Housekeeping note: This will be the final CityBits of 2021, then we’ll be back on our regular schedule every other Wednesday starting January 5th.
Today’s read is ~8-10 minutes long
Hello CityBuds,1
Last month US President Joe Biden got to try out a fully electric Hummer while touring a General Motors (GM) plant in Detroit.
The tweet (and corresponding video) caused traffic to GM’s website to increase 230%, and also spurred a real brouhaha of discussion online.
Some of it was positive.
But a lot of it was negative.
This was especially devastating to those who believed that “Amtrak Joe” was going to make American trains great again.
So what’s the deal? In terms of sustainability, EVs are significantly better for the environment when compared to vehicles with traditional internal combustion engines (ICEs). This is why they’re often touted as the future of automobiles, so why all the negativity online?
I can’t speak for everyone else, but personally, my hesitancy towards EVs (and the motivation for today’s update) is that being the future of cars does NOT mean they are the future of cities. Today I’ll look specifically at how EVs fit into our urban mobility future, but also why cities shouldn’t solely rely on them to deal with their problems, climate-related or otherwise. Let’s dive in.
A quick clarification
Now, this post-summer electric Hummer bummer isn’t the first time I’ve mentioned EVs in the newsletter, but today’s update will focus specifically on EVs in urban environments, and personal electric automobiles.
That means I will mostly exclude rural/suburban applications, as well as industrial or public uses like electrifying public transit or delivery fleets. Not that those areas aren’t important, but that’s just not our focus for today.
Why are EVs good for cities?
With that out of the way, let’s start with why EVs are a good thing. Pro-EV arguments typically center around their environmental friendliness, and with good reason, as EVs can produce as much as 77% fewer emissions then their ICE counterparts.2
Now, critics of EVs often like to cite the high costs of production and electricity generation as reasons why EVs are not actually any more sustainable than ICEs. And while it is true that:
The production of some EVs can cost more than a standard ICE (though this will likely even out by 2026 as technology improves)
Producing electricity for EVs can still have a negative environmental impact because that power is likely coming from non-renewable sources
these critics are still mostly incorrect when we consider total lifetime environmental impact. This is the case for both battery and energy production, and this gap will only continue to widen the longer you drive your car, not to mention as EV technology becomes more and more efficient. Like that annoying friend who plays devil’s advocate just to seem smart, these people are taking a legitimate point but then vastly overestimating the scale/importance of it.
Lowered emissions/environmental impact is a good thing, but we’re not just talking about EVs, we’re talking about EVs in cities. And in that case emissions are just one aspect of a car’s negative impact. So, like my ex-girlfriend always says, now I’m going to focus on the negatives, and talk about why I’m not as enthusiastic about EVs in cities.
Why EVs in cities actually might suck
You can basically boil down my distaste for them into two categories. EV-specific criticisms, and then more broadly why cars (EV or ICE) cannot be the future of urban mobility.
EV specific criticisms
Grid your loins
First, there is significant (and IMO merited) concern about the US electricity grid’s capacity to handle the huge volume of EVs that will rely on it for charging in the future. I’m not a grid expert and it seems like depending on who you ask this is either a trivial issue or a massive problem, but either way it’s more of a national level issue so I won’t get too in depth here.
Lack of standardized APIs/systems
So, ignoring the problem of a grid that may/may not be able to handle EVs for now, there are some additional concerns when it comes to actually charging the car.
The first is the abundance of competing technologies between different apps, companies, and charging technologies, not all of which are compatible with all vehicles. In cities especially, where real estate is more limited and construction/installation is more expensive, this lack of standardization doesn’t just make for a confusing user experience, it leads to costly and inefficient infrastructural redundancies (for a more technical breakdown you can watch this video here).
This kind of competition is somewhat expected for any young, fast-growing industry, but it’s also why ~20% of people who purchase EVs end up reverting back to ICEs, largely citing “dissatisfaction with the convenience of charging.” And while there are a number of startups attempting to address this issue, personally I don’t see these problems neatly resolving themselves without some meaningful government intervention or direction.
Now even if you did get everyone on the same standard of charging infrastructure (which is hard), and got everyone to use the same app/UI (which is also hard), you still need to find the space to put them in cities. Which is hard!
Space for chargers
In my opinion, this is the big issue for EVs in cities: the location/distribution of the charging stations. To show you why that’s difficult, here’s a fake interview I conducted with James, an imaginary person curious about EVs in cities.
J: Okay so I get the bit about incompatible systems being a pain, but can’t we just install enough chargers for everyone in the city? Or have people install whatever charger they need in their garage?
M: Yes, but remember we’re talking about cities, where space is at a premium. A huge selling point of EVs is that you can just plug them in overnight and they’ll be ready in the morning. This is how ~80% of EV owners currently charge their vehicles: in their garage, on their driveway, or hooked up to on-street chargers overnight. However, this becomes a problem in cities where:
Home ownership rates are about ~21% lower than in rural areas (~60% in cities vs ~81% in rural areas).
Not all residencies have garages or even come with parking, meaning far fewer people have the necessary space like their rural/suburban counterparts do.
This is exacerbated by the fact that many of the urban charging stations that do currently exist are located within paywalled parking complexes, or in private apartment buildings, which adds an indirect equity/accessibility hurdle to mass EV adoption. You either need to own your own property and install a charger, or live in the kind of (frequently higher end) apartment that does provide parking + charging. I am firmly against promoting any means of transit that isn’t going to be publicly available and accessible.
J: Okay then, what about placing public chargers on the sidewalk?
M: Organizations like the NYC DOT or Trojan Energy in London are beginning to build out sidewalk chargers. However, we still run into issues like:
People already struggle with finding parking, and if they now also need to find a spot with an EV station, we’ll likely see drivers spending even more time circling the block looking for parking. This isn’t just a personal inconvenience, it slows down everyone else by creating traffic and wasting more energy (renewable or not) in the process.
Additionally, these chargers take up sidewalk space and can thus impede walkability for pedestrians or create hazards for bikes/scooters. The sidewalk is public space and I don’t think it’s fair to let it be obstructed just for EV drivers.
J: Right, I’m not an asshole, so I care about making our cities traversable and accessible for parents with strollers, elderly or mobility-impaired pedestrians, or bicycles/scooters. But what about just attaching charging stations to gas stations, where cars already fuel up?
M: Not a bad idea, but now we run into some economic/strategic barriers. EVs will likely take market share away from the ICEs that gas companies rely on, so they have little incentive to provide EV charging (a direct threat to them) on their own real estate. It’s not that it’s unheard of, but since EVs are still only 2-3% of the new vehicle market the gas station knows that the upfront charger cost and accompanying installation fees will likely take at least a few years to recoup. Combine that with the uncertainty around different chargers and modes we just talked about, and you can see how it's risky for gas stations to install a type of charging station that might be obsolete in a few years (e.g. AC vs. DC). From an economic perspective they just don’t have much incentive to build out their charging infrastructure.
J: Well then the government should probably jump in and help fund the necessary infrastructure, just like they do with highways and roads right?
M: Yes, the recent infrastructure bill allocates $15B USD to build 500,000 charging stations by 2030 (though not all within cities). HOWEVER:
Even the most conservative estimate I could find indicates that this project will cost a minimum of $50B USD, which means the plan is already at least $35B short.
These chargers are for the entire US, not just cities.
We still may run into all the above issues of location, access, impeding walkability, etc.
J: Got it, I see now why EV charging in cities might not be the best path forward.
M: Thanks James, you’ve been a helpful expository device but now it’s time to go back in the box.
The point of all this is not to demonize EVs, it’s to emphasize that this time, money, and effort is better spent building out suburban/rural charging infrastructure, rather than subsidizing a sub-optimal mode of transit in cities.
EVs are huge
The final issue I have with EVs in cities is that they are BIG. Biden’s EV Hummer weighs in at about 9,000 lbs (~4,082 kgs, or 3x a standard Honda Civic), and generally speaking EV batteries add 1,000 to 1,600 extra pounds (~453 to 725kgs) to any model of car turned electric. Now, I’m not here to fat-shame vehicles, but there are reasons why I’m against bigger, heavier cars in cities.
Larger cars are inefficient. It makes absolutely no sense to use a 3,000lb vehicle for a 160lb person to drive a few blocks across town. Look if you’re going to pick up a couch? Sure. If you have 4 kids and need to pack them + 2 strollers into a van? No problem, I fully support using cars in those instances. But if we’re honest that’s not really what the majority of trips that people take look like, so big, heavy EVs are a worse, less efficient option for many of those journeys.
Heavier cars are more dangerous. We know from high school physics that Force = Mass * Acceleration. In this context, that means as the mass of a vehicle increases, the force with which it hits something (or someone) does as well. Vehicles in general have been getting bigger over the last two decades, and pedestrians deaths in the US as a result of vehicular accidents have also increased, jumping ~50% in the last 10 years and reaching a high of 6,200 per year in 2019. This is about the same as a full Boeing 777 of people dying every month.3 Car weight isn’t to blame in all those instances, but it certainly doesn’t help.
An electric car is still a car
So those are all the EV specific criticisms I have. However, even if we solved the issues around charging compatibility, charging infrastructure, and the weight, the reality is that many of the negative externalities that come from cars are the same regardless of whether it's an ICE or an EV.
I’ve covered in previous newsletters why reducing (but not totally removing!) cars in cities is a good thing, but a very rapid, condensed list of reasons would go something like this:
Relative to walking, cycling, and public transit cars are much less efficient, both in terms of energy expenditure and space.
Cars in cities incentivize car-centric infrastructure (parking lots, highways, street parking, etc.) in cities, which generally tend to be wasteful and inefficient from a spatial perspective, and incredibly expensive from a financial one.
Cars are more likely injure or kill pedestrians, cyclists, other drivers, and public property relative to pretty much any other mode of transit (cars cause over 5x the number accidents that buses do, even after adjusting for relative ridership).
And guess what, if you’ve been reading this article and feeling defensive because you need to drive for work, or you just like driving, then you should support public transit and bus lanes more THAN ANYONE. Because if we get more people to stop driving and adopt alternative modes, then there will be fewer drivers on the road and you’ll have more space.
I’m going to say that again, because it’s really important.
Reducing the need to drive helps everyone, INCLUDING DRIVERS.
It’s why the Netherlands, a country that has arguably the best cycling infrastructure in the world is also frequently named one of the best places to drive.
So, what’s my point? Am I just complaining and picking apart EVs because it makes me feel smarter?
Yes, a little bit.
No, my point is we should see EVs as a good, but not catch-all solution, and there are steps cities should be taking instead of focusing on them.
Allow me to explain in this next section helpfully titled…
What should we do instead?
Reallocate funds to alternative modes
The easiest way to reduce our car-dependency and actually move towards our ambitious sustainability goals isn’t to just make cars less bad, it’s to invest in alternative modes of transit and encourage people to drive less altogether. The recently passed US infrastructure bill has a lot of promising components with things like:
e-bike credits
public transit subsidies
funds for Amtrak
All of which are great for urban mobility.4 It's rapidly becoming clear that the auto-centric design in many American cities cannot be sustained without serious economic and environmental costs, so financial stimuli should be directed towards encouraging the kind of behavior that's really going to benefit us in the long-term.
Conclusion
I don’t expect this article to stop the rapid rise of EV sales around the world. Nor do I want it to. EVs will play an important part in our urban mobility future, but we shouldn’t overstate their usefulness, especially in denser urban environments.
And look, I don’t want this to sound like a lecture either.5 I try to bike, walk, or ride public transit as much as possible but I certainly do take Ubers/Lyfts/taxis on occasion. Would I feel slightly better if those rides were all EVs? Sure. But I’d much prefer if instead, cities focused on existing solutions such as public transit, micromobility, bikeshare, improving walkability etc.
We shouldn’t just focus on "how do we make cars incrementally better?" Instead we should ask ourselves "how do we bike, walk, and take public transit as much as possible?" The latter is orders of magnitude more sustainable, and more immediately available as we try to make our urban environments cleaner, safer, more accessible, and more equitable for everyone.
That’s it for today, as always thanks for reading! Enjoy the holidays if you’re celebrating and I’ll see you all in 2022!
-Max
Alternative names include CityBros, CityBelles, or the CityBittyCommittee
Calculated using a national average of electricity generation methods and over 100,000 miles driven. See source here for more details.
As an aside, the total number of vehicle-caused deaths (including passengers) is about 36,000/year, or more than one of those Boeing 777s going down every week.
The bill also includes up to $12,500 USD subsidies for EV purchases which… I’m actually okay with. Again, the point of today is not that I think EVs are bad, just that they are not the panacea that some people make them out to be.
He says, after lecturing for 10 minutes.
Max, this is an awesome article! This 1) is super well researched and 2) made me feel feelings for James and I hope he finds, as the French say, "je ne parle pas français". What a beautiful language :)
I will give two small gripes, which are somewhat in conflict with one another, but whatever. First, the environmental analysis you posted from WSJ and the write up in general focus solely on CO2 emissions...which like are obvious the most important in general. But, specifically in cities, we should care about NOx and particulate matter emissions, both of which are the product of combustion engines and not (at least directly, and definitely in substantially different magnitudes) from EVs. Basically the density of inefficient combustion engines in cities is one reason for air quality issues and associated human health impacts.
Second, in the age of tangible impacts from climate change, there is a real cost to not widely adopting EVs as soon as feasible as a consequence of worsening environmental conditions, and cities bare the cost of Sandy/Ida/annual 100 year storms/shifting water tables/etc. So when we talk about the increased burden on city infrastructure due to increased vehicle weight as a consequence of batteries...yeah, that's valid, but you have to compare that (not insignificant!) cost against an X% increased probability of flooding/environmental catastrophe and the associated costs from that. One is chronic, one is acute, but they both result in infrastructure costs and neither should be discounted.
Anyway, gotta get back to hanging with James. Love the analysis, happy new beers <3