Announcing our new "CLUBS" section where you can join or create a Rivian club or group! You can use this new feature to conveniently plan and discuss local events, gatherings or other club/group related topics.
So we encourage you to join (or start) special-interest and regional-based Rivian clubs at: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/group-categories/clubs-groups.1/
Exceptions to the 1-mile rule are allowed, "if justified". I'm guessing that will require either a major practical problem (e.g. no suitable locations at an exit in the right range between stations) or for some specific socio-economic situation (e.g. a downtown business district is 1.5 miles off the national highway instead of <1 mile or ).
Earnest Q on this: I seem to recall only generous heapings of Elon can do no wrong not that long ago…Is this a recent phenomenon with the Twitter thing or has there always been a strong anti Elon constituency?
I can't speak for anyone else, but from my perspective, I never have held the opinion that Elon could do no wrong.
Thanks for that. I’ve heard of episodes but don’t really follow Musk in particular. He gets kudos for the EVs and spaceships. Thought maybe the politics of the Twitter thing made people turn…0
Gratitude? Elon didn’t even start Tesla. Maybe he accelerated the “revolution” by a few years but that’s it.
Fair point. Those years were critical. TESLA built the first EV infrastructure nationwide and did so without the subsidy that preceded fossil fuel infrastructure across the US.
I’m ok with the 4 station minimum because it will help avoid some issues with dead stations, blocked stations, etc.
This is an important point. Subsidizing zombie stations into existence isn't good policy. It only plays in to the range anxiety fears and objections to EV adoption. Drivers need to know they can rely on mapped chargers at the waypoints on their journey.
Yeah, that's why I said 2 instead of 1 for minor highways. I just don't want a highway with like 100 average daily trips trips or something. You still have some redundancy, but I would rather get more mile coverage in very rural areas than not get it covered at all.
You raise a fair point but we have had issues where infrastructure is built and then demand outstrips expectations. Many times dual lane roads are built where triple lane would have been best, thereby needing extra time and money to upgrade.
States are supposed to nominate corridors based on some priorities like traffic and underserved communities. Those should mean states are going to focus on the busiest routes anyway.
When you get to States like SD and MT, every highway other than the interstates are very rural. I90 is already close to a buyout through SD. Dieselgate funds should cover i-29, so they would be left trying to cover their State highways, which have a tendency to be... pretty rural and low volume.
Yeah, my concern is areas like... highway 14 in South Dakota. That's the primary route to Pierre from the eastern side of the State, but it has very low traffic volumes. Having 2 chargers every 50 miles would be plenty for a long time. Sometimes it's better to defer costs in infrastructure. I am concerned people along routes like that won't be readily accessible via EV, creating some pretty big disadvantages for people that live in those areas. They're already struggling, and if people can't drive through those areas, that removes a decent source of their income.
