Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1970's

• • II1II POLITICAL HOTLINE ~ TA BLE A t Cost Effectiveness of Hydrocarbon 1/ Control for Motorcycles 2 Stroke c..c t- Tons Controlled O..r Life of Cycle 4/ ~ ~ c<"l ~ >- ;j ~ 2 Stroke < l70cc 21 O') ~ planners have organized their info. Check Table B, and you 11 see ho w t he recreation planners have structured their though ts on resource capability - their "RIS System." In amongst their list of possible recreation activities, you11 fmd us, "ORV." Cost Per Tons Contro lled Ton~onOver Life trolled of Cycle 41 lSI Cost Per Ton Con· t rolled ($) 4 Stroke > 170cc 31 4 Stroke < 170cc 21 > 170cc 31 Tons Controlled Over Life of Cycle 4/ Cost Per Ton Con· trolled ($1 Tons Contolled a _Life of Cycle 4/ 1 Cost Per Ton.(;on tro lled ($1 1978 Standard Assumed first cost of $30 and 15% fuel economy incnl asllS 51 .04 634 .15 47 .06 317 .26 77 .01 1.777 .05 389 .06 1,585 .26 386 .01 9.060 .05 1,927 61 6/ 61 6/ ~ -, 1980 Stand ard Assu med incremental first cost of $20 7/ 1980 Stand ard Assumed incremental first cost of $100 7/ 11 Costs given are fo r mod ificati ons t hat will con t rol bot h hyd rocarbons and mono xide . It is no t possible to determine t he cost of con trolling on ly one po ll utant . 2/ For moto rcycles < 170cc, assumed life is 5 years. 3/ For mot orcycles > 170cc, assumed life is 8 years. 4/ Amo unts con tro lled are based on reduct ions in pollutants due to respe ct ive standard and 12 ,00 0 Km driven fo r cycles less than 170ee and 30,000 Km for cycles greater than 170cc. . 5/ Discounted fuel savingsare $4.90 1_ 170ccl and $23 .11 (' > 170ccl. < 6/ No modifications necessary to meet 1978 He standards. • 7/ First cost estimates for 1980 standards range from $50 to ·$130 . Incremental costs are used, and account for $30 spent per motorcycle to meet 19 78 standards. • Things y ou should know about emissions You 're be ing screwed , but you know that, already , , , As reported earlier, the President's Council on Wage and Price Stability has come down squarely against the EPA's proposed emission standards for motorcycles. As the federal government 's ,official "j awboning" agency against inflation, the council has never swung much weigh t with private in d ustry (except for those firms still heavily dependent on government co ntracts) . But in cross-talk between federal age ncies, which must ultimately answer to the President, they make a bit more horsepower. Reviewing the council's 26-p age comments to EPA o n the propos ed em issio n standards , it's in terest in g to no te th at their specialists h ave been mas saging th e same figures available to Cycl e News after t he C.A.R.B. he arings, and have co m e up with strikingly similar co nclusion s. To q uo te them: First, even assuming certain use, increases in m o torcy cle sales motorcycle emis sio ns will no t become a significant so urce o f air pollution o n a national level , but ra t her only in a few local areas." .. . . " Second , as EPA 's own estim a tes in d ica te, th e propo sed standards will no t be as cost -ef ficie nt for mo to rcycles . . . as equivale nt standards for auto mo biles . . . In o t her wo rd s, th ere are less co stly means of redu cin g pollution." Going a little deep er into the lo cal pollution issu e, let's loo k at wh at th e co uncil has to say. Nationwide, mo tor cycles produced 0 .1 5 percent of all HC em issio ns in 1970. By 1980 , that's expected t o grow to a whopping 0.7 percent ! The areas wh ere might reach motorcycl e po llution noticeabl e proportions, as spo tt ed by EPA: Los An geles (o f co urse), San Fran ci s c o /O ak land, San Diego, Sacramento, th e San J oaqu in Valley and the so ut heastern desert, all in California ; plus Ph oenix -Tu cson in Arizona, Salt Lake Cit y , Ut ah and Den ver, Co lorado . But th e cou ncil's report con tin ues: "How ever , a de ta iled anal ysis o f o ne such regio n, Los Ange les, raises co nside rable q uestion as to th e need for the standard even in th ese regions. " (Italics o urs.] U 8 and The co uncil ge ts even deeper into EPA's assumptions about motorcycle emissions by pointing out that in Los Angeles, 39 percent of all motorcycle mileage was off-road. More to the point, surveys found that only 44 percent of motorcycle owners actually used their bikes for urban co m m u t in g. In other words, the figures EPA and C.A.R.B. hav e been usi ng fo r motorcycle emissions in the Los Angeles urban area are inflated to a significant degree. And what's it going to cost? The council took EPA 's cost estimate figures and massaged them a bit, too. They put thi ngs in terms of cost per ton o f pollutant re moved by the emission con tro ls. Ready? See Table A. Note that under the interim 1978 standard, cost p er ton is ze ro for four-strokes, sin ce they arc no t affec ted. For the 1980 standard, the co uncil 's analysts hav e used a high / low guesstimate for first cost of th e required pollution control ad d-ons, (Do yo u really believe it will be as lo w as S20 ?) What ever; the reason fo r th e wild variation in esti m ates (fro m a lowflo w o f $ 7 7 per t o n fo r large two-strokes to a highfh igh o f S9 ,0 6 0 per to n fo r sm all four-strokes) is that fo r some bikes, t he re's sim ply less emi ssio ns to be co nt ro lled at an y price. It 's a q uirk of sta ti stics, and it says may be the analysts ar e wo rking from wro ng assu mp tio ns. What's importan t is th at the co st/t on figu re worked out fo r cars is presently S303 /to n. The go vern me nt figu re s say that fo r only o ne specific type (large tw o stro ke) is emission co nt ro l cost-effec tive with respect to cars, wh ile so me of us m ay be aske d to p ay anywhe re from five to 30 times the cost/ to n as o ur "contribution" to solving the urban pollution problem. Is it worth it ? Comment de adline o n the EP A em issio n proposal is January 20, 1976. Judge fo r yo urself the econom ic impact o f havin g from $50 to $1 30 tacked onto the pri ce o f a new motorcycle and th en write yo ur co m me n t t o : Deputy Assist ant Administrator, Office of Mobile Source Air Pollu tion Co ntro l, 401 1\1 s.., S.W., Wash , D.C. 204 6 0 . Land Use Planning: Are we represented ? In sp ite of all the sp adewo rk d o ne by M.O.R.E., C.O.R.V .A ., AMA, Outdoor Coalition and a ho st of others, we still have a problem. "Planning"' as it is done by government agencies, is going to be with us whether we like it or not - at leas t until Americans at large have rethought the whole co nc ep t of our mixed/managed society. As a people, screamed about "taxation we 've without representation" for 200 year s-p lus, yet as government has developed in the 20th century, taxation is only o ne of the many things go vernm en t may do to us. " Plann in g" is another, only it 's harder to trace it s eff ec ts. Pla nning is d one by planne rs (gee , how w o uld yo u guess) - a class of white co llar worker generally trai ned in the techniques of sys tems anlysis, plus possessing some expertise in another, more specialized field. Th e techniques these people use are methods for t aking well-thrashed immensel y co m plex p ro b lems , br eaking th em in to d igesta b le pi eces, makin g rational decisions ab o ut parts of the probl em , th en putting the who le works to gether agai n in to so me thi ng th at makes sense . These techniques go t us the at o m bomb ahead of t he Germans and t o the moon ah ead of the Russi ans, so by God, t he Feds are d etermined that they 'll get us anything we want. Trouble is, th e m et hod is highly sensit ive to t he qual it y o f in fo rmat io n fed in t o it. Or, as co mputer men are fo nd o f sayin g, yo u can easily wind u p wi th a GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out ) system . The ' work n ow go ing into th e El Paso /Red Mountain Unit Plan is a case in po int. Ea rly last year in California Cit y , th e local BLM revealed it s han d iwork at an open h ouse : stac ks and stac ks of brill iantl y-col ored map overlay s showing w ha t they 'd learned abo ut patterns of land usc , p lant species animal habitat, mineral hab itat, deposits, watershed charac te ristics and arc heological resources as applied to their unit. For ORVs, th ere were a few scrib b les on p lastic sh eet, most of it based on d at a handed to them by volunt eers lik e ORA 's Ron Burpo . Sin ce th en, many o f ou r act ive wo rkers have ad de d vo lumes o f inform ati on and co m men t. b ut we've no t see n mu ch impact o n th e fin al pl an . On e key m igh t be in th e way ' the TA BLE B Resource Capability (" RIS System") Backpacking Bird Watching Camping Collecting Drive for Pleasu re Hiking Horseback Riding Hunting ORV Painting Ph otograph y Picn icking Shooting Sigh tseeing Hey, wait a minute. Think how many kinds of activities, two-wheeled and four-wheeled, have been lu mped together in t he catch-all "'ORV."' By the same kind of reasoning, Bac kpacking and Hiking co uld be lumped together as " Walkin g." Bird Watching, Painting, Pho t ogr aph y and Sightseeing could sim p ly be called "Visua l Ap precia t ion. " Do you get t he drift? The m essage is that the p lanners either don 't give a dam n about us and our n eed s co m p ared to other recreat io n ists, or else they're simply ignorant. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt why shouldn't they be ignorant? They have hired top-calibre PhD-type people to tell them about plants and minerals and animals full-time, 40 hours a week. For what they know about us, they depend on our unpaid, part-time, unsung volunteer workers. How co me they've not hired a " PhD in desert racing?"' (Who could we offer as a candidate A.C. Bakken?) Seriously, though - maybe the BLM's full-time planning staff lacks expertise in 0 RV matters because they've never hired anybody with the necessary knowledge. We should care, because if one aspect of the plan is created by full-time professionals and an other aspect is the effort of part-time volunteers, the plan itself is bound to be lopsided. HAPPENINGS CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION CALIFORNIA CA LI FORNIA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING February 6, 1976 at the Airport Hilton, San Francisco be ginning at 6 :30 p .m . Any bikers been denied their civil rights lately? Contact th e Committee Chairperson, Rm, lOIS, 31 2 N. Spring si., Los Angel es, CA 9001 2. NHTSA - NATIONAL NATIONAL MOTOR VEH ICLE SAFETY ADVISORY COUNCI L January 27 -29, op en meetings at D.O.T. he adquarters, 4 0 0 Seventh St. S.W., Washington D.C. The advisory council has in the past conducted hearings on the helmet law and other matters of in terest to bikers. Meeting agenda has not yet been released. For info, co ntact the NHTSA Exec u t ive Secretary, Rm. 5 215, 400 Seventh St . S.W., Washington, D.C. Ph : (20 2 ) 426-2872. BLM - WYOMING STATE MULTIPLE USE ADVISORY BOARD Meetin g J a n u ar y 15- 16 at t he Little Am eri ca Motel, Che yen ne, Wyoming be ginning 8: 15 a. rn. both days. Those wish in g to make an o ral sta temen t, notify th e State Dire ctor (9 12) B1.M, Box 18 28 , Cheyenne, Wyoming 82 0 0 I. Written st atem ents may be filed , same address. For info call Mr. J ohn Burnett, O ffice of Publi c Affairs, (30 7) 778-22 20, Ext. 2384 . •

• Cover