190529-DM-Micromobility White Paper

Leading

the Charge populations, including the growing demographic of older adults3. In 2016, the population of Canadian older adults (55+) exceeded the youth population for the irst on Canadian E-bike 4 time . Furthermore, research is exploring Social and Health the public health impacts of long auto Integration We live in a technologically connected, yet commutes - inding links to obesity, physically fragmented society, and social decreased cardiorespiratory itness, higher isolation is becoming more prevalent across blood pressure, diabetes, fatigue, anxiety 5 A Discussion on the Emerging and many communities2 . The e fects of social and depression, and chronic stress . isolation are greater for vulnerable Unchartered Role of Micromobility

Economic Environmental

The shared-mobility sector is shifting how In the Canadian-speci ic context, emissions we access transportation options. By 2025, from the transportation sector have it is expected that the shared-mobility increased by 34% since the 1990s7. sector will be an 827-billion-dollar global Increased use of micromobility can reduce market6 . The on-demand nature of shared emissions. mobility makes it a mobility-complement to the gig economy, where the labour market is characterized by on-demand work as opposed to permanent jobs. populations, including the growing demographic of older adults3. In 2016, the population of Canadian older adults (55+) exceeded the youth population for the irst time4. Furthermore, research is exploring Social and Health the public health impacts of long auto We live in a technologically connected, yet commutes - inding links to obesity, physically fragmented society, and social decreased cardiorespiratory itness, higher isolation is becoming more prevalent across blood pressure, diabetes, fatigue, anxiety 5 many communities2 . The e fects of social and depression, and chronic stress . isolation are greater for vulnerable

Economic Environmental

Why is micromobility rapidly increasing as a travel mode 5. How do practitioners perceive choice? 2 micromobility? 31 5.1 Results What can the emergence of 5.2 Discussion micromobility mean? 3 6. How can micromobility address 1. What are e-bikes and how do the missing middle of we de ine them? 5 transportation? 39

6.1 Micromobility and destination-bound trips

2. What is the existing role of 6.2 Intersecting micromobility and shared mobility e-bikes and how could this 6.3 Multimodal integration change? 9 6.4 Social equity

2.1 A snapshot of the existing role of e-bikes

2.2 Cost and availability of e-bikes 7. What are the best tools for 2.3 The users and uses of e-bikes integrating micromobility and 2.4 Facilitators and barriers to e-bike ridership e-bikes in the canadian context? 45 2.5 Looking at the future role of e-bikes 7.1 Legislation

7.2 Planning documents

3. How does legislation impact 7.3 Bikeshare e-bike integration? Exploring the 7.4 Cycling infrastructure legislative landscape of e-bikes 15 7.5 Incentives and pilots

3.1 Canadian e-bike legislation 7.6 Education

3.2 Reviewing examples of international e-bike legislation populations, including the growing 8. Conclusions and next steps 53 demographic of older adults3. In 2016, the population of Canadian older adults (55+) 4. What lessons can be learned Contributors 55 exceeded the youth population for the irst from current e-bike regulation? 23 time4. Furthermore, research is exploring Social and Health 4.1 How fast should an e-bike go? the public health impacts of long auto References 56 commutes - inding links to obesity, 4.2 Which e-bikes should be de ined as bicycles? We live in a technologically connected, yet physically fragmented society, and social decreased cardiorespiratory itness, higher 4.3 What features can be used to regulate e-bikes? isolation is becoming more prevalent across blood pressure, diabetes, fatigue, anxiety 5 4.4 How should the regulations be communicated? many communities2 . The e fects of social and depression, and chronic stress . 4.5 The impact of unanswered questions on public isolation are greater for vulnerable perception of e-bikes in Canada

Economic Environmental

Mobility is fundamental to the health of the rider’s speed with minimal physical our communities. It is the means to exertion. Current adoption trends for connect people to their homes, their e-scooters are bordering on rampant; activities, and to each other. As recent their presence is consistently growing societal trends impact where we live, along with municipalities’ challenges to where we go and how we connect, the regulate them. This paper aims to ways in which we can, and want to, better explain how we can be travel are also changing. Both the reality future-ready, to maximize the potential and attitude towards mobility are of e-bikes and other forms of in luencing a paradigm shift in more micromobility in supporting sustainable, sustainable, inclusive and healthy inclusive and healthy travel. transportation patterns. This results in more active modes of transport on our roads, with some being previously unseen. Micromobility, small human and electric-powered transportation The term solutions1, is just one of the many “micromobility” mobility shifts we are experiencing to support the larger societal trends. is inclusive of As a mode of micromobility, e-bikes are bicycles with an electric motor that e-bikes, assist the user in propelling the bicycle, e-scooters, and e-scooters are kick-scooters itted 1 with an electric motor that increases mopeds & more .

Social, Economic and populations, including the growing 3 Environmental trends demographic of older adults . In 2016, the population of Canadian older adults (55+) a fecting mobility exceeded the youth population for the irst time4. Furthermore, research is exploring Social and Health the public health impacts of long auto We live in a technologically connected, yet commutes - inding links to obesity, physically fragmented society, and social decreased cardiorespiratory itness, higher isolation is becoming more prevalent across blood pressure, diabetes, fatigue, anxiety 5 many communities2 . The e fects of social and depression, and chronic stress . isolation are greater for vulnerable

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 02

Economic Environmental

Economic Environmental The missing middle can refer to trip Electric bicycles (also referred to as The shared-mobility sector is shifting how In the Canadian-speci ic context, emissions The Typologies we access transportation options. By 2025, from the transportation sector have types, technology options, network e-bikes, electric-cycles, e-cycles) are one it is expected that the shared-mobility increased by 34% since the 1990s7. connections and demographics that are of the leading and rapidly emerging To assist in clarifying the di ferences sector will be an 827-billion-dollar global Increased use of micromobility can reduce currently left out of how we plan for, and modes of micromobility. E-bikes build between the models, we will adopt a market6 . The on-demand nature of shared emissions. implement, transportation. Planning for upon the capability of traditional bicycles de inition previously used in e-bike mobility makes it a mobility-complement to transportation options that can ill the by reducing the physical stress of cycling literature: Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) the gig economy, where the labour market is missing middle would allow for a wider with electric-power assistance to the and Scooter-Style E-Bikes (SSEB). characterized by on-demand work as demographic to access their pedals, permitting the rider to travel Despite the segregation in de inition, in opposed to permanent jobs. communities and essential amenities, longer and farther than a traditional Canada and some countries around the o fer sustainable alternatives to the bicycle8 . The speed, weight and world, there is no legal di ference automobile, and provide new industries functionality of the motor are dependent between the models. within the transportation ield. A on the type of e-bike, as well as the Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) What can the notable element of the missing middle is speci ic area where the e-bike is the irst and last mile trips - the operated. At present, there are regions BSEB models have a similar physical distances between transit stops and the across North America that have not appearance to non-motorized or beginning and end of a trip. established whether, or where, e-bikes conventional bicycles. In Canada, they should it into their transportation are capped at 500 watts of power and a Emergence of speed of 32km/h9 . They are known networks. Currently, the term e-bike Despite the evident potential of encompasses any two or three-wheeled across the globe as pedal-assist bicycles micromobility to address crucial gaps in electrically motorized bicycle/sit-down (PABs), pedelecs, and low-speed electric transportation, it remains an emerging 9 scooter with pedals. However, as shown bicycles . Micromobility transportation ield that is expanding in the graphics, the di ferent types of rapidly with minimal guidance. Safety, There are two key typologies within the e-bikes are not only visually contrasting mean? implementation, regulation and BSEB category: pedal-assist and as shown in Figure 1 but also di fer in accessibility are growing concerns as throttle-assist. With pedal-assist capabilities (Table 1). models, the motor only runs when the the market continues to gain popularity. Depending on perspective, micromobility of micromobility options, most notably These concerns give rise to several is both one of the solutions and one of e-bikes and e-scooters, as new important questions, including: How can the problems in transportation. For alternatives to addressing shifting micromobility it into the existing some, the uncertainty surrounding transportation needs. transportation network? Are micromobility makes it a nuisance, which micromobility options a complement or should have careful regulations. For Micromobility appears to seamlessly disturbance to the existing framework? others, the increased active-travel shed address some, if not all, of our shifting How do we ensure micromobility (the distance one can travel using active mobility-needs and close the evident maximizes its potential to ill crucial transportation), comparable low cost, gaps in transportation, which limit the mobility gaps? and increased sustainability o fer an inclusivity and sustainability of travel. unprecedented level of freedom and For this paper, we frame these shifting In the current transportation landscape, lexibility. Even with diverging opinions, transportation needs as the missing realizing the full potential of emerging many regions have seen a rapid uptake middle of transportation. technologies is paramount, and micromobility could have the potential to address social, economic and THE MISSING environmental issues within MIDDLE transportation. However, it is equally important to contemplate the appropriate introduction of these new modes, so that they are integrated and operated in a way that supports and enhances a sustainable and resilient transportation network. We frame AUTO seven key questions that will guide the WALKING DEPENDENCE discussion of this paper:

3 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility

rider is pedalling, relieving excess the rider start after a stop. A start-up Scooter-Style E-bikes (SSEB) physical strain and expanding the aid is not the same functionality as a SSEB models resemble mopeds in their bicycling range. They are most throttle. Models with start-up aids are frame and operate the motor 9 commonly known as pedelecs and PABs . still considered pedal-assisted. In independently from pedalling, via a The term pedelec is predominantly contrast, throttle-assist models still throttle. However, to comply with the European, whereas PAB is more operate the motor as the rider pedals, legal de inition of an e-bike, SSEB common in North America. More but can also run the motor models mandate pedals that could be powerful speed pedelecs are known as independently from pedalling through a operated by human-power. As such, s-pedelecs, and operate at a higher throttle - normally located on the SSEB models straddle the de inition of maximum speed of 45km/h. Some handlebars. These models are known as electric bicycles10 ; although their pedals pedelecs/PAB models o fer a start-up throttle-assisted PABs. are mandated, they are rarely aid, which allows the motor to run brie ly functional. In Canada, they are capped (at a maximum speed of 6km/h) to help at 500 watts of power and a speed of 32km/h9. They are known as e-bikes, electric scooters and electric mopeds.

Economic Environmental What is the missing middle? The missing middle can refer to trip Electric bicycles (also referred to as The shared-mobility sector is shifting how In the Canadian-speci ic context, emissions What are e-bikes & The Typologies we access transportation options. By 2025, from the transportation sector have types, technology options, network 1 e-bikes, electric-cycles, e-cycles) are one it is expected that the shared-mobility increased by 34% since the 1990s7. connections and demographics that are how do we de ine of the leading and rapidly emerging To assist in clarifying the di ferences sector will be an 827-billion-dollar global Increased use of micromobility can reduce currently left out of how we plan for, and them? modes of micromobility. E-bikes build between the models, we will adopt a market6 . The on-demand nature of shared emissions. implement, transportation. Planning for upon the capability of traditional bicycles de inition previously used in e-bike mobility makes it a mobility-complement to transportation options that can ill the by reducing the physical stress of cycling literature: Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) the gig economy, where the labour market is missing middle would allow for a wider 2 What is the existing with electric-power assistance to the and Scooter-Style E-Bikes (SSEB). characterized by on-demand work as demographic to access their role of e-bikes and pedals, permitting the rider to travel Despite the segregation in de inition, in opposed to permanent jobs. communities and essential amenities, how could this longer and farther than a traditional Canada and some countries around the o fer sustainable alternatives to the change? bicycle8 . The speed, weight and world, there is no legal di ference automobile, and provide new industries functionality of the motor are dependent between the models. within the transportation ield. A on the type of e-bike, as well as the Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) notable element of the missing middle is 3 How does legislation speci ic area where the e-bike is the irst and last mile trips - the impact e-bike operated. At present, there are regions BSEB models have a similar physical distances between transit stops and the integration? across North America that have not appearance to non-motorized or beginning and end of a trip. established whether, or where, e-bikes conventional bicycles. In Canada, they should it into their transportation are capped at 500 watts of power and a 9 What lessons can be networks. Currently, the term e-bike speed of 32km/h . They are known Despite the evident potential of 4 learned from current encompasses any two or three-wheeled across the globe as pedal-assist bicycles micromobility to address crucial gaps in e-bike regulation? electrically motorized bicycle/sit-down (PABs), pedelecs, and low-speed electric transportation, it remains an emerging 9 scooter with pedals. However, as shown bicycles . transportation ield that is expanding in the graphics, the di ferent types of rapidly with minimal guidance. Safety, There are two key typologies within the How do e-bikes are not only visually contrasting implementation, regulation and 5 BSEB category: pedal-assist and practitioners perceive as shown in Figure 1 but also di fer in accessibility are growing concerns as throttle-assist. With pedal-assist micromobility? capabilities (Table 1). the market continues to gain popularity. models, the motor only runs when the Depending on perspective, micromobility of micromobility options, most notably These concerns give rise to several is both one of the solutions and one of e-bikes and e-scooters, as new important questions, including: How can the problems in transportation. For alternatives to addressing shifting How can micromobility it into the existing 6 some, the uncertainty surrounding transportation needs. micromobility address transportation network? Are micromobility makes it a nuisance, which the missing middle of micromobility options a complement or should have careful regulations. For Micromobility appears to seamlessly transportation? disturbance to the existing framework? others, the increased active-travel shed address some, if not all, of our shifting How do we ensure micromobility (the distance one can travel using active mobility-needs and close the evident maximizes its potential to ill crucial transportation), comparable low cost, gaps in transportation, which limit the What are the best mobility gaps? 7 and increased sustainability o fer an inclusivity and sustainability of travel. tools for integrating unprecedented level of freedom and For this paper, we frame these shifting micromobility and In the current transportation landscape, lexibility. Even with diverging opinions, transportation needs as the missing e-bikes in the realizing the full potential of emerging many regions have seen a rapid uptake middle of transportation. Canadian Context? technologies is paramount, and micromobility could have the potential to address social, economic and environmental issues within transportation. However, it is equally important to contemplate the appropriate introduction of these new modes, so that they are integrated and operated in a way that supports and enhances a sustainable and resilient transportation network. We frame seven key questions that will guide the discussion of this paper:

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 04

Economic Environmental Electric bicycles (also referred to as The shared-mobility sector is shifting how In the Canadian-speci ic context, emissions The Typologies we access transportation options. By 2025, from the transportation sector have e-bikes, electric-cycles, e-cycles) are one it is expected that the shared-mobility increased by 34% since the 1990s7. of the leading and rapidly emerging To assist in clarifying the di ferences sector will be an 827-billion-dollar global Increased use of micromobility can reduce modes of micromobility. E-bikes build between the models, we will adopt a market6 . The on-demand nature of shared emissions. upon the capability of traditional bicycles de inition previously used in e-bike mobility makes it a mobility-complement to by reducing the physical stress of cycling literature: Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) the gig economy, where the labour market is with electric-power assistance to the and Scooter-Style E-Bikes (SSEB). characterized by on-demand work as pedals, permitting the rider to travel Despite the segregation in de inition, in opposed to permanent jobs. longer and farther than a traditional Canada and some countries around the What are bicycle8 . The speed, weight and world, there is no legal di ference functionality of the motor are dependent between the models. on the type of e-bike, as well as the Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) speci ic area where the e-bike is operated. At present, there are regions BSEB models have a similar physical E-Bikes appearance to non-motorized or across North America that have not & How do we established whether, or where, e-bikes conventional bicycles. In Canada, they should it into their transportation are capped at 500 watts of power and a 9 de ine them? networks. Currently, the term e-bike speed of 32km/h . They are known encompasses any two or three-wheeled across the globe as pedal-assist bicycles electrically motorized bicycle/sit-down (PABs), pedelecs, and low-speed electric 9 scooter with pedals. However, as shown bicycles . in the graphics, the di ferent types of There are two key typologies within the e-bikes are not only visually contrasting BSEB category: pedal-assist and as shown in Figure 1 but also di fer in throttle-assist. With pedal-assist capabilities (Table 1). models, the motor only runs when the

Economic Environmental Electric bicycles (also referred to as The shared-mobility sector is shifting how In the Canadian-speci ic context, emissions The Typologies we access transportation options. By 2025, from the transportation sector have e-bikes, electric-cycles, e-cycles) are one it is expected that the shared-mobility increased by 34% since the 1990s7. of the leading and rapidly emerging To assist in clarifying the di ferences sector will be an 827-billion-dollar global Increased use of micromobility can reduce modes of micromobility. E-bikes build between the models, we will adopt a market6 . The on-demand nature of shared emissions. upon the capability of traditional bicycles de inition previously used in e-bike mobility makes it a mobility-complement to by reducing the physical stress of cycling literature: Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) the gig economy, where the labour market is with electric-power assistance to the and Scooter-Style E-Bikes (SSEB). characterized by on-demand work as pedals, permitting the rider to travel Despite the segregation in de inition, in opposed to permanent jobs. longer and farther than a traditional Canada and some countries around the bicycle8 . The speed, weight and world, there is no legal di ference functionality of the motor are dependent between the models. on the type of e-bike, as well as the Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) speci ic area where the e-bike is operated. At present, there are regions BSEB models have a similar physical across North America that have not appearance to non-motorized or established whether, or where, e-bikes conventional bicycles. In Canada, they should it into their transportation are capped at 500 watts of power and a 9 networks. Currently, the term e-bike speed of 32km/h . They are known encompasses any two or three-wheeled across the globe as pedal-assist bicycles electrically motorized bicycle/sit-down (PABs), pedelecs, and low-speed electric 9 scooter with pedals. However, as shown bicycles . in the graphics, the di ferent types of There are two key typologies within the e-bikes are not only visually contrasting BSEB category: pedal-assist and as shown in Figure 1 but also di fer in throttle-assist. With pedal-assist capabilities (Table 1). models, the motor only runs when the

Figure 1 : Visually contrasting e-bikes

PEDELEC/PEDAL-ASSISTED E-BIKES Full pedal-assist Pedal-assists motor Max speed: 32km/h

Pedal-assist + throttle Pedal-assists motor + throttle that can replace pedalling Max speed: 32km/h Currently deﬁned as Power-Assisted Bicycle

SPEED-PEDELECS (S-PEDELECS) BICYCLE STYLE E-BIKES BICYCLE Full pedal-assist Pedal-assists motor max speed: 45km/h

SCOOTER-STYLE E-BIKES throttle-assist + functional pedals Motor is run by throttle + bicycle pedals that can propel the bike Max speed: 32km/h Currently deﬁned as Power-Assisted Bicycle

image sources in the reference page

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 06

It is important to note that these terminologies are not universal on a global scale. In the following chapters, we will distinguish how the term e-bike is used internationally, and the e fects of terminology on public perception and ridership trends. Currently, both BSEBs and SSEBs are gaining popularity in Canada. Speci ically, the potential of BSEBs have increased signi icantly in the past year11. For the remainder of this paper, “e-bike” refers to a bicycle-style pedelec type e-bike, unless BSEB or SSEB is used to delineate one from the other. Electric bicycles (also referred to as The Typologies e-bikes, electric-cycles, e-cycles) are one of the leading and rapidly emerging To assist in clarifying the di ferences modes of micromobility. E-bikes build between the models, we will adopt a upon the capability of traditional bicycles de inition previously used in e-bike by reducing the physical stress of cycling literature: Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) with electric-power assistance to the and Scooter-Style E-Bikes (SSEB). pedals, permitting the rider to travel Despite the segregation in de inition, in longer and farther than a traditional Canada and some countries around the bicycle8 . The speed, weight and world, there is no legal di ference functionality of the motor are dependent between the models. on the type of e-bike, as well as the Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) speci ic area where the e-bike is operated. At present, there are regions BSEB models have a similar physical across North America that have not appearance to non-motorized or established whether, or where, e-bikes conventional bicycles. In Canada, they should it into their transportation are capped at 500 watts of power and a 9 networks. Currently, the term e-bike speed of 32km/h . They are known encompasses any two or three-wheeled across the globe as pedal-assist bicycles electrically motorized bicycle/sit-down (PABs), pedelecs, and low-speed electric 9 scooter with pedals. However, as shown bicycles . in the graphics, the di ferent types of There are two key typologies within the e-bikes are not only visually contrasting BSEB category: pedal-assist and as shown in Figure 1 but also di fer in throttle-assist. With pedal-assist capabilities (Table 1). models, the motor only runs when the

rider is pedalling, relieving excess the rider start after a stop. A start-up Scooter-Style E-bikes (SSEB) 2.1 A snapshot of the 2.2 Cost and availability physical strain and expanding the aid is not the same functionality as a SSEB models resemble mopeds in their existing role of e-bikes of e-bikes bicycling range. They are most throttle. Models with start-up aids are frame and operate the motor 9 commonly known as pedelecs and PABs . still considered pedal-assisted. In independently from pedalling, via a The largest e-bike market is in China, E-bike prices are reducing as they The term pedelec is predominantly contrast, throttle-assist models still throttle. However, to comply with the where high gas prices, government become more popular for mainstream European, whereas PAB is more operate the motor as the rider pedals, legal de inition of an e-bike, SSEB incentives, and supportive e-bike policies retail14. E-bikes are still more costly than common in North America. More but can also run the motor models mandate pedals that could be sparked uptake in the late 1990s12. When conventional bicycles; however, they powerful speed pedelecs are known as independently from pedalling through a operated by human-power. As such, irst introduced, e-bikes were part of a have some of the highest economic s-pedelecs, and operate at a higher throttle - normally located on the SSEB models straddle the de inition of government initiative for energy advantages when comparing their cost maximum speed of 45km/h. Some handlebars. These models are known as electric bicycles10 ; although their pedals e iciency which coincided with rising per kilometre travelled to other modes pedelecs/PAB models o fer a start-up throttle-assisted PABs. are mandated, they are rarely fuel prices in the early 2000s that made of travel. Per kilometre travelled, e-bikes aid, which allows the motor to run brie ly functional. In Canada, they are capped car and gasoline-scooter ownership less are estimated to cost less than 0.7 cents (at a maximum speed of 6km/h) to help at 500 watts of power and a speed of a fordable12. The legislation combined (including purchase and maintenance), 32km/h9. They are known as e-bikes, BSEB and SSEB models under an compared to 3.1 cents/km for a electric scooters and electric mopeds. umbrella de inition, which allowed gasoline-scooter, or 6.2 cents/km Table 1 : BSEB and SSEB typologies BICYCLE STYLE SCOOTER STYLE SSEBs to operate as bicycles, with fewer travelled by car15. It is important to note that these E BIKE E BIKE restrictions than the popular terminologies are not universal on a Within Canada, BSEBs are typically sold gas-scooter alternative12. This POWER MODE global scale. In the following chapters, at speciality retailers or from To legally comply with the de inition of an combination promoted widespread Motor runs we will distinguish how the term e-bike is manufacturer-direct, with many bicycle e-bike, each model must have pedals that Motor assists e-bike adoption, particularly for SSEB pedalling (with the independently from used internationally, and the e fects of retailers introducing BSEBs to their could be operated by human power. However, pedalling (with models that did not require gasoline, but the exact capabilities of the pedals di fer optional throttle) terminology on public perception and in-store stock. Pricing depends heavily optional pedalling) mimicked the feel and capabilities of the between BSEB and SSEB. This section ridership trends. Currently, both BSEBs on the brand, battery quality, motor popular gasoline-scooters. It should be focuses on primary power mode. and SSEBs are gaining popularity in location, and supplementary features noted that since gasoline-scooters were Canada. Speci ically, the potential of -lightweight design, foldable frame, a major element of the previous BATTERY RANGE BSEBs have increased signi icantly in step-through model, etc. Generally, all modal-split, SSEB models account for An important facilitator of public uptake is the past year11. For the remainder of this e-bike retailers provide at least 3-5 the battery life of the e-bike. For both 70% of e-bike use in China12. 30-70 km ~100 km paper, “e-bike” refers to a bicycle-style di ferent levels, ranging from models, this parameter is commonly on average on average in luenced by the quality of the pedelec type e-bike, unless BSEB or This uptake was mirrored in parts of beginner/basic models to higher-level manufacturer and the frequency of use. A SSEB is used to delineate one from the Western Europe - more notably with models that can withstand longer typical range is provided for both models. other. BSEB models, where the e-bike market commutes or more di icult terrains16. continues to grow in popularity among Certain features are more desirable for commuters, travellers, and leisure WEIGHT cyclists. In Western Europe, e-bike di ferent demographics. For example, As e-bikes have more built-in technology, uptake is supported by a urban commuters may prefer folding they can often weigh more than a regular Approximately Approximately European-Union legislative framework, e-bikes or commuter-style e-bikes, bicycle. The weight is once again 22-30 kg 75-100 kg which delineates between the multiple whereas older adults may prefer step dependent on the speci ic manufacturer. types of e-bikes, giving pedelec models through or lightweight models. The Generally, BSEB models are lighter than similar freedoms as bicycles (see SSEB models. “fat-tire” e-bikes are a rapidly growing Chapter 3.2 for more details). market for those who complete longer trips or for o f-road recreational use. MOTOR LOCATION When considering the global context, To simplify the comparison of the many The location of the motor a fects other key Front-wheel, Front-wheel, e-bikes have a smaller presence in North metrics such as weight and maneuverability. rear-wheel or hub rear-wheel or hub America, which is commonly attributed di ferent e-bike models, we chose ive Depending on the model and location, the options options to climate, car-culture and lack of general typologies of BSEBs and location of the motor can vary. bicycling-supportive infrastructure. In compared them nationally across the last few years, e-bikes have been multiple Canadian suppliers and more noticeable on the roads of major manufacturers. LEGAL CLASSIFICATION urban cores - both BSEB and SSEB As e-bikes are an emerging technology, Legally classi ied Legally classi ied models11. Particularly with bicycling they have di ferent legal classi ications as a bicycle as a bicycle food-delivery drivers for companies such depending on the region. For Canada, see as uber eats, foodora, skip the dishes, the paragraph below. etc13.

7 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility Electric bicycles (also referred to as The Typologies e-bikes, electric-cycles, e-cycles) are one of the leading and rapidly emerging To assist in clarifying the di ferences modes of micromobility. E-bikes build between the models, we will adopt a upon the capability of traditional bicycles de inition previously used in e-bike by reducing the physical stress of cycling literature: Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) with electric-power assistance to the and Scooter-Style E-Bikes (SSEB). pedals, permitting the rider to travel Despite the segregation in de inition, in longer and farther than a traditional Canada and some countries around the bicycle8 . The speed, weight and world, there is no legal di ference functionality of the motor are dependent between the models. on the type of e-bike, as well as the Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) speci ic area where the e-bike is operated. At present, there are regions BSEB models have a similar physical across North America that have not appearance to non-motorized or established whether, or where, e-bikes conventional bicycles. In Canada, they should it into their transportation are capped at 500 watts of power and a 9 networks. Currently, the term e-bike speed of 32km/h . They are known encompasses any two or three-wheeled across the globe as pedal-assist bicycles electrically motorized bicycle/sit-down (PABs), pedelecs, and low-speed electric 9 scooter with pedals. However, as shown bicycles . in the graphics, the di ferent types of There are two key typologies within the e-bikes are not only visually contrasting BSEB category: pedal-assist and as shown in Figure 1 but also di fer in throttle-assist. With pedal-assist capabilities (Table 1). models, the motor only runs when the

rider is pedalling, relieving excess the rider start after a stop. A start-up Scooter-Style E-bikes (SSEB) 2.1 A snapshot of the 2.2 Cost and availability physical strain and expanding the aid is not the same functionality as a SSEB models resemble mopeds in their existing role of e-bikes of e-bikes bicycling range. They are most throttle. Models with start-up aids are frame and operate the motor 9 commonly known as pedelecs and PABs . still considered pedal-assisted. In independently from pedalling, via a The largest e-bike market is in China, E-bike prices are reducing as they The term pedelec is predominantly contrast, throttle-assist models still throttle. However, to comply with the where high gas prices, government become more popular for mainstream European, whereas PAB is more operate the motor as the rider pedals, legal de inition of an e-bike, SSEB incentives, and supportive e-bike policies retail14. E-bikes are still more costly than common in North America. More but can also run the motor models mandate pedals that could be sparked uptake in the late 1990s12. When conventional bicycles; however, they powerful speed pedelecs are known as independently from pedalling through a operated by human-power. As such, irst introduced, e-bikes were part of a have some of the highest economic s-pedelecs, and operate at a higher throttle - normally located on the SSEB models straddle the de inition of government initiative for energy advantages when comparing their cost maximum speed of 45km/h. Some handlebars. These models are known as electric bicycles10 ; although their pedals e iciency which coincided with rising per kilometre travelled to other modes pedelecs/PAB models o fer a start-up throttle-assisted PABs. are mandated, they are rarely fuel prices in the early 2000s that made of travel. Per kilometre travelled, e-bikes aid, which allows the motor to run brie ly functional. In Canada, they are capped car and gasoline-scooter ownership less are estimated to cost less than 0.7 cents (at a maximum speed of 6km/h) to help at 500 watts of power and a speed of a fordable12. The legislation combined (including purchase and maintenance), 32km/h9. They are known as e-bikes, BSEB and SSEB models under an compared to 3.1 cents/km for a electric scooters and electric mopeds. umbrella de inition, which allowed gasoline-scooter, or 6.2 cents/km SSEBs to operate as bicycles, with fewer travelled by car15. It is important to note that these restrictions than the popular terminologies are not universal on a Within Canada, BSEBs are typically sold gas-scooter alternative12. This global scale. In the following chapters, at speciality retailers or from combination promoted widespread we will distinguish how the term e-bike is manufacturer-direct, with many bicycle e-bike adoption, particularly for SSEB used internationally, and the e fects of retailers introducing BSEBs to their models that did not require gasoline, but terminology on public perception and in-store stock. Pricing depends heavily mimicked the feel and capabilities of the ridership trends. Currently, both BSEBs on the brand, battery quality, motor popular gasoline-scooters. It should be and SSEBs are gaining popularity in location, and supplementary features noted that since gasoline-scooters were Canada. Speci ically, the potential of -lightweight design, foldable frame, a major element of the previous BSEBs have increased signi icantly in step-through model, etc. Generally, all modal-split, SSEB models account for the past year11. For the remainder of this e-bike retailers provide at least 3-5 70% of e-bike use in China12. paper, “e-bike” refers to a bicycle-style di ferent levels, ranging from pedelec type e-bike, unless BSEB or This uptake was mirrored in parts of beginner/basic models to higher-level SSEB is used to delineate one from the Western Europe - more notably with models that can withstand longer other. BSEB models, where the e-bike market commutes or more di icult terrains16. continues to grow in popularity among Certain features are more desirable for commuters, travellers, and leisure cyclists. In Western Europe, e-bike di ferent demographics. For example, uptake is supported by a urban commuters may prefer folding European-Union legislative framework, e-bikes or commuter-style e-bikes, which delineates between the multiple whereas older adults may prefer step types of e-bikes, giving pedelec models through or lightweight models. The similar freedoms as bicycles (see “fat-tire” e-bikes are a rapidly growing Chapter 3.2 for more details). market for those who complete longer trips or for o f-road recreational use. When considering the global context, e-bikes have a smaller presence in North To simplify the comparison of the many America, which is commonly attributed di ferent e-bike models, we chose ive to climate, car-culture and lack of general typologies of BSEBs and bicycling-supportive infrastructure. In compared them nationally across the last few years, e-bikes have been multiple Canadian suppliers and more noticeable on the roads of major manufacturers. urban cores - both BSEB and SSEB models11. Particularly with bicycling food-delivery drivers for companies such as uber eats, foodora, skip the dishes, etc13.

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 08 Electric bicycles (also referred to as The Typologies e-bikes, electric-cycles, e-cycles) are one of the leading and rapidly emerging To assist in clarifying the di ferences modes of micromobility. E-bikes build between the models, we will adopt a upon the capability of traditional bicycles de inition previously used in e-bike by reducing the physical stress of cycling literature: Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) with electric-power assistance to the and Scooter-Style E-Bikes (SSEB). pedals, permitting the rider to travel Despite the segregation in de inition, in longer and farther than a traditional Canada and some countries around the bicycle8 . The speed, weight and world, there is no legal di ference functionality of the motor are dependent between the models. on the type of e-bike, as well as the Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) speci ic area where the e-bike is operated. At present, there are regions BSEB models have a similar physical across North America that have not appearance to non-motorized or established whether, or where, e-bikes conventional bicycles. In Canada, they should it into their transportation are capped at 500 watts of power and a 9 networks. Currently, the term e-bike speed of 32km/h . They are known encompasses any two or three-wheeled across the globe as pedal-assist bicycles electrically motorized bicycle/sit-down (PABs), pedelecs, and low-speed electric 9 scooter with pedals. However, as shown bicycles . in the graphics, the di ferent types of There are two key typologies within the e-bikes are not only visually contrasting BSEB category: pedal-assist and as shown in Figure 1 but also di fer in throttle-assist. With pedal-assist capabilities (Table 1). models, the motor only runs when the

rider is pedalling, relieving excess the rider start after a stop. A start-up Scooter-Style E-bikes (SSEB) 2.1 A snapshot of the 2.2 Cost and availability physical strain and expanding the aid is not the same functionality as a SSEB models resemble mopeds in their existing role of e-bikes of e-bikes bicycling range. They are most throttle. Models with start-up aids are frame and operate the motor 9 commonly known as pedelecs and PABs . still considered pedal-assisted. In independently from pedalling, via a The largest e-bike market is in China, E-bike prices are reducing as they The term pedelec is predominantly contrast, throttle-assist models still throttle. However, to comply with the where high gas prices, government become more popular for mainstream European, whereas PAB is more operate the motor as the rider pedals, legal de inition of an e-bike, SSEB incentives, and supportive e-bike policies retail14. E-bikes are still more costly than common in North America. More but can also run the motor models mandate pedals that could be sparked uptake in the late 1990s12. When conventional bicycles; however, they powerful speed pedelecs are known as independently from pedalling through a operated by human-power. As such, What is the irst introduced, e-bikes were part of a have some of the highest economic s-pedelecs, and operate at a higher throttle - normally located on the SSEB models straddle the de inition of government initiative for energy advantages when comparing their cost maximum speed of 45km/h. Some handlebars. These models are known as electric bicycles10 ; although their pedals existing role of e iciency which coincided with rising per kilometre travelled to other modes pedelecs/PAB models o fer a start-up throttle-assisted PABs. are mandated, they are rarely fuel prices in the early 2000s that made of travel. Per kilometre travelled, e-bikes aid, which allows the motor to run brie ly functional. In Canada, they are capped car and gasoline-scooter ownership less are estimated to cost less than 0.7 cents (at a maximum speed of 6km/h) to help at 500 watts of power and a speed of a fordable12. The legislation combined (including purchase and maintenance), 32km/h9. They are known as e-bikes, E-Bikes BSEB and SSEB models under an compared to 3.1 cents/km for a electric scooters and electric mopeds. umbrella de inition, which allowed gasoline-scooter, or 6.2 cents/km & How could this SSEBs to operate as bicycles, with fewer travelled by car15. It is important to note that these restrictions than the popular terminologies are not universal on a Within Canada, BSEBs are typically sold change? gas-scooter alternative12. This global scale. In the following chapters, at speciality retailers or from combination promoted widespread we will distinguish how the term e-bike is manufacturer-direct, with many bicycle e-bike adoption, particularly for SSEB used internationally, and the e fects of retailers introducing BSEBs to their models that did not require gasoline, but terminology on public perception and in-store stock. Pricing depends heavily mimicked the feel and capabilities of the ridership trends. Currently, both BSEBs on the brand, battery quality, motor popular gasoline-scooters. It should be and SSEBs are gaining popularity in location, and supplementary features noted that since gasoline-scooters were Canada. Speci ically, the potential of -lightweight design, foldable frame, a major element of the previous BSEBs have increased signi icantly in step-through model, etc. Generally, all modal-split, SSEB models account for the past year11. For the remainder of this e-bike retailers provide at least 3-5 70% of e-bike use in China12. paper, “e-bike” refers to a bicycle-style di ferent levels, ranging from pedelec type e-bike, unless BSEB or This uptake was mirrored in parts of beginner/basic models to higher-level SSEB is used to delineate one from the Western Europe - more notably with models that can withstand longer other. BSEB models, where the e-bike market commutes or more di icult terrains16. continues to grow in popularity among Certain features are more desirable for commuters, travellers, and leisure cyclists. In Western Europe, e-bike di ferent demographics. For example, uptake is supported by a urban commuters may prefer folding European-Union legislative framework, e-bikes or commuter-style e-bikes, which delineates between the multiple whereas older adults may prefer step types of e-bikes, giving pedelec models through or lightweight models. The similar freedoms as bicycles (see “fat-tire” e-bikes are a rapidly growing Chapter 3.2 for more details). market for those who complete longer trips or for o f-road recreational use. When considering the global context, e-bikes have a smaller presence in North To simplify the comparison of the many America, which is commonly attributed di ferent e-bike models, we chose ive to climate, car-culture and lack of general typologies of BSEBs and bicycling-supportive infrastructure. In compared them nationally across the last few years, e-bikes have been multiple Canadian suppliers and more noticeable on the roads of major manufacturers. urban cores - both BSEB and SSEB models11. Particularly with bicycling food-delivery drivers for companies such as uber eats, foodora, skip the dishes, 2 etc13. Electric bicycles (also referred to as The Typologies e-bikes, electric-cycles, e-cycles) are one of the leading and rapidly emerging To assist in clarifying the di ferences modes of micromobility. E-bikes build between the models, we will adopt a upon the capability of traditional bicycles de inition previously used in e-bike by reducing the physical stress of cycling literature: Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) with electric-power assistance to the and Scooter-Style E-Bikes (SSEB). pedals, permitting the rider to travel Despite the segregation in de inition, in longer and farther than a traditional Canada and some countries around the bicycle8 . The speed, weight and world, there is no legal di ference functionality of the motor are dependent between the models. on the type of e-bike, as well as the Bicycle-Style E-Bikes (BSEB) speci ic area where the e-bike is operated. At present, there are regions BSEB models have a similar physical across North America that have not appearance to non-motorized or established whether, or where, e-bikes conventional bicycles. In Canada, they should it into their transportation are capped at 500 watts of power and a 9 networks. Currently, the term e-bike speed of 32km/h . They are known encompasses any two or three-wheeled across the globe as pedal-assist bicycles electrically motorized bicycle/sit-down (PABs), pedelecs, and low-speed electric 9 scooter with pedals. However, as shown bicycles . in the graphics, the di ferent types of There are two key typologies within the e-bikes are not only visually contrasting BSEB category: pedal-assist and as shown in Figure 1 but also di fer in throttle-assist. With pedal-assist capabilities (Table 1). models, the motor only runs when the

rider is pedalling, relieving excess the rider start after a stop. A start-up Scooter-Style E-bikes (SSEB) 2.1 A snapshot of the 2.2 Cost and availability physical strain and expanding the aid is not the same functionality as a SSEB models resemble mopeds in their existing role of e-bikes of e-bikes bicycling range. They are most throttle. Models with start-up aids are frame and operate the motor 9 commonly known as pedelecs and PABs . still considered pedal-assisted. In independently from pedalling, via a The largest e-bike market is in China, E-bike prices are reducing as they The term pedelec is predominantly contrast, throttle-assist models still throttle. However, to comply with the where high gas prices, government become more popular for mainstream European, whereas PAB is more operate the motor as the rider pedals, legal de inition of an e-bike, SSEB incentives, and supportive e-bike policies retail14. E-bikes are still more costly than common in North America. More but can also run the motor models mandate pedals that could be sparked uptake in the late 1990s12. When conventional bicycles; however, they powerful speed pedelecs are known as independently from pedalling through a operated by human-power. As such, irst introduced, e-bikes were part of a have some of the highest economic s-pedelecs, and operate at a higher throttle - normally located on the SSEB models straddle the de inition of government initiative for energy advantages when comparing their cost maximum speed of 45km/h. Some handlebars. These models are known as electric bicycles10 ; although their pedals e iciency which coincided with rising per kilometre travelled to other modes pedelecs/PAB models o fer a start-up throttle-assisted PABs. are mandated, they are rarely fuel prices in the early 2000s that made of travel. Per kilometre travelled, e-bikes aid, which allows the motor to run brie ly functional. In Canada, they are capped car and gasoline-scooter ownership less are estimated to cost less than 0.7 cents (at a maximum speed of 6km/h) to help at 500 watts of power and a speed of a fordable12. The legislation combined (including purchase and maintenance), 32km/h9. They are known as e-bikes, BSEB and SSEB models under an compared to 3.1 cents/km for a electric scooters and electric mopeds. umbrella de inition, which allowed gasoline-scooter, or 6.2 cents/km SSEBs to operate as bicycles, with fewer travelled by car15. It is important to note that these restrictions than the popular terminologies are not universal on a Within Canada, BSEBs are typically sold gas-scooter alternative12. This global scale. In the following chapters, at speciality retailers or from combination promoted widespread we will distinguish how the term e-bike is manufacturer-direct, with many bicycle e-bike adoption, particularly for SSEB used internationally, and the e fects of retailers introducing BSEBs to their models that did not require gasoline, but terminology on public perception and in-store stock. Pricing depends heavily mimicked the feel and capabilities of the ridership trends. Currently, both BSEBs on the brand, battery quality, motor popular gasoline-scooters. It should be and SSEBs are gaining popularity in location, and supplementary features noted that since gasoline-scooters were Canada. Speci ically, the potential of -lightweight design, foldable frame, a major element of the previous BSEBs have increased signi icantly in step-through model, etc. Generally, all modal-split, SSEB models account for the past year11. For the remainder of this e-bike retailers provide at least 3-5 70% of e-bike use in China12. paper, “e-bike” refers to a bicycle-style di ferent levels, ranging from pedelec type e-bike, unless BSEB or This uptake was mirrored in parts of beginner/basic models to higher-level SSEB is used to delineate one from the Western Europe - more notably with models that can withstand longer other. BSEB models, where the e-bike market commutes or more di icult terrains16. continues to grow in popularity among Certain features are more desirable for commuters, travellers, and leisure cyclists. In Western Europe, e-bike di ferent demographics. For example, uptake is supported by a urban commuters may prefer folding European-Union legislative framework, e-bikes or commuter-style e-bikes, which delineates between the multiple whereas older adults may prefer step types of e-bikes, giving pedelec models through or lightweight models. The similar freedoms as bicycles (see “fat-tire” e-bikes are a rapidly growing Chapter 3.2 for more details). market for those who complete longer trips or for o f-road recreational use. When considering the global context, e-bikes have a smaller presence in North To simplify the comparison of the many America, which is commonly attributed di ferent e-bike models, we chose ive to climate, car-culture and lack of general typologies of BSEBs and bicycling-supportive infrastructure. In compared them nationally across the last few years, e-bikes have been multiple Canadian suppliers and more noticeable on the roads of major manufacturers. urban cores - both BSEB and SSEB models11. Particularly with bicycling food-delivery drivers for companies such as uber eats, foodora, skip the dishes, etc13.

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 10 2.1 A snapshot of the 2.2 Cost and availability existing role of e-bikes of e-bikes

The largest e-bike market is in China, E-bike prices are reducing as they where high gas prices, government become more popular for mainstream incentives, and supportive e-bike policies retail14. E-bikes are still more costly than sparked uptake in the late 1990s12. When conventional bicycles; however, they irst introduced, e-bikes were part of a have some of the highest economic government initiative for energy advantages when comparing their cost e iciency which coincided with rising per kilometre travelled to other modes fuel prices in the early 2000s that made of travel. Per kilometre travelled, e-bikes car and gasoline-scooter ownership less are estimated to cost less than 0.7 cents a fordable12. The legislation combined (including purchase and maintenance), BSEB and SSEB models under an compared to 3.1 cents/km for a umbrella de inition, which allowed gasoline-scooter, or 6.2 cents/km SSEBs to operate as bicycles, with fewer travelled by car15. restrictions than the popular Within Canada, BSEBs are typically sold gas-scooter alternative12. This at speciality retailers or from combination promoted widespread manufacturer-direct, with many bicycle e-bike adoption, particularly for SSEB retailers introducing BSEBs to their models that did not require gasoline, but in-store stock. Pricing depends heavily mimicked the feel and capabilities of the on the brand, battery quality, motor popular gasoline-scooters. It should be location, and supplementary features noted that since gasoline-scooters were -lightweight design, foldable frame, a major element of the previous step-through model, etc. Generally, all modal-split, SSEB models account for e-bike retailers provide at least 3-5 70% of e-bike use in China12. di ferent levels, ranging from This uptake was mirrored in parts of beginner/basic models to higher-level Western Europe - more notably with models that can withstand longer BSEB models, where the e-bike market commutes or more di icult terrains16. continues to grow in popularity among Certain features are more desirable for commuters, travellers, and leisure cyclists. In Western Europe, e-bike di ferent demographics. For example, uptake is supported by a urban commuters may prefer folding European-Union legislative framework, e-bikes or commuter-style e-bikes, which delineates between the multiple whereas older adults may prefer step types of e-bikes, giving pedelec models through or lightweight models. The similar freedoms as bicycles (see “fat-tire” e-bikes are a rapidly growing Chapter 3.2 for more details). market for those who complete longer trips or for o f-road recreational use. When considering the global context, e-bikes have a smaller presence in North To simplify the comparison of the many America, which is commonly attributed di ferent e-bike models, we chose ive to climate, car-culture and lack of general typologies of BSEBs and bicycling-supportive infrastructure. In compared them nationally across the last few years, e-bikes have been multiple Canadian suppliers and more noticeable on the roads of major manufacturers. urban cores - both BSEB and SSEB models11. Particularly with bicycling food-delivery drivers for companies such as uber eats, foodora, skip the dishes, etc13.

$ 2,574

Figure 2 : Price comparison of BSEBs Average BSEB price in Canada

BASIC MODEL E-Bike Retailers #1 #2 #3 COMMUTER #4 MODEL #5

Average

E MOUNTAIN BIKE

FOLDING E BIKE

FAT TIRE E BIKE

image sources in the reference page $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000

SSEB models serve a di ferent market Compared to traditional bicycles, both than the BSEB models. Typically, SSEB BSEBs and SSEBs are signi icantly more models are only available in speciality expensive and less readily available. By stores or online. Despite having fewer comparison, the average cost of a models, SSEBs still vary widely in their conventional bicycle in Canada ranges capabilities. Common SSEB prices are between $300-$1500. around $1,800-$2,000, for a basic model. Higher-end models can reach up to $3,000 in price17.

11 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 2.1 A snapshot of the 2.2 Cost and availability existing role of e-bikes of e-bikes

2.3 The users and uses For leisure trips, research suggests that issues caused by e-mountain bikers for For those who have limited independence less con ident or weaker cyclists. As e-bikes are popular for joyrides with other trail users, such as mountain in mobility, the increased quality of life such, for some avid cyclists, e-bikes are of e-bikes friends, e-mountain biking and longer equestrian riders, and traditional experienced from restored independent commonly associated with “cheating”, as 18,21,22 23 18,28 Multiple studies across Europe and regional trail trips . It has also been mountain bikers. mobility is crucially bene icial . Even the motor assists in pedalling and North America have found that e-bikes noted that leisure trips via e-bikes are for able-bodied riders, the ability to reduces the amount of physical exertion can promote bicycling to a wider more common for novice or beginner Case Study: cycle rather than drive is occasionally required. The belief that e-bikes are not demographic when compared to cyclists. While avid cyclists favour US Forestry Services named as a facilitator, as it increases providing any physical activity is a e-bikes when there is limited cycling the perceived quality of life19. Cycling has common misconception. A study conventional cycling. Speci ically, e-mountain bike lawsuit research suggests e-bikes are infrastructure, timid or irst-time been long-proven to have positive released in November 2018 con irmed favourable among populations who feel cyclists prefer to ride their e-bikes The controversy surrounding mental health e fects, as opposed to that while e-bikes require less exertion insecure cycling, such as some women where existing cycling infrastructure is e-mountain biking received a spotlight in driving which has been associated with than traditional cycling, they still o fer 29 and older adults. According to the 2014 in place to support their trip. In multiple 2016 when a Seattle woman with a negative mental-health e fects . more physical activity than walking, and studies, research found that complete can result in health bene its30. Census Canada report, women cycled physical disability iled a lawsuit against Similar to the facilitators of e-bikes, 12% less than men, and only 27% of the cycling networks are a key facilitator for US Forestry Services claiming that 14,24 there are societal and individual barriers Table 2 summarizes key facilitators and older adult population commonly cycled increasing adoption of e-bikes . prohibiting e-bikes on mountain bike to e-bike adoption. At the societal level, barriers to e-bikes. – clearly re lecting a generational and trails was against Americans with widespread stigma and lack of e-bike 20 gender gap in cycling in Canada . E-Mountain Biking Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. To education have contributed to public date, any class of e-bike is considered Moreover, current research shows that A subset of the e-biking community is confusion. Moreover, a lack of supportive motorized by the Forestry Services and despite the e-bikes’ reputation to the e-mountain biking community. As cycling infrastructure can deter novice is not allowed on any trail system. The increase the accessibility of cycling, e-bikes are faster and allow for longer e-bikers. Individual barriers can also US Forestry Services upheld this most e-bike riders already have some trips, more mountain bikers have been impact e-bike ridership; e-bikes require a decision in a claim that e-bikes are not history of cycling before adopting adopting the technology to complete battery and motor, and are commonly designed for disabled or less-able riders electric bicycling18. The new technology, advanced routes. However, e-mountain heavier than conventional bicycles, which and, therefore, cannot be claimed as an heightened speed and additional bikers face a unique backlash – not only can be inconvenient for riders who may accessibility device27. controls can be daunting for non-cyclists are they accused of “cheating” or need to lift their bike during travel. or those already reluctant to cycle. “laziness”, but advocacy groups also E-bikes also remain signi icantly more claim that they cause trail degradation In addition to a diverse user-pro ile, the expensive than entry-level conventional due to their motorized power. uses of e-bikes are equally broad. Recent 2.4 Facilitators and bicycles in most markets, and the research suggests that a wide range of upfront cost can discourage potential infrastructure typologies currently barriers to e-bike purchasers. The high cost also support e-bikes. In North American ridership intensi ies the fear of theft. Studies that cities that have autocentric built-form interviewed e-bike riders found that they Many facilitators and barriers are and transportation infrastructure, the would not take their e-bike to a a fecting the global market for e-bikes. faster pace and reduced physical stress destination unless they were certain Notably, through this review, many of e-bikes position them as a reasonable they could securely lock the bike upon e-bike riders refer to convenience as a 24 replacement to motor vehicles. arrival . major advantage to e-bikes13,18, 20, 24. As Additionally, there is increased rider Finally, as e-bikes operate at a higher previously mentioned, the cost per comfort on routes with minimal cycling speed than traditional bicycles, a 14,21 kilometre travelled for e-bikes is infrastructure . This is found in the This is a long-disputed claim in the common barrier is fear of injury - cheaper than a car15, and the capabilities European contexts as well, where community, with some reports claiming especially in circumstances where the of e-bikes makes them a more utilizing e-bikes, rather than cars, is e-mountain bikes cause no more existing cycling infrastructure does not comfortable active travel alternative for prevalent in the U.K and Netherlands22. signi icant harm to trails than 21,22 protect the cyclist from interactions 25 autocentric conditions . Personal When interviewing e-bike riders in traditional bicycles . with motor vehicles. The experience and enjoyment is another promoter; some Sacramento, California, some users However, other associations claim macho view of some people who riders found e-bikes make them more were found to have fully adopted their e-bikes cause signi icant damage that considered themselves ‘hard core 21 con ident as cyclists, or they associate e-bikes instead of their cars . In results in high maintenance costs, which cyclists’ can also be a barrier to e-bike e-bikes with more freedom as they can contrast, Chinese e-bike use was found translates into higher fees for trail 19 adoption. As discussed, some avid 12 26 cycle longer with less physical exertion . to have replaced public transit . users . Furthermore, some mountain cyclists believe that e-bikes appeal to

bikers, and governments, fear the safety

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 12 2.1 A snapshot of the 2.2 Cost and availability existing role of e-bikes of e-bikes

13 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 2.1 A snapshot of the 2.2 Cost and availability existing role of e-bikes of e-bikes

2.3 The users and uses For leisure trips, research suggests that issues caused by e-mountain bikers for For those who have limited independence less con ident or weaker cyclists. As 2.5 Looking at the e-bikes are popular for joyrides with other trail users, such as mountain in mobility, the increased quality of life such, for some avid cyclists, e-bikes are of e-bikes friends, e-mountain biking and longer equestrian riders, and traditional experienced from restored independent commonly associated with “cheating”, as future role of e-bike 18,21,22 23 18,28 Multiple studies across Europe and regional trail trips . It has also been mountain bikers. mobility is crucially bene icial . Even the motor assists in pedalling and The growth of the e-bike market in the North America have found that e-bikes noted that leisure trips via e-bikes are for able-bodied riders, the ability to reduces the amount of physical exertion past year suggests possible future can promote bicycling to a wider more common for novice or beginner Case Study: cycle rather than drive is occasionally required. The belief that e-bikes are not adoption trends for the coming years. demographic when compared to cyclists. While avid cyclists favour US Forestry Services named as a facilitator, as it increases providing any physical activity is a Despite barriers to widespread e-bikes when there is limited cycling the perceived quality of life19. Cycling has common misconception. A study conventional cycling. Speci ically, e-mountain bike lawsuit adoption, in Canada there was record research suggests e-bikes are infrastructure, timid or irst-time been long-proven to have positive released in November 2018 con irmed growth of e-bike sales in 2018, with more favourable among populations who feel cyclists prefer to ride their e-bikes The controversy surrounding mental health e fects, as opposed to that while e-bikes require less exertion local bicycle stores stocking e-bikes31. In insecure cycling, such as some women where existing cycling infrastructure is e-mountain biking received a spotlight in driving which has been associated with than traditional cycling, they still o fer the Netherlands, viewed by many as one 29 and older adults. According to the 2014 in place to support their trip. In multiple 2016 when a Seattle woman with a negative mental-health e fects . more physical activity than walking, and of the most advanced bicycle-friendly studies, research found that complete can result in health bene its30. Census Canada report, women cycled physical disability iled a lawsuit against Similar to the facilitators of e-bikes, countries in the world, e-bike sales cycling networks are a key facilitator for 12% less than men, and only 27% of the US Forestry Services claiming that there are societal and individual barriers exceeded conventional bike sales for the increasing adoption of e-bikes14,24. Table 2 summarizes key facilitators and older adult population commonly cycled prohibiting e-bikes on mountain bike to e-bike adoption. At the societal level, irst time in 2018 - excluding racing and barriers to e-bikes. 32 – clearly re lecting a generational and trails was against Americans with widespread stigma and lack of e-bike children’s bikes . Automotive companies 20 gender gap in cycling in Canada . E-Mountain Biking Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. To education have contributed to public are also leaping at the opportunity to date, any class of e-bike is considered Table 2 : Facilitators and Barriers capitalize on this growth. In November Moreover, current research shows that A subset of the e-biking community is confusion. Moreover, a lack of supportive motorized by the Forestry Services and 2018, General Motors (GM) released its despite the e-bikes’ reputation to the e-mountain biking community. As cycling infrastructure can deter novice is not allowed on any trail system. The FACILITATORS BARRIERS irst BSEB e-bike model33, ARiV. increase the accessibility of cycling, e-bikes are faster and allow for longer e-bikers. Individual barriers can also US Forestry Services upheld this Electric-bikeshare is also growing in most e-bike riders already have some trips, more mountain bikers have been impact e-bike ridership; e-bikes require a decision in a claim that e-bikes are not popularity in North America, increasing history of cycling before adopting adopting the technology to complete battery and motor, and are commonly designed for disabled or less-able riders the public’s awareness of the electric bicycling18. The new technology, advanced routes. However, e-mountain heavier than conventional bicycles, which and, therefore, cannot be claimed as an functionality of e-bikes. In 2018, Lime heightened speed and additional bikers face a unique backlash – not only can be inconvenient for riders who may accessibility device27. (the micromobility sharing company, controls can be daunting for non-cyclists are they accused of “cheating” or need to lift their bike during travel. Replacing cars Weight formally known as Lime Bike) began or those already reluctant to cycle. “laziness”, but advocacy groups also (utilitarian trips) E-bikes also remain signi icantly more their irst e-bikeshare pilot in Calgary, claim that they cause trail degradation In addition to a diverse user-pro ile, the expensive than entry-level conventional where they reported that over 2,000 due to their motorized power. uses of e-bikes are equally broad. Recent 2.4 Facilitators and bicycles in most markets, and the residents trialed their e-bikes in the irst research suggests that a wide range of upfront cost can discourage potential Cost week34. As more e-bikes join the infrastructure typologies currently barriers to e-bike purchasers. The high cost also Sustainable transportation network, we need to ask support e-bikes. In North American ridership intensi ies the fear of theft. Studies that alternative travel how updated legislation, policy and interviewed e-bike riders found that they mode cities that have autocentric built-form regulations can impact their uptake and Many facilitators and barriers are and transportation infrastructure, the would not take their e-bike to a usage patterns. a fecting the global market for e-bikes. Range-Anxiety faster pace and reduced physical stress destination unless they were certain Notably, through this review, many of e-bikes position them as a reasonable they could securely lock the bike upon e-bike riders refer to convenience as a arrival24. replacement to motor vehicles. Support lifelong major advantage to e-bikes13,18, 20, 24. As Additionally, there is increased rider Finally, as e-bikes operate at a higher cycling previously mentioned, the cost per comfort on routes with minimal cycling speed than traditional bicycles, a Stigmatization 14,21 kilometre travelled for e-bikes is infrastructure . This is found in the This is a long-disputed claim in the common barrier is fear of injury - cheaper than a car15, and the capabilities European contexts as well, where community, with some reports claiming especially in circumstances where the of e-bikes makes them a more utilizing e-bikes, rather than cars, is e-mountain bikes cause no more existing cycling infrastructure does not comfortable active travel alternative for Last-mile travel prevalent in the U.K and Netherlands22. signi icant harm to trails than 21,22 protect the cyclist from interactions 25 autocentric conditions . Personal Confusion When interviewing e-bike riders in traditional bicycles . with motor vehicles. The experience and enjoyment is another promoter; some Sacramento, California, some users However, other associations claim macho view of some people who riders found e-bikes make them more were found to have fully adopted their e-bikes cause signi icant damage that considered themselves ‘hard core 21 con ident as cyclists, or they associate e-bikes instead of their cars . In results in high maintenance costs, which cyclists’ can also be a barrier to e-bike e-bikes with more freedom as they can contrast, Chinese e-bike use was found translates into higher fees for trail Lack of exercise 19 adoption. As discussed, some avid 12 26 cycle longer with less physical exertion . to have replaced public transit . users . Furthermore, some mountain cyclists believe that e-bikes appeal to bikers, and governments, fear the safety

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 14 How does legislation impact E-Bike integration? Exploring the legislative landscape of e-bikes

3 The introductory chapters have shown Safety Act, as power-assisted bicycles. that e-bikes provide a unique and Transport Canada enacted the Motor sustainable mobility option to the Vehicle Safety Act in 1971, which transportation network. By o fering this subsequently lead to the development of mobility, e-bikes can be considered a the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations practical and a fordable solution to the (MVSR)9. Power-assisted bicycles have transportation missing middle - been de ined since 2000. Under these sustainable travel that supports active regulations, provinces are still transportation while remaining responsible for licensing, infrastructure accessible to a wider or less mobile planning and maintenance, and vehicle population (see more in Chapter 6). regulations.

Moving forward, there are multiple opportunities for e-bikes to maximize POWER ASSISTED BICYCLE their potential. The irst step, however, MEANS A VEHICLE THAT45: will be to establish a supportive (a) has steering handlebars and is governance structure that will set equipped with pedals, e-bikes up for success. (b) is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the Although research has painted a ground, generally supportive perspective on (c) is capable of being propelled by e-bikes, the reality of integrating e-bikes muscular power, is much more complex, and speaks to the (d) has one or more electric motors that larger practicality question surrounding have, singly or in combination, the all micromobility. Clear and informed following characteristics: legislation is a key facilitator to leverage (i) it has a total continuous power output e-bikes within a transportation network rating, measured at the shaft of each motor, of 500 W or less, and promote adoption. However, (ii) if it is engaged by the use of muscular de ining clear and informed legislation power, power assistance immediately for e-bikes and micromobility is di icult, ceases when the muscular power ceases, as they are still emerging technologies (iii) if it is engaged by the use of an with di fering functionalities and accelerator controller, power assistance prominence. This chapter reviews the immediately ceases when the brakes are existing legislative frameworks in applied, and Canada, the United States, and the (iv) it is incapable of providing further European Union to determine how assistance when the bicycle attains a legislation has impacted integration, speed of 32 km/h on level ground, thus far, and where lessons can be (e) bears a label that is permanently a ixed by the manufacturer and learned to regulate e-bikes and appears in a conspicuous location micromobility moving forward, stating, in both o icial languages, that proactively. the vehicle is a power-assisted bicycle as de ined in this subsection, and (f) has one of the following safety features, 3.1 Canadian e-bike (i) an enabling mechanism to turn the Legislation electric motor on and o f that is separate from the accelerator controller In Canada, both BSEB and SSEB are and itted in such a manner that it is de ined nationally by Transport Canada, operable by the driver, or in the Motor Vehicle Safety (ii) a mechanism that prevents the motor Regulations35 of the Motor Vehicle from being engaged before the bicycle attains a speed of 3 km/h.

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 16 All subsequent provincial regulation e-bikes, thereby excluding them from must adhere to the speci ications of this any prescribed class. If this amendment de inition. Therefore, in Canada, all were to be adopted, the MVSR would no e-bike typologies (bicycle-style and longer de ine Power Assisted Bicycles. scooter style) are legally classi ied as a The objective of this amendment is to bicycle, and all types of e-bikes are harmonize Canadian e-bike vehicle interchangeable as the de inition regulations to the United States and regulates both pedal-assist and reduce trade barriers. With this change, throttle-assist e-bikes. many types of “micromobility”, including e-bikes, e-scooters and low-speed Although this legislation is federal, vehicles, would not be subject to federal provinces still have the autonomy to regulation, and instead would be subject require licensing, de ine the vehicle, and to the provincial or territorial request additional requirements such as jurisdictions. As such, provinces and helmets or age-restrictions. In a few territories would have the freedom to provinces, additional regulations decide whether or not to permit the use distinguish helmet types, licence and of these vehicles in their jurisdictions. registration requirements, weight, etc. This change was proposed in May 201836. Table 3 shows a comparison of di ferent provincial e-bike regulation frameworks. A quick note on e-scooters : It is important to note that at the time Currently, e-scooters are illegal on of publishing, the Canadian government public roads in Canada. However, in is proposing to deregulate some cities pilots are underway power-assisted bicycles so that federal to explore their potential in the legislation will no longer regulate transportation network.

3.2 Reviewing examples dictate the operation of e-bikes around the world. What is considered an e-bike of international e-bike in Europe is not the same in Canada, legislation which is not the same e-bike in the United States. This results in di iculty Internationally, the existing landscape of de ining e-bikes consistently, with e-bike legislative frameworks has varying bicycle vs. motorcycle/moped permitted a myriad of di ferent rules, classi ications, maximum speed policies, regulations, and de initions that regulations, and permitted vs.

17 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility

3.2.2 American e-bike consider e-bikes (Low-Speed Electric regulations must still comply with the legislation Bicycles) motor vehicles. This defers the standards of the power-assisted bicycle. authority of regulation from the In the U.S., the federal legislation only In the United States, e-bikes are known National Highway Transportation Safety regulates the manufacturing and irst by federal regulation as Low-Speed Administration (NHTS) back to the sale of e-bikes, not their use or Electric Bicycles9. They are de ined as: CPSA. All other legislative powers operation in any of the states. As a result, many states have di ferent A two- or three-wheeled vehicle with surrounding the operation and use of regulations and considerations of fully operable pedals and an electric e-bikes are left to state and local e-bikes. Consequently, the culture motor of fewer than 750 watts (1 h.p.), municipality jurisdiction. surrounding e-bikes in America also whose maximum speed on a paved level varies from state to state. surface, when powered solely by such a A quick note on e-scooters: Just as e-bike laws vary from state to motor while ridden by an operator who As e-bikes gain popularity in the state, the same is true for e-scooters. weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph. emerging market, some states are However, unlike Canada, there are many moving towards more progressive e-bike This de inition is provided by the e-bikesharing systems in a multitude of legislation, which delineates between the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) American cities38. di ferent types of e-bikes available, legislation for the manufacturing and developed at the state-level by the irst sale of consumer products. This Bicycle Products Suppliers Association, de inition does not a fect licensing and 3.2.3 Bicycle product suppliers with support from the People for Bikes use of consumer products - in this case, association three-tier e-bike Coalition39. California was the irst state e-bikes18. classi ication model for the to adopt this model, with several other united states Like Canada, the American CPSA states following this precedent. Today, federal regulation also distinguishes An important di ference to note 13 states operate with this three-tier low-speed electric bicycles from motor between American and Canadian e-bike model44. This model mirrors the vehicles. legislation is the applicability of the delineation in the European model, although all e-bikes regulated, including “For the purposes of motor vehicle federal legislation to the s-pedelecs and scooter-style e-bikes, safety standards […], a low-speed state/provincial-level regulation. In are still considered bicycles. electric bicycle [as de ined above] shall Canada, the federal legislation is mandated through the Motor Vehicle not be considered a motor vehicle [per The new legislation identi ies Safety Regulations and acts as the 49 u.S.C. § 30102(a)(6)].” speci ications for “Class 1”, “Class 2” and overarching de inition to which the “Class 3” e-bikes, shown below The National Highway Transportation provincial de initions must comply. While Safety Administration also aligns with provinces can further legislate, their A “class 1 electric bicycle” is a bicycle the CPSA de inition, and does not equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedalling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles (32 km) per hour.

A “class 2 electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles (32 km) per hour.

Di ferentiates De ined Maximum Maximum Additional Province between pedelecs and Age Licensing Terminology scooter-style e-bikes Speed Power Requirements

Electric Motor British No Licensing or Assisted Cycle No 16+ 32 km/h 500 watts Helmet required Colombia Registration (MAC)

Motorcycle Helmet, Power No Licensing or headlamp, tail lamp, Alberta No 12+ 32 km/h 500 watts bicycles Registration brake lamp, re lectors, brakes, a horn & mirror

Yes: 16+ for Power Electric assist bicycles power assisted are two or three cycles Learner’s bicycle wheeled bicycles that Helmets drivers license Saskatchewan uses pedal and motor 32 km/h 500 watts required for No required for Can also be at the same time both types requirement power cycles classi ied Power cycle: uses either for electric as a moped pedals and motor or assist or mobility motor only scooter based on its No Licensing or Manitoba speed No 14+ 32 km/h 500 watts Registration

Headlight required Power No Licensing or Ontario assisted No 16+ 32 km/h 500 watts Registration Maximum weight bicycle 120Kg

From Age 14-17: Class 6D Moped or Scooter License required Power Quebec assisted No 14+ 32 km/h 500 watts From 18+: No bicycle License required

No Registration required

Headlight required at night Power New No Licensing or assisted No n/a 32 km/h 500 watts Brunswick Registration Required rims bicycle larger than 22cm & a seat at least 68cm o f the ground

Power Helmet required No Licensing or Nova Scotia assisted No n/a 32 km/h 500 watts with chinstrap Registration bicycle engaged

Prince Licensing & Motor Assisted Classi ies all Edward 16+ 32 km/h 500 watts Registration Pedal Bicycles e-bikes as mopeds Island required

Newfoundland No Provincial Legislation. Follows Federal De inition Per Transport Canada de inition and Labrador

Territories No Provincial Legislation. Follows Federal De inition Per Transport Canada de inition

Information from Table 3 was retrieved from: Pedego Bikes. (2019). Are Electric-Bicycles Illegal in Canada? https://pedegoelectricbikes.ca/are-electric-bikes-legal-in-canada/

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 18

A “class 3 electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedalling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles (45 km) per hour and is equipped with a speedometer. prohibited trails and cycling give a brief overview of the relationship infrastructure. Essentially, each region’s of the di ferent Type-Approval e-bike framework is unique to the categories, we compare e-bikes and location. Below, we have introduced a other micromobility modes in Table 4. review of these nuances to form a global One of the notable changes of the new look at e-bike integration. However, legislation was the addition of the policies and regulations for the powered cycle category for e-bikes with micromobility sector are rapidly evolving a speed limit of 25 km/h, but with higher and adapting to a changing power. transportation landscape. The indings of this review are subject to change as new legislation and regulation develop. A quick note on e-scooters : E-scooters are not explicitly placed in one of the Type- approval 3.2.1 The European Union categories. Instead, they are regulated as e-bike legislation Personal Light Weight Electric Vehicles In Europe, the European Union directive (PLEV). However, not all countries adopt 168/2013 provides an overarching PLEV regulation and as such, e-scooters de inition of e-bikes37. The current are permitted in some EU countries and legislation (enacted in 2017) is an banned in others. updated replacement of the original, which was enacted in 2002. The legislation is known as “Type-Approval” and provides both manufacturing and operational regulatory requirements. Many of these regulations align with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regulations to promote global cohesion. E-bikes are de ined under the L1e vehicle category, itting into the two subcategories of “powered cycles” and “mopeds”. Other forms of micromobility are also categorized through Type-Approval and are included for the context of this review.

Once again, it is important to de ine the semantics surrounding e-bikes. Unlike in North America, where e-bike refers to pedal-assist, throttle assist, BSEB and SSEB types, in the EU pedelec is used to de ine pedal-assist electric bicycles, and e-bike refers to throttle-assist electric bicycles37. Pedelecs, being any pedal-assist e-bike that has a maximum power of 250 watts and a maximum speed of 25km/h, are an exception Type-Approval and are legally classi ied and regulated as bicycles. In contrast, e-bikes are subject to Type-Approval. To

19 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility Table 4 : Micromobility Type-Approval

TYPE REGULATIONS TYPICAL APPEARANCE

Max. Power : <250W Pedelecs – not subject Max. Speed : 25 Km/h To type-approval Pedal assistance only

Max. Power : >250W - <1 kW Powered Cycles – L1e-A Max. Speed : 25 Km/h Pedal assistance+Motor only

Max. Power : <4kW Max. Speed : 45 Km/h Pedal assistance+Motor only Mopeds - L1e-B Note: an s-pedelec is de ined under this Type-Approval Category

Max. Power : <4kW Max. Speed : 45 Km/h Three-wheeled Pedal assistance+Motor only mopeds - L2e Max. Mass : <270 Kg Max. 2 persons

Max. Speed : 45 Km/h Light Quadricycles Pedal assistance+Motor only - L6e Max. Mass : <450 Kg Max. 2 persons

image sources in the reference page

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 20 3.2 Reviewing examples dictate the operation of e-bikes around the world. What is considered an e-bike of international e-bike in Europe is not the same in Canada, legislation which is not the same e-bike in the United States. This results in di iculty Internationally, the existing landscape of de ining e-bikes consistently, with e-bike legislative frameworks has varying bicycle vs. motorcycle/moped permitted a myriad of di ferent rules, classi ications, maximum speed policies, regulations, and de initions that regulations, and permitted vs.

3.2.2 American e-bike consider e-bikes (Low-Speed Electric regulations must still comply with the legislation Bicycles) motor vehicles. This defers the standards of the power-assisted bicycle. authority of regulation from the In the U.S., the federal legislation only In the United States, e-bikes are known National Highway Transportation Safety regulates the manufacturing and irst by federal regulation as Low-Speed Administration (NHTS) back to the sale of e-bikes, not their use or Electric Bicycles9. They are de ined as: CPSA. All other legislative powers operation in any of the states. As a result, many states have di ferent A two- or three-wheeled vehicle with surrounding the operation and use of regulations and considerations of fully operable pedals and an electric e-bikes are left to state and local e-bikes. Consequently, the culture motor of fewer than 750 watts (1 h.p.), municipality jurisdiction. surrounding e-bikes in America also whose maximum speed on a paved level varies from state to state. surface, when powered solely by such a A quick note on e-scooters: Just as e-bike laws vary from state to motor while ridden by an operator who As e-bikes gain popularity in the state, the same is true for e-scooters. weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph. emerging market, some states are However, unlike Canada, there are many moving towards more progressive e-bike This de inition is provided by the e-bikesharing systems in a multitude of legislation, which delineates between the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) American cities38. di ferent types of e-bikes available, legislation for the manufacturing and developed at the state-level by the irst sale of consumer products. This Bicycle Products Suppliers Association, de inition does not a fect licensing and 3.2.3 Bicycle product suppliers with support from the People for Bikes use of consumer products - in this case, association three-tier e-bike Coalition39. California was the irst state e-bikes18. classi ication model for the to adopt this model, with several other united states Like Canada, the American CPSA states following this precedent. Today, federal regulation also distinguishes An important di ference to note 13 states operate with this three-tier low-speed electric bicycles from motor between American and Canadian e-bike model44. This model mirrors the vehicles. legislation is the applicability of the delineation in the European model, although all e-bikes regulated, including “For the purposes of motor vehicle federal legislation to the s-pedelecs and scooter-style e-bikes, safety standards […], a low-speed state/provincial-level regulation. In are still considered bicycles. electric bicycle [as de ined above] shall Canada, the federal legislation is mandated through the Motor Vehicle not be considered a motor vehicle [per The new legislation identi ies Safety Regulations and acts as the 49 u.S.C. § 30102(a)(6)].” speci ications for “Class 1”, “Class 2” and overarching de inition to which the “Class 3” e-bikes, shown below The National Highway Transportation provincial de initions must comply. While Safety Administration also aligns with provinces can further legislate, their A “class 1 electric bicycle” is a bicycle the CPSA de inition, and does not equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is Figure 3 : E-scooter share programs in Figure 4 : U.S. cities where e-scooters pedalling, and that ceases to provide the U.S. are banned assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles (32 km) per hour.

21 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 3.2 Reviewing examples dictate the operation of e-bikes around the world. What is considered an e-bike of international e-bike in Europe is not the same in Canada, legislation which is not the same e-bike in the United States. This results in di iculty Internationally, the existing landscape of de ining e-bikes consistently, with e-bike legislative frameworks has varying bicycle vs. motorcycle/moped permitted a myriad of di ferent rules, classi ications, maximum speed policies, regulations, and de initions that regulations, and permitted vs.

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 22 Upon completing the legislative review, it intended to help inform the ongoing community. In the EU and Australia, 4.2 Which e-bikes should is evident there are key questions conversation surrounding each of these some riders are lobbying for an increase surrounding e-bike legislation and questions in Canada. in maximum speed, as some cyclists can be de ined as bicycles? operations. The discussions surrounding surpass 25 km/h without The comparison of e-bikes to bicycles these questions could inform how pedal-assistance, causing maximum raises an important question of when legislation is developed, and the success pedelecs to be less appealing than a e-bikes should be considered bicycles. As 4.1 How fast should an 41 in regulating e-bikes. We identi ied the conventional bicycle . simple as the question may seem, the following questions as the most e-bike go? In the U.S., the University of Tennessee answer is not straightforward. Due to important to informing the direction of One of the biggest di ferences noted in completed a study on perceived and the many di ferences in governance What lessons can future legislation in Canada. the legislation review is the speed achieved speeds of e-bikes. Although the between jurisdictions, e-bikes of all How fast should an e-bike go? restriction placed on European operated speed limit is higher in North America, it types straddle the line between motor be learned from current Why it is important? : speed is a key e-bikes. Through the EU legislation, is interesting to note that, when only vehicle, motorcycle and bicycle. In North indicator of safety, and can help to pedelec e-bikes (e-bikes with motors using pedal-assist, riders were observed America, we tend to be either permissive manage the types of mode-interactions that cannot operate without to operate their e-bikes at a comparable or prohibitive, in that many (if not all) and con licts we experience in on-road pedal-assistance) cannot exceed 25 speed to conventional cyclists - even types of e-bikes are bicycles or are E-Bike and o f-road cycling infrastructure. km/h. This is similar in China and with a 32 km/h maximum speed. The classi ied as motor vehicles without a 12,40 Australia . In North America, e-bikes average speed of an e-bike rider is 13.3 licensing system, and are banned Which e-bikes should be de ined as 43 regulation? have a maximum speed limit of 32 km/h km/h, and a cyclist is 10.7 km/h42. For entirely . Furthermore, the indicators bicycles? for all pedelecs and throttle-assisted e-bikes that use the throttle or operate that are used to determine whether or Why it is important? : when e-bikes are e-bikes. Normally, even BSEB models will the motor independently from pedalling, not to classify e-bikes as bicycles are de ined as bicycles, they do not require still have a throttle-assist feature, which the average speed would likely be higher. also inconsistent. Some jurisdictions opt licensing or registration, and have the permits the rider to accelerate even for speed, whereas others include power, same infrastructure permissions as when not pedalling. In the EU and weight, wheel-diameter, pedal style, etc. bicycles. Depending on their Australia, these types of e-bikes are functionality, which varies across the regulated di ferently and are normally di ferent typologies, this can cause not considered bicycles. potential safety and usage concerns. Beyond speed, the power capabilities of What vehicle features can be used e-bikes in di ferent regions are also very to regulate e-bikes? location-speci ic. In the EU, pedelecs Why it is important? : beyond speed, have a maximum power output of 250 there are many di ferent vehicle watts. Comparatively, in Canada the A key takeaway from this table is the legal start-up aid, which allows the rider to characteristics and uses that can a fect maximum power output is 500 watts, classi ication row. Unlike in North America, accelerate the motor up to 6 km/h without how an e-bike operates. It is important and in the U.S. 750 watts. When Germany does not classify higher-power pedalling. This feature helps e-bike riders start to understand how these di ferent comparing watts to mechanical e-bikes as bicycles. This separation allows for from a stopped position, given that e-bikes are features impact the operation of e-bikes. horsepower, EU pedelec e-bikes operate incentives and direction for pedelecs that often heavier than traditional bicycles and

How should the regulations be at a level of 0.3 hp, Canadian e-bikes would otherwise be unclear. In the U.S., some starting without any motor assistance can be communicated? operate at 0.7 hp, and American e-bikes states have adopted a tiered system; however, challenging. operate at 1 hp. Moreover, the American in these systems the base speed is still 32 km/h, Why it is important? : communicating The safety concerns of the throttle are notable standard of 750 watts and 32 km/h is as opposed to the 25 km/h in Germany. the regulations is paramount to ensuring in comparison to pedal-assist models, given the not universal throughout all states. The Moreover, all tiers are still considered bicycles riders comply with the rules of the road increased speed capabilities. In North America, federal de inition is not entirely in the U.S. when interacting with the most BSEB models sold include the throttle prescriptive, and allows for some transportation network and other Even the throttle feature can determine if an feature, which throughout many EU countries di ferences in de initions regarding both transportation modes — clear and easily e-bike should be considered a bicycle. In would render them motorcycles. Given that speed and power. understandable educational materials Germany, any bike that has a throttle, which throttles make pedelecs legally motorcycles in are most e fective in completing this. From a regulatory standpoint, the lower would permit the rider to accelerate without Germany, pedelecs are much more popular power output and 25 km/h speed limit pedalling, is not a bicycle. Only pedelecs, where than the s-pedelec or e-bike categories. In We discuss each of these questions are more comparable to the average the motor cannot run without Germany, one in every thirty cyclists rides a below. Our commentary is not meant to speed of a cyclist. However, there has pedal-assistance, are considered bicycles. In pedelec44. 4 provide de initive answers. Instead, it is been pushback from the e-biking some cases, pedelecs are permitted to have a

Scooter-Style E-bikes 4.3 What features can Helmets are a proven safety feature subject to further licensing and Currently, very few states and provinces 4.4 How should the 4.5 The impact of that can reduce the severity of injury operational requirements. have introduced legislation mandating as Bicycles be used to regulate during a collision, according to the the licensing or registration of e-bikes. regulations be unanswered questions medical ield. Support for a helmet Why consider the throttle-assist? In some of the European legislative In the United States, a survey completed e-bikes? communicated? on public perception of requirement can be cross-compared to The regulation stance toward e-bike frameworks, licensing is required for in 2014 by the League of American Up to this point in e-bike regulation, Widespread education about e-bike e-bikes in Canada other considerations of e-bike riders - throttles is one of the biggest “motorcycle” de ined e-bikes - this Cyclists asked 246 participants to de ine speed has been the most useful functionality is another key lesson from including speed, age, and presence of a di ferences between North American includes both s-pedelecs and Although Canada has an existing which e-bike type they considered a regulatory tool. However, the confusion the EU. In Germany, pamphlets are throttle-assist. and European approaches. In Europe, throttle-assisted e-bikes. de inition for e-bikes, there remains bicycle46. The responses showed that of surrounding e-bike regulation suggests available that describe the di ferent throttles create a separate category of ambiguity. Many of the above questions the eight e-bike types that were that although it is the most commonly Why consider licensing and registration? typologies of e-bikes, and each e-bike is MOTOR CESSATION regulation; in North America, we remain unanswered, and the lack of surveyed, only four were considered a used regulator of e-bikes, speed is still When delineating between multiple easily identi iable and communicated as The EU, Canada and the United States consider throttle-style e-bikes as clarity surrounding Canadian e-bike bicycle by the majority: the pedelec relative to the user and is not exclusively micromobility types, licensing and one of the types. As a by-product of this currently use the requirement for the bicycles, even when placed in a tiered legislation that ilters from the federal BSEB, throttle-assist BSEB, s-pedelec, reliable to regulate the functionality of registration are a helpful tool to inform education, any e-bike purchaser is motor to cease operating once the user system. The throttle can be associated to municipal regulation is impactful on and throttle-assist folding BSEB. These e-bikes. Throughout the di ferent a gradient of operation. If a model con ident of the permissions and stops pedalling or the brakes are with the di ference in achieved-speed the public perception of e-bikes. There is indings speak to the important role jurisdictions previously explored - requires a license and registration, they prohibitions of their e-bike model. The applied. between the di ferent e-bike typologies. strong evidence to suggest that appearance plays in public perception. Canada, U.S., and EU - additional can be more strenuously regulated and Bicycle Product Suppliers Association Bicycle Product Suppliers Association confusion regarding where e-bikes are The scooter-style e-bikes had the same regulations are used to further de ine WEIGHT monitored. Moreover, the licensing de inition also looks to create this same model legislation section on motor allowed is widespread, and is directly speci ications as the throttle-assist the functionality and operational Weight is a key indicator in the process inherently teaches and tests inherent public knowledge. (Figure 5) cessation: Section 206 – motor impacting trends in adoption and usage. BSEB (aside from weight), however, 72% requirements of e-bikes. transportation sector. For e-bikes, riders on the proper rules of the road. disengagement: An electric bicycle shall Inconsistencies in existing legislation of participants were certain that an weight can distinguish between BSEB may be contributing to the confusion. In AGE operate in a manner so that the electric SSEB should not be considered a and SSEB typologies. addition to this, existing legislation may 46 As shown in the provincial review, many motor is disengaged or ceases to bicycle . not fully capture and respond to safety Canadian provinces are utilizing age function when the rider stops pedalling Why consider weight? concerns associated with e-bike users In Canada and the United States, our restrictions to regulate e-bikes. or when the brakes are applied32. In addition to the throttle, weight can de initions regulate the SSEB as a distinguish between the SSEB models, and other transportation network users. Similarly, the Bicycle Product Suppliers Why consider motor cessation? bicycle, and the ambiguity of SSEB which are generally heavier, and the Safety concerns manifest into hostility Association classi ication model places The pedal-assist motor cessation models on the existing transportation BSEBs. When including weight as an surrounding shared infrastructure, an age restriction on 45 km/h e-bikes. requirement creates a clear di ference infrastructure is one of the con licts identifying characteristic, certain shared trails and illegal driving Normally, the minimum age for an e-bike between its capabilities and the observed with e-bikes - both in heavier e-bike models can be restricted behaviour. There is signi icant scope to rider is 16, although there is some throttle-assist capabilities. For the research and in practice. When referring from certain infrastructure types. address these issues through legislative variation depending on the jurisdiction. pedal-assist models, the motor will to the three-tiered approach, SSEBs However, including a weight restriction reform in Canada. Why consider age? cease when pedalling ceases. However, have the same operating functionality can also impede e-bike cargo trips. for those that operate with the as Class 2 (throttle-assist) e-bikes, and Requiring a minimum age can help throttle-assist feature, the motor will can be legally ridden in bike lanes increase the safety of riders by SPEEDOMETER REQUIREMENT only cease when the brakes are applied. without requiring any additional restricting use by children. However, it Many jurisdictions require that any legal The di ference in motor capability licensing or registration for operation. can also limit the usage potential and e-bike is out itted with a speedometer to creates a wide range of speed capacity However, SSEBs are wider, heavier and inclusivity of micromobility, depending ensure the rider is aware of their between pedal-assist and 32 more obtrusive than bicycles/BSEBs on on the expected ridership of the speed . jurisdiction. The applicability of age throttle-assist. the existing bike lanes, and have Why consider the speedometer? requirements should be explored contributed to animosity in THROTTLE-ASSIST The speedometer increases contextually. conversations about e-bikes and their In North America, many throttle-assist accountability and transparency for emerging role. HELMET REQUIREMENT e-bikes, being any e-bike model out itted e-bike riders. When a speedometer is The di iculty of regulating SSEBs is Depending on jurisdiction, a helmet with a throttle that allows the rider to required, jurisdictions can also that since they technically operate requirement is optional. Some propel the bike solely using motor power implement posted-speed requirements within the speci ications of the municipalities/regions require bicycle and without any pedal assistance, are other than the manufacturer’s power-assisted bicycle in Canada, the helmets, while others require motorcycle still regulated as bicycles. In Europe, maximum speed. de inition that permits throttle-assisted helmets for faster e-bike models. The very few e-bike models that have the LICENCE AND REGISTRATION BSEBs also permits SSEBs due to their province of Ontario requires e-bike throttle functionality are considered As discussed in previous sections, both manufactured, albeit rarely-used, riders to wear helmets. bicycles. Once the bike can propel itself provinces and states in North America bicycle pedals. without human power, it becomes Why consider helmet requirement? can request licensing of e-bikes. Upon completing the legislative review, it intended to help inform the ongoing community. In the EU and Australia, 4.2 Which e-bikes should is evident there are key questions conversation surrounding each of these some riders are lobbying for an increase surrounding e-bike legislation and questions in Canada. in maximum speed, as some cyclists can be de ined as bicycles? operations. The discussions surrounding surpass 25 km/h without The comparison of e-bikes to bicycles these questions could inform how pedal-assistance, causing maximum raises an important question of when legislation is developed, and the success pedelecs to be less appealing than a e-bikes should be considered bicycles. As 4.1 How fast should an 41 in regulating e-bikes. We identi ied the conventional bicycle . simple as the question may seem, the following questions as the most e-bike go? In the U.S., the University of Tennessee answer is not straightforward. Due to important to informing the direction of One of the biggest di ferences noted in completed a study on perceived and the many di ferences in governance future legislation in Canada. the legislation review is the speed achieved speeds of e-bikes. Although the between jurisdictions, e-bikes of all How fast should an e-bike go? restriction placed on European operated speed limit is higher in North America, it types straddle the line between motor Why it is important? : speed is a key e-bikes. Through the EU legislation, is interesting to note that, when only vehicle, motorcycle and bicycle. In North indicator of safety, and can help to pedelec e-bikes (e-bikes with motors using pedal-assist, riders were observed America, we tend to be either permissive manage the types of mode-interactions that cannot operate without to operate their e-bikes at a comparable or prohibitive, in that many (if not all) and con licts we experience in on-road pedal-assistance) cannot exceed 25 speed to conventional cyclists - even types of e-bikes are bicycles or are and o f-road cycling infrastructure. km/h. This is similar in China and with a 32 km/h maximum speed. The classi ied as motor vehicles without a 12,40 Australia . In North America, e-bikes average speed of an e-bike rider is 13.3 licensing system, and are banned Which e-bikes should be de ined as 43 have a maximum speed limit of 32 km/h km/h, and a cyclist is 10.7 km/h42. For entirely . Furthermore, the indicators bicycles? for all pedelecs and throttle-assisted e-bikes that use the throttle or operate that are used to determine whether or Why it is important? : when e-bikes are e-bikes. Normally, even BSEB models will the motor independently from pedalling, not to classify e-bikes as bicycles are de ined as bicycles, they do not require still have a throttle-assist feature, which the average speed would likely be higher. also inconsistent. Some jurisdictions opt licensing or registration, and have the permits the rider to accelerate even for speed, whereas others include power, same infrastructure permissions as when not pedalling. In the EU and weight, wheel-diameter, pedal style, etc. bicycles. Depending on their Australia, these types of e-bikes are functionality, which varies across the regulated di ferently and are normally di ferent typologies, this can cause not considered bicycles. potential safety and usage concerns. Beyond speed, the power capabilities of What vehicle features can be used e-bikes in di ferent regions are also very to regulate e-bikes? location-speci ic. In the EU, pedelecs Why it is important? : beyond speed, have a maximum power output of 250 there are many di ferent vehicle watts. Comparatively, in Canada the A key takeaway from this table is the legal start-up aid, which allows the rider to characteristics and uses that can a fect maximum power output is 500 watts, classi ication row. Unlike in North America, accelerate the motor up to 6 km/h without how an e-bike operates. It is important and in the U.S. 750 watts. When Germany does not classify higher-power pedalling. This feature helps e-bike riders start to understand how these di ferent comparing watts to mechanical e-bikes as bicycles. This separation allows for from a stopped position, given that e-bikes are features impact the operation of e-bikes. horsepower, EU pedelec e-bikes operate incentives and direction for pedelecs that often heavier than traditional bicycles and

How should the regulations be at a level of 0.3 hp, Canadian e-bikes would otherwise be unclear. In the U.S., some starting without any motor assistance can be communicated? operate at 0.7 hp, and American e-bikes states have adopted a tiered system; however, challenging. operate at 1 hp. Moreover, the American in these systems the base speed is still 32 km/h, Why it is important? : communicating The safety concerns of the throttle are notable standard of 750 watts and 32 km/h is as opposed to the 25 km/h in Germany. the regulations is paramount to ensuring in comparison to pedal-assist models, given the not universal throughout all states. The Moreover, all tiers are still considered bicycles riders comply with the rules of the road increased speed capabilities. In North America, federal de inition is not entirely in the U.S. when interacting with the most BSEB models sold include the throttle prescriptive, and allows for some transportation network and other Even the throttle feature can determine if an feature, which throughout many EU countries di ferences in de initions regarding both transportation modes — clear and easily e-bike should be considered a bicycle. In would render them motorcycles. Given that speed and power. understandable educational materials Germany, any bike that has a throttle, which throttles make pedelecs legally motorcycles in are most e fective in completing this. From a regulatory standpoint, the lower would permit the rider to accelerate without Germany, pedelecs are much more popular power output and 25 km/h speed limit pedalling, is not a bicycle. Only pedelecs, where than the s-pedelec or e-bike categories. In We discuss each of these questions are more comparable to the average the motor cannot run without Germany, one in every thirty cyclists rides a below. Our commentary is not meant to speed of a cyclist. However, there has pedal-assistance, are considered bicycles. In pedelec44. provide de initive answers. Instead, it is been pushback from the e-biking some cases, pedelecs are permitted to have a

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 24

Scooter-Style E-bikes 4.3 What features can Helmets are a proven safety feature subject to further licensing and Currently, very few states and provinces 4.4 How should the 4.5 The impact of that can reduce the severity of injury operational requirements. have introduced legislation mandating as Bicycles be used to regulate during a collision, according to the the licensing or registration of e-bikes. regulations be unanswered questions medical ield. Support for a helmet Why consider the throttle-assist? In some of the European legislative In the United States, a survey completed e-bikes? communicated? on public perception of requirement can be cross-compared to The regulation stance toward e-bike frameworks, licensing is required for in 2014 by the League of American Up to this point in e-bike regulation, Widespread education about e-bike e-bikes in Canada other considerations of e-bike riders - throttles is one of the biggest “motorcycle” de ined e-bikes - this Cyclists asked 246 participants to de ine speed has been the most useful functionality is another key lesson from including speed, age, and presence of a di ferences between North American includes both s-pedelecs and Although Canada has an existing which e-bike type they considered a regulatory tool. However, the confusion the EU. In Germany, pamphlets are throttle-assist. and European approaches. In Europe, throttle-assisted e-bikes. de inition for e-bikes, there remains bicycle46. The responses showed that of surrounding e-bike regulation suggests available that describe the di ferent throttles create a separate category of ambiguity. Many of the above questions the eight e-bike types that were that although it is the most commonly Why consider licensing and registration? typologies of e-bikes, and each e-bike is MOTOR CESSATION regulation; in North America, we remain unanswered, and the lack of surveyed, only four were considered a used regulator of e-bikes, speed is still When delineating between multiple easily identi iable and communicated as The EU, Canada and the United States consider throttle-style e-bikes as clarity surrounding Canadian e-bike bicycle by the majority: the pedelec relative to the user and is not exclusively micromobility types, licensing and one of the types. As a by-product of this currently use the requirement for the bicycles, even when placed in a tiered legislation that ilters from the federal BSEB, throttle-assist BSEB, s-pedelec, reliable to regulate the functionality of registration are a helpful tool to inform education, any e-bike purchaser is motor to cease operating once the user system. The throttle can be associated to municipal regulation is impactful on and throttle-assist folding BSEB. These e-bikes. Throughout the di ferent a gradient of operation. If a model con ident of the permissions and stops pedalling or the brakes are with the di ference in achieved-speed the public perception of e-bikes. There is indings speak to the important role jurisdictions previously explored - requires a license and registration, they prohibitions of their e-bike model. The applied. between the di ferent e-bike typologies. strong evidence to suggest that appearance plays in public perception. Canada, U.S., and EU - additional can be more strenuously regulated and Bicycle Product Suppliers Association Bicycle Product Suppliers Association confusion regarding where e-bikes are The scooter-style e-bikes had the same regulations are used to further de ine WEIGHT monitored. Moreover, the licensing de inition also looks to create this same model legislation section on motor allowed is widespread, and is directly speci ications as the throttle-assist the functionality and operational Weight is a key indicator in the process inherently teaches and tests inherent public knowledge. (Figure 5) cessation: Section 206 – motor impacting trends in adoption and usage. BSEB (aside from weight), however, 72% requirements of e-bikes. transportation sector. For e-bikes, riders on the proper rules of the road. disengagement: An electric bicycle shall Inconsistencies in existing legislation of participants were certain that an weight can distinguish between BSEB may be contributing to the confusion. In AGE operate in a manner so that the electric SSEB should not be considered a and SSEB typologies. addition to this, existing legislation may 46 As shown in the provincial review, many motor is disengaged or ceases to bicycle . not fully capture and respond to safety Canadian provinces are utilizing age function when the rider stops pedalling Why consider weight? concerns associated with e-bike users In Canada and the United States, our restrictions to regulate e-bikes. or when the brakes are applied32. In addition to the throttle, weight can de initions regulate the SSEB as a distinguish between the SSEB models, and other transportation network users. Similarly, the Bicycle Product Suppliers Why consider motor cessation? bicycle, and the ambiguity of SSEB which are generally heavier, and the Safety concerns manifest into hostility Association classi ication model places The pedal-assist motor cessation models on the existing transportation BSEBs. When including weight as an surrounding shared infrastructure, an age restriction on 45 km/h e-bikes. requirement creates a clear di ference infrastructure is one of the con licts identifying characteristic, certain shared trails and illegal driving Normally, the minimum age for an e-bike between its capabilities and the observed with e-bikes - both in heavier e-bike models can be restricted behaviour. There is signi icant scope to rider is 16, although there is some throttle-assist capabilities. For the research and in practice. When referring from certain infrastructure types. address these issues through legislative variation depending on the jurisdiction. pedal-assist models, the motor will to the three-tiered approach, SSEBs However, including a weight restriction reform in Canada. Why consider age? cease when pedalling ceases. However, have the same operating functionality can also impede e-bike cargo trips. for those that operate with the as Class 2 (throttle-assist) e-bikes, and Requiring a minimum age can help throttle-assist feature, the motor will can be legally ridden in bike lanes increase the safety of riders by SPEEDOMETER REQUIREMENT only cease when the brakes are applied. without requiring any additional restricting use by children. However, it Many jurisdictions require that any legal The di ference in motor capability licensing or registration for operation. can also limit the usage potential and e-bike is out itted with a speedometer to creates a wide range of speed capacity However, SSEBs are wider, heavier and inclusivity of micromobility, depending ensure the rider is aware of their between pedal-assist and 32 more obtrusive than bicycles/BSEBs on on the expected ridership of the speed . jurisdiction. The applicability of age throttle-assist. the existing bike lanes, and have Why consider the speedometer? requirements should be explored contributed to animosity in THROTTLE-ASSIST The speedometer increases contextually. conversations about e-bikes and their In North America, many throttle-assist accountability and transparency for emerging role. HELMET REQUIREMENT e-bikes, being any e-bike model out itted e-bike riders. When a speedometer is The di iculty of regulating SSEBs is Depending on jurisdiction, a helmet with a throttle that allows the rider to required, jurisdictions can also that since they technically operate requirement is optional. Some propel the bike solely using motor power implement posted-speed requirements within the speci ications of the municipalities/regions require bicycle and without any pedal assistance, are other than the manufacturer’s power-assisted bicycle in Canada, the helmets, while others require motorcycle still regulated as bicycles. In Europe, maximum speed. de inition that permits throttle-assisted helmets for faster e-bike models. The very few e-bike models that have the LICENCE AND REGISTRATION BSEBs also permits SSEBs due to their province of Ontario requires e-bike throttle functionality are considered As discussed in previous sections, both manufactured, albeit rarely-used, riders to wear helmets. bicycles. Once the bike can propel itself provinces and states in North America bicycle pedals. without human power, it becomes Why consider helmet requirement? can request licensing of e-bikes. Upon completing the legislative review, it intended to help inform the ongoing community. In the EU and Australia, 4.2 Which e-bikes should is evident there are key questions conversation surrounding each of these some riders are lobbying for an increase surrounding e-bike legislation and questions in Canada. in maximum speed, as some cyclists can be de ined as bicycles? operations. The discussions surrounding surpass 25 km/h without The comparison of e-bikes to bicycles these questions could inform how pedal-assistance, causing maximum raises an important question of when legislation is developed, and the success pedelecs to be less appealing than a e-bikes should be considered bicycles. As 4.1 How fast should an 41 in regulating e-bikes. We identi ied the conventional bicycle . simple as the question may seem, the following questions as the most e-bike go? In the U.S., the University of Tennessee answer is not straightforward. Due to important to informing the direction of One of the biggest di ferences noted in completed a study on perceived and the many di ferences in governance future legislation in Canada. the legislation review is the speed achieved speeds of e-bikes. Although the between jurisdictions, e-bikes of all How fast should an e-bike go? restriction placed on European operated speed limit is higher in North America, it types straddle the line between motor Why it is important? : speed is a key e-bikes. Through the EU legislation, is interesting to note that, when only vehicle, motorcycle and bicycle. In North indicator of safety, and can help to pedelec e-bikes (e-bikes with motors using pedal-assist, riders were observed America, we tend to be either permissive manage the types of mode-interactions that cannot operate without to operate their e-bikes at a comparable or prohibitive, in that many (if not all) and con licts we experience in on-road pedal-assistance) cannot exceed 25 speed to conventional cyclists - even types of e-bikes are bicycles or are and o f-road cycling infrastructure. km/h. This is similar in China and with a 32 km/h maximum speed. The classi ied as motor vehicles without a 12,40 Australia . In North America, e-bikes average speed of an e-bike rider is 13.3 licensing system, and are banned Which e-bikes should be de ined as 43 have a maximum speed limit of 32 km/h km/h, and a cyclist is 10.7 km/h42. For entirely . Furthermore, the indicators bicycles? for all pedelecs and throttle-assisted e-bikes that use the throttle or operate that are used to determine whether or Why it is important? : when e-bikes are e-bikes. Normally, even BSEB models will the motor independently from pedalling, not to classify e-bikes as bicycles are de ined as bicycles, they do not require still have a throttle-assist feature, which the average speed would likely be higher. also inconsistent. Some jurisdictions opt licensing or registration, and have the permits the rider to accelerate even for speed, whereas others include power, same infrastructure permissions as when not pedalling. In the EU and weight, wheel-diameter, pedal style, etc. bicycles. Depending on their Australia, these types of e-bikes are functionality, which varies across the regulated di ferently and are normally di ferent typologies, this can cause not considered bicycles. potential safety and usage concerns. Beyond speed, the power capabilities of Table 5 : De ining when e-bikes are bicycles What vehicle features can be used e-bikes in di ferent regions are also very to regulate e-bikes? location-speci ic. In the EU, pedelecs Why it is important? : beyond speed, U.S. have a maximum power output of 250 Is this a bicycle in… European Union Canada (Bicycle Product Suppliers there are many di ferent vehicle watts. Comparatively, in Canada the Association deinitions) A key takeaway from this table is the legal start-up aid, which allows the rider to characteristics and uses that can a fect maximum power output is 500 watts, classi ication row. Unlike in North America, accelerate the motor up to 6 km/h without how an e-bike operates. It is important and in the U.S. 750 watts. When Pedelec Germany does not classify higher-power pedalling. This feature helps e-bike riders start to understand how these di ferent Yes Yes Yes comparing watts to mechanical (25 km/h or 32 km/h) e-bikes as bicycles. This separation allows for from a stopped position, given that e-bikes are features impact the operation of e-bikes. horsepower, EU pedelec e-bikes operate incentives and direction for pedelecs that often heavier than traditional bicycles and

How should the regulations be at a level of 0.3 hp, Canadian e-bikes would otherwise be unclear. In the U.S., some starting without any motor assistance can be operate at 0.7 hp, and American e-bikes states have adopted a tiered system; however, challenging. communicated? Throttle-assisted operate at 1 hp. Moreover, the American No Yes Yes in these systems the base speed is still 32 km/h, Why it is important? : communicating pedal-assist bicycle The safety concerns of the throttle are notable standard of 750 watts and 32 km/h is as opposed to the 25 km/h in Germany. the regulations is paramount to ensuring in comparison to pedal-assist models, given the not universal throughout all states. The Moreover, all tiers are still considered bicycles riders comply with the rules of the road increased speed capabilities. In North America, federal de inition is not entirely No in the U.S. when interacting with the most BSEB models sold include the throttle prescriptive, and allows for some S-Pedelec Yes transportation network and other No (not considered a power- Even the throttle feature can determine if an feature, which throughout many EU countries di ferences in de initions regarding both (45 km/h) assisted bicycle if (with regulations) transportation modes — clear and easily operating over 32 km/hr) e-bike should be considered a bicycle. In would render them motorcycles. Given that speed and power. understandable educational materials Germany, any bike that has a throttle, which throttles make pedelecs legally motorcycles in are most e fective in completing this. From a regulatory standpoint, the lower would permit the rider to accelerate without Germany, pedelecs are much more popular power output and 25 km/h speed limit Scooter-style e-bike No Yes Yes pedalling, is not a bicycle. Only pedelecs, where than the s-pedelec or e-bike categories. In We discuss each of these questions are more comparable to the average the motor cannot run without Germany, one in every thirty cyclists rides a below. Our commentary is not meant to speed of a cyclist. However, there has pedal-assistance, are considered bicycles. In pedelec44. provide de initive answers. Instead, it is been pushback from the e-biking some cases, pedelecs are permitted to have a

25 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility

Scooter-Style E-bikes 4.3 What features can Helmets are a proven safety feature subject to further licensing and Currently, very few states and provinces 4.4 How should the 4.5 The impact of that can reduce the severity of injury operational requirements. have introduced legislation mandating as Bicycles be used to regulate during a collision, according to the the licensing or registration of e-bikes. regulations be unanswered questions medical ield. Support for a helmet Why consider the throttle-assist? In some of the European legislative In the United States, a survey completed e-bikes? communicated? on public perception of requirement can be cross-compared to The regulation stance toward e-bike frameworks, licensing is required for in 2014 by the League of American Up to this point in e-bike regulation, Widespread education about e-bike e-bikes in Canada other considerations of e-bike riders - throttles is one of the biggest “motorcycle” de ined e-bikes - this Cyclists asked 246 participants to de ine speed has been the most useful functionality is another key lesson from including speed, age, and presence of a di ferences between North American includes both s-pedelecs and Although Canada has an existing which e-bike type they considered a regulatory tool. However, the confusion the EU. In Germany, pamphlets are throttle-assist. and European approaches. In Europe, throttle-assisted e-bikes. de inition for e-bikes, there remains bicycle46. The responses showed that of surrounding e-bike regulation suggests available that describe the di ferent throttles create a separate category of ambiguity. Many of the above questions the eight e-bike types that were that although it is the most commonly Why consider licensing and registration? typologies of e-bikes, and each e-bike is MOTOR CESSATION regulation; in North America, we remain unanswered, and the lack of surveyed, only four were considered a used regulator of e-bikes, speed is still When delineating between multiple easily identi iable and communicated as The EU, Canada and the United States consider throttle-style e-bikes as clarity surrounding Canadian e-bike bicycle by the majority: the pedelec relative to the user and is not exclusively micromobility types, licensing and one of the types. As a by-product of this currently use the requirement for the bicycles, even when placed in a tiered legislation that ilters from the federal BSEB, throttle-assist BSEB, s-pedelec, reliable to regulate the functionality of registration are a helpful tool to inform education, any e-bike purchaser is motor to cease operating once the user system. The throttle can be associated to municipal regulation is impactful on and throttle-assist folding BSEB. These e-bikes. Throughout the di ferent a gradient of operation. If a model con ident of the permissions and stops pedalling or the brakes are with the di ference in achieved-speed the public perception of e-bikes. There is indings speak to the important role jurisdictions previously explored - requires a license and registration, they prohibitions of their e-bike model. The applied. between the di ferent e-bike typologies. strong evidence to suggest that appearance plays in public perception. Canada, U.S., and EU - additional can be more strenuously regulated and Bicycle Product Suppliers Association Bicycle Product Suppliers Association confusion regarding where e-bikes are The scooter-style e-bikes had the same regulations are used to further de ine WEIGHT monitored. Moreover, the licensing de inition also looks to create this same model legislation section on motor allowed is widespread, and is directly speci ications as the throttle-assist the functionality and operational Weight is a key indicator in the process inherently teaches and tests inherent public knowledge. (Figure 5) cessation: Section 206 – motor impacting trends in adoption and usage. BSEB (aside from weight), however, 72% requirements of e-bikes. transportation sector. For e-bikes, riders on the proper rules of the road. disengagement: An electric bicycle shall Inconsistencies in existing legislation of participants were certain that an weight can distinguish between BSEB may be contributing to the confusion. In AGE operate in a manner so that the electric SSEB should not be considered a and SSEB typologies. addition to this, existing legislation may 46 As shown in the provincial review, many motor is disengaged or ceases to bicycle . not fully capture and respond to safety Canadian provinces are utilizing age function when the rider stops pedalling Why consider weight? concerns associated with e-bike users In Canada and the United States, our restrictions to regulate e-bikes. or when the brakes are applied32. In addition to the throttle, weight can de initions regulate the SSEB as a distinguish between the SSEB models, and other transportation network users. Similarly, the Bicycle Product Suppliers Why consider motor cessation? bicycle, and the ambiguity of SSEB which are generally heavier, and the Safety concerns manifest into hostility Association classi ication model places The pedal-assist motor cessation models on the existing transportation BSEBs. When including weight as an surrounding shared infrastructure, an age restriction on 45 km/h e-bikes. requirement creates a clear di ference infrastructure is one of the con licts identifying characteristic, certain shared trails and illegal driving Normally, the minimum age for an e-bike between its capabilities and the observed with e-bikes - both in heavier e-bike models can be restricted behaviour. There is signi icant scope to rider is 16, although there is some throttle-assist capabilities. For the research and in practice. When referring from certain infrastructure types. address these issues through legislative variation depending on the jurisdiction. pedal-assist models, the motor will to the three-tiered approach, SSEBs However, including a weight restriction reform in Canada. Why consider age? cease when pedalling ceases. However, have the same operating functionality can also impede e-bike cargo trips. for those that operate with the as Class 2 (throttle-assist) e-bikes, and Requiring a minimum age can help throttle-assist feature, the motor will can be legally ridden in bike lanes increase the safety of riders by SPEEDOMETER REQUIREMENT only cease when the brakes are applied. without requiring any additional restricting use by children. However, it Many jurisdictions require that any legal The di ference in motor capability licensing or registration for operation. can also limit the usage potential and e-bike is out itted with a speedometer to creates a wide range of speed capacity However, SSEBs are wider, heavier and inclusivity of micromobility, depending ensure the rider is aware of their between pedal-assist and 32 more obtrusive than bicycles/BSEBs on on the expected ridership of the speed . jurisdiction. The applicability of age throttle-assist. the existing bike lanes, and have Why consider the speedometer? requirements should be explored contributed to animosity in THROTTLE-ASSIST The speedometer increases contextually. conversations about e-bikes and their In North America, many throttle-assist accountability and transparency for emerging role. HELMET REQUIREMENT e-bikes, being any e-bike model out itted e-bike riders. When a speedometer is The di iculty of regulating SSEBs is Depending on jurisdiction, a helmet with a throttle that allows the rider to required, jurisdictions can also that since they technically operate requirement is optional. Some propel the bike solely using motor power implement posted-speed requirements within the speci ications of the municipalities/regions require bicycle and without any pedal assistance, are other than the manufacturer’s power-assisted bicycle in Canada, the helmets, while others require motorcycle still regulated as bicycles. In Europe, maximum speed. de inition that permits throttle-assisted helmets for faster e-bike models. The very few e-bike models that have the LICENCE AND REGISTRATION BSEBs also permits SSEBs due to their province of Ontario requires e-bike throttle functionality are considered As discussed in previous sections, both manufactured, albeit rarely-used, riders to wear helmets. bicycles. Once the bike can propel itself provinces and states in North America bicycle pedals. without human power, it becomes Why consider helmet requirement? can request licensing of e-bikes. Upon completing the legislative review, it intended to help inform the ongoing community. In the EU and Australia, 4.2 Which e-bikes should Case Study: is evident there are key questions conversation surrounding each of these some riders are lobbying for an increase German Approach to De ining E-bikes as Bicycle surrounding e-bike legislation and questions in Canada. in maximum speed, as some cyclists can be de ined as bicycles? operations. The discussions surrounding surpass 25 km/h without The comparison of e-bikes to bicycles Germany regulates its e-bike framework through these three categories: pedelec, s-pedelec and 44,45 these questions could inform how pedal-assistance, causing maximum raises an important question of when e-bike. Each type has speci ic regulations that determine their licensing and permissions . See legislation is developed, and the success pedelecs to be less appealing than a e-bikes should be considered bicycles. As Table 6 below: 4.1 How fast should an 41 in regulating e-bikes. We identi ied the conventional bicycle . simple as the question may seem, the following questions as the most e-bike go? Table 6 : Germany e-bike regulations In the U.S., the University of Tennessee answer is not straightforward. Due to important to informing the direction of One of the biggest di ferences noted in completed a study on perceived and the many di ferences in governance Pedelec S-Pedelec E-Bike future legislation in Canada. the legislation review is the speed achieved speeds of e-bikes. Although the between jurisdictions, e-bikes of all restriction placed on European operated speed limit is higher in North America, it types straddle the line between motor Supportive to the How fast should an e-bike go? driver’s pedalling, up to Why it is important? : speed is a key e-bikes. Through the EU legislation, is interesting to note that, when only vehicle, motorcycle and bicycle. In North 25 km/hr. Some models Supportive to the Independent are permitted a indicator of safety, and can help to pedelec e-bikes (e-bikes with motors using pedal-assist, riders were observed America, we tend to be either permissive How the driver’s pedalling from pedalling, up maximum of 6 km/hr motor runs up to 45 km/hr. to 25 km/hr. manage the types of mode-interactions that cannot operate without to operate their e-bikes at a comparable or prohibitive, in that many (if not all) motor power and con licts we experience in on-road pedal-assistance) cannot exceed 25 speed to conventional cyclists - even types of e-bikes are bicycles or are without pedalling. and o f-road cycling infrastructure. km/h. This is similar in China and with a 32 km/h maximum speed. The classi ied as motor vehicles without a Australia12,40. In North America, e-bikes licensing system, and are banned Legal average speed of an e-bike rider is 13.3 Classi ication Bicycle Motorcycle Motorcycle Which e-bikes should be de ined as 43 have a maximum speed limit of 32 km/h km/h, and a cyclist is 10.7 km/h42. For entirely . Furthermore, the indicators bicycles? for all pedelecs and throttle-assisted e-bikes that use the throttle or operate that are used to determine whether or Why it is important? : when e-bikes are Klasse AM: Bicycles e-bikes. Normally, even BSEB models will the motor independently from pedalling, not to classify e-bikes as bicycles are & four-wheeled de ined as bicycles, they do not require lightweight vehicles still have a throttle-assist feature, which the average speed would likely be higher. also inconsistent. Some jurisdictions opt licensing or registration, and have the with a design- permits the rider to accelerate even for speed, whereas others include power, orientated maximum same infrastructure permissions as when not pedalling. In the EU and weight, wheel-diameter, pedal style, etc. Other None speed of not more Certi icate test bicycles. Depending on their Regulations Required than 45 km/hr & a for motorbikes Australia, these types of e-bikes are nominal continuous functionality, which varies across the regulated di ferently and are normally output of up to 4 kW electric motors. di ferent typologies, this can cause not considered bicycles. potential safety and usage concerns. Beyond speed, the power capabilities of Must always stay in What vehicle features can be used Where it can Anywhere standard Must be driven the drive lane. They e-bikes in di ferent regions are also very be driven bicycles are allowed on the road can drive in bike trails to regulate e-bikes? location-speci ic. In the EU, pedelecs if signage permits Why it is important? : beyond speed, have a maximum power output of 250 there are many di ferent vehicle watts. Comparatively, in Canada the A key takeaway from this table is the legal start-up aid, which allows the rider to characteristics and uses that can a fect maximum power output is 500 watts, classi ication row. Unlike in North America, accelerate the motor up to 6 km/h without how an e-bike operates. It is important and in the U.S. 750 watts. When Germany does not classify higher-power pedalling. This feature helps e-bike riders start to understand how these di ferent comparing watts to mechanical e-bikes as bicycles. This separation allows for from a stopped position, given that e-bikes are features impact the operation of e-bikes. horsepower, EU pedelec e-bikes operate incentives and direction for pedelecs that often heavier than traditional bicycles and

How should the regulations be at a level of 0.3 hp, Canadian e-bikes would otherwise be unclear. In the U.S., some starting without any motor assistance can be communicated? operate at 0.7 hp, and American e-bikes states have adopted a tiered system; however, challenging. operate at 1 hp. Moreover, the American in these systems the base speed is still 32 km/h, Why it is important? : communicating The safety concerns of the throttle are notable standard of 750 watts and 32 km/h is as opposed to the 25 km/h in Germany. the regulations is paramount to ensuring in comparison to pedal-assist models, given the not universal throughout all states. The Moreover, all tiers are still considered bicycles riders comply with the rules of the road increased speed capabilities. In North America, federal de inition is not entirely in the U.S. when interacting with the most BSEB models sold include the throttle prescriptive, and allows for some transportation network and other Even the throttle feature can determine if an feature, which throughout many EU countries di ferences in de initions regarding both transportation modes — clear and easily e-bike should be considered a bicycle. In would render them motorcycles. Given that speed and power. understandable educational materials Germany, any bike that has a throttle, which throttles make pedelecs legally motorcycles in are most e fective in completing this. From a regulatory standpoint, the lower would permit the rider to accelerate without Germany, pedelecs are much more popular power output and 25 km/h speed limit pedalling, is not a bicycle. Only pedelecs, where than the s-pedelec or e-bike categories. In We discuss each of these questions are more comparable to the average the motor cannot run without Germany, one in every thirty cyclists rides a below. Our commentary is not meant to speed of a cyclist. However, there has pedal-assistance, are considered bicycles. In pedelec44. provide de initive answers. Instead, it is been pushback from the e-biking some cases, pedelecs are permitted to have a

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 26

How should the regulations be at a level of 0.3 hp, Canadian e-bikes would otherwise be unclear. In the U.S., some starting without any motor assistance can be communicated? operate at 0.7 hp, and American e-bikes states have adopted a tiered system; however, challenging. operate at 1 hp. Moreover, the American in these systems the base speed is still 32 km/h, Why it is important? : communicating The safety concerns of the throttle are notable standard of 750 watts and 32 km/h is as opposed to the 25 km/h in Germany. the regulations is paramount to ensuring in comparison to pedal-assist models, given the not universal throughout all states. The Moreover, all tiers are still considered bicycles riders comply with the rules of the road increased speed capabilities. In North America, federal de inition is not entirely in the U.S. when interacting with the most BSEB models sold include the throttle prescriptive, and allows for some transportation network and other Even the throttle feature can determine if an feature, which throughout many EU countries di ferences in de initions regarding both transportation modes — clear and easily e-bike should be considered a bicycle. In would render them motorcycles. Given that speed and power. understandable educational materials Germany, any bike that has a throttle, which throttles make pedelecs legally motorcycles in are most e fective in completing this. From a regulatory standpoint, the lower would permit the rider to accelerate without Germany, pedelecs are much more popular power output and 25 km/h speed limit pedalling, is not a bicycle. Only pedelecs, where than the s-pedelec or e-bike categories. In We discuss each of these questions are more comparable to the average the motor cannot run without Germany, one in every thirty cyclists rides a below. Our commentary is not meant to speed of a cyclist. However, there has pedal-assistance, are considered bicycles. In pedelec44. provide de initive answers. Instead, it is been pushback from the e-biking some cases, pedelecs are permitted to have a

27 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility Upon completing the legislative review, it intended to help inform the ongoing community. In the EU and Australia, 4.2 Which e-bikes should is evident there are key questions conversation surrounding each of these some riders are lobbying for an increase surrounding e-bike legislation and questions in Canada. in maximum speed, as some cyclists can be de ined as bicycles? operations. The discussions surrounding surpass 25 km/h without The comparison of e-bikes to bicycles these questions could inform how pedal-assistance, causing maximum raises an important question of when legislation is developed, and the success pedelecs to be less appealing than a e-bikes should be considered bicycles. As 4.1 How fast should an 41 in regulating e-bikes. We identi ied the conventional bicycle . simple as the question may seem, the following questions as the most e-bike go? In the U.S., the University of Tennessee answer is not straightforward. Due to important to informing the direction of One of the biggest di ferences noted in completed a study on perceived and the many di ferences in governance future legislation in Canada. the legislation review is the speed achieved speeds of e-bikes. Although the between jurisdictions, e-bikes of all How fast should an e-bike go? restriction placed on European operated speed limit is higher in North America, it types straddle the line between motor Why it is important? : speed is a key e-bikes. Through the EU legislation, is interesting to note that, when only vehicle, motorcycle and bicycle. In North indicator of safety, and can help to pedelec e-bikes (e-bikes with motors using pedal-assist, riders were observed America, we tend to be either permissive manage the types of mode-interactions that cannot operate without to operate their e-bikes at a comparable or prohibitive, in that many (if not all) and con licts we experience in on-road pedal-assistance) cannot exceed 25 speed to conventional cyclists - even types of e-bikes are bicycles or are and o f-road cycling infrastructure. km/h. This is similar in China and with a 32 km/h maximum speed. The classi ied as motor vehicles without a 12,40 Australia . In North America, e-bikes average speed of an e-bike rider is 13.3 licensing system, and are banned Which e-bikes should be de ined as 43 have a maximum speed limit of 32 km/h km/h, and a cyclist is 10.7 km/h42. For entirely . Furthermore, the indicators bicycles? for all pedelecs and throttle-assisted e-bikes that use the throttle or operate that are used to determine whether or Why it is important? : when e-bikes are e-bikes. Normally, even BSEB models will the motor independently from pedalling, not to classify e-bikes as bicycles are de ined as bicycles, they do not require still have a throttle-assist feature, which the average speed would likely be higher. also inconsistent. Some jurisdictions opt licensing or registration, and have the permits the rider to accelerate even for speed, whereas others include power, same infrastructure permissions as when not pedalling. In the EU and weight, wheel-diameter, pedal style, etc. bicycles. Depending on their Australia, these types of e-bikes are functionality, which varies across the regulated di ferently and are normally di ferent typologies, this can cause not considered bicycles. potential safety and usage concerns. Beyond speed, the power capabilities of What vehicle features can be used e-bikes in di ferent regions are also very to regulate e-bikes? location-speci ic. In the EU, pedelecs Why it is important? : beyond speed, have a maximum power output of 250 there are many di ferent vehicle watts. Comparatively, in Canada the A key takeaway from this table is the legal start-up aid, which allows the rider to characteristics and uses that can a fect maximum power output is 500 watts, classi ication row. Unlike in North America, accelerate the motor up to 6 km/h without how an e-bike operates. It is important and in the U.S. 750 watts. When Germany does not classify higher-power pedalling. This feature helps e-bike riders start to understand how these di ferent comparing watts to mechanical e-bikes as bicycles. This separation allows for from a stopped position, given that e-bikes are features impact the operation of e-bikes. horsepower, EU pedelec e-bikes operate incentives and direction for pedelecs that often heavier than traditional bicycles and

How should the regulations be at a level of 0.3 hp, Canadian e-bikes would otherwise be unclear. In the U.S., some starting without any motor assistance can be communicated? operate at 0.7 hp, and American e-bikes states have adopted a tiered system; however, challenging. operate at 1 hp. Moreover, the American in these systems the base speed is still 32 km/h, Why it is important? : communicating The safety concerns of the throttle are notable standard of 750 watts and 32 km/h is as opposed to the 25 km/h in Germany. the regulations is paramount to ensuring in comparison to pedal-assist models, given the not universal throughout all states. The Moreover, all tiers are still considered bicycles riders comply with the rules of the road increased speed capabilities. In North America, federal de inition is not entirely in the U.S. when interacting with the most BSEB models sold include the throttle prescriptive, and allows for some transportation network and other Even the throttle feature can determine if an feature, which throughout many EU countries di ferences in de initions regarding both transportation modes — clear and easily e-bike should be considered a bicycle. In would render them motorcycles. Given that speed and power. understandable educational materials Germany, any bike that has a throttle, which throttles make pedelecs legally motorcycles in are most e fective in completing this. From a regulatory standpoint, the lower would permit the rider to accelerate without Germany, pedelecs are much more popular power output and 25 km/h speed limit pedalling, is not a bicycle. Only pedelecs, where than the s-pedelec or e-bike categories. In We discuss each of these questions are more comparable to the average the motor cannot run without Germany, one in every thirty cyclists rides a below. Our commentary is not meant to speed of a cyclist. However, there has pedal-assistance, are considered bicycles. In pedelec44. provide de initive answers. Instead, it is been pushback from the e-biking some cases, pedelecs are permitted to have a

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 28 Upon completing the legislative review, it intended to help inform the ongoing community. In the EU and Australia, 4.2 Which e-bikes should is evident there are key questions conversation surrounding each of these some riders are lobbying for an increase surrounding e-bike legislation and questions in Canada. in maximum speed, as some cyclists can be de ined as bicycles? operations. The discussions surrounding surpass 25 km/h without The comparison of e-bikes to bicycles these questions could inform how pedal-assistance, causing maximum raises an important question of when legislation is developed, and the success pedelecs to be less appealing than a e-bikes should be considered bicycles. As 4.1 How fast should an 41 in regulating e-bikes. We identi ied the conventional bicycle . simple as the question may seem, the following questions as the most e-bike go? In the U.S., the University of Tennessee answer is not straightforward. Due to important to informing the direction of One of the biggest di ferences noted in completed a study on perceived and the many di ferences in governance future legislation in Canada. the legislation review is the speed achieved speeds of e-bikes. Although the between jurisdictions, e-bikes of all How fast should an e-bike go? restriction placed on European operated speed limit is higher in North America, it types straddle the line between motor Why it is important? : speed is a key e-bikes. Through the EU legislation, is interesting to note that, when only vehicle, motorcycle and bicycle. In North indicator of safety, and can help to pedelec e-bikes (e-bikes with motors using pedal-assist, riders were observed America, we tend to be either permissive manage the types of mode-interactions that cannot operate without to operate their e-bikes at a comparable or prohibitive, in that many (if not all) and con licts we experience in on-road pedal-assistance) cannot exceed 25 speed to conventional cyclists - even types of e-bikes are bicycles or are and o f-road cycling infrastructure. km/h. This is similar in China and with a 32 km/h maximum speed. The classi ied as motor vehicles without a 12,40 Australia . In North America, e-bikes average speed of an e-bike rider is 13.3 licensing system, and are banned Which e-bikes should be de ined as 43 have a maximum speed limit of 32 km/h km/h, and a cyclist is 10.7 km/h42. For entirely . Furthermore, the indicators bicycles? for all pedelecs and throttle-assisted e-bikes that use the throttle or operate that are used to determine whether or Why it is important? : when e-bikes are e-bikes. Normally, even BSEB models will the motor independently from pedalling, not to classify e-bikes as bicycles are de ined as bicycles, they do not require still have a throttle-assist feature, which the average speed would likely be higher. also inconsistent. Some jurisdictions opt licensing or registration, and have the permits the rider to accelerate even for speed, whereas others include power, same infrastructure permissions as when not pedalling. In the EU and weight, wheel-diameter, pedal style, etc. bicycles. Depending on their Australia, these types of e-bikes are functionality, which varies across the regulated di ferently and are normally di ferent typologies, this can cause not considered bicycles. potential safety and usage concerns. Beyond speed, the power capabilities of What vehicle features can be used e-bikes in di ferent regions are also very to regulate e-bikes? location-speci ic. In the EU, pedelecs Why it is important? : beyond speed, have a maximum power output of 250 there are many di ferent vehicle watts. Comparatively, in Canada the A key takeaway from this table is the legal start-up aid, which allows the rider to characteristics and uses that can a fect maximum power output is 500 watts, classi ication row. Unlike in North America, accelerate the motor up to 6 km/h without how an e-bike operates. It is important and in the U.S. 750 watts. When Germany does not classify higher-power pedalling. This feature helps e-bike riders start to understand how these di ferent comparing watts to mechanical e-bikes as bicycles. This separation allows for from a stopped position, given that e-bikes are features impact the operation of e-bikes. horsepower, EU pedelec e-bikes operate incentives and direction for pedelecs that often heavier than traditional bicycles and

How should the regulations be at a level of 0.3 hp, Canadian e-bikes would otherwise be unclear. In the U.S., some starting without any motor assistance can be communicated? operate at 0.7 hp, and American e-bikes states have adopted a tiered system; however, challenging. operate at 1 hp. Moreover, the American in these systems the base speed is still 32 km/h, Why it is important? : communicating The safety concerns of the throttle are notable standard of 750 watts and 32 km/h is as opposed to the 25 km/h in Germany. the regulations is paramount to ensuring in comparison to pedal-assist models, given the not universal throughout all states. The Moreover, all tiers are still considered bicycles riders comply with the rules of the road increased speed capabilities. In North America, federal de inition is not entirely in the U.S. when interacting with the most BSEB models sold include the throttle prescriptive, and allows for some transportation network and other Even the throttle feature can determine if an feature, which throughout many EU countries di ferences in de initions regarding both transportation modes — clear and easily e-bike should be considered a bicycle. In would render them motorcycles. Given that speed and power. understandable educational materials Germany, any bike that has a throttle, which throttles make pedelecs legally motorcycles in are most e fective in completing this. From a regulatory standpoint, the lower would permit the rider to accelerate without Germany, pedelecs are much more popular power output and 25 km/h speed limit pedalling, is not a bicycle. Only pedelecs, where than the s-pedelec or e-bike categories. In We discuss each of these questions are more comparable to the average the motor cannot run without Germany, one in every thirty cyclists rides a below. Our commentary is not meant to speed of a cyclist. However, there has pedal-assistance, are considered bicycles. In pedelec44. provide de initive answers. Instead, it is been pushback from the e-biking some cases, pedelecs are permitted to have a

29 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility Upon completing the legislative review, it intended to help inform the ongoing community. In the EU and Australia, 4.2 Which e-bikes should is evident there are key questions conversation surrounding each of these some riders are lobbying for an increase surrounding e-bike legislation and questions in Canada. in maximum speed, as some cyclists can be de ined as bicycles? operations. The discussions surrounding surpass 25 km/h without The comparison of e-bikes to bicycles these questions could inform how pedal-assistance, causing maximum raises an important question of when legislation is developed, and the success pedelecs to be less appealing than a e-bikes should be considered bicycles. As 4.1 How fast should an 41 in regulating e-bikes. We identi ied the conventional bicycle . simple as the question may seem, the following questions as the most e-bike go? In the U.S., the University of Tennessee answer is not straightforward. Due to important to informing the direction of One of the biggest di ferences noted in completed a study on perceived and the many di ferences in governance future legislation in Canada. the legislation review is the speed achieved speeds of e-bikes. Although the between jurisdictions, e-bikes of all How fast should an e-bike go? restriction placed on European operated speed limit is higher in North America, it types straddle the line between motor Why it is important? : speed is a key e-bikes. Through the EU legislation, is interesting to note that, when only vehicle, motorcycle and bicycle. In North indicator of safety, and can help to pedelec e-bikes (e-bikes with motors using pedal-assist, riders were observed America, we tend to be either permissive manage the types of mode-interactions that cannot operate without to operate their e-bikes at a comparable or prohibitive, in that many (if not all) and con licts we experience in on-road pedal-assistance) cannot exceed 25 speed to conventional cyclists - even types of e-bikes are bicycles or are and o f-road cycling infrastructure. km/h. This is similar in China and with a 32 km/h maximum speed. The classi ied as motor vehicles without a 12,40 Australia . In North America, e-bikes average speed of an e-bike rider is 13.3 licensing system, and are banned Which e-bikes should be de ined as 43 have a maximum speed limit of 32 km/h km/h, and a cyclist is 10.7 km/h42. For entirely . Furthermore, the indicators bicycles? for all pedelecs and throttle-assisted e-bikes that use the throttle or operate that are used to determine whether or Why it is important? : when e-bikes are e-bikes. Normally, even BSEB models will the motor independently from pedalling, not to classify e-bikes as bicycles are de ined as bicycles, they do not require still have a throttle-assist feature, which the average speed would likely be higher. also inconsistent. Some jurisdictions opt licensing or registration, and have the permits the rider to accelerate even for speed, whereas others include power, same infrastructure permissions as when not pedalling. In the EU and weight, wheel-diameter, pedal style, etc. bicycles. Depending on their Australia, these types of e-bikes are functionality, which varies across the regulated di ferently and are normally di ferent typologies, this can cause not considered bicycles. potential safety and usage concerns. Beyond speed, the power capabilities of What vehicle features can be used e-bikes in di ferent regions are also very to regulate e-bikes? location-speci ic. In the EU, pedelecs Why it is important? : beyond speed, have a maximum power output of 250 there are many di ferent vehicle watts. Comparatively, in Canada the A key takeaway from this table is the legal start-up aid, which allows the rider to characteristics and uses that can a fect maximum power output is 500 watts, classi ication row. Unlike in North America, accelerate the motor up to 6 km/h without how an e-bike operates. It is important and in the U.S. 750 watts. When Germany does not classify higher-power pedalling. This feature helps e-bike riders start to understand how these di ferent comparing watts to mechanical e-bikes as bicycles. This separation allows for from a stopped position, given that e-bikes are features impact the operation of e-bikes. horsepower, EU pedelec e-bikes operate incentives and direction for pedelecs that often heavier than traditional bicycles and

How should the regulations be at a level of 0.3 hp, Canadian e-bikes would otherwise be unclear. In the U.S., some starting without any motor assistance can be communicated? operate at 0.7 hp, and American e-bikes states have adopted a tiered system; however, challenging. operate at 1 hp. Moreover, the American in these systems the base speed is still 32 km/h, Why it is important? : communicating The safety concerns of the throttle are notable standard of 750 watts and 32 km/h is as opposed to the 25 km/h in Germany. the regulations is paramount to ensuring in comparison to pedal-assist models, given the not universal throughout all states. The Moreover, all tiers are still considered bicycles riders comply with the rules of the road increased speed capabilities. In North America, federal de inition is not entirely in the U.S. when interacting with the most BSEB models sold include the throttle prescriptive, and allows for some transportation network and other Even the throttle feature can determine if an feature, which throughout many EU countries di ferences in de initions regarding both transportation modes — clear and easily e-bike should be considered a bicycle. In would render them motorcycles. Given that speed and power. understandable educational materials Germany, any bike that has a throttle, which throttles make pedelecs legally motorcycles in are most e fective in completing this. From a regulatory standpoint, the lower would permit the rider to accelerate without Germany, pedelecs are much more popular power output and 25 km/h speed limit pedalling, is not a bicycle. Only pedelecs, where than the s-pedelec or e-bike categories. In We discuss each of these questions are more comparable to the average the motor cannot run without Germany, one in every thirty cyclists rides a below. Our commentary is not meant to speed of a cyclist. However, there has pedal-assistance, are considered bicycles. In pedelec44. provide de initive answers. Instead, it is been pushback from the e-biking some cases, pedelecs are permitted to have a

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 30 Given the current landscape of The purpose of this survey was to legislation and perceptions surrounding engage with practitioners about how micromobility in Canada, we engaged micromobility is changing in their with stakeholders and municipal communities, focusing on sustainable representatives as part of this research and new mobility perspectives. to understand how this landscape is Approximately 71% of respondents impacting key regulators and advocates indicated that they had observed a shift in Ontario. The comprehensive survey towards sustainable mobility in their contained over 50 questions regarding community. However, we received a sustainable mobility, new mobility, range of justi ications as to why this e-bikes, e-scooters and existing e-bike shift is occurring. and e-scooter legislation. The survey was How do Environmental awareness and di ferent primarily distributed via Share the Road mobility options were the most common scooter-style e-bike used “moped-style Cycling Coalition to the Association of Practitioners perceive rationale, while others felt that the cost e-bike” to reduce potential mix-up with Municipal Administrators from February of car ownership, the preferences of the the e-scooters (Table 7). 21st, 2019 to March 18th, 2019. We also younger generation, tra ic, better shared the survey via WSP Canada’s Sustainable Mobility: 96% of cycling infrastructure, and resident LinkedIn pro ile and on Twitter by WSP respondents felt that a bicycle-style Micromobility? demand for sustainability were also key e-bike is a form of sustainable mobility. employees. factors in a fecting a larger shift to In comparison, 86% felt that a sustainable mobility. When discussing scooter-style e-bike is a form of new mobility, we asked our participants sustainable mobility. As for e-scooters, 5.1 Results if they were aware of any new mobility 75% felt they represent sustainable considerations in their transportation 5.1.1 Comparing mobility. In total, approximately 40 participants The next part of the questionnaire asked bicycle lanes (66%). Fewer participants planning documents. Of the 77% that micromobility modes completed the survey; 58% identi ied as Active Travel: 92% of respondents participants to rank the types of supported scooter-style e-bikes for were aware of their current a municipal representative and 42% indicated that a bicycle-style e-bike is a infrastructure where they felt e-bikes multi-use paths on the boulevard of a transportation policy, 50% had some To better understand the perception of identi ied as a stakeholder - including form of active travel. The scooter-style and e-scooters should be permitted. For roadway or on o f-road trails in parks or form new mobility policy, and 50% did di ferent types of micromobility by business analysts, advocates, student e-bike and e-scooter had mixed each mode, participants could choose green spaces (both at 15%). not. Moreover, only 31% of the policies policy makers and key stakeholders, we researchers and citizens. Participants reactions when asked if they could be any of the following infrastructure Interestingly, 0% of the participants felt considered e-bikes, and another 16% showed our participants three modes of were from municipalities across Canada. considered active modes of types: multi-use paths on the boulevard they should be allowed on sidewalks. considered both e-bikes and e-scooters. micromobility and asked them if they Primarily, respondents were from perceived each mode as sustainable transportation, unlike sustainable of a roadway, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, In comparison, 47% considered E-scooters were more likely to be jurisdictions within the Greater Golden transportation or active travel, and the mobility, where each mode was more the road in mixed tra ic, and o f-road bikeshare. preferred on o f-road infrastructure or Horseshoe (GGH). types of transportation infrastructure likely to be perceived as sustainable than trails in parks and green spaces. Just as on-road bike lanes rather than in mixed where they should be permitted. A not. For the scooter-style e-bike, over each type had a mixed reaction to their tra ic, with 81% of respondents seeing bicycle-style e-bike, scooter-style e-bike, 78% of participants felt it was not a sustainability and activity, each them as suitable for multi-use paths on and e-scooter were compared. Photos of form of active travel. As for the micromobility type also had a unique the boulevard of a roadway, and 62% each type were shown to ensure clarity e-scooter, reactions were split: 54% felt array of responses regarding where they perceiving them as suitable for o f-road between the types. that an e-scooter is an active form of should be permitted. trails in parks or green spaces. Also, 57% Questions that referred to the travel, whereas 46% did not. Overall, most of the participants were in favour of bicycle lanes. Of all the supported permitting bicycle-style types, e-scooters received the highest e-bikes on bicycle lanes (96%), multi-use approval to be on the sidewalk, with 19% paths on the boulevard of a roadway of respondents seeing them as suitable. (82%), the road in mixed tra ic (75%), Only 12% felt they should be allowed on and on o f-road trails in parks and green the road in mixed tra ic. spaces (68%). The only non-preferred We also asked participants if they had infrastructure type was sidewalk (11%). ever received speed-related complaints For scooter-style e-bikes, most - a common concern with micromobility - participants felt they were best suited for any of the types above. We found 5 on the road in mixed tra ic (93%) or in that although some participants

with implementing an e-scooter share indicated that their jurisdiction had e-scooters. We classi ied the potential system. Firstly, practitioners perceived users to be Children (<16), Students e-scooter share as more recreational (16-22), Adults (23-54), and Older Adults Table 7 graphically displays the than utilitarian, which reduces its (>55). For e-bikes, most participants felt responses on a coloured scale47 to show e fectiveness as a transportation mode. they would be utilized by almost all of the relationship of the responses to each Others cited public opposition as a the demographics (older adults, adults mode - with red being disagree and challenge, as well as “scooter-littering” and students), with a high focus on green being agree. - when scooters are discarded along adults (90%) and students (90%). For the sidewalks and in the public realm. e-scooters, fewer participants felt they 5.1.2 Micromobility and However, the largest barrier was the would be suitable for older adults (18%), shared mobility general lack of knowledge on how to and the majority once again saw the regulate the new technology; many felt most potential for adults and students. Understanding how micromobility there wasn’t enough supportive An interesting shift occurred when we interacts and overlaps with shared infrastructure, while others felt that mobility was another objective of the there was little regulation for e-scooter survey. We found that 48% of the companies that operate the programs jurisdictions surveyed have either and the users. implemented or are planning to adopted a municipal regulation that implement a bikeshare program. For the further regulates e-bike operations. The most part, the increased cycling culture 5.1.3 Opinions on existing clear majority, 86%, either did not have was the greatest bene it. Also, both legislation additional regulation or were unsure. irst-last mile travel and transit Many jurisdictions also did not further The next portion of the survey asked clarify any operational di ferences integration were nearly equally as asked participants to comment on the participants to review select excerpts between the scooter-style e-bike and important, along with tourism types of trips they foresaw e-bike riders from the Ontario e-bike regulation and bicycle-style e-bikes. Of the 73% of promotion, reduced car dependency, and taking. Although there had previously provide commentary. Opinions on the participants that were aware of their a fordability. In terms of challenges, the been a divide between the perception of adequacy of existing regulation were e-bike regulation, 55% did not believe most commonly observed barrier was e-bikes and e-scooters, generally both di icult to identify, the slight majority that their existing regulations clari ied the lack of cycling culture or low demand modes were perceived as suitable for all either agreed or had no opinion (54%), for bikeshare. Other participants also types of trips - including getting to while 18% disagreed, 14% strongly indicated the implementation and liability issues that could arise. Others work/school, getting to transit stations, disagreed, and 14% strongly agreed. maintenance costs as the other most commented on the public opposition to running errands, and recreational travel. Of those who disagreed, some felt the common barriers. e-bikes. The most common barrier, A small deviation was that for speed limit was too high or that the however, was the additional cost and e-scooters, fewer participants felt they Bikeshare is implementable as either regulation should distinguish between maintenance associated with charging were suitable for getting to transit docked, dockless or hybrid. Docked e-bike types. For those who agreed, they the battery. stations or running errands. bikeshare utilizes permanent stations, generally felt that this regulation was a whereas dockless bikeshare accesses Given the current landscape of The purpose of this survey was to legislation and perceptions surrounding engage with practitioners about how micromobility in Canada, we engaged micromobility is changing in their with stakeholders and municipal communities, focusing on sustainable representatives as part of this research and new mobility perspectives. to understand how this landscape is Approximately 71% of respondents impacting key regulators and advocates indicated that they had observed a shift in Ontario. The comprehensive survey towards sustainable mobility in their contained over 50 questions regarding community. However, we received a sustainable mobility, new mobility, range of justi ications as to why this e-bikes, e-scooters and existing e-bike shift is occurring. and e-scooter legislation. The survey was Environmental awareness and di ferent primarily distributed via Share the Road mobility options were the most common scooter-style e-bike used “moped-style Cycling Coalition to the Association of rationale, while others felt that the cost e-bike” to reduce potential mix-up with Municipal Administrators from February of car ownership, the preferences of the the e-scooters (Table 7). 21st, 2019 to March 18th, 2019. We also younger generation, tra ic, better shared the survey via WSP Canada’s Sustainable Mobility: 96% of cycling infrastructure, and resident LinkedIn pro ile and on Twitter by WSP respondents felt that a bicycle-style demand for sustainability were also key e-bike is a form of sustainable mobility. employees. factors in a fecting a larger shift to In comparison, 86% felt that a sustainable mobility. When discussing scooter-style e-bike is a form of new mobility, we asked our participants sustainable mobility. As for e-scooters, 5.1 Results if they were aware of any new mobility 75% felt they represent sustainable considerations in their transportation 5.1.1 Comparing mobility. In total, approximately 40 participants The next part of the questionnaire asked bicycle lanes (66%). Fewer participants planning documents. Of the 77% that micromobility modes completed the survey; 58% identi ied as Active Travel: 92% of respondents participants to rank the types of supported scooter-style e-bikes for were aware of their current a municipal representative and 42% indicated that a bicycle-style e-bike is a infrastructure where they felt e-bikes multi-use paths on the boulevard of a transportation policy, 50% had some To better understand the perception of identi ied as a stakeholder - including form of active travel. The scooter-style and e-scooters should be permitted. For roadway or on o f-road trails in parks or form new mobility policy, and 50% did di ferent types of micromobility by business analysts, advocates, student e-bike and e-scooter had mixed each mode, participants could choose green spaces (both at 15%). not. Moreover, only 31% of the policies policy makers and key stakeholders, we researchers and citizens. Participants reactions when asked if they could be any of the following infrastructure Interestingly, 0% of the participants felt considered e-bikes, and another 16% showed our participants three modes of were from municipalities across Canada. considered active modes of types: multi-use paths on the boulevard they should be allowed on sidewalks. considered both e-bikes and e-scooters. micromobility and asked them if they Primarily, respondents were from perceived each mode as sustainable transportation, unlike sustainable of a roadway, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, In comparison, 47% considered E-scooters were more likely to be jurisdictions within the Greater Golden transportation or active travel, and the mobility, where each mode was more the road in mixed tra ic, and o f-road bikeshare. preferred on o f-road infrastructure or Horseshoe (GGH). types of transportation infrastructure likely to be perceived as sustainable than trails in parks and green spaces. Just as on-road bike lanes rather than in mixed where they should be permitted. A not. For the scooter-style e-bike, over each type had a mixed reaction to their tra ic, with 81% of respondents seeing bicycle-style e-bike, scooter-style e-bike, 78% of participants felt it was not a sustainability and activity, each them as suitable for multi-use paths on and e-scooter were compared. Photos of form of active travel. As for the micromobility type also had a unique the boulevard of a roadway, and 62% Figure 6 : Map of practitioners surveyed each type were shown to ensure clarity e-scooter, reactions were split: 54% felt array of responses regarding where they perceiving them as suitable for o f-road between the types. that an e-scooter is an active form of should be permitted. trails in parks or green spaces. Also, 57% Questions that referred to the travel, whereas 46% did not. Overall, most of the participants were in favour of bicycle lanes. Of all the supported permitting bicycle-style types, e-scooters received the highest e-bikes on bicycle lanes (96%), multi-use approval to be on the sidewalk, with 19% paths on the boulevard of a roadway of respondents seeing them as suitable. (82%), the road in mixed tra ic (75%), Only 12% felt they should be allowed on and on o f-road trails in parks and green the road in mixed tra ic. spaces (68%). The only non-preferred We also asked participants if they had infrastructure type was sidewalk (11%). ever received speed-related complaints For scooter-style e-bikes, most - a common concern with micromobility - participants felt they were best suited for any of the types above. We found on the road in mixed tra ic (93%) or in that although some participants

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 32

with implementing an e-scooter share indicated that their jurisdiction had e-scooters. We classi ied the potential system. Firstly, practitioners perceived users to be Children (<16), Students e-scooter share as more recreational (16-22), Adults (23-54), and Older Adults Table 7 graphically displays the than utilitarian, which reduces its (>55). For e-bikes, most participants felt responses on a coloured scale47 to show e fectiveness as a transportation mode. they would be utilized by almost all of the relationship of the responses to each Others cited public opposition as a the demographics (older adults, adults mode - with red being disagree and challenge, as well as “scooter-littering” and students), with a high focus on green being agree. - when scooters are discarded along adults (90%) and students (90%). For the sidewalks and in the public realm. e-scooters, fewer participants felt they 5.1.2 Micromobility and However, the largest barrier was the would be suitable for older adults (18%), shared mobility general lack of knowledge on how to and the majority once again saw the regulate the new technology; many felt most potential for adults and students. Understanding how micromobility there wasn’t enough supportive An interesting shift occurred when we interacts and overlaps with shared infrastructure, while others felt that mobility was another objective of the there was little regulation for e-scooter survey. We found that 48% of the companies that operate the programs jurisdictions surveyed have either and the users. implemented or are planning to adopted a municipal regulation that implement a bikeshare program. For the further regulates e-bike operations. The most part, the increased cycling culture 5.1.3 Opinions on existing clear majority, 86%, either did not have was the greatest bene it. Also, both legislation additional regulation or were unsure. irst-last mile travel and transit Many jurisdictions also did not further The next portion of the survey asked clarify any operational di ferences integration were nearly equally as asked participants to comment on the participants to review select excerpts between the scooter-style e-bike and important, along with tourism types of trips they foresaw e-bike riders from the Ontario e-bike regulation and bicycle-style e-bikes. Of the 73% of promotion, reduced car dependency, and taking. Although there had previously provide commentary. Opinions on the participants that were aware of their a fordability. In terms of challenges, the been a divide between the perception of adequacy of existing regulation were e-bike regulation, 55% did not believe most commonly observed barrier was e-bikes and e-scooters, generally both di icult to identify, the slight majority that their existing regulations clari ied the lack of cycling culture or low demand modes were perceived as suitable for all either agreed or had no opinion (54%), for bikeshare. Other participants also types of trips - including getting to while 18% disagreed, 14% strongly indicated the implementation and liability issues that could arise. Others work/school, getting to transit stations, disagreed, and 14% strongly agreed. maintenance costs as the other most commented on the public opposition to running errands, and recreational travel. Of those who disagreed, some felt the common barriers. e-bikes. The most common barrier, A small deviation was that for speed limit was too high or that the however, was the additional cost and e-scooters, fewer participants felt they Bikeshare is implementable as either regulation should distinguish between maintenance associated with charging were suitable for getting to transit docked, dockless or hybrid. Docked e-bike types. For those who agreed, they the battery. stations or running errands. bikeshare utilizes permanent stations, generally felt that this regulation was a whereas dockless bikeshare accesses Given the current landscape of The purpose of this survey was to legislation and perceptions surrounding engage with practitioners about how micromobility in Canada, we engaged micromobility is changing in their Have you experienced a shift towards sustainable Is your community/ with stakeholders and municipal communities, focusing on sustainable mobility in your community/ jurisdiction considering new jurisdiction? mobility policies? representatives as part of this research and new mobility perspectives. Yes No Yes No to understand how this landscape is Approximately 71% of respondents impacting key regulators and advocates indicated that they had observed a shift in Ontario. The comprehensive survey towards sustainable mobility in their contained over 50 questions regarding community. However, we received a sustainable mobility, new mobility, range of justi ications as to why this e-bikes, e-scooters and existing e-bike shift is occurring. and e-scooter legislation. The survey was Environmental awareness and di ferent primarily distributed via Share the Road mobility options were the most common scooter-style e-bike used “moped-style Cycling Coalition to the Association of rationale, while others felt that the cost Bike share 47% e-bike” to reduce potential mix-up with Municipal Administrators from February E-bikes & the e-scooters (Table 7). of car ownership, the preferences of the 16% 21st, 2019 to March 18th, 2019. We also scooters younger generation, tra ic, better shared the survey via WSP Canada’s Sustainable Mobility: 96% of cycling infrastructure, and resident E-bikes 31% LinkedIn pro ile and on Twitter by WSP respondents felt that a bicycle-style demand for sustainability were also key e-bike is a form of sustainable mobility. employees. factors in a fecting a larger shift to Micromobility and Shared Mobility considerations in In comparison, 86% felt that a New Mobility Policy sustainable mobility. When discussing scooter-style e-bike is a form of new mobility, we asked our participants sustainable mobility. As for e-scooters, 5.1 Results if they were aware of any new mobility 75% felt they represent sustainable considerations in their transportation 5.1.1 Comparing mobility. In total, approximately 40 participants The next part of the questionnaire asked bicycle lanes (66%). Fewer participants planning documents. Of the 77% that micromobility modes completed the survey; 58% identi ied as Active Travel: 92% of respondents participants to rank the types of supported scooter-style e-bikes for were aware of their current a municipal representative and 42% indicated that a bicycle-style e-bike is a infrastructure where they felt e-bikes multi-use paths on the boulevard of a transportation policy, 50% had some To better understand the perception of identi ied as a stakeholder - including form of active travel. The scooter-style and e-scooters should be permitted. For roadway or on o f-road trails in parks or form new mobility policy, and 50% did di ferent types of micromobility by business analysts, advocates, student e-bike and e-scooter had mixed each mode, participants could choose green spaces (both at 15%). not. Moreover, only 31% of the policies policy makers and key stakeholders, we researchers and citizens. Participants reactions when asked if they could be any of the following infrastructure Interestingly, 0% of the participants felt considered e-bikes, and another 16% showed our participants three modes of were from municipalities across Canada. considered active modes of types: multi-use paths on the boulevard they should be allowed on sidewalks. considered both e-bikes and e-scooters. micromobility and asked them if they Primarily, respondents were from perceived each mode as sustainable transportation, unlike sustainable of a roadway, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, In comparison, 47% considered E-scooters were more likely to be jurisdictions within the Greater Golden transportation or active travel, and the mobility, where each mode was more the road in mixed tra ic, and o f-road bikeshare. preferred on o f-road infrastructure or Horseshoe (GGH). types of transportation infrastructure likely to be perceived as sustainable than trails in parks and green spaces. Just as on-road bike lanes rather than in mixed where they should be permitted. A not. For the scooter-style e-bike, over each type had a mixed reaction to their tra ic, with 81% of respondents seeing bicycle-style e-bike, scooter-style e-bike, 78% of participants felt it was not a sustainability and activity, each them as suitable for multi-use paths on and e-scooter were compared. Photos of form of active travel. As for the micromobility type also had a unique the boulevard of a roadway, and 62% each type were shown to ensure clarity e-scooter, reactions were split: 54% felt array of responses regarding where they perceiving them as suitable for o f-road between the types. that an e-scooter is an active form of should be permitted. trails in parks or green spaces. Also, 57% Questions that referred to the travel, whereas 46% did not. Overall, most of the participants were in favour of bicycle lanes. Of all the supported permitting bicycle-style types, e-scooters received the highest e-bikes on bicycle lanes (96%), multi-use approval to be on the sidewalk, with 19% Figure 7 paths on the boulevard of a roadway of respondents seeing them as suitable. (82%), the road in mixed tra ic (75%), Only 12% felt they should be allowed on and on o f-road trails in parks and green the road in mixed tra ic. spaces (68%). The only non-preferred We also asked participants if they had infrastructure type was sidewalk (11%). ever received speed-related complaints For scooter-style e-bikes, most - a common concern with micromobility - participants felt they were best suited for any of the types above. We found BICYCLE-STYLE E-BIKE SCOOTER/MOPED-STYLE E-BIKE E-SCOOTER on the road in mixed tra ic (93%) or in that although some participants

33 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility

AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE Given the current landscape of The purpose of this survey was to legislation and perceptions surrounding engage with practitioners about how DISAGREE micromobility in Canada, we engaged micromobility is changing in their SUSTAINABLE? 96% 86% 75% with stakeholders and municipal communities, focusing on sustainable ACTIVE? 92% 22% 54% representatives as part of this research and new mobility perspectives. to understand how this landscape is Approximately 71% of respondents SIDEWALKS? 11% 0% 19% impacting key regulators and advocates indicated that they had observed a shift BIKE LANES? 96% 66% 57% in Ontario. The comprehensive survey towards sustainable mobility in their contained over 50 questions regarding community. However, we received a MULTI-USE PATHS? 82% 15% 81% sustainable mobility, new mobility, range of justi ications as to why this OFF-ROAD TRAILS? 68% 15% 62% e-bikes, e-scooters and existing e-bike shift is occurring. ON-ROAD? 75% 93% 12% and e-scooter legislation. The survey was Environmental awareness and di ferent primarily distributed via Share the Road SPEED CONCERNS? 14% 60% 14% mobility options were the most common scooter-style e-bike used “moped-style Cycling Coalition to the Association of rationale, while others felt that the cost e-bike” to reduce potential mix-up with Municipal Administrators from February of car ownership, the preferences of the the e-scooters (Table 7). Rate of acceptance of micromobility modes Acceptance 21st, 2019 to March 18th, 2019. We also younger generation, tra ic, better 80 shared the survey via WSP Canada’s Sustainable Mobility: 96% of cycling infrastructure, and resident 60 LinkedIn pro ile and on Twitter by WSP respondents felt that a bicycle-style demand for sustainability were also key 40 employees. e-bike is a form of sustainable mobility. factors in a fecting a larger shift to In comparison, 86% felt that a 20 sustainable mobility. When discussing scooter-style e-bike is a form of 0 BSEB SSEB E-Scooter new mobility, we asked our participants sustainable mobility. As for e-scooters, 5.1 Results if they were aware of any new mobility 75% felt they represent sustainable considerations in their transportation 5.1.1 Comparing mobility. In total, approximately 40 participants The next part of the questionnaire asked bicycle lanes (66%). Fewer participants planning documents. Of the 77% that micromobility modes completed the survey; 58% identi ied as Active Travel: 92% of respondents participants to rank the types of supported scooter-style e-bikes for were aware of their current a municipal representative and 42% indicated that a bicycle-style e-bike is a infrastructure where they felt e-bikes multi-use paths on the boulevard of a transportation policy, 50% had some To better understand the perception of identi ied as a stakeholder - including form of active travel. The scooter-style and e-scooters should be permitted. For roadway or on o f-road trails in parks or form new mobility policy, and 50% did di ferent types of micromobility by business analysts, advocates, student e-bike and e-scooter had mixed each mode, participants could choose green spaces (both at 15%). not. Moreover, only 31% of the policies policy makers and key stakeholders, we researchers and citizens. Participants reactions when asked if they could be any of the following infrastructure Interestingly, 0% of the participants felt considered e-bikes, and another 16% showed our participants three modes of were from municipalities across Canada. considered active modes of types: multi-use paths on the boulevard they should be allowed on sidewalks. considered both e-bikes and e-scooters. micromobility and asked them if they Primarily, respondents were from perceived each mode as sustainable transportation, unlike sustainable of a roadway, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, In comparison, 47% considered E-scooters were more likely to be jurisdictions within the Greater Golden transportation or active travel, and the mobility, where each mode was more the road in mixed tra ic, and o f-road bikeshare. preferred on o f-road infrastructure or Horseshoe (GGH). types of transportation infrastructure likely to be perceived as sustainable than trails in parks and green spaces. Just as on-road bike lanes rather than in mixed where they should be permitted. A not. For the scooter-style e-bike, over each type had a mixed reaction to their tra ic, with 81% of respondents seeing bicycle-style e-bike, scooter-style e-bike, 78% of participants felt it was not a sustainability and activity, each them as suitable for multi-use paths on and e-scooter were compared. Photos of form of active travel. As for the micromobility type also had a unique the boulevard of a roadway, and 62% each type were shown to ensure clarity e-scooter, reactions were split: 54% felt array of responses regarding where they perceiving them as suitable for o f-road between the types. that an e-scooter is an active form of should be permitted. trails in parks or green spaces. Also, 57% Questions that referred to the travel, whereas 46% did not. Overall, most of the participants were in favour of bicycle lanes. Of all the supported permitting bicycle-style types, e-scooters received the highest e-bikes on bicycle lanes (96%), multi-use approval to be on the sidewalk, with 19% paths on the boulevard of a roadway of respondents seeing them as suitable. (82%), the road in mixed tra ic (75%), Only 12% felt they should be allowed on and on o f-road trails in parks and green the road in mixed tra ic. spaces (68%). The only non-preferred We also asked participants if they had infrastructure type was sidewalk (11%). ever received speed-related complaints For scooter-style e-bikes, most - a common concern with micromobility - participants felt they were best suited for any of the types above. We found on the road in mixed tra ic (93%) or in that although some participants

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 34

received complaints regarding the bikes via a mobile GPS, and hybrid Despite these additional challenges, no the di ferences between BSEB and bicycle-style e-bikes and e-scooters systems are accessed via a mobile GPS participant directly opposed e-bikeshare SSEB models. (both 14%), most respondents but are picked up and returned to in their community. Speci ically, 40% of For those who did have some municipal experienced complaints regarding designated areas. According to our participants somewhat supported by-laws for BSEB or SSEB models, the scooter-style e-bikes (60%). indings, docked are still the most e-bikeshare in their community, while majority indicated that SSEB models common bikeshare model (24%), but another 28% strongly supported. The were prohibited from multi-use trails, dockless and hybrid are quickly remaining 32% had no opinion. whereas BSEB models were permitted. becoming more common (both 16%). In comparison to e-bikeshare, e-scooter For e-bikeshare, participants noted share had a predominantly neutral or 5.1.4 Users and uses of external concerns that are not negative reaction. Only 32% somewhat associated with traditional bikeshare. e-bikes supported, 32% had no opinion and 24% good start and allowed municipal Since riders can travel further on did not support. Also, the participants governments to clarify de initions The inal section of the survey asked e-bikes than traditional bicycles, many noted that there were multiple unique further. participants their opinions on the use participants responded to the increased challenges and opportunities associated However, only 14% of participants and users of both e-bikes and with implementing an e-scooter share indicated that their jurisdiction had e-scooters. We classi ied the potential system. Firstly, practitioners perceived users to be Children (<16), Students e-scooter share as more recreational (16-22), Adults (23-54), and Older Adults Table 7 graphically displays the than utilitarian, which reduces its (>55). For e-bikes, most participants felt responses on a coloured scale47 to show e fectiveness as a transportation mode. they would be utilized by almost all of the relationship of the responses to each Others cited public opposition as a the demographics (older adults, adults mode - with red being disagree and challenge, as well as “scooter-littering” and students), with a high focus on green being agree. - when scooters are discarded along adults (90%) and students (90%). For the sidewalks and in the public realm. e-scooters, fewer participants felt they 5.1.2 Micromobility and However, the largest barrier was the would be suitable for older adults (18%), shared mobility general lack of knowledge on how to and the majority once again saw the regulate the new technology; many felt most potential for adults and students. Understanding how micromobility there wasn’t enough supportive An interesting shift occurred when we interacts and overlaps with shared infrastructure, while others felt that mobility was another objective of the there was little regulation for e-scooter survey. We found that 48% of the companies that operate the programs jurisdictions surveyed have either and the users. implemented or are planning to adopted a municipal regulation that implement a bikeshare program. For the further regulates e-bike operations. The most part, the increased cycling culture 5.1.3 Opinions on existing clear majority, 86%, either did not have was the greatest bene it. Also, both legislation additional regulation or were unsure. irst-last mile travel and transit Many jurisdictions also did not further The next portion of the survey asked clarify any operational di ferences integration were nearly equally as asked participants to comment on the participants to review select excerpts between the scooter-style e-bike and important, along with tourism types of trips they foresaw e-bike riders from the Ontario e-bike regulation and bicycle-style e-bikes. Of the 73% of promotion, reduced car dependency, and taking. Although there had previously provide commentary. Opinions on the participants that were aware of their a fordability. In terms of challenges, the been a divide between the perception of adequacy of existing regulation were e-bike regulation, 55% did not believe most commonly observed barrier was e-bikes and e-scooters, generally both di icult to identify, the slight majority that their existing regulations clari ied the lack of cycling culture or low demand modes were perceived as suitable for all either agreed or had no opinion (54%), for bikeshare. Other participants also types of trips - including getting to while 18% disagreed, 14% strongly indicated the implementation and liability issues that could arise. Others work/school, getting to transit stations, disagreed, and 14% strongly agreed. maintenance costs as the other most commented on the public opposition to running errands, and recreational travel. Of those who disagreed, some felt the common barriers. e-bikes. The most common barrier, A small deviation was that for speed limit was too high or that the however, was the additional cost and e-scooters, fewer participants felt they Bikeshare is implementable as either regulation should distinguish between maintenance associated with charging were suitable for getting to transit docked, dockless or hybrid. Docked e-bike types. For those who agreed, they the battery. stations or running errands. bikeshare utilizes permanent stations, generally felt that this regulation was a whereas dockless bikeshare accesses Given the current landscape of The purpose of this survey was to legislation and perceptions surrounding engage with practitioners about how micromobility in Canada, we engaged micromobility is changing in their with stakeholders and municipal communities, focusing on sustainable representatives as part of this research and new mobility perspectives. to understand how this landscape is Approximately 71% of respondents impacting key regulators and advocates indicated that they had observed a shift in Ontario. The comprehensive survey towards sustainable mobility in their contained over 50 questions regarding community. However, we received a sustainable mobility, new mobility, range of justi ications as to why this e-bikes, e-scooters and existing e-bike shift is occurring. and e-scooter legislation. The survey was Environmental awareness and di ferent primarily distributed via Share the Road mobility options were the most common scooter-style e-bike used “moped-style Cycling Coalition to the Association of rationale, while others felt that the cost e-bike” to reduce potential mix-up with Municipal Administrators from February of car ownership, the preferences of the the e-scooters (Table 7). 21st, 2019 to March 18th, 2019. We also younger generation, tra ic, better shared the survey via WSP Canada’s Sustainable Mobility: 96% of cycling infrastructure, and resident LinkedIn pro ile and on Twitter by WSP respondents felt that a bicycle-style demand for sustainability were also key e-bike is a form of sustainable mobility. employees. factors in a fecting a larger shift to In comparison, 86% felt that a sustainable mobility. When discussing scooter-style e-bike is a form of new mobility, we asked our participants sustainable mobility. As for e-scooters, 5.1 Results if they were aware of any new mobility 75% felt they represent sustainable considerations in their transportation 5.1.1 Comparing mobility. In total, approximately 40 participants The next part of the questionnaire asked bicycle lanes (66%). Fewer participants planning documents. Of the 77% that micromobility modes completed the survey; 58% identi ied as Active Travel: 92% of respondents participants to rank the types of supported scooter-style e-bikes for were aware of their current a municipal representative and 42% indicated that a bicycle-style e-bike is a infrastructure where they felt e-bikes multi-use paths on the boulevard of a transportation policy, 50% had some To better understand the perception of identi ied as a stakeholder - including form of active travel. The scooter-style and e-scooters should be permitted. For roadway or on o f-road trails in parks or form new mobility policy, and 50% did di ferent types of micromobility by business analysts, advocates, student e-bike and e-scooter had mixed each mode, participants could choose green spaces (both at 15%). not. Moreover, only 31% of the policies policy makers and key stakeholders, we researchers and citizens. Participants reactions when asked if they could be any of the following infrastructure Interestingly, 0% of the participants felt considered e-bikes, and another 16% showed our participants three modes of were from municipalities across Canada. considered active modes of types: multi-use paths on the boulevard they should be allowed on sidewalks. considered both e-bikes and e-scooters. micromobility and asked them if they Primarily, respondents were from perceived each mode as sustainable transportation, unlike sustainable of a roadway, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, In comparison, 47% considered E-scooters were more likely to be jurisdictions within the Greater Golden transportation or active travel, and the mobility, where each mode was more the road in mixed tra ic, and o f-road bikeshare. preferred on o f-road infrastructure or Horseshoe (GGH). types of transportation infrastructure likely to be perceived as sustainable than trails in parks and green spaces. Just as on-road bike lanes rather than in mixed where they should be permitted. A not. For the scooter-style e-bike, over each type had a mixed reaction to their tra ic, with 81% of respondents seeing bicycle-style e-bike, scooter-style e-bike, 78% of participants felt it was not a sustainability and activity, each them as suitable for multi-use paths on and e-scooter were compared. Photos of form of active travel. As for the micromobility type also had a unique the boulevard of a roadway, and 62% each type were shown to ensure clarity e-scooter, reactions were split: 54% felt array of responses regarding where they perceiving them as suitable for o f-road between the types. that an e-scooter is an active form of should be permitted. trails in parks or green spaces. Also, 57% Questions that referred to the travel, whereas 46% did not. Overall, most of the participants were in favour of bicycle lanes. Of all the supported permitting bicycle-style types, e-scooters received the highest e-bikes on bicycle lanes (96%), multi-use approval to be on the sidewalk, with 19% paths on the boulevard of a roadway of respondents seeing them as suitable. (82%), the road in mixed tra ic (75%), Only 12% felt they should be allowed on and on o f-road trails in parks and green the road in mixed tra ic. spaces (68%). The only non-preferred We also asked participants if they had infrastructure type was sidewalk (11%). ever received speed-related complaints For scooter-style e-bikes, most - a common concern with micromobility - participants felt they were best suited for any of the types above. We found on the road in mixed tra ic (93%) or in that although some participants

35 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility Given the current landscape of The purpose of this survey was to legislation and perceptions surrounding engage with practitioners about how micromobility in Canada, we engaged micromobility is changing in their with stakeholders and municipal communities, focusing on sustainable representatives as part of this research and new mobility perspectives. to understand how this landscape is Approximately 71% of respondents impacting key regulators and advocates indicated that they had observed a shift in Ontario. The comprehensive survey towards sustainable mobility in their contained over 50 questions regarding community. However, we received a sustainable mobility, new mobility, range of justi ications as to why this e-bikes, e-scooters and existing e-bike shift is occurring. and e-scooter legislation. The survey was Environmental awareness and di ferent primarily distributed via Share the Road mobility options were the most common scooter-style e-bike used “moped-style Cycling Coalition to the Association of rationale, while others felt that the cost e-bike” to reduce potential mix-up with Municipal Administrators from February of car ownership, the preferences of the the e-scooters (Table 7). 21st, 2019 to March 18th, 2019. We also younger generation, tra ic, better shared the survey via WSP Canada’s Sustainable Mobility: 96% of cycling infrastructure, and resident LinkedIn pro ile and on Twitter by WSP respondents felt that a bicycle-style demand for sustainability were also key employees. e-bike is a form of sustainable mobility. factors in a fecting a larger shift to In comparison, 86% felt that a sustainable mobility. When discussing scooter-style e-bike is a form of new mobility, we asked our participants sustainable mobility. As for e-scooters, 5.1 Results if they were aware of any new mobility 75% felt they represent sustainable considerations in their transportation 5.1.1 Comparing mobility. In total, approximately 40 participants The next part of the questionnaire asked bicycle lanes (66%). Fewer participants planning documents. Of the 77% that micromobility modes completed the survey; 58% identi ied as Active Travel: 92% of respondents participants to rank the types of supported scooter-style e-bikes for were aware of their current a municipal representative and 42% indicated that a bicycle-style e-bike is a infrastructure where they felt e-bikes multi-use paths on the boulevard of a transportation policy, 50% had some To better understand the perception of identi ied as a stakeholder - including form of active travel. The scooter-style and e-scooters should be permitted. For roadway or on o f-road trails in parks or form new mobility policy, and 50% did di ferent types of micromobility by business analysts, advocates, student e-bike and e-scooter had mixed each mode, participants could choose green spaces (both at 15%). not. Moreover, only 31% of the policies policy makers and key stakeholders, we researchers and citizens. Participants reactions when asked if they could be any of the following infrastructure Interestingly, 0% of the participants felt considered e-bikes, and another 16% showed our participants three modes of were from municipalities across Canada. considered active modes of types: multi-use paths on the boulevard they should be allowed on sidewalks. considered both e-bikes and e-scooters. micromobility and asked them if they Primarily, respondents were from perceived each mode as sustainable transportation, unlike sustainable of a roadway, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, In comparison, 47% considered E-scooters were more likely to be jurisdictions within the Greater Golden transportation or active travel, and the mobility, where each mode was more the road in mixed tra ic, and o f-road bikeshare. preferred on o f-road infrastructure or Horseshoe (GGH). types of transportation infrastructure likely to be perceived as sustainable than trails in parks and green spaces. Just as on-road bike lanes rather than in mixed where they should be permitted. A not. For the scooter-style e-bike, over each type had a mixed reaction to their tra ic, with 81% of respondents seeing bicycle-style e-bike, scooter-style e-bike, 78% of participants felt it was not a sustainability and activity, each them as suitable for multi-use paths on and e-scooter were compared. Photos of form of active travel. As for the micromobility type also had a unique the boulevard of a roadway, and 62% each type were shown to ensure clarity e-scooter, reactions were split: 54% felt array of responses regarding where they perceiving them as suitable for o f-road between the types. that an e-scooter is an active form of should be permitted. trails in parks or green spaces. Also, 57% Questions that referred to the travel, whereas 46% did not. Overall, most of the participants were in favour of bicycle lanes. Of all the supported permitting bicycle-style types, e-scooters received the highest e-bikes on bicycle lanes (96%), multi-use approval to be on the sidewalk, with 19% paths on the boulevard of a roadway of respondents seeing them as suitable. (82%), the road in mixed tra ic (75%), Only 12% felt they should be allowed on and on o f-road trails in parks and green the road in mixed tra ic. spaces (68%). The only non-preferred We also asked participants if they had infrastructure type was sidewalk (11%). ever received speed-related complaints For scooter-style e-bikes, most - a common concern with micromobility - participants felt they were best suited for any of the types above. We found on the road in mixed tra ic (93%) or in that although some participants

received complaints regarding the bikes via a mobile GPS, and hybrid Despite these additional challenges, no Do you agree with how e-bikes are currently regulated the di ferences between BSEB and with the existing provincial legislation for power-assisted bicycle-style e-bikes and e-scooters systems are accessed via a mobile GPS participant directly opposed e-bikeshare bicycles? SSEB models. (both 14%), most respondents but are picked up and returned to in their community. Speci ically, 40% of For those who did have some municipal Strongly Agree experienced complaints regarding designated areas. According to our participants somewhat supported by-laws for BSEB or SSEB models, the Agree scooter-style e-bikes (60%). indings, docked are still the most e-bikeshare in their community, while majority indicated that SSEB models Neutral/No Opinion common bikeshare model (24%), but another 28% strongly supported. The were prohibited from multi-use trails, Disagree dockless and hybrid are quickly remaining 32% had no opinion. whereas BSEB models were permitted. becoming more common (both 16%). Strongly Disagree In comparison to e-bikeshare, e-scooter For e-bikeshare, participants noted 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% share had a predominantly neutral or 5.1.4 Users and uses of external concerns that are not negative reaction. Only 32% somewhat associated with traditional bikeshare. e-bikes supported, 32% had no opinion and 24% good start and allowed municipal Since riders can travel further on did not support. Also, the participants governments to clarify de initions The inal section of the survey asked e-bikes than traditional bicycles, many noted that there were multiple unique further. participants their opinions on the use participants responded to the increased challenges and opportunities associated However, only 14% of participants and users of both e-bikes and

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 36 Given the current landscape of The purpose of this survey was to legislation and perceptions surrounding engage with practitioners about how micromobility in Canada, we engaged micromobility is changing in their with stakeholders and municipal communities, focusing on sustainable representatives as part of this research and new mobility perspectives. to understand how this landscape is Approximately 71% of respondents impacting key regulators and advocates indicated that they had observed a shift in Ontario. The comprehensive survey towards sustainable mobility in their contained over 50 questions regarding community. However, we received a sustainable mobility, new mobility, range of justi ications as to why this e-bikes, e-scooters and existing e-bike shift is occurring. and e-scooter legislation. The survey was Environmental awareness and di ferent primarily distributed via Share the Road mobility options were the most common scooter-style e-bike used “moped-style Cycling Coalition to the Association of rationale, while others felt that the cost e-bike” to reduce potential mix-up with Municipal Administrators from February of car ownership, the preferences of the the e-scooters (Table 7). 21st, 2019 to March 18th, 2019. We also younger generation, tra ic, better shared the survey via WSP Canada’s Sustainable Mobility: 96% of cycling infrastructure, and resident LinkedIn pro ile and on Twitter by WSP respondents felt that a bicycle-style demand for sustainability were also key employees. e-bike is a form of sustainable mobility. factors in a fecting a larger shift to In comparison, 86% felt that a sustainable mobility. When discussing scooter-style e-bike is a form of new mobility, we asked our participants sustainable mobility. As for e-scooters, 5.1 Results if they were aware of any new mobility 75% felt they represent sustainable considerations in their transportation 5.1.1 Comparing mobility. In total, approximately 40 participants The next part of the questionnaire asked bicycle lanes (66%). Fewer participants planning documents. Of the 77% that micromobility modes completed the survey; 58% identi ied as Active Travel: 92% of respondents participants to rank the types of supported scooter-style e-bikes for were aware of their current a municipal representative and 42% indicated that a bicycle-style e-bike is a infrastructure where they felt e-bikes multi-use paths on the boulevard of a transportation policy, 50% had some To better understand the perception of identi ied as a stakeholder - including form of active travel. The scooter-style and e-scooters should be permitted. For roadway or on o f-road trails in parks or form new mobility policy, and 50% did di ferent types of micromobility by business analysts, advocates, student e-bike and e-scooter had mixed each mode, participants could choose green spaces (both at 15%). not. Moreover, only 31% of the policies policy makers and key stakeholders, we researchers and citizens. Participants reactions when asked if they could be any of the following infrastructure Interestingly, 0% of the participants felt considered e-bikes, and another 16% showed our participants three modes of were from municipalities across Canada. considered active modes of types: multi-use paths on the boulevard they should be allowed on sidewalks. considered both e-bikes and e-scooters. micromobility and asked them if they Primarily, respondents were from perceived each mode as sustainable transportation, unlike sustainable of a roadway, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, In comparison, 47% considered E-scooters were more likely to be jurisdictions within the Greater Golden transportation or active travel, and the mobility, where each mode was more the road in mixed tra ic, and o f-road bikeshare. preferred on o f-road infrastructure or Horseshoe (GGH). types of transportation infrastructure likely to be perceived as sustainable than trails in parks and green spaces. Just as on-road bike lanes rather than in mixed where they should be permitted. A not. For the scooter-style e-bike, over each type had a mixed reaction to their tra ic, with 81% of respondents seeing bicycle-style e-bike, scooter-style e-bike, 78% of participants felt it was not a sustainability and activity, each them as suitable for multi-use paths on and e-scooter were compared. Photos of form of active travel. As for the micromobility type also had a unique the boulevard of a roadway, and 62% each type were shown to ensure clarity e-scooter, reactions were split: 54% felt array of responses regarding where they perceiving them as suitable for o f-road between the types. that an e-scooter is an active form of should be permitted. trails in parks or green spaces. Also, 57% Questions that referred to the travel, whereas 46% did not. Overall, most of the participants were in favour of bicycle lanes. Of all the supported permitting bicycle-style types, e-scooters received the highest e-bikes on bicycle lanes (96%), multi-use approval to be on the sidewalk, with 19% paths on the boulevard of a roadway of respondents seeing them as suitable. (82%), the road in mixed tra ic (75%), Only 12% felt they should be allowed on and on o f-road trails in parks and green the road in mixed tra ic. spaces (68%). The only non-preferred We also asked participants if they had infrastructure type was sidewalk (11%). ever received speed-related complaints For scooter-style e-bikes, most - a common concern with micromobility - participants felt they were best suited for any of the types above. We found on the road in mixed tra ic (93%) or in that although some participants

received complaints regarding the bikes via a mobile GPS, and hybrid Despite these additional challenges, no the di ferences between BSEB and How do you foresee people using e-bikes? Overall, the view of e-bikes and bicycle-style e-bikes and e-scooters systems are accessed via a mobile GPS participant directly opposed e-bikeshare SSEB models. micromobility by those who responded To get to work/school (both 14%), most respondents but are picked up and returned to in their community. Speci ically, 40% of For those who did have some municipal to the survey was positive, but more To get to transit experienced complaints regarding designated areas. According to our participants somewhat supported by-laws for BSEB or SSEB models, the guidance is needed to ensure their To run errands scooter-style e-bikes (60%). indings, docked are still the most e-bikeshare in their community, while majority indicated that SSEB models implementation is thoughtful and Recreational travel common bikeshare model (24%), but another 28% strongly supported. The were prohibited from multi-use trails, functional. Many of the participants dockless and hybrid are quickly remaining 32% had no opinion. whereas BSEB models were permitted. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% noted that the lack of understanding becoming more common (both 16%). and knowledge regarding micromobility In comparison to e-bikeshare, e-scooter For e-bikeshare, participants noted How do you foresee people using e-scooters? has led to di iculty in both regulation share had a predominantly neutral or 5.1.4 Users and uses of external concerns that are not and operation. One of our survey negative reaction. Only 32% somewhat To get to work/school associated with traditional bikeshare. e-bikes questions asked participants to choose supported, 32% had no opinion and 24% good start and allowed municipal To get to transit Since riders can travel further on which barriers were preventing e-bike did not support. Also, the participants governments to clarify de initions The inal section of the survey asked To run errands e-bikes than traditional bicycles, many uptake. The barriers cited included lack noted that there were multiple unique further. participants their opinions on the use Recreational travel participants responded to the increased of supporting infrastructure, lack of challenges and opportunities associated However, only 14% of participants and users of both e-bikes and 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% knowledge and lack of policy/legislation. with implementing an e-scooter share indicated that their jurisdiction had e-scooters. We classi ied the potential This speaks to the complicated system. Firstly, practitioners perceived users to be Children (<16), Students landscape of e-bikes and micromobility. e-scooter share as more recreational (16-22), Adults (23-54), and Older Adults Table 7 graphically displays the 5.2 Discussion Just as the background review and than utilitarian, which reduces its (>55). For e-bikes, most participants felt responses on a coloured scale47 to show legislative landscape show, there is not e fectiveness as a transportation mode. they would be utilized by almost all of The results of this survey speak to many the relationship of the responses to each one solution to integrating e-bikes and Others cited public opposition as a the demographics (older adults, adults of the previously mentioned trends mode - with red being disagree and micromobility into our transportation challenge, as well as “scooter-littering” and students), with a high focus on regarding micromobility and e-bikes. green being agree. Given the mixed reactions to the networks because there is not one issue - when scooters are discarded along adults (90%) and students (90%). For multiple micromobility modes, it is at play. When moving forward in the the sidewalks and in the public realm. e-scooters, fewer participants felt they evident that the existing perceptions of approach towards micromobility, we will 5.1.2 Micromobility and However, the largest barrier was the would be suitable for older adults (18%), and the majority once again saw the bicycle-style e-bikes, scooter-style need to identify and respond to each of shared mobility general lack of knowledge on how to e-bikes and e-scooters vary greatly. most potential for adults and students. the challenges and opportunities regulate the new technology; many felt Particularly, the di ference in perception Understanding how micromobility An interesting shift occurred when we holistically. there wasn’t enough supportive between SSEB and BSEB highlights interacts and overlaps with shared infrastructure, while others felt that their varied functionality and mirrors mobility was another objective of the 10,46 there was little regulation for e-scooter DEMOGRAPHIC E-BIKES E-SCOOTERS the results of previous studies where survey. We found that 48% of the companies that operate the programs Children (<16) n/a - Minimum age 16 45% participants perceived BSEB as a jurisdictions surveyed have either and the users. separate mode than SSEB. Despite this, adopted a municipal regulation that Students (16-22) 90% 87% implemented or are planning to very few municipalities captured within further regulates e-bike operations. The implement a bikeshare program. For the Adults (23-54) 90% 87% this survey have opted to introduce clear majority, 86%, either did not have most part, the increased cycling culture 5.1.3 Opinions on existing Older Adults (>55) 68% 18% further regulations on speed or additional regulation or were unsure. was the greatest bene it. Also, both legislation AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE DISAGREE permissions between BSEBs and SSEBs. irst-last mile travel and transit Many jurisdictions also did not further This means that despite their polarizing The next portion of the survey asked clarify any operational di ferences integration were nearly equally as asked participants to comment on the perceptions, they are still regulated participants to review select excerpts between the scooter-style e-bike and important, along with tourism types of trips they foresaw e-bike riders interchangeably in many Ontario from the Ontario e-bike regulation and bicycle-style e-bikes. Of the 73% of promotion, reduced car dependency, and taking. Although there had previously jurisdictions, relying on existing federal provide commentary. Opinions on the participants that were aware of their and provincial laws without additional a fordability. In terms of challenges, the been a divide between the perception of adequacy of existing regulation were e-bike regulation, 55% did not believe clarity at the local level. most commonly observed barrier was e-bikes and e-scooters, generally both di icult to identify, the slight majority that their existing regulations clari ied the lack of cycling culture or low demand modes were perceived as suitable for all Another key inding from this survey either agreed or had no opinion (54%), for bikeshare. Other participants also types of trips - including getting to was the di ference in support between while 18% disagreed, 14% strongly indicated the implementation and liability issues that could arise. Others work/school, getting to transit stations, e-bikes and e-scooters. Although e-bikes disagreed, and 14% strongly agreed. maintenance costs as the other most commented on the public opposition to running errands, and recreational travel. did not receive unanimous support, they Of those who disagreed, some felt the common barriers. e-bikes. The most common barrier, A small deviation was that for were generally more supported than speed limit was too high or that the however, was the additional cost and e-scooters, fewer participants felt they e-scooters, and were perceived to have Bikeshare is implementable as either regulation should distinguish between maintenance associated with charging were suitable for getting to transit less unique challenges to adoption - docked, dockless or hybrid. Docked e-bike types. For those who agreed, they the battery. stations or running errands. both individually and through shared bikeshare utilizes permanent stations, generally felt that this regulation was a mobility. whereas dockless bikeshare accesses

37 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility Given the current landscape of The purpose of this survey was to legislation and perceptions surrounding engage with practitioners about how micromobility in Canada, we engaged micromobility is changing in their with stakeholders and municipal communities, focusing on sustainable representatives as part of this research and new mobility perspectives. to understand how this landscape is Approximately 71% of respondents impacting key regulators and advocates indicated that they had observed a shift in Ontario. The comprehensive survey towards sustainable mobility in their contained over 50 questions regarding community. However, we received a sustainable mobility, new mobility, range of justi ications as to why this e-bikes, e-scooters and existing e-bike shift is occurring. and e-scooter legislation. The survey was Environmental awareness and di ferent primarily distributed via Share the Road mobility options were the most common scooter-style e-bike used “moped-style Cycling Coalition to the Association of rationale, while others felt that the cost e-bike” to reduce potential mix-up with Municipal Administrators from February of car ownership, the preferences of the the e-scooters (Table 7). 21st, 2019 to March 18th, 2019. We also younger generation, tra ic, better shared the survey via WSP Canada’s Sustainable Mobility: 96% of cycling infrastructure, and resident LinkedIn pro ile and on Twitter by WSP respondents felt that a bicycle-style demand for sustainability were also key employees. e-bike is a form of sustainable mobility. factors in a fecting a larger shift to In comparison, 86% felt that a sustainable mobility. When discussing scooter-style e-bike is a form of new mobility, we asked our participants sustainable mobility. As for e-scooters, 5.1 Results if they were aware of any new mobility 75% felt they represent sustainable considerations in their transportation 5.1.1 Comparing mobility. In total, approximately 40 participants The next part of the questionnaire asked bicycle lanes (66%). Fewer participants planning documents. Of the 77% that micromobility modes completed the survey; 58% identi ied as Active Travel: 92% of respondents participants to rank the types of supported scooter-style e-bikes for were aware of their current a municipal representative and 42% indicated that a bicycle-style e-bike is a infrastructure where they felt e-bikes multi-use paths on the boulevard of a transportation policy, 50% had some To better understand the perception of identi ied as a stakeholder - including form of active travel. The scooter-style and e-scooters should be permitted. For roadway or on o f-road trails in parks or form new mobility policy, and 50% did di ferent types of micromobility by business analysts, advocates, student e-bike and e-scooter had mixed each mode, participants could choose green spaces (both at 15%). not. Moreover, only 31% of the policies policy makers and key stakeholders, we researchers and citizens. Participants reactions when asked if they could be any of the following infrastructure Interestingly, 0% of the participants felt considered e-bikes, and another 16% showed our participants three modes of were from municipalities across Canada. considered active modes of types: multi-use paths on the boulevard they should be allowed on sidewalks. considered both e-bikes and e-scooters. micromobility and asked them if they Primarily, respondents were from perceived each mode as sustainable transportation, unlike sustainable of a roadway, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, In comparison, 47% considered E-scooters were more likely to be jurisdictions within the Greater Golden transportation or active travel, and the mobility, where each mode was more the road in mixed tra ic, and o f-road bikeshare. preferred on o f-road infrastructure or Horseshoe (GGH). types of transportation infrastructure likely to be perceived as sustainable than trails in parks and green spaces. Just as on-road bike lanes rather than in mixed where they should be permitted. A not. For the scooter-style e-bike, over each type had a mixed reaction to their tra ic, with 81% of respondents seeing bicycle-style e-bike, scooter-style e-bike, 78% of participants felt it was not a sustainability and activity, each them as suitable for multi-use paths on and e-scooter were compared. Photos of form of active travel. As for the micromobility type also had a unique the boulevard of a roadway, and 62% each type were shown to ensure clarity e-scooter, reactions were split: 54% felt array of responses regarding where they perceiving them as suitable for o f-road between the types. that an e-scooter is an active form of should be permitted. trails in parks or green spaces. Also, 57% Questions that referred to the travel, whereas 46% did not. Overall, most of the participants were in favour of bicycle lanes. Of all the supported permitting bicycle-style types, e-scooters received the highest e-bikes on bicycle lanes (96%), multi-use approval to be on the sidewalk, with 19% paths on the boulevard of a roadway of respondents seeing them as suitable. (82%), the road in mixed tra ic (75%), Only 12% felt they should be allowed on and on o f-road trails in parks and green the road in mixed tra ic. spaces (68%). The only non-preferred We also asked participants if they had infrastructure type was sidewalk (11%). ever received speed-related complaints For scooter-style e-bikes, most - a common concern with micromobility - participants felt they were best suited for any of the types above. We found on the road in mixed tra ic (93%) or in that although some participants

received complaints regarding the bikes via a mobile GPS, and hybrid Despite these additional challenges, no the di ferences between BSEB and Overall, the view of e-bikes and bicycle-style e-bikes and e-scooters systems are accessed via a mobile GPS participant directly opposed e-bikeshare SSEB models. micromobility by those who responded (both 14%), most respondents but are picked up and returned to in their community. Speci ically, 40% of For those who did have some municipal to the survey was positive, but more experienced complaints regarding designated areas. According to our participants somewhat supported by-laws for BSEB or SSEB models, the guidance is needed to ensure their scooter-style e-bikes (60%). indings, docked are still the most e-bikeshare in their community, while majority indicated that SSEB models implementation is thoughtful and common bikeshare model (24%), but another 28% strongly supported. The were prohibited from multi-use trails, functional. Many of the participants dockless and hybrid are quickly remaining 32% had no opinion. whereas BSEB models were permitted. noted that the lack of understanding becoming more common (both 16%). and knowledge regarding micromobility In comparison to e-bikeshare, e-scooter For e-bikeshare, participants noted has led to di iculty in both regulation share had a predominantly neutral or 5.1.4 Users and uses of external concerns that are not and operation. One of our survey negative reaction. Only 32% somewhat associated with traditional bikeshare. e-bikes questions asked participants to choose supported, 32% had no opinion and 24% good start and allowed municipal Since riders can travel further on which barriers were preventing e-bike did not support. Also, the participants governments to clarify de initions The inal section of the survey asked e-bikes than traditional bicycles, many uptake. The barriers cited included lack noted that there were multiple unique further. participants their opinions on the use participants responded to the increased of supporting infrastructure, lack of challenges and opportunities associated However, only 14% of participants and users of both e-bikes and knowledge and lack of policy/legislation. with implementing an e-scooter share indicated that their jurisdiction had e-scooters. We classi ied the potential This speaks to the complicated system. Firstly, practitioners perceived users to be Children (<16), Students landscape of e-bikes and micromobility. e-scooter share as more recreational (16-22), Adults (23-54), and Older Adults Table 7 graphically displays the 5.2 Discussion Just as the background review and than utilitarian, which reduces its (>55). For e-bikes, most participants felt responses on a coloured scale47 to show legislative landscape show, there is not e fectiveness as a transportation mode. they would be utilized by almost all of The results of this survey speak to many the relationship of the responses to each one solution to integrating e-bikes and Others cited public opposition as a the demographics (older adults, adults of the previously mentioned trends mode - with red being disagree and micromobility into our transportation challenge, as well as “scooter-littering” and students), with a high focus on regarding micromobility and e-bikes. green being agree. Given the mixed reactions to the networks because there is not one issue - when scooters are discarded along adults (90%) and students (90%). For multiple micromobility modes, it is at play. When moving forward in the the sidewalks and in the public realm. e-scooters, fewer participants felt they evident that the existing perceptions of approach towards micromobility, we will 5.1.2 Micromobility and However, the largest barrier was the would be suitable for older adults (18%), and the majority once again saw the bicycle-style e-bikes, scooter-style need to identify and respond to each of shared mobility general lack of knowledge on how to e-bikes and e-scooters vary greatly. most potential for adults and students. the challenges and opportunities regulate the new technology; many felt Particularly, the di ference in perception Understanding how micromobility An interesting shift occurred when we holistically. there wasn’t enough supportive between SSEB and BSEB highlights interacts and overlaps with shared infrastructure, while others felt that their varied functionality and mirrors mobility was another objective of the there was little regulation for e-scooter the results of previous studies10,46 where survey. We found that 48% of the companies that operate the programs participants perceived BSEB as a jurisdictions surveyed have either separate mode than SSEB. Despite this, and the users. adopted a municipal regulation that implemented or are planning to very few municipalities captured within further regulates e-bike operations. The implement a bikeshare program. For the this survey have opted to introduce clear majority, 86%, either did not have most part, the increased cycling culture 5.1.3 Opinions on existing further regulations on speed or was the greatest bene it. Also, both legislation additional regulation or were unsure. permissions between BSEBs and SSEBs. irst-last mile travel and transit Many jurisdictions also did not further This means that despite their polarizing The next portion of the survey asked clarify any operational di ferences integration were nearly equally as asked participants to comment on the perceptions, they are still regulated participants to review select excerpts between the scooter-style e-bike and important, along with tourism types of trips they foresaw e-bike riders interchangeably in many Ontario from the Ontario e-bike regulation and bicycle-style e-bikes. Of the 73% of promotion, reduced car dependency, and taking. Although there had previously jurisdictions, relying on existing federal provide commentary. Opinions on the participants that were aware of their and provincial laws without additional a fordability. In terms of challenges, the been a divide between the perception of adequacy of existing regulation were e-bike regulation, 55% did not believe clarity at the local level. most commonly observed barrier was e-bikes and e-scooters, generally both di icult to identify, the slight majority that their existing regulations clari ied the lack of cycling culture or low demand modes were perceived as suitable for all Another key inding from this survey either agreed or had no opinion (54%), for bikeshare. Other participants also types of trips - including getting to was the di ference in support between while 18% disagreed, 14% strongly indicated the implementation and liability issues that could arise. Others work/school, getting to transit stations, e-bikes and e-scooters. Although e-bikes disagreed, and 14% strongly agreed. maintenance costs as the other most commented on the public opposition to running errands, and recreational travel. did not receive unanimous support, they Of those who disagreed, some felt the common barriers. e-bikes. The most common barrier, A small deviation was that for were generally more supported than speed limit was too high or that the however, was the additional cost and e-scooters, fewer participants felt they e-scooters, and were perceived to have Bikeshare is implementable as either regulation should distinguish between maintenance associated with charging were suitable for getting to transit less unique challenges to adoption - docked, dockless or hybrid. Docked e-bike types. For those who agreed, they the battery. stations or running errands. both individually and through shared bikeshare utilizes permanent stations, generally felt that this regulation was a mobility. whereas dockless bikeshare accesses

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 38 The indings of our engagement show In a study from Waterloo, ON, it was irst few months51. In 2018, Paris system. Possibly more well known is the share. Some are pre-existing bikeshare communal convenience, meaning that it that despite the current legislative found that e-biking can help introduce expanded a pilot of their e-bikeshare e-scooter share phenomenon, with companies that have expanded into the generally serves most, yet rarely landscape, the opportunity for unlocking sustainable destination-bound travel to program to become the largest shared electri ied kick scooter systems e-bikeshare, others have emerged perfectly serves any. The distance the true potential of micromobility in our populations who would have otherwise e-bikeshare leet in Europe, with 20,000 popping up across the globe. As speci ically for the e-bikeshare/scooter between a traveller's origin or transportation network is evident. Over not considered their commute to be e-bikes52. North America introduced its previously noted, there are unique share. While there are many e-bikeshare destination point and the transit station 76% of participants felt that e-bikes will bikeable14. However, to generate more irst e-bikeshare in 201253, and as of now opportunities and challenges associated companies globally, the following section is known as the irst and last mile, and have a critical role in the future utilitarian travel trends, there will need multiple cities across Canada and the with integrating micromobility shared focuses on pro iling e-bikeshare can greatly impact travel choice. When transportation network. However, the to be a behavioural shift in the current United States have implemented an mobility as opposed to traditional companies that target the North we plan for micromobility in our future question remains: how can we foster the use-patterns of e-bikes. A survey e-bike sharing system. At the time of bikeshare. More so, when comparing American market. transportation networks, a key focus How can integration in an informed and completed in 2018 by the National publication, Calgary is believed to be the e-bikeshare and e-scooter share, should be on how the di ferent modes responsible manner? Institute for Transportation and only Canadian city that has a full-time e-scooter share faces a set of unique interact to increase their service Communities asked American e-bike e-bikesharing system. challenges. The popularity of e-scooters potential. We introduced the concept of the Jump riders to explain how they utilize their came in a rapid in lux compared to missing middle in the introductory Jump is a recent American start-up that e-bikes. Although the majority of avid or e-bikes. Another key di ference is safety. Micromobility chapter. As mentioned, the missing operates e-bikeshare and traditional experienced cyclists utilized their Madrid Case Study: Where e-bikes are generally similar to middle refers to underrepresented bikeshare, called SoBi. In Canada, SoBi address the missing middle e-bikes for destination-bound trips, bikes in terms of collision-rates, transportation needs and options within Madrid, Spain implemented their irst operates in Hamilton and Ottawa, ON58. timid/less-experienced cyclists tended e-scooter riders have been observed to our existing transportation network. e-bikeshare pilot in 2014, and in 2017 Notably, the company was sold to Uber to use them for leisure/recreation . The have higher rates of collision resulting in of transportation? When we introduce micromobility under announced an expansion that would in April 2018, for approximately $200 di ference between avid and novice injury73. Moreover, “littering”, where the lens of the missing middle, we can allow for 42 new stations and 486 new million59. The purchase by Uber is one of cyclists is an evident gap in the scooters/bikes are left on the side of see the potential in addressing these e-bikes54. The program was a success, the irst steps in the popular rideshare utilization of micromobility and e-bikes. roads and sidewalks, is more common gaps and contributing to a sustainable with a user-base that grew from 1,000 service entering new modal markets. In with e-scooters as they operate utilizing and inclusive transportation future. The Moving forward, there is an opportunity to 50,00055. It is now one of the most June 2018, Uber launched its irst a dockless model. following chapter outlines key to leverage the potential of popular e-bikeshare programs in Europe. e-bikeshare program in Germany.

perspectives for integrating micromobility integration under a lens In 2017, a paper that reviewed the survey A key discussion for e-shared mobility is micromobility to close the missing that supports its utilitarian travel distributed to Madrid residents about the need for and type of docking system Lime middle. potential. Although leisure and the pilot found that supportive and its corresponding opportunities and Lime Bike (now known as Lime) is an recreational trip-types are a subset of infrastructure is not only the largest challenges. Docked bikeshares o fer a American e-bikeshare company that trip-type for e-bikes, we believe the facilitator to e-bikeshare, but that structured approach to introducing operates a dockless bike sharing system 6.1 Micromobility and larger opportunity for micromobility is cycling infrastructure also supports use e-bikeshare, but also come with an for e-bikes and e-scooters60. Currently, within destination-bound trips to by all demographics - including older upfront investment cost for the Lime operates the e-scooter share pilot destination-bound trips support a sustainable transportation adults, women, young adults and municipality and o fer less travel in Waterloo, ON and the e-bikeshare 56 In Canada, the average commute time future. beginner cyclists . This pilot also freedom for users. Dockless and Hybrid pilot in Calgary, AB. for work journeys was 26.2 minutes by pre-emptively illustrated some of the models o fer more travel freedom, but car, in 201648. This has been rising since main bene its of combining e-bikes with have higher operational costs, as e-bike Motivate the previous census in 2011. In Toronto, 6.2 Intersecting bikeshare. In Madrid, many residents batteries need to be charged and are not Motivate is an American bikeshare the average commute is 34 minutes. As were already willing to cycle, however, returned to docks to charge. Also, there company that launched an e-bike pilot in micromobility and 61 such, auto-dependent commute the hilly landscape was a key barrier. is an increased risk of bike loss or San Francisco in April 2018 . In patterns have become an expected shared mobility Furthermore, although almost 90% of damage to dockless or hybrid models. As December 2018, it was purchased by the 62 reality. For many people, their errands, residents had heard of an e-bike, only 1% shown with our engagement, some of rideshare company Lyft . The opportunity to intersect work, friends and community are outside owned or had tried an e-bike. By the biggest challenges with e-bikeshare micromobility and shared mobility is of a walkable or bikeable distance. Even combining the two emerging implementation are cost and battery already being realized globally. for those who do live within bikeable technologies, e-bikes could become more charging. In addition, some indings from According to a Navigant Research 6.3 Multimodal distance, barriers such as sweatiness, accessible to the public, and bikeshare our survey suggested that municipalities Study, the global e-bikeshare market is changing clothes, and di iculty carrying could become more feasible to a larger do not have ample regulatory tools to integration estimated to be worth $24.4 billion by bags/cargo make biking for demographic. moderate privately operated bikeshare 202550. These programs are contributing With the on-going objective for destination-bound trips seem systems. to a market of micromobility that is sustainable mobility, we commonly infeasible14. One of the key indings of more readily accessible. In the U.K., an Just as the markets of bikeshare, discuss transit as an attainable the background review was how e-bikes E-bikeshare is not the only quickly e-bikeshare program with only 50 pilot e-bikes and, e-scooters expand, so do alternative that can discourage car could mitigate some of these challenges. popularizing micromobility sharing 6 e-bikes was ridden over 7,000 km in the the companies o fering e-bike/e-scooter travel. However, transit is a service of

6.4 Social equity

The importance of inclusivity in transportation cannot be overstated. Mobility is a key indicator of health, and when transportation evolves inequitably, the consequences are unequally distributed throughout the population. When we look to close the missing middle, it is vitally important to consider how the gaps a fect our most vulnerable populations, and how our policy and program responses will address their needs. There are opportunities for micromobility to help make mobility equitable. With our current use patterns of e-bikes in Canada, e-bikes are illing a key mobility gap for those multiple vulnerable populations14,24,63. Moving forward with e-bike integration in Canada, it will be important to consider how the new policies, programs and laws will impact the livelihoods of those who have have been relying on this mobility option, and further support equitable opportunity for adoption.

Key vulnerable populations can include, but are not limited to:

Recent Immigrants

Low-income residents

perspectives for integrating micromobility integration under a lens In 2017, a paper that reviewed the survey A key discussion for e-shared mobility is micromobility to close the missing that supports its utilitarian travel distributed to Madrid residents about the need for and type of docking system Lime middle. potential. Although leisure and the pilot found that supportive and its corresponding opportunities and Lime Bike (now known as Lime) is an recreational trip-types are a subset of infrastructure is not only the largest challenges. Docked bikeshares o fer a American e-bikeshare company that trip-type for e-bikes, we believe the facilitator to e-bikeshare, but that structured approach to introducing operates a dockless bike sharing system 6.1 Micromobility and larger opportunity for micromobility is cycling infrastructure also supports use e-bikeshare, but also come with an for e-bikes and e-scooters60. Currently, within destination-bound trips to by all demographics - including older upfront investment cost for the Lime operates the e-scooter share pilot destination-bound trips support a sustainable transportation adults, women, young adults and municipality and o fer less travel in Waterloo, ON and the e-bikeshare 56 In Canada, the average commute time future. beginner cyclists . This pilot also freedom for users. Dockless and Hybrid pilot in Calgary, AB. for work journeys was 26.2 minutes by pre-emptively illustrated some of the models o fer more travel freedom, but car, in 201648. This has been rising since main bene its of combining e-bikes with have higher operational costs, as e-bike Motivate the previous census in 2011. In Toronto, 6.2 Intersecting bikeshare. In Madrid, many residents batteries need to be charged and are not Motivate is an American bikeshare the average commute is 34 minutes. As were already willing to cycle, however, returned to docks to charge. Also, there company that launched an e-bike pilot in micromobility and 61 such, auto-dependent commute the hilly landscape was a key barrier. is an increased risk of bike loss or San Francisco in April 2018 . In patterns have become an expected shared mobility Furthermore, although almost 90% of damage to dockless or hybrid models. As December 2018, it was purchased by the 62 reality. For many people, their errands, residents had heard of an e-bike, only 1% shown with our engagement, some of rideshare company Lyft . The opportunity to intersect work, friends and community are outside owned or had tried an e-bike. By the biggest challenges with e-bikeshare micromobility and shared mobility is of a walkable or bikeable distance. Even combining the two emerging implementation are cost and battery already being realized globally. for those who do live within bikeable technologies, e-bikes could become more charging. In addition, some indings from According to a Navigant Research 6.3 Multimodal distance, barriers such as sweatiness, accessible to the public, and bikeshare our survey suggested that municipalities Study, the global e-bikeshare market is changing clothes, and di iculty carrying could become more feasible to a larger do not have ample regulatory tools to integration estimated to be worth $24.4 billion by bags/cargo make biking for demographic. moderate privately operated bikeshare 202550. These programs are contributing With the on-going objective for destination-bound trips seem systems. to a market of micromobility that is sustainable mobility, we commonly infeasible14. One of the key indings of more readily accessible. In the U.K., an Just as the markets of bikeshare, discuss transit as an attainable the background review was how e-bikes E-bikeshare is not the only quickly e-bikeshare program with only 50 pilot e-bikes and, e-scooters expand, so do alternative that can discourage car could mitigate some of these challenges. popularizing micromobility sharing e-bikes was ridden over 7,000 km in the the companies o fering e-bike/e-scooter travel. However, transit is a service of

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 40

6.4 Social equity

Key vulnerable populations can include, but are not limited to:

Recent Immigrants

Low-income residents

Physically disadvantaged populations The indings of our engagement show In a study from Waterloo, ON, it was irst few months51. In 2018, Paris system. Possibly more well known is the share. Some are pre-existing bikeshare communal convenience, meaning that it that despite the current legislative found that e-biking can help introduce expanded a pilot of their e-bikeshare e-scooter share phenomenon, with companies that have expanded into the generally serves most, yet rarely landscape, the opportunity for unlocking sustainable destination-bound travel to program to become the largest shared electri ied kick scooter systems e-bikeshare, others have emerged perfectly serves any. The distance the true potential of micromobility in our populations who would have otherwise e-bikeshare leet in Europe, with 20,000 popping up across the globe. As speci ically for the e-bikeshare/scooter between a traveller's origin or transportation network is evident. Over not considered their commute to be e-bikes52. North America introduced its previously noted, there are unique share. While there are many e-bikeshare destination point and the transit station 76% of participants felt that e-bikes will bikeable14. However, to generate more irst e-bikeshare in 201253, and as of now opportunities and challenges associated companies globally, the following section is known as the irst and last mile, and have a critical role in the future utilitarian travel trends, there will need multiple cities across Canada and the with integrating micromobility shared focuses on pro iling e-bikeshare can greatly impact travel choice. When transportation network. However, the to be a behavioural shift in the current United States have implemented an mobility as opposed to traditional companies that target the North we plan for micromobility in our future question remains: how can we foster the use-patterns of e-bikes. A survey e-bike sharing system. At the time of bikeshare. More so, when comparing American market. transportation networks, a key focus integration in an informed and completed in 2018 by the National publication, Calgary is believed to be the e-bikeshare and e-scooter share, should be on how the di ferent modes responsible manner? Institute for Transportation and only Canadian city that has a full-time e-scooter share faces a set of unique interact to increase their service Communities asked American e-bike e-bikesharing system. challenges. The popularity of e-scooters potential. We introduced the concept of the Jump riders to explain how they utilize their came in a rapid in lux compared to missing middle in the introductory Jump is a recent American start-up that e-bikes. Although the majority of avid or e-bikes. Another key di ference is safety. chapter. As mentioned, the missing operates e-bikeshare and traditional experienced cyclists utilized their Madrid Case Study: Where e-bikes are generally similar to middle refers to underrepresented bikeshare, called SoBi. In Canada, SoBi e-bikes for destination-bound trips, bikes in terms of collision-rates, transportation needs and options within Madrid, Spain implemented their irst operates in Hamilton and Ottawa, ON58. timid/less-experienced cyclists tended e-scooter riders have been observed to our existing transportation network. e-bikeshare pilot in 2014, and in 2017 Notably, the company was sold to Uber to use them for leisure/recreation . The have higher rates of collision resulting in When we introduce micromobility under announced an expansion that would in April 2018, for approximately $200 di ference between avid and novice injury73. Moreover, “littering”, where the lens of the missing middle, we can allow for 42 new stations and 486 new million59. The purchase by Uber is one of cyclists is an evident gap in the scooters/bikes are left on the side of see the potential in addressing these e-bikes54. The program was a success, the irst steps in the popular rideshare utilization of micromobility and e-bikes. roads and sidewalks, is more common gaps and contributing to a sustainable with a user-base that grew from 1,000 service entering new modal markets. In with e-scooters as they operate utilizing and inclusive transportation future. The Moving forward, there is an opportunity to 50,00055. It is now one of the most June 2018, Uber launched its irst a dockless model. following chapter outlines key to leverage the potential of popular e-bikeshare programs in Europe. e-bikeshare program in Germany. perspectives for integrating micromobility integration under a lens In 2017, a paper that reviewed the survey A key discussion for e-shared mobility is micromobility to close the missing that supports its utilitarian travel distributed to Madrid residents about the need for and type of docking system Lime middle. potential. Although leisure and the pilot found that supportive and its corresponding opportunities and Lime Bike (now known as Lime) is an recreational trip-types are a subset of infrastructure is not only the largest challenges. Docked bikeshares o fer a American e-bikeshare company that trip-type for e-bikes, we believe the facilitator to e-bikeshare, but that structured approach to introducing operates a dockless bike sharing system 6.1 Micromobility and larger opportunity for micromobility is cycling infrastructure also supports use e-bikeshare, but also come with an for e-bikes and e-scooters60. Currently, within destination-bound trips to by all demographics - including older upfront investment cost for the Lime operates the e-scooter share pilot destination-bound trips support a sustainable transportation adults, women, young adults and municipality and o fer less travel in Waterloo, ON and the e-bikeshare 56 In Canada, the average commute time future. beginner cyclists . This pilot also freedom for users. Dockless and Hybrid pilot in Calgary, AB. for work journeys was 26.2 minutes by pre-emptively illustrated some of the models o fer more travel freedom, but car, in 201648. This has been rising since main bene its of combining e-bikes with have higher operational costs, as e-bike Motivate the previous census in 2011. In Toronto, 6.2 Intersecting bikeshare. In Madrid, many residents batteries need to be charged and are not Motivate is an American bikeshare the average commute is 34 minutes. As were already willing to cycle, however, returned to docks to charge. Also, there company that launched an e-bike pilot in micromobility and 61 such, auto-dependent commute the hilly landscape was a key barrier. is an increased risk of bike loss or San Francisco in April 2018 . In patterns have become an expected shared mobility Furthermore, although almost 90% of damage to dockless or hybrid models. As December 2018, it was purchased by the 62 reality. For many people, their errands, residents had heard of an e-bike, only 1% shown with our engagement, some of rideshare company Lyft . The opportunity to intersect work, friends and community are outside owned or had tried an e-bike. By the biggest challenges with e-bikeshare micromobility and shared mobility is of a walkable or bikeable distance. Even combining the two emerging implementation are cost and battery already being realized globally. for those who do live within bikeable technologies, e-bikes could become more charging. In addition, some indings from According to a Navigant Research 6.3 Multimodal distance, barriers such as sweatiness, accessible to the public, and bikeshare our survey suggested that municipalities Study, the global e-bikeshare market is changing clothes, and di iculty carrying could become more feasible to a larger do not have ample regulatory tools to integration estimated to be worth $24.4 billion by bags/cargo make biking for demographic. moderate privately operated bikeshare 202550. These programs are contributing With the on-going objective for destination-bound trips seem systems. to a market of micromobility that is sustainable mobility, we commonly infeasible14. One of the key indings of more readily accessible. In the U.K., an Just as the markets of bikeshare, discuss transit as an attainable the background review was how e-bikes E-bikeshare is not the only quickly e-bikeshare program with only 50 pilot e-bikes and, e-scooters expand, so do alternative that can discourage car could mitigate some of these challenges. popularizing micromobility sharing e-bikes was ridden over 7,000 km in the the companies o fering e-bike/e-scooter travel. However, transit is a service of

41 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility

6.4 Social equity

Key vulnerable populations can include, but are not limited to:

Recent Immigrants

Low-income residents

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 42

6.4 Social equity

Key vulnerable populations can include, but are not limited to:

Recent Immigrants

Low-income residents

perspectives for integrating micromobility integration under a lens In 2017, a paper that reviewed the survey A key discussion for e-shared mobility is micromobility to close the missing that supports its utilitarian travel distributed to Madrid residents about the need for and type of docking system Lime middle. potential. Although leisure and the pilot found that supportive and its corresponding opportunities and Lime Bike (now known as Lime) is an recreational trip-types are a subset of infrastructure is not only the largest challenges. Docked bikeshares o fer a American e-bikeshare company that trip-type for e-bikes, we believe the facilitator to e-bikeshare, but that structured approach to introducing operates a dockless bike sharing system 6.1 Micromobility and larger opportunity for micromobility is cycling infrastructure also supports use e-bikeshare, but also come with an for e-bikes and e-scooters60. Currently, within destination-bound trips to by all demographics - including older upfront investment cost for the Lime operates the e-scooter share pilot destination-bound trips support a sustainable transportation adults, women, young adults and municipality and o fer less travel in Waterloo, ON and the e-bikeshare 56 In Canada, the average commute time future. beginner cyclists . This pilot also freedom for users. Dockless and Hybrid pilot in Calgary, AB. for work journeys was 26.2 minutes by pre-emptively illustrated some of the models o fer more travel freedom, but car, in 201648. This has been rising since main bene its of combining e-bikes with have higher operational costs, as e-bike Motivate the previous census in 2011. In Toronto, 6.2 Intersecting bikeshare. In Madrid, many residents batteries need to be charged and are not Motivate is an American bikeshare the average commute is 34 minutes. As were already willing to cycle, however, returned to docks to charge. Also, there company that launched an e-bike pilot in micromobility and 61 such, auto-dependent commute the hilly landscape was a key barrier. is an increased risk of bike loss or San Francisco in April 2018 . In patterns have become an expected shared mobility Furthermore, although almost 90% of damage to dockless or hybrid models. As December 2018, it was purchased by the 62 reality. For many people, their errands, residents had heard of an e-bike, only 1% shown with our engagement, some of rideshare company Lyft . The opportunity to intersect work, friends and community are outside owned or had tried an e-bike. By the biggest challenges with e-bikeshare micromobility and shared mobility is of a walkable or bikeable distance. Even combining the two emerging implementation are cost and battery already being realized globally. for those who do live within bikeable technologies, e-bikes could become more charging. In addition, some indings from According to a Navigant Research 6.3 Multimodal distance, barriers such as sweatiness, accessible to the public, and bikeshare our survey suggested that municipalities Study, the global e-bikeshare market is changing clothes, and di iculty carrying could become more feasible to a larger do not have ample regulatory tools to integration estimated to be worth $24.4 billion by bags/cargo make biking for demographic. moderate privately operated bikeshare 202550. These programs are contributing With the on-going objective for destination-bound trips seem systems. to a market of micromobility that is sustainable mobility, we commonly infeasible14. One of the key indings of more readily accessible. In the U.K., an Just as the markets of bikeshare, discuss transit as an attainable the background review was how e-bikes E-bikeshare is not the only quickly e-bikeshare program with only 50 pilot e-bikes and, e-scooters expand, so do alternative that can discourage car could mitigate some of these challenges. popularizing micromobility sharing e-bikes was ridden over 7,000 km in the the companies o fering e-bike/e-scooter travel. However, transit is a service of

6.4 Social equity In the previous chapters, we established Suggested Actions the existing context of e-bike Based on the indings of this paper, we The importance of inclusivity in integration, the current legislative suggest the following legislative changes transportation cannot be overstated. landscape, and opinions of key be explored at the provincial level to Mobility is a key indicator of health, and micromobility stakeholders. Through the address some of the current barriers to when transportation evolves inequitably, indings of each of these reviews, we e-bike adoption. Graphically shown in the consequences are unequally have compiled a toolbox of six e-bike Figure 8. The implementation of these distributed throughout the population. integration methods that could support changes should be subject to When we look to close the missing accessible, inclusive and sustainable stakeholder engagement to further middle, it is vitally important to consider e-bike adoption in communities across analyze the implications and e fects on how the gaps a fect our most vulnerable Canada. the e-bike sector. populations, and how our policy and program responses will address their Furthermore, depending on the outcome needs. There are opportunities for of the federal deregulation, these micromobility to help make mobility 7.1 Legislation changes may be independent legislation equitable. With our current use patterns The ambiguity of e-bikes and, more for e-bikes or could act as further of e-bikes in Canada, e-bikes are illing a largely, all micromobility modes in our classi ication for power-assisted key mobility gap for those multiple transportation network is a key barrier bicycles. 14,24,63 vulnerable populations . Moving to integration. As highlighted in our forward with e-bike integration in legislative review, there is no common 1. Regulate pedal-assisted Canada, it will be important to consider delineation between the multiple types e-bikes as bicycles in a two-tier how the new policies, programs and laws of e-bikes and how they should be model will impact the livelihoods of those who regulated, or where they should be Pedelecs and throttle-assisted have have been relying on this mobility permitted. pedal-assist bicycles are already option, and further support equitable regulated as bicycles, but are grouped opportunity for adoption. In Canada, further evaluation should be together with Scooter Style E-Bikes conducted to determine whether a (SSEBs). To maximize the potential of Key vulnerable populations can include, tiered approach to e-bike regulation (as pedelecs/PABs as an integrated mobility but are not limited to: shown in Europe and the United States option, they should be categorized through the Bicycle Product Suppliers separately from other e-bike models, Association de inition) could assist in and from each other. It is recommended Recent Immigrants clarifying the role of e-bikes in our that two tiers of pedal-assisted bicycles existing and future transportation be classi ied, in that both pedelecs and network. Careful evaluation of the Low-income residents throttle-assisted pedal-assist bicycles relationship between the are categorized - as done with the throttle-assisted and pedelecs models, American Bicycle Suppliers Product Physically disadvantaged as well as the BSEB and SSEB models, Association classi ication. By doing so, populations should occur. As mentioned throughout the slight capability di ferences between this paper, there are operational pedelecs and throttle-assisted bicycle di ferences between these models that style e-bikes are recognized without a fect how they interact with our removing their permissions as bicycles. infrastructure and other road-users. When planning for new regulation, we This would lead to a better should give considerable attention to the understanding of pedelecs and PABs by legal classi ication of e-bikes as bicycles the public, so that more riders could and to the regulators - speed, weight, make educated choices about their throttle-power, wheel diameter, etc. - preferred e-bike typology. We propose that are used to dictate the operational these e-bikes be classi ied as Type A, capacities of e-bikes. with full-pedal assist bicycles being Type A-1 and throttle-assisted pedal-assist bicycles being Type A-2.

43 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility

- Permit pedelecs and Permit Type A - Distinguish between Type B e-bikes - Require a speedometer on Type C - When part of an e-scooter share, to identify the di ferences between - Update modelling processes to re lect these practical questions (highlighted 7.4 Cycling e-bikes similar to conventional bicycles and other less-active mopeds through e-bikes speci ically prohibit the e-scooter micromobility modes. However, further the operational capabilities of micro- through the engagement) as we infrastructure - Maintain the maximum speed of language about human-propulsion - Prohibit Type C on multi-use trails and operator and riders from leaving analysis should be done to understand mobility introduce more e-bikeshares in Canada. 32km/h - Require a mandatory helmet for other o f-road facilities e-scooters lying around on sidewalks in the interactions of these modes. - Consider micromobility through an In addition, the network of cycling - Maintain all other existing a way that impedes pedestrian tra ic. Furthermore, much of transportation There is also an internal micromobility Type-B use - Require Type C E-bikes to operate in equity lens and, whenever feasible, infrastructure is a key motivator for requirements of power-assisted competition occurring between - Require a speedometer on Type B planning is reliant on modelling. When adapt supportive micromobility policies e-bike adoption. Although some cyclists bicycles motor vehicle travel lanes, similar to e-scooter share services and e-bikes looking towards a for all applicable planning documents found that e-bikes allowed them to feel - Require a speedometer on Type A mopeds micromobility-supportive e-bikeshare services that can cause more con ident in mixed-tra ic - Regulate that no person under the age e-bikes transportation network, data, software - Acknowledge the unique bene it of implementation challenges. In some conditions, having separated and of sixteen shall operate a Type B e-bike 7.2 Planning documents - Require that the motor cease when 4. Legalize e-scooters and processes will need to be updated to micromobility to increase mobility for cases, e-bikeshares are being comfortable cycling lanes encourages a human propulsion ceases for pedelecs, Di ferent modes of micromobility ill Our survey found that only 31% of re lect how e-bikes and e-scooters our ageing population, and appropri- discontinued in lieu of e-scooter shares, broader range of cyclists and e-bike and that the motor ceases when 3. Finding a place for SSEBs 67 di ferent transportation gaps. respondents are currently planning for travel through the network. ately plan for supportive micromobility which are cheaper to operate . In some riders. When considering our ageing With the above recommendations, brakes are applied for Type A-2 E-scooters can work with e-bikes to micromobility as part of their future policies within age friendly plans, areas, these two services are being society, providing the technology solves - Require a manufacturers label that SSEBs would still exist within the e-bike When planning inclusively for new only half the battle for inclusive cycling increase the e iciency and sustainability transportation planning process. Plans transportation master plans, and implemented interchangeably despite distinguish between Type A-1 and Type classi ication, as they functionally mobility trends, it is important to trips; the infrastructure must also be of our transportation network. However, that can incorporate micromobility other relevant planning policies. o fering di fering functionalities. A-2 match the legal description of understand the inherent social and supportive of broad demographics. Also, speci ic attention should be given to how include, but are not limited to: Moreover, the New York City precedent - Monitor and evaluate e-bike usage to power-assisted bicycles. However, health impacts that could arise from a route planning will in luence the choice they are introduced. We propose the - O icial Plans raises an important challenge in of trip type, between recreational and understand how pedelecs and PABs are provinces can look to regulate SSEB via following considerations to e-scooter shift in the transportation status quo. - Secondary Plans e-bikeshare. As e-bikeshare promotes utilitarian. being utilized weight or wheel diameter requirements. 64 The background review section and regulation : e-bike use, a major challenge is - Require helmets for Type A e-bikes In the city of Toronto, SSEBs are - Transportation Master Plans engagement showed that the - Introduce the legalization of 7.3 Bikeshare balancing the increase in uptake in Maintenance also a fects e-bike - Regulate that no person under the age distinguished as e-scooters and are not - Active Transportation Master Plans demographics that could bene it from adoption, mirroring a key barrier to e-scooters through a pilot program In the bikeshare sector, which is jurisdictions that do not intrinsically of sixteen shall operate a Type A e-bike permitted on multi-use trails. Toronto micromobility are broad, and ensuring cycling adoption. The cycling network - Limit the speed of e-scooters to 24 - Road Safety/Vision Zero Action Plans approximated to be in place in over 800 support e-bikes with their legislation. distinguishes between pedal-assisted that each demographic bene it equitably should have its condition maintained to a km/h, and consider requiring an - Transportation Demand Management municipalities across 56 countries65, When implementing e-shared mobility, 2. Recognize s-pedelecs in the e-bikes and SSEBs by mandating that from the introduction of micromobility is suitable degree, especially when emergency power shut o f switch Plans e-bikeshare is still a comparably small we should think not only of the system transportation network e-bikes have a maximum weight of 40 kg essential to its overall success. As they considering Canadian seasonality. Bike - Use in dedicated cycling infrastructure subset. However, the opportunity is itself but also the interaction of the lanes that are poorly maintained Currently, s-pedelecs are not permitted and that the e-bike rider “pedals for become more normalized, a shift has e.g. bike lanes and multi-use paths but The new policy directives of these apparent; e-bikeshare could help make program with legislation and other discourage both cyclists and e-bike within the power-assisted bicycle propulsion” - building upon the occurred wherein e-bikes are now being not on sidewalks or in motor vehicle sections should consider the multiple bikeshare a more viable alternative for modes. riders from utilizing the provided routes. de inition as they exceed the maximum “functional pedals” requirement within adopted by those who may not have the travel lanes with posted speed limits modes of micromobility and their unique “missing middle” trips in both urban and For some contexts, thinking about 32 km/h speed. The Bicycle Product the power-assisted bicycle de inition. same economic or social opportunities63. supportive cycling infrastructure may greater than 40 km/h mobility capabilities. This paper started suburban landscapes. In addition to Suggested Actions Suppliers Association permits Creating a functional classi ication, When we think about micromobility from need to be creative to su iciently increasing exposure of e-bikes, - Support e-bikeshare in relevant s-pedelecs as bicycles in their however, only begins to unravel the a population and demographic accommodate e-bikes and other e-bikeshare also allows the municipality planning documents classi ication model given that the U.S. future role of SSEBs on the perspective, it is important to emerging micromobility options. to control the types of e-bikes in their does not explicitly prohibit e-bikes that transportation network. There is incorporate e-bikes, e-scooters and - Pilot e-bikeshares, and monitor and Innovative pavement material and transportation network. For example, in markings, route planning and speci ic can travel at a speed higher than 32 minimal regulatory precedent for other forms of micromobility into our evaluate their impact year-round to New York City, throttle-assisted e-bikes permissions may be required to support km/h. Currently, Canada does not have a de ining SSEB and as such, determining social/health planning to guide equitable better inform future program rollouts remain illegal, but a legal pedelec diversi ied cycling capabilities on the de inition for s-pedelecs. Based on the where, or if, SSEBs it into our existing adoption. We can achieve this by - Speci ically prohibit e-bikeshare riders 66 transportation network. Comprehensive lessons learned from the EU, it is e-bikeshare was introduced . active transportation infrastructure integrating micromobility into di ferent from parking e-bikes in areas where and denser cycling networks that allow recommended that s-pedelecs be clearly requires a strong regulatory focus, policy documents such as age-friendly Nevertheless, many e-bikeshare pedestrian tra ic is impacted for choice of alternative travel modes de ined in provincial legislation as a type especially when considering the community planning, social equity implementation questions still need - Engage with emerging academic are always preferred, as they permit of moped with required licensing that conversations on safety and equity. It is planning, Vision Zero, and more. answers. The most notable for Canada research on the bene its and out users to choose the route that most appropriately matches their level of would recognize their pedal-assist recommended that stakeholder is the climate. Is it feasible to operate comes of e-bikeshares in comparable comfort. nature, but also recognize their engagement be further conducted to Suggested Actions e-bikeshare in the winter months? When municipalities increased speed to reduce potential determine the appropriate operating - De ine micromobility and the di ferent e-bikes are stored outside do their injuries and mode con licts. We propose Suggested Actions environment for SSEBs. We propose micromobility modes within O icial batteries continue to operate in these s-pedelecs be classi ied as Type B that scooter-style e-bikes be classi ied sub-zero temperatures? Are there - Plan for and maintain a complete and Plans and appropriate functional connected cycling network e-bikes as Type C. technological solutions to cold climate master plans - Consider micromobility in the planning - De ine Type B e-bikes as mopeds challenges, such as having powered - De ine a functional di ference between - Integrate micromobility into “future of future cycling routes charging docks that keep the battery at - Indicate a unique de inition for Type A-2 and Type C through mobility” sections of Transportation - Consider micromobility in the a minimum optimum temperature when Type B e-bikes within the existing regulation requiring human-propulsion Master Plans functional design of future cycling moped de inition and maximum weight not being used? We will need to address routes

7.5 Incentives and pilots the sustainability of goods movement is 7.6 Education an increasing environmental concern. As can be seen, e-bikeshare pilots are Between 2005 and 2015, the number of The discussion surrounding another option to introduce the parcels delivered globally grew by 128%71. micromobility is on going, and subject to technology on a trial basis. Several Some companies are already integrating change as new trends emerge. As such, e-bikeshare pilots currently exist across micromobility into their business plans - practitioner and public education are the United States, and could be explored UPS introduced the service in late 201872. vital to e-bike integration. We need to further in Canada to show the potential A Seattle pilot introduces a speci ically facilitate an open conversation around of e-bikes in addressing transportation designed cargo e-bike to complete local micromobility that supports gaps. To increase e-bike appeal and delivery trips within the city, reducing knowledge-sharing across jurisdictions. ownership, monetary incentives can also the tra ic congestion caused by delivery Moreover, this knowledge should be be used to make them more a fordable trucks and vehicles. communicated clearly and plainly to the to potential users. France is currently public to encourage their support and promoting pedelecs to the public opinions on micromobility. through a $300 purchase rebate68. A Suggested Actions similar program is also available in - Explore the opportunity for rebate Suggested Actions Norway, where residents are o fered programs for e-bikes and other - Clearly communicate the functionality 69 $1,200 in Oslo to buy an e-cargo bike . provincial and/or federal micromobility of e-bikes in online and in-print Utilizing inancial incentives to increase modes educational materials uptake is not unique to e-bike technology - Whenever feasible, introduce e-bike - Mandate that e-bikeshare operators and has been considered within Canada pilot programs that can explore provide educational videos for with other emerging technologies. In potential new markets for e-bikes new-riders Ontario, the Electric Vehicle and (such as urban goods movement) - Update the Driver Training Manual to Hydrogen Vehicle Incentive Program - Approach the Canadian Government to include information on e-bikes and (EHVIP) provided inancial rebates expand their current electric vehicle e-scooters ($14,000) and High Occupancy Vehicle incentive program to include a similar lane privileges to electric vehicle rebate for e-bikes. e.g. $275 o f a purchasers. During the program, sales $250-500 e-bike. increased by 120%. This EHVIP program is no longer o fered in Ontario by the provincial government; however, as of May 2019, the Canadian government announced a rebate of $5,000 o f electric vehicles that cost less than $45,00070. When promoting micromobility, incentives would be an worthwhile option that should be explored further within Canada.

perspectives for integrating micromobility integration under a lens In 2017, a paper that reviewed the survey A key discussion for e-shared mobility is micromobility to close the missing that supports its utilitarian travel distributed to Madrid residents about the need for and type of docking system Lime middle. potential. Although leisure and the pilot found that supportive and its corresponding opportunities and Lime Bike (now known as Lime) is an recreational trip-types are a subset of infrastructure is not only the largest challenges. Docked bikeshares o fer a American e-bikeshare company that trip-type for e-bikes, we believe the facilitator to e-bikeshare, but that structured approach to introducing operates a dockless bike sharing system 6.1 Micromobility and larger opportunity for micromobility is cycling infrastructure also supports use e-bikeshare, but also come with an for e-bikes and e-scooters60. Currently, within destination-bound trips to by all demographics - including older upfront investment cost for the Lime operates the e-scooter share pilot destination-bound trips support a sustainable transportation adults, women, young adults and municipality and o fer less travel in Waterloo, ON and the e-bikeshare 56 In Canada, the average commute time future. beginner cyclists . This pilot also freedom for users. Dockless and Hybrid pilot in Calgary, AB. for work journeys was 26.2 minutes by pre-emptively illustrated some of the models o fer more travel freedom, but car, in 201648. This has been rising since main bene its of combining e-bikes with have higher operational costs, as e-bike Motivate the previous census in 2011. In Toronto, 6.2 Intersecting bikeshare. In Madrid, many residents batteries need to be charged and are not Motivate is an American bikeshare the average commute is 34 minutes. As were already willing to cycle, however, returned to docks to charge. Also, there company that launched an e-bike pilot in micromobility and 61 such, auto-dependent commute the hilly landscape was a key barrier. is an increased risk of bike loss or San Francisco in April 2018 . In patterns have become an expected shared mobility Furthermore, although almost 90% of damage to dockless or hybrid models. As December 2018, it was purchased by the 62 reality. For many people, their errands, residents had heard of an e-bike, only 1% shown with our engagement, some of rideshare company Lyft . The opportunity to intersect work, friends and community are outside owned or had tried an e-bike. By the biggest challenges with e-bikeshare micromobility and shared mobility is of a walkable or bikeable distance. Even combining the two emerging implementation are cost and battery already being realized globally. for those who do live within bikeable technologies, e-bikes could become more charging. In addition, some indings from According to a Navigant Research 6.3 Multimodal distance, barriers such as sweatiness, accessible to the public, and bikeshare our survey suggested that municipalities Study, the global e-bikeshare market is changing clothes, and di iculty carrying could become more feasible to a larger do not have ample regulatory tools to integration estimated to be worth $24.4 billion by bags/cargo make biking for demographic. moderate privately operated bikeshare 202550. These programs are contributing With the on-going objective for destination-bound trips seem systems. to a market of micromobility that is sustainable mobility, we commonly infeasible14. One of the key indings of more readily accessible. In the U.K., an Just as the markets of bikeshare, discuss transit as an attainable the background review was how e-bikes E-bikeshare is not the only quickly e-bikeshare program with only 50 pilot e-bikes and, e-scooters expand, so do alternative that can discourage car could mitigate some of these challenges. popularizing micromobility sharing e-bikes was ridden over 7,000 km in the the companies o fering e-bike/e-scooter travel. However, transit is a service of

Piloting e-bikes as a solution to urban goods movement E-bikes are not only an option for personal trips, they also o fer new mobility options for cargo deliveries. In our current retail economy, how we order and receive goods is changing, and The indings of our engagement show In a study from Waterloo, ON, it was irst few months51. In 2018, Paris system. Possibly more well known is the share. Some are pre-existing bikeshare communal convenience, meaning that it that despite the current legislative found that e-biking can help introduce expanded a pilot of their e-bikeshare e-scooter share phenomenon, with companies that have expanded into the generally serves most, yet rarely landscape, the opportunity for unlocking sustainable destination-bound travel to program to become the largest shared electri ied kick scooter systems e-bikeshare, others have emerged perfectly serves any. The distance the true potential of micromobility in our populations who would have otherwise e-bikeshare leet in Europe, with 20,000 popping up across the globe. As speci ically for the e-bikeshare/scooter between a traveller's origin or transportation network is evident. Over not considered their commute to be e-bikes52. North America introduced its previously noted, there are unique share. While there are many e-bikeshare destination point and the transit station 76% of participants felt that e-bikes will bikeable14. However, to generate more irst e-bikeshare in 201253, and as of now opportunities and challenges associated companies globally, the following section is known as the irst and last mile, and have a critical role in the future utilitarian travel trends, there will need multiple cities across Canada and the with integrating micromobility shared focuses on pro iling e-bikeshare can greatly impact travel choice. When transportation network. However, the to be a behavioural shift in the current United States have implemented an mobility as opposed to traditional companies that target the North we plan for micromobility in our future question remains: how can we foster the use-patterns of e-bikes. A survey e-bike sharing system. At the time of bikeshare. More so, when comparing American market. transportation networks, a key focus integration in an informed and completed in 2018 by the National publication, Calgary is believed to be the e-bikeshare and e-scooter share, should be on how the di ferent modes responsible manner? Institute for Transportation and only Canadian city that has a full-time e-scooter share faces a set of unique interact to increase their service Communities asked American e-bike e-bikesharing system. challenges. The popularity of e-scooters potential. We introduced the concept of the Jump riders to explain how they utilize their came in a rapid in lux compared to missing middle in the introductory Jump is a recent American start-up that e-bikes. Although the majority of avid or e-bikes. Another key di ference is safety. chapter. As mentioned, the missing operates e-bikeshare and traditional experienced cyclists utilized their Madrid Case Study: Where e-bikes are generally similar to middle refers to underrepresented bikeshare, called SoBi. In Canada, SoBi e-bikes for destination-bound trips, bikes in terms of collision-rates, transportation needs and options within Madrid, Spain implemented their irst operates in Hamilton and Ottawa, ON58. timid/less-experienced cyclists tended e-scooter riders have been observed to our existing transportation network. e-bikeshare pilot in 2014, and in 2017 Notably, the company was sold to Uber to use them for leisure/recreation . The have higher rates of collision resulting in When we introduce micromobility under announced an expansion that would in April 2018, for approximately $200 di ference between avid and novice injury73. Moreover, “littering”, where the lens of the missing middle, we can allow for 42 new stations and 486 new million59. The purchase by Uber is one of cyclists is an evident gap in the scooters/bikes are left on the side of see the potential in addressing these e-bikes54. The program was a success, the irst steps in the popular rideshare utilization of micromobility and e-bikes. roads and sidewalks, is more common gaps and contributing to a sustainable with a user-base that grew from 1,000 service entering new modal markets. In with e-scooters as they operate utilizing and inclusive transportation future. The Moving forward, there is an opportunity to 50,00055. It is now one of the most June 2018, Uber launched its irst a dockless model. following chapter outlines key to leverage the potential of popular e-bikeshare programs in Europe. e-bikeshare program in Germany. perspectives for integrating micromobility integration under a lens In 2017, a paper that reviewed the survey A key discussion for e-shared mobility is micromobility to close the missing that supports its utilitarian travel distributed to Madrid residents about the need for and type of docking system Lime middle. potential. Although leisure and the pilot found that supportive and its corresponding opportunities and Lime Bike (now known as Lime) is an recreational trip-types are a subset of infrastructure is not only the largest challenges. Docked bikeshares o fer a American e-bikeshare company that trip-type for e-bikes, we believe the facilitator to e-bikeshare, but that structured approach to introducing operates a dockless bike sharing system 6.1 Micromobility and larger opportunity for micromobility is cycling infrastructure also supports use e-bikeshare, but also come with an for e-bikes and e-scooters60. Currently, within destination-bound trips to by all demographics - including older upfront investment cost for the Lime operates the e-scooter share pilot destination-bound trips support a sustainable transportation adults, women, young adults and municipality and o fer less travel in Waterloo, ON and the e-bikeshare 56 In Canada, the average commute time future. beginner cyclists . This pilot also freedom for users. Dockless and Hybrid pilot in Calgary, AB. for work journeys was 26.2 minutes by pre-emptively illustrated some of the models o fer more travel freedom, but car, in 201648. This has been rising since main bene its of combining e-bikes with have higher operational costs, as e-bike Motivate the previous census in 2011. In Toronto, 6.2 Intersecting bikeshare. In Madrid, many residents batteries need to be charged and are not Motivate is an American bikeshare the average commute is 34 minutes. As were already willing to cycle, however, returned to docks to charge. Also, there company that launched an e-bike pilot in micromobility and 61 such, auto-dependent commute the hilly landscape was a key barrier. is an increased risk of bike loss or San Francisco in April 2018 . In patterns have become an expected shared mobility Furthermore, although almost 90% of damage to dockless or hybrid models. As December 2018, it was purchased by the 62 reality. For many people, their errands, residents had heard of an e-bike, only 1% shown with our engagement, some of rideshare company Lyft . The opportunity to intersect work, friends and community are outside owned or had tried an e-bike. By the biggest challenges with e-bikeshare micromobility and shared mobility is of a walkable or bikeable distance. Even combining the two emerging implementation are cost and battery already being realized globally. for those who do live within bikeable technologies, e-bikes could become more charging. In addition, some indings from According to a Navigant Research 6.3 Multimodal distance, barriers such as sweatiness, accessible to the public, and bikeshare our survey suggested that municipalities Study, the global e-bikeshare market is changing clothes, and di iculty carrying could become more feasible to a larger do not have ample regulatory tools to integration estimated to be worth $24.4 billion by bags/cargo make biking for demographic. moderate privately operated bikeshare 202550. These programs are contributing With the on-going objective for destination-bound trips seem systems. to a market of micromobility that is sustainable mobility, we commonly infeasible14. One of the key indings of more readily accessible. In the U.K., an Just as the markets of bikeshare, discuss transit as an attainable the background review was how e-bikes E-bikeshare is not the only quickly e-bikeshare program with only 50 pilot e-bikes and, e-scooters expand, so do alternative that can discourage car could mitigate some of these challenges. popularizing micromobility sharing e-bikes was ridden over 7,000 km in the the companies o fering e-bike/e-scooter travel. However, transit is a service of

6.4 Social equity In the previous chapters, we established Suggested Actions the existing context of e-bike Based on the indings of this paper, we The importance of inclusivity in integration, the current legislative suggest the following legislative changes transportation cannot be overstated. landscape, and opinions of key be explored at the provincial level to Mobility is a key indicator of health, and micromobility stakeholders. Through the address some of the current barriers to when transportation evolves inequitably, What are the best indings of each of these reviews, we e-bike adoption. Graphically shown in the consequences are unequally have compiled a toolbox of six e-bike Figure 8. The implementation of these distributed throughout the population. integration methods that could support changes should be subject to When we look to close the missing tools for integrating accessible, inclusive and sustainable stakeholder engagement to further middle, it is vitally important to consider e-bike adoption in communities across analyze the implications and e fects on how the gaps a fect our most vulnerable Canada. the e-bike sector. populations, and how our policy and program responses will address their Micromobility Furthermore, depending on the outcome needs. There are opportunities for of the federal deregulation, these micromobility to help make mobility 7.1 Legislation changes may be independent legislation equitable. With our current use patterns The ambiguity of e-bikes and, more for e-bikes or could act as further of e-bikes in Canada, e-bikes are illing a & E-Bikes classi ication for power-assisted largely, all micromobility modes in our key mobility gap for those multiple in the Canadian Context? transportation network is a key barrier bicycles. 14,24,63 vulnerable populations . Moving to integration. As highlighted in our forward with e-bike integration in legislative review, there is no common 1. Regulate pedal-assisted Canada, it will be important to consider delineation between the multiple types e-bikes as bicycles in a two-tier how the new policies, programs and laws of e-bikes and how they should be model will impact the livelihoods of those who regulated, or where they should be Pedelecs and throttle-assisted have have been relying on this mobility permitted. pedal-assist bicycles are already option, and further support equitable regulated as bicycles, but are grouped opportunity for adoption. In Canada, further evaluation should be together with Scooter Style E-Bikes conducted to determine whether a (SSEBs). To maximize the potential of Key vulnerable populations can include, tiered approach to e-bike regulation (as pedelecs/PABs as an integrated mobility but are not limited to: shown in Europe and the United States option, they should be categorized through the Bicycle Product Suppliers separately from other e-bike models, Association de inition) could assist in and from each other. It is recommended Recent Immigrants clarifying the role of e-bikes in our that two tiers of pedal-assisted bicycles existing and future transportation be classi ied, in that both pedelecs and network. Careful evaluation of the Low-income residents throttle-assisted pedal-assist bicycles relationship between the are categorized - as done with the throttle-assisted and pedelecs models, American Bicycle Suppliers Product Physically disadvantaged as well as the BSEB and SSEB models, Association classi ication. By doing so, populations should occur. As mentioned throughout the slight capability di ferences between this paper, there are operational pedelecs and throttle-assisted bicycle di ferences between these models that style e-bikes are recognized without a fect how they interact with our removing their permissions as bicycles. infrastructure and other road-users. When planning for new regulation, we This would lead to a better should give considerable attention to the understanding of pedelecs and PABs by legal classi ication of e-bikes as bicycles the public, so that more riders could and to the regulators - speed, weight, make educated choices about their throttle-power, wheel diameter, etc. - preferred e-bike typology. We propose that are used to dictate the operational these e-bikes be classi ied as Type A, capacities of e-bikes. with full-pedal assist bicycles being Type A-1 and throttle-assisted pedal-assist 7 bicycles being Type A-2.

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 46

Piloting e-bikes as a solution to urban goods movement E-bikes are not only an option for personal trips, they also o fer new mobility options for cargo deliveries. In our current retail economy, how we order and receive goods is changing, and In the previous chapters, we established Suggested Actions the existing context of e-bike Based on the indings of this paper, we integration, the current legislative suggest the following legislative changes landscape, and opinions of key be explored at the provincial level to micromobility stakeholders. Through the address some of the current barriers to indings of each of these reviews, we e-bike adoption. Graphically shown in have compiled a toolbox of six e-bike Figure 8. The implementation of these integration methods that could support changes should be subject to accessible, inclusive and sustainable stakeholder engagement to further e-bike adoption in communities across analyze the implications and e fects on Canada. the e-bike sector.

Furthermore, depending on the outcome of the federal deregulation, these 7.1 Legislation changes may be independent legislation The ambiguity of e-bikes and, more for e-bikes or could act as further largely, all micromobility modes in our classi ication for power-assisted transportation network is a key barrier bicycles. to integration. As highlighted in our legislative review, there is no common 1. Regulate pedal-assisted delineation between the multiple types e-bikes as bicycles in a two-tier of e-bikes and how they should be model regulated, or where they should be Pedelecs and throttle-assisted permitted. pedal-assist bicycles are already regulated as bicycles, but are grouped In Canada, further evaluation should be together with Scooter Style E-Bikes conducted to determine whether a (SSEBs). To maximize the potential of tiered approach to e-bike regulation (as pedelecs/PABs as an integrated mobility shown in Europe and the United States option, they should be categorized through the Bicycle Product Suppliers separately from other e-bike models, Association de inition) could assist in and from each other. It is recommended clarifying the role of e-bikes in our that two tiers of pedal-assisted bicycles existing and future transportation be classi ied, in that both pedelecs and network. Careful evaluation of the throttle-assisted pedal-assist bicycles relationship between the are categorized - as done with the throttle-assisted and pedelecs models, American Bicycle Suppliers Product as well as the BSEB and SSEB models, Association classi ication. By doing so, should occur. As mentioned throughout the slight capability di ferences between this paper, there are operational pedelecs and throttle-assisted bicycle di ferences between these models that style e-bikes are recognized without a fect how they interact with our removing their permissions as bicycles. infrastructure and other road-users. When planning for new regulation, we This would lead to a better should give considerable attention to the understanding of pedelecs and PABs by legal classi ication of e-bikes as bicycles the public, so that more riders could and to the regulators - speed, weight, make educated choices about their throttle-power, wheel diameter, etc. - preferred e-bike typology. We propose that are used to dictate the operational these e-bikes be classi ied as Type A, capacities of e-bikes. with full-pedal assist bicycles being Type A-1 and throttle-assisted pedal-assist bicycles being Type A-2.

- Permit pedelecs and Permit Type A - Distinguish between Type B e-bikes - Require a speedometer on Type C - When part of an e-scooter share, to identify the di ferences between - Update modelling processes to re lect these practical questions (highlighted 7.4 Cycling e-bikes similar to conventional bicycles and other less-active mopeds through e-bikes speci ically prohibit the e-scooter micromobility modes. However, further the operational capabilities of micro- through the engagement) as we language about human-propulsion infrastructure - Maintain the maximum speed of - Prohibit Type C on multi-use trails and operator and riders from leaving analysis should be done to understand mobility introduce more e-bikeshares in Canada. 32km/h - Require a mandatory helmet for other o f-road facilities e-scooters lying around on sidewalks in the interactions of these modes. - Consider micromobility through an In addition, the network of cycling - Maintain all other existing Type-B use a way that impedes pedestrian tra ic. Furthermore, much of transportation There is also an internal micromobility - Require Type C E-bikes to operate in equity lens and, whenever feasible, infrastructure is a key motivator for requirements of power-assisted competition occurring between - Require a speedometer on Type B planning is reliant on modelling. When adapt supportive micromobility policies e-bike adoption. Although some cyclists bicycles motor vehicle travel lanes, similar to e-scooter share services and e-bikes looking towards a for all applicable planning documents found that e-bikes allowed them to feel - Require a speedometer on Type A mopeds micromobility-supportive e-bikeshare services that can cause more con ident in mixed-tra ic - Regulate that no person under the age e-bikes transportation network, data, software - Acknowledge the unique bene it of implementation challenges. In some conditions, having separated and of sixteen shall operate a Type B e-bike 7.2 Planning documents - Require that the motor cease when 4. Legalize e-scooters and processes will need to be updated to micromobility to increase mobility for cases, e-bikeshares are being comfortable cycling lanes encourages a human propulsion ceases for pedelecs, Di ferent modes of micromobility ill Our survey found that only 31% of re lect how e-bikes and e-scooters our ageing population, and appropri- discontinued in lieu of e-scooter shares, broader range of cyclists and e-bike and that the motor ceases when 3. Finding a place for SSEBs 67 di ferent transportation gaps. respondents are currently planning for travel through the network. ately plan for supportive micromobility which are cheaper to operate . In some riders. When considering our ageing With the above recommendations, brakes are applied for Type A-2 E-scooters can work with e-bikes to micromobility as part of their future policies within age friendly plans, areas, these two services are being society, providing the technology solves - Require a manufacturers label that SSEBs would still exist within the e-bike When planning inclusively for new only half the battle for inclusive cycling increase the e iciency and sustainability transportation planning process. Plans transportation master plans, and implemented interchangeably despite distinguish between Type A-1 and Type classi ication, as they functionally mobility trends, it is important to trips; the infrastructure must also be of our transportation network. However, that can incorporate micromobility other relevant planning policies. o fering di fering functionalities. A-2 match the legal description of understand the inherent social and supportive of broad demographics. Also, speci ic attention should be given to how include, but are not limited to: Moreover, the New York City precedent - Monitor and evaluate e-bike usage to power-assisted bicycles. However, health impacts that could arise from a route planning will in luence the choice they are introduced. We propose the - O icial Plans raises an important challenge in of trip type, between recreational and understand how pedelecs and PABs are provinces can look to regulate SSEB via following considerations to e-scooter shift in the transportation status quo. - Secondary Plans e-bikeshare. As e-bikeshare promotes utilitarian. being utilized weight or wheel diameter requirements. 64 The background review section and regulation : e-bike use, a major challenge is - Require helmets for Type A e-bikes In the city of Toronto, SSEBs are - Transportation Master Plans engagement showed that the - Introduce the legalization of 7.3 Bikeshare balancing the increase in uptake in Maintenance also a fects e-bike - Regulate that no person under the age distinguished as e-scooters and are not - Active Transportation Master Plans demographics that could bene it from adoption, mirroring a key barrier to e-scooters through a pilot program In the bikeshare sector, which is jurisdictions that do not intrinsically of sixteen shall operate a Type A e-bike permitted on multi-use trails. Toronto micromobility are broad, and ensuring cycling adoption. The cycling network - Limit the speed of e-scooters to 24 - Road Safety/Vision Zero Action Plans approximated to be in place in over 800 support e-bikes with their legislation. distinguishes between pedal-assisted that each demographic bene it equitably should have its condition maintained to a km/h, and consider requiring an - Transportation Demand Management municipalities across 56 countries65, When implementing e-shared mobility, 2. Recognize s-pedelecs in the e-bikes and SSEBs by mandating that from the introduction of micromobility is suitable degree, especially when emergency power shut o f switch Plans e-bikeshare is still a comparably small we should think not only of the system transportation network e-bikes have a maximum weight of 40 kg essential to its overall success. As they considering Canadian seasonality. Bike - Use in dedicated cycling infrastructure subset. However, the opportunity is itself but also the interaction of the lanes that are poorly maintained Currently, s-pedelecs are not permitted and that the e-bike rider “pedals for become more normalized, a shift has e.g. bike lanes and multi-use paths but The new policy directives of these apparent; e-bikeshare could help make program with legislation and other discourage both cyclists and e-bike within the power-assisted bicycle propulsion” - building upon the occurred wherein e-bikes are now being not on sidewalks or in motor vehicle sections should consider the multiple bikeshare a more viable alternative for modes. riders from utilizing the provided routes. de inition as they exceed the maximum “functional pedals” requirement within adopted by those who may not have the travel lanes with posted speed limits modes of micromobility and their unique “missing middle” trips in both urban and For some contexts, thinking about 32 km/h speed. The Bicycle Product the power-assisted bicycle de inition. same economic or social opportunities63. supportive cycling infrastructure may greater than 40 km/h mobility capabilities. This paper started suburban landscapes. In addition to Suggested Actions Suppliers Association permits Creating a functional classi ication, When we think about micromobility from need to be creative to su iciently increasing exposure of e-bikes, - Support e-bikeshare in relevant s-pedelecs as bicycles in their however, only begins to unravel the a population and demographic accommodate e-bikes and other e-bikeshare also allows the municipality planning documents classi ication model given that the U.S. future role of SSEBs on the perspective, it is important to emerging micromobility options. to control the types of e-bikes in their does not explicitly prohibit e-bikes that transportation network. There is incorporate e-bikes, e-scooters and - Pilot e-bikeshares, and monitor and Innovative pavement material and transportation network. For example, in markings, route planning and speci ic can travel at a speed higher than 32 minimal regulatory precedent for other forms of micromobility into our evaluate their impact year-round to New York City, throttle-assisted e-bikes permissions may be required to support km/h. Currently, Canada does not have a de ining SSEB and as such, determining social/health planning to guide equitable better inform future program rollouts remain illegal, but a legal pedelec diversi ied cycling capabilities on the de inition for s-pedelecs. Based on the where, or if, SSEBs it into our existing adoption. We can achieve this by - Speci ically prohibit e-bikeshare riders 66 transportation network. Comprehensive lessons learned from the EU, it is e-bikeshare was introduced . active transportation infrastructure integrating micromobility into di ferent from parking e-bikes in areas where and denser cycling networks that allow recommended that s-pedelecs be clearly requires a strong regulatory focus, policy documents such as age-friendly Nevertheless, many e-bikeshare pedestrian tra ic is impacted for choice of alternative travel modes de ined in provincial legislation as a type especially when considering the community planning, social equity implementation questions still need - Engage with emerging academic are always preferred, as they permit of moped with required licensing that conversations on safety and equity. It is planning, Vision Zero, and more. answers. The most notable for Canada research on the bene its and out users to choose the route that most appropriately matches their level of would recognize their pedal-assist recommended that stakeholder is the climate. Is it feasible to operate comes of e-bikeshares in comparable comfort. nature, but also recognize their engagement be further conducted to Suggested Actions e-bikeshare in the winter months? When municipalities increased speed to reduce potential determine the appropriate operating - De ine micromobility and the di ferent e-bikes are stored outside do their injuries and mode con licts. We propose Suggested Actions environment for SSEBs. We propose micromobility modes within O icial batteries continue to operate in these s-pedelecs be classi ied as Type B that scooter-style e-bikes be classi ied sub-zero temperatures? Are there - Plan for and maintain a complete and Plans and appropriate functional connected cycling network e-bikes as Type C. technological solutions to cold climate master plans - Consider micromobility in the planning - De ine Type B e-bikes as mopeds challenges, such as having powered - De ine a functional di ference between - Integrate micromobility into “future of future cycling routes charging docks that keep the battery at - Indicate a unique de inition for Type A-2 and Type C through mobility” sections of Transportation - Consider micromobility in the a minimum optimum temperature when Type B e-bikes within the existing regulation requiring human-propulsion Master Plans functional design of future cycling moped de inition and maximum weight not being used? We will need to address routes

47 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility

Piloting e-bikes as a solution to urban goods movement E-bikes are not only an option for personal trips, they also o fer new mobility options for cargo deliveries. In our current retail economy, how we order and receive goods is changing, and In the previous chapters, we established Suggested Actions the existing context of e-bike Based on the indings of this paper, we integration, the current legislative suggest the following legislative changes landscape, and opinions of key be explored at the provincial level to micromobility stakeholders. Through the address some of the current barriers to indings of each of these reviews, we e-bike adoption. Graphically shown in have compiled a toolbox of six e-bike Figure 8. The implementation of these integration methods that could support changes should be subject to accessible, inclusive and sustainable stakeholder engagement to further e-bike adoption in communities across analyze the implications and e fects on Canada. the e-bike sector.

- Permit pedelecs and Permit Type A - Distinguish between Type B e-bikes - Require a speedometer on Type C - When part of an e-scooter share, to identify the di ferences between - Update modelling processes to re lect these practical questions (highlighted 7.4 Cycling e-bikes similar to conventional bicycles and other less-active mopeds through e-bikes speci ically prohibit the e-scooter micromobility modes. However, further the operational capabilities of micro- through the engagement) as we language about human-propulsion infrastructure - Maintain the maximum speed of - Prohibit Type C on multi-use trails and operator and riders from leaving analysis should be done to understand mobility introduce more e-bikeshares in Canada. 32km/h - Require a mandatory helmet for other o f-road facilities e-scooters lying around on sidewalks in the interactions of these modes. - Consider micromobility through an In addition, the network of cycling - Maintain all other existing Type-B use a way that impedes pedestrian tra ic. Furthermore, much of transportation There is also an internal micromobility - Require Type C E-bikes to operate in equity lens and, whenever feasible, infrastructure is a key motivator for requirements of power-assisted competition occurring between - Require a speedometer on Type B planning is reliant on modelling. When adapt supportive micromobility policies e-bike adoption. Although some cyclists bicycles motor vehicle travel lanes, similar to e-scooter share services and e-bikes looking towards a for all applicable planning documents found that e-bikes allowed them to feel - Require a speedometer on Type A mopeds micromobility-supportive e-bikeshare services that can cause more con ident in mixed-tra ic - Regulate that no person under the age e-bikes transportation network, data, software - Acknowledge the unique bene it of implementation challenges. In some conditions, having separated and of sixteen shall operate a Type B e-bike 7.2 Planning documents - Require that the motor cease when 4. Legalize e-scooters and processes will need to be updated to micromobility to increase mobility for cases, e-bikeshares are being comfortable cycling lanes encourages a human propulsion ceases for pedelecs, Di ferent modes of micromobility ill Our survey found that only 31% of re lect how e-bikes and e-scooters our ageing population, and appropri- discontinued in lieu of e-scooter shares, broader range of cyclists and e-bike and that the motor ceases when 3. Finding a place for SSEBs 67 di ferent transportation gaps. respondents are currently planning for travel through the network. ately plan for supportive micromobility which are cheaper to operate . In some riders. When considering our ageing With the above recommendations, brakes are applied for Type A-2 E-scooters can work with e-bikes to micromobility as part of their future policies within age friendly plans, areas, these two services are being society, providing the technology solves - Require a manufacturers label that SSEBs would still exist within the e-bike When planning inclusively for new only half the battle for inclusive cycling increase the e iciency and sustainability transportation planning process. Plans transportation master plans, and implemented interchangeably despite distinguish between Type A-1 and Type classi ication, as they functionally mobility trends, it is important to trips; the infrastructure must also be of our transportation network. However, that can incorporate micromobility other relevant planning policies. o fering di fering functionalities. A-2 match the legal description of understand the inherent social and supportive of broad demographics. Also, speci ic attention should be given to how include, but are not limited to: Moreover, the New York City precedent - Monitor and evaluate e-bike usage to power-assisted bicycles. However, health impacts that could arise from a route planning will in luence the choice they are introduced. We propose the - O icial Plans raises an important challenge in of trip type, between recreational and understand how pedelecs and PABs are provinces can look to regulate SSEB via following considerations to e-scooter shift in the transportation status quo. - Secondary Plans e-bikeshare. As e-bikeshare promotes utilitarian. being utilized weight or wheel diameter requirements. 64 The background review section and regulation : e-bike use, a major challenge is - Require helmets for Type A e-bikes In the city of Toronto, SSEBs are - Transportation Master Plans engagement showed that the - Introduce the legalization of 7.3 Bikeshare balancing the increase in uptake in Maintenance also a fects e-bike - Regulate that no person under the age distinguished as e-scooters and are not - Active Transportation Master Plans demographics that could bene it from adoption, mirroring a key barrier to e-scooters through a pilot program In the bikeshare sector, which is jurisdictions that do not intrinsically of sixteen shall operate a Type A e-bike permitted on multi-use trails. Toronto micromobility are broad, and ensuring cycling adoption. The cycling network - Limit the speed of e-scooters to 24 - Road Safety/Vision Zero Action Plans approximated to be in place in over 800 support e-bikes with their legislation. distinguishes between pedal-assisted that each demographic bene it equitably should have its condition maintained to a km/h, and consider requiring an - Transportation Demand Management municipalities across 56 countries65, When implementing e-shared mobility, 2. Recognize s-pedelecs in the e-bikes and SSEBs by mandating that from the introduction of micromobility is suitable degree, especially when emergency power shut o f switch Plans e-bikeshare is still a comparably small we should think not only of the system transportation network e-bikes have a maximum weight of 40 kg essential to its overall success. As they considering Canadian seasonality. Bike - Use in dedicated cycling infrastructure subset. However, the opportunity is itself but also the interaction of the lanes that are poorly maintained Currently, s-pedelecs are not permitted and that the e-bike rider “pedals for become more normalized, a shift has e.g. bike lanes and multi-use paths but The new policy directives of these apparent; e-bikeshare could help make program with legislation and other discourage both cyclists and e-bike within the power-assisted bicycle propulsion” - building upon the occurred wherein e-bikes are now being not on sidewalks or in motor vehicle sections should consider the multiple bikeshare a more viable alternative for modes. riders from utilizing the provided routes. de inition as they exceed the maximum “functional pedals” requirement within adopted by those who may not have the travel lanes with posted speed limits modes of micromobility and their unique “missing middle” trips in both urban and For some contexts, thinking about 32 km/h speed. The Bicycle Product the power-assisted bicycle de inition. same economic or social opportunities63. supportive cycling infrastructure may greater than 40 km/h mobility capabilities. This paper started suburban landscapes. In addition to Suggested Actions Suppliers Association permits Creating a functional classi ication, When we think about micromobility from need to be creative to su iciently increasing exposure of e-bikes, - Support e-bikeshare in relevant s-pedelecs as bicycles in their however, only begins to unravel the a population and demographic accommodate e-bikes and other e-bikeshare also allows the municipality planning documents classi ication model given that the U.S. future role of SSEBs on the Figure 8 : E-bike typologies and their proposed classi ications perspective, it is important to emerging micromobility options. to control the types of e-bikes in their does not explicitly prohibit e-bikes that transportation network. There is PEDELEC/PEDAL-ASSISTED E-BIKES incorporate e-bikes, e-scooters and - Pilot e-bikeshares, and monitor and Innovative pavement material and transportation network. For example, in evaluate their impact year-round to markings, route planning and speci ic can travel at a speed higher than 32 minimal regulatory precedent for 1 Full pedal-assist 2 Pedal-assist + throttle TYPE A other forms of micromobility into our Pedal-assists motor Pedal-assists motor + throttle that can replace New York City, throttle-assisted e-bikes permissions may be required to support km/h. Currently, Canada does not have a de ining SSEB and as such, determining social/health planning to guide equitable better inform future program rollouts Max speed: 32km/h ; Min age: 16 pedalling remain illegal, but a legal pedelec diversi ied cycling capabilities on the de inition for s-pedelecs. Based on the where, or if, SSEBs it into our existing Helmet required Max speed: 32km/h ; Min age: 16 adoption. We can achieve this by - Speci ically prohibit e-bikeshare riders Helmet required e-bikeshare was introduced66. transportation network. Comprehensive lessons learned from the EU, it is active transportation infrastructure integrating micromobility into di ferent from parking e-bikes in areas where Currently deﬁned as Power-Assisted Bicycle and denser cycling networks that allow recommended that s-pedelecs be clearly requires a strong regulatory focus, policy documents such as age-friendly Nevertheless, many e-bikeshare pedestrian tra ic is impacted for choice of alternative travel modes de ined in provincial legislation as a type especially when considering the SPEED-PEDELECS (S-PEDELECS) community planning, social equity implementation questions still need - Engage with emerging academic are always preferred, as they permit

of moped with required licensing that TYPE B conversations on safety and equity. It is Full pedal-assist planning, Vision Zero, and more. answers. The most notable for Canada research on the bene its and out users to choose the route that most would recognize their pedal-assist Pedal-assists motor appropriately matches their level of recommended that stakeholder STYLE E-BIKES BICYCLE is the climate. Is it feasible to operate comes of e-bikeshares in comparable Max speed: 45km/h ; Min age: 16 comfort. nature, but also recognize their engagement be further conducted to Helmet required, Suggested Actions e-bikeshare in the winter months? When municipalities increased speed to reduce potential Recommended to have similar infrastructure permissions to mopeds determine the appropriate operating Recommended to be deﬁned as moped - De ine micromobility and the di ferent e-bikes are stored outside do their injuries and mode con licts. We propose Suggested Actions environment for SSEBs. We propose micromobility modes within O icial batteries continue to operate in these s-pedelecs be classi ied as Type B that scooter-style e-bikes be classi ied sub-zero temperatures? Are there - Plan for and maintain a complete and SCOOTER-STYLE E-BIKES Plans and appropriate functional connected cycling network e-bikes as Type C. technological solutions to cold climate Throttle-assist + functional pedals master plans - Consider micromobility in the planning - De ine Type B e-bikes as mopeds TYPE C challenges, such as having powered - De ine a functional di ference between Motor is run by throttle + bicycle pedals that can propel the bike - Integrate micromobility into “future of future cycling routes Max speed: 32km/h ; Min age: 16 charging docks that keep the battery at - Indicate a unique de inition for Type A-2 and Type C through Helmet required mobility” sections of Transportation - Consider micromobility in the Type B e-bikes within the existing regulation requiring human-propulsion Deliniate from Type A-2 by weight and human propulsion a minimum optimum temperature when Recommdend have similar infrastructure permissions to mopeds Master Plans functional design of future cycling not being used? We will need to address moped de inition and maximum weight Currently deﬁned as Power-Assisted Bicycle routes

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 48

Piloting e-bikes as a solution to urban goods movement E-bikes are not only an option for personal trips, they also o fer new mobility options for cargo deliveries. In our current retail economy, how we order and receive goods is changing, and In the previous chapters, we established Suggested Actions the existing context of e-bike Based on the indings of this paper, we integration, the current legislative suggest the following legislative changes landscape, and opinions of key be explored at the provincial level to micromobility stakeholders. Through the address some of the current barriers to indings of each of these reviews, we e-bike adoption. Graphically shown in have compiled a toolbox of six e-bike Figure 8. The implementation of these integration methods that could support changes should be subject to accessible, inclusive and sustainable stakeholder engagement to further e-bike adoption in communities across analyze the implications and e fects on Canada. the e-bike sector.

49 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility

Piloting e-bikes as a solution to urban goods movement E-bikes are not only an option for personal trips, they also o fer new mobility options for cargo deliveries. In our current retail economy, how we order and receive goods is changing, and In the previous chapters, we established Suggested Actions the existing context of e-bike Based on the indings of this paper, we integration, the current legislative suggest the following legislative changes landscape, and opinions of key be explored at the provincial level to micromobility stakeholders. Through the address some of the current barriers to indings of each of these reviews, we e-bike adoption. Graphically shown in have compiled a toolbox of six e-bike Figure 8. The implementation of these integration methods that could support changes should be subject to accessible, inclusive and sustainable stakeholder engagement to further e-bike adoption in communities across analyze the implications and e fects on Canada. the e-bike sector.

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 50

Piloting e-bikes as a solution to urban goods movement E-bikes are not only an option for personal trips, they also o fer new mobility options for cargo deliveries. In our current retail economy, how we order and receive goods is changing, and In the previous chapters, we established Suggested Actions the existing context of e-bike Based on the indings of this paper, we integration, the current legislative suggest the following legislative changes landscape, and opinions of key be explored at the provincial level to micromobility stakeholders. Through the address some of the current barriers to indings of each of these reviews, we e-bike adoption. Graphically shown in have compiled a toolbox of six e-bike Figure 8. The implementation of these integration methods that could support changes should be subject to accessible, inclusive and sustainable stakeholder engagement to further e-bike adoption in communities across analyze the implications and e fects on Canada. the e-bike sector.

51 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility In the previous chapters, we established Suggested Actions the existing context of e-bike Based on the indings of this paper, we integration, the current legislative suggest the following legislative changes landscape, and opinions of key be explored at the provincial level to micromobility stakeholders. Through the address some of the current barriers to indings of each of these reviews, we e-bike adoption. Graphically shown in have compiled a toolbox of six e-bike Figure 8. The implementation of these integration methods that could support changes should be subject to accessible, inclusive and sustainable stakeholder engagement to further e-bike adoption in communities across analyze the implications and e fects on Canada. the e-bike sector.

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 52 In the previous chapters, we established Suggested Actions the existing context of e-bike Based on the indings of this paper, we integration, the current legislative suggest the following legislative changes landscape, and opinions of key be explored at the provincial level to micromobility stakeholders. Through the address some of the current barriers to indings of each of these reviews, we e-bike adoption. Graphically shown in have compiled a toolbox of six e-bike Figure 8. The implementation of these integration methods that could support changes should be subject to accessible, inclusive and sustainable stakeholder engagement to further e-bike adoption in communities across analyze the implications and e fects on Canada. the e-bike sector.

7.5 Incentives and pilots the sustainability of goods movement is 7.6 Education e-bikeshare programs, infrastructure should be paramount, as their unique an increasing environmental concern. permissions, and future incentives and capability to address the missing middle As can be seen, e-bikeshare pilots are Between 2005 and 2015, the number of The discussion surrounding pilots. We provide preliminary legislation of our transportation network is another option to introduce the parcels delivered globally grew by 128%71. micromobility is on going, and subject to Conclusions recommendations as part of this paper; opportune, and could fundamentally technology on a trial basis. Several Some companies are already integrating change as new trends emerge. As such, however, the rede inition of e-bikes shift how we perceive mobility in our e-bikeshare pilots currently exist across micromobility into their business plans - practitioner and public education are and Next Steps should be carefully considered and communities. the United States, and could be explored UPS introduced the service in late 201872. vital to e-bike integration. We need to phased with stakeholder engagement to Through further exploration of the further in Canada to show the potential A Seattle pilot introduces a speci ically facilitate an open conversation around better understand the opportunities and above recommendations, alongside of e-bikes in addressing transportation designed cargo e-bike to complete local micromobility that supports associated challenges. continued research and engagement, we gaps. To increase e-bike appeal and delivery trips within the city, reducing knowledge-sharing across jurisdictions. The onset of e-bikes and micromobility is could introduce micromobility as a ownership, monetary incentives can also the tra ic congestion caused by delivery Moreover, this knowledge should be In a rapidly evolving society, we should be looked to the legislation and already occurring and the response to practical travel mode choice for many be used to make them more a fordable trucks and vehicles. communicated clearly and plainly to the rethinking how travel patterns can practitioners to understand how we are this transportation change should be that, along with public transit, can allow to potential users. France is currently public to encourage their support and adapt to our societal trends. The currently permitting or prohibiting swift to best guide their future role us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions promoting pedelecs to the public opinions on micromobility. purpose of this paper was to raise key e-bikes on our transportation network. within the transportation network. We while improving our quality of life. through a $300 purchase rebate68. A Suggested Actions questions and initiate a discussion Based on these reviews, we identi ied have the opportunity now to rede ine similar program is also available in Suggested Actions - Explore the opportunity for rebate regarding how e-bikes, and subsequently opportunities in the Canadian e-bike micromobility in Canada. Leveraging the Norway, where residents are o fered - Clearly communicate the functionality programs for e-bikes and other all micromobility, can it into the existing context to better integrate e-bikes and potential of e-bikes and e-scooters $1,200 in Oslo to buy an e-cargo bike69. provincial and/or federal micromobility of e-bikes in online and in-print North American transportation e-scooters. The legislation, Utilizing inancial incentives to increase modes educational materials network. We framed this discussion practitioners, existing and future uptake is not unique to e-bike technology - Whenever feasible, introduce e-bike - Mandate that e-bikeshare operators under seven key questions: trends, public perception, and available and has been considered within Canada pilot programs that can explore provide educational videos for infrastructure are all elements that are new-riders with other emerging technologies. In potential new markets for e-bikes 1 What are e-bikes & how do we impacting the growth of the Ontario, the Electric Vehicle and (such as urban goods movement) - Update the Driver Training Manual to de ine them? micromobility market. The modes are Hydrogen Vehicle Incentive Program - Approach the Canadian Government to include information on e-bikes and being adopted by a diverse user-base to e-scooters (EHVIP) provided inancial rebates expand their current electric vehicle 2 What is the existing role of ill a missing middle in transportation. ($14,000) and High Occupancy Vehicle e-bikes and how could this incentive program to include a similar We see the opportunity for e-bikes and lane privileges to electric vehicle change? rebate for e-bikes. e.g. $275 o f a kick-style e-scooters to promote purchasers. During the program, sales $250-500 e-bike. sustainable commuting, further shared increased by 120%. This EHVIP program How does legislation impact 3 mobility, support multi-modal is no longer o fered in Ontario by the e-bike integration? integration, and improve equity of provincial government; however, as of transportation. However, this cannot be May 2019, the Canadian government What lessons can be learned 4 done without a few crucial changes to announced a rebate of $5,000 o f from current e-bike regulation? how micromobility is currently being electric vehicles that cost less than introduced. There is ample scope within $45,00070. When promoting How do practitioners perceive 5 the Canadian transportation context to micromobility, incentives would be an micromobility? support rede ining e-bikes and worthwhile option that should be e-scooters to better inform their role in explored further within Canada. 6 How can micromobility address our transportation network. Most the missing middle of transportation? notably, the apparent operational di ferences between BSEB and SSEB Piloting e-bikes as a should be re lected in regulation. The 7 What are the best tools for solution to urban goods integrating micromobility and legislation is vital to how the public e-bikes in the Canadian Context? perceives e-bikes and e-scooters, and movement currently, the lack of de inition between SSEB, BSEB, pedal-assist and E-bikes are not only an option for Each of these questions informed the throttle-assist models is contributing to personal trips, they also o fer new discussion. Based on the existing role of perceived ambiguity surrounding mobility options for cargo deliveries. In e-bikes, we cross-compared our e-bikes. Re ined legislation could better our current retail economy, how we future-ready trends to explore how inform new mobility planning, order and receive goods is changing, and e-bike trends could change. We then

53 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility In the previous chapters, we established Suggested Actions the existing context of e-bike Based on the indings of this paper, we integration, the current legislative suggest the following legislative changes landscape, and opinions of key be explored at the provincial level to micromobility stakeholders. Through the address some of the current barriers to indings of each of these reviews, we e-bike adoption. Graphically shown in have compiled a toolbox of six e-bike Figure 8. The implementation of these integration methods that could support changes should be subject to accessible, inclusive and sustainable stakeholder engagement to further e-bike adoption in communities across analyze the implications and e fects on Canada. the e-bike sector.

7.5 Incentives and pilots the sustainability of goods movement is 7.6 Education e-bikeshare programs, infrastructure should be paramount, as their unique an increasing environmental concern. permissions, and future incentives and capability to address the missing middle As can be seen, e-bikeshare pilots are Between 2005 and 2015, the number of The discussion surrounding pilots. We provide preliminary legislation of our transportation network is another option to introduce the parcels delivered globally grew by 128%71. micromobility is on going, and subject to recommendations as part of this paper; opportune, and could fundamentally technology on a trial basis. Several Some companies are already integrating change as new trends emerge. As such, however, the rede inition of e-bikes shift how we perceive mobility in our e-bikeshare pilots currently exist across micromobility into their business plans - practitioner and public education are should be carefully considered and communities. the United States, and could be explored UPS introduced the service in late 201872. vital to e-bike integration. We need to phased with stakeholder engagement to Through further exploration of the further in Canada to show the potential A Seattle pilot introduces a speci ically facilitate an open conversation around better understand the opportunities and above recommendations, alongside of e-bikes in addressing transportation designed cargo e-bike to complete local micromobility that supports associated challenges. continued research and engagement, we gaps. To increase e-bike appeal and delivery trips within the city, reducing knowledge-sharing across jurisdictions. The onset of e-bikes and micromobility is could introduce micromobility as a ownership, monetary incentives can also the tra ic congestion caused by delivery Moreover, this knowledge should be In a rapidly evolving society, we should be looked to the legislation and already occurring and the response to practical travel mode choice for many be used to make them more a fordable trucks and vehicles. communicated clearly and plainly to the rethinking how travel patterns can practitioners to understand how we are this transportation change should be that, along with public transit, can allow to potential users. France is currently public to encourage their support and adapt to our societal trends. The currently permitting or prohibiting swift to best guide their future role us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions promoting pedelecs to the public opinions on micromobility. purpose of this paper was to raise key e-bikes on our transportation network. within the transportation network. We while improving our quality of life. through a $300 purchase rebate68. A Suggested Actions questions and initiate a discussion Based on these reviews, we identi ied have the opportunity now to rede ine similar program is also available in Suggested Actions - Explore the opportunity for rebate regarding how e-bikes, and subsequently opportunities in the Canadian e-bike micromobility in Canada. Leveraging the Norway, where residents are o fered - Clearly communicate the functionality programs for e-bikes and other all micromobility, can it into the existing context to better integrate e-bikes and potential of e-bikes and e-scooters $1,200 in Oslo to buy an e-cargo bike69. provincial and/or federal micromobility of e-bikes in online and in-print North American transportation e-scooters. The legislation, Utilizing inancial incentives to increase modes educational materials network. We framed this discussion practitioners, existing and future uptake is not unique to e-bike technology - Whenever feasible, introduce e-bike - Mandate that e-bikeshare operators under seven key questions: trends, public perception, and available and has been considered within Canada pilot programs that can explore provide educational videos for infrastructure are all elements that are with other emerging technologies. In potential new markets for e-bikes new-riders impacting the growth of the Ontario, the Electric Vehicle and (such as urban goods movement) - Update the Driver Training Manual to micromobility market. The modes are Hydrogen Vehicle Incentive Program - Approach the Canadian Government to include information on e-bikes and being adopted by a diverse user-base to (EHVIP) provided inancial rebates expand their current electric vehicle e-scooters ill a missing middle in transportation. ($14,000) and High Occupancy Vehicle incentive program to include a similar We see the opportunity for e-bikes and lane privileges to electric vehicle rebate for e-bikes. e.g. $275 o f a kick-style e-scooters to promote purchasers. During the program, sales $250-500 e-bike. sustainable commuting, further shared increased by 120%. This EHVIP program mobility, support multi-modal is no longer o fered in Ontario by the integration, and improve equity of provincial government; however, as of transportation. However, this cannot be May 2019, the Canadian government done without a few crucial changes to announced a rebate of $5,000 o f how micromobility is currently being electric vehicles that cost less than introduced. There is ample scope within $45,00070. When promoting the Canadian transportation context to micromobility, incentives would be an support rede ining e-bikes and worthwhile option that should be e-scooters to better inform their role in explored further within Canada. our transportation network. Most notably, the apparent operational di ferences between BSEB and SSEB Piloting e-bikes as a should be re lected in regulation. The solution to urban goods legislation is vital to how the public perceives e-bikes and e-scooters, and movement currently, the lack of de inition between SSEB, BSEB, pedal-assist and E-bikes are not only an option for Each of these questions informed the throttle-assist models is contributing to personal trips, they also o fer new discussion. Based on the existing role of perceived ambiguity surrounding mobility options for cargo deliveries. In e-bikes, we cross-compared our e-bikes. Re ined legislation could better our current retail economy, how we future-ready trends to explore how inform new mobility planning, order and receive goods is changing, and e-bike trends could change. We then

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 54 Contributors

Authors Reviewers

Samantha Leger Kitty Chiu Transportation Planner Transportation Planner, Urban [email protected] Mobility [email protected]

Dave McLaughlin Mariya Otten Andrew National Active Transportation Manager, Transportation Planning Lead Alberta [email protected] [email protected]

Karl Tracksdorf Mara Bullock Transportation Planner National ITS & Technology Planning [email protected] Manager [email protected]

Additional Credits WSP would like to thank Jamie Stuckless and the Share the Road Cycling Coalition for their support in facilitating the survey and for their research on e-scooters.

55 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility Energies, 11(7), 1894. -ebikes/index.html 50. Navigant Research. (2016). Li-Ion and SLA E-Bikes: 68. European Cyclists Federation. (2016). Electromobility Drivetrain, Motor, and Battery Technology Trends, for all: inancial incentives for e-cycling. References 16. https://www.biktrix.com; http://www.pedaleasy.ca/; 34. Global News. (2018). Calgary’s new bike-share program Competitive Landscape, and Global Market Forecasts https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/ iles/FINAL%20for%20web https://www.eprodigybikes.com/; faces winter test https://www.pedegoelectricbikes.com/wp-content/uploads %20170216%20ECF%20Report_E%20FOR%20ALL-%20FI https://www.voltbike.com/?___store=default; https://globalnews.ca/news/4636989/calgary-lime-Bikesh /2016/07/MF-EBIKE-16-Executive-Summary-w-Pedego.pd NANCIAL%20INCENTIVES%20FOR%20E-CYCLING.pdf https://www.pedegoelectricbikes.com/ are-winter/ f 69. CityLab. (2017). Oslo Norway City Grant for Electric 1. Clewlow, R. The micro-mobility revolution: the Cargo Bikes. introduction and adoption of electric scooters in the 17. https://www.emmo.ca/electric-scooter-ebike; 35. motor vehicle safety regulations (c.r.c., c. 1038) 51. Electric Bike Report. (2018). Derby electric bikeshare https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/oslo-nor United States. TRB Annual Meeting. http://www.daymak.com/; https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/c.r.c.,_c._10 program a surprising success. way-city-grant-for-electric-cargo-bikes/515100/ 38/fulltext.html#s-2 https://electricbikereport.com/derby-electric-Bikeshare-p 2. Hampton, K., Sessions, L., Ja Her, E., Rainie, L. (2009). 18. Johnson, M., & Rose, G. (2015). Extending life on the rogram-a-surprising-success/ 70. Global News. (2019). Canada electric car rebate Social Isolation and New Technology: How the internet and bike: electric bike use by older Australians. Journal of 36. Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 152, Number 20: program: mobile phones impact Americans’ social networks. Pew Transport & Health, 2(2), 276-283. Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made under 52. Engadget. (2018).Paris launches world’s largest e-bike https://globalnews.ca/news/5225373/canada-electric-car- Internet and the American Life Project. the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (National Safety Marks and leet to curb pollution. rebate-program/ https://www.pewinternet.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/9/ 19. Dill, J., & Rose, G. (2012). Electric bikes and Importation)http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2018/2018 https://www.engadget.com/2018/11/09/paris-veligo-electri media/Files/Reports/2009/PIP_Tech_and_Social_Isolation transportation policy: Insights from early adopters. -05-19/html/reg5-eng.html c-bike-rental-program/ 71. World Economic Forum. (2018). Designing a Seamless .pdf Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Integrated Mobility System (SIMSystem) A Manifesto for Transportation Research Board, (2314), 1-6. 37. Bike Europe. (2018). Rules and Regulations for 53. Langford, B. C., Cherry, C., Yoon, T., Worley, S., & Transforming Passenger and Goods Mobility. 3. Cornwell, E. Y., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Social Electric-Cycles in European Union. Bike Europe. Smith, D. (2013). North America's irst E-Bikeshare: a year http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Designing_SIMSystem_M disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among 20. Ramage-Morin, P. (2017). Cycling in Canada. Statistics https://www.bike-eu.com/laws-regulations/nieuws/2018/10 of experience. Transportation research record, 2387(1), anifesto_Transforming_Passenger_Goods_Mobility.pdf older adults. Journal of health and social behavior, 50(1), Canada. /bike-europe-whitepaper-on-all-you-need-to-know-on-e- 120-128. 31-48. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/82-003-x/201700 bike-regulations-10134633 72. Geekwire. (2018). UPS launches cargo e-bike delivery in 4/article/14788-eng.pdf?st=RLNTSPfB 54. Gizmodo. (2018). Why don’t more cities have Seattle: 4. CBC News. (2017). Canadian seniors now outnumber 38. Smart Cities Drive. (2019). Mapping the Impact of e-bikeshares: https://www.geekwire.com/2018/ups-launches-cargo-e-bi children for 1st time, 2016 census shows: 21. Popovich, N., Gordon, E., Shao, Z., Xing, Y., Wang, Y., & Dockless Vehicles. https://gizmodo.com/why-dont-more-cities-have-e-Bikes ke-delivery-seattle-returning-bicycle-courier-origins-cent https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/2016-census-age-gende Handy, S. (2014). Experiences of electric bicycle users in https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/mapping-the-imp hares-1595348781 ury-later/ r-1.4095360 the Sacramento, California area. Travel Behaviour and act-of-dockless-vehicles/539263/ Society, 1(2), 37-44. 55. Bikeshare.com (2018). 5 bikeshare trends enhancing 73. Trivedi, T. K., Liu, C., Antonio, A. L. M., Wheaton, N., 5. CloseCommute Systems inc. (2018). The E fects of Long 39. People for Bikes. (2018). E-Bike Law Primer. interaction and solving challenges. Kreger, V., Yap, A., ... & Elmore, J. G. (2019). Injuries Commutes and What To Do About Them – An Annotated 22. Jones, T., Harms, L., & Heinen, E. (2016). Motives, https://peopleforbikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/E https://www.bikeshare.com/news/ ive-Bikeshare-trends-e associated with standing electric scooter use. JAMA Bibliography. perceptions and experiences of electric bicycle owners -Bike-Law-Primer-updated-April-2018.pdf nhancing-interaction-solving-challenges/ network open, 2(1), e187381-e187381. https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/391/2018/08/C and implications for health, wellbeing and mobility. loser-Commutes.pdf Journal of transport geography, 53, 41-49. 56. Munkácsy, A., & Monzón, A. (2017). Potential user 40. Brief on Australian e-bike regulations: pro iles of innovative bike-sharing systems: the case of 6. Grandview Research. (2019). Shared Mobility Market 23. National Institute for Transportation and http://dillengerelectricbikes.com.au/blog/electric-bikes-an BiciMAD (Madrid, Spain). Asian Transport Studies, 4(3), Size, Share, and Trends Analysis. Communities. (2018). North American Survey Electric d-the-law.html; 621-638. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global Bicycle Owners. -shared-mobility-market 41. E-bike speed forum: 57. Trivedi, T. K., Liu, C., Antonio, A. L. M., Wheaton, N., 24. Leger, S. J., Dean, J. L., Edge, S., & Casello, J. M. (2018). https://www.quora.com/Why-the-silly-25-km-h-speed-limi Kreger, V., Yap, A., ... & Elmore, J. G. (2019). Injuries 7. Statistics Canada. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by “If I had a regular bicycle, I wouldn’t be out riding tation-on-e-bikes-when-many-of-us-can-cycle-30km-h+- associated with standing electric scooter use. JAMA Canadian Sector. anymore”: Perspectives on the potential of e-bikes to anyway network open, 2(1), e187381-e187381. https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?l support active living and independent mobility among ang=en&n=F60DB708- older adults in Waterloo, Canada. Transportation 42. Langford, Brian Casey, "A comparative health and 58. https://jump.com/ Research Part A: Policy and Practice. safety analysis of electric-assist and regular bicycles in an 8. Edge, S., & Good ield, J. (2017). Responses to electric on-campus bicycle sharing system.. " PhD diss., University 59. TechCrunch. (2018). Uber aquires Bikeshare start up bikes (e-bikes) amongst stakeholders and decision-makers 25. International Mountain Bikers’ Association. (2017). of Tennessee, Jump. with in luence on transportation reform in Toronto, https://www.imba.com/blog/imba-updates-emtb-position- 2013.https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2445 https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/09/uber-acquires-Bikesh Canada. In Canadian Transportation Research Forum statement are-startup-jump/ 52nd Annual Conference-Canadian Transportation: 150 43. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2019). Years of Progress//Les transports au Canada: 150 ans de 26. CBC News. (2018). Regulation for electric bikes may State Electric Bicycle Laws | A Legislative Primer 60. https://www.li.me/electric-assist-bike progrès-Winnipeg, Manitoba, May 28-31, 2017. forever change B.C. mountain trails: http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/state-electr https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/regula ic-bicycle-laws-a-legislative-primer.aspx 61. https://www.motivateco.com/ 9. MacArthur, J., & Kobel, N. (2014). Regulations of E-Bikes tion-for-electric-bikes-may-forever-change-b-c-mountai in North America: A Policy Review (No. NITC-RR-564). n-trails-1.4595145 44. Leger, S. 2018. Clarifying the di ferences in emerging 62. CityLab. (2018). Lyft buys motivate bikesharing transportation technology: How do we de ine e-bikes? systems. 10. Aono, S., & Bigazzi, A. (2019). Industry Stakeholder 27. Seattle Times. (2018). Disabled woman says Forest OPPI Journal. Published. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/lyft-buys Perspectives on the Adoption of Electric Bicycles in Service discriminates by barring e-bikes on trails: -motivate-bikesharing-systems/564347/ British Columbia. Transportation Research Record, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/klickitat-cou 45. Gehlert, T., Kühn, M., Schleinitz, K., Petzoldt, T., 0361198119837158. nty-woman-wants-forest-service-to-allow-the-disabled-t Schwanitz, S., & Gerike, R. (2012, November). The German 63. New York Times. (2012). For deliverymen: speed, tips o-use-electric-bikes-on-nonmotorized-trails/ pedelec naturalistic cycling study–study design and irst and fear on wheels. 11. CBC News. (2018). Toronto's e-bike industry charges experiences. In International Cycling Safety Conference https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/nyregion/for-food-d toward a record year, and major car makers want in: 29. Cavill, N. & Davis, A. Cycling and Health. Cycle England. (pp. 7-8). elivery-workers-speed-tips-and-fear-on-wheels.html?mo https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ebike-sales-cha http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cycling_and_health.pdf dule=inline llenges-2018-1.4897300 46. League of American Cyclists. (2014). Electric Bicycles 30. Bourne, J. E., Sauchelli, S., Perry, R., Page, A., Leary, Public Perceptions and Policy. 64. McLaughlin, D, Stuckless, S. Preparing for E-Scooters 12. Cherry, Christopher, and Robert Cervero. "Use S., England, C., & Cooper, A. R. (2018). Health bene its of http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/ iles/E_bikes_min in Canada. Transportation Talk- Spring 2019. characteristics and mode choice behavior of electric bike electrically-assisted cycling: a systematic review. i_report.pdf https://www.cite7.org/transportation-talk-spring-2019/ users in China." Transport policy 14.3 (2007): 247-257. International journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 15(1), 116. 47. Agree: 100%-75%; somewhat agree: 50%-74%; 65. Urban Land Institute. Active transportation and real 13. Trend Hunter Tech. (2018). Trends in e-bike food disagree: less than 50%. estate: the next frontier. delivery: 31. CBC News. (2018). Toronto's e-bike industry charges https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Bicycl https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/food-deliveryfocuse toward a record year, and major car makers want in: 48. CBC News. (2018). Highlights: 2016 census data on e-Sharing.pdf d-ebikes https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ebike-sales-cha education, labour and commuting llenges-2018-1.4897300 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statscan-census-educat 66. AM Network. (2019). Citi Bike's massive electric bike ion-commute-1.4424562 expansion increases leet by 4,000 14. Edge, S., Dean, J., Cuomo, M., & S Keshav. (2018). 32. The Guardian. (2019). 'Bike country No 1': Dutch go https://www.amny.com/amp/transit/electric-bike-rental-1. Exploring e-bikes as a mode of sustainable transport: A electric in record numbers: 49. National Institute for Transportation and 27875149 temporal qualitative study of the perspectives of a sample https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/bike-co Communities. (2018). North American Survey Electric of novice riders in a Canadian city. The Canadian untry-n0-1-dutch-electric-record-numbers-e-bikes-nethe Bicycle Owners. 67. The Daily Journal. (2019). Lime to pull bikes, surprising Geographer. Online First. rlands https://peopleforbikes.org/wp--content/uploads/2018/06/ San Mateo, South San Francisco and Burlingame o icials NITC_1041_North_American_Survey_Electric_Bicycle_Ow https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/lime-to-pull-bi 15. Salmeron-Manzano, E., & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. 33. CNN News. (2018). GM getting into e-bike business. ners_1h70rdN.pdf kes-surprising-san-mateo-south-san-francisco/article_3e (2018). The electric bicycle: Worldwide research trends. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/business/general-motors 391e54-34c9-11e9-b2c2-a7715af6b2c2.html

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 56 Energies, 11(7), 1894. -ebikes/index.html 50. Navigant Research. (2016). Li-Ion and SLA E-Bikes: 68. European Cyclists Federation. (2016). Electromobility Drivetrain, Motor, and Battery Technology Trends, for all: inancial incentives for e-cycling. 16. https://www.biktrix.com; http://www.pedaleasy.ca/; 34. Global News. (2018). Calgary’s new bike-share program Competitive Landscape, and Global Market Forecasts https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/ iles/FINAL%20for%20web https://www.eprodigybikes.com/; faces winter test https://www.pedegoelectricbikes.com/wp-content/uploads %20170216%20ECF%20Report_E%20FOR%20ALL-%20FI https://www.voltbike.com/?___store=default; https://globalnews.ca/news/4636989/calgary-lime-Bikesh /2016/07/MF-EBIKE-16-Executive-Summary-w-Pedego.pd NANCIAL%20INCENTIVES%20FOR%20E-CYCLING.pdf https://www.pedegoelectricbikes.com/ are-winter/ f 69. CityLab. (2017). Oslo Norway City Grant for Electric 1. Clewlow, R. The micro-mobility revolution: the Cargo Bikes. introduction and adoption of electric scooters in the 17. https://www.emmo.ca/electric-scooter-ebike; 35. motor vehicle safety regulations (c.r.c., c. 1038) 51. Electric Bike Report. (2018). Derby electric bikeshare https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/oslo-nor United States. TRB Annual Meeting. http://www.daymak.com/; https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/c.r.c.,_c._10 program a surprising success. way-city-grant-for-electric-cargo-bikes/515100/ 38/fulltext.html#s-2 https://electricbikereport.com/derby-electric-Bikeshare-p 2. Hampton, K., Sessions, L., Ja Her, E., Rainie, L. (2009). 18. Johnson, M., & Rose, G. (2015). Extending life on the rogram-a-surprising-success/ 70. Global News. (2019). Canada electric car rebate Social Isolation and New Technology: How the internet and bike: electric bike use by older Australians. Journal of 36. Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 152, Number 20: program: mobile phones impact Americans’ social networks. Pew Transport & Health, 2(2), 276-283. Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made under 52. Engadget. (2018).Paris launches world’s largest e-bike https://globalnews.ca/news/5225373/canada-electric-car- Internet and the American Life Project. the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (National Safety Marks and leet to curb pollution. rebate-program/ https://www.pewinternet.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/9/ 19. Dill, J., & Rose, G. (2012). Electric bikes and Importation)http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2018/2018 https://www.engadget.com/2018/11/09/paris-veligo-electri media/Files/Reports/2009/PIP_Tech_and_Social_Isolation transportation policy: Insights from early adopters. -05-19/html/reg5-eng.html c-bike-rental-program/ 71. World Economic Forum. (2018). Designing a Seamless .pdf Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Integrated Mobility System (SIMSystem) A Manifesto for Transportation Research Board, (2314), 1-6. 37. Bike Europe. (2018). Rules and Regulations for 53. Langford, B. C., Cherry, C., Yoon, T., Worley, S., & Transforming Passenger and Goods Mobility. 3. Cornwell, E. Y., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Social Electric-Cycles in European Union. Bike Europe. Smith, D. (2013). North America's irst E-Bikeshare: a year http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Designing_SIMSystem_M disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among 20. Ramage-Morin, P. (2017). Cycling in Canada. Statistics https://www.bike-eu.com/laws-regulations/nieuws/2018/10 of experience. Transportation research record, 2387(1), anifesto_Transforming_Passenger_Goods_Mobility.pdf older adults. Journal of health and social behavior, 50(1), Canada. /bike-europe-whitepaper-on-all-you-need-to-know-on-e- 120-128. 31-48. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/82-003-x/201700 bike-regulations-10134633 72. Geekwire. (2018). UPS launches cargo e-bike delivery in 4/article/14788-eng.pdf?st=RLNTSPfB 54. Gizmodo. (2018). Why don’t more cities have Seattle: 4. CBC News. (2017). Canadian seniors now outnumber 38. Smart Cities Drive. (2019). Mapping the Impact of e-bikeshares: https://www.geekwire.com/2018/ups-launches-cargo-e-bi children for 1st time, 2016 census shows: 21. Popovich, N., Gordon, E., Shao, Z., Xing, Y., Wang, Y., & Dockless Vehicles. https://gizmodo.com/why-dont-more-cities-have-e-Bikes ke-delivery-seattle-returning-bicycle-courier-origins-cent https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/2016-census-age-gende Handy, S. (2014). Experiences of electric bicycle users in https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/mapping-the-imp hares-1595348781 ury-later/ r-1.4095360 the Sacramento, California area. Travel Behaviour and act-of-dockless-vehicles/539263/ Society, 1(2), 37-44. 55. Bikeshare.com (2018). 5 bikeshare trends enhancing 73. Trivedi, T. K., Liu, C., Antonio, A. L. M., Wheaton, N., 5. CloseCommute Systems inc. (2018). The E fects of Long 39. People for Bikes. (2018). E-Bike Law Primer. interaction and solving challenges. Kreger, V., Yap, A., ... & Elmore, J. G. (2019). Injuries Commutes and What To Do About Them – An Annotated 22. Jones, T., Harms, L., & Heinen, E. (2016). Motives, https://peopleforbikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/E https://www.bikeshare.com/news/ ive-Bikeshare-trends-e associated with standing electric scooter use. JAMA Bibliography. perceptions and experiences of electric bicycle owners -Bike-Law-Primer-updated-April-2018.pdf nhancing-interaction-solving-challenges/ network open, 2(1), e187381-e187381. https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/391/2018/08/C and implications for health, wellbeing and mobility. loser-Commutes.pdf Journal of transport geography, 53, 41-49. 56. Munkácsy, A., & Monzón, A. (2017). Potential user 40. Brief on Australian e-bike regulations: pro iles of innovative bike-sharing systems: the case of 6. Grandview Research. (2019). Shared Mobility Market 23. National Institute for Transportation and http://dillengerelectricbikes.com.au/blog/electric-bikes-an BiciMAD (Madrid, Spain). Asian Transport Studies, 4(3), Size, Share, and Trends Analysis. Communities. (2018). North American Survey Electric d-the-law.html; 621-638. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global Bicycle Owners. -shared-mobility-market 41. E-bike speed forum: 57. Trivedi, T. K., Liu, C., Antonio, A. L. M., Wheaton, N., 24. Leger, S. J., Dean, J. L., Edge, S., & Casello, J. M. (2018). https://www.quora.com/Why-the-silly-25-km-h-speed-limi Kreger, V., Yap, A., ... & Elmore, J. G. (2019). Injuries 7. Statistics Canada. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by “If I had a regular bicycle, I wouldn’t be out riding tation-on-e-bikes-when-many-of-us-can-cycle-30km-h+- associated with standing electric scooter use. JAMA Canadian Sector. anymore”: Perspectives on the potential of e-bikes to anyway network open, 2(1), e187381-e187381. https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?l support active living and independent mobility among ang=en&n=F60DB708- older adults in Waterloo, Canada. Transportation 42. Langford, Brian Casey, "A comparative health and 58. https://jump.com/ Research Part A: Policy and Practice. safety analysis of electric-assist and regular bicycles in an 8. Edge, S., & Good ield, J. (2017). Responses to electric on-campus bicycle sharing system.. " PhD diss., University 59. TechCrunch. (2018). Uber aquires Bikeshare start up bikes (e-bikes) amongst stakeholders and decision-makers 25. International Mountain Bikers’ Association. (2017). of Tennessee, Jump. with in luence on transportation reform in Toronto, https://www.imba.com/blog/imba-updates-emtb-position- 2013.https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2445 https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/09/uber-acquires-Bikesh Canada. In Canadian Transportation Research Forum statement are-startup-jump/ 52nd Annual Conference-Canadian Transportation: 150 43. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2019). Years of Progress//Les transports au Canada: 150 ans de 26. CBC News. (2018). Regulation for electric bikes may State Electric Bicycle Laws | A Legislative Primer 60. https://www.li.me/electric-assist-bike progrès-Winnipeg, Manitoba, May 28-31, 2017. forever change B.C. mountain trails: http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/state-electr https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/regula ic-bicycle-laws-a-legislative-primer.aspx 61. https://www.motivateco.com/ 9. MacArthur, J., & Kobel, N. (2014). Regulations of E-Bikes tion-for-electric-bikes-may-forever-change-b-c-mountai in North America: A Policy Review (No. NITC-RR-564). n-trails-1.4595145 44. Leger, S. 2018. Clarifying the di ferences in emerging 62. CityLab. (2018). Lyft buys motivate bikesharing transportation technology: How do we de ine e-bikes? systems. 10. Aono, S., & Bigazzi, A. (2019). Industry Stakeholder 27. Seattle Times. (2018). Disabled woman says Forest OPPI Journal. Published. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/lyft-buys Perspectives on the Adoption of Electric Bicycles in Service discriminates by barring e-bikes on trails: -motivate-bikesharing-systems/564347/ British Columbia. Transportation Research Record, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/klickitat-cou 45. Gehlert, T., Kühn, M., Schleinitz, K., Petzoldt, T., 0361198119837158. nty-woman-wants-forest-service-to-allow-the-disabled-t Schwanitz, S., & Gerike, R. (2012, November). The German 63. New York Times. (2012). For deliverymen: speed, tips o-use-electric-bikes-on-nonmotorized-trails/ pedelec naturalistic cycling study–study design and irst and fear on wheels. 11. CBC News. (2018). Toronto's e-bike industry charges experiences. In International Cycling Safety Conference https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/nyregion/for-food-d toward a record year, and major car makers want in: 29. Cavill, N. & Davis, A. Cycling and Health. Cycle England. (pp. 7-8). elivery-workers-speed-tips-and-fear-on-wheels.html?mo https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ebike-sales-cha http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cycling_and_health.pdf dule=inline llenges-2018-1.4897300 46. League of American Cyclists. (2014). Electric Bicycles 30. Bourne, J. E., Sauchelli, S., Perry, R., Page, A., Leary, Public Perceptions and Policy. 64. McLaughlin, D, Stuckless, S. Preparing for E-Scooters 12. Cherry, Christopher, and Robert Cervero. "Use S., England, C., & Cooper, A. R. (2018). Health bene its of http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/ iles/E_bikes_min in Canada. Transportation Talk- Spring 2019. characteristics and mode choice behavior of electric bike electrically-assisted cycling: a systematic review. i_report.pdf https://www.cite7.org/transportation-talk-spring-2019/ users in China." Transport policy 14.3 (2007): 247-257. International journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 15(1), 116. 47. Agree: 100%-75%; somewhat agree: 50%-74%; 65. Urban Land Institute. Active transportation and real 13. Trend Hunter Tech. (2018). Trends in e-bike food disagree: less than 50%. estate: the next frontier. delivery: 31. CBC News. (2018). Toronto's e-bike industry charges https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Bicycl https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/food-deliveryfocuse toward a record year, and major car makers want in: 48. CBC News. (2018). Highlights: 2016 census data on e-Sharing.pdf d-ebikes https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ebike-sales-cha education, labour and commuting llenges-2018-1.4897300 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statscan-census-educat 66. AM Network. (2019). Citi Bike's massive electric bike ion-commute-1.4424562 expansion increases leet by 4,000 14. Edge, S., Dean, J., Cuomo, M., & S Keshav. (2018). 32. The Guardian. (2019). 'Bike country No 1': Dutch go https://www.amny.com/amp/transit/electric-bike-rental-1. Exploring e-bikes as a mode of sustainable transport: A electric in record numbers: 49. National Institute for Transportation and 27875149 temporal qualitative study of the perspectives of a sample https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/bike-co Communities. (2018). North American Survey Electric of novice riders in a Canadian city. The Canadian untry-n0-1-dutch-electric-record-numbers-e-bikes-nethe Bicycle Owners. 67. The Daily Journal. (2019). Lime to pull bikes, surprising Geographer. Online First. rlands https://peopleforbikes.org/wp--content/uploads/2018/06/ San Mateo, South San Francisco and Burlingame o icials NITC_1041_North_American_Survey_Electric_Bicycle_Ow https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/lime-to-pull-bi 15. Salmeron-Manzano, E., & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. 33. CNN News. (2018). GM getting into e-bike business. ners_1h70rdN.pdf kes-surprising-san-mateo-south-san-francisco/article_3e (2018). The electric bicycle: Worldwide research trends. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/business/general-motors 391e54-34c9-11e9-b2c2-a7715af6b2c2.html

57 WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility Energies, 11(7), 1894. -ebikes/index.html 50. Navigant Research. (2016). Li-Ion and SLA E-Bikes: 68. European Cyclists Federation. (2016). Electromobility FIGURE 5: Drivetrain, Motor, and Battery Technology Trends, for all: inancial incentives for e-cycling. California e-bike law: peopleforbikes.org 16. https://www.biktrix.com; http://www.pedaleasy.ca/; 34. Global News. (2018). Calgary’s new bike-share program Competitive Landscape, and Global Market Forecasts https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/ iles/FINAL%20for%20web SURVEY IMAGES: https://www.eprodigybikes.com/; faces winter test https://www.pedegoelectricbikes.com/wp-content/uploads %20170216%20ECF%20Report_E%20FOR%20ALL-%20FI Bicycle Style E-Bike: Benno Boost E: https://www.benno- https://www.voltbike.com/?___store=default; https://globalnews.ca/news/4636989/calgary-lime-Bikesh /2016/07/MF-EBIKE-16-Executive-Summary-w-Pedego.pd NANCIAL%20INCENTIVES%20FOR%20E-CYCLING.pdf bikes.com/e-bikes/ https://www.pedegoelectricbikes.com/ are-winter/ f 69. CityLab. (2017). Oslo Norway City Grant for Electric Scooter Style E-Bike: GigaByke Groove- 750W Electric 1. Clewlow, R. The micro-mobility revolution: the Cargo Bikes. Motorized Bike: https://www.giga- introduction and adoption of electric scooters in the 17. https://www.emmo.ca/electric-scooter-ebike; 35. motor vehicle safety regulations (c.r.c., c. 1038) 51. Electric Bike Report. (2018). Derby electric bikeshare https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/oslo-nor byke.com/groove-750w-electric-motor- United States. TRB Annual Meeting. http://www.daymak.com/; https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/c.r.c.,_c._10 program a surprising success. way-city-grant-for-electric-cargo-bikes/515100/ ized-bike-black.html 38/fulltext.html#s-2 https://electricbikereport.com/derby-electric-Bikeshare-p E-Scooter: CityBug 2: https://www.citybug.com/ 2. Hampton, K., Sessions, L., Ja Her, E., Rainie, L. (2009). 18. Johnson, M., & Rose, G. (2015). Extending life on the rogram-a-surprising-success/ 70. Global News. (2019). Canada electric car rebate Social Isolation and New Technology: How the internet and bike: electric bike use by older Australians. Journal of 36. Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 152, Number 20: program: mobile phones impact Americans’ social networks. Pew Transport & Health, 2(2), 276-283. Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made under 52. Engadget. (2018).Paris launches world’s largest e-bike https://globalnews.ca/news/5225373/canada-electric-car- FIGURE 7 & TABLE 7 Internet and the American Life Project. the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (National Safety Marks and leet to curb pollution. rebate-program/ Bicycle Style E-Bike: Benno Boost E: https://www.benno- https://www.pewinternet.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/9/ 19. Dill, J., & Rose, G. (2012). Electric bikes and Importation)http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2018/2018 https://www.engadget.com/2018/11/09/paris-veligo-electri bikes.com/e-bikes/ media/Files/Reports/2009/PIP_Tech_and_Social_Isolation transportation policy: Insights from early adopters. -05-19/html/reg5-eng.html c-bike-rental-program/ 71. World Economic Forum. (2018). Designing a Seamless Motorized Bike: https://www.giga- .pdf Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Integrated Mobility System (SIMSystem) A Manifesto for byke.com/groove-750w-electric-motor- Transportation Research Board, (2314), 1-6. 37. Bike Europe. (2018). Rules and Regulations for 53. Langford, B. C., Cherry, C., Yoon, T., Worley, S., & Transforming Passenger and Goods Mobility. ized-bike-black.html 3. Cornwell, E. Y., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Social Electric-Cycles in European Union. Bike Europe. Smith, D. (2013). North America's irst E-Bikeshare: a year http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Designing_SIMSystem_M E Scooter: https://www.skates.co.uk/city-bug-2-elec- disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among 20. Ramage-Morin, P. (2017). Cycling in Canada. Statistics https://www.bike-eu.com/laws-regulations/nieuws/2018/10 of experience. Transportation research record, 2387(1), anifesto_Transforming_Passenger_Goods_Mobility.pdf tric-scooter-white.html older adults. Journal of health and social behavior, 50(1), Canada. /bike-europe-whitepaper-on-all-you-need-to-know-on-e- 120-128. 31-48. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/82-003-x/201700 bike-regulations-10134633 72. Geekwire. (2018). UPS launches cargo e-bike delivery in 4/article/14788-eng.pdf?st=RLNTSPfB 54. Gizmodo. (2018). Why don’t more cities have Seattle: 4. CBC News. (2017). Canadian seniors now outnumber 38. Smart Cities Drive. (2019). Mapping the Impact of e-bikeshares: https://www.geekwire.com/2018/ups-launches-cargo-e-bi children for 1st time, 2016 census shows: 21. Popovich, N., Gordon, E., Shao, Z., Xing, Y., Wang, Y., & Dockless Vehicles. https://gizmodo.com/why-dont-more-cities-have-e-Bikes ke-delivery-seattle-returning-bicycle-courier-origins-cent https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/2016-census-age-gende Handy, S. (2014). Experiences of electric bicycle users in https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/mapping-the-imp hares-1595348781 ury-later/ r-1.4095360 the Sacramento, California area. Travel Behaviour and act-of-dockless-vehicles/539263/ Society, 1(2), 37-44. 55. Bikeshare.com (2018). 5 bikeshare trends enhancing 73. Trivedi, T. K., Liu, C., Antonio, A. L. M., Wheaton, N., 5. CloseCommute Systems inc. (2018). The E fects of Long 39. People for Bikes. (2018). E-Bike Law Primer. interaction and solving challenges. Kreger, V., Yap, A., ... & Elmore, J. G. (2019). Injuries Commutes and What To Do About Them – An Annotated 22. Jones, T., Harms, L., & Heinen, E. (2016). Motives, https://peopleforbikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/E https://www.bikeshare.com/news/ ive-Bikeshare-trends-e associated with standing electric scooter use. JAMA Bibliography. perceptions and experiences of electric bicycle owners -Bike-Law-Primer-updated-April-2018.pdf nhancing-interaction-solving-challenges/ network open, 2(1), e187381-e187381. https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/391/2018/08/C and implications for health, wellbeing and mobility. loser-Commutes.pdf Journal of transport geography, 53, 41-49. 56. Munkácsy, A., & Monzón, A. (2017). Potential user 40. Brief on Australian e-bike regulations: pro iles of innovative bike-sharing systems: the case of 6. Grandview Research. (2019). Shared Mobility Market 23. National Institute for Transportation and http://dillengerelectricbikes.com.au/blog/electric-bikes-an BiciMAD (Madrid, Spain). Asian Transport Studies, 4(3), Size, Share, and Trends Analysis. Communities. (2018). North American Survey Electric d-the-law.html; 621-638. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global Bicycle Owners. -shared-mobility-market 41. E-bike speed forum: 57. Trivedi, T. K., Liu, C., Antonio, A. L. M., Wheaton, N., 24. Leger, S. J., Dean, J. L., Edge, S., & Casello, J. M. (2018). https://www.quora.com/Why-the-silly-25-km-h-speed-limi Kreger, V., Yap, A., ... & Elmore, J. G. (2019). Injuries 7. Statistics Canada. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by “If I had a regular bicycle, I wouldn’t be out riding tation-on-e-bikes-when-many-of-us-can-cycle-30km-h+- associated with standing electric scooter use. JAMA Canadian Sector. anymore”: Perspectives on the potential of e-bikes to anyway network open, 2(1), e187381-e187381. https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?l support active living and independent mobility among ang=en&n=F60DB708- older adults in Waterloo, Canada. Transportation 42. Langford, Brian Casey, "A comparative health and 58. https://jump.com/ Images Research Part A: Policy and Practice. safety analysis of electric-assist and regular bicycles in an 8. Edge, S., & Good ield, J. (2017). Responses to electric on-campus bicycle sharing system.. " PhD diss., University 59. TechCrunch. (2018). Uber aquires Bikeshare start up bikes (e-bikes) amongst stakeholders and decision-makers 25. International Mountain Bikers’ Association. (2017). of Tennessee, Jump. FIGURE 1 & 8: with in luence on transportation reform in Toronto, https://www.imba.com/blog/imba-updates-emtb-position- 2013.https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2445 https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/09/uber-acquires-Bikesh Bicycle Style E-Bike: Benno Boost E: https://www.benno- Canada. In Canadian Transportation Research Forum statement are-startup-jump/ bikes.com/e-bikes/ 52nd Annual Conference-Canadian Transportation: 150 43. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2019). S-pedelec: Specialized Turbo Vado 4.0 https://electricbik- Years of Progress//Les transports au Canada: 150 ans de 26. CBC News. (2018). Regulation for electric bikes may State Electric Bicycle Laws | A Legislative Primer 60. https://www.li.me/electric-assist-bike ereview.com/specialized/turbo-vado-4-0/ progrès-Winnipeg, Manitoba, May 28-31, 2017. forever change B.C. mountain trails: http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/state-electr Scooter Style E-Bike: GigaByke Groove- 750W Electric https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/regula ic-bicycle-laws-a-legislative-primer.aspx 61. https://www.motivateco.com/ Motorized Bike: https://www.giga- 9. MacArthur, J., & Kobel, N. (2014). Regulations of E-Bikes tion-for-electric-bikes-may-forever-change-b-c-mountai byke.com/groove-750w-electric-motor- in North America: A Policy Review (No. NITC-RR-564). n-trails-1.4595145 44. Leger, S. 2018. Clarifying the di ferences in emerging 62. CityLab. (2018). Lyft buys motivate bikesharing ized-bike-black.html transportation technology: How do we de ine e-bikes? systems. 10. Aono, S., & Bigazzi, A. (2019). Industry Stakeholder 27. Seattle Times. (2018). Disabled woman says Forest OPPI Journal. Published. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/lyft-buys Perspectives on the Adoption of Electric Bicycles in Service discriminates by barring e-bikes on trails: -motivate-bikesharing-systems/564347/ FIGURE 2: British Columbia. Transportation Research Record, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/klickitat-cou 45. Gehlert, T., Kühn, M., Schleinitz, K., Petzoldt, T., Basic Model: B’Twin Elops 940 Classic Electric Bike: 0361198119837158. nty-woman-wants-forest-service-to-allow-the-disabled-t Schwanitz, S., & Gerike, R. (2012, November). The German 63. New York Times. (2012). For deliverymen: speed, tips https://www.decathlon.co.uk/elops-940-e-classic-elec- o-use-electric-bikes-on-nonmotorized-trails/ pedelec naturalistic cycling study–study design and irst and fear on wheels. tric-bike-shimano-steps-id_8379382.html 11. CBC News. (2018). Toronto's e-bike industry charges experiences. In International Cycling Safety Conference https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/nyregion/for-food-d Commuter Model: Coboc SEVEN Vesterbro: https://ww- toward a record year, and major car makers want in: 29. Cavill, N. & Davis, A. Cycling and Health. Cycle England. (pp. 7-8). elivery-workers-speed-tips-and-fear-on-wheels.html?mo w.coboc.biz/en/product/seven-vesterbro/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ebike-sales-cha http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cycling_and_health.pdf dule=inline E-Mountain Bike: Trek Power ly LT 7 Plus: https://ww- llenges-2018-1.4897300 46. League of American Cyclists. (2014). Electric Bicycles w.trekbikes.com/gb/en_GB/bikes/mountain-bikes/elec- 30. Bourne, J. E., Sauchelli, S., Perry, R., Page, A., Leary, Public Perceptions and Policy. 64. McLaughlin, D, Stuckless, S. Preparing for E-Scooters tric-mountain-bikes/power ly/power ly-long-travel/power 12. Cherry, Christopher, and Robert Cervero. "Use S., England, C., & Cooper, A. R. (2018). Health bene its of http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/ iles/E_bikes_min in Canada. Transportation Talk- Spring 2019. ly-lt-7-plus/p/23260/ characteristics and mode choice behavior of electric bike electrically-assisted cycling: a systematic review. i_report.pdf https://www.cite7.org/transportation-talk-spring-2019/ Folding e-bike: Tern Vektron S10: https://www.ternbicy- users in China." Transport policy 14.3 (2007): 247-257. International journal of behavioral nutrition and physical cles.com/bikes/472/vektron-s10 activity, 15(1), 116. 47. Agree: 100%-75%; somewhat agree: 50%-74%; 65. Urban Land Institute. Active transportation and real Fat tire: Bulls Monster E FS: https://www.bullse- 13. Trend Hunter Tech. (2018). Trends in e-bike food disagree: less than 50%. estate: the next frontier. bikes.com/product/monster-e-fs-3/ delivery: 31. CBC News. (2018). Toronto's e-bike industry charges https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Bicycl https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/food-deliveryfocuse toward a record year, and major car makers want in: 48. CBC News. (2018). Highlights: 2016 census data on e-Sharing.pdf d-ebikes https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ebike-sales-cha education, labour and commuting TABLE 4: llenges-2018-1.4897300 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statscan-census-educat 66. AM Network. (2019). Citi Bike's massive electric bike Pedelec: 2019 KTM Macina Fun XL 10 CX5: http://www. lid- ion-commute-1.4424562 expansion increases leet by 4,000 istribution.co.uk/2019-ktm-macina-fun-xl-10-cx5 14. Edge, S., Dean, J., Cuomo, M., & S Keshav. (2018). 32. The Guardian. (2019). 'Bike country No 1': Dutch go https://www.amny.com/amp/transit/electric-bike-rental-1. Powered Cycles: Revolution X: http://hi-powercy- Exploring e-bikes as a mode of sustainable transport: A electric in record numbers: 49. National Institute for Transportation and 27875149 cles.com/revolution-x/ temporal qualitative study of the perspectives of a sample https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/bike-co Communities. (2018). North American Survey Electric 3-wheeled moped: Yahama Tricity 125: https://www.yama- of novice riders in a Canadian city. The Canadian untry-n0-1-dutch-electric-record-numbers-e-bikes-nethe Bicycle Owners. 67. The Daily Journal. (2019). Lime to pull bikes, surprising ha-motor.eu/kv/kv/products/scooters/urban-mo- Geographer. Online First. rlands https://peopleforbikes.org/wp--content/uploads/2018/06/ San Mateo, South San Francisco and Burlingame o icials bility/tricity-125/ NITC_1041_North_American_Survey_Electric_Bicycle_Ow https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/lime-to-pull-bi Light Quadricycle: Renault Twizy: https://www.renault.- 15. Salmeron-Manzano, E., & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. 33. CNN News. (2018). GM getting into e-bike business. ners_1h70rdN.pdf kes-surprising-san-mateo-south-san-francisco/article_3e co.uk/vehicles/new-vehicles/twizy.html (2018). The electric bicycle: Worldwide research trends. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/business/general-motors 391e54-34c9-11e9-b2c2-a7715af6b2c2.html

WSP | Leading the Charge on Canadian E-bike Integration: A Discussion on the Emerging & Unchartered Role of Micromobility 58

WSP Global Inc. 1600, René-Lévesque Blvd. W. 16th Floor Montreal, Quebec Canada H3H 1P9