I think its pretty ridiculous that 7/10 SuC locations in the screen above are in CA. Poor planning on Tesla's part.
Er, so what Supercharger locations do you expect to see on that list? Places where there are no Teslas?
PS. Now that I’m thinking about it, this little digression doesn’t even belong in this threas. Nevermind.
Considering that California has a very high number of Teslas, I am not surprised. And considering that the current level of new Supercharger construction is very high in California, and some of the largest Superchargers in the world are in California (40 stalls in Kettleman City and in also in Baker) it seems that Tesla is in fact doing a lot of planning and building in California.I think its pretty ridiculous that 7/10 SuC locations in the screen above are in CA. Poor planning on Tesla's part.
I really don't understand how it's poor planning? The chart just shows that those locations are serving more Tesla than other locations, because there are more Tesla's around. By your logic if they add more superchargers at those locations because they are congested it will be poor planning, because the stations will go higher on the list. Perhaps they should cut the number of superchargers at Mountain View in half so it's serving less cars and is lower on the list?
I disagree.Poor planning in that the Bay Area should have had these superchargers a few years ago.
Poor planning in that the Bay Area should have had these superchargers a few years ago. Up until last year, before San Mateo #2, there was just Mountain View and San Mateo #1, only 2 for the highest Tesla density in the country. Should have been based straight up on tesla density vs. # of superchargers.
It is getting better and long lines like at Mountain View should be getting shorter. Of course, with the highest density in CA, there will be a few CA SuCs on that top 10 list. Worst I have to admit is SD, a city of 3 million with a poorly placed SuC.
I do give credit where its due and Tesla is doing a good job in building up SuCs in the Bay area now. With Gilroy and San Jose hopefully being done later this year, that should help a lot.
Hopefully that helps explaining my "poor planning" comment.
They need to have separate (higher) supercharging rate for San Diego area alone where electricity rate is one of the highest.
While there are indeed many Teslas in the Bay Area, Superchargers are needed once those owners travel outside the Bay Area. I live right in the center of the SF Peninsula. I do not use any Supercharger on the SF Peninsula or in the East Bay.
Tesla’s initial Supercharger location plans were fine. What screwed up their plans were too many owners using nearby Superchargers to routinely charge instead of charging at home or persuading their workplace to offer charging. Once Tesla realized that was happening they had to change their plans and start building more Superchargers locations in major metropolitan areas and introducing the new “Urban” style Supercharger. And that is what we are seeing now.
To be clear: some Tesla owners live in apartments where landlords refuse to install charging. But that is certainly a very small percentage of all owners. That percentage will grow with increasing numbers of Model 3’s sold, but of course those cars can’t Supercharge for free and that is likely to make a difference.
There have been many threads about “locals overusing Superchargers”. This appears to be yet another such thread.
Once again, the basic premise of this oft-repeated canard is flawed, despite the admirable inclusion in the example above, at least, of a disclaimer wrt the non-garaged.
Canard! If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. . .
Mr. Jones, I hereby nominate you to regulate the sophistry that runs rampant on selected themes on this site.