May 2005 Economic Appraisal - Conclusion

[andyh]

Just finished reading through the May 2005 independent Economic Appraisal of the CAAN Off Road Cycling Strategy.

It's a very long documnent so we are never going to reproduce it all here however there is real great news in the OVERALL CONCLUSION.

"On the basis of a full monetary and non monetary assesment, Option 2, the 'proposed project restricted to 75% of routes', i.e. the development of 7 family, 6 cross-country and 1 downhill throughout Northern Ireland was the preferred option."
sounds encouraging, they are saying this should happen. In the next section NEXT STAGE.

"It is the consultants recommendation that given the nature of this project, the following actions should be undertaken:

* Initial development of one of each type of route, this will help determine the monetary and non monetary benefits;
* Close consultation with all stakeholders to ensure that these routes are developed in locations that are suitable for development and meet the requirements of all interested parties."

Sounds good to me, now lets see some action on the ground !

[Tiff]

Does sound good.

Is this what you were talking about in your ''Incandescent with Rage'' post and you were just messing with us about there being terrible terrible news.

[AndyB]

The Independant economic appraisal, which has been drawn up with reference to Government guidelines (the Green Book) on appropriate use of public funds completely vindicates CAAN's approach to the development of purpose built Family, XC, and DH mtb trails in Northern Ireland. As AndyH says above the next step is to build one of each trail, there is a 'family trail' nearing completion, so bring on the XC and DH.
A.

[Tiff]

So, this building of one of each type of trail is a totally different thing to the terrible news that is spoken of in the ''Incandescent with Rage'' post.

[Mr Black]

Probably, but who knows. I'm :confused:

[kenny]

* Close consultation with all stakeholders to ensure that these routes are developed in locations that are suitable for development and meet the requirements of all interested parties.



Would stakeholders not include FS as well, have they not be consulted before, and will their answer not just be the same a gain..? A big fat no (the only word FS know)! :confused: Questions, questions, not many answers.

[Rick]

Yes but we all know what a waste of space such reports are ...

Forest Service tried to scupper this one insisting a maintenance amount of £1.60 per metre of trail was used instead of the 30p that it actually costs actually maintaining trails such as Glentress - with 200 000 visitors using it per year.

We have been here before - stuck in the mud.. it won't make any difference

- Thats probably why Andy is mad???

[mickd]

So, this building of one of each type of trail is a totally different thing to the terrible news that is spoken of in the ''Incandescent with Rage'' post.

I think the rage thing concerns the fact that the Forest Service seem to be failing to follow the last recommendation;
"Close consultation with all stakeholders to ensure that these routes are developed in locations that are suitable for development and meet the requirements of all interested parties..."

in that they don't appear to have invited CAAN or IMBA reps to recent meetings.

The news in the appraisal looks great, it just remains to be seen whether the Forest Service follows up on the conclusions.

[Mr Black]

It will happen. The FS are just dragging their heels, guys at the top trying to put it off until the old buggers get to retire and make it someone else's problem...

[Conor]

Aren't we lucky, the possibility of one XC trail, one family trail and one DH track.... monetary benfits??? It's pretty certain that the monetary benefits of a single track in a forest is going to be negliable, that's the excuse they'll use for not building any more trails.

We have to forget the economic benefits of MTBing and abandon any grand schemes, FS aren't interested. The only way to get trails is by local clubs doing it themselves. CAAN et al should be encouraging riders to club together and pressure the FS for access on a local level instead of having a pointless battle with the FS, it's not doing us, the MTBer, any good at all.

[Steveb]

Or, to put it another way:

MTBers, and the people of NI who have a right to recreate in their forests should really just give up any hope of doing so, unless they are willing to fund, plan, manage and build the facilities in the forest they need?

That sounds entirely fair.

I know, lets extend the idea: Anyone who wants to walk in our forests should first form walkers clubs and build the paths on which they walk.

We have to stop thinking that getting to ride our bikes in forests on proper trails is a luxury, it's not, it's a right. Exactly as it's a right for walkers to walk in our forests and horse riders to ride horses in our forests. Yes, like horse riders we have to be super sensitive to other users, but we still have the right: To recreate ourselves in our forests in an environmentally friendly manner that is mindful of other users. We should not have to form clubs, fund and build the facilities to do this. That is the job of FS.

[Rick]

I agree with Steve

It depends on what you are looking for..

It is easy enough to build mud trails - clear a way through to use for a while on a sunday ride till it becomes unridable and then clear a new trail.

Building a trail to last takes a lot of effort and some money - not huge but amounts but some - still do-able but needs a lot of free manpower and doesn't create a great amount of trail. We know we have done it.

The purpose of seeking to develop the Mountain bike trails as an NI project was to create enough quality trails (ie at least 20km at a site) as a start to be economic, ie sustainable bring tourism into the equation - and not least give local NI people quality trails to ride without having to go abroad!

Takes more money but has greater benefits and is the only truly sustainable way forward.

[AndyB]

We have to forget the economic benefits of MTBing and abandon any grand schemes, FS aren't interested. The only way to get trails is by local clubs doing it themselves. CAAN et al should be encouraging riders to club together and pressure the FS for access on a local level instead of having a pointless battle with the FS, it's not doing us, the MTBer, any good at all.
So, Conor, we give up the chance to have world class, professionally built,

sustainable environmentally sound trail systems in OUR forests which meet the needs of the vast majority of riders and resolve all the issues of conflict and environmental damage caused by poorly thought out fall line trails, because people like you can’t be bothered to fight for them, because you’ve sucked in all the bull**** and lies you’ve been fed by senior foresters.

I completely agree that clubs should be involved and consulted with but having trail systems built on a large scale in a reasonable period of time is just not possible with volunteers doing the work at weekends and evenings

When you start talking to landowners about building trails there are several planning stages you must go through before you turn the first sod, A concept plan, Corridor evaluations, consultation with stakeholders, micro design, broad flagging and finally, close flagging, this process insures that the areas that the trail will go through are suitable, this process could take a year with a professional consultant doing the work, it’s really easy to cut off a few branches and scrape a line down a hill, pile some mud up against a rotten log for a jump, and in six months time it’ll be a gully which people will ride beside, causing more erosion and more…..next thing you know you have something that looks like the middle section of the nationals course in Tollymore, ruts running down the fall line exposing the subsoil giving the environmentalists something to shout about, or we could get it done properly…
This is public land, we have a right to be accommodated, but we also have a huge responsibility to preserve the environment for the future


A.

[andyh]

Both types of development can exist but there seems to be a big misconception that CAAN have a pot of money they can just give to clubs. FOR THE LAST TIME THEY DON'T, potential funders want to see a strategic development, that means essentially providing areas across the whole country.

MTBrider has a great agreement with Forest Service to build trails in Belvoir, and we wouldn't be where we are today without CAAN. We also wouldn't be where we are today without the relentless commitment of a handfull of individuals who spend too much of their spare time building trails/getting funds/attending courses/sourcing tools/negotiating agreements/talking to locals/talking to media .........................

This kind of development isn't happening elsewhere, and until it does I think it's a bit rich people coming along and saying local clubs building is the only way forward just because they have been told that by someone in Forest Service.

Craigavon Lakes has a trail being built at it right now by contractors, it will have been started and finished in the time it takes us to shift 2 loads of stone.

I think that says it all really. Think !

[chris_the_sham]

someone tell me what needs said to which mps and ill do it. im crap at getting a letter together but im mouthy enough for people to listen

[andyh]

someone tell me what needs said to which mps and ill do it. im crap at getting a letter together but im mouthy enough for people to listen

good idea we need an example letter.

[andyh]

Oh yeah and another thing while I'm annoyed.

The designs for the CAAN Strategy were drawn up by Daffyd who thinks NI has massive potential to be an MTB Mecca. So if he thinks it can work that's good enough to me.

And it's good enough for the North Shore Mountain Bike Association who had him as a guest speaker at their AGM this year. I also hear he has now been asked to design some trails out there too.

Good enough for you yet ?

[AndyB]

doubters,Go and see what is being achieved in Craigavon, it's not aimed at the type of rider that uses this site but at younger people, beginners and familys but all the criteria of consultation and planning have been met and a suitable contractor chosen and they are doing a great job and it will soon be oficially opened and be a true asset to the comunity and the park ( there were 100 cyclists on it on monday, but forest service say there is no demand for mtbing) the big difference is a landowner who wanted it to happen, so they made it happen, rather than throw up obstacles at every turn.
A.

[Steveb]

Just to try to balance out the "Clubs should be doing it for themselves" arguement: Other than Club MTBrider and the Belvoir Project, what other clubs in NI are actively building sustainable trails on FS managed land with full FS written approval, or at the very least are in talks to do so?

[Rob]

Doesn't have to be clubs, an outside bussiness or a council or even the tourist boad as this is how its done in france.

Point is forestry have said they don't want to, nobody is taking this in and thats why nothing has been done. They don't have a budget to maintain trails, maybee if the NI office gave them a budget then their tune would change.

Forestry don't have a recreation budget. Its the maintanince thats in question building can be done by contractors but there is nobody to run/maintain apart from FS who don't want to.

So why hasn't CAAN advertised for others to take this on??? Theres been no adverts in local papers as far as I'm aware.

[Steveb]

Rob, your really not listening, or reading the facts!

What you talk about, or something very cimilar, very nearly happened, but FS refused to allow it on their land!

So what next? Just use private land?

[Rob]

FS are not the major land owners here, there is far better sites not owned by FS- These are owned privatley that could have far better trails both xc and dh but this was never looked at.

Localy for me there is loads of trails over the antrim hills, 60 miles plus of existing stuff over farmers land. Just look at the Hills round carnlough for a world class dh track.. Have ridden there a few times so why not go private if FS dont want??? you dont need trees best stuff i've riden is on open hillside.

you've just been leed down the garden path here as nothing is going to happen with current FS, unless a big shakeup

[AndyB]

Doesn't have to be clubs, an outside bussiness or a council or even the tourist boad as this is how its done in france. Tourist board are the main funder of the project

Point is forestry have said they don't want to, nobody is taking this in and thats why nothing has been done. They don't have a budget to maintain trails, maybee if the NI office gave them a budget then their tune would change. the figure they have come up with (0.5 million) is entirely out of line with what FC find accross the water. They also say that there may not be the demand for the trails and they won't get used so it's going to cost 10 times as much to maintain trails that dont get used ?? how so?

Forestry don't have a recreation budget. Its the maintanince thats in question building can be done by contractors but there is nobody to run/maintain apart from FS who don't want to. why can't forest service maintain the trails, the maintenance is generaly stuff that needs done in forests anyway ( windblow etc)

So why hasn't CAAN advertised for others to take this on??? Theres been no adverts in local papers as far as I'm aware. so CAAN would put out to tender a contract to maintain a trail which does not exist yet.....mmm. CAAN, a while ago put a post on this very site asking for ideas and opinions about how a DH trail in Rostrevor would be managed and maintained, or who would manage it and provide uplift, forest service had a fit when they saw it, damned if they do Damned if they don't

CAAN are doing a fantastic job, not just in MTBing but in other outdoor sports also, walking, canoeing, horse riding. They have brought in experts and consulted with landowners, had their work economically appraised several times, their only remaining stumbling block is a major landowner who only brings problems, not solutions to the table. 'Deliberately obstructive' is a phrase which springs to mind

[AndyB]

FS are not the major land owners here, there is far better sites not owned by FS- These are owned privatley that could have far better trails both xc and dh but this was never looked at. Forest service are the biggest landowner in N.I. and privately owned sites have been looked at and are still being looked at.

Localy for me there is loads of trails over the antrim hills, 60 miles plus of existing stuff over farmers land. Just look at the Hills round carnlough for a world class dh track.. Have ridden there a few times so why not go private if FS dont want??? you dont need trees best stuff i've riden is on open hillside.. I absolutley agree, these sites should be looked at too, infact a major private landowner near Larne is currently looking at building a mtb venue, all with the help of CAAN and IMBA and Dafydd Davis

you've just been leed down the garden path here as nothing is going to happen with current FS, unless a big shakeup.we'll see
A.

[Rob]

Maintaince is big issue here, our soil structure is different, softer in fact so does wear easily even the walking paths here suffer never mind the bracking bumps ruts that form.

In france there is a mini digger that flattens out ruts bumps, I know cause i meet it at bottom of one in ten at full rip talk about a change of undies.

I can see their point for the maintaince it'll be a full time job for a crew.
Think you should know this from belvoir that bench cut doesn't ware too good in our soils, point has been mentioned in past at site visits by joey/daffid that the build cost will be more expensive and also maintaince as we have poor soils. Think this should have been allowed for in the costing don't you???

[AndyB]

Maintaince is big issue here, our soil structure is different, softer in fact so does wear easily

Not according to two professors of Geomorphology who wrote a report about Gortin
I'm not sure of the exact wording but something along the lines of erosion is only a problem because of "the brutal way that forest service extract their timber"
I can show you unsurfaced full bench cut trail in Belvoir that is two Years old has had Zero maintence and is bomproof.
A.

[AndyB]

the only reason maintenance is the big stumbling block is that Forest Service want it to be the stumbling block, when CAAN find a solution they're happy with they'll find something else to stall on, but eventually we'll get there.
A.

[Mjb]

Forestry don't have a recreation budget. .

Actually they do, but they currently don't want to spend it on recreation. Quite a few people, from different groups across NI, asked the FS at the recent meetings why they weren't maintaining recreational facilities in forests. The FS answer was very unsatisfactory, essentially they want the council to take over the recreational maintainence, hmm lets pay for the same thing twice.

[andyh]

Point is forestry have said they don't want to, nobody is taking this in and thats why nothing has been done.
Oh yes we are listening, the point is forest service have a mandate to provide access and recreational facilities and we are demanding that they develop mountain bike trails, as members of the public who they serve.



Forestry don't have a recreation budget. Its the maintanince thats in question building can be done by contractors but there is nobody to run/maintain apart from FS who don't want to.


If they don't have a budget how is it they are proposing to transfer that budget to local councils when they abdicate responsibility for recreation and access.

to bad they are going to have too.

[baz]

We seem to be going around in circles on this thread, but I just wanted to make one point.

Rob, I'm not sure what your background is, but you seem to be quite sympathetic with the FS. You may have good reasons for this, but this is how I feel about it. You say:

Point is forestry have said they don't want to, nobody is taking this in and thats why nothing has been done. I don't find this acceptable from a public body. As publicly owned land which I, as a tax payer, contribute towards, I feel the forestry service should do what I want, not dictate to me what they want/prefer to do with the money I give them.

This is the same as the Roads Service refusing to fix roads because they'd rather do something else instead.

Basically, all I want is a trail development similar to 7 Stanes in Scotland, and so far, the FS has not given a satisfactory answer as to why they cannot implement it. They provide lame excuses (e.g inflated maintenance costs) and blame other parties (CAAN for one). I'm getting fed up, so what can we do?

All ideas welcome...

[Rick]

Well Baz - keep on asking and demanding and showing that the issue won't go away until it is catered for, that there is a demand.

If there is no demand why do they get annoyed at mtbers in forests on walking trails or building illegal trails - surely they are'nt there!

forest service maintenance costs - humph - we built trails in Gortin Glens along lines that had been made unrideable by motto x bikes - huge ruts and mud everywhere - that was in 2001 - 4 years on Forestry has not done any maintenance on the trail - local riders have kept it free of windblow and the odd raking and because we had already started to use sustainable trail techniques taken from IMBA books it is still an intact enjoyable section of trail to ride.

I used the listing of all political parties and sent a letter (outlining how mtb would be good for NI) to each asking that it be sent to all elected members of that party both MLA and council as they are all relevant.


Just keep on hassling - maybe by the time we are all in wheelchairs it may finally sink in that it is possible and will be of benefit to all sorts of people including forest service - imagine how happy smiling people they get in scotland saying wonderful things about the forests - paying for car parking at £1 a day - volunteering to fix trails

All possible here with a little imagination...

[tankslapper]

Not according to two professors of Geomorphology who wrote a report about Gortin
I'm not sure of the exact wording but something along the lines of erosion is only a problem because of "the brutal way that forest service extract their timber"
I can show you unsurfaced full bench cut trail in Belvoir that is two Years old has had Zero maintence and is bomproof.
A.


As the bloke in charge of Gortin for six years; and the one who got trails off- the-ground(so to speak) I'd like to comment on the Gortin case. The underlying geology at Gortin is largely Mica schist (try saying that after a few pints!); basically it's an incredibly friable stone which stands up to no 'abuse' of any sort.

Unsustainable past practices did lead to erosion problems, however current forest management practice aims to negate such damage. There is no reason for erosion in any forest outside poor or innapropriate management - the same can be said for trail building.

Good, long lasting, low maintenance and therefore low-cost trails must be the holy grail of all.


TS