Archives

Lower income purchasers of a hybrid automobile not more than a year old would be eligible for $3,500. (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/08/11/texas_to_pay_to_get_old_cars_off_road/2225/)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Polluting_Car.jpgUPI – Aug. 11, 2007

Some Texas will be given an incentive to recycle their older polluting cars for new ones to help reduce SMOG forming emissions.

HOUSTON -- Some Texas counties with polluted air soon will be offering a $3,000 incentive for drivers to park their pollution-creating old clunkers.

The new state law includes Harris County in Houston where drivers will be encouraged to swap cars at least 10 years old for a newer, more environmentally friendly set of wheels, the Houston Chronicle reported Saturday.

The law and its $3,000 incentive applies to Texas counties that have failed to meet federal air quality standards and buyers with incomes of less than $62,000 annually for a family of four.

"You take 40,000 or 50,000 cars off the road like that, and we know it will make a significant difference," said state Sen. Kip Averitt, who sponsored the legislation, to take effect in 2008 … http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/08/11/texas_to_pay_to_get_old_cars_off_road/2225/

In our respective cities (Dallas & Houston), Saturday was ozone orange, Sunday was ozone red. :( Dan and I was discussing this very law Saturday at the meeting in Houston. It is targeted only for the metro areas of Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, but that is 64% of the 20.8 million Texans (unless it also includes San Antonio - then it's 75%)

The Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club supported this measure when it first went into effect in 2001, and the 2007 expansion that makes a lot more money available for rebates.

Major Texas cities like Dallas and Houston have pollution that already exceeds federal clean air standards, and Austin and San Antonio are getting close.

"That means that during some summer days the air may not be safe to breathe, particularly for small children, the elderly and people with asthma. So one of the ways we can meet those standards is by driving less and driving cleaner cars," said the Sierra Club's Cyrus Reed.

To qualify, vehicles must have passed a state inspection within the last 15 months, and the owner's annual income cannot exceed $30,600.
Details about the expanded program are still being worked out, but it is expected to begin by December of this year.


Click here for larger video (http://www.kvue.com/video/index.html?nvid=165637)

P.S. I hope nobody gets too excited my my poll question....think about it. If you do it will help you understand what this Texas law is attempting to do.

I doubt that's the motivation at all. The economy down here's been moving away a little bit from oil towards technology and even some industry. They've been running those dopey ads with the muffler-headed guy on TV and the awful ones on the radio telling people some of the stuff they can do to reduce emissions and improve MPG. Not to mention that Harris County has some of the worst air in the nation, providing some motivation for them to clean up. I don't for one minute believe in a conspiracy by the oil companies to get behind this for the sake of selling more oil.

Who could afford a hybrid on 30K a year?

Who could afford a hybrid on 30K a year?

Does seem like there will be only a small window of people that qualify for this incentive.

If the goal is to get folks that can't afford a new or 1 year old vehicle to put on some heavy debt this could be effective. Will the state also give guaranteed low interest loans to qualified buyers. Most people making less than 30K won't get a 25K loan.

This incentive should be financed by the auto dealers and manufacturers, not the taxpayers. The auto dealer will receive most of the $3000.

How about instead a lifetime pass good on all public transportation in the state for as long as you don't own another vehicle.

I think the intent of the law is good, but perhaps the law makers needed to think hard about how to make it effective.

It's targeted towards the poor because the air the poor breathe is different and worse than the air the rich breathe. :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Sometimes I just don't get Texas. Here, our state government literally tries to make it harder for poor kids to get health care in order to save a buck, but doggone it if you're poor you can more easily get a hybrid even though you'd benefit more if EVERYONE BUT YOU got a hybrid.

Hi All:

___I doubt the average family with that level of income will be purchasing a hybrid either just as I doubt they will be able throw away their old junker for the $3,000 incentive. If the larger cities/states would have instead enacted the CA. PZEV initiatives, they would not be in the situation they are in today. I was in downtown Chicago on a very hot and humid day last month and you could not only see the Haze, you could smell the exhaust of hundreds of diesel trucks and ill-cared for automobiles no matter where you were driving. I was in the PZEV based Accord and just through why are we doing this to ourselves when the technology costs all of $150 for every car on the road? About the same as it costs to make an FFV which will never be filled with that stuff anyway?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Who could afford a hybrid on 30K a year?

30K would probably take home about $1700/month, if you were single and cut back on the wine, women and song you could easily save enough for a hefty enough down payment to get the loan for what was left after your $3500 payment for your old clunker. I take your point though, the program seems more aimed at getting people to buy $12K econocars rather than $22K hybrids.

Maybe I should tell my 17 year old to apply to U of Texas so he could get $3000/$3500 for the Taurus....

I think the intent was to reduce the ozone alert days in Dallas, Houston, etc. but the implementation may be ineffective in this case.

Who could afford a hybrid on 30K a year?Keep in mind that 30K in Houston is like 40K Chicago. Everything (but cars) is dirt cheap here.

Think South Dakota has a similar cost of living (or even less).

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/movecalc.asp

Heck you can even pay with Pesos here.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242356,00.html

11011011

The reason for this program, ultimately, is about transportation funding. Houston is coming up on its deadline for reaching air quality attainment. If it fails to meet its EPA-required goals, the region risks losing billions of dollars in transportation funding. Yes, the result would hopefully reduce ozone alert days by removing cars that tend to pollute more. But the overarching issue here is transportation funding.

Guvmint_Cheese

Yes, it's about keeping peace with the EPA.

Maybe I should tell my 17 year old to apply to U of Texas so he could get $3000/$3500 for the Taurus....

Yeah but the out of state tuition would be a killer, hell even the instate tuition is a killer.:)kevin

The qualification for people to buy this car should be increased by about $20K more. People earning less then $62,000 even here in Texas might find it a bit tough to purchase such a vehicle. That's the way the state legislature works here. Even for things like the Children’s Health Insurance Program they create a narrow range of those who qualify by restricting it to Children who's family household income is under $40,000. That way they look good for the photo-op/press conference and hardly anyone can get on because of co-pays and deductibles. I don't think there will be many takers here in Houston anyway because there will be those above $62,000 / year who will buy them anyway and the Federal Hummer H2 tax credit is applied so far and wide you could drive a... :driveby1: will you could drive a Hummer through it.

I doubt many here in Texas will take advantage of it because the single-occupant Hummer H2 rules here. Gas is cheaper here in Houston than in the rest of country, in now doubt, due to all the oil refineries on the ship channel which you can smell all the way on the "cleaner" and richer westside of town where I live when the wind blows the right way.

To answer the poll question in words, the Excursion is probably a lot better in terms of smog-forming emissions, though it might be so big that it skirts emissions regulations. The CRX is obviously a lot better in terms of CO2 emissions. I answered the poll saying it was mixed.

I will say that I was fairly disappointed to be behind a Geo Metro yesterday which had seen better days. Blue smoke coming out of the tailpipe whenever the driver hit the accelerator. He was probably using less fuel than me, but a lot more oil :-p

Anyway, to the subject of this story -- incentives to buy new(er) cars. It's an interesting idea which I've heard proposed before, mostly back when there was still a fair number of early 1970s cars on the road which basically had no emissions controls whatsoever. I'm not sure if those old proposals ever went anywhere, though.

I dunno, it kind of sounds like the best idea on a long list of not-so-great ones. I'd almost prefer that they went straight to used car dealers and bought up old cars that could barely hold oil anymore, but doing that would probably just induce dealers to pull in cars from all over the country just to sell them off to the government. You'd get a bunch of old cars off the road, but many more would be imported to the region to offset it. The same thing might still happen with the current arrangement -- imagine picking up an old junker from an out-of-state relative for next to nothing, then bringing it to Texas to get a nice discount on your next car.

It'd also be preferable to target the cars that are the worst polluters, but the people who drive them may be in no financial condition to buy new ones. In that case, it'd be nice to grant money for a tune-up, but if you're fixing up a car that was dirty in the first place and which is likely to fall back into disrepair soon anyway, is there much point?

Meh, maybe I should keep my ramblings to myself, I'm just procrastinating on other things at the moment :-p

To answer the poll question in words, the Excursion is probably a lot better in terms of smog-forming emissions, though it might be so big that it skirts emissions regulations. The CRX is obviously a lot better in terms of CO2 emissions. I answered the poll saying it was mixed.That is basically my understanding - the CRX uses less fuel, emitts less CO2, but more of the other kinds of pollutants.

The way this law is designed, it will help somewhat if they buy a new large vehicle, but a trimer one would do more good.