Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From:ThanosT< >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:25 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. ** 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 1 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 mites 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,
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Elina Sendonaris < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:28 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 alt. ** 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 CARS program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for 1 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 AQ.MD 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,
Elina Sendonaris
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From:
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:28 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.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bonnie James
District 5 resident
Sent from my iPhone
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: cheryl auger < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:35 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <THampton@cityofpasadena,net>; 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 and the climate crisis, 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, e-bikes are more affordable and can immediately provide emission free energy to a larger majority of people. And we need major reductions in our emissions now.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Auger
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: e-bikes in pasadena
From:
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:35 AM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Subject: e-bikes in pasadena
Dear Mr. Stevenson,
My family purchased an ebike roughly a year ago, out of a desire to interact more with our environment, reduce the number of vehicles on the road, and get a little exercise. We bought a model that could carry two adults and we take it to local meetings and on grocery runs. We had no idea how much we would actually use it when we bought it, but we have been thrilled with it. We find it a thoroughly enjoyable way to get from home to pretty much anywhere in Pasadena. Because parking is not an issue, we find ourselves opting to shop more locally than we might have and thus keep our spending dollars in Pasadena. Recently we found ourselves in Old Pasadena in search of a gift and then realized the Paseo was just an easy distance away to continue shopping, for some reason a practicality we'd overlook while on foot and in car. I think ebikes are a brilliant option for most people most of the time and Pasadena is laid out to make them an easy choice. I encourage whatever incentives you can offer to get more people on them more of the time, whether through purchasing incentives, rebates, or bike share programs.
Best,
Monica Oiler
www.olterpeiic.com
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Christy Moision < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:42 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. 1 ** 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 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,
Christy Moision
District 7
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Topher Mathers < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:50 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 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 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. 1 ** The state CARS 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,
The Mathers family
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Jessica Ferree < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:55 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 mites 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 1 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,
Jessica Ferree
Pasadena,CA91104
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Tom Brady < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 10:01 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 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. ** 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 1 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 programrequires 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.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom Brady
Pasadena, CA 91105
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Carmen Delaney < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 10:04 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 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 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. 1 ** 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,
-Carmen Delaney
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Christine Patugan < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 10:38 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 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 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 1 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,
Christine Patugan
Pasadena,CA91106
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: David Pritchard < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 11:02 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 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 tacking 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-quatified 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,
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Bert Newton < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 11:19 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 1 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,
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: BeckyHartung
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 11:22 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, legislative advocate for Streets for All, and bike user 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." The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e-bike incentive.
EV car rebates will not give low to middle income households enough financial assistance to be able to afford an EV vehicle. My husband and I have a household income of
$120,000/annually but haven't been able to justify purchasing an expensive EV. For low income residents, this initiative falls short. A rebate for e-bikes would allow low/middle households a chance to purchase a sustainable transportation option. One day, my husband and I hope to replace our two gas vehicles to one EV vehicle and two e- bikes to move around the city. An initiative that includes both options could one day help us reach our personal transportation goals.
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,
Becky Hartung
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: Sam Sh<>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 11:50 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 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 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. 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,
Sam Shammas
Pasadena Resident
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: Anthony Ko < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 11:53 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. 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,
Anthony Ko
91106-District 7
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Mark Sanborn < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:10 PM
To: Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Stevenson, Garrett<[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[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 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 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, 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 1 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,
MarkSanborn
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Nikki van de Klundert < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:10 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 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 1 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,
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC Feb. 28th 2023 Agenda item #2, Survey of Electric Bike Incentive Programs From: Gene Ruane <>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:20 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Cc: Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]> Subject: MSC Feb. 28th 2023 Agenda item #2, Survey of Electric Bike Incentive Programs Subject: MSC Feb. 28th, 2023 Agenda item #2, Survey of Electric Bike Incentive Programs 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 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 1 of miles that e-bike partjcjnants are logciing on their clean e-bikes instead of in their pollutina 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." [Sou reel
•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 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 iow-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.
2 'When a household buys an e-bike, their driving (as measured by vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) decreases by more than a third. [Source]
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,
Eugene B. Ruane
Pasadena, CA91107
3 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC Agenda item #2, Survey of Electric Bike Incentive Programs From: Christopher Yeh < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:28 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Cc: Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]> Subject: MSC Agenda item #2, Survey of Electric Bike Incentive Programs 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." [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. 1 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/weekvs. 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,
Christopher Yeh
concerned resident of Pasadena
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: B Connors < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:36 PM
To: Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[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 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 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, 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 1 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 alt 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,
Brighid
Brighid Connors
brighidconnors.com
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message—-
From: Peter Jacobsen < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:38 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 Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
We spend both too much energy getting around and too little energy getting around.
E-bikes address both problems. E-bikes use 1% of the energy of an EV, and the user expends their own energy. Healthy for Pasadena and healthy for the citizens.
PeterJacobsen
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 all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads. 1 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, 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-quatified 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,
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: Richard Spradling < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:40 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 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 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."
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 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,
RickSpradling
(Sent from my iPad)
2