Governor at odds with EPA over air quality

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Public Transit Commuter
    Aug. 21, 2008 2:48 p.m.

    Michael T Packard - Source please.
    In my albeit casual discussions with bus drivers and back of envelope calcs., UTA buses get ~5-10 MPG city to highway. A car, let's be realistic and say 15-20. So more than three people on a bus means better passenger-MPG than a single driver. Which also means less traffic and congestion, decreasing idling and increasing fuel economy. Oh yeah, and the poor and disabled can get around.

    Trains post a mpg of ~1. There are ~360 seats on FrontRunner currently, and it is generally full, but let's say 70% capacity. That is 200 passenger-MPG.

    Our government's diesel standards are weak compared to the EU, which has a clean, thriving diesel economy. We desperately need to clean up our diesel standards, but we cannot castigate mass transit and overlook its many benefits because we lack the political courage to spend a little up front to save a lot out back. Oh yeah, and perhaps we can stem the tide of childhood ills caused by pollution.

  • Tired
    Aug. 21, 2008 12:22 p.m.

    So much politicking and so little real concern about the environment and how it affects us. Did you know that the lieutenant governor just before being elected (over politics) dismantled a perfectly good working diesel emissions program while he was county commissioner? Now in Utah County diesel vehicles can make as much pollution as they want. Hope they are proud. Personally I question our governors office commitment.

  • Governor speaks
    Aug. 20, 2008 3:37 p.m.

    The gov. would like to (cough) speak about clean (cough) air and how (cough) some areas should have more (cough) dirty (cough) air than other areas (cough).

    why not just clean up the air for everyone? what a rip off!!!!! GOP!!! pewk.

    by the way, does the air just sit there?

  • What Cost Salvation?
    Aug. 20, 2008 2:25 p.m.

    Wasn't PM10 going to save us from respiratory problems. We obviously haven't chosen PM1 as standard because it isn't feasible or is just too expensive or didn't make any difference. When did we vote on accepting the cost and limitations of PM2.5? Does anybody even have a clue at the impact, or are we blindly following the ignorant cause of the day?

  • Sanctions
    Aug. 20, 2008 12:13 p.m.

    may be possible, because its gunna be impossible to meet the new PM2.5 NAAQS.

  • Stewart
    Aug. 20, 2008 10:33 a.m.

    We have to get these pollution levels down, if Utah is going to be able to absorb a million more people in the next decade as is hoped for by those who are addicted to increased population growth. We will have to get rid of our cars, and perhaps even cut down on the CO2 exhaust from our lungs.

  • Chaucer Guy
    Aug. 20, 2008 9:39 a.m.

    I'm writing this from Oxford, UK, where I live in the summer. I've been impressed by the new EU diesel standards on almost all the local commuting buses here in Oxford. When you drive right behind them or stand by them on the sidewalk (or pavement as they call it here), you really don't smell the diesel except just a little when they first start up. They have a much higher standard of filtering out the exhaust than we do in Utah, though they have about ten times as many buses as we do with UTA. I'd recommend that the state of Utah look into the EU's diesel filtering system. It really works!

  • Michael T Packard
    Aug. 20, 2008 7:58 a.m.

    UTA is Dirty Diesel Central

    UTA is a big OZONE and PM-2.5/PM-10 polluter.

    By definitions used at Utah DAQ, UTAs buses and FrontRunner are major sources of NOx.

    NOx is the worst emission/culprit for producing ozone and fine particulate.

    The Legislative audit calculated that UTA's buses produce so much extra NOx that the small gains from TRAX and vanpool is wiped out, leaving 185 tons excess in 2006, (p.-185).

    The Audit said that only 8% of UTA buses carried enough passengers to break even for NOx. The other 92% of UTA buses were POLLUTERS!

    FrontRunner is worse, producing over 200 tons excess NOx yearly, beyond savings from reduced car use. When running full-length routes, the modeled and calculated NOx emissions of their locomotives is 280 tons a year.

    UTA has lied/waffled about this repeatedly. They claim that insignificant benefits in lower priority pollutants wipe out the bad pollution they produce, (Audit P-11{reply}.


    Out in Sandy we see many UTA buses running nearly empty all the time.

    The EPA should shut down a lot of UTA buses and trim the FrontRunner schedule when they cause far more NOx than they save.

    EPA should not hinder building of long-overdue, desperately-needed freeways.

  • Instead
    Aug. 20, 2008 6:55 a.m.

    Instead of arguing over this and that, clean it up. dUH

    ALL OF IT IT!!!

  • Mr. Republican
    Aug. 20, 2008 1:49 a.m.

    Cough Cough!

    EPA,

    Quit getting in our business. Our air is just fine!

  • Deseret Dawg
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:06 p.m.

    That's because smokers are a vulnerable constituency, and witch-hunting them and gouging them with windfall tobacco taxes enables lawmakers to evade tough financial decisions which would hinder their electability.

  • uncannygunman
    Aug. 19, 2008 2:54 p.m.

    Funny, the EPA report doesn't seem to mention secondhand tobacco smoke. Oh wait, it's a real report about real air pollution. Never mind.