Proximity to electric vehicle charging stations positively impacts home values

 – A new study finds that proximity to electric vehicle charging stations (EVCSs) can raise property values depending on where homes are situated. The study, conducted by a team of researchers from the University of Rhode Island, the University of Maryland College Park, Princeton University and Cardiff University, was recently published in Nature Sustainability.

Relying on actual market prices of approximately 14 million housing transactions between 1993 and 2021 in the state of California, and combining that with EVCS data, researchers found the greatest effect on the value of homes located between 0.4 to 0.5 kilometers of EVCSs. Compared to those not in proximity to EVCSs, homes within 1 kilometer of EVCSs are valued approximately 3.3% higher (or $17,212). Homes located within 0.4 to 0.5 kilometers found the greatest impact, with a 5.8% increase in home value over homes not in proximity. Homes within 0.3 kilometers did not show a statistically significant impact to home value.  

“This research is really the first of its kind examining public attitudes toward this new type of energy infrastructure,” said Pengfei Liu, URI assistant professor of environmental and resource economics, and an author on the study. “Based on what we are seeing in terms of housing prices and what consumers are willing to pay as part of these transactions, we can infer that there is public support for EV charging stations. When you look at property values for those homes within similar proximity to a gas station – this is not the case.”

However, additional public charging stations are not without their drawbacks, says Lucy Qiu, associate professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland College Park, and one of the lead authors on the study. While this is still a relatively new area of research, the team conducted analyses of air quality and traffic flow. Results show the installation of charging stations increases annual traffic by 0.3% and peak month traffic by 0.5%.

“We also found reduced air pollution,” said Qiu, noting the analysis showed that air pollutant concentrations decreased by 1.3-2.2%. “This positive environmental impact could help explain why – despite increased traffic flows – we saw no statistically significant effect on the property values of homes within 0.3 kilometers of a charging station when we might otherwise have expected values to decline.”

With close to 20% of California residents living in multi-family housing, researchers recognize those residents may be more likely to pay a higher premium for public EVCSs vs. single-family homeowners with off-street parking. However, they add that public chargers may also be of benefit to single-family homeowners as an alternative when home chargers fail, when drivers need fast charging immediately or as a substitute due to faster charging capabilities.

Despite California being a leader in terms of electric vehicle sales, researchers believe the study results are an early indication of where the market will go.

“Our goal is to provide policymakers and potential investors with the information necessary to make an informed decision when it comes to this type of infrastructure,” said Qiu. “Traditionally, there has not been a strong incentive to invest in electric vehicle charging stations – but our research shows beyond providing positive benefits for the environment, there is also a positive impact on home values, providing a return for public and private investors.”

Given the growing popularity of electric vehicles, and the likelihood of more affordable models and a rising number of used vehicles coming on the market, charging infrastructure becomes increasingly important for low- and middle-income communities.

“We’ve learned a great deal that could be helpful in terms of the economic and policy implications of charging stations and where they are located,” Liu added. “Previously charging stations were built primarily where there was high demand while ignoring the economic side effects. Our research finds, on average, there is a positive economic effect – but the effect varies depending on exact location and demographics. Our hope is that the research provides some guidance and is instructive for policy makers when it comes to locating charging stations and maximizing external economic benefits.”

---

JOURNAL

Nature Sustainability

DOI

10.1038/s41893-022-01058-5 

National Offshore Wind Research and Development Consortium Announces U.S. Offshore Wind Supply Chain Road Map

Today, the National Offshore Wind Research and Development Consortium (NOWRDC) released a report identifying how the United States can develop a robust and equitable domestic supply chain required to achieve the national offshore wind target of 30 gigawatts (GW) by 2030. 

This report describes how the United States could develop a fully domestic offshore wind energy supply chain. It discusses barriers that could prevent or delay supply chain expansion and offers potential solutions that could help overcome these challenges. The report highlights major considerations for developing resilient, sustainable, and equitable manufacturing capabilities. Finally, it estimates the number of required major component manufacturing facilities, ports, and vessels that would need to be developed by 2030 under a domestic supply chain scenario that supports an annual deployment of 4-6 GW per year. This scenario also guides discussion regarding the investment, development time, and workforce growth that could be required to develop a domestic offshore wind supply chain. 

This project is a partnership between the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Business Network for Offshore Wind, DNV, the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA), the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).  

“The opportunity to create a resilient and equitable domestic supply chain is one of the most exciting aspects of our offshore wind goals,” said Matt Shields, Senior Offshore Wind Analyst at NREL. “This supply chain would increase our chances of meeting the 30 GW by 2030 target, create a huge number of jobs and economic benefits, and most importantly, position the sector for sustainable growth beyond 2030. This report identifies critical actions that we need to take as an industry to develop the supply chain quickly, but also strategically and equitably.”   

“Developing our nation’s vast offshore wind resources will provide reliable clean energy to coastal communities and help us reach our climate goals. It also presents a significant opportunity to create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs and expand domestic manufacturing across the country,” said Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy. “With the help of the roadmap laid out in this report, we can catalyze progress to realize this immense potential.” 

“A manufacturing supply chain is already emerging in more than a dozen locations up and down the U.S. coast in support of the offshore wind industry, which will lead to thousands of well-paying jobs,” said Ross Gould, vice president for Supply Chain Development and Research at the Business Network for Offshore Wind. “To meet our ambitious clean energy national goals, American manufacturers must play a larger role to accelerate our transition. This road map lays out the challenges and collaborative actions needed to bring more domestic companies into the supply chain and the opportunity those businesses bring to building out the U.S. offshore wind industry.” 

"To fully realize the potential of offshore wind energy in the United States, it is important we understand the gaps and needs of the current offshore wind supply chain. By understanding the needs of the industry, we can target investments to local businesses and workforce which create economic opportunities while achieving our goals of cleaner, more reliable energy. MEA is proud to participate in a study that brings us closer to realizing the economic and environmental promise of offshore wind," said Maryland Energy Administration Director Paul Pinsky.  

NYSERDA President and CEO Doreen M. Harris said, “Offshore wind is a cornerstone of New York’s clean energy transition that will deliver nine gigawatts by 2035, and grow a high-tech industry that will attract billions in investments and thousands of family-sustaining jobs. This report is the result of significant private-public collaboration and lays out a pathway to cultivate a long-term domestic supply chain here in the U.S.” 

The full project summary will be released by NOWRDC in late winter of 2023. 

Read A Supply Chain Road Map for Offshore Wind Energy in the United States on NREL’s website. 

Cleaner Transportation -Save the Sound

Cleaning Our Transportation Sector

Transportation accounts for nearly 40 percent of Connecticut’s greenhouse gas emissions, more than double the share of electricity generation, heating and cooling buildings, or any other sector. Reducing dependence on private cars and transitioning to cleaner vehicles are essential to meet the state’s climate targets and laws—and to protect our health.

Increasing access to bus and train service, revitalizing our communities with transit oriented development, ensuring urban streets include bike lanes and sidewalks, and moving from gas and diesel engines to electric and zero emission vehicles are all part of the solution.

The Transportation and Climate Initiative, CT’s Clean Air Bill

Air pollution is a regional affair, and so are the solutions to it. The Transportation and Climate Initiative is a regional cap-and-invest program that Connecticut and New York have helped develop along with 12 other jurisdictions. It would cap and reduce pollution from the transportation sector, and generate investment for clean transportation options. Polling shows more than 7 in 10 voters support the project, as do many major employers.

Connecticut now must pass a bill to enact TCI. This would not only cut climate emissions and air pollution that causes asthma, but also provide job-creating investment—with 50 percent of proceeds going to communities overburdened by pollution and underserved by transportation!

Learn more and take action at CtTransportationFuture.org.

Connecticut’s Commitments to Cleaner Cars

Electric vehicles (EVs) are a win for the environment. Even counting electricity used to charge them, they’re more than 70 percent cleaner for the climate than conventional cars.

Save the Sound has worked tirelessly at the legislature and agencies to ensure you have cleaner transportation options. From bringing California’s strong vehicle emissions standards to Connecticut to creating a program to label automobiles with their emissions score, we’re building a bridge from the cars of the past to the cars of the future.

We now co-lead the Connecticut Electric Vehicle Coalition with other environmental, health, and labor groups. Together we’re pushing for electric vehicle infrastructure, education and incentives, grid modernization, and wise use of the state’s funds from the Volkswagen air pollution settlement.

These vehicles not only cut climate pollution, but also the health impacts and costs of local air pollution. And going electric saves money! The switch to an electric vehicle saves over $770 per year for the average driver.

Improving Connecticut’s Public Transit System

Congestion causes 64 million hours of delay annually in the state’s three largest urban areas and costs Connecticut $1.3 billion a year. Additionally, lack of transportation is the largest single barrier to employment. Transit ridership has increased in Connecticut and Metro-North is now the most used rail line in the country. But because state and federal investment has not kept pace, delays and other problems are now part of the daily commute.

It shouldn’t be that way.

Public transportation is good for the environment and the economy. Riding a bus instead of driving alone for a 20-mile round trip commute can save 4,800 pounds of CO2 per person per year. For every $1 invested in public transportation, $4 is generated in economic return. And for every $1 billion invested in public transportation, 36,000 jobs are created and supported.

Save the Sound advocates for public transportation improvements through an alliance with Transit for Connecticut. The coalition of 33 business, human service, regional planning, environmental, transportation, and civic organizations advocates for cost-effective, comprehensive investments in bus transit. We use community gatherings, press conferences, legislative advocacy, and meetings with legislative leaders to build support for transportation infrastructure.

Healthier and Safer Communities

To cut transportation emissions and increase quality of life, Connecticut should commit to transit oriented development and complete streets—policies that prioritize walkable, bikeable, livable, sustainable communities around major transit lines. These approaches lower emissions by reducing the need for cars: if more people walked or biked instead of using their car on trips under a mile, it would cut climate pollution by up to  22 million metric tons a year.

Connecticut passed a complete streets law back in 2009, but implementation has lagged. Save the Sound advocates in municipalities and at the state legislature to continue make progress on these critical climate and health strategies.

Learn More

• Facts and Myths about EVs
• Connecticut Electric Vehicle Coalition
• CT DEEP EV Connecticut
• Buses Move Connecticut
• Economic Importance of Investment in Public Transportation
• Missing Links: Prioritized Bus Expansion Plan

Notice of Request for Information (RFI) Connecticut Electric Bicycle (E-Bike) Incentive Program Summary

 

The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) issued a request for information on July 6, 2022 and held the response period open until July 27, 2022.

In all, twenty-one (21) responses were received. This document summarizes all responses received and is organized by questions outlined in the Request for Information.

Question 1: What are the best practices from other E-bike incentive programs? Including, but not limited to:

Responses to this question were received from: Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Chris D’Antonio, Dante Pace, David Gutelius, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Kerri Provost, Paul Wessel (Greater New Haven Clean Cities Coalition (GNHCCC)), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART).

1. Application processes (both on-line and in-person)
   • Seven respondents (Chris D'Antonio, Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Kerri Provost, Paul Wessel (GNHCCC), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) indicated that the least burdensome application process would be structured as a point-of-sale or instant rebate at the point-of-purchase particularly for purchases made at local bike retailers. A post sale or post-purchase rebate and/or voucher was discussed by several respondents for online E-bike retailers.
   • Four respondents (Chris D'Antonio, Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) also recommended building and maintaining relationships/partnerships with E-bike retailers (local and online), shops, and companies (such as electric scooter manufactures) already operating within the state.

2. E-bike Applicability
   • Four respondents (Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen) indicated support for all types and forms (i.e. cargo, leisure, e-Mountain Bikes) of E-bikes and/or those that are categorized into the three class system (Class 1-3) as defined in Public Act 18-165.
   • Two respondents (Dante Pace, Kate Rozen) mentioned either a fluctuating or the removal of an E-bike MSRP cap. (NOTE: MSRP cap is set by statute)
   • One respondent (Dante Pace) discussed the benefits of ancillary program considerations such as a state e-bike registry, offering annual checkups/tune-ups, allowance of third-party modifications, and incentivizing future E-bike technology improvements (i.e. hybrid gas/electric fuel technology).

3. E-Bike retailer selection and inclusion
   • Four respondents (Chris D'Antonio, Dante Pace, Kate Rozen, Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) stated support for the inclusion of locally based as well as online retailers and shops.
   • One respondent (Dante Pace) specified a desire for the fair inclusion of “low” and “high” end retailers.
   • One respondent (Kate Rozen) provided a link to the Denver E-bike program retailer registration application. (https://us.openforms.com/Form/7fbe0485-f015-42c7-b236- 5ea98bdfdb2a).

4. Opt-in for customers to authorize contact by E-bike vendors

• • One respondent (Dante Pace) expressed discomfort with intrusive solicitation without explicitly opting-in through a DEEP mailing list, a local bike retailer or optional state registry.
  • One respondent (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel)) supported contacting individuals that are categorically eligible through their participation in state programs (i.e. Operation Fuel) and or residents of Environmental Justice Communities (EJCs). The respondent recommended DEEP collaborates with other state agencies (Department of Social Services, Department of Children and Families) to inform and enroll eligible individuals in the E-bike program.
  • One respondent (Kate Rozen) supported the communication opt-in as a means to inform program participants of recalls.

5. E-bike Incentive levels
   • One respondent (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel)) recommended that “DEEP announce as soon as possible that EJC residents, Operation Fuel clients, and other categorically eligible residents can qualify for an E-bike voucher up to $1000, compared to the standard benefit of

$500.”

• • One respondent (Kate Rozen) recommended “$500 for everyone, $750 for non-income qualified residents in environmental justice communities, and $1,000 for low-income individuals who qualify.”
  • One respondent (Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) stated in part that “one approach could be a tiered structure with one pathway for income-restricted applicants that funds a larger share of the E-bike, and a separate pathway with no income cap and a lower voucher amount.”

6. LMI income verification
   • Three respondents (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Paul Wessel (GNHCCC), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) indicated support for the use of categorical eligibility based on participation in state or federal assistance programs. In conjunction, one respondent (Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)) supports compliance checks to ensure self-reported income aligns with income eligibility requirements.
   • Two respondents (David Gutelius, Kerri Provost) recommended the use of state of federal income tax returns for income verification.
   • One respondent (Dante Pace) supported using an individual’s most recent paycheck to verify income.
   • One respondent (Kate Rozen) stated that any income verification process used should be as easy as possible with few steps required.

7. Participant surveys.
   • Four respondents (Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)) were supportive of using surveys to gather information on programmatic effectiveness.
   • One respondent (Dante Pace) suggested the use of additional incentives to encourage survey participation.

• • One respondent (Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)) recommended the use of app-based data collection with the caveat of mitigating for possible flaws in self-reported information.

Question 2: How should DEEP determine the air quality benefit from program participation?

Responses to this question were received from: Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART), Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress).

• • Six respondents (Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Paul Wessel (GNHCCC), Robyn Marquis (CALSTART)) favored the use of applications (apps), surveys, or other self-reported means used, voluntarily, by program participants to compile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to determine air quality benefits. Additionally, one respondent (Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress)) recommended collaboration with modeling experts from TRECH (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c- change/subtopics/trechproject/) to help determine air quality and health benefits.
  • One respondent (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel)) advocated collaborating with local organizations and measuring the air quality difference between using cars and replacing cars with e-bikes with a focus on EJCs (Waterbury, Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford).

Question 3: How many manufacturers produce E-bikes with a base MSRP of $3,000 or less? Please include contact information, if available.

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

• Three respondents (Dante Pace Jim Head, Kate Rozen) provided the following manufacturers: Alien Rides Aventon, Blix, Canondale, Hurley, Juiced Bikes, Lectric, Rad Power, Santa Cruz, Surfas, Trek, Velowave.
• One respondent (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel)) stated that local bike shops and their owners/staff are key stakeholders that should be engaged and encouraged to participate.
• One respondent (Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) commented that “Brompton Bicycle produces two Electric bike models – the C Line Electric and P Line Electric. The C Line Electric has an all-steel frame at $3,850 MSRP and P Line Electric has a titanium rear frame at $4,700 MSRP.”

Question 4: How many E-bike retailers are there in Connecticut? Please include contact information, if available.

Responses to this question were received from: Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

• • Three respondents (Dante Pace, Jim Head, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) provided the following Connecticut based E-bike retailers: Best Buy, BiciCo, Bloomfield Bicycles, Central Wheel, College Street Cycles, Devils Gear Bike Shop, New Canaan Bicycles, REI.
  • One respondent (Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes)) stated that a collaborative approach with retailers and asking retailers to register for the program as participants would provide contact information at each retailer.

• • One respondent (Kate Rozen) provided a list compiled from People for Bikes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sL8ENBr98215xCkrdW1DzXcPnYyHtgwJtgve335 xdps/edit?usp=sharing)

Question 5: How many E-bike retailers are there in on-line? Please include contact information, if available.

Responses to this question were received from: Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

• • Two respondents (Ashley Seaward (People for Bikes), Kate Rozen) supported including all retailers who are interested in participating in the program.
  • One respondent (Jim Head) mentioned ordering an E-bike from RadPower and considering Juiced Bikes.
  • One respondent (Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) provided the following link to Brompton Bicycles: www.us.brompton.com.

Question 6: What is the industry standard E-bike warranty?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Jim Head, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

• • Two respondents (Dante Pace, Jim Head) mentioned that warranties may vary from one to three years and by manufacturer, component, and/or batteries.
  • One respondent ((Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) stated the following. “Our standard Brompton warranty for e-bikes is a 7-year unlimited mileage warranty against manufacturing and material defects for the main frame components, commencing from the date of sale. Other non-wearing parts on the bicycle (e.g. crank arms, brake calipers, mudguards, etc.) are covered by a 3-year warranty against manufacturing and material defects. Full warranty terms and conditions are here (https://trade.brompton.com/Uploads/Content/Customer_Service/Warranty/Warranty%20Ter ms%20and%20Conditions.pdf).”

Question 7: What is the best industry E-bike warranty?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Jim Head.

• • One respondent (Dante Pace) stated that Pedego has a 5-year warranty on their bike and components and a three-year prorated warranty on their batteries. Relatedly, one respondent (Jim Head) mentioned a one-year warranty with RadPower .

Question 8: What other E-bike customer experiences should DEEP take into account? (e.g., return policy? Battery reuse or recycling programs)

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Robyn Marquis (CALSTART), Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

• • Respondents touched on a number of issues for consideration listed in part and in no particular order:
    • Return/refund policies, infrastructure, car/bicycle parking, speed of traffic, proximity to amenity/attractions, battery recycling, bicycle operating safety, weight of e-bikes,

bike racks on public transit, quality and safety of e-bikes, customer accessories, a single point of contact, etc.

Question 9: How often are E-bike purchases financed?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

• • Two respondents (Dante Pace, Jim Head) did not finance their e-bike purchases but are aware of the financing options available at certain retailers (i.e. Bloomfield Bicycle reportedly has a 12-month interest free financing option). Additionally respondent (Dante Pace) mentioned that insurance policies (personal injury, property damage/theft) may be available.
  • One respondent (Kate Rozen) spoke of her experience purchasing an E-bike from Radpower Bikes and using Affirm to finance her purchase. Respondent Rozen also mentioned a local credit union Connex that offers e-bike financing that includes the purchase of accessories.
  • One respondent (Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) stated that Brompton “has implemented Klarna financing in June 2022, we’ve noticed 29% of sales are from our Electric bikes.”

Question 10: How should DEEP define “maximum income eligibility” for e-bikes?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Jim Head, Kate Rozen.

• • Two respondents (Dante Pace, Kate Rozen) supported an approach that is an inclusive as possible.
  • Two respondents (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel), Jim Head) mentioned favoring a mechanism similar to what exists for CHEAPR or other EV income eligibility requirements. One respondent (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel)) also supported an uncomplicated income verification process.

Question 11: Should DEEP seek to protect LMI participants from unfair or abusive finance terms? If so, how should DEEP do this?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Kate Rozen, Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress), Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

• • Two respondents (Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Kate Rozen) supported coordination with the Department of Consumer Protection.
  • One respondent (Dante Pace) supported a broad protection structure inclusive of all participants and not limiting protections to LMI participants.
  • One respondent (Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress)) suggested the use of a contract/charter that prohibits deceptive practices.
  • One respondent (Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) shared alternative models that Brompton Bicycle offers (i.e. lease, subscription, inclusive servicing and repair packages).

Question 12: If DEEP utilizes a voucher program, what length of time should be selected for the voucher expiration date?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Kate Rozen, Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress).

• • Four respondents (Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Kate Rozen, Thomas Regan- Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress)) offered that a period of six (6) to twelve (12) months for voucher expiration would be sufficient. Additionally, two respondent (Dante Pace

,Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress)) recommended a reapplication process for unused vouchers.

• • One respondent (Dante Pace) also suggested a seasonal (fall/winter, spring/summer) voucher expiration period.

Question 13: How should vouchers be authenticated?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, Gannon Long (Operation Fuel) Kate Rozen, Thomas Regan-Lefebvre (Center for Latino Progress), Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

• • Respondents offered numerous pathways for voucher authentication including:
    • a voucher database,
    • point of sale physical vouchers,
    • online voucher codes,
    • e-bike inventory/service vouchers,
    • non-authentication due to admin costs and lack of fraud,
    • QR codes,
    • through company workplaces, public sector, retailers, etc.

Question 14: What other data/information would inform the development of an E-bike incentive program?

Responses to this question were received from: Dante Pace, David Gutelius, Ethan Heywood, Jim Head, Kate Rozen, Kerri Provost, Michael Romero, Paul Wessel (GNHCCC), Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.).

• • One respondent (Dante Pace) offered responses that generally touched on determining the universe of bike, e-bike, and public transportation users. Additionally, (Dante Pace) this response mentioned infrastructure considerations (i.e. car-centric development, minimum parking requirements, up-zoning of residential/commercial areas).
  • One respondent (David Gutelius) discussed offering a pathway for an automatic “opt-in” registry process for bikes/e-bikes into bike theft registries. The following registries were offered as examples: 1)https://bikeindex.org/ 2)https://project529.com/garage.
  • One respondent (Ethan Heywood) commented that, based on experience with CHEAPR, a more user friendly application and voucher receipt process with a step-by-step walkthrough would be beneficial and add transparency. Additionally, providing a resource to verify reputable e-bike retailers.

• • One respondent (Jim Head) encouraged the inclusion of e-cargo bikes (rentals, rent to own options) in conjunction with making bike storage facilities available. Also, e-bike maintenance programs (i.e. Velofix, AAA) should be considered.
  • Two respondents (Kate Rozen, Kerri Provost) emphasized that communication and feedback with individuals, customers, EJ communities, and retailers should be clear, concise and proactive to encourage program participation.
  • One respondent (Michael Romero) mentioned that e-bike conversions should be considered since many people have existing bikes that have the potential to be converted. A number of programs throughout the country offer similar incentives for conversions including Colorado, Vermont, and California (https://www.qualisports.us/blogs/news/ebike-rebates-and- incentives-programsin-the-usa). Additionally, he is a proponent of UL 2849 certified E-bikes as they a required to meet a more strict fire safety standard.
  • One respondent (Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)) emphasized a focus on equity by making benefits either directed100% towards low income or utilized a sliding scale for the incentive by income.
  • One respondent (Tiffany Chang (Brompton Bicycle Ltd.)) offered that Brompton Bicycle is a participant of the UK Cycle to Work Scheme (i.e., program), a government initiative which offers a tax-free benefit as the most cost-effective way to purchase a bike. Although this was not applied to e-bikes at the time, regular bikes were incentivized for purchase by employees. Employees do not have to pay tax or national insurance on their bike purchase, which creates a discount, and this deducted from their paycheck over a 12 - 18 month period.

Additional Questions and Responses Related to E-Bike RFI

• • One respondent (Dante Pace) questioned whether a focus on economic rather than environmental justice obscures the real goal of programs similar to the E-bike program which is to get more people out of cars.
  • One respondent (Jan Tanner (Benidorm Bikes)) noted that in their capacity as a bicycle retailer they observe that e-bikes have been purchased for recreational as opposed to transportation use by customers. Additionally, customers have not indicated a need for an incentive and perhaps a focus on improving infrastructure to encourage more e-bike use for that purpose.
  • One respondent (Jay Gherlone) shared their experience that the likely location of e-bike users in areas that are unfriendly to bicyclists without designated bike lanes should be of concern. Though supportive of the e-bike program, efforts should be made to coordinate with DOT and local Police to increase automobile driver awareness of bicycles as well as e-bike owner safety awareness.
  • One respondent (Paul Wessel (GNHCCC)) provided a number of resources for DEEP to consider from K Shankari, Chris Cherry, Dillon Fitch, and Josh Sperling.
  • Five respondents inquired about the current availability of e-bike rebates in response to the RFI.

FHWA Awards Nearly $9 Million for Tribal Transportation Safety Improvements and Announces Additional $120 Million Available Thanks to President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

he U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) announced that 51 Tribes will receive $8.9 million for 58 projects from FHWA for Fiscal Year 2021 to improve transportation safety. This new grant announcement comes in addition to $120 million to assist tribes in the coming years through the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund, made possible by the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and now available for Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026. This combined funding will help fulfill the goals laid out in the Department’s National Roadway Safety Strategy announced earlier this year, which comes amid a troubling spike in roadway deaths of drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists, particularly among Native Americans.

“At a time when Native Americans are more likely than any other group in our country to lose their lives in roadway crashes, these funds from the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will help improve safety in Indian Country,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

“There are projects that we know are the most likely to reduce fatalities and serious injuries and this historic funding opportunity aims to improve transportation safety in Tribal areas,” said Deputy Federal Highway Administrator Stephanie Pollack. “Simple changes like adding rumble strips, better lighting, or clearer stop signs can and will save lives in communities across the country. FHWA is ready to assist Tribal leaders in their work to make travel safer in Indian Country.”

The complete list of grant recipients for FY2021 is available at TTPSF FY2021 Grant Recipients.

The recipients announced today include 11 Tribes that have not previously participated in the program and will receive funding to develop their first-ever transportation safety plans.

Among the FY 2021 grant recipients are:

• The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians in Minnesota will receive a $268,000 grant for lighting at 40 high-risk intersections.
• The Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation in South Dakota will receive $500,202 to improve safety for motorists and pedestrians by adding rumble strips, more permanent street markings, more pronounced stop signs with LED lights, and roadway departure countermeasures at two high risk locations.
• The Navajo Nation in Arizona will receive a $981,402 grant to add safety features that can prevent drivers from driving off the road on high-risk routes.
• The Native Village of False Pass in Alaska will receive a $12,500 grant to develop the Tribe’s first transportation safety plan.
• The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation in Connecticut will receive a $7,500 grant to update its 2018 transportation safety plan.

This funding opportunity builds on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s efforts to improve the safety of our nation’s roadways for all road users, including through the new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary grant program that will provide $1 billion in Fiscal Year 2022 to support regional, local, and Tribal plans, projects and strategies that will prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. The Safe Streets for All program supports the Department’s National Roadway Safety Strategy and the goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on our nation’s roadway.

The President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides the largest funding ever in the history of the Tribal Transportation Program, which includes the safety fund, by increasing the total authorized from $2.4 billion under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act to $3 billion for Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026.

Reflecting feedback from Tribal transportation leaders, under the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund program, Tribes can apply for funding at 100% federal share with no matching requirement to implement projects in four categories: transportation safety plans; data assessment, improvement, and analysis activities; systemic roadway departure countermeasures; and infrastructure improvements such as intersection safety improvements, shoulder widening and pedestrian or bicyclist safety improvements.

The TTPSF Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) announced today can be found at TTPSF Fiscal Years 2022-2026 NOFO. Additional information on how to apply for the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund NOFO and answers to frequently asked questions can be found at Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund.

To further assist the 574 federally recognized Tribes in addressing their transportation needs, FHWA has developed Transportation Funding Opportunities for Tribal Nations, a brochure that provides information on new highway programs created under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as well as existing highway and bridge transportation funding programs. Additionally, Tribal Bridge Program Questions and Answers are available online at TTP Bridge Q&A.