LET'S BUILD THE CALIFORNIA WEST COAST ELECTRIC HIGHWAY

[TonyWilliams]

A good comparison for you – we’re close enough in numbers to get some officials to realise how far they are behind…

UK population 64 million, land area 94,000 square miles
Electric Highway as tweeted today has 445 Rapid Chargers active: 211 Chademo 50kW, 164 AC 43kW, and 70 CCS 50kW.
Note these are not the only rapids – just the national network located on motorways and trunk roads.

http://www.zap-map.com list the total locations (not individual charge heads) as 362 50kW DC and 202 43kW AC plus a number of 22kw which are hard to separate out as they are in with the 7kW Fast AC units ??? I and most other people class 22kW as a Rapid not fast!

California population 40 million, land area 163,000 square miles.
Hopefully you can find the numbers for that. Nothing like a bit of bench marking to use as thumbscrews. UK isn't that different to CA, Lots of urban areas, with a large number of people out in the sticks.

If things go well – California will leap ahead of the UK and then I can use the numbers to show how we are lagging behind etc etc ;-)

Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, UK, Japan, all seem to "get it". Here we have angry folks who don't want charging in an area with 5 million people... makes me wonder why.

Lot of hate in this world.

Yes, we should build this... and more. For everybody that has gasoline burning for your answer to long(er) range travel, obviously you really don't have a dog in the fight.

 

[TonyWilliams]

To my mind the main North-South West Coast artery from Mexico to Canada is i5, and to run a 440-mile segment of the WCEH over on 99 is pure folly, which would be underused by many of today's EV drivers, and there just aren't that many Central Valley locals who drive EVs (yet).

Yes, we addressed that directly in the letter.

I am sure there are many like myself who also still own an ICE, and would leap at the opportunity to take my EV from the Bay Area to the Southland, but the prospect of schlepping over to 99 and enduring hours of bad air and worse traffic would tip me over to just saying, screw it, I'll take the Global Warmer instead.

I'm really glad that you don't make policy. You argue exactly WHY they should have EVs and EV charging infrastructure in the Central Valley. We also make the same arguement. So, we agree to the issue, but clearly disagree with the solution.

Did you happen to notice that we recommend US-101, which directly joins San Francisco with Los Angeles? You don't have to "schlep" anywhere. (NOTE: I've driven this route MANY times in a 100% EV, even without a WCEH)

As to the challenge of bringing enough electricity to 40-mile sections of I5, that really shouldn't be a deal-breaker, it's the kind of thing California used to be able to do before breakfast. Besides, there's a ton of drought-striken land that could be solared over — I'm thinking in particular of those nauseatingly stinky cattle pens just off i5 by Coalinga, they could sure use some shade; actually, on second thoughts, perhaps putting the charging station up-wind would be better.

That is all entirely possible in the future of the California WCEH. It doesn't exist today, and I'm confident that you understand that telling our government to put a charger in Fresno is entirely different than putting one somewhere between Coalinga and FarmVille, Nowhere, USA, where it would require:

1) install charger(s)
2) electric infrastructure that doesn't exist
3) add security that doesn't exist
4) add restroom, water, sewer, etc, that doesn't exist
5) add solar and lighting that doesn't exist
6) no doubt, this would need batteries to be viable... that doesn't exist

 

[TonyWilliams]

... But others without the REx, need to be able to recharge in order to get the most out of their city vehicle.

It may be that 100 DC fast chargers are planned for the SoCal metro area but they do not exist in reality. I know where those in Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties exist--but at the present moment, they are no where near 100. Four years, perhaps. I won't hold my breath.

Well, if you don't believe that the NRG deal will provide satisfaction for you, why would you engage in this government deal to do the same thing?

I'm sorry if my comments didn't sit well with you. I probably write a hundred or more emails, responses, etc, per day, everyday. So, I don't spend enough time to contemplate how somebody might take offense to that.

The corridor project is a bit like the bullet train, a project few will use. Again, I would like to see the corridor built but not at the expense of developing infrastructure for the metropolitan areas, the areas in which most folks will use their electric vehicles. Sales will grow not as a result of the corridor electric grid but as a result of ample charing opportunities in the cities and suburbs of California and elsewhere.

Sadly, the people who don't live in those urban metro areas might disagree, and in addition, they have almost NOTHING and you have a lot already.

Do you believe in sharing?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Hi Tony,

Sorry to hijack the thread but do you have any plans to bring out an AC > CCS unit? Over here in the UK there's hundreds of dual 3 phase AC/Chademo units but only a handful of CCS. We additionally have a lot of 22kW AC chargers especially on the continent. Likewise 440V 3phase AC is available nearly everywhere, even at home if you wish (once you've paid to be upgraded). The only unit I've seen capable of doing this is €16,000 and runs at 22kW not the full 43 available from the AC units on the UK's Electric Highway.

Sorry, we just aren't planning anything like that. It will all come in time, however.

Hope your ideas start to move, I'd love to come out there for a road trip holiday. Have done New England, Florida, and Phoenix > San Diego > Las Vegas. But Still haven't gone up the coast via San Fran to Seattle. Tell the powers that be - there's at least 1 person who's going to delay his next US tourist trip until I can do an electric fly drive on just the route you've mentioned. ;-)

Just don't drive via the CA-99 route!!! Apparently a few folks don't like that one!

 

[TonyWilliams]

To the folks who are comfortably living in a major urban area like San Francisco Bay, and who think only they deserve EV infrastructure (while acknowledging the gross pollution and lower economic status of the Central Valley), here's what our state considers:

"The California Energy Commission is required to assess the localized health impacts of the projects proposed for ARVTP funding under Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Solicitation PON‐13‐606...."

"Environmental justice communities, low‐income communities, and minority communities are considered to be the most impacted by any project that could result in increased criteria and toxic air pollutants within an area because these communities typically have the most significant exposure to the emissions. Assessing these projects and the communities surrounding them is important because of the health risks associated with these pollutants. Preventing health issues from air pollution in any community is important, but it is especially important to minimize any negative impacts in communities that are already considered to be at risk due to their continued exposure to these contaminants."

 

[i3an]

To the folks who are comfortably living in a major urban area like San Francisco Bay, and who think only they deserve EV infrastructure (while acknowledging the gross pollution and lower economic status of the Central Valley), here's what our state considers:

"The California Energy Commission is required to assess the localized health impacts of the projects proposed for ARVTP funding under Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Solicitation PON‐13‐606...."

"Environmental justice communities, low‐income communities, and minority communities are considered to be the most impacted by any project that could result in increased criteria and toxic air pollutants within an area because these communities typically have the most significant exposure to the emissions. Assessing these projects and the communities surrounding them is important because of the health risks associated with these pollutants. Preventing health issues from air pollution in any community is important, but it is especially important to minimize any negative impacts in communities that are already considered to be at risk due to their continued exposure to these contaminants."

Tony, you're only digging yourself deeper. What is the point of putting charging stations where there aren't any EVs, and are unlikely to be any for a number of years? Better put them along I5 first, where they will presumably enable people to use EVs instead of ICEs, thus reducing smog along i5 and thus immediately helping the air quality downwind, along 99. And no, as I have tried to explain, I don't think "only" we in the coastal cities deserve EV infrastructure, I just think that in the long run the environmental justice communities etc. would be better served if the initial investments were put where they would get the most immediate use, along I5, and then build out along 99 as well. I can just imagine some local Fox station staking a rookie reporter in a woefully deserted charging station in, say, Chowchilla, and using this as an example of wasteful government run amok. Me, I'd rather see video of queues outside my hypothetical station in Coalinga, showing government working intelligently.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony, you're only digging yourself deeper. What is the point of putting charging stations where there aren't any EVs, and are unlikely to be any for a number of years? Better put them along I5 first, where they will presumably enable people to use EVs instead of ICEs, thus reducing smog along i5 and thus immediately helping the air quality downwind, along 99. And no, as I have tried to explain, I don't think "only" we in the coastal cities deserve EV infrastructure, I just think that in the long run the environmental justice communities etc. would be better served if the initial investments were put where they would get the most immediate use, along I5, and then build out along 99 as well. I can just imagine some local Fox station staking a rookie reporter in a woefully deserted charging station in, say, Chowchilla, and using this as an example of wasteful government run amok. Me, I'd rather see video of queues outside my hypothetical station in Coalinga, showing government working intelligently.

I don't think I'm digging myself anywhere, and besides, IM NOT THE GUY YOU NEED TO CONVINCE !!! The quotes are not mine above... you do recognize that, correct?

You are welcome to submit your own plan of I-5. By the way, the state *is* funding a charger at Coalinga already, plus several along the CA-99 corridor. Why don't you tell them directly how wrong they are.

I wish I could say you have a compelling arguement, but to me, it sounds a bit odd. The very people who need zero emission THE MOST should not get it, but instead should be closer to the major metro area that has tons... hey, good luck with that.

Again, please don't "convince" me, because I'm not buying it.

I also don't give "hoot" what Fox "News" might think about anything.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Gifts from the state of California:

Corridor Charging, INC

10 DCFC destination/corridor site:

Corner of S. Vulcan / E. E St., Encinitas


South Coast Air Quality Management District

6 DCFC destination/corridor sites

1) 100 Civic Center Way, Calabasas, 91302
2) 900 University Avenue, Riverside, 92521
3) 12505 N. Main Street, Rancho Cucamonga, 91739
4) 48400 Seminole Drive, Cabazon, 92230
5) 277 N. Avenida Caballeros, Palm Springs, 92262
6) 73‐510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, 92260


US Green Vehicle Council

10 DCFC corridor charging at hotels sites:

1) Holiday Inn Express‐ Santa Nella, 28976 Plaza Drive, Santa Nella Village, 95322
2) Best Western Big Country Inn, 25020 W. Dorris Avenue, Coalinga, 93210
3) Days Inn‐ Lost Hills, 14684 Aloma Street, Lost Hills, 93249
4) Microtel Inn & Suites by Wyndham (60 miles from Lost Hills), 5620 Del Sol Drive, Wheeler Ridge, 93203
5) Courtyard Marriott (48 miles from Wheeler Ridge), 28523 Westinghouse Place, Los Angeles, 91355
6) Holiday Inn‐ Oceanside, 1401 Carmelo Drive, Oceanside, 92054
7) Holiday Inn Express‐ Stockton, 5045 Kingsley Road, Stockton, 95215
8) Courtyard Marriott Hotel, 750 Motel Drive, Merced, 95340
9) Holiday Inn Express Fresno, 7191 Kathryn West, Fresno, 93722
10) Hampton Inn & Suites Tulare, 1100 N. Cherry Street, Tulare, 93274


Southern California Public Power Authority
9 DCFC destination/corridor sites (plus four L2):

1) 2626 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, 92806
2) Citrus Avenue/Alosta Avenue, Azusa, 91702
3) 2140 W.Ramsey Street, Banning, 92220
4) 343 North Pass Avenue, Burbank, 91505
5) 18125 Bloomfield Avenue, Cerritos, 90703
6) 1405 E. Washington Street, Colton, 92324
7) 400 N. Pepper Avenue, Colton, 92324
8) 121 S. Church Lane, Los Angeles, 90049
9) 27110 Eucalyptus Avenue, Moreno Valley, 92555
10) 175 N. Raymond Avenue, Los Angeles, 91103
11) 8095 Lincoln Avenue, Riverside, 92504


City of Torrance

6 DCFC corridor chargers:

1) Charles Wilson Park, 2200 Crenshaw Boulevard, Torrance, 90501
2) Columbia Park, 4045 190th Street, Torrance, 90504
3) Downtown, 1332 Post Avenue, Torrance, 90501
4) Katy Geissert Library‐Civic Center, 3301 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, 90503
5) Walteria Library and Park, 3855 242nd Street, Torrance, 90505
6) McMaster Park‐Library‐ Police Substation, 3624 Artesia Boulevard, Torrance, 90504

 

[nowtta60]

There shouldn't be any argument on this. You need to do both. I just had a look on google maps. With 50miles beyween the 2, if you turn off I5 top visit someone who lives along the 99 then you'll need another charge as you get there. Remeber your working on 80% of battery after the 1st so of the day. Anything over 50 miles you'll be thinking of sstopping again for a quick charge unless you are close to destibation.

I also think saying people dont have EVs along that route is pretty snobby attitude. I've lived in **** areas in my life (in fact where i live now isn't that great) but my parents have always visited. It's not who lives there bit who might travel there.

What are US gov agenicies driving? Here in the UK central government has offered to fund 75% of the lease cost of plug in vehicles. Making them a no brainer regardless of your districts demographics. That's going to lead to a lot more PHEVs and BEVs doing child support, elderly care, housing assesments, community engagement meetings etc etc. And 2 to 3 years hence a nice supply of used EVs to the market.

The 99 looks stuck in the middle of a lot of people who presumably use government services located nearby.

And the i5 is for long distance travelers (stopping every 50 - 60 miles ).

 

[Jeffj]

And the i5 is for long distance travelers (stopping every 50 - 60 miles ).

Reminds me of the old saying - "In the US, they think 200 years is a long time. In the UK, they think 200 miles is a long distance."

 

[WoodlandHills]

If principles of Social Justice compell us as a society to improve the air quality in the Central Valley, shouldn't we start by electrifying the farm equipment first? Most of the pollution is caused by diesel farm machinery not ICE cars. Also, every dollar of gasoline tax that is lost due to conversion to EVs is a dollar taken away from the funds that are so desperately needed to maintain Hwy 99, the main artery for agribusiness in that area. How does this square with your values? Or do those folks only matter as a means to score points against those with who think your route is ridiculous.

If your goal is to promote EV usage, put the Chargers where the people want to travel, not where YOU want them to.

If your goal is to improve the life of those who live in the Central Valley agitate to convert the diesel groundwater pumps to electricty. Not build a Take the Long Way Around Electric Road to Nowhere.

 

[drb]

The very idea of a "corridor" running from Mexico to the Canadian border tells us that the i-5 is and must be the backbone of this infrastructure project. Its purpose is not to provide folks living in rural or semi-rural communities with electrical charging stations but, rather, to be part of a transportation grid facilitating EV traffic over long distances. Over the past couple of years, I've had a few occasions to drive the 99 from Modesto to Porterville and then on to Bakersfield where I picked up the i-5. Its a slow drive, sometimes painfully slow, and certainly not the kind of road that suggests a modern transportation "corridor". Given limited resources, we cannot be all things to all people. I hope the people in the hamlets and cities along Highway 99 get electrical charging stations and buy EVs, If we are going to build a corridor, however, let us do that and then expand as resources become available. Perhaps High 99 was selected for the same reason that the Central Valley was selected to begin the bullet train project--decision-making by the political class rather than by engineers and persons whose objectivity grasped how much easier and more rational the train project would be running alongside the I-5. If you were forced into taking the 99, I commiserate with you but still suggest you oppose route. If you selected the 99 without the interference of elected and appointed officials, then I say again, stationing electrical charging stations along the 99 is counterintuitive to everything suggested by the notion of a green "corridor" running from Mexico to Canada.

 

[i3an]

Have any Environmental Impact Reports been published comparing the I5 vs. 99 routes for the proposed WCEH between Red Bluff and Grapevine?
A side-by-side comparison on Google Maps (and Waze) shows that the 99 route is only 6 miles longer but takes a whopping 42 minutes extra, presumably because of traffic snarls and lower speed limits. Even assuming that putting chargers along 99 first would increase long-distance EV usage (a dubious assumption), what kind of justice is served by adding to the existing traffic congestion?
Better to prioritize on I5 first, then in a few years, as the price of EVs and the chargers comes down, extend the network to 99 and 101.

 

[nowtta60]

And the i5 is for long distance travelers (stopping every 50 - 60 miles ).

Reminds me of the old saying - "In the US, they think 200 years is a long time. In the UK, they think 200 miles is a long distance."

Lol that's true. I'm right in the middle of the country, near Birmingham and the only direction i can drive 200 miles without needing an i3 that floats and has an outboard is North up towards Scotland. I can just about stretch 200 if I go southwest into the far end of Cornwall.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The very idea of a "corridor" running from Mexico to the Canadian border tells us that the i-5 is and must be the backbone of this infrastructure project. Its purpose is not to provide folks living in rural or semi-rural communities with electrical charging stations but, rather, to be part of a transportation grid facilitating EV traffic over long distances.

Those "hamlets" of rural California that you must be referring to along CA-99:

Fresno - As of 2013, the city's population was 509,000 making it the fifth largest city in California, the largest inland city

Bakersfield - It is roughly equidistant between Fresno and Los Angeles, which are 110 mi to the north and south, respectively.
Population: 363,630 (2013)

Yes, not only is this a long distance STATE WIDE travel corridor, there are 5 million people there.

We disagree, and that's fine to disagree, but harking the same story over and over really isn't making progress. The CA-99 route is NOT the hick town-less moonscape that I-5 is along that route.

Given limited resources, we cannot be all things to all people. I hope the people in the hamlets and cities along Highway 99 get electrical charging stations and buy EVs, If we are going to build a corridor, however, let us do that and then expand as resources become available.

Yes, we completely agree. We can expand to I-5 in the future.

Perhaps High 99 was selected for the same reason that the Central Valley was selected to begin the bullet train project--decision-making by the political class rather than by engineers and persons whose objectivity grasped how much easier and more rational the train project would be running alongside the I-5. If you were forced into taking the 99, I commiserate with you but still suggest you oppose route. If you selected the 99 without the interference of elected and appointed officials, then I say again, stationing electrical charging stations along the 99 is counterintuitive to everything suggested by the notion of a green "corridor" running from Mexico to Canada.

Yawn...

 

[TonyWilliams]

Have any Environmental Impact Reports been published comparing the I5 vs. 99 routes for the proposed WCEH between Red Bluff and Grapevine?
A side-by-side comparison on Google Maps (and Waze) shows that the 99 route is only 6 miles longer but takes a whopping 42 minutes extra, presumably because of traffic snarls and lower speed limits. Even assuming that putting chargers along 99 first would increase long-distance EV usage (a dubious assumption), what kind of justice is served by adding to the existing traffic congestion?
Better to prioritize on I5 first, then in a few years, as the price of EVs and the chargers comes down, extend the network to 99 and 101.

I'm confident that there are a multitude of such studies... it's been STUDIED TO DEATH !!!

Time for action. Our proposal is CA-99 and US-101... then a whole bunch of other STATE wide routes, which will ultimately include I-5 from Red Bluff to Grapevine (Lebec).

 

[i3an]

Tony, you claim:
"I'm confident that there are a multitude of such studies... it's been STUDIED TO DEATH !!!"

Could you please provide links?

Otherwise, the common sense suggests that the best place to run the WCEH is along the existing I5 highway, not the 42-minute longer 99 byway.

 

[drb]

Tony, you take liberties with my argument suggesting the weakness of yours. I mentioned "hamlets" and "cities" I spend a good deal of time in Fresno and pass through Bakersfield frequently. This still doesn't change the argument--the 99 is not the road to anchor the electric highway. Enough!

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony, you claim:
"I'm confident that there are a multitude of such studies... it's been STUDIED TO DEATH !!!"

Could you please provide links?

Otherwise, the common sense suggests that the best place to run the WCEH is along the existing I5 highway, not the 42-minute longer 99 byway.

SACRMENTO to Lebec

314 miles - I-5
316 miles - CA-99

2 miles more... Google says 17 minutes more. Sorry, not compelling.

The studies of pollution in that CA-99 corridor are easy to Google.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony, you take liberties with my argument suggesting the weakness of yours. I mentioned "hamlets" and "cities" I spend a good deal of time in Fresno and pass through Bakersfield frequently. This still doesn't change the argument--the 99 is not the road to anchor the electric highway. Enough!

You're absolutley correct... it shouldn't be the "anchor". It should be one of a multitude of routes specified above.