Usage differences between bikes and e-bikes Mobile Ghent 13 October 24 th 25 th 2013 Ghent, Belgium Dominik Allemann 1, Martin Raubal 1, Moritz Meenen 2 1 Institute of Cartography and Geoinformation, ETH Zürich, Switzerland 2 ElectricFeel Mobility Systems GmbH, Zürich, Switzerland D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 1
Outline Motivation Approach Results Conclusions & future work D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 2
Motivation (I) Discussions about modes of mobility Energy security Emissions http://www.eesc.europa.eu Usage of space Need for sustainable transportation alternatives http://sprng10.wordpress.com D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 3
Motivation (II) Shared mobility Car sharing reduce kilometers travelled by car induce modal shifts (public transport; human powered mobility) Shaheen et al. (2010) Bike sharing last mile solution increase bike usage for commuting purposes unattractive in hilly environments for people with limited physical endurance http://www.velib.paris.fr D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 4
How do bikers differ from e-bikers Regarding general trip characteristics? preferences for certain facility types? perception of chosen route? route choice factors? D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 5
Approach GPS location tracking of bikes and e-bikes Differences investigated based on GPS tracking data Field study for a specific origin-destination relation Tracking set-up Telic Picotrack mounted on racks using hook&loop fastener Measurement every 30 meters GSM-Module Accuracy? D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 6
Approach Field Study @ ETH Zürich Testride ETH Hönggerberg ETH Zentrum 21 participants (students & employees) 11 with e-bike 10 with bike Questionnaire Convenience & safety Route choice factors D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 7
Approach Field Study: Questionnaire Snippet Route choice factors rate importance 4 levels Same for route perception D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 8
Approach Track Evaluation General Characteristics Length Duration Velocity Traffic Lights Bike trails official route without further measures along streets with low traffic along street with traffic ban visually separated cycling lane physically separated cycling lane D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 9
Results General Characteristics Velocity Uphill rides: e-bikes significantly faster (20% level of significance; p-value: 0.151) Duration No significant differences Mean Trip Velocity E-Bikes Bikes Downhill trip speed 23.7 km/h 24 km/h Uphill trip speed 19.6 km/h 17.2 km/h Mean Trip Duration E-Bikes Bikes Downhill 16 min 17 min Uphill 20 min 22 min Length No significant differences D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 10
Results Bike Trails (I) Majority of tracked kilometers occurred on bike trails More e-bike kilometers on bike trails... where exposure to vehicular traffic is higher with occurrence along streets where higher traffic volume is assumed Assumption: Lower aversion of e-bikers riding among vehicular traffic D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 11
Results Bike Trails (II) 10% level of significance 20% level of significance D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 12
Results Route Choice Factors Relative Ranking Downhill E-Bikes Ranking Criteria 1 Minimal distance 2 Avoidance of steep segments 3 Low traffic volume Bikes Ranking Criteria 1 Minimal distance 2 High share of paths & lanes 2 Low traffic volume Uphill E-Bikes Ranking Criteria 1 Minimal distance 2 Route known from previous rides 2 High share of paths & lanes 2 Low traffic volume Bikes Ranking Criteria 1 Minimal distance 2 High share of paths & lanes 2 Low traffic volume D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 13
Results Route Choice Factors Absolute Stated Importance Distance downhill not important at all e-bikes crucial bikes uphill not important at all e-bikes crucial bikes D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 14
Results Route Choice Factors Absolute Stated Importance High share of cycling lanes & paths downhill not important at all e-bikes crucial bikes uphill not important at all e-bikes crucial bikes D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 15
Results Route Choice Factors Absolute Stated Importance The chosen route was strenuous downhill e-bikes not correct at all fully correct uphill not correct at all bikes e-bikes fully correct bikes D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 16
Conclusions E-bikers are faster Riding on bike trails is preferred by bikes and e-bikes E-bikers rather ride along main routes of vehicular traffic Types of bike trails used More traffic lights per kilometer Physical activity remains crucial factor while e-biking D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 17
Limitations Dataset Larger Samples Season Further factors influencing the route choice Link stated preferences with tracking data D. Allemann, M. Raubal, M. Meenen 24.10.2013 18
Thank you for your attention! References Dill, J., and G. Rose, (2012): E-bikes and Transportation Policy: Insights from Early Adopters. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, forthcoming. Shaheen S.A., S. Guzman and H. Zuang, (2010): Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2143 (1), pp. 159-167. Stinson, M.A. and C.R. Bhat, (2003): Commuter Bicyclist Route Choice: Analysis Using a Stated Preference Survey. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1828, pp. 107-115. Stinson, M. A. and C.R. Bhat, (2005). A Comparison of the Route Preferences of Experienced and Inexperienced Bicycle Commuters. Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, Transportation Research Board 84 th Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.