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.

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

I have quite a lot of sympathy for that argument.  However, is mountain biking a sport?  The answer is surely not "always" although clearly at least sometimes it is.

If it doesn't cost me money to walk up a mountain, should it cost me money to cycle up it?
If I can wander through a forest FOC why can't I glide around it on my bike?
If it doesn't cost me money to paddle down a river, should I have to pay to cycle along the bank?
If a trail centre costs money, why shouldn't a sustrans path?
If a sustrans path costs money, why shouldn't the roads...

Parking charges seem to go quite a long way to achieving a sensible balance - car sharing, riding to trails etc are then financially encouraged and apply to everyone using the facility regardless of their method of fun once there.  You need to be able to enforce the charges, and stop people parking just outside and causing other problems, as well as ensuring its actually easy to pay but those are soluble problems if you have the right mindset.

However, if you want exclusive use of a trail, ie. it to be bikes only, then it seems perfectly reasonable that it should come with a cost - it seems those dedicated facilities are what people are acustomed to paying for.

Gisburn cafe recently closed. I'm amazed it stayed open so long TBH (no reflection on the cafe, just the location).

Not sure quite what this article is calling for? Publicly funded, loss-making visitor centres selling stuffed toys and OS maps?

CyB isn't closing. The trails are going nowhere, despite the misleading headline on STW's last article (still in place I see).

Pick your battles.

If it doesn’t cost me money to paddle down a river, should I have to pay to cycle along the bank?

FYI you do actually need a small craft license to use rivers & canals..

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/things-to-do/canoeing-and-kayaking-near-me/licensing-your-canoe

FYI you do actually need a small craft license to use rivers & canals..

depends where you are (I’m in the frozen north so we don’t!) but when I lived in England I paddled on the Wye and the Usk where no license is needed.  I don’t believe it’s that unusual.

I’ve just calculated the costs for a small 3m by 1m craft and it’s over 700 quid a year!

I’ve just calculated the costs for a small 3m by 1m craft and it’s over 700 quid a year!

That's about the same as 6 hours parking in Thetford Forest. 😀

depends where you are (I’m in the frozen north so we don’t!) but when I lived in England I paddled on the Wye and the Usk where no license is needed.  I don’t believe it’s that unusual.

Which, in a way, makes a really good point that (I think) has been missed on this thread. Opening up public access to land in England and Wales would do more to encourage physical exercise, and the associated mental health benefits, than increasing funding for a few specialist locations.

Really tricky one. A few observations from me are:

1) Parking pricing going up is counterproductive in some areas. I used to pay every time at Cwmcarn and FoD when it was cheap, but there's plenty of free car parks right next door, so saving up to £7 for a five minute pedal is a no brainer.

2) Lots of grumbles over the conditions of the trails going down whilst car parking fees go up. CyB and Afan suffer from this.

3) Many trail centres haven't kept up with the advent of bigger bikes and trails to suit, whilst keeping blue trails for others. Instead off piste is ridden and then there's no argument that any fees support the trails. Instead I'll take a shovel up and maintain a couple of trails I built in my local (FoD).

1) Parking pricing going up is counterproductive in some areas. I used to pay every time at Cwmcarn and FoD when it was cheap, but there’s plenty of free car parks right next door, so saving up to £7 for a five minute pedal is a no brainer.

2) Lots of grumbles over the conditions of the trails going down whilst car parking fees go up. CyB and Afan suffer from this.

I suspect that these two are connected.
I also suspect that the cost of the car park creation and maintenance sucks up that £7 real quick.

Do the parking areas need to be as fancy as they are? ANPR is great for getting people to pay, but seriously expensive...
The Visitor Centres are a waste of money - people tend to go to those places to do outdoor things, an incredibly small amount go for a fancy visitor centre experience.
It seems to have imploded as the owners have thought they can commandeer all the money...they should be letting others get in and make a go of it, rather than looking to keep all money for themselves.

Do the parking areas need to be as fancy as they are?

Same can be said for visitor centres, all the bells and whistles for something in the middle of nowhere that will have seasonal fluctuations in usage. Keep it simple, the Cafe at Barry is a great example.

Agreed that simple visitors facilities are the way forward, not multi-million pound vanity projects.

Yeah, sorry, my posts was basically saying the visitor centre and parking don't need to be anything fancy, certainly not like they are.
I'm sure a small number of people are pleased with the buildings winning awards, but once started the costs rise and then once built, the costs remain high to maintain them.
Dead easy to type that, but most people won't care how fancy the parking or centre is as they are there to enjoy the outdoors - cyclists, walkers, runners, dog walkers, families...having somewhere to get some food is great, but doesn't need to be fancy (reducing costs and overheads) and should be left to local businesses to run and pay a rent to landowner.

Sometimes people decide to conveniently forget that those people spending £8k or even £10k on their expensive bikes HAVE already paid for the facilities - with the 20% VAT, quite likely their 40% income tax rate.  Sp, that's really more like 50%, saying that the ££ was taxed at 40% to start with then another 20% stuck on after that.

It's like the bollox the Gov talk about wirh public transport and why it's not fair for the tax payer to fund public transport- those passengers ARE tax payers, FFS.

Well put.

No it wasn't

So i think the conclusion is that trail centres are free unless you bought your bike on the cycle to work scheme.

I tried to like The Generalists post but it didn’t work. Hmm maybe it did

The Visitor Centres are a waste of money – people tend to go to those places to do outdoor things, an incredibly small amount go for a fancy visitor centre experience.

Hmm. I don't think you and I are the target audience, or the right folk to judge. For a decent sized percentage of the population - perhaps those that most need the outdoors and exercise - a nice visitor centre with cafe, small shop and walks with interpretation boards etc. might be just the thing to incentivise them.

Well put

I would hope interpretation boards and signage wouldn't be wrapped up in the actual visitor centre. I'd consider those as vital for all visitors/users to help them get the most from their visit.
A solution for food/drink is always good but doesn't need to be fancy...clean and inviting, yes.

We go to a lot of different outdoor places. Some with fancy visitor centres, some with basic facilities and some with nothing. Outside of a few significant honey pots (eg Snowdon) there is pretty much a direct link between number of visitors and quality of visitor centre.

As a biker and a walker I personally don't need much. I also generally prefer places with less people so I'm happy with few facilities but it seems if you want more people to go somewhere you need a good visitor centre.

Hannah’s analysis is correct in my opinion.  I think a base level of trail provision should be publicly funded.  It doesn’t have to be gold plated top of the range stuff… that can be provided by the private sector but the original trail centre network has served us well and should be maintained and kept fresh enough for all to enjoy.

A bigger worry for me is that if the govt/public sector turn their back on recreation and seek to sweat the land resources that we all own but they control, we could find ourselves excluded from a vast area of Wales.  Many of us use forest roads and trails to link up routes all around the UK.  In Wales we only have permissive access to much of this land.  If that permissive access is forgotten when Welsh Govt/NRW eventually disposes of some of their assets to the private sector we could find ourselves left outside the fence.

That is why I agree with Scotroutes

Which, in a way, makes a really good point that (I think) has been missed on this thread. Opening up public access to land in England and Wales would do more to encourage physical exercise, and the associated mental health benefits, than increasing funding for a few specialist locations.

I don’t really understand the situation in Ireland but it seems to me that the limited access there makes outdoor recreation  much harder than places with a similar landscape in Scotland.  Wales is kind of a halfway house… and it could be so much better.

One issue is that those in control don’t really understand cycling, mountain biking, paddling, etc.  and I’m not sure that they listen properly to those in their organisations that do…

The CyB visitor centre was considered excessive when built in 2006 for £1.6m, then a £1.2m extension in 2013. It's always been overly expensive to maintain and the cafe was worse than what came before. Glentress has the same problems. They're vanity projects that never stood a chance of making a sensible return on the investment and actually made things worse as the money was concentrated there rather than being spread around.

I remember getting buttonholed at the bar in a Dollgellau pub in the very early 2000s by a couple of very keen farmers who wanted to know what us mountain bikers wanted. They had noticed riders coming to the area year round (including Christmas Eve) to ride and stay, and they both wanted to convert buildings on their land to cater to groups, and wanted to know what we looked for in accommodation.

About fifteenish years ago Dafydd Davis was invited down to where I lived by one of the big local land managers - Hurtwood Control - to look at the trails that had sprung up there organically over the years. I got to come along to hear from him as I'd been involved in building or maintaining some of them. He made an excellent point quite early on in his report to the landowners and managers: the trail centre he and Sian Roberts had pioneered at CYB solved a problem for the location: not enough visitors. The Surrey Hills, on the other hand, had almost the opposite problem: it was struggling to accommodate the number of people who came to ride, walk and so on.

Done right, and with foresight, building facilities can benefit a lot more people than just mountain bikers - from attracting people to an area they might not visit and bringing in much-needed cash, to encouraging people to spread out in the hills and not congregate in one place by the hundreds. A quick squint at Walking Bottom car park in Peaslake of a weekend suggests this is still a problem 15 years on, by the way.

Last thing, I promise: FC / FE  have changed their approach over the years. Mountain biking used to be a management issue. Now it's a potential revenue source or option to remove liability from the balance sheet. I think understanding what the landowner and land manager (not always the same bunch) want to achieve is key to understanding what's going on. Aside from saving cash, there's not much else that's clear so far.

mountain biking should receive its fair share of public funding

What would the fair share be? Swimming and football (which I personally hate) get tons of public money because millions of kids and adults go for a swim and organised football session every week. They're an order of magnitude more popular than mountain biking.

Yeah - also, define "mountain biking". For the overwhelming majority it involves nothing more gnarly than a canal towpath or forest road. The number whose bikes have "outgrown" traditional trail centres is relatively tiny.

It wouldn't need so much funding if people kept it simple. I'm not talking Hammers iso container simple, but modest setups that adequately meet visitors needs, with as low as reasonably practicable running costs.

Looking at the areas where these trail centres exist, they literally have nothing going on and are often deprived.  Mountain biking has bought visitors to the areas that have spent money and created jobs for local people.  So while football is more popular, the investment to get people to these areas is still worth while and perhaps more so in a geographically limiting area (hills, forests etc).

It's a very narrow perspective to have when we say 'there are other things to fix like hungry children'.  The government has the means (questionable) to invest in communities to create a better chance for the local people at a strong local economy that provides people with the means to live rather than just treat the symptoms with some free school meals.  Us MTB'ers and outdoorists have that ability but we need incentive (investment in trails etc).

the forestry co has a limited remit to invest in the communities in such a way with the government support available and they're just looking to do the bare minimum which is probably just open access as that would probably tick the box to fulfil their requirements.  It's the same all over.

What would the fair share be? Swimming and football (which I personally hate) get tons of public money because millions of kids and adults go for a swim and organised football session every week. They’re an order of magnitude more popular than mountain biking.

Its a bit chicken and egg though. You can go swimming in the sea or play football in the park with jumpers for goalposts but those are very much the minority. Have decent facilities and people will use them, participation increases.

The barriers to entry to swimming and football are low (particularly when both are taught in schools): you need a £8 cossie or £15 football boots from Decathlon to get started, and maybe a bus fare.

Mountain biking at trail centres usually involves an expensive bike and a car to carry it there.

(And half the time people are riding £5k bikes in £25k cars, and then moaning about a £3 parking charge and eating Coop sandwiches instead of eating in the site cafes that provide the toilets).

I remember when it was £3 for the day...not that cheap in a lot of places now.
Football and swimming are far more accessible and have far higher participation numbers - recreationally and organised.
If you can build trails in the local community then you will get an increase is numbers of mountain bikers - but it requires space and there is very little of that available...

I’m not entirely sure why with the huge sums of money in football taxpayers need to fund it.

I’m not entirely sure why with the huge sums of money in football taxpayers need to fund it.

?

Apart from all the other stuff - and personally I find it hard to argue that mountain biking, in the context of trail centres - is more than a niche recreational hobby, which relatively affluent, self-selecting participants - it seems fundamentally wrong to me, to be encouraging people to drive, sometimes considerable, distances to ride their bikes.

It's cloth eared, particularly from a 'sport' which crowbars in arguments about sustainability when it suits.

I'd suggest that if you were going to allocate funds to mountain biking, you'd be better off supporting grass-roots projects encouraging youngsters in particular, to ride bikes. We used to have one locally in Glossop and it was a great mechanism for introducing young people both to riding bikes off road and to getting outside more generally.

We had a small council-funded stock of basic hardtails for those without their own bikes and there was very little driving involved. It was popular and worked well.

There's a bit of a lack of imagination here where people seem to think that the only way to encourage mountain biking is to finance facilities at trail centres, which almost by definition have limited accessibility by public transport outside of a very local area. That's not really the case, I'm sure there are plenty of initiatives that could be started at a local level that would arguably be a better use of public money and still broadly benefit mountain biking. It doesn't have to be a binary all or nothing thing.

I appreciate that the trail centre thing is more narrowly bound up with the finances and policies of individual bodies rather than a more general policy, so it's not quite that simple, but maybe trail centres funded by public bodies were of their time and no longer are, at least in terms of being justifiable in funding terms.

I'll admit that my views are probably coloured by my personal lack of interest in trail centres - they've always struck me a bland and lacking in any sense of journey, you basically ride the same trail over and over again until you end up where you started without any real sense of how you got there - but maybe the idea that they're really a way of 'connecting with the outdoor environment' is overstated. Ime it's more like being on a sort of insulated giant Scalectrix track with a cafe attached before you get back in your car and drive home safely insulated from any real contact with the outside world.

The large sums of money in football are only at the very top level...it doesn't tend to float around at all levels, but it is a massively popular sport for all ages and doesn't require much in the way of provision - a flat space where 2 goals can be created.
Mountain biking (apparently) requires a lot of space and dedicated provisions that require more maintenance and upkeep than just cutting the grass.
Gravel is cheaper but nowadays it seems to be different to mountain biking - back in 80s/90s and into the 00s, it was all mountain biking and we used plenty of existing trails - not dedicated biking trails, but existing stuff. Less cost, but didn't allow people to get to places that needed the tourist £££...
Annoyingly, mountain biking is an expensive sport that isn't as inclusive as it once was...and that costs a lot of money (but most of us don't want to contribute).
I've had a crap night and in a stinking mood, so suspect this is coming across far worse than it should!

Annoyingly, mountain biking is an expensive sport that isn’t as inclusive as it once was…and that costs a lot of money (but most of us don’t want to contribute).

Contribute how though?

Plenty of people pay to ride at uplift venues. Plenty of people still pay to park at traditional trail centres (whether they have a visitor centre or not) . There are even some pay-to-push-up venues.

If the Innerleithen Golf Course was tarmacked and turned into a pay-and-display car park, I reckon it'd be rammed.

On the inclusivity thing, I honestly don't know. I think I'm meeting just as many newbies and teenagers out on the trails as ever, rattling about on Carreras or whatever hand-me-down bikes. I'm seeing more women and greater variety of skin colour than ever on the trails.

New bike pricing went a bit nuts in recent years, but I sense a readjustment is happening already. Entry level bikes are often really good.

I don't think I'm being blindly optimistic, but I'm not sure MTB is in that bad a place really?

Mountain biking (apparently) requires a lot of space and dedicated provisions that require more maintenance and upkeep than just cutting the grass

At our local rec the council cut the grass several times a year, paint lines, fit and remove goalposts. All of these take several men and various bits of equipment, trucks, a tractor etc. The local trails have a volunteer dig team out maybe once a month. I'd say the effort is broadly similar with only one having a cost to the taxpayer. I'm happy for football to be funded, it is very accessible, it would be nice to see a bit of funding going to other things as well.

The space one is the interesting point for me. Mountain biking does need space, not a huge land area but quite spread out. There is such a fight for the limited accessible space we have. It was very noticeable during lockdown. I'd like to see much greater access but really we need more accessible recreation land close to areas of population. Not sure how we get that, I think most of the big parkland near here is old country estates where the owner couldn't afford the death duties and gave the property to the council.

Mountain biking (apparently) requires a lot of space and dedicated provisions that require more maintenance and upkeep than just cutting the grass.

I mountain biked for 25 years and never went to a trail centre.

The trails exist - they are free to access - people are just too lazy to find them now.

The trails exist – they are free to access – people are just too lazy to find them now.

There's been a shift away from dedicated official MTB trails to (often more local) off-piste, sometimes "secret" trails over the last 10 years — so I'm not sure this is accurate.

But maybe you've been too lazy to find them? 😉

@the-muffin-man That was my point...previously we didn't need dedicated locations and dedicated trails. For many, they still don't, but there are many who only ride trail centres and those require a lot of money to build and maintain.
I'd always hoped those who started out and used trail centres would progress and start to ride the hills and discover a load of trails elsewhere (away from trail centres), but that hasn't happened as I'd hoped it would.
Nothing wrong with trail centres and nothing wrong with riding in the hills - plenty right with both, but 1 requires far more money to maintain than the other. This then means that provision requires a lot more time and effort to keep going (as well as the space to create it - not many farmers next to towns/villages offering up land to redevelop for bike trails or pump tracks).