UKC

BBC reports that 18 N. Wales businesses will ask visitors to donate money to pay for repairing and maintaining paths up Snowdon. There will be an 18-month trial from June this year.

Questions, questions, questions occur;

- Am I right in thinking Snowdonia National Park Authority could have chosen to spend money on footpath repair instead of its display centre at Ogwen Cottage? If so, has it got the balance right between infrastructure maintenance and new building?

- If people accept paying to go up Snowdon then what's to stop the Snowdon Partnership extending this scheme to other mountains?

- Is this the the end of a wedge that ends up with a fee to walk up, access Snowdon?

- Why not make a levy on the Snowdon summit cafe's prices instead?

BBC report here: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-36325674

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

It sounds fair enough to me, it's a voluntary donation after all

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

My view hinges almost entirely on how it's collected - honesty box, great. Cheery chuggers with buckets, no way Jose.

Car parking charges seem a better way of raising funds, and a £5 charge is small beans compared to the distance most people drive. £250 for a 3 peaks coach...

In reply to Chris_Mellor:


No, because CROW.

In reply to wintertree:


This particular suggestion is the automatic addition of, E.g. a £1 'voluntary donation' to the bill at a hotel or restaurant.

The problem with raising money through carpark fees is that the parking spaces are already pretty much fully occupied.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

What are they doing with all the parking charges at the Pass and down at the Pen-y-gwrd?

I know that hypothecation is very unfashionable but it can't be all going on infrastructure or road projects elsewhere?

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Well if they want to pay me to walk up that's fine.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

There's a lot more to upkeep of a heavily used and abused visitor attraction than mending footpaths. Sure, they could have put a Portakabin up at Ogwen Cottage and spent the remainder on path work. Is that likely?

The 'display centre' , as you term it, at Ogwen Cottage, provides improved facilities for groups to help with their understanding of the area before they go out and erode it. The lavatories there are better than the previous facilities - Maybe this reduces the likelihood of people deciding to have a sh1t somewhere in the nearby hills and put a rock on it, additionally there might be less tissues and toilet paper left after a piss just off the path.
There might be extra income generated for the local economy through the sale of drinks and snacks-admittedly this has meant more 'coffee to go' litter in Grit bins and strewn along the old road down to Tyn y Maes. there again, perhaps we should have cups tied to strings at the counter, or actively penalise twunts who litter...

You can choose not to put something back when you visit the area. Many exercise this right at Ogwen Cottage. The bus service doesn't run up the valley as part of the Snowdon Sherpa Scheme - axed because the operator chose to cherry pick the lucrative routes, and with all the free parking near Ogwen, is it any wonder the buses doesn't run? If they ever did again, then the centre at Og Cot would be an attractive stop off. But no, despite the facilities there, significant numbers of people will park cars dangerously and inconsiderately on the A5, even though there is decent parking a short walk away.
Highly visible scarring of a hillside from path erosion requires money to put it right. But there's also blight as a result of low incomes in local communities secondary to the 'spend nowt/ demand all-it's a National Park' hillgoers, from litter and human waste, from locally congested roadside verges and the visual and amenity degradation that vehicles often impose. The mountain isn't the problem. managing visitors is , and path erosion is only a part of this.

In reply to llechwedd:

A very good summary of the problem

In reply to Babika:

I believe the the two parking areas are managed by different organisation.
The one at Pen Y Pass is run by the National Park and interestingly all the proceeds from this car park go directly into path repair and building so although it is fashionable not to pay in this car park it may be worth doing so.
The parking down at the Pen Y Gwryd is, I believe run by Gwynedd County Council, hence the parking warden and the possibility of a parking fine. God only knows where the income from this car park goes.

In reply to Pete Potter:


Might be reasonable to assume that the money goes to Gwynedd -i.e. locally- and that would help fund infrastructure and services both within and adjacent to the National Park.
You may not have intended it in your post, but to me, there's a hint at proprietorial rights as a visitor to Snowdon- a sort of 'Gwynedd is for locals, so I don't need to pay, whereas the National Park is something I'm doing/consuming so I'm minded to pay' ("it might be worth doing so").

Inhabitants within and adjacent to the National Park pay their GWYNEDD Council Tax, but its not just they who consume the benefits: Public toilets face closure, the Barmouth footbridge likewise. These are decisions made by cash strapped Councils. The road you (most likely ) drove on was partly funded by - guess who? etc, etc, etc.

The National Park is not like Center Park, some sort of separate bubble that you enter to play in, It is part of Gwynedd, The Snowdon Sherpa bus service is funded by-yep- Gwynedd, and on, and on, we go.

Like I said in my previous post - the mountain isn't the problem. The mountain is rooted in culture, language community, shaped by these and the actions of the many visitors. But in the world of 'one click away' - internet shopping, where we don't buy unless we've been led to believe we need it, it's easy to think that unless you directly consume it there's no need for social responsibility.

"The road you (most likely ) drove on was partly funded by - guess who? etc, etc, etc."

Trunk roads, such as the A5, are nationally funded. Local roads are council-funded, however most council funding also comes from central government with rates and other local sources secondary. So the argument that parking charges are paying for the roads is a bit tenuous.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I'd have no problem what so ever paying a nominal voluntary contribution to assist with the upkeep of the park. You could argue the same for the Neuadd Horseshow down south. And while there shouldn't be a charge on accessing the country side the provision of free goods and services can devalue them

In reply to Dogwatch:



So you only drive on trunk roads when visiting the area? I guess you put a lot back into the local economy.
You can debate the proportion of local vs central funding, but a pound is still a pound
Tenuous??

In reply to llechwedd:

Mr Potter's comment isn't unreasonable. Most NP expenditure is on things that visitors to NPs value. Councils have a lot of other responsibilities that are more important to locals; taking the bins out, policing, etc. So he's quite right in saying: "God only knows where the income from this car park goes." That's not the same as saying it's worthless or that visitors to an area should not contribute.

In reply to broken spectre:


Many estates in Scotland ask for a 'voluntary' fee..

This sounds ok.

In reply to llechwedd:

I feel it only fair to point out that I live right in the middle of Snowdonia, in fact Snowdon is my back garden. I am also a house owner who pays Council Tax.
I standby what I said in relation to both parking areas as I think a large percentage of people feel that once money goes into the local council it is not easy to see what its spent on.

In reply to Pete Potter:

You are probably right.

I worked in council finance for years and it was no secret that car park income in the town centre was propping up all the other services and balancing the books. There was no sense of "we'll only charge what we need to maintain the car park, warden, CCTV" etc. It was a straightforward cash cow.

Gwynedd may be doing the same, but I guess it would be nice to imagine that some of the parking fees could be used to grant aid footpath repair on a major asset in the area, regardless of who owns it.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:


That's not even 'Paying to walk up Snowdon' - that's just 'Paying to be near Snowdon'.

I nearly put 'Paying to look at Snowdon' but it's not exactly that visible most of the time.

.

In reply to Pete Potter:


as do I, but mine back garden's the Carneddau
I agree when you say that


Paying for footpath repair is only a small part of visitor management. If there was a declaration on your carpark ticket "The money you spend will be used on footpath repair " then you may be encouraged to think, erroneously, that you have paid in full for your consumption of the mountain experience. You might then, as the original poster seems to have done, question funding of other schemes which are part of mountain visitor management. I have made reference to the bigger picture upthread.

Theoretically, the Gwynedd Car Park fee can be less than the cost of maintaining the car parking, equal to, or more than that cost.
If you go for a piss in a public lavatory you are generally paying less than the cost of facility maintenance. Perhaps the carparking is making good the shortfall. Would you feel parking charges were 'fair' only if you paid no more than the cost of facility maintenance? Babika seems to take this approach, which appears devoid of any notion of fairness or social conscience. Some things tend to subsidise others, you can argue the point as to how much it is due to 'captive audience' or redress of inequity. The phrase 'cash cow' does not attempt such distinction.
Vehicle parking, particularly in the scenic areas is at a premium. You pay or you don't. You can always park further away and walk/cycle/ share a lift/use public transport to avoid the charge.

It is strange that people bridle at car parking charges in scenic areas, citing the 'we don't known where the money is going' as the reason. But many of the same people will happily shell out for charities which give only a nominal amount to good works, will not for one moment consider buying ethically- cost and imagined quality are all- and will meekly pay their taxes without a quibble. But come to a day out in the mountains and they become champions for fairness.

In reply to llechwedd:

Eh?
I think you have completely missed my point of view entirely and utterly misrepresented me! Please retract and apologise!

I have no problem with parking being a cash cow. I was an enthusiastic exponent of it in a previous job.

My response was an agreement to Pete Potter who said its quite hard to see what the money's spent on once it goes to the council. I was merely illustrating that this is indeed very true.

However if footpaths up Snowdon need maintenance it would be quite nice if Gwynedd chose to bung a bit of their substantial parking income as a grant to help this. If you think that the sums collected are fully spent on verge maintenance and wardens for the bays at the PyG then I'd like to apply for one of the jobs/contracts.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

The only place I've seen that is in the Cairngorm car park.

Where else have you seen it?

In reply to DaveHK:
A few estates around deeside.

Lin of Dee? Glen Esk and possibly Glen Clova?

Something like please pay, we don't enforce it but payment goes to providing X, Y and Z..

In reply to Babika:

So I said, to Pete Potter:
Would you feel parking charges were 'fair' only if you paid no more than the cost of facility maintenance?
Babika seems to take this approach, which appears devoid of any notion of fairness or social conscience. Some things tend to subsidise others, you can argue the point as to how much it is due to 'captive audience' or redress of inequity. The phrase 'cash cow' does not attempt such distinction.

Not sure where I've misrepresented. You said parking was 'propping up all the other services'. You did not say that it helped to subsidise socially useful aspects of council work.

In reply to llechwedd:

I didn't describe them as unfair at all and by suggesting that I take this approach you are being unnecessarily pejorative, particularly by linking it with social conscience

In reply to Babika:

Well, it's a difficult one to strike a fair balance I agree.

But I do think that the simplistic 'I'm only paying for what I'm eating' approach' to carpark charges in scenic areas, where there are other ways of accessing the mountains, is wrong.
If you hike the prices to help defray the cost of other socially useful projects, it undermines the ethos of fairness if you label the parking a 'cash cow'. Being pragmatic though, it can reasonably be expected that revenue from parking will not be ring-fenced. Economies and demands change over time. Is it still a 'cash cow' -or could a less perjorative term be used?

I have repeatedly linked to what I see as the fairness of relatively affluent daytrippers, who choose to park nearby, paying a premium for that. Social conscience may be something we tend to keep out of consumer purchase, but it is there, if we dig a little. We can chose not to become aware of the consequences of our consumer actions. In the matter of Gwynedd's parking charges, it may be reasonable to query them, but rarely, e.g. do you hear ' Oh, I've just bought some petrol from a Shell/BP/Texaco..garage. God only knows where that money goes'. God only knows, if we don't chose to find out. Having found out, we could then make a choice. My guess is that the proximity of the car park will still be the decider.

In reply to llechwedd:


Unless it's a Euro, which I took to be the point of Dogwatch's post.

Martin

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

With 82 out 100 companies not signing up is it a non-starter ?