My counter to this is then if there are people who want to own an EV but who do not have the ability to have a charging station at their home or work, then perhaps they should not consider an EV as a vehicle choice.
It's going to be difficult to get EV adoption off the early adopter end of the S-curve without consideration for those who do not have complete control over their living and work environments. While of course it may not be a good decision at this point in time for some folks in this situation, it is an issue that needs to be addressed in the longer term.
The combination of longer range EVs and DCFC charging opens up the possibility of functioning in this scenario. The fact is that it comes as close to the gas station model as you will get, where someone does not refill where they park, and refill quickly at some non-home, non-work centralized place.
But simply hand waving such drivers off as being non feasible will only hamper a more widespread, mainstream adoption of EVs.
The arguments one can read all over the internet as advocating to convert from ICE to EV is the convenience of charging at home. I've been in countless discussions with EV advocates that claim one of the deciding factors is not having to go to the dirty gas station and spend the 20 minutes (their exaggeration) it takes to refuel an ICE. I fill up my ICE at least 3 times a week and it takes 6 minutes per refuel (I've timed it - and that's with me logging the fuel quantity, cost, and mileage).
DCFC at best takes 30 minutes to gain 90 miles of range (per ChargePoint.com), I'd say that is hardly an acceptable (only available) working refueling methodology for 95% of vehicle owners. 30 minutes is assuming one can just pull up to a DCFC station and plug in. If one has to wait 15 - 30 minutes to just plug in and then wait another 30 minutes to get just 90 miles of additional range, and DCFC was their ONLY refueling option, they's be giving back their Bolt right quick.
It is certainly one of the reasons. And it is best to simply charge where the car is going to be parked anyway. However, it's important to realize that it isn't the singular circumstance for all potential adopters.
As for the time, it really isn't necessarily as important in normal use if the activity is coupled with something the driver was going to do anyway. While home and work are clearly the #1
parking situations, people do shop, or go to movies, or make other visits. If it's possible to charge while doing those, then the time isn't as crucial an impact. But accessibility is the crucial impact.
As some of you know I considered buying a Bolt, but settled on a 2014 Fiat 500e. It's the classic definition of a low range, slow charging EV. And yes, The vast majority of my charging is done at home. However, last weekend I needed to take a run to get some parts. While I probably could have made it out and back in a single charge, it just so happened there was a charging station 2 blocks from my destination. So I parked, put the car on charge, and walked the two blocks to shop, and the two blocks back. In the 40 minutes I was gone, I recovered most of the charge that I used to drive up, and got back with no worries.
The points are that was possible only because of the accessibility of the charger. And that the time wasn't as crucial because the charging occured as a byproduct of another activity, not specifically for the act of charging.
The other issues you raise do need to be addressed. One in particular is realizing that in virtually every circumstance, that charging and parking need to be coupled together. Future charging stations need to be set up with more parking than the number of active charging cars, sufficient "hoses" so that all the cars that are parked have access to power, and enough intelligence to schedule the distribution of power so that each car/driver's needs are met. If you and I pull up to two slots served by the same charger and you are going to be there for 20 minutes but I'm going to be there for 2 hours, then the charger should give you all the power you can handle for the 20 minutes you are going to be parked. Also I shouldn't have to move my vehicle for the 2 hours I plan to be there. In short we need to rethink the model from "a charging spot that I need to move from." to "a parking spot where I can recharge."
The entire premise of EV ownership is that of full-charging the vehicle while it is not needed for transportation, either at home, work, or some dedicated private charging station. If Maven had to share its DCFC infrastructure with road-tripping Bolt owners at the inconvenience of the Maven customer (i.e. they have to wait to charge their Bolt), then the business case to operate a company such as Maven would soon fall apart.
It's not the entire premise of EV ownership, though a significant one. As advocates we have to understand and promote that there is no single silver bullet that solves every potential EV purchasers problems. Nor that situations outside the mainstream should simply be dismissed.
My specific proposal was designed to not inconvenience Maven customers. Given enough parking slots and charge cables, there is going to be excess power available at these locations. The walled garden will guarantee Maven users their parking spots, and the priority charging will guarantee them maximum power. Public users of the chargers will have access to the excess power. And they will have to pay for that access as a normal EVGo customer.
The point is that there is going to already have to be a significant electrical infrastructure upgrade to support the Maven stations anyway. Having already made that investment, what's the point of then closing off access to the public? Now that I think about it, some would probably even be willing to rent a Maven Bolt from the charging depot for an hour or two while their own car is charging.