News
Stop worrying about Tesla Supercharger congestion, it will be alright
If you’ve ever heard the phrase “a solution looking for a problem” then you’ll completely understand what I’m about to say. While I’m at it with catchphrases, Tesla seems to be a living, breathing double-edged sword. When it comes to giving us details, they are “damned if they do, damned if they don’t.”
By now, we all know the Model 3 is going to be huge. We also know that Model S and X vehicles with Supercharging enabled can enjoy “free long distance travel,” which we understand to mean “free for life.” The not so subtle elephant in the room is that free could lead to abuse, which could lead to lines and waiting for Supercharger use. I’ve already discussed what I think is step 1, which is educating folks on some Supercharging best practices they can do to be mindful of our shared asset. I’ve also discussed things Tesla themselves could do to alleviate potential congestion at Supercharger locations.
Here’s my disclaimer: This is a solution looking for a problem! Model 3 is more than a year away and despite what you may hear, MOST superchargers have one or more stalls available MOST of the time. Long waits and lines only plague select locations, and even then, only occur on very few occasions. While I’m no record-holding Supercharger pro I’ve only ever seen an 8-stall location full once. It was Hamilton, NJ and it was before the addition of two Superchargers on the nearby New Jersey Turnpike. I’ve also only ever known of one location to be constantly busy. It was the Newark, DE location, which has recently been upgraded from 4 to 12 stalls. So again, I don’t think this is a problem right now. I don’t even think it will be much a problem when Model 3 hits the streets. Tesla builds new chargers all the time and has committed to both distance and density. They know, more than anyone, which locations are busy and which aren’t. I trust they will plan accordingly.
You will be OK
But since folks love to debate every word – or lack thereof – that Tesla says, let’s have at it. Let’s pretend that the big bad wolf will come to the charger and blow it down just because it’s free and unrestricted once you incur an up-front cost. Let’s further pretend that Tesla considers the idea of a pay per use model of charging. I’ll repeat this later but for the record, I don’t think they’ll do anything like this. Not now, not ever.
- Pay Per Use – kWh. This is a common and seemingly simple idea. You don’t need $2,000 worth of electricity, you only need a few bucks worth a few times a year. You don’t want to pay up front for all the phantom local moochers that you suspect will abuse an unrestricted system. The cars are smart, they can tell how much you’ve used per charging session so it appears they can charge you for it on the basis of that. Maybe you don’t even care if there is a huge markup on the electricity. It’s a win for everyone in that case, because it’s still cheaper than gas. Even if it wasn’t, it’s worth it to take a car as great as a Tesla on a road trip. Plus almost all of your charging is done at home where it’s way cheaper than gas. Fine, points taken. Except, there’s a “but.” But selling electricity is complicated. The United States is complicated! Here, we have 50 states and plenty of lines between them. They get to set their own laws and rules and tax rates. Cities and towns do too. If you thought that gaining approval to build a supercharger was a challenge, imagine trying to become an energy supplier in every municipality as well. This alone is enough to rule out the idea of charging per kWh. Add that in with having to handle point of sale transactions and you’ve completely changed how Tesla must operate. It already takes quite a bit of effort to build out this network, and there is no reason to make it harder. (Let’s pretend that’s why no other automakers have done it.)
Tesla builds new chargers all the time and has committed to both distance and density
- Pay Per Use – Time. There’s a pretty clear precedent for selling time at almost any major municipality on earth: paid parking. In theory, it would result in very few people charging past 90%; that point where your electrons slow drastically and you’d get a lot less bang for your buck. This speaks perfectly to the concept of battling lines with quick turnover. Except, nope. Tesla, in my opinion, won’t be willing or interested in the hassle of point of sale purchases. They’d have to figure out an appropriate price, which I imagine would vary by location. They’d have to employ people to figure out the tax rules and rates for each country, state and city. They’ve have to work with various credit card companies and be able to accept multiple forms of payment. They may even need to carry certain types of liability insurance for providing paid parking. Tesla is in the business of advancing sustainable transport by, primarily, making compelling electric vehicles. Anything else is just noise and takes away brainpower from doing other great things.
- Pay Per Use – Day. Tesla is amazing and has done plenty of things no other company has done before. They continue to surprise us and have stayed alive despite many assumptions that they’d never make it this far. So I’ll humor you, dear reader, and assume they are willing and able to take on the challenges of point of sales purchases. Game on! Rather than selling time or electricity, Tesla can simply sell access to software. Most Teslas on the road, and all that will soon be on the road, will have the hardware required for supercharging. They can undoubtedly figure out how to program an option in your touchscreen (or simpler still, an automated telephone line) that allows you to opt into supercharging access for a day, at a price. They’ve already given away free trials of Autopilot, so we already know opening up software for a limited time is possible. Shoot, maybe they can even get some PR out of it. “Free supercharging on your birthday!” or “Merry Christmas, here’s a free day!” These things sound great, but I still have an objection. Tesla needs money to build more chargers. End of story.
This isn’t about paying for what you use, this is about paying for the building of a network. There will always be owners who use far less electricity from Superchargers than their initial cost would have bought in kilowatt hours. There will also always be some owners who use more. Where I live, property taxes are required whether you send kids to public school or not. We’re all paying for a system.
Which is why – and here’s my promised repeat – I don’t think Tesla will ever adopt a pay per use model for Supercharging. They’ll continue their commitment to density and distance, they’ll continue to monitor busy locations and they’ll continue to keep their eye on the prize. Because remember, the hopefully inevitable adoption of sustainable transport means someone, somewhere, will start building a whole lot more electric car charging stations.
Feature photo of the Tesla Supercharger in Antwerp-Aartselaar, Belgium courtesy of ldubois_BE
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
