For discussing the issue of locals charging at California Superchargers

[logan]

There are a bunch of condos and apartments in that part of Carmel Valley, including about 600 being built at One Paseo.

A few of those apartment communities already have free charging as an incentive to get new people to move there. Besides, the largest group of Tesla owners in the area are people in multi-million dollar homes who already have home chargers and don’t care to waste their time Supercharging if it’s not necessary.

View attachment 366659

The downtown charger — where plenty of people don’t even have home chargers — doesn’t have a crowding issue, why would this? Pay to park aside, since if people have to charge, they’re going to use it anyways. Unless you think people travel round trip to Qualcomm to avoid the free.

 

[mociaf9]

including about 600 being built at One Paseo.

New construction is required by California Building Codes to pre-install infrastructure to support EV charging. So, while the building isn't required to actually install the EVSE or chargers, they do need to already have the conduit runs in place. This should drastically reduce the difficulty of getting some level of home charging in for a portion of the condo population. Unfortunately, the requirements are still for a relatively small percentage of the parking spaces to have the pre-install, though. So, at least a good portion of the people with EVs who end up living in One Paseo should be okay.

 

[PLUS EV]

The downtown charger — where plenty of people don’t even have home chargers — doesn’t have a crowding issue, why would this? Pay to park aside...

You answered your own question.

 

[logan]

You answered your own question.

So like I said after where you cut off the quote... do you really think that many people are going round trip from downtown to charge on a regular basis?

 

[PLUS EV]

So like I said after where you cut off the quote... do you really think that many people are going round trip from downtown to charge on a regular basis?

No, I never said that.

 

[logan]

No, I never said that.

Not sure I get your point then.

 

[JeffnReno]

So like I said after where you cut off the quote... do you really think that many people are going round trip from downtown to charge on a regular basis?

If they live in that area, they may carpool to work, take public transportation, charge at work, or some combination of these that eliminates the need for frequent supercharging. When I vacation there in a few weeks, I plan on making sure I've charged elsewhere to avoid the parking fees that go along with the downtown supercharger, especially since I don't get free supercharging.

 

[sunjo31]

I live in North Park and work at Torrey Highlands. Only have access to 120v at my apartment and try to do most of my charging at work. I went to the downtown Supercharger for the first time on Saturday afternoon, just to check out. There's not much around that area, lots of places were closed, including Starbucks. Walked around If I had to go to a Supercharger, I would rather trek up to Qualcomm over this. I'm actually looking forward to the other Superchargers opening near my work and in Mission Valley. I would prefer those locations over downtown any day.

 

[gorgonaut]

The island of misfit and off-topic posts!

 

[logan]

This thread makes no sense.

 

[logan]

Moderator note: a large number of posts discussing the potential for “locals” to use this future Supercharger location, what happens at other San Diego Superchargers, and about California legal requirements for apartment buildings to provide for EV charging have been moved to this thread For discussing the issue of locals charging at California Superchargers

I kind of get it, but I think that completely negates the geographical and local population differences between different Supercharging locations and cities. That thread doesn't really make any sense in its current state.

 

[PLUS EV]

I kind of get it, but I think that completely negates the geographical and local population differences between different Supercharging locations and cities. That thread doesn't really make any sense in its current state.

For better or for worse, it is the place the moderator dumps posts when he wants to quell discussion of said topic. I agree that that thread as it sits serves absolutely no purpose in terms of continuing the discussion. While many posts gets moved there, I don't think I've ever seen someone continue commenting in that thread after the move.

 

[ecarfan]

Every Supercharger in urban and suburban areas with Tesla owners will have “locals” using it, owners who have “free” charging and owners who don’t. The issue is the same for every Supercharger. Eventually there will be owners local to almost every Supercharger. Arguing about whether or not local owners should or should not use a Supercharger can be done in the thread for that discussion at For discussing the issue of locals charging at California Superchargers

 

[Evthusiast]

I believe that some early Tesla owners from 2012+2013 charging at their local supercharger feel like it is ok as in the early days Tesla said "free supercharging for life" and at first I do not believe it was for long distance only? Also $2000 extra for SUPERCHARGING HARDWARE on configuration. It should be fair to charge at any charger as they paid $2000 for supercharging ability. See screen shot.....

 

[logan]

Every Supercharger in urban and suburban areas with Tesla owners will have “locals” using it, owners who have “free” charging and owners who don’t. The issue is the same for every Supercharger. Eventually there will be owners local to almost every Supercharger. Arguing about whether or not local owners should or should not use a Supercharger can be done in the thread for that discussion at For discussing the issue of locals charging at California Superchargers

So then just delete all of those posts. This thread is frankly useless. There is plenty of reason to have site specific discussion on the issue but I guess that’s just an agree to disagree situation.

 

[mociaf9]

There is plenty of reason to have site specific discussion on the issue

Not really. Invariably, the discussion endlessly retreads the exact same issues and points no matter which specific thread it gets brought up in. Though I guess maybe that's the thing you're saying "agree to disagree" about. But, yeah. This thread is sort of the round file (i.e. trash can) for comments on the issue when they get posted in site specific threads as opposed to an actual thread that is maintaining actual discussion.

 

[logan]

Not really. Invariably, the discussion endlessly retreads the exact same issues and points no matter which specific thread it gets brought up in. Though I guess maybe that's the thing you're saying "agree to disagree" about. But, yeah. This thread is sort of the round file (i.e. trash can) for comments on the issue when they get posted in site specific threads as opposed to an actual thread that is maintaining actual discussion.

Different cities and specific sites obviously have different demographics, housing, parking fees, etc. A Supercharger in Crescent City, CA (near the border of Oregon) is going to have different issues than one in the middle of LA. If it comes up in numerous Supercharger site threads then clearly enough people want to discuss it.

But this round up of random posts tossed into a thread doesn't make any sense and just completely hampers any discussions.

 

[PLUS EV]

So then just delete all of those posts. This thread is frankly useless. There is plenty of reason to have site specific discussion on the issue but I guess that’s just an agree to disagree situation.

I agree with logan on this one.

I would also like to point out that the vast majority of sites that have this issue are in California. ecarfan is the moderator of the California Superchargers forum, so here we are. I would be in favor of some moderation in cases where it just becomes a big pissing contest, but I haven't seen much of that in the last year or two.

The issue of supercharger usage by locals is of particular interest when a site is under construction because at that point we don't really know how it will play out. For example, in the most recent discussion, logan stated that he didn't think it would be an issue, while I and others disagreed with him. The discussion may have provided useful perspective for someone who is planning on using this supercharger frequently in the future.

Another example is the Issaquah, WA supercharger thread. This is on a different forum, so the discussion continued with none of the posts being removed. While under construction, I warned of excessive crowding at peak times. Some people disagreed with me. In the end, unfortunately, I was right, and this has become one of the few congested superchargers outside of California that has the "locals supercharging" problem.

 

[PLUS EV]

But this round up of random posts tossed into a thread doesn't make any sense and just completely hampers any discussions.

mociaf9, you and I all agree on this!

I think what has bothered me the most is the disingenuosness of moving the posts here "for further discussion." Just deleting them all would be more honest.

 

[roblab]

It all goes away if the charging is not "free". There is no reason for it TO be free. Electricity in CA is often higher than neighboring states, and it costs Tesla to lease the property and install the hardware. If they only charge for electricity it would cut out the free users. They'd pay the same at home, ergo, charge at home if you can.

Free always invites abuse. Unless the service is worthless, and it's not in this case.