On Sep 6, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Ed Blackmond via EV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Call me cynical,
Cynical. :-) > but based on the results of California's various incentive programs, the > intent seems to be to make the carpool lanes as congested as possible, by > allowing people who can afford the cost, to use them. Not the intent, as you put it, at all. By "results", are you referring to sone specific data, or just personal observation? A number have made those observations about toll lanes, but that's a different issue. Certainly the new bill will allow more who can't afford ZEVs be able to afford them. > If the carpool lanes are filled with single occupancy vehicles to the point > where legitimate carpool users stop using them, are emissions really being > reduced? Is traffic congestion reduced? Is the air cleaner? Certainly good questions. As far as emissions being reduced, I know there is data on that, though I don't have it handy. But a carpool might cut emissions in half (not exactly, as there are other factors like number of cold starts that impact those numbers), while a ZEV cuts by more than that. It also has an impact of providing an incentive for buyers who see a value. Can't have the air clean without ZEVs. As far as congestion, it's been too many years since I looked at any data, but SCAG and other regional planning agencies still see carpool lanes as a congestion reduction measure. _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
