December 23, 2024 • 32 mins
UBC Prof and Transportation Engineer Dr. Alex Bigazzi explains how e-bike rebate programs are transforming the transportation landscape in BC. Bigazzi has all the data on who gets the subsidies, how the bikes are being used, whether anyone is taking a 'free ride' on the program, and whether e-bikes are actually replacing cars ... or bikes.
Dr. Bigazzi also shares how a pioneering subsidy initiative in Saanich paved the way for broader provincial adoption, and which strategies are successfully encouraging people to swap their cars for e-bikes thereby reducing carbon emissions and improving public health. Spoiler alert: it turns out that fun and joy are the key motivators for getting people onto bikes, and keeping them there.
SOME HANDY LINKS
Saanich results and report: https://reactlab.civil.ubc.ca/saanich-ebike-incentives/
The study on micromobility mode shares and speeds in cycling facilities: https://reactlab.civil.ubc.ca/human-electric-hybrid-vehicles/
An earlier report on e-bike incentives for Victoria in 2019 that actually led to the Saanich collaboration: https://civil-reactlab.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2021/01/Ebike-Incentive-Program-Development-Victoria_FinalReport_March-2019.pdf
***********************************************
The Bike Sense podcast with Peter Ladner is produced by the BC Cycling Coalition – your voice for safer and more accessible cycling and active transportation in British Columbia.
Got feedback or ideas for future episodes? Please drop us an email at admin@bccycling.ca.
Membership in the BCCC is now FREE! The future of this podcast depends on people like you becoming members at BCCycling.ca.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Welcome to Bike Sense , the BC Cycling Coalition's
podcast, where we talk about allthings related to active
transportation advocacy in BC.
I'm your host, peter Ladner,chair of the Board of the BC
Cycling Coalition.
I hope you enjoy the show.
In the summer of 2021, themunicipality of Saanich
(00:41):
introduced BC's first e-bikerebate program, where people
were subsidized to buy e-bikes.
The success of that program ledto a province-wide rebate
program for e-bikes introducedin May 2023, where the province
would give people between $350and $1,400, depending on their
(01:02):
income, to buy an e-bike, andthey allocated $6 million for
this.
They thought it would reach9,000 people and the day they
opened up the applications,their website crashed.
(01:22):
There were so many peopleapplying.
We have a guest today whoprobably knows more about all
this than anybody in the world.
His name is Dr Alex Bagazzi.
He is a transportation engineerassociate professor at UBC and
his special area of focus andresearch is non-motorized and
lightly motorized transportationand the intersection of physics
(01:43):
, physiology and behavior foractive travelers.
Welcome, dr Alex Bagazzi.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Thank you so much, peter, it's great to be here.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Before we start, I noticed in your bio that you
have a background as a jazzmusician.
How did you go from being ajazz musician to a
transportation engineer?
Speaker 2 (02:02):
as a musician to a transportation engineer.
Yeah, that is true.
My first university degree wasin music and I played music and
had a bit of a vagabondlifestyle for a while.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Did you ride around on an e-bike during that
vagabond lifestyle?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
No, no, this was the early 2000s, so not a lot of
e-bikes around then.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
A van, maybe with Grateful Dead.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Yeah, more like that.
And yeah, a little bit later on, I was looking for a big change
and some way to have a littlebit of a different type of
impact on the world.
And so and I looked around andtransportation systems seemed
like something that needed somework and really had a big impact
(02:49):
on people's lives, and sothat's why I ended up in
transportation.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Well, thank you for doing that.
So you looked at the Saanichprogram, you evaluated it, with
some help from the Saanichmunicipality and the provincial
government, but mainly it wasyour initiative and you got the
money together to do that.
What did you find out?
Did it work?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Yeah, absolutely so.
Uh, short answer is yes, itworked.
The the, the incentives were um, remarkably successful in both
attracting new e-bike riders andin having those e-bike riders
use their bike regularly, even ayear after purchase, and in the
(03:32):
long-term follow-up that we did.
And a fairly large portion ofthat e-bike travel was
displacing automobile use, whichis kind of the ideal thing when
we're looking at havingpositive impacts on climate
change and affordability andpublic health and things like
that.
So, yeah, quite a large success.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
And that success led to the province being emboldened
to do their program.
And you have looked somewhat atthe province's program.
Are you seeing the samesuccesses and did it have the
same goals of displacing cartravel?
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Yeah, so we are right now finishing the 12-month
follow-up of the people that werecruited into our study from
the provincial program and sofar, from what we've seen in the
interim analysis that we'vedone, it looks like the results
are quite similar to what we sawin Saanich.
There's a few differencesbecause there's a few different
(04:30):
aspects to the way the programwas structured.
They're similar but notequivalent, and so we're seeing
a little bit of a difference,and also people in the BC
program are in a wider range ofcontexts than Saanich and so
there are some differences andwe'll soon be able to dig into
that full data set and hope tohave all the results out
(04:53):
sometime in the spring, in a fewmonths.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
On the impacts of the provincial-wide program, which
was much larger, as you said,Well, speaking of a wider range
of context, I know that e-bikeprogram rebates are being done
all over the world and many,many cities in North America are
doing them, and so this is nota new thing and it must be
working because they're alldoing it and continuing to do it
(05:15):
.
But, looking at differentcontexts, how effective are
e-bikes in a rural part of theprovince where maybe it gets
more snow and the distancespeople have to go are longer and
the protected routes are fewer?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Yeah, that's a great question and one of the main
things that we'll be able tolook at once we have the BCY
data all analyzed because thatSanta's context is more
constrained and and most um ofthe e-bike incentives that have
been um, uh, done so far well,actually they're.
(05:51):
They're at all levels ofgovernment.
So there's some cities doingthem, like Saanich, like Denver,
um, there are some provincesand States doing it, like now BC
has done it, um, california isworking on some, and there's
even been some countries thathave done it in Europe, like the
Netherlands, and so there are arange of these incentives and
(06:13):
they do have different effects.
However, we haven't had enoughkind of analyses of different
programs in different contextsto be able to say how much their
effectiveness varies In general.
We do know that people usee-bikes differently in different
contexts, but in terms of theeffects of the incentives, it's
still pretty early to say.
(06:34):
There hasn't been a lot ofrigorous analysis, which was one
of the big motivations of usdeveloping an evaluation program
to accompany the rebateprograms in Saanich and BC, and
we've been super appreciative ofthe District of Saanich and the
province well, both for theirleadership in launching these
(06:55):
programs but also for theireagerness to engage with
researchers to do an independentevaluation of the effects.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
People looking at these, just taking a quick
sudden look at it, might saywell, yeah, but so I get $1,400
for an e-bike.
Why don't I just go and sell itand keep the $1,400 and not
worry about riding my e-bikearound?
Has that happened?
Did you research that?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
It's hard to know the extent to which that is
happening.
It probably is happening, some.
It's possible.
It's definitely a risk withthis and all types of incentive
programs, but it doesn't appearto be a large issue, just based
on the few times thatadministrative agencies have
(07:45):
been able to go in and go backand follow up with people who've
received the e-bike rebates.
All these programs haveagreements that people who
receive the rebates have toagree to before they can get the
rebate, which includes thingslike not selling it and keeping
it for 12 months.
So what you're describing wouldbe a violation of the terms,
which can definitely happen.
But a kind of bigger concern,actually in terms of the
(08:09):
effectiveness of these programs,is what we call free riding,
which is just people getting therebates who would have bought
an e-bike anyway, and that's,you know, within the allowances
of the program, because theprogram doesn't say what you
would have had to have doneanyway, because there's no way
to really know for certain whatwould have happened in that, in
that other world.
(08:30):
So, um, when we're evaluatingthe effects of the programs, one
of the most important things toquantifying how impactful it
was is trying to tease out andseparate the people who would
have bought an e-bike anywaywithout the rebate from those
who would not.
And that's a big part of it, andit is also a big piece of
(08:55):
trying to design a programthat's more effective.
I'll say one of the things thatmade Saanich's design so unique
and really on the vanguard ofthese types of incentive
programs is their approach totiering the amount of the
incentive to the household'sincome.
(09:17):
And they did that specificallyto achieve two things.
First of all is to enhance theequity of the program, so to
make sure that people who werein greater need of assistance
got more assistance, so toachieve both kind of climate and
equity goals simultaneously.
(09:38):
But also some pre-programmodeling analysis that we had
done before the Sanus programlaunched suggested that lower
income households are actuallyalso more price sensitive.
So they are more likely to bethese marginal purchasers who
wouldn't have bought without therebate, as opposed to higher
(10:00):
income households which are morelikely to be free riders.
They were more likely to buy ane-bike anyway because they have
more capacity to do that.
So there's a way that we cantarget both equity and
effectiveness by incomeconditioning the incentives,
which is one of the novel and, Ithink, really successful
(10:23):
aspects of both the sandwich andthe provincial program and the
richer people get a much smalleramount of money, like in the
provincial one, they only get350 bucks.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
So that's really, you know, not a painful free ride.
So what did you find out abouthow people use these e-bikes?
Who?
Who benefited the most, and didpeople actually get out and
ride them, and did peopleactually get out and ride them.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Yeah, they used them quite a bit, on average three to
four times a week.
We recruited a control group ofpeople who purchased
non-incentivized e-bikes andpeople who purchased
conventional bicycles as well,so we can do a robust comparison
, and what we found is that thepeople who purchased the e-bike
(11:06):
were substituting auto tripsmuch more than people who used
conventional bicycles, atactually twice the rate.
So around 20% of conventionalbicycle trips, or trips made by
a purchased conventional bicycle, were substituting for auto
trips, whereas around 40% to 45%of e-bike trips were replacing
(11:27):
automobile trips, either as adriver or a passenger, and so we
really are seeing quite a lotof mode shift.
These are people who were note-biking before, and most were
not conventional bicyclingbefore either.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
So you have solved the cheater conundrum.
When people who have regularbikes find friends with e-bikes,
they call them cheaters.
But those of us with e-bikessay, well, yeah, but compare
taking an e-bike with taking acar ride, and you're not
cheating at all.
You're getting more exercise.
And I gather that people withe-bikes end up getting more
(12:02):
exercise because they take themout more often.
Is that what you found too?
Speaker 2 (12:06):
So you're exactly right, peter, and I'll be honest
.
So I actually don't ride ane-bike but I do ride a
conventional bicycle quite a lotand the nature of the devices
we see in bike lanes and pathshas changed.
And there's a whole separateresearch project we did now
looking at four-year trends inmode shares on off-street paths
(12:31):
and speeds, and what we found isthat there has been an enormous
growth in e-bikes and otherelectric devices in these paths
and that has led to an increasein speed, which does lead to
kind of less comfort and moreconflict.
So it is a shift in thetransportation system.
So there's an understandablekind of response to people who
(12:53):
were using it before in the moreconventional just conventional
bicycle and pedestrian modes.
But one of the things I do liketo remind people is that most
of the e-bikers would not havebeen cycling anyway.
Most of this is car or a muchlarger share is car mode shift
(13:14):
than conventional bike shift.
And so you know, would yourather be interacting with an
electric bike or with a car?
Speaker 1 (13:24):
One of the premises of this program is that finances
are a barrier maybe the biggestbarrier to e-biking.
But I noticed that there wasalso, in the provincial program,
a promotion of education sopeople who didn't know how to
ride or weren't sure of therules of the road could be
educated.
And we all know that thebiggest barrier for people
(13:47):
riding more is protection andsafety.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
And so, between finances and education and
protected lanes, which would yousay are the most important
factors for getting a mode shiftgoing, that's a great question
and so, just to be clear, I'mnow speaking we didn't actually
analyze that question withinthis research, but speaking more
broadly, because we have done alot of research on this type of
(14:12):
question, infrastructure isabsolutely essential, absolutely
essential, and that needs to bethe foundation of any cycling
policy, any cycling policy.
I have heard some governmentskind of hinted this.
So we need to make sure that,although e-bike incentives are
(14:33):
very effective, they are notkind of the answer for people
who are looking to promoteactive transportation.
They are one complementarystrategy within a suite of
strategies to promote activetransportation that needs to
center on infrastructure.
And then e-bikes can be animportant tool for helping
especially lower incomehouseholds, enabling them to
(14:56):
access lightly motorized,non-automobile transportation
options for some of their trips.
But it really does need tocenter on infrastructure first.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Can you talk about the type of trips that people
use their e-bikes for?
Because the classic argumentabout bikes is well, yeah,
that's great, but how am I goingto get my kid to a soccer game
or pick up the groceries or getthat load of lumber from Kimber?
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Mart or something.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Are they being used for more utilitarian purposes?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Absolutely.
I can pull up the data nowwhile we're talking.
But, um, they are you beingused for a variety of purchases,
just like automobiles and justlike conventional bicycles.
Um, so in our, in our data here, uh, around 35 40% were being
(15:47):
used for a commute trip of somekind going to work or school,
whereas that was about 30, 35%for conventional bicycles.
So actually a little bit higherutilitarian rate than
conventional bicycles, andthat's a large share.
They're also being used forother types of utilitarian trips
, like shopping and errands.
It's about 10, 15%.
(16:07):
They're being used as escorttrips.
So this is something thate-bikes really open up within
the cycling world is pick up anddrop off for children, and
you'll see a much larger shareof parents taking kids to school
on an e-bike than you do onconventional bicycles, because
(16:30):
it's just so much harder on aconventional bicycle.
So electric bicycles enableactually more utilitarian trips
than like exercise or leisuretrips.
Now, there are some exercise orleisure trips, but we actually
see a smaller portion than forconventional bicycles.
I do like to say, though, Ifeel like, especially
(16:52):
transportation engineers likemyself, we tend to focus too
much on utilitarian travel and,you know, maybe that's just our
kind of economic, kind ofcapitalist orientation.
But you know, recreationalexercise type trips are also a
really important and perfectlyvalid use of the transportation
(17:15):
system.
So you know, we also want to getpeople out there on those types
of trips.
But yeah, e-bike trips e-bikesare being used quite a lot for
utilitarian travel.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
We're not afraid to use the words joy and fun on
this podcast.
When you're justifying apolitical program, you say well,
it brings joy and fun intopeople's lives.
Sounds a bit flaky, I will say,but for those of us who do the
rides, that's a really big deal.
But let's get back to thenumbers actually, if I could
(17:46):
follow up on that speaking ofthe numbers.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
So we asked people about their experiences three
months and 12 months after ascompared to what they expected,
about things like comfort,charging, parking, how often
they use it, etc.
And what's super interesting.
I did not expect this, but inboth the three month and 12
month follow-up in sanich and inthe three month follow up in
(18:08):
for the BC program, every one ofthose the number one thing that
people cited as much betterthan they expected isikes are
fun is actually has been a hugecomponent of people's experience
(18:31):
and their habit formingbehavior, of their tendency to
still be using it 12 months in.
People really like ridinge-bikes and that again is
something we probably especiallytransportation engineers like
myself we don't focus nearly asmuch on as we probably should.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
Were there any other surprises in your findings?
Speaker 2 (18:55):
I did not expect to see the level of retained mode
shift at 12 months that we saw.
I thought we'd see more of anovelty effect where they use it
quite a bit for three monthsbut then by 12 months in it was
like a Peloton bike gatheringdust or, you know, like a
(19:16):
clothes hanger, clothes dryingrack.
That was not the case.
It dropped off a little bitafter 12 months, but really not
much, and so this appears tohave been a pretty sticky
intervention in terms oflong-term travel behavior shifts
.
I'll also add one more thing,which is that this isn't a whole
(19:40):
lot of people abandoningautomobile travel, a whole lot
of people abandoning automobiletravel.
Pretty much everyone still hadaccess to a car, who had it
before and still used a carregularly.
We're really just talking aboutshifting a portion of their
trips, and that's really why theincentive program is nice,
(20:00):
because it provides an optionfor people to shift their
feasible trips which, aggregatedover a lot of people, can
really have an impact.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
And I would guess that what people consider
feasible changes over time too,because I talked to somebody
yesterday who said they used tojust ride their bike on sunny
days and they only ride homefrom work not to work because
they get sweaty.
And then they figured it allout and now they do it much more
often for many more reasons.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Absolutely.
You learn the network too.
What are the good routes?
Where are the problem spots?
How to avoid schools duringpickup and drop-off period, and
these little tricks that make abig difference in your overall
experience, little tricks thatmake that make a big difference
in your overall experience.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
but let's get back to the numbers.
Did you or does that?
Has anybody calculated thereturn on investment for these
types of rebates?
Because when you think aboutthe savings on, let's just say,
road maintenance, uh, the roadrepair evs, which are much more
heavily subsidized and we couldget into that, but I'll fight
the urge to do that aretypically much heavier than
(21:15):
conventional vehicles and wearout the roads, and that is a
direct cost.
There's a mental health costthat are alleviated, one might
assume, because of all the funand joy costs that are
alleviated, one might assume,because of all the fun and joy
and also physical costs.
People are getting outdoors andgetting some movement, not to
mention injuries and ICBC costsand everything.
(21:36):
So have you done thatcalculation?
Speaker 2 (21:39):
So we did an economic evaluation just on the
greenhouse gas dimension.
So we calculated the cost perton of CO2 reduced, assuming a
10-year lifespan of the e-bikeand so on that regard, what we
(22:04):
found is that it is costcompetitive with other types of
transportation interventions,but it is not cost competitive
per ton CO2 reduced with kind ofthe international carbon market
.
So you know, compared to kindof forest type initiatives in
other parts of the world,initiatives in other parts of
(22:27):
the world.
But the reason it's importantto contextualize that is because
part of climate justice isabout not just finding the
cheapest place in the world toreduce emissions or to offset
your emissions, but to actuallyreduce your emissions that
you're generating locally.
And so when you look at that itis quite cost competitive.
And we actually compared itwith a fairly recent study of
(22:47):
the electric car purchaseincentive in BC and we found
that it was cheaper in terms ofCO2 reductions.
It was better per dollar spentthan the electric car incentives
.
And that is just looking at CO2.
And so you're absolutely rightIf you start expanding that out
to look at all the otherpotential benefits, right, most
(23:09):
of the other things for e-bikesare on the plus side, whereas
for electric cars, they're moreon the minus side in terms of
infrastructure, in terms ofhealth, in terms of external
safety risks and things likethat.
And so when people do a morecomprehensive economic valuation
of things like, especiallyincluding health effects, what
(23:34):
typically happens is becausephysical activity is so
important for health and becausethere's such systemically
insufficient physical activityin Canada and North America
right now that those physicalactivity benefits getting people
out on a bike, even an e-bikeare huge and tend to kind of
(23:55):
dwarf all the other costs.
So if we incorporated thosethey would be extremely
cost-effective.
That was a little bit outsideof the scope of our work, but we
did do some calculations and wefound that overall there was a
net increase in thetransportation related physical
activity that these people weregetting.
(24:17):
So, even though there was alittle bit of a reduction in
conventional bicycle use andwalking, that increase in e-bike
use more than offset it.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Can you talk a little bit about equity?
To what extent affordability ismore and more an issue these
days, and to what extent doesthe affordability of these bikes
change people's lives and makethem more accessible?
We're getting a little bit moreof that data on the provincial
program.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
But we do see a fair bit of new trips, basically
people going places they wouldnot have gone otherwise, which
is kind of what we're talkingabout in terms of not just
reducing travel costs butincreasing access, and that is a
really important part oftransportation equity.
The provincial program analysisthat we're doing, the study
(25:08):
we're doing, is supported by alarge national grant funded by
the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of
Canada called Mobilizing Justice.
That looks at these broaderissues of the way transport
poverty, or people's inabilityto reach destinations given the
(25:28):
resources that they have, reallyhas long-term negative impacts
on their economic life, on theirhealth life and on their social
life.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
When people talk about e-bikes, they sometimes
say well, that's great forpeople who are fit.
Of course, you don't have to beas fit as a regular bike, but
you still have to be able tobalance and so on.
But what about e-trikes?
And what about scooters?
Are those part of the subsidyprogram?
They are not.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
Well, actually an electric tricycle, I believe
would be.
I could be wrong about that,but I believe that still fits
the definition of amotor-assisted cycle under the
Motor Vehicle Act.
So part of the issue here iswe're constrained by a quite
outdated Motor Vehicle Act interms of what counts as a legal
(26:21):
micromobility device, mobilitydevice, um, and so we have the
motor assisted cycle regulation,which I believe a tricycle um
falls under, because they don'tdesignate um.
It could be two or three wheels, I believe and cargo bikes as
well and cargo bikes as well.
Yep, those are okay, um, but youknow, electric scooters are not
(26:44):
fully legal under the MotorVehicle Act.
There's just that pilot program.
So there's only, you know,maybe a dozen municipalities
around the province wherethey're actually legal.
So those aren't part of theprogram.
And, as you say, we did someanalysis.
We found 27 different types ofdevices and I believe more than
half of them were currently notlegal under the Motor Vehicle
(27:04):
Act.
And I believe more than half ofthem were currently not legal
under the Motor Vehicle Act.
And there isn't really a reasonthat they're illegal, other
than that they are new and wehaven't had a chance to
incorporate them intotransportation policy and
governance yet.
But you know, BC takes a fairlycautious approach which has
(27:27):
pros and cons Overall it, youknow.
I think it leads to some betterdecision making in terms of
when we bring in things likeride hailing and electric
scooters.
We can learn from a lot oflessons and mistakes that other
cities and places have made, butit does mean that things are a
little bit slower to come to BC.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
So, speaking of being slow, given what we know about
the success of this program, canyou now I'm going to just ask
you, as a sort of a citizen, tospeculate.
Can you speculate on whatpolitical resistance there might
be to expanding or continuingthis program?
Because we're now more than ayear since it started.
(28:10):
The website exploded when itwas brought in.
I was told by somebody thatthere's such a waiting list that
if they brought in a newprogram at the same scope, there
would be no room for new people, because all the lineup of
people already waiting wouldtake up the available money.
But I'm puzzled why we haven'tgot it.
(28:31):
Do you think now, here we are,in an era where the government's
trying to pay more attention tothe non-urban constituents?
Do you think that there'spolitical resistance of some
kind to this that's preventingthe government from going ahead
with it?
Are they waiting for your data,or what's the holdup?
Why wouldn't we just do more ofthis?
Speaker 2 (28:49):
Fair question and speaking as a BC citizen here
certainly not a spokesperson forany government agency and I
don't know in particular butthese e-bike incentives are very
effective and they address alot of the stated priorities and
(29:11):
goals and problems that BC haswith the Clean BC program, with
the Cycling BC policy and thingslike that.
So they address equity, theyaddress climate, they address
affordability and public health.
So they really do make a lot ofsense and I think really the
only argument against this isjust in terms of the financial
(29:34):
costs of the province and so Sixmillion, that is not a lot of
money.
It is not a lot of money, but Ido expect, especially given the
outcome of the last election Iwould think that we'll see more
coming.
I don't know, but I would thinkwe will see more coming,
(29:56):
especially, as I said, becauseif you're looking at climate
targets and things like that,and we're subsidizing electric
cars, it's a no-brainer tosubsidize electric bicycles.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
Well, alex, I'm pleased to be part of the ask,
getting our little messages outinto the millions of podcast
listeners that we have andspreading the word, and I really
look forward to hearing yourfinal research.
You've got your peer reviewpaper coming out about the
Sandwich results very shortly.
We'll have the connection inthe show notes and you'll have,
(30:33):
I guess, more detail about theprovincial program and maybe,
hopefully, that will be thetrigger for an expansion and
continuation of that program andall these great results.
So thank you so much for thework you've been doing and how
it's helped policymakers get thecourage to make these choices
and I hope the rest of us cancheer them on appropriately.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Yeah, my pleasure and thanks so much for having us on
here.
It's, you know, we do the workand then we put it out there and
then we really rely on, youknow, people like the BC cycling
coalition to, um, you know, putit in, put it in front of
people as much as possible.
So, uh, thanks so much for that.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
You've been listening to bike sense, an original
podcast from the BC cyclingcoalition.
If you like the podcast, we'dbe grateful if you could leave
us a rating.
On whatever platform you use,you can also subscribe, so you
don't miss future episodes.
If you have comments orsuggestions for future episodes,
(31:39):
email me at peterladner atbccyclingca.
At peterladner at bccyclingca,you can help us amplify BC
Cycling Coalition's voice bysimply becoming a free member.
You
Welcome to Bike Sense , the BC Cycling Coalition's
podcast, where we talk about allthings related to active
transportation advocacy in BC.
I'm your host, peter Ladner,chair of the Board of the BC
Cycling Coalition.
I hope you enjoy the show.
In the summer of 2021, themunicipality of Saanich
(00:41):
introduced BC's first e-bikerebate program, where people
were subsidized to buy e-bikes.
The success of that program ledto a province-wide rebate
program for e-bikes introducedin May 2023, where the province
would give people between $350and $1,400, depending on their
(01:02):
income, to buy an e-bike, andthey allocated $6 million for
this.
They thought it would reach9,000 people and the day they
opened up the applications,their website crashed.
(01:22):
There were so many peopleapplying.
We have a guest today whoprobably knows more about all
this than anybody in the world.
His name is Dr Alex Bagazzi.
He is a transportation engineerassociate professor at UBC and
his special area of focus andresearch is non-motorized and
lightly motorized transportationand the intersection of physics
(01:43):
, physiology and behavior foractive travelers.
Welcome, dr Alex Bagazzi.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Thank you so much, peter, it's great to be here.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Before we start, I noticed in your bio that you
have a background as a jazzmusician.
How did you go from being ajazz musician to a
transportation engineer?
Speaker 2 (02:02):
as a musician to a transportation engineer.
Yeah, that is true.
My first university degree wasin music and I played music and
had a bit of a vagabondlifestyle for a while.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Did you ride around on an e-bike during that
vagabond lifestyle?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
No, no, this was the early 2000s, so not a lot of
e-bikes around then.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
A van, maybe with Grateful Dead.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Yeah, more like that.
And yeah, a little bit later on, I was looking for a big change
and some way to have a littlebit of a different type of
impact on the world.
And so and I looked around andtransportation systems seemed
like something that needed somework and really had a big impact
(02:49):
on people's lives, and sothat's why I ended up in
transportation.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Well, thank you for doing that.
So you looked at the Saanichprogram, you evaluated it, with
some help from the Saanichmunicipality and the provincial
government, but mainly it wasyour initiative and you got the
money together to do that.
What did you find out?
Did it work?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Yeah, absolutely so.
Uh, short answer is yes, itworked.
The the, the incentives were um, remarkably successful in both
attracting new e-bike riders andin having those e-bike riders
use their bike regularly, even ayear after purchase, and in the
(03:32):
long-term follow-up that we did.
And a fairly large portion ofthat e-bike travel was
displacing automobile use, whichis kind of the ideal thing when
we're looking at havingpositive impacts on climate
change and affordability andpublic health and things like
that.
So, yeah, quite a large success.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
And that success led to the province being emboldened
to do their program.
And you have looked somewhat atthe province's program.
Are you seeing the samesuccesses and did it have the
same goals of displacing cartravel?
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Yeah, so we are right now finishing the 12-month
follow-up of the people that werecruited into our study from
the provincial program and sofar, from what we've seen in the
interim analysis that we'vedone, it looks like the results
are quite similar to what we sawin Saanich.
There's a few differencesbecause there's a few different
(04:30):
aspects to the way the programwas structured.
They're similar but notequivalent, and so we're seeing
a little bit of a difference,and also people in the BC
program are in a wider range ofcontexts than Saanich and so
there are some differences andwe'll soon be able to dig into
that full data set and hope tohave all the results out
(04:53):
sometime in the spring, in a fewmonths.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
On the impacts of the provincial-wide program, which
was much larger, as you said,Well, speaking of a wider range
of context, I know that e-bikeprogram rebates are being done
all over the world and many,many cities in North America are
doing them, and so this is nota new thing and it must be
working because they're alldoing it and continuing to do it
(05:15):
.
But, looking at differentcontexts, how effective are
e-bikes in a rural part of theprovince where maybe it gets
more snow and the distancespeople have to go are longer and
the protected routes are fewer?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Yeah, that's a great question and one of the main
things that we'll be able tolook at once we have the BCY
data all analyzed because thatSanta's context is more
constrained and and most um ofthe e-bike incentives that have
been um, uh, done so far well,actually they're.
(05:51):
They're at all levels ofgovernment.
So there's some cities doingthem, like Saanich, like Denver,
um, there are some provincesand States doing it, like now BC
has done it, um, california isworking on some, and there's
even been some countries thathave done it in Europe, like the
Netherlands, and so there are arange of these incentives and
(06:13):
they do have different effects.
However, we haven't had enoughkind of analyses of different
programs in different contextsto be able to say how much their
effectiveness varies In general.
We do know that people usee-bikes differently in different
contexts, but in terms of theeffects of the incentives, it's
still pretty early to say.
(06:34):
There hasn't been a lot ofrigorous analysis, which was one
of the big motivations of usdeveloping an evaluation program
to accompany the rebateprograms in Saanich and BC, and
we've been super appreciative ofthe District of Saanich and the
province well, both for theirleadership in launching these
(06:55):
programs but also for theireagerness to engage with
researchers to do an independentevaluation of the effects.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
People looking at these, just taking a quick
sudden look at it, might saywell, yeah, but so I get $1,400
for an e-bike.
Why don't I just go and sell itand keep the $1,400 and not
worry about riding my e-bikearound?
Has that happened?
Did you research that?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
It's hard to know the extent to which that is
happening.
It probably is happening, some.
It's possible.
It's definitely a risk withthis and all types of incentive
programs, but it doesn't appearto be a large issue, just based
on the few times thatadministrative agencies have
(07:45):
been able to go in and go backand follow up with people who've
received the e-bike rebates.
All these programs haveagreements that people who
receive the rebates have toagree to before they can get the
rebate, which includes thingslike not selling it and keeping
it for 12 months.
So what you're describing wouldbe a violation of the terms,
which can definitely happen.
But a kind of bigger concern,actually in terms of the
(08:09):
effectiveness of these programs,is what we call free riding,
which is just people getting therebates who would have bought
an e-bike anyway, and that's,you know, within the allowances
of the program, because theprogram doesn't say what you
would have had to have doneanyway, because there's no way
to really know for certain whatwould have happened in that, in
that other world.
(08:30):
So, um, when we're evaluatingthe effects of the programs, one
of the most important things toquantifying how impactful it
was is trying to tease out andseparate the people who would
have bought an e-bike anywaywithout the rebate from those
who would not.
And that's a big part of it, andit is also a big piece of
(08:55):
trying to design a programthat's more effective.
I'll say one of the things thatmade Saanich's design so unique
and really on the vanguard ofthese types of incentive
programs is their approach totiering the amount of the
incentive to the household'sincome.
(09:17):
And they did that specificallyto achieve two things.
First of all is to enhance theequity of the program, so to
make sure that people who werein greater need of assistance
got more assistance, so toachieve both kind of climate and
equity goals simultaneously.
(09:38):
But also some pre-programmodeling analysis that we had
done before the Sanus programlaunched suggested that lower
income households are actuallyalso more price sensitive.
So they are more likely to bethese marginal purchasers who
wouldn't have bought without therebate, as opposed to higher
(10:00):
income households which are morelikely to be free riders.
They were more likely to buy ane-bike anyway because they have
more capacity to do that.
So there's a way that we cantarget both equity and
effectiveness by incomeconditioning the incentives,
which is one of the novel and, Ithink, really successful
(10:23):
aspects of both the sandwich andthe provincial program and the
richer people get a much smalleramount of money, like in the
provincial one, they only get350 bucks.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
So that's really, you know, not a painful free ride.
So what did you find out abouthow people use these e-bikes?
Who?
Who benefited the most, and didpeople actually get out and
ride them, and did peopleactually get out and ride them.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Yeah, they used them quite a bit, on average three to
four times a week.
We recruited a control group ofpeople who purchased
non-incentivized e-bikes andpeople who purchased
conventional bicycles as well,so we can do a robust comparison
, and what we found is that thepeople who purchased the e-bike
(11:06):
were substituting auto tripsmuch more than people who used
conventional bicycles, atactually twice the rate.
So around 20% of conventionalbicycle trips, or trips made by
a purchased conventional bicycle, were substituting for auto
trips, whereas around 40% to 45%of e-bike trips were replacing
(11:27):
automobile trips, either as adriver or a passenger, and so we
really are seeing quite a lotof mode shift.
These are people who were note-biking before, and most were
not conventional bicyclingbefore either.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
So you have solved the cheater conundrum.
When people who have regularbikes find friends with e-bikes,
they call them cheaters.
But those of us with e-bikessay, well, yeah, but compare
taking an e-bike with taking acar ride, and you're not
cheating at all.
You're getting more exercise.
And I gather that people withe-bikes end up getting more
(12:02):
exercise because they take themout more often.
Is that what you found too?
Speaker 2 (12:06):
So you're exactly right, peter, and I'll be honest
.
So I actually don't ride ane-bike but I do ride a
conventional bicycle quite a lotand the nature of the devices
we see in bike lanes and pathshas changed.
And there's a whole separateresearch project we did now
looking at four-year trends inmode shares on off-street paths
(12:31):
and speeds, and what we found isthat there has been an enormous
growth in e-bikes and otherelectric devices in these paths
and that has led to an increasein speed, which does lead to
kind of less comfort and moreconflict.
So it is a shift in thetransportation system.
So there's an understandablekind of response to people who
(12:53):
were using it before in the moreconventional just conventional
bicycle and pedestrian modes.
But one of the things I do liketo remind people is that most
of the e-bikers would not havebeen cycling anyway.
Most of this is car or a muchlarger share is car mode shift
(13:14):
than conventional bike shift.
And so you know, would yourather be interacting with an
electric bike or with a car?
Speaker 1 (13:24):
One of the premises of this program is that finances
are a barrier maybe the biggestbarrier to e-biking.
But I noticed that there wasalso, in the provincial program,
a promotion of education sopeople who didn't know how to
ride or weren't sure of therules of the road could be
educated.
And we all know that thebiggest barrier for people
(13:47):
riding more is protection andsafety.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
And so, between finances and education and
protected lanes, which would yousay are the most important
factors for getting a mode shiftgoing, that's a great question
and so, just to be clear, I'mnow speaking we didn't actually
analyze that question withinthis research, but speaking more
broadly, because we have done alot of research on this type of
(14:12):
question, infrastructure isabsolutely essential, absolutely
essential, and that needs to bethe foundation of any cycling
policy, any cycling policy.
I have heard some governmentskind of hinted this.
So we need to make sure that,although e-bike incentives are
(14:33):
very effective, they are notkind of the answer for people
who are looking to promoteactive transportation.
They are one complementarystrategy within a suite of
strategies to promote activetransportation that needs to
center on infrastructure.
And then e-bikes can be animportant tool for helping
especially lower incomehouseholds, enabling them to
(14:56):
access lightly motorized,non-automobile transportation
options for some of their trips.
But it really does need tocenter on infrastructure first.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Can you talk about the type of trips that people
use their e-bikes for?
Because the classic argumentabout bikes is well, yeah,
that's great, but how am I goingto get my kid to a soccer game
or pick up the groceries or getthat load of lumber from Kimber?
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Mart or something.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Are they being used for more utilitarian purposes?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Absolutely.
I can pull up the data nowwhile we're talking.
But, um, they are you beingused for a variety of purchases,
just like automobiles and justlike conventional bicycles.
Um, so in our, in our data here, uh, around 35 40% were being
(15:47):
used for a commute trip of somekind going to work or school,
whereas that was about 30, 35%for conventional bicycles.
So actually a little bit higherutilitarian rate than
conventional bicycles, andthat's a large share.
They're also being used forother types of utilitarian trips
, like shopping and errands.
It's about 10, 15%.
(16:07):
They're being used as escorttrips.
So this is something thate-bikes really open up within
the cycling world is pick up anddrop off for children, and
you'll see a much larger shareof parents taking kids to school
on an e-bike than you do onconventional bicycles, because
(16:30):
it's just so much harder on aconventional bicycle.
So electric bicycles enableactually more utilitarian trips
than like exercise or leisuretrips.
Now, there are some exercise orleisure trips, but we actually
see a smaller portion than forconventional bicycles.
I do like to say, though, Ifeel like, especially
(16:52):
transportation engineers likemyself, we tend to focus too
much on utilitarian travel and,you know, maybe that's just our
kind of economic, kind ofcapitalist orientation.
But you know, recreationalexercise type trips are also a
really important and perfectlyvalid use of the transportation
(17:15):
system.
So you know, we also want to getpeople out there on those types
of trips.
But yeah, e-bike trips e-bikesare being used quite a lot for
utilitarian travel.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
We're not afraid to use the words joy and fun on
this podcast.
When you're justifying apolitical program, you say well,
it brings joy and fun intopeople's lives.
Sounds a bit flaky, I will say,but for those of us who do the
rides, that's a really big deal.
But let's get back to thenumbers actually, if I could
(17:46):
follow up on that speaking ofthe numbers.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
So we asked people about their experiences three
months and 12 months after ascompared to what they expected,
about things like comfort,charging, parking, how often
they use it, etc.
And what's super interesting.
I did not expect this, but inboth the three month and 12
month follow-up in sanich and inthe three month follow up in
(18:08):
for the BC program, every one ofthose the number one thing that
people cited as much betterthan they expected isikes are
fun is actually has been a hugecomponent of people's experience
(18:31):
and their habit formingbehavior, of their tendency to
still be using it 12 months in.
People really like ridinge-bikes and that again is
something we probably especiallytransportation engineers like
myself we don't focus nearly asmuch on as we probably should.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
Were there any other surprises in your findings?
Speaker 2 (18:55):
I did not expect to see the level of retained mode
shift at 12 months that we saw.
I thought we'd see more of anovelty effect where they use it
quite a bit for three monthsbut then by 12 months in it was
like a Peloton bike gatheringdust or, you know, like a
(19:16):
clothes hanger, clothes dryingrack.
That was not the case.
It dropped off a little bitafter 12 months, but really not
much, and so this appears tohave been a pretty sticky
intervention in terms oflong-term travel behavior shifts
.
I'll also add one more thing,which is that this isn't a whole
(19:40):
lot of people abandoningautomobile travel, a whole lot
of people abandoning automobiletravel.
Pretty much everyone still hadaccess to a car, who had it
before and still used a carregularly.
We're really just talking aboutshifting a portion of their
trips, and that's really why theincentive program is nice,
(20:00):
because it provides an optionfor people to shift their
feasible trips which, aggregatedover a lot of people, can
really have an impact.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
And I would guess that what people consider
feasible changes over time too,because I talked to somebody
yesterday who said they used tojust ride their bike on sunny
days and they only ride homefrom work not to work because
they get sweaty.
And then they figured it allout and now they do it much more
often for many more reasons.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Absolutely.
You learn the network too.
What are the good routes?
Where are the problem spots?
How to avoid schools duringpickup and drop-off period, and
these little tricks that make abig difference in your overall
experience, little tricks thatmake that make a big difference
in your overall experience.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
but let's get back to the numbers.
Did you or does that?
Has anybody calculated thereturn on investment for these
types of rebates?
Because when you think aboutthe savings on, let's just say,
road maintenance, uh, the roadrepair evs, which are much more
heavily subsidized and we couldget into that, but I'll fight
the urge to do that aretypically much heavier than
(21:15):
conventional vehicles and wearout the roads, and that is a
direct cost.
There's a mental health costthat are alleviated, one might
assume, because of all the funand joy costs that are
alleviated, one might assume,because of all the fun and joy
and also physical costs.
People are getting outdoors andgetting some movement, not to
mention injuries and ICBC costsand everything.
(21:36):
So have you done thatcalculation?
Speaker 2 (21:39):
So we did an economic evaluation just on the
greenhouse gas dimension.
So we calculated the cost perton of CO2 reduced, assuming a
10-year lifespan of the e-bikeand so on that regard, what we
(22:04):
found is that it is costcompetitive with other types of
transportation interventions,but it is not cost competitive
per ton CO2 reduced with kind ofthe international carbon market
.
So you know, compared to kindof forest type initiatives in
other parts of the world,initiatives in other parts of
(22:27):
the world.
But the reason it's importantto contextualize that is because
part of climate justice isabout not just finding the
cheapest place in the world toreduce emissions or to offset
your emissions, but to actuallyreduce your emissions that
you're generating locally.
And so when you look at that itis quite cost competitive.
And we actually compared itwith a fairly recent study of
(22:47):
the electric car purchaseincentive in BC and we found
that it was cheaper in terms ofCO2 reductions.
It was better per dollar spentthan the electric car incentives
.
And that is just looking at CO2.
And so you're absolutely rightIf you start expanding that out
to look at all the otherpotential benefits, right, most
(23:09):
of the other things for e-bikesare on the plus side, whereas
for electric cars, they're moreon the minus side in terms of
infrastructure, in terms ofhealth, in terms of external
safety risks and things likethat.
And so when people do a morecomprehensive economic valuation
of things like, especiallyincluding health effects, what
(23:34):
typically happens is becausephysical activity is so
important for health and becausethere's such systemically
insufficient physical activityin Canada and North America
right now that those physicalactivity benefits getting people
out on a bike, even an e-bikeare huge and tend to kind of
(23:55):
dwarf all the other costs.
So if we incorporated thosethey would be extremely
cost-effective.
That was a little bit outsideof the scope of our work, but we
did do some calculations and wefound that overall there was a
net increase in thetransportation related physical
activity that these people weregetting.
(24:17):
So, even though there was alittle bit of a reduction in
conventional bicycle use andwalking, that increase in e-bike
use more than offset it.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Can you talk a little bit about equity?
To what extent affordability ismore and more an issue these
days, and to what extent doesthe affordability of these bikes
change people's lives and makethem more accessible?
We're getting a little bit moreof that data on the provincial
program.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
But we do see a fair bit of new trips, basically
people going places they wouldnot have gone otherwise, which
is kind of what we're talkingabout in terms of not just
reducing travel costs butincreasing access, and that is a
really important part oftransportation equity.
The provincial program analysisthat we're doing, the study
(25:08):
we're doing, is supported by alarge national grant funded by
the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of
Canada called Mobilizing Justice.
That looks at these broaderissues of the way transport
poverty, or people's inabilityto reach destinations given the
(25:28):
resources that they have, reallyhas long-term negative impacts
on their economic life, on theirhealth life and on their social
life.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
When people talk about e-bikes, they sometimes
say well, that's great forpeople who are fit.
Of course, you don't have to beas fit as a regular bike, but
you still have to be able tobalance and so on.
But what about e-trikes?
And what about scooters?
Are those part of the subsidyprogram?
They are not.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
Well, actually an electric tricycle, I believe
would be.
I could be wrong about that,but I believe that still fits
the definition of amotor-assisted cycle under the
Motor Vehicle Act.
So part of the issue here iswe're constrained by a quite
outdated Motor Vehicle Act interms of what counts as a legal
(26:21):
micromobility device, mobilitydevice, um, and so we have the
motor assisted cycle regulation,which I believe a tricycle um
falls under, because they don'tdesignate um.
It could be two or three wheels, I believe and cargo bikes as
well and cargo bikes as well.
Yep, those are okay, um, but youknow, electric scooters are not
(26:44):
fully legal under the MotorVehicle Act.
There's just that pilot program.
So there's only, you know,maybe a dozen municipalities
around the province wherethey're actually legal.
So those aren't part of theprogram.
And, as you say, we did someanalysis.
We found 27 different types ofdevices and I believe more than
half of them were currently notlegal under the Motor Vehicle
(27:04):
Act.
And I believe more than half ofthem were currently not legal
under the Motor Vehicle Act.
And there isn't really a reasonthat they're illegal, other
than that they are new and wehaven't had a chance to
incorporate them intotransportation policy and
governance yet.
But you know, BC takes a fairlycautious approach which has
(27:27):
pros and cons Overall it, youknow.
I think it leads to some betterdecision making in terms of
when we bring in things likeride hailing and electric
scooters.
We can learn from a lot oflessons and mistakes that other
cities and places have made, butit does mean that things are a
little bit slower to come to BC.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
So, speaking of being slow, given what we know about
the success of this program, canyou now I'm going to just ask
you, as a sort of a citizen, tospeculate.
Can you speculate on whatpolitical resistance there might
be to expanding or continuingthis program?
Because we're now more than ayear since it started.
(28:10):
The website exploded when itwas brought in.
I was told by somebody thatthere's such a waiting list that
if they brought in a newprogram at the same scope, there
would be no room for new people, because all the lineup of
people already waiting wouldtake up the available money.
But I'm puzzled why we haven'tgot it.
(28:31):
Do you think now, here we are,in an era where the government's
trying to pay more attention tothe non-urban constituents?
Do you think that there'spolitical resistance of some
kind to this that's preventingthe government from going ahead
with it?
Are they waiting for your data,or what's the holdup?
Why wouldn't we just do more ofthis?
Speaker 2 (28:49):
Fair question and speaking as a BC citizen here
certainly not a spokesperson forany government agency and I
don't know in particular butthese e-bike incentives are very
effective and they address alot of the stated priorities and
(29:11):
goals and problems that BC haswith the Clean BC program, with
the Cycling BC policy and thingslike that.
So they address equity, theyaddress climate, they address
affordability and public health.
So they really do make a lot ofsense and I think really the
only argument against this isjust in terms of the financial
(29:34):
costs of the province and so Sixmillion, that is not a lot of
money.
It is not a lot of money, but Ido expect, especially given the
outcome of the last election Iwould think that we'll see more
coming.
I don't know, but I would thinkwe will see more coming,
(29:56):
especially, as I said, becauseif you're looking at climate
targets and things like that,and we're subsidizing electric
cars, it's a no-brainer tosubsidize electric bicycles.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
Well, alex, I'm pleased to be part of the ask,
getting our little messages outinto the millions of podcast
listeners that we have andspreading the word, and I really
look forward to hearing yourfinal research.
You've got your peer reviewpaper coming out about the
Sandwich results very shortly.
We'll have the connection inthe show notes and you'll have,
(30:33):
I guess, more detail about theprovincial program and maybe,
hopefully, that will be thetrigger for an expansion and
continuation of that program andall these great results.
So thank you so much for thework you've been doing and how
it's helped policymakers get thecourage to make these choices
and I hope the rest of us cancheer them on appropriately.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Yeah, my pleasure and thanks so much for having us on
here.
It's, you know, we do the workand then we put it out there and
then we really rely on, youknow, people like the BC cycling
coalition to, um, you know, putit in, put it in front of
people as much as possible.
So, uh, thanks so much for that.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
You've been listening to bike sense, an original
podcast from the BC cyclingcoalition.
If you like the podcast, we'dbe grateful if you could leave
us a rating.
On whatever platform you use,you can also subscribe, so you
don't miss future episodes.
If you have comments orsuggestions for future episodes,
(31:39):
email me at peterladner atbccyclingca.
At peterladner at bccyclingca,you can help us amplify BC
Cycling Coalition's voice bysimply becoming a free member.
You
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.