Originally Posted by
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.
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.