John,
Don’t know about other states but quite sure they are similar. In CT
the emissions inspections were set up due to federal offers of
millions of $ in grants they wouldn’t get unless they play the game.
To a state that’s a mandate. State gets the fed money… which is
taxpayer money… and then charge the public for the inspections.
This is a no loose situation for a state.
The secondary impact is the fuel consumed and man hours of car
owner/taxpayer time it takes to get the inspections… and the carbon
footprint, if you want to call it that, of building and running the
facility itself, nobody talks about that.
It looks like a CA inspection is going to be $30, in CT last time I
did it it was $40 per year, done biannually so $80 a pop. New cars
are exempt for 5 years.
pauls 67ots
In the Houston area:
I take the Jaguar in and the inspection fee is $14.
Take in a daily driver (2006 or 2007 Mazda) and the inspection is
$40.
The difference is the emmissions test required on the newer cars.
I have no idea how much of those fees go to the state and how much
the inspection site gets to keep. The facility I’ve been using for
the past 15 years does nothing but inspections and they have a
sizable investment in equipment so I suspect they get the lion’s
share of the inspection fee.
I found out Arkansas has no vehicle inspection. Yet another reason
to look forward to retirement and moving.
<<<<<<<<<<<From: “John Walker” jwalker1179@att.net
Subject: Re: [E-Type] Desmogging and legality
In reply to a message from John Walker sent Fri 26 Feb 2010:
I think we have to put these emission laws in perspective. When I
left Houston for good in 1970, the smog was really intolerable.
Any given damp night the whole place smelled like a wet dog.
Now it’s really nearly habitable. In the Bay Area, the smog that
used to shroud the valley from Palo Alto back to San Jose is gone,
pretty much.
Almost all of that is due to these oppressive anti-smog laws.
Hooray for the oppressive anti-smog laws. Bring on the anti CO2
laws, real soon.
Jerry–
Jerry Mouton '64 FHC 889791 ‘MIK Jaguar’
Palo Alto, California, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
In reply to a message from mouton sent Sat 27 Feb 2010:
Yes, and the improvement, despite huge increases in numbers
of miles driven in the same areas, is also because
carburettors and non-electronic ignitions went the way of
the dodo.
I say YAY, FI, YAY EDIS, YAY cat converters! It has been a
net positive, plus emission controls on power plants and
other sources of VOCs and the like.
I sand firm this has been a case (one of many, actually)
where big, bad gummint intrusion (regulations) has been a
resounding success.
Now, to go don my Nomex undies…!–
The original message included these comments:
Almost all of that is due to these oppressive anti-smog laws.
Hooray for the oppressive anti-smog laws. Bring on the anti CO2
laws, real soon.
–
Paul Wigton, steward to a '60 DKW 1000 SP, Tweety, '63 FHC!
Keenesburg, CO, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–
Jerry,
No question about the better atmosphere down here in So CA either.
I’m good with emission and fuel economy mandates, bring 'em on. I’m
even reasonably comfortable with fuel tax increases as an incentive to
conserve and reduce emissions. What I’m not sold on is emission
inspections. Are taxpayers really getting good environmental value
for what it costs to run these programs?
pauls 67ots
I think we have to put these emission laws in perspective. When I
left Houston for good in 1970, the smog was really intolerable.
Any given damp night the whole place smelled like a wet dog.
Now it’s really nearly habitable. In the Bay Area, the smog that
used to shroud the valley from Palo Alto back to San Jose is gone,
pretty much.
Almost all of that is due to these oppressive anti-smog laws.
Hooray for the oppressive anti-smog laws. Bring on the anti CO2
laws, real soon.
Jerry
<<<<<<<<<<From: “mouton” jerry@moutons.org
Subject: Re: [E-Type] Desmogging and legality
