HOV lanes were designed to tackle the problem of air pollution from cars, more specifically from cars sitting in traffic. One way to reduce emissions is to encourage people to carpool which helps takes cars off the road, which also reduces traffic congestion, which in turn helps further reduce emissions. Another way is to reduce emissions is to get people to drive cars that are more fuel efficient. Or drive a car that doesn’t emit anything at all.
Not quite. HOV lanes were created before the clean air reduction act. Los Angeles did start implementing them to fight off smog and the language has been revised since to incorporate clean air vehicles. Either way, they didn't have EVs in the 70s and it was designated for car pooling.
1 month I remember. In a few years, I read here I think they will no longer have this type of program. You might be abe to just get by if you don't use the HOV lane much as long as you have an EV..
This is straight from the source:
"With lithium ion battery production it takes many years before an EV offsets an ice vehicle in carbon emissions." I'm curious to know what source you're relying on for this, but why should it matter how long it takes? Over the life cycle of the car, EVs are clearly more environmentally friendly, and it's good policy to incentivize their usage.
I specifically said it was "revised". California DOT, of course, says that it's now for that purpose, but it wasn't originally. My comment was that it was not originally for that purpose and the history of the HOV lanes can be found here: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/hovguidance/chapter2.htm. California started implementing HOV in SF before the clean air act was in place (I believe in 1969).
We'll have to see how that plays out. In today's current state, I'm not quite sure that holds 100% true. Based on emissions, even here in CA where we are encouraged to charge at midnight, Hybrids (like the Prius, which have 20 g/mi less emission than a MachE, not to mention much lower initial impact from assembly) have better emissions than an EV being charged using Natural Gas and "imported" electricity, which we know is California's way of masking some of it's dirty imports.
Things have changed over the last 50+ years. What might've been applicable back then isn't relevant now. The time to start protesting about letting CAVs into the carpool lane was some 24 years ago when the state started issuing white decals to those vehicles that qualified.
I would have been 15...
You're conflating two different things. How about comparing apples to apples -- i.e., two people with the same financial situation? I mean, why drag John's poor elderly mother into it? C'mon... (But hey, I'm all for giving special stickers to elderly mother supporters haha.)
First, that's John's choice. Financially, 2 people can make 2 very different decisions in life. That's not the burden of society, that's the burden placed on the person who decided to make those decisions. Both are afforded the same opportunity and the same income, so therefore it is apples to apples. Would it have been better if I said that John has a gambling addiction and squanders all of his money? Or how about if John and Rodrigo have the same exact situation but John purchased a home 2x the value of Rodrigo and can barely make ends meat after his mortgage?
EVs, starting with model year 2020, are subject to an extra $100 on their registration to make up for the lack of paying gas taxes. That was part of SB1 when it was passed some 6 years ago (same SB1 that changed the carpool sticker program, revised the gas tax program, etc). In fact, that fee is subject to inflation since my renewal for my 2022 lists it as $108 this year. Personally I think the fee is too low. If I was still driving my 48-MPG Prius, I'd be paying over $262 a year in state gas taxes. On the other hand, I'm paying nearly $400 in state gas taxes for my Highlander Hybrid.
In theory those people are paying more in gas taxes because those cars get worse gas mileage.
I agree. I drive over 30k a year in my EV. I DO NOT pay my fair share on the roads.
I'm for a good civilized debate, too. And I appreciate that it hasn't descended into name calling. Once you start attacking the person with name calling you have conceded the argument to the other party. Period. It's one thing to disagree with them and attack their data or conclusions. But once the name calling starts, that's the end of the argument.
I understand your larger point, but would just quibble about this phrasing. I didn't wake up this morning feeling entitled to an HOV sticker anymore than I felt entitled to the $7,500 tax credit or the home owner's deduction. But, since it's there, I'll take advantage of it.
