All Springfield, OR Superchargers ICE'd by Trucks except one space

This morning as we were about to top off and go, we drove from the back of Holiday Inn Express to the Superchargers in front. All except one were ICE'd by SUV's. It was quite difficult to maneuver straight into the one stall, as the space left was so narrow, and there were also cars fully parked on the opposite side from the Supercharger stalls.

When questioned, the lady in charge of breakfast said that they had come to her last night and asked for permission to park there. She commented "we don't see many Teslas" (That's because we're so fast)

Holiday Inn shares parking lots with La Quinta next door.

To be fair, the sign posted at the superchargers indicates 2 hour EV parking from noon to 8 pm, but leaves the impression that the stalls are fair game at night.

If we had not charged yesterday, we would have another frustrating search for the owners of those vehicles before taking on a charge. Like yesterday in Omak, WA.

This problem will only get worse, as more Teslas come into service.

Well, at least they asked!

Also, it would have been nice if they left a phone number so that if a Tesla owner needed a charge, they could be contacted.

So did the one spot not claimed fail to charge?

In Washington State, at least one or two of these spots need to be covered by RCW 46.08.185 at every location, which essentially says that if a sign specifying EV Charging Only is provided and some green paint applied, nobody else can park there even if they get permission.

Not one of the spots is covered with that signage?

Kind of disappointed, I ordered a Model S because I'm in the process of moving back to the U.S. and I'm from Eastern Washington, so that supercharger will be used by me quite a bit since my company's headquarters is in Seattle.

All depends on what sort of lease agreement Tesla has with the site owners.

My point is they shouldn't agree to bad leases, especially in places like Ellensburg and Ritzville where they could have probably acquired land for less than the cost of the hardware used to run the site.

I have seen Superchargers that you had to back into and those that you pulled in head first. It would seem to me that if you're at one of the head in chargers, you can back your car against the ice car and reach the charge port with the cable. Of course you'll be blocking the ice in. (pity). A note on your windshield with your cell with a message like this might be understood.


Most people who take other people's parking spot do it out of ignorance of the effects it might have. They also realize that they're in the wrong and will respond to a gentle nudge. But there are just some people who are #@$%@&'s.

Call tesla supercharger phone number and complain.

Some of the superchargers are shared. I recently stopped at the San Juan Capistrano charger which is located in the Union Bank parking lot. I was surprised to find a sign on the charger which said Parking for Teslas or Union Bank Customers ONLY. The sign does limit the banking parking to 30 minutes.

info@richardpol; +1; education beats cursing every time.

Somde of these problems are due to bad signage. . I was at the Loveless Cafe in Nashville yesterday. The parking lot was crowded but the Blink chargers were not ICED. The spaces were clearly marked as being for electric vehicles only and there was distinctive painting on the tarmac.

Tesla is to blame if they sign contracts that allow for ICE parking even if "temporary" at the Supercharger sites. Even though I dearly want some SC on my travel routes, I would rather Tesla delay them until they can find good sites. A 30 minute limit will be ignored.

Good sites rate not those close to the business door, prime parking. If in a bog parking lot put them a bit further away, the least likely spots to be filled by regular cars. Don't put them to close to heavy population areas which encourage abuse by fellow Tesla owners as well as ICE.

And I agree that while some of the ICE blocking is due to self centered jerks who think rules apply only to others, most of it is due to ignorance or inattention of the drivers. That is where signs help.

Perhaps it is cheaper/faster to put the SC close to the existing building.

My guess is that security would be another consideration. Copper thieves might find an unattended supercharger too inviting.

Good news you were able to supercharge without a problem.

Allowing other cars to park there is unacceptable. Tesla shouldn't sign such lease agreements. Once there is a common perception that Tesla stations might be occupied sometimes by other cars it is very difficult to reverse that. Tesla needs to take this problem more seriously.

This is becoming a common issue. There have been many similar topics. Not knowing whether or not you will be able to charge when you arrive there is not good.

That location is prime space next to a hotel and a very popular bar as well as starbucks and taco del mar. On a saturday night it could be very tough to park at the hotel.

As long as there is an open spot we shouldnt get too exercised. The staff at the hotel are friendly and appreciate tesla... we need to not change that by being angry jerks.

Speculation: if Tesla went only with sites that would allow Tesla vehicles only, we've have half the number of sites and even some of those would be in less ideal places. Rolling out a 'Grand Plan with only ideal locations and conditions' rarely turns out well. Getting them out there is more important, although that priority will change after proliferation. Also, in some areas with parking in public areas, manufacturer-specific parking spots are illegal (and for good reason). Model S numbers are constantly increasing, but the general public isn't going to wisen up automagically. Growing pain incoming. Be vocal, be civil. Just because the problem is happening doesn't mean land owners and Tesla aren't taking it very seriously...that's closer to privileged perspective than any kind of valid logic. Seriously be vocal with sites and Tesla when you can't charge when you need to in order to get to your destination.

The problem is Tesla's stations appear to be illegal at least in Washington. They don't have the required green pavement markings. They don't have signs telling other cars can't park there even though the regulations require it:

Tesla should never open stations where other cars can park.

michael1800 +1. teo ~1.

i cant believe rhe intent of the WA legislature was to force every property owner who installs a charging point to dedicate it to EV only. thats a taking. rather the rational interpretation would be that IF the property owner wants to restrict parking then the state will enforce it.

Further ... I recommend the farthest away locations for superchargers and parking.

As ridiculous as this sounds I do feel SolarCity and Tesla should look into a business plan that would locate superchargers in large gas stations. The stations could probably get lower prices on their electricuty using solar panels, Model Ss can charge and ICE drivers will get to learn something about the wonderful world of EVs.

the law defines a charging station as a spot whose primary purpose is to charge EVs. by putting up 30 min parking allowed signs, Tesla and the property owners are defining charging as a SECONDARY use. no noncompliance with the law IMHO.

Most of us know that there is voltage loss with distance. Therefore it is ideal to place an SC system close to the source. Unfortunately the source in remote areas tends to be the closest bldg.


Teo_ wrote, "Tesla should never open stations where other cars can park."

Please keep in mind that local building/civil code may require a certain specific minimum number of parking spaces be set aside for public parking. Then a certain minimum number of handicapped spaces is required of those, and a certain minimum percentage as handicapped spaces above and beyond that. Even when the regulations regarding parking allow for electric vehicle parking for charging, the other rules take precedence.

In order to have 100% guaranteed exclusive parking for Tesla Motors products alone, the Supercharger location would have to either be: 1) in a place where their available parking spaces were already well over the minimums required; or 2) at a site where the parking lot was purposely expanded specifically to accommodate Tesla cars. So the small lots, with limited spaces to begin with, that are discussed in various ICEing situations really must allow anyone and everyone to park.

A standard rule of thumb in this instance is that if there are less than twenty parking spaces in the entire lot, don't be surprised if a Tesla Supercharger gets ICEd.

As has been stated, this issue will become less prevalent over time, not a bigger problem. Cars will have bigger batteries, longer range. The Supercharger rollout will continue, become more ubiquitous, with better locations chosen as time goes by.


The primary purpose clause is an unrelated section that does neither allow or disallow other cars to park. But there are two other sections that define the fines when you park there and the signs that must exist telling you can't park there.

Regulations are written in a way that expect the worst. For example in this case the worst thing would be somebody blocking stations on purpose with the intention of committing a crime. There are vulnerable people who wouldn't be at those stations at 4am but if you can block the stations you could have those people stranded there until that time.

Another purpose of regulations is to avoid conflict. If you think about it, it makes sense. I live in the UK. Gun crime is not a common here. But over there in the US it is. There are so many road rage shootings. You don't want to be in a frustrating situation in a parking lot where there is potential for violence.

Something that makes business sense for Tesla is not necessarily good or safe for the customers. People at Tesla have certainly good intentions when they flex the rules but they are not experts in how to avoid conflicts, violence and road rage etc. That's why there are regulations defining how everything in traffic should work.

petero wrote, "As ridiculous as this sounds I do feel SolarCity and Tesla should look into a business plan that would locate superchargers in large gas stations."

A few things to consider here... Many Tesla Model S owners have commented how much they have come to enjoy never going to gas stations, for anything at all, ever. They especially note how palpable it is when they must fuel an ICE vehicle after months of not doing so seems rather painful. They are put off by the myriad of fumes, from the fuel and exhaust of other vehicles, that is often present at busy gas stations. They really don't like it, and would prefer to avoid that experience for the rest of their lives.

Next, there is the fact that gasoline has been known to ignite from nothing more than the static electricity generated from the vinyl seat of a car on a hot dry day. I'm sure that Tesla Superchargers are immensely safe. But imagine the backlash that would occur if just one fire at a gas station was erroneously tied to the high power electrical output of a Supercharger.

Finally, even I had suggested that Superchargers might be located at truck stops and large gas stations run by companies such as SHEETZ and TA TravelCenters... But given both of the other points I've made here, I've changed my mind. It is better that if at some point either urban/metro or open highway large scale EV filling stations are needed, that they be run by SolarCity or Tesla Motors alone.

I think Tesla is doing a fantastic job and should keep doing it exactly the way they are.
We recently took a trip from MN to CA. We had dozens of SC stops.
At only one were there any spots ICED. That was at Grand Junction, CO on the way out. There were three trucks/SUVs parked in SC spots.
On our return home, we stopped at the same SC. There were no spots ICED. The hotel had put a construction barrel in one of the spots with a sign that read ”electric vehicle charging only, violators will be towed".
I went in and spoke with a clerk and manager. I told them how much I appreciate them taking steps to insure those spots are available for charging.

Of the locations that had signage allowing general parking, these sites had those signs on some of the spots, usually half.
This seems very reasonable to me, especially at infrequently used SCs. As traffic increases I am sure changing that signage will be fairly easy.

This is new territory for all of these businesses. It is important that we be good ambassadors, be clear in our communications, and most of all, support the businesses that have agreed to lease part of their parking lot to Tesla.

by your reasoning teo if someone put chargers up at evert spot in their lot to avoid arguing, no ice could park there. i dont think the law says that.


The reality is that the reason that all the charging locations SC or otherwise are in prime spots is because the spaces are closest to the electrical source -- the building.

Most recommendations now for parking is to build in the capacity of EV charging throughout the structure. So the spaces are not the "prime spots" in a lot. Most of us try to park as far as we can from anyone in a lot.

By the title maybe the OP is most outraged that the ICE vehicles are SUVs. Why?

+2 for the as always brilliant Red Sage.

First; Building codes require specific numbers of spaces. If a building is out of compliance they can't get real estate loans. It may be that the parking signs are mush mouth to protect the building owner from over zealous mindless bureaucrats that would fine them for code violations and lenders that require financed buildings to be In compliance with building codes. People count parking spaces more than you realize. Dedicating spaces for a commercial use would likely remove them from code compliance.

Second; The last place on earth I would want to hangout for 30 minutes to an hour while I charge is a gas station. Super Chargers should be located where you want to spend a little quality time. I have learned to enjoy the breaks at clean nice places.

I understand all this but let's assume this scenario:

In Washington a woman arrives at a Tesla station at 11:00 pm. All stalls a blocked by a truck. There is a restaurant nearby. She walks in and talks to the people there. They say there aren't many Teslas passing by and the truckers are used to parking there and it is allowed during day time but they don't know the truck is parked there now. She asks what she should do. They say she can wait.

At 1 am the restaurant closes. She gets worried and calls the local police. They say they can't help because it is a grey area regarding the legality. She says, there is a sign that says you can park two hours but she has been already waiting for 2 hours. The caps say if there is sign like that they can't help and she should contact the property owner.

She calls her relatives who are 150 miles away. They say they will come to get her in two hours. When they arrive something very bad has already happened. Who is responsible now?

Compare this to some European countries where you can call a number and they come and tow the blocking vehicle away no matter what.

Here is an example of the green tarmac signs the stations are required to have by law in Washington but don't comply.


After I read the regulations I not too impressed with whoever is in charge of superchargers at Tesla. It would be good if Tesla would at least comply with existing regulations, let alone trying to push for improvements.

Here are some examples showing how the green floor signs could look like. These are from Greenlandmobility from Italy. No other car would think of parking here.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen