The National Trust: one small step for man, one giant car park for mankind.

[Bmblbzzz]

One solution that the NT doesn't appear to have considered is variable pricing/admission fees: Sunday afternoons would be full price while Wednesday mornings could be substantially less. At the moment there's no incentive (other than a dislike of crowds) not to go at the busiest times.

The NT's membership admission structure means that this could be done, obviously, on the actual admission price (£14.00 plus £5.00 parking in the case of Trelissick) but also on their membership prices: for example, the current £84 per year could be reduced to say £55 but exclude Sunday admissions.

Coach passengers BTW, AFAIK, get no reduction. Seniors do (after a few years) but there is no incentive for them not to visit on a Sunday or in school holidays. If parking really is the issue, then cyclists should certainly get in for half price (or pay far less for their membership).

That they actually make a separate charge for parking is a small step in the right direction compared to many places. In the very broad scheme of things, "places" here includes more than just similar tourist destinations (eg historic buildings owned by Historic England or privately), right the way to supermarkets.

[NickWi]

What you have to remember is the NT is now a Charity, and like all big charities nowadays, that means it run as a business. Yes, it still does get money from the Government, but it's on a grant for a project basis rather than the old here's the cash, spend it as you see fit basis. They also own over 250,000 hectares of farmland, pubs, coastline and cottages, as well as all those stately homes, a lot of which need constant and expensive repairs, and they can't sell off bits to pay for those repairs. Hence they run the honey pots as businesses. As many punters through the door as they can and extract the minimum amount of money from them when they're there. Arkwright would be proud.

Which brings us back to the OP's original point, a new & big car park with no or few facilities for cyclists. This clearly demonstrates we (cyclists), just don't feature in their business model. It's nothing personal, just a business model that equates car/coach based punters as it's main revenue stream. If cyclists turned up in their hundred or thousands at venues across the country every weekend, they'd sharp change their facilities, they don't and demographic age of the average NT member means they never will, so why should they.

[mattheus]

What you have to remember is the NT is now a Charity, and like all big charities nowadays, that means it run as a business. Yes, it still does get money from the Government, but it's on a grant for a project basis rather than the old here's the cash, spend it as you see fit basis.

Things can't be that simple; there is a current minor kerfuffle in the news about Oxfam (a charity for sorting out global poverty issues, mainly), producing a bunch of publicity-type bumph to support Pride [an LGBTQ+ rainbow-positive movement].
How do they justify spending on THAT?!? (I've nothing against Pride, to be clear - just asking about how charities may choose to spend their monies!]

[mjr]

This clearly demonstrates we (cyclists), just don't feature in their business model. It's nothing personal, just a business model that equates car/coach based punters as it's main revenue stream. If cyclists turned up in their hundred or thousands at venues across the country every weekend, they'd sharp change their facilities, they don't and demographic age of the average NT member means they never will, so why should they.

So, the model's flawed, then.

And why would cyclists turn up in their thousands at NT venues when there's so little encouragement for them to go there and active discouragement in having to cross mahoosive car parks of members driving round and round looking for a space that costs them nothing? Saying thousands of cyclists aren't visiting with usually no signposting from cycle routes, no/undersized unsigned facilities and a motor-moat of car parks surrounding the attraction seems a bit like building a shopping centre surrounded by barbed wire fences and then lamenting that nobody walks in. Or the old trope about not arguing against a bridge by pointing out that no-one is swimming across the fast, wide, tidal river.

But despite that, I suspect hundreds (maybe even thousands across the whole NT) of cyclists do visit the NT sites with cafes outside the paywall every weekend, probably 300-600% of the cycle parking capacity each day and many riders keeping their bikes near them, with a relatively high per-head spend with lots of high-margin cafe purchases and a few visitor tickets. That compares well with car parking capacity where utilisation of 85% is seen as good because motorists stay longer. Those car parks also cost more to maintain but motorists spend less per minute parked. I also suspect the NT doesn't collect data on visitor transport method and spend, so can't say how profitable cyclists are or how undersized their capacity is.

What are the demographics of NT membership? I suspect more active older people are more likely to visit more and spend more. Like the only person I know has a Sandringham season pass is an over-80 who cycles most days. That is probably more attractive than NT membership if you live nearby because Sandringham has more cycle parking than NT (still arguable whether there should be more, though), is signed from NCN 1 and the car park costs money and is behind the visitor centre where you don't have to ride through it.

[pwa]

I think any lack of formal parking facilities at a NT property, if such a lack exists, would be of little consequence in practice because there is always something to lock one or more bikes to. Has anyone here been deterred from cycling to a NT place because cycle parking wasn't advertised? Or because there was a big carpark that you might have to cycle across? That isn't something that has ever deterred me or my family from cycling to an attraction. And we did visit quite a lot of touristy places by bike when the kids were young. About ten or fifteen years ago. We'd just turn up and calmly work out the best place to park and lock up the bikes, sometimes ignoring the bike racks because they were too out of sight and well placed for theft. Railings, lamp posts, whatever. We locked our bikes to anything that would do the job.

[Jdsk]

...
Has anyone here been deterred from cycling to a NT place because cycle parking wasn't advertised? Or because there was a big carpark that you might have to cycle across?
...

We haven't for either reason.

Jonathan

[mattheus]

I think any lack of formal parking facilities at a NT property, if such a lack exists, would be of little consequence in practice because there is always something to lock one or more bikes to. Has anyone here been deterred from cycling to a NT place because cycle parking wasn't advertised? Or because there was a big carpark that you might have to cycle across? That isn't something that has ever deterred me or my family from cycling to an attraction. And we did visit quite a lot of touristy places by bike when the kids were young. About ten or fifteen years ago. We'd just turn up and calmly work out the best place to park and lock up the bikes, sometimes ignoring the bike racks because they were too out of sight and well placed for theft. Railings, lamp posts, whatever. We locked our bikes to anything that would do the job.

Not NT places, but numerous times peeps have insisted we use their crap/insecure/inconvenient official racks. At which I often take my money elsewhere.

(Does that help? )

[pwa]

I think any lack of formal parking facilities at a NT property, if such a lack exists, would be of little consequence in practice because there is always something to lock one or more bikes to. Has anyone here been deterred from cycling to a NT place because cycle parking wasn't advertised? Or because there was a big carpark that you might have to cycle across? That isn't something that has ever deterred me or my family from cycling to an attraction. And we did visit quite a lot of touristy places by bike when the kids were young. About ten or fifteen years ago. We'd just turn up and calmly work out the best place to park and lock up the bikes, sometimes ignoring the bike racks because they were too out of sight and well placed for theft. Railings, lamp posts, whatever. We locked our bikes to anything that would do the job.

Not NT places, but numerous times peeps have insisted we use their crap/insecure/inconvenient official racks. At which I often take my money elsewhere.

(Does that help? )

That never happened to us, but I'd do the same if it did.

[mjr]

Has anyone here been deterred from cycling to a NT place because cycle parking wasn't advertised? Or because there was a big carpark that you might have to cycle across? That isn't something that has ever deterred me or my family from cycling to an attraction.

Do we only care about the types of cyclists found on these forums? I think the above also underestimates how many people deal with the uncertainty or known hostility of visiting by cycle, by simply motoring instead, where they can see it's much more expected of them and experience suggests they'll be treated better.

[drossall]

Things can't be that simple; there is a current minor kerfuffle in the news about Oxfam (a charity for sorting out global poverty issues, mainly), producing a bunch of publicity-type bumph to support Pride [an LGBTQ+ rainbow-positive movement].
How do they justify spending on THAT?!? (I've nothing against Pride, to be clear - just asking about how charities may choose to spend their monies!]

Demonstrable EDI policies and practices are required of charities under the governance code, which has the full support of the Charity Commission. So basically yes, it is that simple.

[pwa]

Things can't be that simple; there is a current minor kerfuffle in the news about Oxfam (a charity for sorting out global poverty issues, mainly), producing a bunch of publicity-type bumph to support Pride [an LGBTQ+ rainbow-positive movement].
How do they justify spending on THAT?!? (I've nothing against Pride, to be clear - just asking about how charities may choose to spend their monies!]

Demonstrable EDI policies and practices are required of charities under the governance code, which has the full support of the Charity Commission. So basically yes, it is that simple.

I too wondered how Oxfam came to be campaigning on an issue outside its brief. Of course it has to fulfill its brief (addressing poverty) in a way that respects all sorts fo people, including those in LGBTQ+ minorities. But it is not meant to be a charity campaigning on that front. People don't give it money to address every issue. They give it money to address a particular issue.

[Tangled Metal]

EDI isn't the same as campaigning for a minority surely? Isn't it about how you manage issues related to EDI within the structures of your organisation. Ensure systems don't exclude within but not without?

[harriedgary]

...
Comparison with how the USA would do this:
Kansas.jpg

I looked at a photo of the roads going into one of their airports, and I couldn't even figure out why they had so many roads, all long sweeping off ramps on high pillars. It looked more complicated than spaghetti junction. Then I imagined how it actually looks down on the ground. Probably half of those roads gridlocked for 30 minutes before a big flight, and 30 minutes after a big flight.
I wonder if the americans realise just how much they have become servants to the almighty automobile.

[harriedgary]

Their business model, at least for visiting country houses and gardens etc, is highly dependent on customers driving there in their cars and I suspect most of their customers like it that way,

I was at Trelissick at the weekend. My impression is that people don't use their cars to visit Trelissick but that they use Trelissick to provide them with somewhere to go in their cars.

well, if you have invested in a huge capital expenditure like a car, you need to use it to justify ownership
I agree, people with cars do think, where shall I go with my car?
Hence loads of people, mainly at the weekend driving around and not really doing anything, often ending up visiting a foreign supermarket, and a pub before going home again to pig out in front of the telly.
I'm cynical, I think that's exactly what the government wants us to do with our lives rather than useful constructive stuff.

[harriedgary]

What you have to remember is the NT is now a Charity, and like all big charities nowadays, that means it run as a business. Yes, it still does get money from the Government, but it's on a grant for a project basis rather than the old here's the cash, spend it as you see fit basis.

Things can't be that simple; there is a current minor kerfuffle in the news about Oxfam (a charity for sorting out global poverty issues, mainly), producing a bunch of publicity-type bumph to support Pride [an LGBTQ+ rainbow-positive movement].
How do they justify spending on THAT?!? (I've nothing against Pride, to be clear - just asking about how charities may choose to spend their monies!]

I'll have words up on high with Oxfam about this as clearly we have failed to get the message across.

We promote LGBTQA+ because people who fall into one of those areas typically face much worse poverty than straight cis people do, in countries around the world. You all know that we fundraise for countries in Africa like Chad, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi and many others. Places where there are regular droughts, major disease outbreaks, crops destroyed by pests, flooding, and of course war.
Unfortunately as a consequence of past colonial rule, many of these countries have restrictive laws on homosexuality etc. Laws so repugnant and biased that people who are gay, lesbian etc, face not only been ostracised by family and community, but imprisoned for lengthy periods.
Consequently they have fewer support networks, i.e people who help them in times of need. They are even less likely to have work because of discrimination. They are more likely to be homeless, and more likely to suffer ill health due to been denied health care.
In a country where the majority of people might be living on a few dollars a day, these people might have even less.
So, because Oxfam care for all (and we do actually operate in European countries too!) we try to reduce the economic effects of stigma against gay and lesbian people.