I am a Council Tax payer in Cwm Penmachno where I have had my permanent second home since 1963.  Work and other commitments have ensured that my main residence has almost always been elsewhere, but except when working outside the UK I have usually managed to return to my home in Snowdonia five or six times per year in all seasons, and to spend up to a month per year there in total.  My main outdoor recreations at home and abroad have been, and remain, running and mountaineering.  My primary use of the inner area of the study has been for walking, scrambling (and shopping!) with running and roped (winter and summer) climbing both being secondary activities, although my most frequent outings in Snowdonia are mountain runs starting from my house in the National Park but outside the study area.  Thus I probably represent a valid perspective within the major class of users of Snowdonia for strenuous outdoor exercise in a beautiful environment away from traffic.  Obviously I rely heavily on the motor car for freedom of access to the mountains, including the freedom to spend short periods on my chosen pursuits while dedicating other time to family- and property-related activities.  My comments are based on over 40 years of enjoyment of Snowdonia and observation of its inhabitants, its visitors and its problems.

The Summary Report and its conclusions seem to me to be dangerously flawed, being based on a green ideal which is not only unsupported by observation or common-sense in the context of Snowdonia, but is also not supported by its ostensible justification or its internal arguments and costings.  In short, Snowdonia traffic and parking is remarkably free of problems or any need for change, in part because of the historic asset of large lay-bys and linear parking along wide hard verges.  The proposals appear to represent change for change’s sake, rather than solutions to any real problem.  However they could prove deeply damaging to the people and economy of Snowdonia and to the community of active mountain users, especially if they are introduced piecemeal and partially as is advocated in the report.  I urge all recipients of this letter to oppose the proposals in the Study.  The following points represent my main objections as well as offering a number of positive comments and suggestions. 

1.  It is only at peak times that there is a problem of congestion in Snowdonia.  The evidence presented does not give substantial support to the concluding assertion that “enjoyment of Snowdonia is being affected by traffic congestion”; the opening “need for action” is not supported by the surrounding paragraphs.  The report acknowledges this in several places by indicating that there may “soon” be a problem, rather than there being a problem today.  The peak periods for active users of the outdoors and casual roadside visitors are no longer identical (and probably never were).  Two prime examples of this are 
(a) the month of August when the crags and high hills are relatively empty (keen mountaineers and hillwalkers are on holiday in Scotland, the Alps or elsewhere) but the valleys can be choked with roadside holiday-makers, and 
(b) Easter when the high tops are seething (often with unsuitably equipped visitors in winter conditions - but that is a separate problem) while the valleys may be less crowded than in August.  Interestingly, your study did make passing reference to this pattern, under “Tourism Trends”, without drawing the three correct conclusions which I judge to be: 

1.1 Mountain users deal with congestion or difficulty by going elsewhere, and will not hesitate to abandon Snowdonia for regular and frequent visits if they become too difficult.

1.2 Park and Ride (P+R) is only needed for very limited periods but would have to be provided throughout the period that parking is restricted (presumably permanently).  My comments on the economics of this are in paragraph 3 below.

1.3 Snowdonia’s accessibility is part of its attraction to active visitors, who now get away from traffic within ten minutes of arrival; prolonging their approach will certainly put people off.

2. The large lay-bys and roadside verges which enable linear parking in some parts of the inner area of Snowdonia are a  solution, not a problem!  Whatever the historic reasons for their existence, they are a low cost, high benefit asset to be conserved, nurtured and even developed.  If they did not exist already, the planner who proposed them as the solution to congestion problems would deserve to be encouraged, indeed honoured.  They are one of Snowdonia’s foremost advantages over other mountain areas.  All those who are prepared to walk a little way along the road, or adapt their point of access to the mountains, know that at any time of day or of year they can rely on finding a parking place within striking distance of their objective.  The strategy embedded in the slogan “Reclaiming the Roadside” is the single most objectionable outcome of the study, for it presumably implies destroying, or forbidding the use of, these existing tourist facilities, at a substantial cost which would be better spent on extending them to areas not yet so well endowed.  While the verges lined with parked cars at peak times are not themselves pretty, outside peak periods they are virtually invisible, and they are considerably less objectionable than vast gateway parking lots would be at any time.  Elsewhere we already pay premium prices for some mountain access parking (e.g. Pen-y-Pass) and this escalation in pricing has already gone far enough.  My conclusions on linear and other parking and “reclaiming the roadsides” are:

2.1 The roadside verges should be extended to other areas with a perceived parking problem wherever possible.

2.2 Don’t even think about confiscating or closing existing facilities.

2.3 Continue to enforce rural clearways such as the Llanberis Pass if the road cannot be widened to provide such a verge.

2.4 If pedestrian access to the verges is judged to be dangerous, impose a speed limit of 50 or 40 mph (as in the New Forest); this would presumably also contribute to one of the study’s objectives of reducing pollution by traffic emissions.

2.5 Charge an economic, not punitive, price for parking where roadside verges are impossible or inadequate. 

2.6 Properly enforced but reasonably priced pay-and-display parking in public places including verges and lay-bys would be hard to object to, and would contribute some of the benefits sought by the study.

3.  To be acceptable to mountain users a P+R scheme would have to operate continuously and reliably at high frequency, say every ten minutes or better, even outside peak times and peak seasons.  This is clearly acknowledged in the report (on p10) but the proposals for implementation do not match up to this.  The proposal for a 15 minute service only along the busiest routes at peak times, declining to an hourly service at quieter times of day or year, is totally unacceptable to people whose mountain time is precious, even if it proved reliable (both as to timing and available space).  Even a five minute service might not cope with user numbers at peak times (compare with cable car services in popular Alpine summer resorts).  Thus the cost (and benefit in terms of jobs) of an acceptable service would be vastly greater than indicated in the report, while not being economically viable because inevitably appearing under-used for a high proportion of the day and year.  I conclude:

3.1 An acceptable P+R service (5 to 15 minutes at all times) would not be economically viable.

3.2 This is a pity because a good P+R for Snowdonia would have one major advantage: unsupported point-to-point walks or runs would become feasible for the first time.

3.3 An economical P+R would fail to meet users’ needs so they would soon go elsewhere.

4.  The idea that those who come to Snowdonia to enjoy the mountains will voluntarily spend even more time shopping in gateway villages after wasting their mountain time waiting for, and travelling on, buses is laughable.  Nevertheless the popularity and success of the outdoor equipment shops in Betws-y-coed, Capel Curig, Llanberis and elsewhere shows that these people do shop in Snowdonia when they need to (and on wet days!) and gives the lie to the assertion that visitors don’t spend money in the local economy.  The figure of only 10% of visitors leaving without spending money locally (if true) seems like a superb achievement of the local traders, not the failure implied by the report.  Taking Betws-y-Coed (the village which I know best, and not a town as stated in the report), its commercial success among both mountain users and roadside visitors is obvious.  Contrary to the assertions and costings in the report, its parking is already inadequate for any purpose at peak times and for short shopping halts at almost any time.  I conclude:

4.1 The strategy of getting more business by enforcing gateway parking is nonsense. Successful villages (Betws-y-Coed) may remain successful if they are not interfered with; unsuccessful villages (Bethesda if the report is to be believed) do apparently need some form of stimulus to render them successful, and might then take some pressure off the others.

4.2 If Betws-y-Coed is to be a P+R gateway it needs a huge new car park which would inevitably detract from the village environment, and could be quite impracticable given the existing geography (craggy woodland/railway/golf course/rivers/water meadows/floodplain).  However Betws-y-Coed does need more and easier free parking for casual household shopping, so as to reduce the need to travel further for this purpose (e.g. to Llanrwst). Llanrwst is not an acceptable P+R overflow except for those arriving from the A55 north coast road, and would have similar problems of where to place an additional large car park.

4.3 Mountain users and roadside visitors to inner Snowdonia are also drawn from among coastal holiday-makers exploiting this unique selling point of the Welsh coast.  Thus if any traffic management plan is to succeed, Porthmadog/Tremadog (and perhaps even Waunfawr and Nantlle) must also be treated as equal gateways to the inner area.  Indeed, because of the narrow and winding approach via Beddgelert, it may be these visitors more than any others who contribute to the impression that inner Snowdonia has a traffic problem.  This could be alleviated by permitting the proposed redevelopment of the Welsh Highland Railway, which would provide an enhancement to any visit, in stark contrast to a ride in a P+R bus.

5.  The study report contains many sensible observations with which I am ready to agree; it is the conclusions and some of the premises on which those conclusions are based which I find unacceptable, especially when the conclusions are contrary to the evidence presented.  Among specific points not already fully discussed above I find the following:

5.1 “The tourism economy may decline as visitors decide to go to other less congested parts of the UK”.  Agreed - and what about places elsewhere in the UK or abroad which are less regimented or less hassle to visit ?

5.2 “The need is a real alternative to the private car”.  Yes, of course, especially for recreations involving mass participation!  But the private car and group minibus have provided the freedom of the hills to all classes and levels of income for at least two generations; a reversion to time-consuming public transport combined with punitively-priced parking could paradoxically take us back to the days when mountain sport was only accessible to the rich and leisured.

5.3 “Congestion was not perceived to be widespread”.  Agreed - so why go to such lengths to deal with possible future congestion which the users themselves could solve progressively by small shifts of time or place?

5.4 “Management … must embrace the wide variety of characteristics, preferences, motivations and patterns of behaviour of (users)”.  Agreed.  And any revolutionary interference with the present pattern of use (which has evolved and will continue to evolve) will inevitably fail and is likely to have effects opposite to those intended.

5.5 “Option 3 (P+R very close to popular areas) offers the greatest potential to succeed”.  I do agree with this, and that it is the least objectionable of the three options given, but I also agree with the caveats in the same section, and I argue that a fourth (“do not interfere”) option would be less damaging than any of the three options given.  Intercepting visitors at any point, or otherwise rendering visits difficult, will turn Snowdonia’s mountains into a major expedition to be undertaken occasionally (once in a lifetime/decade/year) rather than as the spirit moves the devotee (twice a week/month/season/year).

5.6 “… providing more and better bus services …”  Yes.  At a certain point such improvements would induce car users to consider alternatives, and to plan point-to-point expeditions.  Up to now, whenever I have enquired about the Snowdon Sherpa service its availability has not come close to meeting my needs.

5.7 “ ‘Positive parking’ offering … parking … at gateways and throughout the inner area”.  Of course I agree with this but it conflicts with the item a few lines further on “… restrict parking within the inner area”.  To me “positive parking” must mean making full use of all existing space before developing further facilities where they are needed.

5.8 “Park and Ride gateways … will only work if …”.  As already indicated I agree with much of this section although disagreeing with some detail.  But the initial premises, conclusions and proposals do not match up.

5.9 The proposed electronic information infrastructure could prove helpful to visitors in reaching final decisions on their objectives for the day.  It would also need to be used for feedback to park management on where (and how many) customers are waiting, and could thus slightly alleviate the problems of an insufficiently frequent bus service.

5.10 “Green forms of transport should be … priorities when developing and promoting new recreational facilities”.  Agreed.  But the mountains of Snowdonia are not new facilities; they are literally as old as the hills.  In this century the private car, group minibus and easy parking have become the keys to their enjoyment by anybody, not just the rich and leisured classes.  To discourage their use will damage the people and the existing economic base of the region without any proof of a satisfactory replacement.  New recreational facilities should be developed in less sensitive areas where they will provide benefits rather than damage.

5.11 “Success will not come easily … (and) will require … an ability to take risks”.  I agree with most of this concluding paragraph of the report.  Have the advocates of the scheme evaluated the risks, and considered and discounted the price of failure ?  They will bear a heavy responsibility to local people for economic failure, and an equally heavy if less tangible moral responsibility if they make healthy exercise in the mountains just too much trouble.

Reference

1. Dr K. Bishop et al. (1998), Northern Snowdonia Study: Developing Local Economic Opportunities through the management of Visitor Traffic, Cardiff University

 Next Observation

Back