This list, published by the State of California, lists the vehicles which will be eligible for unlimited carpool-lane access from now until January 1, 2015. Sharp-eyed TTAC readers will notice that there is just one readily-available, non-battery-powered, car-form-factor vehicle on the list: the Honda Civic GX.
If you’re interested in cutting your Cali commute time without plugging into a “charging station”, and you like Civics, this is good news. If you’re a Civic GX owner looking to sell, it’s even better news. If you have a new Toyota Prius, this is probably frustrating news.
The rest of us will probably have just one question: What does natural gas have to do with carpooling?
The idea behind carpool lanes is simple: they reward people who choose to reduce the number of vehicles on the freeway by offering those people exclusive access to a less-crowded lane. They also offer all my non-PC friends in Houston a chance to make jokes about being “HOV positive”. So far, so good, and most of the drivers with whom I’ve spoken have no fundamental issue with them.
Naturally, this relatively placid state of affairs can’t be permitted to continue in California, not when there’s a chance to put some eco-wackiness and traditional coastal elitism in the mix. In the early stages of Prius hysteria, 85,000 hybrids were permitted HOV lane access; that access expires this month.
The new super-citizens of the public roadway are expensive vehicles such as the Tesla Roadster and limited-production efforts like the Nissan Leaf. The Civic GX is probably your cheapest way into the carpool lane — short of, you know, actually carpooling.
Why are “intrinisically low emission vehicles” rewarded with a shorter commute? Since they pollute the Gaia less, shouldn’t they be forced to wait in traffic while the GMC Sierra 3500HD Vortecs of the world whiz by? That would be better for the environment, right?
I figure carpool lane were created to take cars off the road and ease traffic-so no-don’t give access to low/no emission cars. These cars may emit less emissions, but they still go through a manufacturing process, use tires like the rest of the cars.
It might be tough enforcing this-anyone could print up some blue CNG stickers and slap them on the back of their Civic. Afterall people put mannequins in the passenger seat to sneak on to the carpool lanes.
Of course they should go in carpool lanes!
You know, just as long as there’s more than one person in the thing.
I think they should absolutely be allowed. Follow me here-the whole point of HOV lanes and tax incentives for non/partial-gasoline motors is to modify behavior. The people that want to do so could designate a special lane that is only to be used by people wearing assless chaps to work, the end is the same.
people wearing assless chaps to work
Actually, in California, Harley riders are already allowed to use the HOV lane.
Depends who’s wearing those assless chaps.
Isn’t Hank Hill an assless chap?
All chaps are assless. If they had an ass, they would be pants.
I’d also like to point out chaps are crotchless. Just sayin….
So, the carpool lane is essentially an incentive to modify one’s driving behavior, right? Giving hybrids the right to that lane was an incentive to modify one’s car buying behavior, right? Both are ultimately incentives that are supposed to be for the greater good… reducing conjestion and reducing fuel usage.
I don’t really care. I live in a state that doesn’t require a single carpool lane, so it isn’t really important to me (and probably isn’t important to most, I’d venture.)
Here in The Capital of the Free World, where traffic congestion reportedly is second only to LA, the state of Virginia has, for some time allowed hybrids to use not just carpool lanes, but a major (and unique) interstate link (I-66) that is HOV-2 only from the Capital Beltway to downtown DC in rush hour. This serves the Virginia suburbs southwest of DC. So, this is a big deal. Given that a Prius (or similar car hybrid) burns about half as much fuel as your regular sedan, there is a rough equivalence: 2 people car pooling in one car = one person in Prius. So, from a pollution standpoint (and good ol’ pollution (not CO2) is sometimes an issue here), this makes sense.
From a “reduce congestion” standpoint, this does not make sense. If the goal were to reduce congestion, then we should allow single-occupancy Smart cars in the HOV lanes, since they take up less space.
I don’t have dog in this hunt personally, since I live and work in the city itself and don’t have to be concerned about HOV lanes.
All of this makes more sense to me than various economic subsidies to EVs and hybrids, such as tax credits or (as in my state) sales tax waivers.
Since a major side effect of congestion is increased fuel burn per mile, allowing single occupancy vehicles in HOV lanes directly contributes to increased emissions.
Your Prius may pollute less than if you had driven in an Escalade, but by slowing the Escalade corporate vanpool down, you’re back to square one.
Secondarily, by slowing carpoolers down, fewer of them will bother carpooling, since it’s attractiveness depends on the difference in speed in the HOV lane vs the regular lanes.
It’s a loss all around, for all but the self righteous leeches that can afford to buy the latest fad cars and the lobbying to make then more equal. Which are, of course, in general, the same people in charge of our current free falling progressivetopia.
The purpose of carpool lanes is to get more cars off the road and attempt to lessen traffic tieups. It has nothing to do with mode of propulsion, as one electric or CNG car is still one more car. Which defeats the purpose.
If you can’t meet the HOV standard for the road, or can’t ride a motorcycle or scooter, then sit in traffic, sucker!
Period.
I’ve never been able to get on board with the folks who claim that allowing hybrids and alt-fuel vehicles to use the carpool lanes with one person is a good idea. These special lanes are for the folks who take the initiative to truly adhere to the letter of the law and do something to actually improve the environment while using the equipment they already possess.
No need for another “new” car. As technology changes (and the lawmakers mindsets change), how many different kinds of new cars will you have to purchase in order to travel the carpool lanes? Why not get a friend or two and use what you already have?
In the larger view, purchasing a new car to travel in these lanes expressly is a double negative, many resources are used creating this new alt fuel or hybrid car and the carpool lanes are not used for their intended purpose. Letting these single occupant cars only adds to congestion in carpool lanes and really removes little from the regular traffic lanes.
So what is the total effect? We end up with expensive (in so many ways) “fuel-efficient” cars that are taking up valuable space meant to allow less fuel-efficient cars to provide the greatest utility possible. This really doesn’t help with fuel consumption, or land use or pollution issues. Why force the larger polluters to pollute even more, when the cars that are meant for this kind of traffic are using the carpool lane?
I like my idea better. Incentivize the adoption of more fuel efficent (no matter what technology) vehicles through tax incentives. There are various ways this could work, and I won’t go into that here. But, set a certain target, but don’t dictate what method used, and apply it uniformly. No more tax breaks for less efficient vehicles, but no penalties either. The fuel prices will do that. For example, when my family was growing, we needed a bigger vehicle. I don’t want to unnecessarily ding families or folks who have a legitimate need.
These special lanes are for the folks who take the initiative to truly adhere to the letter of the law and do something to actually improve the environment while using the equipment they already possess.
The lanes are there to reward particular behaviors that are considered to be beneficial. Apparently, one of those behaviors is a favorable change in equipment.
The state is obviously trying to stimulate some demand for and awareness of these vehicles. This sounds like a pretty cheap and easy way to do that.
@Pch: “The state is obviously trying to stimulate some demand for and awareness of these vehicles. This sounds like a pretty cheap and easy way to do that.”
Cheap? For the state, maybe. Not so much for commuters who can’t afford to update when the fashion changes. Not that I feel bad for the folks who bought Priuses or other hybrids back in the day, but now it’s a CNG car that gets the ‘golden’ ticket. In my mind, this leads to a question: When does the merry go round stop? Why not just use the lanes for what they were intended? It’s a simple solution that doesn’t require you to purchase another car.
We can use other kinds of mechanisms to reward people for using less fuel and creating less pollution. But I really believe this is a bad long term strategy to promote the ‘flavor of the month’.
Cheap? For the state, maybe. Not so much for commuters who can’t afford to update when the fashion changes.
If they want the benefit, then they can rideshare.
Why not just use the lanes for what they were intended?
HOV lanes have three purposes: to relieve congestion, to reduce emissions and to save energy. Your claim that they are only for congestion relief is incorrect.
Vehicles like these serve two of those goals. In addition, they help to create a market for the vehicles by providing consumers with additional incentives to buy them, plus they increase awareness of these vehicles as commuters get to watch them whiz past them in the carpool lane, which may in turn increase demand.
I’m personally not a big fan of these lanes in most cases because of the speed variance. However, if they are going to exist, then I don’t see a problem with this. The policy is absolutely in accord with the purposes of these lanes, as I’ve noted above.
Dad’s maxivan could haul 10 in comfort and get about 17mpg so your carbon footprint per person is low and mpg per person is high and takes 9 other single drivers off the road. I would bet the new minivans do as well with 6 occupants. Letting a single driver in a ICE vehicle use the HOV lane seems to be going backwards to me but I bet you have a hard time getting people to carpool now as compared to yesteryear when everyone wasn’t so “busy”.
@ DCBruce:”Given that a Prius (or similar car hybrid) burns about half as much fuel as your regular sedan, there is a rough equivalence: 2 people car pooling in one car = one person in Prius. So, from a pollution standpoint (and good ol’ pollution (not CO2) is sometimes an issue here), this makes sense.”
Where this logic breaks down is in the state’s decision about which alt fuel or hybrid cars should be allowed to use the HOV. I have a coworker who drives a Lexus RX hybrid that burns significantly more fuel than another coworker’s Focus. The RX with only 1 passenger gets to sail on past into DC in the HOV while the Focus is stuck in the regular lanes or has to grind it out coming in on route 50, thus burning even more fuel and generating more pollution. What sense does that make?
One other flaw to the general idea: Hybrids, at least, tend to have their greatest efficiency gains in stop and go/city traffic. So how does giving them more unfettered highway access help? Maybe hybrids should be forced to play to their strengths and use the “regular” lanes while “regular” IC cars should be in the HOV to help them get the benefit of increased mileage and reduced gasoline use….
Only if the car pool lane they are in leads the cars right into the ocean.
I’d like to add a personal observation about these HOV lanes. On heavy traffic days that I’ve seen near Phoenix, there is a huge speed differential between the HOV lane and the next lane over. People are darting into the HOV lane from a standstill to 60mph traffic. And vice versa. This is definitely not a safe approach to traffic safety!
I used to see that a lot when I lived in Atlanta. People used the HOV lane as an extra passing lane. An incredibly bad idea.
Pittsburgh used to have segregated carpool lanes. But it’s been quite a while since I’ve driven into the city there, I can’t say for sure that they’re still there.
Sharing a ride to work sucks. I believe that US workers are more productive than European workers in part because single occupant cars give the freedom to work overtime when needed.
The whole highway would move faster if HOV lanes were converted into just another traffic lane. That’s the lowest cost way to reduce traffic congestion for everyone.
Per hour old Europeans are more productive and the difference between the US and Europe workers and their mode of transport to go to work isn’t that great. The overwhelming majority goes to work alone in his car.
:The whole highway would move faster if HOV lanes were converted into just another traffic lane.
Nice hypothesis. Now support it. No, “it’s obvious”, doens’t qualify.
Your assertion is directly contrary to what I experience. On the local freeways which have had HOV lanes added, at the point where the HOV lane reverts to open access, traffic in it instantly ceases to flow freely, and switches to stop and go at exactly the same speed as all the other lanes. But of course, my experience is just a single anecdote. I wouldn’t try to claim I can determine causation.
Of course not, unless everyone else who paid taxes (even indirectly) to build them also has access to them.
Even from a purely industrial support POV, it is silly policy; as it directs resources that would otherwise go to meaningful R&D, into complying with (and lobbying to influence) whatever arbitrary faddishness the progtard groupies have been told is fashionable right now.
“So far, so good, and most of the drivers with whom I’ve spoken have no fundamental issue with them”
I’m going to chime in as one of those few people who’s aware enough to have a fundamental issue with them (along with George B above me). Follow along with my thinking.
The premise of HOV lanes is to reduce pollution. This is supported financially at the Federal level to the tune of 5% of an interstate project, I believe. Many states have their own reasons additionally, and here in Washington we are HOV crazy.
Let’s think about the carrot/stick behind the deal. The HOV concept took off in the 90’s when fuel was at it’s all time low. Burning petrol was never more affordable at any time in history, and many people made lifestyle decisions based upon those economics. For that and many other reasons freeways (at least in my area) became very crowded when before they were only kinda. But fuel remained very cheap. As there was zero incentive to carpool, one was made.
The ostensible goal is to reduce pollution, but the real goal was probably to reduce congestion. Lets look at how HOV lanes fail miserably at both, while having having severely diminished incentive at the same time.
1. Incentive
Fuel is now ~$4/gal. A large incentive in the form of cost is already in place for commuting. Problem is, we built our suburbs in a way that makes commuting terribly ineffectual. Anyone it works for is already logically doing it to save money, but for most the dramatically added trip and distance to pick up one additional person makes it simply unfeasible. In the end, during rush hour, I’d estimate that half of the vehicles using HOV are mom’s transporting children. If I need to point out the logical problem with that scenario to you please leave TTAC and proceed directly to the political fluffery site of your choosing.
2. Congestion
So with HOV providing no additional incentive, the program is not taking people off the road that wouldn’t already be carpooling. I often qualify for lane usage when I’m on 2 wheels and enjoy buzzing past all those parked cars. But that’s the problem. Those cars are still parked because the freeway is the same number of lanes it was 15 years ago, except now it has this one extra lane that the other 90% can’t use. The congestion issue would’ve been alleviated or reduced significantly by simply adding another fully open lane. I know people don’t want larger freeways and I don’t want 8 lane abominations either but the simple fact is that many roads that HOV lanes were added to were far beyond carrying capacity, and as a result still are.
3. Pollution
How much pollution does adding a new lane to a freeway cost? I’ll give you a hint: A LOT. Let’s ignore capital pollution costs though and move on to use. If you read “2. Congestion” than this “3. Pollution” pretty much writes itself. But since I’m not getting paid by the word, I’ll write it anyways. There aren’t less cars on the road, but 10% of them are now getting there at a normal pace while 90% are idling and doing the start-stop. There, I done it.
I’ll leave out cost because I don’t want to make this political, but that is something that could be mused about too.
Final point: Here in WA we have added a toll system for anyone to use our state-funded (non-interstate) HOV lanes. Obviously doing it on an interstate would run afoul of Federal guidlines, so it’s only on the “SR”s. An insidious way to start a toll road, eh? Between that and California et al. allowing more and more “qualified” cars into the lane it seems this is a way to backpedal on a big mistake made by feel-good thinking back in the 90’s and move towards more efficient usage of our roadways.
Holy jeebus I should not be allowed to post mid-coffee. I beat Jack Baruth’s OP in word count HANDILY.
I have wildly mixed feelings on this. In my state, MN, people can already pay for the privilege of using an HOV lane and they have this little radio frequency doohicky on their windshield that takes money out of their account, set up with the state, for that privilege. I would guess there are other states that do this too, but wouldn’t be able to name them.
Is this not just another, more expensive, version of this scheme? On the one hand, if you’re willing to pay a ton of money for a car in order to drive in an HOV lane that’s your decision. On the other hand, why should somebody get more privileges on the roadways because they have the extra money to for an extra car?
Hahahaha! I’d always leaned toward being for the “more environmentally friendly cars” being HOV lanes side of the fence, until I read that last sentence. It does kind of point out the absurdity of the policy.
I should add, though, that my opinion is so easily swayed because I haven’t really given it much thought. I’ve always thought projects like these are akin to pissing on a forest fire.. after drinking expensive champagne.
Why are “intrinisically low emission vehicles” rewarded with a shorter commute? Since they pollute the Gaia less, shouldn’t they be forced to wait in traffic while the GMC Sierra 3500HD Vortecs of the world whiz by? That would be better for the environment, right?
Curse you and your, your, your, LOGIC!
As I read stories about “engineered congestion” and live in a region where it is being implemented, I’m left puzzled on how any true greenie tree hugging polar bear protecting mother earth loving person could support such a backward policy. While I sit in traffic with the engine gulping down gasoline wouldn’t it be more logical to get me and all of the other cars around me moving along at an optimal speed, maximizing our collective economy, reducing density, and thus lowering emissions while saving millions upon millions of gallons of gasoline on a scale that the entire current fleet of hybrids and EVs in this country couldn’t even begin to address?
Oh that’s right, political agendas have zero to do with logic – how could I forget.
wouldn’t it be more logical to get me and all of the other cars around me moving along at an optimal speed, maximizing our collective economy, reducing density, and thus lowering emissions while saving millions upon millions of gallons of gasoline on a scale that the entire current fleet of hybrids and EVs in this country couldn’t even begin to address?
No. It doesn’t work that way.
Traffic is like a gas — it expands to fill the space. Adding lanes will encourage more people to drive and to drive more often, and the additional traffic will result in the same problems as there were before.
We’ve spent decades adding lanes and highways in the name of reducing congestion. The policy has been a failure. There are no easy solutions, but putting more single-occupant vehicles on the road and giving them more space to use is definitely is not an answer.
You completely missed my point.
Taking an eight lane road that experiences six to eight hours a day of severe traffic and replacing it with a six lane road is an even worse idea. Yet this is going on in cities across the country. It is “manufacturing congestion,” creating worse traffic, in an effort to get more cars off of the road. This is a policy going on in many cities in the United States right now. Taking away lane miles of road to convert them to bus only (even though they sit mostly empty 24 hours a day), taking perfectly good travel lanes and changing them into bike lanes. In this region they are doing that on roads where even the cyclists are saying they won’t use the bike lanes because of terrain.
How that is a sound policy, and “green” is horrible planning at best – it is a recipe for economic damage due to strangled commerce at worse.
I wasn’t advocating the building of more superhighways – I am advocating a traffic plan that optimizes the flow of traffic. Right now you have a powerful, small, lobby that is doing everything to turn roads into total gridlock, in an effort to get people to stop driving all together. It wastes time, money, gasoline, and creates pollution. It is a dumb idea. In places where there aren’t wide spread, viable alternatives to driving a personal vehicle it is devestating to quality of life.
PCH – You’re kidding right?!?
“Adding lanes will encourage more people to drive and to drive more often, and the additional traffic will result in the same problems as there were before. ”
Actually EVERYTHING encourages people to drive more-prosperity is our biggest problem, that and a growing population-this has jammed the roads in North America. Adding roads doesn’t really encourage more people to drive-life does. Growth does.
“We’ve spent decades adding lanes and highways in the name of reducing congestion.”
Where?!?
I’m in the Northeast-and have been driving for a quarter century and guess what-since the 60’s – they’ve been eliminating lanes and making it harder to drive. I guess out West it’s different, but I’ll note that I always here that with few exceptions it’s easier to drive out West then on the East coast.
Funny in the past few years we had a Republican Highway bill, a Republican Stimulus and then a HUGE Democratic stimulus-the roads are noooooo better.
“The policy has been a failure.”
I would argue that the policy has been untried.
“There are no easy solutions, but putting more single-occupant vehicles on the road and giving them more space to use is definitely is not an answer.”
Agreed.
@NYCJoe
Oh no, its going on on the west coast also. Seattle, Tacoma, Portland are all buckling under a lack of highway infrastructure investment and plans or ongoing activity reducing total lane miles of road in already congested urban cores.
Without serious changes to building code in Seattle or Portland, you really can’t get any denser then they are. Small problem of large bodies of water limiting available real estate and building codes that prevent massive NYC style skyscrapers. Reduced lane miles is just increasing congestion, waste and pollution, hurting small business owners, and cutting into tax revenues – which in Washington state is very heavily dependent on sales tax (no income tax).
It is a wide spread problem.
You completely missed my point.
I understood your point.
Again, traffic is like a gas. The principle works in the opposite direction. Over time, a reduction in road capacity will lead to reduced usage, as the time wasted results in some seeking other alternatives.
Roads don’t eliminate traffic, they create it. And in any case, I’m seeing very few examples of major arterials or interstates losing lanes that are occurring in the United States. On the rare occasions when such things do happen, such as the demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, the predicted collapse of western civilization failed to materialize, and real estate values increased as previously blighted space became usable again.
I have heard this argument before. I’d like to believe it were as simple as that but I just don’t think it is, and if it were the ramifications of such a policy implementation are too profound. What seems to me (and I’m guessing most people) to be a bad idea is to create many more lanes or entire new freeways in order to promote growth. That may have been a swell idea during the Truman Administration but intentionally promoting suburb growth is certainly a bad idea now, and no government entertains it. What Hypnotoad is espousing is fixing the problems we are stuck with. They won’t simply go away by removing a lane. Personally, I would like to see a major growth in non-road based public transit to handle future growth and future economic pressure on driving, but removing lanes from an already overtaxed system does not solve problems, it creates them.
I’d like to believe it were as simple as that but I just don’t think it is, and if it were the ramifications of such a policy implementation are too profound.
The policy barely exists, so I wouldn’t spend much time worrying about it.
The issue is an economic one; the change in the supply of roads shifts the demand. The demand is not fixed — the demand curve shifts as supply is added or taken away.
If demand were consistent, then it would be possible to add lanes to alleviate traffic. But it usually isn’t.
What Hypnotoad is espousing is fixing the problems we are stuck with. They won’t simply go away by removing a lane. Personally, I would like to see a major growth in non-road based public transit to handle future growth and future economic pressure on driving, but removing lanes from an already overtaxed system does not solve problems, it creates them.
EXACTLY. Spot on 100%. And like you, if in this region they built a viable light rail system, improved bus service, provided regional transit from the burbs for locations like stadiums and downtown, I would fully support the reduction of lane miles of road. But just cutting roads with nothing to replace it with encourages nothing beyond customers not to shop, businesses to leave due to a lack of customers, and a collapsing tax base that cannot fund further public transit development.
Plus, FTW, you nailed the Futurama reference.
All Power and Glory to the Hypnotoad!!!
Thanks!
Speaking of semi-obscure references, I really think the new season of Hypnotoad has gone downhill….
You inspired me to update my avatar to The Velour Fog.
Not sure that is true in all cases, or even most. IL recently added another lane in each direction (IIRC) to I-94 here from The spur up to the state line (WI) and I can now go to work at the speed limit even at rush hour. The only congestion is where I-94/294 split. I-94 turns into “the spur” which is 2 lanes straight east and then converges into 1 to go over a raised section and expands back out to 3 as Route 41 & I-94 merge. This used to be a nightmare before it expanded.
Without this road MANY People getting to Chicago from the north suburbs/wisconsin have no choice except Route 41 (not bad by itself, but it has lights….do you really want to take lights every mile or two for 50+ miles to get to Chicago?)
SO NOT expanding the highway would make things worse.
Take the train? Are you kidding?
Summer: Train delays due to heat (seriously!!)
Winter: Train delays/stoppages due to snow or trees that fell on the tracks
All seasons: Train delays due to suicide or hitting trucks @ crossings. The suicides/truck/car accidents with the trains are 2-3x/month. On top of that, getting to the train is another 20 minutes and the bus to get there doesn’t run when I need it to (pre-6am). IF you do deicde to take it all the way downtown you get dropped into Union station where diesel levels have been measured at 50-100x safe exposure level….
Even worse: The train has announced service cuts so the currently not-too-often-except-in-rush-hour service is going to be further reduced.
We need roads & more of them. Not everyone wants to or can afford to live in an “urban wonderland” with “good” public transportation.
CNG in the carpool lane? Woo-hoo! I could zoom by people in a factory-equipped 5.2 CNG Ram!
Since they pollute the Gaia less, shouldn’t they be forced to wait in traffic while the GMC Sierra 3500HD Vortecs of the world whiz by? That would be better for the environment, right?
Laurie David, Al Gore’s movie producer, and her co-author wrote a book intended to propagandize kids about global warming. To promote the book and their cause, they traveled cross country in a tour bus (you know, the kind rock stars travel in) converted to run on biodiesel. Now a big bus like that gets maybe 6mpg tops, probably closer to 4. Her co-author was speaking to a group of kids at the Jewish Book Fair in Detroit. During the book signing when I asked her how come they didn’t just tow a trailer behind a biodiesel converted big SUV from the Big 3 because that would surely get better fuel economy than the rock star bus (not that Laurie David, who built a 25,000 sq ft home is going to stay at Motel 6), her presentation’s sponsors had the JCC management call the police on me.
You can use logic when talking to a Christian, particularly someone educated by Jesuits, and religious Jews pride themselves in their reasoning abilities (cf. Talmud), but you can’t use reason when talking with someone who worships Gaia.
Way to bring politics and religion into this in one fell swoop. If you read my wall-O-text, you’ll notice I specifically avoid money, as not to fall into politics, to keep things on-topic. But then again, this is the internet, and no one reads large, logical explanations. Al Gore bashing on the other hand…..
Back OT, sort of. We just sold a two year old 50,000 mile Civic GX for the same price we paid for it new. It is a California “White sticker” car. As it turns out, the HOV lanes on the Harbor (I-110) and parts of the I-10 freeways in Los Angeles are being converted to toll lanes anyway.
OT, doesnt the ass end of the new Civic look a lot like the last generation Camry?
All of these “it should be the MORE polluting vehicles allowed in” comments completely miss the point. The added incentive is not about the HOV lane use, it’s about incentivizing the adoption of these vehicle for general use. Most of the people I know don’t have a car solely for commuting. They have a car. They use it every day. They use it for every need, not just getting to work. If they’ve been incentivied to buy a cleaner and more fuel-efficient car by an HOV perk, then that vehicle has less overall negative impact than the less-efficient car they might otherwise have bought.
THAT’S the purpose of the HOV exception. To get alt fuel/Hybrid/Electric/clean into general use, replacing older less efficient cars. And why the incentive is generally offered for a fixed time period, or to a fixed number of users, or both.