AlmostTrick

Sounds dubious to me, can you supply a citation?

joesch

Yes.
Bill should be amended to credit all greener and more heathy commuting like any biking, walking, running.
Should require proof of commuting records.
Many organizations already credit car/van poolers.
This would reward commuters needing new bikes or extra income for saving gas.

Koyote

Actually, if we're measuring the money supply as M1, more than 1 out of every 3 dollars today didn't exist on March 1st of this year. If we're using the M2 measure, it is slightly less than 1 in 4.

If we split the difference, I'd say that Bill is about right.

AlmostTrick

Thanks, Koyote. I learned something today.

Koyote

You're welcome.

In case you are interested, and never had the opportunity to take a course in macroeconomics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

skenry

Heck I just bought a new Alan frameset with Dogecoin money that didn't exist 3 weeks ago.
I'll agree with you on the Taycan though, if you are buying a Porsche it's almost a sin to buy one without a real engine, just for the sound.

sloppy12

That started out at 10K for a new e car. its just kept dropping.

Motorcycles had a section in that rebate as well, I think it was around 2500 max. I have quit following the rebates so I dont know what current status is.

Ogsarg

One of the sponsors, Jimmy Panetta, is my rep and I will definitely write him. I don't have a problem with incentivizing activities that improve the environment, etc. but I believe the benefit of this will be very minimal. If someone buys an e- mountain bike, who otherwise would not be riding in the mountains, that does the environment zero good. How many of these subsidized bikes will actually replace the use of a car? This looks more like it's intended to subsidize the ebike industry. Note: Specialized HQ is also represented by Mr. Panetta if I'm not mistaken.

The other thing I'll mention to Jimmy is how bout spending some money on bike infrastructure. Very few roads have decent shoulders to ride on around here and the ones that do are almost never swept so flats are a regular occurrence.

Much better ways to spend the money IMHO.

sloppy12

Yeah and if someone buys a e commuter bike and rides to work every day it does help.

burnthesheep

My thing is that sure, in the US it is an increasing thing. If they said "e-bikes get the money or nobody gets it", I can't say not to give it a shot. I just don't believe the existing infrastructure is at the usage level like it is in Europe for bike commuting.

It's still 50/50 a toy.

But, fewer cars, whatever. Give it a shot. Maybe demand on the infrastructure will drive improvement there that benefits us all!

aplcr0331

I remember that meme, there's was some pretty good ones.

Go Ahead, It's Legal

billridesbikes

Thanks! I actually like M0 because it is the amount of the most ‘liquid’ money sloshing around. But I know some economists prefer the M2 number as better representation. The Federal Reserve shows M0 as +148% increase between Jan 2020 and Dec 2020 and has increased faster than M2. This isn’t counting the massive stimulus package approved in January or the one currently being considered, so even more dollars are being created out of thin air! Anyway, let’s use some free money for bike things.

WhyFi

I mean, this isn't far from the mark - some are acting like this is a zero sum game, but it's far from that. A little bill giving people a tax credit for 30% of their e-bike purchase wouldn't make a ripple in the bucket of the national budget.

Bald Paul

Hmm, I wonder how the government would define an eligible e-bike?
Would I be able to purchase one of these cheap e-bike conversion kits, tell them I installed it on my $6,000 road bike, and get my $1500 tax credit? (Shame it didn't work well, and I had to 'remove' it. Oh well....)

Troul 

I do not see it as a 0 sum game. It's a get it when it's made available game. A lot of the hands outs seem to keep flowing down the same polluted river. There are many crap rivers that the hand out can be dumped into, yet doesn't happen. If pointless spending is going to happen, at least choose different purposes. So far it's a broken record of spending.

Troul 

looks like its coming from an overseas market, so yea, probably meets the criteria.

Koyote

The proposals’s objective is to increase the use of bicycles in lieu of automobiles. Per dollar spent, a blanket subsidy for ebikes is probably not the best way to accomplish that goal.

Your rationalization is sort of like shrugging and then spending $2000 on an aero wheelset… When a $300 aero helmet would give the same advantage. (Not that I know whether that analogy is correct… But you get the idea.)

WhyFi

You keep talking about how it's a bad idea and how you've got ten better ideas, but you have yet to offer an alternative. I really don't have any further interest in what you've got to say. *shrug*

Koyote

You're not reading very carefully, then. You didn't see the posts about infrastructure? Okay, let me spell it out.

Since we're talking about federal money, let's go with grants to state and local governments for infrastructure, including (but not limited to) construction of bike lanes; creating better interfaces for cycle commuters who also use busses and trains (plenty of examples of this in some cities); more racks; more citi bikes (perhaps with free access for households that already qualify for other means-tested programs such as SNAP, or something else that can serve as a proxy for 'low-income'); tax incentives for employers to provide bike storage, showers, and health insurance breaks for employees who ride to work; free helmets and lights.

Is that enough?

I have no problem with using taxes and subsidies to incentivize people to behave in more socially-beneficial ways. But as an economist, I've spent a good chunk of my career studying the ways in which this can be done most effectively...And an across the board ebike incentive is likely NOT the most efficient way to get people out of their cars. That is pretty obvious to anyone who's actually read the data.

mstateglfr 

Regular bikes are much closer to zero-carbon transportation. They are also more affordable and more accessible than ebikes. Given the reasons listed in the article, a basic pedal it yourself bike is cleaner, cheaper, and more accessible than an ebike.

If people want ebikes for recreation, cool. If people want ebikes for transportation, cool. But lets not kid ourselves here- tere is 0 chance those bikes have a lower carbon effect than a typical manual pedal bike. Whether you account for energy and emissions from manufacture to end of life or you only account for energy and emissions from retail purchase to end of life, an ebike will require more energy and create more emissions.



Does this really say that emissions in the US would drop 11% if ebike use increased by 15%? I dont think it means to say that, but it sure looks like its saying that. That cant be right...right?

WhyFi

oh my, some substance. *golf clap*

So, would the ebike bill preclude these other measures? I don't see that. How do you know efficient an ebike incentive would be? You say that it's pretty obvious to anyone who's read the data, yet you offered an example of a sporty $13k ebike when the bill only applies to bicycles $8k and under - are you sure that you read the data? How much are they projecting in tax incentives through this and how much is that relative to the infrastructure build out on the scale that you're that you're talking about? I'm thinking it's chump change, but show me the data that you've read. You also voiced misgivings about who would take advantage of the incentive, yet you ignored the fact that there would be a mandatory IRS report after two years so that incentives could be adjusted for equity among tax brackets.

Do I think that the bill is perfect? Of course not - that's silly. But two steps forward and one step back is still a step ahead of where we are and I've seen enough non-action because something isn't perfect.

WhyFi

They might be more financially accessible, but don't forget that about a third of the country is obese and others have various physical limitations, so regular bikes may not be more physically accessible.

They're targeting cars. The energy required to move a person and 40 lbs of ebike is much less than moving a person and 4,000 lbs of SUV.

No, they're not saying that. They're talking about an increase in mode share, the percentage of people that get to where they're going by that method of transportation. That's not an increase of 15% over the number of current ebike users; it's probably an order of magnitude increase or more over current ebike use.

Koyote

You're either taking part in a conversation without reading all of the posts, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

See post #23, above. If you want me to cite some of the studies, I guess I can do that. But you could also try to find something on your own.

btw, you have not responded substantively to a single thing I've written. I'm not arguing that this policy would not get anyone out of a car; I'm arguing that the same money could be used differently to better achieve the policy's goal. And the data supports that: cost is not the most significant factor in preventing people from bike commuting, according to the data in multiple studies. Infrastructure is the biggie.

WhyFi

That's because you haven't posted much of substance to refute - don't blame me.

But yeah - cite the studies. I understand that infrastructure is a problem with pedal bikes, particularly with riders that can't maintain a decent speed relative to vehicular traffic (I've been there in spring after particularly fat winters), but I also know that the infrastructure is less problematic when you can hold a decent relative speed, so said studies had better factor the use ebikes on the current infrastructure. I've also already addressed the chicken/egg problem with cycling infrastructure pushback, and this was in two of the most bike-friendly metro areas in the US. Who's being obtuse and/or not reading?

And again, you're playing an either/or, zero sum game. It's not that. Last year, there were ~500,000 ebikes sold. What's a fair average price - $2k? 30% of that is $300MM. How much infrastructure does that get you? Not much, so are we really stealing from the starving mouth of infrastructure? I don't think so.

Look, this bill is supported by a pretty broad coalition and they have their studies, too -

By all means - refute away.

mstateglfr 

Yes, I understand obesity exists in the US. I think its actually over 40% of adults are obese and something like over 70% are overweight. <--could misremember these.
I understand regular bikes may be more physically accessible to some, but to me, that doesnt mean regular bikes should be excluded. If the goal is to reduce vehicle use, then why limit the incentive to one specific type of bike? It especially doesnt make sense when the bike type that is included is going to be the least 'green'. I mean really, how does that make sense when the goal is lower emissions and smaller carbon footprint?
Include regular bikes AND ebikes. That would give greater access to those who cant financially swing an ebike even with the tax credit, but can afford a regular bike. Wouldnt greater access and less emissions be good?

My issue with this proposed bill isnt that ebikes are included, its that ebikes are all thats included. Heck, all the trendy forms of transportation could be included- scooter, bike, ebike, that skateboard ball thing, etc. They are all recreational and all potentially modes of transportation that reduce emissions compared to driving gas vehicles.


Yes, I understand they are targeting cars and compared to gas cars, an ebike is really low emission. Compared to a car, a regular bike is even lower emission. Therefore, why exclude it?


Right, they werent saying what they said. The article says a 15% increase in ebike mode share(so 15% increase over what it is) results in an 11% reduction in carbon emissions.
What they should have said is- If ebike use as a mode of transportation increases to 15% of all transportation, then there will be an 11% reduction in carbon emissions.



Clearly, I disliked the article. Which sucks because I like the general ideas of the article. Also, PFB sucks if they arent pushing for regular bikes to be included. I mean, its in their name- bikes. Support bikes as a mode of transportation and not just a certain section of bikes.