When you say "EVs are required by the state", does that mean people are now mandated to own them, or that infrastructure to support them must be built? I can understand the latter, but the point that most people living in affordable housing likely can't afford EVs seems salient.
It's an autocorrect, EVSE's are required. EVs are great for folks in affordable housing. I helped someone find a $6,000 Bolt and $15,000 Niro EV, both 15 years newer than the closest gas options with comparable miles, and will be much cheaper for them to run or drive, benefits of 1/2-1/4 used avg
I don't dispute the benefits of the maintenance costs of EVs, and I wasn't aware that they could be acquired at those price points, so thank you for that information. The problem for most people in affordable housing is getting the $ together to buy them in the first place, even at those prices.
Totally! It’s monumental to even pay $6k, but $6k for a dependable car vs a 20 year old gas car with 245,000 miles is life changing, and so is affordable charging for them!
Agreed, but once again, if $6K isn't the average, which you've already admitted it isn't, then touting benefits that few people in affordable housing will ever be able to achieve seems myopically optimistic.
The entire frame is wrong. It shouldn't be ICE vs EVs. SB79 allows people to live near transit. TAP cards cap out at ~$900/year. Less with assistance. Forcing people who can't afford cars to pay for parking spaces is evil.
Yup, that’s why San Diego passed a law to unbundle them 💪🏼. Great to focus on the places actively working to fix this and ask why others, like LA, are struggling. In this case voting these folks out seems like a good remedy.
Infrastructure, for now, with an intent to force compliance on the behicles by 2035. They're giving manufacturersa 10-year runup. Up til the last ~3 years there's been a constant issue of EVs being largely relegated to "home charge or no charge" use cases, so EV-focused locked made charger mandates.
^ indeed, darn auto correct, thanks!
Okay, are they also going to force employers and social service agencies to raise wages/benefits to the point that people are able to buy EVs? Otherwise, it will just disproportionately impact poor people and defeat the purpose.
Oh no, sorry, its NEW cars, the onus is entirely on the manufacturers.
Locales, not locked.
I'm really stoked to see where California is in 3-5 years. I know several folks who took advantage of the tax credit, because they were below the income threshold, to pickup 2 and 3 year old EVs for well under $20k and it was transformative at a time the average car is $25k, especially a Bolt $6k!
Fair point, but are those prices representative of the average?
No, but most folks know in affordable housing are paying those prices and not the average, they can’t afford the average comfortably, which is why a $6k ev with a decade plus of life left and almost no upkeep is transformative.
Of course it's transformative, but what good is it when only a minuscule fraction of those people are able to transform?
I would guess if you ask those people, life changing amounts of good, but if you're searching for perfection and not progress in improved outcomes for everyone, I don't think we're having the same conversation.
People on BS: people will never get EVs until there is charging infrastructure. CA: We are mandating new apartments put in EV chargers. People on BS: no not like that.
No, we're having a conversation that you don't want to have, which is entirely different. Making benefits accessible to as many people as possible isn't perfection, it's pragmatism.