cradle of humankind world heritage siteprojects.gibb.co.za/portals/3/projects/201204 ch...

GIBB (Pty) Ltd Reg. 1992/007139/07

Head Office: Johannesburg, South Africa

14 Eglin Road, Sunninghill, 2191 Tel: +27 11 519 4600 Fax: +27 11 807 5670

Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site

FEASIBILITY STUDY TO DETERMINE THE NEED AND DESIRABILITY, DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF DEDICATED

MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS IN THE CRADLE OF HUMANKIND WORLD HERITAGE SITE

19 October 2012 J31265/A/200

Construction cost estimate for full scope October 2012 - Page 1

FEASIBILITY STUDY TO DETERMINE THE NEED AND DESIRABILITY, DESIGN

SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF DEDICATED MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS IN THE CRADLE OF HUMANKIND WORLD HERITAGE SITE

CONTENTS

Chapter Description Page

1 INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 Study Aim and Objectives 3

1.2 Study Area 4

2 STATUS QUO ASSESSMENT 6

2.1 Literature Review 6

2.2 Existing Facilities 7

2.3 Surveys 8

2.3.1 On-line Questionnaire 8

2.3.2 Traffic Counts 8

2.3.3 GPS Cycled Surveys 9

2.4 Evaluation of Existing Road Reserve and Draft Design Parameters 9

2.5 Environmental Review 10

2.6 Stakeholder Consultation 11

2.6.1 Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport 11

2.6.2 Other Government Departments 11

2.6.3 Public Consultation 11

2.7 Conclusion on Physical, Technical and Legal Feasibility 12

3 SUSTAINABLE TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES 12

4 PROPOSED TRAIL SECTIONS 13

4.1 Routes 13

4.2 Supporting Infrastructure 15

4.3 Skills Park 15

5 COSTING 18

5.1 Construction Costs 18

5.1.1 Cost per kilometre of MTB trail 18

5.1.2 Overall cost of MTB trail design and construction 19


5.2 Maintenance Costs 20

5.3 Conclusions on Costs Estimates 21

6 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION 22

7 MAINTENANCE 22

7.1 Maintenance Team Training Requirements 22

7.2 Equipment 23

7.3 Maintenance Schedule 24

8 MANAGEMENT 25

8.1 Institutional Requirements 25

8.2 Funding 26

8.3 Management Functions 29

8.3.1 Planning and designing a successful system wide trail plan 29

8.3.2 Stakeholder participation and partnerships 31

8.3.3 Managing Environmental Impacts 31

8.3.4 Managing User Conflict 32

8.3.5 Safety and Risk Management 32

8.3.6 Marketing 32

8.3.7 Monitoring and Evaluation 33

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34

9.1 Conclusions 34

9.2 Recommendations 34

ANNEXURES Annexure A: Layout Plan and Slope Analysis Drawing No J31265/Lay-001/00 Annexure B: 2011 CSA MTB - Event Organizers Regulations Annexure C: Cost Estimates (Not included in Public Document)


1 INTRODUCTION

Arcus GIBB (Pty) Ltd was appointed by the Management Authority of the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site (COHWHS) to undertake a feasibility study to determine the need and desirability, design specifications and construction requirements for the future construction of dedicated mountainbike (MTB) trails in the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site. The appointment is for Phase 1 of the project only, with the aim to investigate the feasibility of creating a core system of sustainable mountain bike trails within the existing road reserves of the study area, as part of a broader tourism initiative to address the demand for recreational cycling activities. The study should establish best practice and provide guidance for implementation of trails (Phase 2).

1.1 Study Aim and Objectives

The development of MTB trails is seen as a logical extension to the existing network of road cycle lanes in the COH WHS, in response to the demand for recreational cycling activities in the COH WHS. One of the aims of the project is for the core trail system to act as a catalyst for further supporting trail loops on adjoining private property. The core trail system should be accessible to the wider MTB community, and support the creation of a cycling destination of choice in the area, with direct benefits to surrounding stakeholders and communities. Benefits to the surrounding stakeholders and communities may include a positive knock on effect i.t.o. opportunities for supporting cycling infrastructure such as overnight accommodation, cycle maintenance opportunities and a safe trail for use by local residents and learners that may use bicycles to commute to school or work in the area. The study also aims to develop guidelines for sustainable trail design, construction, maintenance and signage to establish a “standard” for MTB trail development in protected areas. The Terms of Reference lists the following study objectives: a. Investigate the need and desirability of providing a dedicated core MTB trail system with

provision for limited commuter use where appropriate in the road reserves as part of the wider green tourism approach for the COH WHS;

b. Investigate the physical, technical and legal requirements for the creation of MTB trails in the above Provincial road reserves.

c. Engage with property owners, cyclists (MTB and Road) and other Government Agencies to obtain their views on the above provision of MTB trails in provincial road reserves.

d. Undertake a survey of cyclists (Road and MTB) presently utilising the COH WHS for recreational cycling to understand the existing use patterns and obtain views on the possible future use of these trails.

e. Undertake a survey of existing MTB trails and MTB parks and facilities within the study area with a view to investigate possible links between these areas.


f. Investigate the feasibility of the above proposed core trail with a focus on a number of

routes linking existing areas of tourism infrastructure development (Maropeng, Sterkfontein, Van Gaalen, Kingskloof, Baily Property and Krugersdorp Nature Reserve)

g. Funding options – self-sustaining income from services provided to the wider cycling community and income from events

Phase 1 (this study) in turn was carried out in two stages, namely

• Stage 1: Status quo assessment - determining need for and desirability of providing MTB trails, and determining the physical, technical and legal feasibility

• Stage 2: Investigating and ranking of routes for implementation, and providing guidance for implementation.

Objectives a) to e) above was addressed in the detailed Stage 1 status quo assessment, with the results documented in a comprehensive report titled “Status Quo Report: Trails and Existing Facilities, Road Reserve Details and Plans and Outcome of Consultation”. This report (Stage 2) addresses objectives f) to g) and should be read in conjunction with the above Status Quo Report. For ease of reference however, the conclusions of the Status Quo Assessment are included again in Section 2. Arcus Gibb acknowledges the assistance of a wide range of individuals, organisations and stakeholders actively involved in this feasibility study through the consultative process providing inputs and comments that contributed to this final feasibility report. Appreciation is also expressed for the advice provided by the COH WHS (Project Manager and Project Steering Committee members), bike riders and participants in this study.

1.2 Study Area

The Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site is situated about 50 kilometres northwest of Johannesburg, South Africa in the Gauteng province. The extent of the study area is shown in Figure 1.1. The majority of the land in the study area is in private ownership while the provincial road reserves and the Maropeng Visitor Centre site is owned by Government.

ll

#

#

R560

R560

R512

N14

R512

Malibongw

e

D400

N14

D540

D1701

D1027

D1496

D10

1

Hendrik PotgieterBeyers Naude D374

R563

R563

CRADLE OFHUMANKIND

WORLD HERITAGE SITE

LANSERIA

Hartbeespoort Dam

N1

D400

R24

N14

N4

SterkfonteinCaves

D374

Maropeng

E

Scale : 1:150 000

1 0 1 2 30.5Kilometers

Figure 1.1 : Study Area

Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site Mountain Bike Trail Feasibility Study

Legend

Maropeng

Sterkfontein Caves

Lanseria Airport

#

#

l

World Heritage Site

Hartbeespoort Dam

Freeway N14 / N1

District Roads

Major Rivers

Main Roads


2 STATUS QUO ASSESSMENT

This section summarises the findings of the Stage 1 Status Quo Assessment, documented in more detail in a separate report. The first stage of the study included a comprehensive assessment of the status quo, to better understand what the current situation is in terms of demand for such facilities, and opportunities and constraints in terms of potential supply of such facilities. This report documented the salient facts extracted from

• reviews of previous planning reports and available best practice information, key regulatory and policy documents

• discussion with COHWHS Management Authority officials • surveys (on site traffic counts, an internet questionnaire and observation and

measurement of current road reserve conditions on site by way of GPS and video surveillance) and

• consultation with various authorities and stakeholders, including the public It described the existing trails and facilities, an assessment of the road reserves by means of detail plans, and detailed the outcomes of consultation with Government Departments and key stakeholders.

2.1 Literature Review

The review of the regulatory and legislative requirements indicated that cyclists are prohibited from using the sidewalks, as these are for exclusive pedestrian use, unless a portion of the sidewalk is demarcated as an exclusive or shared cycle way. Pedal cycles are included in the definition of vehicular traffic, entitled to full use of the road space. Cyclists are however subject to certain conditions, such as riding in single file, and overtaking restrictions. However where dedicated cycle lanes (marked by the appropriate regulatory road markings and signage) are provided, cyclists may not use any other portion of the road and other vehicles may not use the cycle lane. Gauteng’s walking and cycling policy is mainly focused on road cycling, but it is envisaged that the type of MTB trails envisaged in this study will be classified as a Class I Cycle Road (separated from the road) or where this is not possible, a Class II cycle road (separated from the road by a narrow buffer strip). There may also be instances where the trails may join existing road cycle lanes (Class III – on the road surface, demarcated and signed for exclusive use of cyclists). Previous planning (2001 Roads Infrastructure Master Plan, 2001 Tourism Master Plan and 2006 Traffic Calming Master Plan) supports increased provision of cycling facilities in general, but does not contain particular recommendations for MTB facilities. The Gauteng Strategic Road Network Review (2010) project prioritises the more strategic provincial roads and as none of the roads in the study area are likely to be upgraded further in the foreseeable future, the provision of MTB trails in the road reserve would not negatively impact on future plans for these district roads.


The International Mountain Bicycling Associations (IMBA) MTB Trails Best Practice and Design Principles were adopted as the standard to be implemented, should the creation of MTB trails be determined to be feasible. The road reserves were therefore assessed with these principles in mind. The key sustainability criteria to be met, for trails to be deemed feasible, are that trails should:

• Be erosion resistant • Require minimal maintenance and re-routing • Have minimal impact on the environment and natural systems and • Meet the needs of end users.

A summary of sustainable trail requirements and best practice contained in the IMBA guides was provided.

2.2 Existing Facilities

The Terms of Reference indicated that during the 2010-11 season, more than nine major MTB events ranging from single day to multi day events were held in the COH WHS and approximately 7000 MTB riders participated in these events. The team developed a detailed composite map that shows all the known MTB trails located both on private property and along the road verges of some sections of some of the provincial roads in the study area (none of which has been approved officially by the COHWHS MA except on a temporary basis for specific events). This detailed map has been provided to the COHWHS MA and was used for planning purposes in this study but it was not included in this report for distribution to the general public. The MA was concerned that by making this map available to the general MTB cycling public, it may encourage further uncontrolled use of these trails by increasing number of cyclists that may not have been aware of the existence of these temporary trails. There was also a concern that it may increase trespassing on private land, which will do little to improve relationships between cyclists and land owners. A general plan showing known MTB trail areas, existing road cycle lanes and places of interest pertaining to cycling (such as known parking areas for people leaving their cars to cycle), has therefore been included. No known skills parks were identified in the area although the management of Maropeng expressed interest in the creation of such a facility on the site, to enhance the tourism and leisure offering and activities of the destination. A database of hotels, restaurants, places of accommodation, and tourism attraction sites was also considered. Existing facilities tend to be concentrated towards the south of the study area, in the vicinity of the existing road cycle lanes.


2.3 Surveys

2.3.1 On-line Questionnaire

An on-line (internet based) survey was developed to understand the current MTB usage in the study area and to understand the needs and expectations of mountain bike users and other stakeholders. A total of 168 responses were received, of which 89% described themselves as MTB’ers. 15% of respondents identified themselves as land owners or residents. All landowners / residents who responded also participated as either MTB or road cyclists or both. 31% of respondents who described themselves as MTBers also identified themselves as road cyclists. This may be because the MTBer’s currently cycle on-road in the COHWHS, but could also indicate a number latent demand of road cyclists who may switch to MTB if the appropriate facilities are provided. 69% of the respondents indicated that they are either experienced or very experienced riders. Further, 89% indicated that they cycled at least twice a week in the last four months, with approximately 17% of cyclists having cycled at least two days per week in the COHWHS. The preferred length of ride during week days varies between 15 and 70 km or 1 to 3 hours with 30 km or 2 hours being the most popular single option. The preferred length of ride during weekends varies between 20 and 120 km or 2 to 6 hours with 40 km being the most popular single option. The most popular riding time for the weekend is 3 and 4 hours with each receiving equal number of respondents (51 or 39% respectively of those who did respond to this question). The survey included a series of questions to gauge which features were important to enjoyment of MTB trails in general, and if these were to be provided in the road reserves in particular. These were taken into consideration in the second stage of the study. A key finding was that most respondents (even beginners and less experienced riders) enjoy a more challenging trail system, a sentiment echoed during the public consultation. Care would therefore need to be taken to ensure the trails comply with the sustainability criteria of meeting the needs of end users. Although the project intention is to provide a dedicated mountain bike trail for beginner/intermediate riderssufficient technical trail features can be incorporated in the detailed trail design. The incorporation of technical terrain features along the trail as a rider’s choice aims to make the trail more interesting and challenging. This trail should provide a link up to more challenging trails on private property that is publicly accessible.

2.3.2 Traffic Counts Classified vehicle traffic counts (mountain bikes, other cyclist, light motor vehicles, and heavy motor vehicles) were undertaken on Saturday, 05 May 2012 and Sunday, 06 May 2012, from 05:00 – 18:00, at 7 key intersections. As it was recognized at the outset of the study that the variability of cycling traffic is probably such that a single count on a Saturday and a single count on a Sunday, will not necessarily be representative of a typical Saturday or Sunday’s cycling traffic, the results are used only as a


broad indication of the order of magnitude of cycling activities in relation to vehicle traffic on a weekend. Overall, more road cyclists were counted compared to mountain bikers on the roads in the study area. This can be expected as there are fewer (known) MTB trails and those that are used would be found off-road and on private property and the intersection counts may not necessarily have picked up all these riders. On average the roads in the COHWHS carry moderate traffic volumes over weekends, i.e. up to 2000 motorised vehicles from 05:00 am to 18:00 on the busiest links (excluding the N14), with weekend peak hour two-way link counts ranging from 200 to 400 vehicles per hour. The busiest cycle links carried in the order of up to 900 cyclists during the 13hour period.

2.3.3 GPS Cycled Surveys A GPS-assisted site survey was done by driving and cycling through the study area, using GoPro HD video cameras providing real-time footage of the study area. The purpose was to get a realistic interpretation of the coordinated data (elevation, longitude and latitude) of the proposed MTB routes relative to the existing road coordinated data, the existing roads (by vehicle) as well as the existing off-road trails (by MTB) and within the road reserve. The data has been incorporated into the detail drawings of the road reserve and were taken into consideration when assessing the feasibility of and ranking alternative routes or sections of trails.

2.4 Evaluation of Existing Road Reserve and Draft Design Parameters

The road reserve widths vary between 20 and 30m from the centreline but there are sections that have fences located as close as 10m from the road centreline. The road reserves indicated on the drawings are as physically measured on site (i.e. road centreline to fence) and the exact widths, positions and official widths need to be confirmed by the Contractor during the construction phase. The trails can for the most part be located between the road reserve boundaries and the edge of road, keeping a generous buffer where possible and following a meandering path utilising the full extent of the available space. Where space is limited or where there are impassable obstructions such as large river crossings, MTB trails can be directed back onto the existing roads for short sections in order to bypass the said obstructions before deviating back onto the dedicated MTB trails. Trail design and sight distances will need to be optimised at points where the MTB trails enter, exit or cross the roads and intersections. Signage will be required to inform all other road users of the potential use of roadway sections by MTB’ers entering or exiting the roadway. The existing conditions in the road reserve can accommodate a combination of singletrack and wider sections to accommodate passing. For the most part, the terrain is flat to gently rolling, with the road reserve topography following that of the road fairly closely. There are however sections where the road traverses high fills and deep cuts (up to approximately 5m). Where the sustainable design parameters can be adhered to, the MTB trails can be directed up onto the high fills and down into the deep cuts in an attempt to move the MTBs away from the roadway and to create a more pleasurable mountain biking experience. In instances where the trails become more technical as a result of the high fills or deep cuts, early warning features such as tightening or constricting of the trail alignment and provision of warning signage may be required to warn MTB’ers of the more technical terrain ahead.


Vegetation within the road reserve is predominantly long grass, but ranges from loose sand / gravel to thick bush and trees. Where the trails traverse thick bush, additional clearing will be required. Ideally, removal of existing vegetation should be kept to a minimum in this environmentally sensitive area unless it consists of exotic or invasive vegetation. The management of grasslands (general vegetation within the road reserves) in the study area requires possible burning as a management option. This needs to be undertaken in conjunction with adjoining property owners. Layout and longitudinal section drawings have been compiled for each road forming part of this feasibility study.

2.5 Environmental Review

The environmental sustainability and long term impact of the proposed formalisation of MTB Trails is key in determining the viability and/ or feasibility of the project. Economic, social and ecological factors need to be considered in the decision-making process. The environmental review of the proposed project therefore evaluated the potential impacts of the project based on these sustainable development parameters. An evaluation of current environmental legislation has also been undertaken in order to determine if any activities of the project may trigger an environmental authorisation process under the National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) and associated EIA Regulations, 2010.. The ecological sensitivity of the proposed project site includes the river systems, biodiversity and vegetation that occur within the boundaries of the CoHWHS. It is concluded that although the proposed trails are within the road reserve, which is a disturbed natural environment, there needs to be strict control and management of the potential environmental impacts arising from the construction/ formalisation of the mountain bike trails. The water crossings need to be constructed and designed in a manner such that there will be no impact on the flow and quality of the river or watercourse. This implies that the foundations for the crossing must be located away from the river banks and the bridge/ crossing platform suspended over the watercourse. This activity (construction of trail structures over watercourses) should not trigger the need for a Water Use Licence by the Department of Water Affairs, however it will require an environmental authorisation process to be undertaken in terms of GN R544 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, promulgated in 2010 under the National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998). The authorisation process will require a Basic Assessment to be undertaken, which may require a period of between 6 -8 months prior to final submission of the authorisation application to the decision-making authority DEA. In the short term, this requirement can be negated if the trail is diverted back onto the road and therefore crosses the road on the existing bridge. The trail structure can therefore be phased as a future feature, to be implemented after compliance with the above regulations. Being classified as a World Heritage Site, the Cradle of Humankind has a very high heritage value. As such, the CoH is deemed a paleontological and archaeological hot spot, and proper route alignments will need to be undertaken to limit any impact on heritage resources. Should proposed trails require a detailed Heritage Impact Assessment to ensure that any potential activity will not damage or degrade any archaeological and/ or paleontological resources, the responsible Heritage Agency will be contacted for guidance. A Heritage Impact Assessment


will indicate whether a permit application process would need to be followed to allow the proposed trails to pass through the registered fossil sites and areas of high heritage sensitivity.

2.6 Stakeholder Consultation

2.6.1 Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport

The concept has been discussed with officials of the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport (GDRT) and typical intersection layouts, indicating provision for cyclists and early warning systems for motorists (speed tables, speed bumps, road markings and signage) were submitted to GDRT for final comment. The GDRT responded in writing indicating no objections in principle to the proposed MTB trails but advised that no funding for implementation or maintenance is available and alternative sustainable funding sources would therefore need to be found should the project be implemented.

2.6.2 Other Government Departments The Department of Water Affairs for the Gauteng Southern Region was consulted to determine the need for a Water Use Licence application and it was confirmed not necessary as long as there is no impact (as defined) on the river bed and banks of the river. The Northwest Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism (DEDECT) was also consulted and advised that the EIA Regulations be used to assess and determine the need for an environmental authorisation. Having considered the scope of the project, it was evaluated that since all work (construction of Mountain Bike Trails) will be undertaken within the road reserve, it would not trigger any listed activities in terms of the National Environmental Management Act EIA Regulations of 2010 unless additional trail structures will be provided within or near watercourses. A registered archaeologist was consulted to advise on the process to be followed regarding the heritage issues and possible permit requirements. The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) was also consulted to ensure that the CoH WHS Management Authority would be aware of the requirements by SAHRA should any heritage resources be affected by the proposed trails.

2.6.3 Public Consultation Public cconsultation took place through an online survey and questionnaire, and two public meetings. A third stakeholder engagement was held at the request of interested community members who could not attend the two planned meetings. Invitations to participate were sent to all stakeholders on the COHWHS MA database (approximately 900), and by means of flyers handed out during the traffic surveys and the Honda Mountain Trophy MTB event at Maropeng. From the consultation process, it is clear that there is generally positive support for the project, shown by both private property owners as well as mountain bikers alike, but meaningful on-going engagement will be critical to the success of the project. Improved and dedicated communication structures and forums could be used and community members indicated willingness to facilitate further engagement.


Increased mountain bike activities are seen as beneficial in terms of safety in numbers, improved road safety by reducing conflict and congestion between vehicular traffic, MTB and road cyclists competing for the same road space, curbing unmanaged trespassing on private property, increased tourism and business opportunities, and less negative impact on the environment and the heritage resources of the area. However an increase in MTB cyclists will require improved management of cycling activities as a whole. The poor cycling behaviour of a small percentage of riders that disobey the rules of the road, and create a safety hazard for all road users, is a reality that needs to be better managed. It became clear from the public consultation that the issue of management of MTB and road cycling cannot be separated and although the focus of this feasibility study is on off-road trails for MTB cyclists only, management of road cycling cannot be ignored and will need to be addressed by the COHWHS (MA).

2.7 Conclusion on Physical, Technical and Legal Feasibility

The findings from the Status Quo Assessment seemed to indicate physical, technical and legal feasibility, with no fatal flaws with respect to these aspects being identified. It is recommended that the Status Quo Report be approved, in order to proceed with second stage of the study. The second stage of the study include further development of the generic design of the trails, focussing on estimating the cost of implementation and management (including maintenance) of the proposed trail system, to establish the capital and on-going operational funding requirement, as this is considered to be a key determinant of feasibility.

3 SUSTAINABLE TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES

Although the Terms of Reference envisaged the development of sustainable trail design guidelines as part of Stage 2 of the Study, it was found that determining these early on in the project was a pre-requisite to ensure the evaluation of the existing road reserve considers all the necessary factors that would make the trails sustainable. Section 3.3 of the Status Quo Report contains the key guidelines and these are therefore not repeated here. The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) principles to achieve trail sustainability constitute the key guideline referred to above. Typical drawings have been included in Annexure C of the Status Quo report.


4 PROPOSED TRAIL SECTIONS

4.1 Routes

The starting point in determining potential trail sections was to consider the location of existing facilities in the study area. Section 2.2 summarises the findings of the existing facilities in the Study area. The major known mountain bike trail areas in and around the COHWHS, road cycle lanes and places where both MTB and road cyclists are known to park, (Figure 4.2 of the Status Quo Report) were used as a basis. The Terms of Reference required that the focus of the assessment should be on the following routes linking existing areas of tourism infrastructure development:

a. Maropeng as a MTB activity node b. Maropeng as a venue for MTB events c. Maropeng as a venue for skills training and pump track d. Routes from Maropeng to Sterkfontein and back to Maropeng as part of a green

tourism initiative – fossil route by bike e. Routes from Maropeng to Van Gaalen MTB trails – linking with existing trails f. Routes from Maropeng to Kingskloof – linking with existing trails g. Routes from Maropeng to Bailey Property – future link trail to new facilities h. Routes from Maropeng to Krugersdorp NR – linking with existing trails

The above routes were used as a starting point and loops of a suitable cycling distance (from the preference of survey respondents) were identified. The next step was to decide whether the MTB trails should be provided on sections where there are no cycle lanes, i.e. extend the total distance of cycle facilities in the study area, or in parallel to the existing facilities. As MTB’ers can travel on both off-road trails and on the road cycle lanes, it was initially thought that the possibilities for combinations of routes would be maximised by initially providing MTB trails on sections where there are not road cycle lanes, such as the link between Sterkfontein and Maropeng. This link, the road reserve being fairly open, is also thought to be less costly to implement relative to some of the other routes, and existing facilities at both Sterkfontein and Maropeng exist to support this route. However at the public consultation meetings it was pointed out that providing the MTB trails in parallel to the road cycle lanes have the following benefits:

• safety in numbers – the more cyclists (road and MTB) are concentrated in one area, the less potential for incidence of crime targeting isolated cyclists;

• improved road safety by reducing conflict and congestion between vehicular traffic, MTB and road cyclists competing for the same road space;

• more interest and support from established businesses which are located mostly around the sections that has road cycle lanes, will improve the likely sustainability and success of the trails.

The proposed trail sections are indicated in Figure 4.1. The estimated cost for construction of each of these trails is detailed in Section 5.

ll

#

#

#

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H!H

!H

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

R560

R560

R512

N14

R512

Malibongw

e

D400

N14

D540

D1701

D1027

D1496

D10

1

Hendrik PotgieterBeyers Naude D374

R563

R563

CRADLE OFHUMANKIND

WORLD HERITAGE SITE

LANSERIA

Hartbeespoort Dam

N1

D400

R24

N14

N4

SterkfonteinCaves

Wondercave

D374

Kingskloof

Van Gaalen

Maropeng Kloofzicht

Valverde Country Hotel

Toadbury Hall

Rhino and LionNature Reserve

Teak Place

(Closed)

KrugersdorpGame Reserve

NorthernFarms

Phambili

SomethingCountry

Avianto

Proposed Mountainbike Trail Sections Figure 4.1

Only places of interest withco-ordinates provided in thedatabase are shown

Scale : 1:150 000 (A3)

1 0 1 2 30.5Kilometers

Legend

#0 Supporting_Facility

!H Points

Places of Interest

# Maropeng

# Sterkfontein Caves

# Wondercave

l

Lanseria Airport

Phase_1

Phase_2

Phase_3

Phase_4

Phase_5 & Skills Park Maropeng

Phase_6

Phase_7

Freeway N14 / N1

Main Roads

Secondary

District Roads

major rivers

World Heritage Site

Hartbeespoort Dam

E

L

BA

E

F

C

G

D

J

K

H


4.2 Supporting Infrastructure

The on-line questionnaire asked respondents what supporting infrastructure they would like to see provided. Table 4.1 indicates the responses received. Table 4.1: Supporting Infrastructure Preferences Supporting Infrastructure % of Responses Toilets / Showers 68%

Secure Car Parking 90%

Bike Cleaning Areas 28%

Restaurants, Coffee Bars 78%

Family Friendly Facilities 50% It can be seen that safe and secure parking is the most important requisite, with restaurants and coffee bars and toilets/showers following. Only half of respondents indicated the need for family friendly facilities, such as kids’ playgrounds, to spend time before or after rides. Bike cleaning areas were also not a high priority. There was an appeal for at least a basic menu of food, snacks and drinks (including alcohol) to be available, as well as good quality coffee. Some respondents indicated braai facilities would be enjoyed. Secure parking, restaurant facilities and toilets exists at a number of existing facilities along the proposed trail sections indicated in Figure 4.1, and with many of the local businesses expressing interest to attract more cyclists to their facilities, it is not foreseen that it will be problematic to make an arrangement with selected businesses to provide these services, which could be advertised in a sponsored trail map or plan. Some facilities charge an entrance or parking fee, which respondents indicated as willing to pay for safe facilities that are well maintained. It is important to note that the COHWHS MA do not intend to develop (and pay for) major new supporting facilities such as trail centres, parking areas or restaurants, but rather proposes to partner with stakeholders that sees a mutually beneficial relationship between the proposed mountain bike trail and the use of their existing supporting facilities. In other sections of the questionnaire, trail markers and information (printed or on-line) was also rated as important.

4.3 Skills Park

A skills park is a combination of technically challenging MTB features, readily available to the public and especially to kids, in a controlled environment. They usually accommodate a wide range of abilities with opportunities for skill building and progressively difficult challenges. They don’t replace conventional trails, but serves as an additional place to ride that is more convenient and controlled.


The survey respondents did not rate the provision of a skills park or training area as highly as other features tested, with more than half of respondents rating it either as not important, or of low to moderate importance. This may be due to the concept being relatively unknown in South Africa, as it is becoming increasingly popular internationally. The Maropeng site, being government owned, was identified by the MA as a possible opportunity to develop a skills park. It is thought that it could serve to attract additional visitors to the facility. The team met with the Maropeng Management to discuss options and a site with potential was identified, as indicated in Figure 4.2. Adequate parking exists, and existing infrastructure (food kiosks, toilets and restaurant in the visitor facility) can support the facility. The conceptual planning of the facility is not included in the current scope of work, but preliminary assessment indicates the site is big enough and because Maropeng site itself is not environmentally sensitive, it is unlikely that an EIA will be required. Due to the topography of the site, the proposed skills park area should be fairly well screened from the existing parking area and pedestrian walkway to the visitor centre, minimising the potential visual impact. The availability of an adequate water source for maintenance of the dirt berms and features, and drainage of the site should be assessed prior to deciding to proceed. In addition, soil conditions should be checked – screened loam with a fairly high clay content works best for dirt jumps as it packs firmly and is easy to shape. A landscape architect should be brought on board to ensure appropriate aesthetics, in addition to seeking a team with technical MTB experience. Assuming the site is appropriate and has the necessary permissions to implement, other aspects noted by IMBA that should be considered when building a Skills Park are

• Forming an appropriate team and seeking technical and other input • Risk management – safety measures and emergency plan, insurance and/or indemnity

policies • An effective signage system • Development of a scheduled inspection and maintenance program • Designing of jumps and obstacles with good flow and that cater for all abilities • Development of a construction plan • Hiring a professional contractor and maximise use of partnerships, volunteer groups,

etc. • Grade the site for drainage so that water will not pond • Encourage stewardship of users by involving riders from the beginning • Plan for growth - overhauls every two years are generally needed to keep the asset

fresh and exciting

Bike Link to Skills Park

Visitor Centre, RestaurantPotential

site for skills park

N

(2)

(3)

(3) Screened view from ticket office

FIGURE 4.2POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR SKILLS PARK AT MAROPENG

Ticket OfficeTuck Shop ToiletsBike hire (1)

Parking

(2) View from Visitor Centre viewing deck towards ticket area and parking area

Ticket Office

(1) Maropeng Bike Hire

Source of background drawing: VRL-2003-COHM-106 Rev2 Feb2004, Van Riet and Louw Landscape Architects, received from Mr Tony Rubin, Maropeng Management


5 COSTING

5.1 Construction Costs

This construction cost estimate serves as an indication of the expected cost of construction for the proposed MTB trails. Factors affecting the costs include, but are not limited to:

• Length of trail • Width of trail (single track, wide track) • Vegetation density (light, moderate, dense) • Existing topography (steep would require a longer length of trail as the trail will need

to wind up the longitudinal slope) • Existing terrain (sand, vegetated, rock) • Crossings or obstacles (water, road or other) • Materials required (in-situ material, imported materials) • Method of construction (labour-based, plant-based, or a combination of labour- and

plant-based) Two costing approaches have been followed:

• Cost per kilometre of MTB trail • Overall cost of MTB trail design and construction

On consultation with various earthworks contractors and experienced trail builders, combined with GIBB’s experience in roads and earthworks, it was realized that the estimation of costs for MTB trail construction is very subjective.

5.1.1 Cost per kilometre of MTB trail For the purpose of simplicity, costs have been calculated for a 1km length of trail, based on the following assumptions:

• Cleared width 3m • Trail width

o 80% single track 1m wide, i.e. 800m o 20% wide track 2,5m wide, i.e. 200m

• Vegetation density o 40% light, i.e. 400m o 30% moderate, i.e. 300m o 30% dense, i.e. 300m

• Topography o Gentle slope, i.e. assuming slope has no effect on trail length

• Crossings or obstacles o Single river crossing – basic o Installation a rock garden technical feature (2m wide, 50m long)

• Materials o 80% use of in-situ materials for trail bed o 20% use of imported G5 quality material for trail bed


• Method of construction

o Initial construction plant-based, with small labour team o Maintenance phase 100% labour-based with small plant assistance

• Cost excludes procurement of permits, wayleaves, relocation of any services, traffic accommodation and loss of time due to inclement weather or other delays

• Preliminary & General component is estimated at 15% of the construction costs The composition of materials to be used for the trail bed, i.e. volume of in-situ materials versus volume of imported G5 quality material is indicative at this stage and can only be confirmed once a geotechnical investigation has taken place. It is envisaged that the geotechnical investigations would take place during the detail design stage of the project. The assumption of 20% imported G5 quality material being used has been considered as it allows for a more conservative cost estimate. The cost per kilometre approach gives a rough indication of expected costs to construct a generic 1 kilometre length of MTB trail, as indicated in ANNEXURE C Table 1.1.

5.1.2 Overall cost of MTB trail design and construction In addition to the cost per kilometre calculation, costs were estimated to undertake the phased design and construction of loops / lines of the proposed MTB trails indicated in Figure 4.1, namely:

• Phase 1 – Loop comprising F-J-H-G • Phase 2 – Loop F-E-D-C • Phase 3 – Line G-K and J-Northern Farms • Phase 4 – Line D-L • Phase 5 – Maropeng connector (and skills park) • Phase 6 – D400 Connector • Phase 7 – Line H-K

This section should be read in conjunction with LAYOUT PLAN AND SLOPE ANALYSIS DRAWING, No J31265/LAY-001/00] in Annexure 1. The estimated cost of each of the phased approach loops and links above is indicated in ANNEXURE C Table 1.4. These estimates are exclusive of preliminary and general items, contingencies, contract price adjustment and VAT. Each of the loops / lines above was broken down into individual section legs starting and ending at road intersections. These intersections are marked as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K and L respectively on the layout plan. Video footage of each section leg was analysed with regard to vegetation density composition (i.e. percentage of light, moderate or dense vegetation for each section leg length) in order to more accurately estimate the costs for clearing and grubbing the proposed MTB trail width; i.e. less assumptions than in the cost per kilometre approach described earlier. The assumptions made in the cost per kilometre approach with regard to earthworks, signage and paving have been retained in this approach as they are indicative at this stage as quantities and material suitability can only be determined at detail design stage. It has also been assumed that approximately 20 speed tables will be required and these have been pro-rated between the


various loops. A provisional amount has also been allowed for the establishment of a skills park at a later stage. This approach provides a more accurate indication of costs to construct the various loops and lines in phases, depending on the Client’s needs and budgetary constraints. The estimated cost of each of the loops and links above is indicated in ANNEXURE C Table 1.2. These estimates are exclusive of preliminary and general items, contingencies, contract price adjustment and VAT. The summary in ANNEXURE C Table 1.3 includes provision for preliminary and general items, contingencies and VAT, but does not make allowance for contract price adjustment.

5.2 Maintenance Costs

The estimated cost of on-going maintenance has been based on the employment of 10 unskilled labourers and 1 supervisor, employed on a full-time basis, working 20 days per month. A daily allowance has also been allocated for the provision of small plant such as pedestrian rollers, Wackers and any other small tools. An overhead allowance of 20% has also been provisionally allowed for to cover the direct overhead cost of a maintenance base. No allowance have been made for managerial costs as it is assumed that the administrative maintenance of the work crew will become the responsibility of an existing COHWHS MA official, i.e. no new post is created for this purpose. The estimated maintenance costs are indicated in C Table 1.4


5.3 Conclusions on Costs Estimates

Estimating the costs for the proposed MTB trails is very subjective as the compilation of the costs is dependent on various factors including but not limited to trail length, trail width, topography, vegetation, material quality and production output. More accurate costing will only be achieved by undertaking an on-site walk through of the terrain to determine the exact trail positioning, length, width and condition of the in-situ materials. This can only be done during the detail design stage of the trail. Nevertheless it is believed that these costs estimates are a realistic indication and should be sufficient for the purpose of the COHWHS (MA) to make a decision on whether its available budgets will cover the initial estimated construction costs, as well as the ongoing operational costs, in the event that no additional external funding materialize. Potential sources of funding are discussed in Section 8: Management. It is proposed to phase the implementation in such a way as to enable the COH WHS (MA) to have a manageable first phase implemented in a year’s time that works (from a user perspective). The implementation of the initial section should be used for training purposes (for the COH WHS MA and partners / volunteers), and to make the public aware of what can be achieved. Lessons learned in the first phase can then be applied during design and implementation of the 2nd phase. This approach allows for the continuous improvement of trail building practise and quality of trails provided.


6 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION

The IMBA Guide “Trail Solutions,” Part 6, provides easy to understand detail instructions and illustrations to build durable trails that will stand the test of time and require minimal maintenance. We have reviewed the guidelines for applicability in the local context and concluded that it is in line with local requirements and constraints, with the exception of South African regulatory requirements for water crossings and locally available materials (primarily locally sourced wood). It is recommended that these guidelines be adopted by the COH MA, and it is therefore not included here, but the list below indicates the aspects covered in the Guide: • Clearing the corridor – width and height • Bench cut trails - full bench with hand tools • Building climbing turns, switchbacks and insloped turns • Retaining walls • Armoring – using rock to harden trails • Wetlands and water crossings

o Stream corridor function and dynamics o Five general guidelines for water crossings o Armored crossings o Culverts o Bridges o Wetlands

• Typical cost and time to build a trail It is recommended that the appointed contractor be required to obtain a copy of the IMBA guide and to be familiar with the technical and sustainable design and construction guidelines required therein.

7 MAINTENANCE

7.1 Maintenance Team Training Requirements

As indicated in the previous section, the cost estimates were done assuming that the initial construction will be plant-based, with a small semi-skilled and skilled labour team, while the maintenance phase will be 100% labour-based with small plant assistance. The reason for recommending the construction of the trails by mechanised tools is that it can be done faster and more cost effectively, allowing more trails to be constructed within the (likely limited) available budget. Given the environmental sensitivity of the COHWHS, special care also needs to be taken to ensure the trails comply with the sustainable trail building specifications as defined in this study, which is deemed to be easier to achieve using skilled plant-operators rather than less skilled manual labour using hand tools.


It is however recommended that as many members of the proposed maintenance crew as possible participate in the trail building process, to gain a practical understanding of the reasons for building the trail as specified. The maintenance crew will need to receive training to enable them to effectively schedule routine maintenance (such as trimming vegetation, removing downed trees, loose rocks, and exposed roots causing a hazard), and to identify trail problems such as user- and water caused erosion that need to be corrected by the application of appropriate solutions. It is recommended that easy to understand classroom material be presented to the crew, followed by hands–on and practical training in the field. The IMBA Guide “Trail Solutions” Part Seven “Trail Maintenance” includes a comprehensive guide to typical maintenance tasks that can be used as a basis for developing the training material and a practical fieldbook for assisting the crew to recognising problems and apply appropriate solutions. Training should also include a module on the tools used, including safety requirements and basic first aid. Supervisory skills, such as scheduling work tasks, and keeping record of daily activities, should also be covered. It is recommended that this be included in the contractor’s scope of work. Should the COH WHS (MA) employ a crew (instead of paying the contractor for a maintenance contract) the above training will need to be provided to the permanent maintenance crew.

7.2 Equipment

It is not foreseen that the COHWHS MA will buy the plant needed for trail construction, as it is recommended that the initial trail building be contracted to a small civil contractor, possibly assisted by MTB volunteers. The acquisition of equipment is therefore foreseen to be limited to the hand tools necessary for routine maintenance, with the occasional need to hire small machinery for a limited time period, if needed for the repair of a particular problem that cannot easily and effectively be solved using hand tools. The IMBA guide identifies the following 10 essential tools:

• Clinometer, to determine grade between two points • Flagging ribbons and pins • Pulaski (axe blade on one side, hoe on the other) for loosening dirt, cutting roots,

grubbing brush and sculpting • McLeod – a flat, square shaped blade with a cutting edge on one side and a rake on the

other, useful for removing berm and tamping (compacting) tread • Rock bar for prying heavy boulders and logs from the ground using leverage • Durable tape measure • Digital levels to ensure accurate outslopes to prevent erosion • Hand pruners / loppers / folding saw for cutting branches and roots • Shovels – flat and round-point, for moving dirt, shaping tread and drainage, dig holes

and trenches, and remove weeds. • Sledge hammers – stone sledge used for crushing rock into gravel, and driving sledge

to drive spikes and pins In the local context, a mashete to cut grass may also be a necessity.


From interaction with the public and cycling enthusiasts, it became clear that the maintenance of the MTB trails cannot be done in isolation of the road cycle lanes, and these will also need to be cleared of debris such as broken glass, potholes repaired and vegetation encroaching into the lanes cut back. A basis from which the maintenance operation will be managed and directed, facilities for the crew provided, and storage for tools, will be required. To minimise transport costs, it is preferable that this basis be located as close as possible to the centre of the trail system. An overhead cost of 15% has been included in the maintenance cost for covering this expense. The COHWHS (MA) will need to consider how the crew and their equipment will be transported to the sections of the trail located further from the base. It may be necessary to avail a vehicle for the use of the crew. The capital and on-going running and maintenance cost of a dedicated vehicle has not been included at this stage. Miscellaneous consumables that will need to be provided to the crew includes a first aid kit, gloves, safety glasses, two way radios, protective footwear and overalls, and water.

7.3 Maintenance Schedule

The cost estimates assumed a crew of 10 unskilled labourers and 1 supervisor, employed on a full-time basis, working 20 days per month, with a small daily allowance for small plant such as pedestrian rollers, Wackers and any other small tools. It is estimated that the crew should be able to maintain 500m to 1000m per day depending on the vegetation density and extent of maintenance required. If the recommendation to include the maintenance of the road cycle lanes as well as the mountain bike trails is accepted, the total linear length of MTB trails and road cycle lanes will eventually be in the order of 150km or 150 000m should all the mountain bike trails discussed in this project be provided. At 500m per day, 300 days would be needed, and at 1000m per day, 150 days would be needed. As there are roughly 240 working days per year, an average productivity of 750 m per day (needing 225 days) should ensure that all sections of the trail system can be covered every year. Typical maintenance tasks to ensure the trail remains passable and that sightlines are acceptable includes

• Trimming of vegetation, typically systematically twice a year (spring and fall) • Cutting and moving downed trees • Removing loose rocks • Check that exposed roots/rocks do not create a hazard • Signage maintenance

Fixing identified trail problems will need to be scheduled on an ongoing basis. It is recommended that a system be put in place for trail users to report problems to the maintenance crew and a method for closing out problems, once resolved, be implemented.


8 MANAGEMENT

As indicated in the Status Quo Assessment, concerns were raised by the stakeholders that the existing cycling activities (road cycling and MTB alike) are currently poorly managed, with limited if any on-going maintenance of existing infrastructure. If the management and maintenance aspects cannot be addressed effectively due to lack of resources (capital or human), the creation of additional infrastructure may just compound the problems currently being experienced with cycle lanes, which is not sustainable. Some of the critical issues identified during the course of this study that will need to be managed include:

• Improving planning application protocols for events and monitoring and evaluation of compliance

• establish procedures and requirements for applications to construct new mountain bike trails to link into the core mountain bike trail system (this study) by private property owners that wishes to make use of the opportunities created by the core mountain bike trail system

• on-going management of stakeholder relations and potential partnerships with the private sector and other public institutions (e.g. tourism agencies) to ensure that the proposed mountain bike trail system is well integrated with other facilities and infrastructure.

The IMBA publication “Managing Mountain Biking” have been reviewed and is deemed an excellent resource to develop aspects of the management requirements in more detail should the creation of a core MTB trail system proceed to the next stage (implementation).

8.1 Institutional Requirements

While the MA is responsible for management of the COH WHS, it has not yet secured any budget for implementation of MTB trails specifically, although a provisional budget request was submitted. Unless an acceptable institutional arrangement of a permanent nature can be instituted, with a clear mandate to manage the proposed recreational cycling network in the COH WHS and committed budgets, it is unlikely that the project will succeed in its objectives. While there may be an expectation that the creation of partnerships with the private sector may contribute to the success of the project, especially in terms of funding contributions to improvements and on-going maintenance, the oversight role of the MA will remain critical, particularly in respect of environmental management and best practice requirements. It is therefore recommended that the COHWHS (MA) resolve the above as a matter of urgency before it spends any capital in the project.


8.2 Funding

The popularity of MTB trails depends to a large extent upon their condition and in turn it is often their popularity which will ensure that they are well maintained because no public authority can afford to put funds into unwanted facilities (trails and supporting infrastructure). The level of funding made available in South Africa for maintenance purposes is normally far from what is required and if the facilities cannot be maintained sustainably, the provision of the facilities may not be feasible. The lack of adequate funding to maintain road infrastructure in the vicinity of the COHWHS area is evident in recent tragic events such as the death of a road cyclist caused by a pothole in the road surface. It is understood that there are currently some private sector initiatives emerging to address this unacceptable state of affairs. Although an initial allocation of funds have been motivated by the COH WHS (MA) for the development of a first section of the proposed core MTB Trail system as a catalytical project to stimulate tourism and job creation, the availability of this funding is not yet certain. Furthermore, there is currently no indication of funding availability for on-going management and maintenance however, this feasibility study has highlighted the need to provide for ongoing maintenance for a mountain bike trail system.. Given competing demands for funding, it is unlikely that funding for management and maintenance purposes of recreational facilities will receive a high priority from Government and it is therefore clear that it will need to be self-sustaining. The COH WHS MA’s thinking currently (assuming the initial budget motivation is approved) is to potentially include a maintenance contract for a stipulated period (say three years) within the construction contract, to bridge the gap until such time as the necessary social partnerships have been established. Such partnerships may potentially yield the following funding options:

• Corporate sponsorship of improvements to sections of the trail and/or responsibility for an aspect of on-going maintenance and upkeep

• Parking levy charged by participating businesses. Participating businesses in turn could benefit from being recognised in marketing material as contributors

• User contribution from events participants • Advertising income from an official MTB map

As indicated in Figure 8.1, typical entrance fees are in the order of R100 – R300 per event, with participants required to produce their valid CSA (Cycling SA) license or proof of provincial affiliation at registration or to purchase an event license. The day license fees (for 2011) were R35 and are split as follows

• Race organizer or seller R5 • CSA R30 of which R10 is paid to the hosting province • Day licenses are NOT acceptable for multi day events and these riders need to have at

least a Cyclo Sport license. The 2011 CSA MTB - Event Organizers Regulations are included in Annexure B. The COH WHS (MA) indicated that fees can be charged for the undertaking of sporting events in a protected area (this is already done by Cape Nature) and that the existing Cradle of


Humankind Trust could potentially be used to manage the fees to maintain cycle lanes and trails.


Figure 8.1: Typical Entry Fees for Events in the Cradle of Humankind WHS Source: http://www.cyclelab.com/Race%20Calendar.aspx?type=Mountain%20Biking%20Events

The on-line survey indicated that respondents displayed a willingness to pay, provided that they can see the benefit of their contributions in the form of well-maintained trails. Information provided by the MA indicates that in the 2010-11 season, more than nine major cycling events ranging from single day to multi day events were held in the COH WHS and approximately 7000 riders participated in these events. With the growing popularity of the sport, it may not be unreasonable to assume that 10 000 cyclists could participate in future in any given season. If a levy of say R30 per entrant is charged in addition to the normal entry fees, this could potentially raise an amount of R300 000 per annum, or approximately half of the amount estimated in Sections 5.2 and 7.


The traffic counts carried out over a Saturday and Sunday indicates that there are probably at least 500 vehicles per day that park somewhere in the COH WHS. If it is assumed that 1000 vehicles parking per week over the course of say 30 weeks (to account for potential lower use during winter or rainy season), a conservative estimate of 30 000 parking vehicles per year is not unreasonable. If a levy of say R10 per parking vehicle could be charged, this could potentially fund another R300 000 per annum. The challenge will be on administering the above parking levy, and it may be best left to the local community to organise a fair and equitable system, self-regulated, since it is likely that the cost to Government to administrate such a system will in all likelihood outweigh the potential revenue. The publication of an official cycling (road and MTB) map, sponsored by businesses, provides an additional potential source of funding, not quantified at this stage. However it would appear that potential revenue from events and parking levies may be able to cover a substantial portion of the estimated running cost of a full time 10-man maintenance crew. As noted in Sections 5.2 and 7, the cost is estimated at in the order of R50 000 per month or R600 000 per annum, excluding COHWHS (MA) management cost and the cost of transport, which is assumed to be recoverable under existing budgets.

8.3 Management Functions

8.3.1 Planning and designing a successful system wide trail plan

Planning and designing a successful system wide mountain bike trail plan can be summarised into the following 13 steps, many of which have already been considered in this Feasibility Study: 1. Understanding the Importance of System wide Trail Planning The planning of the COHWHS mountain bike core trail system should be viewed as a formal approach to provide for a much wider system of mountain bike trails that are either existing or being planned by stakeholders in the area. The COHWHS mountain bike core trail system provides for link-up with other trails, thus creating the potential for the trail system to satisfy a much broader community of mountain bikers and their riding needs. This also reduces the potential and extent of trails created in a piecemeal fashion. 2. Research Existing Trail Strategies and Planning Templates The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) Guide to Providing Great Riding reference source formed part of the base planning and thinking for the COHWHS mountain bike trail feasibility study. This approach ensured that best practice international planning and design principles are applied rather than re-inventing the wheel. Reference to this source and other reputable sources should continue into the future with the aim to learn from others and to ensure that the COHWHS trail system remains attractive and meet the changing needs of the mountain biking community. 3. Establish Goals and Objectives The goals of this initiative have been identified as follows:

• Respond to the demand for recreational mountain bike activities in the COHWHS.


• The COHWHS mountain bike trail system to act as a catalyst for further supporting trail loops on adjoining private property. The core trail system should be accessible to the wider MTB community, and support the creation of a cycling destination of choice in the area; and

• The COHWHS mountain bike trail system should have direct benefits to surrounding stakeholders and communities.

One of the main objectives includes developing guidelines for sustainable trail design, construction, maintenance and signage to establish a “standard” for MTB trail development in a protected area. 4. Engage in Collaborative Planning and Develop Partnerships Since the COHWHS mountain bike trail system is part of a wider mountain bike trail system in the area, collaboration with pertinent stakeholders is necessary and a forum for regular engagement should be established and engagement protocols set-up. Furthermore partnerships with the private sector are essential especially with regards to marketing and promotion, funding and maintenance of the trails. 5. Analyse Users Users of the mountain bike trail system should be analysed on a regular basis. Management should be fully aware of ways and means to engage with the users and to receive feedback through local websites, chat rooms or blogs, local outdoor stores or bike shops, and local publications. The on-line survey done as part of this feasibility study, was done to gain a general understanding of MTB preferences at the time of the study. Surveys to monitor trail use and identify issues that require attention should be undertaken annually. 6. Analyse the Landscape The feasibility study assessed in some detail the landform and terrain within which the COHWHS core trail system corridor is situated. Further detailed trail design will be required within this corridor (road reserve) before any construction may commence. 7. Understand Constraints The planning and development of a trail system must consider local laws, development plans, climate, and environmental constraints. All these constraints change over time and therefore it is necessary that changes are known in time to address legal and sustainability implications as well. 8. Draw the Plan The overall mountain bike trail system must be readily available and accessible on a map. The map should have sufficient up to date detail at the date of publishing. Additional maps can be created as supporting layers to provide consistent but different levels of data on a much more detail level such as contour maps, road maps, trails map, tourism places map, etc. The comprehensive mountain bike trails map is then the overlay of most or all of the different data layers. 9. Establish Design and Management Criteria The design and management criteria that could be adopted include:

• Who the trail is designed to serve; • What experience will it provide; • Tread width; • Maximum grade; • Technical difficulty for each type of trail; • Maintenance requirements;


• Signage and trailhead design • Whether there will be a fee charged; • Wether there will be educational or interpretive material provided.

10. Establish Phases and Priorities It is important to decide which trail sections should receive design and construction priority as the entire trail system cannot be built at once. The feasibility study has already provided an indication of the trails that should be developed as a priority. An “adaptive management clause” that creates a process by which the development prioritisation plan adapts to changing needs should be included. 11. Strategies Funding This feasibility study includes an estimated budget for the mountain bike trails project. Potential funding sources, sponsorship opportunities, and opportunities for volunteer trail activities should be identified and pursued. 12. Adopt the Master Plan Once the MTB trail feasibility study has been finalised, consideration should be given to the drafting of a Trail Management Plan and Policy document to provide management guidance in support of the COHWHS mountain bike trail system. 13. Develop Action Plan The above listed management functions require a commitment to provide human and financial resources to ensure the mountain bike trails plan system becomes a reality.

8.3.2 Stakeholder participation and partnerships Further stakeholder participation will need to be undertaken with directly affected and interested stakeholders before the first phase of the trail system is designed and constructed. Management therefore needs to keep an updated stakeholder contact list database and record of critical concerns and unresolved issues. The feasibility study identified the need for a stakeholder forumthat can be used for this process. In excess of 20 stakeholders indicated in the on-line survey and during the course of the study that they are willing to become actively involved in further developments on the MTB routes, trail use, establishment and maintenance. These stakeholders should be approached amongst other to participate in this process. One of the keys to successful partnership is a specific written agreement that provides a clear understanding of the role, rules and responsibilities of all parties to an ongoing partnership.

8.3.3 Managing Environmental Impacts The World Heritage Convention Act imposes obligations on the Management Authority to achieve the objectives of the World Heritage Convention Act, Act 43 of 1999 to provide for the environmental protection and sustainable development of, and related activities within, World Heritage Sites. Existing COHWHS (MA) responsibility with regards to environmental management should still remain in force and not be comprised as a result of the development of mountain bike trails. Common environmental impacts associated with recreational use of trails could include:

• Vegetation loss and compositional changes; • Soil compaction; • Erosion;


• Muddiness; • Degraded water quality; and • Disruption of wildlife

8.3.4 Managing User Conflict

The COHWHS (MA) should consider the creation of a cycling forum to address ongoing road cycling and mountain bike issues. The Management Authority needs to fully understand the existing and potential future user conflict, types and causes of conflict. User conflict is common in such an environment and needs to be managed on a continuous basis and managed proactively. Common complaints relate to unacceptable environmental impacts, safety and social issues. Solutions to user conflict can be broken down into four categories:

• Information and Education; • User Involvement and Partnerships; • Trail System Design; and • Regulations

8.3.5 Safety and Risk Management

At the most basic level, there are two trail-related risk management goals:

1. Managing the risks on the COHWHS trails; 2. Minimizing the threat and losses from possible lawsuits

To accomplish these goals, the following is typically required internationally:

1. Designing and building trails appropriately; 2. Managing and maintaining them consistently and responsibly 3. Employing insurance coverage or other “risk transference” strategies, such as waivers

or indemnity clauses. Key considerations for a risk management program typically include 1 Create a risk management team 9 Create a record keeping system 2 Write a philosophy (risk management)

statement 10 Develop an incident reporting and

analysis system 3 Establish a trail design & construction

policy 11 Deploy a trail patrol

4 Establish a trail inspection and maintenance policy

12 Recruit outside advisers

5 Maintain the trail system consistent with policy

13 Perform periodic reviews of the program

6 Eliminate unreasonable hazards 14 Effective sign system 7 Develop an emergency plan 15 Implement a trail difficulty rating system 8 Purchase or review an insurance policy 16 Institute rules and advice visitors In the South African context item 8 would not typically be required legally and users would be advised that all facilities are used at own risk.

8.3.6 Marketing Some of the things that can be done to make the COHWHS mountain bike trail system more appealing to mountain bikers are the following:

• Building great trails (implement what has been designed) • Provide supporting facilities • Install effective signs


• Share the local knowledge • Team up with local bike riders and shops • Get other local businesses involved • Create a cool website • Offer trail maps • Tell great stories – media involvement • Photograph the trails professionally • Develop a region-wide destination • Track the numbers

Social media such as twitter and Facebook should also be considered. Partnering with websites of other cycling communities is also an option to be explored.

8.3.7 Monitoring and Evaluation A schedule for conducting ongoing traffic and user counts should be developed to monitor the volumes of all cyclists in the COHWHS area. The counts should be conducted at set strategic locations to allow for analysis of individual sections of trails. Generally the more often the counts are conducted the better the information can be relied upon provided it is of good quality. The application process to use the COHWHS trail system for an event should typically require the applicant to provide the number of users that attended, which trail sections may be affected etc. Basically all the statistics that can be readily and easily collected and processed should be kept. Whilst a maintenance program is undertaken, record should be kept of where, when, and what was done to start to record trends and obtain a fair estimate of future maintenance requirements. Furthermore, this is not only good practice but contributes towards reducing conflict. Not only the trails need to be maintained but the trail signs are critical as well. As with road signage there are different classes of signs namely information/directional signs, regulatory/warning signs, and educational/interpretive signs. Therefore, a good signs inventory should form part of the maintenance system.


9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Conclusions

The trail system is deemed physically, technically and legally feasible and is generally deemed to be supported by mountain bike enthusiasts and members of the local community alike. There are however some community members that question how these trails would benefit them and if the investment should not rather be on other community needs. A well designed trail system can bring an influx of tourism spending and increase property values, all while enhancing the quality of life for residents. In this particular instance, the provision of MTB trails is likely to reduce congestion in the road cycle lanes, with the relocation of MTB cyclist from the road lanes and also some road cyclists are expected to switch to MTB cycling. The total capital costs needed to implement the trails (97.4 km total trail distance) have been estimated and submitted to the COH WHS to investigate the likelihood of securing capital funding. The direct maintenance cost is estimated at a minimum of R600 000 per year, excluding transport costs and indirect management costs. If these costs can be funded through the Departmental budget, in the event of alternative sources of funding not materialising, the project could go ahead. For the project to be successful and sustainable however it must be ensured that management of the road cycle lanes and cycling events are addressed in a holistic way, in partnership with stakeholders. Sufficient commitment and supportive resources will need to be made available to support the management and on-going maintenance functions related to existing cycle lanes and proposed mountain bike trails. A preliminary ranking has been discussed with the Steering Committee, namely in the order it is listed in Figure 4.1. The final ranking and phasing of implementation will most likely depend on the availability of funding for implementation. While the feedback received from the public meetings and user surveys have been taken into consideration in the ranking of the proposed trail sections, it is recommended that further meaningful stakeholder engagement forms part of the next phase of the project (construction and implementation) to improve public support and buy in. Existing identified stakeholders as detailed in Section 8.3.2 should form part of ongoing stakeholder engagement.

9.2 Recommendations

The proposed MTB core trail system to be located in the road reserve of the provincial roads in the COH WHS is deemed to be physically, technically and legally feasible, with no fatal flaws with respect to these aspects being identified. The cost of implementation and management (including on-going maintenance) of the proposed trail system has been quantified. Although the COH WHS (MA) submitted a request


for budget provision to cover the capital layout required to implement a first phase of the core trail system, funding for this has not been secured for the next financial year. In terms of funding the on-going maintenance requirements, it has been confirmed that the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport will not fund any maintenance activities for the MTB trail system. The COH WHS (MA) also do not have a committed budget for this activity, which is estimated at approximately R600 000 per annum once the entire envisaged trail system has been implemented. However an assessment of potential alternative funding mechanisms such as corporate sponsorships, parking levies charged by participating businesses providing supporting services and in turn benefitting from being recognised in marketing material as contributors, user contribution from events participants and advertising income from an official MTB map, indicates that it may be feasible to generate sufficient funding for maintenance purposes. However this will require strong partnerships and it is therefore recommended that the COH WHS (MA) engage further with interested parties to formalize partnerships, including commitments to contribute financially or otherwise that will enable the sustainable upkeep and management of core mountain bike trail system, before committing any capital funding to the implementation of the first phase.


DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET (FORM IP180/B)

CLIENT : Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site Management Authority

PROJECT NAME : Feasibility study to determine the need and desirability, design Specifications and construction of dedicated mountain bike trails in the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site

PROJECT No. : J31265

TITLE OF DOCUMENT : Feasibility Study

ELECTRONIC LOCATION P:\J31265 Cradle of Humankind MTB Trails\Outgoing\Reports

Approved By Reviewed By Prepared By

ORIGINAL

(Revision 1)

NAME Lize De Beer

NAME Lize De Beer

NAME Alan Main, Lize de Beer

DATE 19 October 2012

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE


REVISION NAME

NAME

NAME

DATE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE


REVISION NAME

NAME

NAME

DATE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

This report, and information or advice, which it contains, is provided by Arcus GIBB solely for internal use and reliance by its Client in performance of Arcus GIBB duties and liabilities under its contract with the Client. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this report should be read and relied upon only in the context of the report as a whole. The advice and opinions in this report are based upon the information made available to Arcus GIBB at the date of this report and on current SA standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this report. Following final delivery of this report to the Client, Arcus GIBB will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this report. This report has been prepared by Arcus GIBB in their professional capacity as Consulting Engineers. The contents of the report do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion. This report is prepared in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Arcus GIBB contract with the Client. Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this report. Should the Client wish to release this report to a Third Party for that party's reliance, Arcus GIBB may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that: (a) Arcus GIBB written agreement is obtained prior to such release, and (b) By release of the report to the Third Party, that Third Party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise,

whatsoever against Arcus GIBB and Arcus GIBB, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that Third Party, and

(c) Arcus GIBB accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Arcus GIBB interests arising out of the Client's release of this report to the Third Party.

Arcus GIBB (Pty) Ltd Website : www.gibb.co.za

Postal Address : Physical Address :

Contact Person : Email Address :

Telephone No. : Fax No. :

Construction cost estimate for full scope October 2012

ANNEXURE A LAYOUT PLAN AND SLOPE ANALYSIS

DRAWING No J31265/LAY-001/00

No Date Revision Details Chkd Appd

0 2012-06-14 FOR DISCUSSION AM AM

0 3010 20 40 50 60 705

15 25

ON ORIGINAL

90MM80

ALL DIMENSIONS AND LEVELS ARE TO BE VERIFIED ON SITE BYTHE CONTRACTOR BEFORE COMMENCING ANY WORK.

This document and all the information thereon remains the property of ARCUS GIBB (Pty) Ltd. andmay not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in part or in full without the written consent ofARCUS GIBB (Pty) Ltd. This document should not be relied on nor used in circumstances otherthan those for which it was originally prepared and for which ARCUS GIBB (Pty) Ltd. wascommissioned, as defined on this document. Refer to the contract for full terms and conditions.

ARCUS GIBB (Pty) Ltd. shall not be liable for the consequences of using this document other thanfor the purpose for which it was commissioned. Any user and any other person using or relying onthe document for such other purpose, will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm hisagreement to indemnify ARCUS GIBB (Pty) Ltd. for all loss or damage resulting there from.

No Date Revision Details Chkd Appd Notes:

Project No Drg. No Rev

Description

Reviewed By

Designed By

Drawn By

Approved By

DateScaleProject

J32165 LAY-001 00

1:30 000 2012-06-14

SHEET 01 OF 01CRADLE OF HUMANKINDWORLD HERITAGE SITEMOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL

FEASIBILITY STUDY

LAYOUT PLAN AND SLOPE ANALYSIS

COH MTB

F THOMPSON

A MAIN

L DE BEER

L DE BEER

CLIENT

Meters

0

1000

2000

WITH CYCLE LANESWITHOUT CYCLE LANES

LEGEND

ACCESS (LEFT/RIGHT)

A - R563 from SouthernDirection at D400

PHOTOS AT INTERSECTIONS

B - T7 Maropeng from WesternDirection at R563

C - R563 from NorthernDirection at D1701

D - D540 from NorthernDirection at R563

E - D1701 from WesternDirection at D540

F - D540 from SouthernDirection at D374

G - D374 from WesternDirection at D1496

H - D101 from Northern Directionat D374

J - D540 from Eastern Directionat D101

K - N14 from Southern Directionat D1496

APPROXIMATE BRIDGE POSITIONS

KEY PLAN

NATIONAL ROADROADS NOT IN SCOPE

POINTS OF INTEREST/CYCLE VENUESCRADLE OF HUMANKIND BOUNDARY

DETAIL A

EXAMPLE OF ROAD RESERVE WIDTHS(REFER TO INDIVIDUAL ROAD LONG SECTION DRAWINGS)

DATA BASED ON ON-SITE INVESTIGATION MEASUREMENTS


ANNEXURE B 2011 CSA MTB - EVENT

ORGANIZERS REGULATIONS

CSA MTB - Event Organizers

Regulations 2011

CSA MTB - Event Organizers Regulations 2011

[2]

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. CSA MTB RACE REGULATIONS (DOC 1) 3

3. CSA / CSA MTB LICENSING REQUIREMENTS 3

4. CSA MTB RACE NUMBER AND BOARDS 3

5. SANCTIONING OF MOUNTAIN BIKE EVENTS 3

6. CALENDAR 4

7. REGISTRATION 4

8. SEEDING SYSTEM 4

9. COMMISSAIRES 4

10. ANTI DOPING 5

11. TIMEKEEPING 5

12. ORGANIZERS FEES 5

13. PRIZE CATEGORIES 6

14. RACE CATEGORIES AND EVENT DISTANCES 6

15. COURSE MARKING 6

16. JOINT OPERATION CENTRE (JOC) 6

17. MEDICAL 7

18. INDEMNITY FOR ORGANIZERS 7

19. EVENT INSURANCE 7


[3]

1. INTRODUCTION

CSA MTB is creating a structured racing program and calendar for riders and race organizers alike. Together with this program, CSA MTB wants to ensure that all races meet a certain basic set of requirements that riders can expect, especially with regard safety.

2. CSA MTB RACE REGULATIONS (DOC 1)

This document is available on the CSA web site and contains all the rules and regulation for racing in all disciplines of the

sport. Further to this and for clarity purposes, this document outlines the CSA requirements on race organizers.

3. CSA / CSA MTB LICENSING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 All competitors taking part in timed events or events 20km or longer have to be licensed. CSA licensing protocol for

2011 is on the web site.

It is the race organizers responsibility to make sure that all riders doing the event have either a CSA license or issue them a Temporary License for the day and to collect such fees.

Please make sure that your online entry system complies, if it does not, it is your responsibility to make sure that every license is checked at the race and to collect money from such riders that are not licensed.

Race Commissaires will audit the process for CSA MTB, but are NOT responsible for the collection of fees. Failure to collect the required fees will result in the race being levied temporary license fees for all riders.

Further to this, it is required that the riders Name, Surname and email address that bought the day license is given to CSA MTB within seven days of the race. (Day License form Doc 10) Online entry companies will do this automatically.

3.2 The day license fees for 2011 are R35 and are split as follows

Race organizer or seller R5

CSA R30 of which R10 is paid to the hosting province

Day licenses are NOT acceptable for multi day events and these riders need to have at least a Cyclo Sport license.

4. CSA MTB RACE NUMBER AND BOARDS

CSA MTB are working with CSA and various service providers to provide all riders with a permanent number (country wide)

and number board, and to develop a seeding system.

5. SANCTIONING OF MOUNTAIN BIKE EVENTS

5.1 All Mountain Bike races that take place in South Africa need to be sanctioned by the province and CSA MTB.

This can be done by filling in the sanction application form (Doc 4), and submitting it to CSA MTB, with the relevant fees for approval.

The commission will only sanction an event once they are convinced that the event organizer will meet all the criteria of this document, and the CSA-MTB Race Regulations (Doc 1).

CSA MTB will provide a sanction certificate (required by municipalities for permits) and public liability insurance for a sanctioned event.

Date changes need to be sanctioned by the commission and will attract an administration fee of R500, irrespective of the success of the application. Please use the Calendar Change of date form.

5.2 The Calendar fees are determined by the event category and are contained on the Event sanction Application form

(Doc 4) and section 12 below.


[4]

6. CALENDAR

The calendar of sanctioned events is on the CSA web Site.

7. REGISTRATION

It is the race organizers responsibility to know who is actually doing the race and to make sure that they have completed the

relevant indemnity forms and paid the relevant fees (entry, late entry, temporary license etc).

8. SEEDING SYSTEM

CSA and various service providers to provide a seeding system.

9. COMMISSAIRES

Commissaires are “race referees” and will be provided to all Sanctioned races. One Commissaire is required for every 500

riders per event. The Technical Director (or Technical Commissioner) will contact the race organizer to confirm the number of Commissaires that will be at the event, and ensure that the requirements of the Commissaires are met.

There may be small races that the provincial commission is not able to appoint Commissaires to, and they will then not be

charged the fees. 9.1 Responsibilities of the Commissaires

The Commissaires are responsible for the overall competition.

They supervise the start/finish arrangements

Sign off the results.

They ensure the application and respect of the regulations in all circumstances and collaborate with the Race Director in the completion of their duties.

They will discuss any penalties with the appropriate officials and receive complaints from competitors. 9.2 Further to this they will

Ensure that they are on site at least 2 hours before the scheduled start of the first event.

Liaise with the Race Director on Rider safety Issues.

Make arrangements to inspect any dangerous sections should the Race or Course Director feel that is necessary.

Ensure that Road Crossings have the appropriate RTI Officers on duty.

XCO and DHI courses should be inspected prior to the course being opened for practice.

Classic / Marathon / Stage Races – as it is not practical to inspect long distance courses the Race Director can request an inspection, however as this will require an additional day at the event venue all additional costs (daily fee, travel and accommodation if needed) are for the account of the organizer.

Record the top 20 riders across the line and ensure that all riders receiving prize money and point falls within the correct license categories.

Sign off the results issued by the timekeepers before prize giving.

Protests – rider to complete the protest form and pay the fees. Protests should be dealt with immediately and a decision made on the day.

Complete the Commissaires Report and forward to the Commissaire Representative for distribution to the relevant parties.

The Commissaires Report (Doc 6) is available to race organizers, and will be sent to the race organizer after the event.


[5]

10. ANTI DOPING

CSA and CSA MTB are committed to a fair and drug free sporting code. Drug testing will be done at various events throughout

the country and should your event be chosen, the various documents and processes will be communicated with you.

For all events, the organisers of the event will be responsible for the payment of expenses of the Anti-Doping Officials whilst at the event.

10% of the prize money will be levied which will pay for all future Testing done by SAIDS Your cooperation with the Institute of Drug Free Sport is a requirement of Sanction.

11. TIMEKEEPING

CSA MTB is non prescriptive with regard the timing company used to time a particular event.

The timing company will be responsible for providing accurate results to the race organizer and Commissaires for verification and prize giving.

The timing company must also supply the results to CSA MTB within 24 hours of the end of the race.

Time Keeping and results are the responsibility of the Race Director; however timing companies that do not meet the requirements of CSA MTB will be formally cautioned and even disqualified from timing Sanctioned events.

Race Directors that use timing companies that cannot supply the required results on time will be held liable for such actions.

The Race Director to this extent must acquire written permission to use their preferred timing solution four weeks prior to the event.

At present, any timing company is acceptable, however manual timing options should not be considered with a field in excess of 500 riders.

12. ORGANIZERS FEES

The following fees apply to all races Sanctioned by CSA MTB. 12.1 Calendar Fees

CSA Province Number of Riders Insurance Fees

UCI + National Events R1375 per day R1375 per day R500 per day

MTB A R1375 per day R1375 per day 1500 or more R500 per day MTB B R500 per day R500 per day 500 to 1499 R500 per day All smaller events R250 R250 499 or less R500 per day

Calendar fees will be paid with the application of the dates during the Calendar registration process.

Once the application has been received, CSA will invoice your calendar fee for the available date(s).

Only once payment has been received will the calendar date be allocated to the 2011 Calendar. 12.2 Rider Levies After the event, the Commissaire and Race Director will confirm the amount of entered riders. An invoice will be sent by the

provincial commission and is payable within 30 days. Failure to pay the fees due will result in a fine of R2000 over and above the rider levies, payable before any future calendar date will be considered. Rider levies will be calculated as follows:

R6 per every entered rider per day of which R2.50 will be paid towards CSA and R3.50 will be paid towards the hosting province.


[6]

12.3 Commissaires fees

Commissaires fees are R500 per day per 500 riders or as per section 9.

Accommodation & travel expenses have to be paid by the organiser over and above these daily fees.

Payment of Commissaires will be paid via the CSA MTB offices. 12.4 10% tax on Prize Money CSA will issue an invoice for the 10% Prize Money as per section 10 of this document to be paid directly to CSA. Failure to pay

the fees due will result in a fine of R2000 over and above the 10% Prize Money, payable before any future calendar date will be considered.

13. PRIZE CATEGORIES

The prize categories required are described the CSA MTB Racing Categories document (Doc 5).

These categories MUST be adhered to and NO NEW categories may be created.

14. RACE CATEGORIES AND EVENT DISTANCES

The various Race distances and Race Age Categories are described in the CSA MTB Racing Categories Document.

These MUST be adhered to and Race Directors will be held liable should they fail to ensure that riders only compete within allowable categories.

Each rider is classified according to his or her age on 31 December of the year of the competition.

15. COURSE MARKING

Courses need to be marked in accordance with the CSA-MTB Race Regulation (Doc 1).

In addition to this, all markings need to be removed within one week of the event or sooner as per agreement with the land owners.

CSA MTB does not allow the use of spray paint for marking of the route, with the following two exceptions, and with the written permission of the land owner. o In places where there is no other alternative, a rock can have an arrow painted on it, but this rock must then be

either cleaned, or turned upside down after the event so that the paint is not visible. o Secondly to mark a hazardous rock or stump that is not clearly visible on otherwise fast flowing track.

16. LOCAL OPERATION CENTRE (LOC)

All races should have a Joint Operations Centre (LOC) which is manned throughout the event, and until the last person has left the event.

The LOC should be in a prominent and accessible area.

The LOC’s main function is that of communication, and should thus have radios, telephone and even internet access if possible.

For large events and all National Events, the LOC will have direct communications with the local traffic department, SAPS and the Medical service provider.

The LOC can also be used as a rider information centre, lost and found area, and a place where riders can see results.


[7]

17. MEDICAL

The provision of adequate medical rescue services is the responsibility of the race organizer.

The following points need to be adhered to and evidence of this provided to the Race Commissaire before they will allow the race to start.

Sufficient personnel at the event (minimum of 2 for a maximum of 500 riders – so 750 riders requires 4)

Sufficiently trained personnel (minimum of 1 ALS paramedic for a maximum of 1000 riders) • Personnel need access to the route and need to be strategically placed out on the route.

Quad bikes or vehicles need to be able to reach all parts of the route • Personnel need maps of the route

Personnel need communication with the race organizer : cell phones are acceptable if they work on the entire route, otherwise radios are required

Race organizers should also have the following in the JOC • Contact details for all medical personnel • Contact details of the medical service providers operations centre • Medical Aid details for all riders • Contact details of all hospitals in the area • Contact details of local doctors • Contact details of other ambulance and rescue service providers • Contact details of air ambulance • Contact details of local municipality and the regional disaster management centre

18. INDEMNITY FOR ORGANIZERS

Indemnity clauses should be displayed at each registration table as well as prominently on the notice boards or tent sides.

Copies should be made to be handed to riders should they require it, or used as part of the entry process. 18.1 An example of an indemnity agreement that needs to be agreed to by the organizer, land owners, sponsors and other

parties first: ”Mountain biking is dangerous. Participants in this event and all functions and events related thereto take part entirely at

their own risk and agree, by their participation as well as by their signature hereto, that they and their dependants do not have, and will not institute, any claims whatsoever against, and do hereby indemnify and hold harmless from all liability, CyclingSA, mountain bike commissions, organizers, other participants, sponsors, individuals, officials, marshals, assistants, helpers, agents, contractors, landowners, local authorities or employees of such persons and any person associated with the event in respect of any loss whatsoever which participants may suffer arising from any cause at all, regardless of whether or not the accident shall have been caused directly or indirectly by negligence, albeit gross, of any person. Persons signing this form for or as a guardian of a minor consent to such minor being bound by the foregoing and further indemnify the organizers and aforementioned parties to the extent, if any, to which such minor is not bound”

19. EVENT INSURANCE

Every event organiser is obliged to have taken out the required event insurance.

CSA MTB provides insurance with calendar fees but the organiser still need to familiarise themselves with the clauses and particular policy to ensure that it fulfils in all the requirements the organiser may need.


ANNEXURE C COST ESTIMATES

(NOT INCLUDED IN PUBLIC DOCUMENT)

cradle of humankind world heritage siteprojects.gibb.co.za/portals/3/projects/201204 ch...

Documents