1. The Gateway Towns

• No rationale has been given for the choice of Gateway Towns.
• No research has been done, eg. Questionnaires at car parks asking where people have come from, what entry route they used into the Park, and whether they would use a Park and Ride (P&R) scheme.
• Is there space in these towns for the proposed developments?
• How will locals respond when all parking charges are harmonised with those of the P&R car parks to prevent ‘Fly-parking’.

2. The Park & Ride scheme itself

• The buses: A key stated aim of this scheme is to ease congestion on Bank Holidays. You will therefore need enough drivers and buses to cope with peak demand on a BH. Where will all these drivers and buses come from? and what will they be used for during the rest of the year? – School buses which are usually co-opted to serve city based P&R schemes are not equipped to carry large rucksacs, mountain bikes and wet, muddy people.
• Predicting demand: Even in peak summer, demand is very weather dependent. I live along the A55 and frequently see the ‘Liverpool effect’. After a favourable weather forecast on Friday evening, or even a sunny Sat. morning after a poor forecast, the roads are busy with tourists, yet on a poor weekend, they are almost empty.
• Timetabling: 
  • Winter services will be less frequent than summer ones, yet it is particularly in winter when you need to get back to your car quickly (see safety issues below).
  • The timetables will not cater for people wishing to start climbing/walking early or finishing late (see safety issues). Closing all existing car parking, or making it short stay only will  make this worse.
  • Late walking will be made impossible. Many locals, including myself, frequently go for a walk after work in the summer, eg. up Pen Yr Ole Wen. Using the P&R will be impossible as it will take too long to get to the head of the walk, and there will be no bus back  afterwards. The walk may take 3-5 hours and short term parking does not solve this either.
• Routing and reliability:
  • Another statement in the document is that the service will support activities on the principal walking routes. What about all the other routes in this area?
  • Local bus services are not known for their reliability. I have frequently ‘missed’ the last bus back to the village because it just didn’t turn up, or left 15 minutes early, etc.. Again this would have important safety considerations.

3. Safety

• If people are reliant on buses, what happens if they miss a bus and have to wait 15 – 60 minutes (depending on summer/winter service) in rain or snow. They will not be moving and there is a severe risk of getting hypothermia, especially with children, or with ‘tourist’ visitors not prepared for mountain weather.
• Road safety. I frequently see people walking down the road at night after coming down late off the mountain. At the moment they have only a short walk. However, what happens when they then have a further 6 km (Ogwen – Bethesda), 8 km (Pen Y Pass – Llanberis) or more, back to their car down narrow, windy roads in the dark.

4. Other sports

• This scheme caters for a lowest common denominator of city tourist wanting a moderate walk up Snowdon or Ogwen in the middle hours of the day. It does not cater for other activities eg. Canoeing (would be made impossible, try getting a canoe on a bus), mountain biking (very difficult), paragliding, climbing (also need lots of kit), etc.
• While these may be seen as minority sports, people have a right to be able to pursue them. Also, they bring in a lot of money. A new playboat costs around £600, climbing kit is also expensive. 1 person buying a canoe = 600 buying an icecream.
• Having considered the impact at all the places within Snowdonia where we go canoeing I think all of them will be affected. Canoeing will be made completely impossible. While some members of the Green Key board may see this as a benefit, it removes the opportunity to follow an outdoor activity in the Park. This will affect individuals and clubs, experts and beginners. The scheme is not flexible enough to accommodate them.
  • Park and Ride is not an option, you can’t get a canoe on a bus, and I doubt all buses will tow a suitable trailer. Even allowing for dropping canoes at the entry point and parking a car. It would take too long to get back and on the river, with no lift at the exit point when potentially very cold and wet.
  • Removing all lay-bys and parking means that even were the above option practical, there would be nowhere safe to stop and offload kit.

5. Removing existing parking

• This would seriously inconvenience all local inhabitants who often go for walks, climbing or canoeing in the mornings or evenings in summer. It would effectively prevent locals from utilising their own National Park. It would also have a huge knock-on effect on local businesses.

• A similar thing was attempted in the Lake District in the Buttermere valley, and on the A66 near Bassenthwaite Lake. When they blocked off existing lay-bys and parking they found that people just parked in more dangerous areas. They also parked on the verges causing considerable erosion. Most of the blockages were later removed once the problem became apparent and the parking was re-instated.

6. Finances

• If this scheme requires the closure of most existing parking facilities in order to make the P&R financially viable, then it is a very risky enterprise. What would happen in the event of another Foot and Mouth outbreak for example?, or a drop in visitor numbers instead of the projected increase?
• Further thought on the economics suggests that if all parking and lay-bys are removed then everybody is dependent on the buses. Apart from the health and safety considerations, this would mean that the scheme would have to have a huge fleet of drivers and buses to satisfy peak demand, which would be empty and a waste of money for the rest of the year. Simply not financially viable. The only economic way to run it would be to have sufficient resources to cope with 50-60% of peak demand, and let existing car parking take up the excess.

7. Overall

• This scheme seems to be ill thought out, poorly researched, with dubious financial or environmental benefits, and based on a stereotypical view of a tourist. It will cater for an ‘average tourist’ but will actively restrict the activities of an equal number of other visitors, and locals.
• I agree with the principles of Park and Ride, but am not aware of any other rural scheme of this size. The Lake District with far higher visitor numbers manages well enough without a P&R. If the scheme is to work it has to have local support and add to the enjoyment of the countryside, not obstruct it. A P&R scheme may benefit the area if developed in conjunction with ALL existing parking facilities, and taking into account the points highlighted above, but will be counterproductive otherwise.

 Next Observation

Back