E-bike ban on 160 miles of Peninsula trails will remain

But after a five-hour meeting, the board, with a 4-2 vote, ultimately concluded e-bikes were inconsistent with the district’s mission of preserving its 65,000 acres, as they would allow riders to venture further into parks and could increase trail use.

“Our focus starts with the benefits of the land, starts with the natural environment, rather than starts with the benefits of an individual,” Director Curt Riffle said. “It’s a very different approach than that required by agencies that are managing parks.”

The district currently allows regular bikes on 160 miles of paved and dirt trails over its 250-mile trail network that covers 26 properties. Up for consideration was permitting class 1 and 2 e-bikes — those which give an electric assist up to 20 mph — on trails already allowing standard bikes. The trails have a 15 mph speed limit which would have remained.

Class 1 bikes require riders to pedal to activate the motor, while class 2 bikes include a throttle. Most parks that allow e-bikes allow those classes only. A third class allows assistance, engaged by pedaling, up to 28 mph, and is more common on commuter or road bikes.

State laws hold that the first two classes are allowed wherever normal bike are, unless otherwise stated. San Mateo County Parks allow class 1 and 2 e-bikes on paved and “improved” but not dirt trails, and similar rules exist in Marin County. Sonoma and Santa Clara counties allow e-bikes on paved and most dirt trails.

Notably outside the state-defined classes are increasingly popular and often heavier and bulkier electric motorized bicycles, which allow a throttle and speeds up to 30 miles per hour and are already illegal on many trails.

To gather data, the district for two years allowed e-bikes in the Ravenswood and Rancho San Antonio preserves on paved and improved trails. Fire risk posed by electrical issues, soil impacts and harm to bats caused by high-frequency noise emitted by some models were among consideration, as was conflict with other trail users.

Riders observed breaching trail speed limits during the study period were equally split between those on standard and electric bikes, said Brad Pennington, an area superintendent with the district who presented findings

He noted speeding was primarily an issue with riders going downhill, when those on standard bikes often go faster.

“Rangers are not worried about any kind of increased speed enforcement needed for e-bikes,” he said. “The people they see on e-bikes, most of them are in an age group where they’re just trying to be out there riding, they’re not trying to get out there and hurt themselves.”

The board also heard from 50 or more commenters during its meeting, split between those for and against allowing e-bikes. Most of those in favor cited easier access to preserves for seniors, while many opposed pointed to potential harm to wildlife, or increased weight of the bikes and the possibility for collisions with hikers.

A survey conducted of 556 trail users at the two pilot preserves, the majority of them walkers, found 68% supported allowing class 1 e-bikes, while 42% supported class 2 e-bikes.

Pennington said he found that while modern e-bikes are heavier than regular bikes, it’s often not a significant difference as the rider’s weight makes up the bulk of the equation. He said the district recently acquired class 1 bikes for rangers, which were actually lighter that the older standard mountain bikes the district owned.

But Director Riffle said improving technology was partially his concern, and allowing e-bikes would put the district at the “mercy of the bike industry.”

“You bet they are going to be stronger, farther, more affordable. I think what would happen is this would be the fastest growth segment of all our user groups and I think it would get out of control for us,” he said.

Director Karen Holman also cited a lack of available data and said the rule would be difficult to walk back if adopted and found to be a poor fit.

Pete Siemens, who expressed the strongest favor for allowing e-bikes, however, said he saw little difference between a class 1 e-bike and a standard bike. He pointed also to the district’s goal of reducing car trips to access preserves.

With the other dissenting vote, Director Yoriko Kishimoto, said she’d like to try another pilot. She described herself as a cyclist and said she had recently tried an electric mountain bike, and agreed it was similar to a standard bike.

“If anything, the big decision was made when we decided to allow bicycles into the preserves,” she said. “I look forward to the technology continuing to evolve, and possibly our regulations will change in the future, so I think we need to keep that door open.”

The board did vote to allow e-bikes on 6 miles of paved and improved trails in Rancho San Antonio County Park and Ravenswood Preserve in East Palo Alto. As they are now, e-bikes will remain legal for those with disabilities where standard bikes are allowed.