This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Parking in the Pass , don't know if it's been proposed before but due to the Snowdon walkers parking in the pass lay-bys and getting the bus up to pyp the pass lay-bys are full all day and out of use for climbers and any one wishing to be based in the pass. The lay-bys are full before 8 am at weekends during the popular periods. Now if the Sherpa did not pick up in the pass until midday the majority of walkers would move down to the park and ride site in Nant Peris to be sure of an early start and a full day.
7
9
In reply to bill briggs1:
Fixed.
What on earth are you not?
> Parking in the Pass , don't know if it's been proposed before but due to the climbers parking in the pass lay-bys and getting the bus up to pyp the pass lay-bys are full all day and out of use for walkers and any one wishing to be based in the pass. The lay-bys are full before 8 am at weekends during the popular periods. Now if the Sherpa did not pick up in the pass until midday the majority of climbers would move down to the park and ride site in Nant Peris to be sure of an early start and a full day.
Fixed.
What on earth are you not?
9
3
1
7
6
1
In reply to bill briggs1:
I think my first post on UKC was in reply to a similar thread and I suggested banning traffic in the Pass apart from buses and a permit system for 'essential' traffic and access
I got somewhat flamed
Still think it would be better though!
I think my first post on UKC was in reply to a similar thread and I suggested banning traffic in the Pass apart from buses and a permit system for 'essential' traffic and access
I got somewhat flamed
Still think it would be better though!
7
2
In reply to bill briggs1:
So why you worried?
I actually learned the other day that the bus does a huge loop through Ogwen and costs about £1.50. So catching the morning bus from outside Ynys round to Ogwen, then an enchainment, up and over seems like a plan for this summer.
So why you worried?
I actually learned the other day that the bus does a huge loop through Ogwen and costs about £1.50. So catching the morning bus from outside Ynys round to Ogwen, then an enchainment, up and over seems like a plan for this summer.
3
In reply to Bulls Crack:
But he wasn't suggesting a ban (which I could understand); he was suggesting that climbers have priority over walkers for the parking - which is a bit harder to justify!
> I think my first post on UKC was in reply to a similar thread and I suggested banning traffic in the Pass apart from buses and a permit system for 'essential' traffic and access
> I got somewhat flamed
> Still think it would be better though!
But he wasn't suggesting a ban (which I could understand); he was suggesting that climbers have priority over walkers for the parking - which is a bit harder to justify!
9
4
In reply to Bulls Crack:
You couldn't ban traffic from it, it's the main road! Snowdonia has few main roads and the diversions would be quite long.
I wouldn't have an issue with banning *parking* from it (i.e. closing the laybys and making it a Clearway or Red Route) with a suitable quality of bus service such as that found in Switzerland. I'd support the idea of funding it via a tourist tax[1], something the UK doesn't generally do.
[1] The concept you get in CH is that everyone pays a small per-night tourist tax of around CHF3, which is about £2, and for that they get an unlimited use public transport ticket for the local area for the duration of their stay. Because not everyone will use it it costs a bit less than those who will use it buying it, and it serves to encourage use as it's free and there's no complication about what ticket to buy.
> I think my first post on UKC was in reply to a similar thread and I suggested banning traffic in the Pass apart from buses and a permit system for 'essential' traffic and access
You couldn't ban traffic from it, it's the main road! Snowdonia has few main roads and the diversions would be quite long.
I wouldn't have an issue with banning *parking* from it (i.e. closing the laybys and making it a Clearway or Red Route) with a suitable quality of bus service such as that found in Switzerland. I'd support the idea of funding it via a tourist tax[1], something the UK doesn't generally do.
[1] The concept you get in CH is that everyone pays a small per-night tourist tax of around CHF3, which is about £2, and for that they get an unlimited use public transport ticket for the local area for the duration of their stay. Because not everyone will use it it costs a bit less than those who will use it buying it, and it serves to encourage use as it's free and there's no complication about what ticket to buy.
10
In reply to JJL:
Quite. As it is, if you want to park there get there early!
Are people actually parking there and getting the bus to PYP? Why wouldn't you just park in the Llanberis P&R if you were going to do that? I have parked there, but I walked up.
> But he wasn't suggesting a ban (which I could understand); he was suggesting that climbers have priority over walkers for the parking - which is a bit harder to justify!
Quite. As it is, if you want to park there get there early!
Are people actually parking there and getting the bus to PYP? Why wouldn't you just park in the Llanberis P&R if you were going to do that? I have parked there, but I walked up.
1
In reply to Lenin:
The biggest barrier to public transport use in the UK is not the public transport itself, it's the lack of (or complexity of) information about it.
The Internet has really helped matters, particularly journey planners like Google Maps, but it still isn't quite there.
> So why you worried?
>> I actually learned the other day that the bus does a huge loop through Ogwen and costs about £1.50. So catching the morning bus from outside Ynys round to Ogwen, then an enchainment, up and over seems like a plan for this summer.
The biggest barrier to public transport use in the UK is not the public transport itself, it's the lack of (or complexity of) information about it.
The Internet has really helped matters, particularly journey planners like Google Maps, but it still isn't quite there.
1
In reply to bill briggs1:
Get there earlier or park at Ynys, worth the CC membership for that alone (same at Bosigran).
Get there earlier or park at Ynys, worth the CC membership for that alone (same at Bosigran).
1
In reply to bill briggs1:
The pass parking is not just for climbers. Get a grip.
Go on, dislike it. I am ready.
The pass parking is not just for climbers. Get a grip.
Go on, dislike it. I am ready.
29
6
In reply to Bulls Crack:
I'm guessing you're not local to the area then!
The pass is one of only 4 roads from East to West across northern Snowdonia (A55, Ogwen and the Beddgelert route being the others), and closing it would mean doubling the distance on any car journey between Betws y Coed and Llanberis.
In fact the only reason this main road through the pass hasn't been 'improved' further for traffic is directly because of climbers - in 1973 there were road widening plans by the County Council that included blowing up the parts of the Cromlech Boulders nearest the roadside. 21 holes were drilled in the top of the boulders ready for the dynamite, but were then filled in over night by a secret meeting of climbers and locals so that the demolition couldn't take place and eventually after 8 years of campaigning by the BMC and the SNPSociety the plans were altered/abandoned.
The majority of the traffic problems are something encountered in the busy summer school holiday period and a few weekends at Easter or Bank Holidays. Completely banning parking in the pass would remove all the parking in quiet empty laybys that many locals use on 250+ days of the year without problem (not to mention the many climbers that park there over night to start early in the morning).
> I suggested banning traffic in the Pass apart from buses and a permit system for 'essential' traffic and access
I'm guessing you're not local to the area then!
The pass is one of only 4 roads from East to West across northern Snowdonia (A55, Ogwen and the Beddgelert route being the others), and closing it would mean doubling the distance on any car journey between Betws y Coed and Llanberis.
In fact the only reason this main road through the pass hasn't been 'improved' further for traffic is directly because of climbers - in 1973 there were road widening plans by the County Council that included blowing up the parts of the Cromlech Boulders nearest the roadside. 21 holes were drilled in the top of the boulders ready for the dynamite, but were then filled in over night by a secret meeting of climbers and locals so that the demolition couldn't take place and eventually after 8 years of campaigning by the BMC and the SNPSociety the plans were altered/abandoned.
The majority of the traffic problems are something encountered in the busy summer school holiday period and a few weekends at Easter or Bank Holidays. Completely banning parking in the pass would remove all the parking in quiet empty laybys that many locals use on 250+ days of the year without problem (not to mention the many climbers that park there over night to start early in the morning).
13
In reply to Neil Williams:
I suppose people park in the Pass because it's free , the Nant Peris / Llanberis park and ride charge £5 for parking and then the bus fare .
> Quite. As it is, if you want to park there get there early!
> Are people actually parking there and getting the bus to PYP? Why wouldn't you just park in the Llanberis P&R if you were going to do that? I have parked there, but I walked up.
I suppose people park in the Pass because it's free , the Nant Peris / Llanberis park and ride charge £5 for parking and then the bus fare .
2
In reply to JJL:
Or rather, he was suggesting that those who want to walk or climb or bird-watch or whatever from those lay-bys should have priority over those who want to catch a bus to somewhere else from those lay-bys.
> ... he was suggesting that climbers have priority over walkers for the parking - which is a bit harder to justify!
Or rather, he was suggesting that those who want to walk or climb or bird-watch or whatever from those lay-bys should have priority over those who want to catch a bus to somewhere else from those lay-bys.
5
In reply to bill briggs1:
My proposal was to regain the situation in the Pass where the lay-bys we're available to climbers on a casual come and go basis , not 8 o'clock starts etc.
The lay-bys have been part of the Welsh climbing scene since the motor bikes of the 50s, the vans of the 60s, the cars and now as any eco warrior climber must have the VW mobile home .
The lay-bys are as part of the climbing fabric as are the Cromlech boulders, they fit together and the popularity of the bouldering is enhanced by the ease of access from the layby.
The Grochan lay-bys were the basis of the camping by the river and on the grass below the crag , they were just the right distance from the crag for Al Harris to open the van back doors, lift out the speakers, pump up the volume and spend the evening soloing the classics to a back drop of 60s tunes.
Just before a stylish early ascent of Stroll On by yours truly I leaned on the layby wall and watched my side kick John give a nasty character a valuable lesson in not picking on the wrong guy. The man went back to his camper van covered in mud and we went to the crag.
What as all this got to do with the lay-bys, well you see they are part of the climbing scene , they have very little to do with the PYP scene. Many climbers have similar stories, of ease of access, maybe late morning starts , moving on to Tremadog if the weather changes or the crag is wet.
It's a interesting fact that between Nant Peris and PYP the north side of the Pass does not have one walkers path on to the mountain top ( popular and well documented ) , yet it has hundreds of great climbs , so let's try and stop the Pass becoming a over spill car park for PYP.
My proposal was to regain the situation in the Pass where the lay-bys we're available to climbers on a casual come and go basis , not 8 o'clock starts etc.
The lay-bys have been part of the Welsh climbing scene since the motor bikes of the 50s, the vans of the 60s, the cars and now as any eco warrior climber must have the VW mobile home .
The lay-bys are as part of the climbing fabric as are the Cromlech boulders, they fit together and the popularity of the bouldering is enhanced by the ease of access from the layby.
The Grochan lay-bys were the basis of the camping by the river and on the grass below the crag , they were just the right distance from the crag for Al Harris to open the van back doors, lift out the speakers, pump up the volume and spend the evening soloing the classics to a back drop of 60s tunes.
Just before a stylish early ascent of Stroll On by yours truly I leaned on the layby wall and watched my side kick John give a nasty character a valuable lesson in not picking on the wrong guy. The man went back to his camper van covered in mud and we went to the crag.
What as all this got to do with the lay-bys, well you see they are part of the climbing scene , they have very little to do with the PYP scene. Many climbers have similar stories, of ease of access, maybe late morning starts , moving on to Tremadog if the weather changes or the crag is wet.
It's a interesting fact that between Nant Peris and PYP the north side of the Pass does not have one walkers path on to the mountain top ( popular and well documented ) , yet it has hundreds of great climbs , so let's try and stop the Pass becoming a over spill car park for PYP.
Post edited at 11:18
8
15
In reply to bill briggs1:
I bet you're one of those people that live on a street without parking restrictions, but still have a go at people that park outside your house.
I bet you're one of those people that live on a street without parking restrictions, but still have a go at people that park outside your house.
12
3
In reply to bill briggs1:
You do realise that climbers are a minority in Snowdonia.
And no one gives a f*ck about climbers, or your penchant for a 5 minute walk in.
Get stronger and then you can "walk in" from anywhere. No grumbling required.
*How do you spot a climber in the Pass? It is the car driving up and down looking for a spot to park, NOT the guy walking with a big pack. He is a lowly walker who has "Stolen" the parking spot from climbers.
You do realise that climbers are a minority in Snowdonia.
And no one gives a f*ck about climbers, or your penchant for a 5 minute walk in.
Get stronger and then you can "walk in" from anywhere. No grumbling required.
*How do you spot a climber in the Pass? It is the car driving up and down looking for a spot to park, NOT the guy walking with a big pack. He is a lowly walker who has "Stolen" the parking spot from climbers.
Post edited at 11:37
6
13
In reply to bill briggs1:
Bill's comments are controversial, I'm sure, and will be strongly disliked by many, but I agree with them. The logical foundation is off - or rather, missing, and in its place is an appeal to a vague sense of nostalgia - but the message is spot-on. The salient points really are: a) Climbing is better than walking; b) even if it weren't, walkers shouldn't be parking in the Pass; c) climbers therefore have an absolute, inarguable right to the Pass parking spaces. Let's unpack this a little further shall we, point by point?
a) We all know this; the proof is in the fact that we're climbing in the first place, because if walking was better, we'd be doing that rather than climbing. One is a basic activity involving the simple act of putting one foot in front of another (admittedly sometimes on steep bits, but that's about it), whereas the other involves athleticism, risk management, being cool, sweet one armers, etc. This point is pretty simple, and I think one we can all agree on, so I'll leave it at that.
b) Even if a) were not the case, walkers parking in the Pass is an unbelievably cruel act in that it forces climbers to walk, for how else are they to get to the crags (unless they pay for parking and the bus, but that would be beyond the pale)? The two scenarios, then, are: Walkers park in the Pass, saving some money, and climbers must walk before they can climb; not ideal, for, as in a), if they wanted to walk they'd have gone walking in the first place. Alternatively: walkers park elsewhere and do more or less walking as their distance from their intended path dictates, and climbers do less walking and more climbing; ideal. Admittedly some walkers may feel short-changed, in that they lose some walking, but those in this situation can simply do a few extra laps around the car park at the end of the day if they wish.
c) Those who've read the above points will now be in complete agreement; climbers have an inalienable right to the parking spaces in the Pass. The protection of this right will allow them to go HAM ('hard as a motherf*cker') imbibing substances the previous evening and/or have a disgustingly calorific breakfast on the day, and still be able to enjoy their climbing hassle-free.
Bill's comments are controversial, I'm sure, and will be strongly disliked by many, but I agree with them. The logical foundation is off - or rather, missing, and in its place is an appeal to a vague sense of nostalgia - but the message is spot-on. The salient points really are: a) Climbing is better than walking; b) even if it weren't, walkers shouldn't be parking in the Pass; c) climbers therefore have an absolute, inarguable right to the Pass parking spaces. Let's unpack this a little further shall we, point by point?
a) We all know this; the proof is in the fact that we're climbing in the first place, because if walking was better, we'd be doing that rather than climbing. One is a basic activity involving the simple act of putting one foot in front of another (admittedly sometimes on steep bits, but that's about it), whereas the other involves athleticism, risk management, being cool, sweet one armers, etc. This point is pretty simple, and I think one we can all agree on, so I'll leave it at that.
b) Even if a) were not the case, walkers parking in the Pass is an unbelievably cruel act in that it forces climbers to walk, for how else are they to get to the crags (unless they pay for parking and the bus, but that would be beyond the pale)? The two scenarios, then, are: Walkers park in the Pass, saving some money, and climbers must walk before they can climb; not ideal, for, as in a), if they wanted to walk they'd have gone walking in the first place. Alternatively: walkers park elsewhere and do more or less walking as their distance from their intended path dictates, and climbers do less walking and more climbing; ideal. Admittedly some walkers may feel short-changed, in that they lose some walking, but those in this situation can simply do a few extra laps around the car park at the end of the day if they wish.
c) Those who've read the above points will now be in complete agreement; climbers have an inalienable right to the parking spaces in the Pass. The protection of this right will allow them to go HAM ('hard as a motherf*cker') imbibing substances the previous evening and/or have a disgustingly calorific breakfast on the day, and still be able to enjoy their climbing hassle-free.
27
In reply to Neil Williams:
Yes, loads of people. If you stay there overnight in the car they all appear around 7:30, look at you in disgust as you arise from the back of the car and then ask if you're leaving/can move your car so you can't get out but they can cram in. I like to direct them to the P&R in the latter instance.
> Quite. As it is, if you want to park there get there early!
> Are people actually parking there and getting the bus to PYP? Why wouldn't you just park in the Llanberis P&R if you were going to do that? I have parked there, but I walked up.
Yes, loads of people. If you stay there overnight in the car they all appear around 7:30, look at you in disgust as you arise from the back of the car and then ask if you're leaving/can move your car so you can't get out but they can cram in. I like to direct them to the P&R in the latter instance.
1
2
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:
No not local but know it well and my suggestion would be with the proviso of a local permit and a good public transport system..so unlikely!
But parking in the Pass? Yes get rid of it and provide a better bus service.
No not local but know it well and my suggestion would be with the proviso of a local permit and a good public transport system..so unlikely!
But parking in the Pass? Yes get rid of it and provide a better bus service.
In reply to bill briggs1:
That's a bit selective though, isn't it? On the south side there's Llechog Ridge/Buttress, Cwm Glas Ridge, Crib Goch N Ridge, the scree shoot from Cwm Uchaf to Bwlch Coch, a pathless route from Llyn Bach heading NW onto the ridge, and the Cwm Hetiau route. Mostly routes for scramblers or adventurous walkers, but certainly not climbs. Would your scheme permit non-climbers to use the laybys to access these routes?
> It's a interesting fact that between Nant Peris and PYP the north side of the Pass does not have one walkers path on to the mountain top ( popular and well documented ) , yet it has hundreds of great climbs , so let's try and stop the Pass becoming a over spill car park for PYP.
That's a bit selective though, isn't it? On the south side there's Llechog Ridge/Buttress, Cwm Glas Ridge, Crib Goch N Ridge, the scree shoot from Cwm Uchaf to Bwlch Coch, a pathless route from Llyn Bach heading NW onto the ridge, and the Cwm Hetiau route. Mostly routes for scramblers or adventurous walkers, but certainly not climbs. Would your scheme permit non-climbers to use the laybys to access these routes?
1
In reply to Mike Peacock:
The more the merrier, I'm for walking / climbing from the car in the Pass , not parking in the lay-bys and then catching the bus to somewhere else.
The more the merrier, I'm for walking / climbing from the car in the Pass , not parking in the lay-bys and then catching the bus to somewhere else.
Post edited at 13:05
1
2
In reply to bill briggs1:
Walkers have as much right to do as they please as climbers do, and despite what you say there are plenty of walking routes starting from the Pass.
I'm not sure I hold the laybys in such high regard as I do the Cromlech boulders.
I'm local and the parking issue is one of the main reasons I joined the CC.
I've biked into the Pass before from 'beris to climb, makes a nice change.
There's taxi services from town too as well as the bus.
The Pass has world class climbing, but if you want a later start there's not exactly a lack of choice of other mega crags to get to.
The more people coming to the park the better in my mind.
Walkers have as much right to do as they please as climbers do, and despite what you say there are plenty of walking routes starting from the Pass.
I'm not sure I hold the laybys in such high regard as I do the Cromlech boulders.
I'm local and the parking issue is one of the main reasons I joined the CC.
I've biked into the Pass before from 'beris to climb, makes a nice change.
There's taxi services from town too as well as the bus.
The Pass has world class climbing, but if you want a later start there's not exactly a lack of choice of other mega crags to get to.
The more people coming to the park the better in my mind.
2
In reply to bill briggs1:
If that's the case it needs resolving, either by making the P&R free to park, with the only charge being for the bus, or by installing pay and display machines in the Pass (or both).
You could also push the environmental line if an electric bus with regenerative braking was used.
> I suppose people park in the Pass because it's free , the Nant Peris / Llanberis park and ride charge £5 for parking and then the bus fare .
If that's the case it needs resolving, either by making the P&R free to park, with the only charge being for the bus, or by installing pay and display machines in the Pass (or both).
You could also push the environmental line if an electric bus with regenerative braking was used.
Post edited at 13:37
1
3
In reply to ianstevens:
First come, first served - if you got there first you win Though I can't see why I would go through the discomfort of sleeping in the car to save £5 on camping at Gwern Gof Isaf/Uchaf, TBH.
> Yes, loads of people. If you stay there overnight in the car they all appear around 7:30, look at you in disgust as you arise from the back of the car and then ask if you're leaving/can move your car so you can't get out but they can cram in. I like to direct them to the P&R in the latter instance.
First come, first served - if you got there first you win Though I can't see why I would go through the discomfort of sleeping in the car to save £5 on camping at Gwern Gof Isaf/Uchaf, TBH.
1
In reply to bill briggs1:
Spindly legged climbers should get preferential parking near crags in the same way that the disabled get preferential parking outside shops.
Spindly legged climbers should get preferential parking near crags in the same way that the disabled get preferential parking outside shops.
13
How about having a car sharing incentive?
Any car that parks in the pass that contains less than 5 humans, each with a fully packed rucksack, must pay a £20 parking 'surcharge' (To be reduced to £10 if at least 3 of them are wearing Rab® jackets)
Obviously this will have to be enforced.
Any car that parks in the pass that contains less than 5 humans, each with a fully packed rucksack, must pay a £20 parking 'surcharge' (To be reduced to £10 if at least 3 of them are wearing Rab® jackets)
Obviously this will have to be enforced.
3
In reply to Dell:
Rab is a walkers brand.
Must be haglofs the minimum.
Mountain equipment better
Mountain hardwear for the cheapest climbers parking permit available
Rab is a walkers brand.
Must be haglofs the minimum.
Mountain equipment better
Mountain hardwear for the cheapest climbers parking permit available
1
14
In reply to zimpara:
You wanna be careful, despite being an old fogey, Rab Carrington could still have you.
You wanna be careful, despite being an old fogey, Rab Carrington could still have you.
13
In reply to zimpara:
Haha! The guy who struggled to get up one of the easiest routes at Stanage, a route that most cub scouts get up on there first day of climbing is giving opinion on what is and isn't a climbing brand.
Rab is a better climber than you'll ever be, and more importantly doesn't come across as a massive bellend.
> Rab is a walkers brand.
Haha! The guy who struggled to get up one of the easiest routes at Stanage, a route that most cub scouts get up on there first day of climbing is giving opinion on what is and isn't a climbing brand.
Rab is a better climber than you'll ever be, and more importantly doesn't come across as a massive bellend.
31
5
In reply to deacondeacon:
Haha RAGE ON fanboi
Haha RAGE ON fanboi
4
9
In reply to bill briggs1:
Just before a stylish early ascent of Stroll On by yours truly I leaned on the layby wall and watched my side kick John give a nasty character a valuable lesson in not picking on the wrong guy. The man went back to his camper van covered in mud and we went to the crag.
This wasn't a character from the BBC Colditz series was it by any chance?
Just before a stylish early ascent of Stroll On by yours truly I leaned on the layby wall and watched my side kick John give a nasty character a valuable lesson in not picking on the wrong guy. The man went back to his camper van covered in mud and we went to the crag.
This wasn't a character from the BBC Colditz series was it by any chance?
In reply to cragtyke:
I'm sorry to say he was , I've not stated his name in case he's still alive but he was a famous Shakespearean actor and he thought he could play the tough guy as he did on stage with a couple of obscure characters in a layby in Wales. Well he got a shock, and I hope it made him think in future about threatening and bad mouthing others , maybe this lesson could be applied on the web.
I'm sorry to say he was , I've not stated his name in case he's still alive but he was a famous Shakespearean actor and he thought he could play the tough guy as he did on stage with a couple of obscure characters in a layby in Wales. Well he got a shock, and I hope it made him think in future about threatening and bad mouthing others , maybe this lesson could be applied on the web.
2
In reply to bill briggs1:
Well you will be disappointed to learn that climbers today do not put fist first, Certainly all the ones I have met and shouted at driving past (Cheddar gorge) they are all rather shy and quaint about it really.
Well you will be disappointed to learn that climbers today do not put fist first, Certainly all the ones I have met and shouted at driving past (Cheddar gorge) they are all rather shy and quaint about it really.
1
1
4
In reply to Removed User:
Was Brian Blessed in Colditz? I don't remember him and it doesn't appear in his bio. I assume we're talking about the 70s version.
> You kicked the f*ck out of Brian Blessed?
Was Brian Blessed in Colditz? I don't remember him and it doesn't appear in his bio. I assume we're talking about the 70s version.
In reply to bill briggs1:
>
A thing the fascinates me about some climbers is their attitude to boundaries. They want to use other peoples stuff for free. They claim an anarchic free for all spirit. Yet as soon as they have scrabbled up a bit of rock they want to name it and claim it inperpetuity, like some latter day Christoper Columbus. Stating how others can climb it. It was theirs during the climb and thats the end of it. Now you want to claim the entire pass and the road.
>
> What as all this got to do with the lay-bys, well you see they are part of the climbing scene , they have very little to do with the PYP scene. Many climbers have similar stories, of ease of access, maybe late morning starts , moving on to Tremadog if the weather changes or the crag is wet.
>
A thing the fascinates me about some climbers is their attitude to boundaries. They want to use other peoples stuff for free. They claim an anarchic free for all spirit. Yet as soon as they have scrabbled up a bit of rock they want to name it and claim it inperpetuity, like some latter day Christoper Columbus. Stating how others can climb it. It was theirs during the climb and thats the end of it. Now you want to claim the entire pass and the road.
Post edited at 08:45
6
In reply to bill briggs1: Maybe the answer is for the bus to not pick anybody up after Nant Peris and then walkers who park in the laybys and walk to PYP would be totally legit.
1
In reply to Michael Hood
no, because then the people who don't have cars who rely on getting the bus to the cromlech and back to climb cant go. Also people who use the park at the park and ride to get to the cromlech when the parking is full.
also no to the OP. the reason walkers park at the cromlech and take the bus is because the park and ride is £4 to park and they can park for free at the cromlech. why should you park for free, but they have to pay? first come first serve is the best bet. the other alternative is to charge for the parking at the cromlech... and nobody wants that.
no, because then the people who don't have cars who rely on getting the bus to the cromlech and back to climb cant go. Also people who use the park at the park and ride to get to the cromlech when the parking is full.
also no to the OP. the reason walkers park at the cromlech and take the bus is because the park and ride is £4 to park and they can park for free at the cromlech. why should you park for free, but they have to pay? first come first serve is the best bet. the other alternative is to charge for the parking at the cromlech... and nobody wants that.
3
In reply to adam06:
Another option, and I know people won't like it but it *would* help the problem, is that you make the P&R car park free, but increase the charge on Pen Y Pass such that the change is revenue neutral. (I think you could go well beyond £20 before PyP started laying empty).
Another option, and I know people won't like it but it *would* help the problem, is that you make the P&R car park free, but increase the charge on Pen Y Pass such that the change is revenue neutral. (I think you could go well beyond £20 before PyP started laying empty).
3
1
£20 would be taking the piss.
Why don't they just use some of the revenue from the car parks and shuttles, to build additional car parking areas? Supply and demand and all that.
Or perhaps a big sign in PyP that says OTHER MOUNTAINS ARE AVAILABLE!
Why don't they just use some of the revenue from the car parks and shuttles, to build additional car parking areas? Supply and demand and all that.
Or perhaps a big sign in PyP that says OTHER MOUNTAINS ARE AVAILABLE!
1
1
In reply to Dell:
What, you'd want to spoil the Pass by shoving it full of car parks? Pen y Pass is already there, but I would oppose its expansion or the building of any more.
> Why don't they just use some of the revenue from the car parks and shuttles, to build additional car parking areas?
What, you'd want to spoil the Pass by shoving it full of car parks? Pen y Pass is already there, but I would oppose its expansion or the building of any more.
In reply to Dell:
In a "free market" the fee would be that which would result in the car park being full but no more demand on top of that, i.e. everyone who wants a space gets one. That would maximise income, and arguably that is what they should do given that other parking options are available for those not wishing to pay for the premium option.
I suspect it would still fill at well over £20, to be honest.
> £20 would be taking the piss.
In a "free market" the fee would be that which would result in the car park being full but no more demand on top of that, i.e. everyone who wants a space gets one. That would maximise income, and arguably that is what they should do given that other parking options are available for those not wishing to pay for the premium option.
I suspect it would still fill at well over £20, to be honest.
Post edited at 10:09
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Should easy access to the outdoors be biased in favour of those most able to pay more?
Is 'maximising income' a valid objective, or should it be 'covering costs' of managing the parking facilities?
Should easy access to the outdoors be biased in favour of those most able to pay more?
Is 'maximising income' a valid objective, or should it be 'covering costs' of managing the parking facilities?
3
In reply to Neil Williams: Being pedantic here, but a half empty car park with an even higher charge (say rather stupidly £100) might maximise income. Is the PyP car park a private enterprise or is it publicly owned/controlled in some manner?
If it's private then the owner can charge whatever he/she wants. If it's public then the fair price would be to make it cost neutral compared with the park and ride and then first come etc. would be fair. Still wouldn't stop people parking in the laybys but it wouldn't be cheaper for them than Nant Peris or PyP so there would be no financial incentive.
If it's private then the owner can charge whatever he/she wants. If it's public then the fair price would be to make it cost neutral compared with the park and ride and then first come etc. would be fair. Still wouldn't stop people parking in the laybys but it wouldn't be cheaper for them than Nant Peris or PyP so there would be no financial incentive.
In reply to john arran:
Pen y Pass is only one car park. Nobody loses access to the outdoors if they are unable to use that car park, any more than they lose it if they show up there at 11am and find it full.
Indeed, by having Pen y Pass as a premium car park and the P&R free of charge, you are giving more people access, are you not?
I think it is valid to maximise income from a very popular and totally optional asset in order to benefit more widely, yes. How about Pen y Pass parking £25 a day, and P&R free including the bus ride, or say at most £1 per head on the bus? That's going to make access much easier, isn't it? To walkers and climbers alike? And those who wish to rock up in their Overfinch Range Rovers and pay 25 quid are effectively taxed to the significant benefit of others.
> Should easy access to the outdoors be biased in favour of those most able to pay more?
Pen y Pass is only one car park. Nobody loses access to the outdoors if they are unable to use that car park, any more than they lose it if they show up there at 11am and find it full.
Indeed, by having Pen y Pass as a premium car park and the P&R free of charge, you are giving more people access, are you not?
> Is 'maximising income' a valid objective, or should it be 'covering costs' of managing the parking facilities?
I think it is valid to maximise income from a very popular and totally optional asset in order to benefit more widely, yes. How about Pen y Pass parking £25 a day, and P&R free including the bus ride, or say at most £1 per head on the bus? That's going to make access much easier, isn't it? To walkers and climbers alike? And those who wish to rock up in their Overfinch Range Rovers and pay 25 quid are effectively taxed to the significant benefit of others.
Post edited at 13:27
2
In reply to Michael Hood:
I believe it's owned and operated by the National Park.
As I said I would go further and make it a premium thing, with the P&R heavily subsidised from the receipts from it.
> Being pedantic here, but a half empty car park with an even higher charge (say rather stupidly £100) might maximise income. Is the PyP car park a private enterprise or is it publicly owned/controlled in some manner?
I believe it's owned and operated by the National Park.
> If it's private then the owner can charge whatever he/she wants. If it's public then the fair price would be to make it cost neutral compared with the park and ride and then first come etc. would be fair. Still wouldn't stop people parking in the laybys but it wouldn't be cheaper for them than Nant Peris or PyP so there would be no financial incentive.
As I said I would go further and make it a premium thing, with the P&R heavily subsidised from the receipts from it.
1
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Overall I think that would be not such a bad way to go, although I'd believe a subsidised park & ride scheme when I saw it.
Unfortunate too is that even with such a subsidy it still leaves the unpleasant reality that those with cash to burn can gain faster and more convenient access than everyone else to one of the most popular trailheads in the country. But I suppose that's the nature of our society to a large extent.
Overall I think that would be not such a bad way to go, although I'd believe a subsidised park & ride scheme when I saw it.
Unfortunate too is that even with such a subsidy it still leaves the unpleasant reality that those with cash to burn can gain faster and more convenient access than everyone else to one of the most popular trailheads in the country. But I suppose that's the nature of our society to a large extent.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Or here's another idea - yield-manage it with online booking - it works well for airlines and other similar organisations with limited resources to sell. That could include a few £1 spaces for those willing to book well in advance, but a hefty fee for those showing up on the day particularly in summer.
It's always surprised me that that model is rarely applied to parking more generally.
Or here's another idea - yield-manage it with online booking - it works well for airlines and other similar organisations with limited resources to sell. That could include a few £1 spaces for those willing to book well in advance, but a hefty fee for those showing up on the day particularly in summer.
It's always surprised me that that model is rarely applied to parking more generally.
Post edited at 15:15
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
"It's always surprised me that that model is rarely applied to parking more generally."
It's because convenience pricing is deeply unpopular - not everyone wants to be seen in the same affectionate warm glow as Micheal O'Leary.
In particular, I can't see this being popular with climbs given the fickle weather in the pass.
They could try reverse convenience pricing by charging more for those that wanted to book in advance [as pioneered by NT lakeland campsites].
"It's always surprised me that that model is rarely applied to parking more generally."
It's because convenience pricing is deeply unpopular - not everyone wants to be seen in the same affectionate warm glow as Micheal O'Leary.
In particular, I can't see this being popular with climbs given the fickle weather in the pass.
They could try reverse convenience pricing by charging more for those that wanted to book in advance [as pioneered by NT lakeland campsites].
In reply to ClayClay:
The infrastructure we have is perfectly adequate for the number of visitors. It just needs a more sensible pricing and transport policy.
The infrastructure we have is perfectly adequate for the number of visitors. It just needs a more sensible pricing and transport policy.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...