Should electric bikes and perhaps electric scooters be allowed on the carriage roads at Acadia National Park?/Rebecca Latson file
A story caught my eye the other day. It centered on electric bikes, and where they can roam in the National Park System. The story centered around Acadia National Park in Maine and raised the prospect that e-bikes might one day be allowed to travel the park's iconic carriage roads. Is that a good idea?
For now, the park is blocking the motorized bikes from heading down the carriage roads, which are restricting to muscle-powered cyclists, hikers, and equestrian travelers. But the AP story adds that "new rules are expected in the coming weeks."
“I’m hoping that they’re going to come to reality,” said one of the cyclists interviewed by the AP. “This will get more popular as time goes on.”
Well, there are a lot of popular things out there, but do they all deserve access in the parks? Remember Segways? What about those electric scooters that are all the rage in metropolitan areas? Will they be next to seek access to trails and areas normally off-limits to motorized vehicles?
In Canada, a pilot program is under way to test e-bikes on trails in Jasper National Park.
"There's a lot of places in the national park that are accessible by bike but maybe not to the entire general public due to limitations on fitness, etc.," Marc Vien, sales manager at Jasper Source for Sports, told CBC News. "But those e-bikes allow people to get to those places easily."
Tell us, travelers, how much access in the National Park System should electric bikes have?
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Studies are showing that ebikes aren’t more dangerous and don’t do more trail damage than non-electric bikes. They’re not loud, and they don’t pollute. Ebikes aren’t faster than almost any rider can manage on a slight downhill. It’s up to each rider to use good judgment regarding safety, and it’s been my experience that ebikers are more cautious and more responsible than the average bicycle rider. I believe ebikes should be treated like regular bikes.
Yes, please allow e-bikes on the majority of Park trails along the main thoroughfares and pathways separate from the established road system. There is no need to accommodate e-bikes on mountain hiking trails. Believe me, we go far slower than the avid road bikers.
Overall, yes - there are a lot of people with mobility issues for whom an e-bike or e-trike allows them to continue to participate "normally" with their younger or more able friends and family. Generally, they should be allowed anywhere a horse is allowed, as they have a similar top speed (most states and manufacturers limit ebike speeds to 20mph) and footprint. like all transportation modes in the National Parks, the mode doesn't keep people from being jerks. I was punched in Yellowstone once by a "regular" cyclist after he rode dangerously close to and cut off a family on the paved trail near Old Faithful. Should we ban all bikes because of incidents like this? No, we should ban jerks - but how do you do that? Not sure I have a good answer, but in general, we should be regulating the behavior in the parks, and not the conveyance. If the trail is too steep, or too prone to rockfall, or too narrow for 2 bikes/horses/ebikes to pass each other, then my personal opinion is it should be limited to hikers - but the carriage roads? Say "ok", set speed limits, and aggressively fine and reject access to those who break the speed limit or endanger other trail users.
Matt, I am all for banning jerks, on bikes, on foot and in cars. They come in all forms of transportation unfortunately. Too bad there's not a preferred mode of transport for jerks or we could just focus on that.
Thumbs up!
I would allow ebikes on paved and unpaved roads in National Parks and paved trails which currently permit muscle powered bicycles. I would not allow ebikes on trails designed for mountain biking - I think the risk to insufficiently skilled riders and increase SAR costs is too high to put ebikes on mountain biking trails. If a park has a nonpaved trail which is designed for simple nonmotorized travel, say a dirt trail from a campground to a visitors center, then that seems suitable for ebikes. I know the NPS is concerned that allowing an ebike would open the door to motorcycles or even mopeds, which significantly increase the likelihood of resource damage and off road and off trail use. Ebikes do not have the power of those vehicles. From my understanding, pedaling is needed even on ebikes and the battery wouldn’t last long if someone rode it like a moped. I am an avid cyclist, but can admit my ability falls short of steep roads that are found in many national parks. I don’t mind some hike a bike, but avoid riding places I might otherwise consider out of fear of too much climbing. The ability to rent an ebike at a place like Arches National Park, for example, would enable me to leave my car in town and bike.
For the love of God, however, no eScooters! Those are a nightmare. The majority of riders in my city ignore every rule or ordinance associated with them. And those who ride them are capable of walking.
I have had the same experience in our National Parks and National Forests.
On March 29th, 2019, I was riding my bike with my family on a public mountain bike trail in the Coconino National Forest in Sedona, Arizona. It was supposed to be a fun family outing.
Five Forest Service Rangers riding mountain bikes approached me on the bike trail. They asked me: “Is that an electric bike?” They had to ask, because, to the untrained eye, my electric pedal-assist bike is virtually indistinguishable from an ordinary bike. My pedal-assist bike is the same size and shape of an ordinary bike, has the same wheels and tires as an ordinary bike, is absolutely silent, and I must pedal it to make it move. My bike and I weigh no more than a typical man on an ordinary bike.
I explained: Without this modern and marvelous assistive device, I would have to remain at home instead of participating in bike rides with my family. At 60 years old I am effectively disabled from decades on my feet, working as a trauma nurse. I am facing double knee replacement surgery. I cannot walk or hike very far without wearing a leg brace and using walking sticks for support. I cannot participate in family bike rides without the assistance of my electric pedal-assist bike. I carry a letter from my Orthopedic Surgeon attesting to these facts.
The Forest Service Rangers evicted me from the Park, while allowing my family to continue on the bike trail without me.
“You can not ride on National Forest trails with other bike riders,” the Forest Service Rangers insisted. “You are riding a motorized vehicle,” the Forest Service Rangers said, citing current law.
That is just silly, of course—an obvious misinterpretation of the law, and a misunderstanding of the technology. A motorized vehicle operates under its own power—it is self-propelled. My bike is not self-propelled—it requires human power, it must be pedaled to make it move. The bike’s internal computer measures my pedaling effort and “adds in” a little extra power when I have difficulty—providing assistance. Stop pedaling and the bike stops. On a level surface and downhill, the motor often does nothing because the computer knows I don’t need help.
In my case, the motor-assist compensates for my damaged and disabled knees—it makes me equal to other riders on the trail. My bike is also computer-limited to speeds far lower than an able-bodied person can ride an ordinary bike. My bike will not go faster than 18-20 mph on an open, flat road, for example. My husband easily rides his ordinary bike at 20-plus mph under those conditions. And everyone is faster than me on a typical mountain bike trail—mountain biking is so strenuous, I travel at 3-10 mph, just like the able-bodied riders around me.
The Forest Service Rangers offered me a horrible alternative: “You can ride your pedal-assist bike on the roads with cars, jeeps, trucks, ATVs, and motorcycles.”
So, I am permitted to ride my pedal-assist bike on the less-scenic and far more dangerous roads, alongside the high-speed, tons-heavier jeeps and trucks spewing exhaust from their noisy internal-combustion engines. I wonder: Does the Federal Government also want me to drink from a separate water fountain, and eat at a separate lunch counter? Is it Government policy to offer me “separate but equal” recreation?
The Federal Government insists—with the force of law—that companies, schools, and offices, provide equal access to all facilities to the elderly and disabled. Our National Parks and National Forests install curb cuts, ramps, and railings to make park visitor centers accessible—yet their policies, by default, restrict access to the interior of the parks and forests to the young and able-bodied.
I am asking to be allowed to enjoy our country’s National Parks and National Forests in the same manner as an able-bodied person. My pedal-assist bike compensates for my disability and enables me to do that.
The Federal Government need do nothing, spend no money, make no additional effort. No modifications to existing bike trails are needed to make them accessible—my bike handles that automatically at my own expense.
There is no Federal Government burden. Just treat me the same as any other bike rider. Just permit me to ride my pedal-assist bike in the parks with my family.
It’s time to do the right thing: Embrace modern assistive technology for elderly and the disabled in our National Parks and National Forests. Embrace modern assistive technology.
Without this modern and marvelous assistive device, I would have to remain at home instead of participating in bike rides with my family. At 60 years old I am effectively disabled from decades on my feet, working as a trauma nurse. I am facing double knee replacement surgery. I cannot walk or hike very far without wearing a leg brace and using walking sticks for support. I cannot participate in family bike rides without the assistance of my electric pedal-assist bike. I carry a letter from my Orthopedic Surgeon attesting to these facts.
In my case, the motor-assist compensates for my damaged and disabled knees—it makes me equal to other riders on the trail. My bike is also computer-limited to speeds far lower than an able-bodied person can ride an ordinary bike. My bike will not go faster than 18-20 mph on an open, flat road, for example. My husband easily rides his ordinary bike at 20-plus mph under those conditions. And everyone is faster than me on a typical mountain bike trail—mountain biking is so strenuous, I travel at 3-10 mph, just like the able-bodied riders around me.
The Federal Government insists—with the force of law—that companies, schools, and offices, provide equal access to all facilities to the elderly and disabled. Our National Parks and National Forests install curb cuts, ramps, and railings to make park visitor centers accessible—yet their policies, by default, restrict access to the interior of the parks and forests to the young and able-bodied.
I am asking to be allowed to enjoy our country’s National Parks and National Forests in the same manner as an able-bodied person. My pedal-assist bike compensates for my disability and enables me to do that.
The Federal Government need do nothing, spend no money, make no additional effort. No modifications to existing bike trails are needed to make them accessible—my bike handles that automatically at my own expense.
There is no Federal Government burden. Just treat me the same as any other bike rider. Just permit me to ride my pedal-assist bike in the parks with my family.
When I see a sign in the National Parks that says NO PEDAL-ASSIST BIKES ALLOWED, this is what it says to me: "Hey Old Lady, go sit in your wheelchair in the parking lot and wait for your family to return from their bike ride."
Class 1 & 2 ebikes should absolutely be allowed on bicycle commuter arteries like the one’s in DC that are currently subject to an NPS ban eg GW Trail, CCT, etc. Particularly as all the adjacent juridictions are in the process of changing their municipal or state regulations to permit low speed ebikes on sidewalks and trails eg the recently adopted 3-Class bpsa/pub model ebike legislation in Maryland, and the recently proposed DC Electric Mobility Devices Amendment Act of 2019
Depends on the definition of E-Bike. Your probably think of something more like a motorcycle or scooter. NOS could easily limit E-bikes by horsepower or top speed so those that would be allowed would let Folsom’s with limited ability enjoy the parks.
Absolutely a good idea! E-bikes are quiet, thereby limiting any footprint or noise. It is a great way for people with disabilities to be able to see the PUBLIC park in all its glory. I know people who have knee issues, and have found a new lease on life due to electric bikes. If necessary, separte bike trails could be implemented like there is in California OR rules that they must be on the far right side of the trail, etc. It works great - they even have horses, bikes and hikers all on the same trail. PUBLIC lands mean just that - everyone should have the ability or chance to see what they can and not be discriminated against because they can't pedal on their own. I love the idea!
We have ridden e-bikes for 7 years. As we are now in our 60s and with bad knees and arthritis, they have made an incredible difference in our ability to enjoy parks and outdoor environments. A solution has already been provided in the classification of e-bikes. Only allow pedal assist bikes. If you need a belt and suspenders solunion, post a 20 mph speed limit, even though pedal-assist e-bike technology already has that limit.
At Acadia NP, signs on the automobile roads require a 3 foot distance from cyclists. Yet the park is increasingly popular, and its narrow roads have no shoulder. Banning a growing senior population and a surging popularity in e-bikes from Acadia’s carriage roads only puts more people at serious risk. Most bike stores we talk with as that e-bikes have become a vitally important part of their market, possibly the only thing that keeps their doors open as many have told us. Banning e-bikes makes as much sense as banning cell phones in the early 90s.
in our trail riding experience on both regular and electric bikes, we find the people who complain loudest are those that typically don’t follow other rules or courtesies, such as staying to the right, not blocking the trail, etc. If four people walking slowly take the entire width of a trail, we need to ring a bell, say “excuse me” or “to your left.” Far too often, those trail-hogging walkers look indignant, shocked, and some even shout out a complaint as we try to pass - slowly I have a hunch those are many of the nay-sayers to e-bikes.
The Management of Acadia recently said that there would be a ”slippery slope” after allowing e-bikes. Nonsense. A Pedal-Assist rule will ensure that scooters, Segways, electric motorcycles, etc won’t qualify. And if the Park and Friends of Acadia truly examined the intent of John D Rockefeller, Jr and family as they donated the carriage roads, they could easily see that the quiet, pedal-assist e-bike would meet the donors’ intention for a quiet absence of the polluting motorized vehicles of their day.
I too would love to be able to use an electric scooter as my handicap does nto allow me to walk well ! I think this should nto be too disruptive or noisy !
I have been biking the Carriage Roads in ANP for close to 25 years now. I am 80 years old now and have difficulties biking Carriage Roads. I would like to use an e-bike but the park bans me from Carriage Roads. I have to use the roads cars use. This is dangerous and is pure discrimination of elderly or handicapped people. The argument “no motorized Vehicles on Carriage Roads” is a joke, the park allows Snowmobiles on certain Carriage Roads !
Please, let us elderly enjoy the park and allow e-bikes where regular bikes are allowed.
I find it very interesting that the writer of this article has a podcast on this topic with two people that seem against e-bikes in the park and no representation from advocates for e-bikes who might elucidate the many benefits of e-bikes for the individual, environment and traffic congestion/pollution issues.
I also have a solution for resolving the perceived e-bike problem:
1. Treat e-bikes like regular bikes and post a speed limit of 12-14 mph for all. There are plenty of people using regular bikes that go too fast so this would be safer for all.
2. Start thinking positively about the health and environmental benefits of e-bikes. Like aging, they are the future.
For those who are concerned about some e-bikes (and regular bikes) having wide tires and the impact on trails, put your worries to rest.
Wider tires actually have less of an impact on dirt and gravel surfaces than skinnier tires because they displace less psi (pounds per square inch). The wider tires even help repair depressions and ruts in trails, caused by pedestrian traffic and skinnier tires, by smoothing them out.
As someone who has ridden bikes before, who the heck rides skinny tires on dirt or gravel? Maybe hybrids with in-between tires, but those are better on hard-packed dirt.
I've ridden on mountain bikes, and there's a reason why they call their tires "knobby". They're designed to grip with a tread pattern that digs into a dirt surface. That's what they do. And if you've got an e-Bike that weighs 50 lbs then that's extra weight on the tires.
Much of the advocacy for allowing motorized bikes on Acadia's carriage roads talks about the need for pedal assistance for getting up hills. As someone who is 77 years old, may I ask you to consider another approach. If you are riding your bike and encounter a hill that you are not able to overcome by pedaling, dismount and walk your bike up the hill. Problem solved.
As a 77 year old disabled vet, let me reply. Among other issues I suffer from a debilitating tendonitis (think permanent sprained ankle). As it happens, I can ride a bike but not walk very well. The bike is actually physical therapy. The suggestion that I push my bike up a hill is not particularly constructive and is made from ignorance. Most people commenting need to know more about ebikes. Frankly, as several have suggested, the reality (in the true meaning of that word) is that ebikes should be permitted everywhere regular bikes are permitted and everyone's behavior should be the monitored aspect.
Pedal assist e-bikes should definitely be allowed in national parks, and specifically on the carriage roads of Acadia National Park. Other types of electiric bikes, scooters , motorcycles, etc should continue to be prohibited. Prohibiting pedal assist e-bikes is a form of age discrimination since most e-bike uses are older people who enjoy biking but need the assist that e-bikes provide. Older e-bike users tend to bike at a slower speed than younger people on regular bikes, especially on downhill runs. If safety is a concern, maybe there should be speed restrictions on all kinds of bikes. And forcing e-bikes to use the Acadia Nationl Park Loop road is just an accident waiting to happen. There is already too much congestion on these roads.
Just for the handicapped...as in parking. When I was young, we went everywhere on our bikes. I love them, but now I can't lift themy high enough to get them on the support thing. I would love something like this. I take sunset photos every night, but only where I don't have to walk any distances. It is one of my passions. People like me are losing out on beauty...it makes me very sad.
terrible idea, totally unenforceable, no way that people won’t eventually bring faster more powerful e-bikes on to trails. Maybe if you’re not fit enough or to old to continue climbing hills and going on long rides maybe it’s time to slow down and consider other activities or just do less. Another example of selfishness, the people on these bikes aren’t considering the experience of the people around them, only their own.
I believe e-bikes give all folks the same rights as any other bicyclist or hiker to enjoy the great beauty our National Parks trails we share. I have seen many folks that bike and the e-assist bikers are no different, they enjoy the parks and trails and respect the beauty that is i trusted to us.
E-bikes should be allow in our National Parks for all that are willing to have fun.
This is great. I lost my left leg in motorcycle accident and I can’t peddle on a regular bike (not yet anyway). My ebike lets me go places I can’t get to otherwise.
At 70 yrs old I am just not able to bike or hike the way I used to. My wife and I bought e-bikes 6 months ago, and where before we went biking only a few times a month we have been out nearly every day since then. They have completely changed our lives. I can understand the views of those who see them as intruding on their outdoor experience, as in my younger years I too have complained about horses, mules, snow machines, bikes, and even others hikers intruding on mine. But there are plenty of trails in the parks that are for foot travel only. Allowing e-bikes where regular bikes are allowed makes sense. Responsible riders don't fly downhill where hikers are present at 25mph on either type of bike, and irresponsible riders will do so whether on an e-bike or regular bike. Concerns about potentially crowded bike trails should be addressed regardless if the crowded trails are the result of e-bike or regular bike riders. I don't doubt that further rules might be needed to reduce problems of overcrowding on popular trails, but they should be in terms of speed limits, poor rider behavior, peak period closures, or others that treat e-bikes and regular bikes equally.
Responsible e-bike riders will be no more a problem than responsible regular bike riders. E-bikes will have a very limited range in difficult, remote terrain so if you want a pristine experience it won't be hard to find. I say this as someone that has backpacked for hundreds of miles in our National Parks but at 80 yes old I am now just too old to bike or hike like I used to.
I’m 61 and have severe arthritis in my knees. I bought an e-bike so that the pedal assist would help when riding up hills or against the wind. I ride more and much farther because of this assist, and I use the minimal assist 90% of the time. My motor is much quieter than a human voice. I have been often left in the dust by non-electric bikers who can potentially ride much faster than me, especially when going down hills (yeah, I’m a chicken!). Bike riding provides a non-weight bearing, enjoyable activity and exercise that helps my knees and my overall fitness, and this would be true of many seniors and disabled persons. I don’t think too many seniors would be going all out with the speed factor. These bikes are also not cheap, but I figure they’re less expensive than cardiac bypass surgery. ;-)
I would encourage anyone who has concerns about e-bikes to go to a bike store and try one (or rent one) if you have not already done so. Perhaps a good initial compromise would be to limit the speeds on all bikes to 15 mph or less, and maybe limiting the use to those with a special permit for disability and for folks aged 55 and over? I think once everyone sees more e-bikes in use, that will quell the fears and concerns, and then the limits could be relaxed accordingly.
Some trails are not accessible to bike use, so I think there’s room for everybody here. I live in a state that has national forests and small national parks, so I would like to be able to use bike trails in these areas, which are safer than riding on roads. Getting more people to use the parks would increase the number of paid annual passes, which in turn would provide more funding for park upkeep. We all pay taxes for the national parks, so it only makes sense that any taxpayer should be able to use them.
Acadia National Park has three types of ways to explore its interior. The paved road for cars and bicyclists, The carriage road for hiking/biking/horses, and the tougher terrain for hiking. What is proposed currently is to allow access to the carriage roads to ebikes. As a current biker of the carriage roads, there are many hazards should one exceed the recommended speeds. People have noted children on bicycles, horse carriges, clueless pedestrians, inexperienced bikers... I have easily, but carefully, surpassed the 20mph zooming down some of the hills on a regular mountain bike. The key is to have control and awareness of others. These roads are patrolled by a bicycle NPS patrolman, similar to a ski ranger. They will fine for reckless riding. Ebikes only allow for more accessability and hopefully, not more recklessness. Reckless riding is due to the rider. I totally support the change to allow ebikes onto the carriage roads. A bit off-topic: We recently rode with friends on one of the trails, it was 1.5 miles uphill. They said they would never ride that trail again. With an ebike, it would have been much more enjoyable for them.
I grew up an avid hiker and camper, but currently at aage 70, have two bad knees, bone on bone in one foot leading to constant pain, and also severe spinal stenosis. From what I've been reading I'm apparently a good candidate for an ebike.
I take a slightly different view on it. I don't want to ride NPS trails on any sort of bicycle, because I simply choose to avoid the potential for liability. I easily picture an on-leash dog or off leash 5-year-old child making a sudden impulsive zig or zag and crash boom bang. I saw every variety of this in the decades I was a first responder. Thank you, but I have a beautiful hiking staff, or alternatively a pair of hiking poles, and will get to where I want to go slower, or perhaps I won't get there. I've been lucky enough in my life to have taken big bites out of life, and have hiked deserts, glaciers, and many a switchback in between. I"m good with this.
BTW - I am only speaking for myself. This is my decision for me; not my decision for anyone else.
Bravo! So excited to hear that e-bikes are allowed on National Park Trails. The e-bike is exactly that, a bike, no need to prohibit use of it on a bike trail in the National Parks or any bike trail!
Restricting e-bikes is discrimination against elderly and disabled people.
It is unfair for young and healthy people to demand e-bike restrictions only because they want to keep the national parks for themselves, when young people will get older, they will change their opinions.
I have been riding bikes all my life, but I’m 60 now and I can’t climb the hills without electric assistance.
1. Class-1 electric bike is as clean and quiet and environment friendly as regular bike.
2. Class-1 electric bike, doesn’t have throttle and it cuts electric assistance at 20mph.
3. Bike can ride in a high speed only when it goes downhill, but e-bikes, which are usually ridden by elderly people go downhill slower than regular bikes.
4. Restricting e-bikes is the same as restricting electric wheel chairs on the sidewalks and trails.
Pages