HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Air Care, emmissions testing
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: bc
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:53:08 GMT

In article <1dc71cINNa48@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>In article <schuck.720989040@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>Some very interesting emissions research is being done in Colorado.
>>The professor who has done this research has also come up with a
>>gadget that can be set up on the road side to measure emissions of
>>cars going by. It uses a TV camera to record license plate #'s and is
>>relatively cheap. It is not as accurate as the Air Care type stations,
>>but that isn't important because the 2 out of 10 cars pollute much
>>more than the other 8.
>
>This sounds ludicrious to me.  How the heck is this device going to
>measure emissions quickly enough to photograph the offender?   It takes
>time for gases to travel to the sensor!  In my case the tail-pipe is
>on the left side of the car so the gases would have to travel 8 feet
>before they reached the sensor.  The car is going to be travel a *long*
>way before the gases reach the sensor.
>

perhaps not. It might use some kind of spectrometry technique, where 
the gases abosrb different amounts of light, and radiate according to
the gas spectra of the pollutants. (some chemist can sya whether it would
be emmission or absorption spectra...)

>Besides this, wind direction, wind speed, and air turbulence would all
>have to factored in in order to decide which car produced the emissions
>and how dispersed the gases were by the time they got to the sensor.
>A certain error factor were be tolerable since an additional test would
>be performed, but I can't beleive that this could do much better than
>50% accuracy.

Well, astronomers can estimate helium on the sun, methane and ammonia 
concentrations on Venus or Jupiter. I don't think the probes sent down
little flasks to sample the atmosphere directly.

I think you are looking at it from the intuitive (direct sampling) but
wrong angle.
>
>Bill "the skeptic" Arnett.
>-- 
>Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Referendum intitiatives in BC
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:06:56 GMT

In article <schuck.721291284@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>>Well, it's been a year or so since the provincial election. I'm sure
>>most people voted, and voted on two questions included on the ballot.
>
>>I can't remember the exact details, but I know they were regarding
>>direct democracy ballot inititiatives. I think it was so we could
>>propose referendum questions.
>
>>Does anyone remember more clearly what the questions were? I know
>>that they both passed easily in the provincial election.
>
>1) Recall -- the right to recall an elected MLA 
>   Gee, I wonder why the NDP have been slow on this one. :)
>
>2) Referendum -- the right to hold referendums.
>   Gee, I wonder why the NDP have been slow on this one. :)
>
>>And why haven't we heard anything about this? I think the legislature
>>has to debate the law. Are the NDP trying to hope we forget, or are things
>>actually in the works?
>
>I saw an ad in the paper a week or two ago calling for submissions.
>A very small ad. :)
>

Well, I didn't see the ad in the Globe & Mail, so obviously they aren't
serious in reaching me :-)

>
>-- 
>============================================================================
>"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
>============================================================================


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: bc.general
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: bc
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 06:16:20 GMT

In article <L7TVTB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>leon@unixg.ubc.ca (Leon ter Beek) writes:
>
>> 
>> There is a monthly levy of about $1.90 on everyones Hydro bill to
>> subsidize the BC Transit System.
>> Although, I don't mind contributing to public transit, I feel this levy
>> is not equally sharred by all BC residents (one levy per household).
>> Does anyone know why this levy is on the Hydro bill and not incorporated
>> in some tax?
>> 
>> Leon
>
>It's NOT on everyone's Hydro bill, only everyone in the lower mainland.
>It's done to raise money from residents of the lower mainland, who after 
>all, are the prime 'beneficiaries' of the transit system, not residents 
>elsewhere in the province who don't even have a transit system. 
>Presumably it raises more money, and spreads the cost wider than a 
>straight property tax.
>

I don't use the transit system, how am I a prime beneficiary?

Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for 
my driving, if transit users pay for the full cost of their transit
use. I won't face having to pay any more money though, because gasoline
taxes make up for at least 50% of the price of gas, and gas taxes already
raise exorbitant amounts of revenue for the government.

>
>Robert Smits Ladysmith B.C. emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they 
>want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H.L. Mencken|


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
From: dowdell@unixg.ubc.ca (David J. Dowdell)
Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general
Subject: Re: Air Care, emmissions testing
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:19:06 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <0XDyTB1w165w@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca> bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca (Brad Crockett) writes:
>koichi@unixg.ubc.ca (Koichi J Kishimoto) writes:
>> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)writes:
>> >A tax is probably
>> >a more efficient and fair way of letting people depreciate their investments
>> >(instead of paying big fees to mechanics). They would probably buy newer,
>> >more efficient cars sooner, than if they paid for repairs. And the govt.
>> >would get more money.

I have my reservations about letting any more money than necessary go to
either Victoria or Ottawa.  I would prefer that the governments spend their
time creating policies that we can live with rather than spending enormous
amounts of our money at their discretion.  The last thing we need to do is
let our politicians renovate the legislature buildings again, or jet around 
the province for free when we are really trying to improve our air quality.

>
>This does seem to reduce the effectiveness of the testing from a
>global perspective.  The environmental cost of producing a new car
>vs. using an older one for a little longer is quite high.  One new
>car means a lot of smoke coming out of Detroit or Japan.  It is
>effective, however, in cleaning up the local air - at least
>temporarily.

I couldn't agree more with Brad's statement.  We should all try to think
a little more globally.

>Brad Crockett, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada
>bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca           :->


David J. Dowdell, UBC                                dowdell@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 23:07:20 PST
Distribution: bc
Organization: Robert Smits

schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

> The building of bridges and roads and ferries have *nothing* to do
> with the free market. If they did there would be a toll on every road
> and on every bridge.
> 
> And as for "waste of resources", thats what you do every time you use
> a car instead of public transit. You waste gasoline and pollute the
> air and take up space in parking lots and on roads that could be 
> put to better use.
> 
> A better solution, and cheaper, would be to ban cars in the downtown
> area of Vancouver and force people to use buses, skytrain and commuter
> rail. That would be cheaper and cleaner and much less of a waste of
> resources.


There are all kinds of valid reasons for people to drive various kinds of 
vehicles, including cars instead of takiing public transit, and a ban on 
cars in the downtown area would be completely impractical.

How, for example are salesmen with samples, techicians with tools or 
parts, or people whose work shifts don't coincide with BC Transit's 
schedule going to get around? Walk? Transit meets some of the needs for 
people travelling into the city at morning, who work all day at one 
location, and then travel home again. It doesn't do much for many of the 
rest of us who find that it doesn't even run when we need it.

If you want to make transit attractive, it needs to go everywhere people 
need to go, when they want to go, provide safe transportation (including 
personal safety for the passengers), and do so at a price people are 
willing to pay.

Even when it does this, there will be many people whose transportation 
needs are better served by a private automobile - with the routing, 
timing, carrying capacity (for things like books, tools, groceries, etc) 
than the public transit system.

Making the most efficient use of our resources, especially transportation, 
is a complex subject, and simplistic notions, like banning all cars 
from a particular area, are not solutions.

What is needed instead is a lot of incremental improvements, each 
of which will only do a little to improve the situation, but together 
will make a real difference.

We might begin with having transit run all night so shift workers 
can use it. And make the buses go everywhere instead of just the 
most popular areas. And figure out how to make a bus from Surrey 
take a passenger to Langley in 20 minutes instead of two hours and 
three transfers later. And by setting up a system of HOV lanes that 
encourage the more efficient use of vehicles. 

Robert Smits Ladysmith B.C. emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they 
want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H.L. Mencken
Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general
From: vanderby@mprgate.mpr.ca (David Vanderbyl)
Subject: Re: Air Care, emissions testing
Reply-To: vanderby@mprgate.mpr.ca (David Vanderbyl)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 01:04:07 GMT

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes (and draws a fancy picture):
> vanderby@mprgate.mpr.ca (David Vanderbyl) writes:
> >(This, incidentally, is why a hole in your muffler cannot help
> > you pass emissions testing.)
> 
> Depending on the shape of the hole, and its position, the exhaust gases
> could easily, and conceivably create a vacuum, and suck in more air into
> the hole, thus diluting the exhaust.

The point I was trying to make was that exhaust gases leaving the system
before the test probe does not give better test results, because the
quality of the exhaust gases is what is measured, not the quantity.

As to this vacuum theory, yes it is conceivable that fresh air may enter
the system.  However, it is extremely unlikely since the muffle/tailpipe
create a back pressure in the system.  This is why air pumps are necessary
for air injection anti-pollution systems, and the engineers who designed
the car cannot simply strategically place a well shaped hole to achieve
the desired effect.

-------------------------------------

kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland) writes

> [a vacuum hole] does not help you however because their testers pick up the extra air
> in the exhaust and conclude that you have holes in your exhaust system.
> This is what happened to me. 

While it is true that the test probe would pick up the extra air, this
would result in the tester thinking you car has low emissions, not that
you have holes in your exhaust.  (Some cars actually have fresh air
injection, are they failed for holes in their exhaust?)  This may be the
reason that any hole in your exhaust results in a failed test (if they
see it, that is.)

Dave.

Newsgroups: bc.general
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:16:34 GMT

In article <1d947tINN4j3@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> leon@unixg.ubc.ca (Leon ter Beek) writes:
>
>There is a monthly levy of about $1.90 on everyones Hydro bill to
>subsidize the BC Transit System.
>Although, I don't mind contributing to public transit, I feel this levy
>is not equally sharred by all BC residents (one levy per household).


>Does anyone know why this levy is on the Hydro bill and not incorporated
>in some tax?
>

Because it's an underhanded way to slip in an indirect charge, and 99% of
people don't complain?

things should be fee-for-service, pay for what you get, and get what you pay 
for. 

>Leon


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: bc.general
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:21:19 GMT

In article <w1a1TB2w165w@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca> bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca (Brad Crockett) writes:
>jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>> In article <schuck.721244532@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>> >jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>> >
>> >>I don't use the transit system, how am I a prime beneficiary?
>> >
>> >Because if there wasn't a transit system there would be 10,000 or more
>> >cars on the road during rush hour and it would take you twice as long
>> 
>> Then market forces would automatically create an incentive for a transit
>> system that: would pay for itself and relieve the commuting time. And it
>> wouldn't would need subsidizing from people who don't  want to use it.
>
>What about the people who DON'T want to drive to work but still
>have to kick into the kitty for all the road maintenance and
>construction? If we have to subsidize a transportation system, why
>                            ^^^^^^^^^
>not make it more efficient by promoting transit?

Then stop making people who don't drive to work subsidize the system!
By using it they will pay for it.
>
>> >>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for 
>> >>my driving, 
>
>> >I sincerely doubt you can afford it.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The tax revenue disproves this , especially when the cost of roads, bridges,
repairs etc. is amorttized over 20 years of use.

$20 / week * 52 weeks = $1040

divide by two to get government's share: = $520
multiple by 100,000 cars (a very conservative amount) = 52 million per year.

$52 million is an extremely low estimate, but is still a fair bit of cash.
I suspect 100 million or more is a good estimate for BC.

So obviously "I sincerely doubt you can afford it." is false.


>
>
>Brad Crockett, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada
>bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca           :->


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
From: bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca (Brad Crockett)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 20:44:31 PST
Organization: 'Happy' in Duncan, BC, Canada

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
> In article <schuck.721244532@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
> >jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
> >
> >>I don't use the transit system, how am I a prime beneficiary?
> >
> >Because if there wasn't a transit system there would be 10,000 or more
> >cars on the road during rush hour and it would take you twice as long
> 
> Then market forces would automatically create an incentive for a transit
> system that: would pay for itself and relieve the commuting time. And it
> wouldn't would need subsidizing from people who don't  want to use it.

What about the people who DON'T want to drive to work but still
have to kick into the kitty for all the road maintenance and
construction? If we have to subsidize a transportation system, why
                            ^^^^^^^^^
not make it more efficient by promoting transit?

> >>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for 
> >>my driving, 

> >I sincerely doubt you can afford it.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Brad Crockett, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada
bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca           :->
Newsgroups: bc.general
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: bc
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:06:58 GMT

emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:

>schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>> A better solution, and cheaper, would be to ban cars in the downtown
>> area of Vancouver and force people to use buses, skytrain and commuter
>> rail. That would be cheaper and cleaner and much less of a waste of
>> resources.


>There are all kinds of valid reasons for people to drive various kinds of 
>vehicles, including cars instead of takiing public transit, and a ban on 
>cars in the downtown area would be completely impractical.

>How, for example are salesmen with samples, techicians with tools or 
>parts, or people whose work shifts don't coincide with BC Transit's 
>schedule going to get around? Walk? 

Walking sounds good, so does taking a bus, a CNG or Propane powered
taxi, people movers like the one at Expo are a solution as well.

Air quality in Vancouver is deteriorating rapidly.
Asthma attacks are increasing astronomically.

It's time to inconvenience *some* people to benefit all.

>If you want to make transit attractive, it needs to go everywhere people 
>need to go, when they want to go, provide safe transportation (including 
>personal safety for the passengers), and do so at a price people are 
>willing to pay.

People will still take the car. People drive for a variety of reasons,
and cost and convenience is only one of them. Many people drive just
for the sense of personal freedom.


>What is needed instead is a lot of incremental improvements, each 
>of which will only do a little to improve the situation, but together 
>will make a real difference.

Well....we aren't making any improvements. The Alex Fraser was
supposed to fix traffic problems for decades. It's full already.

The time of the car has to come to an end. It must be legislated in
order to clean the air. We can't afford more freeways and bridges.


-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
From: leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler )
Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
Date: 4 Nov 1992 21:17:55 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

leon@unixg.ubc.ca (Leon ter Beek) writes:

>There is a monthly levy of about $1.90 on everyones Hydro bill to
>subsidize the BC Transit System.
>Although, I don't mind contributing to public transit, I feel this levy
>is not equally sharred by all BC residents (one levy per household).
>Does anyone know why this levy is on the Hydro bill and not incorporated
>in some tax?
  
    This has always perplexed me, too. Even more annoying is the fact that,
as of a month or two ago, this levy is considered to be subject to the GST.
When they decided this was to be the case, they billed me (and everyone else,
I presume) for the back-GST for the last year and a half. What is odd about 
this is that if the levy is effectively a tax, it shouldn't be subject to
the GST: I don't think the Federal Gov't has the authority to tax other
governments' taxes.

				     ---Steven Leffler
					leffler@physics.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: bc.general
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: bc
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:42:08 GMT

In article <schuck.721244532@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>>I don't use the transit system, how am I a prime beneficiary?
>
>Because if there wasn't a transit system there would be 10,000 or more
>cars on the road during rush hour and it would take you twice as long
>to get anywhere. In addition the money saved on transit [plus a lot
>more] would have to be spent on roads and new bridges to handle this
>massive influx of traffic.
>

Then market forces would automatically create an incentive for a transit
system that: would pay for itself and relieve the commuting time. And it
wouldn't would need subsidizing from people who don't  want to use it.

>>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for 
>>my driving, 
>
>I sincerely doubt you can afford it.

buy a clue!!!! do you know how much money is already raised by gasoline taxes?

>
>>if transit users pay for the full cost of their transit
>>use. 
>
>Don't forget the pollution differential. The formula above only works
>if you pay a pollution tax.
>

Most economists advocate this. This could conceivably be rolled into the
gasoline tax, since the more gas you use, the more you pollute (more or
less).
>>I won't face having to pay any more money though, because gasoline
>>taxes make up for at least 50% of the price of gas, and gas taxes already
>>raise exorbitant amounts of revenue for the government.
>
>Only the provincial taxes could go into the highway budget. At least
>half of the gas taxes are federal and never get back to BC.
>

is the fact that the federal government isn't doing it's fair share,
supposed to change my mind or something?

>-- 
>============================================================================
>"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
>============================================================================


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: bc.general,ubc.general