[Closed] would you pay? (Trail Centres)

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 [b]and pay for it[/b]. 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 🙁 [i]If there was uplift at Afan she would come with me and pay to use it. And in all probability, so would I.[/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.

[i]sustainable tourism policies[/i]

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.

[url] http://www.afanuplift.co.uk/ [/url]

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.

WE DONT DEMAND FACILITIES!
We [i]pay[/i] for anything extra, showers, cafe, car park, bike wash.

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

Certainly the forests I go to cater for all those activities [OK I can't confirm the cottaging bit] & the parks I regularly use have specific areas for individual pursuits football, skating BMX etc.

OK, I'm including the trails in 'facilities'. The point is that [i]they[/i] are extra too.

how come the FC can sustain itself?
Surely bad management?
ONF (french FC) are actually making shit loads of money every year...

WE DONT DEMAND FACILITIES!

But presumably you want somewhere to ride your bike that's going to meet certain requirements? Would you go riding at Cwm Carn if there was only the forest drive and the fire roads?

Mr Salmon, there's the rub.
What the FC cannot do is start charging without first building more trails to a very high quality. Also, they need to ban walkers from them unless they are to contribute.

how come the FC can sustain itself?

I've got no idea how the FC's balance sheet looks in the UK, but they don't have bottomless pockets. They aren't immune from the effects of the recession either.

People have been riding Cwmcarn for far longer than there has been signposted trails so yes I would.
Anyway, not the point. At the moment I'm happy to pay parking spend a few quid in the caff etc for the trails I ride. If the FC want to charge, then they need to improve the trails. Never mind about the bloody cafe or bike shop or showers (although theyre nice to have). I notice that there's now a hotel at afan, and lots of accommodation opening up so the local community are benefiting, which I thought was the whole point.

I've got no idea how the FC's balance sheet looks in the UK, but they don't have bottomless pockets. They aren't immune from the effects of the recession either.

There is no way I would pay. I would ride elsewhere. Trail centres are built in the countryside and I would ride bridleways and everywhere nearby that didn't charge. I would rather have no 'facilities' and free trails. I currently don't pay for car parks, I park nearby (usually a campsite or B&B where I am staying) and ride from there.

Trail centres were built to bring us to the area. I cannot understand the mentality in paying to use them!

So every time you go somewhere you give the signposted trail a miss then, I take it? 😛

I think we basically agree that charging people to ride existing trails is a bad idea. However I am taken aback by how many people seem to think that they spring from nowhere and don't require any investment or maintenance.

I appreciate the argument for paying and I don't feel informed enough to say yes or no, so would definitely appreciate some clear, unbiased information. Honestly speaking, I know I'd resent having to pay as footpaths feature plenty of gravel, styles, kissing gates, etc. and hikers don't pay for those. That's not to say that I wouldn't pay if I had to. I did once refuse to pay at Aston Hill. A fiver for a few miles of trail is pretty raw, in my opinion.

What I would really object to is the destruction of existing, unofficial trails on these sites, leaving no options to ride but official routes. Haldon is a good example of this where everything is being destroyed and seemingly replaced with flat, smooth, metre-wide gravel paths. I can appreciate why structures (ladders) have to be removed, but otherwise it's just the ground without so many sticks and leaves in the way, so leave it alone.

I've already metioned it in my earlier post but no-one seems to have given it a second look. This 'sport' has a massive worldwide industry behind it, and we fund this industry already by spending a huge ammount of money on very expensive bikes, clothing, components etc etc.

Manufacturers and shops sponsor teams, manufacturers and shops are the ones who benefit most [b]financially[/b] from people getting into the sport through easily accessible routes, such as trail centres, I think the Treks and Specializeds of this industry should be looking to fund these kind of operations just like they fund their marketing and their teams. ( I know some trails in the past have been funded in this way, endorsed and such, don't see why it isn't the main option )

Trail builders, like riders who wish to further themselves, should be looking to get 'sponsorship' from the industry that they in turn fund.

Fair comment Mr A.
If this is unsustainable for the FC, maybe they should shut the trail centres and cease maintaining the trails. Some would still go ride there but it wouldn't be as good. Others would go elsewhere. MTBers managed before trail cantres and could manage again. Be a shame to see the locals' new income disappear though.

I think Mike-Check's point is proved fairly well by the fact that Giant produce a range specifically designed for UK trail centres (Talon, or something).