Hey, Kaine and VA Congress!

[acroyear]

A "grandfathered handout" is not the same thing as "an incentive to purchase and use energy efficient vehicles".

Kaine signed into law the extension of the exemption that allows hybrid and energy-efficient vehicles to use the HOVs during rush hour without penalty.  Good and well, right?

Well, no.

Because there's a special clause in that which defeats the point.  You not only have to have one of those "energy efficient" special license plates, but that plate has to have been issued before January of 2006!

This means that those who have the plates (and cars) and don't want to lose their special perk get to keep it, but it totally destroys the entire idea of actually buying a car like that for that perk because new sales (and in fact, the last 2 years of sales) won't get it.

In short, if you were already special, you get to stay special, and nobody else can join into your specialness.  Isn't that special.

No, not really.  It's stupid.

Comments

[majorchaos.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but, the whole point of the HOV lanes was High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. In other words, vehicles carrying more than one (1) person. If you start letting the hybrids into that lane carrying one (1) person, what's the use of having and HOV lane? Personally, I don't believe that any vehicle with less than six (6) or ten (10) people in it should be allowed in those lanes.
Otherwise, they should eliminate them and put in commuter trains or something like that.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

well, from a different perspective the point, when the exemption was put in place, was to save gas and reduce emissions. whether saving gas by HOV or saving gas by using a more efficient car, you're saving gas.

as for putting in trains? do you want a rail line in your back yard? do you want to not be able to sleep in on your days off because a train had to honk its horn very loudly at the station half a mile away as a required caution? There's reasons Reston residents have been the lead in resisting rail to Dulles over the last 30 years.

Then there's the whole hellpit of "who's going to pay for it?" that's been the biggest "I don't want to pay for something I'm never going to use" for ANY public transportation project out there, made worse by the fact that by the time everybody's finally dotted the i's and crossed the t's, the budget has already been eaten up in its entirety just by the budgeting and legal process.

Trains are simply never going to happen again. Nobody wants the noise, nobody wants the construction hassles, and nobody is willing to pay for the better silent versions like elevated magnetic monorails that don't have any of those hassles (and look much nicer, too).

[majorchaos.livejournal.com]

I think they could replace some of the HOV lanes with trains. Electric trains or maglev or whatever. If they had a better train system there could possibly be less traffic. I know wishful thinking. The Reston residents should be grateful of a train. I believe they are electric and it's the Metro that would be going there, less noisey than say MARC or VRE. It would probably also, maybe reduce some of the traffic on 66. Who knows.

As for the HOV exemption of the hybrids, I think it's a crock. There is no reason that a hybrid with one person in it should be allowed in the HOV lanes. Just because they use less gas and have less emissions? It's bogus. There's a reason it's HOV, be it two or more in a vehicle. Less traffic. At least that's the theory. It's to bad that everyone can't get that theory.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

see, that's the "wrong theory" to some. the idea wasn't "less traffic" - that was the "perk" about it, the incentive to get people to actually do it.

the idea as I understood it was "reduce gas usage and emissions" in order to help cities meet their EPA requirements, which DC was among several that were, during the 70s and early 80s, in serious violation of.

if it weren't for the idea of a city paying a significant fine (one they couldn't afford) to the federal government, nobody would give a crap. seriously, they wouldn't. "traffic" doesn't cost a city budget a dime. yeah, people rant, but do they really change who they are voting on based on promises to "reduce traffic", promises that we damn well know can never be kept? no.

[fiona64.livejournal.com]

the idea wasn't "less traffic" - that was the "perk" about it, the incentive to get people to actually do it.

Exactly. I'm old enough to remember the "fuel crisis" of the 1970s, when carpool lanes started to go in. The idea was to share a ride with someone else (taking one car off the road) to use less fuel and reduce emissions. Lighter traffic was a side effect, not a goal.

[fiona64.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with fuel-efficient vehicles having the right to use the lanes. As Joe points out, the idea is to reduce emissions.

Where I *do* have a problem is with a mom and an infant getting to use the HOV lane. Hello? How is that saving emissions at all? As if the baby is going to drive itself somewhere? The "kidpool" thing is a load of crap.

[majorchaos.livejournal.com]

The hybrid/fuel-efficient vehicles can "reduce emissions" just as well in the regular lanes. If there is more than one adult person in the vehicle, then fine, let it roll in the HOV lane. Otherwise, why? just because it reduces emissions? that's as bad as the "kidpool" crap.

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

While the kidpool thing for one baby in the backseat tends to be a load of crap, what about for moms taking multiple children? For example, when I was a kid, my mother would swing by and pick up a friend of mine and she'd take us both to soccer practice. On the one hand, yes, in my instance, it was carpooling. On the other hand, how is the cop supposed to tell between my friend and I carpooling (via mom) and a mother with two children of her own and no carpooling involved? A cop who pulls over one woman because the kids look too alike is going to get his ass nailed for profiling.

Yes, there's carpooling for kids, too. It's just that it requires a large enough car to fit the driver and all the kids involved. :)

Admittedly, I do get annoyed about the infants in baby seats being used as an "extra" in the car... But if you said that it had to be two adults or one adult and two children minimum, then you get into the cases where someone has multiple children getting away with it too, and there's nothing the cops are going to be able to do about it.

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

I was rather amused at a story of a pregnant woman trying to argue with a cop that she had the right to be in an HOV-2 lane.

What annoys me about the "hybrid" exception is that hybrids are actually designed to save gas in stop-and-go situations, and really don't have many benefits over a regular car in a highway environment.

Meanwhile, I get no benefits for my 40mpg diesel Jetta. :^P

correction to the HOV exception for hybrids

[petricat666.livejournal.com]

I own a post 2006 hybrid with clean special fuel plates. The "grandfathered" cars only apply to I95/395. Any other HOV road in the state 66, Dulles Toll Road, the curb lanes in Alexandria any HOV can use regardless of when they got their special fuel plates. There is a difference in the design which is how the state police can tell who is legal and who isn't.

I have used 66 by myself twice since I got my hybrid. Most of the time I either have at least two people in the car, or I pick up slugs so that I can ride 95/395.