Usage Differences Between Bikes and E-Bikes
A high share of bicycle traffic in urban areas can be advantageous in order to tackle traffic related problems such as congestion, over-crowded public transportation or air pollution. Through an increased dissemination of e-bikes in recent years, cycling has become a viable transportation alternative for an even broader audience. The consequences of this trend on urban mobility are not yet clear. In order to get a clearer picture, one first needs to understand the major usage differences between e-bikers and cyclists. In this paper we demonstrate how a first insight into these differences can be gained by analysing GPS tracking data, recorded within the context of a field study. E-bikers as well as conventional cyclists prefer riding on any kind of bike trail whilst e-bikers rather choose bike trail types with a larger exposure to vehicular traffic. Taking a minimal distance route was the most important route choice factor for both cyclists and e-bikers. E-bikers perceived their rides to be slightly more safe and convenient as compared to conventional cyclists.
KeywordsUrban mobility Route choice Tracking data Bikes E-bikes Field study
We like to thank Moritz Meenen and Pratik Mukerji from the ETH spin-off company ElectricFeel Mobility Systems GmbH for supporting the field study with two-wheelers, tracking devices, and funding. The insightful comments from four anonymous reviewers helped to improve the final version.
- Bohte, W., Maat, K., & Quak, W. A. (2008). A method for deriving trip destinations and modes for GPS-based travel surveys. In J. Van Schaick & S. C. Van der Spek (Eds.), Urbanism on track (pp. 129–145). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
- Broach, J., Dill, J., & Gliebe, J. (2012). Where do cyclists ride? A bicycle route choice model developed with revealed preference GPS data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(10), 1730–1740.Google Scholar
- Cellina, F., Förster, A., Rivola, D., Pampuri, L., Rudel, R., & Rizzoli, A. E. (2013). Using smartphones to profile mobility patterns in a living lab for the transition to e-mobility. In J. Hřebíček, G. Schimak, M. Kubásek, & A. E. Rizzoli (Eds.), Environmental software systems. Fostering information sharing, IFIP advances in information and communication technology (Vol. 413, pp. 154–163). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
- Cherry, C., Worley, S., & Jordan, D. (2011). Electric bike sharing—system requirements and operational concepts. Paper presented at the 90th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, January 2011.Google Scholar
- Dalumpines, R., & Scott, D. M. (2011). GIS-based map-matching: Development and demonstration of a postprocessing map-matching algorithm for transportation research. In S. Geertman, W. Reinhardt, & F. Toppen (Eds.), Advancing geoinformation science for a changing world (pp. 101–120). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fajans, J., & Curry, M. (2001). Why bicyclists hate stop signs. Access, 18(1), 28–31.Google Scholar
- Golledge, R. G. (1995). Defining the criteria used in path selection. Paper presented at the international conference on activity based approaches: Activity scheduling and the analysis of activity patterns, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, May 1995.Google Scholar
- Golledge, R. G., & Stimson, R. J. (1997). Spatial behavior: A geographic perspective. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Harvey, F. J., & Krizek, K. (2007). Commuter bicyclist behavior and facility disruption. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Transportation, Research Services Section.Google Scholar
- Kroes, E. P., & Sheldon, R. J. (1988). Stated preference methods. An introduction. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22(1), 11–26.Google Scholar
- Menghini, G., Carrasco, N., Schüssler, N., & Axhausen, K. W. (2010). Route choice of cyclists in Zürich. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(9), 754–765.Google Scholar
- Montello, D. R. (2005). Navigation. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Rondinella, G., Fernandez-Heredia, A., & Monzon, A. (2012). Analysis of perceptions of utilitarian cycling by level of user experience. In Proceedings of Transport Research Board Annual Meeting 2012, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Stinson, M. A., & Bhat, C. R. (2005). A comparison of route preferences of experienced and inexperienced bicycle commuters. Paper presented at the 84th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, January 2005.Google Scholar
- Stopher, P., Bullock, P., & Horst, F. (2002). Exploring the use of passive GPS devices to measure travel. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Application of Advanced Technologies in Transportation (pp. 959–967). MA, USA: Cambridge.Google Scholar
- United Nations. (2012). World urbanization prospects: The 2011 revision. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations. Available online: http://de.slideshare.net/undesa/wup2011-highlights. Accessed 15 November 2014.
- Van der Spek, S. (2008). Tracking pedestrians in historic city centres using GPS. In S. Van der Spek, F. D. Van der Hoeven, & M. G. J. Smit (Eds.), Street level desires (pp. 86–111). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology Urbanism.Google Scholar
- Van Evert, H., Brög, W., & Erl, E. (2006). Survey design: The past, the present and the future. In P. Stopher & C. Stecher (Eds.), Travel survey methods—quality and future directions (pp. 75–93). Amsterdam, Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Weinert, J. X., Ma, C. T., Yang, X. M., & Cherry, C. (2008). The transition to electric bikes in China: Effect on travel behavior, mode shift, and user safety perceptions in a medium-sized city. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2038, 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wolf, J. (2006). Application of new technologies in travel surveys. In P. Stopher & C. Stecher (Eds.), Travel survey methods—quality and future directions (pp. 531–544). Amsterdam, Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar