[Closed] Scottish Mountain Bike Trails

If it was already charging before the LRA, it could continue to charge.

It would be a problem to charge for 'access' after the LRA, however it could be possible to charge for a 'facility'.

The difference between a stalkers path which people can ride on but it isn't it's only function, compared to a skills park which is specifically and solely built and maintained for riding.

I dispare of people being so willing to part with cash (and by implication allow others to bring in the concept of payment for all) to trails, be they "trail centres", purpose built stuff or shared RoW.

Certainly for trail centres they're on publicly owned land, managed by a publicly funded organisation and usually part or wholly funded by UK or European Union money, almost without exception. Therefore, you've already paid for it through taxation and are continuing to pay for the infrastructure, organisation etc through ongoing taxation and Government budgets.

I stand to be corrected but am not aware of any direct (or even vague) link between income from car parking etc and money being put into trail maintenance / development at FC sites.

Better to put a little of your time and effort into the MTBing in general than roll over so easily to the concept of paying to ride, IMO.

The idea someone floated up about MTB paying for their "environmental damage" is flawed on umpteen levels, unless of course all other users are going to be subject to the same charges and in a proportional nature to their impact. E.g. horse riders, walkers, off roaders etc.

Of course most RoW (putting aside local variation in access law etc) are maintanined by your local authority which themselves are funded through Govt / taxation etc.

We're already paying for everything.

Providing leisure and recreational facilities leads to greater activity amongst the population which reduce the risk of numerous ill health effects which in turn reduces the cost burden on state funded facilities (health care etc). Plus using such facilities usually involves buying kit, using local businesses, services etc which all in themselves contribute to the Govt coffers (from which the aforementioned organisatiosn etc are paid for) through various forms of taxation.

And yet there are those that think we should all be paying for the privilege to ride. Pffft!

P&L 😎

Cheeky Monkey - Member
I dispare of people being so willing to part with cash...
And yet there are those that think we should all be paying for the privilege to ride...

Others don't know what the thin end of a wedge looks like.

CM - some interesting points there, but some short sightedness too IMHO.

You could argue that council run leisure facilities should also be free, using your logic.

The healthy living bit is true, but the problem is that trail centres (and it's paying to use custom built trail centres that I'm on about) are not accessible enough to offer a facility to the lower paid parts of the population where the problem is greatest.

not all trail centres are on public land, and some, like Drumlanrig haven't had any public money spent on them.

As for spending public money on a mostly middle class hobby, where most of us spend upwards of a grand for a bike - I'd say spend it on health care or education in the schemes and ghettos on actually getting the problem kids and adults out excercising and eating healthily.

I don't like the idea of making MTB any more exclusive than it is already, but you've got to recognise that at the more advanced level it helps enormously to have special facilities, despite the additional costs. For example, if you've got a North Shore or DH park on private land, extortionate insurance premiums, uplift service and wooden structures that need ripping out and replacing every few years, an access charge sounds fair enough. I suppose technically you could learn the same skills by riding natural terrain or jumping down steps in the town centre, but it wouldn't be ideal. There's nothing in that to suggest that all MTB facilities should become pay to ride.

Hopefully most landowners are savvy enough about ways to make money these days that they don't have to resort to pay-to-ride. It's a bit worrying that in Scotland there seems to have been a big slowdown in the construction of new trails of late, I don't know if this is dictated by finance or policy though.

You could argue that council run leisure facilities should also be free, using your logic.

I would argue this very strongly. I'm sickened to see my local leisure centre remodelling itself as a "health club", with monthly membership fees starting at over a tenner. However I will not be lobbying for my local dry ski slope to drop their charges.

As for spending public money on a mostly middle class hobby, where most of us spend upwards of a grand for a bike - I'd say spend it on health care or education in the schemes and ghettos on actually getting the problem kids and adults out excercising and eating healthily.

Indeed - not more black routes for the middle class, middle aged weekend warriors.

I'd say spend it on health care or education in the schemes and ghettos on actually getting the problem kids and adults out excercising and eating healthily.

So basically, give everyone gastric bands, or tell them they should be exercising but don't give them anywhere to do it?

more black routes for the middle class, middle aged weekend warriors

Is a sport going to keep people's interest if there's no excitement or progression?

I'm going to be putting the finishing touches to a trail network right in the middle of Kirkcaldy next week. It's cost peanuts compared to any of the FE trail centres and it doesn't take a car journey to get to from the large and under priviliged estates which surround the woodland it's built in.

A club has been formed so that there is local 'ownership' and also a forward path for maintenance and development.

Some follow up spend on coaching and access to decent bikes would be a much better way for the government to solve the heath issues there and there abouts than subsidising trails for the majority of folks on here who
1) would ride anyway, and
2) aren't part of the obesity / health problem that is so often spouted as a reason for free access to trail networks
3) could realistically afford a few pounds on top of the £50 quids worth of deisel used to get in the middle of nowhere to ride

Let the trail centres stand on there own feet as far as raising cash from the users of the trail centres for development and maintenance is what I would suggest; seems fairer to me than what's happening right now.

Is a sport going to keep people's interest if there's no excitement or progression?

Of course, some are needed, but there is a lot spouted on here about what FC are not doing for their specific interest groups - red and black routes primarily.

More needs to spent on just getting folk on bikes in the first place imho.

Rik I agree that if someone goes to Drumlanrig they pay the fee and ride, or get a season ticket. However it is private transaction in effect with a Landowner who employs a number of people on the estate to create and run the facility. The boundaries are clear.

It is a separate discussion about using public funding to build and maintain trails on FE grounds. But the payment in question is made is for the car park, not to use the trails. The trails are there but so are walking trails, and more often now cafes, playparks etc.

Billions of public money are spent on social security, roads, defence, bailing out banks and god knows what else.

Do I have a problem that a tiny, tiny proportion of that is spent on making a trail so I can enjoy riding my bike on with mates and family? Absolutely not, and may much more of it be carried out. Arguing that they should stand on their own two feet is not an equitable discussion. Drumlanrig is built within the castle of one of the richest landowners in Scotland, a public trail centre cannot be compared to a trail backed by the Duke of Buccleuch surely (net worth 180M - 2009 Sunday Times)?

BTW I was brought up with fek all money and rode knackered old bikes, but after between going to college and working for a living for the last 30 yrs I can afford a decent bike, and yes I can be classified as middle class - what has that got to do with it?

I'm going to be putting the finishing touches to a trail network right in the middle of Kirkcaldy next week. It's cost peanuts compared to any of the FE trail centres and it doesn't take a car journey to get to from the large and under priviliged estates which surround the woodland it's built in.

A club has been formed so that there is local 'ownership' and also a forward path for maintenance and development.

Bravo, sounds awesome 😎

There's too much smoke-and-mirrors about trail building / development. It's generally pretty simple stuff. I agree the cost of some projects has been bonkers.

I'm going to be putting the finishing touches to a trail network right in the middle of Kirkcaldy next week. It's cost peanuts compared to any of the FE trail centres and it doesn't take a car journey to get to from the large and under priviliged estates which surround the woodland it's built in.

A club has been formed so that there is local 'ownership' and also a forward path for maintenance and development.

Some follow up spend on coaching and access to decent bikes would be a much better way for the government to solve the heath issues there and there abouts than subsidising trails for the majority of folks on here who
1) would ride anyway, and
2) aren't part of the obesity / health problem that is so often spouted as a reason for free access to trail networks
3) could realistically afford a few pounds on top of the £50 quids worth of deisel used to get in the middle of nowhere to ride

Let the trail centres stand on there own feet as far as raising cash from the users of the trail centres for development and maintenance is what I would suggest; seems fairer to me than what's happening right now.

Is that at middleden where you are making them trails?

The Trail centre debate has started over at trailscotland as well http://www.trailscotland.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1251

I personally think it will never happen but there is always a possibility. I think I would just ride it anyway. Who would stop me ha

Curious on the access issue at Drumlanrig. I ride there a few times a year, love it and always pay. I more often ride out of season wrt the castle and grounds, so it's just £2 to the Ranger (or at least it was last time).

I can see how it is legit for the Estate to charge to park in the car park, but surely those who park off site and ride in are not doing anything 'wrong' in the context of the LRA ? Note, I don't support this as I totally agree with Rik's points about paying to keep and maintain the trails

Rik - hope to be down again in next few weeks - will pop in and say hello !

I don't think that forcing to pay for trails would even work from a business point of view. Who would take the money, staff = saleries + overheads etc. what about lunch/sick/holiday cover? what about early/late riders? All of a sudden the pay to ride scheme looks pretty bloody expensive and unrealistic. Better to charge for parking which has a low business overhead and accept that some people will avoid paying. In France you don't pay to ride but you do pay for the lift pass...same principle here.

Trails cost money to maintain and develop. Even using hard working volunteers as labour, we still need materials and tools. Who is to pay for this? The money has to come from somewhere.... if it's free, we're essentially paying for it through our taxes and the budget will be cut by the government at any possible chance. Would it not be better to pay a fair amount in parking charges which kind of ring fences the budget (you would hope!) and actually puts money back into the trails?

If you don't like this, don't ride at trail centres. There's plenty of amazing natural routes out there.

TJ makes a fair point, if rather abruptly put 🙂 , If the FC start charging for access, what signal does this send out to other land owners and where does it stop?

Yup thats the spot.

If you know; it get involved and join the club there, all good guys.

Paul - can you point to anywhere that says, or even proves, that any revenue FC make out of car parking or anything that might be associated with trails gets put into trails, their development or upkeep.

Genuinely interested.

CM - No unfortunately not. I think it should though. Would be interesting to find out wouldn't it?

However, if they were to consider charging to ride, the simplest solution for them would be to up the parking charge. People would feel better about paying if there was a bloody big sign saying "£2 of your parking fee goes to trail building".

However, if they were to consider charging to ride, the simplest solution for them would be to up the parking charge. People would feel better about paying if there was a bloody big sign saying "£2 of your parking fee goes to trail building".

Pretty sure the car parking sign at Wolftrax Laggan say's that, made me feel abit of a tightwad being 25p short in change for the meter, was Wednesday when the shop/cafe are shut. 😳

But you see I don't feel this same "pressure" as you guys. It's all publicly owned, on public land and funded through routes that one way or the other has come from public coffers (and by implication our taxes). Why ever would I then want to pay yet more? I have absolutely no objection to putting more in, such as volunteer time.

Trail projects and facilities have to be viewed in the round with all the other costs and benefites and corresponding financial implications. I'd love to see what it actually costs to run Glentress or any other centre (broken down so it was relevant) and particularly a breakdown of what the costs comprised. I suspect we never would though.

Anyhow, I'm banging on 😉

All we need is Heather Bash and the saga of Carron Valley to rear it's head 😉

I admit most of my points relate to developments on FC land. But then I'm assuming that's where the vast majority of trails are. I accept there are private examples and these are somewhat different but they seem to be a small minority in comparison.

So you also think that all local authority owned sports facilities should be free to all users? What about bodies like Scottish Tennis - free for all at Craiglockhart?

The thing is drumlanrig is worth ever penny at the end of the day and someone needs to pay for rik roaming about in a mini digger at 7 at night fixing trails

So you also think that all local authority owned sports facilities should be free to all users?

Keep up at the back please 😉

OK, straight from the Land Reform Act:

"Land over which access rights not exercisable

(1)The land in respect of which access rights are not exercisable is land—

(e)which has been developed or set out—(i)as a sports or playing field; or(ii)for a particular recreational purpose"

Cheeky Monkey - Member

Paul - can you point to anywhere that says, or even proves, that any revenue FC make out of car parking or anything that might be associated with trails gets put into trails, their development or upkeep.

There used to be ringfencing at Glentress but unfortunately now not the case. However, the revenues go into the big pot from which the trailbuilding comes back out.

[i]the saga of Carron Valley to rear it's head[/i]
Not sure if what went on at CV has anything to do with this discussion tbh...

Would be interested to know if the funding supplied by bodies for the various mtb trail projects (and particularly the one that kicked this off) came on the proviso that they were free to use. Anyone know?

Also, anyone know what the %age of the total path network on the Scottish National Forest Estate are purpose built mtb trails?

All we need is Heather Bash and the saga of Carron Valley to rear it's head

[i]Not sure if what went on at CV has anything to do with this discussion tbh...[/i]
Having said that...

Just had a quick scan of some of the funding applications on www.carronvalley.org.uk and from our application for Waste Recycling Environmental funding (i.e. from Landfill Tax) back in 2006:

[b]Q15 Please provide details of charges for use and also detail any income generated by the project
Income may be from charges for entry / hire fees etc.[/b]
Access to the forest is free of charge, including free car parking facilities, and there is no income obtained from those using the trails.
There is a potential for Forestry Commission Scotland to obtain income from implementing car parking charges, from hiring the venue for mountain bike races, demonstrations days etc. or from making other facilities available for lease, e.g. café. However, there is no potential for the Carron Valley Development Group to make income from the project and it is understood that any income generated by the project for Forestry Commission Scotland would be used for trail maintenance and further trail construction in Carron Valley forest.

So clearly charges for use of interest for funding bodies and presumably a change from free > charged might be an issue for some projects?

Right, off to flagellate myself with a Kelpie's tail for bringing CV up again. Really meant not to mention that place again after handing over all my papers on it...

I find the candour of the CV "saga" website quite refreshing TBH. My comment was lighthearted 🙂 I'm sure there's two sides to the story but there's still plenty to be gleaned from it. Having read it all it sounds unpleasantly familiar at times. Bravo to the folks in CVDG who took the time and effort to put it together and even to write up the whole sorry mess, I hope it was cathartic 😎

So you also think that all local authority owned sports facilities should be free to all users? What about bodies like Scottish Tennis - free for all at Craiglockhart?

No I don't think that. I also don't think trail centre developments on the public Forest Estate are the same as local authority provided recreation facilities.

My comments are also general to the UK's trail centre developments, rather than just the Scottish ones.

However, the revenues go into the big pot from which the trailbuilding comes back out.

Without detail that's so vague as to be, without being unpleasant, useless. To understand what the "real" situation is:

I'd love to see what it actually costs to run Glentress or any other centre (broken down so it was relevant) and particularly a breakdown of what the costs comprised. I suspect we never would though.

I'd really like to understand the tendering process for the new Peel centre, does anyone know about how that worked? The tendering process I'm used to at work is the client says we need x doing, tell us how much you propose to do it for and why we should choose you, and then they decide based on cost and how well they think you will do the job.

I can't think how it works for running the cafe/shop in the Peel though, surely the FC are landlords and charging rental of the facilites, do they take the people offering the highest rent, or do they offer the FC a cut of the profits, or what?

Just read this really good write up of the West Highland Way. I am doing this next year for sure - http://www.trailscotland.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1270

Anyone done it?

Trekstar - im the guy that led that ride you were interested in. Noise me up if you want any details. Its ace!