Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Forrest Graham < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:43 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 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,
Forrest Graham
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Kristin Roberts < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 1:00 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, 1 the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found: ** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week! ** 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,
Kristin Roberts
Pasadena 91104
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: John Lloyd < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 1:08 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 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 1 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, John Lloyd
John Lloyd
Sierra Madre, CA
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Erin Kanner< >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 1:08 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. 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,
Erin Kanner
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Rich R< >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 1:12 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 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 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,
Rich Ross
Pasadena CA 91106
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Elijah Davidson < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 1:21 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 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. 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 mites. 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,
Elijah Davidson
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Please include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Kerin Huber < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 1:34 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Please include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a long time Pasadena resident, I would like to encourage you to add ebikes to the EV incentive program.
I have had an ebike for 3 years now and it has completely changed how I do local errands. Almost all my shopping trips, trips to the gym, doctor visits, etc. are done using my ebike now. My husband and I both have ebikes and that has enabled us to get down to owning only one car for the two of us.
I have to believe that an incentive program for ebikes will have many benefits for Pasadena- fewer cars on the road, fewer emissions, and many happier, healthier people.
It is great to have an incentive for electric cars, but that program should have an incentive for ebikes too.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kerin Huber
Pasadena, 91107
1 ACTIVE
SGV
AOV) s any BOABO
V'ncorit Cfianc)
David Diaz
Rafael GwzEtez
VirBtteMtU'tirO,!'
S!is<;>i>di'.,ci Rariiiraz
Wesiep/ RfiijSimann
Chfis Tran
R ECEiVEDactiveSGV.org #ActiveSGV
2023 FEB 27 PH 2: 16
February 27, 2023
Pasadena Municipal Services Committee
175N. GarfieldAve.
Pasadena, CA 91101
Y 0.
RE: Electric Bike Incentive Programs | Agenda Item 2
As a community-based organization committed to realizing a more sustainable, equitable, and livable San Gabriel Valley, ActiveSGV strongly supports local efforts to reduce harmful pollution from the transportation sector. Over the past decade ActiveSGV has coordinated multiple programs to advance vehicle electrification in the San Gabriel Valley, and replace vehicle trips with walking, transit, and bicycling trips. These programs have included an incredibly popular electric bike rebate program for residents of the 1-10 ExpressLanes corridor in 2016-17, as well as the recently launched GoSGV (www.goSGV.com) long-term, e-bike share program. ^&wm^
;s
.-<-sVNB.S; .•s
:&.~-&
',: r\:~-^
y^l
%as?K
s'
•It
^5
•s ^"1- E-BikeI-*0
A Share
\^(
M
^•^.G.^S's^:.'-i .:SS5"WS^S.
At left: One of 12 GoSGV e-cargo (family) bikes - Urban Arrow On right: GoSGV family e-bike en route to a local school as part of a "bike bus" The GoSGV program was designed to offer people the opportunity to experience life with an electric bike. It was not designed to facilitate the purchase of an e-bike. Launched in partnership with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, the program only includes two types of electric bicycles, a standard commuter style bicycle and an electric cargo bicycle. The latter model (pictured above) has proved especially popular among San Gabriel Valley families interested in replacing the daily drive to school with a bike ride, hlowever as the program only has 12 of these bikes available for the entire San Gabriel Valley, there is already a 3 month waitlist to check one out, and we are only able to allow participants to do so for 2 months. Once this period is over program participants have few options to support the purchase of an electric cargo bike. In February 2023' the cost of a new cargo e-bike such as the Urban Arrow Family Cargo bike was $7,000-$8,000.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard funding may be used for a local e-bike incentive program, per California Air Resources Board (GARB) staff. In March 2021 ActiveSGV staff reached out to GARB directly regarding this question. Arpit Soni, then Manager of the Alternative Fuels Section / Low Carbon Fuels Standard (LCFS) for GARB, shared the following:
"To summarize, utilities have some degree of latitude in deciding what projects get funded by LCFS proceeds as long as they are spent on transportation electrification projects in California. An e-bike incentive program could be an acceptable project type but the final decision resides with the utility."
ActiveSGV's mission is to support a more sustainable, equitable, and livable San Gabriel Valley.
Jeff Seymour Center • 10900 Mulhall Street El Monte, CA 91731 activeSGV.org #ActiveSGV
1 After the posting of this meeting agenda, ActiveSGV followed up with GARB staff to confirm if LCFS funds were still eligible for such programs. As Arpit is no longer with GARB, we received a response from Jacob Englander, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Industrial Strategies Division - Transportation Fuels Branch, and lead staff person at the CA Air Resources Board for electricity provisions. Mr.
Englander shared that:
"Low-income, disadvantaged, or rural communities utilities can support programs to incentivize those types of vehicles without pre-approval from CAPB. Holdback credits could not be used for customers that did not fall under the above communities though there could be projects where there could be a larger funded program and LCFS credits support a portion of the funding specific to eligible communities but that would need to be approved by CARB.
In response to a question regarding if other CA utilities were currently utilizing LCFS funding to support local e-bike incentive programs, Mr. Englander noted:
"We have heard from some smaller public utilities in northern California, in calls with CARB, that they intended to use LCFS credit proceeds to support funding for ebike or other smaller electric mobility solutions. However, 2022 was the first year which required spending for holdback credits as required by 95483(c)(1)(A)6. of the LCFS regulation and because using credits for this type of program has pre-approval in the regulation, utilities are not required to pre-notify CARB about funding this type of program."
Mr. Englander can be reached at [email protected].
E-bike incentives are more equitable than electric car incentives. For low-income residents, a $1,000 City incentive for a new EV is not meaningful when the average new EV costs more than $40,000 (not counting the associated increase in monthly insurance premiums associated with ownership of a new, expensive vehicle). However, $1,000 is a significant incentive towards the purchase of a high-quality, $2,000 - $8,000 e-bike that also has negligible operating costs.
Electric bikes are incredibly efficient and clean means of transportation. An average electric-assist bicycle receives the equivalent of about 1000 miles per gallon. When a household buys an e-bike, their driving decreases by more than a third, per the latest research.
More electric bikes and other forms of smaller, e-mobility will make it easier for PWP to manage expected growth in electricity demand as well as meet the City's Climate goals.
One Volkswagon ID4 has an 82 kilowatt hour (kWh) battery with enough storage for 164 high quality e-bikes (500 watt hour (Wh) batteries). The transportation sector is the number one source of GhlG emissions in Pasadena. While vehicle electrification is a vital step to addressing this issue, it alone will not be sufficient to meet state climate goals, especially in Pasadena where almost 50% of the City's electric power is derived from burning coal. According to the CA Air Resources Board, we also need to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled ^/MT). Incentivizing the use of e-bikes, e-mopeds, e-golf carts and similar will help Pasadena reduce pollution, congestion, parking demand, and GHG emissions.
Pasadena's Departments of Transportation and Planning have spent more than a decade supporting the development of safer streets and more walkable, transit-oriented housing.
The City's downtown district is steadily growing, with more infill housing planned for the area.
Pasadena's first protected bike/rollway is under construction. Over 40% of trips in the City are 3 miles or less, a distance easily covered by e-bike or equivalent. Including e-bikes and other forms of smaller, more affordable, e-mobility into PWP's existing EV incentive program would support the realization of a more sustainable, equitable, and healthy Pasadena.
ActiveSGV's mission is to support a more sustainable, equitable, and livable San Gabriel Valley.
Jeff Seymour Center • 1 0900 Mulhall Street El Monte, CA 91731 activeSGV.org #ActiveSGV
Thank you for your time and consideration,
2 "T>^3^^
David Diaz, MP'H
Executive Director
Active San Gabriel Valley
ActiveSGV's mission is to support a more sustainable, equitable, and livable San Gabriel Valley.
Jeff Seymour Center • 1 0900 Mulhall Street El Monte, CA 91731 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC Agenda item #2, Survey of Electric Bike Incentive Programs From: Cy Parker< >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 2:12 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 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 trie.
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." [Source]
• A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. • The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e- bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. •The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
• The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
• PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV 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 mites/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. [Sourcel
2 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,
Cy Parker
Pasadena CA, 91103
3 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Plea from a Student: E-Bikes
From: Gupta, Tanmay (Tanmay) < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 3:20 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Jason <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Plea from a Student: E-Bikes
Dear Vice Mayor Williams and Committee Members,
As a student in Pasadena who cares about the environment and sustainability, I support the inclusion ofe-bikes in PWP's EV incentive program. The current program states that it enables residents to "reduce pollution, conserve energy, save money and reduce their carbon footprint." How is it possible that e-bikes are not included with these goals in mind? The City's current EV rebate program is lacking a key component that should have been included from the start: an e- bike incentive.
The exclusion ofe-bikes in the EV incentive program undermines Pasadena's own General Plan, specifically Principle 5 (that was established with community input) and states "Pasadena will be a city where people can circulate without cars." Furthermore, neglecting to include e-bikes in the EV incentive program is also in direct conflict with the Pasadena Dept. of Transportation's mission statement, which says it will "maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city." PWP should work to ensure that its program aligns with the City's stated goals and that it does not conflict with other Department's missions.
PWP's report includes a number of incorrect assumptions. The most egregious is that e-bikes don't typically replace car ownership and therefore they're not worth supporting. This argument completely misses the point, from a transportation and sustainability perspective. It's not about taking away car ownership and removing a transportation option: in fact, it's ALL about enabling people to make better choices about their transportation by offering them MORE options for any given trip.
In "transportation-speak," we look at Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not car ownership, to evaluate efficiency, and cities across the U.S. that offer an e-bike incentive are reporting a remarkable number of miles that e-bike participants are logging on their clean e-bikes instead of in their polluting cars. That translates to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, particle pollutants, and energy usage (of all types of energy), not to mention reduced wear and tear on roads.
And residents report they love riding their e-bikes instead of driving! It's a great ROI for cities that are serious about supporting sustainability - and spending less of their budget re-paving roads.
The PWP report also is missing key facts:
** Dollar for dollar, e-bike incentives eliminate more greenhouse gas than electric car rebates. ** "An e-bike subsidy is 2.9 times more effective per dollar at displacing gasoline miles than a ZEV [zero-emission vehicle] subsidy."
** A federal incentive is not expected to happen for at least 2 more years-if at all. ** The City's current EV program for cars is an add-on to current state and federal incentives, so why can't an e-bike incentive also be an add-on? There shouldn't be a double standard here. ** The state CARB program essentially requires low-income qualification to participate. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program. But given that an average e-car costs $48,000 and an average e-bike costs $2,000-$4,000, 1 the City is basically incentivizing only those people who can afford the more expensive transportation option. That's bad for equity.
** The state AQMD program requires that you give up a functioning car to get a voucher for an e-bike. No such requirement exists for the City's current EV program.
** PWP is also suggesting that Pasadena residents can rent e-bikes through the GoSGV program, but a rental program is NOT a replacement for the purchase of an e-bike. Pasadena should view GoSGV's program as a great gateway to purchasing an e-bike with the City's incentive.
Comparable e-bike rebate programs in other cities are highly effective. Denver, Colorado conducted a survey of people who used their highly successful e-bike incentive program, with dollar values very similar to the current Pasadena EV car incentives. Here is what they found:
** On average, e-bike users ride 26 miles a week on their e-bike, with 22 of those miles replacing car trips. ** Every week, the e-bikes in the Denver program are replacing on average over 100,000 vehicle miles. Every week! That's a reduction of 889 metric tons of C02 per week!
** 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 -—Original Message-—
From: G Templeton < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 3:44 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 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,
G. Templeton
Pasadena, CA
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: Debb Tannenbaum < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 5:08 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 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 mites 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: Bin Lee < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 5:13 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,
I live in Northwest Pasadena, and I use my e-bike and Metro as my main form of commuting around the city. I don't own a car. My e-bike is my lifeblood to work, groceries, shopping, medical appointments, the L Line stations.
Like most of my neighbors, I can afford a $2,000-$3,000 e-bike (especially with a $1000 incentive), but can't afford a $50k electric car. I can also afford spending $200-300 annually in service and parts, but not thousands of dollars in car service, car insurance, and car depreciation each year.
Imagine all the other Pasadenans like me who could really use a more affordable and sustainable transportation option than the status quo.
I ask the Municipal Services Committee to reject PWP's recommendation. Instead I urge the City Council that e-bikes be added to the City's EV incentive program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bin Lee
District 1 resident and homeowner
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program -—Original Message-—
From: Lambda Moses < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 5:23 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. 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,
Lambda, 91101
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: Include e-bikes in Pasadena's EV incentive program From: Cameron Mairs < >
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 5:25 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 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 areserious 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,
Cameron Mairs
2