Does anyone know more about those unmarked white trucks that are on the shoulders of entrance ramps throughout the city?

One of my co-workers ask the guy running the truck and they said they were doing emmision testing but he wouldn't elaborate.

With all of those cameras and detectors they use I think they are doing emmision testing on a per car basis trying to find the gross-poluters in the city.

With the totally unmarked vans they use, it just seems like it is the EPA getting ready to do spring cleaning with a bunch of people in federal court.

-Mr. Wigggles

 

When they had them here it was for monitoring particualar areas at particular times. It wasn't about individual cars. Just more about traffic flow and the emission levels at peak times etc.

 

If they are doing a car by car study, I'd better get up enough speed that I can shut the car off and coast by them. My RX-7 doesn't have a prayer.

 

They are testing for emmissions... if you spend some time sifting through this site you might find something : http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/

Easier finds using google:

They made the news in El Paso...
http://www.borderlandnews.com/storie...1-100223.shtml
...in they also have them in Denver too...
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/auto...49/detail.html
...and here is another good article that ties them all together...
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/10412398.htm?1c

Google "white vans Houston emmissions" or something to that effect and you should find some hits.

 

Well that just sucks. My RX-7 doesn't even have emissions controls anymore. Looks like I'll just have to bypass certain on ramps and keep paying the local inspection sticker boy. I'm not playing the environmentalists games. Why don't they go after the factories in Pasadena where all the pollution comes from?

 

Thanks Dr. Killjoy,

I suspected as much, but thank God it isn't a federal van doing the testing.

Rotary,

I would just coast by them if you ever see one. Given the year of your vehicle, the emissions from coasting by would probably not be enough for them to send you a warning. And if they did, you would still be given the oppurtunity to fix it.

As far as Pasedena is concerned, they have taken big strides to clean Pasadena up. I personally don't think Houston's air is that bad, but I'm sure someone is going to disagree with me.

-Mr. Wigggles

 

Looks like you got the same story my friend got. "Just doing some testing here. Move along."

-Mr. Wigggles

 

No offense to anyone from Houston, but wasnt it the dirtiest (by dirty I mean pollluted... you sick monkeys) city in America last year?

 

Go out to L.A. sometime. Houston could pass a white glove test compared to that junkyard. That whole place was bad. The air was terrible. The shopping centers were out of date and dirty. I didn't find much about it that I liked other than the weather. Why people want to flock there is beyond me. As far as trash/pollution is concerned no one holds a candle to New York City. They throw that crap out on the streets.

 

A funny story relating to this I got a dirty letter in the mail because someone saw my other car smoking. So they called that phone number they have for this and TXDOT sent me a letter saying I needed to fix my car it was witnessed smoking between this exit and that exit on the freeway. What pisses me off is that person thinks they did something effective, all they did was waste time and money. The letter had no threat or anything just please fix it. What's funny is the car is a 1972 MGB so it is exempt first of all, secondly the motor is in great shape (the car is restored) but it gets a little loaded up (rich mixture at idle) so in traffic after sitting awhile and I take off there is a bit of smoke for like 1 second, it's not like the 73 lincoln hoopty I see with worn out piston rings looking like it is on fire there is so much blowby. Just cracked me up, the letter is now framed in my office.

 

All major cities have made improvements since the late 70's early eighties.

One bad thing is that "they" keep increasing the standards such that even if a city does better in a particular year, it looks like it getting worse.

It's hard to get real numbers. Houston is "high" in ozone about 3 times a year, but it is hard to tell what "high" is because it keeps being changed. No one uses parts per billion or other well defined metrics just vague terminology.

I checked the American Lung Association website about a year ago and Houston got an "F", but then again so were most cities. In fact if Houston was aproximately 10 times better like some other smaller cities we would get a "D".

Oh, brother.

EDIT: I found the American Lung Association scores for 2003 and 2004 and they are using the same metric in those two years (the 2003 data was hard to find). Houston's ozone is its only real problem but there was significant improvement in 2004 we went from a score of 56 last year to a score of 42, but we still get an "F". Considering Houston is adding about 200,000 people a year that isn't bad and a nice improvement. LA and 4 other areas in California are ahead of us in Ozone.

Now speaking of particulate pollution (all other forms except ozone), LA is much worse. To show how screwed-up the letter grades are, Houston is very low in particulate pollution we had 8 days last year that were "orange" meaning those sensitive to pollution "might" be effected - no red or purple days. For that effort we get a "D"? Los Angeles County had 118 days of "orange" level particulate polution and 27 days of red and they get an "F". I would say that one city is much better than the other but grades don't seem to indicate it.

Dispite expansion of people the air in Houston is getting better. Don't let anyone scare you into thinking otherwise.

-Mr. Wigggles

2003: http://lungaction.org/reports/sota03...html?fcc=48201
2004: http://lungaction.org/reports/sota04_county.html