2017 map unnecessary infilling Idaho I-84 instead of completing nearby routes

[Rocky_H]

I saw the new thread with the Supercharger maps here:
2017 Supercharger Map is up!

I looked at their expansion plans around Boise, and they don't seem to make much sense. They seem myopically focused on interstate highways only and aren't noticing other very highly used routes that are lesser highways in that area. Looking at the new dots on the 2017 projected map, they are adding unnecessary extra Superchargers between the existing ones on I-84 at Ontario Oregon, Mountain Home Idaho, and just barely east of Twin Falls Idaho (Burley?).

Meanwhile the nearby highly used routes that are too far for a single charge still show nothing. The San Francisco to Boise traffic uses U.S. Highway 95 from Winnemucca to Boise. Eastern Oregon from Bend to Boise still shows no Supercharger planned for either highway 20 or 26.

Yes, there are other slow AC charging options on these routes that make them doable if you stop for an hour or two, but it's the distribution of resources that is bothersome. Mountain Home and Burley seem like a waste of equipment and construction cost, and I would love to see that money go to one of those other routes that needs it. Ontario sort of makes sense if they do plan to put something on 20 in Oregon, but it's still too far right now to do Ontario to Bend without an hour or two in Burns.

Maybe this is grasping, but would this be to make I-84 easier for 60/70/75kwh cars with shorter range? It still seems like overkill with these areas being about 120-125 miles apart. That's already pretty easy, although a lot of people do want to use the 80mph speed limit which sucks range.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I saw the new thread with the Supercharger maps here:
2017 Supercharger Map is up!

I looked at their expansion plans around Boise, and they don't seem to make much sense. They seem myopically focused on interstate highways only and aren't noticing other very highly used routes that are lesser highways in that area. Looking at the new dots on the 2017 projected map, they are adding unnecessary extra Superchargers between the existing ones on I-84 at Ontario Oregon, Mountain Home Idaho, and just barely east of Twin Falls Idaho (Burley?).

Meanwhile the nearby highly used routes that are too far for a single charge still show nothing. The San Francisco to Boise traffic uses U.S. Highway 95 from Winnemucca to Boise. Eastern Oregon from Bend to Boise still shows no Supercharger planned for either highway 20 or 26.

Yes, there are other slow AC charging options on these routes that make them doable if you stop for an hour or two, but it's the distribution of resources that is bothersome. Mountain Home and Burley seem like a waste of equipment and construction cost, and I would love to see that money go to one of those other routes that needs it. Ontario sort of makes sense if they do plan to put something on 20 in Oregon, but it's still too far right now to do Ontario to Bend without an hour or two in Burns.

Maybe this is grasping, but would this be to make I-84 easier for 60/70/75kwh cars with shorter range? It still seems like overkill with these areas being about 120-125 miles apart. That's already pretty easy, although a lot of people do want to use the 80mph speed limit which sucks range.

The 2017 shows multiple sections of Interstates where they're filling in gaps. While we'd all love ubiquitous Superchargers, if Tesla is filling in, it's clear that it sees a necessity to increase the density along Interstates.

 

[Rocky_H]

The 2017 shows multiple sections of Interstates where they're filling in gaps. While we'd all love ubiquitous Superchargers, if Tesla is filling in, it's clear that it sees a necessity to increase the density along Interstates.

That is my point. "it sees a necessity", but it is wrong. The people who live here and drive here would be able to tell them that those other routes need something, but these in-between ones on the interstate are useless.

 

[qwk]

Whoever in in charge of this program is braindead.

 

[PLUS EV]

That is my point. "it sees a necessity", but it is wrong. The people who live here and drive here would be able to tell them that those other routes need something, but these in-between ones on the interstate are useless.

I think the disconnect is that you are thinking about this area as a local while the primary purpose of Superchargers is for long distance travel. I too would rather see more routes open up than more density on interstates, but it's easy for me to say driving a tesla with a 300 mile range. With a ton of Model 3s hitting the roads soon and issues with crowding and Superchargers going out of service, it makes sense for them to add additional superchargers on the interstates for redundancy. I'm sure there will be a later wave of superchargers to make supercharger travel possible throughout the lower 48, by adding them to extremely rural places such as Burns OR, Ely NV, and Dodge City KS, but for now we will have to wait.

 

[aesculus]

I'm sure there will be a later wave of superchargers to make supercharger travel possible throughout the lower 48, by adding them to extremely rural places such as Burns OR, Ely NV, and Dodge City KS, but for now we will have to wait.

I agree. US 93 needs love in NV and ID too.

 

[AudubonB]

Bingo on Rte 93. It ranks, mile for mile, as one of the premier unsung thoroughfares in this continent. For those who don't know of it, its northern terminus is in Jasper, AB (Yay!), and its southern terminus 1/2 mile from where I sit typing this, in Wickenburg, AZ (Double Yay!).

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

That is my point. "it sees a necessity", but it is wrong. The people who live here and drive here would be able to tell them that those other routes need something, but these in-between ones on the interstate are useless.

Why would Tesla spend money to add useless Superchargers?

Tesla's going to split gaps in Minnesota and Nebraska as well.
Maybe it's because they're seeing that the high variation in range in colder states means that setting gaps for winter weather forces people to make extra stops in summer weather.
Maybe it's because they're seeing that difficult winter conditions can cause delays that eat battery and cause anxiety.
Maybe it's because the base Model 3 is going to have a relatively small battery, so the range loss in winter is going to have a bigger impact.
Maybe they're thinking even farther ahead to Model Y, which will be less efficient than Model 3.
Maybe they've simply messed up with the current locations.

Whatever the reason, Tesla thinks it's better to spend millions splitting the gaps instead of adding coverage, and I don't doubt that they have a strong reason to do so.

Maybe you could tweet @elonmusk and ask?

 

[jbcarioca]

That is my point. "it sees a necessity", but it is wrong. The people who live here and drive here would be able to tell them that those other routes need something, but these in-between ones on the interstate are useless.

Whoever in in charge of this program is braindead.

When any of us look at local areas we find such issues. A quick look at any given regional Forum worldwide seems to have such issues.
I think Tesla is doing as well as it can to cope with competing demands this year, including launch of Model 3 in several entirely new countries to Tesla. A few: Mexico, Brazil, Taiwan, New Zealand. We in the US really want regional gaps filled and concentration on major non-interstate arteries. Entire major urban areas want more.
They do plan to double the stalls in 2017.
Then:

Why would Tesla spend money to add useless Superchargers?

Tesla's going to split gaps in Minnesota and Nebraska as well.
Maybe it's because they're seeing that the high variation in range in colder states means that setting gaps for winter weather forces people to make extra stops in summer weather.
Maybe it's because they're seeing that difficult winter conditions can cause delays that eat battery and cause anxiety.
Maybe it's because the base Model 3 is going to have a relatively small battery, so the range loss in winter is going to have a bigger impact.
Maybe they're thinking even farther ahead to Model Y, which will be less efficient than Model 3.
Maybe they've simply messed up with the current locations.

Whatever the reason, Tesla thinks it's better to spend millions splitting the gaps instead of adding coverage, and I don't doubt that they have a strong reason to do so.

Maybe you could tweet @elonmusk and ask?

I agree with ItsNotAboutTheMoney. One thing we can do is push for lots more Destination Chargers, especially 80amp ones, to cover those areas better than anything else currently likely.

Finally, am I the only one who feels very lucky to have this seriously First World Problem to complain about? Maybe I am more tolerant because I see how much better it is now than it was two years ago.

 

[Rocky_H]

I think the disconnect is that you are thinking about this area as a local while the primary purpose of Superchargers is for long distance travel. I too would rather see more routes open up than more density on interstates, but it's easy for me to say driving a tesla with a 300 mile range. With a ton of Model 3s hitting the roads soon and issues with crowding and Superchargers going out of service, it makes sense for them to add additional superchargers on the interstates for redundancy.

Crowding at Superchargers in Idaho--right...we'll consider that in another 5-10 years maybe. OK, redundancy is a reason I guess I hadn't thought of. I think Superchargers already have redundancy by having multiple charging stacks, so they are not as risky as the single plug CHAdeMO locations. But yes, if there was a big power outage in a town or section of town, that could take down the Supercharger site, which has happened in a couple of places before, and it is good to make the I-84 route robust against that possibility.

Tesla's going to split gaps in Minnesota and Nebraska as well.
Maybe it's because they're seeing that the high variation in range in colder states means that setting gaps for winter weather forces people to make extra stops in summer weather.
Maybe it's because they're seeing that difficult winter conditions can cause delays that eat battery and cause anxiety.
Maybe it's because the base Model 3 is going to have a relatively small battery, so the range loss in winter is going to have a bigger impact.
Maybe they're thinking even farther ahead to Model Y, which will be less efficient than Model 3.
Maybe they've simply messed up with the current locations.

The range argument doesn't seem to hold water. (It's a desert--nothing holds water.) Boise to Twin Falls is 125 measly freaking miles, and there is almost no elevation change! Even in the bitter cold and with smaller battery and 215 minimum miles, it's not that hard and doesn't need to be split in the middle, at least not soon. And Boise to Baker City is 128 miles--also easy even with the smallest batteries.

Yes, these are first world problems, but it is a matter of priorities and opportunity cost. These are not really necessary to get in within the next few years, while the 20, 26, and 95 routes can help Tesla owners right now.

One thing we can do is push for lots more Destination Chargers, especially 80amp ones, to cover those areas better than anything else currently likely.

While that is OK, to make it possible, it's painful. And I agree that is a solution for really little used routes (northern Idaho?) that probably won't get any Supercharger coverage. Many people opted for just the single 40A charger, though (indicated by Tesla making that standard and offering the dual charger only as a service center add-on), planning for Superchargers to be the main thing on main routes. It's about 25 miles per hour with the 208V of commercial properties, so that gets a little rough, charging at less than half of driving speed.

 

[wycolo]

I think Tesla is simply 'doing the possible' as in casting a wide net and avoiding saying 'no' where doing so might permanently lose what would ultimately be an ideal location.
--

 

[ohmman]

Range argument doesn't seem to hold water. (It's a desert--nothing holds water.) Boise to Twin Falls is 125 measly freaking miles, and there is almost no elevation change! Even in the bitter cold and with smaller battery and 215 minimum miles, it's not that hard and doesn't need to be split in the middle, at least not soon. And Boise to Baker City is 128 miles--also easy even with the smallest batteries.

I'm assuming you will consider this a misplaced priority, but some of us tow travel trailers with a Model X. This is a welcome spacing in that regard and provides a cleaner cross country route. The alternative is to camp between chargers and limit daily distance to about 200 miles.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

This is all about the X60 with towing and the addition of "normal" people who never let their gas gauge get below 1/4. Spacing at 1/2 the ideal range is absolutely necessary for edge cases (e.g. Trailer, wind, weather). Heck, last winter I barely made Tremonton to Twin Falls (150 mi) using no heat, 20-25 degrees, snowing and 20-30 mph headwinds in the 70D. I've driven a Leaf for nearly 6 years, so I'm fully aware and comfortable on how to hypermile. The general public would not accept such limitations. Yes I would like to see more secondary highways besides interstates and have suggested several possible locations. I think that eventually there will be more infill but not until the interstates are done, maybe some in 2018. Even I-29 is missing stations. What's up with that?

 

[hacer]

Another factor might be the ease of finding property owners that want the superchargers. It may be that in more rural towns most businesses (who would provide the parking lots) don't think having a supercharger would benefit them.

 

[goneskiian]

This is all about the X60 with towing and the addition of "normal" people who never let their gas gauge get below 1/4. Spacing at 1/2 the ideal range is absolutely necessary for edge cases (e.g. Trailer, wind, weather). Heck, last winter I barely made Tremonton to Twin Falls (150 mi) using no heat, 20-25 degrees, snowing and 20-30 mph headwinds in the 70D. I've driven a Leaf for nearly 6 years, so I'm fully aware and comfortable on how to hypermile. The general public would not accept such limitations. Yes I would like to see more secondary highways besides interstates and have suggested several possible locations. I think that eventually there will be more infill but not until the interstates are done, maybe some in 2018. Even I-29 is missing stations. What's up with that?

I hear that! Heck I almost didn't make it from Ellensburg to Ritzville in my 90 in 60 degree (or so) weather a few months ago when I left Ellensburg and was cruising at the SO approved 10 over (80 on this stretch) with 2 bikes on my hitch mount rack. Turns out I didn't quite add enough charge to account for the slightly unusual wind from the the SE (making for a cross headwind). My other mistake was not having Ritzville (or my ultimate destination in Spokane) plugged into the Nav.

It's a good thing I caught myself on that last point though as it saved me. Although it took a good 10 miles or so for it to finally connect and figure out where I was. When it did (in Moses Lake) the dash lit up telling me to go back and charge at a HPWC at Cave B winery near George! D'oh! I ended up slowing down to about 50 - 55 for long stretches and drafting the random big pickup or RV that would pass me. Where are the damn 18 wheelers when you need them!?! F$%&!

Anyway, I got to Ritzville with 2 miles "in the tank". It was a definite white knuckler though!

I learned my lesson, but a Supercharger in Moses Lake sure would have come in handy!

 

[BerTX]

Having Superchargers more closely spaced also allows longer round-trip deviations from the Interstate to be possible without interim charging. If there is an attraction that is 100 miles from the highway, you can probably make it there-and-back from a Supercharger. However, if you have to charge, drive 40 miles to the turnoff to get to the attraction, go the 200 mile round-trip then come back to the next Supercharger down the road, you might not make it easily. If the Superchargers are 60 miles apart instead of 120, then there is more flexibility.

 

[Rocky_H]

I sent a note to Tesla about it, and they did send a reply that had a little bit of boilerplate in it, but was not entirely a form letter. So they are aware of it. I do notice that the one that they specifically responded to was of course where I pointed out that one is the main route from San Francisco to Boise, so it would be relevant to them.

"Thank you for your feedback and suggestions regarding the new supercharging locations. It does seem like a supercharger on the 95 between Winnemucca and Boise would be a very good idea. If you would like, you can formally request new supercharging locations by filling out the form in the link below:"

I note that this was not computer generated because of the real live California person method of speaking by referring to it as "the 95", rather than "highway 95" or "route 95", as most of the rest of the country would say it.

 

[aesculus]

I note that this was not computer generated because of the real live California person method of speaking by referring to it as "the 95", rather than "highway 95" or "route 95", as most of the rest of the country would say it.

I just want to point at that would be a real live So Cal person. Most Nor Cals don't say "the 95" but say "highway 95", or if an interstate I80 etc.

 

[PLUS EV]

I sent a note to Tesla about it, and they did send a reply that had a little bit of boilerplate in it, but was not entirely a form letter. So they are aware of it. I do notice that the one that they specifically responded to was of course where I pointed out that one is the main route from San Francisco to Boise, so it would be relevant to them.

"Thank you for your feedback and suggestions regarding the new supercharging locations. It does seem like a supercharger on the 95 between Winnemucca and Boise would be a very good idea. If you would like, you can formally request new supercharging locations by filling out the form in the link below:"

I note that this was not computer generated because of the real live California person method of speaking by referring to it as "the 95", rather than "highway 95" or "route 95", as most of the rest of the country would say it.

Lol man. Could be that their template was made by a real live Californian

And yeah I think that's a SoCal thing. Don't recall hearing "the 5 freeway" or "take 80 to Sacramento" much in my time in the bay area.

 

[cpa]

Rocky, perhaps another consideration for Tesla is that the Supercharger team is more focused on routing to and from large metropolitan areas (Portland and Seattle to SLC and points east) instead of filling in "localized" long distance travel. (For lack of a better term.) I agree that there are scores of routes across the country that are heavily utilized by locals like you in Boise or other towns that would benefit from Superchargers. But I would hazard a guess that for every person like you who frequently visits the Oregon Coast and drives through Burns/John Day, that there are likely hundreds upon hundreds of owners who live in or near Portland or Seattle who are traveling to Boise, Yellowstone or Salt Lake. I am not minimizing your situation; in fact I agree with you.

Not that we in California need dozens of new Superchargers off the beaten path, but the 2017 map does not show one in Susanville. This placement in conjunction with Klamath Falls would make it much faster for people to reach Reno or Lost Wages from Western and Central Oregon and Washington, not to mention it would open up northeast California for Ohmman and his Airstream.

Note: I don't know how this reference to numbered highways as "the 5" or "the 101" got its genesis. Perhaps the same person who started referring to California as "Cali" coined these terms. I am so old that I still refer to the freeways in California by their birth names: Ventura, Santa Ana, Hollywood, San Bernardino, Santa Monica, San Diego, Harbor, Pasadena, Golden State, Glendale, Foothill, Long Beach, Pomona, San Gabriel River, Riverside, Nixon, Bayshore, Nimitz, and maybe a couple more.