projects and new highways on brand-new alignments).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2013, 01:38:48 AMClearly there are people that want to stop projects for reasons of NIMBYism, but in the case of highways, there are plenty of groups that oppose any and all improvements to highways (including, but not limited to widening projects and new brand-new highways).
You are talking about those folks who believe that cars are EEEEVVVVVIIIILLLLLL, and manage to divert transportation funds to rail projects that don't go anywhere near where anyone lives, have inconvenient schedules, have less capacity, and cost more. :banghead:
Quote from: Duke87 on November 24, 2013, 11:21:37 PM
The problem is not specifically "interminable envrionmental review" so much as it is more generally "interminable litigation".
But the prospect of litigation means longer and more expensive reviews, to try to head off litigation and (not always successfully) to win if a suit is filed. An agency must balance the delay of a very detailed review, versus the delay of having a more streamlined review rejected then have to be redone.
Sometimes Congress can step in to streamline or waive environmental review requirements for a specific project, such as it did with Interstate H-3 in Hawaii to cut through a mass of legal snarls dragging out the project. But there is reluctance for Congress to do so at all, and even if Congress were more inclined to do so, as a practical matter it can't do so very often, or very well.
QuoteI disagree. The expense and time associated with preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is the bigger issue - and federal agencies can take their time in the review process.
There's some time component, yes, but it can still be done within a 2-3 year period. Also, based on my Minnesota experience, the typical environmental review process plus project development and engineering costs combined total about 20% of the total project cost.
I am not sure the financial component is as unimportant as the article seems to suggest, since one reason many state DOTs allow the environmental process for major projects to drag out is that there is no funding to build a given project within a reasonable amount of time after conclusion of environmental review. Late completion of the process can actually work in the state DOT's favor since it allows the project to go forward on the basis of fresh permits.
A local Interstate bridge was held up after construction started when an old timer pointed out to the contractor the pilings being driven for the abutments were considerably shorter than the depth of the river at that location.
I think it is easier to get caught up in all the distractions of permitting, and regulations, and ancillary issues, and overlook something 'important' like "hmmm, how deep is the river here?".
Does my Connecticut to Long Island bridge idea affect the environment at all?
Quote from: 1 on November 25, 2013, 03:54:49 PM
Does my Connecticut to Long Island bridge idea affect the environment at all?
Not as long as it doesn't get built.
Aargh. Environmental review takes time, but that time is factored into project development and occurs on the sideline as other events in planning and design progress. If all goes well, permits are in place months before the project is bid. (Years before would be bad, because permits expire.) I think the article may be lumping "public involvement" into "environmental review". A lot of public involvement does fall under NEPA or similar, and is very important/valuable in a project, but probably the single most time-consuming component of planning. Individual examples of environmental processes taking a decade or longer don't prove anything, any more than your pet dog dying at age 30 proving that dogs live longer than cats.
Quote from: Steve on November 25, 2013, 06:45:21 PM
Aargh. Environmental review takes time, but that time is factored into project development and occurs on the sideline as other events in planning and design progress. If all goes well, permits are in place months before the project is bid. (Years before would be bad, because permits expire.) I think the article may be lumping "public involvement" into "environmental review". A lot of public involvement does fall under NEPA or similar, and is very important/valuable in a project, but probably the single most time-consuming component of planning. Individual examples of environmental processes taking a decade or longer don't prove anything, any more than your pet dog dying at age 30 proving that dogs live longer than cats.
It took Md., Va. and D.C. about 8 or 9 years (1991 or 1992 to 1999) to get a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) done for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. There were two Maryland governors, three Virginia governors and three District of Columbia mayors in office while the EIS process was going on.
That to me highlights that something is wrong with the
process, especially when there was substantial agreement among most that the old bridge was structurally deficient and functionally obsolete (but opponents of the project repeatedly and cravenly claimed to the news media that there was nothing wrong with old bridge - I don't think there was a civil engineer among them).
There was
a lot of public involvement (the three jurisdictions and the U.S. Department of Transportation had public outreach storefronts open during the planning process and into the construction phase).
The design of the new bridge was intended to be visually attractive (a deliberate resemblance to the Arlington Memorial Bridge upstream), though the deck was doubled in height to reduce the number of draw span openings.
The Sierra Club and friends
still sued (the City of Alexandria, Va. was also a party to the suit, but dropped out before the litigation was done). The suit came down to air quality impacts of building a 12 lane crossing instead of a 10 lane span. At trial before a federal judge in Washington, D.C., Sierra won a remand of the FEIS, but the victory was short-lived, as the federal appeals court in D.C. reversed the lower court. The lawsuit was (IMO)
not about air quality, but about
delaying or
cancelling the start of construction.
Was this an extreme case? Perhaps. It involved two states, the federal District of Columbia, the Federal Highway Administration and U.S. DOT (which directly owned the old and decrepit structure), one county and one municipality on the Maryland side, one county and one municipality on the Virginia side, the National Park Service and an assortment of other federal and state agencies. It also involved the total reconstruction of the Capital Beltway for several miles on either side of the bridge to an (
almost) NJTP-style "dual-dual" configuration.
Now the two main agencies (Maryland SHA and VDOT) did do a lot of preliminary engineering during the planning process, which was good, and did speed things up (somewhat) when the litigation was finally over. Still, it was not until 2012 that the project was complete (and that cannot be blamed on NEPA, but on inadequate highway funding, especially in Virginia).
I do agree that lawsuits are a significant impediment - and are usually based on environmental concerns - and there's really no way to avoid them on major projects.
Quote from: Steve on November 25, 2013, 11:27:20 PM
I do agree that lawsuits are a significant impediment - and are usually based on environmental concerns - and there's really no way to avoid them on major projects.
Something is wrong when the people managing planning for a new highway project know,
before the Purpose and Need part of the EIS is written, that they are going to get sued in federal court, no matter how much time and money they pour in to the entire process.
QuoteWas this an extreme case?
Considering it's a major interstate crossing on a mile-long bridge through a dense metropolitan area, do the math. Oh, and with Section 104/106 impacts too...
Your typical project is a good bit less in scope/size/complexity.
Meanwhile, elsewhere, another lengthy Interstate bridge project (I-90 over the Mississippi) went from initial study to the beginning of construction over 7 years. This would have been probably about 5 years longer had the 2008 Minnesota Legislature not passed a transportation funding package to replace/repair fracture-critical bridges (in wake of the 2007 I-35W bridge collapse).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2013, 07:14:42 PM
It took Md., Va. and D.C. about 8 or 9 years (1991 or 1992 to 1999) to get a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) done for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. There were two Maryland governors, three Virginia governors and three District of Columbia mayors in office while the EIS process was going on.
And this precisely is the problem. The planning process for what's ultimately just a fairly ordinary bridge should not take nearly a decade. We planned an entire space program and put a man on the moon in less time than that. The public comment/environemtnal review process as it exists is ridiculously clunky and cumbersome. Too much talking, not enough doing.
Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2013, 02:50:02 PM
QuoteWas this an extreme case?
Considering it's a major interstate crossing on a mile-long bridge through a dense metropolitan area, do the math. Oh, and with Section 104/106 impacts too...
I still think that is too long.
Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2013, 02:50:02 PM
Your typical project is a good bit less in scope/size/complexity.
But even a much simpler project downstream, the Gov. Harry Nice Memorial Bridge replacement, is taking a
very long time, even though it is in every way a simpler project (and is effectively unopposed by the elected officials on both sides of the Potomac River). See: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8293.msg261236#msg261236
Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2013, 02:50:02 PM
Meanwhile, elsewhere, another lengthy Interstate bridge project (I-90 over the Mississippi) went from initial study to the beginning of construction over 7 years. This would have been probably about 5 years longer had the 2008 Minnesota Legislature not passed a transportation funding package to replace/repair fracture-critical bridges (in wake of the 2007 I-35W bridge collapse).
Certainly transportation funding limitations cause projects to be "stretched-out." That was obviously the case with the Wilson Bridge, on the Virginia side, where the reconstruction of the Beltway at the Va. 241 (Telegraph Road) interchange was just getting started as most of the rest of the project was nearly complete.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 26, 2013, 09:46:54 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2013, 07:14:42 PM
It took Md., Va. and D.C. about 8 or 9 years (1991 or 1992 to 1999) to get a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) done for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. There were two Maryland governors, three Virginia governors and three District of Columbia mayors in office while the EIS process was going on.
And this precisely is the problem. The planning process for what's ultimately just a fairly ordinary bridge should not take nearly a decade. We planned an entire space program and put a man on the moon in less time than that. The public comment/environemtnal review process as it exists is ridiculously clunky and cumbersome. Too much talking, not enough doing.
Agreed on all counts. Part of the problem is the potential for delay in every part of the environmental review process. And parties opposed to the project can make wild environmental claims that cause the process to take longer and cost more. Case in point: Md. 200. One of the hard-core opponents claimed that there were bog turtles in the master-planned alignment, and the state had to spend a huge amount of money looking for those turtles (no bog turtles were ever found, though plenty of box turtles were, and were relocated out of harms way).
Perhaps a "the person who sues pays all costs of carrying out anything if they are found to be in error" system would mitigate that. The first plaintiff who's on the hook for millions/billions spent on a wild goose chase would serve as an example not to sue unless there's a real issue. I've always been a proponent of having the loser in court pay all related litigation costs as a means of attaching a penalty to frivolous lawsuits, so this really isn't that different.
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2013, 09:00:28 AMPerhaps a "the person who sues pays all costs of carrying out anything if they are found to be in error" system would mitigate that. The first plaintiff who's on the hook for millions/billions spent on a wild goose chase would serve as an example not to sue unless there's a real issue. I've always been a proponent of having the loser in court pay all related litigation costs as a means of attaching a penalty to frivolous lawsuits, so this really isn't that different.
It is already a rule (in the federal courts, at least) that the prevailing party is reimbursed costs. This includes attorneys' fees, and I believe it also includes costs necessarily incurred as part of the process of developing exhibits and testimony for trial, but I don't believe it includes escalation in overall project cost as a result of delay. (The latter would be difficult to calculate since delay can result from factors completely independent of the issues at trial, including activity programming decisions which lie at the entire discretion of the state DOT.)
I don't think the loser-pays principle would prevent lawsuits against road projects on environmental grounds. And, as a general rule, I don't think such lawsuits meet the criteria required for peremptory dismissal as frivolous actions. I think the only remedy that would yield what various commenters on this thread want--an end to delays related to litigation--is straight-up forum denial, and that is a risky strategy, especially for high-profile projects which have strong environmental opposition. It is foolish, for example, to try to save the 15% or so in added cost you might have to pay as a result of environmental litigation you are virtually assured to win, if that means you have to lock the environmentalists out of court and then pay an additional 20% of the project cost in site security, policing, cleanup of sabotage, etc.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 27, 2013, 09:24:06 AM
It is already a rule (in the federal courts, at least) that the prevailing party is reimbursed costs. This includes attorneys' fees, and I believe it also includes costs necessarily incurred as part of the process of developing exhibits and testimony for trial, but I don't believe it includes escalation in overall project cost as a result of delay.
The "costs" that can be reimbursed in most Federal cases are pretty small, and usually do
not include attorney's fees. That's the so-called "American Rule", which in the U.S. is the default rule for both Federal and state court cases. Some Federal and other statutes expressly provide for an award of attorney's fees to prevailing parties, or at least prevailing plaintiffs. AFAIK, in Federal environmental cases attorney's fees usually are eligible for reimbursement, but it's much easier for prevailing plaintiffs to get them than prevailing defendants.
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2013, 09:00:28 AM
Perhaps a "the person who sues pays all costs of carrying out anything if they are found to be in error" system would mitigate that. The first plaintiff who's on the hook for millions/billions spent on a wild goose chase would serve as an example not to sue unless there's a real issue. I've always been a proponent of having the loser in court pay all related litigation costs as a means of attaching a penalty to frivolous lawsuits, so this really isn't that different.
Give that young lady a (virtual) cigar.
You just hit the nail on the head.
Never understood why the U.S. does not make it a lot easier for a winning litigant to recover costs from losing plaintiffs, especially when the suits not about the merits of a project, but merely to delay or stop something.
Quote from: oscar on November 27, 2013, 09:55:31 AM
The "costs" that can be reimbursed in most Federal cases are pretty small, and usually do not include attorney's fees. That's the so-called "American Rule", which in the U.S. is the default rule for both Federal and state court cases. Some Federal and other statutes expressly provide for an award of attorney's fees to prevailing parties, or at least prevailing plaintiffs. AFAIK, in Federal environmental cases attorney's fees usually are eligible for reimbursement, but it's much easier for prevailing plaintiffs to get them than prevailing defendants.
Wonder how much the Sierra Club would have had to pay out for filing lawsuits that were ultimately dismissed in bids to stop the ICC and and to stop the Wilson Bridge reconstruction?
I would advocate a streamlined enviromental review process for road projects whee a certain fatality threshold has been met. We ahould not be waiting for all kinds of lawsuits to be heard for roads where 10,15, 20 people are dying every year.
I am thinking of CA 67 in NE San Diego, Lakeside to Ramona. Mutple entities have already stated their intent to sue as soon as anything is approved, especially a local group SOFAR that claims, that as soon at the road is widened, there will be massive growth between Ramona and Julian, the fact that there is not enough water out there and the 10+ number of annual fatalities is irrelevant to their worldview. For all you in the now, this is a 2 lane road with a 39000 ADT. Caltrans told us in 2000 it should be a 6 lane freeway. There are plans to make it a 4 lane expressway sometime in the next 20 years.
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2013, 09:00:28 AM
Perhaps a "the person who sues pays all costs of carrying out anything if they are found to be in error" system would mitigate that. The first plaintiff who's on the hook for millions/billions spent on a wild goose chase would serve as an example not to sue unless there's a real issue. I've always been a proponent of having the loser in court pay all related litigation costs as a means of attaching a penalty to frivolous lawsuits, so this really isn't that different.
The problem with this sort of setup is that it prevents parties who have a legitimate gripe from filing suits if they cannot afford to pay their opponent's costs should they lose. It may sound nice to say the Sierra Club should be on the hook for the price of their blatantly obstructionist tactics, but fair application of such a policy also means that a class action suit by a bunch of working class individuals who were hurt by a company selling them an unsafe product or polluting their property from a nearby factory or what have you would likely not move forward even though it should, simply because the plantiff cannot afford the price of losing and they are not guaranteed to win (big companies can hire some pretty good lawyers).
In terms of reforming the legal system surrounding project review, what I would say instead is that we need to apply the same policy that is applied in other types of lawsuits in the US: namely, that you cannot file suit if you are not an injured party. Current environmental review laws permit anyone and everyone to file a suit against a project if they do so on environmental grounds - even if the people filing the suit live nowhere near the project and are not in any way personally impacted by it.
So, basically... no suing the state about a project unless you live near it or can otherwise claim it harms you personally.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on November 27, 2013, 01:25:59 PM
I would advocate a streamlined enviromental review process for road projects whee a certain fatality threshold has been met. We ahould not be waiting for all kinds of lawsuits to be heard for roads where 10,15, 20 people are dying every year.
During the George W. Bush Administration, then-Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) asked for (and got) streamlined environmental review from the federal government for Md. 200 (the InterCounty Connector) (it may have been the only "big" project to receive same). It meant that an FEIS was done in less than four years (the previous DEIS in the 1990's took between 5 and 6 years).
Since Bush left office, I have heard no more about streamlined environmental review for any project.
Getting to your point, parallel roads in the ICC corridor had plenty of fatal and multi-fatal wrecks during the time that the study was under way, and as far as I know, there has not been one on the new road so far.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 27, 2013, 06:22:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2013, 09:00:28 AM
Perhaps a "the person who sues pays all costs of carrying out anything if they are found to be in error" system would mitigate that. The first plaintiff who's on the hook for millions/billions spent on a wild goose chase would serve as an example not to sue unless there's a real issue. I've always been a proponent of having the loser in court pay all related litigation costs as a means of attaching a penalty to frivolous lawsuits, so this really isn't that different.
The problem with this sort of setup is that it prevents parties who have a legitimate gripe from filing suits if they cannot afford to pay their opponent's costs should they lose. It may sound nice to say the Sierra Club should be on the hook for the price of their blatantly obstructionist tactics, but fair application of such a policy also means that a class action suit by a bunch of working class individuals who were hurt by a company selling them an unsafe product or polluting their property from a nearby factory or what have you would likely not move forward even though it should, simply because the plantiff cannot afford the price of losing and they are not guaranteed to win (big companies can hire some pretty good lawyers).
Perhaps there should be a distinction between projects that are essentially public works (regardless of who proposes to build them). Examples public works obviously include highways (traditionally public, but could be private-sector), transit lines (ditto), railroads (usually private in the U.S.), high-voltage electric transmission lines (could be public or private), and pipelines of various kinds [water, natural gas, petroleum] (usually private, though some water pipelines are public).
You are correct about the lawyers - opponents of highways in the Md./Va./D.C./W.Va. area are often looking for
pro-bono legal representation.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 27, 2013, 06:22:58 PM
In terms of reforming the legal system surrounding project review, what I would say instead is that we need to apply the same policy that is applied in other types of lawsuits in the US: namely, that you cannot file suit if you are not an injured party. Current environmental review laws permit anyone and everyone to file a suit against a project if they do so on environmental grounds - even if the people filing the suit live nowhere near the project and are not in any way personally impacted by it.
So, basically... no suing the state about a project unless you live near it or can otherwise claim it harms you personally.
The plaintiffs in anti-highway lawsuits have been highly creative about coming up with injured parties. In the case of the Wilson Bridge, they cited the possible impact on
dead people (the appeals court that threw out their suit was apparently not impressed (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C8D20D3B4745700985256F15006C78FB/$file/99-5220a.txt)):
QuoteAmicus Sierra Club rather inventively argues that the Administration failed to treat as a section 106/4(f) property the Hunting Terrace apartment complex in Alexandria, but it is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and therefore is not a protected property under either section 106 or section 4(f). See 23 C.F.R. s 771.135(e); 36 C.F.R. s 800.2(e).
Showing similar ingenuity, appellees argue that the Administration violated sections 106 and 4(f) because "the boundaries of Freedman's Cemetery ... have still not yet been determined." They apparently believe that since the site's precise location is unknown (and, it seems, unknowable), it is by definition impossible to know for certain the "effect" that the construction will have on the site, thus placing the Administration in violation of sections 106 and 4(f).
Quote from: Duke87 on November 27, 2013, 06:22:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2013, 09:00:28 AM
Perhaps a "the person who sues pays all costs of carrying out anything if they are found to be in error" system would mitigate that. The first plaintiff who's on the hook for millions/billions spent on a wild goose chase would serve as an example not to sue unless there's a real issue. I've always been a proponent of having the loser in court pay all related litigation costs as a means of attaching a penalty to frivolous lawsuits, so this really isn't that different.
The problem with this sort of setup is that it prevents parties who have a legitimate gripe from filing suits if they cannot afford to pay their opponent's costs should they lose. It may sound nice to say the Sierra Club should be on the hook for the price of their blatantly obstructionist tactics, but fair application of such a policy also means that a class action suit by a bunch of working class individuals who were hurt by a company selling them an unsafe product or polluting their property from a nearby factory or what have you would likely not move forward even though it should, simply because the plantiff cannot afford the price of losing and they are not guaranteed to win (big companies can hire some pretty good lawyers).
I assumed that, in such a system, the plaintiff would hire an army of lawyers to counter that effect.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2013, 07:49:33 PM
The plaintiffs in anti-highway lawsuits have been highly creative about coming up with injured parties. In the case of the Wilson Bridge, they cited the possible impact on dead people (the appeals court that threw out their suit was apparently not impressed (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C8D20D3B4745700985256F15006C78FB/$file/99-5220a.txt)):
QuoteShowing similar ingenuity, appellees argue that the Administration violated sections 106 and 4(f) because "the boundaries of Freedman's Cemetery ... have still not yet been determined." They apparently believe that since the site's precise location is unknown (and, it seems, unknowable), it is by definition impossible to know for certain the "effect" that the construction will have on the site, thus placing the Administration in violation of sections 106 and 4(f).
Unknown burial sites have been a serious headache for some Hawaii road projects, with strong protections for burial sites under state law in addition to whatever Federal law might require. For one project that is finally heading to completion (extension of Ali'i Drive south of Kailua-Kona), part of the solution was a really wide ROW, so that if construction crews encounter a previously undiscovered burial site, there's room to realign the highway around it.
If the location of Freedman's Cemetery had been known, I suspect the Wilson Bridge project would've had to work around it.
Quote from: oscar on November 27, 2013, 10:49:48 PM
Unknown burial sites have been a serious headache for some Hawaii road projects, with strong protections for burial sites under state law in addition to whatever Federal law might require. For one project that is finally heading to completion (extension of Ali'i Drive south of Kailua-Kona), part of the solution was a really wide ROW, so that if construction crews encounter a previously undiscovered burial site, there's room to realign the highway around it.
I recall this being a big problem with the proposed light rail line on Oahu.
Quote from: oscar on November 27, 2013, 10:49:48 PM
If the location of Freedman's Cemetery had been known, I suspect the Wilson Bridge project would've had to work around it.
They
did find some graves in the path of the widened Beltway (on the Virginia side, obviously), and those graves were carefully exhumed and the remains moved to a new cemetery located on the southwest corner of South Washington Street (Va. 400) and Church Street.
There was once a Mobil station on that parcel of land.
People have way too ridiculous a hangup over graves and cemeteries. I wouldn't care if my dead body were just chucked in the river.
Neither would I. But, unlike most people here, I also don't care if I have to slow down for the occasional small town or god forbid take a bus.
PS: the original reason for burying dead was to keep away carnivores who would eat the living.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 28, 2013, 01:34:17 AM
People have way too ridiculous a hangup over graves and cemeteries. I wouldn't care if my dead body were just chucked in the river.
and then fished out and eaten by the Aghoris ???
(new episode with Andrew Zimern!!)
:-D
N.Y. Times: High Above the Water, but Awash in Red Tape -
Long Review of Bayonne Bridge Project Is Assailed (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/nyregion/long-review-of-bayonne-bridge-project-is-assailed.html)
QuoteIt seemed ingenious at the time: Elevate the deck of the existing Bayonne Bridge to accommodate the giant cargo ships that will begin passing through the Panama Canal in 2015 after the project to widen and deepen it is scheduled to be finished. Building a new bridge or tunneling under Kill Van Kull would have been much more expensive and would have required years of regulatory reviews.
QuoteThat was back in 2009. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey first spent more than six months importuning various federal offices to serve as the lead agency for an environmental review. The law is vague about which agency is responsible. The Coast Guard finally agreed.
QuoteSince then, the Port Authority's "fast-track" approach to a project that will not alter the bridge's footprint has generated more than 5,000 pages of federally mandated archaeological, traffic, fish habitat, soil, pollution and economic reports that have cost over $2 million. A historical survey of every building within two miles of each end of the bridge alone cost $600,000 – even though none would be affected by the project.
QuoteAfter four years of work, the environmental assessment was issued in May and took into consideration comments from 307 organizations or individuals. The report invoked 207 acronyms, including M.B.T.A. (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and N.L.R. (No Longer Regulated). Fifty-five federal, state and local agencies were consulted and 47 permits were required from 19 of them. Fifty Indian tribes from as far away as Oklahoma were invited to weigh in on whether the project impinged on native ground that touches the steel-arch bridge's foundation.