Carpool-Lane Access: Very Important For Electric-Car Adoption (at least in California), It Turns Out

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Via GCR:
Carpool-Lane Access: Very Important For Electric-Car Adoption, It Turns Out
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101097_carpool-lane-access-very-important-for-electric-car-adoption-it-turns-out

This sort of falls into the "Well, duh!" category, but at least there's some good numbers available now. I've been hoping that CARB would revise Ca. incentives to allow people to take either the rebate or get an HOV sticker but not both, and hopefully this study will bring that about. Most people with the income to afford a new PEV who also can use HOV lanes derive far more monetary benefit (in terms of time saved) from the HOV stickers than the state rebate gives them.

Personally, I'd rather see the HOV stickers just go away entirely, as they encourage environmentally unsound behavior, but since that's unlikely to happen they can at least reduce the size of the total state subsidy ZEV purchasers/lessees get, while allowing individuals to choose which one's more important to them. OTOH, CARB apparently issued about 5k green stickers in the past month or so, and are now a little over 4k short of the current cap, so unless the legislature increases the number of green stickers for a fourth time it won't matter for PHEVs after next month. I expect they will boost it again, probably up another 15k to 100k.
 
I believe both the monetary incentives and HOV privileges should be continued for ZEVs. The adoption rate for them is still quite low; Nissan sells as many Altimas in just one month as they do Leafs for an entire year. ZEV sales are leveling off if not dropping largely due to low fuel prices at the moment.

I do believe that they should be ended for PHEVs, but you can bet that Toyota, GM, and Ford are going to lobby Sacramento real hard to prevent that from happening. How many times has the quota been raised?
 
In some critical areas, HOV lanes have become as chronically blocked as the other traffic lanes during commute times. My own anecdotal observations suggest the incidence of cheating has gone up sharply, particularly when traffic gets heavy. But, regardless, there seems to be a growing public backlash and EV access stickers are a natural target. And besides, when the HOV is jammed, the attractiveness of the exemption fades as well. It's a tricky balance and we may have already gone over the tipping point in some places.
 
RonDawg said:
I believe both the monetary incentives and HOV privileges should be continued for ZEVs. The adoption rate for them is still quite low; Nissan sells as many Altimas in just one month as they do Leafs for an entire year. ZEV sales are leveling off if not dropping largely due to low fuel prices at the moment.

I do believe that they should be ended for PHEVs, but you can bet that Toyota, GM, and Ford are going to lobby Sacramento real hard to prevent that from happening. How many times has the quota been raised?
Sales are low and will likely remain so until the advent of sub-$40k BEVs with 200 miles AER and sub-$30k PHEVs, plus higher gas prices. There is no financial reason to buy these cars now given current gas prices, and we'e already given the well-off almost 5 years of tax benefits and subsidies, plenty to establish the sales viability of PEVs (or lack of viability to date without subsidies, at least in the affordable category). I'd much rather see subsidies continue for PHEVs (and re-introduce lower ones for HEVs) rather than BEVs if we want to achieve the greatest reduction in GHGs/petroleum use at the lowest cost. And I'd definitely put a cap on the maximum price of the cars that qualify, as Washington state did, lest we continue to subsidize rich men's toys.

Firetruck41 said:
You should amend the thread title with ”in California ”...
Done.
 
GRA said:
There is no financial reason to buy these cars now given current gas prices.

Which is why I feel the subsidies and HOV privileges for BEVs should continue. Otherwise these cars won't have a chance.
 
RonDawg said:
GRA said:
There is no financial reason to buy these cars now given current gas prices.
Which is why I feel the subsidies and HOV privileges for BEVs should continue. Otherwise these cars won't have a chance.
The question is, why should we continue to push tech at this time which still hasn't reached an acceptable level of capability/value as far as the general public is concerned, 5 years after they were introduced, and at a time when low gas prices are allowing people to buy pickups and SUVs (which they actually want)?

I think it makes more sense to wait until BEVs have the capability to succeed on their own at a reasonable price, which will only be when gas prices have increased again and BEV range has increased. Otherwise, we're spending maximum amounts of cash for minimal environmental benefit, and I'd rather see us spending less and getting more. Providing $500 or $1,000 to buyers of sub $30k HEVs and PHEVs that get say 40 or 45 mpg combined (30 or maybe 35 mpg combined for trucks and SUVs) will have a much larger payoff earlier than continuing to subsidize cars that the general public has clearly shown fail to provide enough value for them, unless they're bribed to buy them by other people's money.

This isn't an issue of govt. support for initial deployment, as was the case five years ago; I've got no problem with that, just as I have no problem with govt. subsidies for FCEVs/infrastructure for a few years, as long as it's intended to lead to a viable, non-subsidized business model. But Teslas aside, the current gen of PEVs, but especially BEVs just don't provide enough benefit to the average person given current low gas prices, so why throw money at the problem at this time, when we know that the market will remain a tiny niche as long as current conditions continue?

Once we've got 150 or 200 mile AER sub-$40k BEVs, and gas is back above $4 gal., we can reconsider whether direct to customer subsidies and perks for BEVs are even necessary going forward. That's my personal view, but since I'm not calling the shots in California or elsewhere, a reduction in the existing subsidies while allowing the customers to choose which gives them the most benefit, strikes me as a reasonable step in the right direction, one which may help avoid the political backlash that has been increasingly building against subsidizing PEVs for the well-off. If the purpose of the subsidies isn't to provide universal cars affordable by the middle class, then there's no valid justification for continuing them. Putting a $250k single/$500k household income limit on who qualifies for the subsidies (as California recently did) is better than nothing, but IMO something of a sick joke.
 
Having just completed a short work stint in Silicon Valley, I can completely understand the need for HOV access. Westbound 101 is gridlocked between 7am and 9am, and eastbound 101 is nearly impassible after 4pm and until 7pm. That's why I would see several EVs (mostly LEAFs) at every intersection, whereas here in Dallas I only see a handful of LEAFs and an occasional Tesla.

I'm glad it was a short term job. I would not want to live there. The traffic would drive me insane.
 
GRA said:
RonDawg said:
GRA said:
There is no financial reason to buy these cars now given current gas prices.
Which is why I feel the subsidies and HOV privileges for BEVs should continue. Otherwise these cars won't have a chance.
The question is, why should we continue to push tech at this time which still hasn't reached an acceptable level of capability/value as far as the general public is concerned, 5 years after they were introduced, and at a time when low gas prices are allowing people to buy pickups and SUVs (which they actually want)?

I think it makes more sense to wait until BEVs have the capability to succeed on their own at a reasonable price, which will only be when gas prices have increased again and BEV range has increased. Otherwise, we're spending maximum amounts of cash for minimal environmental benefit, and I'd rather see us spending less and getting more. Providing $500 or $1,000 to buyers of sub $30k HEVs and PHEVs that get say 40 or 45 mpg combined (30 or maybe 35 mpg combined for trucks and SUVs) will have a much larger payoff earlier than continuing to subsidize cars that the general public has clearly shown fail to provide enough value for them, unless they're bribed to buy them by other people's money.

This isn't an issue of govt. support for initial deployment, as was the case five years ago; I've got no problem with that, just as I have no problem with govt. subsidies for FCEVs/infrastructure for a few years, as long as it's intended to lead to a viable, non-subsidized business model. But Teslas aside, the current gen of PEVs, but especially BEVs just don't provide enough benefit to the average person given current low gas prices, so why throw money at the problem at this time, when we know that the market will remain a tiny niche as long as current conditions continue?

Once we've got 150 or 200 mile AER sub-$40k BEVs, and gas is back above $4 gal., we can reconsider whether direct to customer subsidies and perks for BEVs are even necessary going forward. That's my personal view, but since I'm not calling the shots in California or elsewhere, a reduction in the existing subsidies while allowing the customers to choose which gives them the most benefit, strikes me as a reasonable step in the right direction, one which may help avoid the political backlash that has been increasingly building against subsidizing PEVs for the well-off. If the purpose of the subsidies isn't to provide universal cars affordable by the middle class, then there's no valid justification for continuing them. Putting a $250k single/$500k household income limit on who qualifies for the subsidies (as California recently did) is better than nothing, but IMO something of a sick joke.

You're asking for a lot of change in just 5 years. Unless bribed or forced to do so, people just won't change that quickly. And if you take away the incentives, people won't buy them. And if people won't buy them, manufacturers won't have the incentive to develop that >150 miles, < $40k BEV you're talking about.
 
RonDawg said:
GRA said:
RonDawg said:
Which is why I feel the subsidies and HOV privileges for BEVs should continue. Otherwise these cars won't have a chance.
The question is, why should we continue to push tech at this time which still hasn't reached an acceptable level of capability/value as far as the general public is concerned, 5 years after they were introduced, and at a time when low gas prices are allowing people to buy pickups and SUVs (which they actually want)?

I think it makes more sense to wait until BEVs have the capability to succeed on their own at a reasonable price, which will only be when gas prices have increased again and BEV range has increased. Otherwise, we're spending maximum amounts of cash for minimal environmental benefit, and I'd rather see us spending less and getting more. Providing $500 or $1,000 to buyers of sub $30k HEVs and PHEVs that get say 40 or 45 mpg combined (30 or maybe 35 mpg combined for trucks and SUVs) will have a much larger payoff earlier than continuing to subsidize cars that the general public has clearly shown fail to provide enough value for them, unless they're bribed to buy them by other people's money.

This isn't an issue of govt. support for initial deployment, as was the case five years ago; I've got no problem with that, just as I have no problem with govt. subsidies for FCEVs/infrastructure for a few years, as long as it's intended to lead to a viable, non-subsidized business model. But Teslas aside, the current gen of PEVs, but especially BEVs just don't provide enough benefit to the average person given current low gas prices, so why throw money at the problem at this time, when we know that the market will remain a tiny niche as long as current conditions continue?

Once we've got 150 or 200 mile AER sub-$40k BEVs, and gas is back above $4 gal., we can reconsider whether direct to customer subsidies and perks for BEVs are even necessary going forward. That's my personal view, but since I'm not calling the shots in California or elsewhere, a reduction in the existing subsidies while allowing the customers to choose which gives them the most benefit, strikes me as a reasonable step in the right direction, one which may help avoid the political backlash that has been increasingly building against subsidizing PEVs for the well-off. If the purpose of the subsidies isn't to provide universal cars affordable by the middle class, then there's no valid justification for continuing them. Putting a $250k single/$500k household income limit on who qualifies for the subsidies (as California recently did) is better than nothing, but IMO something of a sick joke.

You're asking for a lot of change in just 5 years, both from a technological standpoint as well as a sociological one. Unless bribed or forced to do so, people just won't change that quickly. And if you take away the incentives, people won't buy them. And if people won't buy them, manufacturers won't have the incentive to develop that >150 miles, < $40k BEV you're talking about.

BEVs like the Leaf will work for a lot more people than currently have one, especially as a second car. But it's that "OMG what if I have to suddenly take a 150 mile one way trip" thinking that's holding them back. Never mind that as someone who used to routinely put 15k+ miles on an ICEV every year, a trip of at least that distance only happened a few times a year.

As far as reducing subsidies, that's been happening. Many states have reduced or eliminated subsides, including California.
 
RonDawg said:
RonDawg said:
GRA said:
The question is, why should we continue to push tech at this time which still hasn't reached an acceptable level of capability/value as far as the general public is concerned, 5 years after they were introduced, and at a time when low gas prices are allowing people to buy pickups and SUVs (which they actually want)?

I think it makes more sense to wait until BEVs have the capability to succeed on their own at a reasonable price, which will only be when gas prices have increased again and BEV range has increased. Otherwise, we're spending maximum amounts of cash for minimal environmental benefit, and I'd rather see us spending less and getting more. Providing $500 or $1,000 to buyers of sub $30k HEVs and PHEVs that get say 40 or 45 mpg combined (30 or maybe 35 mpg combined for trucks and SUVs) will have a much larger payoff earlier than continuing to subsidize cars that the general public has clearly shown fail to provide enough value for them, unless they're bribed to buy them by other people's money.

This isn't an issue of govt. support for initial deployment, as was the case five years ago; I've got no problem with that, just as I have no problem with govt. subsidies for FCEVs/infrastructure for a few years, as long as it's intended to lead to a viable, non-subsidized business model. But Teslas aside, the current gen of PEVs, but especially BEVs just don't provide enough benefit to the average person given current low gas prices, so why throw money at the problem at this time, when we know that the market will remain a tiny niche as long as current conditions continue?

Once we've got 150 or 200 mile AER sub-$40k BEVs, and gas is back above $4 gal., we can reconsider whether direct to customer subsidies and perks for BEVs are even necessary going forward. That's my personal view, but since I'm not calling the shots in California or elsewhere, a reduction in the existing subsidies while allowing the customers to choose which gives them the most benefit, strikes me as a reasonable step in the right direction, one which may help avoid the political backlash that has been increasingly building against subsidizing PEVs for the well-off. If the purpose of the subsidies isn't to provide universal cars affordable by the middle class, then there's no valid justification for continuing them. Putting a $250k single/$500k household income limit on who qualifies for the subsidies (as California recently did) is better than nothing, but IMO something of a sick joke.

You're asking for a lot of change in just 5 years, both from a technological standpoint as well as a sociological one. Unless bribed or forced to do so, people just won't change that quickly. And if you take away the incentives, people won't buy them. And if people won't buy them, manufacturers won't have the incentive to develop that >150 miles, < $40k BEV you're talking about.

BEVs like the Leaf will work for a lot more people than currently have one, especially as a second car. But it's that "OMG what if I have to suddenly take a 150 mile one way trip" thinking that's holding them back. Never mind that as someone who used to routinely put 15k+ miles on an ICEV every year, a trip of at least that distance only happened a few times a year.

As far as reducing subsidies, that's been happening. Many states have reduced or eliminated subsides, including California.

I'm only a single data point, but I would not have purchased my Leaf if I could not take full advantage of the federal tax credit and also had the generous Colorado tax credit AND the $5k/0% financing bribe from Nissan. That's $16,400 that I was paid to purchase a car that I got for $5k below MSRP. The fuel cost savings are a bonus, and the environmental benefits, well, let's say that it didn't factor into my math. Add to that the fact that the Leaf is my third car.

So it is my opinion that for the majority of people, yeah, we still have to pay them to buy these cars.
 
RonDawg said:
You're asking for a lot of change in just 5 years. Unless bribed or forced to do so, people just won't change that quickly. And if you take away the incentives, people won't buy them. And if people won't buy them, manufacturers won't have the incentive to develop that >150 miles, < $40k BEV you're talking about.

BEVs like the Leaf will work for a lot more people than currently have one, especially as a second car. But it's that "OMG what if I have to suddenly take a 150 mile one way trip" thinking that's holding them back. Never mind that as someone who used to routinely put 15k+ miles on an ICEV every year, a trip of at least that distance only happened a few times a year.

As far as reducing subsidies, that's been happening. Many states have reduced or eliminated subsides, including California.
Tesla has already demonstrated that it's possible to build a BEV that can be sold without subsidies, and sub-$40k Gen 2 BEVs with 150-200 mile range are already well along in development, so that isn't an issue now. What remains to be seen is how well the general public responds to Gen 2, i.e. is the value there for them to switch. Barring higher gas prices, I suspect the answer is probably 'no', but we'll see.
 
pncguy said:
I'm only a single data point, but I would not have purchased my Leaf if I could not take full advantage of the federal tax credit and also had the generous Colorado tax credit AND the $5k/0% financing bribe from Nissan. That's $16,400 that I was paid to purchase a car that I got for $5k below MSRP. The fuel cost savings are a bonus, and the environmental benefits, well, let's say that it didn't factor into my math. Add to that the fact that the Leaf is my third car.

So it is my opinion that for the majority of people, yeah, we still have to pay them to buy these cars.
The question is whether that's the most cost-effective way to use the money, assuming that the major drivers for subsidizing BEVs are to reduce petroleum usage, air pollution and/or GHGs. As far as CO2 reduction goes, the cost/ton is ridiculous at the level of subsidy you benefited from, given there are much less expensive ways to achieve the same reduction. Same goes for petroleum usage, air pollution etc.
 
GRA said:
Tesla has already demonstrated that it's possible to build a BEV that can be sold without subsidies.

And they did it by catering to the high end of the market. Nissan's hurdle is they are trying to sell what was originally a $35k or so car that feature and driving-wise is not all that different from a Versa (save for much lower NVH due to the lack of an ICE), which sells for half the price. Just about everybody else with a BEV is facing that same hurdle.
 
RonDawg said:
GRA said:
Tesla has already demonstrated that it's possible to build a BEV that can be sold without subsidies.

And they did it by catering to the high end of the market. Nissan's hurdle is they are trying to sell what was originally a $35k or so car that feature and driving-wise is not all that different from a Versa (save for much lower NVH due to the lack of an ICE), which sells for half the price. Just about everybody else with a BEV is facing that same hurdle.
Yes, and what needs to be done is obvious, reduce the price while retaining the range. Until they can do that (as Gen 2's from Nissan, GM and Tesla are supposed to do), BEVs won't be viable for mass market car buyers, and will almost certainly require an increase in gas prices as well, so it makes no sense to push them on an unwilling public now.
 
But one thing that is not being factored in the discussion is the second hand car owners of these vehicles. New, they were more expensive, but used, they become much more cost effective. This therefore makes them even lower in price and even more broadly affordable to the general public.

Reduced registration and car pool lane passes also give incentive to all EV owners up and down the ownership chain. Also, the chain of these new and used vehicles should not be broken. More EV's being produced and sold for any reasons (including offering incentives) need to continue in order to help with vehicle lineage and standing over time to encourage people to change for the better. People would lose faith up and down said chain for a variety of reasons including; parts availability, worry of servicing, lack or loss of infrastructure for their vehicle etc...

Some people also buy to give support to the EV revolution, to help the environment etc. If we are helping to lower the carbon and pollution why shouldn't we deserve some benefits. Our smoggy cities may end up paying less EPA fines and we may pay less into our healthcare system by not sucking tailpipe. We pay big oil all kind of subsidies, why can't individuals be incentivized? Autos are one thing where actually trickle down effect does work.

Now, we just need to get the dealers to actually SELL the cars so everyone can learn about them and buy them, thereby making auto antipollution incentives obsolete.
 
Evoforce said:
Reduced registration and car pool lane passes also give incentive to all EV owners up and down the ownership chain.

This isn't the case in Colorado. We're growing our HOV lanes, but exemptions for EVs were capped and they're full now. So any new EV owners have to wait for the early-adopters to get rid of their passes. Even then, when the roads are crowded, EVs lose their exemption and have to pay the same toll as non-HOV vehicles. (We have combined HOV/Toll lanes.)

Even worse, in order to drive HOV in these lanes you need to buy a switchable transponder for $15. This device switches between two passive RFID chips. If you just want to pay the toll, the sticker/chip is free.

So having an EV doesn't really help with traffic and isn't an incentive.
 
As far as electrics go... currently in Arizona, the only ones that qualify for new plates for HOV lane are pure electric vehicles. In the past, electric hybrids could qualify also, but not anymore.
 
Evoforce said:
But one thing that is not being factored in the discussion is the second hand car owners of these vehicles. New, they were more expensive, but used, they become much more cost effective. This therefore makes them even lower in price and even more broadly affordable to the general public.
Actually, you've hit upon what I see as the major weakness of 1st gen affordable BEVs; they have such a limited usefulness as used cars - there is almost no market for them unless they have had their batteries replaced, and I see the lack of used value as one of the major handicaps to mass adoption (in addition to their lacking acceptable range for the price when new, as far as the general public is concerned). That's one reason why I believe that the only 1st gen PEVs that make any sense over the long term are PHEVs, because they will continue to have capability as long as any ICE would, just at an increasing price as their AER shrinks. We'll see if the 2nd gen BEVs retain enough range after 3-6 years to have some value on the used market.

Evoforce said:
Reduced registration and car pool lane passes also give incentive to all EV owners up and down the ownership chain. Also, the chain of these new and used vehicles should not be broken. More EV's being produced and sold for any reasons (including offering incentives) need to continue in order to help with vehicle lineage and standing over time to encourage people to change for the better. People would lose faith up and down said chain for a variety of reasons including; parts availability, worry of servicing, lack or loss of infrastructure for their vehicle etc...
There's no question that these incentives have gotten more people to buy or lease PEVs, the question is are they the best way to achieve the ultimate goal. At the moment, I'd say no. As to the used value of the cars see above. 1st Gen affordable BEVs are essentially throw away cars as long as battery replacement prices stay so high and ranges are so low, and that sends exactly the wrong message.

Evoforce said:
Some people also buy to give support to the EV revolution, to help the environment etc. If we are helping to lower the carbon and pollution why shouldn't we deserve some benefits. Our smoggy cities may end up paying less EPA fines and we may pay less into our healthcare system by not sucking tailpipe. We pay big oil all kind of subsidies, why can't individuals be incentivized? Autos are one thing where actually trickle down effect does work.
The thing is, there are far less expensive ways to achieve the same effect, and just switching from ICEs to PHEVs without adapting our lifestyles in any other way won't be enough to get us to the sort of GHG reductions and sustainability we're aiming at. It's the car dependent lifestyle that's the bigger problem.

Evoforce said:
Now, we just need to get the dealers to actually SELL the cars so everyone can learn about them and buy them, thereby making auto antipollution incentives obsolete.
Until the cars have the capability people want, whether or not most dealers are trying to sell them is moot. If they did, could more be sold? Sure, but given current affordable BEV capabilities, all that's likely to do is turn off greater numbers of people from considering a BEV in the future. Remember that we're trying to convince the mainstream customers to switch now, not cater to the early adopter market. And even a fair number of the latter have gone back to ICEs/HEVs/PHEVs at least for a while until Gen 2 arrives, after experiencing the limitations of current affordable BEVs. We all hope that the 2nd gen. will provide enough capability that the mainstream will start to consider them, but in the interim IMO only PHEVs (orTeslas, or FCEVs if you have convenient refueling) can meet mainstream customers' expectations.
 
It won't be more than 2-3 months until the Green Stickers are gone in CA, so if you wanted that Chevy Volt, better go buy it now! We will see what the loss of green stickers does to sales after that point. I bet that there will also be a lot of pissed off buyers why get rejected toward the tail end of that. Personally, I would buy an EV regardless of the HOV lane sticker. In the bay area there's very little advantage to the HOV lane. All lanes are jammed these days. The HOV might save me 5 minutes.
 
Back
Top