new forest says no to cycling

itboffin

Or does it?

This statement claims two key villages are against http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/bikesurvey#.U_N-44FwbqB

However one of them is listed as a "cycling friendly" village, so the 7% of annual visitors surveyed who claimed cycling was their main reason for visiting is how many people? and how much to the local economy?
http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/cycling#.U_N_S4FwbqB

monkimark

Brockenhurst and Burley both have cycle hire shops in them, I guess that's what makes them cycle friendly.

The first link is to a report that states they don't want a public hire scheme for financial reasons doesn't it? I can understand that - I can imagine it would be a bugger to organise and maintain Boris bikes in the forest and it would probably run at a loss.

itboffin

According to this 13.5 million visitors a year so 7% would be 945 thousand
http://www.newforest.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5197

Est annual income to the forest of £400m - 7% is a potential net loss of ....£28m a year I think, not to mention the £3.75 grant from the gov.

A bit short sighted, or perhaps all those people will still come regardless.

monkimark

Either you or I have misunderstood - I believe the link you posted is the result of a council meeting to decide if a public bike hire scheme, similar to London's Boris Bikes, is a good idea http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/bikesurvey#.U_OFVNJ0w5i

They decided it isn't and I'd tend to agree with them. If 945,000 people currently visit the forest to cycle then they're obviously doing so without the benefit of a public hire scheme and so the existing private hire provision is sufficient for those who don't bring their own bikes (I certainly had no problem hiring 2 bikes and a baby seat, just turning up on the day on a sunny afternoon in June).

In order for the public hire scheme to be financially viable they'd have to be confident that the combination of payments to hire the bikes plus additional revenue brought in by people coming especially to ride the public hire bikes would be more than the (presumably rather high) cost of setting up and running the scheme. It may also take business away from the existing hire shops.

itboffin

dont be getting all factual on my rant :roll: :evil:

The Rookie

Indeed, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant.....

ugo.santalucia

I was in Burley over the weekend... lots of families renting bikes and heading in the woods... the bike trails in the woods are actually brilliant, I'm sure the community only cares about money and bicycles bring in money. They might be against road cycling events and I do sympathise as the roads are narrow and congested with traffic in summer

The Rookie

whether they are for or against road events I have no idea, the discussion was only relevant to a public hire scheme and I doubt they were lining up to use CAAD8's!

tgotb

ugo.santalucia wrote:

They might be against road cycling events and I do sympathise as the roads are narrow and congested with traffic in summer

I sympathise too, but the fact is that they don't own the roads, and people from outside the area have just as much right to use those roads as the locals. Unfortunately, some people seem to think that buying an expensive house in a nice area gives them some right to exclusivity over the whole area; the same thing seems to be happening to a lesser extent in the Surrey Hills. Of course, when those people want to go shopping and contribute to the traffic in a town or city away from where they live, the same principle doesn't apply.

Regarding money - people who've lived in an area for generations are more likely to appreciate money coming into the local economy (assuming they have a basic grasp of economics). People who've retired into the area, and brought their money with them, may have a more blinkered view.

airbag

The Rookie wrote:

Indeed, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant.....

+1 Not accusing you OP, but cycling advocacy does have a moral hysteria to it at times, with any disagreement being labelled as "cyclist hatred".

They may not have exclusive rights to the roads, but they do have the right to decide how their money is spent.
This was a business venture. Make your pitch, as best you can, and if you fail, dust yourself off and try something else.

awavey

airbag wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

Indeed, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant.....

+1 Not accusing you OP, but cycling advocacy does have a moral hysteria to it at times, with any disagreement being labelled as "cyclist hatred".

They may not have exclusive rights to the roads, but they do have the right to decide how their money is spent.
This was a business venture. Make your pitch, as best you can, and if you fail, dust yourself off and try something else.

well I would dispute that it is just in effect "their" money to spend, it was a grant from the Dept of Transport to promote forms of sustainable transport in the New Forest, and one of the conditions is it must be spent on capital spend cycling schemes.

so I wouldnt have a problem if the NPA presented their decision, which came 2 months after all the contracts were already signed btw, on concrete financials that we could all review and see that the scheme just wasnt viable and the numbers wouldnt add up. But they didnt, their own report suggested even with lower usage and a lower sponsorship value than targeted, the scheme would still be sustainable and valuable.

their concerns were to build the docking stations in certain parishes they would require planning permission to do so, which the handful of locals they surveyed who responded with such views as "there are too many cyclists in the forest/scheme not suited to forest environment/it would be an eyesore" would clearly raise lots of objections to, which could delay or even potentially remove those sites as links in the scheme which might potentially harm the viability of the scheme (I think it has to be commited spend by March 2015 else theyd lose the money or have to seek ministerial approval of an extension), and if they couldnt get sponsorship, and if it rained alot, and if only visitors were interested, then it might not work so well (and Id guess the unstated what if those idiots with the tacks just go round and constantly sabotage the scheme all the time) but thats about the strength of their no argument, not it will cost us this much money to fund ever year which we havent got, its sorry the locals dont really like cyclists that much, which is hard not to see as anything but "cycling hatred" in that context.

The Rookie

Public hire bikes require capital spend and then ongoing spend to maintain the service, so it would be there money, whoever the NPA are?