I can go along with the 45MPG requirement. Let's reward the folks who are driving the most fuel efficient vehicles.

There is probably another benefit for the toll roads. Most (if not all) vehicles who meet these requirements are very light, which means that they tear up the road less than the heavier vehicles. this allows them a cost savings, which they now pass along in the form of "encouraging cleaner vehicles."

This doesn't make this a bad thing, only that people need to remember that all companies have at least two motivations, and a third one that they pubically state.

That said, I think that this is a good move. Any move that encourages more efficient vehicals is a good thing.

I have the HOV Diamond Lane Sticker on my Prius in Santa Monica, California and the perks are amazing. We also receive free metered Parking in many cities throughout California. With Los Angeles having seriously troubled air quality, any incentive to promote buyers to invest in the greenest & cleanest technologies esp. cars since they are a huge contributer to Global Warming as well as Air Quality,Acid Rain and many others problems the create. Any incentive on living green is crucial, bottom line. The emissions are 90 percent less & the extra few dollars you spend to buy the hybrid you def. get back as well as Putting your best of both feet forward.....I'm fully stoked when i cruise down the HOV lane on the 405 ......Thanks for this Topic, interesting choice.......Green Incentives are Crucial in moving forward and getting everyone on board for a healthier more sustainable planet.

I have the HOV Diamond Lane Sticker on my Prius in Santa Monica, California and the perks are amazing. We also receive free metered Parking in many cities throughout California. With Los Angeles having seriously troubled air quality, any incentive to promote buyers to invest in the greenest & cleanest technologies esp. cars since they are a huge contributer to Global Warming as well as Air Quality,Acid Rain and many others problems the create. Any incentive on living green is crucial, bottom line. The emissions are 90 percent less & the extra few dollars you spend to buy the hybrid you def. get back as well as Putting your best of both feet forward.....I'm fully stoked when i cruise down the HOV lane on the 405 ......Thanks for this Topic, interesting choice.......Green Incentives are Crucial in moving forward and getting everyone on board for a healthier more sustainable planet.

How does one know whether a hybrid gets 50%/25% better than a non-hybrid if there isn't the same model in a non-hybrid version? That's a pretty lofty target. I would speculate that even a Prius might not get 50%/25% better mileage compared to a hypothetical Prius with a small gas engine but no hybrid technology.

Seems better to just set an MPG standard.

This might be more productive than even the current use for multiple occupancy. Living in Southern Cal I have many times driven or been a passenger in a carpool lane. Not a single one of those times was it really a carpool. In other words, we were traveling together purely because some other circumstance required us to travel together. The privilege of traveling in the HOV lane had actually contributed nothing to making our journey more efficient. I suspect that a lot of HOV traffic falls into this category. Perhaps it would be better to restrict HOV lanes to high MPG cars (for every high MPG car sold the fuel efficiency benefits accrue on each and every trip not just in the HOV lane), and to carpool programs that require registration and stickers obtained through work places and schools to incentivize people that truly carpool.

I think this is a poorly thought idea. If the government wants us to consume less fuel, then they should push for more fuel efficient cars. I personally do not like any of the hybrids available, and honestly I wouldn't buy a hybrid for gaining a discount from tolls. But I could see that if they gave toll discounts to cars that has a decent MPG rating that it would have more of a desirable effect. If a Volkswagon Jetta TDI can get 45 city/55 highway, or a Honda Fit that gets an average of 32-35 MPG, I think that has a benefit of using less fuel. People can choose what kind (diesel, gas, hybrid, electric, etc.) they can purchase. So setting it to a fuel consumption to 30-35 MPG wouldn't be a bad target, then raise it up in years time.

If you set the bar high, while not limiting to a certain "class" of vehicles, this will prove to be more beneficial, instead of turning some people off to the idea. With CAFE going for 35 MPG, it could push automotive manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars.

The discount programs you mention are all generally worthwhile, and serve to encourage people to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, and to modestly modify their behavior in order to reduce congestion and air pollution.

There should be research and discussion as to just how much incentive these discount programs provide, and whether that justifies the reduction in tolls collected.

You don't want to so incentivize commuting that people chose to drive rather than take (public) transit, bike or carpool.

These discount programs should also provide a moving target, in order to reward those who purchase the most efficient vehicles, and invest in newer technology. What was very efficient five years ago probably won't look so impressive in another five years, so the discounts should phase out or be ratcheted up.

Some systems offer a discounted toll rate for people who use Fast Lane or similar systems, with no regard to efficiency. That's counter productive and should be discontinued. The speed savings and convenience of automatic tolling is its own reward.

It's also possible to game the system - to purchase a transponder for a very efficient vehicle, but use it on a highly inefficient vehicle. This will be hard to monitor and enforce since the transponders are so easily removed from autos.

Wolfspirit's comments above are also important to consider. Light cars cause much less wear and tear on the roads than large SUV's. They also take up a lot less roadway and parking area. And cars cause far less damage than trucks. A semi trailer can cause 1,000 times the roadway wear as a car.

Raising the registration rates or larger and heavier vehicles to more accurately reflect the costs they impose, to provide additional funding for transit (which will further reduce roadway congestion and wear), to reduce pollution, and to further encourage to purchase of more efficient vehicles.

I would have to agree with Jon, incentivising people to drive rather than using even more effiecient ways of transpotation isn't the solution.

I do agree that people who make conscious efforts to reduce emmisions should be rewarded for there foresight and well compassion towards our plant.

I don't think that hybrids with one occupant should be allowed in HOV lanes. This will negate the reason for their intention. I mean whats more efficient, 1 person in a 45 mpg car going from a to z, or 5 people in a 35 mpg car going from a to z.

Syrus,

While 5 people that are truly carpooling in a 35 MPG car is certainly better 1 in a 45 MPG car... that scenario would account for only a tiny sliver of the population that I see using the carpool lanes, at least here in the Los Angeles area. One must be careful not to base decisions upon best case scenarios that bare little resemblance to real life.

You get a lot of very inefficient cars and trucks and you get a lot of people with only the bare minimum number of passengers (1 or 2 depending upon which freeway) that are passengers not come together for efficiency, rather people that would be riding together regardless... a mom with two kids going shopping in an SUV, a heavy service truck with two workers, etc. This is why I'd be for a system where at least during business hours the HOV is limited to people that register through their workplace or school as a carpool with a designated number of people (perhaps 3 or 4) and get a sticker. Then it would provide more capacity to incentivize people who buy high mileage cars. California has already run out of stickers for hybrids because the HOV lanes are clogged a lot of the time so they put a cap on stickers.

I fully agree with other peoples' comments that the threshold should be progressively increased so that each model year it truly is the cream of the crop of efficient cars that gets rewarded. The issuing of HOV stickers must be sustainable or you end up with an HOV parking lane beside all the other parking lanes.

Hitting people in the pocket book always works. A 33 cent tax on supermarket bags did more to change habits in Ireland then all the sweet suggestions ever did.

People who care about the environment should be rewarded to encourage others to do the same. If the reward is monetary, it will be more effective!

Good morning huggers.

I am not in favor of ANY special incentives for hybrid drivers. If you want to drive fuel efficient cars, then do so, but giving you a break on tolls or parking is a dirty way of making me pay for you. Clean it up and be as green as you want, this is your choice, but please, pay your own way. I can't beleive a $2 incentive will sway your choice of cars.

So, no incentives and no diamond lane just because you drive a Prius.

Thank you.

Hate to tell you Larry, but all civil society is based upon forcing people to pay for things that through some process (democratic or not) have been determined to be for the general good.

The idea that one can make some logically deductive rules about what taxation is fair and what is not, is simply false. Why build roads with public money... sewers, public schools, armies? Reducing pollution, greenhouse and otherwise, is simply something that most people believe is a general good worth funding.

I suppose with computers we could have a website that everyone logged onto to pay their taxes and everyone could arbitrarily line item veto those government expenditures they did not wish to fund... for some it would be PBS, for others it would be the Army. I suspect that would result in a failed country, however.

You don't realize, Larry, that you're ideal of don't force me to pay for things doesn't resonate with a very large percentage of the population that realizes being forced to pay for things is simply part of being a member of a civilized, modern country. We want to hear cogent arguments why one proposal for public outlay of money is more or less beneficial to the public good than others.

Is your big issue simply whether a subsidy is a direct subsidy or an indirect subsidy? Are you equally indignant about aviation fees that don't charge nearly enough for corporate jets and private planes to cover the cost of providing air traffic services to them?

It would seem that the unifying theme for most moderate voters is that total taxation should be kept low enough to enable our country to be economically strong in a global marketplace, and that what money is spent by government should be done in a way that provides the most mutual benefit possible. Most reasonable people accept that they, like everyone else, are going to end up paying for some things that they personally would not choose to as part of that bargain.

RhapsodyInGlue,

If you want to talk interms of reality, then lets review the fact; not everyone is a multi-millionaire. Most people canot afford to walk out tomorrow and buy the latest Prius or high MPG car there is. Most people are making do with the means of transportation they have owned for the last 10 years and probabley will do for the next ten. These people should not be penalised, and neither should those who do car pool properly.

I must say that I do like your idea or registering through work or schools for car pooling, but I also feel that the persons per car should be increased in any case to at least 3, if not 4 as an immediate solution and this will encourage people who are looking for a new car to purchase high MPG's to reap the benefits of a lower road tax or toll tax because these car cause less damage.