Review of PEDELECS as an alternative to conventional means of urban transportation

Sustainable transportation solutions are more crucial than ever because of the pressing need to increase resource efficiency while lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The most recent advancements in the e-cycle sector have made a significant contribution to this goal and have attracted the interest of numerous businesses that offer mobility services. This paper discusses the main topics surrounding pedal electric cycles (PEDELECS) with an accent on a niche application, namely e-cargo cycles. The paper highlights not just the defining characteristics of these categories, but also other relevant aspects such as barriers to market penetration, general legislation, benefits for specific applications, as well as the significance of incentives, local infrastructure, and urban policies. Based on the available literature, it can be concluded that PEDELECS have a considerable potential to contribute to sustainability goals in urban areas due to their numerous benefits (functionality without emissions, less space occupied on roads, ability to access destinations with increased precision, ability to travel in car-restricted areas, lower costs compared to conventional vehicles, added health benefits to the users, versatility etc.). However, there are also significant challenges and barriers that must be overcome before they can see widespread adoption.


Introduction
Urban transportation accounts for more than 23% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union (EU) [1], making it one of the primary sectors of concern in the effort to reduce environmental impacts in cities.City logistics plays a significant role in promoting sustainability by addressing challenges related to emissions, noise, and traffic congestion.The idea of "green logistics" in urban settings has increased the demand for electric vehicles, cargo bikes, and other forms of electric mobility as cleaner options for transportation.This resulted in a greater demand for freight and passenger transportation that could fit into the limited space of densely populated cities, specifically through micromobility solutions that address the aforementioned challenges.
One potential solution to the issue of urban mobility is the widespread use of electric cycles (ecycles), especially electric cargo (e-cargo) cycles, for personal as well as business needs as a method to mitigate the negative effects of conventional transportation systems.In terms of transport capacity, range, and cost [2], e-cargo cycles can be placed somewhere between e-cycles and conventional vehicles.The electric motor of e-cargo cycles, which allows for greater payload capacities, longer trips, and overcomes the serious drawback of driver fatigue, is one of their primary advantages over their non-electrified counterparts [3].Additionally, since they don't generate local pollutants, e-cargo cycles can travel through city centers and other areas where cars aren't allowed.1303 (2024) 012005 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1303/1/012005 2 A very important characteristic of pedal electric cycles (PEDELECS) is the range, which can be influenced by multiple factors such as battery capacity, route characteristics, payload etc.The progress in battery technology coupled with an optimized control has resulted in increasingly greater ranges, that allows PEDELECS to compete with conventional vehicles for many applications.Furthermore, due to their fast-travelling capabilities in otherwise congested areas, micromobility vehicles are seen as a useful and efficient solution in an urban setting.This is supported by the fact that, on average, 40-60% of all car journeys within cities are less than 5 km [4,5].Furthermore, e-cargo cycles are a valid and useful solution for businesses relying on delivery, due to their lightweight build, a cargo capacity exceeding 100 kg, and the ability to even transport children [6,7].To highlight the acceptance of cargo bikes as a substitute for motor vehicles in the United States of America, the study of Riggs [6] showed that 66% of the survey respondents who had previously used a car as their primary mode of transportation switched to using a cargo-cycle after purchasing one.
To put the average distance and duration of most car journeys into perspective, a study [7] that focused on the impacts of e-micromobility in urban areas compiled various reports of distance, duration, and energy consumption for e-bikes and e-scooters in different cities.The result showed that the average travel distance and time varies significantly between cities (1 to 11 km per trip).With respect to the average distance travelled, Şengül and Mostofi [7] reported between 0.72 and 2.4 km for e-scooters and between 3 and 4.5 km for e-bikes.This difference in travel distance is correlated with the maximum vehicle speed and the power of the electric motor, which allow e-bikes to cover the same distance in a shorter time (due to the lower speed limit of e-scooters) [8].In another study [9] participants reported that for longer recreational trips, they preferred e-cycles over conventional bicycles.To highlight the day-to-day aspects of using an e-bike as well as the underlying factors for choosing this method of transportation Sun et al. [10] considered two sample groups from the Netherlands and China.In terms of trip distance, the study showed that participants from the Netherlands travel by e-bike between 10 and 20 km, while participants from China travel by e-bike for approximately 10 km.The participants reported that they preferred the e-bike over car and public transportation because it is less affected by congestion, and therefore provides a more reliable travel time, it has better road accessibility, and it requires less time searching for parking, especially in busy urban areas.
Compared to other literature reviews [7,11,12], this paper seeks to combine all aspects of PEDELECS and as such, bring together the pros and cons for e-micromobility adoption and their potential to contribute to sustainability goals.The highlighted aspects include the integration of PEDELECS in sustainable mobility concepts and the challenges that e-micromobility adoption faces from an industry, individual, and infrastructure perspective.

Typology and characteristics
As previously mentioned, PEDELEC stands for "pedal electric cycle", which is a low-powered electric cycle providing pedal assistance via an electric motor.With the continuous integration of modern technologies in the urban transportation business, there is no surprise that PEDELECS gained the attention of both e-cycle manufacturers and users.Due to the broad definition of PEDELECS, many types of electrically assisted cycles can fall under the term, ranging from pedal assist e-cycles, throttle-controlled e-cycles, S-PEDELECS (PEDELECS designed for speed), mid-drive e-cycles and hub-drive PEDELECS, all having cargo variants or available upgrades that boost their versatility.With respect to the number of wheels, the available configurations can be listed as: bicycles (bikes), tricycles (trikes) and quadricycles (quads).
A specific sub-category of PEDELECS are e-cargo cycles, which encompass a broad range of options adapted for carrying passengers and/or heavy loads.As a result of their increasing popularity, there is a wide variety of e-cargo cycle topologies available on the market.In Gruber and Narayanan [13] five different e-cargo cycle types are listed based on vehicle construction type (Figure 1).With respect to their maximum speed, some e-cycles can reach up to 40 km/h when the electrical assist is enabled.The other defining characteristics are the maximum load capacity (usually 50 -250 kg and in exceptional cases up to 500 kg [14,15]), the cargo space (up to 2.5 m 3 [16,17]), and the range (currently it usually varies between 40 and 80 km [11,15]).

Purpose
In terms of purpose, e-cargo bikes show high versatility and can be used for personal transportation (with or without passengers), service trips (service providers with or without equipment travelling to a customer's location) as well as delivery trips [13,18].Delivery trips can further branch in five market segments: home delivery services, postal services, internal transport for companies with large facilities, parcel services and courier services.PEDELECS are suitable for both personal and business uses in areas with a high-density population, having the added benefit of being able to use dedicated cycle lanes and access areas in which conventional vehicles are prohibited.Furthermore, by taking advantage of the cycling infrastructure, PEDELECS are able to perform tasks with times comparable to those of conventional vehicles but with added advantages such as reduced cruising times and resource requirements, as well as avoiding congestion [7].

Cargo space
Carirns and Solman [19] estimated in their study that 10 -30% of urban delivery trips can be completed using e-cargo cycles as an alternative to vans and other light commercial vehicles.Considering that delivery trips may constitute up to 25% of traffic in large cities, if cargo/e-cargo cycles replaced delivery and service vehicles for suitable trips, this could be reduced by 1.5 -7.5%.It is important to note that the delivery and transport efficiency of e-cargo cycles are especially dependent on their load capacity and/or cargo space.Athanassopoulos et al. [20] conducted a study in Hamburg that used Life-cycle assessment to analyze three alternatives: electric cars and two types of e-cargo tricycles (with and without parcel storage containers).The payload capacity of the e-cargo tricycles were 306 kg and 220 kg, respectively, with a cargo space of 2.2 m 3 and 1.5 m 3 .The study also involved an urban parcel delivery company, which tested various e-cargo cycle integration strategies, with the goal of reducing emissions while maintaining operational efficiency.For a different project, "Ich ersetze ein Auto" [21], 40 couriers received e-cargo bicycles with a payload capacity of 90 kg and a cargo space of 0.2 m 3 .During the test period (21 months), more than 127,000 shipments were carried out (with a total distance of more than 500,000 km).The study showed that 90% of participants see e-cargo cycles as a viable option for courier deliveries.Another study [22] used two e-cargo tricycles with a payload capacity of 280 kg and a cargo space of 1.5 m 3 for last-mile delivery in an effort to increase the energy efficiency of urban freight.With respect to the cargo space, the study concluded that the limited size of the shipments as well as the limited number of packages were useful for the pilot analysis, but it is not viable for long-term use (which contradicts the findings of other projects, see section 3).
Another important aspect is the efficiency of a delivery trip, which is determined by travel distance, traffic density and capacity of delivery (cargo volume occupied by a delivery payload) which would lead to the conclusion that a higher capacity of delivery results in a higher efficiency.However, studies have shown that e-cargo cycles' delivery trip efficiency decreases with the increase in drop size [23,24].

Challenges
Even though PEDELECS have many advantages, their integration in the urban ecosystem comes with challenges.A first important aspect is the average consumer decision to adopt a micromobility solution over the conventional means of transportation, which can be influenced by multiple aspects: price and time savings, social perception, safety, and other.This is supported by the study of Bretones and Marquet [25] which showed that beyond the monetary costs and other functional aspects, emicromobility adoption relates more to symbolic factors that can be associated with subjective factors (such as self-identity, sense of belongingness, and pro-environmental attitudes).On the other hand, the adoption of PEDELECS for businesses is connected with efficiency and capacity.To analyze these aspects, an Italian pilot project "Pro-e-bike" [26], which involved thirty-nine companies that integrated the use of e-scooters and e-bikes for the delivery of goods in urban areas.Aside from mitigating CO2 emissions, the study showcased some of the concerns that big companies have about the widespread adoption of e-bikes.These concerns stem from the perception that e-bikes are inefficient and that the load capacity is suboptimal.However, the study demonstrated that choosing the right type of PEDELEC for the task (e-bikes for letter distribution and e-cargo bikes for bigger packages) leads to high efficiency, thus proving that they can be a reliable alternative to traditional combustion engine vehicles.The main characteristics of the PEDELECS used in the study as well as the main results of each operator are summarized in Table 1.For the average consumer, one of the first aspects affecting the modal switch or the overall adoption of PEDELECS is the purchase price.This can be due to the overwhelming variety and versatility that ebikes and other micromobility options offer, which come with a proportional price range that varies depending on the manufacturer, the region, and the archetype.The price barrier is supported by multiple studies, which identified the purchase price as a frequent concern of the average consumer [27][28][29][30][31][32].Although there are currently more expensive e-cargo bikes available, many e-cycle models are less expensive to buy when compared to traditional motorized vehicles [14, 33,34].In this regard, a study done by Cappelle [35] surveyed local suppliers regarding the catalogues, prices, and reasoning behind choosing certain brands.It was found that the price of PEDELECS from local suppliers (in Flanders) ranged between 695€ and 3600€, with an average of 1,691€.Similar prices were reported in [26] namely 1,200€ for light front-load e-bikes, and 5,000-6,000€ for electric scooters.

Energy costs
Another aspect that can hinder adoption of PEDELECS is the energy cost.This includes energy consumption per travelled kilometer, as well as the cost per kilowatt-hour during charging.With respect to the energy consumption per travelled kilometer, with the same amount of energy (1kWh) e-scooters can travel up to 128 km, compared with conventional vehicles, such as gasoline (less than 1.6 km) and electric (6.4 km) cars [7].The high range values are supported by the low consumption values reported in the literature.For example, the study of Martínez-Navarro et al. [36] analyzed the energy consumption of e-scooters and determined a value of 0.012 kWh/km.Other studies found different values: Brdulak et al. [37] reported a value of 0.04 kWh/km, while Gubman et al. [38] reported 0.01 kWh/km.Although e-cargo cycles are larger, and heavier, it was found that they require a similar amount of energy, with values between 0.009 and 0.018 kWh/km [26,36,[39][40][41].However, there are studies that reported higher values, such as the study of Navarro et al. [22] which tested smart urban logistics solutions in the cities of Barcelona and Valencia.The test involved the use of electric tricycles for last mile delivery in transshipment terminals.The study showed that in Barcelona, over the course of one month two tricycles performed a total of 740 shipments with 1.38 shipments/km and a total energy consumption of 32.3 kWh, resulting in an average of 0.030 kWh/km.In contrast, in Valencia, the tricycles performed 1194 shipments with 1.40 shipments/km, a total energy consumption of 21.6 kWh, and an average of 0.011 kWh/km.
The charging costs depend on multiple factors such as the charging location (home/charging facilities), energy cost in the respective country and the characteristics of the PEDELEC model (battery size, charging efficiency etc.).To better understand these aspects, Table 2 shows the costs of charging an electric bike in the EU countries.
With respect to costs for businesses, Nocerino et al. [26] compared the costs associated with an electric micromobility fleet to those of a traditional fleet for deliveries and freight transport operators.The authors reported similar costs for the two fleets present, with a slight economical advantage for the electric fleet due to the sustainability aspect, which brings the added benefits of reduced environmental impact and increased publicity for the company, that further translates into marketing benefits and opportunities.It must be noted that, even though there are significant lower costs associated with the e-fleet in case of energy costs (↓ 87%) and congestion charges (↓ 100%) these are offset by a higher annual depreciation (↑ 37%), platform renting (↑ 38%) and salaries (↑ 6%).

Maintenance costs
A significant benefit of e-bikes, along with fuel cost savings, is the lower maintenance cost [43].However, it is difficult to estimate an annual value, since it varies depending on the type of e-bike, its features, and the time of service (for example, long-term use leads to a bigger necessity of servicing).Furthermore, the maintenance cost is influenced by the service costs, which are country dependent.

Safety
Safety is widely perceived as the biggest negative aspect of PEDELECS by both users and non-user of electric micromobility services [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53].This perception is also one of the main factors affecting IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1303/1/0120057 market penetration and modal shift to PEDELECS.Most participants identify the infrastructure as the main cause for their perception.This was confirmed by the fact that the majority of electric micromobility users reported that they feel safer when using dedicated lanes because they are separated from motor traffic [48,50,54].Participants also suggest that, for the overall safety perception to increase it is necessary to encourage the use of protective gear, together with the promotion of clear and more advanced safety regulations and training on road norms and rules [51,53].
In terms of road safety there are also differences between PEDELEC types.Riggs [6] noted that some PEDELEC types, such as e-cargo bikes, have the added benefit of being more visible on the road, due to their size.This mitigates their risk of collisions in comparison to a conventional bicycle.
When it comes to accidents involving PEDELECS, there are many possible causes, such as: underestimation of the e-bike speed by other traffic participants, e-bike speed control difficulties [55], errors, aberrant and/or aggressive behaviours [56] (it must be noted that the authors also concluded that PEDELEC users with a driver's license for cars are less likely to have an accident compared to those without one), traffic signal violation, illegal use of motor vehicle lanes, over-speeding, overloading, violation of manned vehicle regulations, and cycling in reverse [12] (considered to have the highest probability for traffic accidents) etc.

Incentives
Incentives provide the necessary means to overcome the cost of barrier associated with the purchasing of an electric bike and specifically, incentives for travel that are managed in organizations can make a difference for people who might be risk-averse or tentative about trying out a PEDELEC.
In their study Fyhri et al. [57] aimed to observe the travel behavior and greenhouse gas emissions reduction of participants in an incentive program with e-bikes in Oslo.The study used an app that tracked the behavior of 619 participants out of which 153 were already using e-bikes.The study showed that the participants who used the incentive program to purchase an e-bike increased their cycling activity (by kilometers traveled) from 17% to 52% and that each e-bike user, saved between 87 and 144kg of CO2 emission per year compared to the control group.
A study of de Kruijf et al. [58] describes the implementation of an incentive program in the province of North-Barbant in the Netherlands.To reduce car congestion and stimulate the use of ebikes Participants in the project "B-Riders" received incentives based on the e-bike usage while commuting.The financial incentive varied with the time of day/traffic (0,15 €/km during peak hours and 0,08 €/km during off-peak hours) and was limited to 1,000 € for one participant.Results showed that the program led to a strong modal shift of the participants.More specifically, participants used their car (from 62% to 28%) and conventional bicycle (from 33% to 1%) less.Additionally, a followup survey conducted one month after the program ended, revealed that participants used their e-bikes for 68% of all commute trips.E-bikes substitution of cars and conventional cycling has also seen significant increases.The authors noted that e-bikes were used 80% of the time over short distances (0-5 km).Although their use decreased with the distance, it still accounted for 63% of trips longer than 20 km.The last survey (conducted six months after the program ended) showed that the use of ebikes increased even more, while car use decreased to 24%.Additionally, the use of e-bikes for commute trips rose to 73%.The increase in e-cycling is most noticeable in the distance range of 0-20 km.
Sundfor and Weber [59] analyzed the e-bike subvention program implemented by the municipality of Oslo in which the applicants could obtain a €500 subsidy when purchasing a new e-bike.For the participants that have been granted subvention, the authors noted a significant increase in cycling activity compared to the control groups.It was concluded that the modal shift as well as increased physical activity are both effects of the incentive program.
Finally, it is important to note that incentives used to increase the penetration of PEDELECS can also come in the form of infrastructure adjustments such as access to bike lanes [60] and bike storage [24].

Legislation
Other factors that must be taken into account are the regulations and the restrictions concerning the use of PEDELECS on public roads.The implementation of policies is different among countries and can include the maximum speed of the vehicle, the user age restrictions, the vehicle pricing policy, etc.
In Poland, e-scooters are allowed to be used only on cycle lanes or paths, while their speed is limited to 20 km/h.However, if no cycle infrastructure is available, e-scooters are allowed to use roads with a speed limit of 30 km/h.When travelling with an e-scooter on roads that have a speed limit above 30 km/h and no cycle lanes, e-scooters may be used on pedestrian roads or pavement.Furthermore, the minimum age requirement for accessing public roads is 10 and all users under 18 years are required to have a licence [61].In contrast, the use of micromobility services in Italy involves additional requirements (possessing a license, restrictions such as age limit, and limitation of usage to specific hours of the day [62]).In the city of Chicago [63] the maximum speed of travel for emicromobility vehicles is limited to 15 mph (~24km/h), but there are also other restrictions such as: with the exception of children under 12 years of age, traveling on pavement is prohibited; the user of shared electric scooters must be at least 18 years old with the exception of people over 16 years of age riding with a guardian.
In other areas there are also equipment restrictions, as showed in a study covering ten cities in the United States of America [64].Users of e-scooter must wear protective gear and stickers or lights in order to be more visible during the night.Additionally, it is against the law to use electronic devices while driving or transport more than one person (unless the vehicle is designed to do so).Additionally, e-scooters are only permitted on bike lanes and sidewalks, and their top speed is limited to 15 mph (25 km/h).
As presented in Leger et al. [50] the minimum age required to use an e-bike in British Colombia and Ontario is 16 years old, while the maximum speed is higher, 32 km/h.Additionally, neither a license nor registration are required, but safety equipment is mandatory.The legal minimum age to use an e-bike in Manitoba and Quebec is 14.Similarly, the legal age to operate an e-bike in Alberta is 12.Additionally, neither a license nor registration are required, although helmets are.
It is important to notice that there are inconsistencies in the regulations.This was also the conclusion of Pimentel and Lowry [65] which showed that in Oregon, the speed of e-scooters is limited to 25 km/h and traveling on pavements is prohibited, but at the same time, micromobility vehicles are required to travel with the traffic speed (for example if traffic flows at 40 km/h the escooter should travel at 40 km/h or more).Another inconsistency is related to different regulation in the same state.For instance, wearing a helmet is a requirement in King County, Washington, but not in other areas of the state.

Urban policies
Urban policies play a major role in the modal shift from conventional vehicles to e-micromobility solutions.As noted by many researchers, implementing vehicle access restrictions is of major importance [11,14,22,66].For example, Choubassi et al. [66] concluded that the implementation of no-truck zones plays a significant role in the adoption of e-cargo cycles.Furthermore, according to, Lenz and Riehle [14] implementing a tax for access to city centers with conventional vehicles also supports PEDELEC adoption, mainly e-cargo cycles.Parking policies are another important aspect that can boost the use of PEDELECS over conventional vehicles.For example, higher parking fines and limited parking spaces for conventional vehicles further support the penetration of PEDELECS [14,66,67].

Infrastructure
Public acceptance and willingness to shift from traditional means of transportation to PEDELECS is strongly dependent on the benefits that this transition can bring to individuals and businesses.The benefits of these electric vehicles are in close connection with the context they are used in (ownership, 1303 (2024) 012005 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1303/1/0120059 purpose, location etc.).One important aspect to be accounted for is the available transport infrastructure.Infrastructure dependent factors can be summarized in several categories:  Cycling infrastructure (bike lanes and traffic control): o Faxér et al. [68] showed that infrastructure has a major impact on the safety perception.No participant of the study expressed safety concern when using the bike lane, but eight out of ten participants said that they feel uncomfortable sharing the road with cars; o Rudolph and Gruber [69] highlighted the need for a state-of-the-art infrastructure in order to properly use e-cargo cycles.The larger width and access requirements (wider cycle lanes and parking places) for e-cargo cycles can make them difficult to function in current infrastructural designs;  Parking/Urban morphology: o Rudolph and Gruber [69] highlighted the need for adapting of current parking availability to include the use of e-cargo cycles (due to their larger size and higher usage frequency); o Schliwa et al. [70] also highlighted the importance of parking for sustainable city logistics that involve the use of e-cargo cycles. Road safety regulations (details in chapter 3.5): o User age requirements [54,62,63]; o Speed limitations [54,63,65,71]; o Safety equipment [54,65]; o Area restrictions [62,63,65];  Charging stations: o Nocerino et al. [26] mentioned the lack of adequate charging stations as a problem in the adoption of e-cargo cycles together with the limited autonomy and the technical issues that may arise (engine or battery issues).In their effort Blazejewski et al. [72] listed several benefits of using e-cargo cycles that boost the efficiency of business operations, and that encourage decarbonization, such as:  by using the cycling infrastructure, e-cargo cycles have the ability to travel through city centers with ease;  e-cargo cycles take up less road space than light commercial vehicles;  e-cargo cycles can be parked right outside the destination of the trip;  the fact that, even though training can be beneficial for new users, e-cargo cycles and other PEDELECS do not require a driver's license;  using e-cargo bikes instead of light commercial vehicles leads to a reduction in CO2 emissions, congestion, and noise pollution.Considering these benefits and the infrastructure aspects listed above, as well as the characteristics of e-cargo cycles, it can be concluded that the infrastructure requirements are significantly lower (both in terms of costs and space) compared to those of conventional vehicles, but absolutely necessary for micromobility to be successful.

Docked vs dock-less solutions
Docked bike sharing schemes are an emerging shared mobility service relying on networks of fixed stations that enable users to pick up, use and drop their bike (to one of the available stations) when they complete their travel.The docking stations are built to regulate customer behavior and to facilitate payment.One of the most crucial elements for the success of such programs is the installation of bike stations [73][74][75].To ensure financial success docked bike sharing stations are mostly placed in areas with high usage expectations.However, a study from Beairsto et al. [76] shows that the stations should also be located in less accessible places to reduce accessibility inequalities.To solve this issue Chen et al. [75] proposed a framework for determining the appropriate location for docked bike sharing stations.
Given the challenges that traditional station-based bike-sharing systems encountered (convenience, accessibility, space, the need for public subsidies and limited time availability) as their popularity grew, the spread of bike-sharing systems has been limited.However more recently the functions of docking stations have been integrated into smartphone apps providing payment options (scanning a quick-response (QR) code or using near field communication (NFC) systems).Additionally, the bikes have GPS sensors to provide fleet tracking and management.Bike sharing systems are a shared mobility solution that is widely viewed as a healthy, efficient, and flexible method of transportation [77].Dock-less sharing systems present more convenience and flexibility through the use of smartphone applications and embedded GPS systems as well as internet for locating and unlocking bikes.The location of bike in a dock-less system depends on where the previous user left it, thus increasing flexibility through the multiple locations that the bikes can be found [78].In their study Chen et al. [78]

Parking
In terms of parking, PEDELECS bring multiple benefits such as being able to park virtually at any trip destination and a shorter trip with the amount of time saved for parking cruising.In this regard, for a study done in the Netherlands, Moolenburgh et al. [79] reported a 30% decrease in the round-trip time.This decrease has been mainly attributed to the shorter routes for cycles compared to the routes for conventional vehicles.In the conventional car trips cruising for parking can take up a significant portion of the trip especially in densely populated areas.In their study Dalla Chiara and Goodchild [80] showed that parking cruising time is approximately 2.3 minutes per trip representing, in their case, 28% of the total trip time.Furthermore, the authors found that, by using e-cargo cycles instead of conventional vehicles, the total operation time decreased by 40%.It must be noted that this reduction in operation time is partly due to the reduction in parking cruising time.

Integration with sustainable mobility concepts
When compared to other sustainable mobility concepts, PEDELECS have the advantage of being an electric form of transportation as well as actively being included into urban mobility plans to further cut greenhouse gas emissions.Of the numerous projects and innovative solutions that seek to boost integration of PEDELECS in urban mobility, the following are mentioned [81,82]:  Cleanergy 4 Micromobility -proposes cableless and renewable energy docks for e-scooters.The project's primary goal is to build docks for e-scooters to address the current problems with e-scooter expansion in metropolitan areas.These docks for e-scooters should include cableless locks, helmet storage, solar panel strips, and, in order to ensure renewable energy to the docking stations, an off-grid battery storage system. ECOSWAP -Through an ecosystem for swapping out batteries, the concept promotes the use of electric motorbikes by providing a digital platform that enables the use of the same battery-IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1303/1/01200511 swapping stations by electric motorbikes and a dedicated business model that is put into practice and is approved by users. SEVESsecondary use of EV batteries as an energy storage solution.To accelerate the electrification of all urban transportation systems, the project objective is to develop an energy storage solution based on re-used batteries from electric vehicles (BEV) as an energy storage system. Solar-powered micromobility docking stations to encourage intermodalityas a marketready solution for cities.The project proposes the usage of Solum Helios autonomous docking station e-micromobility vehicles as well as the usage of solar-charging systems for electric batteries.The docking stations can be installed anywhere with minimal disturbance to the environment, and they allow users a secure way of charging their e-scooters and e-bikes. BICIFICATIONsupporting model shifts and bicycle use through gamification and rewards.The project aims to encourage the modal shift towards green mobility solutions through a reward-based gamification solution.The project involves approximately 1,500 users who are eligible to receive monetary rewards (which can be used in local stores) from local authorities.BICIFICATION also provides real-time data (via an open data platform) that includes: cycling routes, kilometers travelled, case studies, heat maps, reports on the amount of reduced CO2 emissions, and rewards granted to the users. SmartHubs -The project's goal is to create and validate effective and economically feasible solutions for mobility hubs.To improve the implementation of smart hubs, the SmartHubs projects requires testing and developing a planning tool for decision and support. HALLOhubs for last mile delivery solutions.The project's objective is to create shared urban consolidation and distribution centers through studies based on a series of pilots in Barcelona and Stockholm to reduce environmental and traffic problems in urban areas by.To make the replication of these strategies easier, the initiative is also developing a roadmap that outlines potential location planning, business models, and issues that may arise during implementation. Inclusiv_eBike -The project has the objective to develop a new electric vehicle that can improve the inclusivity of transitioning to personalised, self-driving, micromobility services.Additionally, the vehicle aims to further reduce energy consumption and increase the availability of automated micromobility.

Conclusions
This review has focused on evaluating PEDELECS and their ability to change the status quo in urban mobility.Based on the available literature, PEDELECS have a considerable potential to contribute to sustainability goals in urban areas due to their numerous benefits, such as: a) functionality without emissions, b) less space occupied on roads (due to their smaller size), c) ability to access destinations with increased precision, d) ability to travel in car-restricted areas (such as city centers), e) low purchasing, maintenance, and usage costs (compared to conventional vehicles), f) added health benefits to the users, and g) versatility (PEDELECS are suitable for personal and business usage alikesuch as last mile delivery services and freight transport).However, there are also significant challenges and barriers that must be overcome, before they can see widespread adoption, such as: a) a proper local infrastructure such as dedicated bike lanes, docking stations and proper parking spaces; b) public acceptance, which is mainly influenced by the safety perception associated with micromobility solutions, but also by concerns associated with the social and socioeconomic status; c) aspects that can influence travel decisions such as journey purpose, distance to destination and weather conditions, as well as d) consistent and clear regulations.Nonetheless, there are significant ongoing efforts to support the integration of PEDELECS in the urban mobility environment.These efforts include incentive programs, innovative solutions for adoption and availability, pilots, dedicated infrastructure investments and mobility projects that benefit from the integration of personalized and accessible solutions.Finally, PEDELECS are no panacea for urban mobility issues, but if properly used, they can bring significant improvements.

Table 2 .
Charging cost of an electric bike in EU countries.
identified several common points between the two types of bike-sharing systems:  Service usage:o Mode shift mainly from public transit and walking; o Limited car use (when bike-sharing systems and public transit are integrated);