Shared Use Tracks

[tasadam]

I like the idea. One big problem in Tassie, you get a lot of trees across tracks, and there is no infrastructure to keep them cleared, I remember there were a couple of large trees across the boardwalk on the Arm River track a couple of years ago, there was a significant off track divert required, yet it took more than a year for that to be cleared.
But if I were a MTB'er, I'd consider investing in a small chainsaw to keep my favourite track clear.
Even thought about it for the first couple of KM on the Black Bluff track as a walker.

Times change...

New toys

Now I just need a way to carry this...

[tasadam]

Has anyone else seen a video called "Mad if you don't" about MTBing in the north island of NZ?
Looks like serious fun. They've really got it going on over there, there's so much potential for something similar here in Tassie.
Having seen the vid, I can't believe there isn't.

[johnw]

Even thought about it for the first couple of KM on the Black Bluff track as a walker.

Not Brookes Track surely?

Times change...

Nice ... Are they standard models? Edit: Terra 30 duallie and the hardtail is Team?

[tasadam]

Yep, all that stuff as standard, I got the dualie. There's a lot of carbon!
Saved an absolute packet being ex demo but still new. Nearly half price.

Those brakes! Hadn't heard of hydraulic brakes on a pushbike before, now I've got em, and don't they feel great! A zillion to nothing in no time flat, with 1 finger.

[johnw]

Yep, all that stuff as standard, I got the dualie. There's a lot of carbon!
Saved an absolute packet being ex demo but still new. Nearly half price.

Those brakes! Hadn't heard of hydraulic brakes on a pushbike before, now I've got em, and don't they feel great! A zillion to nothing in no time flat, with 1 finger.

Yeah I know, they're brilliant - but try not to instinctively panic brake. Still getting used to the Avid Elixir 5's on my bike after about 18 months - similar to the 7's on your bike. I've nearly put myself over the bars a few times . I looked at the RRP on your bikes so that's a huge $$ saving.

My relatively humble steed after a ride on a (wide) shared use trail in the Blue Mountains. No carbon but still far more capable than it's owner:

My Trance X2.jpg (177.72 KiB) Viewed 10269 times

[tasadam]

Some decent travel you've got there on those forks!
Very pretty lines you've got there, too!

Yeah, like who'd pay $4500? We got lucky. $2.5K

I know what you mean about more capable than its owner, particularly when you start watching youtube videos. Try googling redbull mountainbike chronicles.
They're mad! Wouldn't want to be walking up a trail and have them coming down towards you - wouldn't get much warning! This is actually something that I need to think about, went for another ride today and as I was hurtling down a fairly rocky track it occurred to me that someone could be coming up on foot. At least I'm not quick in the corners yet, but I'm getting better.

Exilir 7's are great, but that I found the bolts that hold the pistons to the forks were loose Lucky they didn't fall out...
I adjusted them and now they're dynamite.

[north-north-west]

Adam, do you have any idea what you have just done to me?
I've been thinking about a MTB for over a year, but now, having seen those Apollo Terras, I won't be happy with anything less than one. Lust at first sight. And I've found a place where I can get one for 'only' $2.3K. Now, to earn the money for it . . .

[tasadam]

Adam, do you have any idea what you have just done to me?
I've been thinking about a MTB for over a year, but now, having seen those Apollo Terras, I won't be happy with anything less than one. Lust at first sight. And I've found a place where I can get one for 'only' $2.3K. Now, to earn the money for it . . .

$2.3K for the Terra 30? That's $200 less than I paid, a great buy!

Or if you want a hard tail, consider the bike my wife got -
Normally $4499

This one at $1900

Strangely, the Terra 20 is also at $1900 there...

Factory links - Terra 20 and Terra 30 so you can compare.

But, NNW, you're going to need something like this to carry the timtams!

[north-north-west]

It gets better. When I got to the shop they had only one left and it was a 'Red Spot Special' at $2009. Plus pedals. Which is still a good deal. Nice little bike, although way too fancy for the riding I'll be doing. Be good for the leg muscles.

I don't take TimTams out bush, except during snowcamps. They're best straight out of the fridge.

[enjois]

I live up in far north Queensland (Port Douglas) and many of our trails up here are shared use. In my time walking or MTBing I haven't had any close calls with other users and, although I'm sure they have happened, haven't heard of any accidents or complaints. All trails are marked as shared use and most parties are respectful of the rules although walkers usually just step straight to the side when they see a rider.

I think it is important to realise that many riders are not interested in ripping down hill as fast as possible but are using their bike as a means of exploring national parks and protected areas. Share used tracks are not as well designed as specific MTB tracks and most downhill riders or those wanting to go hard on their bikes would happily use these over shared use tracks. I usually only go hard on fire trails and 4wd tracks, and when on shared use tracks I am usually using the downhill sections to relax as there is always more climbing shortly after!

Although not all tracks are suited to shared use I think is important to provide trails that MTB'ers can legally use as, in my opinion, they have just as much right to enjoy our national parks and protected areas as anyone else. Plus another advantage in the far north where the vegetation grows so quickly - without MTBérs regularly using the trails many of them would become nearly impassable within a year or so unless the Queensland Parks were regularly in their clearing the vegetation.

[steveh72]

Thredo village is an excellent example of walking and MTB living together whilst strictly not shared tracks, the tourism in summer for both walkers and bikes seems to be quite strong.

I also note that the ski fields are used as both walking tracks and mtb tracks in summer.

I think this is an excellent suggestion well done sbs

Cheers

Steve

[Nuts]

But why not also encourage bridle trails and facilities for rock climbers/paragliders etc. If Tasmania had an integrated plan they could even work together with NZ to bring more people to the region.

It's a good idea sbs, lots of activities and potential national park supporters are excluded by 'easy' (imo) not particularly smart blanket legislation be it on certain activities, in certain states, parks, tracks etc.. This rather than the effort needed to explore just how these things Could be made to work. NZ parks seem to have developed the concept, not much imagination is needed.

Even some of the more controversial activities (eg hunting, 4wd..) don't have to necessarily destroy the experience for walkers. Instead of hysteria and all-or-nothing 'selfishness' why not Expect managers to examine each park, road, track on an individual basis. If there is no good reason to exclude potential users (above the damage even walkers can cause) then they should be given serious consideration. Personally, I'm not that interested in some of these activities but rather than unsustainable funding or even funding for 'maintenance', it would surely be better to use these other groups (and their resources). This at odds with those quick to dismiss anything that is outside of their interest. Over-sensitive, alarmist reaction with a blind scramble for references that support their position. (ie.. not much different to the current model, just a shift in attitude ..more closely aligned to the ideal of shared public space).

There might be Very Good reasons to exclude a particular use from a defined area, fair enough. If those reasons are examined and defined for a particular area then the managers job (to accommodate the people side of parks) is done.

[stepbystep]

There might be Very Good reasons to exclude a particular use from a defined area, fair enough. If those reasons are examined and defined for a particular area then the managers job (to accommodate the people side of parks) is done.

Without doubt.

I feel many of our land managers feel hamstrung by a level of beurocracy above them. Some real political intent and positive ideas are needed. Unfortunately it seems public servants and pollies are too busy jumping at shadows to look to the horizon.

[maddog]

Even some of the more controversial activities (eg hunting, 4wd..) don't have to necessarily destroy the experience for walkers... Over-sensitive, alarmist reaction with a blind scramble for references that support their position.

At this point in time, the conservation movement is under concerted attack from a range of special interest groups, who are succeeding in having legislation favourable to their interests passed very easily. At the same time the conservation movement is finding itself increasingly sidelined on many issues that are not in some way iconic (eg Whales, Tasmanian Forestry, Global Warming?, etc).

Some activities such as recreational 4WD use have the potential to cause considerable damage, most unlike the trivial damage caused by bushwalkers, to areas that are presently managed for conservation and low impact recreational purposes. Other activities though no doubt environmentally benign (such as recreational hunting), have the potential to destroy the amenity of an area for other users (such as bushwalkers and families). In regards to the latter issue, the scramble for references of the alarmists was largely conducted to counter the nonsense 'environmental benefits' propaganda of the shooting lobby. Contradicting the flawed 'science' of the lobbyists with evidence is an important contribution to public debate.

If changes are to occur, the results will be more balanced if a conservative approach to change is adopted, and the expert land managers are properly able to influence outcomes. I suspect in the current political climate this is unlikely to occur.

So be careful what you wish for.

Cheers

[Nuts]

I'd have to admit M'dog, I have little interest in politics, as soon as someone puts their head in the sand i'm out... In that case it is of more concern that there will never really be any 'resolution'. In that case the interests of 50,000 potential park users may (or not) have been represented clearly by lobyists but what do they come up against? Nobody, never, no matter how marginal the wilderness status, no matter how little has been done to manage feral animals.. I doubt, in fact it Really matters (to the far right of either side) whether shooting has any beneficial or detrimental effect on feral populations at all.

Anyhow, I also doubt that is a key motivation for sbs's post.
With other access (thinking MTB, perhaps shock..horror..4wd and motorised bikes) The closer wilderness is to civililisation, I'd agree- shared use should very much be considered as a way forward. Not a call for increasing development, just to forget the politics and move to a more intelligent design that will work for as many as possible. Take advantage of National parks. The intrinsic value may be enough for many of us but is that enough to ensure long term protection.

[maddog]

Not a call for increasing development, just to forget the politics and move to a more intelligent design that will work for as many as possible. Take advantage of National parks. The intrinsic value may be enough for many of us but is that enough to ensure long term protection.

Then why not call for increasing development?

If of the main issues facing National Parks is insufficient budgets for the area of land they are having to manage, I doubt a few mountain bikers, 4x4 enthusiasts, or shooters will help much with with this problem. Strategic development however, by raising funds or reducing costs, could help.

How about the resumption of logging in areas of marginal conservation value? That is, these areas could be returned to Forestry management, and the range of recreational pursuits could increase, consistent with the land management purpose. National Parks would no longer have to find the funds for the management of these areas.

If addition, why not allow the development of luxury accommodation, etc, to the edge of but within National Parks? Many Parks (e.g. Byron Bay, Mount Warning, Mount Barney, Palm Beach, the Blue Mountains, Lamington, etc) are surrounded by expensive hotels, and existing infrastructure. In many cases it would be fair to say that business essentially make money off an attraction they do not, in any meaningful way, contribute to the cost of running. In nature such a strategy would be called parasitic, in politics it would be called the privatisation of profits and socialisation of losses. As in many cases the infrastructure already exists (eg buildings, roads, electricity networks) - small areas just need to be leased out by National Parks and exploited by the lessees to its full potential. This would bring 'Wilderness' closer to the indoors types, who would no longer be excluded. While I'm sure such a move would be objected to by the owners of the existing eco-tourist ventures in the surrounding area, the money raised could then be used to ensure long term protection of a public asset.

Cheers

[Nuts]

I guess the opportunity was to grab Any land and worry about managing it afterwards. Perhaps it will never reach that stage without a more reliable funding source?
Personally I don't see any real need other than to increase general interest in parks.. but then where does that leave a user-pays system.. 'everyone' wanting access, even to the most obscure wilderness...

(they are some nice looking bikes btw.. )