The State of Oregon has received a $197 million grant from the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, all the funds devoted to the transportation sector — which is Oregon’s largest source of GHG emissions — will be spent to help people purchase and drive electric cars.
Oregon’s award is part of over $4.3 billion given out through the Biden Administration’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants Program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.
As I clicked through the press release from Governor Tina Kotek’s office and the supportive material about the grant, I was surprised to see that all the funds awarded to Oregon will be spent on cars. Regardless of how they are powered, state subsidies for cars will increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT), lock more Oregonians into lopsided financial relationships with banks and major corporations who benefit from people who use the most expensive transportation option available, cause more deaths and injuries on our roads, create more traffic bottlenecks, clog neighborhoods with parked cars, and perpetuate highway building and expansions.
The $197 million will be split into three sectors of spending: residential and commercial buildings, materials and waste, and transportation. Of the $66 million going to transportation, $52 million will go toward e-car rebates and $14 million will be spent on charging infrastructure.
Getting fossil fuel powered vehicles off the road and helping people with lower incomes is important, but the lack of balance in Oregon’s funding plans is striking.
Several other states and local governments across the country who received funding from this same grant program spread the money around and will make bicycling and transit investments.
Austin plans to expand transit and invest in, “expansion of the local electric bikeshare system and micromobility choices.” Austin will also use the money to, “construct large-scale bicycle storage at 16 mobility hubs,” and “reduce vehicle-miles-traveled and increase equity by improving transit and mobility infrastructure in low-income and disadvantaged communities.” New Orleans plans to spend their funding on, “transportation access for disadvantaged communities… via 148 new bike share stations, 2,500 new bikeshare e-bikes, and incentives for 3,000 new e-bikes for residents.” Northwest Arkansas will, “construct bicycle and pedestrian trails to improve electric bike access, including vouchers reserved for income-qualified applicants.” The Nez Perce Tribe will, “create a fleet of e-bikes for staff at field facilities,” and Utah plans to, “Deploy up 2,000 electric bikes with a focus on low-income communities.”
It’s not as if Oregon didn’t know people wanted this money to go toward VMT reduction and things that would promote more bicycling and transit. Below is an excerpt from a feedback summary on the transportation sector shared in the Oregon DEQ Priority Climate Action Plan (the EPA-funded planning document required as part of the grant application):
Reduction of vehicle miles traveled was also a theme throughout the transportation feedback. Suggested actions included the promotion of biking, walking, and public transit through increasing safety, infrastructure, and rebates on micro mobility devices such as electric bicycles. Longer term actions included designing communities to encourage driving reductions.
The State of Oregon also asked Native American Tribe members what they wanted this money to be spent on. According to a table on page 16 of the Priority Climate Action Plan, the “priority tribal measures” included:
- Transit improvements, clean diesel, and bus electrification.
- Increase the number of electric vehicles, gas electric hybrid automobiles, and fuel-efficient vehicles in the tribe’s fleet.
- Expand electric vehicle charging infrastructure for government operations and employees.
- Increase use and fleet of available eBikes Improve public transit service and infrastructure.
- Non-motorized Transportation: Walking and biking trails and safety infrastructure.
And State of Oregon agency staff who worked on the Priority Climate Action Plan suggested funding for a program called, “Oregon Micromobility Accelerator” that would promote things like bicycling, e-bikes, e-scooters and other small mobility devices.” The program would have provided financial support for bike and scooter share systems in Portland and Eugene as well as a statewide e-bike rebate program. Unfortunately those micromobility investments, which are backed up by a 2023 ODOT report that recommended more investment in e-bikes and scooters, did not make the final priority list. And despite having e-car rebates in place for many years, the Oregon Legislature failed to pass a similar program for bikes last year.
This grant award reflects the consequence of concerns we raised in 2021 that Oregon’s transportation electrification plans tend to marginalize and/or dismiss electric bicycles. Accompanying this systemic issue in Salem is the fact that Oregon has a statewide nonprofit electric vehicle advocacy group, Forth, that is almost wholly focused on electric cars and car charging infrastructure.
While there are many other funding sources and grants for transportation that do (and will) include non-driving investments, the way Oregon has chosen to invest this grant illustrates the continued primacy of car-centric planning at state agencies and continues our imbalanced approach to climate change mitigation and transportation electrification.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Obviously the person buying a $50k e-car needs a rebate more than a person buying a $3k e-bike, imagine the immense privilege of being able to afford spending $3k on a nice e-bike when the driver can only afford to devote tens of thousands of dollars towards their transportation. (I hope it the sarcasm was obvious)
So many people take car ownership as the default that buying an e-bike to replace some car trips is considered an extra luxury that only the affluent can afford on top of their car expenses. Using those rebate dollars to make that e-bike cheap or even free would remove that perception and make e-bike replacement of short car trips more mainstream.
Really the most frustrating thing here is that we don’t have money to maintain our car infrastructure anymore and yet we’re not doing anything to reduce our need for it. Imagine how much world-class bike/ped/transit infrastructure we could build and maintain easily with the PBOT and ODOT budgets if their budgets were primarily focused on that instead with car infrastructure being the afterthought. We’d likely have a surplus we could use to pay off our debt instead of continuing to take out yet more debt for new car infrastructure that will need even more expensive maintenance in 30 years which we also can’t afford.
Yes, people always ask what I spent for my ebike, and when I say, “$3,000,” they gasp. But I bought it to commute to/from work, and in 8 months, I’ve put nearly 2,000 miles on it. Imagine the cost of 2,000 miles for gas and auto insurance, plus parking, plus vehicle maintenance (SplendidCycle, where I bought the bike, has given me multiple routine “check ups” to ensure the bike is running well, at no cost.). Oh, and I am able to charge it at work using the same outlet as my office computer. Plus I have the mental and physical health benefits of exercise, rather than the stress of being stuck in traffic and having to find parking. Why in the (rapidly overheating) world are we NOT making this a no-cost/low-cost option for more people?
I also have a $3000 “luxury” ebike”, as my coworkers like to joke, that I spend about $200 a year on maintenance for. I’ve had mine for a little over 2 years and have put 10,000 miles on it.
I had a set of recurring mental and physical health issues that basically all boiled down to “lifestyle changes” for treatment. I went through cycles (no pun intended) of getting my diet under control, failing to get any exercise, feeling terrible physically, falling into a depression spiral, then letting the diet go because I felt like none of it really mattered so I might as well have Oreos for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
After not riding a bike since I was a kid, I ended up buying a used craigslist bike from some guy in Tigard for like $100 just because people riding bikes around my neighborhood looked like they were having a pretty good time. It hadn’t occurred to me that a bike could be a useful tool for transportation until I realized I could ride to Freddies in 10 minutes. I still drove to work, but basically every day for a month before/after work I was out riding to get all my errands done; riding to the grocery store, the barber, my favorite coffee place, the post office with a jank package-carrying setup on my no-rack 70’s road bike.
Toward the end of the that month I realized that I felt better than I had in years – and I made the connection that the bike was tricking me into getting exercise without having to “fit” it into my day.
The ebike has taken my radius of what I can accomplish – including commuting to and from work – and expanded it by several times. I still sometimes ride my analog bike to work, but anything above 65 degrees has me showing up to work a wet, sweaty mess to work. So I like that I can get some movement in my day without sweating like a hog. I can also cycle in my civilian clothes. I can carry tons of stuff up hills no problem. It really has replaced about 99% of my car trips. The only reason I still have my lil 08 fit is because it’s paid off and the registration + insurance is cheaper than what I’d pay for a rental whenever I drive. If/when it craps out I probably won’t buy another car.
I think ebikes open up utility cycling to an even wider range of body types, fitness levels, and lifestyles. As a public health intervention, I can’t think of a better way to get people moving than to make it fun, useful, and something they already do. Aka getting around.
I’ll end with a repetition of Lois’ point:
Comment if the week! What an amazing story about how biking can transform your live. Thank you for sharing!
Absolutely inspiring and I echo stephan’s suggestion of COW!
Its mentioning and talking about this nuts and bolts aspect of ebiking that stands the best chance of luring people into trying it and replacing car trips. Simply saying it’s good for the environment is just one more nebulous reason to feel bad that one isn’t single handedly saving the world.
Discussing the advantages for regular folks (not in the excellent health of youth) that need to carry equipment, multiple changes of clothes, who need to be places at certain times or have their pay docked or who do not work in a controlled office environment can enjoy would be a pleasant way to see ebikes framed.
When I was younger I cycled a lot and was carfree for several years, but had a scooter and a moped for when I needed to be somewhere (like work if I was running late) faster or in more presentable shape when I arrived. I loved that scooter and moped (a Honda Hobbit), but I can see how an ebike would handily replace them both without having to put tarps down in my home to keep leaky fluids off the floor.
Hey, you very nearly wrote a guest BP article.
Because reasonable people conclude that if the threat is as dire as suggested, regular bikes would be what is advocated for subsidy, not something that requires mining of rare earths all over the globe to be manufactured an ocean away to be shipped back across that ocean to be plugged in by your desk at a job that sounds to be about 5 miles from your home.
An e-bike battery is about equivalent to 2-3 swappable cordless power tool batteries. Should we ban power tools too?
Are people who want them asking for subsidies? Should the taxpayer fund a subsidy for a cordless nail gun while other people still have to buy hammers all while the people who use the cordless nail gun virtue signal about how they’re saving the planet? See how ridiculous this is?
No, but the point I’m trying to make is that you’re freaking out about the idea of subsidizing a tool that can decarbonize transportation and boost public health, rather than freaking out about subsidizing much more environmentally disastrous E-cars that use an order of magnitude more rare earth minerals, and despite the subsidy, remain far out of reach for the average working-class person.
Insulting someone for riding an ebike to their job 5 miles away, when the alternative is driving is so corny. Next time just say you don’t like ebikes and move on.
E-bike vs. bike does look pretty bad because a bike doesn’t need any batteries at all. A dyno hub can provide lighting and even spare some watts to charge a phone.
The article was about Oregon doubling down on 4000 lb cars instead of throwing a bone to people who might want a 40 lb e-bike. What’s that ratio?
One hundred to one. One hundred times the minerals, one hundred times the tire waste, one hundred times the load on the electrical grid. That’s the story.
By all means keep riding your bike. Bikes are almost free.
Somebody you know has a bike they don’t need. (I certainly do). It costs less to operate a bike than to have a phone, drink coffee, or pipe water into your house.
There is money for heat pumps, energy efficient housing and buildings, and waste reduction. It’s not ALL going to cars and car infrastructure. But I wish the lion share of the transportation money was going to transit and non car infrastructure. Putting more money into cars while not investing a commensurate amount into non car transportation will move us in the wrong direction.
I want the money to be used to maximize emissions reduction, keeping in mind that a reduction now is worth more than a reduction in 5 years.
Putting it into bikes and transit would not likely maximize the impact. If a solid analysis showed that it would, I’d totally support spending the money that way. Efficacy is my only consideration.
What solid analysis was used to determine that throwing money at infrastructure that is intended to benefit those who privately own low occupancy and space inefficient electric vehicles will reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, but the energy that powers them is around 50-75% fossil fuel derived, depending on where you are in Oregon. And increasingly relying on low occupancy vehicles will only lead to more space inefficient land uses.
If incentives for EVs don’t actually cause sprawl or increase vmt, then of course they’re better than ICE vehicles. But the benefits are marginal, and they pale in comparison to the benefits that can be gained if people replace car trips altogether.
I don’t know what their full analysis was, but I do believe that they’ve thought about it for more than a minute because it is their job, and they know their work will be scrutinized. I do see they calculated potential emission reductions for each line item, along with a cost per reduction. I don’t know what other options they looked at, but I do presume that the people doing the work were not complete idiots.
And yes, Portland energy is not all sustainable, but that’s changing. Even without such a shift, electric vehicles are so much more efficient than gas powered ones that converting is a clear win that will just become more pronounced over time. The benefits of switching are hardly marginal, and start immediately.
I agree that it would be better for people not to drive at all. We’ve been trying to get people onto bike and transit for decades, and here we are. Will it take just one more push? What can we reasonably expect to achieve in the critical time period (i.e. sooner, not later)?
Actually the immediate effect of an electric vehicle is an increase in emissions from its manufacturing. It only makes up for that by reducing the emissions when it runs. I have seen estimates of the break even point ranging from 15,000 to 80,000 miles depending on assumptions. Of course the real comparison is to gallons of gas not burned. In any case, the immediate effect is an increase in emissions.
Does this analysis consider the emissions cost of manufacturing gasoline fueled vehicles? It’s hard for me to believe than manufacturing an EV requires 80 ICE kmi worth of ADDITIONAL emissions compared to manufacturing the dominant vehicles sold today. Even if the EV is replacing a car that is not at the end of its lifetime, some portion of the manufacturing emissions for the old car should show up in the accounting…. Of course, if EV incentives are simply increasing personal auto use on top of what’s already killing us, they are not beneficial from a GHG (or any!) perspective.
Most gasoline cars that get replaced are sold to someone else rather than junked, either going to a new price sensitive driver, or replacing an even older car with higher emissions. I don’t know if/how this is accounted for, but I do know the people who do this sort of analysis love to publish papers when they find some new angle to include.
I’m not sure many people buy EVs and drive them only as additional miles while driving their old car just as much. I could see this if they got an exotic sports car, but no one is subsidizing Lotus Evijas.
“or replacing an even older car with higher emissions.”
Which in turn goes to another driver.
“the people who do this sort of analysis love to publish papers when they find some new angle to include.”
Only if there is someone willing to pay them to do it. The auto industry is pouring millions of dollars into promoting EV’s, They have largely captured the professional environmental think tanks and other organizations that do this sort of analysis.
This sort of conspiracy thinking is what popularized Ivermectin and fuels climate denial. “They’re all in on it!”
Vote Kennedy!
As I recall, the 80,000 mile “estimate” was based on the electricity coming entirely from coal. I wouldn’t put much faith in any of the models but I think they were all considering the difference in emissions from manufacturing an ICE vehicle. My understanding is that difference is directly related to the battery manufacturing.The bigger the battery, the larger the difference.
Look… no one should have any doubt that converting to EVs is necessary from a climate standpoint, and the sooner the better.
There is a ton of research about the emission reduction benefits that’s widely available. Arguing about the details to try to discredit the overall enterprise is like arguing about the covid vaccine based on some edge case. The science is established, and it’s not controversial. If you think researchers missed something, publish a paper explaining why. But the question is essentially settled.
EVs alone will not save us, but they are absolutely necessary if we want to contain warming to anything remotely bearable.
Time to get on board, folks.
PS Ross, this message was for everyone; I was not targeting you.
Thanks for the reply!
Yes, I commented above with details and linked info. The 80k estimate may be rounded from a Reuters/Argonne National Laboratory analysis of EV pollution break-even. They estimated 78,700 miles for a scenario in which all EV charging was from coal power but there’s no grid region in USA which has anywhere near 100% coal-powered electricity. The USA average break-even was calculated as 13,500 miles.
While I’m not promoting car use (just suggesting EV use if that substitutes for ICE use), the break-even is a lot lower than you suggested.
It will be heavily influenced by the sources of power that charge the vehicle. In the NW USA, more of the power is hydro-based where in places like Texas there’s much more reliance on fossil fuel generation. This analysis by Reuters using a data model by Argonne National Laboratory calculated (for an example scenario comparing a Tesla Model 3 with a gas-powered Toyota Corolla) that the carbon pollution break-even occurred at 13,500 miles for a USA average energy mix and 8,400 miles if the EV is charged from hydropower. The estimate for an EV charged totally from coal power is 78,700 miles, but there’s no grid area in USA where coal-generated electricity makes up anywhere near 100% of the generation. There’s no 100%-hydropower grid region either, but for hydro-heavy and renewables-heavy regions the break-even would certainly be a lot less than the 13,500 national average estimate. They considered GHG pollution effects of all life-cycle effects, including mining/manufacturing/etc. associated with EV batteries.
There’s not a lot of information about longevity of current EV models, but there are EVs which have run 500k miles or longer with one or two battery replacements.
There are reasons to be optimistic. EVs are mechanically a lot simpler than conventional cars, and have a lot less wear on many parts.
Even the batteries are lasting longer than expected.
Then maybe part of the use for infrastructure money is not only for alternative forms of transportation, but the infrastructure to power them (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.). Then maybe they wouldn’t be 50-75% gas powered but 0%. Would that make you happy?
Portland bike mode share has plummeted 50% over the past decade to 3-4% so those benefits are staggeringly GINORMOUS.
It’s instructive how ongoing and worsening ecocide is used by every subculture or interest group as an excuse to prioritize their particular agenda.
Let’s just make things up to fit our narrative, shall we.
https://wtcpdx.com/ElectricAvenue/
If you look at a Google map that location is listed as a “Shell Recharge Charging Station” and URLs for that location go to Shell’s website. And it’s listed as belonging to Shell Sky EV Technology. Yes perhaps PSU, PGE and PBOT manage and operate it, but my determination that it’s owned by Shell is based on those factors. I’ll try to confirm and report back what I find out. Your insinuation that I’ll make things up to my narrative is juvenile and uncalled for.
The EV chargers are owned and operated by PGE as part of a long-term public private partnership. As I recall, your blog reported on this partnership when the facility was located near PSU (but I’m sure there was a negative spin).
https://portlandgeneral.com/energy-choices/electric-vehicles-charging/charging-your-ev/charging-your-ev-on-the-go
The EV chargers were manufactured and managed by Greenlots which was recently purchased by Shell. The real story here is that it’s ****ing disastrous how the ‘murrican fossil fuel industry is hoovering up EV charging companies and then intentionally neglecting EV infrastructure to poison this essential to decarbonization transition.
And I still maintain that you saw the “Shell” logo and did not bother to spend 5 seconds googling the long history of this public-private charging hub due to your anti-electrification bias.
Thanks for doing the research on that. So you found out that Shell owns the company that manufactured and manages the chargers. And it sounds like we agree that the existence of these fossil fuel companies in the EV space isn’t great.
Also, I don’t have an “anti-electrification bias”. I have a concern about trust of our leaders and their decision making. But instead of spending 5 seconds to understand what I believe and discussing all the facts I share in the story, you just jump right onto criticisms of a photo caption that wasn’t really that far off base.
Nice job! Keep attacking and fighting w potential allies! That’s a sure way to win the fight.
In itself, it’s neither bad nor good. I think it would be great if Shell figured out that it can make a boatload of money by investing in renewables. It would be a bad outcome if they bought everything just to kill it off.
Shell is a fact of life. Getting them to work with us would be a great outcome.
As an owner of a used EV with a recycled battery (impossible!!!) I did not have to do any research. The ownership of these chargers by PGE is common knowledge.
When was the last time you wrote anything positive about the electrification of the bloody car, Jonathan? Given that EVs are almost certainly going to be the predominant transportation decarbonization mechanism in this consumerist society, your biased coverage smacks of mild climate science denial (according to my opinon).
Haha that’s not what I do. I don’t care about or cover cars of any type.
Do you realize that I have people on here who think I promote electric bikes too much? So yeah, I’m not anti-electrification. I’m not here to talk about cars. Cars ruin everything!
Fossil fuel burning cars ruin the lives of people in the global south far, far, fa more than EVs (of all kinds). Please remind me how many fossil fuel burning SUVs/minivans your household owns and uses, Jonathan.
You are flat-out opposed the electrification that is actually possible while fanatically committed to an unlikely vision that narcissistic and consumerist ‘murricans will all swap their monstrous SUVs for e-bikes.
ok whoever you are. I don’t feel like taking part in this exchange any longer. Thanks for the comments.
“Given that EVs are almost certainly going to be the predominant transportation decarbonization mechanism in this consumerist society” we aren’t actually going to prevent a climate catastrophe. Without challenging the lifestyle of the wealthy and powerful its not going to happen..
Climate catastrophe is already here for hundreds of millions of human beings who do not have the privilege of living in this fantastically wealthy (and unjust) society.
I would like to “challenge” the lifestyle of the wealthy by expropriating their wealth. However, I realize that this is unlikely so I occasionally vote for progressives/liberals because harm reduction is more important than my subcultural/political purity. Likewise the purity politics of constantly shitting on one necessary but imperfect mitigation pathway just because it’s not as perfect as “everyone should just ride bikes” is the kind of position only someone who lives in a rich society that is insulated from “climate catastrophe” could have.
It sounds like you’re saying that because there is no revolution, the project of converting to EVs is not urgent. Is that accurate?
I like that Lois pointed out quality of life benefits from micro-mobility. The reduction in stress alone is worth avoiding the car. I think Oregonians would want a piece of that if the state could see fit to promote safe streets in some functional manner. Lower speed limits has to be a part of that, but nobody I’ve talked to likes the idea. If we’re not willing to compromise (Bush Sr quote: “the American way of life is not up for negotiation”) then we will fail to reap the benefits.
PBOT has lowered speed limits pretty significantly across the city. ODOT has as well (at least in some places).
So that’s happening.
Except they recently increased it along Naito — inches from heavy pedestrian (and bike) traffic where there is minimal protection. Seems like an influential car driver complained to Mapps and the vulnerable users are stuck holding the bag (as is the custom).
Illustrates the difficulty of buy-in to changing how streets are used. Many of us feel roads are only for traditional vehicles so anything smaller or slower is intruding and not deserving of respect. I have experienced very considerate drivers, but also impatience on the verge of recklessness.
I do believe we have to use existing infrastructure because there’s zero chance of building enough bike lanes or independent mass transit to meet the need. Therefore we have to figure out how to share.
Do you have any evidence this is the case, or are you just making a baseless accusation? It seems more likely that Naito does not meet the ODOT criteria for a 20MPH street (which I believe it does not), so they raised it back to 25.
Regardless of the reason, a single counter-example does not nullify the larger point that speed limits in Portland are trending downward.
I have zero evidence for the hypothesis except the pattern of conduct, hence the use of “seems”. Pre-broadway scandal, the possibility would have never entered my mind. But I can see how to some it might appear like I somehow have inside information, which I don’t. I suppose I should have framed it as a question.
I agree that speed limits have been trending downward (which is great). I called out Naito as an exception (“Except they recently . . .”) because it’s exactly that. And a pretty big one. To me, the larger trend and ODOT criteria are not good excuses to raise the speed limit on Naito.
If you have no evidence of wrongdoing, why make the accusation? Couching it in terms like “seems” doesn’t change what you are doing. It is immoral to accuse people with absolutely no evidence or indication that they are guilty.
Mapps will be out of government in a few months (he is not going to be elected mayor). There is nothing to gain by tarnishing his name or yours by making false claims.
I said zero evidence except the pattern of conduct.
As an analogy, say one day you see your neighbor’s dog poop on your lawn which you then clean up. Then, the next day, you see some new poop on a different part of your lawn. And so you are now suspicious, “seems like my neighbor’s dog pooped on my lawn again” or alternatively in question-form “did my neighbor’s dog poop on my lawn again?” Maybe it didn’t, you know? Maybe it was a different dog? But maybe it actually was your neighbor’s dog. I don’t think it’s immoral to ask the question, especially of public figures.
What is the pattern of conduct? A pattern requires more than one incident about which we’ve supposed a lot, but know less.
Do you think “influential people” are going to use their capital to get the speed limit raised on some random street from 20 to 25? That doesn’t even make sense. But sure. Mapps told Williams to get the speed limit up to 25 and direct staff to concoct some cockamamie story about ODOT and Oregon Law because Timothy Boyle or Homer Williams called in a favor. There’s no other explanation.
Meanwhile, drivers continue to drive at the same speed they did before the change because nobody takes a 20 MPH limit on that street seriously.
In the above graphic,
Landfill costs to reduce GHG are $6 per ton.
Vehicle GHG reductions costs vary from $13 to $30 per ton.
Seem like money is flowing in an odd direction.
Also:
The plan appears to be $23.853 million on Medium and Heavy Duty (MHD) vehicle rebates, grants, and chargers,(for public transportation fleets, couriers, dump trucks delivery trucks, semi-tractor trailer fleets, etc.)
This clearly includes TriMet and other public transportation electric buses, if the agency applies for money..
“Using recent employment data, DEQ identified up to 2,358 truck transportation businesses potentially affected by this rule. Other sectors likely to benefit from newly available rebate funding include 392 couriers and messengers and up to 304 transit and ground passenger transportation businesses. All these businesses could see benefits associated with newly available rebate funding resulting from proposed rules if they choose to apply for rebate funding.”
https://www.oregon.gov/deq/rulemaking/pages/mhdzev2024.aspx
Meanwhile, they are going to spend $41.897million on electric car rebates and chargers for 6,200 cars, ($5000 rebate per car x 6200 cars = $31 million)
Giving $15.5 million for 3100 cars and $2500 for 6,200 ebikes would give 9100 households an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions depending on the length of the trip,
It is perplexing that ODOT and Oregon did not include reductions in VMT as a way to reduce GHG emissions as Jonathan mentioned above.
Very cheap compared to anything else. But there’s only so much of that you can do before you run out of landfills and have to move on to other, more expensive projects.
Maybe they don’t know a proven, cost-effective way to accomplish this.
Reducing vehicle speeds is a proven, cost effective way to accomplish VMT reduction. It is also reduces emissions. But its not popular with some segments of the public including many people in power who travel to Salem every day from Portland.
Is there really evidence that electric cars increase VMT? Because virtually every analysis of their climate benefit seems to assume they are REPLACING miles that would have been driven with a fossil fuel vehicle. If they are simply adding miles, then their high manufacturing emissions footprint is a net increase in emissions, not a decrease.
Of course they are still better than buying a new fossil fuel vehicle since that likely increases VMT as well with added emissions on top.,
Boy, it sure is a good thing Paris doesn’t exist, and that even if it did, their mayor of the past decade hasn’t spent a lot of her energy to reducing VMT by completely repurposing public spaces for non-car travel, and massively investing in public transit.
“Portland is not Paris”. Ya don’t say? Gee, I wonder how Paris got that way….
I assume you’ve been to Paris. If so, you know it is a very different city than Portland is. It is also a 2000 year old world capital, one of the largest cities in Europe, and has access to resources (financial, political, and cultural) that Portland can’t begin to dream of. They’re hosting the Olympics. Could we do that?
Just take a look at their subway map:
By comparison, we have zero subway lines, and just 5 above ground train lines, one which is the Orange line that goes nowhere and is very underused.
So yes, Portland is not Paris. Not even close.
I love Portland for what it is. Wishing it were Paris, or Amsterdam, or some other unattainable ideal, will only bring you sadness and frustration.
PS Paris “got that way” because Napoleon, monarch and Emperor, razed much of the city and rebuilt it in its modern form. That probably wouldn’t work here.
After driving in Wales, Ireland and the south of England for the past 3 weeks, I think Portland would benefit from looking at these roadways. No shoulders, or “clear zones,” hedge rows about two inches from the passenger side, oncoming traffic two inches from driver —- and everyone drives a manual. Ya gotta pay attention, the roadway is about 12 feet wide, hedge to hedge.
And that subway map makes me wish that Portland was Paris even harder.
Why do I live in such a small city and in such a backward nation?
An excellent question that I hope you seriously ask yourself and consider your options.
Telling people who disagree with you to leave the USA is just another example of how the USA is the greatest and most tolerant “democracy”.
It’s a legit question: If you viscerally hate the place you are, why stay?
You clearly wish you lived in a big city. Wouldn’t moving to one now make more sense than being miserable waiting for Portland to become one decades and decades hence (if ever)?
Oh please
I’m not disagreeing with you about anything at the moment. I guess that just fits into a pleasant victim mentality?
You’re the one who brought up the suffering of living in the beautiful northwest in the at present most powerful country . Im not telling you to do anything.
I’m simply agreeing with you that if you are that miserable you should consider your options.
An important point and one that is not mentioned enough I think. Well said!
Yes, well said. But I want to point out that there are a lot of different ways people can think about Paris and Amsterdam and such. Yes it makes me sad and frustrated we aren’t them sometimes… But I also find it inspiring to know that humans can actually live like that and I think it’s important to remind policymakers, leaders, and such that it is indeed possible to live differently. Those places are proof of concept and given that a lot of our fight here is just convincing people that a different way of life is possible, that can be useful.
But just because I think there’s some utility in talking about other places, doesn’t mean I don’t understand the structural/contextual/historical differences that make us becoming them impossible.
Absolutely — but those ideas are only as useful as they are implementable. I love intercity rail travel in Europe, but that doesn’t work so well when distances are so great. I love the great government services in Europe, but our country will never accept the levels of taxation required to provide them. I love that they use the metric system, but… well we are stealthily converting in many realms so while I’ll never by lumber by the meter, my decades old set of English allen wrenches has never been used.
We should definitely borrow ideas that would work, but endlessly lamenting about the ideas that won’t is pointless.
We’re Portland, not Paris or New York or Berlin. Embrace it.
A better world is possible — so I vehemently decline your offer to embrace the unequal and ecocidal status quo.
As the resident optimist, I fully agree. I’m pretty much alone in this forum thinking humanity’s best days are ahead.
This is a great opportunity for you to throw out your ideas on how a better world is possible, where it’s possible and what is needed to do to get there. I hear you disparage things and I’m very curious to hear how you think we as a city or as a nation can get to the better world you imagine. I’d even be thrilled to hear you mention what a better world actually is to you. Most of us are on this site to share ideas and experiences and if you feel like contributing some ideas I for one would like to hear them.
I have very mixed feelings about this. My partner and I own a mid-90’s Toyota pickup, a 2022 Nissan Leaf and two e-bikes. I’ve become a bit obsessed with calculating the emissions of our transportation options at all levels (from manufacturing to commuting).
I know that electric vehicle commutes produce roughly a quarter of the emissions of an ICE vehicle and for that reason we should absolutely support people of all income levels switching from gas/diesel to electric. However, I also know that e-bikes produce 1/10 of the commute emissions of EVs, so to see them completely left out of this plan is simply puzzling.
I also have mixed feelings about this money going to charging infrastructure. I see people mentioning the PGE Electric Avenue. I actually subscribe to that program ($25/mo) because there is a charging station close to our house. This company has had increased rates by 25% over the last two years and is aiming to increase rates again next year. Meanwhile, the charging station near our house, which has 4 total fast chargers, had had one out of commission for over a year and a second has been down for about a month. If you look at the PGE website regarding this station it actually stays that upgrades are in progress and will be completed in September. There are zero signs that any work has been done at this location.
This company is not hard pressed for cash and yet they are not maintaining the current infrastructure. I don’t trust them at all to use this money wisely.
“to see e-bikes completely left out of this plan is simply puzzling”
How much emitted CO2 would e-bike rebates reduce? What is the cost per ton? No one knows, but they have to enter something into the spreadsheet to rank and compare. That may be one reason why it’s not part of this package.
I don’t know how many people are out there who would genuinely stop driving for some classes of trips if they had an e-bike, would keep it in good working order, but who could only afford to buy one with a rebate. I’m sure the number is not zero, but I suspect that many people who want an e-bike will find a way to get one.
Do you think motorcycle groups are wringing their hands over the lack of electric motorcycle subsidies?
“Could only afford to buy one with a rebate” is the wrong threshold. The correct one is “Wouldn’t buy one without a rebate but will with one.” I suspect that many people who would not get an e-bike unbidden would if somebody would give them $500 iff they buy one.
Agreed. But the issue is not would they buy one, but would they consistently use it in place of their car if they did. That requires a fundamental behavior change, and that, we know, is hard.
Oregon has rightly rejected these types of Red State Commie infrastructure projects that will only help to support Dear Leader’s agenda of draining the swamp and reducing the size of the federal and state governments, and has instead embraced President Harris’ progressive program of getting a California-made Tesla in every garage. Common people don’t need choices, they need to be told by government the best way to live safely, that every job and business is most safely accessed by car, on unlimited freeways, not pesky little painted bike lanes and narrow sidewalks. If Oregon wanted something other than electric cars everywhere, why would it’s patriotic Blue State Democratically-elected state legislature promote a multi-billion dollar 20-lane freeway bridge for cars, and not a new subway system and a road tunnel under the Columbia River with bikelanes and rail? Portland, Oregon’s premier city and commercial center, has fully embraced a car-centric culture like no other American city – they even let drivers drive on bike paths and in city parks with impunity!
This is too much, LOL!!
To think that few people who read this will think to themselves, “maybe I shouldn’t blindly vote based on meaningless social issues and try something else since voting for people who say they are cool like me is clearly not working”.
What is that word that is defined as doing something the same way over and over and expecting a different result again??
Kamala Harris has not weighed in with a set of environmental plans. We can guess that her program might be derived from Biden’s. If she’s elected everything will depend on what Congress looks like.
What’s Kamala got to do with Teslas?
It’s probably true that almost all Oregon legislators spend hundreds of hours in a car every year. We can’t be surprised if our police officers and legislators have a serious case of car head.
While it’s true that everything will depend on congress, there is some evidence that her climate plans may actually be to the left of Biden’s. For example, this recent piece from Streetsblog demonstrates her leadership to push back against car culture status quo:
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2024/07/24/opinion-is-kamala-harris-the-climate-president-weve-been-waiting-for
It’s also worth noting that when she was a primary candidate in 2020 she had a plan that called for $10 trillion in spending to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a climate pollution fee, and a ban on fracking and offshore drilling:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kamala-harris-stands-green-new-deal-climate-initiatives/story?id=112152079
I’m looking forward to learning more about her 2024 climate platform.
Joe Biden is the climate president we need. Kamala Harris will continue his legacy. I hope you guys scrutinize her policy docs, but they don’t matter at all in the real world. Your time is better spent convincing your Qanon relatives in the midwest that voting is a waste of time.
Really?!?
You’re randomly slurring people who live in the so called fly over parts of the country because you disagree with someone over politics? I’m surprised you used qanon and not deplorables actually.
I don’t understand your reaction. How did I slur anyone? I thought the qanon reference was a little dated and certainly anodyne. I don’t see qanon around as much these days, but people used to be openly into it and would not take offense if you pointed it out. Remember all the flags on Jan 6? I WAS invoking a correlation between right wing conspiracy theories, which are having a golden era since republicans learned to use the internet, and political opposition to any kind of emissions mitigation policy. Since this is going to be a turnout election, I do hope that qanon types stay home and that all the ladies dust off their pussy hats and come out to elect the first female POTUS. Otherwise we’ll get republican lead climate policy. A lot of Nader/green party types here will tell your there’s no difference between the major national parties (‘ecocidal dems’), but they’re wrong.
The part you left out in that long explanation is the one part jakeco969 mentioned–the location (your “midwest”, their “fly over parts of the country”).
Why mention “midwest” at all? Because everyone knows that that’s where all the QAnon hicks that believe elections are rigged live? That’s how it comes across.
Umm … I mentioned the midwest because it’s likely that the tipping point state in our upcoming election will be in the midwest (or at least if the dems lose Pennsylvania, in particular, they will have a hard time winning the electoral college). Thanks for pointing out the source of the offense — I was truly surprised by jakeo969’s response.
Hi jakeco969, I’m sorry I used offensive stereotypes of midwesterners in my comment.
At the center of the ideal bell curve of human transportation that meets the most needs with the least harm and waste is a slice of humans moving at 15 to 20mph.
15- 20 mph is, practically speaking, 5+ miles in 20 minutes including stops and starts.
By moving at 15-20 mph, people can use the least amount of space moving and parking, create the least amount of risk, require the lowest individual investment, the lowest public investment, and access most easily.
However we achieve this and prioritize this type of transportation doesn’t matter.
But it just so happens that bikes and e-bikes do this and cars and e-cars don’t. In fact, cars and e-cars f*ck the whole thing up, because they take up too much space, are too expensive and cause too much harm.
Metro, the legislature, the governor, the city don’t seem to get this and it is extremely frustrating and disappointing.
@SD FTW COTW !!
As a current example of benefits of non-sprawl, in Hong Kong the prices for fuel are highest or nearly highest in the world but Hong Kongers spend less per-person on fuel than other populations. Their society is oriented around transit and self-powered transportation such as walking/biking. They also design neighborhoods around work/life/shopping accessibility, so people typically travel less than a few miles for work/groceries/etc. It is common to live in an apartment building that the ground floor features shops including grocery stores.
I saw similar density when I was in Singapore and I agree that most Americans have no idea what real density looks or feels like. Its difficult to listen to planners expound on density and then describe old European cities instead of the bustling metropolises we should be emulating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
Do you think that more than a small number of Americans want to live this way?
I don’t think that they actually do. It seems that even on BP people enjoy their ability to travel out of the city at will and living in houses. Actual density like HK and Singapore doesn’t allow for either of those things for the vast majority of the inhabitants. Even the ones that boldly call for more density locally don’t seem to be aware of the sacrifices that entails. I enjoyed the ease and the reach of public transportation and the calmness of the order that was felt through draconian enforcement of the laws although the constant press of humanity took some getting used to. Living that dense comfortably means giving up some of the personal freedoms to do what one wants when one wants that most here have demonstrated they just aren’t ready to do. To start we should advocate for Singapore’s vehicle policies where a permit to buy a car costs thousands before a car can even be bought. Dents or other damages are cause to be ticketed and the permit only lasts so long and the car is removed. It could easily be modified to force EVs on the populace, but Oregon can’t even enforce parking or up to date plates because of fear of discrimination . Singapore does not care about concepts like that and they can’t worry about that. We talk good game about increasing density, but it’s just talk so far. Rather than endless fact finding trips to Amsterdam, Paris, Norway, etc planners should spend time in places we should be working to emulate. Match our stated goals with locations that already have met those goals, but in those places the self has given way to the community which is why we’re not ready here to have a high density life.
I’m having trouble seeing the difference between “endless fact finding trips to Amsterdam…” and “planners should spend time in places we should…emulate”
I understand and that’s part of the problem when discussing density. If you want real density one needs to study Hong Kong, Singapore, parts of China and similar highly dense yet functional urban areas. If you want a nice vacation then one should go to Amsterdam, etc. So far it doesn’t seem like the PNW or any part of the US wants to make or really understand the sacrifices involved in developing a dense urban environment.
This is as expected given the light liberal nature of Portland and the failure to confront the climate arsonist Democrats. Google 2023 HB 5005 where $10 billion in freeway money was slipped in the last days of the year with no debate or public comment allowed.
I’ve done a 27k miles by ebike the last ten years and I have to stop due to safety being a bigger risk every year.
Also the data table 1 that is shown by Jonathan is from this document, which I could not find in his story. It is in paragraph six of the Kotek press release.
https://www.oregon.gov/deq/ghgp/Documents/cprgImpGrant.pdf