State parks, forests weigh allowing e-bikes on roads and selected trails, propose 20 mph limit

The Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation presented a draft policy to the House Transportation Committee on Feb. 25 that would allow Class 1, 2 and 3 e-bikes on paved or gravel forest highways, park roads and designated multi‑use trails, while limiting natural‑surface mountain‑bike trails to Class 1 only. Claire Pulpis, recreation program manager for the department and chair of the state‑lands e‑bike working group, told the committee the draft also proposes a 20 miles‑per‑hour speed limit with lower limits possible in high‑use zones and permits for short‑term closures ("We proposed a speed limit of 20 miles per hour and then lower if needed").

Pulpis said state law was changed to classify many e‑bikes as bicycles rather than motor vehicles and that land managers were given discretion over uses of multi‑use and natural‑surface trails. FPR formed a cross‑agency working group in 2023–24 to research e‑bike impacts and draft policy updates; the draft went to state‑land staff and leadership, and FPR sought public comment in late 2024. "We put it out for public comment," Pulpis said, and reported 278 responses: about half of commenters supported the proposal, roughly a quarter were strongly opposed and the rest were partly supportive or sought changes.

Supporters told FPR that e‑bikes increase access for people with limited mobility, including callers who said e‑bikes enabled them to use trails while undergoing medical treatment. Opponents and many commenters raised safety concerns (speed, mix of trail users), resource damage, enforcement limits and the risk of modified bikes that exceed statutory definitions. Pulpis said the department plans an implementation strategy that emphasizes public information, signage and partner coordination rather than expanded on‑site law enforcement: "We don't have law‑enforcement officers at FPR... our enforcement is really through public information."

The department described the range of trail types on FPR lands — forest highways and park roads, some rail‑trail corridors, multi‑use trails and narrow, natural‑surface mountain‑bike trails — and explained the rationale for different allowances by trail type. FPR noted jurisdictional complexity where municipal roads, rail trails and federal land interconnect: for example, Green Mountain National Forest follows federal rules and does not currently allow e‑bikes on a short connector, creating a local mismatch that FPR said it will address through clear public messaging and partner agreements.

Committee members asked about signage and data: Pulpis said partner websites (mountain‑bike group sites and third‑party trail maps) are currently the best source for mountain‑bike status while FPR improves its road‑and‑trail mapping. The draft also allows managers to post speed signage in high‑use places and to prioritize kiosks at trailheads.

Pulpis said the draft policy is not final: FPR is incorporating public comment and will present a finalized implementation plan when approvals are complete. Committee members and staff discussed whether the draft language or a study of regulation should be added to H.863 or the Transportation omnibus bill; no formal action or vote was taken during the hearing. The committee scheduled additional testimony and signaled it may request municipal, rail‑trail and local park input before considering legislative language.

The department named specific concerns it will monitor if the policy is adopted — modified e‑bikes that exceed statutory class definitions, interaction with equestrian uses, and protection of sensitive natural surfaces — and said it will work with partners, including the Vermont Mountain Bike Association and Vermont Trails and Greenways Council, on consistent signage and behavior messaging.

The committee recessed after the presentation to continue discussion at a later time.