I’m told that there are ongoing problems with the EV chargers in the Leo Roy garage (see the Message from a Resident at bottom). Installing EV chargers on Association property would come with a myriad of headaches (believe me, it’s been examined at great length), but the City is already committed to having them in city garages and needs to keep them functional. Here are a few ideas residents can pursue to improve the situation. Feel free to offer input in the comments.
- Attend LDNA meetings to be heard on the matter.
- Research the charger situation at the Hamilton Canal garage—are those chargers more dependable?—and think about whether it’s worth having the Board explore allowing that garage as a parking option for residents. Adding a fourth parking area would make a complicated parking situation even more so, but it might be possible.
- Look into other ways to be heard. Here are some city government links that might offer more information or useful contact points: Parking & Garages, Neighborhood Services, & EV Charging Stations.
Message from a Resident: Dear EV owners: As of 5pm on Saturday, all the charges in the Roy Garage are off-line. While this is an unusual situation, it is the latest in a worsening situation that was entirely anticipated given the increased demand. It is not at all unusual anymore to find no chargers available, and to be faced with antiquated chargers with a maximum of 6KW per hour. Plus there’s the constant issue of cable management malfunctions, thus leaving wires lying on the ground where they inevitably get run over.
Please, we’ve got to have the city, and maybe our condo board, re-examine this issue. It’s only going to get worse.
There are SO many unavoidable problems with putting EV chargers on association property.
Some are:
1. unknown existing demand – we do not have actual data as to how many chargers we would need; if we start small and expand as required we will never “catch up” to the needs because:
2. induced demand. No matter how many chargers we install, they will always be full – if there are always empty spots, it makes upgrading away from gas to electric more enticing, and the larger the building the faster this will happen.
3. off-site users – EV users who don’t live here will be enticed to park here with (presumably) functional and maintained chargers vs in the garage, leading to at minimum social friction or a constant towing situation.
4. cars taking up EV spots who do not need charging or have finished charging – EV spots are not “get home, plug in your car, go inside and leave it” spots – drivers should ideally move their cars when charged so others can use the spots, which…does not seem likely to me?
5. social and “class” (of spot) issues – right now we have (guessing) 60ish spots; if we install 5 chargers, it creates spots for only electrics, which makes the “pool” of available spots less flexible, and smaller.
6. also: with no chargers in the basement you create extra demand for chargers in the lot for basement EV users, which creates procedural conflict as above – do you move your charged car to the basement (or the city garage) when you’re done? Personally owned and rigged EV in owned basement spots is the only way to avoid this particular social friction but for that to work, the initial expense and ongoing risk to the building of a lithium fire is so massive, we cannot practically consider it.
It is imo far, far, FAR more logical to end-run these problems and the expense and leave this as the city’s problem until the EV market stabilizes and the city infrastructure catches up.
Great points. It’s one thing for a community to prioritize the parking of its handicap residents. It’s another entirely to have choice of car dictating reserved parking spots in an already limited pool of surface lot spots. If we were to ever considering pulling spots out of the general pool for specific car types I would hope that’s a general member discussion and vote.
Well thought out and a solution at the end makes the most sense.
Nice job, Jack!
When I sent the “letter from a resident”, not as an anonymous writer, but with my name and email attached, I was simply trying to alert the other EV owners in our building that all the chargers in Roy were down, actually since 9am on Saturday. I was not looking for an editorial reply. I did make the suggestion that both the City and the Board reconsider the situation, which both entities are going to have to do sooner of later.
Sorry about the ‘headaches’.
Sorry if it sounded like an editorial reply; that wasn’t my intention. I was at an event yesterday and didn’t get the message until very late, at which point it seemed like it would be more useful to flesh it out with some specific suggestions rather than just posting that the chargers were down earlier. Thank you for pointing out the problems with the Roy garage. I hadn’t realized how bad the situation was.
I often leave bulletin board messages unattributed these days for privacy reasons unless there’s a specific reason to attach a name. No disrespect intended.
Thanks Jack.
As for a 4th parking location somehow wrangled by the board, I’ve suggested (to Wayne and others) that a temporary relief would be to allow those of us paying for and holding discount passes in the Roy be allowed to use, on an either/or basis, the Roy or Hamilton garages. Since charger usage in Hamilton is almost never near capacity as it is in Roy, this would act as a (temporary) relief valve. Since LAZ already has all of our names, addresses, and vehicle descriptions and tag #s, despite the difference in entry modes (pass card vs tag), it’s just a matter of software modifications. Your vehicle is either in the Roy, in the Hamilton, or neither.
This temporary fix wouldn’t require anything new from the condo board. It doesn’t solve the long-term problems, which must be addressed, but it would give us some time.
I have brought this to the attention of the City Manager and the Parking Director. Thanks for posting about it.