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

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. …

By stwhannah

Get the full story here:

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

The core of the problem is when mountain biking ceased to be something you did on the rights of way network and started to need? special constructed trails is order to enjoy it. In any discussion on here you get the view that CYB is not as a popular because “They” havent made the trails as challenging as some of the users want.

Last time I went to CYB I took two of my friends, one of these was a keen recreational cyclist and struggled with the blue trail. They are now not for everybody they are for a minority of users. Why should they not pay for them?

With wide spread child poverty and people living by the canal and in the woods in tents, I have little sympathy with people on expensive bikes who might be expected to contribute the facilities they use.

It’s not unusual for people who take part in sports to pay for the facilities.

It’s always awful when the budgets won’t stretch. We’ll all squabble over what to tax, what to cut and the effect on growth.

Of course I’m a huge believer in the uplifting benefits of the outdoors. But for mass impact it’s got too be local

When i did teacher training in Sheffield i was probably in the Peak 3 times a week climbing, running or cycling. On my first teaching practice i met 2 kids arguing in a corridor. One looked at me and said “He says he’s been to Edale, he’s talking rubbish isn’t he sir”. There you have it in nut shell. One kid in inner City Sheffield is unable to comprehend that his mate had made it out into the Peak.

Last summer i loved my trips to CYB and NYA, particularly the red kite feeding. But I’d say that most people that make it to them are already accessing the outdoors. The losses will be felt by local businesses. To me a commercial compromise like llandegla would seem a suitable compromise

Didn’t get a chance to attend the online meeting but I believe NRW have had local businesses bidding to run CyB cafe but at least one has been turned down.

You don’t need to go to CyB to see the impact of narrow remits and profit only approach by NRW and Forestry England. Take a look at those local woods I expect you’ll have noticed a huge increase in timber extraction while ignoring sanctioned trails that were probably funded by EU projects.

Interesting that noone suggests walkers pay to maintain paths. MTBing adds to diversity of access to the outdoors, it appeals to younger groups who would never don hiking boots but will grab whatever bike they have and session local trails.

Great article Hannah, and a subject that the mountain bike community needs to be thinking about, talking about and acting upon, unless we want to see all of our publicly provided and free-to-use mountain bike trails disappear.

The UK MTB Trail Alliance obviously tried to land the public benefit message in the joint letter we sent to the Welsh Government in September, but so far, it seems to have fallen upon deaf ears.

It would really help if we had properly thorough and robust academic studies that prove the value of mountain bike trails to society and communities at both a national level (England, Wales, Scotland, NI) and at a local authority level. These would not be easy or cheap to conduct to the required standard, but, with the significant funding they’re receiving from SRAM, and the access to the public landowners they have through their steering committee, the UK Trails Project are uniquely placed to be able to do that – hopefully, this is something they’ll consider as they move into the next phase of their project.

Something which is often forgotten in this debate, and was one of the other points we raised in our letter – we also need to persuade the public landowners to get rid of the red tape that makes it very hard for volunteer groups (i.e. trail associations) to work with them. Again, with their close affiliation to the public landowners, this is something the UK Trails Project would ideally be helping us to achieve.

If we/they can do this, volunteer groups are prepared to do a lot of the work, in terms of ongoing maintenance and revision of the trails to keep them relevant, for free, thus saving the public landowners large amounts of money and making trails an even better way to get significant societal returns on the investment of public funds.

Robin Grant, UK MTB Trail Alliance.

The visitor centres and cafes there are to be closed as part of wider efforts by NRW to save around £12 million from their budget. They’re hoping that these facilities will be reopened in future once they can conduct a procurement exercise and find commercial bidders keen to deliver these services on a for-profit basis

Reopening the centres as is, and seeking a commercial partner to do that, is surely not the only answer. Do a collection of cycling and walking trails really need a visitor centre? Or just perhaps some loos (which admittedly will need cleaning) and a food trailer selling tea, coffee and bacon rolls?

Funding trail maintenance is tricky I bet, but I’d be interested to see if the Forestry Commission’s parking charges at the FoD cover that site on their own…

.

Bravo Hannah; that’s a great piece of writing.

It would seem to me that “statutory regulatory duties” and the like are having a detrimental impact on the greater good. We see this in other areas of life where ridiculous rules and demands force people to jump through hoops rather than deliver a quality service (I’m thinking NHS, GP’s, etc here).

No suggestions, but great article.

It’s an interesting debate. If you look at Coed Llandegla that’s owned by the Church of England. If you want to use the trails you pay through the car park system. That way riders contribute directly to the trails and the cafe.

It seems to work well, with a well funded shop and regular trail maintenance and improvements.

Perhaps the business model needs to change to survive, with investment from business being the way forward.

It’s not unusual for people who take part in sports to pay for the facilities.

 

+1.

Funding trail maintenance is tricky I bet, but I’d be interested to see if the Forestry Commission’s parking charges at the FoD cover that site on their own…

In this instance, the Forestry have historically taken all the the parking revenue & none of it has gone back into the site.

The trails have predominantly been maintained and developed by Dean Trail Volunteers & paid for by fundraising.

I ‘think’ the Forestry have realised the past approach has been somewhat short sighted & they do now contribute to the development of the site (ultimately to increase parking revenue).

Reopening the centres as is, and seeking a commercial partner to do that, is surely not the only answer. Do a collection of cycling and walking trails really need a visitor centre? Or just perhaps some loos (which admittedly will need cleaning) and a food trailer selling tea, coffee and bacon rolls?

Went for a walk up pen y fan in the spring, loo block at bottom, car park with charges a couple of ice cream vans. and busy. The visitor centres might be nice to have but if there is a reason to go people will go anyway.

However unless charges are reasonable people will find ways to avoid to pay or will go else where.

So I would say some investment is needed and you may well not cover all the costs, you will certainly get a reasonable contribution. On the point of CyB, it is a long way from major population, I wonder if that will always be its issue. compare Afan and Cwm Carn for busyness.

I have no issues paying to use facilities, but I know a couple of local children who I have donated bikes to and maintain for them – would be unable to afford it.  They have the bikes and support – but no cash to spend if they go to a trail centre or spend in a trail-centre cafe.

Makes better sense for them to spend free time outdoors having fun, gaining skills and fitness rather than aimlessly hanging about

The core of the problem is when mountain biking ceased to be something you did on the rights of way network and started to need? special constructed trails is order to enjoy it

Built trails by default become additions to the RoW map, are you suggesting that we shouldn’t ever increase the areas we can cycle in?

I have little sympathy with people on expensive bikes who might be expected to contribute the facilities they use.

In part, the exercise was supposed to be one of a circle of virtuousness. Here is a landscape that folks will travel to to enjoy that otherwise is deprived of sources of income. The folks that do go to these trails already ‘pay’ to use them in the form of paying to park, using the onsite cafe, and bike shop, filling up at the local petrol station, staying in hotels and B&B’s stopping at cafes, and going to local shops etc. I would bet money that the income generated by MTBers far exceeds the cost of maintaining additional Bridleway infrastructure (or By-ways, however they’re classed)

I would bet money that the income generated by MTBers far exceeds the cost of maintaining additional Bridleway infrastructure (or By-ways, however they’re classed)

But as is always the case, money paid to A is ignored if B has to pay bills, There is rarely any concept of joined up thinking and the “greater” good. Hence the whole austerity crap.

If I visit any tourist area I still pay for parking, cafes, hotels etc. In the Lakes they have built tracks so you don’t have to used the road network. These benefit all off road users. A lot of trail centres don’t link to anywhere and are bike exclusive.
How does this extend the rights of way network?

There are tracks only for walkers, tracks only for cyclists, and tracks for both (and others). Some people might have a problem with the idea of only one of those types of tracks being built and maintained for the users they’re for… an understandable prejudice in people who don’t understand mountain biking… odd to see it on a mountain biking forum though.

Back in time, CyB and NyA cafes were leased and run by locals (who made very good cakes) but as these facilities were updated FCW/NRW thought they looked like good revenue options and took them back in hand. In short, I don’t think this quite worked as they thought.

As for the future, it would be more joined up for one entity to run parking, cafe and all trails as the parts are linked. A group with charity or CIC status could probably operate in ways NRW can’t. I’d be surprised if it took that route though.

It’s not unusual for people who take part in sports to pay for the facilities.

Given how much effort people in expensive vehicles with equally as expensive bikes go to to avoid paying for parking at FoD I doubt they would be too keen to pay to ride there.

Interesting, thanks @HobNob

now (perhaps not least because they’ve just copped a £19 million pound fine from HMRC).

Or because of incompetence in the past they have to make good now on their debt

 

We could take another perspective too: that connecting people with their natural environment is a key part of tackling climate change.

 

You could or you could take the view that people travelling tens or even hundreds of miles to play isn’t doing anything for climate change.

 

My view is that bridleways should be free to use and be maintained at public expense. However purpose built trails should be funded by those who use them. Why should the state fund one group’s entertainment but not another’s? The problem at the moment is that most FC /NRW run centres rely on volunteers to maintain the trails so what are we paying for when you pay to park? If a direct link was established that showed what proportion of the revenue was actually spent on trail maintenance and expansion more people would be willing to pay. You only have to look at the success of the commercial trail centres be that Dyfi, BPW or Llandegla to see that people are happy to pay when they can see what they are paying for

 

 

How does this extend the rights of way network?

You know that not every by-way and bridle way links up with every other by way and bridleway.

I won’t suffer at all thanks. I don’t want more people “in the outdoors”, I don’t want more carparks to be built and I don’t want any damn visitor centres. It’s like the debate on exmoor “wild camping” – it’s fine until loads of people start doing it. The country isn’t big enough to support it.

Let’s make mountain sports niche again.

And in terms of the difficulty of trail centres – the key issue is that the trails are made of piles of rocks creatively stacked together making them a misery to ride and nothing at all like  riding natural trails.  It consistently boggles my mind that people drive hundreds of miles to ride round and round in circles in trail centres. To the poster who suggested his friend was a competent recreational cyclist who couldn’t make his way round a blue trail – I’d have to say he probably isn’t as competent as you think.

How competent should you have to be to ride a blue trail? If you can’t ride the blue when your main daily transport is by bicycle how good do you have to be?
It’s not very inclusive is it?
When CYB had the old cafe and original trails it was great, I have not been that keen on it since the forestry took charge and moved the cafe over the road.

How competent should you have to be to ride a blue trail? If you can’t ride the blue when your main daily transport is by bicycle how good do you have to be?

that’s what green tails are for. Or they could go and learn the skills to ride trails

I won’t suffer at all thanks. I don’t want more people “in the outdoors”, I don’t want more carparks to be built and I don’t want any damn visitor centres. It’s like the debate on exmoor “wild camping” – it’s fine until loads of people start doing it. The country isn’t big enough to support it.

Let’s make mountain sports niche again.

Christ…

@chrismac:

purpose built trails should be funded by those who use them. Why should the state fund one group’s entertainment but not another’s?

Sport England spent over £122m on funding different sports in 22/23. Sport Wales spent £31.5m, Sport Scotland £19m Very little of that went to mountain biking. I imagine the lion’s share went to football and other “conventional” sports.

Until people who use football pitches fund the full cost of providing them, and the same goes for people swimming in swimming pools, rather than being fully or partially funded by us, as taxpayers, as they are currently, then mountain biking should receive its fair share of public funding just like any other sport, based on participation levels compared to other sports – which, btw, mountain biking is a long way off from receiving anywhere close to that amount. Which is the very problem Hannah is pointing out in her article!

Robin

I agree that it’s inconsistent imho It should be funded by those who use them. I wouldn’t fund any of them. I wouldn’t fund any leisure activities including sport and the arts.

I wouldn’t fund any leisure activities including sport and the arts.

Christ…

Only people with disposable income should be allowed to enjoy themselves? Have a word with yourself.

No. Anyone can enjoy themselves. Just don’t expect taxpayers to pay for your chosen form of entertainment. Why should taxpayers fund my hobby? Why should I fund someone else’s? I quite fancy ocean sailing but can’t afford it. Should taxpayers pay for me to do that?

How will those on the breadline pay for it if there’s no funding?

Ocean sailing is very expensive and will only benefit a very small number of people. Outdoor leisure, the arts and whole swathes of other things can benefit millions, for around the same investment.

But **** ‘em, cuz you can’t afford sailing.

It’s always the same problem, the benefits go in a different column than the costs. Forestry commission builds and maintains trails and other people see the revenue boost, race organisations barely make money while every airbnb and campsite and restaurant in the area is full… Or councils get the benefit but it’s at sufficient remove that they can’t do the maths and say “X spent here gained us Y there”.

Mountain biking has been a golden goose for a lot of people and a burden for others and in the uk at least we’ve very rarely managed to get the benefits to go back to the people actually doing the work. That’s unhealthy day to day but it’s an absolute recipe for disaster in funding terms

You only have to look at the success of the commercial trail centres be that Dyfi, BPW or Llandegla

All of which had taxpayer funding iirc

*Dyfi hasn’t. It’s separate from Atherton Bikes

I’m just not recongising Bruces description of Coed-y-Brennin. I went two years ago with the family and my young son was able to ride the blue trails and really enjoyed them. I’m not really sure what your friend found difficult to be honest. My wife isn’t comfortable off road and rode the fire roads there, although she managed the blue route but felt she was holding us up. She also left her bike at the visitor centre and went off walking. We all stayed in town and rode there. What I’m saying is that there is something for everyone there.

Mountain biking doesn’t “need” special trails, but those trails encourage people to the area.

The trails have brought a huge amount of business to Dolgellau and it’s very short sighted to not recognise that. That huge visitor centre they built was always going to be a struggle to keep going, it was totally over the top and not designed well for it’s purpose. But you should be able to keep a cafe going in a popular tourist destination.

I always though these trail centres were built to encourage tourism into non touristy areas, rather than because there was an actual need. ‘Build it and they will come and spend’ scenario.

If people aren’t coming in sufficient numbers and aren’t spending enough then why continue to fund them? Perhaps there are too many of them now. Put the money into keeping bridal paths (nationally) in good condition or concentrate the resources on the popular trail centres.

I think we’ve got too much tourism now. Maybe any money would be better spent on smaller more locally focussed facilities, nearer to people who don’t have money for cars and trips away. There’s a lot of people out there who try and build trails in their local woods only to see them all knocked down and dismantled.

If people aren’t coming in sufficient numbers and aren’t spending enough then why continue to fund them?

Or you could look at the popularity of places like BPW, and maybe do some product research, invest a bit in regeneration and the folks that have drifted away would maybe come back? Mind you, given how rammed I’ve seen it in the summer with families walking, riding, or just coming to the café, the place should be a goldmine.

Are there any statistics available showing participation levels of mountain biking relative to other outdoor activities and sports? 

Mind you, given how rammed I’ve seen it in the summer with families walking, riding, or just coming to the café, the place should be a goldmine.

This is what I think. I hadn’t been in a good number of years as I have been busy with the family, and I’ve read about how it’s not as trendy as it used to be. But like I said above, I went with the family for the last couple of years and it was absolutely rammed. Many, many families and not just there biking.

 it was totally over the top and not designed well for it’s purpose. But you should be able to keep a cafe going in a popular tourist destination.

I’m not sure that’s strictly true. If you look at the average trail centre, I suspect its visitor rates will be quite seasonal and weekend biased, so your income is going to be unevenly spread across the year – and the week – but your overheads aren’t. So what may look like a potential goldmine on a summer bank holiday weekend, may be a lot less attractive mid-week in, say, February.

For perspective, Hayfield – which is a ‘popular tourist destination’ – has recently had no fewer than three cafes close along with the biggest pub in the village leaving just a coffee trailer in the car park and the Sett Valley Cafe, a 15-minute walk away down the SVT. The place is absolutely rammed in summer and not that quiet the rest of the year, at least at weekends, but still clearly struggles to support cafe-based hospitality businesses.