Cave_Troll
Active member
remind me how much Alum Pot charges ?
High Birkwith caves - important
- Thread starter Badlad
- Start date
georgenorth
Active member
4marysboy said:
:spank: Sorry Ian.
HardenClimber3
Member
In addition to the path, the peninne bridleway, leaves the road at SD 7870 7473, a bit to the South. I think there is some nearby parking, but it falls into Horton's goole black hole.
These are a bit quicker than walking from Horton, but there needs to be some thought about parking so we don't inconvenience the folk in Selside (I've found the farmers round there to be friendly & helpful...so lets not abuse that).
These are a bit quicker than walking from Horton, but there needs to be some thought about parking so we don't inconvenience the folk in Selside (I've found the farmers round there to be friendly & helpful...so lets not abuse that).
Cavematt
Well-known member
I think that the fee at Alum Pot (?1/head) is not for parking (I think it's a green lane). The fee is for crossing the private land leading up to Alum Pot and then accessing the caves not on open access land. If I'm right on this then it means you can park on Alum Pot lane and walk to Birkwith without paying the charge. However, this is not necessarily a good situation as Alum Pot lane is often already very busy anyway, and adding the traffic for the Birkwith caves (which may include lots of vehicles particularly around university first terms) will cause serious congestion, which would be best avoided to keep good local relations in Selside. I'm sure Tim and Alan, who are pursuing this for the CNCC, will come up with some sensible options and suggestions 
kay
Well-known member
Yes, Matt, you're right on your understanding of the Alum Pot fee. Don't know if it's still there, but at one time there was a notice at the top of the lane basically saying "if you want to go any further you need to go and pay your fee".
I suppose the obvious solution would be to harmonise the fees at Selside and Birkwith so there was no great advantage to parking at Selside if you wanted to go to Birkwith.
I suppose the obvious solution would be to harmonise the fees at Selside and Birkwith so there was no great advantage to parking at Selside if you wanted to go to Birkwith.
Simon Beck
Member
I can understand a charge for minibuses which do tend to be commercial outfits but expecting the average visitor to pay ?10/car is downright unreasonable, greedy, and if you ask me, lacking in foresight, with the hassle caused by folk parking along the main lane leading to High Birkwith instead.
PeteHall
Moderator
In my uni club, we used to bring a minibus on freshers trips to the High Birkwith caves, so not just commercial outfits. Mind you, at ?15 that's only ?1 each, which wouldn't even get you half a pint in a student bar!
?10 for a car does seem steep, but it's still only ?2 each if you fill the car. It will certainly encourage car sharing though, which might well be what they are trying to achieve, reducing vehicle access, rather than just being greedy.
?10 for a car does seem steep, but it's still only ?2 each if you fill the car. It will certainly encourage car sharing though, which might well be what they are trying to achieve, reducing vehicle access, rather than just being greedy.
CNCC
Well-known member
One of the key messages Andrew and Alan took away from their meetings at High Birkwith is that this is nothing to do with greed. In proportion to the purchase price of High Birkwith I don't think the revenue this will generate is of any significance; plus the money will be put towards maintaining the parking area and honesty box. The aim is more to try to avoid lots of cars turning up by encouraging car sharing (a full car being only ?2pp, and a full minibus much less).
They could have disallowed parking altogether. At least the option for this is still there should you wish.
They could have disallowed parking altogether. At least the option for this is still there should you wish.
Simon Beck
Member
Apologies for appearing curt with my prior comment, I can of course appreciate their good intentions, and although it may not be driven by greed, for those of us who wouldn't generally be visiting with a car full of chums to split the cost, ?10 is still an unreasonable ask for what it is.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
I guess it's their land and their prerogative to manage things this way. Their position on access to the caves themselves is superb. For cavers who are struggling to afford the charge for parking, it's possible to walk in less far, less steeply and probably with less gear than you would, say, for a trip in the GG system. I don't think we can complain too much.
By the way, many thanks to those who have been negotiating on our behalf. It could have ended up far worse.
By the way, many thanks to those who have been negotiating on our behalf. It could have ended up far worse.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
I think their point is the parking charge is an understandable attempt to limit the number of vehicles. They've been very generous as far as visiting the actual caves is concerned.
As a general point (thinking of the country as a whole) I detest the efforts of the so called "parking industry" to extort money from us all at every opportunity. This case is different though and I think we've come out of it a lot better than we might otherwise have done.
As a general point (thinking of the country as a whole) I detest the efforts of the so called "parking industry" to extort money from us all at every opportunity. This case is different though and I think we've come out of it a lot better than we might otherwise have done.
