Good. I always found that weird. To me, the carpool lane is there to encourage drivers to put more people in their cars in order to reduce traffic. Allowing a single-rider EV to use the carpool lane doesn't do that.
It just felt like a ham-fisted way to incentivize EV purchases, when there are better ways to do that.
"Beginning Oct. 1, motorists with a Clean Air Vehicle decal will no longer be able to drive solo in carpool lanes because the program was not extended by the federal government..."
So it's a special EV privilege that is going away (because of the Feds). Now they'll be treated like other vehicles. Not as bad as the headline could be interpreted.
Well, no, they still won’t be taxed for miles driven per year like gas vehicles are. Not yet, anyways! Probably two or three years left on that watt-o-mobile owner loophole (that Priuses have been exploiting for years, but with far less road damage per mile traveled due to being hybrids). Or maybe less if the feds starve California of transportation funding in petulance at whatever.
Solar charged vehicles, such as with a Tesla powerwall, would pay zero dollars of tax per mile driven if you depended on an electricity tax. Doesn’t really work out in road repair costs to leave a massive tax loophole open.
By weight and by tire count! Have to made sure to deal with four-tire axles and such, not to mention electric semi trucks.
I believe the California pilot determined that odometer reporting and occasional DMV drive-thru checks will be the solution. I’d post the newsletter to HN the next time it comes out but this isn’t really the sort of group that appreciates taxation.
Here in California, 20k miles of driving at 30mpg (so, highway only, which is of course unrealistically high) is $600 in gasoline taxes per year, with California state and local taxes at $0.612/gal; meanwhile, the EV registration gas tax makeup fee is $118/yr, which is equivalent to 192 gallons per year of tax, which at 30mpg is merely 6k miles, not 20k. California average miles driven is estimated at 11k.
So: the EV loophole is costing the state half of the road maintenance tax budgeted for road wear in subsidies paid to EV drivers, assuming that all gas vehicles get 30mpg at all times. I don’t expect that gap to last much longer now the Federal government is openly hostile to the state. Hooray for silver linings, I guess.
I had a couple of friends buy cars at the same time - one bought a new Subaru, and the other a used 997 Porsche 911. The 911 cost more, but not a large difference in price. In that part of the world, the Subaru (and almost all new cars) loses 40% in the first year in depreciation, and continues to drop off at 10% - 15% per year. The 911 has more expensive maintenance and insurance, but has so far, and could easily continue to be depreciation-proof. The difference in fuel is less than you might think too given how much lighter (and risky in crashes) older smaller cars are. So far the 911 has turned out to be by far the more sensible financial decision. Obviously there are much more financially-prudent alternatives to both, but I find it interesting how older interesting cars are looked at as frivolous purchases, but new utilitarian cars aren't.
Your comment was presumably talking about new or expensive 911s, and I don't want to criticise what you said at all. I just wanted to say something to hopefully encourage some people to consider sillier, more-fun cars as perhaps not a crazy option.
There are a million practicality reasons why this wont work out for most people, but a lot of families have two cars. I really like seeing the 2nd car being something in that realm of interesting but nearly as reliable, costs more in maintenance but less in depreciation, less practical but more enjoyable. It feels to me like that has gotten less common, and a lot of people think every vehicle needs to be as practical as possible.
Good. I always found that weird. To me, the carpool lane is there to encourage drivers to put more people in their cars in order to reduce traffic. Allowing a single-rider EV to use the carpool lane doesn't do that.
It just felt like a ham-fisted way to incentivize EV purchases, when there are better ways to do that.
"Beginning Oct. 1, motorists with a Clean Air Vehicle decal will no longer be able to drive solo in carpool lanes because the program was not extended by the federal government..."
So it's a special EV privilege that is going away (because of the Feds). Now they'll be treated like other vehicles. Not as bad as the headline could be interpreted.
Well, no, they still won’t be taxed for miles driven per year like gas vehicles are. Not yet, anyways! Probably two or three years left on that watt-o-mobile owner loophole (that Priuses have been exploiting for years, but with far less road damage per mile traveled due to being hybrids). Or maybe less if the feds starve California of transportation funding in petulance at whatever.
> they still won’t be taxed for miles driven per year like gas vehicles are
If you're referring to gasoline taxes, California taxes electricity too.
> with far less road damage per mile
I agree, let's tax all vehicles by weight. I'd love to see all those pickup trucks and full-size SUVs pay.
Solar charged vehicles, such as with a Tesla powerwall, would pay zero dollars of tax per mile driven if you depended on an electricity tax. Doesn’t really work out in road repair costs to leave a massive tax loophole open.
By weight and by tire count! Have to made sure to deal with four-tire axles and such, not to mention electric semi trucks.
I believe the California pilot determined that odometer reporting and occasional DMV drive-thru checks will be the solution. I’d post the newsletter to HN the next time it comes out but this isn’t really the sort of group that appreciates taxation.
Pickups are taxed by weight.
I believe they mean the gasoline tax not the registration cost which isn't a huge increase between size
EVs pay a registration surcharge in lieu of gas taxes. And it works out to something crazy like 20k equivalent miles per year.
Here in California, 20k miles of driving at 30mpg (so, highway only, which is of course unrealistically high) is $600 in gasoline taxes per year, with California state and local taxes at $0.612/gal; meanwhile, the EV registration gas tax makeup fee is $118/yr, which is equivalent to 192 gallons per year of tax, which at 30mpg is merely 6k miles, not 20k. California average miles driven is estimated at 11k.
So: the EV loophole is costing the state half of the road maintenance tax budgeted for road wear in subsidies paid to EV drivers, assuming that all gas vehicles get 30mpg at all times. I don’t expect that gap to last much longer now the Federal government is openly hostile to the state. Hooray for silver linings, I guess.
Fun while it lasted. I foresee a lot of cops pulling over Teslas in the carpool lane because they didn't realize the program is over
Since Newsom doesn't like the program ending, I have a suspicion that the enforcement will be lax.
They already announced a 2 month "grace period" where it won't be enforced
There will be some sort of alternative pay to play privilege fast lane for rich people.
That’s how it works now, for 5 bucks you just zoom down fastrak. Always blows my mind seeing 911s sitting in traffic instead of using it
Off topic, but prompted by your 911 comment.
I had a couple of friends buy cars at the same time - one bought a new Subaru, and the other a used 997 Porsche 911. The 911 cost more, but not a large difference in price. In that part of the world, the Subaru (and almost all new cars) loses 40% in the first year in depreciation, and continues to drop off at 10% - 15% per year. The 911 has more expensive maintenance and insurance, but has so far, and could easily continue to be depreciation-proof. The difference in fuel is less than you might think too given how much lighter (and risky in crashes) older smaller cars are. So far the 911 has turned out to be by far the more sensible financial decision. Obviously there are much more financially-prudent alternatives to both, but I find it interesting how older interesting cars are looked at as frivolous purchases, but new utilitarian cars aren't.
Your comment was presumably talking about new or expensive 911s, and I don't want to criticise what you said at all. I just wanted to say something to hopefully encourage some people to consider sillier, more-fun cars as perhaps not a crazy option.
There are a million practicality reasons why this wont work out for most people, but a lot of families have two cars. I really like seeing the 2nd car being something in that realm of interesting but nearly as reliable, costs more in maintenance but less in depreciation, less practical but more enjoyable. It feels to me like that has gotten less common, and a lot of people think every vehicle needs to be as practical as possible.
Oh yeah I’m a big fan of 911s (and fun cars in general) that’s why I’m always looking!
But I’m also a new Maserati owner and your Subaru friend is doing rookie depreciation numbers above…
40% depreciation in the first year is a myth. Show me one year old vehicle you can buy for 40% off.
$5? Rush hour on 101 is $20 to drive the ~10 miles between Brittan and Embarcadero.
Already exists in some parts of southern california as toll lanes for single drivers.
Please don’t post cynical fantasies here.
I don't understand what the federal clean air program has to do with anything? California can make whatever rules about their carpool lanes they want.
Just a guess, but the federal government probably paid for the roads, not the state. With that funding, are strings
The Clean Air Vehicle (CAV) program requires federal approval under Section 166 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code.
The federal government is notnot be extending the program, which means the underlying authority for the program expires.
California passed legislation to extend the program, but this extension is contingent on federal approval, which was not granted.