Comments on the I/M Program
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Comments on the I/M Program I’ve now lived in Anchorage for over 20 years. During that period, I have had only one failure and that was the result of a bad computer chip. On that one failure I had the vehicle in for repair of the “engine light” failure; it just happened to be the same time that my vehicle was due for license renewal. So, before they completed the repair for the “engine light,” they first conducted the IM test and the vehicle failed. Subsequently, after the new computer chip was replaced the vehicle passed. Over 20 years, I have had over 10 vehicles in the household…the testing program is not needed in my opinion based on the experience I have had. Please do not maintain the program only because it generates income for the city. If a program is required, then it should be a “statewide” program and not locally implemented. Also, the program should not be restructured for safety…if such a program is required then it should be implemented “statewide.” Thank You Ronald Berkenbush August 26, 2007 I bought a new car in 1997 and have paid around $68 every two years for IM testing. My car has never failed the test and I feel this is a huge waste of money for a test that takes less than five minutes and little expertise to complete. I believe that only older vehicles (+ 10 years or over 100,000 miles) should be tested, as the newer models are designed to pass IM tests. I see a quite a few large commercial trucks along the roads spewing some awful fumes, and I often wonder how they get away with it. The IM testing program should be re-worked to target the vehicles that pollute. I would favor continuing the program in its current form only if testing costs can be reduced to around $20. Your website states that the test can be done for as little as $15.95, but I have yet to find anyplace in Anchorage that will perform the test for under $50. Perhaps the fee can be capped at $15.95 instead of $50. And the $18 processing fee to MOA should be reduced. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Janice Zilko August 25, 2007 I think the I/M program should be discontinued. Today's cars are much cleaner running vehicles than those of the past. I know some people worry that a few owners would disable pollution controls if the I/M program were not in force but today's cars have pollution control systems that are integrated into the vehicles not just added on. In the old days if you took the catalytic converter off your 1976 Chevy it ran better and got better gas mileage. If you take the converter off your 2000 Chevy the system will get incorrect information about what is going on in the engine and it will run bad and the gas mileage will go down. Please don't add any other programs (such as safety inspections) in place of the I/M program either. If you feel the I/M program must remain please make it less expensive and all that should be required is the tail pipe gas check. A visual inspection shouldn't be required. After all, all that matters is what comes out the tailpipe. Bottom line: The program has outlived its usefulness and should be discontinued. Charles Link August 24, 2007 Should the I/M Program be Changed? After reading the current public comments I noted that the folks that want the whole program shut down don't realize their comments adds to the voice of change. Along with the folks that want every personal self best interest to be addressed in this forum. So the folks that don't want any changes, including power broadening of the DHSS will be ignored right off. No Change? No Way... is the echo that comes back. After $696,876 of public money was spent on SR2007-01-01, a fifteen page report that announces. "The key findings of this study are entirely consistent with I/M program analyses that Sierra has conducted in communities across the country for the past 20 years." Which was run for 6 months on 205 vehicles. Who's vehicles I don't know. Thus, Validates the public money MAY have been well spent since the Assembly Members could not figure this out on their own. Clue, Anchorage has not busted the Federal Air Standards since Anchorage has been running the program. Back to the folks that want Change! Too Mark Begich's credit. Lets say goodbye to the folks that say shutdown the program their voices aren't need any more because SR2007-01-01 says our IM Program. I quote, "The cost-effectiveness of the program for CO is $3,000/ton, which compares well with other CO control programs that are being implemented in Alaska" (Fairbanks). I don't think the $696,876 is included? Now all the precious, special folks that want all eye sore, rust buckets making to much noise on the same highway with their Lexus, Mercedes or other over priced head trip vehicles banished! I guess the later group expects the rust bucketeers to take the bus? And "let them eat cake". Bottom line, The IM Program Task Force (sounds so militaristic) will add some "much needed" burdens to the rust buccaneers lives and broaden DHSS enforcement powers. Everybody will get something new to complain about. Success Anchorage Assembly style! Bill Reiner August 24, 2007 After reading the Muni website, the press releases, and the Sierra research, it is obvious that you guys have already reached a conclusion and are using this 2 medium as political cover to continue or expand the I-M program. Thats too bad. Democrats (like myself) howl when Others won't accept the findings of science as a measure of a public policies effectiveness; yet here is an opportunity for Anchorage to help the air, helps its citizens, and help the cities reputation yet the Mayor doesn't want anything to do with it. Why the hypocracy? Anchorage residents suffer on several counts from the perpetuation of this program: 1. Millions of dollars wasted each year on I-M's and busywork repairs. 2. Between 325,000 and 700,000 wasted man hours per year attempting to come into compliance. 3. Wasted tax dollars administering and staffing the program 4. Non productive time of private sector "support" business. Let me say from the outset that if the powers that be won't scrap the I-M program that I would reluctantly support a modified I-M program: but the science and facts point to one inescapeable fact: EPA standards for cars have done the lions share of the improvement in Anchorage air; addtionally changes in gasoline blends (mandated by federal law) have helped considerably. Lets not forget that The National Academy of Science found that the EPA used flawed models that were used as a basis to justify EPA mandates to establish IM programs. NAS found that the models were so bad that the actual effectiveness of IM programs was as bad as 0%. Having said that, this first phase of the I-M program (coupled with the junk car haul-off program) did retire a lot of the junkers that were in Anchorage. There are some simple tweaks that would make this program more logical. Here are a few: first, a "tailpipe only" test that simulates driving conditions like the ones in place in California, Michigan (and others in the lower 48) and Europe. This testing regimine would encourage people to replace engines and components with ones that ran cleaner and create a market and regulatory incentive for people to be in compliance. Second, exempt cars that are older than 25 years old, this seems to be the most effective way to help both low income drivers and automobile hobbiests (subsidies: HA, theres a waste of time and money for you). Third start testing diesels, the largest source of airbourne particulates (the major source of respitory illness among adults and adolescents) in Anchorage; exempting diesels is one of the elements that makes the current I/M program seem biased and pointless. Fourth, exempt new cars 5 years (they are typically under warranty during this time), this exemption would encourage the replacement of older cars with new cars, and moves older cars to lower income residents faster (see the Japanese model for why this is so effective). 3 Obviously there are other modifications that would help, (move I-M office into DMV...) but the above are all science based solutions based on facts and supported by the experience of other jurisdictions. This would keep the I-M in place, keep the money flowing, but reduce unnecessary Idiocracy, encouge rational effective, (not busywork) repairs, and take a small step in restoring Los Anchorages reputation as a place that embraces rational, practical, and effective solutions to its problems, rather than choosing the easiest mark for revenue and regulation, or hiding behind a task force or yet another expensive "Outside" consultant for political cover... Most importantly, changes of this nature would improve relations between Anchorage and its citizens, who have been under siege of late with high property taxes, and wasteful, unnecessary programs and municipal mismanagement that makes the Keystone cops look like a Marine drill team. Anchorage is quickly getting a reputation as being hostile to the average Joe, here is a small oportunity to reverse that perception.