The Cost of Seeing

NCV said:
I just want to have fair equitable and reasonable admission charges to places of interest, just like they manage to do in France, Germany and Italy. I do not pretend free admission. In fact when I come across a place with free admission , I always leave a contribution in the collection box.
Click to expand...
I guess it all comes down to a question of how a 'fair, equitable and reasonable' admission cost is determined.
In the UK, that's done by an independent body creating a pricing structure that allows free access to many sites, while charging for the most popular and more expensive to maintain ones. An annual membership scheme being available to provide free access to all sites, equivalent to the cost of visiting 2-3 of the more expensive sites.

More common in mainland Europe such sites are government controlled, with a low entrance fee being subsidised by taxpayers.

You could argue that the UK system, where the cost is entirely paid by those who visit, or chose to support via annual membership, is actually MORE fair and equitable than the mainland Europe system where all taxpayers subsidise visits to such sites, regardless of their interest in them (and subsidise the cost for visitors from other countries).
 
ShinySideUp said:
The Eden Project here in Cornwall is £38, I think the Lost Gardens of Heligan is £22.50, each for one adult ticket. How families with two adults and two or three kids manage to go anywhere at all these days is beyond me;
Click to expand...
The Eden Project turn the ticket into a yearly pass either for free. Also under 5’s are free. Don’t know about Heligan.
 
NCV said:
I just want to have fair equitable and reasonable admission charges to places of interest, just like they manage to do in France, Germany and Italy. I do not pretend free admission. In fact when I come across a place with free admission , I always leave a contribution in the collection box.
Click to expand...
Well it’s a mixed bag. I love the fact that our museums and galleries are free.

But I hate the fact that arts funding is a massive political football, and I’m not sure our monuments following that model would be a comfortable experience.

As @Faldrax points out, our system for ancient monuments is ‘fair’ as it only costs those that use them.

Personally I’d prefer the continental approach, but I’m not ‘average’, and this country has been market driven for too many years for my voice to make a difference.
 
NCV said:
€5 is not a great sum to pay, to see one of the wonders of Roman engineering. St Marks in Venice charges just €3. I would put it in the category of token charges.
Click to expand...
Something that has been free to enter for probably many hundreds of years is sad that you now have to pay, regardless of the cost. And as I wondered, I'm not sure what the visiting experience is now like. Are numbers limited inside? Are you limited to the amount of time you can be inside? Is there a route inside you now have to follow? It's just very disappointing.

The only time I went into St Mark's Basilica, I think it was free to enter, but if you wanted to go on the roof, €3, want to look in the basement, €4, want to look at this other walled off section, €3, and this was in 2008.

Mr Perceptive said:
Like Italian taxi drivers who switch off the meter just after the journey starts..............................................
Click to expand...
Or the Gondoliers in Venice, who were all supposed to charge a maximum of €70 for a 45min trip, yet ask for €150+ if you happen to look like you have just been married. :oops: :$ And it was more than one of them.:headbang: It wasn't my wedding thankfully, as I would not have coughed up, and you can imagine how that would have went down, which of course is what they rely on for people to just accept.

Every country has their own rip off merchants sadly, it is up to the local legislation to try and keep on top of it.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
The Eden Project turn the ticket into a yearly pass either for free. Also under 5’s are free. Don’t know about Heligan.
Click to expand...

Yes that is true and if one lives locally then it's very good value for money but a yearly pass for someone who lives in, say, Barnsley, is still just a day pass in reality.

I live in Cornwall and if I apply at the right time (too late for this year) I can get a local's discount, same with the Lost Gardens.
 
"Local" to the Eden Project includes us in Devon. To Exeter Cathedral, local is Ex1-4.
 
NCV said:
Should the cultural heritage of a country be administered as a business, presumably to make a profit? Or was the The Blair government right when they abolished admission charges to museums and art galleries considering them educational assets? Would it be more ethical if English Heritage, was a public body running the countries cultural heritage in a sober subsidised manner that brings us back to the days when the Ministry of Public Works was responsable?

I do not know the answer.
Click to expand...


It probably would be more ethical but with the current lot in power it ain't gonna happen...!
 
NCV said:
Should the cultural heritage of a country be administered as a business, presumably to make a profit? Or was the The Blair government right when they abolished admission charges to museums and art galleries considering them educational assets? Would it be more ethical if English Heritage, was a public body running the countries cultural heritage in a sober subsidised manner that brings us back to the days when the Ministry of Public Works was responsable?

I do not know the answer.
Click to expand...
Others have pointed out that English Heritage is a charity, but I don't thing anyone has pointed out that the statutory responsibility for protecting/managing the Cultural Heritage of England lies with Historic England, a government organisation.

Prior to 2015 English Heritage was a government body that had the dual responsibility managing all aspects of cultural heritage in England AND the day to day management of state owned cultural collections/sites. But in 2015, a new charity, called English Heritage, was set up and the publicly owned collections/sites signed over to the charity for day to day management and promotion to the public.

What had been English Heritage, became Historic England which could now concentrate on their wider cultural heritage responsibilities. i.e. they could now more easily exercise their statutory control over National Trust, and similar organisations/individuals, decisions, without also being a competitor!

In Scotland and Wales, this split hasn't happened, and Historic Scotland (in Scotland) and CADW (in Wales) fulfil the necessary statutory cultural heritage duties as well as owning and promoting cultural heritage collections/sites. The proper title is Historic Environment Scotland, but they seem to use this and Historic Scotland interchangeably.

While you cannot become a member of Historic England (only English Heritage), you can become a member of Historic Scotland or CADW, where you membership/admission fees are added to government funding.

As an aside, annual membership of English Heritage is £69.00, Historic Scotland £31.50, and CADW is £24.00. (edit: its has been pointed that the Historic Scotland and CADW prices I quote are "from". Adult membership for Historic Scotland is £52.50 and for CADW is £56.60)

Membership of any of these organisations allows free* access to sites and parking at any** owned by the other two. (but see notes)

notes:

* Not in the first year of membership when it is only a 50% discount, it becomes free after your first membership renewal.

** It's a bit confusing, but it seems that some of the more expensive/popular sites owned by English Heritage only give a reduction for Historic Scotland and CADW members.
 
Last edited:
CADW individual membership is £56.60 for age 21-64, headline figure on website is from :rolleyes: £24
 
Last edited:
nog said:
CADW individual membership is £56.60 for age 21-24, headline figure on website is from :rolleyes: £24
Click to expand...
When ever I see a 'FROM' price I know that price exists only in theory. I have the same scepticism when I see the phrase 'up to' as in 'kills up to 99%...', of course 1% is part of that set. But then I'm just a cycnic.
 
This membership thing is fine and dandy for you locals, But we visitors from abroad get screwed over, particularly by English Heritage, who charge some outrageous prices in places like Stonehenge. (£25), where there is actually very little so see, especially when you learn that what we see today was largely reconstructed.

Graham, I do not get the competitor bit.

What had been English Heritage, became Historic England which could now concentrate on their wider cultural heritage responsibilities. i.e. they could now more easily exercise their statutory control over National Trust, and similar organisations/individuals, decisions, without also being a competitor!

State owned cultural assets should not be in competition with anybody. They are a nations history, not some attractive pile of Disneyland bricks to exploit for monetary gain.

I do not pretend to see places for free, but it would be nice for visitors to Britain to be able to see Britain's monuments after paying the reasonable amounts that one pays in France, Germany or Italy, where prices are generally in the €5-€10, with the really big and famous monuments arriving at €15. These sort of prices are reasonable and affordable for a family day out I believe.
 
NCV said:
This membership thing is fine and dandy for you locals, But we visitors from abroad get screwed over, particularly by English Heritage, who charge some outrageous prices in places like Stonehenge. (£25), where there is actually very little so see, especially when you learn that what we see today was largely reconstructed.

Graham, I do not get the competitor bit.

What had been English Heritage, became Historic England which could now concentrate on their wider cultural heritage responsibilities. i.e. they could now more easily exercise their statutory control over National Trust, and similar organisations/individuals, decisions, without also being a competitor!

State owned cultural assets should not be in competition with anybody. They are a nations history, not some attractive pile of Disneyland bricks to exploit for monetary gain.

I do not pretend to see places for free, but it would be nice for visitors to Britain to be able to see Britain's monuments after paying the reasonable amounts that one pays in France, Germany or Italy, where prices are generally in the €5-€10, with the really big and famous monuments arriving at €15. These sort of prices are reasonable and affordable for a family day out I believe.
Click to expand...
The competitor bit is that before the split, the same organisation was making decisions that affected "all" aspects of cultural heritage in England, as well as those affecting English Heritage collections decisions

They were not only making decisions on how much money should be spent on the sites/collections they owned, but also deciding who (e.g The National Trust) should get government grants. And the same organisation were the official voice in terms of planning applications that affected cultural sites: the ones they owned and the ones owned by other organisations and individuals hoping to attract visitors.

In practice the two roles are kept separate within these sorts of organisations, but by keeping them under the same roof there is always a perceived risk of bias towards favouring the sites owned by the organisation.

For example if a modern fire door needed to be fitted to to make a historic building it safe for visitors, prior to 2015 (before the split), English Heritage (for perfectly valid reasons) might have given permission for a fire door to be fitted into an English Heritage property but refused permission for one to be fitted into a nearby National Trust property. This might have resulted in allowing more visitors into the English Heritage site (offsetting government spending) but prevented additional fund raising, through more visitors, at the National Trust site; funds that were needed for essential preservation works.

While I fully agree that the prices are very high, and I would like to see them lower, it's also the case that the costs of running these places are extraordinarily high. None of the organisations we have discussed (English Heritage, National Trust, National Trust for Scotland, Historic Scotland, and CADW) are exploiting them for monetary gain, they are charging to offset the running costs (after any government funding), and to provide facilities that encourage people to come and see, learn about and enjoy their cultural heritage.

This of course leads onto a bigger discussion about what aspects of cultural Heritage deserve public money, and whether this should only go towards preservation costs, and not visitor facilities or whether the importance of tourism, and the cultural education of the UK population means the government should directly subsidise entrance fees.

Which in turn leads to a discussion which aspects of cultural heritage are essential to preserve for the Nation (owned/directly managed and funded by the state) and which aspects are important or desirable to preserve for the Nation, and should be owned/directly managed and funded through the members of charities and trusts.
 
I haven't read every post here so this might have been mentioned earlier. Given that the entrance fees for some properties is high an annual membership can be useful and the cost can be recouped fairly quickly. It is worth looking at the organisations in different parts of the UK.

Membership of the National Trust for Scotland gives you free access to National Trust properties in England, Wales and Northern Island(and similar organisationin some other countries too), and National Trust for Scotland membership is cheaper than becoming a member of the National Trust.

Dave
 
NCV said:
This membership thing is fine and dandy for you locals, But we visitors from abroad get screwed over, particularly by English Heritage, who charge some outrageous prices in places like Stonehenge. (£25), where there is actually very little so see, especially when you learn that what we see today was largely reconstructed.

Graham, I do not get the competitor bit.

What had been English Heritage, became Historic England which could now concentrate on their wider cultural heritage responsibilities. i.e. they could now more easily exercise their statutory control over National Trust, and similar organisations/individuals, decisions, without also being a competitor!

State owned cultural assets should not be in competition with anybody. They are a nations history, not some attractive pile of Disneyland bricks to exploit for monetary gain.

I do not pretend to see places for free, but it would be nice for visitors to Britain to be able to see Britain's monuments after paying the reasonable amounts that one pays in France, Germany or Italy, where prices are generally in the €5-€10, with the really big and famous monuments arriving at €15. These sort of prices are reasonable and affordable for a family day out I believe.
Click to expand...


You can actually get quite close to Stonehenge without paying. The old road which used to run close to the stones to the north is still (or was a couple of years ago) still open for pedestrians although I note from the OS map that it's not a public right of way so it could be closed at any time. I wouldn't consider for a second paying £25 to go in the exclosure.

But this is rip-off Britain.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
The solution is in your own hands: don't come here. :tumbleweed:
Click to expand...
Well most counties including th UK spend a lot of money trying to encourage tourism in their counties as it brings in revenue and creates lots of jobs in the service sector.

I guess Brexit did not go far enough for you. Hey lets go for the North Korean isolationist model.
 
NCV said:
I guess Brexit did not go far enough for you.
Click to expand...
Au contraire. Brexit was a stupid idea from day zero and has just got sillier by the minute.
 
NCV said:
Well most counties including th UK spend a lot of money trying to encourage tourism in their counties as it brings in revenue and creates lots of jobs in the service sector.

I guess Brexit did not go far enough for you. Hey lets go for the North Korean isolationist model.
Click to expand...
But this is also a bit of catch 22, because f you didn't. have this money coming in, the chances are that the cultural heritage properties would be fewer in number and be less attractively presented for tourists to want to visit them.

I think the UK, is in general an expensive holiday destination, but one option even if you are only here for two weeks holiday would be to buy an annual membership of the National Trust and just factor that into your holiday costs .

Family 2 adults
Two adults (aged 18+) living at the same address and their children or grandchildren (17 or under). Under 5s go free.

£146.40

Admittedly this restricts you to NT properties, and how well it would work depends on where you go. But this would give the visitor free parking in NT car parks, many that aren't associated with properties but might be close to the sea or other interesting landscapes. It also means you could squeeze in a couple of hours visit to a property that wouldn't be worth spending the full costs of a day ticket. to visit.

These were a couple of the reasons that justified us becoming life members of a few organisations like this, free parking at nice picnic sites or starting points for walks and being able to drop in for a quick look at properties mid-journey, that we wouldn't have paid a day ticket to visit..

A third and very personal reason, is that I'm not that interested in these places, even if I enjoy an amble around the grounds, and wouldn't pay the day ticket prices for myself. But my wife is very interested, so we would often end up with her going on her own, and me doing something else. We now go together, as our life memberships allow us to ignore the day ticket price.

Edit:: as an aside I have just remembered seeing an international list of NT equivalents from across the world that being a member of, gave you free entry to NT properties in the UK,

Edit again: Now found this https://www.into.org/places/
 
Last edited:
myotis said:
The competitor bit is that before the split, the same organisation was making decisions that affected "all" aspects of cultural heritage in England, as well as those affecting English Heritage collections decisions

They were not only making decisions on how much money should be spent on the sites/collections they owned, but also deciding who (e.g The National Trust) should get government grants. And the same organisation were the official voice in terms of planning applications that affected cultural sites: the ones they owned and the ones owned by other organisations and individuals hoping to attract visitors.

In practice the two roles are kept separate within these sorts of organisations, but by keeping them under the same roof there is always a perceived risk of bias towards favouring the sites owned by the organisation.

For example if a modern fire door needed to be fitted to to make a historic building it safe for visitors, prior to 2015 (before the split), English Heritage (for perfectly valid reasons) might have given permission for a fire door to be fitted into an English Heritage property but refused permission for one to be fitted into a nearby National Trust property. This might have resulted in allowing more visitors into the English Heritage site (offsetting government spending) but prevented additional fund raising, through more visitors, at the National Trust site; funds that were needed for essential preservation works.

While I fully agree that the prices are very high, and I would like to see them lower, it's also the case that the costs of running these places are extraordinarily high. None of the organisations we have discussed (English Heritage, National Trust, National Trust for Scotland, Historic Scotland, and CADW) are exploiting them for monetary gain, they are charging to offset the running costs (after any government funding), and to provide facilities that encourage people to come and see, learn about and enjoy their cultural heritage.

This of course leads onto a bigger discussion about what aspects of cultural Heritage deserve public money, and whether this should only go towards preservation costs, and not visitor facilities or whether the importance of tourism, and the cultural education of the UK population means the government should directly subsidise entrance fees.

Which in turn leads to a discussion which aspects of cultural heritage are essential to preserve for the Nation (owned/directly managed and funded by the state) and which aspects are important or desirable to preserve for the Nation, and should be owned/directly managed and funded through the members of charities and trusts.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your detailed replies, but I just wonder about running costs and where the money goes.

Let's, look at Stonehenge. Without a visitor center, it was just some stones standing in a field. The guy in the shed collecting the entrance fee and mowing the grass were the only expenses, when I visited as a child. The cheap blue guidebook was inexpensive to print. Lets add a "visitor centre". The trinkets and café in the centre I would have thought, make or should make the visitor centre self financing. At £25 a pop this place is surly raking in a lot of profit.

Sites like Battle Abbey do not cost millions to maintain each year. The sheep were doing a good job with the grass for free.

I visited Bath Abbey and Wells Cathedral. Both well maintained and they ask just £5 to enter. So honest prices are possible in the UK. Maybe because they do not have a bloated national management structure to maintain.

EH is a charity, but I presume the bosses take out of the charity, more than the old lady who runs the local donkey sanctuary pays herself. The NT was been the temporary resting place between jobs for the ex boss of the Post Office and an ex top Civil Servant, amongst others. I presume the other top dogs are well paid too. I took a look at their management structure and there are some activities in the managent/staff tree, that are more about current buzz themes than a necessity, in my opinion. Which brings me to another model I know quite well.

I live near a Renaissance "perfect city". Sabbionetta, near Mantua. It is a walled city with several palaces and historic churches. It is a large village really, and the local town council is responsible for the upkeep and running this collection of monuments. It is well kept and apart from the ticket staff, the guardians and guides are local volunteers, mostly pensioners, who have found a way to keep active. It is never hugely busy. They seem to get by with the global €15 charge that admits you to seven or eight locations. They promote things like an antiques market and exhibitions to bring extra revenue into the town. I presume there are cases like this in the UK where places are locally run, without a huge management to support.
 
NCV said:
Thank you for your detailed replies, but I just wonder about running costs and where the money goes.

Let's, look at Stonehenge. Without a visitor center, it was just some stones standing in a field. The guy in the shed collecting the entrance fee and mowing the grass were the only expenses, when I visited as a child. The cheap blue guidebook was inexpensive to print. Lets add a "visitor centre". The trinkets and café in the centre I would have thought, make or should make the visitor centre self financing. At £25 a pop this place is surly raking in a lot of profit.

Sites like Battle Abbey do not cost millions to maintain each year. The sheep were doing a good job with the grass for free.

I visited Bath Abbey and Wells Cathedral. Both well maintained and they ask just £5 to enter. So honest prices are possible in the UK. Maybe because they do not have a bloated national management structure to maintain.

EH is a charity, but I presume the bosses take out of the charity, more than the old lady who runs the local donkey sanctuary pays herself. The NT was been the temporary resting place between jobs for the ex boss of the Post Office and an ex top Civil Servant, amongst others. I presume the other top dogs are well paid too. I took a look at their management structure and there are some activities in the managent/staff tree, that are more about current buzz themes than a necessity, in my opinion. Which brings me to another model I know quite well.

I live near a Renaissance "perfect city". Sabbionetta, near Mantua. It is a walled city with several palaces and historic churches. It is a large village really, and the local town council is responsible for the upkeep and running this collection of monuments. It is well kept and apart from the ticket staff, the guardians and guides are local volunteers, mostly pensioners, who have found a way to keep active. It is never hugely busy. They seem to get by with the global €15 charge that admits you to seven or eight locations. They promote things like an antiques market and exhibitions to bring extra revenue into the town. I presume there are cases like this in the UK where places are locally run, without a huge management to support.
Click to expand...
I really don't know the answer to these questions, but I think they have varying levels of complexity depending on how you look at them.

You can look at Stonhenge in isolation, but that isn't the same as looking at the costs of running the entire English Heritage organisation and the total costs across all the assets they manage. TV documentaries on the subject make it clear that the need for specialist skills and specialist materials to maintain important historical sites are massively expensive.

Large organisations, with large numbers of staff, dealing with large numbers of the public will need a different level of experienced management to a local donkey sanctuary.

I agree there is some questions about how much the top people get paid in charities, the argument being that you need to pay, even if you are a charity, competitive salaries to attract good people to run your organisation. Any costs in high salaries being paid back through getting a better run organisation. Even though it’s a charity it still needs to be run as an efficient business. I don't know enough about it to have a view as to whether this salary is reasonable or not. I assume that the Board of Trustees consider the salaries to be reasonable.

The National Trust Director General is paid £199,614 p.a. (2021-22) which makes her 55th in ranking amongst charity bosses salaries. The NT is the eight largest UK charity.. They employ over 11,000 staff and have turnover of around 55 million. (this 55 million didn't look right, I've checked and the annual report says their income is £581 million).

The salaries of the top NT people are here:

redrocketdigital.co.uk

14466 National Trust (Annual Report 2022) ARTWORK2

This interactive publication is created with FlippingBook, a service for streaming PDFs online. No download, no waiting. Open and start reading right away!
redrocketdigital.co.uk redrocketdigital.co.uk

English Heritage is more complicated as they were given a one off £80 million government grant in 2015 to set themselves up, with an £89 million grant for running costs spread over 7years, by which time they were expected to be financially self sufficient. The latest accounts show they are currently running at a loss.

I can't find details of EH salaries, but there is a references that the conditions of a loan taken out by EH, includes freezing the salaries of Senior Management. for at least 18 months.


Edit: 37 members of staff at English Heritage get paid more than £60,000 per year, Five of these are over 100,000 , with the highest salary between £160,000 and £170,000)
 
Last edited:
myotis said:
But this is also a bit of catch 22, because f you didn't. have this money coming in, the chances are that the cultural heritage properties would be fewer in number and be less attractively presented for tourists to want to visit them.

I think the UK, is in general an expensive holiday destination, but one option even if you are only here for two weeks holiday would be to buy an annual membership of the National Trust and just factor that into your holiday costs .

Family 2 adults
Two adults (aged 18+) living at the same address and their children or grandchildren (17 or under). Under 5s go free.

£146.40

Admittedly this restricts you to NT properties, and how well it would work depends on where you go. But this would give the visitor free parking in NT car parks, many that aren't associated with properties but might be close to the sea or other interesting landscapes. It also means you could squeeze in a couple of hours visit to a property that wouldn't be worth spending the full costs of a day ticket. to visit.

These were a couple of the reasons that justified us becoming life members of a few organisations like this, free parking at nice picnic sites or starting points for walks and being able to drop in for a quick look at properties mid-journey, that we wouldn't have paid a day ticket to visit..

A third and very personal reason, is that I'm not that interested in these places, even if I enjoy an amble around the grounds, and wouldn't pay the day ticket prices for myself. But my wife is very interested, so we would often end up with her going on her own, and me doing something else. We now go together, as our life memberships allow us to ignore the day ticket price.

Edit:: as an aside I have just remembered seeing an international list of NT equivalents from across the world that being a member of, gave you free entry to NT properties in the UK,

Edit again: Now found this https://www.into.org/places/
Click to expand...
Agree and as I mentioned earlier join the National Trust for Scotland, get access to NT properties and more, and save money - NTS Family membership £122.40.

Dave
 
I found one place of interest that perhaps should charge and improve the facilities.
Last week I went south of the river to have a look at the Thames Barrier.
Went there twenty years or so ago with my 6 year old daughter for a ride on the bus and Woolwich Ferry.

Got the DLR to Woolwich Royal Arsenal then bus a few stops until the barrier is signposted.
Walked along an overgrown path past scrap yards and emerged on a green where dossers were enjoying a beverage or ten.
Then up and over a bank to the river and the barrier itself, looked smaller than I remembered.
Wandered up to the visitor centre and cafe. both closed and something saying open on Saturday.
A slide that my daughter enjoyed playing on our last visit is now fenced off presumably because it was too much fun.
Steeper and longer than the usual slide and is positioned on the slope of the aforementioned bank.

Walked along the path to the Barrier, took a few photos and was then warned off taking any of the operations building.
Didn't actually want to and it wasn't the most interesting or photogenic subject anyway.
Carried on walking until I got to a pub called the Hope and Anchor, didn't look great and it was a bit early.
Walked back up to the main road and emerged by a Sainsbury's then caught a bus to North Greenwich Station.

Jumped on the cable car back to civilisation, might try the view from Pontoon Dock next time although probably won't bother again.
 
Last edited:
NCV said:
Thank you for your detailed replies, but I just wonder about running costs and where the money goes.

Let's, look at Stonehenge. Without a visitor center, it was just some stones standing in a field. The guy in the shed collecting the entrance fee and mowing the grass were the only expenses, when I visited as a child. The cheap blue guidebook was inexpensive to print. Lets add a "visitor centre". The trinkets and café in the centre I would have thought, make or should make the visitor centre self financing. At £25 a pop this place is surly raking in a lot of profit.

Sites like Battle Abbey do not cost millions to maintain each year. The sheep were doing a good job with the grass for free.

I visited Bath Abbey and Wells Cathedral. Both well maintained and they ask just £5 to enter. So honest prices are possible in the UK. Maybe because they do not have a bloated national management structure to maintain.

EH is a charity, but I presume the bosses take out of the charity, more than the old lady who runs the local donkey sanctuary pays herself. The NT was been the temporary resting place between jobs for the ex boss of the Post Office and an ex top Civil Servant, amongst others. I presume the other top dogs are well paid too. I took a look at their management structure and there are some activities in the managent/staff tree, that are more about current buzz themes than a necessity, in my opinion. Which brings me to another model I know quite well.

I live near a Renaissance "perfect city". Sabbionetta, near Mantua. It is a walled city with several palaces and historic churches. It is a large village really, and the local town council is responsible for the upkeep and running this collection of monuments. It is well kept and apart from the ticket staff, the guardians and guides are local volunteers, mostly pensioners, who have found a way to keep active. It is never hugely busy. They seem to get by with the global €15 charge that admits you to seven or eight locations. They promote things like an antiques market and exhibitions to bring extra revenue into the town. I presume there are cases like this in the UK where places are locally run, without a huge management to support.
Click to expand...
The pricing of sites in the UK is done so that the revenue from ALL sites covers the costs of ALL sites and relevant costs of running the organisation - and this inevitably means that some sites charge more than their direct costs, and subsidise others (many of which are free), as their overall historic interest means that people are prepared to pay more to visit them.
Stonehenge and Battle are good examples of this - they are sites that large numbers want to visit, and so the prices there are higher as this both regulates the numbers to some extent, and ensures a good source of funds.
Without the 'profit' from these sites, there would be less money available for other, less popular sites, which might mean they were unable to be maintained.

Bath Abbey and Well Cathedral are both church properties (Just checked, and Bath is now £6.50, or £15 if you want to climb the tower stairs), which means visitors are far from their sole source of funding, so not directly comparable to other historic monuments (and many visitors will also leave additional donations as well as paying the ticket price).
 
NCV said:
I did not make a mistake. We drove up by car with Italian Number plates. LT's system was not able to register my number plate. I paid the €12.5 each day to avoid the possibility of a fine .



A play on words naming the London Mayor "Gengis Khan"' is hardly racist. I gather ULEZ is not popular amongst Londoners.
Click to expand...
ULEZ is very popular among Londoners and green policies win votes. The implementation could have been better and provided for all lower/middle income households who need it.

Labour lost Uxbridge by 500 votes - in political terms thats nothing, if theyd bothered to look properly and get more people to turn out they probably would have won the seat and not blame it on ULEZ. I'm glad Khan stuck to his guns and did not bow down

LTNS are also very popular in London, the majority of those in favour vote for them and carry on with their lives. A loud minority complain and the news makes the issue look larger than it actually is
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NT and EH have high ticket prices for individual visits because they encourage the recurring membership model - making it appear to be great value. If you can convince someone that for the price of a couple of attractions you can see many more then it's a compelling argument to join. Once you've joined you're quite likely to renew.
Then the charity has a predictable recurring revenue stream which they can make plans for future investment vs. working from this summer's ticket receipts until the money runs out an hoping for decent weather the next year.
I don't know (but I'm sure EH and NT do) how may people actually visit enough sites with enough frequency to see a true financial benefit from membership, but the funding model makes much more sense than low one off ticket prices and hoping to hit a volume that pays.

It's perhaps unfair on those visiting for a short period who aren't able take advantage of a membership but I've been to plenty of countries where access to tourist attractions is discounted for local residents, free for OAPs and students from the home country etc. I don't begrudge it, by visiting another county I've already qualified myself as willing and able to spend money.

If you don't want to pay to visit then there are many, many free attractions in the UK or cheap and free attractions elsewhere in the world.

The high ticket prices are very unfair on those with limited means, I would like to see EH and NT emulate London Zoo and reduce the ticket prices for those on the lowest income so our national heritage wasn't locked away from kids born into low income households or those on very limited retirement income.
www.londonzoo.org

Universal Credit tickets to London Zoo | London Zoo

Universal Credit tickets
www.londonzoo.org www.londonzoo.org
 
AMcUK said:
NT and EH have high ticket prices for individual visits because they encourage the recurring membership model - making it appear to be great value. If you can convince someone that for the price of a couple of attractions you can see many more then it's a compelling argument to join. Once you've joined you're quite likely to renew.
Then the charity has a predictable recurring revenue stream which they can make plans for future investment vs. working from this summer's ticket receipts until the money runs out an hoping for decent weather the next year.
I don't know (but I'm sure EH and NT do) how may people actually visit enough sites with enough frequency to see a true financial benefit from membership, but the funding model makes much more sense than low one off ticket prices and hoping to hit a volume that pays.

It's perhaps unfair on those visiting for a short period who aren't able take advantage of a membership but I've been to plenty of countries where access to tourist attractions is discounted for local residents, free for OAPs and students from the home country etc. I don't begrudge it, by visiting another county I've already qualified myself as willing and able to spend money.

If you don't want to pay to visit then there are many, many free attractions in the UK or cheap and free attractions elsewhere in the world.

The high ticket prices are very unfair on those with limited means, I would like to see EH and NT emulate London Zoo and reduce the ticket prices for those on the lowest income so our national heritage wasn't locked away from kids born into low income households or those on very limited retirement income.
www.londonzoo.org

Universal Credit tickets to London Zoo | London Zoo

Universal Credit tickets
www.londonzoo.org www.londonzoo.org
Click to expand...

The cost of seeing places comes into the equation, when planning a holiday. Compared to other European nations, ticket prices in the UK are scandalously expensive. This will make me less inclined to visit the UK and chose a better value destination. Italy, France, Germany and Greece have great places to visit too, and entry prices to monuments that are budget friendly.

Tourism in most countries makes a good contribution to the economy and provides a lot of jobs in the service sector. It is a bit short-sighted to rely on a local audience in my opinion.
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
ULEZ is very popular among Londoners and green policies win votes. The implementation could have been better and provided for all lower/middle income households who need it.

Labour lost Uxbridge by 500 votes - in political terms thats nothing, if theyd bothered to look properly and get more people to turn out they probably would have won the seat and not blame it on ULEZ. I'm glad Khan stuck to his guns and did not bow down

LTNS are also very popular in London, the majority of those in favour vote for them and carry on with their lives. A loud minority complain and the news makes the issue look larger than it actually is
Click to expand...

This is a problem for Londoners to decide. I live abroad so it is not my problem, or it is my problem when LT's software does not recognise European number plates, and I get shafted, and have to pay to avoid risking a fine.

I would say green polices win votes until the punters have to cough up to pay for them, they then become a vote loser. I believe Kier Starmer , is on record as saying that ULEZ lost them Uxbridge.
 
AMcUK said:
NT and EH have high ticket prices for individual visits because they encourage the recurring membership model - making it appear to be great value. If you can convince someone that for the price of a couple of attractions you can see many more then it's a compelling argument to join. Once you've joined you're quite likely to renew.
Then the charity has a predictable recurring revenue stream which they can make plans for future investment vs. working from this summer's ticket receipts until the money runs out an hoping for decent weather the next year.
I don't know (but I'm sure EH and NT do) how may people actually visit enough sites with enough frequency to see a true financial benefit from membership, but the funding model makes much more sense than low one off ticket prices and hoping to hit a volume that pays.

It's perhaps unfair on those visiting for a short period who aren't able take advantage of a membership but I've been to plenty of countries where access to tourist attractions is discounted for local residents, free for OAPs and students from the home country etc. I don't begrudge it, by visiting another county I've already qualified myself as willing and able to spend money.

If you don't want to pay to visit then there are many, many free attractions in the UK or cheap and free attractions elsewhere in the world.

The high ticket prices are very unfair on those with limited means, I would like to see EH and NT emulate London Zoo and reduce the ticket prices for those on the lowest income so our national heritage wasn't locked away from kids born into low income households or those on very limited retirement income.
www.londonzoo.org

Universal Credit tickets to London Zoo | London Zoo

Universal Credit tickets
www.londonzoo.org www.londonzoo.org
Click to expand...
We haven't been member of the NT since Covid, we were for years previously. Last year we bought a years subscription to Longleat as it's just up the road, but we are talking about doing the NT thing again. We have Stourhead just 5 minutes away, and when we were members we used to visit there regularly. As NT gives you access to EH sites, Stonehenge was free, as was a couple of other local EH. We also have the NT sites at Win Green and Fontmell Downs locally, so I'm sure we'll rejoin at some point, when the weather improves...
 
NCV said:
This is a problem for Londoners to decide. I live abroad so it is not my problem, or it is my problem when LT's software does not recognise European number plates, and I get shafted, and have to pay to avoid risking a fine.

I would say green polices win votes until the punters have to cough up to pay for them, they then become a vote loser. I believe Kier Starmer , is on record as saying that ULEZ lost them Uxbridge.
Click to expand...
He is yeah, in my opinion its just an easy cop out for them to use as an excuse for not working hard enough and listening to constituents. Yeah getting a fine when you should not is a ball ache but they should rectify it for you once you show you did everything correctly, good luck
 
tijuana taxi said:
I found one place of interest that perhaps should charge and improve the facilities.
Last week I went south of the river to have a look at the Thames Barrier.
Went there twenty years or so ago with my 6 year old daughter for a ride on the bus and Woolwich Ferry.

Got the DLR to Woolwich Royal Arsenal then bus a few stops until the barrier is signposted.
Walked along an overgrown path past scrap yards and emerged on a green where dossers were enjoying a beverage or ten.
Then up and over a bank to the river and the barrier itself, looked smaller than I remembered.
Wandered up to the visitor centre and cafe. both closed and something saying open on Saturday.
A slide that my daughter enjoyed playing on our last visit is now fenced off presumably because it was too much fun.
Steeper and longer than the usual slide and is positioned on the slope of the aforementioned bank.

Walked along the path to the Barrier, took a few photos and was then warned off taking any of the operations building.
Didn't actually want to and it wasn't the most interesting or photogenic subject anyway.
Carried on walking until I got to a pub called the Hope and Anchor, didn't look great and it was a bit early.
Walked back up to the main road and emerged by a Sainsbury's then caught a bus to North Greenwich Station.

Jumped on the cable car back to civilisation, might try the view from Pontoon Dock next time although probably won't bother again.
Click to expand...
I did the same walk in the Autumn, lots of things to take photographs of, a bit of urban decay, hire bikes in the river and a rotting Mersey ferry, I call that a good day out.
 
zx9 said:
I did the same walk in the Autumn, lots of things to take photographs of, a bit of urban decay, hire bikes in the river and a rotting Mersey ferry, I call that a good day out.
Click to expand...
Glad you enjoyed it, I thought it was pretty crap and glad it was free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
acrobatic_Citron said:
ULEZ is very popular among Londoners and green policies win votes.

LTNS are also very popular in London,
Click to expand...


You must live in a completely different London from the one that I do.

The expansion of ULEZ is deeply unpopular and the LTN's are detested.
 
DemiLion said:
You must live in a completely different London from the one that I do.

The expansion of ULEZ is deeply unpopular and the LTN's are detested.
Click to expand...
The polls and research tells a different story

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com

Plurality of Londoners Support Expanding London’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) - Redfield & Wilton Strategies

In November 2022, the Greater London Authority announced plans to expand London’s existing Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) to include all …
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com

We are guilty of probably hanging around with like minded people so thats what we infer ( myself biased towards support and others towards against)

Happy to be challenged though on research that shows London is against either in the majority

The article I linked is the one most newpapers are referring to in their articles such as



www.forbes.com

Latest Polling Shows Overwhelming Public Support For LTNs

In London, a new poll found that 58% of respondents supported the introduction of LTNs, while only 17% were opposed to blocking residential streets to rat-running moto...
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top