1 / 27

Travel Behavior and E-Bike Sharing Demand Analysis

Travel Behavior and E-Bike Sharing Demand Analysis. CE 558/PS 555 Spring 2010. Jason Brooks Christine Caldwell Jody Dykes Courtney Housefield Brent Moyers Ed Taylor. Demand Analysis Group Objectives Collect survey data regarding a pilot program for e-bike sharing

abrial
Download Presentation

Travel Behavior and E-Bike Sharing Demand Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Travel Behavior and E-Bike Sharing Demand Analysis CE 558/PS 555 Spring 2010 Jason Brooks Christine Caldwell Jody Dykes Courtney Housefield Brent Moyers Ed Taylor

  2. Demand Analysis Group Objectives • Collect survey data regarding a pilot program for e-bike sharing • 1230 respondents in March & April 2010 - 1082 observations used in our analysis (3% of campus population) • 45 total questions w/ 10 related to e-bike sharing • Make recommendations to the site and network groups • Most popular surfaces and routes for e-bike sharing • Desired check-in/check-out locations for sharing program • Analyze rich data set consisting of a 1082 x 204 matrix to establish viability of e-bike sharing and inform campus policy • Answer 10 questions related to establish viability of e-bike sharing and inform subsequent policy decisions

  3. E-bike by Izip • Battery assist for hilly terrain • Comfortable Seat • Frame geometry facilitates comfortable riding position • Trek 7.2 Hybrid Bike • ‘Two-fifty’ engine that loses • power on hills

  4. 1. Demographics of All Survey Respondents ? • Faculty – Use as baseline • Scale up other groups

  5. Demographics? – continued • Proximity to Campus

  6. 2. Respondents Identifying as Interested In Using E-bikes? Survey Question 25If an e-bike were available to you at little or no cost, would you consider using it to travel between campus and your home or around campus?YesNoMaybe

  7. 3. Characteristics of Potential E-bike Users?

  8. 4. Surfaces Utilized & Routes Desired? • Survey Question 29 • What surfaces would you consider using an e-bike to travel between campus and your home or around campus? Select all that apply. • Street • Sidewalk • On-street bicycle lane • Off-street greenway/bicycle trail

  9. 4. Surfaces Utilized & Routes Desired? - continued • The matrix represents users (Yes) and potential users (Maybe) only. It may be interpreted as follows: • 340 (54%) will utilize streets • 538 (86%) respondents chose 2 or more surfaces • 386 (62%) respondents chose 3 or more surfaces • 165 (26%) respondents chose all 4 surfaces

  10. 4. Surfaces Utilized & Routes Desired? - continued • Also, summing horizontally across rows: • 340 (54%) respondents would utilize streets • 374 (60%) respondents would utilize sidewalks • 534 (85%) respondents would utilize bike lanes • 466 (74%) respondents would utilize greenways • Consider various combinations with policy implications: • 287 (46%) respondents are unwilling to use streets w/o bike lanes • 22 (4%) respondents are willing to use sidewalks only

  11. 4. Surfaces and Routes? - continued Survey Question 32 Which of the following campus routes might you use to travel by e-bike? Select all that apply. • Residence Hall to 'The Hill' • Main campus to Ag campus • Main campus to the UT Conference • Center/downtown • Main campus to 'The Strip' • Main campus to a greenway • Other (please specify)

  12. 4. Surfaces and Routes? – continued • 389 (62%) respondents chose 2 or more options • 224 (36%) respondents chose 3 or more options • 109 (17%) respondents chose 4 or more options • 38 (6%) respondents chose 5 or more options • 3 (<1%) respondents chose all 6 options

  13. 4. Surfaces and Routes? – continued • Also, summing horizontally across rows: • 172 (27%) respondents would utilize Residence Hall to ‘The Hill’ • 272 (43%) respondents would utilize Main campus to Ag campus • 237 (38%) respondents would utilize Main Campus to UT Conference Center/downtown • 314 (50%) respondents would utilize Main Campus to ‘The Strip’ • 285 (45%) respondents would utilize Main Campus to a greenway • 110 (18%) respondents would utilize other routes

  14. 4. Surfaces and Routes? – continued Consider various combinations with policy implications: 272 (43%) respondents can be served with a single campus route 116 (19%) respondents desire off-campus destinations only

  15. 5. Check-In/Check-Out Locations Desired? Unweighted Summary • University Center is the popular choice • Hodges Library second with the Ag & Vet Library third

  16. 5. Check-In/Check-Out Locations Desired? - continued Weighted Summary • University Center is the popular choice • Hodges Library second with the Ag & Vet Library third

  17. 6. Trip Volume? Potential Users • 36% of respondents expressed interest in using e-bike for internal trip • Assuming 15000 travelers/day on campus • Assuming “Optimum” biking conditions for all users (cost, weather, convenience, etc.) • Project 3000 – 5000 potential users • More study need to better assess realistic use

  18. 6. Trip Volume? - continued E-bike use for internal trips

  19. 6. Trip volume? - continued Potential use of e-bike for internal trips • Survey indicates average use 4 – 5 internal trips week • Estimated time need for trip ~ 2 hours (affected by # and location of check-in/check-out stations) • Use per week ~ 8 – 10 hrs • Prime use M-F 7 a.m.–6 p.m. (11 hours/day)

  20. 7. Influencing Factors for E-bike Use?

  21. 8. E-Bike Demand Sensitivity to Price? Elasticity= %Change in Quantity Demanded \ % Change in Price Arc Elasticity from $0.20 to $0.40 = -[(271-440)\440] \ 1.00 = -0.38 ~ Inelastic Arc Elasticity from $0.40 to $0.60 = -[(116-271)\271] \ 0.50 = - 1.14 ~ Elastic

  22. 9. Big Picture? • Near term - Observations • Existing street surfaces can be utilized by 340 of the 627 (54%) respondents indicating a willingness to use or consider e-bike transportation • The most popular route choices, Main Campus to ‘The Strip’ and Main Campus to a greenway, are not currently served by bus service and are accessible by travelling on existing street surfaces • The University Center is the most popular choice for a check-in / check-out location • Near term - Recommendations • Utilize the pilot program to serve the population willing to use the existing street infrastructure • Locate a single check-in / check-out location just northwest of the University Center – this allows access to The Strip, Cumberland Avenue, and the Third Creek Greenway via multiple street and / or sidewalk routes as well as proximity to popular campus destinations

  23. 9. Big Picture? - continued • Long term - Observations • Bike lanes and greenways were the two most popular surfaces • Over half the users chose Main Campus to UT Conference Center or The Strip as a likely route • Residence hall occupants travelling to The Hill are not well served by any of the top check-in / check-out locations. Existing bus service, walking, or personally owned bikes appear to be better options for residence hall occupants • Long term – Recommendations • Encourage the city to investigate bike lanes on Cumberland Avenue from downtown to Tyson Park • Provide bike lanes on Andy Holt Avenue to serve the Ag campus and investigate making the connecting pedestrian walkway(s) bike friendly to complete the link • Locate a second check-in / check-out location at the Ag & Vet Med Library

  24. 10. Does Bike Sharing Align with Campus Goals? 2001 Facilities Master Plan • Reduce use of motorized vehicles on campus • Develop comprehensive solutions for traffic, parking, and infrastructure • Promote sound environmental policies • Encourage use of transit system and bikeways • Eliminate on-street parking

  25. 9. E-Bike Demand Sensitivity ? - continued

  26. 7. Potential Gains from e-bike sharing? Bike Share Utilization (internal trips)

More Related