What is the real environmental impact of MTB?

[GeurieMTB]

Hi unitec, I agree with some of what youve said, all of this is in relation to the NSW NPWS discussion paper.

1. most Parks have degraded areas and these can and should be targeted for recreational activities, even 100 ha can provide 20k of trails if its a sacrificial area.
2. all new trail development (and even redevelopment on Parks) will always require environmental assessment. All walking trails and fire trails do so why should we avoid that? These areas are set aside because they hold special environmental values which must be protected as the first priority
3. diluting a problem dilutes the community and ranger perception of that problem, and this is all about perception. The current perception of MTB in Park is of illegal and usually poorly built trails, often so poorly built they are rapidly abandoned. These erosive mistakes are the take home message non MTBers have re trails, esp dh trails.
4. Parks are testing the waters, if this discusion papers rec get up and run smoothly we, as a community, will have opportunity to discuss site specific proposals with specific Park management, lets accept this as a good starting point
5. the only science Ive seen re MTB compares xc with walkers and horse riders and shows lower levels of ipact from MTB, this validates the NPWS approach. If such science re dh shows the same results there will be something to argue, until then the on ground reality of poorly built trails is the reality that this rec is based on.
6. MTB does have more impact than erosion, weeds spread (worse by horses, same as walkers) phytophthora spread (same as walkers and horses) and dh trails require shuttle runs, concentrated car parks, ongoing vehicle noise, digging for berms.

XC does have lower levels of impact, both locally and across the landscape.

Maybe we as a riding comunity need to accept that not all styles of MTB are suitable to all land tenures. Hopefully we can be mature enough to acknowledge that and accept the NPWS discussion paper as a positive first step for us.

 

[nrthrnben]

Depends on trail construction

a DH track will have a higher environmental impact per metre along its length than XC, and the impact of that metre of trail is localised, not cumulative. In other words at any given point along a DH track the impacts will be more severe than the impacts of an XC trail. An XC trail can be constructed to cover 20 k in 1,000 ha, thereby spreading the impact dramatically, a DH trail by definition will be much shorter and localised, its impacts are greater environmentally (ever heard of fall lines?), erosion is unavoidable.

Erosion or environmental impact is dependent on trail construction not the discipline of riding.


Yes, DH has the Potential to create more environmental damage than XC only if the trail is not armored and built to suit sustainably.

All styles/disciplines of mountain biking can be built sustainably, it has been proven all over the world.

DH trails may be more difficult to build, but what some are trying to point out is that, as DH trails are shorter that XC, the cost of construction and the time spent on preventative maintenance would end up being somewhat similar.

The only reason people think DH has more environmental damage than other disciplines is because of what some environmentalists portray and the effects of informal poorly designed DH trails.


So once again erosion or environmental impact should be dependent on trail construction, not the discipline,style or rider.

Yes some area's within NP's may not be suitable for DH but others no doubt are, and have been for years

So can we all help out each other style of riding in advocacy and make sure all trails get built, and to sustainable IMBA standards

 

[thecat]

we're currently going through soil and sediment control plans for a Dh trail, using the experts who are used for roads, mine sites and major construction.

He was pretty impressed with what we were planning and his proposed "control measures" at this stage look cheap and easy to maintain.


My submission to the discussion paper was along the lines of not getting caught up with different riding style but allowing each to be considered on a case by case basis.

 

[GeurieMTB]

This thread started with a comment that asserted that trails should be assessed based on some form of cumulative damage assumed over distance, my argument is that trail impact is localised and cant be taken cumulatively.

Certainly all styles of trail can be constructed to be long lasting, non erosive and what we are choosing to define as sustainable. But in constructing a "sustainable" xc trail there should be minimal earth movement, vegetation loss etc and the footprint of the trail is minimal. In creating a well drained well armoured and "sustainable" dh trail there has to be more environmental impact simply by the scale of the construction footprint, if for no other reason. The trails are wider, they disturb more veg, often machinery is used to construct them, rock needs to be imported etc etc

In this case we are discussing the merits of the NPWS assertion that dh etc have a greater environmental impact than xc and that they are prepared to look at xc trails on their estate. I reckon thats a great start for us to get into Park and for us to demonstrate the sustainability of our sport.

I agree with the Cat, there are places in Park which could be suitable for dh, as I said previously degraded areas exist in most Parks simply due to past land management practises, that doesnt mean we need to build there.

We need to enter into a debate with land managers, identify suitable sites, demonstrate sustainability and lack of negative impact. In the case of dh where are the studies demonstrating minimal impact we can throw at Parks, they dont seem to exist yet. Until they do the Parkies will always point to degraded trails which were illegally and badly built, thats a huge hurdle for us to overcome and it'll take a lot of time.

Im not against dh, its fun, but maybe not in Parks until we can demonstrate that it has less impact than walking or horse riding, which we can and have demonstrated already re xc. Remember we are talking about land which is primarily set aside for conservation, not recreation or logging, its fundamentally different land and a different philosophy of management.

Its not an unreasonable statement to say that dh does have greater impact than xc, particularly in the eye of non MTBers who only see the scars, the cars and the shuttles. That impact is localised and highly visible.

And lets face it, boys in full face helmets scare the bejesus out of the grannys.

Look at other land tenures, not everything has to happen on Parks.

 

[josh smithy]

I'd just like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread, as some very excellent points have been made which I think will increase rider/land owner/trail advocate understanding, many of whom could be reading this thread right now.

 

[FR Drew]

@ Geurie,

Seems like you're stuck in a circular argument. You're looking for scientific research, but little exists because very few sustainable DH trails exist. Due to the lack of research people accept the status quo that DH trails can't be built in areas of conservation value, so no sustainable DH trails get designed and built...

Some folks complain that the biggest hassle with MTB is the fact that it allows riders to cover great distances into wilderness areas. Surely a short 2km corridor, close to areas already significantly impacted by humans (roads) with a well defined beginning and end point (as is required for a shuttleable DH track) is the precise counter to this. You're not venturing into an unspoiled area, you're not creating a long trail. Additionally, due to riding against the clock on a clearly defined course, by and large, DH riders don't create additional loops, or change their corridor from what was originally built (especially if it was properly defined in the first place).

In one fell swoop you have a smaller area impacted, the area impacted being close to areas where high level human impact already exists and little to no wildcat construction of additional trail that extends to a great degree into the surrounding area.

Contrast this with XC riding, especially where supplied fire roads deep into National Park regions can be utilised: Large trail networks, higher spread of weeds, phytophera etc, impact over a huge and uncontrolled area, regular building of additional unauthorised loops to pre-existing networks... The only advantage XC has is slower generation of braking ruts and less fall line trails if well designed (and sustainable well designed DH trails don't do that anyhow).

Yes, people should be able to go out and enjoy nature, but to say that should only occur on foot is a fallacy. To say that XC presents little problem and DH should be locked out is also a fallacy. Hell, there's bugger all northshore, land managers regularlyt freak out at just the thought of it, but remember, it was originally developed to avoid the problem of bikes riding on soft unstable soil and causing damage.

XC, DH and Ewok all have their place if properly implemented. Remember those last 2 words though, they're the important bit.

 

[thecat]

This thread started with a comment that asserted that trails should be assessed based on some form of cumulative damage assumed over distance, my argument is that trail impact is localised and cant be taken cumulatively.
.....

Its not an unreasonable statement to say that dh does have greater impact than xc, .... That impact is localised and highly visible.

I don't know about that. I first rode the Hassans Walls DH track on my bmx in the late 80s. It's been used for competition since the mid 90s. We held the state champs there this year in very wet conditions and haven't done any work to it since. It's in better condition now than many of XC trails I ride, including those that apparently get regular maintenance

I don't think you can say that a well built DH trail has more impact than a well built xc trail until the proper research is done.

The whole "localised not cumulative" argument also falls flat. If each trail clears 1 cubic metre of vegetation/km but the xc trail is 10 x longer it of course clears 10x the vegetation. which of course means it's had more impact.

And also you're only look at visual and erosion impacts. The greater distances in XC riding has the potential to spread "localized" soil born bacteria much further than DH

It's all there to be debated and the anti MTB brigade will be loving how the issue divides the MTB community and make us loose the overall focus.

Do I believe we need DH trails in National Parks? Not particularly. but I do believe each case needs to be assessed on it's own merrit rather than be automatically excluded due to some arbitrary ruling handed down by head office based on ideological myths

 

[GeurieMTB]

Ive just re-read the document. Page 7 is a description of riding styles and usage. DH, Free ride and Jumps are all described as needing armouring,construction,earthmoving and in some cases infrastructure such as roads or chair lifts. Thats not an unreasonable description of those trails. That level of construction has an impact, and is highly visible, and dont forget the counter argument being made against MTB in natural areas - too much visual impact.

The report goes on to describe usage patterns in MTB and quotes some research showing 80% of Tasmanian mtb is cross country, most mtb sought in northern Sydney is all mountain etc and goes on to say that all existing mtb experiences in Park are xc (except for Thredbo of course).

Then it makes the following recommendation;
Cross-country and all-mountain are recognised as the most appropriate styles of mountain biking in NPWS parks. Cross-country and all-mountain experiences include singletrack and management trails and may include technical challenges suiting a wide range of skill levels.
The priority for NPWS over the next 5–10 years will be to provide cross-country and all-mountain experiences rather than other styles of mountain biking.

On page 10 it offers the following for future development
Where a clear need for new mountain bike experiences in an NPWS park is identified and the site has been assessed as suitable, the plan of management should be written or amended to permit mountain bike experiences that meet best practice standards for sustainability.

The doors still open folks.

Re the previous coment about wilderness, page 11 says;
Cycling on tracks is not permissible in wilderness areas and will not be allowed in nature reserves.
Cycling on management trails in nature reserves and wilderness areas is generally not allowed unless permitted under the plan of management. Where a park does not have a plan of management, the NPWS regional manager may approve cycling on management trails if it will not degrade natural heritage or wilderness values.

This is a great document thats well researched, reasonable in its arguments and offering us a foot in the door and then means by which to go further. It examines and justifies its recomendations clearly.

And dont forget, this is an argument we havent won, there are an awful lot of Parkies and others who are still dead against any form of MTB in Parks, accepting something reasonable which is on offer rather than churlishly saying we want more now might just be the smart thing to do.

 

[FR Drew]

Since when has anyone proposed that you would build a road or chairlift into a national park simply because you wanted to put in a DH track? This is utter drivel.

If a pre existing road that facilitated shuttling was already there and there was a suitable hill for the purpose, then it might be considered as an appropriate site for a DH track.

Saying "DH needs construction, roads and chairlifts and is therefore not appropriate" is based on a false premise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that DH tracks are appropriate everywhere, but developing your policy on flawed basic assumptions leads to poor policy.

 

[GeurieMTB]

The document says;
Downhill riding involves a point-to-point ride that is predominantly downhill. Tracks are usually singletrack with technical challenges. Downhill mountain bikes are generally too heavy for serious climbing, so riders usually travel to the start of the descent by car or ski lift, requiring supporting infrastructure. Downhill tracks generally require greater armouring and more frequent maintenance to protect the environment than cross-country tracks as they descend more steeply. They also present a greater risk to participants than cross-country tracks

What part of that is drivel? dh requires supporting infrastructure (roads etc). dh requires substantial armouring to be sustainable. armouring requires rock movement = construction. dh trails often involve berms and other earthen constructions.

The documents good, read it.

DH has its place and its appropriate for land managers to assess its impact, its value to their organisation and risks (both environmental and physical) and make an informed decision based on that agencies needs and market. Not all land is appropriate for dh, and not all agencies are appropriate for it either.

There are undoubtedly some locations in NPWS which might fit for dh, close to roads, already degraded etc, but the document also stresses that it is not proposing the construction of new trails on the estate.

Its a discussion paper and its generating discussion. Hopefully everybody is drafting their submissions

 

[Gock]

Interesting to see Qld Parks & Wildlife has just released a new draft MTB policy for comment (see IMBA Aust news).

Interesting that they're covering the same issues, & include directions on DH & north shore

INDENT]Downhill riding may be allowed on a restricted basis where no suitable alternatives are available and/or long-term MTB use is recognised and supported. This activity will not usually be provided in national parks unless extenuating circumstances or local conditions exist e.g. a previously disturbed area is assessed as being suitable

Approved technical trail features (TTF’s) may be incorporated on purpose-built MTB single-use tracks or other places as considered appropriate. Technical trail features should be constructed in accordance with International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA) design principles or other approved QPWS design and should be consistent with the trail classification and/or expected skill level of potential users. Where feasible alternate routes (“B lines”) should be established around more difficult technical features.[/INDENT]

Looks like it's horses for courses.

 

[Arete]

Erosion is far from the ONLY concern when building a trail. A few off the top of my head that need to be addressed are:
a) disturbance caused by actually constructing the trail - do you need to get machinery in to move boulders? modify existing trails by hand?
b) weed spread along line of disturbance
c) use of trails as access and egress by introducted predators (who have been shown to use human trails as access paths)
d) habitat fragmentation potential
e) modification of drainage patterns - particularly relevant to Sydney where ridgetop swamp is a threatened ecosystem
f) modification of sedimentation
g) impacts of trails on fire regime and control
h) parking, vehicle access and associated road maintenance - managing a serious increase in vehicle traffic on a fire road is potentially a much bigger issue than the bike trail itself.
j) potential transmission of Phytophthora cinnamomi
k) emergency access - particularly relevant should you ever want to run a competition on said trail...
etc and so on.

There's no sensible way to argue that a shuttleable DH trail and an XC loop create the same environmental impact. That's not to say you can't build an erosionably stable DH trail which of course you can - A properly constructed 6 lane highway produces neglible erosion post-construction as well and I'm pretty sure no one is going to try and say it has the same impact as a walking trail.

As for the actual effects of bikes - well it's been somewhat shown that a bike on flat ground that's not turning or braking has comparable or even less impact in terms of soil compaction or loosening than a person on foot. The impacts of the way we actually ride our bikes and the cumulative impacts of additional human usage of an area are complicated and in consideration to mountain bikes poorly studied.

A lot of the impact has to do with behaviour - I can go out on an XC ride and barely leave more than tyre prints. I can rail a flat corner on the DH bike and shred a nice deep rut in dry soil without even touching the brakes. Similar to walkers - you can go out with a clean gear and a stove and barely leave any trace you were there or you can spread weeds everywhere, light a bonfire and leave piles of human crap in a once pristine stream.

DH has its place and its appropriate for land managers to assess its impact, its value to their organisation and risks (both environmental and physical) and make an informed decision based on that agencies needs and market. Not all land is appropriate for dh, and not all agencies are appropriate for it either.

Wholeheartedly agree - there's several access advocacy groups which have effectively seen themselves locked out of NP's through obstructionist lobbying rather than co-operative planning. There is danger in going in to negotiations with an attitude of "let us do everything we want wherever we want" rather than making a genuine effort to fit in with NPWS and its other stakeholders.

 

[Nerf Herder]

Erosion is far from the ONLY concern when building a trail. *snip multiple points ...
j) potential transmission of Phytophthora cinnamomi
k) emergency access - particularly relevant should you ever want to run a competition on said trail...
etc and so on.

Are these points all unique to Mountain Biking ... are we also thinking Whistler like lengths of track ? and what breath of area covered by these mega tracks.

Similarly, why have the mindset of competition as your starting point. The vast majority of riders and hours spent riding are for recreational purposes ... so why have an image of trucks in traffic jams and large scale events ?

With regards to "Phytophthora cinnamomi" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytophthora_cinnamomi

What other POTENTIAL transmission sources are there ?? will they also be banned or increasingly controlled ??? I know I haven't ridden through or near an avocado orchard EVER ... but is that going to be used against my recreational riding in future.

I'm somewhat lost with these view points, particularly given that your seemingly educated views, from a rider, will only be used against access ... when these views are not based on comprehensive investigation (happy to be corrected if you have relevant information you can quote and source).

These are definite concerns, however I ask again, are these unique to MTB ... if not then I ask you to please ensure you more effectively communicate this lack of correlation ... particularly if you are in a position of influence.

On another note, Arete, Do you still ride ?? or are you completely off riding on public lands, and or off road ... given what must be large personal and professional conflicts ? I've read a few of your posts on the subject over the last year and they are all consistently against access IMO, so just interested how this reconciles with your riding ? Happy to discuss via PM.

 

[Arete]

Are these points all unique to Mountain Biking ...

Not unique but they all need to be considered when thinking about mountain bike access rather than just erosion.

As for Phytophthora - it's an issue and can be spread by boots, bikes, tools - in areas where transmission is a problem there's often raised boot scrubbing platforms and signs instructing walkers to clean their boots.

I'm not saying all these points can't be managed. I'm suggesting having a reasonable discussion with NPWS and other groups rather than plonking down a manifesto of demands and commanding NPWS to then manage them.

I still ride, I just don't want MTB to fall in with the 4wd/shooting/fishing lobby. The interactions these lobby groups have with government admininstration is obstructionist and not constructive in terms of managed use. It's a fundamental clash between the view that some areas should be conserved and a view that we should be free to do what we want wherever we want. Consistently seeing the view that MTB is up against "the greenies" is an exceptionally unhelpful mindset. Why can't we be "greenies" too? Plenty of guys I know who ride get a thrill out of exploration and custodianship of the natural enviroment as well as riding.

I want to ride my bike in some places. I want to walk some places without a bike trail, a wheelchair ramp and a non slip staircase put in. I want some places to be off limits to the general public so critically endangered frogs don't get wiped out by chytrid, feathertailed gliders are lesslikely to be wiped out by cats and 300 year old Xanthorrhoea don't die from Phytophthora infection. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/p-root-rot/index.html

As such I don't really want new DH cut through remnant blue gum forest. I'm happy to drive to a managed logging area, ski slope, private property or similar to ride my DH bike. If there's already a well used, accessible walking trail through that remnant blue gum forest we can ride without shredding the crap out of it - that's great.

 

[unitec]

I still ride, I just don't want MTB to fall in with the 4wd/shooting/fishing lobby. The interactions these lobby groups have with government admininstration is obstructionist and not constructive in terms of managed use. It's a fundamental clash between the view that some areas should be conserved and a view that we should be free to do what we want wherever we want. Consistently seeing the view that MTB is up against "the greenies" is an exceptionally unhelpful mindset. Why can't we be "greenies" too? Plenty of guys I know who ride get a thrill out of exploration and custodianship of the natural enviroment as well as riding.

I want to ride my bike in some places. I want to walk some places without a bike trail, a wheelchair ramp and a non slip staircase put in. I want some places to be off limits to the general public so critically endangered frogs don't get wiped out by chytrid, feathertailed gliders are lesslikely to be wiped out by cats and 300 year old Xanthorrhoea don't die from Phytophthora infection. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/p-root-rot/index.html

Some good points there. Probably not what everyone wants to hear but great anyway.
Very refreshing.

 

[Cuthbert]

I feel that many people's opinions in this thread are being misconstrued. Nobody is advocating a 'we have the right to do what the hell we want' approach. Further, everyone seems to agree that the suitability of a MTB trail in National Park (or in any other Govt regulated land for that matter) needs to be considered on a case by case basis taking into account local environmental risks, regardless of the type of trail in question. With this in mind it is unreasonable to simply prohibit DH as a matter of principal if any type of MTB track can be built to be sustainable (and we all seem to agree that they can).

It does not serve the trail advocacy debate well by land managers making decisions based on categorising riding style, and we should be steering them away from this as it will only divide the MTB community and will not prevent the construction of illegal tracks. Instead, we should be encouraging Nat Parks and other authorities to be adopting an approach based on trail technicality. A DH track is not necessarily a 5 minute speed fest with multiple lines top to bottom and with a dirty great shuttle road in the same way that an XC trail is not always a groomed track of handlebar width that is devoid of technical features. In fact, downhill sections of an 'all mountain' trail are not necessarily that much different to those found on a 'DH' track, its just that a DH track has more of them.

My fear is that if regulatory authorities adopt a management approach based on riding style, there is the potential they will develop a mindset that a track going downhill and which is technical = bad and that a trail that is predominantly cross-gradient and less technical = good. They then receive information that XC/all mountain is by far the most popular style (which is stated in the Nat Parks discussion paper, and I'd think we'd all agree it is), read the IMBA guidelines regarding trail construction gradients and see pictures of those beautiful rolling contour trails somewhere in the USA. The end result then becomes the provision of a trail without much gradient and without technical features which they think has provided the MTB community with what they want. End result is that illegal trails still get contructed because people want to ride technical trails, and with technical trails comes gradient. The DH fraternity like them to be all downhill whilst the XC/all mountain rider likes a tech decent as much as a technical climb.

In the Sydney sandstone landscapes at least the IMBA trail building 'rules of thumb' will simply not be able to be implemented due to the ledging topography, which means that even an XC trail for all riding abilities (think Manly Dam) will need to include tech sections where short, sharp gradients are encountered and will therefore need armouring in certain sections for it to be sustainable. So the sooner land managers accept and come to terms with this the better. It is our job to demonstrate to them that a technical trail (be it up or down) is not a bad thing as it can be built in a safe and sustainable manner. Just in the same way that a walking track needs to be constructed in a certain way to avoid uncontrolled erosion in steeper sections (eg a stepped profile to hold soil in place etc).

And with regard to the whole biological impact debate, we should simply be deflecting this as it could easily be demonstrated that the effects of MTBs would be no different to a walker or trail runner..... Yes, MTBs may travel further however I'm sure examples of how impacts are managed on long distance walking tracks could be given to show effective management can be achieved.

I also believe the most MTBers are environmentally aware and do care about the environment. If we didn't threads like this wouldn't get such passionate responses. We just need to make sure that in our dealing with regulatory authorities we maintain a consolidated approach and not get divided by a debate involving riding style.

 

[thecat]

. Why can't we be "greenies" too?

I believe we are, it's just the shade of green that changes.

Some of our trail builders were recently confronted and abused while building an approved trail on land that hasn't been pristine since moses wore short shorts. Thier big complaint? We had whipper snipped the grass along trail.

Were' talking a mixture of Kikuyu and Bathurst burr, both introduced weeds...


Anyway as I've stated elsewhere I firmly believe we need extremists on both sides.
we need people demanding full down hill access in every park and we need people demanding zero human access. That way they can cancel each other out and the rest of us can meet somewhere in the middle

 

[FR Drew]

a few snips from the document that are potential issues.

Proposed Policy intent
Free riding and dirt jumping infrastructure will only be allowed in regional parks and they must meet new sustainability criteria.
All other off-track cycling, including trials riding, will not be allowed in any NPWS park.

Irrespective of potential impact DH and FR are out. No horses for courses, no analysis on it's merits, no looking at what can be done sustainably to meet user need, just a closed door.

Proposed Strategy recommendations
Cross-country and all-mountain are recognised as the most appropriate styles of mountain biking in NPWS parks. Cross-country and all-mountain experiences include singletrack and management trails and may include technical challenges suiting a wide range of skill levels.
The priority for NPWS over the next 5–10 years will be to provide cross-country and all-mountain experiences rather than other styles of mountain biking.

What is appropriate comes down to implementation, not riding style. If a user need remains un-met, NPWS can fully expect that with no alternative provided they will not get user compliance and unauthorised building/riding will continue.

Far better to identify appropriate areas and build world class trails with minimal impact than stick your head in the sand and hope that people will simply cease an activity. By this approach, you have control over where, you have control over how and you are seen as working with rather than against riders.

Proposed Strategy recommendations
Preference will be given to providing new mountain biking experiences in NPWS parks by improving and modifying existing tracks rather than constructing new tracks. Any need for re-routing or widening of tracks will be considered in the environmental assessment of a prospective mountain bike experience.

Proposed Policy intent
Existing walking tracks may be designated multi-use to allow cycling and mountain biking, but works should be done to ensure the track meets best practice sustainable track standards to minimise environmental impact. Cyclists must give way to walkers on multi-use tracks.
Preferred-use tracks are permitted but must be adequately signposted to protect the safety of other users.
Multi-use tracks are preferred to avoid track proliferation, but multi-use can sometimes lead to safety risks. Tracks or short detours may be designated single-use (for cyclists only) where it is necessary to separate cyclists and other users for safety reasons.
Cyclists may be required to dismount or take other safety measures in certain areas to ensure safety for all track users and/or reduce environmental impact.

So they have zero intent to establish any "preferred new experience" mtb trails and the likely outcome is that where you will be permitted to ride will mainly be a half arsed multi use trail that wasn't originally designed for MTB use and in many ways doesn't meet rider needs and where Mr Nimby can demand that you dismount.

Sorry to seem negative, but while some access to NP's is good, this suite of policy directions is hardly what you'd classify as a win.

Re-jigging a walking trail to multi use is a recipe for fail, it always has been. On paper it appears to meet user need, but in practice this is rarely the case.

Even better they point out that other users have issues with dedicated "cycle only" trails as they "object to being excluded". Seems that only "nasty cyclists" have no rights when it comes to feeling excluded...

 

[thecat]

Re-jigging a walking trail to multi use is a recipe for fail, it always has been.

It's working well at Mt York. It may be multiuse and a rejigging of existing trails but it's still some of the best single track riding in the Blue Mts

 

[FR Drew]

Anything is better than nothing, but the requirements of walkers for a trail experience are usually very different to the requirements of riders. Throw in user conflict on top and it's a sub standard solution for both groups. Better than nothing, but nowhere near as good an outcome as purpose designed and dedicated cycle singletrack would be.