I have a hard time believing someone who can spend $45k - $100k for an electric
vehicle is going to change their mind because they are asked to help pay for the
roads they use. Saying that fee is going to deter people is totally
disingenuous.The single mom driving a ’92 corolla to her three
jobs pays a gas tax to support the roads she uses, but the wealthy
environmentalist screams because they are being asked to contribute the cost of
2 lattes per month, lattes the single mom cannot afford. Cry me a river!
How about increase UTA funding from the special funding and have them make
public transit free December through February, when pollution is often at its
Will $100 million dollars eliminate high pressure systems?
Everyone always talks about what government needs to do. A big contribution
large employers could make is to offer shuttles from Frontrunner/trax stations
direct to their offices for both employees and customers to make mass transit
much more convenient. Of course, govt could subsidize these and multiple
businesses could share a shuttle. Employers could also provide an "errand
car" at the office for transit users that need to run somewhere during the
workday. Once ridership goes up UTA could electrify Frontrunner,
double track it and run the trains at 120-150mph with express trains that get
you from Provo to SLC in 20 min. But it's the "last mile" shuttles
that would make the biggest difference in convenience. Getting 1
truck to switch to Nat Gas is worth 50 cars. The port of LA recently added a $20
fee for diesel (nat gas and other) trucks to pick up cargo there. If Utah used
a carrot and stick approach for semi's and other large trucks to switch to
natural gas it could make a big difference.
Put the money with the Tobacco money Utah received from the tobacco
companies' lawsuit. In other words spend it on building and rebuilding more
The sad thing is that all of their plans are useless. Since 11% of pollution
comes from power plants and big industry even if we were to use that money to
eliminate 50% of the pollution from the valley, that would reduce pollution
levels by less than 6%.How about this, if we take that money and
make a huge bulk purchase from Tesla and buy $100 million worth of cars and do
an exchange with people for those cars. That would be about as effective as
anything they are proposing right now.
I say give it back to we, the taxpayers. Let the never ending complainers move
somewhere more suitable for them.
Cars are the issue. Why won't anybody have the conversations of getting
more electric and natural gas cars on the road? Instead of taxes there should be
incentives to buy and drive these type of cars!
Why won't anybody have the conversation about what really causes the
problem, cars? Incentives need to be given for Natural Gas and Electric
Vehicles. If we get more of these cars on the road this is going to make a
bigger difference than anything we can do. Instead of giving credits for these
type of vehicles the government wants to tax them? People are not going to give
up their cars, but they would drive Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles in
incentives were there.
All this talk about bike lanes, as if that will significantly increase people
biking to work. It's too cold in the winter and professionals in ties and
dresses will not bike to work. How does government make the infrastructure work
better as the population explodes? Manufacturing plants should be encouraged by
state incentives to locate in rural areas where they won't pollute the
Wasatch Front and encourage growth in those areas. Let's think outside the
box instead of more bike lanes.
Enforcement of NO fireplace burning of wood laws.....
Eliminate the state income tax.Florida, Texas, Tennessee, etc. reward
their workers and retirees. So should Utah.
"Carter cited a 2018 UCAIR poll which revealed that 52 percent of Utahns
want to do their part to improve air quality, but only if it’s convenient
and saves them money."If you calculate the true cost of
pollution, including healthcare, deaths, sick days, etc. it quickly becomes
evident that almost any reduction saves money.
I don't know why people keep dreaming up new ideas, the DAQ already has a
list of actionable items that give the most bang for the buck. 87%
of the inversion pollution comes from vehicles and area sources (like homes and
businesses). Only 13% from industry. Vehicle pollution is largely
figured out with Tier 3 gas and Tier 3 vehicles. Now we just have to get older
polluting vehicles off the road, they're the problem. Area
source pollution is the big problem going forward. We started to figure it out
with low NOx water heaters. But we need to target other area sources next.
This will likely also require expensive changeout programs.Industry
is given inordinate focus in the latest EPA nonattainment recommendations, and
they're only 13% of the pollution. Mass transit is a red
herring, only 2-3% of the Wasatch Front population uses it. Doubling mass
transit doesn't make a substantial air pollution dent, but would cost a ton
of money. New power plants outside the Wasatch Front are also a red
herring, they don't affect our Wasatch Front pollution one bit. So why so
much focus on Beaver County?
The front runner should be converted to double track to make it more convenient.