The Future of E-Bikes on Public Lands:

How to Effectively Manage a Growing Trend

Final Report 

November 2022 

Source: USDOT Volpe Center
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

2 

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the 

use of the information contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ 

names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the 

document. They are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to reflect a 

preference, approval, or endorsement of any one product or entity. 

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and 

policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

3 

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No. 

FHWA-FLH-23-001

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

The Future of E-Bikes on Public Lands:

How to Effectively Manage a Growing Trend

5. Report Date

November 2022

6. Performing Organization Code:

DOT-VNTSC (VOLPE) 

7. Author(s)

Jonah Chiarenza, ORCID: 0000-0002-0799-5560

Ben Rasmussen, Jason Sydoriak, Jacob Korn

8. Performing Organization Report No.

NA

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

U.S. DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

55 Broadway, Kendall Square

Cambridge, MA 02142

10. Work Unit No. V0323

11. Contract or Grant No.

Intra-Agency Agreement 69056720N300012, 

HW72B120

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

U.S Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period 

Final Report, October 2020 – October 2022

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes

Project management provided by Western Federal Lands Highway Division

Seth English-Young and Roxanne Bash

16. Abstract

This report is the final deliverable of the “Future of E-Bikes in Public Lands” research project. The research was

funded through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Lands Highway Innovation Research Council. 

This report represents the first national-scale effort to develop a comprehensive framework to study the opportunities 

and challenges related to electric bicycles (e-bikes) in a public lands context. The report relied on technical staff from 

land management agencies and public lands stakeholders to help develop research questions under four focus areas: 

ecological, safety, social, and process. The report identifies existing research to establish a uniform understanding of

issues and opportunities to help land managers and stakeholders engage in science-based decisionmaking. The report 

also identifies research gaps and includes proposals for future studies to help fill those gaps. 

17. Key Words

Electric bicycle, e-bike, public lands, trails, safety, 

human factors, equity

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the 

public through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

http://www.ntis.gov

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

56 

22. Price

 N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

4 

Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................5

Key Findings and Areas for Further Research .................................................................................................5

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................8

1.1. Background ..........................................................................................................................................8

2. Outreach and Engagement ...........................................................................................................................9

3. Study Methodology, Literature Review, and Gap Analysis ......................................................................10

3.1. Study Methodology as National Research Roadmap .........................................................................11

4. Detailed Findings .......................................................................................................................................17

4.1. Ecological, Cultural, & Historical Resource Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities................17

4.2. Safety Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities ...........................................................................22

4.3. Social Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities ...........................................................................27

4.4. Process for E-Bike Management ........................................................................................................35

5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................40

5.1. Future Research .................................................................................................................................40

5.2. Field Research....................................................................................................................................42

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................43

Appendix A: Federal Laws and Regulations .....................................................................................................47

Appendix B: TRG Members ..............................................................................................................................51

Appendix C: Technical Review Group #1 Documentation ...............................................................................52

Appendix D: Stakeholder Workshop Participants .............................................................................................54

Appendix E: Stakeholder Workshop Documentation ........................................................................................55

For questions about this report, please contact:

Seth English-Young 

Federal Highway Administration – Western Federal Lands Highway Division

seth.english-young@dot.gov 

Jonah Chiarenza 

U.S. DOT Volpe Center – Transportation Planning Division 

jonah.chiarenza@dot.gov 

Project website: https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/programs-planning/studies/e-bikes 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

5 

Executive Summary 

This report was produced by the U.S. DOT Volpe Center (Volpe) and the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFL). The study team focused on e-bikes that fit within 

the 3-tier classification system (Class 1, 2, and 3) common throughout most states (People for Bikes, 2019). 

This report highlights key findings as they relate to the four research focus areas defined in the Study 

Methodology, a framework used to organize considerations about e-bikes on public lands regarding: (1) 

Ecological, Cultural, and Historical Resources; (2) Safety factors; (3) Social factors; and (4) Processes for EBike Management. These findings are based on an in-depth review of published studies identified by the 

project team and stakeholders as well as conversations with land managers who have first-hand experience 

with e-bikes in a public lands context. 

The Study Methodology is intended to serve as a framework for organizing existing knowledge, but also as a 

roadmap for future research, and an organizational structure for documenting conclusions from future 

research. By consolidating and organizing information into this singular framework, Volpe and WFL hope it 

can serve as a hub of knowledge, coordination, and collaboration among the broad array of stakeholders that 

are engaged in the continually evolving subject of e-bikes in public lands. 

Key Findings and Areas for Further Research 

Table 1 through Table 4 identify key findings from the literature review and conversation summary and

identify gaps where further research is needed. This summary will help direct future research and data 

collection efforts.

Table 1: Ecological, Cultural, and Historical Resource Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities

Key Findings Areas for Further Research

• One primary study was conducted on e-bike

impacts—e-mountain bike (eMTB) specifically—

on natural surface trails, which demonstrated no

significant difference in soil displacement 

between eMTBs and conventional mountain 

bikes.

• Research on conventional bike impacts shows that 

their presence can disturb wildlife and impact 

ecosystems but less than other activities; e-bike

impacts are expected to be similar but limited 

research is available.

• E-bikes may serve as an effective alternative to

motor vehicles and reduce tailpipe emissions; 

installing charging stations in public lands could 

power e-bikes using renewable energy sources.

• There is only one significant study on the 

impacts of eMTBs on natural surface 

trails. Additional experimental research is 

needed to better understand the impacts ebikes may have on such trails and whether 

and how they differ from other trail uses. 

• There is little research on whether e-bikes 

have different impacts on cultural and 

historical resources when compared to 

conventional bicycles. 

• Prior research on mountain bikes could 

inform the methodologies researchers use 

to focus on future eMTBs studies. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

6 

Table 2: Safety Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities

Key Findings Areas for Further Research 

• Overall e-bike injury and conventional bike injury 

patterns are similar, though e-bikers tend to be 

older and have a higher rate of brain trauma 

injuries. 

• A recent study found that e-bike and powered 

scooter injury patterns differ from conventional 

bicycles. E-bike related injuries were more than 

three times as likely to involve a collision with a 

pedestrian than either pedal bicycles or powered 

scooters.

• Research suggests that crash risk is similar 

between Class 3 and Class 1 e-bikes; however, 

injury severity tends to be higher among Class 3 

e-bikers. 

• E-bikes may help to fill an important role as 

emergency response vehicles and support searchand-rescue teams operating in remote areas. 

• Further research could examine the safety 

differences between conventional bicycles 

and different classes of e-bikes. 

• Further research could study the 

difference in safety risks between e-bike 

classifications. Specifically, research 

could examine whether the presence of a 

throttle on Class 2 e-bikes has an impact 

on safety for users. 

• Additional research could consider typical 

pre-crash conditions on natural surface 

trails to determine whether they differ 

from conditions on paved surfaces. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

7 

Table 3: Social Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities

Key Findings Areas for Further Research 

• E-bikes require less physical exertion than 

conventional bicycles and have the potential to 

support independent mobility for older 

populations and individuals with mobility 

impairments. 

• The high upfront cost of e-bikes is a barrier to ebike ownership and ridership.

• Surveys demonstrate that some public lands users 

fear interactions with e-bikes on public lands, 

based on perceived risks. 

• E-bikes allow people to ride more miles and/or 

over a longer period, increasing potential benefits 

and impacts of bicycle use in public lands.

• E-bikes provided by rental companies may 

encourage use by novice riders who are unfamiliar 

with e-bike operation and safety. 

• Further research is needed to examine if 

and how e-bikes change visitor use 

patterns on public lands. This research 

could address how increased e-bike use in 

public lands may affect resources and 

other recreational activities and users. 

• Additional research may focus on what 

educational resources could be 

disseminated to public land users to 

promote proper etiquette. 

Table 4: Process for E-Bike Management

Key Findings Areas for Further Research 

• Bicycle advocacy organization People for Bikes 

asserts that e-bikes are similar enough to

conventional bikes that they do not warrant 

different trail design standards. They refer to 

industry standards for sustainable mountain bike 

trail design and trail building process as a resource

for land managers.

• There is limited published information on agency 

coordination of managing e-bike use. However, 

conversations with existing land managers 

demonstrate the value of frequent and recurring 

coordination to effectively manage e-bike use in 

public lands. 

• Further research is needed to determine if 

trail design standards need to be modified 

to accommodate the unique characteristics 

and rider behaviors on e-bikes. 

• Additional research is needed to 

determine how land management agencies 

coordinate management of e-bikes with 

other governments and private enterprise. 

This includes studying best practices in 

how Federal and State regulations can 

better align with one another. 

 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

8 

1. Introduction 

This report is the final deliverable of the “Future of E-Bikes in Public Lands” research project being funded 

through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFL). The 

study team comprises staff from WFL and the U.S. DOT Volpe Center (Volpe). This report represents the 

first national-scale effort to develop a comprehensive framework for the opportunities and challenges related 

to e-bikes in a public lands context. As such, it is intended as the first installment in a series of ongoing 

studies and future research to be conducted by U.S. DOT, as well as other public agencies, academic 

researchers, and practitioners. 

1.1. Background

Land management agencies across the United States are adapting policies and regulations for the growing use 

of e-bikes1

 on public lands. In August 2019, the Department of the Interior (DOI) issued Order 3376 (2019), 

which aimed to “increase recreational opportunities for all Americans, especially those with limitations, and 

to encourage the enjoyment of lands and waters managed” by DOI. The order initiated several efforts to 

establish e-bike policies within DOI’s Federal land management agencies (FLMA) including the Bureau of 

Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation. All four 

bureaus have adopted a definition of an e-bike within the respective agency’s federal regulatory code. These 

definitions are similar to Title 23 U.S.C. 217 as modified by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to include a 

three-tier classification as promoted by the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association (BPSA). The U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service published rule changes (USFS 7700 Travel Management – Zero 

Code and 7710 Travel Management – Travel Planning) to the Forest Service Manual (FSM) that would 

increase access for e-bike use. See Appendix A for more information about FLMA regulations. 

State and local authorities are also adapting to the increasing use of e-bikes within their jurisdictions. People 

For Bikes closely monitors regulatory updates of e-bikes. As of February 2022, most States and the District of 

Columbia specifically define e-bikes.2 States absent from this list either do not define e-bikes or they 

designate them as a different vehicle class (i.e., as motorized vehicles, mopeds, or bicycles). Of the States that 

define e-bikes, most States use a three-tier classification that matches the industry standard recommended by 

bicycle advocates.

This report documents the study team’s findings based on a literature review, a summary of conversations 

with e-bike stakeholders, and a gap analysis. The study team recognizes that research on e-bikes is ongoing. 

While specific research questions may be answered over time, the study team expects the framework 

established by this project to remain useful as a tool to organize new information. Periodic updates to this 

document will ensure the framework continues to provide current information to public lands managers and 

users regarding the use of e-bikes in a public lands context. 

 

1. Electric bicycles or “e-bikes” are bicycles with electric motors that provide assistance in generating momentum through pedaling or 

via a hand throttle. This research focuses on impacts and opportunities presented by e-bikes that fall within the three-tier classification 

described by model bike legislation. Under this classification, e-bikes may not exceed an assisted speed of greater than 20-mph (ClassI and II) or 28-mph (Class-III). E-bikes that fall outside of this classification system are considered motorized uses and not addressed

as part of this study.

2. The source of this information is provided by People for Bikes. The National Conference of State Legislatures also maintains a map 

of states that define “e-bike” within state regulations.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

9 

2. Outreach and Engagement 

Volpe and WFL convened two separate groups to inform this study. 

Technical Review Group

The first, a “Technical Review Group” (TRG) comprising Federal, State, and local public land managers and 

academic researchers, shaped the direction of the research by helping define key issue areas related to e-bikes 

in a public lands context. The group included representatives of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Oregon Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Larimer County Colorado Parks, Open 

Space, and Trails; and, Virginia Tech, University of Tennessee Knoxville, and Portland State University. See 

Appendix B for a complete list of TRG participants.

The TRG held two collaborative working sessions to 1) frame the issues, the backbone of a “study 

methodology,” and 2) populate it with research questions on the topic of e-bikes in a public lands context. 

TRG Work Session #1

During the first work session, the TRG elaborated on the initial research needs statement (RNS) developed by 

a smaller group of public lands managers and academic researchers; the RNS identified “natural impacts,”

“safety impacts,” and “social impacts” as three primary categories of inquiry for research. With the guidance 

of the TRG, the study team broadened the categories to include both impacts (or challenges), as well as 

benefits (or opportunities), and to add a fourth “floating” category related the process of applying research to 

future actions, including the development of public policies and Federal, State, and local regulations of ebikes in public lands. Also during the first working session, the TRG discussed and developed a series of 

initial subcategories and considerations nested within or between the three primary focus areas, which would 

help inform subsequent efforts to identify more specific issue areas. See Appendix C for a framework issues 

diagram showing the prompts and outputs of the first TRG working session.

Research Focus Areas

Following the first TRG work session, the study team developed the following description of the three

research focus areas that would frame the emerging study methodology: 

• Natural (Ecological, Cultural, and Historical Resources) – impacts on and considerations for 

ecological, cultural, and historical resources, and opportunities related to environmental and resource 

preservation benefits; 

• Safety – injury risks both for e-bike users and (non-e-bike) public lands users, and opportunities 

related to e-bike use for emergency response and safety management administration;

• Social – impacts to and considerations for current public lands uses and user experiences; risks 

related to evolving e-bike technology; challenges related to communication, education, and 

enforcement; and opportunities related to increased access and accessibility;

The study team subsequently added a fourth research focus area:

• Process – recommended best practices to collaborate between land managers and public land users, 

align activities and locations and coordinate between multiple agencies.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

10 

Public Lands User Group Stakeholder Workshop

To ensure the study methodology reflects a broad and diverse cross-section of perspectives, the study team 

convened a second group for a workshop: a collection of stakeholders representing various national, regional, 

and local public lands user groups. The study team invited stakeholders that represent bicyclists, hikers, 

equestrians, hunters/anglers, and naturalist/conservationists, including groups recommended by members of 

the TRG and fellow stakeholders. See Appendix D for a complete list of workshop participant groups. The 

stakeholder group built upon output from the first TRG working session. The study team provided 

stakeholders with read-ahead materials and conducted live polling during the workshop. Poll questions asked 

stakeholders to prioritize the initial subset of considerations developed by the TRG. The study team then 

conducted three breakout sessions with the stakeholders, during which each subgroup refined and expanded 

upon the TRG’s initial study methodology diagram and land management tools and strategies. See Appendix 

E for a synthesis of the stakeholder breakout session results. 

TRG Work Session #2

During the second TRG work session, the study team presented an overview of the process to date, including 

a review of the initial framework from the first TRG session and a high-level summary of the stakeholder 

workshop. The study team then led the TRG in a detailed review and revision of the synthesis framework and 

the land management tools and strategies, confirming priorities and reorganizing elements. The second work 

session concluded with a preview of next steps, including development of the complete study methodology 

and development of a new literature review focused specifically on e-bikes in a public lands context. 

Finalizing the Study Methodology

Following TRG work session #2, the study team developed a first draft of the complete study methodology. 

The study team crafted individual research questions based on the bulleted list of issues from the final 

framework. The study team then refined, circulated, and revised the complete study methodology over the 

course of several weeks. The study team solicited and incorporated input from the TRG, ultimately 

developing a comprehensive set of 60 research questions nested under twelve subcategories of the four 

primary focus areas, establishing the final study methodology. Table 5 in the following section of this report 

presents the complete study methodology. 

3. Study Methodology, Literature Review, and Gap Analysis 

With the completed study methodology, the study team set out to collect and review literature from published 

studies, reports, news articles, and other written sources. The study team also spoke directly with members of 

the TRG, and with several land managers and other contacts who are actively engaged in managing e-bike 

access, developing e-bike policies, and piloting novel approaches to regulating e-bike use in a public lands 

context. The study team also examined selected literature and studies about conventional bicycling, to provide 

context for considering issues where e-bikes and conventional bikes could potentially be shown to perform 

similarly. However, these “proxy” studies require further research to assess if and how e-bikes and 

conventional bikes may be performing similarly in various circumstances. Based on this comprehensive 

review of available information, the study team populated responses to as many of the study methodology 

research questions as possible.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

11 

3.1. Study Methodology as National Research Roadmap

Table 5 lists an entry for each of 60 research questions in the study methodology. Each entry in the table

provides an assessment of the volume and completeness of knowledge or gaps that the study team found in 

the literature review. The study team identified several areas of moderate to significant knowledge. However, 

as the study of e-bikes in a public lands context is still a nascent field, there were many questions where the 

study team found only partial information or found no literature or other verbal documentation from contacts 

to help address the research questions.

While practitioners, land managers, and stakeholders may be disappointed in the lack of conclusive answers

to many of these research questions, the study team hopes this report sets the table at a national scale for 

future research activity. The study methodology provides value in identifying knowledge gaps among a 

comprehensive list of research questions developed, vetted, and prioritized by a cross section of key public 

lands agencies, individuals, and organizations operating at the intersection of e-bikes and public lands. Future

data collection and analysis, pilot projects, case studies, and primary field research will be able to leverage 

this literature review and gap analysis to continue to build a collective understanding of relevant issues, 

benefits, opportunities, and challenges, using the study methodology as a national research road map. 

Following Table 5, this report provides a comprehensive narrative discussion of the literature that the study 

team reviewed and the conversations that the study team held with practitioners. This section not only 

identifies topics for future research, but also recommends specific actions – such as field studies or case 

studies – that can help advance knowledge to address research gaps.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

12 

Table 5: Study Methodology, Research Questions, and Gap Analysis Summary

Research

Focus Area

Study Methodology

Question

Knowledge 

Coverage

1. Ecological, Cultural, and Historical Resource Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities

1.1 Natural 

Surface Trail 

Condition and 

Wildlife

A. What are potential natural ecological impacts associated with the

recreational use of e-bikes, or electric mountain bikes (eMTBs), on

natural surface trail environments?

Moderate

B. Do e-bike impacts differ from conventional bike impacts? To what

extent are differences in impacts, if any, between e-bikes and

conventional bikes due to differences in the respective rider behavior

(average speed, etc.)? Do bicyclists stay on designated trails, or

venture onto habitat/vegetation beyond the trail boundaries?

Partial * 

C. Are there differences in natural surface impacts between classes and

types of e-bikes (Class 1, 2 or 3)? None

D. What trail design practices encourage low-impact e-bike riding and

sustainably maintain trail infrastructure (i.e., width, slope, sight line,

drainage, volumes of riders, speed)?

Moderate

1.2 Historical and 

Cultural 

Resources

A. If bicycles have an impact on historical and cultural resources, is there

a difference between the impact of conventional bikes and that of ebikes?

None

B. What factors do public land managers need to consider regarding the

use of e-bikes on public lands while ensuring historical and cultural

resource protection?

None

C. What approaches can public land managers take to mitigate potential

impacts, if any, of e-bikes to historical and cultural resources? None

1.3 Mode Shift 

and 

Environmental 

Benefits

A. Does the use of e-bikes in public lands result in a net reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions (through mode shift/vehicle trip

replacement)?

Moderate

B. Under what circumstances can e-bikes serve as an effective

replacement for personal vehicles or shuttles to access trails or other

points of interest? Do e-bikes replace any other modes such as

walking, conventional bikes, or off-highway vehicles?

Moderate

C. Is it feasible to provide e-bike charging facilities in and around public

lands that rely on renewable energy sources to minimize the

environmental impact and utility connections?

Moderate

* Volpe administered a field study in the summer of 2022. This study will inform answers to these research

questions and establish a study protocol for future research. See Section 5 of this report for more

information.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

13 

Research

Focus Area

Study Methodology

Question

Knowledge 

Coverage

2. Safety Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities

2.1 Behavior and 

Potential for EBike-Related 

Injury

A. Does rider behavior (average speed, passing other trail users, yielding

to other trail users, etc.) in a public lands setting differ between e-bike

and conventional bike riders?

Partial * 

B. Do injury rates and severity differ for e-bike and conventional bike

riders? Moderate 

C. In bicycle-related injury incidents, do injury rates and severity to nonbicyclists differ between e-bike riders and conventional bike riders

(e.g., injuries to hikers, equestrians, and other non-motorized public

lands users)?

Partial 

D. Are there different risks or severity of injuries associated with

different types of e-bike classifications or modifications? Moderate

E. Are there different safety risks associated with e-bike use on different

types of terrain or facilities? Partial 

F. What are the typical pre-crash conditions for e-bike-involved

incidents? Moderate

G. What are the injury risks to e-bike riders from sharing roadways or

multiuse paths with other users (e.g., motor vehicles, shuttles,

conventional bicyclists and other nonmotorized users), and how do

these risks differ from those for conventional bike riders?

None * 

H. What educational and regulatory safety measures can effectively

reduce the number and severity of e-bike crashes on trails open to ebike use on public lands?

Partial 

2.2 Emergency 

Response

A. Can e-bikes serve as effective emergency response vehicles? Moderate

B. Will e-bikes help to reduce emergency response time in remote areas? Moderate

C. Can e-bikes serve as vehicles for administrative use (e.g., visitor use

management, crowd control, ranger, and law enforcement patrol,

etc.), and do e-bikes provide any unique benefits for certain types or

locations of administrative use over conventional vehicles?

None

* Volpe administered a field study in the summer of 2022. This study will inform answers to these research

questions and establish a study protocol for future research. See Section 5 of this report for more

information.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

14 

Research

Focus Area

Study Methodology

Question

Knowledge 

Coverage

3. Social Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities

3.1 Education and 

Communication 

to Trail User 

Groups

A. What etiquette practices are land use managers, municipalities,

advocacy groups, and bike shops, among others, promoting

specifically for e-bike riders? How are these different, if at all, from

practices promoted to conventional bike riders?

Partial 

B. Are there commonly accepted codes of conduct for e-bike riders? Partial 

C. How do e-bike users get information about where they can and cannot

ride e-bikes? Partial 

D. As another education option, are there social venues, online forums,

or other areas that effectively promote safe and responsible e-bike

riding with demonstrable successes in managing user behavior?

Partial 

E. Is there a learning curve for new e-bikes riders? If so, how does it

affect their use, especially in the context of rentals to novice riders

and/or people unfamiliar with a given public land?

Partial 

F. Are there common best practices for bike shop retailers and renters

that provide customers with e-bikes? Partial 

G. Are there effective programs to educate new users about operating ebikes in public lands? Partial 

3.2 Visitor Use

A. Will e-bikes change public lands visitor use patterns? Partial 

B. How can existing trail infrastructure be adapted to accommodate a

higher volume of users, and should it? None

C. How will increased e-bike use in public lands affect other recreational

activities? Partial 

D. Will there be a need to offer additional facilities or resources to

support increased access to public lands (e.g., more trailhead parking,

additional restrooms, and trash collection maintenance)?

None

3.3 Equity and 

Accessibility

A. Are e-bikes legally considered “Other Power Driven Mobility

Devices” under prevailing Federal ADA guidelines? Significant

B. How can e-bikes increase access to public lands for individuals with

mobility impairments or others who are unable to effectively use

conventional bikes or nonmotorized methods of access?

Significant

C. How does e-bike use affect people with visual and hearing

impairments in public lands? None

D. What potential conflicts exist for public land managers trying to

provide access for e-bike riders while meeting ADA/ABA

requirements?

Partial 

E. How do e-bikes affect access to public lands for conventionally

underserved populations? Moderate 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

15 

F. Do e-bikes skew toward more affluent public lands users, and does

this affect less affluent public lands users? Partial 

3.4 Keeping up 

with Evolving 

Technology

A. What factors should public land managers consider regarding

improvements to existing e-bike technologies? Partial 

B. What lessons can the emergence of micromobility and the evolution

of mountain bikes teach us about how to effectively manage emerging

e-bike technologies?

Partial 

3.5 Impacts to 

Existing Uses 

from Expansion of 

E-Bike Access

A. Will the presence of e-bikes in public lands have unintended

consequences on future e-bike or conventional bike use? Moderate 

B. Do e-bike riders exhibit behaviors that may positively or adversely

affect the experience for those hiking, riding horses, or riding

conventional bicycles?

Partial * 

C. Does average speed, passing behavior around other trail users,

yielding behavior related to other trail users, etc., create problems or

provide benefits to others traveling by different modes?

None * 

D. Would non-e-bike riders make different decisions based on their

perception of e-bikes, even without experiencing them, if land

managers allowed e-bikes on certain trails?

Partial 

E. Do e-bikes encourage more cyclists to ride in public lands? If so, how

might increases in cyclists access lead to conflicts between trail users?

Are such conflicts already occurring among various users (cyclists or

other users) of different skill levels (e.g., is skill level, rather than

use/device type, the more salient characteristic)?

Partial 

F. How are e-bikes potentially of use to reach more remote areas and to

carry more equipment, or food/game? Examples may include hunters

(including subsistence hunters), anglers, boaters, alpinists,

photographers, scientists, and researchers, etc.

Moderate

* Volpe administered a field study administered in the summer of 2022. This study will inform answers to

these research questions and establish a study protocol for future research. See Section 5 of this report for

more information.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

16 

Research

Focus Area

Study Methodology

Question

Knowledge 

Coverage

4. Process for E-Bike Management

4.1 UserPurpose-Place 

Alignment

A. What does a standard NEPA process for approving conventional bikes

and e-bikes look like? How do these processes differ, if at all? Partial 

B. Are there environmental conditions that are more appropriate for the use

of a particular e-bike class? Partial 

C. Are there reasons to restrict particular e-bike classes? Partial 

D. Are there generally accepted design guidelines for modifying trails to

accommodate e-bike use? If so, what are the guidelines and, generally,

should Federal and State agencies follow them?

Moderate 

E. How can land managers modify trails, places, or other facilities to fit the

conditions for e-bikes to coexist with other uses and the environment

better? What is the cost of implementing and maintaining those

modifications?

None

4.2 MultiAgency 

Coordination

A. What planning processes and methodologies (public meetings, user

surveys, pilot programs, etc.) do agencies and authorities use to work

through issues relating to e-bikes?

Partial 

B. How do agencies and authorities use data-driven decision making when

solving problems related to e-bikes? What are the most effective

methods?

Partial 

C. What are best practices for agencies incorporating public input into the

process of determining e-bike access in public lands? Partial 

D. How do agencies make the process of determining e-bike access in

public lands transparent to participants and observers? Partial 

E. What are the current processes for consensus building and coordination

between differing land management jurisdictions in the context of trail

infrastructure?

Partial 

F. As a general practice, how can Federal and State regulatory processes

better align with one another in regard to e-bikes? None

G. How do agencies coordinate enforcement resources when policies or

regulations of e-bikes differ between jurisdictions? Partial 

H. How do agencies best coordinate and/or leverage funding sources for

facilities that support continuous access for specific or unique uses

across their jurisdictions?

None
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

17 

4. Detailed Findings

Significant detail and references to documentation in the following sections can aid public lands managers, 

informing their approach to developing and implementing policies and practices to manage e-bikes in public 

lands. Similarly, this section provides insights for public land users and other stakeholders seeking to 

understand and engage with public land managers in cooperatively developing those policies and practices. 

To assist the reader, these headings and subheadings follow the same order as the study methodology; each 

question under each issue area is enumerated with a letter that keys back to Table 5. 

4.1. Ecological, Cultural, & Historical Resource Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities

Natural Surface Trail Condition and Wildlife

A. What are potential natural ecological impacts associated with the recreational use of e-bikes, or

electric mountain bikes (eMTBs), on natural surface trail environments?

A scan of the literature identified only one study on natural resource impacts of e-bikes. The study was

conducted by the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA), a nonprofit mountain bike advocacy 

group. The study compared the soil displacements of a mountain bike, a pedal-assisted eMTB (Class 1), and a 

gas-powered dirt bike. The results indicated no significant difference in soil displacement due to the 

performance or speed of the rider between eMTBs and conventional mountain bikes (The International 

Mountain Biking Association, 2016). However, the heavier weights of eMTBs, when compared to 

conventional mountain bikes, can cause increased soil displacement in grade changes and turns. Compared to 

eMTBs and conventional MTBs, the gas-powered dirt bike caused considerably greater soil displacement in 

climbs and entering berms, and upon repeated laps over the same location.

Based on the 2016 IMBA study indicating that conventional mountain bikes and eMTBs are largely similar in 

their impacts, research about conventional mountain bike impacts on soft surface trails may offer additional 

insight about the impact of eMTBs. The research team leveraged an existing literature review on the 

environmental impacts of mountain biking related to vegetation, soils, and the disruption of wildlife (Marion 

& Wimpey, 2011). The authors conclude that impacts on trails where mountain biking is common are likely 

due to poor trail design and maintenance. Soil impacts can be limited through sustainable trail design, and offtrail environmental impacts can be minimized when trail users are restricted to designated trails. One of the 

co-authors’ earlier papers indicates that the environmental degradation caused by mountain biking is generally 

equivalent to or less than that caused by hiking, and both are substantially less impactful than motorized and 

equestrian activities: the study reported less soil loss on mountain bike trails than on hiking trails, which in 

turn exhibited substantially less soil loss than observed on horse and ATV trails (Marion & Olive, 2006). 

Studies featured in the Marion literature review (2011) have shown that most damage to plants and soils on a 

trail occur with the initial traffic and that the per capita increase in further impact diminishes rapidly with 

increasing subsequent traffic. Research also indicates that mountain bikes have a limited impact on vegetation 

loss. Thurston and Reader (2001) conducted a trampling study involving mountain bikers and hikers in Boyne 

Valley Provincial Park in Ontario, Canada. Researchers recorded the condition of a trail’s vegetation before 

and after 500 one-way passes by bikers and hikers (Thurston, E & Reader, 2001). Conditions included plant 

density (number of stems/area), diversity (number of species present), and soil exposure (area of mineral soil 

exposed). Testing revealed that the impacts of hiking and biking were not significantly different from one 

another. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

18 

Mountain bikes appear to cause just as much damage, and in some cases less damage, than other modes of 

travel, such as hiking, on natural surface trails. In one study, researchers measured 78 miles of trail for soil 

loss in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (Marion & Olive, 2006). The study examined 

the relative contribution of different types of use including horse, hiking, mountain biking, and all-terrain 

vehicles (ATV). Of the specific use type trails, mountain biking trails showed the least amount of erosion; by 

comparison, all-terrain vehicles displaced over 40 times more soil, horses over 26 times more soil, and hikers 

more than three times more soil. The study found that mountain bike impacts on flatter terrain are generally 

minimal, except when soils are wet or uncompacted and rutting occurs. 

The impacts of mountain biking on wildlife are similar to those of hikers and other non-motorized trail users. 

Taylor and Knight investigated the interactions of wildlife and trail users (hikers and mountain bikers) at 

Antelope Island State Park in Utah (Taylor & Knight, 2003). A hidden observer recorded responses to an 

assistant who hiked or biked a section of trail. The observer measured wildlife reactions, including alert 

distance, flight response, flight distance, distance fled, and distance from trail. Observations revealed that 70 

percent of animals located within 330 feet of a trail were likely to flee when a trail user passed. This response 

was statistically similar for both mountain biking and hiking. Wildlife reacted more to off-trail activities than 

those that remained on the trail. While this study found no biological justification for managing mountain 

biking any differently than hiking, they note that bikers cover more ground in a given time period than hikers. 

This suggests that mountain bikers potentially disturb more wildlife per unit time. However, mountain bike 

riders also tend to stay on established trails, which minimizes wildlife impacts, while hikers may be more 

likely to venture beyond trails. 

However, another study that used a GPS/GIS-based rapid assessment tool to estimate the impacts of mountain 

biking in Western Australia noted that mountain bikers were observed to be creating informal trail networks 

beyond designated trail systems in John Forrest National Park (Newsome & Davies, 2009). A more recent 

study noted that non-motorized activities had a slightly greater negative effect on wildlife than motorized 

activities (Larson & et al, 2016). A literature review for the Boulder County Parks and Open Space speculated 

that the discrepancy between impacts may be because motorized trails tend to be located outside wildlife and 

in more conspicuous locations, while nonmotorized trails often travel through backcountry areas and can 

create opportunities to travel off trail, resulting in a less predictable travel pattern and more contact with areas 

where wildlife present (Nielsen & et al, 2019).

Conversely, a 2004 study in the Oregon Starkey Experimental Forest and Range found that the negative 

impact of motorized activities penetrates deeper into wilderness than that of nonmotorized activities. Elk and 

deer populations were monitored to measure the “disturbance” effect of hiking, horseback riding, mountain 

biking, and ATVs. Mountain bike riders, horse riders, and hikers were found to disturb wildlife up to at 750, 

550, and 400 meters from the subject, respectively. In comparison, the disturbance effect for ATVs was 

observed at up to 1350 meters away from the rider (Wisdom & et al, 2004). 

B. Do e-bike impacts differ from conventional bike impacts? To what extent are differences in impacts, if 

any, between e-bikes and conventional bikes due to differences in the respective rider behavior 

(average speed, etc.)? Do bicyclists stay on designated trails, or venture onto habitat/vegetation beyond 

the trail boundaries? 

As mentioned in the previous section, there is only one comparison study of e-bike and conventional bike 

impacts on natural resources. The study compared the soil displacements of a mountain bike, a pedal-assisted 

eMTB (Class 1), and a gas-powered dirt bike. The results indicated that there was not a significant difference 

in soil displacement between eMTBs and conventional mountain bikes except for some observed differences 

at grade changes and turns (International Mountain Bicycling Association, 2016). The heavier weights of 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

19 

eMTBs, when compared to conventional mountain bikes, can cause different levels of soil displacement in 

grade changes and turns.

The IMBA research suggests that eMTBs do not have significantly different impacts when compared to 

conventional mountain bikes; however, there is a need for additional research to complement IMBA’s 2016 

findings with more recent eMTB models and potentially new research methods. 

Field research being conducted by the study team in the summer of 2022 examines the differences between 

conventional bikes and e-bikes on an unpaved multi-use trail. The study uses video and GPS data and will 

assess whether there are significant differences between e-bike and conventional bike rider behavior, such as 

speed, acceleration, and braking. See Section 5 of this report for more information. The protocol for this 

research can inform future research on natural surface road and trail networks to expand upon the findings 

from the 2016 IMBA study.

C. Are there differences in natural surface impacts between classes and types of e-bikes (Class 1, 2, or 3)?

The study team did not identify relevant literature.

D. What trail design practices encourage low-impact e-bike riding and sustainably maintain trail 

infrastructure (i.e., width, slope, sight line, drainage, volumes of riders, speed)?

The Bureau of Land Management and People for Bikes developed the eMTB Land Manager Handbook to 

provide guidance on accommodating Class 1 eMTB on natural surface trail networks (Bureau of Land 

Management & People for Bikes, 2020). Many of the guidelines reflect common approaches to sustainable 

trail design for conventional mountain bikes. The Bureau of Land Management and IMBA Guidelines for a 

Quality Trail Experience are a commonly referenced source for information about trail design that minimizes 

erosion and drainage issues and encourages safe and responsible trail user behavior and interaction (Bureau of 

Land Management & International Mountain Bicycling Association, 2018). People for Bikes lists additional 

eMTB resources on their website (People for Bikes, 2021). 

Collectively, these guides and other resources advise land managers and trail builders to employ trail designs 

and features that encourage riders to safely manage their speed, minimize user conflicts, and stay on 

designated trail surfaces.

Historical and Cultural Resources

A. If bicycles have an impact on historical and cultural resources, is there a difference between the impact 

of conventional bikes and that of e-bikes?

The study team did not identify relevant literature.

B. What factors do public land managers need to consider regarding the use of e-bikes on public lands 

while ensuring historical and cultural resource protection?

The study team did not identify relevant literature.

C. What approaches can public land managers take to mitigate potential impacts, if any, of e-bikes to 

historical and cultural resources?

The study team did not identify relevant literature.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

20 

Mode Shift and Environmental Benefits

A. Does the use of e-bikes in public lands result in a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (through 

mode shift/vehicle trip replacement)?

The environmental impacts and reduction of greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions from e-bike use depend on the 

mode that e-bikes replace (Fishman & Cherry, 2015). Studies have modeled how an increase in e-bike mode 

share would yield GhG emission reductions due to mode shift from cars to bicycles. One such study found 

that a 15 percent increase in e-bike mode share would result in an approximately 10 percent decrease in 

person-miles-traveled by car (McQueen, MacArthur, & Cherry, 2019). Additionally, the research found that a 

15 percent increase in e-bike mode share would result in an 11 percent decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. 

The research shows that increasing the e-bike mode share is a beneficial way to meet carbon emission 

reduction goals and reduce driving; however, substantial political will is needed to promote the e-bike 

ridership needed to seize the e-bike potential to reduce GhG emissions.

Because e-bikes do not have tailpipe emissions, air pollution associated with e-bikes occurs at power plants 

rather than in urban centers. A recent study found that e-bikes decrease human exposure and intake of 

pollutants as power plants are typically located in areas with lower population density (Abagnale & et al, 

2015). While the degree of pollution is dependent on the source of electricity, this suggests that the 

production and use of e-bikes results in less pollutants when compared to vehicles. If an e-bike trip replaces a 

walking or conventional bike trip, it will likely increase emissions, depending on how the power for the ebike battery was generated.

These findings highlight the opportunity for e-bikes to help lower GhG emission through vehicle trip 

replacement, though certain incentives may be needed to use this strategy to meet emission reduction goals. 

B. Under what circumstances can e-bikes serve as an effective replacement for personal vehicles or 

shuttles to access trails or other points of interest? Do e-bikes replace any other modes such as 

walking, conventional bikes, or off-highway vehicles?

Research suggests that e-bikes lower the barriers of entry to bicycling and as a result help to increase ridership 

among individuals deterred from bicycling by physical limitations, topographic barriers, perceived safety risk, 

and distance to cycle (MacArthur & et al, 2018). In a number of Chinese cities where e-bike market 

penetration is much higher than in North America, studies have found e-bikes to replace short trips on public 

transportation more often than operating as a substitute for trips taken by private vehicles (Cherry & Cervero, 

2007). A separate study of an e-bike share system in California found that e-bikes were most commonly 

replacing trips taken by personal automobile or a ridehailing service (Fitch, Mohiuddin, & Handy, 2020). 

While the focus of this research has not been on public lands, these findings suggest that e-bikes may serve as 

an effective replacement for personal vehicles or shuttles to trails in locations that are in urban or suburban 

locations and are underserved by public transportation. 

Due to COVID-19, a group of public and private sector stakeholders instituted a reservation system in the 

summer of 2020 for the shuttle that runs from Aspen Highlands to the Maroon Bells Scenic Area in the White 

River National Forest.3

 This system enabled the shuttle provider (Roaring Fork Transportation Authority) to 

plan on how many shuttles (that ran at half capacity that season) it should have in operation throughout the 

season. Because more people than available shuttle tickets wanted to visit the Bells, rental shops periodically 

 

3 During shuttle operating hours, cars are not allowed on the road from Aspen Highlands to the Bells. This has been the 

arrangement for over a decade.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

21 

sold out of their e-bike rentals; this demand was augmented by people who did not want to ride the shuttle 

during the pandemic and/or preferred to take an e-bike than a shuttle to the Bells. In response, rental shops 

increased their fleet and new rental outlets opened to accommodate more visitors who wanted to visit the 

Bells via e-bike. The popularity of renting e-bikes to access the Bells increased in 2021 and is anticipated to 

continue in the 2022 season and beyond. 

C. Is it feasible to provide e-bike charging facilities in and around public lands that rely on renewable 

energy sources to minimize the environmental impact of utility connections?

Mountain bike tourist destinations around the world are beginning to market their locations to attract eMTB 

riders. Some destinations are expanding their infrastructure to meet this growing need by providing charging 

stations for e-bikes on trails (Schlemmer, Barth, & Schnitzer, 2019). Public lands sites may adopt similar 

practices to encourage the use of e-bikes as a reliable transportation mode. 

Research from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst suggests that it is feasible to develop e-bike charging 

facilities that rely exclusively on solar power (Wamburu & al, 2020). Equipping an e-bike charging station 

with a single grid-tied solar panel is adequate to meet the annual charging demand from e-bikes and achieve 

net-zero emissions using net-metering. An off-grid setup would require twice as many solar panels but 

remains feasible as an option for public lands managers hoping to provide e-bike charging stations in more 

remote locations. The Tahoe National Forest has considered installing charging stations but has yet to do so; 

staff there noted that a significant amount of trenching would be necessary. 

Future research may focus on implementing these charging facilities to provide public lands sites with a 

model for their use. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

22 

4.2. Safety Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities

Behavior and Potential for E-Bike-Related Injury

A. Does rider behavior (average speed, passing other trail users, yielding to other trail users, etc.) in a 

public lands setting differ between e-bike and conventional bike riders?

Some studies have used GPS devices to track rider behavior in non-public lands contexts. A study from 

Tennessee that tracked riders’ GPS data when using a university bikeshare system that included both e-bike 

and conventional bikes (Langford, Chen, & Cherry, 2015). 

The study found that conventional bikes speeds varied more than e-bike speeds. The study assumed this 

difference was due to e-bikes being able to maintain consistent speeds over hills and rolling terrain. The 

average speed for e-bikes was higher than conventional bikes for on-road trips, but lower on greenways or 

shared-use paths. The authors suspect the higher speed of conventional bikes on the greenways and shareduse paths may be due to riders making exercise trips, rather than riding for transport. 

The two groups exhibited similar wrong way violations on one-way and two-way streets, although e-bikes 

traveled slower when traveling the wrong way, relative to their average speed. Stop sign violations were also 

similar between the two groups. However, when running a stop sign, conventional bikes, on average, did so at 

higher speeds than e-bikes. This was assumed to be due to the desire of conventional bike riders to maintain 

their momentum, whereas e-bike riders could further reduce and then increase their speed more easily because 

of the motor assistance.

One caveat to this study is that the motor in the system’s e-bike model cut off assistance at 15 mph and 

produced only 180 watts, less than the 250 watts of power available on most Class 1 e-bikes today. New field 

research being conducted by the study team in the summer of 2022 examines the differences between 

conventional bikes and e-bikes on an unpaved multi-use trail. See Section 5 of this report for more 

information. The study uses video and GPS data and will assess whether there are significant differences 

between e-bike and conventional bike rider behavior, such as speed, acceleration, and braking, and will 

complement the 2015 study described above with new data from e-bikes with higher watt motors and a higher 

assistance speed cut-off of 20 mph. 

B. Do injury rates and severity differ for e-bike and conventional bike riders? 

According to one study, the overall pattern of injury between e-bike and conventional bike riders is similar: 

traumatic brain injury, pelvic injury, and upper extremity injury; however, the severity of those injuries tends 

to be higher with e-bikers (Spörri & et al, 2021). People involved in e-bike crashes were almost 14 years older 

and had a higher incidence of moderate traumatic brain injuries than patients involved in crashes using a 

conventional bicycle. Surprisingly, this difference persisted despite e-bike riders being nearly twice as likely 

to wear a helmet as conventional riders. The rate of pelvic injuries in e-bike crashes was twice as high 

compared with bicycle crashes, whereas the rate of upper extremity injuries was higher following 

conventional bicycle crashes. The study authors speculate that contributing factors that result in these 

differences include that older people with less cycling-specific training generally have slower reaction times 

and less control over e-bikes.

A recent study compared injury patterns and trends associated with e-bikes and conventional bicycles from 

2000 to 2017 using the U.S. National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. There are some caveats the 

conclusions of this study, which does not distinguish between classes of e-bikes. The authors indicate the 

nominative increase in e-bike injuries in the last few years of the data set may be due to increasing e-bike use, 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

23 

not increasing risk of injury. The study notes that a better metric would be to normalize injuries to personmiles traveled, which was not possible with this data set. The study did find that e-bike injury patterns differ 

from those for riders of conventional bicycles. People involved in e-bike crashes were more likely to suffer 

internal injuries and be hospitalized compared to conventional bicyclists. In the study, people injured using ebikes were older, averaging 31.9 years old compared with 25.2 years for conventional bikes (DiMaggio, 

2019). 

A study was conducted in the Netherlands to compare the injury risk of e-bike and conventional bicycle users 

by using emergency room data and a survey of cyclists who have not been involved in a bicycle crash. The 

study found that overall e-bike users had poorer health than conventional bicycle users; however, general 

health status is unrelated to the likelihood and severity of bicycle crashes. E-bike users were not more likely 

to be involved in a crash or to sustain serious injuries with the exception of older, female cyclists who did 

have an elevated risk of injury on e-bikes and tended to sustain more serious injuries (Schepers, 2019). Other 

studies have shown that e-cyclists are more likely than conventional cyclists to be involved in single bicycle 

crashes, suggesting to the authors that high speeds, difficulties mounting and dismounting, or problems 

maneuvering may be causal factors in the crashes (Papoutsi & et al, 2014). 

It is difficult to have definitive answers on e-bike injury risk in the United States due to several complicating 

factors including the lack of consistent reporting and the difference in use between e-bikes and conventional 

bicycles (Cherry & MacArthur, 2019). Additional studies should build on this research, seeking to normalize 

data for more comparable results, and capture additional information to differentiate e-bike and conventional 

bike injury outcomes and causality more precisely. Future research could control for contributing factors such 

as age and e-bike experience to develop a deeper understanding of the differences in injury risks between ebike riders and conventional bicyclists.

C. In bicycle-related injury incidents, do injury rates and severity to non-bicyclists differ between e-bike 

riders and conventional bike riders (e.g., injuries to hikers, equestrians, and other non-motorized 

public lands users)?

The above referenced injury study found that, compared with conventional bike or electric scooter crashes, ebike crashes were three times more likely to involve a collision with a pedestrian (DiMaggio, 2019). 

However, as noted earlier, this study does not normalize the crash incidents to person-miles traveled, so it 

may overrepresent the rate of crashes involving e-bikes, especially toward the end of the dataset as e-bikes 

became more prevalent with consumers. While conditions and users on trails and within public lands are 

likely different than those of this study, this conclusion suggests that e-bikes may present a greater hazard to 

other public lands users than conventional bikes, though several improvements to this kind of research are

needed. 

A larger and richer crash injury dataset with the ability to normalize crash events to person-miles traveled,

and with distinction between e-bike classes, would help clarify risks. Crash data that are specific to relevant 

public lands contexts, such as natural surface trail systems, multiuse paths, and roads, would help researchers 

develop more definitive findings on the difference in injury rates and severities to non-bicyclists from e-bike 

riders and conventional bike riders.

D. Are there different risks or severity of injuries associated with different types of e-bike classifications or 

modifications? 

A comprehensive white paper review of emerging research on e-bike safety found that Class 3 e-bikes have 

the same crash risk as Class 1 e-bikes, but injury severity is slightly higher among Class 3 e-bikes when they 

do crash (Cherry & MacArthur, 2019). Class 1 e-bike riders travel marginally faster than conventional 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

24 

bicycles (3.0 km/hr) and their speed results in slightly higher conflict rates and safety-oriented maneuvers. 

Class 3 e-bikes travel substantially faster than conventional bicycles, about twice the speed on average. The 

review identified no definitive answer regarding whether e-bikes are more or less safe than conventional 

bicycling, and under which circumstances.

This research shows that injury severity is slightly higher for Class 3 e-bikes when compared to Class 1 ebikes. Future research could examine whether the presence of the throttle on Class 2 e-bikes has any impact 

on safety. 

E. Are there different safety risks associated with e-bike use on different types of terrain or facilities?

The literature on safety risks associated with e-bike use aligns with the research on typical pre-crash 

conditions, which is provided below. This research focuses on incidents in urbanized areas and does not cover 

public lands or trails. The Tahoe National Forest allowed e-biking for a period in 2019 and then again once 

the East Zone Connectivity Project was approved in 2021. Forest Service staff there said that safety risks are 

minimally different with Class 1 e-bikes; more depends on rider skill and etiquette. Anecdotally, they believe 

that e-bike riders are usually more skilled (e.g., they used to ride conventional mountain bikes but switched to 

e-bikes because of age or injury, and/or they want to go on longer rides) than beginners. They said that since 

e-bikes are so expensive, people take e-biking seriously and are therefore generally cautious and risk-adverse.

However, no data 

F. What are the typical pre-crash conditions for e-bike-involved incidents?

A study of the characteristics of single-vehicle crashes involving e-bikes in Switzerland found that the 

primary pre-crash conditions were a slippery road surface, falling while crossing a threshold, riding too 

quickly, and an inability to keep balance (Hertach & et al, 2018). The study found that women, elderly people, 

and e-bike riders who consider themselves to be less fit had an increased risk to suffer a more serious injury.

A separate literature review of risky riding behaviors of urban e-bikes identified a set of key risk factors that 

often lead to crashes and near-misses (Ma & et al, 2019). The literature identifies the illegal turning 

movements, speeding, running red lights, and riding against the flow of traffic as the primary risky riding 

behaviors seen with e-bikes.

This research does not explicitly cover pre-crash conditions on off-road trails that may be more prevalent in a 

public lands context. This is an existing gap and area for future research. 

G. What are the injury risks to e-bike riders from sharing roadways or multiuse paths with other users 

(e.g., motor vehicles, shuttles, conventional bicyclists, and other nonmotorized users), and how do these 

risks differ from those for conventional bike riders?

The study team did not identify relevant literature. However, field research to be conducted by the study team 

will focus on a public lands setting and assess whether there are significant differences between e-bike and 

conventional bike rider behavior. Behavior related to speed and yielding, such as speed at conflict zones like 

trail junctures or blind corners, may indicate a different risk of crashes for e-bike riders that could lead to 

injury. Future research can help replicate findings and produce additional insights in different public lands 

contexts. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

25 

H. What educational and regulatory safety measures can effectively reduce the number and severity of ebike crashes on trails open to e-bike use on public lands? 

Trail etiquette among all trail users is typically reinforced through signs, educational campaigns, and peer 

communication. Signs and educational campaigns provide clarity about the rules for access, yielding, speed, 

and other factors. Peer communication, whether on the trail or in places that cater to trail users—bike shops, 

outfitters, outdoors clubs, etc.—can help reinforce those rules. Because e-bikes are a relatively new 

phenomenon, the use of demonstrations may serve as an effective tool to change users’ perceptions of e-bikes 

and their role on trails or on roadways; such demonstrations could include allowing public lands visitors to try 

e-bikes and receive instruction on safe and courteous riding behavior (Nielsen & et al, 2019). 

These findings suggest educational campaigns and increasing familiarity with e-bike operation may help to 

improve trail etiquette, reduce negative perceptions, and reduce the risk of e-bike crashes in public lands. 

Emergency Response

A. Can e-bikes serve as effective emergency response vehicles?

There is limited literature on the effectiveness of e-bikes as an emergency response vehicle; however, several 

jurisdictions have equipped first responders with e-bikes to quickly respond to incidents in areas that are 

difficult for larger vehicles to access. Israel’s emergency response network recently added 1,000 e-bikes to its 

fleet of rescue vehicles to assist patients in hard-to-reach areas more easily (Leichman, 2017). The unit, which 

equips staff with resuscitation equipment and a medical kit, was designed to support ambulances by reaching 

crowded areas such as markets and boardwalks more quickly.

In France, one company is developing an emergency response cargo e-bike with an insulated container for 

medical supplies. The company’s intention is to provide a redundant mode of transport to deliver first 

responders to incident sites, potentially more quickly than via motor vehicles (Gorgan, 2020). The City of 

Portland’s Bureau of Emergency Management holds annual Disaster Relief Trials, in which participants use 

bicycles outfitted to carry cargo and simulate delivery of emergency supplies to residents in need. They 

recently experimented with developing a prototype cargo e-bike ambulance (Maus, 2022). 

This research suggests that e-bikes can serve as effective emergency response vehicles, though future research

that focuses on a public lands setting may help improve understanding in such context. 

B. Will e-bikes help to reduce emergency response time in remote areas?

A growing number of search and rescue teams have begun to rely on e-bikes to reach locations that are 

inaccessible by ATVs. E-bikes, which typically rely on an electric motor that does not create noise, offer a 

key advantage over ATVs as they allow rescuers to listen for voices yelling for help while traveling along 

trails (Rodriguez, 2020). Anecdotal evidence suggests that e-bikes may help to reduce emergency response 

time in remote areas when compared to rescuers on foot; however, more research is needed to compare 

emergency response time with ATVs and other motorized devices. 

Existing literature on this topic is largely anecdotal and there are no significant studies to date addressing 

these questions. This is a gap and potential area for further research. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

26 

C. Can e-bikes serve as vehicles for administrative use (e.g., visitor use management, crowd control, 

ranger and law enforcement patrol, etc.), and do e-bikes provide any unique benefits for certain types 

or locations of administrative use over conventional vehicles?

The study team did not identify relevant literature specific to public lands. However, many local police 

departments use e-bikes for patrols, community engagement, and incident response. A recent article in an 

industry publication noted many benefits of e-bikes over conventional bikes or cruisers for police. These 

include faster response times in dense areas; easier and longer travel time on a variety of surfaces such as 

trails, parks and open spaces, sidewalks, and inclines; a “stealthy” approach to suspects; more personable 

interactions with the public; and less risk of officer injury and fatigue (Shrubb, 2018). 

While not directly related to public safety, Federal staff discussing this research with the study team noted 

anecdotal or potential use of e-bikes to perform administrative duties. On a recent project to evaluate parking 

conditions at Lake Berryessa, a Bureau of Reclamation site, a Federal Lands Highway transportation planner 

used an e-bike to travel between sites over the course of day. Using an e-bike rather than a regular bike to 

collect data proved more efficient due to the hilly terrain. Using a bicycle was also more practical than using a 

motor vehicle to navigate through parking lots and record observations; the bicycle’s small scale did not

inhibit visitors’ circulation or require a vehicular parking space. On the Olympic National Forest, roads 

segments that were selected for an annual deferred maintenance assessment were unreachable by motor 

vehicles due to storm damage; e-bikes or all-terrain vehicles were noted as a potential method to access the 

specific segment to be assessed. Finally, the National Park Service has been piloting the use of e-bikes 

outfitted with cameras, tablets, and accelerometers to assess roughness of multi-use trails. The e-bikes allow 

staff to cover longer distances and populate a geodatabase with 360-degree panoramic images, which are 

captured at one-second intervals, along with GPS coordinates, and additional annotations as recorded by the 

rider. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

27 

4.3. Social Impacts, Considerations, and Opportunities

Education and Communication to Trail User Groups

A. What etiquette practices are land use managers, municipalities, advocacy groups, and bike shops, 

among others, promoting specifically for e-bike riders? How are these different, if at all, from practices 

promoted to conventional bike riders?

The Boulder County Parks and Open Space Literature Review (2019) briefly references the importance of 

educational and outreach campaigns focusing on etiquette and on-trail behavior to help reduce conflicts. The 

report suggests e-bike demonstrations—allowing people to test ride and learn about e-bikes—could inform 

and possibly change users’ perceptions of the e-bikes themselves and their place on the road (Nielsen & et al, 

2019). The authors also emphasize the importance of encouraging proper etiquette to all of trail users and not 

just eMTB riders to further mitigate conflict scenarios.

Some Federal, State, and local authorities that allow e-bikes provide informational resources to educate e-bike 

riders on proper rider etiquette. A few examples include: the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), which 

published a list of tips to follow on their website in October 2020 (US Department of Interior, 2020); the City 

of Durango, which published eMTB riding etiquette on their website and on trifold flyers that are handed out 

to residents as well as bike shops (Durango, 2022); and the Maroon Bells transportation partnership, which 

developed a How to E-Bike in Aspen video and also created and distributed flyers to area e-bike rental shops 

about bicycling etiquette on Maroon Creek Road (Aspen Chamber Resort Association, 2021). Some of the 

tips are specific to the use of e-bikes including yielding to other users. 

Online forums, blogs, and promotional articles offer advice on proper eMTB etiquette from Oregon E-bikes

(Oregon E-Bikes, 2020) and the women-centric bicycle design company Liv (Liv Global, 2020). YouTube 

channels, such as the Electric Mountain Bike Network, visually show how e-bike riders should behave on 

trails. IMBA publishes a guide that provides their Rules of the Trail for conventional mountain bikes 

(International Mountain Bicycling Association, 2021). Such guidance provides an example that could inform 

future studies to confirm whether these rules are applicable to eMTBs as well. Per guidelines published by 

People for Bikes, eMTB riders should yield to all other trail users regardless of direction (PeopleForBikes, 

2020). 

Existing research demonstrates that etiquette practices are typically similar between e-bike and conventional 

bike riders and at times focus on clarifying the locations where e-bikes can or cannot be ridden. 

B. Are there commonly accepted codes of conduct for e-bike riders?

Although not documented in research, a review of e-bike etiquette tips shows commonalities across many 

different sources: yielding to other trail users, yielding to uphill bike riders, calling out or using a bell before 

overtaking other users, using hand signals to indicate turning, slowing, or stopping intent, etc. Such tips are 

commonly accepted mountain bike and hiking etiquette tips. Only a few sources, like those mentioned above, 

have tips that are unique to e-bike use. Additional research is needed to determine commonly accepted codes 

of conduct and to evaluate their effectiveness at achieving desired outcomes. 

C. How do e-bike users get information about where they can and cannot ride e-bikes?

Some public lands provide general information on e-bikes use within their jurisdictions via websites, videos, 

and printed material. Since the DOI’s order allowing e-bikes on public lands, many Federal land management 

agencies have published information about e-bikes including where they are allowed and prohibited as 

described, for example, in the NPS Minute Man National Historic Park Superintendents Compendium 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

28 

(National Park Service, 2022). The most extensive and thorough online tool identifying where e-bikes can be 

ridden on trails is managed by People for Bikes. The eMTB Routes and Trails map is an interactive opensource catalog displaying trails across the 50 US states that are reported to allow some form of e-bike access 

by general users (PeopleForBikes, 2022). Because it is open source it may include inaccuracies. Trailforks is a 

popular mobile and web-based application that provides crowd-sourced content, including information about 

where e-bikes are allowed, subject to the same caveat about potential inaccuracies (Trailforks, 2022). 

Future research could utilize survey or cellular data to better understand the most popular mediums for users 

to get information and allow land management agencies to target their outreach appropriately. 

D. As another education option, are there social venues, online forums, or other areas that effectively 

promote safe and responsible e-bike riding with demonstrable successes in managing user behavior?

National organizations like IMBA (International Mountain Biking Association, 2022) and People for Bikes

(PeopleForBikes, Trail Etiquette Guidelines, 2020) promote e-bike rider etiquette via their communication 

materials and websites. The Bureau of Land Management (Bureau of Land Management, 2021) has an e-bike 

page on their website that includes trail etiquette practices. 

E. Is there a learning curve for new e-bikes riders? If so, how does it affect their use, especially in the 

context of rentals to novice riders and/or people unfamiliar with a given public land?

The study team did not identify relevant literature. Anecdotally, visitors to the Maroon Bells who rented ebikes did exhibit behavior that suggests they are new to bicycle riding on such facilities as Maroon Creek Rd. 

These include riding two and three-abreast and not allowing faster vehicles, including the designated shuttle 

buses, to safely pass them. Additional research is needed to further investigate whether this kind of behavior 

is common among e-bike renters and new e-bike riders.

F. Are there common best practices for bike shop retailers and renters that provide customers with ebikes? 

The study team did not identify relevant literature. In practice, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County asked 

rental bike shops prior to and during the 2021 summer season to have their customers view a how-to e-bike 

video and/or view a flyer on proper e-bike etiquette on Maroon Creek Rd., which is a County-owned road that 

provides exclusive access through the White River National Forest to the Maroon Bells Scenic Area. 

Unfortunately, according to County officials, few bike shops voluntarily complied with this educational 

campaign and e-bike users continued to exhibit poor e-bike etiquette compared to the 2020 season.

G. Are there effective programs to educate new users about operating e-bikes in public lands? 

The study team did not identify relevant literature. In practice, at the behest of the Pitkin County Board of 

County Commissioners, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and other stakeholders in the Aspen area 

developed an e-bike rental tracking system that they are piloting during the 2022 season to improve e-bike 

etiquette and safety on Maroon Creek Rd. E-bike rental shops and other e-bike fleet owners will be given 

microchipped passes to be adhered to each e-bike rental. These passes will be scanned every time they pass 

the Maroon Bells entrance station on Maroon Creek Rd. Rental shops are again being asked to show the video 

and/or go over the rules of the road with customers prior to each rental. Not only will this system provide the 

stakeholders with valuable data about e-bike rental usage, but renters exhibiting poor or dangerous etiquette 

will be noted and rental shops may lose their ability to rent e-bikes to access the Maroon Bells in subsequent 

years.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

29 

Visitor Use

A. Will e-bikes change public lands visitor use patterns?

A standard battery can power an e-bike for roughly 20-40 miles of range depending on route characteristics 

like terrain and the level of assistance chosen by the rider (Karni, 2021). The assistance provided by an e-bike 

may change how some people access and travel within public lands. If a rider can travel further with 

assistance from an electric motor, then all other conditions being the same, it is likely e-bikes will allow 

visitors to access more remote parts of public lands. It may also mean that more visitors can access public 

lands that require steeper ascents. As technology advances, it is likely that range will increase. 

This research does not explicitly cover visitor use patterns for e-bike riders in public lands. Due to the 

relatively nascent data collection around this topic, this is a gap and opportunity for future research. 

B. How can existing trail infrastructure be adapted to accommodate a higher volume of users, and should 

it? 

The study team did not identify relevant literature.

C. How will increased e-bike use in public lands affect other recreational activities?

The study team did not identify relevant literature. In the Tahoe National Forest, the new East Zone 

Connectivity Project Class 1 e-bike trails were previously non-motorized trails (US Forest Service, 2022). 

According to the NEPA Decision document, “These trails would remain open to existing non-motorized use. 

Potential environmental impacts and user conflicts were carefully considered in selecting existing trails to 

propose for Class 1 e-bike use. The proposed trails are not popular equestrian trails; are not experiencing 

known recreation user group conflicts; have no substantial existing resource impacts; and have trail 

management objectives specifically aimed at mountain bike use.” Staff on the Tahoe National Forest 

confirmed that they have seen no impacts, negative or otherwise, to other recreational activities or users on 

these trails.

D. Will there be a need to offer additional facilities or resources to support increased access to public 

lands (e.g., more trailhead parking, additional restrooms, and trash collection maintenance)? 

The study team did not identify relevant literature.

Equity and Accessibility

A. Are e-bikes legally considered “Other Power Driven Mobility Devices” under prevailing Federal ADA 

guidelines?

Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines define Other Power Driven Mobility Devices 

(OPDMD) as “any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines—whether or not designed 

primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities—that is used by individuals with mobility 

disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf cars and electronic personal assistance mobility 

devices (EPAMDs), such as the Segway, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined 

pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2021). Thus, e-bikes can be

considered OPDMDs, though public and private agencies may be able to restrict their use in certain locations 

due to safety requirements. Any person with a mobility disability is allowed to use OPDMDs. Individuals 

may be asked to provide credible assurance that the mobility device is required due to a disability; this may 

include a disability parking placard or other state-issued proof of disability. For areas where e-bikes are 

generally disallowed, public land managers assess whether e-bikes can be accommodated as an OPDMD in 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

30 

accordance with Department of Justice guidance, upon request. In deciding whether e-bikes can be 

accommodated as OPDMDs, public land managers may develop and publicize rules for people with 

disabilities using e-bikes as OPDMDs. Some emerging mobility devices may fall under the definition of 

OPDMD as described above. Some States, such as California, consider e-bikes to be OPDMDs, however, 

federal law has not designated them specifically as such. This may cause confusion among users who are 

accustomed to their State public land’s policies. 

B. Public lands managers should continue to track any changes to the characterization of e-bikes under 

prevailing ADA guidelines to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to and mobility 

within public lands. How can e-bikes increase access to public lands for individuals with mobility 

impairments or others who are unable to effectively use conventional bikes or non-motorized methods 

of access?

E-bikes require less physical exertion than conventional bicycles and have the potential to support 

independent mobility for older populations and individuals with mobility impairments (Leger, 2019). Existing 

research suggests that older riders and individuals with physical limitations are more likely to use e-bikes for 

recreational purposes, while younger riders tend to use e-bikes for utilitarian and commuting purposes 

(Nielsen & et al, 2019). In a public lands context, this may result in an increased use of e-bikes among older 

adults for recreational purposes. 

This research suggests that e-bikes may provide individuals who were not previously interested or physically 

capable of experiencing public lands sites and trails by bicycle with the ability to do so. This is an existing 

gap that future research could address.

C. How does e-bike use affect people with visual and hearing impairments in public lands? 

The study team did not identify relevant literature.

D. What potential conflicts exist for public land managers trying to provide access for e-bike riders while 

meeting ADA and ABA requirements?

Although e-bikes can help users overcome the physical requirements of operating a bicycle, an e-bike is not 

considered an adaptive device in and of itself according to the legal ADA definition of a mobility device (US 

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 2014). This definition states that a mobility device is “a 

manually-operated or power-driven device designed primarily for use by an individual with a mobility 

disability for the main purpose of indoor or of both indoor and outdoor locomotion.” Any device that does not 

meet these standards and have electrical assist are subject to motorized rules. For some public lands, this 

distinction could cause confusion and conflict for visitors (Haas & Ahearn, 2022). For instance, although 

bicycles are not allowed in wilderness areas, wheelchairs are permitted. FLMAs are required to follow the 

Architectural Barriers Act (ABA). 

E. How do e-bikes affect access to public lands for conventionally underserved populations? 

The high upfront cost of e-bikes is a significant barrier to greater e-bike ownership and ridership (MacArthur 

& et al, 2018). Additional recurring costs, including charging and battery replacement, may limit the ability of 

lower income households to purchase e-bikes (Dill & Rose, 2012). Separately, studies in the United States 

have noted that that e-bike users feared intimidation and harassment on the road for using an e-bike and at 

times felt apologetic or self-conscious due to being viewed as “cheating” for riding an e-bike (Jones, Harms, 

& Heinen, 2016). The threat of targeted harassment combined with barriers of affordability may deter 

ridership among lower income populations and other conventionally underserved groups (Yanocha & Allan, 

2019). 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

31 

On the contrary, the incorporation of e-bikes into existing bikeshare systems has helped to increase access to 

e-bikes for conventionally underserved populations by allowing users to experiment with these modes without 

committing to their high upfront costs. A review of dockless e-bikes and e-scooters in Washington, DC, found 

that black residents adopted dockless services at a significantly higher rate than to docked services when 

compared to white residents (Clewlow, 2018). Nice Ride MN, which is now operated by Lyft, provides 

discounted memberships and fees for qualifying individuals (residents 18 and older who qualify for a state or 

federal assistance program like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Supplemental Security 

Income, etc.) (Nice Ride, 2022). Nice Ride and its partners hope that enrollees will use these discounted 

bikes, e-bikes, and scooters for work, shopping, and recreational trips to and along destinations like the 

nearby Mississippi National River and Recreation Area.

More research and policy action are needed to ensure that individuals without smartphones or credit cards are 

able to access shared e-bikes; however, this research suggests that e-bikes may help to improve access to 

public lands for conventionally underserved populations in areas where these systems are present. Public land 

sites that are exploring offering e-bikes to visitors may require operators to offer an equitable pricing scheme 

and provide alternative means of access similar to how a number of cities have negotiated permitting 

requirements with bikeshare and micromobility operators (Yanocha & Allan, 2019). 

F. Do e-bikes skew toward more affluent public lands users, and does this affect accommodations for less 

affluent public lands users?

There is limited research on the demographics and socioeconomic status of individuals using e-bikes on 

public lands. The demographics of e-bike users generally tend to skew older and have higher income and 

higher educational attainment than conventional bicycle users (MacArthur & et al, 2018). 

Additional research is needed to determine whether these trends would translate to the public lands context 

and whether the use of e-bikes affects accommodations for less affluent public lands users. 

Keeping up with Evolving Technology

A. What factors should public land managers consider regarding improvements to existing e-bike 

technologies?

Improvements in e-bike technology have been focused on only a few design elements because advancements 

in speed are constrained by regulation. Battery life and motor durability will likely continue to improve, 

allowing e-bike users to travel farther. Land managers may need to extend search and rescue operations if an 

e-bike rider becomes missing in a public land. 

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Section 11133 codifies the three-tier classification of e-bikes. The Code of 

Federal Regulations stipulates requirements for bicycles under 16 CFR 1512, include mechanical, braking, 

steering, testing procedures, as well as labeling requirements (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 2021). 

However, there are no Federal requirements to label e-bikes by class, nor are there prohibitions on modifying 

e-bikes in ways that would alter their performance or capabilities beyond the original class at the point of sale. 

In addition, as motors and batteries become smaller and more integrated into bicycle frames, it will be harder 

to distinguish e-bikes from conventional bikes, let alone differentiate between the classes of e-bikes. This will 

challenge public lands enforcement of e-bike policies.

Future research may examine mechanisms for enforcement and identify effective strategies to ensure that 

public land managers are able to manage sites. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

32 

B. What lessons can the emergence of micromobility and the evolution of mountain bikes teach us about 

how to effectively manage emerging e-bike technologies?

Bicycles have been ridden on natural surfaces since their first inception. The Marin Museum of Bicycling 

explains that very few roads were paved in the 19th century when bicycling first emerged (Marin Museum of 

Bicycling, 2022). Mountain biking as a sport and recreation emerged in the 1970s and became commonplace 

by the 1980s. Advances in design and technology have encouraged interest in mountain bikes and places to 

ride them since that time. Innovations in suspension, frame materials, and component technology has led to 

bikes that are more capable on rugged terrain, more durable over longer distances, and easier for novice riders 

to use. Some of the technology upgrades industry experts have cited as pivotal in expanding interest in 

mountain biking include the inception of suspension, advancements in frame geometry, the advent of dropper 

seat posts, and the introduction of disc brakes (Shankland, 2020). As manufacturers modernized mountain 

bikes, trail builders have also innovated on trail design. For instance, modern mountain-bike specific trail 

designs often feature berms and other shaping to increase rider “flow,” resulting in a smoother, faster 

experience. Advancements in mountain bike design transfer to eMTBs, which enjoy the same technology in 

addition to electric motors. In many ways, eMTBs represent a continuation of innovations that allow people to 

ride farther, more comfortably, and on more challenging terrain. 

In 2005, public land management agencies partnered with industry representatives to develop a plan on how 

to manage mountain bike access to public lands (Gleason, 2008). This partnership led to the National Park 

Service (NPS) making a rule change to allow individual park Superintendents to designate biking trails within 

their jurisdiction. As of 2015, there were 40 national parks that offered mountain bike access of some kind

(Congressinal Research Service, 2014). A public private partnership between e-bike advocates and land 

managers could identify appropriate methods for regulating e-bike use in public lands. 

Another advancement in related mountain biking technology that can be seamlessly adopted by e-bike users is 

trail global positioning system (GPS) mapping services. Mobile phone applications that provide GPS mapping 

services for trail riders are beginning to indicate which trails allow eMTBs. Online crowd sourced trail maps 

are also displaying locations of trails that allow eMTBs (PeopleForBikes, 2022). It should be noted that most 

of these applications do not indicate what classifications are permitted. 

As an initial management tool, a public land management agency could partner with trail map application 

developers to indicate which trails permit specific classifications of e-bikes. This research shows that it is 

important for land management agencies to remain up to date on technological iterations and adapt rules and 

regulations as needed. 

Impacts to Existing Uses from Expansion of E-Bike Access

A. Will the presence of e-bikes in public lands have unintended consequences on future e-bike or 

conventional bike use?

The presence of e-bikes on public lands could lead to unintended consequences for future e-bike use due to 

perceptions of e-bikes. The Boulder County Parks and Open Space literature review identified studies 

showing that trail users who are unfamiliar with e-bikes prefer not to share the trail with them; however, most 

of these users did not notice that they were sharing the trail with e-bikes. These studies found that once trail 

users were exposed to e-bikes, their concerns decreased (Nielsen & et al, 2019). This suggests that the 

presence of e-bikes on trails or in public lands could impact the visitation of certain user groups who may be 

unfamiliar with new recreation technologies like e-bikes. The studies also suggest the importance of strong 

communication and messaging to ensure that the public are exposed to e-bikes in a safe manner. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

33 

Future research could take a closer look at these unintended consequences by analyzing trail use by all groups 

before and after permitting e-bikes to better understand any changes to trail use. 

B. Do e-bikes or e-bike riders have behaviors that may adversely affect the experience for those hiking, 

riding horses, or riding conventional bicycles?

The study team did not identify relevant literature speaking directly to this question. However, a member of 

the Technical Review Group stated anecdotally that trail users are seeing higher speeds on natural surface 

trails and altered behavior off trails. Professional resource managers, public lands staff, trail designers, and 

industry or user group advocates, are advising that entirely different trail systems and segment designs are 

needed to safely accommodate eMTB use on natural surface trails. Further research is needed to better 

understand this gap.

In the Maroon Bells, stakeholders have noticed that e-bikers exhibit poor etiquette more frequently than 

conventional bicyclists along Maroon Creek Rd., a two-lane road that provides frequent shuttle bus access to 

the Maroon Bells throughout the summer season. This sentiment is attributed to the belief that conventional 

bicyclists are local residents who ride up the winding, moderately steep road to the Bells several times every 

season. Stakeholders note that these riders seem to better understand the importance of proper bicycle 

etiquette, such as riding single file, staying to the right side of the road, allowing faster vehicles and riders to 

pass, and that they are used to the presence of shuttle buses.

E-bikers are generally visitors who have rented their e-bike, in some cases riding an e-bike for the first time 

and are unfamiliar with the road and the presence of shuttle buses. These e-bike renters have been observed to 

ride multiple people abreast, ride in the middle of the road, stop in the middle of the road for breaks and 

taking photos, not wear helmets, and wear earbuds. The feeling among stakeholders is that these e-bike 

renters make bicycling and taking the shuttle to and from the Bells more dangerous and unsafe for all visitors. 

C. Does average speed, passing behavior around other trail users, yielding behavior related to other trail 

users, etc., create problems or provide benefits to others traveling by different modes? 

The study team did not identify relevant literature. However, the team’s planned field study will evaluate rider 

behavior and note differences between people riding e-bikes and conventional bikes, as well as whether any 

differences may impact other trail users traveling by different modes.

D. Would non-e-bike riders make different decisions based on their perception of e-bikes, even without 

experiencing them, if land managers allowed e-bikes on certain trails?

The Arizona Trail Association conducted a study to gather opinions from the public on allowing e-bikes on 

the Arizona National Scenic Trail. Most survey respondents disapproved of e-bikes being allowed on the trail 

with mountain bike rider respondents being less likely to disapprove of allowing e-bikes on non-motorized 

trails and equestrian respondents being more likely to disapprove (Baechle & Kressler, 2020). The most 

frequent argument in support of e-bikes was making the trail more accessible to individuals with mobility 

impairments. The most frequent argument in opposition to e-bikes focuses on the potential for allowing ebikes to create a slippery slope for the introduction of other motorized user groups on non-motorized trails.

Future research could better assess how visitation changes when e-bikes are allowed on certain trails by 

collecting visitor counts for all modes before and after e-bikes are permitted on trails. This may help to 

answer how allowing e-bikes affects visitation among hikers, horseback riders, and other recreational users. 

E. Do e-bikes encourage more cyclists to ride in public lands? If so, how might increases in cyclists lead 

to conflicts between trail users? Are such conflicts already occurring among various users (cyclists or 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

34 

other users) of different skill levels (e.g., is skill level, rather than use/device type, the more salient 

characteristic)?

The study team did not identify relevant literature. Though on a paved roadway and not on a trail, 

stakeholders in the Maroon Bells have noticed conflicts between e-bikers, conventional bikers, and vehicle 

traffic along Maroon Creek Rd. Though there have not been any serious injuries, several “near misses” have 

been observed between e-bikes and shuttle buses. Shuttle bus drivers recently underwent additional training to 

raise awareness of inexperienced e-bikers who are not following proper bicycling etiquette. 

F. How are e-bikes potentially of use to reach more remote areas and to carry more equipment or 

food/game? Examples may include hunters (including subsistence hunters), anglers, boaters, alpinists, 

photographers, scientists, and researchers, etc.

There is evidence that hunters are using e-bikes to easily reach remote areas. A resource produced by the 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation describes e-bikes that are designed for use by hunters (RMEF, 2022). These 

bikes are typically designed with added stability to manage rougher conditions in the backcountry, increased 

battery range, and a higher weight limit to accommodate the use of trailers to haul equipment or game. 

There is no research examining the practicality of e-bikes for other users to reach remote areas for 

professional or recreational purposes; however, the experience of search and rescue teams and hunters suggest 

that e-bikes could help individuals to meet this need. This is an existing gap and area for future research. 

 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

35 

4.4. Process for E-Bike Management

User-Purpose-Place Alignment

A. What does a standard NEPA process for approving conventional bikes and e-bikes look like? How do 

these processes differ, if at all?

The study team did not identify relevant literature. However, as a recent example of e-bike trails being 

approved in practice, the U.S. Forest Service approved the East Zone Connectivity Project in the Tahoe 

National Forest in 2021, which, among other trail changes in the Forest, included the designation of thirtyfive miles of existing non-motorized trail as open to Class 1 e-bikes. The Forest Service prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and other relevant laws and regulations. The EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

that would result from the proposed trail alternatives. At the end of the process, the Forest Supervisor issued a 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The FONSI describes the factors used in determining that the 

decision does not cause significant impacts on the human environment and therefore does not require 

preparation of an environmental impact statement (US Forest Service, 2022). There does not appear to be any 

notable difference between the NEPA process followed for this project and a NEPA process followed for 

conventional bike trails.

B. Are there environmental conditions that are more appropriate for the use of a particular e-bike class? 

A particular e-bike may be better suited for different types of terrain depending on the e-bike's features to 

include the size of the motor and the size of the battery. Manufacturers face a design trade off when making ebikes: performance versus riding range. There is a broad range of variables that affect the capabilities of ebikes regardless of class. For instance, manufacturers note that riding of an e-bike can be determined 

primarily by six factors: the speed the bike is traveling; the weight of the rider; the combined aerodynamic 

drag of the rider and bike: how much the rider is pedaling; the grade of the terrain; the efficiency of the motor 

drive system; and the energy capacity of the battery (OPTIBIKE, 2022). Depending on the weight of the bike, 

weight of the rider, and the terrain a larger battery with an efficient motor will increase the riding range (Toll, 

2020). However, external environmental circumstance may limit the capabilities, such as range or load, of an 

e-bike. Smaller motors, like the 500 Wh batteries typically paired with Class 1 e-bikes, may struggle with 

steep terrain. Smaller motors of e-bikes may also struggle carrying or pulling heavy loads like cargo. In 

contrast, Class 3 e-bikes typically have larger 500-watt motors with 500 Wh batteries to assist with consistent 

faster speeds.

Future studies may compare the ecological impact and individual comfort of riding each class of e-bike along 

both paved and unpaved surfaces to better understand whether there are certain conditions that favor an 

individual class of e-bike. 

C. Are there reasons to restrict particular e-bike classes?

Some States and local municipalities restrict e-bike access by their classification for safety reasons. Class 1 ebikes are the most accepted class of e-bikes where e-bikes are permitted. Except where use of motor vehicles 

by the public is allowed, per 36 CFR 4.30(i)(3), NPS prohibits Class 2 e-bike riders from “using the electric 

motor exclusively to move an electric bicycle for an extended period of time without pedaling.” A scan of 

literature and regulations suggest that Class 3 e-bikes are the most restricted class of e-bikes. A common 

justification for restricting Class 3 e-bikes is their top assisted speed of 28 mph. Some States restrict the use of 

Class 3 e-bikes unless explicitly permitted by localities, while other States, like California, restrict users under 

16 years of age from using Class 3 e-bikes. In other cases, Class 3 e-bikes are permitted on roads and multi-
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

36 

use paths, but not allowed on natural surface trails. States and localities have also restricted e-bikes because 

they consider them motor vehicles and restrict this mode from operating in certain areas to include natural 

surface areas.

Future research could look to develop a data-driven framework that guides land management agencies on 

whether it is necessary to restrict particular e-bike classes. This framework could use studies around safety 

and ecological impact rather than relying primarily on perceptions of higher safety risks resulting from 

increased speeds. 

D. Are there generally accepted design guidelines for modifying trails to accommodate e-bike use? If so, 

what are the guidelines and, generally, should Federal and State agencies follow them? 

The eMTB Land Manager Handbook describes general best practices for trail design specifically for eMTBs 

(Bureau of Land Management & People for Bikes, 2020). The handbook reviews e-bike classifications and 

basic sustainable trail design principles. A few differences between eMTBs and mountain bikes are 

highlighted including the heavier weight and potential for higher speed of e-bikes. Although eMTBs can 

navigate some technical sections with greater ease, descending trails can be more difficult due to their heavier 

frames and motors. Furthermore, eMTB riders may not experience the same physical challenge as a mountain 

bike rider because of the motor assist. Best management practices for both eMTBs and mountain bikes are 

developed based on the IMBA impact study and presented throughout the handbook. The designs and 

construction tips primarily reference the IMBA trail design guide for conventional mountain bikes. The 

publication emphasizes that in “general, eMTB trail construction mimics that of mountain bike trail 

construction, which in turn hews closely to the guidelines for sustainable trail development regardless of user 

type.” 

However, there are some design decisions and features to consider incorporating to take advantage of eMTB

capabilities and provide unique riding experiences. For instance, the increased uphill speed of an eMTB may 

cause more user conflicts and recommends designating descending-direction trails. An example of a feature to 

incorporate into a trail is the backslope, which is the slope adjacent to the trail on the uphill side, and which 

can be shaped to allow riders the challenge of riding up onto the off-camber surface. Other features include 

anchors to help keep riders on the trail surface, and filters, which are features at the beginning on trails that 

illustrate the level of difficulty a rider can expect on that trail. None of these features are specific to eMTBs 

alone but encourage varying levels of challenge as well as speed management and safer trail user interaction. 

The eMTB Land Manager Handbook provides public land managers with a useful resource to guide the 

design of trails to accommodate e-bike use. Future research may be needed to account for iterations in the 

technology that further modify the differences between conventional and eMTB rider capabilities. 

E. How can land managers modify trails, places, or other facilities to fit the conditions for e-bikes to 

coexist with other uses and the environment better? What is the cost of implementing and maintaining 

those modifications?

The study team did not identify relevant literature.

Multi-Agency Coordination

A. What planning processes and methodologies (public meetings, user surveys, pilot programs, etc.) do 

agencies and authorities use to work through issues relating to e-bikes?

The study team did not find any published sources on municipal and agency planning processes for e-bike 

implementation. To better understand this research gap, the study team conducted a short discussion with 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

37 

Jefferson County (“JeffCo”) Colorado Open Space to learn about their decision-making process in permitting 

e-bikes. They were chosen because of their early adoption mentality and their reputation for being an example 

of e-bike adoption efforts for other agencies. An insight that emerged from this discussion was that JeffCo 

Open Space developed policies independently from what the proposed State e-bike legislation was going to 

be. There was too much uncertainty from the legislature and little coordination between the State and 

counties. JeffCo Open Space wanted to have flexibility in their own policies with the expectation of adapting 

to future State policy changes when needed (Bonnett, 2022). 

JeffCo Open Space conducted an e-bike pilot study to determine public perceptions of e-bike use on managed 

trails. The philosophy of JeffCo Open Space was that if e-bike users were unnoticeable by the public and 

behaved appropriately, then they should not be restricted from park use. To determine if this would hold true, 

public managers recruited “ghost riders” (staff and volunteers) to inconspicuously ride e-bikes throughout the 

managed trails during the pilot. During this time public managers surveyed the public to ask their opinions of 

e-bikes and whether they had noticed e-bikes within the open space. Initially, public opinion was mixed with 

most unsure (forty-one percent) about e-bikes being allowed on trails. About sixty-five percent did not notice 

e-bikes on the trails during the pilot despite ghost riders riding the trails at that time (JeffCo Open Space, 

2017). 

JeffCo Open Space public managers also offered e-bikes for the public to ride in parks for 30-minute trial 

periods. Land managers surveyed participants before and after their rides. Sixty-five percent of participants 

changed their perceptions towards e-bikes after riding one (JeffCo Open Space, 2018). One notable takeaway 

from the pilot was that the public had little to no tolerance for throttle e-bikes and recognized them instantly. 

This led the park to restricting e-bike use to peddle-assist e-bikes only with Class 1 e-bikes permitted on both 

natural surface and paved trails and Class 2 e-bikes permitted on only paved trails. Also germane to this 

research question are the Maroon Bells’ previously noted strategies and upcoming e-bike rental tracking 

system pilot project, which are aimed at improving e-bike rider etiquette and safety. 

B. How do agencies and authorities use data-driven decision making when solving problems related to ebikes? What are the most effective methods?

The study team did not identify relevant literature. However, Maroon Bells stakeholders purchased and 

installed a bike counter to collect bike data on Maroon Creek Rd. for the 2021 season. In 2022, this data 

collection will continue and will be augmented by the previously described e-bike rental tracking system. This 

data will allow the stakeholders to better understand when bicyclists and specifically e-bike renters are 

accessing the Bells. These data sources will help inform any future changes in e-bike access along Maroon 

Creek Rd. For example, if the data shows that there is an overwhelming number of bicyclists at certain times 

and/or during certain days, the stakeholders may decide to limit the access of e-bike renters and/or other 

bicyclists to the Bells at peak times by instituting a reservation system and/or an incentive program to spread 

out the peak usage to other times.

C. What are best practices for agencies incorporating public input into the process of determining e-bike 

access in public lands? 

The study team did not identify relevant literature. As part of the EA conducted by the Tahoe National Forest, 

the public submitted 54 comments over two 30-day scoping periods concerning the East Zone Connectivity 

and Restoration Project (US Forest Service, 2022). The local newspaper published legal notices twice before 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

38 

the comment period opened and the Forest distributed a scoping letter and map to more than 120 individuals, 

groups, and Tribes disclosing information and seeking public comment. 

The Forest also invited people to review and comment on the preliminary EA for 30 days following a legal 

notice published in the local newspaper and another letter distributed to potentially interested individuals, 

organizations, agencies, and Tribes. As a result, written timely comments were received from 114 individuals 

and organizations. Forty-nine commenters were supportive of the proposed project; the remaining 65 

comment letters were carefully reviewed and used to consider issues and refine both the proposed action and 

the project effects analysis. The Decision Notice and FONSI includes an appendix with written responses to 

the comments categorized by topic.

D. How do agencies make the process of determining e-bike access in public lands transparent to 

participants and observers? 

Public comments or minutes are published online for most survey and public input meetings. As described 

above, the Tahoe National Forest responded to over 160 public comments regarding the East Zone 

Connectivity and Restoration Project. For the Maroon Bells, the Pitkin County Board of County 

Commissioners met to discuss the issue of unsafe bicycle etiquette along Maroon Creek Rd. in early 2022. 

The stakeholder group made a presentation about previous efforts, impacts, and possible future strategies to 

address this issue. The presentation and other meeting materials were posted to the County’s website several 

days in advance of the meeting and the local newspaper ran a few articles and op-eds on the topic. The 

Commissioners garnered input from their constituents before the meeting and made their recommendations 

for next steps based on this input and the discussion at the meeting, which was open to the public. 

E. What are the current processes for consensus building and coordination between differing land 

management jurisdictions in the context of trail infrastructure?

There is limited scholarly research on multi-agency coordination of managing e-bike use. Seattle Parks and 

Recreation (SPR) was part of a successful e-bike regulation harmonization effort among State, County, 

Federal, and private sector partners. In 2018, Washington State passed SB 6434 allowing class 1 and 2 e-bikes 

on multi-use paths, unless otherwise prohibited by a local jurisdiction. At that time the only jurisdiction in 

Seattle prohibiting e-bike use was SPR. The agency’s existing policies caused an inconsistent regulatory 

patchwork among local agencies and entities. To remedy this inconsistency, SPR consulted with those other 

agencies on their e-bike policies, which included Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), Port of 

Seattle, and the University of Washington. Their insight helped inform SPR’s Multi-Use Trail Pilot that 

allowed the same types of e-bikes on multi-use trails as those owned or operated by partner agencies. During 

the pilot, SPR received input from community organizations, gathered trail data, and conducted a community 

perceptions and conflict (Morrison, 2020). 

Once the pilot was completed, SPR worked with adjacent jurisdictional partners to harmonize their policies 

with one another. During this period one of their partners, SDOT, indicated that they were expanding their 

bike share program to include e-scooters. SPR adopted a broader and more flexible policy language that 

allowed it to adapt to emerging technologies and remain synchronized with adjacent jurisdictional policies. 

The new SPR e-bike policy allowing e-mobility devices on multi-use trail sections was put into effect in 2020 

and remains consistent with Seattle’s multi-use trail network. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

39 

F. As a general practice, how can Federal and State regulatory processes better align with one another 

regarding e-bikes?

The study team did not identify relevant literature.

G. How do agencies coordinate enforcement resources when policies or regulations of e-bikes differ 

between jurisdictions?

There is limited scholarly research on multi-agency coordination of managing e-bike use. One limited 

example was provided during discussions with SPR. After establishing e-bike policy for their multi-use trails 

the agency collaborated with SDOT to install speed limit and safety signs. The new policy instituted a 15 

miles per hour (m.p.h.) speed limit for all recreation devices on multi-use trails (Morrison, 2020). The speed 

limit is consistent with SDOT and King County’s managed trail speed limits, which in some areas connect to 

SPR lands. However, despite the presence of signs on trails it was not clear what the level of enforcement 

may be to impose the speed limit.

I. How do agencies best coordinate and/or leverage funding sources for facilities that support continuous 

access for specific or unique uses across their jurisdictions?

The study team did not identify relevant literature.

 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

40 

5. Conclusion 

New technology, features, formats, and marketing have contributed to an explosion in the popularity of ebikes over the last several years. E-bikes are here to stay, and their use will likely continue to be a growing 

part of the transportation landscape in public lands. Understanding the benefits and challenges they pose for 

public lands requires additional research, as note throughout this report. The study team hopes the study 

methodology and research questions help guide future primary research to address the many gaps in empirical 

knowledge about e-bike use in public lands, to inform science-based, data-driven decision making.

5.1. Future Research

Table 6 provides a high-level matrix of recommended strategies to address the various issues areas under the 

study methodology, where future research is needed. These recommendations are not applicable in all cases. 

However, they demonstrate how specific research methods may be able to yield insights across multiple issue 

areas. Future research study proposals may wish target multiple issue areas, even if pursuing a single research 

method. Conversely, they also demonstrate how multiple research methods may be combined to yield insights 

into specific issues. While combining research methods is more challenging, researchers may benefit from 

coordinating to tackle complex issues from different angles using multiple research methods, to achieve richer 

results.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

September 2022 

Table 6: Potential Future Research Strategies Matrix

Source: U.S. DOT Volpe Center Focus Area

Issue Area

Data

Review

Interactive

Study

Field

Experiment

Market Analysis

Analysis of Ridership

& Injury Data

Survey

Interview

Case Studies

User Behavior Study

Enforcement

Trials/Pilot Study

Trail Condition &

Design / Engineering

1. NATURAL

1.1 Natural Surface Trail Condition and Wildlife X X X X 

1.2 Historical and Cultural Resources X X X

1.3 Mode Shift and Environmental Benefits X X X X X 

2. SAFETY

2.1 E-Bike-Related Injury X X X

2.2 Emergency Response X X

3. SOCIAL

3.1 Education and Communication to Trail User Groups X X X X X X 

3.2 Visitor Use X X X X X 

3.3 Equity and Accessibility X X X X X 

3.4 Keeping Up with Evolving Technology X X X X 

3.5 Expanded E-Bike Access and Existing Uses X X X X X X 

4. PROCESS

4.1 User-Purpose-Place Alignment X X X X 

4.2 Multi-Agency Coordination X X X X X 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

September 2022 

5.2. Field Research 

As the first national-scale literature review on the subject of e-bikes in a public lands context, this report 

is broad in nature. The study team was able to answer some research questions more thoroughly than 

others. For some research questions, the study team found little or no published information.

To begin filling the gaps they identified in current research, the study team also embarked on a human 

factors field research task. As of the writing of this report, Volpe is soliciting participants and collecting 

primary data in a natural experiment that will evaluate and compare e-bike and conventional rider 

behavior on the Battle Road Trail, a meandering crushed stone multi-use path in Minute Man National 

Historical Park, in Concord and Lincoln, Massachusetts. 

The study assesses rider behavior by 

capturing and analyzing 360-degree video 

and telematics data from a handlebar 

mounted, GPS-enabled video camera. The 

Volpe Center will collect participant data 

over the spring and summer of 2022 and will 

complete analysis in the fall of 2022. A field 

study report, to be published as an addendum 

to this final report, is anticipated to be 

released in the winter of 2022/23. 

A sample of participant video and speed data 

is posted online. (U.S. DOT Volpe Center, 

2022) 

Western Federal Lands and the Volpe Center 

will undertake a Phase 2 of this project in 

2023. Phase 2 will design and conduct 

additional field studies to continue filling the 

research gaps identified in this report. 

Interested parties should contact the study 

authors for more information. 

Figure 1: Still frames from video footage on Battle Road Trail

Source: U.S. DOT Volpe Center
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

43 

Bibliography 

Abagnale, C., & et al. (2015). A dynamic model for the performance and environmental analysis of an 

innovative e-bike. Energy Procedia.

Aspen Chamber Resort Association. (2021). How to: E-Bike in Aspen. Retrieved from 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czBYM99mZRM&t=16s

Baechle, K., & Kressler, K. (2020). Perceptions of Conflict Surrounding Future E-Bike Use on the Arizona 

Trail. Arizona Trail Association. 

Bonnett, M. (2022). Virtual Conversation. Jefferson County Open Space. 

Bureau of Land Management. (2021). e-Bikes on Public Lands. Retrieved from BLM.gov: 

https://www.blm.gov/programs/recreation/e-bikes

Bureau of Land Management, & International Mountain Bicycling Association. (2018). Guidelines for a 

Quality Trail Experience. Retrieved from https://www.imba.com/resource/guidelines-qualitytrail-experience-gqte

Bureau of Land Management, & People for Bikes. (2020). eMTB Land Manager Handbook. Retrieved 

from https://peopleforbikes.cdn.prismic.io/peopleforbikes/3d48af68-7537-429d-bc50-

3ac535f6a028_eMTB_Book.pdf

Cherry, C., & Cervero, R. (2007). Use Characteristics and Mode Choice Behavior of Electric Bike Users in 

China. Transport Policy. 

Cherry, C., & MacArthur, J. (2019). E-Bike Safety: A Review of Empirical European and North American 

Studies. PeopleForBikes. 

Clewlow, R. (2018). DC is growing is dockless bike and scooter program: We partnered with them to 

evaluate how it’s expanding access in underserved communities. Populus. 

Congressinal Research Service. (2014). Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands.

Dill, J., & Rose, G. (2012). E-Bikes and Transportation Policy: Insights from Early Adopters. Transportation 

Research Board. 

DiMaggio, C. (2019). Injuries associated with electric-powered bikes and scooters: analysis of US 

consumer product data. Injury Prevention. 

Durango, C. o. (2022). Electric Bikes. 

FHWA. (2021). Framework for Considering Motorized Use on Nonmotorized Trails and Pedestrian 

Walkways under 23 U.S.C. [sect] 217. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/framework.cfm. 

Fishman, E., & Cherry, C. (2015). E-bikes in the Mainstream: Reviewing a Decade of Research. Transport 

Reviews. Transport Reviews. 

Fitch, D., Mohiuddin, H., & Handy, S. (2020). Electric Bike-Share in the Sacramento Region is Replacing 

Car Trips and Supporting More Favorable Attitudes Towards Bicycling. Institute of 

Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. 

Gleason, R. (2008). Guide to Promoting Bicycling on Federal Lands. Federal Highway Association Central 

Federal Lands Highway Division. 

Gorgan, E. (2020, November 25). e-Bike Ambulances Are a Thing Now: Emergency Bikes Cuts Response 

Time in Half. Retrieved from www.autoevolution.com: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ebike-ambulances-are-a-thing-now-emergency-bikes-cut-response-time-in-half-152053.html

Haas, S., & Ahearn, M. (2022). Virtual Interview. US Forest Service. 

Hertach, P., & et al. (2018). Characteristics of single-vehicle crashes with e-bikes in Switzerland. Accident 

Analysis and Prevention. 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. (2021). Public Law 117-58.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

44 

International Mountain Bicycling Association. (2016). A Comparison of Environmental Impacts from 

Mountain Bicycles, Class 1 Electric Mountain Bicycles, and Motorcycles: Soil Displacement and 

Erosion on Bike-Optimized Trails in a Western Oregon Forest.

International Mountain Bicycling Association. (2021). Rules of the Trail.

International Mountain Biking Association. (2022, May 9). eMTB Etiquette. Retrieved August 2022, from 

IMBA.com: https://www.imba.com/blog/emtb-etiquette

JeffCo Open Space. (2017). Summary of JCOS e-bike Study Findings.

JeffCo Open Space. (2018). E-bikes and Trails: Measuring Impact and Acceptance of Class 1 E-bikes on 

Trails.

Jones, T., Harms, L., & Heinen, E. (2016). Motives, perceptions and experiences of electric bicycle owners 

and implications for health, wellbeing and mobility. Journal of Transport Geogra. 

Karni, I. (2021). What is E-bike Range on Single Charge? How Far Can E-Bikes Go? Easy E-Biking. 

Langford, C., Chen, J., & Cherry, C. (2015). Risky riding: Naturalistic methods comparing safety behavior 

from conventional bicycle riders and electric bike riders. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 

Larson, & et al. (2016). Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global 

Systematic Review. PLoS One. 

Leger, S. (2019). If I had a regular bicycle, I wouldn’t be out riding anymore: Perspectives on the 

potential of e-bikes to support active living and independent mobility among older adults in 

Waterloo, Canada. Transportation Research Part A. 

Leichman, A. (2017). MDA Launches Unique Emergency Response Electric Bike Squad. International 

Police Mountain Bike Association. 

Liv Global. (2020). E-MTB Rules and Etiquette. Retrieved from Liv-cycling: https://www.livcycling.com/global/campaigns/e-mtb-rules-and-etiquette/24859

Ma, C., & et al. (2019). Risk Riding Behaviors of Urban E-Bikes: A Literature Review. International journal 

of environmental research and public health. 

MacArthur, J., & et al. (2018). A North American Survey of Electric Bicycle Owners. Portland State 

University Transportation Research and Education Center. 

Marin Museum of Bicycling. (2022). Mountain Biking History. Retrieved from https://mmbhof.org/mtnbike-hall-of-fame/history/

Marion, J., & Olive, N. (2006). Assessing and Understanding Trail Degradation: Results from Big South 

Fork National River and Recreational Area. Geography. 

Marion, J., & Wimpey, J. (2011). Environmental Impacts of Mountain of Mountain Biking: Science Review 

and Best Practices. NEMBA. 

Maus, J. (2022, June 10). City of Portland unveils bicycle ambulance prototype. Retrieved from 

www.bikeportland.org: https://bikeportland.org/2022/06/10/city-of-portland-unveils-bicycleambulance-prototype-356247

McQueen, M., MacArthur, J., & Cherry, C. (2019). The E-Bike Potential: Addressing our Climate Crisis by 

Incentivizing Active Transportation. Transportation Research and Education Center. 

Morrison, K. (2020). New E-Mobility Policy Aligns Regulations on Area Multi-Use Trails. Seattle Parks and 

Recreation. 

National Park Service. (2022). Superintendent's Compendium. 

Newsome, D., & Davies, L. (2009). A case study in estimating the area of informal trail development and 

associated impacts caused by mountain bike activity in John Forrest National Park, Western 

Australia. Journal of Ecotourism. 

Nielsen, & et al. (2019). Literature Review: Recreation Conflicts on Emerging E-bike Technology. Boulder 

County Parks and Open Space. 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

45 

OPTIBIKE. (2022). What is the True Range of an E-Bike? Retrieved from https://optibike.com/electricbike-basics/

Oregon E-Bikes. (2020). E-mountain-bike-etiquette. Retrieved from https://www.oregonebikes.com/blogs/blog/e-mountain-bike-etiquette

Papoutsi, S., & et al. (2014). E-bike injuries: Experience from an emergency department - A retrospective 

study from Switzerland. Emergency Medicine International. 

People for Bikes. (2020). Electric-Assist Mountain Bikes Trail Etiquette Guidelines. People for Bikes. 

Retrieved from https://www.peopleforbikes.org/reports/emtb-trail-etiquette-guidelines

People for Bikes. (2021). Resources for Land Managers. Retrieved from www.peopleforbikes.org: 

https://www.peopleforbikes.org/electric-bikes/for-land-managers

PeopleForBikes. (2020). Trail Etiquette Guidelines. Retrieved from 

https://peopleforbikes.cdn.prismic.io/peopleforbikes/7d56000d-40a6-4570-b0a7-

06d5fdf7d36c_eMTB_trail-etiquette.pdf

PeopleForBikes. (2022). EMTB Map. Retrieved from https://www.peopleforbikes.org/electricbikes/emtb-map

Rodriguez, A. (2020). E-Bikes Find Purpose in Bay Area Search, Rescue Missions. Government 

Technology. 

Schepers, P. (2019). Safety of e-bikes compared to conventional bicycles: What role does cyclists’ health 

condition play? Journal of Transport and Health. 

Schlemmer, P., Barth, M., & Schnitzer, M. (2019). Comparing Motivational Patterns of E-Mountain Bike 

and Common Mountain Bike Tourists. Current Issues in Tourism. 

Shankland, S. (2020). CNET. Retrieved from https://www.cnet.com/health/fitness/two-decades-ofmountain-bike-evolution-got-me-riding-again/

Shrubb, R. (2018, April 4). Police Departments Using Electric Bikes as the Best Tool for the Job. Retrieved 

from www.electricbikereport.com: https://electricbikereport.com/police-electric-bikes/

Spörri, E., & et al. (2021). Comparison of Injury Patterns between Electric Bicycle, Bicycle, and 

Motorcycle Accidents. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 

Taylor, A., & Knight, R. (2003). Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated Visitor Perceptions. 

Ecological Applications. Ecological Society of America. 

The International Mountain Biking Association. (2016). A Comparison of Environmental Impacts from 

Mountain Bicycles, Class 1 Electric Mountain Bicycles, and Motorcycles: Soil Displacement and 

Erosion on Bike-Optimized Trails in a Western Oregon Forest.

Thurston, E, & Reader, R. (2001). Impacts of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on 

vegetation and soil of a deciduous forest. Environmental Management. Environmental 

Management. 

Toll, M. (2020). The truth: How far can an electric bicycle really go on a single charge? Retrieved from 

https://electrek.co/2020/06/12/how-far-can-an-electric-bicycle-really-go-on-a-charge/

Trailforks. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.trailforks.com/apps/map/

U.S. Department of Justice. (2021). Wheelchairs, Mobility Aids, and Other Power-Driven Mobility 

Devices.

US Department of Interior. (2019). Order No. 3376: Increasing Recreational Opportunities through the 

use of Electric Bikes.

US Department of Interior. (2020). Enjoy Your Next E-bike Trip on Public Lands.

US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (2014). Wheelchairs, Mobility Aids, and Other PowerDriven Mobility Devices. Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/opdmd.htm

US Forest Service. (2022). 7700 Travel Management - Travel Planning.

US Forest Service. (2022). 7700 Travel Management - Zero Code.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

46 

US Forest Service. (2022). East Zone Connectivity and Restoration Project. Retrieved from 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57704

US Forest Service. (2022, March 28). East Zone Connectvity and Restoration Project. Retrieved from 

fs.usda.gov: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57704

Wamburu, J., & al, e. (2020). Greening Electric Bike Sharing Using Solar Charging Stations. BuildSys '20: 

Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Systems for Energy-Efficient Buildings, 

Cities, and Transportation. 

Wisdom, J., & et al. (2004). Effects of Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the 

69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 

Yanocha, D., & Allan, M. (2019). The Electric Assist: Leveraging E-bikes and E-Scooters for more Livable 

Cities. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. 

 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

47 

Appendix A: Federal Laws and Regulations 

Innovations in electric motors and battery technology have made e-bikes into an attractive low-speed 

alternative mode of transportation. U.S. Federal law has been amended to define e-bikes, general safety 

specifications they must be built to, and where they can be used. The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC) is charged with regulating the manufacturing of low-speed electric bicycles while 

the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) covers regulation of vehicle safety 

standards. Distinguishing e-bikes from other modes of transportation provides manufacturers with greater 

certainty in what safety and product designs would be acceptable on the market.

Title 23 of the U.S. Code, Section 217(j), as modified by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, defines ebikes as a bicycle “equipped with fully operable pedals, a saddle or seat for the rider, and an electric 

motor of less than 750 watts.” The definition also employs the three-tier classification and describes each 

class of e-bike. 23 U.S.C. 217(h)(4) restricts where an e-bike can be used on nonmotorized trails and 

pedestrian walkways that use Federal highway program funds, except where State or local regulations 

permit their operation. An FHWA memorandum clarifies these requirements by formulating a framework 

for considering motorized use on nonmotorized trails and pedestrian pathways. 

For projects funded under the Recreational Trails Program (RTP), the term “motorized recreation” means 

off road recreation using any motor-powered vehicle, except for a motorized wheelchair (23 U.S.C. 

206(a)(1)). Therefore, for RTP-funded projects, e-bikes are motorized use.

In 2002, Congress passed H.R.727 - Public Law 107-319, codified as Title 15 U.S.C. § 2085, which 

amends the Consumer Product Safety Act to define an e-bike as, “a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with 

fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 horse power), whose maximum speed 

on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 

170 pounds, is less than 20 miles per hour (mph).” Furthermore, H.R.727 states, “For purposes of motor 

vehicle safety standards issued and enforced pursuant to chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, a 

low-speed electric bicycle (as defined in section 38(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act) shall not be 

considered a motor vehicle as defined by section 30102(6) of title 49, United States Code.” Therefore, ebikes are subject to product safety regulations governing conventional bicycles and are not subject to 

NHTSA vehicle standards. The Consumer Product Safety Act only applies to product safety regulation 

and does not preempt traffic laws or vehicle codes.

For purposes of Federal highway programs, e-bikes are defined under 23 U.S.C. § 217(j)(2), amended in 

2021 with the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58), as “a bicycle 

equipped with fully operable pedals, a saddle or seat for the rider, and an electric motor of less than 750 

watts; that can safely share a bicycle transportation facility with other users of such facility; and that is a 

class 1 electric bicycle, class 2 electric bicycle, or class 3 electric bicycle” (Infrastructure Investment and 

Jobs Act, 2021). The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act also revised 23 U.S.C. § 405, which provides 

funding for safety programs, establishing that an individual using an electric bicycle is considered a 

nonmotorized road user.

23 U.S.C. § 217(h)(4) restricts where an e-bike can be used on nonmotorized trails and pedestrian 

walkways that use Federal highway program funds, except where State or local regulations permit their 

operation. An FHWA memorandum clarifies these requirements by formulating a framework for 

considering motorized use on nonmotorized trails and pedestrian pathways (FHWA, 2021). 

2.2 Federal Land Management Agency Approaches 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

48 

The Secretary of the Interior issued Secretarial Order 3366 in April 2018 “to ensure [DOI] public lands 

and waters ... are open and accessible for recreational pursuits.” On August 29, 2019, the Secretary 

issued Secretarial Order 3376, which directed DOI bureaus to revise their regulations to define the term 

“electric bicycle” and to exempt e-bikes from the definition of motor vehicle to “increase recreational 

opportunities for all Americans, especially those with physical limitations, and to encourage the 

enjoyment of lands and waters managed by the Department of the Interior.” The order initiated several 

efforts to reform existing e-bike policies of Federal land management agencies. Four DOI bureaus 

(Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of 

Reclamation) and the US Forest Service have finalized rule changes regulating the use of e-bikes within 

their jurisdictions (Federal Highway Administration, 2022). 

One of the reasons given for the rule change was to harmonize regulations between Federal, State, and 

public land regulatory systems that already allow e-bikes. In general, the DOI e-bike rules (Order No. 

3376) aim to:

• Remove e-bikes from the definition of a motor vehicle in each agency’s respective regulations.

• Provide land managers with authority to permit e-bikes in nonmotorized areas.

• Afford operators of e-bikes the same access as those riding a conventional bicycle.

• Allow land managers greater flexibility to manage e-bikes at their jurisdictional level.

Table 7 summarizes the rules changes for the DOI bureaus and Forest Service. 

Table 7: Federal Land Management Agency E-bike Regulatory Code Changes

Agency Code Rule Changes

Bureau of Land 

Management

43 CFR 8340.0-

5

• Adopts an e-bike definition and BPSA classifications.

• Excludes e-bikes from the definition of motor vehicle 

when used on roads and trails where mechanized, 

nonmotorized use is allowed or if the e-bike is not being 

used in a manner where the motor is being used 

exclusively to propel the rider. 

• Discretion for district and field managers to determine 

when e-bikes should be used in areas during the land-use 

planning or implementation decision-making process. 

• Applies standard bicycle laws to e-bike riders. 

• Prohibits throttle-only use of e-bikes in nonmotorized 

areas.

National Park 

Service

36 CFR 1.4 • Adopts an e-bike definition and BPSA classification. 

• Excludes e-bikes from the definition of motor vehicle. 

• States that superintendents may allow e-bikes, or certain 

classes of e-bikes, on roads, parking areas, administrative 

roads, and trails that are open to conventional bicycles.

• Requires that if superintendents open locations to e-bikes, 

that they notify the public pursuant to 36 CFR 1.7.

• Clarifies that superintendents have the authority to limit or 

restrict e-bike use after taking into consideration public 
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

49 

health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, 

and other management activities and objectives.

• Applies certain regulations that govern the use of 

conventional bicycles to the use of e-bikes. 

• Prohibits the possession of e-bikes in designated 

wilderness areas. 

• Prohibits throttle-only use of e-bikes in non-motorized 

areas. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Service

50 CFR 27.31 • Adopts an e-bike definition and BPSA classification.

• Discretion for refuge managers to designate roads and 

trails as open to e-bikes. 

• Prohibits the possession of an e-bike in designated 

wilderness.

• Provides an off-road vehicle exclusion when used on roads 

and trails where mechanized, nonmotorized use is allowed 

or if the e-bike is not being used in a manner where the 

motor is being used exclusively to propel the rider. 

• Affords people riding e-bikes the rights, privileges, and 

duties of the operators of nonmotorized bicycles on roads 

and trails where e-bikes are allowed. 

• Encourages managers to limit, restrict, or impose 

conditions on both conventional bikes and e-bike use 

where necessary to manage safety conflicts and resource 

protection.

Bureau of 

Reclamation

43 CFR 420 • Adopts an e-bike definition and BPSA classification. 

• Excludes e-bikes from the definition of an “off-road 

vehicle.” 

• Authorizes discretion for regional directors to allow ebikes on roads and trails where bicycles are permitted.

• Provides an off-road vehicle exclusion when used on roads 

and trails where mechanized, nonmotorized use is allowed 

or if the e-bike is not being used in a manner where the 

motor is being used exclusively to propel the rider.

• Affords people riding e-bikes the rights and privileges and 

be subject to all the duties, of nonmotorized bicycles.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

50 

Forest Service E-bikes in FS 

Lands (link to 

updated FSM 

directives and 

FAQ) 

• Defines an e-bike as a type of motor vehicle with two or

three wheels, fully operable pedals, and an electric motor

of not more than 750 watts that meets the requirements of

one of the following three classes:

• Class 1 E-Bike. An e-bike equipped with a motor

that provides assistance only when the rider is

pedaling and that ceases to provide assistance when

the e-bike reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.

• Class 2 E-Bike. An e-bike equipped with a motor

that may be used exclusively to propel the e-bike and

that ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike

reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.

• Class 3 E-Bike. An e-bike equipped with a motor

that provides assistance only when the rider is

pedaling and that ceases to provide assistance when

the e-bike reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.

• Establishes new criteria for designating Class 1, 2 and 3 ebikes on Forest Service trails, roads and lands.

• Creates specific criteria for designation of motor vehicle

use on trails and guidance for designated e-bike use on

trails. This includes an additional category (Trails Open to

Electric Bicycles Only) to identify classes of motor

vehicles on a motorized vehicle use map.

• Adds an objective to consider emerging technologies, such

as e-bikes, that are changing the way people access and

recreate on National Forest System (NFS) lands.

• Provides an off-road vehicle exclusion when used on roads

and trails where mechanized, nonmotorized use is allowed

or if the e-bike is not being used in a manner where the

motor is being used exclusively to propel the rider.

• Affords people riding e-bikes the rights and privileges and

be subject to all the duties, of nonmotorized bicycles.
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

September 2022 

Appendix B: TRG Members 

Table 8: Technical Review Group (TRG) Members

Agency Category Name

Bureau of Land Management Federal Land Manager Dave Jeppesen

Bureau of Reclamation Federal Land Manager Matthew Dayer

Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Land Manager Mike Carlo

National Park Service Federal Land Manager Krista Sherwood / Steve Suder

US Army Corps of Engineers Federal Land Manager Meredith Bridgers

US Forest Service Federal Land Manager Penny Wu

Kentucky Federal-Aid Division Office FHWA Division Office Darrin Grenfell

Oregon Department of Transportation State DOT Jessica Hornig

Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation State Parks/Rec Jennifer Wampler

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources

State Parks/Rec Nathan Reigner

Larimer County Parks, Open Space, and Trails Local Parks/Rec Zac Wiebe

Virginia Tech Public Institution/Research Jeremy Wimpey

University of Tennessee Knoxville Public Institution/Research Chris Cherry

Portland State University Public Institution/Research John Macarthur
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

52 

Appendix C: Technical Review Group #1 Documentation 

 

Figure 2: Technical Review Group #1 Workshop Prompt Diagram

Source: U.S. DOT Volpe Center
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

53 

Figure 3: Technical Review Group #1 Workshop Results Diagram

Source: U.S. DOT Volpe Center
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

54 

Appendix D: Stakeholder Workshop Participants 

Table 9: Participants in Stakeholder Workshops and Draft Document Reviews

Source: U.S. DOT Volpe Center

Organization Primary User Group Represented

Adventure Cycling Association Bicyclists

International Mountain Bike Association Bicyclists

New England and San Diego Mountain Bike Associations Bicyclists

People for Bikes Bicyclists

League of American Bicyclists Bicyclists

American Hiking Society Hikers

Pacific Crest Trail Association Hikers

Partnership for the National Trails System Hikers

The American Long Distance Hiking Association-West Hikers

American Horse Council Equestrians

Backcountry Horsemen of America Equestrians

Equine Land Conservation Resource Equestrians

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Hunters/Anglers

Izaak Walton League of America Hunters/Anglers

Coalition to Protect America's National Parks Naturalists/Conservationists

National Parks Conservation Association Naturalists/Conservationists

Recreational Equipment Incorporated Naturalists/Conservationists
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

55 

Appendix E: Stakeholder Workshop Documentation 

Figure 4: Stakeholder Workshop - Breakout Group Issues Framework Synthesis

Source: U.S. DOT Volpe Center
Federal Lands Highway Research Study: E-Bikes in Public Lands – Final Report 

November 2022 

56 

Figure 5: Stakeholder Workshop - Breakout Group Strategies, Tools, and Ideas Synthesis

Source: U.S. DOT Volpe Center