djb

thanks Erick for that link, didnt know that.
Je vais dormir ce soir moins naiseux (I will go to sleep tonight less stupid than I already am)

escii_35

The last time I -lawyer- eyed the California policies I recall the turn away issue. However, if there was a site you could pester for a hiker rate.

Shoulder season mid week at Bigtrees SP. (West side on the road up to Ebbits pass.) It was $34 to camp in the dumping rain. Um, OK. I bugged the ranger and he randomly came up with a logical number after some consultation. $5 entrance fee + the std hiker rate for CA state parks. Works for me.

dh024

As others have suggested, in Canada the national and provincial parks already accommodate hikers and cyclists reasonably well by providing lots of walk-in sites that are non-reservable. I biked the Icefields Parkway (and further on to Banff and them home to Calgary) in 2014 at the peak of the tourist season (end of July), and we had no problem finding oodles of campsites to choose from -- the key is to avoid the big campgrounds that are aimed at RVs. And all of the walk-in sites had covered garbage containers and food lockers (or in one case, hanging poles). Also, a good friend of mine works in Banff Park, and I asked him about the turn-away policy. He was quite blunt that you should not ever be turned away as a hiker or bike if you are clear that you won't be able to make it to the next campground (staff will assume your only option is to wild-camp at this point, which is unlawful in our parks, so they will be motivated to prevent this).

I think part of the problem with establishing hiker-biker sites in Canadian parks is that they are often well-accommodated already, albeit at prices that I agree aren't really fair. Might be hard to argue that the biggest change required to accommodate us better is to lower prices. It might attract more people to bike tour through the parks, but to be honest, I think there are some pretty big attractive forces already that are much more significant.

The single change I would like to see most is to allow more tents on a site if you arrive on foot or by bicycle. One campground I stayed at last summer while biking the TransCanada trail through British Columbia actually had the rule that the fee was based on the number of "sleeping units" (one sleeping "unit" = 1 bivvy bag, 1 tent (even a 10-man tent), one tent trailer, 1 giant 5th wheel trailer, 1 45 foot motorhome, etc.) rather than the number of people sleeping inside, although an exception was made for motorhomes if they also wanted to set up a tent, which was free! So two cyclists arriving by bike pay two campsite fees to pitch two tiny tents on one walk-in site, whereas a motorhome and 10-man tent pay half the price. Makes no sense.

gauvins

I am not familiar with the history of hiker/biker dedicated camping sites, but it has the smell of a public policy initiative (i.e. provide an incentive to exercise) rather than a way to promote tourism (or to keep the ranger busy). The obesity crisis is real, and costly, and any tool that may be used to get people to burn calories and get fit is worth considering.

Back to the OP -- it might make sense to suggest that Canada Parks take some inspiration from the NPS. If I am not mistaken, the more visible initiative is the Canada Trail project, which is essentially focused on getting the trail done. It WOULD make a difference for me if I knew that the trail was equipped with hike/bike sites at "reasonable" intervals.

prathmann

Yes, we ran into this 'sleeping unit' limit in quite a few campgrounds on our ride in Canada last summer. Usually the stated limit was two sleeping units and the three of us each had small solo tents. Only ended up having to pay for two sites in one campground and that was one we had reserved by phone in advance. I think the person calling was too honest when giving the number of tents. At campgrounds where we showed up without reservations we didn't hear any objections to our three small tents being technically over the stated limit.

rawklobster

I thought I stayed at Cape Lookout, but I think I stayed at Cape Meares further North. I'm definitely used to the $5/bike I enjoyed in Oregon, and reasonable fare ranging from $5-$7 in California.

Thanks for the clarification about walk-in versus hiker/biker.

rawklobster

Yes, I paid $12 for my site in Northern Washington, at Fairholme campground. But as it was my first campground on the trip, I didn't know it was pricey compared to Oregon and California. And I'm not sure it was even hiker/biker. It was just "grab a site that's available."

rawklobster

I was just told by my friend Yvonne Bambrick who wrote book about Urban Cycling that if I wanted traction in this endeavour for Canadian Parks Quebec would be a great place to start. Do contact Velo Quebec and I'll follow up as well!

rawklobster

Just to be clear, if this what you feel is a general sentiment, or for you personally? I'm trying to gauge general feelings. Not that I'll discount the opinions of others who have suggested a contrary position, but if there's a basis for your feeling based on something other than your own interest, please let me know so I'll have a more accurate picture. I do share your feeling that it's not make-or-break, but I get the impression that having them might attract new people to this style of touring, and lure those who already enjoy it. Certainly adds to the positive experience for many, I would think.

Undoubtably there are other factors that would be nice for bike touring, and the PCH has definitely made driving South from Washington to Southern California better with nicer shoulders more often than not.

rawklobster

Excellent points. I think in inventory, or survey, by parks wouldn't be expensive. Distribute a form for rangers to fill out each season with an emphasis on the summer, and take a toll of how many people arrive by bike and foot. Survey how many cycle tours or hike groups are available along certain routes, and areas. If there are lots of people signing up for cycle tours, good chance there is a market for hiker-biker sites along those same routes.

I think having them, even if they go unused, wouldn't discourage anyone if they're as simple as adding a stake in the ground in a part of the park that isn't accessible by car. I doubt it's resource or monetarily taxing. Some attention to the payment system, I suppose, but that could probably be streamlined across each park inventory/payment system. Also, even if they are not used, it becomes a form of advertisement for those who don't arrive by bike, and perhaps will plant the seed of the possibilities of bike touring. Particularly those turned away by full parks, and knowing they'd have a spot of not for their vehicle. *grin*

Anyhoo, these are all great points worth addressing, so that's for bringing them to my attention. Will make any push I make more comprehensive. I expect it will be met with resistance in some cases. Fortunately, our current Environment Minister in Canada rides her bike to work. Will probably send something to her. *smile*

rawklobster

I agree on all points. I think the areas I've been thinking about and have explored (Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and PEI) are some of the most gorgeous places in the world to cycle tour, and yet, no hiker biker sites. The physical challenges of Newfoundland might not attract a lot of bikers, and for the most part, I don't think anyone will be for want of a place to camp for free, in many areas, but the actual National Parks, which are gorgeous, would be great to have hiker biker sites. And I think Newfoundland is a province that is desperate for any kind of augmentation in tourism. The cost/benefit, even if it's small, would still be positive. And as large as the province is, I think it could easily be a hiking mecca.

Machka 

Have you read the accounts on Crazy Guy on a Bike? https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/

You might get an idea of the type of touring various people do and what is important to them.


I will also add that in places like Scotland (as someone mentioned above), a cyclists or hiker can camp just about anywhere legally. There's a law to that regard. So, hiker/biker-specific sites would be rather pointless there, especially if cost is the only advantage.

Here in Australia, there are a lot of free camping options. If price is really the only appeal to a hiker/biker site, a person could camp in a free site half the time and camp in pay campgrounds the other half of the time.

rawklobster

The cost part is definitely a factor, but not the whole thing. You make some excellent points. I guess in these cases, the car wins over bikers. Bikers are certainly making strides in urban centres with bike lanes, but I suppose getting adequate infrastructure and accommodation in rural areas will be a hard fight. I appreciate all your points. They certainly highlight the mindset we're up against if pushing for more accommodation and facilities to tour in this style.

I'm glad your experience in France was so great! I have had trouble finding information about hiker/biker sites there, or just regular camp areas if they are that cheap, and plan on touring through there, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Serbia. I think cycle tourism there is considerable, so I'm not surprised you found it affordable. I dream of that in Canada, but we certainly don't have the density of cycle tourists here. Yet. *smile*

rawklobster

I mentioned Yvonne Bambrick in a previous reply, and she mentioned this group as well. I suppose hitting other provincial biking advocacy groups would be beneficial as well. That's amazing about Quebec! Perhaps I should consider touring there instead of Nova Scotia and PEI! Make a lot more sense! If Ontario adds them too, it will be a no-brainer for me. I'll switch just like that. The progressive provinces will get my touring!

djb

I figure the tact that is best to approach this with is that a hiker biker camp site area can be very rustic, ie inexpensive to "setup" or delineate, doesnt have to be close to bathrooms even (well, not for bikers anyway) and the only real actual cost will be a few more shower and bathroom usages (this will factor in regular cleaning and water heating costs, but realistically pennies more for a given park with already 100s of clients) and a certain amount of visiting and surveillance by park employees to keep the area clean of litter (again, part of thier already existing route by the cleaner upper guys in a pickup).

upside as the obvious stated-encourages cycling activity, encourages tourism in a given area (with a small added monetary benefit to stores, restaurants etc)

as Erick L showed, there are existing biker sites that I was not aware of, so it does exist. Here in Quebec there very much is a culture of biking that is somewhat widespread, and growing. This fact is encouraging in that for very little outlay of cash, supporting and encouraging bike tourism can be continued, and perhaps fit in with a general political attitude of promoting healthy living--I'm thinking of somewhere like Holland or Germany with biking infrastructure as large as it is (diff situation climate wise, car centric attitude wise, etc) but still a good start--but importantly, with little money outlay-on this point its important to be realistic about this.

rawklobster

Moi aussi!!! Merci Erick!

rawklobster

Yeah... I'm pretty sure rangers get it. The costs are designed for sites used by cars. Just my opinion, but I think bikers deserve some kind of reward for biking, but don't tell them about all the other benefits we enjoy or they might charge us *more*!!! *smile*

Machka 

We've toured in the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Switzerland.

We've done a combination of B&Bs (nice and not terribly expensive), hotels (IBIS is a decent, inexpensive option), caravan park cabins (we like these ... these are also a popular choice for us in Australia), and camping.

There are lots of campgrounds and I don't recall thinking the camping was expensive. Most places were just regular camp areas but probably one of the worst was a hiker/biker site in Germany. It was one of the factors that encouraged us to try to get regular camp sites if we could. Of course, that's not always possible. We couldn't get a regular site at that particular campground ... we were "forced" into the hiker/biker area because it was the only option available. That's what comes of touring Germany in August!!

The campgrounds vary. Some consist of areas where a car or caravan might drive into (like what you might find in many Canadian campgrounds ... I am Canadian, and have camped in Canada ).

Probably more frequently, we found that they had an area of "permanent" campers - caravans that are permanently set up and the owners come out on weekends or whatever. Plus a smaller area where someone could drive and set up a caravan. Plus a field or little piece of grassy land for tents. And that's where we usually ended up. Rarely did they have picnic tables, but they might have a camp kitchen. (Australian campgrounds don't have picnic tables either, but they do have camp kitchens). And in some, you were expected to bring your own toilet paper.


However, of those, Switzerland is generally more expensive. We did find one place that wasn't too badly priced ... kind of a hostel out in the middle of nowhere ... and ended up staying there 10 days.

djb

another point, here in Canada, the reality is that provincial and federal parks are never going to be within a days biking distance of each other, or rarely to be realistic. The pacific coast route has so many campgrounds within a days ride of each other, it certainly encourages bike touring.
As machka pointed out, hiker biker sites arent the key to deciding where to go, its nice to have them, but for me persoanlly its just nice to have access to a shower at the end of the day, so I'll take what campground there is.

but going back to the distance thing, in general the distances in many areas are a strike against bike touring for a lot of people, or at least logistically it makes things a bit harder if you want a campground every night--of course it depends where.

what Im getting at is that its harder to do the "promoting bike tourism" thing politically (money) if distances are really far apart and the roads are not particularly nice to ride on (narrow shoulders, lots of traffic etc) so it makes sense that the area to promote this idea must fit in with a better area for these factors, which will make the promoting biking stuff more realistic and successful overall (and get a better response vis-a-vis the idea).

rawklobster

These experiences and information are helpful. Perhaps more awareness is needed, as I got a response from a park in Newfoundland that didn't seem to understand my inquiry. She asked if I means bicycle or motorcycle. Guess the "hiker" part wasn't enough of a hint, but I'll take responsibility for not being clear. Once I made it clear, though, I got no response.

Part of the response, which didn't leave me with an easy feeling, with the suggestion of taking a chance...

" Normally I would suggest reserving a site if you knew when you would be in the area but there you can also show up and take a chance on getting a site."

There was no mention of walk-in sites, but now I know to look up, research or ask about those.

The calculations part, and discrepancy of cost is one I hope can be addressed, if there isn't really an issue with bikers finding a spot. It seems those rules and calculations were made without bikers in mind.

rawklobster

YES!!! That's what my question about about 50km intervals was getting at. Particularly trails, although I think advocacy with regards to exercise and cycle touring is probably an easier sell for pavement and not-so-remote touring. But who knows?

I definitely think attracting people to bike touring can be in many forms. Exercise and combatting obesity, as you suggest, raising kids to be more independent and confident, having a smaller carbon footprint (already hearing messaging around limiting air travel to once per year rather than multiple times per year for the sake of the environment) and my main points (the ones I'm personally most connected to), budget and peace of mind.

I'm in the same boat... I'd probably change my tires and consider it, even though I prefer pavement to trails, if they had regular interval stop areas. I would like to see the same thing for those who want to ride the Green Belt in Southern Ontario. I'm trying to figure out where to put them, and make a proposal.

rawklobster

There was a two car per site limit in Algonquin one year, and we got by with 3, but we were careful to put them on extreme corners of our large site, so it didn't look unsightly. Usually these limits are for reasons of unsightly crowdedness. Rangers should know this and be more lax. But I guess it's too much trouble to start asking how big the tents are. *smile*

rawklobster

Thanks for this! Mind if I prod about the circumstances of the German hiker/biker site? Was it a crowd issue?

As for toilet paper, I usually carry baby wipes, but it is interesting about the bring-your-own. I wonder if it was a clean-up or irresponsible use issue. *smile*

rawklobster

I did check out one for Newfoundland. And so, I'm not too worried about finding a place to free-camp in many places, but as I mentioned in a previous reply, once you get to the parks, there are some issues. I'd rather to things legitimately, and so I'd pay/do whatever was expected, even if I felt it was unfortunate to not have more accommodation for the fact I'm cycling. That's why I'm reluctant in certain situations. I guess it is, and isn't a money thing for me. *scratches head* I'd just rather not have any negative thoughts, but I suppose in touring, you take the bad with the good. *smile*

Machka 

Germany goes into celebration mode in August ... and that can get rather loud and drunken.

As for the toilet paper ... it's kind of hit and miss whether there will be some available in campgrounds, public toilets, etc. Most of the time you'll be in luck, but we always carried a roll with us. You may also come across standing/squatting toilets. It's just a European thing.