Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: transportation

How E-Bikes Will Transform the Transportation Economy in Colorado in 2024

All of a sudden, just this year — just the last few months really — everywhere I go I see and hear about electric bikes. E-bikes are the new fad, rolling into popularity as fast as their pedal-assisted electric motors will drive them. Among my circle of friends and acquaintances, they are the hottest new commodity on the planet.  

Now, admittedly, at my age, 71, my circle is composed of a lot of people in the Social Security and Medicare set, so if you think about it, it makes sense that they would be embracing e-bikes. After all, e-biking is a form of assisted living. 

But there is much more going on here than merely motorizing an age-old recreational transportation mode. What we are in the midst of is a massive transformation of transportation, one coming at e-lectricfying speed. 

READ: Skyhook Solar — Solar-powered Charging Stations for E-bikes and Electric Cars

In a way, it reminds me of the introduction 20 years ago or so of light rail as a commuter option. The great thing about the light rail system built by the Regional Transportation District — one that continues to grow in spite of RTD’s many dysfunctional aspects — is that light rail appealed to and garnered (garners) riders who never in a million years would take a bus. I am among that crowd, in that a bus to me seemed so old-school, seedy and down-scale, but light rail feels sophisticated and modern. 

It’s the same with e-bikes. I firmly believe that e-bikes will garner riders from a large group of people who would never in a million years ride a bike to work, but will probably start commuting on their e-bikes regularly.  

The city of Denver in particular, and many other locales across the state and the country as well, have been building bike lanes and pushing biking as a form of commuting and mobility for some time now, often at the expense of traffic street lanes once reserved for automobiles and parking. Indeed, there is a national Bike to Work Week and Bike to Work Day (May 15-21 and May 19, respectively, in 2023), a national movement for “safer streets, connected communities, a healthier planet and happier people,” according to the League of American Bicyclists. That, I believe, will soon become an anachronism, as biking and e-biking especially become the norm.  

Consider that, according to Fortune magazine, the global e-bike market in 2022 was something like $37.5 billion, with growth projections for that number to rise to $43.3 billion this year and to a whopping $120 billion by 2030. This has obviously gone way beyond recreational purchases and into the realm of primary transportation.  

For Colorado this has come at a fortunate time, in that just this past August, due to the passage of SB22-193, Colorado launched a statewide e-bike rebate available to low- and moderate-income Coloradans where e-bike purchasers can get rebates of up to $1,750 for e-bikes and accessories (helmets) through the Colorado Energy Office. It’s a relatively complicated process, but it’s clear that the state — and many other locales around the country — are very interested in getting people on e-bikes. 

We are, of course, in the midst of an “e” revolution in all vehicles; every automobile company on the planet is going electric very rapidly. But with cars, the purpose is essentially environmental — to supplant the use of fossil fuels — because an electric car doesn’t necessarily represent a new transportation mode, just a greener alternative. E-bike popularity, on the other hand, is not driven by environmental concerns, and is part of a seismic shift in mobility, one that will take many cars off the streets and get people pedaling for commuting and basic transportation.   

READ: Becoming a Zero-Emissions State — How Alternative Fuels Are Transforming Transportation in Colorado

One of the most interesting things about e-bikes, to me at least, is that they are not very new at all. The first patent for an electric bicycle was granted to Ogden Bolten Jr. in 1895, with another patent awarded for a novel variation two years later. But then there were electric cars back then too; we humans need new reasons to recycle old ideas, I guess. Or perhaps it just takes time for us to come to our senses.  

Either way, I feel it in my bones: Electric bicycles are about to take over the world.  

 

Jeff RundlesJeff Rundles is a former editor of ColoradoBiz and a regular columnist. Read this and Rundles’ blog, Executive Wheels, at cobizmag.com or email him at [email protected]. 

Tapping the Brakes on the Californication of Colorado transportation

Almost a decade ago, David Lewis wrote for Colorado-Biz that Colorado was “a natural-gas leader,” while European-based energy organizations crowed about the “Golden Age of Gas.” Natural gas-powered vehicles were the green-fad de jour in 2013. Many then, and to some extent now, can recall city buses and fleet vehicles with painted exultations of “this vehicle is powered by natural gas.” The reasons natural gas vehicles fell out of favor are enigmatic. Some speculate the fallout was attributable to the election of candidates with a worldview wholly opposed to hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking.

READ — Clearing the Air on Colorado’s Emissions

Perhaps the reason is as simple as the emergence of a more viable alternative. Nearly 10 years after the natural gas vehicle heyday, the new darling in the transportation sector’s role in redressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is the electric vehicle (EV). It didn’t hurt that the falcon wing doors on Tesla’s SUV reminded us of the De-Lorean in “Back to the Future,” minus the ability to time travel.

The clarion call to reduce GHG emissions is supported by research indicating an urgency to act, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), which says Colorado’s transportation sector emits more GHGs than any other sector.

Will EVs endure as the preferred panacea for the GHG in Colorado’s atmosphere, or will this remedy go the way of natural gas-powered vehicles? Signs point to the former being the most-probable scenario.

Gov. Jared Polis signed in 2019 an executive order creating a slew of EV-related directives:

  • Creation of an interdepartmental transportation electrification workgroup to develop, coordinate and implement state programs and strategies supporting widespread transportation electrification.
  • Creation of a Zero Emission Vehicle program by CDPHE’s Air Quality Control Commission.
  • Revision of the state’s Beneficiary Mitigation Plan, allocating the remaining $70 million of funds from the federal Volkswagen-emission case to support electrification of transportation.

In 2019, responding to the executive order, CDPHE’s Air Quality Control Commission adopted a Zero Emission Vehicle standard. The Colorado Energy Office then released in 2021 the Pollution Reduction Roadmap, which outlined strategies for transitioning Colorado’s transportation system to achieve 100% electric cars on the road, and a 100% market share for zero-emissions trucks among new sales by 2050. (Colorado already has a stated goal of 940,000 EVs statewide by 2030.)

Lofty goals necessitate aggressive strategies, which is why Polis adopted California’s vehicle standards under Section 177 of the Federal Clean Air Act, mandating zero-emissions vehicles statewide.

READ — Do Hispanics Bear the Brunt of the Energy Crisis?

However, the governor stopped short of an outright ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars, as California regulators have done, leaving many to question how committed he is to the cause. Whether the governor tapped the brakes on the Californication of Colorado because of election-year considerations is fair speculation.

Still, the greatest roadblock to achieving EV goals is the charging infrastructure. ColoradoBiz in 2019 reported on the dismal status of EV-charging infrastructure, and progress since then has failed to put a dent in the need. As of 2020, there were 2,000 public chargers. Studies suggest 24,000 will be required to accommodate the 2030 goals: an unfathomable 30% annual growth rate.

In the end, political realities will continue to rule when it comes to environment and transportation policies.

I-70 takes growing toll on Western Slope

Sos Canyon

In Colorado’s peach country on the Western Slope, there’s an expression about “putting stuff on wheels.” It means getting the product to market. In that regard, it was a rough summer.

First came the national truck and driver shortage. Then Glenwood Canyon was closed for about three weeks. Some corn was left unpicked. And if no peaches were left hanging, the margins were shaved.

The experience reminded Coloradans on both sides of the Continental Divide of our dependency on Interstate 70, the state’s only four-laned east-west highway. The experience also re-ignited conversation about improving a narrow, winding alternative to Glenwood Canyon.

Grand Valley growers mostly contract with truckers. The shortage drove prices higher. Bruce Talbott, whose 400-acre peach-growing operation at Palisade is the state’s largest, says it normally costs $3,000 to $4,000 to ship a load. The cost this year rose to $6,000 – and on one shipping day, the truck never arrived because somebody else had bid $10,000. It was cheaper to send the peaches box-by-box by FedEx, he says.

Then came the debris flows in Glenwood Canyon, the result of last year’s highway-closing Grizzly Creek wildfire and this year’s torrential rains. I-70 through the canyon was closed to all traffic from July 30 to Aug. 14, peak season for sweet corn, peaches and tourists. “It felt like forever,” says Eagle County Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry.

Truckers found the best alternatives still wanting. They involve driving either through Steamboat Springs or through Gunnison. The former, if scenic, turns a five-hour trip into a nine-hour trip, and the latter almost as much. That can also force drivers into overnight stays in metro Denver.

“It is not insurmountable, but it is expensive, and it is an additional challenge that we wish were not there,” says Talbot, the president of the Colorado Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. His family’s operation yields about 8 million pounds of peaches each year, about 25% of it delivered to Colorado’s Eastern Slope.

At Olathe, corn grower Reid Fishering reports he left more than 150 acres of corn standing because of lack of wheels to market.

Steve Ela every Friday drives a truck with apples, pears and other fruit from his Hotchkiss orchards to the seven weekend farmers’ markets from Fort Collins to Denver. He added 90 minutes each way with Glenwood Canyon closed. This was on top of adverse weather that caused him to lose 80% of his apples and 90% of his peaches.

Western Slope tourist traffic was also dampened. Glenwood Springs saw a 30% decline in sales. Store shelves in Grand Junction also suffered. In Colorado, nearly all groceries, gas and other goods get distributed from Front Range warehouses.

Closing of I-70 diverted traffic and attention to Cottonwood Pass, a 26-mile route between Gypsum and Glenwood Springs that in the early 1960s was briefly considered as the interstate route.

Today it remains open only from April to November and, because of steep grades, blind corners and non-existent shoulders, cannot accommodate vehicles longer than 35 feet.

The Colorado Motor Carriers Association calls for a truck-friendly upgrade to Cottonwood Pass.

Greg Fulton, the president, says a state analysis that showed a 2-to-1 cost-benefit ratio greatly understates the benefits. Colorado “needs to consider and move forward with a detour (over) Cottonwood Pass as early as possible,” he says.

Quickly is almost certainly not in the cards, though. Federal funding – crucial to the project—would trigger rigorous environmental analysis. And not everybody in the affected areas wants to see their country road get interstate-like traffic with stuff on wheels.

County governments in the Eagle, Glenwood Springs and Aspen areas have talked for years about improvements. Many people commute across county lines, today mostly through Glenwood Canyon. Creating two 12-foot lanes would cost $66 million for just the Eagle County component, according to a 2010 study. Even the bare-minimum safety fixes would cost $11 million to $15 million.

The local governments have adopted no formal position but seem to favor more limited upgrades that would accommodate neither peach trucks nor Greyhound buses.

Executive Wheels: The 2020 Fiat 500x AWD leaves much to be desired

Back in the day–way back in the day, say in the early to mid-1970s–I owned a Fiat 128, which I bought brand new, and my recollection was that I chose that car over others based on two points: first, price, as in it was cheap; second, being Italian it had a little more coolness cache than a small Chevy of Ford. A friend of mine at the time had a sporty Spider. He was way cooler than I. 

After a period of time, and some bad publicity, Fiat exited the North American market in 1982, and it would be 27 years, in 2009, when the badge returned–a return in conjunction with the Fiat Group acquiring a 20% stake in the US automaker Chrysler.

My next encounter with Fiat was on a 2007 vacation to Italy, where I was impressed with the Fiat Panda, a small, 4-seater sedan that was available in an All Wheel Drive format. I knew there were rumors of Fiat returning to the American market, and I thought a small AWD vehicle would be a positive entry. But Fiat, now 11 years back in the American market, isn’t doing all that well: it ranks dead last in brand sales in the first half of 2020, with barely 1,400 in unit sales and down 53.7% from the same period in 2019. Indeed, Alfa Romeo, a related brand, outsold Fiat so far this year by 2 ½ times. That’s not just not doing well, that is dismal.

Over the last 11 years I have driven a few Fiats as an auto reviewer, and I can’t think of anything I may have written that would come across as a rave review. The Fiat 500–the basic platform the brand has taken in the United States this time around–is not a bad vehicle. Indeed, it is a kind of fun little car, truth be told. But it is not special, and in this age when everyone is making smaller cars, there are a lot of special ones out there. 

This relatively new (2016 model year), slightly beefier 500 with AWD is, I guess, Fiat’s attempt to try and get something special into the American market. There is no doubt that the Fiat 500, and even this 500x, are popular Italian and European cars; they are more widely known there, and are sized like most of the vehicles on European roads. But I suspect that here in the US this shape of car will have a problem getting traction (no AWD pun intended).

2020 Fiat 500x Int

The 500x is closely related–read: pretty much the same vehicle–as the Jeep Renegade, and as a SUV variety, the Renegade has a much better chance to meet American buyer’s tastes. And the American buyer can be brutal: they don’t buy many Fiats, but I met several people over the course of my week-long test drive who reminded me that F-I-A-T means “fix it again, Tony.” Almost no one knows the car, but almost everyone knows the pejorative. That can’t be good. 

Having said all of that, and having given the impression that my feeling about this 500x is tepid at best, I must say that in many respects I enjoyed driving the car. It has all of the modern stuff in both entertainment and safety–through either standards or in the $7,000 or so in add-ons on my test-drive model. It’s a nice size–not too small (like some of the 500s) and not too big, with a little heft that makes it feel like it would stay on the road. The handling was pretty good; in fact, once I was up to speed on the road or out on the highway, the car responded admirably to driving commands. It was also very quiet with little or no road noise–unusual for this type of car, to be frank. 

But there was simply one deal killer. This Fiat 500x Trekking trim features a 1.3-liter I4 engine with a turbocharger that puts out some 177 horsepower. A 1.3-liter engine, which is the smallest I have come across in any vehicle in quite some time, worries me because I would constantly fret that it would run too hot, work too hard, to handle the highway and commuter traffic, much less off-roading which is one of Fiat’s selling points on the AWD. 

But what really got me–the deal killer–was the turbo lag. Throughout my entire week-long test drive the very annoying hesitation between when I put the hammer down and when the hammer delivered often times scared the bejeebers out of me, like I wasn’t going to make the turn before the oncoming traffic hit me. This bugged the hell out of me all week, and if I owned this vehicle it would drive me nuts constantly. The gas mileage–24 mpg city/30 mpg highway/ 26 mpg combined–is some consolation, but not much. 

This Trekking trim carries a base price of $25,995, and there are two other trims–the Sport ($26,895 base) and the Trekking Plus ($29,495 base)–more expansive, and one, the POP, that starts at $24,590.  

That they had to add-on about $7,000 (including $1,495 in destination charges) to get a vehicle equipped in what I have come to know as the standard package is troublesome. 

The whole time I was driving the 500x I kept thinking that for this kind of money I would much rather have a Subaru Crosstrek. That can’t be good for Fiat.

RATING: TWO WHEELS (OUT OF FOUR)