The point of a subsidy is to encourage behavior that wouldn't otherwise happen. If the subsidy is used up within 30 minutes, then no behavior was changed. Demand was pulled forward by a few weeks or a few months, which is not a good use of public money.

> If the subsidy is used up within 30 minutes, then no behavior was changed. Demand was pulled forward by a few weeks or a few months, which is not a good use of public money.

That is not true.

Even if it only pulled demand forward by weeks, it would create a strong signal of desirability, which enables surrounding projects (e.g. infrastructure) by unambiguously demonstrating interest.

Furthermore subsidy can be the difference between ability and inability, it won't do anything if there's no interest, but it can very much jumpstart or create a market where there previously was not one because the investment was too steep.

I think it is clear that desirability was already there.

What they did was create a reward for jumping to the front of a line that you were already in. As everyone knows, the people most able to do this kind of thing are the people with the least concern over time and money.

I can go into work and put an appointment on my calendar that says I am busy. Nobody cares. I could even walk out of the office and say "I've got to go take care of something; be back in an hour". WFH makes all that even easier. If you work at a restaurant, drive a truck, etc? Not a chance. You have no flexibility at all.

Well yeah, but why focus on Germany and not Denmark or the Netherlands. Both have more cargo bikes than Germany per person? It’s more interesting how this happened with the goverment throwing money at it. Perhaps there’s something Germany could have done to get even better result, without a subsidy.