(4).png)
Keywords:
Keywords: Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Electric Vehicles (EVs), Design Template, Design Framework, Theoretical Approach, Methodological Approach
Background:
Today, less than 1% of registered vehicles in the United States are Electric. Despite the low adoption rate, growth is expected, and many automakers have already made firm commitments towards net- zero and carbon neutrality.
The graphic below shows some of the commitments automakers have made.
Challenges:
However, there are some concerns to buying and owning an Electric Vehicle. The top concerns usually fall under; Range Anxiety or fear of running out of charge, Charging Speed at publicly available charging points, or a general Lack of Charging Infrastructure. However, as adoption rates rise, we will see the landscape of EV ownership change rather quickly. The concerns we faced will be entirely different, and the largest of which will likely be...
Where will we charge all of our electric vehicles?
This becomes a concern for several reasons, including...
• First, roughly 70% of American homes rely on curbside parking.
• and Second, the commitments made by automakers will soon limit anyone looking to buy a new car to buying exclusively EV.
This shortcoming, can negatively impact the adoption of EVs and will make things increasingly difficult for those with limited access to available charging options.
Masters Thesis Focus:
This Master of Design thesis summary highlights both a methodological & theoretical approach to the development of Next Generation EV Charging Infrastructure.It shows a method to identify potential new sites for Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE), and how through further user testing, research and validation, preferred solutions can be identified to meet site specific criteria.This is highlighted in 3 simple steps seen below
Using GIS (Geographic Information Systems) to identify optimal charging stations for Electrical Vehicles (EV's) in Cincinnati, OH
The following set of spatial and attribute data was instrumental in the development of this thesis on Next Generation EV Charging Infrastructure
At the regional level this study looked at EVSE locations across the 52 neighborhoods that make up the City of Cincinnati’s Community Council of Neighborhoods. It will look at the population density and income of these neighborhoods by block group.
The study will then consider major roadways and arterials that run through the Cincinnati area, and reclassify the roads based on the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT). This will help identify the utilization of roads at the regional level and their relation to existing EVSE locations.
With over 80% of EV owners charging their vehicle at home this study will look specifically at multi-family housing (zoned R1-R5) with a lack of access to public transit (bus stops). Kernel density analysis of multi-family housing will also be performed.
• At the regional level this study will look at EVSE locations across the 52 neighborhoods that make up the City of Cincinnati’s Community Council of Neighborhoods. It will look at the population density and income of these neighborhoods by block group.
• The study will then consider major roadways and arterials that run through the Cincinnati area, and reclassify the roads based on the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT). This will help identify the utilization of roads at the regional level and their relation to existing EVSE locations.
• With over 80% of EV owners charging their vehicle at home this study will look specifically at multi-family housing (zoned R1-R5) with a lack of access to public transit (bus stops). Kernel density analysis of multi-family housing will also be performed.
• After reclassifying (1) population density by block group, (2) per capita income by block group, (3) the annual average daily traffic, and (4) the kernel density of existing EVSE locations, a weighted overlay analysis will help identify relevant sites at the local scale. The weighted overlay will give equal weights to each of the 4 sets of reclassified data out of 100, and will allow us to better evaluate sites at a regional scale that might serve as optimal locations for new EVSE.
• When analyzing potential EVSE sites at the local level, a confluence of factors will be considered including the weighted overlay analysis and the density of multi-family dwellings without access to public transit (bus stops). Commonalities in the land-use and zoning of existing stations will be consider before identifying potential new sites at the local level that meet the same or better qualifications of current electrical vehicle charging stations
Scale
Low (1) to High (5)
.png)
.png)
.png)
Legend
.png)
.png)
Reclassifying Maps for Weighted Overlay Analysis
• Population Density by Block Group
• Per Capita Income by Block Group
• Annual Average Daily Traffic
• Kernel Density of Existing EVSE Locations
a weighted overlay analysis will help identify relevant sites at the local scale. The weighted overlay will give equal weights to each of the 4 sets of reclassified data out of 100 (25 each), and will allow us to better evaluate sites at a regional scale that might serve as optimal locations for new EVSE.
Heat Map Scale
Low (1) to High (8)
.png)
The GIS research on identifying new charging points was presented to the City of Cincinnati and the electric vehicle supply contractor known as Electrada.
the second part of the research methodology would gather primary research on current electrical vehicle ownership. The approach used a research survey questionnaire that asked both qualitative and quantitative questions on user preferences and attitudes towards EVs. The survey which consisted of 22 questions took roughly 8 minutes to complete and was helpful in providing some context at a national and local scale.
The survey was strategically distributed online through a Facebook paid advertisement (National Scale) and following the approval from managers of charging stations, throughout the City of Cincinnati at specified charging sites including garages around the University of Cincinnati (Local Scale).
Readers are welcome to scan the code directly below and view the full list of questions that were asked.
• Codified research data was used to build user personas and identify user values & design principles.
• User values and design principles then helped to identify potential solutions.
• Potential solutions would be evaluated against both user values and design principles to determine appropriate design interventions
Primary research of sample EV users predominantly favored men and the following personas of current and future users was identified.
When looking to identify the greatest user needs a confluence of factors was considered. For one, the data from existing literature and primary research has shown that EVs at present, are not the most affordable of vehicles. This is somewhat expected with most new and innovative technology and supports findings from our surveys as most respondents were 65 and older. Furthermore, most respondents resided in suburban areas, where they likely had their own homes, thus making EV charging a relative non-issue when compared to those who might be reliant on public chargers. Their wealth has afforded them the ability to become pioneers/early adopters of this new technology, and while much of the data has suggested that current users face few to no problems with EVs and EV charging infrastructure, our focus should be geared towards “Future Users”. “Future Users” would include the next generation of EV owners, who in years to come, will likely be limited to the purchasing of EVs as they become both the predominant car in the market and significantly more affordable. They are likely to face very different problems when compared to “Current Users” as the lack of charging infrastructure could cause a bottleneck effect for those reliant on public charging stations. When looking at generational wealth, there is a vast wealth gap between baby boomers and millennials.
Codifying results from the research questionnaire has helped to identify the following user values as they relate to EV charging, ownership, and infrastructure:
1) Cost of ownership along with performance (fun) are important considerations for both current and future users.
2) Users enjoy independence from fossil fuels and are not subject to frequent fluctuations in kilowatt prices.
3) Ease of ownership, including access to charging solutions, and low maintenance are desirable features in existing EVs
4) Users are happy to make meaningful contributions towards climate change and the environment
5) Users enjoy having the ability to charge their EVs at their own homes and on their own convenience
6) Users seek greater reliability in technology and infrastructure when planning trips over longer distances
In identifying the user values mentioned above the research was able to come up with the following design principles:
1) Develop infrastructure solutions that provide a similar or better level of convenience when compared to refueling stations today
2) Identify ways in which multiple charging solutions might exist simultaneously
3) Identify infrastructure solutions that build greater trust in EVs when travelling greater distances
4) Identify existing conventions in ICE powered vehicles and their potential to influence future designs for charging infrastructure.
5) Consider worst case scenarios (loss of battery power, lack of access to public charging points, charging station abuse, etc.), and interventions that could meet the demand for battery charging in unfavorable conditions.
6) Identify innovations beyond EVs that might impact the future of mobility and transportation design.
The following potential solutions were broken down into short-term, mid-term, long-term, and longer-term solutions. They would later be evaluated against our user values & design principles.
Short-Term (3-5 Years)
1 - Future Fast Charging Stations
GIS identifies the placement of future charging stations. New charging cable technology currently under development by Ford and Purdue University will reduce charging times to under 5 minutes! A toll tag sticker in the vehicle automatically debits user accounts.
2 - Bi-Directional EV-EV Charging
A solution for emergency situations similar to jumper cables. A bi-directional cable could allow one EV to charge another, allowing for users to draw power from other vehicles when publicly available charging infrastructure becomes a non-option.
Mid-Term (5-10 Years)
3 - Curbside EVSE
70% of American homes have curbside parking only. This solution targets high density residential areas, and curbside EVSEwould be phased in gradually with time and demand, and be supported by multiple charging interventions.
4 - Battery Reserve Components Swapping
A smaller component of the overall battery of an EV. This component would be standard in every EV and contain a reserve amount of charge that could be replaced and swapped by any other reserve battery component.
Long-Term (10-15 Years)
5 - Gas Station Phasing
As more EVs make their way onto American roads gas stations will likely need to adjust their business model to accommodate for the increased number of vehicles in need of charging. Gas stations pumps will be gradually phased out based on the growth and demand for charging infrastructure.
6 - Induction Charging Lanes
With development of induction charging technologies it is likely we will see vast stretches of road being built to accommodate for induction charging lanes. EV users would pay a flat tax, similar to a road tax, for the ability to use said charging lanes that would be standardized in the nation.
Long-Term (15 + Years)
7 - AI & Autonomous Charging
EV infrastructure and futuristic transportation and mobility design can consider technology existing in today’s Roomba Vacuums. The ability of Roomba’s to dock and charge themselves, could give future EV owners the chance to never worry about charging their car, and simultaneously hail their vehicle as easily as calling an Uber.
Developing the nation’s electrical vehicle charging infrastructure is not without its challenges. Although the adoption rate across the US varies greatly from state to state, it is clear, that EVs are gearing up towards becoming the world’s most predominant vehicle. While early adopters, have given us a basic understanding of the current state of EV ownership, including its benefits and existing challenges, it remains largely unclear as to how the development of that infrastructure is likely to take place. As adoption rates start to grow exponentially, existing concerns will shift from our current issues, including range anxiety and charging speed, towards a much broader concern for how all these vehicles will be charged. The impending bottleneck of EVs overwhelming charging points suggests that supportive infrastructure be developed and in place in order to meet future demand.
The research conducted in this study, utilized and validated an approach that usesGeographic Information Systems (GIS) to identify the optimal location of future charging stations. And although the approach focused on the City of Cincinnati, the methodology can be applied to any city and/or state throughout the nation that meets similar qualifiers. This ultimately could be seen as a template within a much larger framework for the development of EV infrastructure. The research largely considered the 70% of American homes that are reliant on curbside parking, and the future users that are likely to be impacted by a lack of sufficient charging options. Areas that were considered included high density residential neighborhoods with poor access to public transit. The research also looked at the existing concentration of EVSE, population density and income per capita by block group, and the annual average daily traffic of major arterials running throughout the City. The research then identified four sites to be considered for further study. Those sites include Westside, Northside, Hyde Park/Oakley, and Mount Washington.
It’s clear that with time, and greater adoption, that user preferences will likely determine what solution(s) become standardized. And while many different technologies are currently in development to meet the challenges and current limitations of EV charging, it is likely that multiple charging solutions will be utilized in tandem to meet the needs and support future EV ownership.
Further research and improved strength of this thesis could look at a number of different factors. With an expansion of the literature review section of this thesis, new research might also consider the following:
1) Financial feasibility, including installation costs, and policy surrounding EV Infrastructure.
2) Looking at more progressive cities and/or countries and the interventions they have developed to support EVs in their respective areas.
3) With regards to our GIS case studies outlined in section 4.2, research could consider a number of various other methodologies for the evaluation of potentially new and/or existing EVSE charging sites. When applied to the specific results of our GIS case study defined in this thesis, research could consider entirely different data sets, data preprocessing and spatial analysis procedures, as well as different sets of weights for the weighted overlay analysis. Continued analysis of the data would likely lead to greater insights, and build necessary support for future planners, urban designers, etc. to effectively act upon.
4) With regards to section 4.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY and the primary research, this thesis can only benefit from a greater number of respondents to our online research survey. While only37 respondents were “All Electric” users, this sample size of survey respondents is quite low. Despite EV ownership and EVs being relatively new to the world, further research should ideally aim for respondents in the thousands.In addition to the research survey, continued research might even consider entirely different questions, and gear them more specifically to user preferences and attitudes as they pertain to charging and charging infrastructure.
5) While this thesis was not able to secure interviews with subject matter experts, future research could consider the value that experts in various fields may provide. (e.g.) That said, it would be incredibly informative had the research been able to make contact with specific gas station providers and consider how they specifically see the future of charging infrastructure. Understanding how fossil fuel refueling stations might adjust their business model as more EVs become available would secure some valuable insights in how they specifically see the future of EV charging developing over the years to come. Other interviews with energy storage and battery technology companies could also be considered for greater support when identifying potential solutions.
In essence, it would be more beneficial to conduct the same research when the number of EVs is far greater than what it is today. Currently less than 1%of the registered cars in the country are EVs and much more is needed to help identify user preferences that will likely become standard and define the norms of EV charging and EV infrastructure. This may confirm or refute the conclusions drawn in this study.
