Iced Ellensburg Supercharger

[MorrisonHiker]

Good question. My guess is no, but I could be wrong.

So, I just went back into the hotel and was additionally told that "Tesla doesn't pay us for those spaces, and our agreement with them is that our hotel guests come first. We won't ask them to move and if they ask about parking there, we tell them it is fine."

Wow.

I just called Tesla and was told they've never heard of any issues with icing at Ellensburg. That's hard to believe since this is the 3rd time I've called myself. All but one space is clearly marked "Electric vehicle parking only". I can't imagine this many people are using these parking spots without the hotel actually telling their guests to do so.

Sorry to hear about the problems you are having and the hotel's attitude.

I never understood why so many Superchargers are located at hotels as they seem to serve different groups of travelers. Superchargers would be better located at restaurants or stores where travelers will spend an hour or so, not at hotels where travelers spend the night. I've been out to the Supercharger close to DIA in Denver and it is located very close to the hotel. There have been numerous reports of ICEing at that location as well. If they are going to put Superchargers at hotels, they should make them less convenient to hotel customers.

 

[breser]

Did a run out to Pendleton OR today with ThortsMD. We got to Ellensburg at 8:23 AM and found all but two spaces were iced. On the way back we arrived at 3:49 PM and found one slot filled with a new 85D and the rest empty.

We noticed a few changes to the parking signs at this supercharger. The far East bay used to be 30 minute general parking. All the bays have the "Tesla Electric Vehicle Parking" Signs. All but the west most (pull in straight bay) have "EV Charging Parking Only" Signs. So it seems that Tesla has made the signage more restrictive. Since none of the spots now suggest that ICE parking is ok, even for a short term stay. The missing sign from west bay is strange though.

 

[glenhurst]

I never understood why so many Superchargers are located at hotels as they seem to serve different groups of travelers. Superchargers would be better located at restaurants or stores where travelers will spend an hour or so, not at hotels where travelers spend the night.

Agreed. Hotels should only be setup with Destination Charging in my opinion. Superchargers should be near short-term businesses such as restaurants, bookstores, shopping malls, etc. Tesla drivers at a hotel want a place to charge overnight; an HPWC is plenty for that. Tesla owners at a Supercharger generally will only be there an hour or two and will then move on. Their use-cases are quite different although their roles are often conflated. Not sure why Tesla chose to locate a Supercharger at a hotel, although it's not as if Superchargers have a long and well defined history to which they can refer for guidance. ;-)

 

[TexasEV]

Not sure why Tesla chose to locate a Supercharger at a hotel, although it's not as if Superchargers have a long and well defined history to which they can refer for guidance. ;-)

Tesla may choose hotels for some locations because of a variant of Sutton's Law-- it's where the parking is.

 

[dsm363]

If Tesla were allowed to paint the parking lines green and put up proper signs they could be ticketed then.

 

[breser]

If Tesla were allowed to paint the parking lines green and put up proper signs they could be ticketed then.

I believe the signs are sufficient to allow ticketing. But the green lines are not present. They used to be there, you can even see the green at the edges of the now white lines. Given that there used to be green lines, I'm betting that the reason they aren't green now is the hotel.

 

[ACDriveMotor]

I was able to successfully complete my trip to Spokane a few weeks ago and found the Ellensburg spaces were all either in use by owners or open. One charger (the far right) was broken. It sounds to me like the hotel wants out of it's SC contract and is doing what it can to incent TMC to find another location. Sad but not unexpected. There is a good location just down the road, and I hope that TMC finds an alternate location soon as this is an important stop.

 

[cpa]

I was able to successfully complete my trip to Spokane a few weeks ago and found the Ellensburg spaces were all either in use by owners or open. One charger (the far right) was broken. It sounds to me like the hotel wants out of it's SC contract and is doing what it can to incent TMC to find another location. Sad but not unexpected. There is a good location just down the road, and I hope that TMC finds an alternate location soon as this is an important stop.

You may be onto something there. (Caveat: I have not been to Ellensburg. Caveat #2: I don't know the whys and wherefores of which I am about to opine.)

Tesla likely found willing locations for Supercharger installation that focused on cheap or no rent. They could have sold the landlord on the potential for travelers to spend the night whilst they charged. Because Ellensburg is so proximate to Seattle, it is likely not situated far enough away to attract many of us for an overnight, as we are either driving into or out of Seattle. The hotel wants to rent beds, not parking spots. Accordingly, they have no incentive to maintain the integrity of the charging spaces. They would rather upset a transitory usage (Supercharging) than lose potential revenue by citing an ICE for parking in our "reserved" spots, or directing them to park [horrors!] 100 feet further away because those slots are reserved for people who may or may not be arriving in the next 12 hours.

I have charged at Moab, Mt. Shasta City, Flagstaff, Gallup, Farmington, Glenwood Sprgs., Tooele, Denver Airport, Goodland, Buellton, Salina and Richfield. I always make it a point to speak to the desk clerk to inform them that I am utilizing the Supercharger and to inquire how much usage they receive. Especially if I need to take a bio break, I walk right by the front, and let them know. I even stayed at the locations in Moab, Glenwood Sprgs. and Goodland, and told them why.

 

[ACDriveMotor]

Right, my theory is that the hotel anticipated, perhaps not fully understanding the SC concept, that a non-trivial number of TMS owners would patronize their hotel. I suspect that very few actually use the Hotel or it's services. As a result I might reasonably expect the hotel to want to get out of the SC business and recover it's parking spaces. Having signed a contract with Tesla however they can't simply remove the SC hardware. However, they can likely engage in a covert and passively aggressive campaign that incents TMC to find another SC location in Ellensburg.

What the hotel owner is overlooking is the tremendous ill will they are potentially generating with owners. Though I've not been ICE'd at this location personally the stories told above are enough to guarantee I will _never_ stay at that hotel, pay them to use any of their services, nor recommend them to others. Marketing is a powerful tool for influencing consumer behavior, likewise anti-marketing can be as equally powerful.

 

[brianman]

Agreed. Hotels should only be setup with Destination Charging in my opinion.

Ok, so we should start another thread on iced HPWC locations at hotels? Seems like basically the same problem to me.

- - - Updated - - -

What the hotel owner is overlooking is the tremendous ill will they are potentially generating with owners. Though I've not been ICE'd at this location personally the stories told above are enough to guarantee I will _never_ stay at that hotel, pay them to use any of their services, nor recommend them to others. Marketing is a powerful tool for influencing consumer behavior, likewise anti-marketing can be as equally powerful.

It can be made even more powerful if you let them know; i.e. ask for the email of the manager of the hotel and send him an email with Tesla on the Cc line. That might be a fun email to share with the class (TMC).

 

[breser]

I think there are some things going on here that should be somewhat obvious but perhaps aren't. They've certainly come up before but I'm not sure if they've been mentioned in this thread already and I'm not going to reread it. They're also not entirely obvious if you haven't been to this property.

The hotel has limited parking. If you compare this location to the locations that Tesla is putting SuperChargers in now they are worlds apart. New locations tend to be in very large lots and far away from the actual businesses hosting them. This particular SuperCharger installation is directly up against the business and is some of the closest parking to the hotel. However, it's also about the only parking that has reasonable visibility from the road, something else that I've noticed seems to be a criteria Tesla uses.

I have a very hard time believing that the hotel is leasing those spots to Tesla for their exclusive use. I suspect the hotels comment that Tesla wasn't supposed to have exclusive use of these spots was indeed the agreement. If the agreement was otherwise I don't think the green lines required to allow ticketing of non-charging vehicles in those spots would have been removed.

Can we at least consider the possibility that Tesla is the less than stellar participant here. That Tesla had made an agreement with the hotel that does not align with our expectations, that these spots are always available for charging. That our complaining to the hotel about the spots being ICEd is putting Tesla in a bad light?

I don't mean to suggest that being blocked from charging is not frustrating. But the people we need to direct our frustration at is Tesla. Tesla is responsible for the decision to place in this location. Tesla is responsible for not finding a more appropriate location.

I don't buy for a minute that Tesla is not aware of the problems with ICE'ing at this SuperCharger. Of all the SuperChargers in Washington state this is the only one that I've ever seen ICEd. Though I've never actually been blocked from charging. I'm sure they've had a number of complaints. But I suspect they've not put a priority of moving a SuperCharger given that they have so many new ones to put in. They've probably decided that the complaints are not high enough to justify prioritizing it.

 

[rpo]

I think there are some things going on here that should be somewhat obvious but perhaps aren't. They've certainly come up before but I'm not sure if they've been mentioned in this thread already and I'm not going to reread it. They're also not entirely obvious if you haven't been to this property.

The hotel has limited parking. If you compare this location to the locations that Tesla is putting SuperChargers in now they are worlds apart. New locations tend to be in very large lots and far away from the actual businesses hosting them. This particular SuperCharger installation is directly up against the business and is some of the closest parking to the hotel. However, it's also about the only parking that has reasonable visibility from the road, something else that I've noticed seems to be a criteria Tesla uses.

I have a very hard time believing that the hotel is leasing those spots to Tesla for their exclusive use. I suspect the hotels comment that Tesla wasn't supposed to have exclusive use of these spots was indeed the agreement. If the agreement was otherwise I don't think the green lines required to allow ticketing of non-charging vehicles in those spots would have been removed.

Can we at least consider the possibility that Tesla is the less than stellar participant here. That Tesla had made an agreement with the hotel that does not align with our expectations, that these spots are always available for charging. That our complaining to the hotel about the spots being ICEd is putting Tesla in a bad light?

I don't mean to suggest that being blocked from charging is not frustrating. But the people we need to direct our frustration at is Tesla. Tesla is responsible for the decision to place in this location. Tesla is responsible for not finding a more appropriate location.

I don't buy for a minute that Tesla is not aware of the problems with ICE'ing at this SuperCharger. Of all the SuperChargers in Washington state this is the only one that I've ever seen ICEd. Though I've never actually been blocked from charging. I'm sure they've had a number of complaints. But I suspect they've not put a priority of moving a SuperCharger given that they have so many new ones to put in. They've probably decided that the complaints are not high enough to justify prioritizing it.

I'm sorry, but 4 of the 5 spaces in Ellensburg are posted as being for Tesla parking only...all the time. That is certainly exclusive use. The fifth space allows for two hour general parking. NONE of those rules are being followed or enforced, and the hotel, no matter what their intentions, should not be telling their customers to park there regardless of the signage. If the spaces were signed for general parking all the time, then maybe it would be ok, but still not ethical, to park there overnight.

If the hotel does indeed have parking shortages at times, then I guess they should be legally ok with telling their guests to park in the empty handicapped spaces next to the hotel too, right? I think not.

This hotel, based entirely on them specifically telling their guests to block the only charger within 100 miles to the point that us Tesla drivers are being stranded, deserves worse than how I treated them in person or the comments exhibited by others on this forum.

 

[breser]

I'm sorry, but 4 of the 5 spaces in Ellensburg are posted as being for Tesla parking only...all the time. That is certainly exclusive use. The fifth space allows for two hour general parking. NONE of those rules are being followed or enforced, and the hotel, no matter what their intentions, should not be telling their customers to park there regardless of the signage. If the spaces were signed for general parking all the time, then maybe it would be ok, but still not ethical, to park there overnight.

Of course it's not ethical to park there while not charging. But I'm not discussing the ethics of ICE vehicles parking in SuperCharger spots.

I'm talking about what the hotel is obligated to do here per the agreement they have with Tesla. Based on the history of this location (removal of green lines) and the behavior of the hotel it seems that Tesla did not contract for exclusive use of those spots for charging. That contract might still require that they discourage use of those spots when not charging and thus the signage. But it almost certainly does not require the hotel to wake guests and ask them to move.

If the hotel does indeed have parking shortages at times, then I guess they should be legally ok with telling their guests to park in the empty handicapped spaces next to the hotel too, right? I think not.

This hotel, based entirely on them specifically telling their guests to block the only charger within 100 miles to the point that us Tesla drivers are being stranded, deserves worse than how I treated them in person or the comments exhibited by others on this forum.

What evidence do you have that the hotel is telling guests to block the SuperCharger spots? I've seen people say that the hotel says we don't have priority. But that's not the same as encouraging people to park there. The fact that the EV charging signs are there is evidence to the contrary. Anyone with a screwdriver and a few minutes of time can remove the no-parking signs. It's even easier than the green lines to remove. But yet they remain.

The handicapped spaces is a false equivalence. While it might seem that they are equivalent since state law allows parking tickets for using both EV and handicapped spaces improperly. The significant difference here is that a handicapped person is not able to change that situation, however all of us could choose to drive another vehicle or plan to charge somewhere else. This difference is so significant that the law requires the installation of handicapped spots but does not require the installation of EV charging spots, let alone Tesla SuperChargers.

The SuperCharger is not the only charger within 100 miles. There's a J1772 a few feet away, also setup for use in the hotel's parking lot. My home is 70 miles away and my 19.2 kW HPWC is on PlugShare. It's not even the only DC fast charging in 100 miles since the CHAdeMO chargers in North Bend are probably about 73 miles away. Rather, what you mean is that it's the only SuperCharger in 100 miles and thus the only charger you want to use because it's the only one that you feel is fast enough.

This reeks of entitlement. I'm sure you feel justified in that entitlement because you paid Tesla for the car and the SuperCharging. But I ask that you take a step back.

This hotel has been so forward thinking to install not just a free J1772 on their property but a SuperCharger station. Yet this thread is directing anger towards the hotel because they're not going the extra mile to guarantee the chargers aren't ICEd. Meanwhile nobody is mad about the locations that have not installed charging infrastructure.

If I were a business owner that was considering allowing Tesla to install a SuperCharger on my property and saw this thread, it just might cause me to reconsider. Why draw the complaints and bad reputation?

 

[rpo]

Of course it's not ethical to park there while not charging. But I'm not discussing the ethics of ICE vehicles parking in SuperCharger spots.

I'm talking about what the hotel is obligated to do here per the agreement they have with Tesla. Based on the history of this location (removal of green lines) and the behavior of the hotel it seems that Tesla did not contract for exclusive use of those spots for charging. That contract might still require that they discourage use of those spots when not charging and thus the signage. But it almost certainly does not require the hotel to wake guests and ask them to move.



What evidence do you have that the hotel is telling guests to block the SuperCharger spots? I've seen people say that the hotel says we don't have priority. But that's not the same as encouraging people to park there. The fact that the EV charging signs are there is evidence to the contrary. Anyone with a screwdriver and a few minutes of time can remove the no-parking signs. It's even easier than the green lines to remove. But yet they remain.

The handicapped spaces is a false equivalence. While it might seem that they are equivalent since state law allows parking tickets for using both EV and handicapped spaces improperly. The significant difference here is that a handicapped person is not able to change that situation, however all of us could choose to drive another vehicle or plan to charge somewhere else. This difference is so significant that the law requires the installation of handicapped spots but does not require the installation of EV charging spots, let alone Tesla SuperChargers.

The SuperCharger is not the only charger within 100 miles. There's a J1772 a few feet away, also setup for use in the hotel's parking lot. My home is 70 miles away and my 19.2 kW HPWC is on PlugShare. It's not even the only DC fast charging in 100 miles since the CHAdeMO chargers in North Bend are probably about 73 miles away. Rather, what you mean is that it's the only SuperCharger in 100 miles and thus the only charger you want to use because it's the only one that you feel is fast enough.

This reeks of entitlement. I'm sure you feel justified in that entitlement because you paid Tesla for the car and the SuperCharging. But I ask that you take a step back.

This hotel has been so forward thinking to install not just a free J1772 on their property but a SuperCharger station. Yet this thread is directing anger towards the hotel because they're not going the extra mile to guarantee the chargers aren't ICEd. Meanwhile nobody is mad about the locations that have not installed charging infrastructure.

If I were a business owner that was considering allowing Tesla to install a SuperCharger on my property and saw this thread, it just might cause me to reconsider. Why draw the complaints and bad reputation?

Did you read my original post? I was told by the hotel manager that they purposefully tell their guests to use those spots. That is the entire issue here. Oh, and the J1772 in the same lot had an empty boat trailer blocking it as well.

 

[breser]

Did you read my original post? I was told by the hotel manager that they purposefully tell their guests to use those spots. That is the entire issue here. Oh, and the J1772 in the same lot had an empty boat trailer blocking it as well.

Ok I did miss the bolded detail in your post.

So, I just went back into the hotel and was additionally told that "Tesla doesn't pay us for those spaces, and our agreement with them is that our hotel guests come first. We won't ask them to move and if they ask about parking there, we tell them it is fine."

I seriously doubt that's ok with their agreement with Tesla.

The same boat trailer that was blocking the J1722 didn't stop the Volt that was there using it when I was there a few hours after you. It has a rather long cord.

 

[jerry33]

New signs, no ICEing.

 

[brianman]

Welcome to WA, Jerry!

 

[rpo]

New signs, no ICEing.
View attachment 87734

Those are the same signs as when I was iced there six weeks ago.

 

[cpa]

Geez, with all that fenestration one would think the employees at the Holiday Inn could see the perpetrators easily and shoo them away (politely, of course.)

Maybe Tesla should add a loudspeaker that has a prerecorded message to move your vehicle that gets activated one minute after arrival if the cord is not inserted into a Tesla. :redface:

 

[rpo]

Geez, with all that fenestration one would think the employees at the Holiday Inn could see the perpetrators easily and shoo them away (politely, of course.)

Maybe Tesla should add a loudspeaker that has a prerecorded message to move your vehicle that gets activated one minute after arrival if the cord is not inserted into a Tesla. :redface:

Since the Holiday Inn is actively telling their patrons to park in and block the supercharger stalls, I doubt that'll happen.