Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Lebanon County Board of Commissioners · May 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

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.

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.