Makes sense Max Headset – have you contacted the MTB mags to offer to help do such a feature? I think you are right, the vast majority of people using this forum are in the niche that paying-for-use at a trail centre isn't part of their make-up – check my origianl thread – the fact that trail centres has helped create a groundswell of new bikers is a very positive thing – those that have been brought up on trail centres have more 'belonging' to them so the idea of paying for something isn't such an alien thought.

I'm in agreement with everything you have said as that has been my own findings with the work I've been involved with…but then the OP posted the question on this forum, so the answers he is going to get are going to be from the forum-base – if the majority of these are riding around on £1500+ bikes and have a comparable high disposable income then the answer is going to be fairly similar…you'd have to ask the same question at each trail centre for a month or so to get a full range of opinion as most 'beginners' or those that are happy riding green and blue routes probably don't frequent this website.

To respond to a few of those who have bitten on my rant 😉

Northwind – No I didn't build the trails, although I've met a few of those who were involved in the original 9feet.com trail – and I'd be surprised if they argued for a more commercial model.

For all I know, I might have contributed some funding, after all I am a UK taxpayer, and as far as I remember the (early)SWales trails were at least partially grant funded (mix of EU / WAG money – happy to be corrected), so I don't know that the FE / FC paying for the trail build is actually the case. Maintenance is a different issue, and due to the intensity of use, probably needs to be looked at.

thisisnotaspoon / ChriL – I don't demand access to trail centres trails. It's great that they have been built and stimulated greater participation in mtbing. They probably all have different funding models, and I'm not aware that any of those currently involve pay to access. On my occasional trips to Afan / Glyncorrwg I am happy to pay for car parking if I am riding from the main centres, and I'll probably have some food and drink in the cafe. I just don't want to "pay to ride", it's not a concept that I am comfortable with for my participation in this sport (unless associated with an event such as MM).

As argued by others above, very many social, cultural and sporting activities are centrally funded. I've enjoyed a trip to the ballet in the fantastic new Wales Millenium Centre – my ticket price certainly didn't cover the cost of getting a Russian ballet Co to perform, let alone contribute to the construction / upkeep.

I don't play footie or rugby, and have generally no interest in team type sports, all of which enjoy grass roots funding of one sort or another.

I have no intention of going to the 2012 Olympics, but we're not asking the spectators or participants to pay for that either…

if you dont want to pay to play at trail centres there are plenty of trails elsewhere you still have a choice.
if i had some woodland and was building trails then i would charge riders as most people are happy for someone else to do the building and pay a little for ease of use-others will be able to take up a map and explore.
we do have a way in the u.k of rolling over and playing dead when it comes to being charged though and comments about car park charges in France are, in my experience correct, i rode grizedale last weekend and was charged parking and £4.50 for an egg roll!
it seems that we are always being encouraged to be consumers wether it is on the high st or in the woods so of you want to ride free get a map.
The comments about more transparency with funds generated from income is interesting and i wonder how it would be beneficial to locals, who have possibly have direct input, compared to riders travelling from further afield for one/two days riding.
how would the sport benefit in the long term with the potential increase of revenue?
would we receive more recognition if we are generating more cash?
would funding for development go down?
how has it been funded thus far?
and is it fair to begin charging now, after dangling the carrot and getting some of us addicted to easy to follow, flowing trails with a good cup of coffee and a slice of cake at the end of it?

stay happy!

Skimmed through this thread with interest. It has been suggested that we introduce a permit system for using the trails in Bristol, and no doubt an injection of cash would benefit some of them greatly. The FC do have money but it is spread very thinly and it can be hard to argue that MTBing deserves massive grants of the type that go to community projects when we're all riding around on £1k bikes.

My take on charging for the trails is that although they're a purpose-built sports venue, like a skate park or a football pitch, they're not the sort of place where you could let people in through a turnstile and enforce the purchasing of permits rigourously. Some venues seem to run quite successfully on permit only, and I'd respectfully disagree with Max Headset's view that it's only the family ones that are workable under such a situation. There seem to be quite a few DH venues that manage to keep running using pay to ride.

That said, I think wider introduction of permits would only harm accessibility to what is already quite an exclusive sport, and although some of the rants on here are properly pathetic, you do get a clear sense that it would erode goodwill among the existing participants.

I think the future has to be getting more people into the sport, thus increasing the possibilities for alternative revenue via (hopefully well-run) franchises and services. I'd like to see more trail centres near cities that people can actually ride to, better management of the trails, and more pay-to-ride challenging trails, but ones actually built for the purpose.

If a trail centre start's charging, do they suddenly become more liable if someone gets injured.

No, that risk is always there, sadly.

To add to my last post…

Maxaheadset – probably the best post on the thread, bringing well informed opinion to the debate.

So, if the current funding model works at the moment, perhaps it's time is limited. My own view would remain that I'd not want to pay for access. I live close enough to Glyncorrwg that I could ride there (for a full day out), but choose to ride the local trails in the valleys closer to me – that's not a decision based on cost, it's purely more convenient to ride from the door.

(And I'd regard my own opinions on the issue as partially informed, rather than totally ignorant 😉

maxheadset's commented informed but why abuse/stereotype the forum users? doesn't add anything to points made other than to convince me that those involved in trail centre management and countryside management find it easy easier to understand and manage family/leisure cyclists

Interesting post Maxheadset.

I think it's harsh to be so dismissive of STWers. Many of us are early(ish) enthusiasts for the sport and perhaps sound a bit self-important. It seems like hand-built trails are not central to our riding life, they are a useful add-on, esp. in winter when our rights-of-way are out of condition, or for short holidays. I'm very happy they exist and are "free" to use. I would pay something more for the benefit they provide, but the price has to be right.

I think the argument that "we own the forests" is a bit weak. I understand the land was gifted to the FC for commercial exploitation and it's good they are now putting something back. A question: It sounds like the economics of FC's business is failing, but the demand for wood is still there and satisfied by foreign suppliers. Why is FC failing to compete?

As for the problem of engaging older people in activity sports: hiking is an ideal activity for all ages. I think the FC is doing the right thing developing interesting "controlled" walking trails with cafe's etc. I want to be hiking on those trails when I'm 70.

As Chris says. I'd take a very dim view of being charged for access to the countryside in general. But going to a trail centre is similar to going to Alton Towers. The purpose-built and maintained element costs money, and it seems fair to be expected to contribute to those costs if you use the facility.

Wot he said.

I tend to think of them like climbing walls- there's no charge to climb on the crags in this country and everybody has a right to do so, but that doesn't extend to a purpose-built facility.

My first reaction was to wonder how much/any of the money taken at the shops and cafes goes back to the trails?

Also, this is a good point:

I think the question is actually: Should non-bikers subsidise the building of trail centres?

And I think the answer to that is yes for many reasons including
They create jobs
They promote health
They encourage tourism
They get people into the countryside
They are relatively cheap and extremely efficient
Many other sports, arts, leisure and cultural infrastructures get subsidies too.

but I'm not sure I totally buy it. I think most of us wouldn't be keen to hear about, say, windsurfers or horse riders getting loads of purpose-built facilities without having to contribute so why should we be any different?

How could it be controlled? How do you make sure that everyone who is in the forest and riding the trails has paid? There isn't just one point of accees or departure to the trails. You would need to have people out on the trails checking passing riders.

Rather than climbing walls, I reckon they are more like ski centres.

Certainly in this country, your ski pass only covers lifts. If you are willing to hike up, you can ski the pistes for free, and people do.

I reckon you will never be able to effectively charge people directly for riding the trails, but charge for things like car parking, accomodation toilets and showers and chair lifts, and use the revenue form those to fund the trails.

sorry i dont have a free day to catch up all that has already been posted.

I happily pay to use astonhill, when i could ride the other side of the same hill for free.

its part and parcel of my ctc membership this year

nick1c – Member

Yes, provided the fee is reasonable & the funds generated are used for development & maintenance, not as a profit centre.

Cant say it much better than that

furthermore, if you have volunteered and put some spadework/fund raising/whatever, then you dont have to pay.

comparing trail centres to open countryside access is very naive.

you can ski the pistes for free, and people do.

Perhaps uplift services could really be part of the economic solution as it has been for skiing. Presently, uplifts are aimed at DHers. But I think there would be demand from trail cyclist of all abilities to benefit from some uplift and pay for it. For example: My GF is a occasional, novice-level rider, can handle up-to moderate red-level trails and enjoys it. But the effort and time taken to do all the climbing stops her from participating 🙁 If there was uplift at Afan she would come with me and pay to use it. And in all probability, so would I.

uplift only really works at dh only places though – i cant see how it would help at afan (except whites, but even that still has climbing in the 'dh' bit

I'll reinterate my stance that I would be prepared to pay to ride but not at the current standard of trails featured at the centres (or at least a very minimal amount).
It should also be agreed that ALL revenue from MTB centres goes directly back into the MTB trails and facilities. I'd also be willing to give some labour (perhaps a credit scheme which earns trail time?).
You will always run the risk of making it too expensive and then people will just bypass the pay station.

A question: It sounds like the economics of FC's business is failing, but the demand for wood is still there and satisfied by foreign suppliers. Why is FC failing to compete?

The story I was told was due to the quality of our wood not being to the same level as foreign wood – our climate is rather damp and this encourages sporadic growth rather than consistent growth (clearly more factors than just dampness), but if you cut a tree from the UK the rings aren't consistently spaced, whereas wood from the likes of Scandinavia the rings are much more consistently spaced and therefore a higher quality for manufacturing. I think (but happy to be corrected) that the majority of wood from the UK gets pulped and used for pulped wood products.

Looking back on this, I suspect part of the issue is that the meteoric rise of the trail centre has caught everyone in the know off-guard so correct planning hasn't been put in place to make sure the long-term future of these centres is managed effectively…I think (going largely on my own experience) that there is a real fear of how much these things cost the FC to maintain and this is down largely to poorly thought out plans initially – perhaps due to the 'need' to develop something quickly. If the rise in popularity hadn't been quite so quick I suspect better planning and costings would have been produced to make this less of an issue (although it isn't something you can totally plan for).

Tim – Member

uplift only really works at dh only places though – i cant see how it would help at afan (except whites, but even that still has climbing in the 'dh' bit

Lots of folk pay for uplift at Laggan – that's not exactly DH

Buzz, there was an uplift at Afan for a bit, but they guy had a comparatively small trailer, most people carried on riding up, and I don't think the economics worked out.

Getting flashbacks to the Drumlanrig thread from last year where I got roasted.

No issue paying a car park fee such as llandegla, 7 stanes etc. which is between one and three quid, if you dont want to use the trail go elsewhere. Or buy a cheapo season ticket which I did when the nice lady ranger at Drumlanrig shamed me into doing.

Maxheadset – good article, not sure about the black and red not attracting volumes of folk though? Anytime I went round those trails they seemed to be in general a lot busier than the family trails (which were great for my kids btw when I lived down there).

I don't think the economics worked out

Certainly not when the FC or Glyncorrwg Ponds coperative (cant remember which) imposed lots of daft additional rules on him & said they were going to re-let the tender as they wanted more cash. Geraint, the guy running the uplift, was pretty bitter about the whole experience. Shame – nice bloke & a locally-owned business.

sustainable tourism policies

Is driving to a trail centre to ride in a low biodiversity forest sustainable tourism?

How sustainable is shipping north american timber to build a centre rather than sourcing local wood?

^ +1. Sitka factories are not the prettiest of places…

uplift services are starting at afan again soon.

http://www.afanuplift.co.uk/

did a few uplifts with the old guy (gilbert?) and it was ace. I heard a rumour he'd been done for drink-driving?

i'm sure a lot will disagree but climbing really isnt an essential part of MTB'ing….

Would I pay to use a trail centre? No, i'd stop going if they introduced charges.

it's an interesting thread. the model of CP charging is a good one they should stick to IMO. this let's locals ride to the centre if they want to, and it's likely to be locals who help maintain trails ( and who probably already maintain 'un-sanctioned' trails if they don't do that ), so there's no real need for a formalised 'credit' type scheme.
Max raises a point that family or red trails are the ones likely to be built in future, but suggests this is because the 'gnarly hardcore dudes' inhabiting STW ( yeah, right ) aren't a big enough potential revenue stream, but the reality of this situation is that the 'gnar-core' are small in number, when compared to the average 'recreational and family cyclist' that keeps the lights on at the local LBS. the FC's own studies show this, so they're bound to cater appropriately – it's not because your average 'gnar-dude' is too tight, ( too cynical? think you might be confusing your stereotypes… ) and i don't understand why he's making that suggestion.
The FC could go down the route of attempting to eradicate all un-sanctioned routes, but i think that would be silly. we could up in a similar situation to the kayakers mentioned above, where if no agreement exists, we'll just do as we please. better to work in symbiosis. work together where we can, cater to our own 'target markets', live and let live.

Uplift – sorry if this seems like a hijack, but it relates to access, revenue and the future of trail centres…

I was riding on the Qs last Thursday and a special needs school was shuttling a group of kids up to Dead Women's Ditch and then riding down with them. What they are doing is providing access to the sport for people who otherwise would not participate. I'm generalising here, but uplifts might be a way of improving access to the sport and might also provide some needed revenue. Dunno.

"Lots of folk pay for uplift at Laggan"

Yes, I have occasional cyclist friends who have used it when they visited Scotland and they loved it. The only time I have been, my GF and I rode up 3 times (it's not a very big climb), but if it had been available that day we would have used it to save some time and effort. And who has qualms about using the Gondola to ride the new "red" at Aonach Mor – not me.

"Geraint"

What a pity that fell through but I suspect it was because he was independent he didn't have the backing of the big guns. How well was it advertised? Has the demographic of riders at Afan changed enough to try again? And the investment level is tiny compared with the cost of installing a Gondola.

Cwmdown seems to work at Cwncarn but is marketed at the DH track which puts my GF off. One day biking might shed it's smelly, dirty hard-man, rough image (a self-portrait) 😉 and become a family sport like skiing?

Max – drop me a line dave@singletrackworld.com

Serious question (forgive my lack of knowledge).
If the forestry commission owns the forests, who owns and funds the forestry commission?

Going slightly off topic, but maintaining the same theme – there is a toll road running alongside the M6 near Birmingham. No-one has to use it(trail centres), you could use the ordinary M6 (riding XC), but many are happy to pay for the privilege, even though "our taxes" have paid for the original road.

Is there not a corollory here?

That pretty much sums it up…for those who have been MTBing for a very long time i.e. before the birth of trail centres, this idea of paying is going to sound very strange

I haven't been MTBing that long. However I went on loads of walks in the country with my folks when I was young. Frequently these walks were at National Trust for Scotland sites and my parents paid their membership dues to the National Trust each year so we could get access to their land. Maybe that's why the concept of paying to ride somewhere isn't immediately abhorrent to me?

"climbing really isnt an essential part of MTB'ing"

Well I do disagree and I expect you're being provocative? 🙂

But the analogy in skiing is back-country telemark (basically mountaineering) VS recreational downhill (family fun). In biking terms, I think STWers in general been doing the former for years.

Alpine resorts have pre-existing uplift infrastructure to support the latter and the UK FC don't. But the FC have a killer advantage with the UK market – they are in the UK. If me and my GF could get alpine-style uplift singletrack holidays in the UK, why would we go to the Alps for a week?

This is the dreaded (really?) "MTB World" UK resort scenario. Us gnarly old giffers can carry on riding up hills as we've always done, only we become a niche within a much bigger and wider biking market.

I'm really rambling now… sorry

Checked the forestry commission website, which states that it's a govt department. So it belongs to the taxpayer (us), along with the forests and trails.
It also states that the foresty commission "cares for" the forests, which does not equals "owns". So, I would suggest that even though there are people willing to pay to use trails, it would be very difficult to introduce and impossible to police. Are walkers going to asked to contribute to the maintenance also, since they're also permitted on all MTB trails in Wales?

Checked the forestry commission website, which states that it's a govt department. So it belongs to the taxpayer (us), along with the forests and trails.

Not sure I follow you there, Backhander. You can't squat in your local council offices if you don't have a house, can you?

The other point about the FC being a government agency is that they have a limited budget, and are expected to be as financially self-sufficient as possible. They have to self-insure as well, and having to make budget cuts as a result of successful accident claims has been a very real possibility for them in the past, at least in the South West.

That said, a big part of their mandate is to get people into the UK's forests and make sure they enjoy it, so they want people to use their land. But if they can't make a financial return from it, don't expect them to invest heavily.

You can't squat in your local council offices if you don't have a house, can you?

I'm not sure that analogy is particularly valid

I wouldn't however expect to pay to use a local park although paying for parking outside would be acceptable

A better metaphor might be paying to use your local swimming baths. Although it may have been built with taxpayers' money, there is still the cost of keeping the tiles grouted and the pube filter running. 🙂

Checked the forestry commission website, which states that it's a govt department. So it belongs to the taxpayer (us), along with the forests and trails.

And we're free to go and use the forests pretty much as we like, free of charge- just like runners, walkers, horseriders, and everyone else. But how far should this priviledge should be extended when a subset of users starts demanding purpose-built infrastructure that isn't of much use to the remaining majority (walkers ambling along MTB trails aside)?

Maybe but a local park is a very similar asset with similar uses & needs

A better metaphor would be to put the idea of charging the walkers to use forestry land. I think we know what they'd say to that.
Edit, I don't demand facilities. I dont need showers, cafe, shop etc.
Walking paths, styes etc all require upkeep.

A better metaphor would be to put the idea of charging the walkers to use forestry land. I think we know what they'd say to that.

It's not the same thing though, unless those walkers are demanding purpose-built facilities with extra costs attached to them.

EDIT: that is, facilities over and above those on that would have to be provided to allow reasonable access to the public at large.

I think MrSalmon is spot on. A park can be anything you want it to be – a place for a stroll, a picnic, a game of football, a fete or a spot of cottaging. An MTB trail along Seven Stanes or Afan lines isn't much use for anyone except mountain bikers.