Same here, and I am hoping that as battery density increases I may be able to extend the range on mine when the car gets old enough for a rebuild.

This was a problem with government owned Volts, they reimbursed for gas as this was already happening for the rest of the ICE fleet but had no way to reimburse for charging. Would not be surprised if this trend is the same for many company fleets too. Fix that and you would probably see similar numbers to private ownership.

In my case I live in a place where cities are spread out and where it gets cold in the winter. My parents live 40 mile away and don’t have an EV charger or a 220v outlet in their garage. Take 10% max range off in the winter, and I would have to use the only charging station (Tesla supercharger) or spend at least 6 hours charging at their house to be comfortable getting home in case of extra traffic or detours. I semi regularly drive even further, 80-100 miles one way. I’d have to stop to charge on my way there and on my way back in the winter, adding at least 30 minutes to an already 2 hour drive. There is also poor charging density on the route, so it has to be planned.

I drive a plug in hybrid now, and can get to work and home on battery only, but only in the summer and no extra stops or alternate routes are possible. People start getting antsy under a 1/4-1/8th tank of gas, it’s worse with battery. Add to that I am able to charge at home, if you have to go visit a charging station because you live in a ln apartment or townhouse without garage space, you need at least 5 days of charge range between fill ups, because most everyone isn’t going to want to add a 30 minute stop to charge daily.

So then the apartments and condos become more expensive due to skyrocketing land values, not solving the problem of affordable housing? You can expand current low density zones with limited medium density without impacting values too much, but NIMBY concerns aren’t completely crazy. Either new zones are created for multifamily high density and medium density housing instead of opening single family low density zones for these projects, or we accept that as a society we are fine crushing a percentage of the middle class to solve housing for the lower classes. The top 10% may take a hit on real estate dips from rental properties, but not crippling. We can spread the damage slowly, but houses losing 10-30% value will cause a miniature 2008 wherever that happens.

This was caused by housing becoming a cornerstone step into and for remaining in the middle class instead of being a commodity like it was pre 1970/80. That probably wasn’t a good idea, but changing that removes the largest remaining leg of the middle class. All options moving forward will suck I think, and it will take a lot of work to resolve.