Why EV Gentrification Is Leading To urban Charging Deserts - And How Ride Sharing Could Help

Electric cars are awesome. They really are. They’re more affordable to operate, require less maintenance, and of course, are responsible for less pollution over their lifetime than an internal combustion engine car. 

They’re often quicker than an internal combustion engine car, and are super easy to drive. And when it comes to driver fatigue, studies have shown that EV drivers tend to suffer less stress behind the wheel than their ICE counterparts. 

But, electric vehicles are also, sadly, more expensive to buy brand new than most internal combustion engine vehicles. While price parity is just a few years away, the sticker price of most new EVs is out of the price range of a large proportion of the population. 

And yes, things are getting better. Used electric cars are now available at price points that are within the reach of more buyers than ever before. But while some used electric cars are now as affordable as a comparable internal combustion engine vehicle (and can be far more reliable to boot), a complete lack of investment in electric vehicle charging in historically disinvested neighborhoods means that we’re facing down the barrel of a major urban charging crisis. Specifically, Urban charging deserts, areas of major cities where there is little to no electric vehicle charging provisions, means people who might be able to afford a used electric car are finding that they can’t buy it because of a lack of charging infrastructure. 

And, as a recent report by the Rocky Mountain Institute shows, this already pressing problem will  only get worse unless we tackle what I’m going to call EV Gentrification. Luckily though, as the report also points out, one answer to that problem could be a shift in ride share services to an all-electric fleet. 

So today, we’re going to talk about the problem of  Urban Charging Deserts and EV Gentrification. Specifically, we’ll examine what the issues are, talk about how we got here, and ask how we can move forward. 

But first, let’s talk to EV affordability. Many argue that EVs are affordable because the average new price of a car in the U.S. is more than the entry-level price of a brand-new Tesla Model 3.  If that is true, they say, then clearly EVs are affordable. 

That argument is flawed. 

First, the statistics for this argument usually reflect the median price, which is what you get if you add up all the sticker prices of every car sold and then divide it by the total number of cars sold. Examining a median figure does not take into account the fact that a couple hundred high-end sports cars can skew the entire end figure upwards. 

Nor does it take into account the rising sub prime crisis in the auto industry; people today are entering into ever-longer lease and purchase deals on new cars just to be able to manage the monthly payments. But that doesn’t make those cars affordable, it just means more people are being forced to buy more expensive cars with incredibly high interest rates or long terms because that’s the only option they have. 

And of course, that ‘average new price’ refers to new cars, not used. And statistics show that people are keeping their cars longer than ever before, partly because it now costs so much to buy a new one. 

And no, you can’t use ‘post incentive’ pricing to argue a point. Because in some countries, like the U.S., incentives require you to actually have a tax liability large enough to use the credit to offset. So you still need the cash, or good enough credit, up front.

OK, back to EV gentrification and urban charging deserts. And if we’re going to talk about EV gentrification, we should make sure we understand the term in its usual context - Neighborhood gentrification. 

Gentrification refers to the process of taking an historically disinvested neighborhood and then injecting high amounts of real estate capital, usually from outside non-local sources, to attract more affluent, higher-income residents to move there. Houses are torn down or gutted and rebuilt into trendy apartment complexes, and well-known grocery store chains, wine bars, restaurants,  and fast food outlets move in to satiate the needs of (often, but not always), young professionals moving to the area with lots of disposable income, and very little interest in their local community. Gentrification often coincides with a wave of racial readjustment - an area may see long term residents that are people of color moving out while white people are moving in.

These communities that are so attractive to buyers, with their stock of cheaper historic housing and vibrant culturally diverse stores and restaurants, are often a result of historic redlining and modern discriminatory lending. For those who don’t know, in the 1930’s, the federal government’s underwriting manual, the rules for providing mortgages stated “incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities”. Which in practice meant redlining denied, mainly Black people, the ability to buy houses outside certain areas, and with discriminatory lending continuing even now, these federal policies continue to have impacts despite those rules being gone.

Alongside that shift in demographics, independent local businesses that have existed in the community for years find themselves unable to compete with their new high-street rivals as loyal customers leave. Residents who grew up in the neighborhood find they can no-longer meet the cost of living there due to increased rent. And those who are lucky enough to own their home often find that their home has increased so much in value that selling up and moving out is too much of a good financial windfall to pass up. 

The original disinvested community, which rarely receives any of the actual investment that gentrification brings, finds itself splintered, disenfranchised, and ultimately, destroyed. 

Those who lived in the area pre-gentrification find themselves forced to move further out of town, requiring them to travel longer distances for work. They may even have to find new jobs. All-too-often, displaced community members find that they end up relocating to somewhere where they are worse off financially than they were, all because some dinky couple (dual income, no kids) want to live in an historic neighborhood but also want to get their fair trade, ethically sourced, out-of-season vegetables from the new, local Amazon-owned grocery store down the street and talk with their friends over coffee about that time they went to Africa in high school to build a well for ‘poor people’. 

EV gentrification? Well, it’s a little similar. And it goes like this: 

Affluent neighborhoods historically have had more electric vehicle owners in them than less affluent areas. And more EV adoption means more likelihood that electric vehicle charging infrastructure will be provided. Additionally, more affluent areas are more likely to have the money to invest in electric vehicle charging. More infrastructure encourages more people to dump the pump and make the switch, and you’re left with a self-sustaining EV adoption. 

There’s a nasty, unspoken truth here though. Charging infrastructure companies install EV charging stations where they know electric car owners will want to stop for a half hour or more. And given the socioeconomic makeup of much of the EV-owning population, well, those charging networks self-select locations that are considered more ‘up-market’. 

And that leads us to something that’s called “Urban Charging Deserts”. Areas of towns and cities where there is little to no charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.  And, you’ve guessed it, those areas tend to be areas of historical disinvestment. 

Of course, when it comes to EV ownership, if you don’t have a place to park and charge overnight, owning an electric car becomes a lot more difficult.  And for the reasons we mentioned, it is less likely that those in Black and Latinx communities will own their own home, and thus have a place to park and charge at night.. 

As a side, while Red Lining is now illegal in many countries, including the U.S., just take a look at the story of Carlette Duffy from Indianapolis, who had to hide her race and get a friend to show her home for an appraisal in order to get an unbiased, realistic valuation for it, to see how discriminatory housing practices still exist today. I’ll link to it below. 

If you’re feeling uncomfortable about this video, well, I’d suggest you’re not alone. This isn’t an easy topic to discuss. It is uncomfortable. But we as a society need to have this discussion. 

In the EV world, the lack of first level 2 public charging stations and then higher-powered Level 3 charging stations in disinvested areas, often areas with communities that are predominantly black or brown, means that entire communities are effectively discouraged from buying an electric vehicle even if they can afford, for example, a brand-new Tesla. 

The problem is also apparent among indigenous communities, where a lack of EV charging stations and infrastructure effectively prohibits many native communities from even contemplating electric vehicles as a transit solution.

So let’s now look at the Greater Los Angeles area, an area the Rocky Mountain Institute uses to demonstrate just how stark the disparity between EV charging infrastructure and median income is. Entire swathes of LA have little to no EV infrastructure, and they are areas that have traditionally been disinvested. They are also the areas with poorest health (much of it caused by poor air quality) ,poor health care and the lowest median income. Frankly these communities are the ones that could benefit the most from electric vehicles. 

And they’re also communities where the gig economy is quickly becoming a lifeline for people needing a second job, or flexible working hours. In a two thousand and seventeen survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Gig economy, or contingent workers, are far more likely to be younger and from black, indigenous, Pacific Islander, or Asian communities than so-called ‘traditional workforces’

Uber and Lyft, whatever you think of them, have been working to make it easier for drivers to get behind the wheel of a car so they can drive for the service. But as I’m sure you already know, drivers for Uber and Lyft don’t earn a whole lot of money for their work, and if they have to also pay for maintenance and fuel for their vehicles (they do) then that profit margin gets smaller.

But drive an EV for ride sharing services? You’ll end up with more in your pocket as daily operational costs are far lower. Especially if you can find a good deal on a used EV, assuming you can charge. 

Which brings us to the crux of the problem. Rideshare services are pledging to go fully electric in the next decade. And in states like California, that’s now going to be a legal requirement too. But without proper infrastructure deployment, rideshare operators with electric vehicles will naturally avoid areas with no infrastructure they can use. Data from existing EV operators on these services already shows that quite clearly. 

The solution, says the RMI, is to encourage full deployment of charging stations with provision across all regions. And, I’m going to add, engage with communities to ask them where charging infrastructure needs to be placed, rather than acting without consultation (because that comes with its own set of problems). 

Ride share services, who are earning a lot of money from their drivers, could be in the perfect position to support an equitable rollout of charging stations. They have the money to invest in truly accessible, truly affordable charging stations that entire communities, and their drivers, can use.

And in doing so, they can also ensure that they have as broad a service coverage as possible, and meet emissions targets (and avoid pesky fines for not complying with regulations).

Without appropriate charging station rollout, without equitable involvement, and without changing regulations to encourage rather than discourage public and on-street charging provision for those who do not have off-street parking and charging available to them, ride sharing services, and in fact the very electrification of the fleet, will become more, not less divisive.

And making that happen is going to require a lot of teamwork from everyone. But that’s for another video we’re working hard on. 

That’s it for today! Please do head to our Transport Evolved Youtube Channel and hit subscribe and the bell if you haven’t as it stops YouTube from doing weird things with our content, and make sure you’re subscribed to Take Two and Transport Evolved shorts.

Used electric car prices are rising, here’s why

As more automakers begin to shift toward electric vehicle production, we’re starting to see incredible choices in the plug-in vehicle marketplace. At least, “we” are if you’re someone who is able to spend the equivalent of between thirty-thousand and eighty thousand U.S. dollars for your next car. 

Because the majority of electric vehicle owners don’t go back to internal combustion after they’ve got behind the wheel of an EV, traditional wisdom has always followed the notion that when an existing electric car owner buys a new ride, their old vehicle ends up on the used car market. 

Experience has taught us that those cars , often off-lease models,  have suffered some pretty large amounts of depreciation (with cars made by Tesla being the only true exception to this). And, a depreciated car on the used car market is great news for those of us who can’t afford a brand-new, all-the-bells-and-whistles EV. 

Granted, there are some electric cars that don’t fare so well as used EVs,  the Nissan LEAF and other cars with battery packs that are prone to early, noticeable battery degradation always require a little extra careful examination before you sign on the dotted line. But for the most part, used EVs rock. 

With new electric car sales at an all-time high, while traditional internal combustion engine models are still struggling to recover from COVID-level dips, it’s fair to expect that the number of used EVs hitting the marketplace is also rising. You might also assume that more cars equals more supply and thus a general downward trend in Used EV prices. Historically, that’s certainly been true. 

But in recent months, the prices of used electric cars have skyrocketed, with some models going up in value by several thousand. What’s more, it’s becoming harder to find a perfect used EV. This is especially stark as used EVs only spend about one half the time in the used car marketplace than they were a year ago, according to Recurrent Auto, a website that aims to become the CarFax for electric car sales in North America. 

Recurrent Auto utilizes battery health reports from individual cars to give buyers a more accurate valuation of what a particular used vehicle should be worth. It’s been tracking used EV prices, and it says that the average price of pre-twenty-nineteen model year electric cars have gone up on average twelve hundred dollars since March, with prices varying widely in different parts of the U.S. 

We have also taken a look at the data provided by Recurrent Auto, examined some of the reasons it cites for a rise in used EV prices, and have some of our own thoughts to add to the mix. Let’s start with the hard figures. 

First, it reveals that while Teslas represent sixteen percent of the U.S. national used car inventory, only seven percent of those come from Tesla. The majority, 39 percent of used Teslas, are sold through small dealerships. In total, it tracked 529 dealerships who sold used Teslas, followed by 37 percent of used Teslas from five large online national retail specialists. Think companies like Carvana. The rest, 24 percent of used Teslas, came from a total of 32 large regional dealerships. 

Of course, not represented here are private sales, because Recurrent isn’t tracking individual private sales as far as we’re aware. It does however say that it expects used Teslas to account for between 30 - 40 percent of all used electric cars in the not-too distant future, partly because of the sheer number of cars Tesla has now produced. 

How much you pay for your used Tesla though will vary dramatically on where you live and of course, the usual things like the condition of the car, how much in-demand each model is, and what local incentives are like. 

As a side, it’s important to note that mileage alone doesn’t determine a car’s price, and that’s especially true for electric vehicles. But, Recurrent states that the most expensive place to buy a 2019 Tesla Model 3 in the U.S. is Georgia, where the average price of that model year car sits at 46,793 dollars. Meanwhile, Ohio is the lowest average price, at 39,002 dollars. Importantly too, the average price increase from March to May for a used Tesla Model 3? 3,000 dollars or more. 

That pattern is reproduced with other cars too. If you want a 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV, you’ll be paying through the nose in Washington State with a sticker price close to 22,000 dollars, even though Chervolet is currently offering massive discounts on brand-new Bolts that bring them close to that price. Meanwhile, if you want the cheapest Bolt EV in the union, Connecticut will be your best bet, with an identical car costing just 16,379 dollars. Even with the ongoing recall and battery fire issue casting a shadow on Bolt EVs, the massive discounts on brand-new models, and the upcoming, more affordable 2022 model year Bolt, used Bolts are now on average 2,700 dollars more expensive than they were a month ago. 

Nissan LEAFs are similarly dramatically different in their pricing. A Vermont LEAF buyer can nab up a 2018 for under 16,500 dollars, while a friend in Colorado will pay five grand more. 

But perhaps the most noticeable price hike? That comes from an unexpected angle - the Chevrolet Volt range-extended electric car. It was discontinued in 2019, and while not a pure battery electric vehicle, demand for them is through the roof. 

Recurrent says that here in Portland, Oregon, used Volts are snapped up extremely quickly, with used Volt prices continuing to soar. In one month alone, used Volt prices have gone up by nearly 4,000 dollars, something our very own Erin Carlie noticed when she recently purchased her Volt. If you haven’t seen her recent video on her buying experiences, click here. 

If there are more new EV choices and more cars coming to market, why are used EV prices soaring? At the top of the list, says Recurrent, is the ongoing chip shortage in the electronics and automotive industry. Car companies have started to ramp down their production as they struggle to obtain the necessary computer chips needed to continue with volume production, and that’s throttling available cars for customers to buy. 

And of course, when a car is in demand, and supply is restricted, it means new cars are going up in price thanks to dealer fees and markups. So, many people are just forgoing new and going to the used market. 

The problem is also compounded by dealers. They’re offering better trade-in values on used EVs to customers who are upgrading to something newer, and thus they’re marking up used EVs on their lot to recoup their higher trade-in prices. 

Then there’s the recent 2021 economic stimulus payments that went to most U.S. households. While for many recipients it provided a much-needed lifeline to help them make rent, pay bills, and survive the economic downturn that was caused by COVID, for others, it wasn’t. Many people used the cheques to pay-down debt, and fund large-ticket items, like helping finance a car. That’s helped drive demand even higher, and that also results in higher overall prices. 

Those are the two main reasons given by Recurrent, but there are some other things we need to take into consideration too. 

For example, while COVID-19 hasn’t directly caused people to rethink their driving habits, many people have examined the overall improvement in air quality in the last 12 months and, combined with political changes in the U.S., decided to switch. 

We should also not discount the increased promotion of electric vehicles by the U.S. Government. President Biden has been talking up the need to transition to electric vehicles for some time, and so it’s no surprise that the general public are showing more interest in EVs - more interest, means higher demand, which means prices go up. And frankly, when your government is promising to spend billions on expanding charging infrastructure, the chances are that you’ll be more likely to feel comfortable making the switch. 

This is of course, being mirrored elsewhere in the world too; we’ve seen demand for electric cars spike as more and more regions of the world enact policies that proactively reward citizens for making the switch to electric. And, while not all places offer incentives for used car purchases, many do. 

Here in Oregon, for example, there’s a very generous incentive scheme that’s income-dependent. If you make more than a certain amount of money every year, you’re not eligible. But if you’re under the threshold, it doesn’t matter if you’re buying new or used, you can get financial help. 

Oil prices have paid a part too. This year, oil has generally trended upwards, with prices hitting 65 dollars per barrel of crude oil. Tie this in with events like the recent blocking of the suez canal by a stuck ship, and prices are expected to remain high throughout the rest of this year. 

With all that pent-up demand, reduction in new car availability and rumors suggesting Tesla has sold out of its second-quarter production run of vehicles already, it’s no wonder that used electric cars are becoming more and more expensive. So where does that leave you, if you’re in the market?
First, do your research before you buy anything. I’d advocate for what Erin did when she was looking at buying her Volt. Find a local car to test drive, but perhaps one you’re not super-bothered about buying, to make sure that the vehicle you’re looking at is one that you’re going to be able to live with. Seriously, you’d be surprised how many people buy used cars these days, sight unseen. 

Then once you’ve confirmed you actually like the make and model of car you’re looking at, give yourself a figure that you’re happy to buy at, and a figure you’re happy to walk at. While the market is most certainly a seller’s market right now, it’s important to go in with a figure in your mind that you’re comfortable with. 

Start negotiations at a price below what you’re happy to pay, and see if you can get some discounts or concessions. Be willing to point out things that devalue the car (like scuffs or paint chips) and use them to justify your price. And of course, make sure that the price you’re suggesting isn’t out of the normal price range. There’s no point trying to buy a car that is clearly worth more than you’re willing to pay for it. But if you’re within the ‘average’ price range? You might get lucky, so, good luck! 

Original article in video format here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSa6DlKSNeE

Is Tesla wrong to not have a PR team?

Disclaimer: This article is an opinion piece written by the Transport Evolved team.

Tesla is unlike any other automaker in the world. Not only is it the company that kick started the electric car revolution by building its two-seat Roadster, a car that was everything that electric cars weren’t at the time, it is the first new automaker in more than one hundred years to become a profitable entity and survive the tumultuous waters of life as a startup.

It managed to light a fire under the butts of mainstream automakers who had initially scoffed at its promise of bringing desirable, fast, long-range electric cars to market. It’s disruptive. It has challenged the standard automotive auto-dealer business model. It has high brand loyalty among its customers. And it’s now the most valuable automaker in the world by market cap, despite making a fraction of the number of cars that legacy automakers do every year.

It’s for those reasons that, in many circles, we in the electric car world lean in to the habit of putting Tesla on a pedestal. And, as the person who led Tesla from its early days to the company it is today, Elon Musk is often put on an even bigger pedestal. 

Now, we know that when one questions someone on a pedestal, they’re bound to get a lot of kickback. So, that’s what we here are expecting because we’re going to explain why, in our opinion, Elon Musk is wrong about something. That something is specifically the notion that Tesla doesn’t need a PR department. 

While Tesla did have a PR department until sometime last year, it has existed for nearly a year without one, and arguably  even a few more years than that without a functional one.  In light of the recent Model S crashes and the ongoing problems at Tesla’s Gigaberlin, with a sprinkle of Elon Musk's convertial statements on Twitter, members of the automotive and EV press industry have been asking Elon Musk to reinstate Tesla’s PR department. 

Yet in response to this query, Elon Musk has given a resolute no, stating,

“Other companies spend money on advertising and manipulating public opinion, Tesla focuses on the product. I trust the people.” 

We, and many others in the industry and Tesla’s consumer base, disagree with this decision. 

This opinion is based on our understanding of what a PR department is for, why Musk may be distrustful of them and the general media, and why Tesla is in a dangerous position of needing a PR department more than it may have needed one at any other point in its history. 

The name PR is short for Public Relations and its primary job is to help ensure that the company is well thought of and well-represented in the public sphere. They help ensure that publicity around the company is positive not negative, and they keep the press, and thus the public, informed about what’s going on.

But, they also field questions from the media about the company. They provide official B-roll media and photographs, and they help journalists accurately cover the company. And finally, they keep an eye on the Internet to make sure that anything that’s unfair or inaccurate in the public domain is dealt with, and that any negative publicity is handled appropriately. 

They’re also essential when it comes to a breaking news story. 

Take the Bolt EV fire that happened in Virginia, USA in early May (2021). Their department was reachable almost immediately for a statement. This means that not only do journalists receive and distribute accurate, first-hand information, but they also have a reliable source for updates and clarification when working on a story. 

PR departments also do a lot of clean up. If a member of the media says something that’s inaccurate, it’s the PR department then reaches out to them with a correction. It’s no coincidence that the people who handle PR for companies are often former members of the press. 

Why? Well, because a PR specialist who was once a member of the media usually does a far better job in this area than someone who hasn’t worked in the media. Former media PR teams understand what journalists want to know and how they work. It’s a bit like a poacher becoming a gamekeeper;  they know how poachers operate, and thus, are more readily prepared to be a good gamekeeper. 

Tesla’s reluctance to speak to members of the press in recent years, and its blatant ignoring of questions relating to breaking news stories, means that whenever a story breaks involving Tesla, it’s almost impossible to get a straight answer from the company. 

Elon Musk famously hates dealing with the press, and straight-up ignores most journalists online when they ask questions via Twitter. That is difficult for consumers and journalists. And, as Elon is known for making grandiose statements concerning all of his companies using the platform, as well as posting memes and clickbait, that’s when it really has become a problem for the company. 

This is perhaps no better illustrated that Elon’s now infamous ‘going private at four twenty’ tweet. That tweet, which got Elon into hot water with the SEC and resulted in him stepping down as chairman of the board of directors at Tesla, also came with a demand from the SEC that Elon change how he used Twitter, running tweets from his personal account that mention Tesla through an internal review process to make sure that nothing like the four-twenty incident happened again. 

Traditionally, a PR department would be the team to deal with this kind of mishap. PR teams work with the CEO and board of directors to plan official announcements, including on social platforms, and make sure that nothing is said publicly that could later cause a problem for the company. With the recent backlash Tesla has faced in light of the incidents mentioned above, a PR team could have been a crucial step in addressing these issues appropriately.

Without a PR department, there’s nobody for Elon to run such tweets by, which we think is perhaps why he doesn't seem to be in a rush to reinstate one, this being our own skepticism of the situation. 

When a company gets to the size and influence of Tesla, homogeneity of branding, image, and response is essential. Right now, Tesla has none of that. Sure, it did recently hire someone to help respond to tweets on behalf of Tesla and Elon, but one person doesn’t make an official PR department. 

Elon is probably one of the more public-facing CEOs out there. But to be frank, some of the ups and downs that have followed Tesla’s share price have been directly related to things Elon has said on Twitter, from his distrust of COVID precautionary measures to his thoughts on pronoun use, his promises for Tesla Autopilot, and more. 

If there was a clear delineation between his personal tweets and those relating to his company, it would be less troublesome. But everyone knows that Tesla is Elon and Elon is Tesla, and Space X, and Neuralink, and the Boring Company. He has eyeballs. He has influence. 

And as the famous quote goes, with great power comes great responsibility. 

Transport Evolved feels this pressure too. We recently hired a social media manager here to help ensure that this company, and the content we produce, is well represented and separate from personal thoughts and content that used to get thrown in the company mix from the founder. 

It is hard to separate the founder of Transport Evolved, Nikki, from the brand and community she created, initially single handedly. Her voice and vision is what so many people grew familiar with and enjoyed, or didn’t, in the early days of Transport Evolved. This is to say, we get it. But we know it’s important to have a clear voice of the brand that is separate from the voice of the founder, so we are taking the steps to do so. And we think Tesla needs to join suit. 

Original article found in video format here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1osAdo3JdQ

The 2023 Cadillac LYRIQ Electric Car Gets Everything Right That ELR Got Wrong

We all too often forget that being first to market doesn’t always make a product successful. Case in point; the Mitsubishi i-Miev was technically the first mass-produced electric car you could buy in the automotive marketplace, but these days is pretty much remembered as an also-ran. 

For that matter, we also forget that the term ‘original and best’ doesn’t always ring true, especially in the automotive market. A company’s first attempt at a new type of car often, well, doesn’t go that great. This is either because the company doesn’t have a grasp of the technology they are trying to produce and, particularly with EVs, is rushing to produce an electric vehicle because of the mounting pressure to transition into this market.

And so it was, 2014, when GM’s luxury brand Cadillac rolled out the ELR luxury compact range-extended coupé. This was an attempt to offer Cadillac buyers a vehicle with a plug that could operate as an EV for shorter trips, but operate as a range-extended, or plug-in hybrid, model for longer stretches. The ELR shared its underpinnings with the popular first-generation Chevrolet Volt; from the battery pack, to the engine and the motors, everything was the same. But, that luxury interior of the ELR added some serious weight over the Volt it was based on. Even with some power electronics tweaks by GM to emphasise brisk acceleration, it underperformed in ratings. 

In 2014, the Cadillac ELR, which in its cheapest trim still 75,000 dollars, was launched via the, now-infamous, “poolside” advert; an incredibly out-of-touch exploration of American capitalism from the viewpoint of a white, wealthy, middle-aged businessman. 

It’s no surprise then that the car was a complete flop, selling just 3,000 examples in its short two-year production run. It’s also no surprise that Ford, which produced an incredibly fast response-ad to Poolside for its C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid, featuring Black businesswoman and founder of sustainable agriculture company Detroit Dirt, Pashon Murray, gained more for its ad buy than Cadillac ever did. 

Since then, Cadillac has produced plug-in hybrid variants of its mainstream models, with moderate sales volumes in compliance car states. But, for the most part, it has remained firmly in the internal combustion engine world.  However, that’s changing and this month, Cadillac officially unveiled the production version of its first mass-produced electric car. The Cadillac Lyriq. With this vehicle, from the build and make of the car to it’s product advertising, it proves categorically, that while your first attempt at something may be completely terrible, it’s always worth trying again.  

First, however, let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room. This car is, sadly, another high-ticket electric vehicle that will be out of price range for a lot of consumers. It joins an already-busy marketplace for luxury plug-in cars that spans from the mid seven figure dollar range, all the way up to several hundred thousand dollars. But because of where it sits in that segment, it could still mean good things for those of us holding out for more affordable plug-in cars. 

We applaud that with the advertising of the Lyriq, Cadillac is acting as the first luxury brand to actively advertise to African American consumers, alongside other inclusive marketing campaigns by companies like Chevy and Lucid. The brand remains popular with Black millenials, a recent study found African American millennials are more than fifty-seven percent more likely to buy a Cadillac than other millennials and the advertising around the Lyriq will, most likely, reach out to a population that has been routinely been underserved by other EV advertising campaigns, despite these consumer populations having strong interest and willingness to purchase EVs . 

As our friends at EVNoire have told us many times, there’s a definite marketing disparity in the EV marketplace. EVs have all-too-often been marketed, consciously or unconsciously, at white buyers. To this day, Cadillac’s diversity in advertising and marketing encompasses black, latinX and other underrepresented minoritized groups, including disabled drivers, and is likely to have an immense, positive impact on EV adoption. 

Now, to the Lyriq itself.

If the Production 2023 Lyriq (due to enter production at the start of next year) looks familiar, that’s because it’s incredibly close to the Lyriq concept car that Cadillac unveiled last year. There have been a few nips and tucks here and there, but overall, Cadillac has managed to stay true to its original design intentions. As last week’s reveal of the production-model Mercedes-Benz EQS showed, which was noticeably different from its concept version, that is a very unusual move in the auto industry. 

Inside the Lyriq, there’s the usual fit and finish you’d expect from the Cadillac brand, with a 33 inch LED display extending from behind the steering wheel to the center of the car. Fully customizable, it provides a clean, clear feel to the cabin, and makes the interior feel deceptively large. There are discrete buttons for things like Air Conditioning, everything looks within easy reach of the driver, and the color scheme, complete with customizable LED accent lighting and 19 speaker sound system, seems to complete the typical Cadillac feel well. 

The Lyriq is the first production car to be built on General Motors’ brand new Ultium platform, the Hummer EV is the first truck, and in the case of the Lyriq, this translates to a one hundred kilowatt-hour battery pack made up of twelve battery modules. And this is where we get to the really good bits. 

On-board, there’s up to 19.2 kilowatts of AC charging capability. This means if you have a charging station at home that’s capable of charging at that kind of power level, you’ll add 52 miles of range (83 kilometers) for every hour you’re plugged in. Since many lower-cost domestic charging stations on the market today max out at about nine kilowatts, you will need to invest in a more powerful charging station, but Cadillac does appear to be keen to help customers with that part of the buying process. The car also comes with a dual level charge cord, meaning you can charge from either a 110 or 240 socket if you need to and a hard-wired charging station isn’t available. 

As for the range, Cadillac is promising in excess of 300 miles (482 kilometers) per charge, that statement seems to be currently an unofficial estimate pending EPA approval. However, that’s certainly nothing to sniff at, and shows the true potential of the Ultium battery pack inside something that isn’t a massive over-the-top “man-truck”. 

As for price, considering the ELR was 75,000 dollars for what was an upmarket Volt, I’d expected the Lyriq to have a similar higher mid range price tag. Yet, Cadillac says the Lyriq, order books for which open in September, will start from 59,990U.S. dollars, including destination but excluding tax, title, license, and dealer fees. That places the Lyriq above the Model Y in terms of price but below Model X and Audi E-Tron. 

Why is this car so enticing, despite not falling into the affordable EV category?

Well, the Lyriq is the high-end car on a new platform that GM has promised us will bring more affordable EVs to market. A few years ago, a car with the specifications of the Cadillac Lyriq, with this kind of appointment, would cost twice as much. 

The car showcases that Ultium is a platform which can produce vehicles that are fast, efficient, and have modern charging options. And if you were to strip out some of the on-board opulence, and maybe take out a few thousand for the badge, you’re left with a car that’s far more affordable than many other long-range cars on the market today. 

But Cadillac’s attitude to electric vehicles is also very important to note. Cadillac says that it is going all-electric,  and it’s communicated that to its dealerships. Dealers have been asked to choose between continuing with the brand, or parting from it. Those who want to continue have been required to invest in EV training for its sales and service staff, as well as at-dealership infrastructure. Those who do not wish to sell the Lyriq? Well, they’re essentially being let go. And as of the time of filming this, only two hundred Cadillac dealerships have chosen that path. Everyone else is all-in. 

And that’s important too. Because in order for electric vehicles to be treated as truly mainstream, dealerships must be on board. And, the automakers need to be on board too. 

But let’s not get carried away. There are plenty of things Cadillac still needs to do, like invest in charging infrastructure, make sure that dealer training is comprehensive and thorough, and work to address some of the issues that plague electric car sales in mainstream dealers today, such as really terrible misinformation and FUD. 

These however shouldn’t, we think, outweigh the positives of this car, and this brand, going electric. 

Original article found in video format here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7RA0Fqg0u0

Washington State Passes ICE Ban

Quick disclaimer before we begin: At Transport Evolved we know that some of our audience are here for cars, and don’t want to hear about politics. So if that’s not your thing, be it today, or ever, you can go ahead and skip this one, we won’t mind. But because this one is about policies that are good for electric vehicles - you might want to stick around. 

Update: When this article was originally published it was widely assumed that this bill would be signed into law by Washington’s Democratic Governor, Jay Inslee. However, he vetoed the bill citing the requirement for a shift in taxation required for the ban to come into force as too-higher bar for implementation. As we said in the office, sometimes perfect is the enemy of good.

As more electric vehicles are being introduced into the global market, bans on the sale of new, internal combustion cars and trucks are becoming more common around the world. Laws and regulations are, for some people, a controversial way to move the adoption of zero emission transportation forward. However, some argue that very little of the progress that has been achieved in creating ‘greener’ transportation wouldn’t have happened without governmental action. 

This is isn’t to say that governments always act in the best interest of everyone involved, but without a push for government mandated emissions and energy regulations, who knows where the slow adoption of zero emission transportation would be in this moment. If we take Norway, and its Pro-EV stance as a small example, they wouldn’t have gotten to where they are today without the buy-in tactic of its political ‘carrots and sticks’ incentives approach to EV adoption.

Which brings us to the U.S. state of Washington, whose legislature has just passed a bill that would ban the sale of internal combustion cars and light trucks from model year 2030, onward. In doing so, Washington joins fellow state California, as well as a number of countries, including France, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, in setting a target date by which it wants to ban internal combustion vehicles, the U.S. states of Massachusetts and New Jersey have also announced intentions to implement a similar ban, but at this time, haven’t formalized it. 

While California may have been first to announce a future ban on ICE sales, Washington State’s plan is more ambitious in several ways. They also differ in that Washington’s ban was passed through the legislature by elected officials, rather than coming about by order of the governor. And that’s a  big deal in its own right. At the same time, there are some definite caveats worth knowing about. 

Note for overseas readers: the U.S.A has two very different “Washingtons.” The nation’s capital city, Washington D.C. is located on the east coast, and is not the subject of this story. Today we’re talking about Washington State, which is the northernmost state on the west coast. 

The ban, which is actually part of a larger bill pertaining to electric vehicle charging infrastructure, would prevent the sale or registration of any vehicles from model-year 2030 onward that are 3 or more wheels, not powered by electricity, and weighing under ten thousand pounds (4.5 thousand kilograms).

The “powered by electricity” part is significant by the way. What matters in this bill is how the wheels are turned, not how the energy is stored. So battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are fine, while vehicles running on synthetic, or so-called electric-fuel, are not. Hydrogen internal combustion and natural gas vehicles under the weight cap, would similarly be banned. 

If certain provisions are met, touched on further down, the ban will go into effect five years sooner than a  similar ban in process in the state of California. But that isn’t the only difference between the two. Washington’s bill is, in fact, significantly stricter than California’s, because it goes beyond simply banning the sale of new internal combustion cars. Instead, Washington state will not permit model year twenty-thirty and beyond internal combustion cars to even be registered in the state. 

In the U S, buying a car in a state you don’t live in is usually pretty easy, a fact which makes laws like California’s quite feasible to circumvent. But if you can’t register the car in your home state, buying it elsewhere is about as useful as lighting a stack of cash on fire to keep warm. 

As for the provisions; at the moment a huge percentage of a given state’s infrastructure budget comes from a tax on petrol, paid by the consumer at the pump. This poses a problem for state budgets as more and more people are going electric. Some states have addressed this by adding an additional tax or fee for registering an electric car or plug-in hybrid, something that Washington state implemented with a 75 dollars car-tab fee back in 2019. 

The problem with that of course, is that it disincentives the purchase of an EV, something at odds with Washington State’s goal of reducing, and eventually eliminating, internal combustion vehicles from its  roads. One solution floating around is to instead tax vehicles based on miles traveled, something which is already tracked yearly during the registration process in most states. This solution however, is also something that touches on privacy issues and thus criticized by some.

Washington state’s ban on internal combustion vehicles as of 2030, will not be considered in effect, even though it has passed the legislature, and is likely be signed by the governor, until a minimum of 75 percent of cars on the road in Washington are assigned a tax or fee based on the mileage that they travel.

It’s an understandable way to try and ensure the state’s infrastructure budget isn’t shattered, but there are also serious questions about the milage tax system. At the moment, while such a system has been discussed in the state, there aren’t any pending bills or proposals to implement one. 

If a mileage tax doesn’t get proposed, debated, made law, and widely implemented, the Washington ban on internal combustion engined vehicles never happens. 

This brings us to the question, should it happen?

Here at Transport Evolved, our answer to that question is not quite as straightforward as you might think. 

Climate change is happening, and it’s undeniably an emergent, existential threat to the future of our species on this planet. And we humans are squarely at the center, both as the reason for making it worse, and one of the largest victims of it. 

Tailpipe emissions remain a major driver of atmospheric CO2, not to mention a host of other nasty pollutants that shouldn’t be inhaled. Getting internal combustion vehicles off the road in favor of zero emission ones would be an enormous public good, not only in terms of the climate benefits, but also for public health. 

However, as with other regulations, if things aren’t done with extraordinary care, Washington state’s ban on internal combustion vehicles will come with some unintended consequences, and many of those consequences will hurt the most vulnerable and marginalized people in society. 

An example of this is mileage taxes or fees that come with the ban. They make sense in many ways, but they also impose a heavier burden on people who don’t have the money to live in expensive cities, but still have to commute into those cities for their work.

Seattle, in Washington state, is a notoriously expensive city to live in, and many people commute considerable distances there. A mileage tax is a financial penalty for not having enough money to live closer to work, something that makes about as much sense charging you money for having too low a balance in your bank account. 

A similar proposed alternative tax that has been floated elsewhere, a tax on tires rather than petrol, has the same problem, with the added issue of incentivizing people to drive on unsafe rubber. 

Then there’s the ban itself, which among other things could easily end up being a barrier to movement for people in the years after it passes, such as when folk with cheap ICE cars bought elsewhere after the ban, find themselves unable to relocate to Washington state. 

Without huge investments in a just and equitable process, the transition away from internal combustion cars is inevitably going to harm vulnerable people, especially in the United States. Right now the cost of petrol is hugely subsidized by the federal government here, and fuel stations seem as plentiful as stars in the sky. That isn’t going to be the case as the percentage of vehicles on the road shifts in favor of those that don’t have petrol tanks. 

EVs, and fuel cell vehicles if they catch on, are likely to be more expensive than the cheapest old ICE cars for a very long time, which means petrol-powered cars will remain the only viable option for lower-income people and people living in poverty for decades to come. 

Needing their fossil fuel-driven cars, those people will easily become trapped into paying more and more money to get around, including getting to work, as petrol subsidies dry up and fossil-fueling stations become rarer, and thus able to charge more per gallon. That reality may be on its way regardless, but bans like Washington and California’s will exacerbate the problem. 

Of course, it doesn’t have to be that way. Continuing as we are, burning fossil fuels and pouring carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere with little restraint is simply not an option. But, transitioning to a greener future doesn’t have to devastate the lives of vulnerable people. 

There is a great deal that can be done to cushion the transition to zero emission transportation, from expanding green mass transit, to providing significant financial assistance to help people get out of their old internal combustion cars and into good, low-cost BEVs or FCVs, and subsidizing the expansion of public charging infrastructure in lower income neighborhoods, just to name a few items off a much bigger list.

But right now the Washington bill doesn’t go nearly that far. There are provisions in it that seek to identify disadvantaged populations most in need of expanded access to charging infrastructure, in a way that clearly shows the legislature is aware of the inequities found in the transition away from fossil fuel vehicles. That’s a big deal, but while “knowing is half the battle” the other half is getting something concrete done about the situation. And as I’ve already laid out, charging infrastructure is only one piece of a bigger picture. 

The twenty-thirty ban on internal combustion vehicles in Washington state is a huge and exciting step, one which we hope, and expect, to see taken by many more states and nations. But it also highlights a troubling deepening of inequity that the transition away from fossil fuels is going to bring with it if we don’t take decisive action soon. 

Original article found in video format here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pysxw8RmVU