Wisconsin Scraps Emissions Testing for Older Cars

Wasn’t someone asking about where the transportation budget could be cut?

Starting on July 1, cars and trucks built before 1996 will be exempt from having to undergo vehicle emissions inspections in southeastern Wisconsin. The latest figures in 2007 show that the change would have affected 28% of vehicles in the region - or about 175,000 cars.

[...]

The decision to give older cars a pass will also send more pollutants into the air until 2018. But other factors such as the use of reformulated gas will lessen the effects, officials say.

These and other features are part of a revamping of the state’s emissions inspection program for cars and trucks in seven counties, including all of metro Milwaukee.

[...]

The $13.3 million annual program - in Milwaukee, Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Racine, Kenosha and Sheboygan counties - is financed by the state transportation fund, the state’s general fund and other sources.

Let’s just scrap the whole program, OK?  If the DOT isn’t going to even bother testing the cars that pollute the most (older cars), then it can’t be that important.  The cost of continuing to run this program outweighs the benefit of catching the tiny percentage of newer cars that might fail the emissions test.

1. DOT requires the test when a vehicle is more than 3 years old. But their own study in 2002 revealed that the failure rate for vehicles up to six years old was only 1.7%. It also found that extending the exemption to four years would be similar to several other states in severe non-attainment areas (like SE Wisconsin). But here we sit.

   Posted by on April 28, 2008 at 1227 hrs




2. More worrisome to me is that this is a net expansion of the testing program.  We’re removing the older cars because they take too long and cost too much to test, but we’re adding diesel engines and heavy trucks.  I like the idea of eliminating older cars.  These cars are typically owned by people who don’t have means to buy a newer car: poorer people less likely to afford time off work to test and costly repair bills.  However, this now expands the “emissions tax” to more businesses. 

   This whole program is just a farce.  Auto emissions have nothing to do with our air quality.  The gases that this program targets are those created by heavy industry.  Those industries left SE Wisconsin decades ago.  So how do these gases get here now?  They come from Chicago & Gary, and for the privilege of breathing their air-borne waste, we get reformulated gas and bi-annual tailpipe tests. 

   Now do you understand why I can’t abide liberal cry-babies?!

   Aaaargh! 

   Sorry for the rant.  I feel a little better now.

   - Leonard.

   Posted by on April 28, 2008 at 1250 hrs




3. That seems bassackwards to me. It seems they should only test the older cars and let the newer, and therefore less likely to be non-compliant, cars go untested until they get older.

   If the idea is to reduce pollution, don’t you want to catch the older vehicles that are doing the most polluting? Am I missing something here?

   Posted by on April 28, 2008 at 1255 hrs




4. Whaaaaaat?  If emissions testing is going to work at all, certainly common sense would dictate that the older vehicles would be the most problematic ones.  This just tells me the whole thing is a total and complete waste of time, effort and tax dollars.

   Posted by on April 28, 2008 at 1302 hrs




5. I heard a good analogy on Sykes show this morning.

   It’s as if the police started checking for drunk drivers outside of churches on Sunday mornings while ignoring drivers outside of bars on Saturday night, to save costs.

   Posted by on April 28, 2008 at 1406 hrs




6. I wish you guys (media like Charlie and bloggers) would take this issue up as one to pursue and pursue hard beyond just today’s story.  Interview the guys who run this program.  Get some state legislator comments.  Ask Doyle for comment.

   Someone has to answer these questions:

   a) how much does this emissions testing operation cost the State per year?

   b) How many cars after 1996 fail?

   c) How many cars before 1996 fail.

   No one liked this program before because there didn’t seem to be tangible and provable benefits.  Now we let the worst offenders just “go free” because it costs too much to test them?

   This is government run amuck and needs to be stopped.

   Posted by on April 28, 2008 at 1527 hrs




7. The whole program is a farce.  After I bought my ‘95 Taurus in August, I had to take it in to be tested within 30 days of registration.  Due to age, she had to have the “tailpipe test,” on the rollers, the whole nine yards.  She didn’t, however, have to go through the whole test, because apparently the computer got all it needed from the first part.  Mom’s 2000 Caravan, on the other hand, just gets plugged into a computer.  More accurate, right?  I doubt it.  Her car failed several times because the “Check Engine” light was on and we couldn’t figure out why.  The cause?  A $3 fuse, which had nothing to do with the van’s emissions.

   Scrap the whole program and put the money into fixing our roads instead.

   Posted by Coop on April 28, 2008 at 2054 hrs




8. I think Belling got this correct. Doyle is looking for more money to take from the transportation budget to keep his pals at WEAC and the Trial Lawyers happy. It doesn’t matter what the goal of the program is (find cars that are polluting and have them fixed) Doyle’s just looking for money to plug holes without doing any real cuts.
   They ought to just dump the whole program if they are going to do this… but of course that would decrease the number of government paid jobs and we can’t have that!

   Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 0752 hrs




9. The problem with the program as a whole are the loopholes that exist in the program.

   i.e. I owned a 74 Plymouth with a built 360ci 4bbl.  I guarantee that it would NEVER have passed emissions.  Too much cam.  Too much fuel.  But - it was stored in the winter in Jefferson County.  That meant that when it was titled - in the little box that asked for the county in which it was primarily kept - I answered Jefferson.  Even though the car was driven in Milwaukee County.  Because it was stored 6 months out of the year in Jefferson, I could legally say that was it’s primary residence.  And in the 10 years I owned the car, never did it go to an emissions station.

   example #2 of the loopholes - I owned a 93 Buick (recently sold to my Brother in law in outstate Wi) that didn’t pass emissions in 2006.  To get a waiver to renew the license without passing emissions, I had to spend X on emissions related repairs. (I don’t remember what X was) I personally know of 3 people who could have provided me with receipts to show work was done without work being done.

   loophole #3 - The worst cars (the cheapest) are currently running around in the ghetto - how many even have valid registrations?  It isn’t like the cars get impounded if the drivers don’t have valid registrations.  They get a ticket and go on their way.

   The whole program should be scrapped.

   Posted by Clint on April 29, 2008 at 0817 hrs




10. Gotta read the fine print, here:

    Currently, the program costs about $19 per vehicle, according to the department.

    But Illinois officials have said the costs of their tests dropped to about $10 per test when older cars were dropped

    .

    OK, so the State gets to save money - $9 per car, right?

    The Department of Natural Resources said other factors such as the use of reformulated gas, improved federal mileage standards and adding other vehicles into the testing program will make up for the losses.

    Now, let’s see, how much will we (the consumer) save with the continued mandate to use reformulated gas, which is more expensive and causes MPG drop?  I suppose the WI economy is going gangbusters and everyone will have the coin to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle.

    What bugs me is, our legislators used to make a lot of noise about “appealing” to the EPA to drop the mandate to use reformulated gas, now we are making it part of our strategy to comply with Clean Air requirements.

    Posted by on April 29, 2008 at 1310 hrs




11. Does this include the test for collector cars.  Let’s not forget the all important first time test when registering your-let’s say 1969 RoadRunner.  It was a waste of about 2hrs total of my time having it tested 3 times due to it not passing (3rd times a charm-it did) and for what.  For me to put my adjustments right back to where they were since thats wehre it actually ran good?  What I think is a mor “bare bones” general debate about this whole topic should be, does it make sense to test only southeastern WI?  Is there some invisable wall surrounding these counties? Stupid

    Posted by on May 05, 2008 at 1038 hrs