The way I see it AirCare was the first carbon tax. I happen to like carbon taxes. But I don't like AirCare as it's currently delivered in British Columbia.
Today CKNW News has AirCare in its sights for the popular Waste Patrol series. Reporter Janet Brown first presented her findings on the Morning News program with host Philip Till. Brown's report details the costs, and in an interview she discovers that the salaries and administration of the AirCare program (which runs its operations in a separate office than Translink) is $1.8 million for 11 employees. This amount is over and above the $15 million to run the program, and the compensation is paid out of the fees collected at the testing stations.
Last December I had my vehicle (an eleven-year old, well-maintained SUV) AirCare'd again, and it passed. I was so ticked at the time and cost ($45 + HST) of the program I tweeted out my unhappiness, suggesting that we rethink the program. Within minutes AirCare reps were responding in defense over Twitter. It was evidence to me that they are extremely sensitive about their public reputation. With millions at stake and many union jobs, AirCare doesn't dare let the public rally against the program.
AirCare was born in 1992 in part to the growing consciousness about air quality. Vancouver policy wonks might recall this is the time when "Clouds of Change", the city's influential commitment to reducing greenhouse gases by shifting away from single occupancy vehicles was born. Prior to AirCare there had been a government run program to test motor vehicles, though it hadn't been operational for almost a decade. When AirCare was born public sentiment was generally favourable to the program. However, in two decades of operation the public's support seems to be shifting away from continuing the program.
The arguments against continuing AirCare in BC after their contract expires in 2012 seem to outweigh reasons for keeping it. Yes, pollution emitting vehicles are taken out of service as a result of the tests, but the number of vehicles is declining due to higher quality of emissions controls. In his fascinating essay "Million Dollar Murray", author Malcolm Gladwell uses vehicle emissions testing as an example of poor use of limited public resources.
In (automobile emissions specialist Donald) Stedman's view, the current system of smog checks makes little sense. A million motorists in Denver have to go to an emissions center every year—take time from work, wait in line, pay fifteen or twenty-five dollars—for a test that more than ninety per cent of them don't need. "Not everybody gets tested for breast cancer," Stedman says. "Not everybody takes an AIDS test." On-site smog checks, furthermore, do a pretty bad job of finding and fixing the few outliers. Car enthusiasts—with high-powered, high-polluting sports cars—have been known to drop a clean engine into their car on the day they get it tested. Others register their car in a faraway town without emissions testing or arrive at the test site "hot"—having just come off hard driving on the freeway—which is a good way to make a dirty engine appear to be clean. Still others randomly pass the test when they shouldn't, because dirty engines are highly variable and sometimes burn cleanly for short durations. There is little evidence, Stedman says, that the city's regime of inspections makes any difference in air quality.
Trying to "beat" the emissions standards – such as this tip here – is another reason for the inherent unfairness of this program. As Gladwell writes, many of us just have to run our engines hot and burn a bunch of fuel to pass. Gladwell's article describes how more "random" testing works in an American city.
A few miles northwest of the old Y.M.C.A. in downtown Denver, on the Speer Boulevard off-ramp from I-25, there is a big electronic sign by the side of the road, connected to a device that remotely measures the emissions of the vehicles driving past. When a car with properly functioning pollution-control equipment passes, the sign flashes "Good." When a car passes that is well over the acceptable limits, the sign flashes "Poor." If you stand at the Speer Boulevard exit and watch the sign for any length of time, you'll find that virtually every car scores "Good." An Audi A4 —"Good." A Buick Century—"Good." A Toyota Corolla—"Good." A Ford Taurus—"Good." A Saab 9-5—"Good," and on and on, until after twenty minutes or so, some beat-up old Ford Escort or tricked-out Porsche drives by and the sign flashes "Poor."
If we're really concerned about emissions and the abuse of our air shed, why not apply more random testing of older vehicles instead? That's the crux of Gladwell's argument.
My colleague Daniel Fontaine proposed over a year ago that instead of paying $45 to AirCare that we skip the trip to the testing station and give that money to pay for transit and transportation instead. I wholeheartedly agree with this idea, on the condition that the governing body Translink is indeed run as efficiently as the public expects. I don't think it was without reason that Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts suggested that Translink be audited. Since Metro Vancouver mayors are now calling on the public to pony up for a vehicle levy (always an unpopular political move) then let's consider the idea of continuing to pay the same fee, but allocating it to Translink without vehicle testing.
People hate taxes, so it's not a surprise to me when we shake our fists at forty-five dollar fees. However, if we want top notch transportation infrastructure, the public must expect to pay for it somehow. I think a start is to change how we do emissions testing, and find better use for the millions we collect from drivers.
What do you think?
- post by Mike
Print 
PDF
Air care… one useless tax on the back of the people of the Lower Mainland. Like in Medieval times in BC these days.
I drive, as I have no choice, and if my car doesn't pass the "test" … when you are retired, not much choice. Trucks, buses, trailers … they are OK. What a bad joke.
Richard Unger MD (Ret)
The percentage of fails is so low now it shows that air care is no longer worth doing.Now its just a frustrating and expensive cost for no good reason.What really drives me nuts is passing the test and still having to pay for the next year ,even though I dont have to bring my car in again……WTF
You got it right again Mike. It is a lot of wasted time and money.
Aircare is past its due date, it basically accomplished what it set out to do. But the carbon tax is not working. It’s a good idea and I support it in principle, but the fact that revenues go into the big pot to be then spent on projects like highway widening….well that’s just dumb.
Mike, So your argument against AirCare is that it doesn't work, and it is a hassle.
Point 1: it does work, is the most cost-effective air quality program in the history of the province, and is still very effective. You can read the latest assessment report here: http://tinyurl.com/7skqfzo
Far from being a cash cow, it is efficient, has measureable benefits for GHG and ground level pollutants, and actually returns more money to BCs economy than it generates. Plain and simple: it works.
You are seriously proposing replacing it with roadside signs that shames the driver of a "Tricked-out Porsche"? Seriously? As for your second argument, that it is a hassle? Tough luck, buttercup. It seems to me that driving a car in our City is not enough of a hassle, judging by the number of single-occupant vehicles I see backed up on our birdges every morning…
Pat Johnstone,
You are no stranger to kool-aid buddy, and I mean … A LOT!
So, Pat… are we working for the Air Care by any chance?
"Far from being a cash cow, it is efficient, has measureable benefits for GHG and ground level pollutants, and actually returns more money to BCs economy than it generates. Plain and simple: it works."
Not being a cash cow? Excuse me?
For the past 12 years my car's emmisions were like 1000 times less that what they were considered acceptable. Excuse me? 6x$45=$270… for what? To tell me that my car is / was NEW and perfectly maintained? Then Up Theirs, bunch of petty thieves!
It works! Sure, if you work for Air Care and/ or any related agency … it works. So let me rephrase it again, Pat, which one do you represent?
Sorry to dissapoint, but my only interaction with AirCare is to take my 1996 Civic in once a year. It has always passed with flying colours. But I only put about 5000km a year on it, so the thing is like new…
I’m not sure who you think the “petty thieves” are, but the impact of AirCare on the region’s airshed is directly measurable (see report above). Compared to every other air quality improvement measure taken by the Province, AirCare is simply the most effective for the tonnage of air pollutants removed per dollar. That even includes the money spent on repairs and fleet renewal that result from the program (and remember, 100% of that money goes back into the private sector economy, so the real “petty thieves” are thousands of small-business owners and operators).
ROTFLMAO!
Pat, are you reading from the Air Careès marketing brochure? Because you sure sound like you do!
Please do us a favor, and stop throwing numbers at us. We are not that stupid, you know. Air Care achieved for British Columbians as much as those dollar sucking charities did to solve … hunger in Africa LOL.
And I'm sorry if my short note, kept you from concentrating on your second job… that of catching KONY!
Thanks Glizzy. You are right. When setting public policy, the last thing one wants to do is consider the measureable effectiveness of a program or do cost accounting. What is important is random commentor’s feelings of inconvenience and ability to spin allegory.
We govern by Cynicism, and that keeps us busy.. .
What’s more, it is definitively NOT a “Carbon Tax”. The fundamental principle behind a Carbon Tax is that it is charged per tonne of CO2 created (or per tonne of Carbon oxidized, whatever).
AirCare does not do that, it charges a flat rate: you pay the same for your Penile Compensation Device (Hummer H2) that you do for your Smugness-mobile (Smart Car), and you pay the same if you drive 40,000km a year or if you drive 1,000km year.
Any money you pay outside of inspection fees due to AirCare do not go to the Government, but to private enterprise, who repair vehicles or sell the updated fleet. The real financial winner in AirCare has been the small businessman: $56 Million in revenue generated for them annually, compared to the $1.8 million paid in Administrative and staffing costs for the program.
Pat, you say it yourself:
"But I only put about 5000km a year on it, so the thing is like new…"
So you pay the piper no questions asked, just like sheep, and as long as it doesn't inconvenience you, as your car is for show and pleasure driving… the mother of selfishness or what? Well what about the rest of the people that depend on their cars for work, mobility, … LIVING?
Laughable!
Let me get this straight. I’m selfish for not using my car daily, and am a sheep because I am willing to suffer a 20-minute inconvenience once a year in order to continue to use my car? Or because I drive less frequently than a daily commuter who “needs a car”, AirCare is not an inconvenience to me? I’m also not sure who drives a stock 1996 civic hatchback for “show”.
OK, I tried to figure it out, but I have to ask: What the hell is your point?