Schwarzenegger signs bill to put 10,000 more hybrids in HOV lanes until 2011 (riding solo OK)

Capitol Weekly ^ | 10/12/06 | Shane Goldmacher

[NormsRevenge]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed legislation that will allow owners of hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles to drive in carpool lanes, even while driving solo, until 2011. The legislation, authored by Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, also increases the number of hybrid-carpool permits in the state from 75,000 to 85,000.

The governor, whose staff had directed Lieu to include hybrids in the bill, signed the legislation despite a September Caltrans report that said carpool lanes have become clogged during peak hours. The report recommended that no additional carpool-lane stickers be issued, once the 75,000 cap is reached, which could happen within weeks according to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

"This is a common sense way of working to decrease air pollution from traffic congestion, particularly in heavily urbanized areas where air pollution tends to be the worst and traffic congestion is the greatest," Lieu in a statement following the signing.

The bill was signed by the governor on September 29, along with two other pieces of environmental legislation, including SB 1368, authored by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, which would force energy producers to meet clean-air standards.

"The governor is a strong supporter of reducing California'a dependence on oil and felt that this was one way to ensure that demand for hybrid vehicles continued," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Darrel Ng. The extension of California carpool incentives comes just as federal-tax incentives for the Toyota Prius--the most popular hybrid model--have expired. Starting this month, Prius buyers missed out on federal tax credits of $1,575.

"People purchase hybrids for different reasons, but if they knew the carpool program is going to expire next year, they might not buy," said Lieu. "We need to do everything we can to encourage the use of alternative-fuel vehicles."

[L98Fiero]

I thought HOV lanes were to reduce congestion and emissions. What does gas-milage have to do with it?

[Names Ash Housewares]

"We need to do everything we can to encourage the use of alternative-fuel vehicles."

Until they can do what this can do...

They can take a flying leap. Converting dead dinosaurs into ponies is still the path for me.

[ChiMark]

We've had CAFE standards for about 30 yrs and I can see how that has given us an overwhelming supply of oil. Arnold alternative fuel is o.k. for cars but we need crude for manufacturing. Drill!.

[thackney]

So the Chevy Silverado Hybrid at 18 mpg can drive in the fast lane with only the driver because it saves fuel but the Ford Focus at 37 mpg cannot?

[Defiant]

We had a 1986 Chevy Sprint that got 50mpg on the highway, but that car (if any still exist) wouldn't be allowed in the HOV lane. What a load of liberal feel-good crap.

[ssaftler]

Actually, if it hadn't been for Schwarzenegger's intervention, and knowing the moonbats in Sacra-tomato, they probably would have outlawed ALL cars in the HOV lanes.

[longtermmemmory]

Remember folks motorcycles with one person on board are ok in the hov lanes per federal regulations.

Those Harley Davidsons are environmentally friendly.

[So Cal Rocket]

IIRC... the hybrid vehicle will get worse gas mileage in the HOV lane because it will rely on the gasoline engine... whereas in the slower lanes it would use the electric motor. So, by letting the hybrids use the HOV lanes, MORE gasoline is used and MORE pollution is emitted.

[thackney]

ummm, no. Hybrids recover a percentage of fuel lost through breaking but they do not get better mileage stoping and starting than just running at even highway speeds.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

You touch upon the point I've made in this discussion. That is, if this allowance (single-rider hybrids in the HOV lane) were truly about helping the environment, it would be self-defeating. It would be better for hybrids to be sitting in the stop-and-go traffic where the engine shuts off when they stop. It would be far better to get the gas guzzlers in the HOV lane and keep them moving all the way to their destination.

That said, aren't there some hybrids with engines that shut over to electric power when they reach cruising speed? If not, then it's all a waste because anyone can shut their engine off when sitting in traffic.

[goldstategop]

Government-enforced political correctness. You're out of luck if you don't have a Toyota Prius to zip SOLO down the carpool lane in California. Every one else just has to wait during rush hour to get home.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Spktyr]

Those things were so slow, they shouldn't be allowed on the highway period.

[Defiant]

Really? Mine cruised at 70mph, no problem. Is that too slow for you?

[thackney]

It would be better for hybrids to be sitting in the stop-and-go traffic where the engine shuts off when they stop.

No. A hybrid does not use less gas moving between point A and point B when it stops often versus driving continuously. If that was the case the city mpg would be higher than the highway, which the are not. Not to mention, you would need to repleal the laws of physics.

[Spktyr]

It is when it takes you (seemingly) seven minutes to reach that speed when entering the freeway from an entrance ramp. And that vehicle didn't have enough power to safely pass.

You *are* aware that that Sprint was powered by a 1L 3-cyl engine that made 46hp and 78 lb/ft of torque, right? 0-60 was a blazing 15 seconds! In theory, it would go 85mph, but that was highly optimistic and most of them wouldn't cross 65, especially not if they had an automatic. By the way, the speed limit here in Texas is 80 (soon to be 85+). If your vehicle can't go the speed limit, your car is too slow and needs to be banned from the highway.

[Defiant]

I can only speak from having driven it, I hope that counts.

It had plenty of "pep", for freeway and city driving. I am aware that it had a 3 cylinder engine. My motorcycle had an engine that wasn't much smaller, but the Sprint wasn't that much heavier. It was tiny and light. It could pull out in traffic just fine, and it could reach cruising speed on the freeway better than the Chevy Chevette that it replaced, and as well as a lot of much bigger cars I have driven over the years. It could get to 70 way faster than a 1981 VW campervan, for example, like 3 days faster. It could merge and pass on the highway just fine. I took it on lots of road trips, because it was so economical. This was a stick by the way, I don't know how much power you lose with an automatic version.

As for the 80mph limit, now you are just being argumentative. You know that the limit was raised in the late 90s, and now you want to denigrate the Sprint based on a limit that didn't exist when it was made? Come on. By your "logic" the Model T was crap.

The Sprint could do 70 easy, and I didn't try to find out what the top speed was.

I'd take that Sprint over a Prius that costs many times as much and can't go fast without burning gas any day. It was a fine car for its purpose, which was to get great gas mileage in an economy car. In fact, it was better for its purpose than any of the economy cars that are out there right now, like the Kia, or the tiny Ford, or anything else out there. They are all getting 35 mpg or so, when we should be getting 60mpg by now, without having to pay $10,000 extra for a hybrid.

[Spktyr]

I think that the car needs to be banned from the highways, not the surface streets. It's just unsafe there.

VW Campervans were some of the slowest vehicles ever made. They, and the Chevette, and every other car that made less than 75hp, need to be banned from modern freeways. We ban mopeds from highways for the same reason - they are unsafe with modern traffic.

In Germany on the autobahn, they have a minimum speed limit, usually between 40 to 60mph. My understanding is that any vehicle not able to sustain that speed or reach it within a certain period of time is banned from using the autobahn. I think that should be the policy here, too. If you can't get to 60 in under 11 seconds, you don't need to be on the freeway.

[Defiant]

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are wrong. There is a place for economy cars, even on the highway. The minimum speed for cars on the freeways is 40mph, but that is really unsafe. You need to go 55 at least to be safe. The Sprint could, as I said, go 70 no problem, and it got there plenty quick. You seem to be a guy with a bug up his...for small cars, well, ok, but the rest of us want to use them sometimes. I'm not for banning at either end of the spectrum, the humongous gas guzzlers or the tiny death traps. Let the market dictate and decide. You want to tell everyone how to live their lives, and transport themselves, and that is a tendency that should be avoided in a conservative.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Actually, Rush pointed out on his show that the MPG ratings are skewed for hybrids because of what you mention...that they were credited with miles in city driving that non-hybrids were not (even though they were sitting with the engines off, they were racking up MPG).

Also, if they are supposed to be so efficient, they would be better off sitting in traffic, as opposed to a large-engined vehicle sucking down lots of gas and turning it into exhaust just to keep the idling engine idling.

Also, the fact that hybrids use less gas, the drivers are not paying "their fair share" of the gas tax. Buyers should pay a big, hefty tax when they buy a hybrid to compensate for this -- just as was proposed in Washington state. Yep. It's true. They floated the idea.

The point is. This has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with social engineering, as most freepers have mentioned.