Sorry for the extra upcoming ramble, but as you know I'm full of it, uh, I mean opinions.
So here's another one...
Crazy to think that Nevada has stricter emission rules than California!...
I don't think Nevada is in any danger of going all regulation-happy on people just yet. Eventually maybe, but it's a slow process.
But I do think they needed it just as badly as we did (or they would not have done it I'm sure) due to circumstances.
I think in this case it's all about the wicked combination of geography, population concentration, and population growth. Just like here...
Like CA, NV is all about just two major metro areas. In their case it's Reno and Vegas and their surrounding areas. Remember when Sparks and especially Henderson were separate cities? How far away from Las Vegas downtown was Henderson just 20 years ago? What, like fifteen miles? And now it's one big city?
Heck, if it wasn't for Camp Pendleton, Los Angeles and San Diego would be one big city!
If you look at it from a climate standpoint, Reno especially is in it's own little valley so to speak. Well, a big valley, but it's surrounded by mountains that just love to keep things inside. Remember what is produced in town, stays in town. Even with the "three o'clock hurricane" that rolls through town during the season, the air would be pretty nasty sometimes.
I think it was only natural that at some point everybody realized that something had to change to make it better. Probably the same conditions exist in Vegas. I'm not sure that some of the CA smog isn't blown into NV under the right conditions too, so keeping it down here, can sometimes keep it down there. Sharing is good, but not everything.
Or maybe the regulationeering is just because all the CA transplants with asthma moved to the big cities first, coughed up some blood and then moved on to Carson City next!%)
I guess we'll see if it is a bad thing or a good thing in the long run, but I think it's already proving out.
Remember too (and this is just an opinion), that without CA emissions standards having started the roll in that direction back in the sixties and being such a big market for the manufacturers that they couldn't just stop selling, and then of course the heavy Japanese competition a few years later, we'd probably never have what is commonplace today. Too-safe-by-far cars, trucks that think they're Cadillacs and Lincolns, and fuel-injected, electronic engine controls that can supply our need for 400-800 horsepower engines that are streetable, covered under the factory warranty, reliable, and run on pump gas. All while producing 90% less pollution and some even getting over 30 miles per gallon too!
It might have taken 20 years to get on the roll we're on today, but it seems a pretty linear progression that certain regulations took us.
I'd actually call that progress, rather than demon-regulation.
Of course too, a car in '66 could cost $2000 brand new and the majority of folks could afford at least one. Same car now is $35k and up and I still laugh out loud when I see a pickup truck going for $80,000.00 on the dealer's lots!
Maybe that's not the kind of progress that we'd wanted. But a lot of people can still afford them, so I guess it's not bad for everyone.
Remember the fight against air bags and third brake lights? I may not want to do a face plant into a super sonic traveling explosion from my steering wheel, but I think it's better than the face plant into the steering wheel in most cases. And I absolutely love third brake lights!!!
Just saying that some really good stuff has come out of all the angst and hand-wringing about how regulation is going to kill the auto industry, make cars too expensive for mortal man, and make all the CEO's go broke making sure their workers don't go hungry.
Well OK, so maybe some of it was actually true...
Paul
