Metro Areas by Electric Vehicle(EV) Share of New Auto Registrations, 2023-2024

[Gordo]

I'm definitely seeing more on street charging stations too - basically embedded in light poles or something similar. These are all over London and Paris now, and I've seen a few in LA and SF (with credit card-based payment). They're level 2, so really just for overnight charging for folks without a garage.

I've only seen a handful in Seattle, and they're much uglier than the ones in Europe or California (imo): https://seattle.gov/city-light/in-th...-2-ev-charging

I assume that there are some of these in NY now?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Crawford

IMO they make terrible city cars, at least presently. They work best with a personal garage, which is inherently anti-urban.

At least ICE vehicles aren't really biased in favor of garage-centric living. They're noisier and more polluting, so definitely some urban demerits, but you can park the thing anywhere without major disadvantage.

I'm not convinced they're actually worse as city cars. City people are less likely to have a garage which can make charging a little tougher, but city residents also drive a lot less on average so they don't need to charge as much. A suburban person can easily drive 100km or more a day if you combine a long commute with errands and outings meaning that a car with a lower range like say 300km would need to be charged multiple times per week to keep the charge between 20% and 80% for best battery health. But an urban dweller who only drove 15-30km per day may only need to charge once per week or less. They can just find a local charge station that works for them and get their weekly charge while doing other things and not need the expense or hassle installing a charger at home. So it's only really a disadvantage if you have the lifestyle of a suburbanite in terms of how much you drive combined with the living situation of an urban-dweller with no garage.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Bc it's metro area. NYC metro definitely has the lowest share of attached garages of any U.S. metro (even many older suburbs have SFH with no garages or just one-car detached garage), but due to sheer size still has millions of people living in SFH with attached garages.

Also, NYC metro car preferences lean more West Coasty than typical American. DC too. Most vehicles are European or Japanese, sedans are still common, giant SUVs somewhat less common. You see a lot more Accords than Yukons. F-150s are work vehicles, not exurban dude vehicles. Also large Asian population. So it makes sense that EVs have somewhat higher uptake.

Urban areas will eventually adapt. It will work somehow.

It will of course work in time. There will still be problems dealing with increase in electricity demand, and the inevitable rising cost of electricity passed on to consumers.

The enormous tax addition on gasoline which contributes to infrastructural development and maintenance will have to be made up for, and electricity bills will soar. The relative advantage EVs have in terms of energy costs will disappear in time because of that. This is either good or bad, just par for the course.

[cabasse]

this is mostly from cars, burning gas/diesel.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

The orange ones (and a lot of the yellow) in California are from wildfires

[biguc]

Modern ICEs run pretty clean but still produce a lot of pollution through friction between tires and the road. EVs do too.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by homebucket

If you consider the West Coast (and Denver) as outliers and remove them from the picture, it provides an interesting different angle. NYC, despite its built form and public charging infrastructure challenges, actually has relatively high EV uptake, not only relative to its traditionally urban counterparts (aside from DC), but also to sunbelt-y cities where you would've expected there to be higher EV uptake (Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, etc). It's also not that far behind Austin and Phoenix. All these metros have lots of autocentric suburbs with homes with private garages, sprawly strip malls with plenty of room for charging stations, long commutes, little alternative transportation options, etc which you would think would bode well for high EV uptake, yet they're not that far ahead of, and in many cases, behind NYC, which inherently faces more unmodifiable challenges.

EVs are very popular for taxi services in NYC, but not sure if that is factored in the count. I'd say that at least 80% of the Teslas I see on any given day in NYC are taxis.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by biguc

Modern ICEs run pretty clean but still produce a lot of pollution through friction between tires and the road. EVs do too.

Something to consider: EVs use up tires at a 20% higher rate, and are more expensive to purchase. The damage to roads from extra weight and friction in braking is also a long term problem if battery weights don’t significantly decrease over time. The F150 Lightning for instance weighs 6500lbs vs the regular pickups that average 4500 to 5000lbs.

[cabasse]

PM2.5/10 - definitely, somewhat; but not ozone - that's from VOCs (from gasoline evaporating out of tanks and during pumping gas - i remember when they used to have recovery devices on pumps around the metro but not outside the city - now this handled by the design of the car's filler cap itself) and NOX from combustion.



https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/10/2/99#

based on the info in this it looks like TWRP (tire and road wear) are actually a small part of the overall contribution to PM2.5.

Results indicated that TRWP concentrations in the PM2.5 fraction were low, with averages ranging from < 0.004 to 0.10 µg/m3, representing an average contribution to total PM2.5 of 0.27%. The TRWP levels in PM2.5 were significantly different between the three cities, with significant differences between London and Los Angeles and Tokyo and Los Angeles. There was no significant correlation between TRWP in PM2.5 and traffic count. This study provides an initial dataset to understand potential human exposure to airborne TRWP and the potential contribution of this non-exhaust emission source to total PM2.5.

...

The contribution of tire wear to ambient PM10 and PM2.5 has been estimated to be between 0.8–8.5% and 1–10% by mass respectively,

[The North One]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Something to consider: EVs use up tires at a 20% higher rate, and are more expensive to purchase. The damage to roads from extra weight and friction in braking is also a long term problem if battery weights don’t significantly decrease over time. The F150 Lightning for instance weighs 6500lbs vs the regular pickups that average 4500 to 5000lbs.

It seems like there's a million smaller things about EVs that are worse than ICE. And it all adds up.

The technology for EVs is just clearly not here yet. People like to reprimand the old car companies for not doing EVs sooner over supposed greed or lack of innovation. But it's not some conspiracy. It made absolutely no fucking sense to push and research EVs until now, until the government started paying for most of the tab.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by The North One

It seems like there's a million smaller things about EVs that are worse than ICE. And it all adds up.

The technology for EVs is just clearly not here yet. People like to reprimand the old car companies for not doing EVs sooner over supposed greed or lack of innovation. But it's not some conspiracy. It made absolutely no fucking sense to push and research EVs until now, until the government started paying for most of the tab.

was definitely greed and lack of innovation. why did GM suddenly kill the EV1, and not only force people to give their leased cars back (which they didn't want to do!) to be crushed, but then shortly after, they sold their patents for NiMH batteries to... TEXACO? you can't MAKE THIS SHIT UP

the only reason we even have EVs now is because lithium ion batteries didn't fall under those patents, not to mention how much more energy-dense they are.

[TWAK]

^CA had set up a *public charging network all ready for the EV revolution, which didn't come to fruition till now? At least for CA. I want one since I have solar, but I'm a Chevy homer and they have been slow with getting trucks out at a reasonable price.

-at least there was in the bay area growing up

[The North One]

Originally Posted by cabasse

was definitely greed and lack of innovation. why did GM suddenly kill the EV1, and not only force people to give their leased cars back (which they didn't want to do!) to be crushed, but then shortly after, they sold their patents for NiMH batteries to... TEXACO? you can't MAKE THIS SHIT UP

the only reason we even have EVs now is because lithium ion batteries didn't fall under those patents, not to mention how much more energy-dense they are.

Uh if you read the EV1 wiki article, it was for the same reasons EVs struggle today. They weren't profitable and it was a niche market.

We just keep coming back to the same issue, none of this makes money.

[Acajack]

Montreal, a low SFH place (at least in the city proper), has been replacing selected on-street parking spots with these charging stations. There are probably about 2,000 all over the city at this point and more are being added every year.

These are generally low-power 7.2 kwh chargers and cost around 1 dollar an hour.

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4963...5410&entry=ttu

[cabasse]

^that's exactly what we need more of on city streets. L2 is perfect for plugging in overnight.

Originally Posted by The North One

Uh if you read the EV1 wiki article, it was for the same reasons EVs struggle today. They weren't profitable and it was a niche market.

We just keep coming back to the same issue, none of this makes money.

tesla has been profitable for the last 4 years.

that was the reason GM gave, of course, and of course they wouldn't be profitable at such an early stage. but why sell the patents to an oil company? this is the same GM that was convicted for buying up streetcar lines in cities so they could monopolize the sales of buses to replace them - and barely got a slap on the wrist for doing so.

car makers hate EVs because they're going to hurt their bottom end when it comes to consumables and maintenance.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Something to consider: EVs use up tires at a 20% higher rate, and are more expensive to purchase. The damage to roads from extra weight and friction in braking is also a long term problem if battery weights don’t significantly decrease over time. The F150 Lightning for instance weighs 6500lbs vs the regular pickups that average 4500 to 5000lbs.

Good point. Thanks for bringing up braking too. I suppose the counter argument would be that regenerative braking reduces the load on brakes, thus allowing the car to spew about the same about of toxic brake-pad dust into the air.

I'm by no means anti EV, in particular. I just don't see why those of us in cities should not only accept all the same problems as ICEs, but roll out the red carpet and splash out on accommodations for EVs. They still pollute, they're still loud, they're still dangerous, and they're still an enormous waste of space.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by cabasse

^that's exactly what we need more of on city streets. L2 is perfect for plugging in overnight.

No, we need less auto infrastructure taking public space. Turning public space into auto charging stations instead of bus lanes or bike lanes or cafes is inherently anti-urban. This is not a healthy future for the urban form.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, we need less auto infrastructure taking public space. Turning public space into auto charging stations instead of bus lanes or bike lanes or cafes is inherently anti-urban. This is not a healthy future for the urban form.

even in the most urban cities in europe most streets have on street parking. of course we need fewer cars and more regulations on driving - but pragmatically we aren't going to get rid of cars in cities completely, and wouldn't you rather walk/bike around streets without the noise and air pollution caused by ICE?

i know i'm beating a dead horse, and clearly i'm not changing anyone's opinion, but i'm really surprised that this is the outlier opinion here.(that the status quo of oil industry dominance is better than an option that allows us to be so much less reliant on it)

• Video Link

@8:00 - he mentions tires become louder than engines at around 35mph, and that cars could have low noise tires, but don't because of auto manufacturers. EV's have low noise tires because they are the biggest source of noise in the cabin after the engine has been removed.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by cabasse

i know i'm beating a dead horse, and clearly i'm not changing anyone's opinion, but i'm really surprised that this is the outlier opinion here.(that the status quo of oil industry dominance is better than an option that allows us to be so much less reliant on it)

No one is arguing status quo. No, I don't want to be beholden to bone-sawing Saudis and particulate-spewing death machines.

But EVs are a very marginal improvement, and have most of the same anti-urban, dangerous, unhealthy externalities. The transition from ICE would be so much better if there were something more than EVs. We need to take back public land from private vehicles, not hand over everything so the built environment becomes a giant fuel station.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No one is arguing status quo. No, I don't want to be beholden to bone-sawing Saudis and particulate-spewing death machines.

But EVs are a very marginal improvement, and have most of the same anti-urban, dangerous, unhealthy externalities. The transition from ICE would be so much better if there were something more than EVs. We need to take back public land from private vehicles, not hand over everything so the built environment becomes a giant fuel station.

Although really, any city so dense and so lacking in suitable private parking spaces isn't going to have that many cars to begin with (EV or otherwise). If one did, it's problems are are beyond EVs and needs policies that limit general automobile dominance. I don't see a huge difference between having a bunch of on-street parking without chargers compared to some with them.