I don't make that progressive assumption about owners at all, or people in general. But I've pointed out that EV charging is in their best interests in many ways and as the demand ramps up it will be inevitable. Still there will be EV ghettos, condos or apartment buildings with no EV access, and the residents will be older and poorer. Like I said, progressive owners will adopt EVs and some complexes will have far more than average EVs and some far less (or zero). Evolution and economics will win out.
But more importantly, forward thinking states REQUIRE that HOAs and such allow people to install their own charging where it is not unsafe or unreasonably difficult to do. So the intransigent HOAs can work on a good solution or be forced to let each owner do it themselves. EV early adopters are willing to spend a lot of time and energy fighting HOAs on this, or if they are smart the HOAs will choose the path of least resistance and work with them.
EV charging doesn't have to be expensive or complex. Even a Level 1 charger (or just an ordinary outlet) is sufficient for the needs of a large portion of the pubic. Chargers can be shared by multiple EVs. The possible number of simple solutions is endless. It's insane to fight this.
Why would I assume you live in Canada just because the link you sent was from Canada? That is not conclusive at all. Plus, I just don't care unless you can demonstrate why that is relevant to the discussion, which it isn't.
Private above-ground garages, yes... underground shared concrete parkade parking not so much.... In a condo situation where each stall is individually owned I prefer to restrict the issue at hand only to owned, rather than rented properties, because renters have very little choice or say in how their property might get developed),
Renters have a lot of choice, actually. Sure, there will be some property owners who are intransigent or just lazy, those who never upgrade. They may just now be getting cable and will think about allowing high speed internet in 10 years. However, not only are new buildings often required to be EV compatible, many progressive owners will see the value in having EV spaces. They can charge higher rent, charge a fee for the premium EV spaces or just make money off the charging itself.
So there will be a mix of apartment buildings with EV spaces and without. Just as there are buildings that have high speed internet and not. Note that just having availability of EV spaces is a draw, even for people who don't currently have one. Many people think (rightly or wrongly) that they will have an EV in the future.
if you install only a couple of them in a visitor parking area, then the demand would quickly grow to exceed its availability, necessitating that more be installed.
This is like Yogi Berra saying "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
It is cheapest, to install as many as will ever be needed for the foreseeable future, but that means installing them in the stalls for the residents, which is grossly unfair to owners that did not get an electric outlet in their own stall,
"Ever be needed?" That's crazy. There is no perfect number, but you can reasonably predict the growth and find the sweet spot. Depending on the layout you might put in just enough to cover the demand for the next 2 or 3 years. Maybe you wire it for the next 5 or 10 years, but you don't need to put in full charging stations.
The only fair thing is to install metered electrical outlets in each stall
Again, that's crazy. Depending on the layout of the parking structure, you may have 10% of the stalls EV ready and have all EV owners assigned spaces in the same area, close to electrical panels. This may or may not require a slightly longer walk, but most EV owners would be happy for that. Of course, you can find AN example where this won't work, but some combination of solutions WILL work in most cases.
A building in an older part of a large city that has high density population could cost upwards of a million dollars to properly upgrade, and this results in an assessment (on the order of about $10k) on all of the owners that only those with intention to buy an electric car in the near future would benefit from.
Again, EV owners will pay for the upgrades in increased fees for EV spaces or through profits from charging. Not only that, but owners will see their condo value increase simply because the complex has EV charging capability.
Thisk is the research I have done on costs
Your link verifies just about everything I've said. It does not support your thesis that EV charging is just not practical in condos and apartment buildings. Not at all. It supports my argument even given the egregiously high installation costs they quote (because of the factors I mentioned in previous posts).
Of course, you may be inclined to discount the entire country where I live as some kind of backwater nation, but don't assume that I wouldn't find such an evaluation to be a bit insulting.
I have no idea where you live, but the way you describe it sounds like Moldova, where no one can afford EVs, all the buildings are ancient concrete structures and renters and condo owners are luddites who refuse progress. So in fact you are insulting your own country.
Since you mentioned that most apartment dwellers wont even own cars in 20 years, I'd like to point out that *still* leaves no incentive for apartment owners of most currently existing buildings to *ever* install EV facilities, because they will always only potentially be of benefit to a tiny few.
This is not a contradiction. Parking lot owners will of course not convert ALL of their spaces to electric. They may start with just a handful and increase the number as time goes on. In 20 years they may have half the parking spaces they used to need and maybe 1/3 of those will be electric. This can even be a new revenue stream for the owners and it will still be cheaper for their tenants than gasoline. Win/win as they say.
Even then, it will still often be more economical for people to own their own car than ride share, just as it is more economical to drive than to take a cab. Public transit
Of course it will be for SOME people. I don't know why you keep insisting that there has to be one solution for everyone. The transportation market is very complex, but the trend is towards EVs, self-driving and ride sharing. More importantly, ride sharing is now cheaper and more convenient than owning a vehicle for a very large percentage of people. This is why young people are increasingly not even learning to drive or get their license.
Sincerely, however, if there were a place for me to charge it overnight, I'd have no qualms at all with an EV being my next car.... and given that a lot of people *do* live in multiunit dwellings that *were* built more than about 10 years or so when the infrastructure for supporting these kinds of facilities started getting put in while the building is being built, I do not think I am an atypical use case.
Yes, you are atypical, but that doesn't mean there aren't millions just like you. There are just many more who aren't. No doubt, most people DON'T have an at home charging station, but the point being made is that it is not hard at all to add a number of charging stations to almost every garage. It makes sense for the owners and the tenants. (Not all, but enough.)
The changeover to electric vehicles will eventually happen, sure... but it is happening slowly, and I'd be shocked as hell if it ever going to be practical in my lifetime.
I suggest you do more research then. Many studies and analyses predict that 30% to 50% of new vehicles will be electric within 20 years or so. In countries that are more progressive, e.g. those that are serious about climate change and put a fair tax on gasoline, it will be much quicker. DESPITE those countries having all the problems you say, high densities and old garages. They'll do it because they don't have the insane car culture that we do here.
You are just ignoring all the comments that came before which have explained why many of your assumptions are wrong. It is not expensive to add electric to existing garages, it pays for itself quickly. New developments in upscale areas will almost certainly have some EV charging, older apartment buildings will add some capacity slowly or they will see their pool of possible tenants dwindle. When owners don't want to put up the money, a third party will install chargers and rent them out (like solar panels).
The same will happen at restaurants and malls. If they want to keep their best customers they will add electric. People won't HAVE to go out more often, they already go out once or twice a week, even if they did have to go one more time the cost savings would be worth it. A $15 charge vs. a $40 tank fill up buys a decent meal. You won't wait at a charger because you will know if spots are available before you get there.
There won't be one charging solution for everyone. Some will charge at home, some at work and some while out and about. Sales of EVs are not limited by the number of public chargers, they are only limited by how fast Tesla can make them,
Perhaps you live in a backwards area where you don't see these changes happening rapidly, but they are. In fact, the biggest change you don't see coming is that most of those apartment dwellers won't even own cars in 10 to 20 years, they will take some form of ride sharing, possibly by self driving car.
Again, you're just reaching for excuses, changing the assumptions as you go and definitely not doing a fair evaluation. That's your prerogative, but stop claiming that you're a typical case.
Are you being intentionally dim? If you're already shopping or eating out it actually takes less of YOUR time to hook up your EV than to stand around while pumping gas.
If you just don't want an EV, fine, but your excuses are just ridiculous.
What? You were talking about whether people could afford to put in electrical outlets in their garage. Installation pays for itself very quickly. You evidence this yourself when you claim that landlords can charge more than an extra $1000/yr just by having those outlets. Once again, this is a lame excuse.
A good driver absolutely would have avoided that collision.
I find this especially ironic because when a Google car caused an accident when a "good driver" didn't yield, the usual suspects were quick to blame Google and NOT the "good driver" who couldn't possibly be expected to be aware of his situation.
You keep saying "not souls", but then fail to come up with whatever it is that makes humans "aware", but self-driving cars not "aware." If you don't want to call this special thing only humans have "souls" then find another name for it, because you are trying and failing to come up with a meaningful distinction.
You're right that self driving cars don't know that that little girl in the middle of the street walking her dog is adorable, and that she is the daughter of the local minister. So what? It is aware that there are obstacles in its path and judges that it should avoid them. Aware, aware, aware. It doesn't need to know any of the details that you seem to think are important. That's another loaded word there, "judgment", that you use to muddle your biased opinion even further.
If you're not religious, to what do you attribute your inflated sense of your special humanness?
Of course you are talking about souls, because you are trying to tease out some semantic subtlety that differentiates what humans do from what self-driving cars do. Even your definitions don't support your position. Self-driving cars are aware, they have knowledge and they use that to make decisions. Just like humans.
Aware = having knowledge
Knowledge = facts, information, skills
A good driver absolutely would have avoided that collision.
Then there are no good drivers. Humans are fallible, even a driver who you might consider "good" will fail sometimes in this situation because of many factors.
The problem with computers is that they don't take into account that people will break the rules and do stupid things, a defensive driver assumes someone will do the dumbest thing possible....
Absolutely not true. Self driving cars are constantly evaluating whether someone is going to break the rules or do something dumb. They do this far better than the average driver, even now. Unlike the vast majority of humans they are indeed keeping an eye on other cars drifting out of their lanes, failing to stop at a stop sign/light, braking abruptly for no apparent reason...
A good driver learns to pick up on these cues.
Sure, but only because you are defining "good driver" as someone who does that. In reality, the number of "good drivers" is very small. Possibly just you and me, and I'm not sure about you.
I don't know of any self-driving software that has deployed such technology, but it's really not as advanced as you think. Detecting whether a car is weaving in its lane and might wander over is not that hard, other cues that every "good driver" might be more difficult, but this is a red herring. Simple defensive driving techniques, e.g. not being right next to another car on the freeway, combined with far superior reaction times make self-driving cars much better in these situations than most drivers are, and the software keeps getting better. Unlike humans.
Riches cover a multitude of woes. -- Menander