marcucci

I say we secede from the union, but no one listens to me. Seriously- the problem is not the polluters... it's the gross number of people sitting idle on LBJ and 75. Getting people into public transportation or relieving congestion does wonders. Besides, did you know your car pollutes more at idle than it does at speed and light load?

The new criteria is still an order of magnitude more leniant than your average new car... it would take about 70k-100k miles of poor (no) maintenence to make a vehicle newer than about '96 fail the testing. I agree, Chris, that this is a waste of time for most people.

What's funny to me is that the demographics don't make sense. I'd wager that most cars in the metroplex (probably around half) are '96 or newer with <100k miles on them, or 100k miles+ and "tuned up." I can only assume that some bean counter is saying, "500,000 cars times 5% reduction in emissions..." and that they are trying to make a marginal improvement across many cars rather than attack gross polluters. If they wanted to get the gross polluters, they would exempt cars <4 years old or <100k miles and focus on cars that are older than that, and NOT exempt anything more than 24 years old (which are probably putting out an order of magnitude MORE emissions than our cars).

Sorry to have created such a hot topic- I was interested, since this will probably mean I have to bring my truck back into "compliance" with all the smog equipment. I'm glad I saved all that crap.

TXRacer

I have no clue how they plan to do that, given the information posted above says the allowed emissions levels will vary between cars. There's no way the roadside crews are going to sniff every car reliably, check your license plate to get the make and model, look up the appropriate emissions requirement, take a picture, and mail you a ticket which will be dismissed by any court in Texas. While I have a pretty low opinion of cops, I just can't believe they're stupid enough to waste all that effort.

What I do see is a cop pulling over a car belching huge clouds of smoke and writing a fix-it ticket requiring a new emissions test within X days.

I'd rather the state put all that money into buying and destroying all high-polluting cars, and giving free pollution-reduction gear to semis, refineries, and other pollutant sources we can't eliminate.

If the govt wanted to reduce traffic pollution, they'd create mass-transit-friendly zoning and quit widening the freeways. If we lose federal highway funding, perhaps the problem will solve itself.

cdelena

The reports I have read show the equipment is extremely reliable, able to pick out polluters and get a good picture of car and license. The object is not to give you a traffic ticket, it is to force a inspection. If you don't get it done and pass they simply refuse your license plate renewal. It is not aimed at the driver, it is aimed at cleaning up the vehicle.

The statistics show that taking a single bad polluter off the road is the same as pulling thousands of new cars. IMO they should also go after commercial vehicles and busses (which they don't) which would be worth tens of thousands of new cars.

Unfortunately they go after people with the means to pay for new vehicles, not wanting to discriminate against the poor and business. A poor strategy.. If they let each of us with new cars send in $5 a year and skip the inspection they would have the money to fix the polluting cars.

What can you expect from a country that has the means to dramatically cut pollution, reduce imports, and clear congestion by simply raising fuel taxes, but refuses for fear alienating political contributors and ignorant voters.

marcucci

You can be 3 orders of magnitude beyond the limits and still emit almost nothing visible. I'm sure that if this is a photo-based system that they are using gross polluter limits, say 2 or 3 orders of magnitude beyond the worst passenger vehicle limitations (i.e. they don't care if it's a Cavalier, because it's beyond 2x what are permissible for a 1982 Fleetwood Brougham).

Interestingly, the new limits seem to be stricter for larger vehicles. I'm not sure if they are trying to punish larger vehicles, or what, but the weight-based tables are stricter for higher weight vehicles. They are all pretty well within what the cars put out when new for those years (i.e. the limits are still an order of magnitude off what should be normal), but I find it odd that there are stricter limits for a 4500lb truck than there is for a 2000lb compact car.

TXRacer

Think... In Texas, a truck (vs a car) is defined as a vehicle with over a certain towing capacity (1/2 ton?). Therefore, a truck is more likely to be towing a load, something which significantly increases fuel consumption and isn't represented well on a dyno. Trucks are also the mainstay of commercial vehicles, meaning they typically accumulate more miles than a commuter-class car. I'd also guess they have a much longer useful life, since trucks tend to be built for durabilty instead of comfort; that means they'll be on the road far longer (and produce more net pollution) than a same-year car.

Or maybe the liberals just want to punish truck owners, I dunno.

TXRacer

I don't get it. If you're polluting enough to get noticed, you're already going to fail your next inspection anyways. The above program would have absolutely zero effect if you are correct.

Ah, but the government runs 95% of the busses. Why tax themselves when they can tax us?

Aside from the small fee to have some monkey check a reading on the OBD2 computer, it's not costing new car owners a cent. Heck, my dealer does inspections for free without even asking (when in for other service).

Who it's going to cost are all the folks who can barely afford to keep their late-70s Cadillac land-barge running. They'll have to pay for a dyno run (fail), spend thousands on getting the car up to snuff, and another dyno run (maybe pass). The car simply won't be worth spending the money (if the guy even has it), and the poor sap will be stuck with a car he can never drive again (legally).

Take a look at what happened in the 70s if you think raising fuel prices artificially is a good idea.

cdelena

You do a pretty good job of reading comments your own way..

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TXRacer
[B]I don't get it.

Elistan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cdelena
[B]I suggest adding 50 cents to gasoline taxes every year for the foreseeable future.. when gas goes over $5.00 a gallon seen how SUV

TXRacer

We obviously have violently different political views, and that will color the facts differently.

[QUOTE][B]Those people either don