Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
E-­BIKES:  POWER  YOUR  
COMMUTE
John  MacArthur
Sustainable  Transportation  Program  Manager
TREC  at  Portland  State  ...
Presentation  Outline
• Why  do  e-­bikes  matter?
• What  is  an  e-­bike?
• Kaiser  Permanente  Pilot  Project
WHY  DO  E-­BIKES  
MATTER?
Commute  Mode  Share  for  Portland
2012
Bike
Walk
Telecommute
Carpool
Transit
Drive  Alone
2030
Bike
Walk
Telecommute
Car...
Large  US  Cities  Ranked  by  %  Bicycle  
Commuting
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Portland
Minneapolis
Washington
Seattle
San ...
Shifting  the  four  types  of  cyclists
60%  Interested  
but  Concerned
33%  No  Way,  
No  How
7%  Enthused  &
Confiden...
Cycling can be
more difficult as
people grow older
People who live in
areas that are hilly
People who commute
distances greater than
5 miles
People that have a
physical limitation that
makes cycling difficult
Woman tend bike less
that men. Women make
25% of all bike trips in
the US.
People don’t always
feel safe biking in
traffic
People who don’t want
to sweat or wear
special clothes to
commute
People who need to
carry or haul items or
people
WHAT  IS  AN  E-­BIKE?
What  is  an  electric  bike?
Battery
Motor  (Hub  or  Chain  drive)
Power  controls
&
Gear  shifts
Different  types  of  the  e-­bikes
Throttle Pedelec
Powered  bicycle  (PB)  versus  Powered-­assisted  bicycle  (PAB)
Market  for  E-­bikes
Electric  Bicycle  Sales  by  Region,  World  Markets:  2012-­2018
Source:  Navigant/Pike  Research
What  Is  Our  Research  Question?
Will  e-­bikes…
•Get  more  people  to  bike,  and
•Get  people  to  bike  more  often.
KAISER  PERMANENTE  
E-­BIKE  PILOT  PROJECT
Kaiser  Permanente  E-­bike  Pilot  Project
• 30  Currie  iZip E3  
Compact
• Top  Speed:  18  mph
• Range:  15-­22  miles...
Project  Team
•Kaiser  Permanente:  Lauren  Whyte,  Shannon  Mayorga
•Drive  Oregon:  Jeff  Allen,  Zack  Henkin,  Emmalin...
Methodology
• 6  cohorts  (154  people)
• Participants  were  chosen  by  Kaiser  thru  a  sign-­up
• Surveys:  Pre-­Use, ...
Map  overview  of  employment  centers,  transit  and  
survey  respondents'  homes  -­ Portland  Metro.
Demographic  characteristics
Race/ethnicity # % Household Income # %
White 94 73% $15,000 – $24,999 1 1%
Black 4 3% $25,00...
More  participant  facts
• Average  number  of  automobiles  
per  household  =  2.9
• Average  number  of  bicycles  per ...
How  far  do  people  live  from  their  workplace?
Spatial  metrics
Variable n Mean Median SD Range Min Max
Distance to m...
Mode  choice  by  trip  purpose
30%
36%
48%
66%
68%
13%
44%
32%
13%
7%
33%
6%
7%
4%
2%
21%
7%
10%
13%
7%
2%
6%
3%
4%
15%
2...
78%
11%
3% 3% 6%
0%
47%
6%
2%
13%
32%
0%
82%
5% 3% 3%
5%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Drive  alone Carpool Wa...
Standard bicycle E-bike
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Sample size (n) 56 31 87 80 86
Weather conditions 45% 39% 74% 59% 56%
Trip log...
(C): Pre-use: What are the main factors keeping you from biking more often?
(D): Mid-use: If you would like to use the e-b...
6%
19%
3% 2% 6%
17%
19%
22% 21%
29%
30%
29%
33% 29%
25%
48%
32%
46%
58% 60%
48%
10%
16%
6% 4%
10% 9%
43%
43%
49%
46%
30%
4...
Reported  usage  of  e-­bike  (trip  frequency)  for  
commuting  by  distance  from  work.
0%
3% 4%
21% 21%
16%
42%
24%
2...
"I ride a bike…"
Total
Portland
regional/
National
average †/**
"never" "occasionally" "regularly"
# % # % # % # %
Before ...
Trip  Purpose  and  Trip  Frequency  of  
Cycling
Trip  Purpose
PREUSE POSTUSE
Std
Error t-­Value Sig*
Trip  Frequency Tri...
Reported  likelihood  of  using  a  bicycle  after  using  
e-­bike  (by  gender)
53%
43%
47%
44%
34%
20%
66%
62%
45%
33%
...
82%
44%
4%
81%
64%
5%
14%
36%
7%
17%
28%
16%
1%
10%
49%
1%
4%
49%
23%
20%
3%
10%
17%
1%
4%
10%
90%
60%
9%
82%
73%
11%
9%
2...
Respondents’  rating  of  specific  e-­bike  features  
and  functions
7%
14%
19%
21%
28%
33%
34%
37%
40%
42%
45%
54%
31%
...
E-­‐bike	
  User	
  Experience
E-bike
Experience
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Don't
k...
Transit  Use
• Only  15%  participants  tried  taking  their  e-­bike  onto  public  
transportation
• Trip  chaining  for...
Main  Conclusions
• E-­bikes  reduce  some  barriers  to  participation  
in  cycling
• E-­bikes  may  help  people  be  m...
Future  Work
• Expand  understand  of  trip  &  mode  choice  given  an  e-­bike
• Explore  route  and  destinations  choi...
Acknowledgements
•Metro:  Regional  Travel  Options  Program  &  Caleb  Winter
•Kaiser  Permanente:  Lauren  Whyte,  Shann...
Contact  Information
John  MacArthur
• macarthur@pdx.edu
• 503-­725-­2866
• trec.pdx.edu
Final  Report  Coming  Soon!
Chec...
References  
• MacArthur,  J.,  and  Kobel,  N.  Regulations  of  e-­bikes  in  North  America:  
A  policy  review  (NITC...
Evaluation of an Electric Bike Pilot Project in Portland, Oregon
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Evaluation of an Electric Bike Pilot Project in Portland, Oregon

154 views

Published on

John MacArthur, TREC, Portland State University

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Evaluation of an Electric Bike Pilot Project in Portland, Oregon

  1. 1. E-­BIKES:  POWER  YOUR   COMMUTE John  MacArthur Sustainable  Transportation  Program  Manager TREC  at  Portland  State  University Evaluation  of  an  Electric  Bike  Pilot  Project  in  Portland,  Oregon  – April  21,  2016 with  Jennifer  Dill,  Nicholas  Kobel,  &  Zakari Mumuni
  2. 2. Presentation  Outline • Why  do  e-­bikes  matter? • What  is  an  e-­bike? • Kaiser  Permanente  Pilot  Project
  3. 3. WHY  DO  E-­BIKES   MATTER?
  4. 4. Commute  Mode  Share  for  Portland 2012 Bike Walk Telecommute Carpool Transit Drive  Alone 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,  2015
  5. 5. Large  US  Cities  Ranked  by  %  Bicycle   Commuting 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% Portland Minneapolis Washington Seattle San  Francisco Denver Tucson Oakland Sacramento New  Orleans Philadelphia Honolulu Boston Buffalo Chicago Austin Tampa Pittsburgh St.  Louis San  Diego Baltimore Raleigh Miami Los  Angeles New  York  City San  Jose Columbus Phoenix Atlanta Cleveland Anaheim Detroit Stockton Jacksonville Cincinnati Indianapolis Kansas  City Houston Toledo Las  Vegas Charlotte Memphis Dallas San  Antonio El  Paso Source:  US  Census  Bureau,  2012  American  Community  Survey
  6. 6. Shifting  the  four  types  of  cyclists 60%  Interested   but  Concerned 33%  No  Way,   No  How 7%  Enthused  & Confident Geller,  2006  and  Dill  &  McNeil,  2012/2015 <1%  Strong  &   Fearless
  7. 7. Cycling can be more difficult as people grow older
  8. 8. People who live in areas that are hilly
  9. 9. People who commute distances greater than 5 miles
  10. 10. People that have a physical limitation that makes cycling difficult
  11. 11. Woman tend bike less that men. Women make 25% of all bike trips in the US.
  12. 12. People don’t always feel safe biking in traffic
  13. 13. People who don’t want to sweat or wear special clothes to commute
  14. 14. People who need to carry or haul items or people
  15. 15. WHAT  IS  AN  E-­BIKE?
  16. 16. What  is  an  electric  bike? Battery Motor  (Hub  or  Chain  drive) Power  controls & Gear  shifts
  17. 17. Different  types  of  the  e-­bikes Throttle Pedelec Powered  bicycle  (PB)  versus  Powered-­assisted  bicycle  (PAB)
  18. 18. Market  for  E-­bikes Electric  Bicycle  Sales  by  Region,  World  Markets:  2012-­2018 Source:  Navigant/Pike  Research
  19. 19. What  Is  Our  Research  Question? Will  e-­bikes… •Get  more  people  to  bike,  and •Get  people  to  bike  more  often.
  20. 20. KAISER  PERMANENTE   E-­BIKE  PILOT  PROJECT
  21. 21. Kaiser  Permanente  E-­bike  Pilot  Project • 30  Currie  iZip E3   Compact • Top  Speed:  18  mph • Range:  15-­22  miles • Weight:  42  lbs. • Folding • Kaiser  Employees  at  3   campuses  (1st/last  mile   commuting) • Project  ran  from  May   2014  to  Oct  2015
  22. 22. Project  Team •Kaiser  Permanente:  Lauren  Whyte,  Shannon  Mayorga •Drive  Oregon:  Jeff  Allen,  Zack  Henkin,  Emmaline Pohnl,   Mark  Bernard •Bike  N’  Hike:  Kevin  Chudy and  staff •PSU  Bike  Hub:  Clint  Culpepper,  Daniel  Penner and  staff •Washington  County  Bicycle  Transportation  Coalition:   Steve  Boughton •CurrieTech:  Larry  Pizzi and  Rob  Kaplan •PSU:  Jennifer  Dill,  Nicholas  Kobel,  Zakari Mumuni
  23. 23. Methodology • 6  cohorts  (154  people) • Participants  were  chosen  by  Kaiser  thru  a  sign-­up • Surveys:  Pre-­Use,  Mid-­use  and  Post-­use • Incentives:  $5  gift  cards  were  offered  for  completion  of   each  survey  and  one  bike  was  given  away  at  random   based  on  the  number  of  surveys  completed. • Use:  10  weeks  periods  to  use  in  any  manner
  24. 24. Map  overview  of  employment  centers,  transit  and   survey  respondents'  homes  -­ Portland  Metro.
  25. 25. Demographic  characteristics Race/ethnicity # % Household Income # % White 94 73% $15,000 – $24,999 1 1% Black 4 3% $25,000 – $34,999 1 1% Hispanic/Latino 10 8% $35,000 – $49,999 11 9% Asian 10 8% $50,000 – $74,999 22 18% American Indian 1 1% $75,000 – $99,999 30 24% Native Hawaiian 2 2% $100,000 – $149,999 45 36% Two or more 5 4% $150,000 or more 15 12% Total (n) 129 100% Total (n) 125 100% Sex # % Physical limitations # % Male 47 36% No 96 77% Female 82 64% Yes 29 23% Total (n) 129 100% Total (n) 90 100% Age group # % BMI index by age Male Female 18-24 5 4% 18 – 24 25.7 23.0 25-34 25 17% 25 – 34 25.0 25.7 35-44 41 34% 35 – 44 29.2 27.3 45-54 35 30% 45 – 54 28.4 29.0 55-64 19 13% 55 + 28.9 27.9 65+ 2 1% Average 28.0 27.4 Total (n) 127 100% Educational attainment # % Reported health # % High school 4 2% Excellent 17 13% Some college 27 11% Very Good 47 37% College graduate 57 22% Good 52 41% Advanced degree 39 15% Fair 12 9% Total (n) 127 100% Total (n) 90 100%
  26. 26. More  participant  facts • Average  number  of  automobiles   per  household  =  2.9 • Average  number  of  bicycles  per   household  =  2.8 • %  no  functional  bicycle  at   household  =  15.6% • %  participants  with  a  monthly   transit  pass  =  20%
  27. 27. How  far  do  people  live  from  their  workplace? Spatial  metrics Variable n Mean Median SD Range Min Max Distance to main employment center 118 11.20 10.01 6.88 31.63 0.44 38.51 Distance to nearest frequent service bus stop 124 1.52 0.75 2.25 14.94 0.03 17.19 Distance to nearest light rail transit stop 124 2.14 1.56 2.36 18.45 0.17 20.81 Linear miles of bike routes within ½ mile 123 1.90 1.89 1.15 5.78 0.00 6.93
  28. 28. Mode  choice  by  trip  purpose 30% 36% 48% 66% 68% 13% 44% 32% 13% 7% 33% 6% 7% 4% 2% 21% 7% 10% 13% 7% 2% 6% 3% 4% 15% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Exercise/  Recreation Entertainment  &  Socializing Visiting  Family/Friends Personal  Errands Commuting Drive  alone Carpool/passenger Walk Bike Public  transit Other
  29. 29. 78% 11% 3% 3% 6% 0% 47% 6% 2% 13% 32% 0% 82% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Drive  alone Carpool Walk Bike Public  transit Other Westside Lloyd Sunnyside Commute  mode  by  location
  30. 30. Standard bicycle E-bike (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) Sample size (n) 56 31 87 80 86 Weather conditions 45% 39% 74% 59% 56% Trip logistics, preparation and/or time constraints 43% 61% 18% 11% 19% My destination is too far 45% 10% 44% 15% 23% The bike is uncomfortable or causes pain 2% 0% 0% 8% 19% I can’t carry the things I need 0% 0% 45% 19% 21% I am concerned for my safety 5% 3% 0% 19% 14% I do not have access to a bicycle OR there was an issue with my e-bike 61% 29% 14% 6% 5% There is no place to securely store my bicycle 0% 0% 2% 5% 17% I don't like to arrive sweaty/no showers at work 4% 0% 52% 18% 12% I am unable to bike for health concerns or am physically unable 23% 32% 3% 30% 41% Transit connections are not easy or convenient 0% 0% 0% 8% 9% "Laziness" (self-reported) 2% 10% 21% 1% 0% Hills 4% 0% 41% 1% 0% Other 4% 6% 3% 1% 5% (A): Pre-use: Why did you stop biking for transportation to work? (B): Pre-use: Why did you stop biking for recreation? (C): Pre-use: What are the main factors keeping you from biking more often? (D): Mid-use: If you would like to use the e-bike to commute to work more often, what prevents you from doing so? (E): Post-use: If you weren't able to use the e-bike as often as you would have liked, what prevented you from doing so? Barriers  to  participation  in  cycling  cited  by  respondents
  31. 31. (C): Pre-use: What are the main factors keeping you from biking more often? (D): Mid-use: If you would like to use the e-bike to commute to workmore often, what prevents you from doing so? (E): Post-use: If you weren't able to use the e-bike as often as you would have liked, what preventedyoufromdoingso? Barriers  to  participation  in  cycling  cited  by   respondents Standard Bike E-Bike (C) (D) (E) Male Female Male Female Male Female Sample Size (n) 29 58 30 50 26 60 Weatherconditions 76% 72% 67% 54% 65% 52% I don't like to arrive sweaty/no showersat work 76% 40% 20% 16% 15% 10% I can't carry the thingsI need 52% 41% 27% 14% 19% 22% My destination istoo far 41% 45% 17% 14% 15% 27% Hills 34% 45% 3% 0% 0% 0% Trip logistics,preparation and/ortime constraints 21% 17% 13% 10% 23% 17% I do not have accessto a bicycle OR there was an issue with my e-bike 14% 14% 13% 2% 0% 7% "Laziness"(self-reported) 14% 24% 0% 2% 0% 0% Health concernsoram physically unable/othersdependent on me for travel 3% 3% 20% 36% 38% 42% There is no place to securely store my bicycle 3% 2% 3% 6% 12% 20% Other 3% 3% 0% 2% 0% 7% I am concerned formy safety 0% 0% 10% 24% 8% 17% The bike isuncomfortable orcausespain 0% 0% 3% 10% 23% 17% Transit connectionsare not easy orconvenient 0% 0% 13% 4% 8% 10%
  32. 32. 6% 19% 3% 2% 6% 17% 19% 22% 21% 29% 30% 29% 33% 29% 25% 48% 32% 46% 58% 60% 48% 10% 16% 6% 4% 10% 9% 43% 43% 49% 46% 30% 42% 47% 41% 45% 50% 60% 49% All trips Commuting Personal Family Social Recreation 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% All tripsCommutingPersonalFamily SocialRecreation 9% 9% Frequency  of  bicycle  usage  by  trip  purpose,  before  and   during  program Before  program  (standard  bicycle) During  program  (e-­bike) <  1  day/  month1-­3  days/   month 1-­3  days/   week 4-­7  days/   week
  33. 33. Reported  usage  of  e-­bike  (trip  frequency)  for   commuting  by  distance  from  work. 0% 3% 4% 21% 21% 16% 42% 24% 28% 38% 52% 52% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% ≤  5  mi (n=24) >  5  mi,  <  10  mi (n=29) ≥  10  mi (n=50) 5+  day/week 3-­4  days/week 1-­2  days/week Less  than  once  per  week
  34. 34. "I ride a bike…" Total Portland regional/ National average †/** "never" "occasionally" "regularly" # % # % # % # % Before 14 100% 87 100% 28 100% 129 100% - No way, no how 4 29% 8 9% 0 0% 12 8% 31% / 37% Interested but concerned 7 50% 45 52% 18 64% 70 54% 56% / 51% Enthused and confident 3 21% 33 38% 8 29% 44 35% 9% / 5% Strong and fearless 0 0% 1 2% 2 7% 3 3% 4% / 7 % After 13 100% 87 100% 28 100% 128 100% - No way, no how 0 0% 8 9% 0 0% 8 6% 31% / 37% Interested but concerned 5 33% 40 46% 9 32% 54 42% 56% / 51% Enthused and confident 8 67% 34 39% 12 54% 57 45% 9% / 5% Strong and fearless 0 0% 5 6% 2 14% 9 7% 4% / 7 % Total 14 100% 87 100% 28 100% 129 100% - Became less confident 0 0% 16 18% 3 13% 20 16% -­‐ No change 3 22% 51 59% 13 46% 67 52% - Became more confident 10 71% 20 23% 12 43% 42 33% - † Cyclist typology results from Dill & McNeil, 2012. ** Dill & McNeil, 2015 Level  of  Comfort:  Change  in  cyclist  typology  (individual)  before   and  after  using  e-­bike,  by  self-­described  cyclist  type
  35. 35. Trip  Purpose  and  Trip  Frequency  of   Cycling Trip  Purpose PREUSE POSTUSE Std Error t-­Value Sig* Trip  Frequency Trip  Frequency More   likely Less   likely Neither   more   nor  less   likely More   likely Less   likely Neither   more  nor   less  likely Commuting  to   work/school 17% 14% 69% 47% 12% 41% 0.183 14.581 <0.001 Personal  errands 17% 19% 64% 45% 14% 41% 0.161 14.918 <0.001 Visit  family  or  friends 4% 16% 80% 37% 15% 48% 0.141 20.626 <0.001 Entertainment,   dining/socializing 5% 14% 81% 25% 16% 60% 0.129 20.634 <0.001 Exercise  or  recreation 24% 23% 53% 64% 5% 31% 0.143 13.599 <0.001
  36. 36. Reported  likelihood  of  using  a  bicycle  after  using   e-­bike  (by  gender) 53% 43% 47% 44% 34% 20% 66% 62% 45% 33% 38% 43% 43% 40% 55% 62% 32% 30% 47% 49% 9% 15% 11% 16% 11% 18% 2% 7% 9% 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Commuting:  Males Commuting:  Females Personal  errands:  Males Personal  errands:  Females Socializing:  Males Socializing:  Females Exercise  &  recreation:  Males Exercise  &  recreation:  Females Family  &  Friends:  Males Family  &  Friends:  Females More  likely Neither  more  nor  less  likely Less  likely
  37. 37. 82% 44% 4% 81% 64% 5% 14% 36% 7% 17% 28% 16% 1% 10% 49% 1% 4% 49% 23% 20% 3% 10% 17% 1% 4% 10% 90% 60% 9% 82% 73% 11% 9% 25% 14% 16% 19% 14% 10% 41% 1% 6% 44% 23% 25% 1% 5% 13% 1% 2% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% e-bike is better for the environment than taking a car e-bike is better for the environment than taking public transit e-bike is better for the environment than riding a standard bicycle e-bike is better for my health than taking a car e-bike is better for my health than taking public transit e-bike is better for my health than riding a standard bicycle E-­bikes  are  better  for….. ENVIRONMENT HEALTH Taking  a   Car Taking  a   Transit Taking  a   Bike Taking  a   Car Taking  a   Transit Taking  a   Bike Before  program  (standard  bicycle) During  program  (e-­bike) Somewhat   Disagree Somewhat   Agree Strongly   Agree   Strongly   Disagree Don’t   Know
  38. 38. Respondents’  rating  of  specific  e-­bike  features   and  functions 7% 14% 19% 21% 28% 33% 34% 37% 40% 42% 45% 54% 31% 23% 39% 28% 46% 40% 53% 44% 43% 49% 44% 41% 36% 40% 35% 27% 25% 28% 20% 14% 14% 15% 9% 11% 13% 7% 18% 27% 13% 17% 4% 10% 6% 7% 7% 7% 10% 2% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Weight  of  e-­bike  (n=125) Folding   the  e-­bike  (n=119) Pedaling  without  electric  assist  (n=126) Size  of  e-­bike  unfolded  (n=125) Size  of  e-­bike  folded  (n=117) Time  it  takes  to  recharge  battery  (n=123) Stability  while  riding  (n=126) Braking/slowing  down  (n=127) Charging  the  battery  overall  (n=124) Battery  range  for  most  trips  (n=125) Engaging  pedelec  (PAS)  assist  (n=127) Engaging  throttle  (TAG)  assist  (n=127) Average Very  Good Good Fair Poor Very  Poor 5%
  39. 39. E-­‐bike  User  Experience E-bike Experience Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Don't know Comfortable 5% 11% 45% 40% 0% Fun 5% 4% 30% 61% 0% Easy to Use 2% 5% 36% 56% 0% Farther/Faster 8% 12% 29% 50% 2% Pre-Use End-Use Mean 1,031 1,339 Median 903 1,197 Willingness  to  Pay  for  E-­‐bike  ($)
  40. 40. Transit  Use • Only  15%  participants  tried  taking  their  e-­bike  onto  public   transportation • Trip  chaining  for  commuting  was  very  rarely  done  by  participants. • A  quarter  of  those  reported  having  trouble  taking  the  e-­bikes  onto   transit,  citing  crowded  trains  and  a  heavy  bike  that  was  difficult  to   maneuver  as  the  primary  reasons.
  41. 41. Main  Conclusions • E-­bikes  reduce  some  barriers  to  participation   in  cycling • E-­bikes  may  help  people  be  more   comfortable  on  bicycles • E-­bikes  encourage  more  trips  by  bicycle
  42. 42. Future  Work • Expand  understand  of  trip  &  mode  choice  given  an  e-­bike • Explore  route  and  destinations  choices • Safety  considerations  of  use • Conflict  with  pedestrians  and  cyclists  on  bike   infrastructure • Differences  in  e-­bike  models
  43. 43. Acknowledgements •Metro:  Regional  Travel  Options  Program  &  Caleb  Winter •Kaiser  Permanente:  Lauren  Whyte,  Shannon  Mayorga &   Employee  Participants •Drive  Oregon:  Jeff  Allen,  Zack  Henkin,  Emmaline Pohnl,   Mark  Bernard •Bike  N’  Hike:  Kevin  Chudy and  staff •PSU  Bike  Hub:  Clint  Culpepper,  Daniel  Penner and  staff •Washington  County  Bicycle  Transportation  Coalition:   Steve  Boughton •CurrieTech:  Larry  Pizzi and  Rob  Kaplan •PSU:  Jennifer  Dill,  Nicholas  Kobel,  Zakari Mumuni &  TREC   staff •National  Institute  for  Transportation  and  Communities
  44. 44. Contact  Information John  MacArthur • macarthur@pdx.edu • 503-­725-­2866 • trec.pdx.edu Final  Report  Coming  Soon! Check  trec.pdx.edu   or  email  me For  more  information   &  reports:  ebike.research.pdx.edu
  45. 45. References   • MacArthur,  J.,  and  Kobel,  N.  Regulations  of  e-­bikes  in  North  America:   A  policy  review  (NITC-­RR-­564).  National  Institute  for  Transportation   and  Communities  (NITC).  http://nitc.us/research/project/564/,  2014.   • Jennifer  Dill  and  Nathan  McNeil,  “Four  Types  of  Cyclists?   Examination  of  Typology  for  Better  Understanding  of  Bicycling   Behavior  and  Potential,”  Transportation  Research  Record:  Journal  of   the  Transportation  Research  Board,  2387:  129-­138,  2013. • Jennifer  Dill  and  Nathan  McNeil,  “Revisiting  the  Four  Types  of   Cyclists:  Findings  from  a  National  Survey,”  Transportation  Research   Record:  Journal  of  the  Transportation  Research  Board,  forthcoming.   2015  

×