Plug Power and BAE Systems enter strategic partnership on hydrogen fuel cell buses
MOL Group and Mitsui E&S Machinery commence joint study to introduce hydrogen fuel cell yard crane

Pilot program to provide e-bikes to low-income workers in Durango, CO; NREL/CEO study on use patterns, efficiency benefits

Supported by a $50,000-grant from the Colorado Energy Office, 16 low-income workers in Durango, Colorado will receive e-bikes through a pilot program of the 4 Corners Office of Resource Efficiency (4CORE). The nonprofit received the grant funding from the state’s “Can Do Colorado Community Challenge.”

The bikes, manufactured by Seattle-based Rad Power Bikes, were procured for the program through the help of Roll, a local e-bike rental company. The bikes are Class II e-bikes—i.e., pedal-assist with a throttle. The e-bikes have a top speed of 20 mph. Recipients will also receive helmets, LED lights, locks, panniers and training.

The bikes come with removable battery packs, which workers can take off and recharge when they go into work or get home. The only requirement of participants is they chart their travels on an app, which is being developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) earlier partnered with the Colorado Energy Office to assess the travel-behavior impacts of providing low-income essential workers with e-bikes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analysis results indicated that, among participants during the study period, e-bikes were the dominant travel mode for 30% of trips, followed by shared rides at 29% and single-occupancy-vehicle trips at just 20%.

Launched in fall 2020, the Colorado Energy Office’s Can Do Colorado eBike mini-pilot was designed to encourage energy-efficient transportation during the pandemic and demonstrate that e-bikes are a safe, healthy, and convenient way to make essential trips, including commuting to work.

Pedal-assist e-bikes use an electric motor and battery to help power the bike. The motor amplifies the power behind each pedal stroke, augmenting the energy the rider puts into the bike.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically reduced car travel, resulting in improved air quality and an opportunity to preview a cleaner mobility future. Here at NREL, we wanted to determine how giving front-line workers an e-bike mobility option would affect their travel behavior, possibly contributing to a longer-term shift away from car dependence.

—NREL’s Andy Duvall, a transportation behavior analyst

The initial three-month pilot program provided e-bikes to 13 low-income essential workers in the Denver area. The insights garnered from this small-scale pilot—detailed in the resulting NREL technical report—are informing the design of the full-scale, two-year pilot slated to begin this summer in locations across Colorado.

Collecting and Assessing the Data. The data collection and integrated analysis elements of this project leveraged a smart-phone platform—e-mission—developed by K. Shankari, a director’s fellow in NREL’s Center for Integrated Mobility Sciences. Used to instrument human mobility, the free, open-source platform enables people to track their travel modes and measure their associated energy use and carbon footprint. Shankari customized the platform for the e-bike program, adding a gamification functionality to the collection of long-term travel-behavior data.

Our analysis results indicate that the use of e-bikes corresponded to reduced travel time and increased productivity. Such end-to-end travel using a relatively fast yet inexpensive mode of transportation is very attractive. E-bikes also provide a very affordable entry into the burgeoning electric vehicle marketplace.

The e-bike program offers an important solution for affordable, efficient transportation. Such programs can go a long way toward supporting both equity and sustainability.

—K. Shankari

Micromobility. Micromobility options, such as manual and electric-assisted human-powered vehicles, are often presented as a solution for reducing carbon emissions and improving energy efficiency for short-distance trips, especially in urban areas. Although transportation researchers have studied shared micromobility usage extensively, they have been unable to assess ownership micromobility characteristics due to the lack of relevant data. The data set generated via this project helps fill the gap while also informing the micromobility work that Duvall leads for the US Department of Energy’s Systems and Modeling for Accelerated Research in Transportation Mobility Project.

As far as I know, this is the only ownership model e-bike data-collection effort to date. The new data set reflects a longitudinal view of ownership micromobility, e-bike usage patterns, trip purpose, and the travel modes that the e-bike trips replaced. Unlike shared micromobility—where a third of the trips are used for accessing transit—ownership micromobility seems to be used more for end-to-end trips, like how cars are used.

—Andy Duvall

The pilot provided a baseline for understanding e-bike behavior, particularly as it pertains to personal ownership.

The analysis results, based on the subset of trips with user-reported labels (68%), indicate that the e-bike was the dominant commute mode share (31%), in sharp contrast to the census bicycle commute mode share (<1%). E-bike trips primarily replaced single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips (28%), followed closely by walking (24%) and regular bike (20%). The nonmotorized mode replacement corresponds to lower travel time and increased productivity enabled by the program. The emissions impact analysis of the program, computed using trip-level energy intensity factors, indicates savings of 1,367 lbs. of CO2. Although the results are strongly positive, the narrow demographic profile of study participants, their limited mobility alternatives, and nonuniform labeling indicate caution in broader interpretation.

These preliminary results do suggest that such programs, supported by real-time education and support from program managers, can simultaneously meet equity and sustainability goals. The planned full pilot, addressing the data collection challenges and broadening the geographic scope, will provide additional insights into the generality of this approach.

—Shankari et al.


  • Shankari, K., Leidy Boyce, Ethan Hintz, and Andrew Duvall. 2021. “The CanBikeCO Mini Pilot: Preliminary Results and Lessons Learned.” Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-79657.



They don't say what their typical travel distances were. If they were < 4 or 5 miles, they could have offered push bikes at lower cost (or more bikes).
They could also offer the option to swap to a P bike.
I suppose it depends on the type of work you are doing. If it is physical labour, you probably want an e-bike - if it is keyboard or phone work, a P bike would give you some exercise.
Also might depend on the weather - it it was a very hot an e-bike would be less sweaty.


You get exercise on a e bike without the sore muscles


Sure, just not very much exercise compared to pedal cycling.
As I said, if you are not too old and it is reasonably flat and not too hot, there is no reason not to use a pedal bike.
If I were in KL, I would consider an ebike.
If I were in Amsterdam or Dublin, a pbike.
(But that is a personal preference).
In terms of energy usage, an ebike is still way way better than a car or truck.
Not sure how it compares to a bus, but who is on buses these days with the panny?


You can go farther to get that workout.
I have done it try it yourself


There are other reasons to select an e-bike over an acoustic bike for a program like this.

Note that US-market e-bikes can do 20 MPH, and in my experience, something with ~500 watts can hold that speed on the flat fairly easily.

Conversely, for the average person, holding 15 MPH on a utility-minded acoustic bike is tough. (For that matter, my understanding is even in the Netherlands, where cycle commuting on extremely upright bikes is the norm and therefore fitness is higher, they tend to hold closer to 12 MPH.) Sure, a fit person on a road bike can hold 20 MPH all day, but the average person isn't fit, and a road bike has comfort and ergonomic issues for the average person.

This means that if you have to ride on roads without cycling infrastructure, or with dangerously inadequate cycling infrastructure, you want as much speed as you can get to increase compatibility with cars. An e-bike doing 20 MPH is vastly more compatible with cars than a utility bike doing 10-12, and the rider ends up not being sweaty and worn out at the end of the ride. (Even for people working desk jobs, you don't want to have to take a shower once you get to work.)

Now, for the specific bike chosen... being a Class 2 means that the rider can opt entirely out of exercise if they want, and I wouldn't be surprised if exactly that happens (except for maybe helping the motor out up hills). I'd still call that a win for sustainability.

The comments to this entry are closed.