Research into the bicycle level-of-service (BLOS) has been extensively conducted over the last three decades. This research has mostly focused on user perceptions of comfort to provide guidance for decision-makers and planners. Segments and nodes were studied first, followed by a network evaluation. Besides these investigations, several variables have also been utilized to depict the users’ perspectives within the BLOS field, along with other cycling research domains that simultaneously scrutinized the users’ preferences. This review investigates the variables and indices employed in the BLOS area in relation to the field of bicycle flow and comfort research. Despite general agreement among existing BLOS variables and the adopted indices, several important research gaps remain to be filled. First, BLOS indices are often categorized based on transport components, while scarce attention has been paid to BLOS studies in trip-end facilities such as bicycle parking facilities. The importance of these facilities has been highlighted instead within research related to comfort. Second, the advantages of separated bike facilities have been proven in many studies; however, scarce research has addressed the challenges associated with them (e.g., the heterogeneity within those facilities due to the presence of electric bikes and electric scooters). This issue is clearly noticeable within the research regarding flow studies. Furthermore, network evaluation (in comparison to segment and node indices) has been studied to a lesser extent, whereas issues such as connectivity can be evaluated mainly through a holistic approach to the system. This study takes one step toward demonstrating the importance of the integration of similar research domains in the BLOS field to eliminate the aforementioned shortcomings.

Introduction The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic affects different domains of society, including the transport system. Due to the impacts of social distancing, research concerning electric bike (e-bike) applications and non(user) health and comfort concerns is needed. This research aims to understand the health and comfort concerns of e-bike (non)users in both pre (PR) and peri (PE) pandemic situations and explore how the PE situation triggers (non)users to use e-bikes. Methods An interpretive description qualitative method in the form of semi-structured interviews was used to gather the empirical material for this research. Results Twenty-three (non)user participants were interviewed in the PR situation, and 12 of these participants were interviewed again in the PE situation. The comfort provided by the e-bike did not outweigh its cost as a factor for nonusers considering investing in the e-bikes in the PR situation. However, nonusers acknowledged that e-bikes can serve as substitutes for public transport by eliminating social interactions and consequently potential health concerns, in addition to providing comfortable mobility. E-bike users were in agreement concerning physical activity and the health benefits of using e-bikes in the PR situation. Their opinions differed slightly, as women placed less emphasis on the physical activity provided by e-bike use. However, gender opinions converged regarding health concerns about using public transport in PE situations. Infrastructure facilities and e-bike performance are evident as users’ comfort concerns in the PE situation. Conclusion The results highlight the role of the e-bike in PE situations as a reliable transport mode and suggest that there is considerable potential for e-bikes as substitutes for public transport in the post-pandemic situation. The findings are applicable to e-bike level-of-service studies in order to provide an overview of the user's experience of comfort.

The evaluation of electric bike (e-bike) riders' perception of comfort can lead to a better understanding of user requirements. This can be performed through Level-of-service (LOS) studies. To date, the e-bike LOS (ELOS) concept is scarcely developed and research concerning e-bike travel behaviour characteristics is relatively sparse. In this paper, we use bike LOS (BLOS) studies as a foundation to identify the knowledge gap for ELOS. Along with BLOS, e-bike riding comfort and the distinction between bikes and e-bikes characteristics were scrutinised. Travel behaviour, and e-bike modal substitution research were also reviewed to provide a better picture of e-bike riders' requirements. Based on these domains, we propose a preliminary conceptual framework for the development of ELOS. The results suggest that there is a limited number of studies that whether explicitly evaluate ELOS or consider the e-bike in the BLOS analysis. Also, the extent of substitution of cars, public transport, and bikes by e-bikes can range from partial to complete replacement, thus potentially affecting ELOS developments. The specification of this substitution contributes to a deeper understanding of the ELOS concept in relation to the adaptation of LOS indices used for other transport modes. Finally, it appears evident that ELOS developments would require further research on e-bike interaction analysis in shared mobility in which vulnerable road users are present. The findings of this study help researchers and policy-makers assessing the knowledge gap in ELOS and provide them a preliminary conceptual framework for ELOS development.

No abstract

No abstract