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.

Why You Should Be Excited About The Cupra Born

When many people hear the name “Volkswagen’, there are just too many huge cultural references that could come to mind; the quirky, iconic Beetle, the erstwhile Type 2, or maybe Dieselgate? 

As car brands go, Volkswagen is huge. Last year, it was second only to Toyota in terms of sheer car production volume, churning out 9.31 million cars. Although sadly, most of them internal combustion. 

Today, one of Volkswagen AG’s subsidiaries has just unveiled what many are suggesting is the world’s first true electric hot hatch, with up to 170 kilowatts of power in its most potent version, and a sub 6.6 second sprint time. 

But is it?

 This article will explore the specs of this new ‘hot hatch’ from the Volkswagen family, explain why it’s important in Europe, and ask if it’s something we should be excited about. 

First, some history. While Volkswagen is big as a car brand, its parent group, Volkswagen AG, is even bigger. In fact, you just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind boggling big it is. Audi and Porsche are part of the Volkswagen group, which is why Porsche and Audi are using the same J1 platform for the Porsche Taycan and Audi e-tron GT. It’s why Volkswagen’s ID.4 and Audi’s Q4 e-tron are essentially the same vehicle underneath, made on the very same platform. 

But in addition to these well-known family ties, there’s also Bentley and Bugatti, brands which have (yet) to embrace electric vehicles. There’s Lamborghini, the company who, last week, confirmed that all of its high-end vehicles are going plug-in. There’s Italian motorcycle manufacturer Ducati, a company that Winter made a very good video about here, a few weeks ago. 

And then there’s Scania and M. A. N. trucks, and Volkswagen Commercial vehicles. There are also two more brands that you might not associate with Volkswagen - Škoda and SEAT.  Škoda became part of the Volkswagen group back in 2000, a merger that was responsible for Škoda’s reputation dramatically changing overnight from the jokes of 80’s childhood about wheelbarrows and east-bloc engineering to one for higher-end features at affordable prices. (It’s buyers have, traditionally, skewed toward the older end of the market.)

Seat meanwhile, a spanish brand which Volkswgen took full ownership of in 1990, is aimed at younger buyers, and focuses on sporty styling and handling. Its Cupra sub-brand, formerly known as SEAT Sport, is a name reserved for Seat’s most sporty models. 

Which is where the Cupra Born comes in, the car that’s just been released by the company and which traditional European automotive journalists are getting excited about. 

Why? Well, first, Cupra has a good reputation for making driver-oriented sporty cars that pack decent performance without breaking the bank. And second, because the Cupra Born is based on the same MEB platform that Volkswagen’s ID.3 is built on, it shouldn’t be as production-constrained as most new-to-market cars out there. 

Lastly? Seat’s engineers have tweaked the rear-wheel drivetrain of the ID.3 to find an extra 27 horsepower (20 kilowatts) for the more powerful motor that’s not available on the ID.3. You’ll have to specify the ‘e-Boost’ package for maximum acceleration. But, pick it and the mid-range f58 kilowatt per hour battery pack, and you’ll hit 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour) in 6.6 seconds. That’s three tenths of a second slower than the 2021 Volkswagen Golf GTi, totally earning the hot hatch badge. 

However, let’s return to what the Cupra Born has, and doesn’t have.

From a design angle, the Cupra Born looks like an angrier, more intense evil twin to the ID.3, just without a goatee. Because the two vehicles share the same platform and underpinnings, the overall shape of both cars is identical, but the Cupra’s bonnet and headlight arrangement puts a snarl on the front of the Born, whereas the ID3’s more of a neutral face look. The bonnet also looks to sweep down lower than it does on the ID3, with sharper, sportier lines emphasizing the wheel arches, but look closely and you’ll see that the front part of the bonnet is actually a part of the front bumper. It’s a clever design trick that makes the Born look closer to the road than the ID3. But sadly, it is just an illusion. 

While the interior of both cars have the same arrangement of floating screens, and BMW- i3-inspired gear selector, the Cupra Born projects broody intensity to contrast the ID 3’s ‘welcome to the future’ optimism. It’s worth noting that the Born uses a larger twelve-inch center touch-screen versus the 10-inch screen of the ID3, and it also has a couple of extra buttons on the steering wheel designed to aid in access to sportier driving modes. The center console in the Born, with cup holders hiding underneath a retractable cover, is visually less fussy than the ID3’s open arrangement, and the Born’s seats are designed for hugging you a little more completely than the softer, more daily-driving oriented ID3 seats. 

As for the Car’s infotainment system? Aside from the size difference, we’d wager both have almost identical user interface and options, but if we’re scoring on looks and trim choices alone, the Born looks ready to take your lunch money and ask you to do its homework while the ID3 is in the cooking club and handed its homework in at the end of class. 

To the drivetrain. 

All Cupra Borns will be rear-wheel drive cars for now, featuring either a 148horsepower (110 kilowatt) motor, or a two hundred and one horsepower (one hundred and fifty kilowatt) motor. Because it shares much of its design with the Volkswagen ID.3, the Cupra Born will mimic the ID3’s battery pack choices, with either 45 kilowatt-hour, 58 kilowatt-hour or 77 kilowatt-hour packs. All of those figures by the way, are usable capacity, not nominal capacity. And like the ID3, charging will max out at either 125 kilowatt for the smallest battery, or 150 for the higher-capacity ones.

The cheapest Born will feature the 45 kilowatt-hour pack paired to the 110 kilowatt motor, offering an estimated 211 miles or 340 kilometers on the optimistic WLTP test cycle. Matching the performance specs of the ID3 Pure Performance, it does the sprint to 100 klicks ( 62 miles per hour) in 8.9 seconds. 

At the other end of the spectrum will be the longest-legged Cupra Born, with the larger 150 kilowatt motor and 77 kilowatt-hour pack. It will do a claimed 336 miles (540 kilometers per charge, but if you order one with the optional E-Boost performance package (the one that adds an extra 20 kilowatts of power) -  you’ll see sprint times drop to seven seconds flat. That’s faster than the ID3 Pro Performance that it is closest to in terms of specs. 

If you’re after maximum performance though, you’ll want the Cupra Born mid-range pack - which combines the larger motor setup with a 54 kilowatt per hour pack. Add the E-Boost performance package, and you’ll do the sprint to 100 kilometers per hour in 6.6 seconds. 

The frustrating thing? It’s not available yet. Production will start in September at the same Zwickau production facility in Germany that the ID3 is produced at. We also don’t (yet) have pricing. That said, expect it to be similar or slightly more than the ID.3, with the most expensive variant offering the biggest heart attack for your bank account. 

Now we’ve talked about the specs, let’s talk about where this fits into the market. Because of its sportier looks, the Cupra Born is going to be more attractive to those who are looking for a sportier ride. And with a zero to 62 time of 6.6 seconds in its quickest variant, we think it will deliver. Interestingly, even the most powerful Cupra born is slower than the ID.X engineering prototype, so we’d love to see Volkswagen AG green light it, and an all-wheel drive Cupra sibling. 

Is it a hot hatch? Well, the form factor certainly ticks all the boxes. Traditionally, hot hatches have been front-wheel drive, so purists may say no, but we suspect this will perform extremely well on the track and because of its drivetrain, do away with the traditional torque-steer and squirreliness of many a hot hatch over the years, including the Chevrolet Bolt EV, a car that is as close as most Americans will get to the Hot Hatch feel this side of the Atlantic, and is about the same in the stop light derby as the Born.

Design wise, we prefer the Cupra’s more aggressive stance and darker interior options. And while boost mode won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, it’s ideal for executing a quick overtake without getting yourself into trouble. 

We haven’t obviously had a chance to ride or drive the Cupra Born, but you know it’ll it’s on the list for when post-COVID transatlantic travel is possible again. And when it happens, we will share. 

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