• Skip to main content

Search

Just another WordPress site

Bay area top tech companies

From tech hub to empty husk: How S.F. building shows city’s latest cycle of boom to bust

March 23, 2023 by www.sfchronicle.com Leave a Comment

One of the saddest architectural sights on the blocks near San Francisco’s Civic Center is the backside of 1455 Market Street .

The ground floor is coated in speckled beige concrete that looks as if it was patterned by pushing giant egg cartons into wet cement. The walls above are the same concrete, but here the facade shifts to a ribbed corduroy finish that’s not necessarily an improvement.

The stubby, 16-story tower atop the five-story base has a certain blunt rigor. The scene along Market Street does its best to be inviting, no easy task within two blocks of misery-filled United Nations Plaza. Overall, though, it’s hard to imagine why anyone would want to work here — and no surprise that the tech firms that briefly made this a coveted address have packed or are packing their bags.

Once again in San Francisco, as in all cities, the underlying power of place is reasserting itself.

Or to put it in real estate terms: location, location, location.

I visited 1455 Market this week before Tuesday’s hellacious deluge and after the news that Reddit will soon move out of the space that it occupies in the 45-year-old structure. The internet forum will relocate by September to 303 Second St., a 10-story office complex at Folsom and Second streets.

There are no grand views in Reddit’s next home, and the 1988 complex has a suburban feel. But it’s a short walk to the Embarcadero in one direction and the Giants’ ballpark in another. There’s a spacious plaza in front and ever-sumptuous South Park is nearby.

In other words, 303 Second sits within an area that bustles in boom times and feels pretty good even in the city’s murky here-and-now. Walking a few blocks to work can be fun, not depressing.

Compare this to the area around Reddit’s current home at Market and Eleventh. The one attraction to outsiders is the sublime lure of Littlejohn’s Candies — if you haven’t gone, you should — and there’s a Muni stop close at hand. Otherwise you see empty storefronts, and sidewalks largely empty except for the people striding through on their way somewhere else, or individuals plagued by mental illness or drug abuse.

The mood was different when Reddit arrived at the end of 2019, joining such proudly disruptive 21st Century brands as Uber, Square (now known as Block) and WeWork. The arrival seemed to provide more evidence that long-tawdry mid-Market was being reborn as tech’s Miracle Mile. All systems seemed go-go.

Problem is, the stretch of Market Street near Van Ness Avenue always has been a faint star in northeast San Francisco’s constellation of attractions. That’s why 1455 Market Street looks the way it does, including that base with floors that cover nearly two acres: the Bank of America purchased the land in 1974 to build a computer center to process checks and deposit slips and all those other scraps that once constituted daily financial life. The massive machinery whirred behind windowless walls; an immense vault was hidden within.

Other chunky, back-office-type buildings joined it in the 1980s, the idea being that corporations needing cheap space with large floors could build it in San Francisco rather than the East Bay. Then technology advanced to the point where remote workers could be in Oklahoma or India as easily as San Ramon, and the boxy behemoths began emptying out. Mid-Market’s decline deepened.

Factors at this scale — more than the relatively modest incentive for Market Street-based firms in 2011 that became known infamously as the Twitter tax break — explain why tech firms flocked to the blocks between Fifth Street and Van Ness Avenue for a decade or so. There were few other options.

Consider the testimony of Victor Coleman, chairman of Hudson Pacific Properties, which purchased 1455 Market in 2009 from the Bank of America.

“The reality was that the city didn’t have a lot of square footage available, so growth had to go in this direction,” Coleman told Bloomberg in 2013. “People told me I bought the ugliest building in San Francisco, but that’s great because the only way to go is up.”

The catch being that what goes up, can come down. Uber built itself a sharp-looking headquarters in Mission Bay, with Chase Center to the south and a waterfront park going in to the east. Square is migrating to Oakland’s Uptown, in a cool remake of a former department store. WeWork, which, before the pandemic, seemed intent on leasing every available square foot of space in every American city, now has “only” 10 San Francisco locations.

Once Reddit goes east, the only large tenant left will be Muni’s transportation management center.

Theoretically, this makes 1455 Market a candidate to be an incubator for how unneeded office buildings can help the pandemic-stricken downtown towards a resilient future. The test case we need! But with its awkward dimensions and dicey location, I can’t picture a scenario where a conversion from office to apartments or cultural spaces  would make sense.

Give Hudson Pacific credit — the Los Angeles-based real estate firm that bills itself as “focused on epicenters of innovation” on its website — lightened up the behemoth’s presence as much as it could. The retail strip along Market has a high sloped entrance to invite you in. The windowless base that shielded computers has been punctured by windows in certain locations. By all accounts, the office spaces are top-notch.

But in today’s San Francisco, where the office vacancy rate approaches 30% and companies like Salesforce and Facebook are offering multiple floors of their office space to any takers, there are plenty of other options.

That’s how cities work. In boom times, economic tides rise so far and so fast that it seems as if they never will stop. Then comes a recession or worse, and those same forces recede.

With luck, downtown San Francisco’s tide has reached its low point. But here’s another urban truth: We never can tell what the future might hold.

Reach John King: [email protected]; Twitter: @johnkingsfchron

Filed Under: Bay Area, San Francisco Victor Coleman, Muni, Block, Littlejohn, @johnkingsfchron, John King, Market Street, Market, S.F., 1455 Market Street, Civic Center, Real Estate, 1455 Market..., FROM BOOM TO BUST, coventry city latest news, How to Build a City, boom and bust, boom or bust, tech hubs, boom cycle, boom to bust, building a city games, Building Show

Uber and Lyft finally have an SF challenger in Alto. But will it survive?

March 23, 2023 by www.sfgate.com Leave a Comment

“Can Alto succeed at employee-driven ride-hail?”

That’s the question a TechCrunch article posed in July just days after the San Francisco market launch of Alto — a ride-hailing app with a decidedly different model. Unlike Uber and Lyft, Alto drivers are actual employees with health care, sick leave, paid time off and even a 401(k).

Five years into Alto’s existence, the answer to that question seems to be yes — so far. The tech company is profitable in all three of its mature markets (Dallas, Houston and Los Angeles) according to CEO Will Coleman — who said it takes 36 months for a market to mature — and successful enough to expand into three additional major markets in the past 18 months, including San Francisco.

But the question of whether Alto can succeed in San Francisco specifically seems to be far more up for debate.

Despite a business model that you’d likely find overwhelming support for in the city — no California county voted more vehemently against Proposition 22 , which allowed Uber and Lyft to keep treating drivers like independent contractors, than San Francisco in 2020 — San Francisco’s slow recovery post-pandemic and onslaught of tech layoffs and real estate vacancies have left the market in neutral when it comes to Alto.

“San Francisco is recovering more slowly than other cities in the country; people are not in the office as frequently; there are fewer people in the city going out at night,” Coleman told SFGATE in a December interview. “We track OpenTable data they made public during the pandemic, and most nights, San Francisco is 60% below pre-pandemic levels. Miami is 6% above.”

And while Alto has 100 drivers in the Bay Area and around 50 leased cars (more on that in a minute), it still offers service only until 11 p.m. at night Sunday through Wednesday (until midnight on Thursday and 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday). According to a recent promotional email from the company that noted it was “banking” on riders’ support, Alto was also a customer of collapsed Silicon Valley Bank (Coleman said the company is “ going to be fine ”).

(Left) A user looks at the Alto app on their phone; interior of an Alto car. (Courtesy of Alto) (Left) A user looks at the Alto app on their phone; interior of an Alto car. (Courtesy of Alto)

What’s more, it seems it’s likely going to be a long, long while before anyone can reliably use Alto throughout the Bay Area. There’s zero service anywhere from the East Bay, North Bay or South Bay, and despite the company’s proclaiming it offers “service to Silicon Valley,” Palo Alto is the southernmost city you can get service out of . Compare that with a mature market like Los Angeles, where its fleet is closer to 125 cars, covers 975 square miles (compared with just 187 square miles in the Bay Area), and offers service until midnight five nights a week and until 3 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, and San Francisco has a seemingly long way to go.

That isn’t great news for Bay Area riders or drivers.

Let’s start with the drivers. The Dallas-based tech company provides its drivers with newly leased luxury, six-seat, Wi-Fi-equipped SUVs with an “ALTO” decal on each side, meaning two things: You’re never getting a wild-card backseat covered in “Dexter” plastic, and drivers don’t bear many costs associated with driving their own cars (gas, maintenance, wear and tear, crashes) like they do with Uber or Lyft. Longtime ride-hailing service drivers I spoke with during rides over the past several months all said they were making more money driving for Alto, which offers $20 per hour in base pay in the Bay Area, with some shifts paying up to $28.50 per hour (usually during peak periods late night on a Friday or Saturday). A driver-led study of Uber and Lyft drivers from Nov. 1 to Dec. 12, 2021, found they net less than $7 an hour when costs associated with their vehicles are taken into account — a number that Lyft and Uber both refuted.

BEST OF SFGATE

Travel | I went to Yosemite National Park for firefall — and almost missed it | This San Francisco-made film helped launch the porn industry Local | What it’s like to drive the zipper car on the Golden Gate Bridge | This reportedly haunted Bay Area bar has an unsolved mystery at its core

“We’re paying for our drivers whether you’re in the back seat or no one is in the back seat, so it’s really important to forecast correctly,” Coleman said.

This brings us to the riders. Alto essentially uses a hybrid cab and ride-hailing model — it has a traditional human dispatcher, who helps get the right driver to the right rider, and pairs that with a very familiar consumer-facing mobile app. There’s a $12.95 monthly membership fee, which initially is frankly off-putting but is useful for Alto’s business model; Coleman said knowing how many riders the company has allows it to dynamically put the right number of cars on the road every day. A fully mature market with 150 cars may have only 30 to 40 on the road on a regular Tuesday, whereas Alto will have all 150 on the road for something like Outside Lands or a Warriors game. As the number of members grows, the fleet grows.

“The vast majority of time, our competitors’ markets are oversupplied. Wait times are far too short — unsustainably short — and drivers aren’t earning enough,” Coleman said. “There are too many cars on the road, too many emissions, and it’s ultimately bad for cities.”

Even though Alto markets itself as a luxury service on its website (it has wild member perks from partners like $50 off a flight on the semiprivate JSX or 50% off a Soho House offering), I found that Alto’s prices are oftentimes as cheap as — or cheaper than — Uber or Lyft after several months of using the service. Here’s how a typical trip broke down: A short 1.5-mile ride in SoMa from 4th and King to 5th and Mission was quoted at $12 on Alto, $12.87 for a standard Lyft, and $9.95 for an UberX. Alto tacks on an 18% service charge (an extra $2.16 in this case) and doesn’t have an option for tipping. Lyft has a flat, all-in $3.60 service fee — plus, I usually tip a couple of bucks for a short ride. Uber has a bunch of fees (one of which includes a “Temporary Fuel Surcharge” you likely don’t know you’re paying) — plus, same deal, I usually tip a couple of bucks. The all-in cost of the Alto ends up being $14.16. A Lyft would’ve been $18.47. An Uber would’ve been $14.89.

Over the past few months, I tried to take a bunch of trips of different lengths to see how the prices compare, and the only time there was really any sort of major difference was on extremely long rides (a 26-mile ride down the Peninsula outside Alto’s core coverage area came to a heftier $86.69 — the Lyft would’ve been $57.56 and an Uber $67.14).

“Building supply to match the highest peak is very unprofitable. That’s one thing our competitors struggle with,” Coleman said. “Knowing how many members we have, we know how many vehicles and drivers we need to serve them.”

Exterior and interior of an Alto car. (Charles Russo/SFGATE) Exterior and interior of an Alto car. (Charles Russo/SFGATE)

That variable fleet means you’re going to wait, though. Not by a great magnitude more often than not, but if you’re in a major hurry, a couple of minutes here or there is impossible to ignore. I eventually start calling cars further in advance to offset that delay, which works just fine since they won’t cancel on you and they will wait, but it’s definitely an adjustment — one that Coleman said he’s confident riders can make.

“You’re going to have to wait 10 to 15 minutes for an Alto and six minutes for Uber,” Coleman said. “But we’ll be there consistently. Nobody’s going to cancel because you’re in a place it takes longer to get to. If your meeting runs over, the driver’s not going to leave you. The driver doesn’t care; they’re getting paid regardless. When you call an Alto, you’re not calling someone else’s car. Ten minutes is just not that long, and it’s what’s required to make the model work.”

Will the model hold up in the Bay Area, though? Will the limited (at least for now) coverage map turn people off? Will a more ethical, luxury product paying people properly be enough for Alto to actually stick in the Bay Area?

In December, Coleman said it could depend on whether San Francisco continues to rebound. “We’re cautiously monitoring that situation, and we’ll expand as the city comes back to life,” he said. Reached in March, a spokesperson noted Alto would “like to continue expansion in the Bay Area to include the East Bay over the next year.”

Guess we’re about to find out.

More tech stories

– These tech workers left SF for Austin. They don’t regret it.

– What it’s like to move to San Francisco without a tech job

– This startup pays Bay Area residents to monitor their air quality — in crypto

Filed Under: Uncategorized Will Coleman, Alto, Uber $67.14, Bay Area, Los Angeles, SF, Houston, Dallas, East Bay, South Bay, North Bay, Miami, California, Silicon Valley, Outside Lands, ..., Like Uber and Lyft, uber and lyft, lyft and uber, uber or lyft, lyft or uber, driving for uber vs lyft, European Challenge Cup Final, Meter for Uber and Lyft

Legendary Tech Innovator And Pundit Bob Metcalfe To Receive Prestigious Turing Award

March 23, 2023 by www.forbes.com Leave a Comment

  • Share to Twitter
  • Share to Linkedin

Bob Metcalfe is a 21st century Renaissance person — although he demurs that he has always thought of himself as a “a Middle Ages” person. Bob has been an inventor, electrical engineer, publisher, pundit, venture investor, professor, innovator, and now, geothermal engineer. As Bob notes on the verge of turning a youthful age 77 in just a few weeks, “I am embarking on my 7th career!” Metcalfe is also now the recipient of the prestigious Turing Award for 2022, which will be awarded to him on June 10 in San Francisco. Receiving the Turing is equivalent to being anointed the Rock Star of Tech.

I first met Bob two decades ago at The Nantucket Conference, an industry gathering of business and tech founders, and venture investors, on the “far-away island” of Nantucket, MA. Bob’s role at The Nantucket Conference for nearly a decade was as the resident pundit and wise man, as well as the closing valedictorian. As he describes it, “My job was to sit through every session over the course of two days, and then summarize the takeaways and key learnings. Not everyone liked my conclusions”.

Bob has never been immune to strong public positions and provocative statements. In a famous 1996 incident, Metcalfe incorrectly predicted the collapse of the Internet and agreed to “eat his words” on a public stage. As Reuters reported at the time, “The networking pioneer turned computer industry columnist who predicted the Internet would collapse last year, Thursday kept to his promise by literally eating his words”, noting that Metcalfe proceeded to place the offending column into a blender with liquid, before pouring it into a bowl and “slurping down the bowl’s contents to the crowd’s cheers”. Metcalfe dryly remarked, “I was wrong. I ate the column. I am sorry. I am not worthy”. Ever the graceful showman.

Over the decades, Metcalfe has forged a legendary reputation in the innovation world — from Boston to Silicon Valley to Austin (TX), and back. Now, he is returning to his roots at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he received his BS in Electrical Engineering in 1969 and completed his PhD in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science in 1973, in addition to a Harvard Business School MS in Applied Mathematics for good measure. Metcalfe will be returning to his alma mater at MIT as Research Affiliate in Computational Engineering at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, commonly known as CSAIL.

Metcalfe will forever be remembered as the inventor of Ethernet (he goes by the moniker “Ether Dad”), which he introduced in a May 22, 1973, memo while working in the Xerox Research (PARC) computer science laboratory in Silicon Valley. He describes Ethernet as the “plumbing for the Internet”, whereby personal computers were first connected using a Local Area Network (LAN). Metcalfe went on to found 3Com (short for “Computer Communication Capability”), which was an industry pioneer in the networking of computers, where he served as Founder, Chairman, CEO, Investor, and “Cheerleader”. The company was acquired by Hewlett-Packard in 2009 for $2.7 billion in cash. During this time, Metcalfe also became known for Metcalfe’s Law, which states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of users connected to the system, a foundational premise behind the Internet.

After retiring from 3Com, Metcalfe went on to his next careers — as CEO/Publisher of International Data Group’s (IDG) highly respected InfoWorld Magazine, followed by a stint as a Limited and General Partner with Polaris Ventures where he remains an Emeritus Partner — before relocating to Austin, TX in 2011 to serve as Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Cockrell School of Engineering and McCombs School of Management at the University of Texas, where he continues as Emeritus Professor of Electrical and Computational Engineering.

Returning to work at MIT CSAIL brings Metcalfe closer to his summer home in Owls Head, Maine, in the Camden, Maine region. There, Bob can be found navigating the waters of Penobscot Bay in his fleet of small craft. In 1996, Bob launched the Pop Tech conference in Camden in conjunction with former Apple Computer CEO John Scully. The conference, which celebrated its 25 th year in 2021, bills itself as a “global network committed to the vanguard of emerging technology, science, and creative expression”. Bob will continue to divide his time between Maine, Austin, and Cambridge (MA).

The Turing Award has long been considered to be the Nobel Prize of Computing and was first awarded in 1966 by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). The award was established in honor of Alan Turing, the British mathematician considered to be the founder of theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence, and whose tragic life was profiled in the 2014 motion picture, The Imitation Game , which received a Best Picture nomination and Best Actor nomination for the moving performance of Benjamin Cumberbatch at the 87 th Academy Awards.

The Turing is given annually to individuals who have made a lasting contribution or major technical importance to the field of computer science. The award is widely considered to be the highest recognition in the field of computer science and is accompanied by a $1 million dollar prize with financial support from Google. Metcalfe admits to being humbled by the honor, commenting “Turing recipients include the greatest pioneers in the advancement of computer science, from Marvin Minsky to Tim Berners-Lee. I am grateful to be considered among these giants”.

Metcalfe looks forward to continuing his efforts to educate the next generation of innovation leaders. He applauds the advancement of what he sees as a collaborative innovation ecosystem, stretching from Silicon Valley in the West to Austin in the Southwest and Boston in the Northeast. He concludes, “I am motivated to learn. I consider learning to be fun!” We congratulate Bob Metcalfe on being the recipient of the 2022 Turing Award and look forward to witnessing what the next 20 years will bring. We are confident it will be an innovative and entertaining journey.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Bob Metcalfe, Turing Award, Alan Turing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Austin, Massachusetts Institute of..., prestigious awards for high school students, tech innovation museum, tech innovation awards, tech innovation news, tech innovations 2016, tech innovation conferences, tech innovation summit, cd tech innovations pvt ltd, tech innovators, tech innovation

When to Buy a New Phone. Or Not.

October 13, 2020 by www.nytimes.com Leave a Comment

Apple will talk on Tuesday about its new iPhones and other doodads. Brian X. Chen , a technology columnist for The New York Times, has a three-question quiz to help you decide whether it’s worth considering a new smartphone or sticking with what you have. (You can watch Apple’s iPhone unveiling here . Or don’t . The Times will have the useful bits here .)

It’s that time of year again when companies scratch and claw and advertise like heck to get us to buy the latest versions of their phones. The difference this year is that it’s 2020, and the world feels upside down. Many of us are facing unemployment or dealing with stresses that can’t be solved with slabs of computer circuits — and have no desire or ability to buy a new smartphone.

The good news is that modern smartphones are so robust and reliable that most of us probably won’t need to ditch our old ones . Here are a few questions to ask yourself to determine whether it’s time to consider a new phone.

Can I still get software updates?

If your smartphone is so old that the manufacturer is no longer issuing the latest operating system for your phone, you may need to consider buying a new one. Without the latest operating system, you may be missing out on important bug fixes and security enhancements. Some of your favorite apps may have also stopped working properly.

Here’s how to find out:

  • Apple’s website shows that its most recent operating software, iOS 14, works for phones going back to the iPhone 6S from 2015. If you own a model that’s older than that, you should probably consider a new device.

  • Androids tend to have a shorter shelf life. On average, manufacturers support Android devices for two to three years before they stop providing updates to the operating system and security software. Do a web search for your phone model to find out whether it can download the latest version of Android, currently Android 11.

    For example, owners of the original Google Pixel smartphone are no longer guaranteed to receive software or security updates, according to a chart posted by Google . If you own the Pixel from 2016, it’s a good time to replace it with a newer phone. Here’s some information on Samsung smartphones that work with Android 11.

Is my device beyond repair?

If your device can still get the freshest software but it has other problems, like a short-lived battery or a broken screen, I recommend researching whether it’s worth repairing the device . Replacing a battery costs about $50 to $70, and a new screen from an independent fix-it shop usually costs around $100. That’s far cheaper (and less wasteful) than buying a new smartphone.

But at some point the cost of repairs isn’t worth it. The good news is that you don’t have to pay $1,000. Excellent smartphones, like the Google Pixel 4A and iPhone SE , cost $350 and $400.

Am I unhappy with my phone?

This is a tough one because satisfaction is subjective. If you feel that your phone isn’t keeping up with your needs in terms of speed, features or photo image quality, then it’s perfectly reasonable to upgrade, assuming you can afford to. But try to make the decision based on your needs and wants, rather than caving to pressure from peers or corporate advertising.

This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it weekdays.


Being wrong on Facebook is often dangerous

It’s Shira Ovide, taking over the rest of the newsletter.

Mark Zuckerberg says he wants Facebook to give people a voice, and that has included allowing denial of the Holocaust on its websites and apps. The company on Monday changed its mind .

Facebook’s switcheroo is important for two reasons. First, it showed yet again that — despite the company’s claims — it is in fact an arbiter of speech. And second, it pointed to a conundrum in Zuckerberg’s argument that all views should be permitted online because the internet should be a place for people to be wrong.

On Facebook’s stance that it doesn’t want to be an “arbiter of truth” online, well, as I’ve written about before in this newsletter , it is.

Facebook has thousands of pages of rules of what people are allowed to say and do on its websites and apps. Most of us would agree that it’s good that Facebook takes a hard line against terrorists who openly plot violence online or people posting images of child sexual abuse. The debate is where Facebook should draw the lines in other areas and the trade offs of the company’s decisions.

Second, the policy change exposes holes in Facebook’s principles. When Zuckerberg two years ago defended the ability of Holocaust deniers to post their views, he said that people should have room to say factually wrong, even abhorrent, things on the internet — unless the bad information resulted in real-world harm.

That sounds reasonable. But in reality, wrong information on the internet often has devastating consequences. Unfounded information about wireless technology causing the coronavirus , about a school shooting being a hoax or about criminal activity in a Washington pizza parlor all caused real harm. Zuckerberg said that his views on Holocaust denial and distortions changed after he saw information about increases in anti-Semitic violence.

That reality most likely requires Facebook to devote more people and money to effectively spot when the lines have been crossed between online expression and real-world danger. And it requires a commitment from Facebook to be smarter about understanding humans and not merely regurgitating free speech principles that don’t stand up to logic.


Before we go …

  • Divided recommendations on an Uber ballot measure: I wrote Monday about Uber and other app companies backing a ballot measure in California that would overturn a state law requiring app contract workers to be reclassified as employees. The New York Times editorial board recommended that California voters vote no , because doing so would “ensure gig workers the protections all workers deserve,” the editorial said.

    The editorial boards of two large California news organizations, The San Francisco Chronicle and The Mercury News & East Bay Times , recommended Californians vote yes on the measure, known as Proposition 22.

  • When apps become politics: Pakistan banned the TikTok app, citing what the government said was immoral and indecent content. Government critics said the ban was intended to stop criticism of the country’s leadership over how it has handled the coronavirus and economic challenges, my colleague Salman Masood reported.

  • Is everyone OK? Our social media habits suggest NO, WE ARE NOT: Researchers created the “Hedonometer” to track our collective happiness based on the words we write on Twitter. The data are far from perfect, but readings show — perhaps unsurprisingly — sustained sadness this year , Casey Schwartz wrote for The Times. The saddest day recorded by the Hedonometer in the last 13 years was Sunday, May 31, 2020.

Hugs to this

Birding enthusiasts in New York are obsessed with a barred owl that has popped up in Central Park. And I gotta say, the owl is beautiful , especially when yawning or looking sad .


We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at [email protected]

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here .

Filed Under: Uncategorized Apple, Facebook, Computers and the Internet, Tech Industry, Smartphone, Social Media, Technology, Apple Inc, Facebook Inc, Smartphones, ..., trade in phones for new phones, buy new google pixel phone, buy new pixel phone, google phone new phone, buy buy baby phone number, buy buy baby phone, where to buy new unlocked phones, when carlos was promoted he moved into a new office with a new phone extension, applecare when you buy a new phone, from old phone to new phone

Who Buys Electric Cars In California — And Who Doesn’t?

March 22, 2023 by patch.com Leave a Comment

Traffic & Transit

Though ownership is disproportionate, interest in electric cars is high across all incomes and races, according to a 2019 survey.

CalMatters's profile picture

CalMatters , News Partner
Posted

In Atherton, one of the nation’s richest towns, giant oaks and well-manicured hedges surround gated mansions owned by some of Silicon Valley’s most prominent billionaires, basketball stars, tech executives and venture capitalists.

Each set on an acre of land, six-bedroom estates, brick-paved pathways, neoclassical statues and cascading fountains are on full display. But increasingly, another status symbol has been parked in these driveways: a shiny electric car — sometimes two.

This tiny San Mateo County community — with an average home value of almost $7.5 million and average household income exceeding half a million dollars — has California’s highest percentage of electric cars, according to a CalMatters analysis of data from the Energy Commission. About one out of every seven, or 14 % , of Atherton’s 6,261 cars are electric.

CalMatters’ statewide analysis of ZIP codes reveals a strikingly homogenous portrait of who owns electric vehicles in California: Communities with mostly white and Asian, college-educated and high-income residents have the state’s highest concentrations of zero-emission cars. And most are concentrated in Silicon Valley cities and affluent coastal areas of Los Angeles and Orange counties.

This racial and economic divide may be unsurprising — but it illustrates the mammoth task that California faces as it tries to electrify its 25 million cars to battle climate change, clean up its severe air pollution and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Under a state mandate enacted last year, 35% of cars sold in California, beginning with 2026 models, must be zero-emissions, ramping up to 68% in 2030 and 100% in 2035.

But if people who buy electric cars are largely white or Asian, highly educated, wealthy, coastal suburbanites, will the state’s transformation succeed? Will new electric cars be attainable for all Californians — no matter their race, income and location — in the coming decade?

High upfront vehicle costs, lack of chargers for renters and inadequate access to public charging stations in low-income and rural communities hamper California’s ability to expand EV ownership beyond affluent parts of the Bay Area and Los Angeles area.

The cost of new electric cars is the most obvious factor driving the racial and income disparities in who buys them: The average as of February was $58,385 — about $9,600 more than the average car — although it dropped from about $65,000 last year . Lower-end fully electric cars start around $27,500 .

Kevin Fingerman, an associate professor of energy and climate at California State Polytechnic University Humboldt, said the primary reason why more people in white, affluent, college-educated communities own electric cars is that they tend to be early adopters of new technology, with easier access.

“California is prioritizing the rapid electrification of the light-duty vehicle sector and it’s right in doing so. But it’s going to be important in the process to make sure that there is equitable access,” said Fingerman, who co-authored a study on racial and income disparities to electric vehicle charging.

To rapidly electrify the fleet, state officials must address the roadblocks causing the wide gaps in electric vehicle ownership: Expanding the state’s public and in-home charging networks, funding more rebates for low and middle-income residents and increasing the pool of used electric cars. The goal is to give consumers confidence in the reliability and affordability of the cars and reduce their anxiety about limited range and charging availability.

“As more electric vehicles are on the road, we’re going to need to be creative about policy solutions to address those issues to make sure that the benefits of owning an electric vehicle are shared across the demographics in the state of California and beyond,” Fingerman said.

A portrait of electric car hotspots

About 838,000 electric cars were on California’s roads in 2021, and under the state mandate, it’s expected to surge to 12.5 million by 2035.

No statewide data exists to break down the race or other demographic characteristics of California’s car buyers. But CalMatters compared the ZIP codes of 2021 electric car registrations with Census information on the race, income and education of people in those ZIP codes. (Electric cars include battery-only models, plug-in hybrids and fuel-cell electric vehicles. ZIP codes with fewer than 1,000 residents were excluded from the analysis.)

California’s highest concentrations of electric cars — between 10.9% and 14.2% of all vehicles — are in ZIP codes where residents are at least 75% white and Asian. In addition to Atherton, that includes neighborhoods in Los Altos, Palo Alto, Berkeley, Santa Monica and Newport Coast, among others.

In stark contrast, California ZIP codes with the largest percentages of Latino and Black residents have extremely low proportions of electric cars.

In the 20 California ZIP codes where Latinos make up more than 95% of the population — including parts of Kings, Tulare, Fresno, Riverside and Imperial counties — between zero and 1% of cars are electric.

And 17 of the 20 communities with the highest percentage of Blacks have between zero and 2.6% electric cars. (Los Angeles’ relatively affluent Ladera Heights and two Oakland ZIPs have between 3.3% and 4.7%.)

Still, not all communities with a lot of electric car drivers are majority white. Four of the top 20 EV ZIP codes have more Asian residents than white. For instance, more than three-quarters of residents in Fremont’s 94539, which is ranked 14th with 11.4% of registered cars electric, are Asian.

Income seems to be a main driver of the disparities, according to CalMatters’ analysis. Most of the median household incomes in the top 10 exceed $200,000, much higher than the statewide $84,097. Typical home values in those communities exceed $3 million, according to Zillow estimates.

In contrast, electric cars are nearly non-existent in California’s lowest income communities: only 1.4% of cars in Stockton’s 95202, where the median household income is $16,976, and 0.5% in Fresno’s 93701, where the median is $25,905. Most are plug-in hybrids, which are less expensive.

Also, at least three-quarters of residents in the top 10 communities for electric vehicle ownership have a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Rural and remote parts of the state — even the entire Central Valley — also are left out of the top ZIP codes with electric cars. With limited charging access, rural residents who drive long distances fear they’ll get stranded if their car runs out of juice.

“It makes sense why we would see way more concentrations of EVs in densely urban areas or populated areas,” Fingerman said. “The barriers to people owning electric vehicles across the demographics in the state are real. But they’re solvable.”

Black and Latino residents — who make up almost half of California’s population — are less than half as likely as whites to have access to a public charger, according to the study Fingerman co-authored. Disparities in access are also higher in areas with more multi-unit housing, the study showed.

Yet interest in electric cars is high across all incomes and races, according to a 2019 survey conducted by Consumer Reports and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

About a third of survey respondents making $50,000 to $99,999 a year and under $50,000 a year expressed some interest in an electric car as their next purchase. People of color also expressed interest, with 42% saying they would consider an electric vehicle as their next car.

Affordability: ‘The average person can’t afford to buy’ an EV

Christopher Bowe, 48, of Hayward in Alameda County, considers himself an early adopter of new technology. He purchased his electric Ford F150 Lightning new for $70,000 late last year.

Bowe lives in a ZIP code where only 2% of cars are electric, but he lives next to Fremont’s 94539, where it’s 11.4%, so he regularly sees a lot of drivers with electric models.

Bowe, who makes a little more than $100,000 a year working for FedEx, said his income and living situation made it easy for him to opt for an electric vehicle: He lives in a single-family house with residential solar, which allows him to charge at home and keep his electric bill low.

Christopher Bowe, 48, Hayward

ZIP code: 94544 Income (individual): $110,000 Race: White Housing: Single family home Family size: 4 (married with two kids) Car model: Ford F150 Lightning, purchased $70,000 new

  • “I believe it works for me and my circumstances, but there’s a lot of people that it wouldn’t be a good choice for.”
  • Doesn’t think California can transition fast enough to phase out new gas cars by 2035: “That’s a great aspiration, but it’s crazy. There’s no practical way that’s going to happen.”

Bowe had always been interested in buying an electric vehicle, but finding a pickup truck that suited his needs was a challenge for years. The 2022 F-150 Lightning was one of the first electric trucks to hit the market, and it sold out quickly.

“I’ve always been a truck guy and everything previous was kind of small, underpowered,” he said. “I’m a 300-pound guy. I like being up above the traffic and being able to see out in front of me. It fits my body size better.”

Bowe worries that the state’s 2035 timeline for 100% new electric models could be moving too fast because of the lack of affordable options. He said automakers should be given incentives to offer more affordable options.

The California Air Resources Board did build some incentives into its mandate: Automakers qualify for credits toward meeting their zero-emission sales target through 2031 if they sell cars at a 25% discount through community-based programs, or if they offer passenger cars for less than $20,000 and light trucks for under $27,000.

Automakers say they are working to speed up production and develop more affordable models. Tesla in January slashed prices for all models by 20%, which made the cars eligible for a $7,500 federal tax credit. Base prices are now $55,000 and $90,000. Two weeks later, Ford cut the price of its most popular Mustang Mach-E by 6% to 9%, to a starting price of $46,000.

“We are producing more EVs to reduce customer wait times, offering competitive pricing and working to create an ownership experience that is second to none,” said Marin Gjaja, Ford’s chief customer officer. “We will continue to push the boundaries to make EVs more accessible for everybody.”

David Reichmuth, a senior engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists who studies EV market trends, said the state’s mandate will help drive the market and lower prices, narrowing the gap between electric models and gas cars over the next 12 years.

“We know that new car buyers, both gasoline and EV buyers, are more affluent than the general population and more affluent than used car buyers,” Reichmuth said. Nearly half of all new cars nationwide are bought by households with incomes exceeding $100,000, according to his study based on 2017 data. “As the new rules kick in, we’re going to see a greater number of options go electric. That’s also going to make these vehicles more affordable.”

In the meantime, state and federal rebates and grants are critical to making the vehicles more affordable, said air board spokesperson Melanie Turner.

The air board last year approved $326 million in purchase incentives for low-income consumers, Turner said. Eligible residents can receive up to $15,000 for a new electric car and up to $19,500 for trading in a gas car — an increase of $3,000 from the state’s previous offerings. The programs accept applications from residents with incomes at or below 300% of the federal poverty level — equivalent to $43,740 for an individual or $90,000 for a family of four.

In recent years, however, the programs have experienced inconsistent and inadequate funding . Last year low-income consumers were turned away — funding had run out and waitlists were shut down because of backlogs.

Problems with the Clean Vehicle Assistance Program were resolved last year, Turner said. “We paid all the applications on the reservation list and we are getting ready to reopen the program with new criteria soon,” she said.

The state credits can be combined with new federal tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act. Through 2032, eligible car buyers — with caps on income and price – can get up to $7,500 for a new electric vehicle and up to $4,000 for a used one.

“We are hoping this boost in incentives for clean car purchases will help to make a difference,” Turner said.

Electric cars require far less maintenance and have lower operating costs than their gas-powered counterparts, making them less expensive over time. Car drivers will save an estimated $3,200 over 10 years for a 2026 electric car compared to a gas-powered car, and $7,500 for a 2035 car, according to the air board’s estimates.

‘We need better options for renters’

Charging remains one of the biggest concerns for people who own or are interested in buying an electric vehicle. California has about 80,000 public chargers , with another estimated 17,000 on the way. But the state will need 1.2 million for the 7.5 million electric vehicles expected on the roads by 2030.

Many people residing in apartments or condominiums are reliant on public charging stations because they don’t have chargers in their buildings’ parking garages. A standard level 2 charger costs between $500 and $700, plus installing an electricity meter costs $2,000 to $8,000 or more, according to Pacific Gas & Electric .

Urvi Nagrani, 35, of Los Altos in Santa Clara County, charges her 2021 Chevy Bolt at public stations. She lives in an accessory dwelling unit with no home charger.

“People living in Silicon Valley have home chargers,” she said. “But we need to have better options for renters because it hasn’t gotten much better for me as a renter.”

Urvi Nagrani, 35, Los Altos

ZIP code: 94024 Income (individual): $180,000 a year but recently laid off Race: Asian Housing: ADU, renter Family size: Single Car model: 2021 Chevy Bolt, leasing for $196 a month

  • Says EVs are suitable for everyone and that the transition is “definitely possible.”
  • Rebates “won’t solve the daily challenges for renters and those in older housing or without garages. That’s where the utilities and cities will need to step up a lot.”

ZIP code 94024, where Nagrani lives, ranks fifth statewide in percentage of electric vehicles. Of its 19,089 car registrations, 13.4% are electric. Nagrani said there are plenty of public charging stations available — but some are broken or occupied, with long wait times.

Even worse, she often takes long road trips and experiences many more challenges finding reliable chargers on the road. Navigating the apps showing locations of charging stations can be confusing.

“There are trade-offs,” she added. “I got my EV with very clear eyes.”

Nagrani said she leased her Chevy Bolt for $196 per month when she had a $180,000-a-year job . She was recently laid off from her tech job, joining thousands of others in the Silicon Valley who are suddenly unemployed.

Richard Landers, 75, a retiree in Santa Monica, earns more than $200,000 a year from his investments. He loves his Tesla 2015 Model S, which he bought new for about $90,000 that year.

“It’s a wonderful drive, I have had essentially no maintenance requirements in seven years and I feel good — not perfect, because it’s still a car — about my reduced environmental impact as a driver,” he said.

Landers, who lives in a mid-rise condominium, said he wouldn’t have switched to an electric vehicle if he couldn’t charge his car in his garage. Landers had Southern California Edison install an electric meter and hired an electrician to equip his parking space in the condo’s garage with a charger, which cost him about $2,500, he said.

Landers’ 90402 ZIP code ranks sixth on the list of California areas with the highest percentage of electric vehicles — 13.3% of its 8,178 cars. But even there, charging is a big problem for his neighbors in Santa Monica’s multi-family dwellings, he said.

“Having the ability to charge at home is very important to making electric vehicles attractive and practical for most people,” he said.

Richard Landers, 75, Santa Monica

ZIP code: 90402 Income (individual): Retired. Investment income exceeding $200,000 a year Race: White Housing: Mid-rise condominium Family size: 2 (married; kids are adults) Car model: Tesla 2015 Model S, purchased $90,000 new

  • Lack of reliable chargers is “a very big deal.” When there’s inadequate charging in multifamily homes, “the transition to EVs could be very drawn out.”

Landers worries that delayed progress in installing chargers in multifamily buildings could delay the transition to electric vehicles.

It’s a widespread problem that state leaders have been trying to address. By January 2025, a new law passed last year will require the state to adopt regulations requiring businesses to install charging stations in existing commercial buildings. Another 2022 law will require new and existing buildings, including hotels, motels and multi-family dwellings, to install charging stations.

The state is helping fund some of these chargers through grants, including a recent investment of $26 million for 13 projects in multi-family homes, said Hannon Rasool, director of the California Energy Commission’s fuels and transportation division.

The rural dilemma: ‘They don’t want to get stuck’

Kay Ogden, 62, an avid environmentalist and executive director of the Eastern Sierra Land Trust, has driven her Ford Mustang Mach-E SUV for a little more than a year. She loves her electric car, which she purchased new for about $60,000.

But Ogden, who lives in the Sierra Nevada foothills 18 miles northwest of Bishop, said her rural community’s lack of public chargers has been a big issue for her. There aren’t enough reliable, working chargers or fast chargers for non-Teslas In Inyo County.

San Mateo County has 4,398 public chargers serving its 747 square miles , while Inyo County has just 49 chargers across its massive 10,140-square miles — home to just 19,000 residents but visited by hundreds of thousands of hikers, skiers, anglers and other tourists. Sierra County, with 3,300 residents , has just one public level 2 charger.

Ogden often drives long distances — at least 80 miles per day — to work, buy groceries and obtain services such as medical care. The region’s cold temperatures also can substantially reduce an electric car’s range.

Ogden initially had range anxiety so she started looking for a hybrid, but changed her mind to avoid purchasing another vehicle with an internal combustion engine reliant on fossil fuels. She chose a model with a longer range, 275 miles, to help ease her anxiety.

“Going from gas, going fully electric seemed so scary,” she said. “But hybrids still have internal combustion engines. So I evolved. I decided, I’m just jumping in. I’m going for it. I’m going to go electric.”

Bob Burris, deputy chief economic development officer at the Rural County Representatives of California, which represents 40 counties, said rural residents have widespread interest in electric vehicles, but the lack of public chargers has deterred many.

“They might have charging in their homes, but it is still a challenge for them to go anywhere,” he said. “They don’t want to get stuck on the side of the road, or if they’re escaping from a wildfire or a natural disaster and you need to move without readily available public charging.”

None of the top ZIP codes with high concentrations of electric vehicles are in the middle of the state — including the vast Central Valley — or in eastern counties. Instead, they are congregated along the coasts in populous parts of the Bay Area and Los Angeles, according to CalMatters’ analysis.

The unpredictability of charging stations in Sierra Nevada towns has been deeply frustrating, Ogden said.

“I go to charge at a certain place and three out of five are broken, or they’ve been vandalized and maybe there’s snow or trash piled up by one and you can’t get to it,” Ogden said. “The companies need to be held accountable for having chargers that are listed on apps that don’t work.”

More than half of 3,500 drivers in a nationwide survey , conducted by the consumer advocacy group Plug In America, reported encountering problems with broken public chargers . Another survey by the air board found barriers to charging and broken chargers.

State officials do not track numbers of broken chargers, Rasool of the California Energy Commission, said. But state lawmakers last year passed legislation establishing a reporting mechanism for broken chargers at publicly funded stations. The state also plans to inspect state-funded chargers to assess how many need repair, he said.

The new law, however, “doesn’t give us the authority to require (reports) from a fully privately funded charging station,” he said. “We’re very committed, but we do think we need to ensure the whole network — whether we fund it or not — is reliable for drivers.”

The rural county organization is helping local governments access public money and streamline their permitting process for building new charging stations.

“If there’s a pretty robust charging system in rural areas, there’s going to be more people interested in buying EVs,” Burris said. “I don’t think we’re going to hit our goals as a state unless rural areas are included a bit more than they have been in recent years.”

Story by Nadia Lopez and Erica Yee.

Interested in the data behind our analysis of electric car ownership?

CalMatters is making the data available for download and analysis.

View data

The rules of replying:

  • Be respectful.
  • Be transparent.
  • Keep it local and relevant.
  • Review the Patch Community Guidelines.

More from

Obituaries | 2d

Menlo Park Residents Listed Among SMC Death Notices March 14-20

Menlo Park Residents Listed Among SMC Death Notices March 14-20

Obituaries | Mar 14

San Mateo County Residents Listed Among SMC Death Notices March 7-13

San Mateo County Residents Listed Among SMC Death Notices March 7-13

Obituaries | Mar 7

San Mateo County Residents Among SMC Death Notices Feb. 28-March 6

San Mateo County Residents Among SMC Death Notices Feb. 28-March 6

Filed Under: Uncategorized Traffic & Transit, electric car what to buy, what electric car should i buy, electric car doesn't need to be charged, electric car that doesn't need charging, electric car when to buy, which electric car is the best to buy, electric car where to buy, paperwork when buying a car in california, california based electric car company, gas tax electric cars california

Copyright © 2023 Search. Power by Wordpress.
Home - About Us - Contact Us - Disclaimers - DMCA - Privacy Policy - Submit your story