Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: Rachael Faught < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 10:22 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a resident of Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion ofe-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion of e-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. 1 ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Furthermore, the ultimate goal should be to REDUCE vehicles and support public transportation. Public transportation has been a proven effective method to reducing carbon emissions as well supporting the WHOLE community, not just those who can afford a vehicle in the first place. I am speaking as a resident who has never been able to drive due to disability and finances. Do people like myself not count? Pasadena has always been a shining beacon of exemplary community in the pub transit world, despite Metro's efforts to erase bus lines. Please do let Pasadena become a public transit desert.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
RachaelFaught
Sent from my microscopic place in a vast, transcendent universe. 2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: Sarah Wolf <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 10:26 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a resident of Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion ofe-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion ofe-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Mites Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. 1 ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sarah Wolf
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 11:01 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a resident of Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion ofe-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion ofe-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, 1 the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** tncome-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For tow-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sent from Mail for Windows
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: 2/28 MSC Meeting Comment on Item 2
-—Original Message-—
From: SkylarGering< >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 11:32 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Subject: 2/28 MSC Meeting Comment on Item 2
To the MSC,
I would like to express my support for the creation of an e-bike subsidy program. And program like this would help provide equitable access to carbon-free energy to those in our community.
I strongly urge you to support this initiative.
Thank you,
SkylarGering
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: 2023 02 28 Municipal Services Meeting
From: Kalyo
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 11:37 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Subject: 2023 02 28 Municipal Services Meeting
Greetings,
I do not agree with the Staff recommendation that the City not approve a rebate program for e-bikes.
It creates a disconnect between the Pasadena's Guiding Principles of the Pasadena General Plan:
Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars.
Proposing that the City advertise the Active SGV e-bike rental program is a nice gesture, however a City program would have much more capacity than the non-profit in making rapid gains toward Principal 5 of the General Plan.
In addition, a City program could fill an important gap: state programs require income qualifications or the turning in or an old car.
And Pasadena would not be alone in doing this. An increasing number of cities across the U.S. are implementing their own e-bike incentive programs, mainly because state and federal programs are non- existent or are expected to take a long time to get implemented.
Please consider the future that we all want for Pasadena and do not accept the Staff recommendation.
Thank you,
Kaly Trezos
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: Ronald Smith < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 12:33 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Ron Smith here. A resident on San Pasqual between Caltech and our lovely Lake Avenue.
Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a resident of Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion of e-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion of e-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of alt types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainabitity - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
1 ** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22 miles/week).
** 71%of survey respondents are usingtheir gas car less often. ** 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates. ** For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
** When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third.
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
A most sincere thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Ronald CV Smith
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members From: Sean Boyd < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 1:41 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members Dear Vice Mayor Williams and MSC
It has come to my attention that there will be a survey on an electric bicycle incentive for Pasadena residents today. I find it very important to view this incentive in a positive light. As a bicycle store manager of Trek Bicycles in Pasadena and an activist for an active community, I have many accounts of our beloved Pasadena residents taking e-bikes to the next level of transportation. My purpose is not to sway the MSC one way or another, but to give a short account of e-bikes in Pasadena. In my experience, people who own e-bikes are using their car less and less. When they need to use their vehicle, of course, they will use it - especially as of late during rainy or snowy days. Veteran riders convey that their children or significant others have become interested in the e-bike and use it for various trips, sometimes with the whole family hinting that they need another one to support the in-house demand.
The proof is in the community! Instances in which a rider will choose to use an e-bike over a car because it is more convenient for them and most times a lot more fun and refreshing. Consider that Pasadena can become better when we make e-bikes more accessible to the community. Pasadena families look toward you for support on passing more incentives for more bikes on the streets of Pasadena.
Thank you for your time,
Sean Boyd
Trek Bicycles Pasadena 91105
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC meeting 2/28/23 Agenda #2
From: Kathy Berlin < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 2:00 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Subject: MSC meeting 2/28/23 Agenda #2
[A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Members of the Municipal Services Committee,
I write to urge you to support rebates for electric bikes. They will certainly help to reduce Pasadena's GHG emissions. They are one easy way to reduce vehicle miles travelled by automobiles. Rebates will encourage residents to purchase and use electric bikes. This will be a direct action to address the Climate Emergency.
I also urge you to direct the staff to research the issue of rebates for electric bikes now so you will have the information you need to make an informed decision on this matter. Pushing the necessary research onto the research needed for the Climate Action Plan is another way Pasadena is just kicking the can down the road without taking real action now.
Let's ACT on the Climate Emergency Resolution and do what is necessary NOW.
Thank you,
Kathy Berlin
Pasadena resident
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Comment on 2/28 MSC Meeting; Agenda Item #2 -—Original Message-—
From: James Mason < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 2:01 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on 2/28 MSC Meeting; Agenda Item #2
I have recently started renting an E-bike through the GoSGV bike share program. I have found it to be a wonderful way to get around town, and have started commuting to work by bicycle. I would not have experienced this if not for the GoSGV program. However, for long term use purchasing my own E-bike would make much greater sense. I could purchase a bike that better suits my specific needs, and that is more commuter friendly.
I disagree with Pasadena Water and Power's finding, and would like the Municipal Services Committee to implement an E-bike incentive program. There are many good reasons for this that PWP failed to consider.
E-bikes are better for the climate than electric cars. You can produce hundreds of E-bike batteries instead of producing a single electric car battery.
E-Bikes require significantly less electricity to charge, reducing the strain on the electric grid compared to charging an electric car.
E-bikes are more equitable that electric vehicles. EVs are extremely expensive to own considering high purchase, maintenance, insurance, and parking costs.
E-bikes cause significantly less damage to roads than EVs, which are even heavier than a traditional automobile. This means lower maintenance costs.
Personally, I don't see myself getting rid of my gas car anytime soon. But an E-bike gives me an alternative means of transportation that is better for my health, our community, and the earth. Every trip I take with my bike is one less trip taken by a car.
Thank you for your consideration,
James Mason
Pasadena
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC Agenda Item #2
From: Jazmin Joyce < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 2:04 PM
To: Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: MSC Agenda Item #2
Dear Vice Mayor and Committee Members,
My name is Jazmin Joyce. I am a long time resident of Pasadena (28 years).
I care about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion of e-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind?
The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e-bike incentive.
The exclusion of e-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report: includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are loaaina on their clean e-bikes instead of in their pollutinc? cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads. And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re- paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. •
1 "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero- emission vehicle] subsidy." [Source]
A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all.
The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an
add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here.
The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV
program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's
current EV program.
PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV Drogram,
but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips.
Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles.
Every
week\
That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
2 Income-qualified residents ride their e-bikes almost 50% more miles than standard rebate recipients (32 miles/week vs. 22
miles/week).
71% of survey respondents are using their gas car less often. 96% of respondents said the voucher made the difference when deciding to buy their e-bike.
E-bike rebates are more effective and equitable than EV rebates.
For low-income residents, $1,000 won't enable them to buy a $48,000 electric car, but it WOULD enable them to buy a $2,000-$4,000 e-bike.
•
When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third. [Sou reel
In light of all these facts, I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation and to recommend to the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jazmin Joyce
91103
3