One has to factor high-polluting cars and business equipment into the equation and add incentives for reducing emissions while changing development rules for the future to see significant improvement in air quality. If you address one without addressing the other, you are running yourself into a circle.

George writes, “It is not about how much pollution a single car may emit, or how we track the emission.” It’s about the actions of the individual adding up to a collective approach to reducing emissions. It’s about better emission standards that show an accurate vehicle emissions. While the poor working class may have a black-smoking car, they are relatively few compared to the number of newer gas-only SUV and utility vehicles owned by middle-class individuals, local corporations, and our government.

Compare the numbers for emissions on older vehicles versus newer vehicles. It demonstrates that little has changed in 20 years for output of emissions, with exception to the hybrid vehicles that cut both types of emissions by half or more when compared to their gas-only counterpart. Many people who drive vehicles in both counties on a regular basis are driving newer vehicles which emit more than 8 tons/yr in GHGs and have a pollution score that is 5 or less. Vehicle manufacturers are doing better at developing a product that cuts both emissions, however many times these newer vehicles will have a good pollution score but a high GHG rating.

Canyon County has refused to implement vehicle emissions testing because citizens are aware testing is nothing more than a bureaucratic revenue generator. An emissions test does little for controlling air quality when standards are too low and the county and valley is host to polluting factories and industry. Canyon citizens are also very good at holding the commissioners feet to the fire over testing issues.

I agree that more can be done as far as future development and how it can aid in limiting vehicle trips. Of course approaching vehicle usage and development in this valley does little to change the geography which only has so much air to go around, particularly on a “bad” day. And in any urban center located in a valley, it is difficult to achieve high air quality when you cram too many people into a small area without offering alternatives to polluting behavior.

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/mobile/mse_fs.htm

Note that Cold Starts are where a large percentage of the tailpipe emissions come from. When taken with the average commute time in the urbanized area (20 minutes), any proposed development that contributes to a longer commute time than 20 minutes should undergo special scrutiny. Any development with a near 20 minute commute but whose location is outside the valley’s air shed should be recognized for cutting potential work commute related Cold Starts by one-half – and any development that is within the 20 minute commute boundary should be recognized as being beneficial to air quality.

Any developer who concedes to Transportation Demand Management practices for the proposed development (in a Development Agreement), such as financial contribution to transit (Bus, Car/Van Pool) or employing a rideshare program for residents, or (most importantly) committing to the development of affordable housing, should receive special “credit” during the development entitlement process. This may take the form of a streamlined approval process, on-site parking reductions, density bonuses, or reduced processing, impact, or utility hook-up fees.

We need to make it easier and less expensive to do the right thing. And, injecting the entitlement process with a greater level of predictability (for these “right” projects) would be a laudable effort. Conversley, we need to make it much harder to do things that damage our collective future.

It is not about how much pollution a single car may emit, or how we track the emission. For those concerned about the fairness question for people who can only afford older vehicles, ask the harder question of why they might have to drive across an entire county to get to work.

Canyon County officials have steadfastly resisted implementation of a vehicle emissions testing program, not because of the program’s efficacy but because it’s good for the county’s real estate economy. As long as real estate is cheaper in Canyon County and our more remote communities, the working poor will be stuck having to drive long distances (with their older vehicles) to get to work.

Their jobs will continue to be placed where land values are higher, due to public policies that place a higher and greater value on land for businesses and not for residences.

When someone advocates for the removal of high-pollution cars, they don’t understand the real question.

To help those who are too lazy to do their own comparison, let me offer a sample of data. The following comparison numbers can vary based on engine features. The Air Pollution score represents the amount of health-damaging and smog-forming airborne pollutants the vehicle emits. Scoring ranges from 0 (worst) to 10 (best). Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are substances in the atmosphere, such as water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2), that trap heat near the Earth’s surface. Scoring ranges from 16.2 tons per year (worst) to 3.5 tons per year (best).

2005 Ford F150 Pickup 4WD emits at 13.1 tons/yr and has a pollution score of 3.
2005 Ford Explorer 4WD puts out 12.2 tons/yr and has a pollution score from 2.
2005 Ford Crown Victoria emits 9.6 tons/yr with a pollution score of 4.
2005 Ford Escape Hybrid 4WD emits 6.8 tons/yr with a pollution score of 7.

1996 Ford F150 4WD emits 13.1 tons/yr and pollution score NA.
1996 Ford Explorer 4WD emits 11.4 tons/yr and pollution score NA.
1996 Ford Crown Victoria emits 8.4 tons/yr and pollution score NA.
1996 Ford Bronco emits 13.1 tons/yr and pollution score NA.

1985 Ford F150 Pickup 4WD emits 11.4 tons/yr and pollution score NA.
1985 Ford Bronco emits 11.4 tons/yr and pollution score NA.
1985 Ford LTD Crown Victoria emits 10.8 tons/yr and pollution score NA.

Now think about how many of these types of cars you see in our valley while understanding the geographic propensity towards inversion. Add to it economic development (industrial pollution not limited to rearranging the ground to fit the houses), consumer waste (drive-thru idling and vehicular recreation), and wild fires (how many were started by off-road vehicles and fireworks?) and it doesn’t surprise me why the air purely stinks.

The Guardian is right…. it is a tax and cars are a much smaller part of the problem then they lead us to believe.

The sniff test for the vehicles is an easy way to tax the little guy. We can’t fight back the way the real big poluters can. We also don’t spread alot of money around the political circles either.

In spite of our inability to effectively fight back…. the one thing a political type must never say in Idaho is “tax increase”…..”Fee” is much safer to say.

If you don’t believe me look to the places that have so many liberals a tax increase is welcomed….many of those places have no sniff test.

JD

PS: Would you go back to an accountant that was surprised to find a $250 million error in their work? Only in the government!

http://www.treasurevalleyair.org/downloads/plan_0207.pdf

The plan document asserts that the valley’s airshed is all the air volume below 1,100 meters in elevation (or as the study asserts, 3,400 feet above sea level) – think of the valley as a bath tub, and the dirty ring left behind after the Saturday-night scrub indicating the 1,100 meter mark.

The only problem being that 1,100 meters is actually 3,600 feet above sea level, not the 3,400 feet claimed in the (obviously not) peer-reviewed plan – and a two hundred foot elevation change covers a lot of land. Further, the only testing stations are located in relatively urbanized areas – providing historic data for the study hardly useful for any sensitivity analysis. There are NO stations in Meridian, Star, Eagle, Kuna or anywhere in the foothills – that is, there’s no historic air sample data anywhere near the 1,100 meter elevation (whether it’s 3,400 or 3,600 feet above sea level). Truly unfortunately, the only station locations that test for Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the smog-precursors emitted by vehicles (nitrogen & sulfur compounds in the 2.5-micron size, which convert to nitric and sulfuric acids when they react with air moisture) are located in Middleton, Caldwell, Nampa, and Boise.

With virtually no readings from truly rural areas (and none located anywhere near the supposed dirty bath tub ring at 1,100 meters), there’s no way to determine what the impacts urbanization will have (or has had) on the valley’s air quality. This is particularly important, since the plan ends with a staunch support for the “Community Choices” land use scenario from the Long-range Regional Transportation Plan (a.k.a. Communities In Motion).

For certain, the historic data from the monitoring stations does indicate that the air quality has been declining. ONE of the variables that could be influencing the data is the increase in vehicle-miles-traveled within the air shed, there are a number of other factors not the least of which are weather changes and shifts in industrial manufacturing techniques.

But with no ex-urban monitoring stations, there’s absolutely no way to scientifically claim that the Community Choices Land Use Scenario will be any more beneficial for air quality than the Trend (or sprawl) Scenario. But the plan endorses Community Choices – obviously, not for scientific reasons.

And, for anyone who still believes that the valley’s air quality will improve (from today’s miserable condition) under the Community Choices scenario – think again. Both the Trend and Choices scenarios are based on 425,000 more people moving to the valley – the only difference being the distribution of houses and jobs. And what does this re-distribution do for the average vehicle trip? Under Choices, the average driver enjoys driving a grand total of just under 500-feet less per day (or just under two city blocks), than is forecasted in the Trend scenario. Of course, the Choices scenario can only be “afforded” if we can find a way to fund the $2B shortfall in transportation-related infrastructure projects needed to make Choices a reality.

Regarding your grim scenario where your poor friends can’t get to work and make a living without a car… THAT illustrates a big part of the problem. The vast majority are totally dependent (at least in their minds) on having that readily-available single-occupant vehicle. It is so ingrained that they don’t even consider the options. Do your people live near a bus line? Could somebody else give ’em a ride for a few weeks or a month, allowing them to save enough to get a vehicle that isn’t quite so harsh on the environment? A bike, maybe? (To you, or them, that notion might seem absurd. But I’ve been riding a bicycle, almost exclusively, for 22+ years, right here in Boise. And I’m no Lance Armstrong – the editor can attest to that.)

We have fires every year that impact our air quality, sometimes for days at a time. But we’ve never had so many “orange” days. 2007 is almost certainly destined to be the worst air-quality year we’ve had, at least since they started measuring.

How many do you think are newer cars? How many are driven by people that can easily afford to fix an engine problem? I know of 2 people that had failures. They were both OLD, crappy cars, that were all those 2 people could afford. That is how they made it to work and home. That is how they made the money to eat with, to pay rent with. They didn’t have a lot left over, to fix the cars.

So, you want to change it so if they don’t pass, they can’t get to work, they can’t make a living? That seems pretty heartless. I also think that emissions testing is a joke. I hate this smog, but it seems that no one is mentioning the new fires that have started. Those fires toss tons of pollution into the air… that pollution comes down into our valley, and then gets trapped.

It sucks, but that happens every year. I dread August, because it is near constant heavy smog. We don’t get a lot of heavy winds to push the smog out, and get stuck with it, day after day, week after week. Cars are an easy scape goat. The air was hitting yellow off and on, until the forest fires hit. We had 1 orange day before that? After the forest fires started, we started getting these higher levels. I think we should look that direction, more than at the way people get to work and home.