Manly Dam Works Feedback

Cambo,
Well thought out and objective viewpoints.
I hadn't taken such a close look at the elements you have pointed out so well.
After a few laps yesterday, I did notice that the track has has sections opened up as you have pointed out; and in other places some real danger added where they have attempted, it seems, to slow riders down. The descent from the new section behind Alambie is without doubt going to cause crashes over those log water bars, and the rough section down to the lab will catch many people out since constructing the steps and removing alternate lines. It is showing that despite the good intent, a lack of understanding or consultation by the council.
As you have intimated, there is a wealth of sustainable trail building knowledge available to draw upon by the council, and many fine examples to use as inspiration. A field trip to Mt Stromlo forest park by the council would be valuable, and we could offer to assist in setting up meetings with appropriate stakeholders.
I guess I should write my own letter...

looks like some one needs to get council to get a proper consultant who knows what they are talking about invovled

Jeff at Traxntrailz or the guys at World_Trail would be well worth contacting

I come from a country where "managers" only care about themselves while publicly saying what the people want to hear, and the story of Manly Dam Bike Trak sounds a bit like that. I think they know what they are doing, and they are saying it in the answer they sent you:

"Council has not provided a purpose-built mountain bike track at Manly Dam...The bike trail was never built to satisfy the demands of technically proficient riders, and was certainly never meant to attract increased mountain bike activity within Manly Dam."

This trail remains a multi-use facility (walkers, joggers, cyclists etc) ...This approach compliments ... ethic of passive recreation and bushland conservation."

Basically that tells me that their agenda is not to acomodate MTB but walkers and "pasive recreation".

Also, in the ground I have seen during the last 3 years i rode the dam, the changes that made, a once wonderfull circuit, into a low grade, pretty boring one, and even dangerous (I had 3 flat tires against the logs you mention).

In any case, personally i don't know how effective (or inefective) an eamil to these guys will be, but i will try to write one.

... but here is my feedback. Sorry for the novel...

Dear Mr Hart,
I would like to provide feedback on the recent maintenance works at Manly Dam, and on the following statements made in a recent email response from Mr Chris Buckley, Coordinator, Manly-Warringah War Memorial Park, to friend who has written on the above matter:

“The bike trail was never built to satisfy the demands of technically proficient riders, and was certainly never meant to attract increased mountain bike activity within Manly Dam.
This trail remains a multi-use facility (walkers, joggers, cyclists etc) and needs to accommodate the least technically proficient bike riders. Park Management also actively discourages mountain bike competitions and high speed racing. “

This comment raises a number of issues that must be addressed.

Inconsistency With Council’s Own Public Documents and Policy
There are elements of the above statement that seem to be directly at odds with policy evident in publicly available documents published by Council, and the current Draft Recreation Plan, for which input is currently invited.

I would draw your attention to the fact that the trail is widely known to the public - and is referred to in Council’s own Draft Recreation Plan - as the “Mountain Bike Trail”. This indicates an acceptance by the public at large and by the Council itself that the primary user population consists of mountain bikers. Council’s publications promote the availability of the trail for mountain bike use and thereby contradict the statement “was certainly never meant to attract increased mountain bike activity within Manly Dam”. With the marked increase in pent up demand from the growing popularity of the activity, it should be no surprise that use of the trail by mountain bike riders has increased significantly, and the increased popularity of the facility has brought increased management workload.

If Mr Buckley’s statements are correct, I respectfully suggest Council’s policy and practice need to adapt to the changed reality. Acknowledging and accommodating mountain bikers as the primary (but not exclusive) user group for this trail will place Council to better meets its charter with regard to promoting increases in exercise rates and improving the health of its community through promoting an increasingly popular and intensely physical activity. It will also provide the foundation for Council to manage the trail in ways that are effective, in contrast with present rangers practice which has demonstrable problems. It will also mark a return to precedent.

If Mr Buckley’s statements are incorrect, then he needs to be educated and counselled.

I suspect the latter is the case: the report Warringah Regional Multiple-Use Trails Strategy (downloaded from http://www.warringah.nsw.gov.au/council_then/doc... at 6:51pm 16 October 2009) page four contains the following acknowledgement:
“Issue:
Don’t sanitise all the trails; need to keep some challenges – use code of conduct to promote individual responsibility
Response:
A section of the Manly Dam trails was removed from the Strategy in recognition that it is a key part of the existing mountain bike trail and is not essential for multi-use as proposed in the draft Strategy. See Map 2 . In addition a standard design feature that can be used is the provision of (short) alternative trails around obstacles to provide riders with a choice of challenge.”

I note the above was the subject of no less than 24 submissions made in relation to the Strategy. Council has been clearly informed on this matter.

Failure to Accommodate User Needs Equitably
I appreciate the need to accommodate walkers on this trail, but unfortunately it seems recently that this has been at the marked expense of mountain bikers. Given the abundant availability of alternatives for walkers in the park, the promotion of their requirements to the manifest disadvantage of mountain bikers is clearly inappropriate.

The statement “...and needs to accommodate the least technically proficient bike riders” is on the surface fair and reasonable. However, the fact that the recent maintenance works fail to accommodate more proficient riders demonstrates either a lack of imagination or a lack of knowledge of the “standard design feature” recorded in the above document.

A visit to some of the dedicated cross-country mountain bike trails run by clubs will show how far ahead of Council’s own engineers and consultants they are in accommodating a variety of skill levels. For example, at the Ourimbah mountain bike park about an hour’s drive north from Sydney, and at Stromlo Forest Park at the recent Scott 24 Hour event in the ACT, there are a number of technical and steep drops. In each case, there are clearly sign-marked “A” and “B” trail options, with the “B” option providing the easier but slightly longer route around the obstacle in a manner that imposes minimal environmental footprint.

Adopting this approach would achieve the desired outcomes for all levels of trail users, accommodating walkers’ needs as well with a little thought. It would also reduce greatly the temptation to engage in unauthorised trail widening around the more challenging obstacles that is seen in numerous locations around the Memorial Park. As noted, this is not a suggestion that is new to Council. Unfortunately, it appears not to have made it into the rangers’ or consultants’ mindset.

Contrast the well informed approach to the recent erosion mitigation works running parallel to Southern Cross Drive Allambie. Here we see a long, straight, downhill section where the trail was made easier and very much faster than was necessary. It rewards riders travelling at high speeds: they can simply “bunny hop” or wheelie (“manual”) straight over the culverts and waterbars. The faster you go the easier this is. Speeds of 30 km/hr and upwards are readily achieved. This is in direct contradiction of the statement above: “Park Management also actively discourages ... high speed racing.” The irony of the situation should be obvious. The strategy and thinking that led to it must be challenged.

Further, Mr Buckley’s statement is in conflict with the rating provided on Council’s own trail map (http://www.warringah.nsw.gov.au/community/docume... downloaded at 7:12pm 16 October 2009) where the following is noted at the bottom: “Technical Ability: High to Medium”

Mr Buckley’s response ignores the simplest option of all: if you can’t see how to ride the obstacle with confidence, get off and walk.

This simply fundamental to taking responsibility for one’s own wellbeing when out on the trail. It is not hard to understand.

When starting out as a mountain biker I used to walk most of the more challenging sections of the trail. I took these sections as a challenge and measuring stick against which to mark the improvement of my skills. There are still times when I take the walking option.

In the strongest possible terms I am against the proposition that we should dumb down the track so that everybody regardless of skill levels can ride it without having to walk sections. We already have an abundance of those sorts of trails – Narrabeen Lake loop is one. Others go by the common name of “bike paths” and Council already has a strategy in place for providing more of them. Suburban streets are yet another. We neither need nor want Manly Dam to become another “bike path” and to thereby lose its uniqueness. In fact we need more trails like the way Manly Dam used to be.

Significant Deterioration in Community Consultation
Consultation with local mountain bikers and the engagement of their professional expertise in a volunteer capacity would have avoided the predictable and perverse outcome of the Southern Cross Drive erosion works. Unfortunately the present approach seems to be shutting out mountain bikers from the consultation process. Based on the available evidence, which includes:
• The above erosion mitigation works;
• Sharp-cornered steps near Wandella Rd, next to the last rocky trail descent before arriving at the Hydraulics Lab. These present a significant worsening of the injury risk to cyclists by being much too close to the line that riders take through the step-downs; and
• Log steps adjacent to Roosevelt Av and Churchill Cr, which are spaced very awkwardly for cyclists. They also radiate from the corner apex at difficult angles. These present a major fall risk, which significantly worsens in dew conditions in the early morning;
it is evident that consultants advising Council on trail maintenance have little understanding of either mountain bike dynamics or rider behaviour.

Our more senior mountain bike user population includes professionals with research, planning, assessment, construction and trail building expertise, and we have access to groups like World Trail and the International Mountain Biking Association for sustainable trail construction standards and knowledge. It does not make sense to me that Council would deliberately seek to cut itself off from this knowledge base and alienate it, yet this is what seems to be going about doing.

In addition to the failure to make the consultant’s report available for public comment, recent email from rangers to the mtbtrailinfo mailing list berated mountain bike users for continuing to use the trail when closed due to wet weather. The problem with this is twofold:
• the relevant council web page declared the trail was still open at that time
• those who have requested to be on the mailing list have a desire to be advised when not to ride the trail. They are therefore the ones least likely to disregard a trail closure notice, and know not to ride the trail when waterlogged.

A number of fellow trail users found the attitude quite offensive and condescending. I shared the writer’s frustration, but felt it showed a significant lack of thought about the intended audience and I assumed was written by a junior staffer. Most recently, the trail has been closed and no email notification was sent at all, because of staff absences. It seems to me there is a key person risk within the department that needs addressing.

There is certainly a communication problem.

Other matters that need to be raised:
• Discouraging use of trails when wet can be problematic, as many users find these conditions “fun”. Rangers don’t seem to “get” this.
• Beginners (and I was one) don’t usually appreciate the damage that riding in muddy conditions can do. This is an education issue.
• A significant number of trail users travel up to several hours in the expectation of being able to ride at Manly Dam. Expecting them to go home without doing at least some riding takes no account of human nature. Expectations must therefore be managed better through effective publicity of trail status and condition to minimise the frequency of this occurring. It should be noted that 100% compliance is probably unachievable.
• As an aside, the above three points perhaps put the onus on Council to be pragmatic and re-route the trails, and design them so they are more tolerant of adverse weather.
• Offers to rangers of assistance with the appropriate wording for education signage for the park to address education issues in an effective way that establishes rapport with users have been ignored.
• Volunteer trail maintenance days are no longer held. This used to be an excellent way for mountain bikers and Council staff to meet and understand the others’ needs, and for mountain bikers to have some input into what was being done on the trail while contributing something back to Council. This channel needs to be reopened and maintained as a matter of urgency.

I apologise for the length of this email. As you can see the issues are many and complex, and stakeholder frustration levels with the current approach are rising.

I look forward to your response in due course.

Regards,

name and address supplied

Probably right...

but if we continue to write to them, what will happen is a content analysis of all the correspondence - in which case the letter will count for multiple hits, one for each issue raised.

But you're right, it would have been better if it was short and punchy.