[Andy Stamm]

This is another cart versus walking topic. I assure everyone that I am simply looking for input and opinions, and I am very interested in the topic.

Basically, I'm interested in the idea that municipal courses could/should promote walking because of its positive health (and other) effects. Why do I choose municipals? Because they are not necessarily out to make money or be prestigious, etc. So, there is room for the municipality to make decisions that do not maximize these things. And if the course is less profitable, well it's probably part of the parks department which is not a revenue generator. And, finally I am a huge supporter of public golf.

I realize that for many places golf is just a revenue generator and there's nothing to be done. For me for example, at the local muni that's the case plain and simple. On the other hand, their could be room from my local (public, open access) university course to promote this policy. Given that state government and the university are becoming more responsive to public health issues (partly because they are huge providers of health insurance), this could be an area to promote walking. For example, states and employers may have incentive programs for getting/staying fit, which seems very similar to me.

But what about other places? What arguments would be helpful? For instance, municipals are often not priced at profit maximizing levels (e.g. Bethpage, Harding Park, and Torrey Pines, but also run of the mill $15 places), because the municipality is responsive to residents above maximizing profits.

In my mind, this wouldn't be strictly limited to municipal courses. For instance Yale could promote this because its relationship to students/faculty/etc. is similar to a municipality's relationship to residents. And a university may well have fitness incentive programs for students/employees. The military would be another relevant example.

Relevant issues that could be addressed?

At Bethpage Black, is no carts solely a course condition concern? Or is it more than that?
New York is obviously forgoing money with its pricing/carts policy at the Black. Any reasons why they can do that and others can't?
It has to be easier to control at a club that is run by the municipality, rather than by a management company, right?
Listing courses that promote walking in various ways?

Thanks for you input!

[Matthew Petersen]

I find that in Arizona, carts are so ingrained that virtually all public courses build the cost of a cart fee into the green fee. It's just a given that you will ride. (In some cases of course this is because the course is in fact virtually un-walkable, but that's not true of all of them by any means). The exception are the municipal courses 9at least the City of Phoenix ones) where they offer walking and riding rates and the cost of a cart often runs $10+ more per 18. I don't know that i would call that "promoting" walking, but it's certainly better than the alternative.

[michael damico]

Andy,

briefly looked at this, but I have worked maintenance on all levels (from 'Championship' to muni) and have realized any daily fee course makes a good deal of profits from carts. This also (which I believe is a misconception) leads to a faster pace of play, according to those in charge.

I am all for it, especially at muni's, but think of the populace at munis (I was one and still am): most are there to get outside and drink with buddies, not necessarily to score or play in any competitive sense.

Possibly if there are coolers attached to handcarts...we might have something here...

[Andy Stamm]

I find that in Arizona, carts are so ingrained that virtually all public courses build the cost of a cart fee into the green fee. It's just a given that you will ride. (In some cases of course this is because the course is in fact virtually un-walkable, but that's not true of all of them by any means). The exception are the municipal courses 9at least the City of Phoenix ones) where they offer walking and riding rates and the cost of a cart often runs $10+ more per 18. I don't know that i would call that "promoting" walking, but it's certainly better than the alternative.

I would say that in the context of Arizona, allowing walking at a cheaper rate than riding really does promote walking. And in the context of a muni, the mandatory use of a cart can really increase basic cost of golf, which can be a big access issue. Many people in my area typically walk and at about $15 a pop golf isn't too bad. Double that to $30, and I'm sure participation would go down for them. I know it would for me.

For what it's worth, both rounds I played around the Phoenix area were walking and very enjoyable. I played the lesser TPC course and the only "higher end" (but not the TPC stadium course) course I could find that allowed walking, which I now forget. Not only did they allow walking, both were "built" (close green/tees, etc.) for walking. Of course, this was in the winter, when the weather was wonderful.

I don't mean to be really aggressive about this, so I understand that in places like the southwest, the climate for much of the year means that either not much golf will be played or it'll be in carts. Fine. But allowing walking and making that a cheap option really promotes walking during that part of the year. And this seems in line with the outdoor sports I saw in Phoenix such as mountain biking.

[RJ_Daley]

I believe there are just as many models of organization and management or stewartship of municipal golf courses as there are municipalities that oversee and operate them.  At the end of the day, they are local or state government, or some some other subdivision of the public interests assets.  They run the gamut from long time stable operations, to constantly changing oversight and management approaches that blow in the wind of whatever current 'powers that be' are currently in control of local governments.  Look at the difference in the approaches to the City of San Francisco (or is it the county there) and all the extreme special interest grid locked politics that reportedly take place in managing their courses to the stability of something like my own home muni., here in Green Bay WI, which by most standards would be viewed as a long term stable, nearly autonomously self running division of local county government. 

So setting walking policies are as varied as the management structures and local customs that manage them.  The carts at our course, which is a very walkable course that more than 60% of golfers do walk, is a very important source of income for the long term contract pro.  Their use on wet days where no carts or very restricted areas where carts ought to be allowed to travel, is a real source of dissatisfaction by many who are dismayed when cart traffic tears up critical areas of the course, to the favor of keeping the revenue going for the pro, cart concessionaire. 

It really isn't about promoting fitness, IMO.  For one thing, many local and out of area public use these muni courses and couldn't care less about the local value of promoting fitness.  A policy stance that a muni or govenrment golf operator entity takes on promoting walking as fitness policy seems like ridiculously overreached notion that something as mundane as an occasional round of golf on a public asset course is somehow tied to public policy of promoting fitness, alongside of the contrary model of pushing alcohol sales to customers.  Golf is not much of a true fitness health activity anyway.  (Unless you are 159 hole Jim Colton!  )  At best, walking golf keeps one's legs a little stronger, but real cardiac VS ruined orthopedic backs and joints is probably a close race of benefit VS damage. 

[Garland Bayley]

When it comes to promoting health through walking on a municipal course, Chambers Bay may very well be the champion with 5000 people walking it daily.

[Andy Stamm]

San Francisco is an interesting example to me. The courses run by the city (I think) are Lincoln, Sharp, and Golden Gate, while Harding and the Presidio (although that's a different municipality) are run by management companies. The operations are completely different at the courses. The city run ones are basically like a stereotypical muni, while the "managed" ones are more up-scale. Of course the cost of golf, etc. is pretty stable at the city courses, while there's more upward pressure on the "managed" courses. One reason why the management companies are much maligned by residents. I think it would be very hard for the "managed" courses to phase out carts because of the revenue and their use in outings. But at the city run courses, I could definitely see it. Most people walk anyway. And they're not really full service type of operations. For a course with environmental and wetness issues like Sharp, along with the ease of walking there, it would make a ton of sense. And, if it could be done anywhere, why not SF?

Garland,

How is Chambers able to make that happen? Is is a conditioning issue? Or is it just something that (who owns it, Tacoma?) wants to do?

[Garland Bayley]

Chambers Bay is owned by Pierce County. The course is on a large tract of land, so the county built a walking trail through it, which being free, obviously gets a lot more use than the "fairway" trail. Even Kalen Braley accessed the walking trail while he was supposed to be using the fairway trail. He even had a walker locate his ball for him.

[Andy Stamm]

Chambers Bay is owned by Pierce County. The course is on a large tract of land, so the county built a walking trail through it, which being free, obviously gets a lot more use than the "fairway" trail. Even Kalen Braley accessed the walking trail while he was supposed to be using the fairway trail. He even had a walker locate his ball for him.

That's a great integration of golf and park. What reasoning is behind the county's decision not to offer carts? Conditioning? It's the right thing to do? Marketing it as pure golf, ala Bandon?

The Audubon golf course in New Orleans is similar. Audubon is a non-profit, but I'd guess the land is municipally owned. The course is routed in and around a public park, so there are people everywhere. There's a very popular walking/bike trail in particular that is very prominent. It's great to see the closeness and interaction, and I really think it shows the role a muni can play in a city's parks operation. I'm actually pretty surprised at the layout (which is new) as parkgoers are definitely in harms way at times, but overall I think it's great. Walking is definitely not promoted at all, though. I do feel walking only would be a good fit (New Orleans weather aside) as it's a short course in the middle of a park where everyone else is walking, riding, playing, etc. Carts look horribly out place, frankly.

[Joe Bausch]

I am always happy to find a muni that allows walking at any time AND also does so at a reduced rate.  There aren't too many of those type courses remaining here in the Philly area.  Even one of my favorite munis, the Ross/Prichard reno Jeffersonville requires you to pay for a cart on weekends before 2 PM.  And all their helpful rangers sing the same song:  it makes the play faster.  Yeah, right.

I was pleasantly surprised back in late May of this year to arrive early on a Saturday morning at Lawsonia and they allowed walking at a reduced rate.

[Andy Stamm]

I am always happy to find a muni that allows walking at any time AND also does so at a reduced rate.  There aren't too many of those type courses remaining here in the Philly area.  Even one of my favorite munis, the Ross/Prichard reno Jeffersonville requires you to pay for a cart on weekends before 2 PM.  And all their helpful rangers sing the same song:  it makes the play faster.  Yeah, right.

I was pleasantly surprised back in late May of this year to arrive early on a Saturday morning at Lawsonia and they allowed walking at a reduced rate.

I'm sorry to hear that Joe, that's a real shame. That's a huge line for me, if they don't allow walking, I won't play. But I'm probably not going to play a course where I have to pay for the cart and not use it because at a muni that likely (close to) doubles the price. Fortunately, those practices haven't invaded my corner of the world.

I think it's criminal for a muni to enforce such policies, particularly significantly increasing the minimum it costs to play the game. I'd have never played this game if it weren't for the $2-4 greens fees offered to juniors at my munis in the the early/mid 90s.

[Garland Bayley]

That's a great integration of golf and park. What reasoning is behind the county's decision not to offer carts? Conditioning? It's the right thing to do? Marketing it as pure golf, ala Bandon?

The course is fescue, which cannot stand the cart traffic as well. Also, the architects noted that cart paths would degrade the golf.
IMO it is always the right thing to not offer carts to anyone that can't prove a physical need. I don't think they are marketing it as pure golf as much as they are marketing it as a course that will host major championships, which is what they set out to do during design and construction.

[Andy Stamm]

That's a great integration of golf and park. What reasoning is behind the county's decision not to offer carts? Conditioning? It's the right thing to do? Marketing it as pure golf, ala Bandon?

The course is fescue, which cannot stand the cart traffic as well. Also, the architects noted that cart paths would degrade the golf.
IMO it is always the right thing to not offer carts to anyone that can't prove a physical need. I don't think they are marketing it as pure golf as much as they are marketing it as a course that will host major championships, which is what they set out to do during design and construction.

I agree, it's a great policy. I really think this is an example of what I was looking for. The municipality just decided that it wasn't part of what they would offer, even though that probably means less money, and especially fewer outings. Bandon and Whistling Straights may have given them some "cover" as far as not offering carts. As for the majors bit, it may help, but Pebble, Torrey, Pinehurst, and others don't have a problem despite plenty of paths.

Can anyone provide insight as to Bethpage's decision not to offer carts? They get plenty of traffic anyway. But with their rates and no carts, they're definitely leaving money on the table, as they say.

[Tim Martin]

Can anyone provide insight as to Bethpage's decision not to offer carts? They get plenty of traffic anyway. But with their rates and no carts, they're definitely leaving money on the table, as they say.

Andy- I am venturing a guess but I would think it has to do damage/course condition. They are pulling in plenty of cart revenue from the other courses.

[Andy Stamm]

Tim,

I imagine it's conditioning as well. But do that do that many more rounds than Torrey and Pebble? Maybe the USGA pushed it as part of the restoration/Open project?

Does anybody know the cart policy pre-redo?

[Tim Martin]

Andy- Bethpage has 5 courses versus one at Pebble and two at Torrey.

[Andy Stamm]

Andy- Bethpage has 5 courses versus one at Pebble and two at Torrey.

True, so they have more options for players who don't walk. But, if it's a condition issue, does Bethpage do that many more rounds than Pebble and Torrey South?

[Garland Bayley]

...As for the majors bit, it may help, but Pebble, Torrey, Pinehurst, and others don't have a problem despite plenty of paths.

...

I meant they use the attraction of a major tournament as marketing for the course in preference to using "pure" golf. I don't think they left out the cart paths to attract a major. They did more practical things. Instead of building the two courses that were slated, they built one on the best land, and left the rest of the land for the open circus. They provided for massive seating along the 1st and 18th fairways, which parallel each other (orginally it was all one fairway). They got pre-approval to put in a commuter rail station right next to the course on the existing rail line. The made plans to put in a boat pier on the sound next to the course. The made plans to put in a resort hotel.

[Andy Stamm]

Garland,

I'd agree that the primary marketing strategy seems to be majors, not "pure" golf, although I did pull the pure golf bit from their website. If they didn't allow carts primarily because it would degrade the golf (a statement with which I certainly agree), good on them.



What does it mean that Chambers, Bethpage, and Erin Hills are all walking only and were all developed with a focus on hosting majors? Anything?

Harding on the other hand was developed for hosting big events, if not majors, and despite Sandy Tatum's influence, a USGA man and presumably a walking advocate, it's got carts?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()