British Columbia to mandate diesel emissions retrofits for trucks
The Government of the western Canadian province of British Columbia will be the first to require older commercial trucks to be retrofitted with new emissions control equipment. The BC government will require all heavy duty diesel vehicles, including government fleet vehicles that weigh more than 11,000 lbs, to be fitted with a diesel oxidation catalyst or something equivalent by 2009. The retrofits should cost about $1,200 to $2,500 each and will be required on about 7,500 vehicles. California is expected to have a similar requirement by 2009 as well.[Source: British Columbia Ministry of Environment]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Der Alte 1:50AM (6/11/2007)
The same government is also committed to spending billions on a massive freeway expansion project instead of investing the money into public transit...despite public opposition because of inadequate public transit funding and infrastructure. They also routinely ingnore the fact the trucking industry has incredibly high rates of non compliance with safety regulations. Fines are considered the cost of doing business. Suprise safety inspections of trucks routinely see failure rates over 50% and yet nothing is done. We're talking about major saftey systems such as brakes, tires and structural integrity. Truth be told, the BC Trucking Association is a major contributor the the governing BC Liberal party. This measure is just a greenwashing exercise to divert public attention from the safety issue. They pretend to be green but instead incourage freeway growth and car dependant communities. This government does not need any congratulations, they are hyprocrites in the first degree.
Reply
Tim 9:30AM (6/11/2007)
As usual, these costs will be borne by those who can least afford it... the working poor. Yep, they will not find it even harder to feed themselves. Tax the rich? Don’t be naive! Higher costs (including income taxes) are ALWAYS passed-on through higher consumer goods prices. Economics 101 tells us that the end consumer ALWAYS pays ALL costs and that's why socialism is such a blatant failure. Apparently, well meaning leftists can’t complete a thought to its logical conclusion. Save the environment by starving the humans?
Reply
Vancouverite 6:12PM (6/11/2007)
#1 "The same government is also committed to spending billions on a massive freeway expansion project instead of investing the money into public transit...despite public opposition because of inadequate public transit funding and infrastructure."
What public opposition? By public opposition, do you mean David Suzuki and a few other environmentalists? I am interested of where you read about this public opposition. Also, have you heard about the Canada Line? How does that not count as a major transit project? The BC government is spending 365 million dollars on it. The federal government also gave 450 million dollars to this project. Add that to 400 million form the airport authority and 300 million form Translink. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line
No, I do not work for the government. It just bugs me when people get their facts wrong.
Reply
gnoble 2:58PM (6/11/2007)
These truckers can easily afford these improvements. They have one of the strongest unions in most the heavily unionized province in Canada. If they used a bit of their striking muscle the province would likely kick-in on fleet improvement rebates, much like they already have for personal use vehicles. Back in 2002 the city of New Delhi forced the conversion of all busses, taxis and rickshaws to CNG. That equates to over 200,000 vehicles. A one time 1500 cost to the truckers isn't going to drive up the cost of food across the province; the rising cost of diesel is.
Reply
Der Alte 1:45AM (6/12/2007)
In response to Comment #4.
The Canada Line is wonderful, but it costs far more than it need to be. A street level or elevated line would have cost far less. It goes through influential neighbourhoods however so it must be in a tunnel out of sight and damn the amount it costs the taxpayer. The elevated SkyTrain runs across other areas of the region, why must this line be tunelled?
The project is a P3, but as P3s go it is a poor one. Almost no use has been made of development opportunities on the line that could help pay for it. Compare the P3 arrangement of the Canada line to P3s in Hong Kong. The Canada Line agreement is merely structed as a 35 year loan being paid at rates higher than if the government was to borrow the money itself.
You also make great fanfare of all the money that other levels of government are paying. Guess what? There is only one taxpayer. A bad deal is not made a good deal because the taxpayer pain is spread nation wide. The Airport just gets its money from that Airport Improvement Fee that never goes away no matter how improved the Airport gets...a tax by any other name.
As to public opposition for the freeway project, yes there is opposition. You seem to take a dislike to David Suzuki. If you do, what they hell are you doing going through a website like Autoblog Green? David Suzuki is a respected man who has worked hard all his life championing the cause of the environment. There is a lot of public opposition to this project, but due to lack of financial resources, media time cannot be purchased. Perhaps the government should challenge its Gateway plan to a referendum to see exactly what the public does feel about it.
More to the point, how can you justify spending several billions of dollars on freeways in this day and age? More freeways means more automotive dependance and more urban sprawl. If you think the magic bullet of hydrogen is going to bail us out...I suggest you look again. We must reduce our dependance on the automobile and fossil fuels. There will always be a need for autombiles, but we as a society are addicted to them and need to learn to design our communities to be less reliant upon them, not more. Spending billions on more freeways will not help that.
As a final note, interesting how you comment you don't work for the government. Why do you think anybody would suspect that? Its not a logical leap someone would make and someone would only make that comment if they had a guilty conscience. Its not like the current government has stacked radio call in shows in their favour.....oh wait a minute...there's that big court case going on right where where its been revelaed that is common practice.
Yes folks, the BC Liberals....a party that has media manipulation and spin down about as well as Dick Cheney...with matching levels of integrity. Not many places where the Premier can be convicted of drunk driving and keep his job.
Reply
gnoble 10:54AM (6/12/2007)
Yeah, the twinning of the Port Mann(is that right bridge?) is a definite fiasco. I surmise it was largely to facilitate trucking from the ports. The libs are trying to push Vancouver as the gateway to asia so they're doing everything possible to make shipping easier. Sure, shipping out by rail would be far better, but trucking is the predominate form of shipping in North America. However, essentially everyone opposed that highway expansion including our former mayor.
As per your RAV Line bashing, why the heck would the put it above ground? If they did, Del Alte would be complaining that the gov't was marginalizing the citizens of the cambie corridor. They put the skytrain above ground in suburbs because there's space available for it. Do they build it directly on top of peoples houses, 'cuz there's no where for it to go that neighbourhood. If you were thinking of putting it through the old rail lines along arbutus corridor I'd much rather keep it as a bike path/greenway thankyou very much.
Oh yeah, you know Campbell's (I agree he is a tool though) father had committed suicide on the nite he was busted for drunk driving.
Reply