WE DONT DEMAND FACILITIES!
We pay 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 they 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.

Well that will teach me, what sustain the ONF is the management of the forest, from the colonies…

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 financially 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).

maybe we should ask Brant, Cy, mike@dialled, Lester etc.

On a recent trip to Wales i paid £2-3 to ride the trails at Coed Trallwm. At first i didn't like the idea of it but then after a while i thought fair enough. The problem was that in many places the trails were in worse condition than natural trails.

On reflection i thought the cafe was expensive and it would have been better if they charged a couple of £2 for the parking instead to raise the necessary funds (having ridden to the centre i would have avoided this).

If this is unsustainable for the FC, maybe they should shut the trail centres and cease maintaining the trails.

I'm sure that's what they would do but thankfully that doesn't seem to be the case. I do think their current model for earning revenue needs to be tweaked a bit though.

( 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.

I'm given to understand that this is very tricky to do. The money needed to build a decent mountain bike trail is substantial (hundreds of thousands), which means that really there are only a handful of bike companies big enough to do it. In any event brands can get much more exposure for less money by giving some rubbery youngster a bike and having him do a backflip for a photo shoot. Some companies like Kona and Marin have chipped in but I'm not aware of any trails that have been funded entirely by the industry.

Dunno whether this has been mentioned but FC (England) recently ran a consultation on the longerm role of the Public Forrest Estate in England. Search in my recent posts and you'll find a link to it, plus the extensive discussion (or not ;-).

The forests are ours, FC/FE are just tasked with managing them / delivering the objectives Govt put on them.

The Public Forest Estate is a significant resource publicly owned through the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In this way, it belongs to everyone. The Government is committed to public sector ownership of and involvement in the managment of England's woodlands and their continuing to deliver public benefits

pp13

Section 4 "Paying for the Public Forest Estate" has some (incredibly) cursory figures for FC PFE (England) in 2007/08.

In summary – PFC Income = £61.1M, Expenditure £75.9M therefore Net Operating Cost = £14.8M.

The forests are ours, FC and FE are paid for by our taxes, they operate in a nominal commercial capacity and so manage to offset quite a bit of their "costs" by generating revenue but we still fund their operations to the tune of £10's of millions. And everyone wants to pay them more money?

Further, AFAIK, lots of development is funded initially (i.e. the CAPEX type stuff) by grants (usually out of European or other tax pots) i.e. our money again.

However, I accept that maintenance is funded (if it occurs), separately. But, by it's nature it is no way as much as construction costs. Better to give a little time and develop ownership and involvement than pay for someone else to do it (but that's an observation of modern society, yadda, yadda pfft!).

And yet lots of people also want to pay for the privilege of riding these self same trails?

Not me.

My viewpoint is from nearly a decade of trailbuilding (on and off FE managed sites) and liaison with FE. Don't get me wrong, I've had some great experiences and there are some great people and ultimately I/we are getting to build trails on land (albeit ours anyway) through there assistance and hard work (though not always, and that's yet another story – pfft! again 😉

This is all AFAIK, I might have some details wrong. I'd welcome someone who knows better to correct me.

The consultation is now closed but the document which I've referred to is here http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-estatestudy

Peace and love 😎

I take it manufacturers/importers have pay up when they run demo days & the like

I know the FC charges around £600/mile for allowing the likes of Rally GB to use the forest roads & something like half that figure for less prestigious events, I'm not sure how much [if any] of the spectator entrance price goes to them but given that the price to get in & park was around £90 last time I saw something on it – I would hope they do

And yet lots of people also want to pay for the privilege of riding these self same trails?

Nobody's said that. For my part, my argument was basically about whether our right to ride around in the forest for free stretches to our right to ride around on purpose-built, well maintained trails* in the forest for free. If it doesn't, then money needs to come in.

* Before someone says that they're not, you get the point.

I'm pretty sure Foel, Hopton, Bringewood, Caersws, Rheola, Mynydd Du and even Moelfre etc didnt cost hundreds of thousands to 'build'. They also get more interesting as they wear meaning minimal repair costs. There may be a smaller market for advanced trails however the setup and maintanance costs are minimal.

I gladly pay many times the asking price of Welsh trail centers to ride these venues due to the quality of these 'budget' trails. even without uplifts. Add in a weekend of uplifts or racing for around £70 and you've got a sold out venue for the weekend.

I have deliberately left out Cwmcarn BMX track due to it bein designed to be maintainable to an easier standard that will attract a wider range of riders to make the full time uplift service viable.

What gets annoying is when decent trails at trail centers are blocked off, destroyed etc in the name of progress then you get asked to subsidise their tame replacements. I can understand the risk management aspect of these trail but I'm never going to agree with it.

Cheeky, I know I'm sounding like an apologist for the FC again, but if they had less income, surely they would just milk their existing sources of income harder (i.e. put up the car park charges and double the price of bacon sarnies) or worse still ditch ideas like gaining revenue from mountain bike trails and expand their forestry operations instead?

As I've said above, free trails are defintiely the way to go, but look at the purpose-built trails in the UK on private land – they seem to be mostly pay-to-ride and not the sort of places the value-conscious denizens of STW would bother with, unless they have specialist stuff like 'shore or DH tracks. Has it ocurred to you that free trails are so abundant in part because we subsidise the FC?

Doug, I'm speaking about XC trails here. But I know one of the chaps who used to help build at Foel and it sounds like if you costed up all volunteer time, it wouldn't be cheap.

Doug, I'm speaking about XC trails here. But I know one of the chaps who used to help build at Foel and it sounds like if you costed up all volunteer time, it wouldn't be cheap.

But the point is that there are plenty of people willing to build quality trail for free reducing the initial cost of a trail making the limited numbers it will bring worthwhile.

The same goes for black grade XC trails. One of the reasons given for the closure of the older trails at CyB is that they are unsustainable however after a year or two closure and a bit more rain erosion the old trails are running better and far more natural than they ever have. It's just a shame some of them got bulldozed to make way for the new trails.

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'm not sure that anyone has argued that. No-one on here can be as naiive to think that the trails would survive the high level of use without maintenance. That's not the same as disagreeing with a pay to ride funding model.

Some companies like Kona and Marin have chipped in but I'm not aware of any trails that have been funded entirely by the industry

…and the same goes for FC, who haven't solely funded trails to my (limited) knowledge. I'm only speaking for the trails in the Welsh valleys – but these were badged as community regeneration projects subject to EU grant aid: ie, to provide recreation facilities for local mtbers, and with visiting mtbers being drawn to the area, provide an economic stimulus to deprived areas.

"They also get more interesting as they wear"

I quite like the trails roughed up a bit – it is mountain biking after all. Spose blue trails need to be kept in tip top nick.

I'm not sure that anyone has argued that. No-one on here can be as naiive to think that the trails would survive the high level of use without maintenance.

Trails are not maintained for their survival. They are maintained to keep them at a certain technical level based upon the trail centres commercial model. If you don't maintain a trail it just gets harder and IMO more interesting.

Doug, fair enough, it's a workable model, just not the only one.

There are potential problems: you might not get as good a standard of trail if you're letting randoms build it, it's dependent on getting willing volunteers (I've seen DH and XC dig days that are swamped with volunteers, others that just have one or two people) and building in that way also reduces the options for, as Ian Warby put it at a conference I went to, "getting a digger in and knocking the hill about" – you have to work with the terrain and features you've got.

XC trails are even more difficult as they're a lot longer and do require maintenance (and to be fair even DH courses need a bit of a polish from time to time). And it's quite difficult to maintain enthusiasm for an all-abilities route, compared to you and your mates building a ridiculous gap jump or something. That's my experience, anyway.

If you don't maintain a trail it just gets harder and IMO more interesting.

Sorry but I disagree. DH tracks, maybe (although I don't think anyone comes back from Morzine raving about the braking bumps). XC trails, definitely not, some can soldier on happily for ages getting more and more challenging (e.g. the Wall at Afan) but others lose the qualities that make them fun to ride.

rkk01, I'm talking about the Pierre Joseph Proudhon types who think that paying to park at a trail centre is a ripoff.

If you look in the document I mentioned, the difference between INcome and revenue for both "Major Recreational Destinations" and "Other Recreation and Dedicate Public Access" (i've grouped these because I assume they could both cover Trails stuff) is c.£10.8M.

Where does this come from? Us as the taxpayers ultimately as it's our tax dollar the Govt uses to prop up FE.

Why then pay extra (yes, I'm cynical, I think of it as "extra") for the rpivilege of riding trails on our land when we're already doing so, indirectly, through taxation.

Mr A, I don't quite get your point, unless you're assuming I don't want to pay for anything? Fair play, pay for facilities (showers, car park etc) within reason but not to "ride on the trails". I think others have made that point, at times, earlier in this thread and better than me.

Hey, it'd never work anyway so a lot of this is navel gazing 😉

I'm talking about the Pierre Joseph Proudhon types who think that paying to park at a trail centre is a ripoff

I suppose that's why I don't go to them much anymore as I don't feel they provide value in what they supply to me personally. I would be happy to pay a premium over other users for significant provision of advanced trails if it would help in their building and upkeep.

it'd never work anyway so a lot of this is navel gazing

Swinley reckon they have something like a 95% uptake for their permits – not quite sure where they get that figure from. 😉

Navel gazing indeed, but it's Friday afternoon, and I do think it's interesting – there seems to be a lot of resistance to paying for a purpose-built facility for a pretty specialist sport, from people who – generalising a tad here 😉 – probably wouldn't think anything of spunking fifty quid on a set of tyres. To be fair, when I've asked for donations to cover stuff like tools and insurance, the response has always been very good, but that's not going to pay for any new trails.

So it seems we're back at the beginning, looking for handouts via grants, or volunteers to give up their time, for a sport with no Olympic medal prospects, and which is mainly the preserve of well-to-do white people. 😐

I'll happily pay for such things as car parks, toll roads ( dalby), bike wash, showers etc etc providing I think the fee is fair.

BUT

Pay to ride the trails … errrr NO… well maybe one …

If you count the Gondola uplift fee at Nevis Range as paying to ride the trail then YES, I'd pay that sort of fee… but buy a permit to ride … NO CHANCE….

But then again I do prefer getting my map out and creating my own routes and thats just what I'd revert 100% to doing

Having done some work for neath and port talbot council recently, I understand that mountain biking brings in as much revenue as the rally.
The FC have not built the trails for the sake of being nice to MTBers, someone at some time performed a business case for the benefit of the local community. The local community ARE benefitting from it and thats why the FC can't abandon the trails. If they need more revenue, they first need better and more trails. Its that easy really.

Some very thought provoking stuff.

Would I pay to ride a trail centre – yes and no. I'll happily pay to park at Llandegla but really objected to the £7 blanket cake hunting charge at dalby. It just wasnt good value for money. Paying for showers, bike washes – no problem.

I'm very much against permits to ride and access charges – its a step on the road to restriction. Given we are a society that likes to sue direct charges for access are riding could have implications regarding liability. Someone is going to try the well I bought this and it hasnt performed as expected.

Maintainance costs really shouldnt be an issue with bigger centres – if they have got their financial planning right. Cyb, Dalby, Llandegela, 7 stanes etc I would expect the repairs and maintainance to be funded from a proportion of the revenue generated by bike hire, bike wash, showers etc, bike shop franchise, cafe franchise, car park charges.

The solution to Penmachnos problem could be some form of national trail fund. Simillar to the one set up for Fix the Fells in the Lakes or the Access Fund in the States. Asking the village to pay for keeping the trail would probably take any additional money brought in straight out again. It may be a grosse simplication but I suspect most people who ride the trail dont spend any time let alone money in the village. Unfortunately if you build it they may come but you cant control where they spend and much of it is probably going into existing tourist businesses in Betws.

If a central fund was established it would need to be independant – a public or private land owner tie in would probably be seen as some form of subsidy on things the public think they should be delivering already. it doesnt mean work on those trails would be inelidgable. It just means it would be the volunteer groups that could apply. Yes there are already a lot of grants and funding sources out there but normally they dont fund ongoing maintainance.

So its taken me an hour to write that I'm still not happy with it but I'd say I'm in dont charge to ride do try and find a way of encouraging all who benifit – indviduals and businesses from local to multi national who benifit from the presence of trail centres to support.

Having read the responses I am pleased and surprised the way the thread has gone the mature and sometimes lighthearted debate, may be I maligned a few of you, and although there are a few chumps here with a significant lack of grasp of reality. I agree however with those touting the view most posters here will mostly enjoy mountain biking by seeking out their own routes, often out of developed sites and relying on themselves to organise the fun. That's fine and trail centres are increasingly realising that they are not as able to cater for your needs as they can those unable to make such choices from a broad breadth of personal knowledge or experience and so will not waste time trying.

I would even say if you pay to camp locally or B&B and ride into a 'Public' trail centrebypassing the parking charge you should not think of yourself as a freeloader. Almost certainly most trail centres are partly funded by local councils and enterprise agencies on the basis the investment will create increased economic activity in the region as a result and not just make the forestry commission fatter. You should however not that not all trails are 'Public' Coed Trallwm is developed by private individuals who bought one of the Forests that Thatcher was making the Forestry Commission sell off. Coed Llandegla's tenants are on a sliding scale and the more popular the place becomes the significantly more they need pay to the landlord who are not foresters but are in fact a multinational PLC the shareholders of which have sought to get greater economic activity from a forest that was becoming economically less productive because of the prevailing timber industry situation. The variable nature of our weather means our pines grow far too fast and eratically to produced the denser pine timber required for quality building materials. Most Welsh Pine makes fence posts or pulp for chip board as the paper industry is now 100% recycled paper at the local mills

Having read the responses I am pleased and surprised the way the thread has gone the mature and sometimes lighthearted debate, may be I maligned a few of you, and although there are a few chumps here with a significant lack of grasp of reality.

you flatter us sir. 😕

trail centres are increasingly realising that they are not as able to cater for your needs as they can those unable to make such choices from a broad breadth of personal knowledge or experience and so will not waste time trying.

no. your ( the FC's ) reports and surveys suggest that 'proper' mountainbikers make up too small a proportion of trail users, therefore trails should be targeted at recreational/casual/family cyclists. simple supply and demand.
'salright. do what you do. we'll do what we do. everyone's happy.

Mr Agreeable – Member
… there seems to be a lot of resistance to paying for a purpose-built facility for a pretty specialist sport…

I think you'll find the resistance comes from people who don't think of mountainbiking primarily as a sport, but as means of getting about in the hills and mountains.

Play parks are fair enough for the guys who are on play bikes who are not looking to actually go anywhere and happy to ride loops in a forest. They are there for the thrill, speed, height, or whatever. Good fun it is too 🙂

My big fear is that one day these specialised playgrounds will be used to ring fence our activity and we won't be able to actually go anywhere crosscountry. To me tracks that have been groomed for mountainbikes with berms, drop offs, hardening etc are boring.

On paying for access- yes the Forestery chaps maintain the forests (dont own it). Your not paying for access to the forest, you are paying for the UPKEEP of the trail itself. If you dont agree with that dont ride it. Simple.