Estimates of vehicle miles of travel in the United States, 1960-80

Source: Wilbur Smith & Associates. "Future Highways and Urban Growth." New Haven, 1961.

1 Series in process of revision. Figures for 1958 and 1959 on revised basis; revisions reducing estimates
for 1957 are underway.

Source: Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. "Projections to the years 1976 and 2000:
Economic Growth, Population, Labor Force and Leisure, and Transportation." Washington (Super-
intendent of Documents), 1962.

Ratio of population to vehicles in the United States, 1952 and 1962–72

Mr. BOGAN. Could I add something?

Mr. BARR. Mr. Bogan would like to add something, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Bogan.

Mr. BOGAN. Addressed to Mr. Mackay. If you look on page 15 there, which I know you read, we feel that where it says "it should first require that Federal ambient air quality standards be established," and so on, that the Health, Education, and Welfare Department has the authority to do that and they should do it before we get into all these other adoptions of the systems and equipment which is going to cost the public some additional expense.

Mr. MACKAY. That could hardly be done this year, could it? Those standards?

Mr. BOGAN. I believe we feel it should be done first.

Mr MACKAY. It ought to be done this year?

Mr. BOGAN. Yes.

Mr. MACKAY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nelsen.

Mr. NELSEN. I was interested in what results have been shown by the use of this turbine engine that I have see some experimental models of. Do you find the gas emissions from the exhaust greater or less with that type engine?

Mr. BOGAN. They are a little less.

Mr. NELSEN. A little less.

Mr. BOGAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. NELSEN. I noted in the testimony the suggestion for a nationwide criteria of tests. I presume by that you would mean that in certain communities there may be need of installation of equipment to remove some of these gases. There may be other areas where it is almost a waste of money, where we live in the wide-open spaces. It is your contention, I presume, that in areas where there is a problem, there should be some national standards and inspection to suit the circumstance that exists in these areas. Is that not true?

Mr. BARR. I think what we are saying is, if we put equipment on our vehicles in any area, then there should be follow-on inspection to see that the vehicles are complying in future years, 1970, 1975. I think

we also made the point that it might be less costly to clean up the concentrations of pollutants in local areas from stationary sources first.

Mr. NELSEN. One more question. In an automobile that is new, the combustion chamber is in proper mechanical condition, carburetion properly set, there is a very minimum, is there not, of problem, I would guess, and then what would happen, what happens when you have an old jalopy on the road with the pistons ready to double up and the rings worn out and the emission is there. There is not much you can do, is there?

Mr. BARR. On an older vehicle there isn't much you can do, as California learned by sad experience when they tried to put crankcase devices on older vehicles, 1950 model forward. The required maintenance on these older cars to get them in condition so that then the applied crankcase ventilation device could do its job was usually quite expensive. So it is economically unfeasible to consider applying control systems or devices to past model vehicles.

Mr. NELSEN. Do they do anything out there in California where these old automobiles are on the highway when you see gas emissions from the exhaust? Do they do anything about that at all? Are they permitted to continue to drive regardless?

Mr. BARR. I don't know.

Mr. HEINEN. There is a regulation against "smokers" and it is enforced quite strongly in Los Angeles County, somewhat less outside. The CHAIRMAN. Would you identify yourself, sir, for the record? Mr. HEINEN. I am sorry. I am Charles Heinen, from Chrysler. Mr. NELSEN. No more questions, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. So I will not have to run for the dictionary and analyze it otherwise, what do you mean by "ambient quality."

Mr. BARR. Well, by ambient we mean the prevailing quality. If we would say the ambient temperature in Washington today is 68°, it means the prevailing condition in the atmosphere, I presume.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Rogers, I will recognize you. You can proceed.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. As I understand it, you feel that there is no need for inspection in the factory, to have a physical inspection made. That is the position of the automobile manufacturers. Is that correct?

Mr. BARR. I think what we stated-our position is that we build our vehicles to prescribed specifications. We do this every year. We have this experience, as we mentioned, on lighting. We have built our lighting equipment to certain standards and this is recorded with the States concerned for their approval at the time a new model is introduced. So we do have in this case a place where States do administer uniform lighting procedures and we furnish them our specifications and our compliance is practically guaranteed. This is our responsibility, to comply with the specifications we present to them. Would you want to add to that, Ralph ?

Mr. ISBRANDT. Yes, I think if we compare the exhaust emission system, as an example, to the safety of the steering of the automobile which is a very important factor, we have no inspection from outside sources other than our own. We as manufacturers accept that re

sponsibility and fully comply with the needs for seeing to it that the vehicle goes out as it should go. I would see no reason why the exhaust emission system would fall in any other category.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Well, I would agree with you. I think that is correct and in fact the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, when they testified in answer to my question along these lines also agreed with this and saw no point in having section 207 in the bill.

Now, as for records, I would think this would not be difficult just to make a statement of records available that you placed so many of these on the automobile. What is your feeling there?

Mr. BARR. Every year we publish specifications at the time of new car announcement that indicate a complete Automobile Manufacturers Association specification sheet.

Mr. ISBRANDT. Very complete data and this would merely be an addition to that data.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. All right. Now, I noticed in your statement you said these devices, exhaust devices, would cost about $50, you thought.

Mr. BARR. We said a low of $50; a range up to $95.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I thought we had been furnished some figures eariler that Chrysler perhaps had, I do not know.

Mr. BOGAN. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. More reasonable than these.

Mr. BOGAN. We were not here competing first, but we stated-
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. No, I understand.

Mr. BOGAN. You are correct. We stated in the State of California a year ago, approximately, that the prices for the California package had been given as between $13 and $25. That is a matter of public record. That is for the California application and it might vary on a nationwide basis depending upon other factors.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Yes, but this is your exhaust emission control item.

Mr. BOGAN. System.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Well, it would seem to me that perhaps by conferring, there would be no difficulty in the companies getting together to try and get some device that would be as cheap as possible and yet effective.

sir.

Mr. BARR. I don't think the companies get together on this one, We have certain standards to meet and we have individual ways to meet this. There is no getting together on the means whereby we accomplish our compliance.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I see. I thought you had gotten together on the safety belt feature, for instance, and some of the others. Mr. BARR. That is quite a simple mechanical structure as compared to what we are talking about here.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Well, of course, if standards were set that in fact were helpful in bringing about a determination that it can be done on a cheaper basis, I presume all companies would be willing to adopt this approach.

Mr. BARR. Do you want to comment on that, Ralph?

Mr. ISBRANDT. Yes; I might make a comment on that point. In that particular case we had some engines that can be treated in one

manner. Other engines, because of their characteristics, et cetera, cannot be treated in the more simplified manner. However, I should indicate that while in the one case, which is more costly to begin with, the maintenance costs are less, we feel, than they are in the case of the lower cost device as first applied, so it is a matter of how you treat the particular engine that you are using.

The question was raised here earlier about what we might expect of engines in the future. We know from our development now, I am sure this applies to my colleagues here, that our newer engines that are in the course of design, we are able to reduce the original emissions without the addition of devices. However, not to the degree that the California law requires. But substantially from that of engines that we knew about 4 or 5 years ago.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Now, I noticed, in your testimony, you said you thought the cost for maintenance would be about $50 a year. Would this

Mr. BARR. Let's straighten that out. Again, this is a suggested maintenance cost for the four devices. They were three catalytic mufflers and one afterburner that California had approved when they triggered the law over a year ago. That is the only data available in that statement.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. So this is based on what would be required in California?

Mr. BARR. That figure is based on the California estimates, yes. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Do you think this would hold nationwide if we go into this program or could it be reduced?

Mr. BARR. You see, that system isn't being used at all on any. That was merely the system that triggered the law and it was put in the text of our statement to indicate at some economic value, one State had made a decision on economic facts presented to them, that this was in the public interest at the cost quoted there.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Because I would think this would be a rather high maintenance cost, as high as a new unit. Would it not? Mr. BARR. It is higher than we think is practical; yes.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. You think nationwide this figure would not prevail, then, if we move into this program?

Mr. BARR. That figure doesn't apply to our equipment.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. What would you think would be the maintenance cost of your equipment?

Mr. BOGAN. I would like to, I think, give you some information that might help you there. Inasmuch as our system, Chrysler system, already approved, we have given to the State of California, and these include information based upon California labor rates, maintenance cost of about $35 a year on our system.

Now, you say what is that maintenance? Well, it is the simple things that you, a good automobile owner, would do normally and that we recommend for our vehicles anyway, such as spark plugs, distributors, ignition cables, batteries, and the carburetor cleaner, and manifold heat valve, and so on; those items that are normally in the system, that when and if properly maintained, aid in the reduction of emissions and allow our system to properly come within the limits that California has set.