Are vehicle emission inspection programs living up to expectations?

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 153-172

  Harrington, Winston ^a   McConnell, Virginia ^a,b   Ando, Amy ^a,c  

^a RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

I M cost effectiveness; Mobile sources; Vehicle emissions

Indexed keywords

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; AIR QUALITY; COSTS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; EQUIPMENT TESTING; INSPECTION; MAINTENANCE; PARTICULATE EMISSIONS; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE; REPAIR;

EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS;

MOTOR TRANSPORTATION;

EMISSION CONTROL; POLICY ANALYSIS; TRAFFIC EMISSION;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0034106547     PISSN: 13619209     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00029-2     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Ando, A., Harrington, W., McConnell, V., 1998. Estimating full IM240 emissions from partial test results: Evidence from Arizona. forthcoming, Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association.
2. Ando, A., Harrington, W., McConnell, V., 1999. Costs, emissions reductions and vehicle repair: Evidence from Arizona. Forthcoming, Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association.
3. Coninx, P., 1998. Vehicle Emissions Testing: Air Care, Drive Clean, and the Future of Inspection and Maintenance Programs. The Fraser Institute, Vancouver, BC.
4. Faiz, A., Weaver, C.S., Walsh, M.P., 1996. Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Standards and Technologies for Controlling Emissions. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
5. Glazer A., Klein D., Lave C. Clean on paper, dirty on the road: troubles with California's smog check. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 29:1995;85-92.
6. Harrington, W., McConnell, V., 1999. Coase and car repair: Who should be responsible for emissions of vehicles in use? Forthcoming in Michael Kaplowitz and Michael Lawrence, Property Rights, Economics and the Environment. Stamford CT: JAI Press.
7. Lawson D.R. 'Passing the test' - Human behavior and California's Smog Check program. Journal of Air and Waste Management. 43:1993;1567-1575.
8. McConnell V.D. Costs and benefits of vehicle emission inspection: A case study of the Maryland region. Journal of Environmental Management. 30:1990;1-15.
9. McConnell, V., Harrington, W., 1992. Cost - Effectiveness of Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintanance Programs, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, QE 92-18-REV.
10. Schwartz, J., 1995. An analysis of the USEPA's 50 percent discount for decentralized I/M programs. Report prepared for the California Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee, February.
11. Small, K.A., Kazimi, C., 1995. On the Costs of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles. Journal of Transportation Economics and Policy, 29, 1. (January).
12. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, 1998. State and Area Employment, Hours and Earnings: Arizona. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/top20.html.
13. US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. I/M Costs, Benefits, and Impacts. Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, November.
14. Wenzel, T., 1999. Evaluation of Arizona's Enhanced I/M Program. Presented at the Ninth CRC On-Road Vehicle Emissions Workshop, San Diego, CA, April.