Rage against the (hybrid) machine

Posted by Clark Williams-Derry (Guest Contributor) at 9:12 PM on 10 Apr 2006

Some California drivers are getting all steamed up that they have to share the carpool lanes with single-occupant hybrids, like the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic, under a new state program. Some of the complaints, of course, should be taken with a grain of salt. Said one fumer in an online discussion group: "These [drivers] barely go 65 mph and allow no one to pass them on the right... Talk about road rage!" Uh, dude, that's not road rage -- that's whining.

But I do think there's reason to be concerned that extra hybrids in the HOV lanes may be slowing down carpools & buses. From the LA Times article:

"There's not enough excess capacity to absorb the hybrids," said James Moore, director of USC's transportation engineering program. "I think the foreseeable outcome here is that the congestion advantage we traditionally attribute to [carpool] lanes will disappear."

Promoting hybrids could help save fuel. But there's plenty of reason to believe that -- looking at overall efficiency of road transport -- filling the HOV lanes with hybrids could do more harm than good. Seems to me California was smart in limiting the number of hybrids allowed in the carpool lanes, and studying the effects before proceeding.

For story: Rage against the (hybrid) machine
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Efficiency gains always seem to get used up

This is a great example of why efficiency alone is a limited strategy for solving environmental problems. What we gain through efficiency we often end up using through increased consumption. We raised fuel efficiencies in the 70s but now we drive much more. Homes are far more efficient now than in decades past, but they're getting bigger and bigger. Arguments are often put forth that we have an incredibly high energy efficiency / unit of GDP. However, we just use so much, efficiency isn't really helping us overall.

There's a classic formulation called the IPAT equation: Impact = population x affluence x technology. Efficiency is the technology piece and consumption is the affluence piece. When we ignore consumption (as Dick Cheney would have us do) and focus soley on technology, gains in efficiency are quickly offset by gains in consumption. In fact, increasing efficiency often prompts increasing consumption as may be the case with single occupancy hybrids in HOV lanes.

by Kif Scheuer at 6:49 AM on 11 Apr 2006

I'm with Kif

Also, almost any car with just one rider is using less gas/person than a hybrid with one passenger.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 2:02 PM on 11 Apr 2006

averages

it is indeed a game of averages, in a one-liner:

Impact = population x affluence x technology

it doesn't matter if any of us individuals stop eating swordfish or salmon, buy flourescent lights, ride a bike, eat organic food ....

until of course enough of us make those choices to affect the averages. Then whatever constant factor you've got to relate population to impact itself changes.

If a monster SUV is sold to match every hybrid, then those averages won't move, but (see recent news) if those SUV sales fall while hybrids (and other efficient cars) climb, maybe you've got something.

by odograph at 4:24 PM on 11 Apr 2006

btw

National fleet mileage is 23 mpg. Is this a good number? Do you just accept it, as the fleet average in a "technical" and "affluent" society?

by odograph at 4:29 PM on 11 Apr 2006

I'm with Odograph

;)

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 7:59 PM on 11 Apr 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.