Oops!

Should read 139 km.!

air care neutral

It's good to see that the program is going to be looking at gas tank evaporation prevention systems as faults in these are, by and large, undetected by on board computers. It also is the first admission that by far and away the biggest auto pollution problem is gas evaporation (ever notice how hazy it is in summer, but not winter?) In this regard, much more effective work needs doing at filling stations to capture and neutralize the escape of fumes from tanks which are displaced on refueling. This, of course, would be at the expense of suppliers, so is not going to happen.
It's also cheap and easy to retro fit carbon evaporation systems on older cars, and I've done it to many of my caring customers, but never seen it as a strategy.
It should be mentioned that there are many ways to get an older car (those without a check engine light) passed/licensed, all known to the industry, which render the inspection virtually useless, other than give the owner a guilty conscience.
With the newer cars, a check engine light systems inspection does not need an infrastructure like the current operation, a couple of guys and a booth can do the job.
All they are doing at the air care inspection is plugging the computer into a reader that one can buy at at Canadian Tire for a couple of hundred dollars.
Approved auto repair shops can handle the mandatory inspections, and the middleman can be eliminated, because to say it is revenue neutral is somewhat arrogant of the authors, who obviously have no problem coming up with $50.

Who cares if it's revenue neutral or not.

The last vehicle I had never failed a test in 13 years. In that time it only had 3 sets of spark plugs put in it.

The only way AirCare stays in business is because they are able to make money by charging vehicle owners for inspections that are realistically not required.

There's no need to drag California statistics into the argument, BC should have enough of it's own. So what if there is a 15% fail rate. I'm guessing that that 15% is probably so predictable that the rare vehicle that falls outside of the group would be insignificant.

The business can still remain revenue neutral even if it closes down most of its inspection sites and only inspects those vehicles that are likely to actually require correction.

Of course this would also reduce the carbon footprint for AirCare by eliminating unnecessary trips, idle time while waiting for inspections and the actual fuel wasted during an unnecessary test.

FWIW

The visible tailpipe emission from the car in the image in the article is almost certainly water vapour.

Transferring the problem

Seems to me that all the old clunkers that fail in Vancouver wind up chugging along in districts where Aircare is not required.
Like thanks a lot, we have enough old pickups smoking and idling for hours already around here.

Ok Question

If air care is such a big deal why isn't it being used in the rest of the province and not just in the lower mainland. They don't have air care in Victoria or Prince George for that matter. When your sitting beside a diesel running truck and see the emissions from them you wonder why we have air care for the gas driven vehicles and not the diesels.......well I can tell you why then the government would have all of the big businesses screaming that it is costing too much too run the transport trucks it is easier too take the money out of the poorer people than the "Big Business Companies" do you actually think that all the buses in the lower mainland would pass air care if you do your living in fairy land.

noise pollution too

i agree with Grumpy. Put the $45 for light rail.
Drivers should also have to pay extra for all the stress they create, even if they drive new vehicles.
The social costs are enormous.

Get Real

One cruise ship puts more pollution into atmosphere than my little Mazda truck would if I ran it 24/7 for fifty years.

greengreen, you hit the nail

greengreen, you hit the nail on the head. The Aircare program is nothing but another consumer-based subsidy for big business. Commercial vehicles don't do any aircare - 15,000 bigrigs go through Vancouver every day. Also, those freighters in English Bay and the Port aren't hooked up to the power grid and burn diesel (the most carcinogenic fossil fuel) all day every day. Aircare is a garbage program.

revenue neutral

What do you mean, it's revenue neutral. It's at least $45 out of my pocket every two years for nothing. My car always passes.

Government Pamphlet

This is just quoted material from government propoganda. Try looking at the real numbers.
Aircare has actually shown profits for most of the time it has been operating. Even though this is illegal nobody has really cared.

The numbers generated by aircare are also imaginary. I have given up counting how many people I know who will fail at one aircare and pass at another. Factors such as keeping the engine warm are enough to change the numbers. Modifying the engine before and after the test is also another favourite.

If this tested the vehicles that caused the most pollution (diesel fuelled vehicles) then I might like it. But having a 13 year old car that has never even come close to failing I find it a joke.

BTW, in all the years or aircare operation the only time I have heard from people with issues such as asthma that the air quality has enormously improved was when the Translik busses were off the roads for several months during a strike. Tons of people exclaimed that they could actually breathe in Vancouver.

not a cash grab?

I just got my car aircared recently. It took them under 1 minute (just plug into the onboard computer) and it cost me $45. I have no problem with them doing aircare - charging me the same amount as they charge a car which needs emission checking and takes 20 minutes to get checked means I'm subsiding the other cars. At least charge proportionate to the effort - that will also be an incentive to get olders cars off the road.

Coincidence?

I find myself a little suspicious that a co-author is the union president.

Air-care is only another way to harass and punish car drivers. But soon we'll all ride our bicycles.

To be useful, forget the cars and target heavy trucks.

Historical update

If Retread's comment assumes that co-author George Heyman is the former president of the BCGEU, he should know that that Heyman is now executive director of the Sierra Club.

deep breathing

My daughter did a science project years ago (elementary school)...She placed five open containers of clear water at different locations in the area (Squamish).
One container was quite close to a busy intersection of the old sea to sky highway. One at a local gas station..one on the backporch...one at friends in Brackendale..fairly rural..etc.
Anyway..after a couple of weeks she then poured the water through small very fine 100 micron filters. The originally white filter by the highway was now a grey colour with lots of shiny metallic bits (under magnification)stuck in it. From car exhaust. At the Science fair ..I noticed a fellow intently staring at the exhibit...he was an engineer and had been riding his bike along the highway.. to work 20KM return daily. He`s a nonsmoker..healthy guy...he said " I`ve been riding my bike for a couple of weeks now..and yet I feel terrible..
maybe this is why?" When your using your lungs at an accelerated rate..breathing deeply..car exhaust can`t be a good thing nohow. Biking in in the city traffic...wow..air care makes a whole lotta sense..

Revenue Neutral?

Introducing a new "service" and making it "user pay" does not qualify in any way as revenue neutral. The term revenue neutral applies to a tax before and after a change in the manner in which the revenue is collected. In this case it shouldn't be used. No matter how you look at it it costs more for every person paying. It may have been used to make the cost more appealing but that is the same tactic used by the liberals on the HST. We ain't that stupid.

This article is the biggest

This article is the biggest piece of Bull I have ever seen at the Tyee. I sure hope the Tyee does not print more garbage articles like this in the future.

What a load of rot

This is the worst abuse of any Government program. There sure seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence but not a lot of empirical evidence. If they say it pays for itself so it should be kept most of the driving public respectfully disagrees. I have had multiple vehicles go through and not had 1 fail. A tuned vehicle is better for me to run financially. Having someone dictate that if I fail I cannot get insurance is a crock of ###. This program has far outlived its usefulness and should be scrapped. If they really want the money put it towards transit as a vehicle levy, although I don't like the levy idea, and sell off the land and equipment.

Good value!

If you have an older car and are mechanically inclined, aircare can actually be a blessing in disguise. Why take your car to an expensive mechanic to do emissions testing, when for 22$ you can get a professional computer test indicating what area maybe failing!

They clearly list the level of pollutants on the air care report, and this assists greatly in trying to narrow down emissions problems. Combine that with some educated guesses, and aircare has saved me hundreds over the years.
I suppose if i had to pay 50$ for the test instead of 22$, I might be more inclined to say scrap it...
BUT, it is amazing how many people will drive around burning oil, or have their cat removed for the slight performance increase.

Say what

If Air Care were revenue neutral, why do I feel $45.00 poorer every second year? Not only that, but half of this fee is being charged for me to not bring my car in for testing every second year.

Air Care has become nothing more than an unofficial vehicle levy foisted upon the great unwashed living in the lower mainland.

Air Care

I know from having worked in the Railroad industry that inefficient engines cost money, lots of it, in fuel expenses and engine repairs. Not only does your vehicle cost more money to run, it will damage your engine.

I was in the mechanical department of the railway. We took oil samples at every turn around terminal on the railroad and had them tested. When we received the results, we could tell if that engine was working efficiently and what was wearing. I can tell you this, most of the engine problems were caused by inefficient engines.

Contamiments from fuel in the oil meant your using too much fuel. For example, soot in the oil, caused by worn rings, allowed a build up of carbon in the oil, it also meant that fuel was getting into the oil. Fuel, whether small amounts or large, caused most of the engine wear.

Once we got the results, we went after the problem and would shut an locomitive down enroute if the results were reaching critical. Most of the problems were fuel injector problems causing fuel to escape to the oil system and I'll bet that most of gasoline engine problems are caused because of poor maintenance of the fuel system. We saved millions of dollars in engine repairs and fuel consumption using an inspection system.

These inspection facilities can work better, no doubt, but they are providing a valuable service if, here's the caveate, the operator of the vehicle is responsible.

Deadliness

I like clean air too, but the aircare thing just is just a money grab.

1. It only applies to the lower mainland.
2. I am much more likely to die when someone's brakes fail on their car, yet there is no technical inspection.

If they want to keep aircare I would also like to see a mechanical inspection every two years (and yearly for any commercial vehicle), much like it's done in Europe. Otherwise, drop it.

I agree with unrealistic expec.

Air care is a bargain and would be even at twice the rate! My old, but solid model is giving me better mileage than it did when I first bought it in 1996, because the two times there were problems, I had the appropriate repairs done, which of course I could have anyway, but not being terribly savvy on engines, I could easily have failed to acknowledge the problem, and, once getting inside a car repair center by accident, would have been up for a good plucking, rather than coming in the door with a report in my hand, which somewhat narrowed the field. Stop whining about $45 and territorial discrimination! I bet you spend that amount three times over on fancy hubcaps and such stuff. Yes, it is a feel good program. Have you tried to spend an afternoon downtown in a metropolis with no air care, and come home with an excruciating headache as well as queasiness from carbon monoxide toxicity?

Keeping Aircare - Metro's secret agenda

Air Care is being kept solely because provides Metro Vancouver and TransLink the necessary infrastructure to collect an additional vehicle levy on top of Air Care fees.

The province has been consistent in saying that independent insurance brokers will not be asked to collect a vehicle levy on TransLink's behalf. MetroVancouver, which is vehemently opposed to using property taxes to fund transit improvements, has only one tool at their disposal to count and charge vehicle levy: funnel them through the existing AirCare infrastructure.

Though Aircare is no longer needed, the program will be expanded to included trucks and other larger vehicles, thus allowing a more comprehensive vehicle levy to be introduced.

Good Idea!

Snowrunner:
We used to have a compulsary mechanical inspection in Vancouver and I am sure it resulted in many needed repairs.
Of course people were bickering, and mostly the ones who never even check their tire-pressure.
Bring it back but province-wide or nation-wide!

stimulating economy

my faithful old work van failed aircare and after diagnostics, parts, labor and taxes for a complete new exhaust system i was out 1100 dollars, as much as the vehicle could sell for. not exactly revenue neutral.