Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County advances first reading of rail-trail ordinance, would bar throttle e-bikes and set trail speed limits
Summary
Lebanon County solicitors and rail-trail volunteers presented a draft ordinance that would permit pedal‑assist (class 1) e-bikes only in pedal‑assist mode, ban throttle-assist e-bikes, set a 15 mph posted speed limit on trail segments and authorize enforcement by county, LVR T and local law enforcement; commissioners authorized advertisement for adoption at a future meeting.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County solicitor Matthew Gigli and representatives of the Lebanon Valley Rail-Trail (LVR T) presented a draft ordinance that would standardize rules across municipalities for use of the rail trail and provide enforcement authority.
Gigli said the ordinance adopts the Pennsylvania vehicle-code definition for pedal cycles with electric assist (e-bikes) but adds a clear enforcement standard: only pedal-assist e-bikes in pedal-assist mode (class 1) would be permitted on the trail; e-bikes that operate via throttle — i.e., propulsion without pedaling — would be prohibited. He said the change was intended to make enforcement practical: an officer or trail representative could simply observe whether a rider was pedaling.
The draft also contains a posted speed limit for portions of the trail (a 15 mph operational restriction was discussed to supersede higher vehicle-code definitions), clarifies that LVR T representatives and local law enforcement are authorized to direct people to leave the trail and gives the county the ability to publicize and post the rules. LVR T volunteers said incidents of high-speed motorized users had prompted the clarification.
Commissioners moved to authorize advertisement of the draft ordinance for public notice; if no substantial edits are later made it could be considered for adoption at the next meeting after the legally required notice. Supporters highlighted public-safety reasons and the practicality of an enforceable pedal‑assist test; some commissioners asked for careful public notice and signage plans so casual users understand changes.
Closing: The board authorized public advertisement so the ordinance can be considered for adoption at a future meeting following the required public-notice period.

