Bills to Expand E-bike Use on Trails Elicit Access Concerns

The path to legislative assent has steepened for a pair of bills that would redefine e-bikes under Montana law, in large part because the proposed measures seek to expand electric-assist bicycle access to encompass “anywhere a regular bicycle can be used” — including on natural-surface trails.

Both bills are sponsored by northwest Montana lawmakers who say their intent is simple: to revise and clarify the state’s definition of a bicycle to include e-bikes “so they may be ridden, with the motor in operation, on public lands or places managed by the state where bicycles that are solely human powered are allowed, including but not limited to streets, highways, roadways, bicycle lanes, and bicycle or shared-use paths, and natural-surface trails.”

“The goal … is to clearly define electric bicycles and to provide clear rules with respect to how they must be equipped and operated, and provide clear enforcement guidelines for public safety officials consistent with the other, I believe it’s 43 states, that have incorporated electric bicycles into their traffic codes,” Rep. Steve Gunderson, R-Libby, told members of the House Transportation Committee when he introduced House Bill 261 last month.

Gunderson said the measure included “tools” to furnish local management jurisdictions with the authority to prohibit certain classifications of e-bikes on natural-surface trails through a public process. Despite that concession, the legislation stalled on third reading in a narrow 49-48 vote, failing on the House floor Feb. 24.

During the bill’s committee hearing, opponents said it would preempt local management authority while placing an unwieldy burden on trail administrators. Much of the opposition centered on the bill’s omission of a critical subsection exempting local jurisdictions from automatically allowing blanket e-bike access, similar to the model legislation adopted by other states.

A second bill, Senate Bill 342, sponsored by Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, passed its second reading in the Senate on Feb. 24 with a 27-23 vote. It is scheduled for a third reading on Feb. 27. Hertz’s senate bill would similarly redefine e-bikes as non-motorized bicycles; however, unlike Gunderson’s house bill, it includes none of the language allowing local jurisdictions to prohibit certain classifications of e-bikes through a public proceeding.

“This bill allows more access to everyone,” Hertz said. “A lot of the opposition to using e-bikes on other trails where bicycles are allowed, it basically comes down to access. They don’t want other people to enjoy the same access on our trails or roads. This bill just makes it easier for everyone to enjoy our great outdoors.”

A host of trail and bicycle advocates disagree, however, and have enjoined in opposition to the measures as written. The opponents say cataloging e-bikes as non-motorized bicycles would create confusion on trails that thread a checkerboard of land management jurisdictions while drawing funding from a medley of public-and-private sources, some of which stipulate that non-motorized restrictions must extend to include e-bikes.

Jim Watson, a Kalispell rancher who helped oversee the Flathead County Trails Plan, and who was instrumental in creating the Foy’s to Blacktail Trails (FTBT) system that crisscrosses a mosaic of conservation easements held by a suite of management agencies and private landowners, said “both bills have fundamental flaws built into them.”

“And that is that they define e-bikes to be the same as non-motorized bicycles. E-bikes have motors, thereby they are motorized,” Watson told the Beacon. “I do agree with Representative Gunderson and Senator Hertz that Montana needs to better define and regulate e-bikes. But calling them bicycles doesn’t do it. It ties both public and private land managers’ hands for managing e-bikes. If a manager wants to ban e-bikes, they would also have to ban all bicycles. The Foy’s to Blacktail easements cross private lands that specifically stipulate non-motorized use only. So, if the state defines e-bikes as non-motorized, where do you go from there? The answer is: to court.”

Noah Marion, of Wild Montana, said the measures could also cost trail administrators federal grant money. Moreover, deed restrictions governing land-use agreements on community trail systems often include reversionary clauses that require a recipient return the funding in the event of noncompliance.

“Creating inconsistent definitions between local, state and federal land managers could result in some disruption to grant funding for non-motorized trails like the federal Recreation Trails Program, which funds a lot of trail work across the country,” said Marion, who explained that the U.S. Forest Service does not allow e-bikes on its federally designated non-motorized parcels. “If the federal government has a separate definition, these trails may not qualify for non-motorized grant funding, which makes up one-third of the available grant pool. So, these folks would now be competing for a smaller pot of grant funding.”

Heidi Van Everen, executive director of Whitefish Legacy Partners, the nonprofit curator of a 50-mile network of connected trails ringing Whitefish Lake — trail miles that cross a multitude of jurisdictional boundaries with carefully engineered land-use agreements — said the bills would complicate management authority on its trail system.

“If this were to pass, the Whitefish Trail as we know it would change drastically. We don’t know what we would do,” said Van Everen, explaining how a popular segment of the single-track network between Lion Mountain and Beaver Lake knits together 13 separate privately owned land parcels along 20 miles of trail.

“If one pulls out because we’re required to allow e-bikes, we no longer have a connected trail system,” she said.

Marion, of Wild Montana, said the bills would also sow discord between land managers and bicyclists who travel between jurisdictions, including U.S. Forest Service parcels that classify e-bikes as motorized. Because the legislative proposals under consideration would only reclassify e-bike use under state law, federal land managers would continue to prohibit their use.

“If you just look at the South Hills trails here in Helena, they start on local county land-trust land and they end up on Forest Service land,” Marion, who encouraged a “closed-until-open” approach to e-bike rule-making on natural-surface trails that emphasizes local control. 

“Unfortunately, we kind of see this as a mandate on local communities who we feel are best qualified to deal with e-bike management, and who understand best which trail systems in their communities might be most appropriate for e-bike use,” Marion said.

Among several supporters of Gunderson’s House Bill 261 was John Juras, a board member of Bike Walk Montana and a member of the Great Falls Bicycle Club. Juras said he disagrees with the assertion that Montana’s natural-surface trails should be designated “blanket closed-until-open” to class 1, pedal-assist e-bikes, which have a maximum assisted speed of 20 miles per hour.

“We believe that trails should be open to class 1 e-bikes unless specifically closed by the land manager,” Juras said. “A blanket closure would create a significant burden on land managers. For example, they would be required to enforce the closure by erecting thousands of signs advertising the trail closures and dedicating staff to enforcing those closures. So, a burden on the agencies. If some land managers choose to close their natural surface bicycles trails to e-bikes, however, House Bill 261 gives them an appropriate legal path as it’s currently drafted.”

Eric Grove, who started Great Divide Cyclery in Helena in 1984, owning the shop for nearly three decades while also focusing on local trail-advocacy efforts, said the bills’ sponsors could solve many of their problems by agreeing to let local authorities determine e-bike use on natural-surface trails.

“Had they simply stipulated that, when it comes to natural-surface trails, local land managers would be making the decision, then we would have less of a problem. It would still be challenging, but we would at least have a chance at crafting something that would actually work,” Grove said. “But because of this absurd mandate, whenever there are conflicts, authorities will have little choice but to consider a ban on all bikes — traditional mountain bikes included — from either specific trails or entire trail networks. The mandate unfairly and arbitrarily jeopardizes and holds public access hostage for thousands of traditional mountain bikers who have nothing to do with e-bike use.”

Mary Hollow, executive director of the Prickly Pear Land Trust in Helena, said the meteoric rise in e-bike popularity and the rapidly evolving technology makes it clear that Montana should better define e-bike usage. On natural-surface trails, however, she said each community’s unique needs would be better served by leaving management authority up to them.

“Every community has its own version of a trail mosaic that includes state, federal and private property, with each requiring different restrictions that need to be enforced by different management agencies,” Hollow said. “If e-bikes were suddenly able to run roughshod over the rules that local municipalities already have in place to honor land-use agreements that are reversionary, the easiest way to deal with that is to say, ‘fine, no bikes.’”

As of Feb. 23, Legislative Services had reported six comments in favor of House Bill 261 and 99 comments opposed, while Senate Bill 342 had drawn two comments in favor and nine opposed.