Supposedly that's part of the answer. Southern Californians refered to named highways using "the <Name>", and when it went to the number they kept the "the".
Why Southern Californians Love Saying 'the' Before Freeway Numbers
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Supposedly that's part of the answer. Southern Californians refered to named highways using "the <Name>", and when it went to the number they kept the "the".
Why Southern Californians Love Saying 'the' Before Freeway Numbers
Good story. I don't see how that is different from Houston, Dallas or anywhere else where the freeways have names, and they don't call The Stemmons Freeway "the 35" or The Southwest Freeway "the 59".
EV-lutioin
Active Member
Sind Tesla tracks every car, they probably know where superchargers need to be placed. Remember they have gobs of data and are looking at everyone, whereas most of us are just looking out for ourselves. In this case big data is going to win out over anecdotal evidence every time.
cpa
Active Member
Just remembered: Did you call phone numbers such as LAmbert 1-2345 or PEnnsylvania 6-5000?
Yes. Our telephone prefix was CItrus. Neighboring communities had THornwall, MAdison, CApitol, SYcamore, LUdlow, LEhigh, GIlbert and RIchmond among others. My wife's hometown prefix was LIberty. The emergency telephone for the California Highway Patrol was ZEnith-something or other, and could only be reached through the operator, since there was no "Z" on the dial.
Whoever coined these prefixes came up with some really cool names, in my opinion.
(And, PEnnsylvania 6-5000 was a Big Band hit song in the '40s, but I do not recall the band.) (And, too, also, there was a pop hit around 1961 that was titled, "BEechwood 4-5789".)
If you really want to enter the way back machine, I believe the Fleetwoods (one hit wonder from the 50s/60s) were named after the FLeetwood telephone exchange in my home town. I think that group is mostly lost to history but most old timers who lived through that era seem to know that "Come Softly" song, which was rather racy for the time period!
Well, going on your point and @cpa 's point, yes, I would agree with the concept of filling in main routes for the obvious connections like Portland to Boise, etc. that make sense, but only for making initial connections. It's this thing where they are cutting 125 miles segments into even smaller segments that seems like a waste of resources.
EV-lutioin
Active Member
Smaller segments may be a good strategy to reduce Supercharger congestion. Presently, if you travel down I-5 every Tesla ends up at every Supercharger along the trip, but if you add more stations in between, as opposed to adding more stalls to existing stations, you vastly increase the possibilities for everyone's itinerary. This coupled with more information about how many stalls are being used before you exit will allow drivers to move on the the next station and avoid congestion. However, I will miss seeing the same drivers at each station along my route.
Yet AGAIN, this is Cali-centric tunnel vision. Yes, that is surely the case along I-5, but no one needs to even bring up the concept of "congestion" at Supercharger stations in Idaho for at least another decade! I look over at the Boise Supercharger a few times a week when I drive by there. I still get a little bit excited every few weeks when I even see one single car using it. So these extra redundant locations really aren't needed in 2017.Smaller segments may be a good strategy to reduce Supercharger congestion. Presently, if you travel down I-5 every Tesla ends up at every Supercharger along the trip, but if you add more stations in between, as opposed to adding more stalls to existing stations, you vastly increase the possibilities for everyone's itinerary. This coupled with more information about how many stalls are being used before you exit will allow drivers to move on the the next station and avoid congestion. However, I will miss seeing the same drivers at each station along my route.
EV-lutioin
Active Member
With 500,000 Model 3's on the way, you may be singing a different tune in two years.
And yet more Cali-centric thinking. Once more people out here have even heard of what Tesla is (3-4 years), then maybe some orders will start to trickle in. Keep in mind that there still isn't a Tesla store or service center in this whole state.
GHammer
Dark Star
I was surprised when we were there last summer that we were the only car. We were there at dinner time, it's a busy shopping center, right off the interstate, in a sizable city. You put that combination together anywhere on either coast and there would have been constant traffic.
Your assertion that nobody in Idaho has even heard of Tesla is not exactly a great argument for putting superchargers in places that are off the beaten path in Idaho.
EV-lutioin
Active Member
Keep in mind that there are only 1.6 million people in Idaho, which is about the size of a small city in California. Go ahead and say it, more Cali-centric thinking...
P.S: I lived in Idaho for 14 years, so I get it, Californians are not well loved there.
Last edited:
aesculus
Still Trying to Figure This All Out
It's not so much about living in ID, as it's more about getting to and passing through.
So us California centric folks who like ID and Tesla's, need many wide spread places to charge.
Right. I did point out in my email to Tesla that highway 95 is THE MAIN route that everyone takes to go from San Francisco to Boise. It just doesn't happen to be an interstate highway. This isn't some little road into the interior wilderness of the small towns of Challis or Salmon, which @EV-lutioin didn't seem to get.It's not so much about living in ID, as it's more about getting to and passing through.
So us California centric folks who like ID and Tesla's, need many wide spread places to charge.
GHammer
Dark Star
Ulmo
Active Member
I bolded my main reason. I have a Model S 60D (75 limited), and I've found that the older spacing of SuperChargers in winter (in California of all places) means I almost don't make it for many legs. For instance, I can't imagine most of my drives without all of the very new SuperChargers in my region; I have no idea how anyone made it anywhere in a 60 back when the older locations were the only ones available, since I very rarely use them. I can imagine this being a huge problem for Model 3 owners, especially when a SuperCharger goes down or gets full. I want much more infilling, rather than all of this mall and popcorn crap they've been asked to do. If you're shopping, just use the shopping center's Chademo if they have one or don't worry about it if they don't. If you're staying in a hotel, use ones with destination chargers. If at a movie, use their J1772. Just Tesla's refusal to open up their fast DC charging standard is inexcusable; they're trying to spur competition and growth of EV's, after all. More Tesla fast DC chargers would be better for Tesla, anyway. Unless they're hiding some warranty issue that they're not being honest about.
My main problem with Tesla's charging has been more about a lack of innovation such as in the area of making public its DC charging standard for competitor charging platforms, battery swap, work parking charging, plans and executions for fixing slow SuperCharging, battery upgrades, and software tools to integrate all available options for route planning and execution. Some of that has been answered with the new cost rate plans for SuperCharging and the almost working SuperCharger availability in-car, but that's still somewhat incomplete.
I see your point. That makes sense. Somewhere rural near Burns that catches the US20-395 interchange would be a good spot for that area, for when I84 is closed.
I used EVTripPlanner, and my 60 would barely make it from Bend, OR to Burns, OR, and there are no Chademo anywhere near Burns or on US20 where there isn't already SuperChargers on that leg. Worse, my 60 would not make it from Burns to Boise without another charging spot in Ontario, and there is no Chademo along that route either. So, the Ontario stop is necessary for the Burns idea to make any sense (at least for a large proportion of their customers). Therefore, as a matter of sequencing, it makes much more sense to put the necessary charger in Ontario which can be usefully used by I84 traffic before doing the Burns one which requires the Ontario one anyway, unless they're only trying to serve their elite high range owners (for which the one in Burns would be sufficient without one in Ontario, according to EVTripPlanner).
Thank you for that explanation. I have always wondered why that happened. That not only makes perfect sense, but it is very romantic. I loved some of those old pictures, signage, and names.
Fascinating. I haven't run into this yet.However, I will miss seeing the same drivers at each station along my route.
There is also no Chademo on that route. One would have to stop at Say When Casino to charge on a 75amp 208volt Level 2, or slum it at some RV parks with 50 amp. This lends support to your complaint.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
