Recreation Must Pay – But It’s Everyone Who Will Suffer

by 87

Hannah thinks that public funding of outdoor recreation is at a crisis point. In the race to balance budgets, we’re at risk of a long legacy of cost. Last week I went to an online public meeting about the future of the visitor centres at Natural Resources Wales (NRW) sites, which includes Nant yr Arian and Coed y Brenin. The visitor centres and cafes there are to be closed as part of wider efforts by…

There's more to this story

But it's a member-only story

Join us to unlock it and more

Join us

Full Member Benefits

*You can help support Singletrack by adding a little bit extra on your annual renewal.

Author Profile Picture
Hannah Dobson

Managing Editor

I came to Singletrack having decided there must be more to life than meetings. I like all bikes, but especially unusual ones. More than bikes, I like what bikes do. I think that they link people and places; that cycling creates a connection between us and our environment; bikes create communities; deliver freedom; bring joy; and improve fitness. They're environmentally friendly and create friendly environments. I try to write about all these things in the hope that others might discover the joy of bikes too.

More posts from Hannah

Home Forums Recreation Must Pay – But It’s Everyone Who Will Suffer

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 87 total)
  • Recreation Must Pay – But It’s Everyone Who Will Suffer
  • 3
    chakaping
    Full Member

    Gisburn cafe recently closed. I’m amazed it stayed open so long TBH (no reflection on the cafe, just the location).

    Not sure quite what this article is calling for? Publicly funded, loss-making visitor centres selling stuffed toys and OS maps?

    CyB isn’t closing. The trails are going nowhere, despite the misleading headline on STW’s last article (still in place I see).

    Pick your battles.

    mrlebowski
    Free Member

    If it doesn’t cost me money to paddle down a river, should I have to pay to cycle along the bank?

    FYI you do actually need a small craft license to use rivers & canals..

    https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/things-to-do/canoeing-and-kayaking-near-me/licensing-your-canoe

    1
    poly
    Free Member

    FYI you do actually need a small craft license to use rivers & canals..

    depends where you are (I’m in the frozen north so we don’t!) but when I lived in England I paddled on the Wye and the Usk where no license is needed.  I don’t believe it’s that unusual.

    doomanic
    Full Member

    I’ve just calculated the costs for a small 3m by 1m craft and it’s over 700 quid a year!

    1
    IdleJon
    Free Member

    I’ve just calculated the costs for a small 3m by 1m craft and it’s over 700 quid a year!

    That’s about the same as 6 hours parking in Thetford Forest. 😀

    5
    scotroutes
    Full Member

    depends where you are (I’m in the frozen north so we don’t!) but when I lived in England I paddled on the Wye and the Usk where no license is needed.  I don’t believe it’s that unusual.

    Which, in a way, makes a really good point that (I think) has been missed on this thread. Opening up public access to land in England and Wales would do more to encourage physical exercise, and the associated mental health benefits, than increasing funding for a few specialist locations.

    enigmas
    Free Member

    Really tricky one. A few observations from me are:

    1) Parking pricing going up is counterproductive in some areas. I used to pay every time at Cwmcarn and FoD when it was cheap, but there’s plenty of free car parks right next door, so saving up to £7 for a five minute pedal is a no brainer.

    2) Lots of grumbles over the conditions of the trails going down whilst car parking fees go up. CyB and Afan suffer from this.

    3) Many trail centres haven’t kept up with the advent of bigger bikes and trails to suit, whilst keeping blue trails for others. Instead off piste is ridden and then there’s no argument that any fees support the trails. Instead I’ll take a shovel up and maintain a couple of trails I built in my local (FoD).

    matt_outandabout
    Free Member

    1) Parking pricing going up is counterproductive in some areas. I used to pay every time at Cwmcarn and FoD when it was cheap, but there’s plenty of free car parks right next door, so saving up to £7 for a five minute pedal is a no brainer.

    2) Lots of grumbles over the conditions of the trails going down whilst car parking fees go up. CyB and Afan suffer from this.

    I suspect that these two are connected.
    I also suspect that the cost of the car park creation and maintenance sucks up that £7 real quick.

    2
    DickBarton
    Full Member

    Do the parking areas need to be as fancy as they are? ANPR is great for getting people to pay, but seriously expensive…
    The Visitor Centres are a waste of money – people tend to go to those places to do outdoor things, an incredibly small amount go for a fancy visitor centre experience.
    It seems to have imploded as the owners have thought they can commandeer all the money…they should be letting others get in and make a go of it, rather than looking to keep all money for themselves.

    Do the parking areas need to be as fancy as they are?

    Same can be said for visitor centres, all the bells and whistles for something in the middle of nowhere that will have seasonal fluctuations in usage. Keep it simple, the Cafe at Barry is a great example.

    1
    matt_outandabout
    Free Member

    Agreed that simple visitors facilities are the way forward, not multi-million pound vanity projects.

    1
    DickBarton
    Full Member

    Yeah, sorry, my posts was basically saying the visitor centre and parking don’t need to be anything fancy, certainly not like they are.
    I’m sure a small number of people are pleased with the buildings winning awards, but once started the costs rise and then once built, the costs remain high to maintain them.
    Dead easy to type that, but most people won’t care how fancy the parking or centre is as they are there to enjoy the outdoors – cyclists, walkers, runners, dog walkers, families…having somewhere to get some food is great, but doesn’t need to be fancy (reducing costs and overheads) and should be left to local businesses to run and pay a rent to landowner.

    2
    robertajobb
    Full Member

    Sometimes people decide to conveniently forget that those people spending £8k or even £10k on their expensive bikes HAVE already paid for the facilities – with the 20% VAT, quite likely their 40% income tax rate.  Sp, that’s really more like 50%, saying that the ££ was taxed at 40% to start with then another 20% stuck on after that.

    It’s like the bollox the Gov talk about wirh public transport and why it’s not fair for the tax payer to fund public transport- those passengers ARE tax payers, FFS.

    1
    kelvin
    Full Member

    Well put.

    5
    thegeneralist
    Free Member

    No it wasn’t

    1
    ampthill
    Full Member

    So i think the conclusion is that trail centres are free unless you bought your bike on the cycle to work scheme.

    I tried to like The Generalists post but it didn’t work. Hmm maybe it did

    4
    scotroutes
    Full Member

    The Visitor Centres are a waste of money – people tend to go to those places to do outdoor things, an incredibly small amount go for a fancy visitor centre experience.

    Hmm. I don’t think you and I are the target audience, or the right folk to judge. For a decent sized percentage of the population – perhaps those that most need the outdoors and exercise – a nice visitor centre with cafe, small shop and walks with interpretation boards etc. might be just the thing to incentivise them.

    thegeneralist
    Free Member

    Well put

    DickBarton
    Full Member

    I would hope interpretation boards and signage wouldn’t be wrapped up in the actual visitor centre. I’d consider those as vital for all visitors/users to help them get the most from their visit.
    A solution for food/drink is always good but doesn’t need to be fancy…clean and inviting, yes.

    1
    nickjb
    Free Member

    We go to a lot of different outdoor places. Some with fancy visitor centres, some with basic facilities and some with nothing. Outside of a few significant honey pots (eg Snowdon) there is pretty much a direct link between number of visitors and quality of visitor centre.

    As a biker and a walker I personally don’t need much. I also generally prefer places with less people so I’m happy with few facilities but it seems if you want more people to go somewhere you need a good visitor centre.

    1
    gowerboy
    Full Member

    Hannah’s analysis is correct in my opinion.  I think a base level of trail provision should be publicly funded.  It doesn’t have to be gold plated top of the range stuff… that can be provided by the private sector but the original trail centre network has served us well and should be maintained and kept fresh enough for all to enjoy.

    A bigger worry for me is that if the govt/public sector turn their back on recreation and seek to sweat the land resources that we all own but they control, we could find ourselves excluded from a vast area of Wales.  Many of us use forest roads and trails to link up routes all around the UK.  In Wales we only have permissive access to much of this land.  If that permissive access is forgotten when Welsh Govt/NRW eventually disposes of some of their assets to the private sector we could find ourselves left outside the fence.

    That is why I agree with Scotroutes

    Which, in a way, makes a really good point that (I think) has been missed on this thread. Opening up public access to land in England and Wales would do more to encourage physical exercise, and the associated mental health benefits, than increasing funding for a few specialist locations.

    I don’t really understand the situation in Ireland but it seems to me that the limited access there makes outdoor recreation  much harder than places with a similar landscape in Scotland.  Wales is kind of a halfway house… and it could be so much better.

    One issue is that those in control don’t really understand cycling, mountain biking, paddling, etc.  and I’m not sure that they listen properly to those in their organisations that do…

    4
    Gribs
    Full Member

    The CyB visitor centre was considered excessive when built in 2006 for £1.6m, then a £1.2m extension in 2013. It’s always been overly expensive to maintain and the cafe was worse than what came before. Glentress has the same problems. They’re vanity projects that never stood a chance of making a sensible return on the investment and actually made things worse as the money was concentrated there rather than being spread around.

    5
    bentudder
    Full Member

    I remember getting buttonholed at the bar in a Dollgellau pub in the very early 2000s by a couple of very keen farmers who wanted to know what us mountain bikers wanted. They had noticed riders coming to the area year round (including Christmas Eve) to ride and stay, and they both wanted to convert buildings on their land to cater to groups, and wanted to know what we looked for in accommodation.

    About fifteenish years ago Dafydd Davis was invited down to where I lived by one of the big local land managers – Hurtwood Control – to look at the trails that had sprung up there organically over the years. I got to come along to hear from him as I’d been involved in building or maintaining some of them. He made an excellent point quite early on in his report to the landowners and managers: the trail centre he and Sian Roberts had pioneered at CYB solved a problem for the location: not enough visitors. The Surrey Hills, on the other hand, had almost the opposite problem: it was struggling to accommodate the number of people who came to ride, walk and so on.

    Done right, and with foresight, building facilities can benefit a lot more people than just mountain bikers – from attracting people to an area they might not visit and bringing in much-needed cash, to encouraging people to spread out in the hills and not congregate in one place by the hundreds. A quick squint at Walking Bottom car park in Peaslake of a weekend suggests this is still a problem 15 years on, by the way.

    Last thing, I promise: FC / FE  have changed their approach over the years. Mountain biking used to be a management issue. Now it’s a potential revenue source or option to remove liability from the balance sheet. I think understanding what the landowner and land manager (not always the same bunch) want to achieve is key to understanding what’s going on. Aside from saving cash, there’s not much else that’s clear so far.

     

    politecameraaction
    Free Member

    mountain biking should receive its fair share of public funding

    What would the fair share be? Swimming and football (which I personally hate) get tons of public money because millions of kids and adults go for a swim and organised football session every week. They’re an order of magnitude more popular than mountain biking.

    2
    scotroutes
    Full Member

    Yeah – also, define “mountain biking”. For the overwhelming majority it involves nothing more gnarly than a canal towpath or forest road. The number whose bikes have “outgrown” traditional trail centres is relatively tiny.

    It wouldn’t need so much funding if people kept it simple. I’m not talking Hammers iso container simple, but modest setups that adequately meet visitors needs, with as low as reasonably practicable running costs.

    2
    joefm
    Full Member

    Looking at the areas where these trail centres exist, they literally have nothing going on and are often deprived.  Mountain biking has bought visitors to the areas that have spent money and created jobs for local people.  So while football is more popular, the investment to get people to these areas is still worth while and perhaps more so in a geographically limiting area (hills, forests etc).

    It’s a very narrow perspective to have when we say ‘there are other things to fix like hungry children’.  The government has the means (questionable) to invest in communities to create a better chance for the local people at a strong local economy that provides people with the means to live rather than just treat the symptoms with some free school meals.  Us MTB’ers and outdoorists have that ability but we need incentive (investment in trails etc).

    the forestry co has a limited remit to invest in the communities in such a way with the government support available and they’re just looking to do the bare minimum which is probably just open access as that would probably tick the box to fulfil their requirements.  It’s the same all over.

    nickjb
    Free Member

    What would the fair share be? Swimming and football (which I personally hate) get tons of public money because millions of kids and adults go for a swim and organised football session every week. They’re an order of magnitude more popular than mountain biking.

    Its a bit chicken and egg though. You can go swimming in the sea or play football in the park with jumpers for goalposts but those are very much the minority. Have decent facilities and people will use them, participation increases.

    3
    politecameraaction
    Free Member

    The barriers to entry to swimming and football are low (particularly when both are taught in schools): you need a £8 cossie or £15 football boots from Decathlon to get started, and maybe a bus fare.

    Mountain biking at trail centres usually involves an expensive bike and a car to carry it there.

    (And half the time people are riding £5k bikes in £25k cars, and then moaning about a £3 parking charge and eating Coop sandwiches instead of eating in the site cafes that provide the toilets).

    DickBarton
    Full Member

    I remember when it was £3 for the day…not that cheap in a lot of places now.
    Football and swimming are far more accessible and have far higher participation numbers – recreationally and organised.
    If you can build trails in the local community then you will get an increase is numbers of mountain bikers – but it requires space and there is very little of that available…

    chrismac
    Full Member

    I’m not entirely sure why with the huge sums of money in football taxpayers need to fund it.

    politecameraaction
    Free Member

    I’m not entirely sure why with the huge sums of money in football taxpayers need to fund it.

    ?

    1
    BadlyWiredDog
    Full Member

    Apart from all the other stuff – and personally I find it hard to argue that mountain biking, in the context of trail centres – is more than a niche recreational hobby, which relatively affluent, self-selecting participants – it seems fundamentally wrong to me, to be encouraging people to drive, sometimes considerable, distances to ride their bikes.

    It’s cloth eared, particularly from a ‘sport’ which crowbars in arguments about sustainability when it suits.

    I’d suggest that if you were going to allocate funds to mountain biking, you’d be better off supporting grass-roots projects encouraging youngsters in particular, to ride bikes. We used to have one locally in Glossop and it was a great mechanism for introducing young people both to riding bikes off road and to getting outside more generally.

    We had a small council-funded stock of basic hardtails for those without their own bikes and there was very little driving involved. It was popular and worked well.

    There’s a bit of a lack of imagination here where people seem to think that the only way to encourage mountain biking is to finance facilities at trail centres, which almost by definition have limited accessibility by public transport outside of a very local area. That’s not really the case, I’m sure there are plenty of initiatives that could be started at a local level that would arguably be a better use of public money and still broadly benefit mountain biking. It doesn’t have to be a binary all or nothing thing.

    I appreciate that the trail centre thing is more narrowly bound up with the finances and policies of individual bodies rather than a more general policy, so it’s not quite that simple, but maybe trail centres funded by public bodies were of their time and no longer are, at least in terms of being justifiable in funding terms.

    I’ll admit that my views are probably coloured by my personal lack of interest in trail centres – they’ve always struck me a bland and lacking in any sense of journey, you basically ride the same trail over and over again until you end up where you started without any real sense of how you got there – but maybe the idea that they’re really a way of ‘connecting with the outdoor environment’ is overstated. Ime it’s more like being on a sort of insulated giant Scalectrix track with a cafe attached before you get back in your car and drive home safely insulated from any real contact with the outside world.

    1
    DickBarton
    Full Member

    The large sums of money in football are only at the very top level…it doesn’t tend to float around at all levels, but it is a massively popular sport for all ages and doesn’t require much in the way of provision – a flat space where 2 goals can be created.
    Mountain biking (apparently) requires a lot of space and dedicated provisions that require more maintenance and upkeep than just cutting the grass.
    Gravel is cheaper but nowadays it seems to be different to mountain biking – back in 80s/90s and into the 00s, it was all mountain biking and we used plenty of existing trails – not dedicated biking trails, but existing stuff. Less cost, but didn’t allow people to get to places that needed the tourist £££…
    Annoyingly, mountain biking is an expensive sport that isn’t as inclusive as it once was…and that costs a lot of money (but most of us don’t want to contribute).
    I’ve had a crap night and in a stinking mood, so suspect this is coming across far worse than it should!

    chakaping
    Full Member

    Annoyingly, mountain biking is an expensive sport that isn’t as inclusive as it once was…and that costs a lot of money (but most of us don’t want to contribute).

    Contribute how though?

    Plenty of people pay to ride at uplift venues. Plenty of people still pay to park at traditional trail centres (whether they have a visitor centre or not) . There are even some pay-to-push-up venues.

    If the Innerleithen Golf Course was tarmacked and turned into a pay-and-display car park, I reckon it’d be rammed.

    On the inclusivity thing, I honestly don’t know. I think I’m meeting just as many newbies and teenagers out on the trails as ever, rattling about on Carreras or whatever hand-me-down bikes. I’m seeing more women and greater variety of skin colour than ever on the trails.

    New bike pricing went a bit nuts in recent years, but I sense a readjustment is happening already. Entry level bikes are often really good.

    I don’t think I’m being blindly optimistic, but I’m not sure MTB is in that bad a place really?

    nickjb
    Free Member

    Mountain biking (apparently) requires a lot of space and dedicated provisions that require more maintenance and upkeep than just cutting the grass

    At our local rec the council cut the grass several times a year, paint lines, fit and remove goalposts. All of these take several men and various bits of equipment, trucks, a tractor etc. The local trails have a volunteer dig team out maybe once a month. I’d say the effort is broadly similar with only one having a cost to the taxpayer. I’m happy for football to be funded, it is very accessible, it would be nice to see a bit of funding going to other things as well.

    The space one is the interesting point for me. Mountain biking does need space, not a huge land area but quite spread out. There is such a fight for the limited accessible space we have. It was very noticeable during lockdown. I’d like to see much greater access but really we need more accessible recreation land close to areas of population. Not sure how we get that, I think most of the big parkland near here is old country estates where the owner couldn’t afford the death duties and gave the property to the council.

    the-muffin-man
    Full Member

    Mountain biking (apparently) requires a lot of space and dedicated provisions that require more maintenance and upkeep than just cutting the grass.

    I mountain biked for 25 years and never went to a trail centre.

    The trails exist – they are free to access – people are just too lazy to find them now.

    1
    chakaping
    Full Member

    The trails exist – they are free to access – people are just too lazy to find them now.

    There’s been a shift away from dedicated official MTB trails to (often more local) off-piste, sometimes “secret” trails over the last 10 years — so I’m not sure this is accurate.

    But maybe you’ve been too lazy to find them? 😉

    1
    DickBarton
    Full Member

    @the-muffin-man That was my point…previously we didn’t need dedicated locations and dedicated trails. For many, they still don’t, but there are many who only ride trail centres and those require a lot of money to build and maintain.
    I’d always hoped those who started out and used trail centres would progress and start to ride the hills and discover a load of trails elsewhere (away from trail centres), but that hasn’t happened as I’d hoped it would.
    Nothing wrong with trail centres and nothing wrong with riding in the hills – plenty right with both, but 1 requires far more money to maintain than the other. This then means that provision requires a lot more time and effort to keep going (as well as the space to create it – not many farmers next to towns/villages offering up land to redevelop for bike trails or pump tracks).

    the-muffin-man
    Full Member

    But maybe you’ve been too lazy to find them? ?

    I’m too lazy to even ride anymore! 🙂

    And since when have secret trails been a new thing?

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 87 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.