How would you feel about a restaurant dynamically putting the price of your steak up, because you were drinking your red wine slower than the table next to you?
How would you feel about a restaurant dynamically putting the price of your steak up, because you were drinking your red wine slower than the table next to you?
Here's one approach to restaurant "idle fees":How would you feel about a restaurant dynamically putting the price of your steak up, because you were drinking your red wine slower than the table next to you?
Depends on whose perspective!Sorry, paywall, but i assume the article is agreeing with me.
Of course you had them. It's just that they were all sitting at different tables
I can answer this first hand since we have 4 children and we often went to a restaurant where the only tables for 6 had been taken by 2 or 4 people often only having a long chat and coffee after a shop, bags strewn everywhere.
This analogy is, indeed, more apt but I still disagree - vehemently - with your proposed solution. Just because you brought more people/have a bigger, more expensive car doesn't entitle you to make anyone else move around. (The restaurant could add a surcharge to the bill of those people quietly minding their guiltless dinner when you decide to show up, and in doing so ensure those 'lone' customers would never return.)
You have a fair point. But I am a neoclassical staunch proponent of congestion pricing strategy as a one of the ways of allocating scarce resources optimally. In this case it’s not about more expensive cars = more rights (though this would be fair in a taycan forum
). It’s about optimizing the station efficiency while the user maximizes his own utility based on personal preferences (“person’s circumstances”). Clearly, if infinite power/stalls are available (“more stations-equal power” in your message) at any given time, this entire thread is moot. As it‘s currently not the case, having all HPC stalls occupied by laggards is a sub optimal scenario for the provider.
Now we're getting a bit closer - I think - in that, indeed, there should be a financial disincentive for 'inconsiderate abuse' (those users who willingly behave in an antisocial fashion). The problem, though, is that we're still in that precarious phase of EV adoption where incentives/carrots are expected, and disincentives/sticks are effectively blockers of growth, or even causes for regression. Put plainly, outside of densely populated areas (in the US, at least), charging stations are like oases - you get what you get, and you'll like it. You really don't want to punish someone for charging to full while in transit (an example of 'honest abuse/misuse'), nor a skeptical-but-adventurous local early EV adopter, who's looking for reasons to say "I knew an EV's not for me" after they get slapped for charging a Bolt in an Ultimate stall (gasp). (In fact, both these characters would say that maybe EVs aren't there yet..)You have a fair point. But I am a neoclassical staunch proponent of congestion pricing strategy as a one of the ways of allocating scarce resources optimally. In this case it’s not about more expensive cars = more rights (though this would be fair in a taycan forum
Revenue could be increased by adding a component of dynamic pricing and free up space for EVs with higher charging rates to increase the efficiency of the station. This can be done in several ways - mine was just an example, no need to “understand charging power”, one could charge not per kwh but per minute and tune the model to a similar outcome (eg adding a discount above 45 kWh charged, and so on).
You want to use the HPC stall to charge your iPhone, capped at 27W, go ahead and pay 0,7 usd per minute. You can still do it but quickly understand you d be in general better off doing it somewhere else.
Obviously, the provider would need to figure out the demand elasticity of different EVs/users, and the reaction to different prices, exactly your point about the lone customers abandonment rate.
