Walking Only Courses in USA - How much does it help or hurt revenue?

[Eric LeFante]

Here is a great piece done by the Golf Channel in 2015 about the making of Chambers Bay:


https://www.golfchannel.com/video/morning-drive-chambers-bay-story/


John Ladenburg, the local official driving the project, wanted to host the US Open. He wanted fescue fairways for firm and fast conditions and make it a walking only facility. Kemper Sports told him revenue would be 30% less if carts were not allowed. From a business perspective, it was a huge gamble considering $21 million of taxpayers money was spent. If they didn't get the US Open, it would have been a disasterous business decision.


A very good municipal course in NJ, Neshanic Valley, a cart is included in the greens fees. I always walk so I don't like that I'm paying for a cart when I don't want one. But the green fees are still reasonable so I'll still play there. I think it's smart for them to do from a business perspective because almost no one will not play there because the cart is included and they will get the extra revenue of charging everyone for a cart vs only X% that would pay for it if the cart fee is separate.

[A.G._Crockett]

You can't get hurt too badly when, as at Sand Valley, the average price for a 4some during the season is ca. $850.00 

This is the key point, I think. 

Using a place like Sand Valley, or Bandon, or Streamsong to draw conclusions about what would or would not work elsewhere just doesn't work; the business models and price structures are just too different.  Rolex and Timex have similar 5 letter names that end in "x", and both sell watches, but that's where the similarity ends.  Neither company can use much from the other's business model, and so it is with high end resorts and more "ordinary" golf facilities.

I walk every round I play IF allowed to walk, even in the South on very hot days.  However, I will quarrel a bit with the idea that golf was "intended" to be a walking game; that simply isn't true.  Golf EVOLVED as a walking game, which is a very different thing, and it evolved that way because there weren't options until relatively recently. 

If you want to walk for exercise, as I do, that's great.  If you want to walk to save money (my membership includes carts, which I never use, btw) that's great. If you want to walk because you believe or know that you play better, that's great, too.  But if you believe that walking is somehow a sign of purity and the moral high ground because of golf's past, get over it.  I know that's heresy on this site, but it's true.
I'm 66, and I keep making concessions as I age, just like graphite shafts in my irons and a low compression golf ball.  I never, ever carry my bag anymore; always a Clicgear now for the last 5 years or so.  I added a seat on the side of the ClicGear a couple of years ago, and I've now added a reflective, SPF 50 Coolibar umbrella for afternoon rounds.  The day will come, I imagine, where I'll go to a motorized trolley, regardless of cost and with or without my wife's knowledge.  But none of this is about the history of golf or moral superiority or any of that sort of horse hockey; I just like to walk off the crazies whenever possible. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Speaking of actually playing the game, I read (maybe here, maybe at golfwrx) a recent study that found average golfers score their best when riding in a cart, score their worst when walking & carrying, and score half-way between the two when using a push/pull cart. I don't find that to be true for me, but maybe my 'sample size' is too small.
Interesting distinction between 'intended' and 'evolved' when it comes to golf & walking. While I don't think my preference for walking has a moral component, the distinction does seem to be in part a matter of faith. I mean, intention/intelligent design doesn't necessarily preclude evolution as a key element of that design process....

[Jason Thurman]

I don't think there's a lot to glean from the Ballyneals and Bandons of the world when it comes to the average local public course. But I am interested in whether there's anything to learn from Bethpage, Chambers, and places of their ilk (are there places of their ilk?). On one hand, they're major championship hosts that seem to clearly be the most desirable public courses in their enormous respective local markets, so maybe they're also impossible to compare to most local courses. On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the right course in a golf-crazy market could sell a better experience than its local competition by (among other things) embracing a focus on walking golf. It's certainly something I wish a few courses would at least experiment with as part of a broader strategy for building a culture and identity.

[Phil Carlucci]

I don't think there's a lot to glean from the Ballyneals and Bandons of the world when it comes to the average local public course. But I am interested in whether there's anything to learn from Bethpage, Chambers, and places of their ilk (are there places of their ilk?). On one hand, they're major championship hosts that seem to clearly be the most desirable public courses in their enormous respective local markets, so maybe they're also impossible to compare to most local courses. On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the right course in a golf-crazy market could sell a better experience than its local competition by (among other things) embracing a focus on walking golf. It's certainly something I wish a few courses would at least experiment with as part of a broader strategy for building a culture and identity.

I can only speak for my experience golfing on Long Island, but my guess is that a decent and/or renovated public course that fully embraced walking-only would turn off more customers than those it would inspire to play.  Wouldn't bother me because I prefer to walk, but I know plenty of golf-crazy types who wouldn't even consider under any circumstances a course where they can only walk (excluding the Black).

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't think there's a lot to glean from the Ballyneals and Bandons of the world when it comes to the average local public course. But I am interested in whether there's anything to learn from Bethpage, Chambers, and places of their ilk (are there places of their ilk?). On one hand, they're major championship hosts that seem to clearly be the most desirable public courses in their enormous respective local markets, so maybe they're also impossible to compare to most local courses. On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the right course in a golf-crazy market could sell a better experience than its local competition by (among other things) embracing a focus on walking golf. It's certainly something I wish a few courses would at least experiment with as part of a broader strategy for building a culture and identity.

Jason,With all due respect, how can more restrictive policies increase use at a golf facility?  The places that are walking only don't make their money off mass patronage; they make their money off high fees.  They are making absolutely no attempt whatsoever to appeal to the general public. 

Given that there are VERY few "golf-crazy" markets in 2018, how could a course that said, in effect, "Stay away if you don't want to pay a premium price to walk 6 miles!" possibly hope to prosper?  For the life of me, I can't see the business model for this. 

I live a few blocks from a pretty ancient public course that is an easy walk in every respect, and I have a membership at another nearby course (semi-private, for lack of a better term) that is also a relatively easy walk.  There is absolutely NO way that either course would see an increase in patronage if they were walking only, and if only 25% of the current customers who choose to ride chose to go elsewhere, the revenue decline would be precipitous.  Located in between is a high-end private club, also a wonderful course to walk.  Do you think their membership would go up or down if they were walking only?
Courses aren't offering carts and charging fees that are 400% or more above the actual cost of using the cart out of pity or as an experiment.  It's a money-maker, pure and simple; it makes the course more profitable, and it makes the course competitive for the mass market.

[Tim Martin]

There are far more people that won’t consider playing a golf course without carts than the segment that flocks to a “walking only” course in the U.S. Fortunately there are enough people desirous of the walking experience to keep places like Bandon and Sand Valley sustainable. Carts are a huge driver of revenue regardless of the model whether it’s a CCFD, public, municipal or private.

Bottom line is nobody pays for a cart and doesn't play, so it's the course not the cart that generates the business.

A course that is walking only can’t generate one dollar of business from that segment of the golfing population that will only play if carts are available.

Streamsong promotes a walking culture yet they have an unrestricted cart policy between June 1st and September 30th because of the heat and otherwise who is going to play?

[Tim Martin]

There are far more people that won’t consider playing a golf course without carts than the segment that flocks to a “walking only” course in the U.S. Fortunately there are enough people desirous of the walking experience to keep places like Bandon and Sand Valley sustainable. Carts are a huge driver of revenue regardless of the model whether it’s a CCFD, public, municipal or private.

Bottom line is nobody pays for a cart and doesn't play, so it's the course not the cart that generates the business.

A course that is walking only can’t generate one dollar of business from that segment of the golfing population that will only play if carts are available.

Streamsong promotes a walking culture yet they have an unrestricted cart policy between June 1st and September 30th because of the heat and otherwise who is going to play? I am a walker but give me the option to ride on a course below the Mason Dixon in the Summer with normal weather patterns and I’ll take it.

[Jason Thurman]

Phil, that's obviously the assumption that damn near every course in the US is making. And I don't doubt that a walking-only public course will be of no interest to a significant group of golfers in its market.


But Bandon, Streamsong, The Loop, Erin Hills, Chambers Bay, and the Black all at least make some case that there exists a significant group of golfers who aren't just willing to walk, but who are willing to pay a premium for the privilege when it's the right course. In a contracting industry where virtually every course is zigging - selling carts and beer and cliches of "lush fairways, pristine bunkers, and manicured greens" - why aren't there a few course operators willing to take a chance and try selling something different? A "pure golf experience, a respite from modern distractions, the joyful simplicity of a bag over your shoulder/on a push cart/over an Evans Scholar's shoulder, free of cart ruts and boomboxes and drunk bros. Faster rounds with savvier golfers, where even the worst swings don't spoil the good walk."


I'm not saying it would or wouldn't work - I suspect it would work some places and not others. But to just assume it's unviable is just that - an assumption - and all we have as real data is the experience of a handful of the most respected and sought after public courses in the US, who all happen to command much higher greens fees than the average "hop in a cart and go" public courses in their neighborhoods.




A.G., who said anything about increasing use? Hell, that's exactly the rat race I would be trying to get out of if I were a public course operator considering a greater emphasis on walking. The game would be to create a boutique experience at a fairly high price point - and again, we have a handful of courses as proof of concept.

[Edward Glidewell]

I think the issue with that line of thought is the assumption that these places are able to charge a premium because they are walking only. I don't think that's the case at all -- I think they are able to function as walking only courses with high prices because they are so good (or in high esteem because of hosting majors).


To be fair, we can't know until someone tries it -- but I think if a random, solid public course decided to go walking only and charge a premium rate without anything else to attract golfers, it would go bankrupt quickly.

[Kalen Braley]

Edward,


Thats exactly how I see it.  These walking courses have to be damn good, because otherwise its going to be tough sledding to turn a profit.  Golf is difficult enough in todays environment, tell half of your customers "Go play elsewhere", and its damn near mandatory you have a honey pot setup...


P.S.  I may be wrong, but I don't think its coincidence all the best ones like Bandon, Sand Valley, etc are in remote locations, because the land deals had to be damn cheap to make it work...

[Phil Carlucci]

Phil, that's obviously the assumption that damn near every course in the US is making. And I don't doubt that a walking-only public course will be of no interest to a significant group of golfers in its market.


But Bandon, Streamsong, The Loop, Erin Hills, Chambers Bay, and the Black all at least make some case that there exists a significant group of golfers who aren't just willing to walk, but who are willing to pay a premium for the privilege when it's the right course. In a contracting industry where virtually every course is zigging - selling carts and beer and cliches of "lush fairways, pristine bunkers, and manicured greens" - why aren't there a few course operators willing to take a chance and try selling something different? A "pure golf experience, a respite from modern distractions, the joyful simplicity of a bag over your shoulder/on a push cart/over an Evans Scholar's shoulder, free of cart ruts and boomboxes and drunk bros. Faster rounds with savvier golfers, where even the worst swings don't spoil the good walk."


I'm not saying it would or wouldn't work - I suspect it would work some places and not others. But to just assume it's unviable is just that - an assumption - and all we have as real data is the experience of a handful of the most respected and sought after public courses in the US, who all happen to command much higher greens fees than the average "hop in a cart and go" public courses in their neighborhoods.




A.G., who said anything about increasing use? Hell, that's exactly the rat race I would be trying to get out of if I were a public course operator considering a greater emphasis on walking. The game would be to create a boutique experience at a fairly high price point - and again, we have a handful of courses as proof of concept.

It might be best to remove Bethpage Black from this list only because at $75 for local players (and less during the week) it doesn't really fit into a discussion about paying a premium for a walking-only golfing experience.  At that rate even the most cart-happy players are more than willing to put themselves through a grueling 18, and do so repeatedly.  It would be interesting to see at what rate players would begin to question whether the experience is worth the cost and instead choose to ride on the Red or go elsewhere.

As far as courses choosing to zag when everyone else is zigging, it seems to me, at least here, that most courses find the zig hard enough -- very few know how or even bother to market themselves, period, let alone effectively market themselves as a new, better and more pure experience and a classic alternative for the savvy golfer. 

Without driving that message home clearly, I feel it would just be heard as "Course X just raised rates and you can't walk anymore.  Screw it."

[JESII]

While this is true, it's true mostly because of pricing practices.  The cart actually costs maybe $5 per round to operate; maybe some more if you include the extra wear and tear on the course, or paying for the cart paths.  The rest is profit.


So if you say the course is $40 and the carts are $20 you ascribe all the profit to the carts.  If it was $50 and $10 you'd be making the same but the perception would be different.


Bottom line is nobody pays for a cart and doesn't play, so it's the course not the cart that generates the business.

Is this about the reality? I have no idea, but in hearing how revenue would crash if a course stopped allowing carts I have to wonder how profitable they are. Probably very profitable, but once you spend $200,000 (plus something for annual maintenance) on cart paths and add some expense for golf course maintenance and then buy the carts and put them in a building of some sort and service them...can golf carts possibly generate $50,000 of profit?


Assume a good public, or nice but not off the charts private, course that does an average number of rounds...whatever that is.

[A.G._Crockett]

I think the issue with that line of thought is the assumption that these places are able to charge a premium because they are walking only. I don't think that's the case at all -- I think they are able to function as walking only courses with high prices because they are so good (or in high esteem because of hosting majors).


To be fair, we can't know until someone tries it -- but I think if a random, solid public course decided to go walking only and charge a premium rate without anything else to attract golfers, it would go bankrupt quickly.

Again, this is the point.

Golfers go to Bandon for a unique set of golf courses, and pay a premium price not only to play, but just to get there.  I'll need to see some convincing proof before I believe that Bandon couldn't sell more greens fees if there was a fleet of carts on hand, as opposed to walking only.
But of course the catch is that Bandon isn't in the mass market; they aren't competing with eight or ten other courses for the average daily fee golfer.  Bandon is competing with a VERY select group of destinations, and a cart fee would be a drop in the bucket for what golfers pay to play there.  And let's face it; if Mike Keiser wasn't a bazillionaire and his intent was to make as much profit as possible, the business model followed at Bandon might be more similar to Myrtle Beach than to Streamsong.  Bandon doesn't succeed because it's walking only; it succeeds because it has golf courses that rank with the very elite courses in the world.

I don't think Pinehurst has been mentioned yet in this thread, which is instructive.  Golf crazy, destination-quality courses designed for walking, caddies available, and (wait for it...) golf carts available.  How much business do you think Pinehurst would lose if it was a walking only resort, given that it's 91 degrees with a heat index of 98 today, and it's been that way in NC for the last couple of months with another month to go?

[Matthew Petersen]

No one is going to Bandon, OR or to Sand Valley, WI or to Bethpage, NY or even down the street to the best muni in town just to walk. They're going to play golf.


If I want to walk for 4 hours I can do that anywhere.


I appreciate a golf course where walking culture predominates (Rustic Canyon, for example) but I go there to play golf, not to walk.

[SB]

Is this about the reality? I have no idea, but in hearing how revenue would crash if a course stopped allowing carts I have to wonder how profitable they are. Probably very profitable, but once you spend $200,000 (plus something for annual maintenance) on cart paths and add some expense for golf course maintenance and then buy the carts and put them in a building of some sort and service them...can golf carts possibly generate $50,000 of profit?

Assume a good public, or nice but not off the charts private, course that does an average number of rounds...whatever that is.

The cart paths and the cart barn is a sunk cost, but even if it's not, it probably works out to about $10,000 a year amortized over  30 years.  The carts themselves cost about $70,000 a year plus and lets just round up to $100,000 to include repairs and electricity.  If your typical golf course has around $1.5M in total revenue, and loses 1/2 of that, because it isn't just the cart revenue the course will lose, it's the green fees and food and everything else goes away, too.   Yeah, I'd say it's a good investment.

[V. Kmetz]

Again, this is the point...

Golfers go to Bandon for a unique set of golf courses, and pay a premium price not only to play, but just to get there. ..   Bandon doesn't succeed because it's walking only; it succeeds because it has golf courses that rank with the very elite courses in the world.

Amen... this is it, all of it and should end the speculation offered by the thread.


Golf carts are arguably the most important invention contributing to the fact that there is as much golf to talk about as there is... it probably only follows:


1. Range balls, 2. Fountain Soda and 3. Beer


as a profit center for 97% of the public courses available.


cheers   vk

[V_Halyard]

Great thread Jeff and think Matthew makes a good point. We (golfers) go to Bandon and Sand Valley to play golf on a special course, which ties the question directly to the mission of this GCA community, a celebration of golf architecture. I have no data nor insight but would also ask the more learned like Tom, Jeff M., Jeff B., Mike Young, Ryan Farrow, Adam Lawrence et al. where real estate/housing play falls in this discussion?  It certainly colors the finances and design of courses. I’m almost afraid to type this next phrase but here goes,... in a place like The Villages, carts seemingly come with the mailboxes. People use them to go to the store while accessing the 95,000 holes of golf and geolocate Tinder dates... which is fine. Golf is just one of the 100 amenities along with square dancing, fencing and curling etc. In that case, golf is nice but not the driving force, so the cart is a given. In contrast to that, some questions that align with Jason's (“Bethpage, Chambers, and places of their ilk”):

1: Does walking-only enhance a development? Does it now add an air of experiential authenticity? Does it make it more or less attractive to investors/developers?

2: Could the Chambers Bay model be replicated? It would be interesting to see how a Harding Park in SF or Rancho Park in LA would survive as a walking only course, or could they support some walking only days? Their tee sheets are booked Dawn to Twilight, a lot of people walk/carry/push and theoretically, the population base could fill a walking only day now and then.

3: Could a Lawsonia Links thrive as a walking only?  It gets it's due in the same conversation as the rest of the Wisconsin Walking only Rota.

Bonus Question: Is there a formula we laypeople don't know of, one that would support an excellently architected (as defined by GCA of Course) standalone walking only course in this golf economy or do you need to be a multi-course resort or complex? I would defer to the more knowledgable listed above.

Carts can be a bit of an opioid to a golf operation P&L. I understand they allow some courses to exist financially and enable more people to play so I won't begrudge those courses that depend on them. Walking is my preference if given the choice and it effects the courses I choose to travel to play with my time rationed for golf. Courses where carts are required get a last look on the itinerary. (Did I just type The Villages on GCA?)

[Tom_Doak]

Streamsong promotes a walking culture yet they have an unrestricted cart policy between June 1st and September 30th because of the heat and otherwise who is going to play?

Tim:  What you say is true but they got there backwards of what you're thinking.


Streamsong started out thinking they would use carts Year-round, and we thought we could get away without many cart paths because the grass never goes dormant there.  However, the first winter, the course was taking a beating from cart traffic and it wasn't warm enough for the grass to actively grow and recover.


They started talking about cart paths, but Bill Coore and I both encouraged them to try making it walking only in the high season, and it seems to have worked.

[James Brown]

Have we ever done a poll of GCAers on how much hey walk vs. ride?


I play 100 rounds a year and walk 80.  Basically, I only ride when traveling in the US away from home.  A lot of days, I am the only walker in the DC area when I play. 

[Sean_A]

I don't think there is any question your average North American public course relies on carts to get by.  I will always maintain that if privates rely on carts they are doing something wrong.

A lot of these walking only courses which are in 12 month playing climates don't have grass which can support unlimited cart usage.  If f&f is a goal worth achieving then carts have to be limited.  I don't really care if folks take carts or if carts are available so long as

1. The course isn't threatened in any way and achieving the best conditioning of f&f isn't threatened. 

2. Cart paths are limited to essential areas and never around greens.

3. Care is taken to hide paths. 

4. The carts are quiet.

Its simple for me, if carts and/or paths cause more grief than it is worth to play the course I don't go back, but its clear carts offer access to the game for all sorts of reasons.  Like most things, there are pros and cons....live and let live.

Ciao

[Wayne_Kozun]

Have we ever done a poll of GCAers on how much hey walk vs. ride?

My percentages would be similar to you except I play about 50 rounds per year.  The only riding ones are on a winter golf trip to Florida, in tournaments at my club and tournaments at other clubs where everyone is on carts - this is typical of Member-Guest tournaments in the Toronto area.

[A.G._Crockett]

Have we ever done a poll of GCAers on how much hey walk vs. ride?


I play 100 rounds a year and walk 80.  Basically, I only ride when traveling in the US away from home.  A lot of days, I am the only walker in the DC area when I play.

I walk the vast majority of the rounds that I play; exclude rounds where I am required to ride and it's near 100%.  Always has been, and will be as long as I can keep it up.  I don't understand why more people don't walk when they play, given what we know about the health benefits of walking, the peaceful and pleasant surroundings on a golf course, and so on. 

Which, of course, isn't the point.  The question has to do with the financial efficacy of "walking only" facilities in the USA; that's not about how many people walk, or how often they walk.  The question has more to do with how many people do NOT walk, and simply will not come to a facility on any sort of regular basis if they can't ride.
Looking at outliers like Bandon or Streamsong or Bethpage Black isn't instructive at all, in the same way that looking at the Road Hole at TOC isn't instructive about how to build a par 4.  The financial success of an "average" golf course in the US depends, among other things, on getting people to come to your golf course more or less regularly, and a LOT of people simply are NOT going to pay money to walk six miles, even if the course is designed to be easily walked and the weather is pleasant.  To argue otherwise is foolishness.

[Edward Glidewell]

I almost never walk.


Not because I dislike it, but because I live in Georgia and a lot of my rounds are in conditions that would make walking very difficult. That's exacerbated by the fact that a lot of the courses I play were not designed with walking in mind, and would be almost a death march to walk in the summer. Some of the courses don't even allow walking. Additionally, the people I play with here generally aren't interested in walking, so walking by myself would eliminate some of the social aspect.


I do sometimes walk in the spring and fall at my father's club when I visit my parents, but that's one of the only times it's even a real option.

[Steve Kline]

I think the issue with that line of thought is the assumption that these places are able to charge a premium because they are walking only. I don't think that's the case at all -- I think they are able to function as walking only courses with high prices because they are so good (or in high esteem because of hosting majors).


To be fair, we can't know until someone tries it -- but I think if a random, solid public course decided to go walking only and charge a premium rate without anything else to attract golfers, it would go bankrupt quickly.

Again, this is the point.

Golfers go to Bandon for a unique set of golf courses, and pay a premium price not only to play, but just to get there.  I'll need to see some convincing proof before I believe that Bandon couldn't sell more greens fees if there was a fleet of carts on hand, as opposed to walking only.
But of course the catch is that Bandon isn't in the mass market; they aren't competing with eight or ten other courses for the average daily fee golfer.  Bandon is competing with a VERY select group of destinations, and a cart fee would be a drop in the bucket for what golfers pay to play there.  And let's face it; if Mike Keiser wasn't a bazillionaire and his intent was to make as much profit as possible, the business model followed at Bandon might be more similar to Myrtle Beach than to Streamsong.  Bandon doesn't succeed because it's walking only; it succeeds because it has golf courses that rank with the very elite courses in the world.

I don't think Pinehurst has been mentioned yet in this thread, which is instructive.  Golf crazy, destination-quality courses designed for walking, caddies available, and (wait for it...) golf carts available.  How much business do you think Pinehurst would lose if it was a walking only resort, given that it's 91 degrees with a heat index of 98 today, and it's been that way in NC for the last couple of months with another month to go?

As someone whose parents were longtime members at Pinehurst and has played a lot of golf there, I agree with you A.G. The courses are nearly as good as Bandon (I haven't Streamsong, Sand Valley, etc.) In fact, only one course is in the class of Bandon and that is #2. So, Pinehurst doesn't have the same kind of draw, demand, or clientele as Bandon imo.