The MRWA policy and signage is based on a number of factors. The simple factors are that current land-use agreements and the trail insurance policy specify nonmotorized uses only. The more complex factors are the need to better understand how/where/if E-MTBs can be incorporated in a trail system that has bidirectional trails, already has rapidly increasing number of riders AND lots of pedestrians - who are also increasing in number. The system is practically inside an urban center, so arguably has potential for continued rapid increase in the number of users. Another consideration is that there is no financial support for trail building and maintenance from the municipality, which influences the ability to maintain or build for EMTB usage. Finally, it’s important to remember that the goal of the MRWA singletrack project is not to simply maximize recreation opportunities (that IS the goal of bikeparks and some recreational singletrack networks); instead, it’s a bunch of volunteers who are working to enhance stewardship of a wild area as well as provide opportunities for active recreation. A balance has to be found. As always, the trail committee will continue to monitor and assess whether the policy is reasonable and appreciates input. EMTBs are so new and evolving so rapidly, that the discussion isn’t settled for any trail association or land manager.
Personally, I understand that e-mtbs have real benefits for some riders, and I can see the allure for others (hey, I’m in my 6th decade on the planet…). I also think they are appropriate on some ‘nonmotorized’ singletrack trail systems. I’m not a purist: A Class 1 EMTB is NOT a dirt moto in terms of speed or trail damage issues. In North America, a Class 1 ebike is limited to 750watts max, a pittance compared to a moto’s >10,000W and gobs of torque.
On the other hand, a modern EMTB is not just providing ‘a little assist’, either. Something like a Levo is >500W nominal, and rated at up to 400% boost of human power. It can provide a 3X increase on the threshold power of even a very fit rider --for quite a while, given current batteries (Kaarin won an elite national championship with a threshold power of <250W for example). As a result, there are real concerns about increased closing speeds between users on bidirectional trails, closing speeds on some one-way climbing trails, and implications for trail layout and increased trail maintenance. On trail systems with few users, and/or one-way trails and and few/no peds (who tend to be disturbed by high closing speeds…), EMTBS can blend in nicely. But on other trail systems there are real issues. Some of these issues I’ve encountered myself, while riding outside the maritimes where EMTBs have been more common, for longer. A lot of very experienced and relatively well-resourced MTB trail associations, such as the NSMBA and WORCA (North Shore and Whistler respectively), Evergreen MTB Alliance in Washington etc., have been dealing with these questions, or trying to, for a while. Unfortunately, some EMTBers and some people in the bike industry tend to make declarations that ‘an EMTB is just a mountain bike’. I think that’s disrespectful to some tireless volunteers in trail associations, as well as BS. If Class 1 EMTBs were <100W max, I doubt there would be much concern about them anywhere outside of designated Wilderness areas in the U.S… But they’re not <100W, and they’re only getting ‘better’.
The E-MTB policies passed in Washington State and by the B.C Ministry of Forests seem to be the way forward: Washington by default now bans E-MTBs from all natural surface trails <5ft wide (ie singletrack), but the local trail association can choose to permit Class 1 EMTBS if they deem their trail system suitable and all landowners allow it. B.C., as of 2 months ago, is the reverse: EMTBs are allowed by default on nonmotorized singletrack on most Crown Rec Sites, but the trail association can restrict them if/where it chooses.
I was riding in Revelstoke not long ago, and their MTB trail association seems to have a rational policy: The main network (Mt McPherson), which has bidirectional trails (most kinda old school), and a fair number of trail runners, is offlimits for EMTBs. Another network, which is purpose built for bikes and only has oneway trails, is open to EMTBs. The downhill/shuttle network is open to EMTBs. The trails are on BC-MOF land, to my knowledge, and clearly their insurance policy is OK with this arrangement. On the other hand, my experience in the Kootenays is that EMTBs are restricted from all KCTS trail because of policies of some private landowners; there, allowing EMTBs would mean every MTBer loses access. I give these examples to illustrate some of the considerations that need to be balanced.
A few other points raised earlier:
-
Parks Canada has it’s own policies regarding EMTBs on singletrack, and access varies between individual Parks – which is appropriate.
-
Adaptive MTBs for people with mobility challenges (aMTBs) are usually considered a separate class of device, with particular trail standards too --turn radius, width, grades vary. I haven’t encountered an aMTBer in Halifax yet, let alone at McFight, but I’m sure no-one at MRWA would discourage them based on the eMTB policy. MRWA isn’t excluding aMTBs as someone claimed: in fact, MRWA would like to build an aMTB trail and has obtained landowner permission to do that (It would also serve as a green flow trail for regular MTBs). If someone wants to pony up the $, let’s make it happen.
-
As for the Cyclesmith/Rocky demo: I’m sure EMTBs are always in the demo truck, and I have confidence that Cyclesmith, who are outstanding and very supportive, will keep riders informed of the MRWA EMTB policy for singletrack (EMTBs are of course permitted on the gravel community trail and roads).