Texas to help people replace old cars

[nate]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5040779.html

[Theo]

Great idea but with weird constraints.

Vehicles must have passed a state inspection within the last 15 months to be eligible, and an owner's annual income cannot exceed $61,000. For cars that qualify, a $3,000 voucher will be issued that can be used as a down payment on a new vehicle that cannot cost more than $25,000. The voucher can also be applied to used vehicles that are no more than three model years old.

[Plaz]

It's a horrible idea. WTF? What a waste of taxpayer money. I cannot believe the ROI on that is anywhere near worth it. How stupid.

As much as it's on the short list of places I don't want to live, I'd still expect something like this from CA, OR, or MA... not TX.

[ff]

Is there more to the story? Are the vouchers only good at certain dealerships, like Ford, GM, or Chrysler? This kind of wreaks of a cheasy marketing trick.

[nate]

It's a horrible idea. WTF? What a waste of taxpayer money. I cannot believe the ROI on that is anywhere near worth it. How stupid.


Old cars are a major contributor to air pollution. I'm not sure the return is less that other environmental regulations. The major motivation is that Texas does not want to lose federal funds.

The EPA sets air quality standards that cities must meet or they will face some sort of penalty, I believe loss of highway funds. Dallas, Houston, and maybe Austin have been unable to meet these standards for a while. I don't know the case for other cities, but Houston has received multiple extensions for meeting the standard. Local and state officials don't think that Houston can meet these standards until 2013. One of the primary causes of the problem is old cars, which is why air quality levels should increase over time as they are replaced, even with population growth and industrial expansion. This law attempts to kick Texas cities into compliance.

Btw, I thought of this description of Houston while replying to this post. As a Jersey boy, you might appreciate it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/books/review/Turrintine.h.html?ex=1186891200&en=a63c27d266f2237a&ei=5070

[Plaz]

Old cars are a major contributor to air pollution. I'm not sure the return is less that other environmental regulations. The major motivation is that Texas does not want to lose federal funds.

The EPA sets air quality standards that cities must meet or they will face some sort of penalty, I believe loss of highway funds. Dallas, Houston, and maybe Austin have been unable to meet these standards for a while. I don't know the case for other cities, but Houston has received multiple extensions for meeting the standard. Local and state officials don't think that Houston can meet these standards until 2013. One of the primary causes of the problem is old cars, which is why air quality levels should increase over time as they are replaced, even with population growth and industrial expansion. This law attempts to kick Texas cities into compliance.

Btw, I thought of this description of Houston while replying to this post. As a Jersey boy, you might appreciate it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/books/review/Turrintine.h.html?ex=1186891200&en=a63c27d266f2237a&ei=5070

How much of a contributor, really, are old cars at this point?

I bet zoning and sprawl control would do more to cut pollution. :lol:

And yeah, if Elizabeth was allowed to be zoned in the middle of NYC, you can be sure the urban air quality would be much worse in Manhattan.

[clyde]

How much of a contributor, really, are old cars at this point?

Quite a bit from my less-than-perfect understanding. The emission requirements are ever tightening, which makes an existing car more and more of a relative polluter compared to each passing year's new cars. Add in the fact that cars tend to pollute more as they age, and the difference gets bigger. Even then, the average, or typical, 15 year old car isn't the problem so much as its "gross polluter" contemporaries...the ones that are severely ill-maintained and neglected that spew far more than their fair share.

I'm not sold on the idea of what Texas is trying to do, but it does make some sense.

[Plaz]

Seems to me there are much more efficient and cost-effective means of cleaning up air quality. Doing something about this, for example: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=texas-leads-list-of-dirti&chanId=sa003

This reeks to me of a political PR "solution," at the expense of all TX taxpayers.

[Rob]

The California air quality board was having amazing success until massive use of SUVs hit the scene and the board's hands were tied from controlling their emissions. They did it by controlling the emissions of EVERYTHING, but it worked, more or less.

If the goal is air quality, just adopting California standards for new cars will take years to become effective. This is one way to try and speed the process. I don't know that I think it's a good idea, but at least they are trying to do somethign to help instead of merely wailing about the inevitability of the end of hte planet.