Ebike ibpi webinar june 2014 final (mac arthur)

3,572 views
3,540 views

Published on

How do we get more people biking and to bike more often? Communities around North America are struggling with this question as they face growing economic, social, health and environmental issues. This webinar aims to explore if adding technology to bicycles can reduce barriers to bicycling (e.g., trip distance, topography, time, and rider effort) and encourage more bicycling trips, longer bicycling trips, and increase the diversity of people bicycling, including people with a disability or chronic injury.

Electric bicycles (e-bikes) are well established in China and other Asian and European countries but market adoption has been slow in the United States. E-bikes typically resemble a standard pedal bicycle with the addition of a rechargeable battery and electric motor to assist the rider with propulsion. Though research on the economic, operational, and safety issues of e-bikes in North America is limited, the webinar will present information gathered by PSU researchers on the adoption of e-bikes. Results from an online survey of existing e-bike users on their purchase and use decisions will be presented, which suggest that e-bikes are enabling users to bike more often, to more distant locations, and to carry more cargo with them. Additionally, e-bikes seem to allow people who would otherwise not be able to bike, because of physical limitations or proximity to locations, the ability to bike with electric assist.

What is an e-bike? Who is using these bikes and why? What are the barriers that are preventing broader adoption of this technology? As adoption of e-bikes increases, how should local agencies address the integration of e-bikes with other modes? These questions and more will be explored in this webinar.

Published in: Engineering, Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,572
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,550
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
234
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 2030 – 25%
  • According to the ACS, in 2012 about .64% of commutes are made by bicycle, which represents an almost 10% increase from 2011.
  • Dill and McNeil explored comfort of biking in different types facilities and infrastructure and updated Geller’s numbers

    Interested but Concerned and No Way tend to be older

    Shifting the Non-cyclist and recreationalist to utilitarian cyclist
  • Japan ¾ of riders are women and 2/3 > 50 of age bike
    China more women than men
  • Are ebikes the answer to biking jumping the chasm?
  • Powered bicycle versus Powered-assisted bicycle
    Pedelec
  • Global e-bike sales in 2012 is an estimated 29 million sold

    In the Netherlands one bicycle in six sold is an e-bike.

    In Germany the cycle industry expects electric-bike sales to grow by 13% this year, to 430,000 (the most sold in any European country), and to account for 15% of the market

    While conventional bicycle sales continue to decline Netherlands declined this summer by 11%, electric bicycle sales increased 6 %

  • Given a 5 year average, the US might have 200,000 bikes in circulation
  • FWHA & NPS


    Watts = Power
    Cyclist traveling at 20 mph, flat road and no headwind = 220 W

    Untrained cyclist = 80 W Fit cyclist = 150-200 W
    Elite cyclist = 300 W +
  • Reason to buy an ebike: OTHER – 14% increasing hauling capacity

    46% grip throttle on handle bar
    30% had on/off button
    13% only had assist during pedaling
    11% had a combination of throttle and pedal assist
  • 2/3 of e-bikes where purchased in the last two and a half years. Also, consistent with increase of sales.
  • OTHER – 14% increasing hauling capacity

    63% of respondents 55 years of age and older indicated that one of the main reasons they bought an electric bike was to ride with less effort compared to 50% of those under 55.
  • FUN was code response based on OTHER
  • Over half (52%) reported that the battery has run out while they were riding
  • 6% did not bike as adult and 89% bike daily or weekly now
    55% having a standard bike biking daily or weekly rose to 93%
  • Ebike ibpi webinar june 2014 final (mac arthur)

    1. 1. E-BIKES: GENERATING THE NEW WAVE OF CYCLISTS John MacArthur Sustainable Transportation Program Manager OTREC at Portland State University IBPI Webinar - June 9, 2014
    2. 2. Presentation Outline •Why do e-bikes matter? •What is an e-bike? •U.S. regulations review •North American e-bike user survey •Conclusions
    3. 3. WHY DO E-BIKES MATTER?
    4. 4. US Transport Sector Impacts Safety  32,788 fatalities in 2010 (-3% from 2009)  1.09 fatalities per 100 MVMT (VMT +0.7% in 2010)  2.2 M injuries in 2009  5.3 M crashes in 2011  $230 B total cost (including medical)  Leading cause of death for ages 4 to 34 Accessibility, Reliability and Mobility  4.8B hours travel delay (34 hours/auto commuter)  $121 billion cost of urban congestion Household Expenses  Second biggest monthly expense, after housing Environmental  28% of GHG emissions (78% CO, 58% NOx, 36% VOCs)  29% of energy consumed (mostly petroleum)  70% of petroleum consumption (60% imported)  3.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel Source: Prof. Robert Bertini
    5. 5. Commute Mode Share for Portland 2030 Bike Walk Telecommute Carpool Transit Drive Alone Reduce per capita daily vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) by 30 % from 2008 levels. Portland Climate Action Plan, 2009 2009 Bike Walk Carpool Transit Drive Alone
    6. 6. Large US Cities Ranked by % Bicycle Commuting 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% Portland Minneapolis Washington Seattle SanFrancisco Denver Tucson Oakland Sacramento NewOrleans Philadelphia Honolulu Boston Buffalo Chicago Austin Tampa Pittsburgh St.Louis SanDiego Baltimore Raleigh Miami LosAngeles NewYorkCity SanJose Columbus Phoenix Atlanta Cleveland Anaheim Detroit Stockton Jacksonville Cincinnati Indianapolis KansasCity Houston Toledo LasVegas Charlotte Memphis Dallas SanAntonio ElPaso Source: US Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey
    7. 7. Why don’t people bike more? • Safety • Lack of infrastructure • Weather • Inconvenience • Logistic issues • Lack of fitness • Lack of time • Too much effort • Can’t carry what you need • Lack of confidence
    8. 8. Shifting the four types of cyclists 56% Interested but Concerned 31% No Way, No How 9% Enthused & Confident Geller, 2006 and Dill & McNeil, 2012 4% Strong & Fearless
    9. 9. People that are older
    10. 10. People who live in areas that are hilly
    11. 11. People who commute distances greater than 5 miles
    12. 12. People that have a physical limitation that makes cycling difficult
    13. 13. Woman tend to bike less that men. Women make up approx. 25% of all bike trips in the US.
    14. 14. People don’t always feel safe biking in traffic
    15. 15. People who don’t want to sweat or wear special clothes to commute
    16. 16. People who need to carry or haul items or people
    17. 17. What are the critical pieces to increase cycling? Cost Programs & Policies Attitudes Infrastructure Critical Mass Technology
    18. 18. WHAT IS AN E-BIKE?
    19. 19. What is an electric bike? Battery Motor (Hub or Chain drive) Power controls & Gear shifts
    20. 20. Come in all shapes and sizes
    21. 21. Different types of the e-bikes Throttle Pedelec Powered bicycle (PB) Powered-assisted bicycle (PAB)
    22. 22. Not considered “e-bikes” Moped Scooter
    23. 23. How Much Faster Are E-bikes? • AASHTO 2012 design criteria – bike facilities • 8-15 mph pave level terrain; 20-30 mph downhill; 5-12 uphill; 15 mph avg. operational speed • Landis et al. 2004, conventional bikes travel 11 mph (avg.), 14 mph (85% percentile), 1% > 20 mph • Cherry & He 2009, avg. conventional bike 6.9 mph (std. 3.3) / avg. e-bike 9.0 mph (std. 5.5) or 31-35% faster • Langford & Cherry 2013, UT study of e-bikes (avg. 8.3 mph; 85th percentile 12.4 mph); conventional bikes( avg. 6.5 mph; 85th percentile speed 10.6 mph) Facility Mean (mph) Max (mph) Min (mph) Bike path 12.6 24.4 2.7 Bicycle lane 15.5 25.4 2.5 Sidewalk 11.5 18.7 2.1 No facility 11.8 22.9 5.0 Opiela et al ., 1980
    24. 24. A Naturalistic Cycling Study in Sweden Dozza, et al. 2013 8.7 mph 14 mph
    25. 25. Market for E-bikes Electric Bicycle Sales by Region, World Markets: 2012-2018 Source: Navigant/Pike Research
    26. 26. Projected US Growth Source: Navigant/Pike Research
    27. 27. U.S. REGULATIONS REVIEW
    28. 28. International Definitions Compared Region Power Limit Top Speed PB allowed PAB allowed Other US 750W 20 mph Yes Yes Has operating pedals Canada 500W 20 mph Yes Yes Has operating pedals, <265 lbs. EU 250W 15.5 mph No Yes Motor operates during pedaling only China No limit 12.4 mph Yes Yes Has operating pedals, < 88 lbs. Rest of Asia 250W 15 mph No Yes Has operating pedals Australia 200W/ 250W Not specified Yes Yes Has operating pedals
    29. 29. Definition of an E-bike (Federal) • Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) • The Consumer Product Safety Act regulates the use of low- speed electric bicycles to “two-or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 horse power), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph” Sec. 38 [15 U.S.C. § 2085] • Regulation only pertains to manufacturing and first sell • Now for the confusing part: • d) This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements referred to in subsection (a).
    30. 30. State & local regulations • States define the device & determine where it can used • Many state use regulations in place governing "moped", "motorcycle", "motorized bicycle", "motorscooter", "scooter", and/or "motor-driven cycle." • Oregon - ORS 801.258 “Has a power output of not more than 1,000 watts” but ORS 807.020(15) “A person may operate an electric assisted bicycle without a driver license or driver permit if the person is 16 years of age or older.” • Many cities defer to the state regulation and classification • Some cities are addressing e-bikes: Boulder, Eugene, Bloomfield (CO), Toronto, Chicago, Tucson, New York City
    31. 31. Unique case of New York/New York State • Motorized devices that cannot be registered in New York – including “motor- assisted bicycle” • A business using a bicycle for commercial purposes shall not possess any motorized scooter and shall not permit any employee of such business to operate such a motorized scooter on behalf of such business. (Local Laws 2013/40 & 41) • Motorized scooter - …capable of propelling the device without human power and is not capable of being registered with the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles • Proposed bills in New York State Assembly and Senate (A1618A-2013 and S390A- 2013)
    32. 32. Minimum age 12 14 15 16 18 No minimum age Data unavailable
    33. 33. Classified as bicycle No Yes
    34. 34. E-bike-specific definition No Yes No “home rule”
    35. 35. Driver’s license and vehicle registration No Yes Vehicle registration required
    36. 36. Maximum power output specified 500 W / 0.67 HP 750 W / 1 H.P. 1000 W / 1.34 H.P. > 1000 W / 1.34 H.P. Piston displacement (cc) Unspecified limit Data unavailable
    37. 37. Data unavailable 18 – 20 mph 25 mph 30 – 31 mph No limit set Speed limit
    38. 38. Policy Questions & Implications • Technology • Motor size; Speed; Weight; Dimensions; Pedals (Functional?) • Rider/Passenger • Age; Helmet; License; Registration • Use • Separated/protected bike path; Bike lane; Shared use path; Sidewalk & Trails
    39. 39. How do you feel about these e-bikes?
    40. 40. NORTH AMERICAN E-BIKE USER SURVEY
    41. 41. What Is Our Research Question? Will e-bikes… •Get more people to bike, and •Get people to bike more often.
    42. 42. Survey Methodology • Adapted a survey instrument from the Institute of Transport Studies at Monash University • The survey was distributed through e-bike blogs & forums, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, e-mails to manufacturers and retailers, and via postcards to retailers in the Portland region. • March 7 – July 1, 2013 • 553 e-bike owners responded to the survey
    43. 43. Geography of survey respondents
    44. 44. Demographics 85% 15% Male Female n=553 Gender 1% 10% 18% 26% 32%13% 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over n=451 Age 4% 25% 37% 34% High School Some College College Graduate Graduate Degree Education n=448 5% 7% 7% 13% 18% 16% 18% 16% Under $15,000 $15,000 to $25,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 $100,000 to$150,000 $150,000 or more Income N = 448
    45. 45. Demographic summary  90% White, 5% Asian, 5% other (n=428)  90% have access to a motor vehicle, 7% no vehicle  30% indicated that they have a physical condition that makes riding a standard bike difficult (n=450) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor How would you rate your general health? n=449
    46. 46. Purchase Decisions 48% purchased an e-bike, while 52% converted a standard bike to electric-assist. What type of bike did you convert? 11% 40% 16% 2% 10% 7% 13% 1%
    47. 47. In which year did you purchase your electric bike or conversion kit? 13% 34% 20% 11% 11% 5% 2% 3% 3% 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 or before n=421
    48. 48. How much did your electric bike or conversion kit cost to purchase? 10% 18% 18% 16% 14% 25% 18% 28% 24% 17% 6% 8% $500 or less $501 - $1,000 $1,000 - $1,500 $1,501 - $2,000 $2,001 - $2,500 $2,501 or more Purchased Converted n=414
    49. 49. What were the main reasons you bought an electric bike, or converted a standard bicycle? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% To replace some car trips Health - medical condition reduced your ability to ride a standard bike Health - to increase physical fitness Because you live or work in a hilly area To ride with less effort To be able to keep up with friends/family when I go for rides Male Female Respondents w/ physical limitation Respondents w/out a physical limitation Respondents <55 Respondents >55
    50. 50. What is the main reason that you use your electric bike (purpose of trips)? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Commute to work/school Local trips (shopping and errands) Recreation Other Male Female Respondents w/ physical limitation Respondents w/out a physical limitation Respondents < 55 Respondents > 55
    51. 51. Bike Use  94% indicated they had rode a standard bike as an adult  55% rode their standard bike weekly or daily prior to e-bike purchase --this went up to 93% after purchase  Of the 6% that hadn’t rode a bike as an adult, of those 89% ride their e- bike daily or weekly  Over 90% use their e-bikes weekly or daily “To replace 95% of car trips and make commuting fun” – Survey Respondent
    52. 52. Getting around  45% indicated that they take a different route on their e-bike than a standard bike  35% don’t avoid hills on e-bike and 31% will take more direct or higher traffic route on e-bike but 30% say they take lower traffic or less direct route  Three quarters (73%) ride to different destinations on their e-bikes than they did on a standard bike “I have bad knees( I'm retired, 68 years old). If I pedal a bike my range is limited by pain to about 5 to 6 miles. The e-bikes has a range per charge of 30 to 35 miles.” – Survey Respondent
    53. 53. What are the different destinations you ride to on your electric bike? • 52% of women responded that they take a different route on their electric bike than they did on their standard bike as compared to 42% of men. • 82% of women responded that they ride to different destinations on their electric bike than they did on their standard bike compared to 73% of men. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
    54. 54. What are the main advantages to riding an e-bike? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
    55. 55. What are the main disadvantage to riding an e-bike? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
    56. 56. Limitations of survey •No response rate •Method of delivery •Online survey and self reporting use •Not random and potential basis
    57. 57. Survey conclusions • Have a potential to get more people on bikes • Older adults • People with physical limitations • Women (?) I live in a hilly town and would never commute to work on a standard bike -- I wouldn't be able to make it up the hills. My electric assist bike makes commuting by bike possible. I am age 78, legally blind, live alone in a semi-rural area. 4 miles to the nearest scheduled bus route and town, 7 miles to my favorite shopping area, 12 miles to my church.
    58. 58. Survey conclusions • Encourages more people to bike more often & to more distant locations • Commuters • Less sweaty, not strenuous • Not avoiding trips or locations • Enjoy biking! • Reported increase in bike usage I use the e-bike primarily as a substitute for the car where I would have otherwise would have driven a car. I can carry my son and a week’s worth of groceries.
    59. 59. CONCLUSIONS
    60. 60. Conclusions • Evidence suggests that e-bikes are becoming more prevalent in North America • E-bikes can help get more people biking and biking more often • Technology should be added to the bike promotion & planning dialogue • The federal & state regulatory landscape needs to be standardized to decrease confusion and help the market grow • Transportation agencies need to be aware of emerging technologies and their implications for how the transportation system should be designed, regulated and operated. • Should e-bikes be given the same distinguish as bicycles? • What are the safety implications of these new emerging technologies?
    61. 61. Contact Information John MacArthur • macarthur@pdx.edu • 503-725-2866 For more and reports go to: ebike.research.pdx.edu Thanks to Prof. Jennifer Dill, Nicholas Kobel and Mark Person for their work on the research projects and OTREC/NITC for funding this project. Special thanks to Geoffrey Rose & Marilyn Johnson, Institute of Transport Studies at Monash University for the use of the survey instrument and Chris Cherry, University of Tennessee, for his assistance and review.
    62. 62. References • Cherry, C. & He M. Alternative Methods of Measuring Operating Speed of Electric and Traditional Bikes in China-Implications for Travel Demand Models. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 7, 2009. • Dozza M., J. Werneke, M., Mackenzie. e‐BikeSAFE: A Naturalistic Cycling Study to Understand how Electrical Bicycles Change Cycling Behavior and Influence Safety. Proceedings, International Cycling Safety Conference 2013, Helmond, The Netherlands, 20‐21 November 2013. • Gojanovic, B.,Wleker, J., Iglesias, K.,Daucourt,C. & Gremion, G. Electric Bicycles as a New Active Transportation Modality to Promote Health. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2204-2210. 2011. • Landis, B. W., Petritsch, T. A., & Huang, H. F. (2004). Characteristics of emerging road and trail users and their safety, report no. FHWA-HRT-04-103. • Louis, J., Brisswalter J., Morio C., Barla C., Temrado J-J., The Electrically assisted bicycle: An alternative way to promote physical activity. American Jounral Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. pp. 931-940, 2012. • MacArthur, J., Dill, J., & Person, M. (2014). E-Bikes in the North America: Results from an online survey. In Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C. • Navigant Research - Hurst, D., & Gartner, J. (2013). Executive summary: Electric bicycles global market opportunities, barriers, technology issues, and demand forecasts for e-bicycles, pedal-assist bicycles, and e-bicycle batteries and motors. Boulder, CO: • Rose, G. (2011). E-bikes and urban transportation: Emerging issues and unresolved questions. Transportation, 39, 81–96. doi:10.1007/s11116-011-9328-y • Rose, Geoff & P. Cock, “Encouraging E-bike use: the need for regulatory reform in Australia.” Presentation for Transport Research at Monash University. Working Paper ITS-WP-03-19, 2003. • Simons, M.,Van Es, E. & Hendriksen, I. Electrically Assisted Cycling: A New Mode for Meeting Physical Activity Guidelines?. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2204-2210. 2011.
    63. 63. Questions
    64. 64. Health Impacts • Metabolic equivalents (METs) • Light intensity activities < 3 METs • Moderate physical activity 3-6 METs • Vigorous-intense activity > 6 METs • CDC recommends 2 hours and 30 minutes of moderate- intensity aerobic activity every week • Various studies (Simons 2009, Gojanovic 2011, Louis 2012) have shown that e-bikes provide moderate physical activity (5-6 METs) but limited vigorous activity
    65. 65. Heart Rate Field Study for 3 modes Rose & Cock, Monash University 2003
    66. 66. Heart Rate Zones Rose & Cock, Monash University 2003

    ×