You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
iainc - MemberChrisL, thanks for info. I used to ride GT every couple of weeks but haven't been this year. A mate was saying he was there on sat for first time in ages and had seen some changes, and signs of a lot more wear on the red route.
Just to follow this one up in more detail; yes, there's lots of wear on the red route, it's just how it works- the trail life cycle, I call it.
When we build a new trail or section to durable GT red spec, it's generally pretty featureless and smooth, people go sanitised! BMX track! But that's just not understanding what we're doing. The day 1 trail isn't finished, it's a baby trail. Then over the next years- hopefully a decade or so, it wears, and narrows, and evolves, and generally grows up into a proper bike trail and stays like that for a long time. If it didn't wear it'd stay boring- great for a flow or jump trail, rubbish for everything else.
Some specific wear is troublesome- anything that goes unsafe or out of grade, anything that stops a bit of trail from working, and anything that causes accelerated wear- water, basically. Overgrowth and hazards. Everything else is both inevitable and essential.
Eventually it goes out the other side and big holes start to appear, the trail surface breaks and generally it gets clapped out. It's probably the most interesting an armoured trail gets, but it's also not sustainable- that's when it switches from wearing in to wearing out and it can happen fast, especially with corner-cutting stravapricks and skidding gopro heroes doing their best to ruin the trails. The black and offpistes can do it because they get a fraction of the traffic. But there's really very little on GT red that's in this state and it's all being watched and generally hotfixed and coaxed along, because if it gets too bad the only way to fix it, is to go right back to the start and BMX trail it so everyone goes SANITISED!1!! again.
Course, this isn't the only way to build trails, far from it- We do some stuff in a less industrial long-term way but it's the only way it really works for the main GT trails, given the location, the traffic and the personnel. Other models work better elswhere. Other models could work better at GT tbh especially if it was being started from scratch today but, this is what we've got.
^ That's a great overview of trail life Northwind. Thanks.
Most f the time these things are paid by grant funding, i.e. the grant will be a one off that pays for the trails to be built and the car park to be built.
Then the grant runs out, and to be sustainable they need continuous income.
One way of doing that is to rent a cafe spot, and another paid for parking.
Its expensive parking, but its not just paying for the parking... its very different to a town centre - parking charges are low because you generally go spend a load of money in town / do business. You ain't spending money in the forest when riding round.... unless you eat at the cafe I suppose.
Maybe the parking should be free, and there should be a gated entrance where every rider has to drop a couple of quid in. This would be nice, but theres all kinds of reasons why it wouldn't work.
Pimpmaster Jazz - Member^ That's a great overview of trail life Northwind
Obviously it's a faster process with 27.5 tyres.
wzzzz - MemberThen the grant runs out, and to be sustainable they need continuous income.
Yup. And tbh, the biggest issue is that the funding's completely lopsided. Succesful trail centres make a lot of money, just not for the FC. Sticking with what I know, the value of Glentress to the local economy is colossal but the direct contribution back is really pretty minimal. But the local authorities and businesses are largely happy enough to take the golden eggs then complain if they don't think the FC is taking good enough care of the goose.
They say Tweedlove is worth a million quid to the local area, how much of that ends up in the FC's pockets? It'd pay Andy Wardman's wages for a while...
I hate the fact that my local centre (Sherwood) car park opens after I want to start riding on some weekends. It forces me to park outside and then when I go back to the car after a quick lap I look like a proper tightwad
Northwind - many thanks for your response, extremely useful, cheers
Northwind - Member
Eventually it goes out the other side and big holes start to appear, the trail surface breaks and generally it gets clapped out. It's probably the most interesting an armoured trail gets, but it's also not sustainable- that's when it switches from wearing in to wearing out and it can happen fast, especially with corner-cutting stravapricks and skidding gopro heroes doing their best to ruin the trails. The black and offpistes can do it because they get a fraction of the traffic. But there's really very little on GT red that's in this state and it's all being watched and generally hotfixed and coaxed along, because if it gets too bad the only way to fix it, is to go right back to the start and BMX trail it so everyone goes SANITISED!1!! again.
It may be worth expanding on this a little bit. A typical trail at Glentress is surfaced with compacted type 1 aggregate - i.e. hardcore. This sits within a tray dug through the soft organic soil layer so underneath it is nice solid mineral soil.
The compacted top surface of the hardcore is pretty tough and handles wear and tear pretty well. But it does wear out and as it does so the deeper hardcore that is exposed is less compact and will degrade more easily. So a trail will initially wear slowly, but once it reaches a certain point, it will degrade much more quickly. This can be compounded as once a divot's been made in the hard outer surface, it will tend to collect water, which will hasten the speed that the less compact foundations will break away.
One way to speed up this process is to shortcut or otherwise ride off the trail. Doing so will quickly scoop away the soft organic soil that lies next to the trail surface. This will expose the side of the hardcore tray, meaning that the less compact hardcore that's below the surface can be exposed even before the surface is worn out. And again a rut next to the trail surface will collect water, which will work its way into the hardcore tray and speed up the whole process again.
One way to reduce the risk of unexpected line choices accelerating the speed that a trail wears out is to build trails so they're wider than they need to be. You'd be surprised by how quickly undergrowth spreads over the parts that don't end up being the ride line. Unsurprisingly though this increases the time, effort and expense required to make the trail and also increases the number of cries of "trail sanitisation!" when riders see a new trail section that's apparently as wide as a motorway...
Some people complain that roots get completely covered when a section of trail is repaired. This is because it's difficult to compact the surface of a trail that's got roots running over it. Compacting is done using a petrol powered wacker plate and this is literally a blunt instrument and hard to work around uneven shapes such as roots. Instead the surface is built up so it's slightly above the level of the roots. Rest assured though that the top of the roots will still be within the thickness of well compacted hardcore. The roots will become exposed again long before the trail section needs to be rebuilt. Not that it will stop the cries of "sanitised!" but hey ho...
Pimpmaster Jazz - Member
^ That's a great overview of trail life Northwind. Thanks.
Agreed, thanks Northwind & ChrisL!
A lot of people have strong opinions about the trails at GT without understanding this sort of detail. So common to hear "its so boring and sanitised" vs "it's completely trashed, worse braking bumps than Morzine" in the space of a single day on a single section of trail.
I guess Sherwood Pines is our local trail centre, being about an hour away. They charge £4 there per car and the machines take card too. I think £4 for a day there with the family is cracking value. The only problem for me is we don't have a bike rack at the moment so when we go we go in two cars (one has the bikes in, one has the kids) so end up paying double. Still a great day out for £8 though.
Del - Member7 quid at haldon for a day or 30 quid on a season pass. that pass gets you paring at other sites too IIRC.
volunteer passes are good for all FC sites AFAIK.
It gets you a discount for Go Ape which I think was about a tenner?
And 10% off the cafe.
And removes the need to find change at any time.
I might sound like a snob but when a family ticket to the cinema is £25-30 spending £30 a year to park and use the facilities at Haldon as much as I like it's such a bargain regardless of where those funds go.
A lot of people have strong opinions about the trails at GT without understanding this sort of detail. So common to hear "its so boring and sanitised" vs "it's completely trashed, worse braking bumps than Morzine" in the space of a single day on a single section of trail.
Comes down a lot to what kind of trail it is.
IMO most (not all) of the red at GT is clearly designed to be a flow trail, and as such a 'sanitised' surface that allows you to carry speed into the various berms/jumps/drops is appropriate.
Certainly last time i was there (GT7) braking bumps were causing most of the field to totally ignore the entry to a couple of berms as it was faster (and gave less of a beating) to take an inside line to the centre of the berm and then scrub speed and turn tighter.
In an ideal world we'd have a 2nd (way-marked) red with a different character to appeal to people wanting things a bit rougher.
fifeandy - MemberCertainly last time i was there (GT7) braking bumps were causing most of the field to totally ignore the entry to a couple of berms as it was faster (and gave less of a beating) to take an inside line to the centre of the berm and then scrub speed and turn tighter.
When was this? The only places there were noteworthy braking bumps on this year's GT7 course, were on sections built for the GT7- not part of the red. They don't use much trailcentre at all for the Seven
(I solo'd it on the fatbike so I know where every bastard bump on the lap was 😉 )
One way to reduce the risk of unexpected line choices accelerating the speed that a trail wears out is to build trails so they're wider than they need to be.
Backing this up, it's what's done at Aston Hill. It's common to build or repair a trail and then cover half of it in brush again, leaving just a centre section clear.
Going the other way I saw a photo of the Afan valley the other day - having not ridden there for a few years it was great to see how 'natural' it's looking.
Pimpmaster Jazz - Member
One way to reduce the risk of unexpected line choices accelerating the speed that a trail wears out is to build trails so they're wider than they need to be.Backing this up, it's what's done at Aston Hill. It's common to build or repair a trail and then cover half of it in brush again, leaving just a centre section clear.
Going the other way I saw a photo of the Afan valley the other day - having not ridden there for a few years it was great to see how 'natural' it's looking.
It can be a good technique but if you build a trail twice as wide as it "needs" to be then it's going to take twice as long to build it! When the Trailfairies are doing maintenance work we usually can't leave a trail section closed at the end of a session, so sometimes we just won't have the manpower or time to employ resource intensive techniques such as this. 🙁
@Northwind - Magic Mushroom.
There were for sure worse bumps on the natural sections of the course, but clearly bad enough to upset the flow of the trail.
It can be a good technique but if you build a trail twice as wide as it "needs" to be then it's going to take twice as long to build it!
Very true. 🙁
fifeandy - Member@Northwind - Magic Mushroom.
Pff. Just going to have to disagree on that, there's no noteworthy braking bumps on magic mushroom, and the only thing on the section that can "give a beating" are the root plates that most folks choose to use the alt lines for (which is by design).
The trail isn't supposed to be smooth, and it's supposed to have different ways to approach it- naturally in the middle of an endurance race people will ride it differently to on a saturday afternoon, where magic mushroom is a 2 minute dash (I just rode it normally, roots and all, because I'm a terrible XC racer)
munrobiker - Member
I do stand by what I say, if it's an FC project or a council car park it's already been paid for and as a socialist I don't see why I should pay for state provided services.
What would Corbyn do I wonder? He'd insist all trail centres were publically owned and parking was state funded. No one would pay at the car park, we'd all have equal rights to a parking space and everyone would have to drive a Trabant. We'd also have state supplied mountain bikes, all the same.
Gisburn is pretty much the same, once we've finished the current bit of new trail (massively engineered, the whole length is bench cut and fully pitched under the gravel with sumps, drainage pipes and upside ditches dug well away from the trail it should survive an apocolypse or Gisburn riders and rain) we'll probably spend a year on big repair projects, rebuilding sections from the ground up, adding new features. We will get accused of sanitising it but at least it last a few more years.
I think you'll find most of the damage you see at glentress is made be various parts of my body and bike sliding along, down and sometimes across various features.
Most of the braking bumps aren't in the way if you can ride properly, they're all caused by golf that can't ride properly and go in too fast on the wrong line and then grab a hamfist full of brake. Anyway regarding non paying at GT, or really boils ma piss. Andy Wardman is one of the nicest, hardest working blokes in mountain biking. He does a ton of work behind the scenes putting forward the case for new trails and by not paying for parking you're giving the FC plenty of ammunition to say no. It's also a slap in the face for the likes of Chris, Northwind and a handful of others who do far more than their share of work. Chapeau gentleman.
@northwind. Rooty bits are fine - as you say, they are like that by design. Also totally agree its a different trail on an XC hardtail 5hrs in compared to weekend warrior on his enduro sled.
I just kinda think that if there's an obvious high speed berm on the trail its 'broken' when the most efficient way round it is not to use it.
Not a complaint in any way, just an opinion/observation.
@steven, i can't ride properly, so that's probably part of my problem 😳
Got my pass for the FOD online for £24 for the year I know there are loads of fee parking in the FOD know a lot of them just think its worth the money for the pass in the pedalway as I think it is safer than some of the other places.
Odd that you only have to pay to park at places that already have a cafe and bike wash to make money off you.
Parking at Brechfa, for example, is free.
I do stand by what I say, if it's an FC project or a council car park it's already been paid for and as a socialist I don't see why I should pay for state provided services.
The FC funding from govt only amounts to about £20m. That's covers their statutory duties such as providing safe free public access (on foot, and not necessarily with cafes and toilets etc) and environmental stewardship such as protection of at risk habitats such as heathland and peat bogs and species of plants and animals, ancient monuments etc. The rest of the money they make to pay for their business is generated through trading income such as selling wood, cafe income and car park charges.
For the FC to exist as it is today and provide the range of other (non essential) things such as toilets and bike trails, play facilities, viewing platforms and the like it needs to pay for them somehow as they're not part of the fc's statutory remit. The govt isn't giving the FC money to pay for trails for bikes, why would they do that.
The FC has to charge for parking at trailcentres to cover the cost of running the centre and all the non core activity there. Not all the money from bikers gets spent on trails, it gets spent on running the whole of the centre just like cafe income gets spent across all the activities etc. At some centres its timber incomes and estates incomes from other parts of the business that are propping up the trailcentres. If more people paid at centres you'd find it would soon enough start to find its way into better facilities as there'd be more money to go round. It's easy to justify additional budget for more stuff if there's an upturn in income. Any additional trading income doesn't go back to the govt anymore but gets saved up to pay for investment in the business, generally meaning new cafes, bike trails etc
joshvegas - Member
I think you'll find most of the damage you see at glentress is made be various parts of my body and bike sliding along, down and sometimes across various features.
Well in that case I think your moral obligation to actually make it to a Trailfairies session is pretty absolute! 🙂
I wholeheartedly agree with Steven's comments about Andy Wardman - he's a top bloke. And it's always great to hear kind words said about the Trailfairies!
And it's worth pointing out that a lot of FC maintenance work is done by volunteers. I started in the summer at Hicks Lodge. The Ranger is responsible for that, which is the National Forest cycle centre, and another site. They contract in some of the big machinery type jobs, but a lot of the signage, brashing, drainage and trail maintenance is down to one paid bloke(who's also the car park attendant/traffic warden) and a team of volunteers.
Who are all heartily sick of ****ing ragwort!
I popped over to Hopton Wood the other week, would've gladly paid a couple of quid to ride the trails there. In comparison to FoD, the Verderer's trail has gone right off after they repaired huge sections awhile back, all testy sections were sanitised.
ChrisL - Member
joshvegas - Member
I think you'll find most of the damage you see at glentress is made be various parts of my body and bike sliding along, down and sometimes across various features.
Well in that case I think your moral obligation to actually make it to a Trailfairies session is pretty absolute!
Not wrong can i bring my own mattock?
joshvegas - Member
Not wrong can i bring my own mattock?
I have done so in the past and various 'fairies bring their own preferred trail tools so I doubt anyone will try and stop you. 🙂
Like most people I pay the parking fee's and don't really think about it. But access to the forest is a good thing, so is the exercise and recreation that comes with that access. I'd like to think that access should be free of charge. Here in Wales things like museum admission is foc, payed for from general taxation. FC parking, footpaths and mtb trails should be the same.
Taxi25
No one wants to pay any tax though do they!
Can we expect 100% of the general population to fund our trailcentre habits? If that was the case all we'd have is green trails and blues at a push to get fat kids and their parents off the couch.
Agreed, but reverse that. I haven't been to a museum in years, but I guess some of my tax goes towards them. Can the beard history lot really expect the general population to fund their museum hobby.
nairnster - MemberAgreed, but reverse that. I haven't been to a museum in years, but I guess some of my tax goes towards them. Can the beard history lot really expect the general population to fund their museum hobby.
No, that's why most of them (who dont charge for tickets already) ask for contributions to support them. 😐
Oh, and they will all charge for parking.
Tricky one this...the money doesn't actually go towards trail upkeep, it gets swallowed up in the big machine and is used for whatever, the trail budgets are not feathered directly by this car parking charge.
In a lot of cases, a huge portion of cost to build has been from funding raised for it so isn't directly out the FC pocket.
The cost in a lot of places is a rip-off for what is there...and people feel genuinely aggrieved by having to pay.
The trails are built and provided by other funding, the FC have failed to plan a cost-effective maintenance schedule and lump this in to help raise funds for the overall FC scheme.
Saying all that, I pay every time but I do it grudgingly as I know none of it is used for trail upkeep or development.
It also provides a slightly more accurate idea of car numbers so entirely possible to show big differences in suggested numbers and reality...
Access is free of charge...arrive in/on a non-motorised believe and you don't pay. You aren't paying to use the forest, the fee is to allow you to park your vehicle in a parking space at a car park...if you don't use the car park, you don't need to pay.
Dick
Absolutely.
What we also forget is these places aren't generally just trailcentres, they are all things to all people. I work for the FC so call me biased if you like but sitting on the fence as a biker and guy with a family if you can take your family to one of these places for a whole day and all of you ride the trails, use the toilets, use the environment to picnic in, play on the play equipment and walk the walking trails, run the parkrun etc all for between £5 and £12 per day I think that's pretty good value. It does cost a lot of money to run these places and the alternative is that they just don't exist and there are no trails. Then as the centre doesn't exist there's no mtb ranger on site/ nearby to organise volunteer programmes and the wild trails just dont have anyone to manage them as well.
I work as a volunteer at a FoC site that has trails.
The parking charge is £5 ,and according to the staff ,95% of people pay it. When i walk around the car park i just don't see that figure.The parking charges are not enforced unless the reg no comes up as a serial offender.
The majority of the trail building is done by volunteers with the FoC supplying some equipment and materials.
Its not just cycle trails that the volunteers work on but virtually everything else.
We are told all the time the Commission is short of money and car parking fees will rise year on year,currently £5.My centre has the funding for number plate recognition cameras for the parking and may come into place next year.
Access is free of charge...arrive in/on a non-motorised believe and you don't pay
You know thats such an amazingly good idea I can't believe I hadn't thought of it already. So good infact, I invite you to come and share the experience with me. I've taken the liberty of knocking together a brief itinerary.
According to google its 86mi to Glentress (my nearest FC trail centre) by bike.
So I figure if we leave around 1am, allowing for a couple of short breaks we should be there by 10am, cafe will be open and we can grab some breakfast.
Probably hit the trails around 10:30, and if we keep the pace up, we should be able to get a lap each of the red and blue in time for a late lunch around 1:15pm. Another quick lap of the red will take us to about 3:15pm, sadly no time to stop for cake as we've still got a bit of a trek home again. Guessing we'll be a bit tired on the way home, so may be a bit slower. Figure we can make it home by midnight including a brief stop at the chippy. ~200miles all in, should make for a good day.
When did socialism extend to 'everything state provided should be free access AND should provide transport to the people to get them there'?
I'd like to think that access should be free of charge. Here in Wales things like museum admission is foc, payed for from general taxation. FC parking, footpaths and mtb trails should be the same.
I'd like that too. But like the public sector as a whole, the FC is being cut to the bone and needs to show itself to be worthy of funds or even *gasp* generate a profit. Unfortunately paying for parking is an easy fund-raiser, just as it is for local councils in town centres. It's arguable that this is short-sighted and self-destructive, but then you could also argue that there should be better funding for public services so they don't have to rely on other ways of generating income.
If you can ride to your local centre, then brilliant. If you can't then you should probably factor in parking charges - if you're driving 80 miles to get there, it seems a bit of a moot point on top of spending X amount on fuel, not to mention the costs of running a car.
£9 is now what it costs to get rid of three bags of rubble at my local tip. A day at Grizedale is starting to look like better value all the time.
Some of the ideas in this thread have put me right off socialism.
And FWIW I buy an annual Hamsterley pass and when filling in the details they know that I come for the biking and not (at least admittedly) for the Gruffalo.
£9 is now what it costs to get rid of three bags of rubble at my local tip. A day at Grizedale is starting to look like better value all the time.
Bit hard getting the rubble there on a bike though...
Bit hard getting the rubble there on a bike though.
You misunderstand. I drive there, pay the parking, then tip the rubble into the braking bumps. 🙂
If only the money from parking went back in to the trails. This might happen at some centres but none near me.
the FC is being cut to the bone and needs to show itself to be worthy of funds or even *gasp* generate a profit
problem with that of course is the perverse situation that if an activity is shown to turn a profit, it is quickly privatised. half the accounts work of the FC is probably trying not to make a profit. 😈
scottfitz - MemberIf only the money from parking went back in to the trails. This might happen at some centres but none near me.
What if, the money from parking was used to... maintain sufficient parking so you could use the free-to-use trails. How would you get to the trail-fairy trails if there was no parking provided or the tiny car park was full to overflowing and blocking the road in?
Someone told me at Dalby only 50% pay which I was pretty shocked by, that's across all users.
At Dalby you pay at the toll as you drive in. Unless they go in a different way i'm not sure how they avoid paying.
INMHO £2 parking is a billy bargain to park and ride the Swinley trails.
If you can't afford that then you can park for free in Camberley and ride across Barossa to get there.
This is why I stay away from trail centre pish pay for parking and the people you encounter
But like the public sector as a whole, the FC is being cut to the bone and needs to show itself to be worthy of funds or even *gasp* generate a profit
From the FC website:
The Forestry Commission manages land for conservation, timber production, heritage and for you to enjoy. [b]We are a non profit–making organisation [/b]and money raised from car parking goes towards maintaining visitor centres, play areas, bike trails and other facilities.
But you are right about government funding being cut to the bone, however this makes the making money from the forest estate part all the more important.
Best way to fund trails is to donate to the mtb organisation which maintains them, if any.
A few quid yes, I always drop a £1 or so innte donation cairn at Peaslake / Walking Bottom and was a Friend when I lived locally. I've made the odd donation to QECP and would have no qualms about parking elsewhere for free and riding in. Made a donation to Lady Canning and will probably never ride there (4hrs away)
More than a few quid for parking no. £10 for Theptford ? No idea what the riding is like but I wouldn't bother to go at all. £15 a day in Alps gets me chairlifts all day. £25 at BPW gets me the uplift.
I prefer natural trails anyway and they are free to horseriders so why pay carparking charges for the odd red trail ?
Access is free of charge...arrive in/on a non-motorised believe and you don't pay. You aren't paying to use the forest, the fee is to allow you to park your vehicle in a parking space at a car park...if you don't use the car park, you don't need to pay.
Again, I don't mind paying for car parking, but where the payment is only required of people using the MTB trails (where walking trails are also provided and maintained) I pay begrudgingly. I do bits of trailfairying where and when I can, although this year has been a bit hectic to manage anything more than chucking logs out of my way whilst on a ride.
philjunior - Member
Again, I don't mind paying for car parking, but where the payment is only required of people using the MTB trails (where walking trails are also provided and maintained) I pay begrudgingly.
I haven't encountered that before - where are car parking charges only levied for MTBers?
Many years ago somebody in the FCS tried something very cheeky with the Tweed Valley (Glentress/Innerleithen) annual permits. They were available with either MTB, horsey or walker friendly graphics. All were functionally the same (you didn't need an MTB one to use the car parks when MTBing) but the one with the MTB graphic cost 10 quid more than the others. I don't think that scheme lasted more than a year, though.
Tricky one this...the money doesn't actually go towards trail upkeep, it gets swallowed up in the big machine and is used for whatever
It does at some centres, and arguably by going to the FC it's in fact benefitting trails (and other outdoor woodland pursuits) nationwide.
the FC is being cut to the bone and needs to show itself to be worthy of funds or even *gasp* generate a profit...
But you are right about government funding being cut to the bone, however this makes the making money from the forest estate part all the more important.
Yeah, maybe 'making a profit' isn't the best way of putting it, as it all goes back into the running of and development of sites. It's not like there's shareholders creaming off the top.
where are car parking charges only levied for MTBers
Up at Golspie. I visit a couple of times a year as it's near inlaws. You can park at the town car park or the gravel car park at the trail head - not sure about the one at the trail head but the town car park I normally use (as it's near toilets and a cafe and it's nicer riding out from the town I think) is free to park but asks MTBers to pay and display.
It may be that the money is going directly to the trails, but I'd far rather have a suggested donation for this. (I kind of like a suggested donation as it takes the guess work out of a donation box.)
arguably by going to the FC it's in fact benefiting trails (and other outdoor woodland pursuits) nationwide.
I think that as some people fail to see their pound coins being hammered in to the braking bumps and conclude that paying for their parking contributes nothing to the forest whatsoever.
More than a few quid for parking no. £10 for Theptford ? No idea what the riding is like but I wouldn't bother to go at all.
Thetford, like other FC centres, is a lot more about other outdoor pursuits. Paying £12 to ride the trails at Thetford is not the best use of money as if you're purely there to ride your bike you're essentially paying to use all the other facilities. I'd pay it as my daughter loves the Gruffalo trail, playpark and the huge amount of open space. However, there is plenty of unmonitored free parking in the area, as well as a cheaper council run site, but obviously lugging a toddler and associated kit from them to the FC centre is a massive ballache.
Again, it's an individual centre and it would be worth researching how TIMBER get their funds and support from the FC. The other element of this is that most of the decent riding is natural - the armoured trails are great as a signposted loop, but you're far better off getting a local to show you round.
Like most things, it's a balance and it's up to you how you strike it.
I think that as some people fail to see their pound coins being hammered in to the braking bumps and conclude that paying for their parking contributes nothing to the forest whatsoever.
😆
True dat.
Up at Golspie. I visit a couple of times a year as it's near inlaws. You can park at the town car park or the gravel car park at the trail head - not sure about the one at the trail head but the town car park I normally use (as it's near toilets and a cafe and it's nicer riding out from the town I think) is free to park but asks MTBers to pay and display.It may be that the money is going directly to the trails, but I'd far rather have a suggested donation for this. (I kind of like a suggested donation as it takes the guess work out of a donation box.)
Can't speak for the trailbuilders there but it's private land (not FC, woot!) and I would imagine the funds do directly go back to paying for the lease of the land/supporting the mtb trails. I'm still amazed all that got built up there, the cost for the number of riders must have been very high! It's very good though.
Suggested donation is a nice idea but given the attitudes of the people of stw, I would expect most donations would be £0.00 because I don't carry change in 2016, I'm a socialist, I'm an arse, etc
" The FC is being cut to the bone ". Not at my centre. The waste in manpower and materials is huge.Nowhere do i see " value for money " decisions being made.
Somebody fly tipped an old vacuum cleaner.We couldn't remove it,volunteers and the Forestry worker,but were told that a specialist hazardous waste " team " had to be brought in.Only one example but i could probably fill a page.
Not at my centre. The waste in manpower and materials is huge.Nowhere do i see " value for money " decisions being made.
Somebody fly tipped an old vacuum cleaner.We couldn't remove it,volunteers and the Forestry worker,but were told that a specialist hazardous waste " team " had to be brought in.Only one example but i could probably fill a page.
But the part you don't see is that anything to do with waste be it litter picking, emptying bins, fly tips has probably been outsourced. And in doing so there has been a corresponding reduction in staffing hours / funding somewhere in the district. So why would you want limited staff time being taken up doing something that is already paid for?
The situation at Swinley is a bit of a sad embarrassment. Basically the council pays people to stick you with fines. Thats it. Nothing more. In a nutshell:
It used to be free. Everyone liked that. It was good and worked because its miles from anything really useful, so it didn't get abused.
They decided to charge for it. However they refund your money if you visit a council owned facility (so now its still free to many), but of course that diminishes the revenues considerably.
They take, I am led to believe, something a bit over 100K pa in fees after all those pay backs.
The cost to run the car park is somewhere around 100K. Yes you read that right. Its a huge number.
So what you're actually paying for is people to check your tickets and run ticket machines. However, I suspect that the revenue from fines goes somewhere else, and isn't included in the 100k, so actually, since the parking operation is not much better than net zero, what BFBC is basically doing is issuing parking tickets to raise money for the council. For me, thats not the job of a council, no matter how much money they need to raise.
I should say that under an agreement with CE the surplus is divided each year and half goes to CE, but that doesnt seem to be a great deal of money compared with the running costs of the car park.
Golspie is a place you definitely don't want to get into "my parking money should go to the trails"- because the parking revenue is going to be tiny. We need places like that to stay on the "bottomless money pit" FC funding structure and "my £3 should go to the trails!" can only be a red rag to a bull that's spent (educated guesses) several hundred thousand pounds on the centre and gets back a couple of hundred quid in a good week.
You should pay.... car parks cost money to run and some of the profit will almost certainly reach the trails directly or indirectly.
For example, at Swinley the council runs the car park, and passes a contribution to the crown estate who then contribute to trail maintenance. That's based on what the trail team say....
You can moan about the costs of running the parking, but those costs would apply to any system - such as the previous permit system. Honesty systems are low cost but if people won't pay parking with a threat of fines then they definitely won't ever put into the honesty box.
Using general taxation to fund trails also means that the funding would always be at risk during lean times or change of government. Much better to make trails as self-funded as possible.
My philosophy on Glentress is, if I'm on my own I'll park at Janet's Brae, cycle up to Buzzards Nest and then buy food at the café.
If I'm with other folk we go to the car park, pay parking, ride and buy food at café.
No idea if that makes sense with their business models, but I just begrudge paying £5 for parking when it's just me in my mx5
I'm an arse,
😐
I believe that the government should adequately fund public sector services to an adequate degree such that the public, who have paid for that funding, shouldn't face further costs. The fact that this government is flying in the face of all common sense and forcing it's own services to charge the taxpayer more money is insane. Similarly I don't believe we should have to pay anything excessive (more than a couple of quid) for council leisure centres, or anything at all for NHS prescriptions or bridge tolls. Unfortunately there's no way getting round them but needless parking charges are avoidable. So I avoid them. I have always paid at Golspie though, since it doesn't get outside funding.
Calling people arses online is a much bigger disgrace than me not paying to park at Glentress.
That's the problem with 'common' sense. it's actually not common. People generally only want to pay of what they use. People only like the idea of 'public services' when it involves services they use, but not when it involves services they don't use. Why should people pay more taxes to fund things they are unlikely to ever use. Pay as you go is actually the fairest and most common sense way of managing these things that a small percentage of the population use regularly.
Just suck it up. You want access to the countryside with convenient facilities such as car parks, litter bins, lighting, a cafe, managed landscape, trails, footpaths etc. then stump up your fair share and stop expecting others to foot the bill for you. If you use it that frequently then buy an annual pass and after 5 to 10 visits you've covered your costs and are quids in.
It still astounds me that anyone at all complains about charges at Swinley, be it the £2 charge for parking or the £2.50 for coffee. What you have there is an absolute GEM of a trailcentre in the best location possible for a massive number of riders, all brilliantly built, managed, maintained and looked after.... All for £2.
I mean seriously guys...
sr0093193. Litter picking has not been " outsourced " at my centre. Volunteers and staff do it.In fact,only 2 out of the staff of 6,do actually any work on the ground. The others appear top be sat in the office in front of a computer most of the day.
The FC also have a remit to promote recreational use on 'their' land...it was one of the big things that stopped them being privatised in the 90s and why access suddenly opened up.
The charge isn't to use the trails/paths, etc. It is a charge to par your car...which also used to be free.
If people do have an issue with having to pay to park their vehicle then they need to park elsewhere and ride/walk in.
Depending on where you live, I'd suggest there is better riding to be had nearer you if you had to drive more than an hour...but like is said, depends on where you live.
ads678
At Dalby you pay at the toll as you drive in. Unless they go in a different way i'm not sure how they avoid paying.
They only man the toll gate at peak times (weekends, school holidays, etc), the rest of the time the toll is unmanned and there are ticket machines in the main visitor centre car park where you are expected to get a ticket before parking (if you are planning to park in a different car park).
I agree with an earlier comment though that it is frustrating that the annual passes are not for all FC sites. I've paid £48 (i think) for a Dalby pass but can't use it at any other FC site, or don't even get a discount.
munrobiker - MemberI'm an arse,
I believe that the government should adequately fund public sector services to an adequate degree such that the public, who have paid for that funding, shouldn't face further costs. The fact that this government is flying in the face of all common sense and forcing it's own services to charge the taxpayer more money is insane. Similarly I don't believe we should have to pay anything excessive (more than a couple of quid) for council leisure centres, or anything at all for NHS prescriptions or bridge tolls. Unfortunately there's no way getting round them but needless parking charges are avoidable. So I avoid them. I have always paid at Golspie though, since it doesn't get outside funding.
Calling people arses online is a much bigger disgrace than me not paying to park at Glentress.
That's great, a uptopia where everything is free, how do I get there? because at the moment its not, and just deciding you will ignore the facts and act out your life as if you are actually in an idealistic dream world would actually make you an arse 😆
he cost to run the car park is somewhere around 100K. Yes you read that right. Its a huge number.So what you're actually paying for is people to check your tickets and run ticket machines
Don't forget that the council have to rent the land from Crown Estate who are the owners. It was never the councils plan to provide parking for a mountain biking facility and to be honest the charges are very reasonable, especially given that they plough some of it back into trail maintenance.
The answer to this problem is increadbly simple. Use mountain bike for there intended use. On mountains. All Mountain/XC riding is dead.......long live xc. Go explore new places and let adventure take hold.
I believe that the government should adequately fund public sector services to an adequate degree such that the public, who have paid for that funding, shouldn't face further costs. The fact that this government is flying in the face of all common sense and forcing it's own services to charge the taxpayer more money is insane. Similarly I don't believe we should have to pay anything excessive (more than a couple of quid) for council leisure centres, or anything at all for NHS prescriptions or bridge tolls. Unfortunately there's no way getting round them but needless parking charges are avoidable. So I avoid them. I have always paid at Golspie though, since it doesn't get outside funding.
That's lovely but it's not the reality anyone lives in, you might as well be saying you believe that sparkling unicorns have built your trails for you at no cost to anyone, because that's equally based on reality.
Calling people arses online is a much bigger disgrace than me not paying to park at Glentress.
I'm not sure socialism prepares one for the real world very well!
I believe that the government should adequately fund public sector services to an adequate degree such that the public, who have paid for that funding, shouldn't face further costs.
I believe that too. However...
The fact that this government is flying in the face of all common sense and forcing it's own services to charge the taxpayer more money is insane.
This is happening, as unfortunate as it is. And as said above - if it makes a centre self-sustaining (which not all do, to be fair) isn't that worth paying a few quid for?
The FC also have a remit to promote recreational use on 'their' land...it was one of the big things that stopped them being privatised in the 90s and why access suddenly opened up.
Good point.
Somebody fly tipped an old vacuum cleaner.We couldn't remove it,volunteers and the Forestry worker,but were told that a specialist hazardous waste " team " had to be brought in.Only one example but i could probably fill a page.
Welcome to the 21st century. I work for a private company that's probably of equal size to, or slightly smaller than, the FC. I am not allowed to move my crap from one desk to another if there's any sort of installation required (as in unscrewing and rescrewing an under-desk tray carrying cables), or lift a heavy pot plant while at work. Seriously. I'd argue that the FC fall into a similar bracket - the risk of legal action is too great, so you get in 'professionals' trained to do a particular job who are insured, even if that's just emptying a bin or moving a desk.
Can't speak for the trailbuilders there but it's private land (not FC, woot!) and I would imagine the funds do directly go back to paying for the lease of the land/supporting the mtb trails. I'm still amazed all that got built up there, the cost for the number of riders must have been very high! It's very good though.Suggested donation is a nice idea but given the attitudes of the people of stw, I would expect most donations would be £0.00 because I don't carry change in 2016, I'm a socialist, I'm an arse, etc
I agree that for the number of visitors it must get, it's a very good facility. You might have a point about the suggested donation, but tbh there's nothing that would have actually happened to me if I'd never paid in the car park!