Officials unveil plan to fix dangerous issue with bridge at US-Mexico border: 'You just can't stand it'
After a years-long effort, a major port of entry between Mexico and the United States may indeed see a redesign that could significantly improve air quality and public health for nearby communities.
According to local outlet KTSM, the U.S. government is set to modernize the Bridge of the Americas — or BOTA — located in El Paso, Texas. Originally constructed in 1967, the current infrastructure requires an upgrade. As a part of the upgrade proposal and review process, it has been determined that commercial trucks will no longer be able to use the bridge once the project is complete.
Funded through the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the effort recently overcame a delay to conclude the required environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. El Paso Matters reported in March that the delay occurred to ensure compliance with new presidential executive orders. The "record of decision" obtained in recent weeks now concludes the NEPA process, another step in the project moving forward.
U.S. Representative Veronica Escobar of Texas, a champion of the redesign, said, "We are one step closer to delivering a transformational investment to our border region, which will lead to cleaner air and a healthier community for generations to come."
The decision to eliminate commercial trucks from the port comes in part as a result of the environmental review under NEPA as well as concerns from surrounding communities, which say they have long endured substantial air pollution from idling trucks. San Xavier resident Ricardo Leon, for example, told The Guardian in 2024 that he had developed a cough from the pollution.
"On a hot day, it's very, very irritating, annoying. You just can't stand it. Your eyes start burning, you feel it in your throat, you can taste it," he said.
Particulate matter pollution from vehicle emissions has been linked to a range of health issues, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, including cardiac conditions, asthma, and premature death in those with heart or lung disease. Commercial vehicles can cause more air pollution than passenger vehicles, and marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted by poor air quality.
El Paso-based organization Familias Unidas del Chamizal, which describes itself as "working to organize families in the Barrio Chamizal to develop a community that can defend itself," said in a statement, per KTSM, "Removing the commercial vehicles is a major benefit to the public health of the residents of the Chamizal and communities that neighbor the BOTA who will no longer be subject to the diesel contamination."
Eliminating a route for commercial trucks could cause concern about hampering trade, but the nearby Tornillo, Santa Teresa, and Zaragoza land ports of entry will still be open for this purpose. Assessments of the communities around each of these ports were included in the environmental review, or Environmental Impact Statement.
According to Land Line Media, which covers the trucking industry, construction for the upgrade "is anticipated to begin in spring 2027, with 'substantial completion' of the project expected in summer 2030."
Do you worry about air pollution in and around your home?
Yes — always
Yes — often
Yes — sometimes
No — never
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
While reducing gas-powered traffic near densely populated communities is a great way to lessen the effects of air pollution on human health, using public transportation, riding a bike, and walking are other methods of cutting back on the heat-trapping pollution driving global temperature rise and extreme weather events. Mass conversion to electric vehicles among commuters as well as commercial transport could also make a big difference going forward.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
4 days ago
- New York Post
Brain dead, pregnant Atlanta nurse kept on life support to grow fetus gives birth to 1lb 13oz preemie named Chance: ‘He's just fighting'
A pregnant woman who has been brain dead since February — and kept alive via life support in order to comply with Georgia's abortion law — gave birth prematurely to a baby boy, ending the months-long medical and ethical ordeal at an Atlanta hospital. Atlanta nurse Adriana Smith, 31, gave birth on June 13, three months premature via C-section, to a baby who weighs 1 pound 13 ounces and is currently in the neonatal intensive care unit at Emory University Hospital Midtown, according to local reports. Smith's family members named the baby Chance and hope he'll get a fighting one himself. Advertisement 5 Adriana Smith gave birth prematurely to a baby boy while brain-dead. GoFundMe 'He's expected to be OK,' Smith's mother April Newkirk told local outlet 11 Alive. 'He's just fighting. We just want prayers for him. Just keep praying for him. He's here now.' Advertisement Newkirk previously told the press that the boy could be born with a variety of health problems and that the family is hoping his name brings him good fortune, according to reports. As the grandmother prays for her grandbaby's tenuous health, Newkirk's daughter Adriana Smith, who turned 31 over the weekend, will finally be taken off of life support, the outlet reported. 'It's kind of hard, you know. It's hard to process,' she said tearfully. 5 Smith gave birth on June 13, three months premature via C-section, to a baby who weighs 1 pound 13 ounces and is currently in the neonatal intensive care unit at Emory University Hospital Midtown. GoFundMe Advertisement Smith entered herself into Emory University Hospital, where she worked as a nurse, in February, with severe headaches. At the time, she was nine weeks pregnant. She was discharged from the hospital with medication, but soon returned due to the intensity of the headaches. A CT scan revealed multiple blood clots in her brain. Her health deteriorated while at the hospital, where, within hours, she was declared brain dead. Smith was then moved to Emory Midtown, where doctors have utilized life-supporting technologies to keep her alive to be in compliance with the state of Georgia's LIFE Act, commonly referred to as the 'heartbeat bill.' Advertisement 5 Smith entered herself into Emory University Hospital, where she worked as a nurse, in February, with severe headaches. At the time, she was nine weeks pregnant. GoFundMe That law bans any abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and provides fetuses with full legal rights and protections. Newkirk said that doctors had told the family that Smith was being kept alive to maintain compliance with the law, according to The Guardian. 'We didn't have a choice or a say about it,' she said before Chance's birth. 'We want the baby. That's a part of my daughter. But the decision should have been left to us – not the state.' Many believed that Chance would not survive due to the circumstances of his gestation, which further impelled critics of the pro-life policy. 5 Smith was then moved to Emory Midtown, where doctors have utilized life-supporting technologies to keep her alive to be in compliance with the state of Georgia's LIFE Act, commonly referred to as the 'heartbeat bill.' GoFundMe 'The chances of there being a healthy newborn at the end of this is very, very small,' Steve Ralston, director of the maternal fetal medicine division at George Washington University, told The Washington Post. The hospital's decision to keep Smith alive drew heavy criticism from pro-choice advocates who claimed the dizzying ethical conundrum and extreme heartache are a result of bad legislation. Advertisement 'Because of Georgia's cruel abortion ban, Adriana Smith's family is living through a nightmare,' Reproductive Freedom For All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju said in a statement in May. 5 Smith gave birth at Emory University Hospital Midtown. REUTERS 'Families deserve the freedom to make their own decision about their loved ones, and prolonging their suffering isn't just horrible policy; it's inhumane. Anti-abortion politicians, including Donald Trump and Governor Kemp, need to be held accountable,' the statement concluded. State representatives also weighed in as the controversy reached its peak. Advertisement 'This is not healthcare. This is sanctioned cruelty,' State Democrat Rep. Kim Schofield said in a statement. The hospital has not publicly commented on the case, citing patient privacy laws. Smith, who also has a 7-year-old son, was due to be taken off life support on Tuesday, 11 Alive reported.
The Hill
5 days ago
- The Hill
White House denies reporting by Guardian on VA benefits: ‘totally FALSE story'
The Trump administration on Monday denied reporting by The Guardian that said new Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals could refuse care to veterans based on factors like marital status and political affiliation due to an executive order by President Trump. The Guardian earlier Monday published a report saying VA hospitals are implementing new rules in response to Trump's executive order in January, which would permit workers to deny care to veterans based on characteristics not protected by federal law. On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order titled 'Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,' which ordered the federal government to recognize only two biological sexes. According to the documents it obtained, The Guardian reported that 'doctors and other medical staff can also be barred from working at VA hospitals based on their marital status, political party affiliation or union activity.' VA press secretary Peter Kasperowicz, a former politics editor at Fox News Digital, reportedly did not deny that veteran patients could be denied care and physicians could be dismissed based on their marital status or political affiliation when reached by The Guardian. But White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly adamantly denied The Guardian's reporting. Writing on the social media platform X, Kelly addressed the article's writer, Aaron Glantz, saying, 'Aaron, this is a totally FALSE story that The Guardian should retract immediately. Fearmongering with our Veterans to try to score clicks for your failing 'news outlet' is pathetic and shameful.' The VA also responded on X, writing, 'This story is disinformation. All eligible Veterans will always be welcome at VA and will always receive the benefits and services they've earned under the law.' The Hill has reached out to The Guardian for comment. According to those who work with veterans benefits, some hospitals have begun updating their bylaws, but the extent of what effect these changes are having is unclear. According to Kyleanne Hunter, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the VA has historically been 'very expansive' in its anti-discrimination policies, which have gone beyond federally protected classes. In response to Trump's executive order earlier this year, some bylaws have 'shrunk' so that anti-discrimination policies only encompass federally protected classes like race, religion and sex. She notes, however, that there don't appear to be any rules that mandate discrimination based on unprotected classes. 'There are over 140 different VA medical centers as hospitals that each have their own set of bylaws that exist. So we don't know how many different hospitals this has actually been changed at,' Hunter told The Hill. 'We're trying right now to really gather the information we can, to see how widespread the changes of bylaws might actually be, as well as to engage and understand how it is actually impacting our veterans,' added Hunter. She lamented that VA employees are getting in the crosshairs of this dispute while they seek to provide care to veterans. 'The VA employees that we have talked to and connected with are personally very, very committed to continue to serve all veterans and are concerned that the way in which this is being discussed will continue to destroy morale among VA employees,' Hunter said.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
VA Doctors Can Refuse to Treat Dems After Trump Order
Doctors and other medical professionals working for the Department of Veterans Affairs can now refuse to treat Democrats and unmarried veterans. VA hospital bylaws previously barred medical staff from discriminating against patients 'on the basis of race, age, color, sex, religion, national origin, politics, marital status or disability in any employment matter,' The Guardian reported. But now, in response to President Donald Trump's January executive order on 'gender ideology,' 'national origin,' 'politics,' and 'marital status' have been removed from the list, allowing medical staff to deny treatment based on their personal politics, according to the newspaper. Similarly, the bylaws on staffing decisions no longer prohibit discriminating against candidates on the basis of national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, membership in a union, or affiliation with a 'lawful political party.' With more than 170 hospitals and more than 1,000 clinics, the VA is the largest integrated hospital system in the U.S. It employs 26,000 doctors and serves 9 million patients annually. In an emailed statement to The Guardian, VA press secretary Peter Kasperowicz did not deny that doctors can refuse to treat patients based on their beliefs or that hospitals could fire physicians based on their marital status or political affiliation. 'All eligible veterans will always be welcome at VA and will always receive the benefits and services they've earned under the law,' he said in a statement, calling the rule changes a mere 'formality.' The Daily Beast has also reached out to the VA for comment. The new rules apply to a wide range of professionals, including psychologists, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, certified nurse practitioners, podiatrists, social workers, and speech therapists. Trump's January executive order Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government aimed to strip government protections from transgender people and deny federal funding of 'gender ideology.' It wasn't immediately clear how the VA made the leap to denying patient care and firing doctors over their political affiliations. Under the new rules, doctors could question veterans about whether they had attended Trump rallies or protests, experts warned. VA employees told The Guardian that the new rules were imposed without consulting the system's doctors, which would appear to violate the standards established by the nonprofit organization that accredits hospitals. The American Medical Association passed a resolution at its annual convention last week urging the VA to 'ensure that any amendments to medical staff bylaws are subject to approval by medical staff in accordance with the Joint Commission standards.' Kasperowicz said the VA had worked with the Joint Commission to make sure the changes would not affect the agency's accreditation. Medical ethics experts told The Guardian the new rules are 'extremely disturbing and unethical.' 'It seems on its face an effort to exert political control over the VA medical staff,' said Dr. Arthur Caplan, founding head of the division of medical ethics at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine. 'What we typically tell people in health care is: 'You keep your politics at home and take care of your patients.''
