While a noble cause to make sure vehicles are operating efficiently with the minimum amount of pollutants, a simple analysis makes it somewhat evident the VET program in Chattanooga causes more pollution that it prevents.
Though I don't know how many vehicles are tested on an annual basis, if you assume an average round trip of 10 miles to the nearest testing station (five miles there, five miles home/office), and an average of 20 MPG, for every 10,000 cars uses 5,000 gallons of gasoline, requires 20 oil changes (at 5,000 miles per change) and 16 new tires, assuming 25,000 per tire. That's just 10,000 cars. When expanded out to the population of 150,000 in the city limits and assuming 100,000 cars, multiply all those numbers by 10.
All of this extra burning of gasoline and oil doesn't help the environment, especially when you consider that very few cars even have problems. And this doesn't stop every dirty old car and truck that comes into the city from areas outside of Chattanooga city such as Georgia, Alabama or the surrounding counties.
The proper solution for this is to eliminate the VET program and pass a state law allowing troopers to do an on the spot test when they pull someone over. Make it a $500 fine, and reduce to $200 if they demonstrate they've had it fixed. State revenue will increase, and the bigger scofflaws will be penalized for their dirty vehicle regardless of what city or state they come from.
Jeff Johnson
* * *
I have often pondered the impact of my idling vehicle sitting in line at the emissions testing centers. Many claim that an idling vehicle is the most inefficient and produces the highest level of pollutants. We hear anecdotes about walking into a fast food restaurant instead of waiting in the drive through because sitting in line with an idling car is bad for the environment. So we are forced to believe that emissions testing is all in an effort to help the environment?
I'm with Jeff- enforce it another way. And while we are at it, extend those penalties to vehicles not from Hamilton County.
If we do have to keep suffering the emissions process, I believe there should be a way to obtain a title without getting emissions testing/registration so that I can purchase an inoperable vehicle and make the necessary repairs after the vehicle is in my name. The title proves ownership of a vehicle, which you cannot have without having an emissions complaint vehicle capable of driving through the testing center. I am not going to invest thousands in a vehicle that I still don't technically own. We have heard the stories of long, lost, stolen cars showing up decades later after someone restored them and finally registered them. I don't want to be that guy.
And while we are talking about the shortcomings, lets mention how the emissions process makes law breakers out of normally lawabiding citizens: drive cycles and antique tags. My last emissions test involved a new-to-me vehicle with a new battery. After failing for lack of history, the testing center employee told me to drive it through the drive cycle. So I had to drive a vehicle that wasn't in my name for an unknown length of time before I could pass and get it registered. I didn't want to break the law, but I had to break the law in order to adhere to the law. This pushes many folks to just get antique tags, which are emission exempt and require no annual renewal. How many times have we seen an car running antique tags ($9 and ~$26 annually) in order to stay registered? Sure, its not exactly legal, but a 1992 model vehicle will be emissions exempt under this approach by years end.
This needs to be rethought.
Tim Giordano