Skip to main content
Book cover

AGILE 2015 pp 201–217Cite as

Usage Differences Between Bikes and E-Bikes

Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

  • Urban mobility
  • Route choice
  • Tracking data
  • Bikes
  • E-bikes
  • Field study

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16787-9_12
  • Chapter length: 17 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-16787-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.swisstopo.ch/.

  2. 2.

    http://www.maps.google.ch/.

  3. 3.

    http://www.stadtplan.stadt-zuerich.ch/.

References

  • Aultmann-Hall, L., Hall, F., & Baetz, B. (1997). Analysis of bicycle commuter routes using geographic information systems: Implications for bicycle planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Record, 1578, 102–110.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., Bradley, B., Morikawa, T., Benjamin, J., Novak, T., Oppewal, H., et al. (1994). Combining revealed and stated preferences data. Marketing Letters, 5(4), 335–349.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brick, E., McCarthy, O. T., & Caulfield, B. (2012). Determining bicycle infrastructure preferences—a case study of Dublin. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(5), 413–417.

    CrossRef  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 

  • Chung, E.-H., & Shalaby, A. (2005). A trip reconstruction tool for GPS-based personal travel surveys. Transportation Planning and Technology, 28(5), 381–401.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • De Hartog, J. J., Boogaard, H., Nijland, H., & Hoek, G. (2010). Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks? Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), 1109–1116.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • DeMaio, P. (2009). Bike-sharing: History, impacts, models of provision, and future. Journal of Public Transportation, 12(4), 41–56.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, J. (2009). Bicycling for transportation and health: The role of infrastructure. Journal of Public Health Policy, 30, 95–110.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, J., & Rose, G. (2012). Electric bikes and transportation policy: Insights from early adopters. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2314, 1–6.

    CrossRef  Google 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 

  • Heinen, E., Maat, K., & van Wee, B. (2013). The effect of work-related factors on the bicycle commute mode choice in the Netherlands. Transportation, 40(1), 23–43.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Heinen, E., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2010). Commuting by bicycle: An overview of the literature. Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal, 30(1), 59–96.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, J. D., & Abraham, J. E. (2007). Influences on bicycle use. Transportation, 43(4), 453–470.

    CrossRef  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 

  • Parkes, S. D., Marsden, G., Shaheen, S. A., & Cohen, A. P. (2013). Understanding the diffusion of public bikesharing systems: Evidence from Europe and North America. Journal of Transport Geography, 31, 94–103.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Popovich, N., Gordon, E., Shao, Z., Xing, Y., Wang, Y., & Handy, S. (2014). Experiences of electric bicycle users in the Sacramento, California area. Travel Behavior and Society, 1(2), 37–44.

    CrossRef  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 

  • Rose, G. (2012). E-bikes and urban transportation: Emerging issues and unresolved questions. Transportation, 39(1), 81–96.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shaheen, S. A., Guzman, S., & Zuang, H. (2010). Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2143, 159–167.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stinson, M. A., & Bhat, C. R. (2003). Commuter bicyclist route choice: Analysis using a stated preference survey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1828, 107–115.

    CrossRef  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 

  • Taylor, D., & Mahmassani, H. (1996). Analysis of stated preferences for intermodal bicycle-transit interfaces. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1556, 86–95.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A., & Shalaby, A. (2006). Enhanced system for link and mode identification for personal travel surveys based on global positioning systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1972, 38–45.

    CrossRef  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 der Spek, S., Van Schaick, J., De Bois, P., & De Haan, R. (2009). Sensing human activity: GPS tracking. Sensors, 9(4), 3033–3055.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google 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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominik Allemann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Allemann, D., Raubal, M. (2015). Usage Differences Between Bikes and E-Bikes. In: Bacao, F., Santos, M., Painho, M. (eds) AGILE 2015. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16787-9_12

Download citation