Hello all,

My first tour was down the Pacific Coast Highway. Now, it's a pretty well traveled route for cycle touring, and they've accommodated bikers and hikes alike with hiker/biker sites. Quite reasonably priced, too, particularly in California and Oregon. Often close to washrooms because it's less desired for most, but often good for bikers who don't want to leave their tourer alone for too long.

What I'm discovering is that outside of the Pacific Coast corridor, there aren't as many campgrounds with Hike/Bike sites. Since it's the 150th anniversary of Parks Canada, I'm thinking of pushing for more bike tourism by implementing more hiker biker sites in Canadian Parks. That said, maybe there isn't the demand? If they build it, will they come? (And I think build is overstating it. More like designate an existing area and reserve only for bikers and come to a price for those tourers)

Anyhoo, here are my questions...

1) If you had to choose between having hiker/biker sites available, and no hiker biker sites, would you prefer to have them, prefer not to have them, or makes no difference? Why?

2) If you have a preference for availability of hiker/biker sites, would knowledge of knowing they are available be a motivating factor in choosing to tour to the region? Why?

3) If a network of hiker/biker sites existed so that a route to tour the network was available, would you want to know about it so you could consider traveling it? Explain.

4) If campsites (usually that accommodate families and cars) are the only sites available, would you use one, if it was $20 per night, and way more space than you need, or find another option? At what price point would you consider/not consider a campsite?

5) If you could have hiker/biker sites in any region, in 50km (30 mile) intervals from each other, which area would you choose, in Canada, or elsewhere?

6) What routes aside from the PCH have you taken where hiker/biker site were available?

7) What routes do you feel will never need hiker/biker sites because camping is as easy to find, safe, and legal as you can get?

Cheers!

Certainly prefer to have them (doesn't mean that I would always use them)

no doubt

hike/bike site availability has been a determining factor in planning the PCH. Would be similar, I presume, elsewhere

our strategy is to camp unless weather conditions are unfavourable (ex: several rainy days in a row)

difficult to tell

PCH only so far. Unaware of other places. Would use is ACA's transAmerica had them. Would be a factor in considering a TransCanada.[/QUOTE]

Hike/bike is always a plus.

There are hiker/biker sites in the Canadian Rockies. Rowan and I have stayed in one or two along the Icefield Parkway.

1. It makes no difference. I prefer to stay in the nicest possible site available in a campground. If that's a hiker/biker site, great. If not, that's good too. The only benefit of hiker/biker sites is the food storage facilities (lockers etc.) in case of bears.

2. No. Because it makes no difference.

3. The availability of hiker/biker sites wouldn't make a particular route more appealing. The appeal lies in what there is to see and do along the way.

4. Absolutely we would use one. And we have ... frequently. In fact, many times we'll even select the powered sites over the unpowered tent sites. We've paid up to about $30/night for a site.

5. For your purposes, your best bet would be to attempt to encourage campgrounds to set them up in and around the Canadian Rockies because the food storage facilities (lockers etc.) are handy. But some campgrounds already have them, as I mentioned.

6. The Canadian Rockies. The Rhine Route in Germany.

7. The Canadian Rockies. Much of Europe. Pretty much all of Australia. The parts of Japan we've visited.

1-3) It all depends on the "Turn Away Rules."

If the public agency in charge of the area can turn me away due to a full site I will look at alternate areas. Oregon and Nevada state parks are no turn away. Washington can turn you away. If I show up after 12 hours on the road fighting wind, sun and cars I don't want to be at the mercy of the gatekeeper. +1State Park outside Tuscon for letting me free camp.


4) For a publicly funded site I expect more than a poo place and cold water at $20 for a single person. Non- public stites I pay what is charged without issue though 1/3 of the time the folks running the place will discount a single bicycle.

7) Scotland

I guess it depends on the size of the group biking. I was with some folks for a short while and we decided to share a site together, and it came out less than the $5/person of the hiker/biker site, and just as big. Some on the PCH were incredibly nice, and others weren't great, but none were really bad. At least not for me.

For me, having hiker biker sites makes a difference in terms of cost. Seems strange that I would pay as much for an entire site than a family with a car and 5 other people. In Canada it's about $20US for the site, which is still alright, and I guess that's what I'm trying to gauge. Paying less I would imagine would attract more people, but I suppose those averse to paying even $20 might have the same opinion for $5 and avoid that as well.

I would definitely plan more camping at provincial / national / other official parks in BC if there were hiker biker spots. As it is the price is too much for an average solo bike tourer to stay at regularly.

Ahhh yes... I guess I took it for granted that there would be no turn-aways. I remember arriving at a very popular spot, and they didn't even have hiker biker sites, but, even though they were full, they gave me and two other bikers a small site which was too small for a car and tent, sort of. I think it was unofficially designated a hiker/biker site, even though I think we could only manage a very small tent on top of what we had.

I think most park rangers would have trouble turning away bikers after 100km of riding. Particularly if weather wasn't the best. It's not impossible to plan ahead, but it's nice to know, as a biker, you can just show up and have a spot to pitch your tent. Being turned away in a car would be inconvenient, but solutions are more readily available than if you were biking.

That's what I'm finding in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. although the former, it's remote enough you can probably just pitch your tent wherever. But in proper parks, you have to take a whole site. I don't mind so much, but a few things. It's hard to plan exactly where you'll be in advance, so you risk not getting a site, and even if you did get a site, I would feel bad that a whole family would have to make other plans, or deprive other campers with a greater need of all that space, which is essentially wasted on a single bike tourer. I think in those cases, I'd just see if I could enter the camp areas, and ask a large site if I could grab a small spot on their site. but I'd way prefer to pay my way for a reasonably priced Hiker/Biker site.

I'm all for them, and I've never seen them in the provincial parks I've car camped in. As a reference to high prices, there is a Quebec provincial park near Montreal, in oka, and if you arrive in car or on a bike, a campsite ends up being nearly $40, which to me is just over the top. I've contemplated riding out there with a friend and camping for the night, but 40 bucks to put up my tent and use a bathroom, that's pretty steep and frankly has meant I've never camped there.
Clearly biking campers are going to be very far and few between, but I am surprised that our parks haven't set up very basic areas for bikers, the cost outlay would be minimum and it certainly would promote self propelled travel and enjoyment of parks and surrounding areas.

There's two of us travelling together ... and we like having the space, if we can get it. We don't want to be squished in right next to someone else. This is one of the reasons why we will even pay extra to get a larger powered site.


Anyway, if you have a look through Banff National Park's list of designated campgrounds, you'll see that several of them say this:

"There are designated loops with food lockers for walk-in campers."

Those are usually "hiker/biker" sites.

And the fees aren't bad, ranging from $15.70 to $27.40.

Parks Canada - Banff National Park - Camping

I guess part of why I'm asking this is, are biking campers far and few between because there are no sites, or are there no sites because bikers are far and few between. I'd like to think it's the former. Surely, if Canada wanted to advertise its bike tourism, they could figure out spots to have places for bike camping, and make it affordable/worthwhile. That's why I asked if it's a "build it and they will come".

It's definitely reasonable, and on par with Washington, where you had to pay $12US per site, as I don't believe they had hiker/biker sites. I got lucky with sharing with other bikers, and we weren't turned away at a full site, and given a small site to use. I'll definitely look into the term "walk-in camper" and see where they are. At the very least, it would be nice to be able to search which parks have these types of sites. I haven't had any luck being able to search this. And with the 150 anniversary, it would be nice if Canadian Parks embraced bike touring. Certainly very good for the environment (minus the jet fuel of flying to the province of choice, eheheh).

"Walk-in" or "Hike-in" sites are typically not the same as a "Hiker/Biker" site.

• Walk-in/Hike-In sites mean that there is no car parking at the site, and people have to "walk-in" from the parking lot to the campsite. These sites are generally more "rustic" than a typical drive-in spot, and are usually priced cheaper. While a cyclist can use them, they are for anyone who arrives, whether by car, foot, or bike (or canoe/kayak if the park is near a waterway). For example, there's a campground near me that has a hike-in site about a half-kilometre from the parking lot. The park provides wheelbarrows at the parking lot for folks to cart their gear in.
• Hiker/Biker means that the campsite(s) are specifically designated for people travelling under their own power, whether on a thru-hike or bicycle tour. (Areas near a waterway may also have a specific kayak/canoe in site(s).) No one travelling by a motor vehicle can use them, and the park has to keep them only for cyclists or hikers, even if every single other spot in the park is full. And the price is usually much cheaper than a regular spot. Here in Oregon, it's $5 per person. In Washington State, it's typically $12-14 per site. I know that Glacier National Park in Montana has $5/person hiker/biker sites.

Hiker/biker sites can run the gamut from simply a grassy area that a group can set up in, to specific and separated sites for each person/party. Sometimes they are tucked away in an area of the park that wouldn't be idea for car camping or something else, or sometimes they are much more luxurious. For example, my favorite hiker/biker site in the world (as of this moment) is at Cape Lookout at the Oregon Coast. It's literally 100m from the beach, closer than much of the car camping spots! And it resembles an Ewok village. Here are some pics from it:

Washington state does have hiker/biker sites. They are usually $12 a site, and mostly on the coast. Though there are some in other more random places. I stayed at Lewis and Clark State Park on a tour once. It's between Chehalis and Kelso along the I-5 corridor. And they had a hiker-biker spot.

It's a good question, and I don't know. I would like to think that cheaper hiker biker sites should encourage more to cycle tour. I suspect it's just not a priority to even set up areas, let alone make it easier to research for them.
I'll ask at velo Quebec sometime about this.

The thing is, for many of us accommodation is lower on the list of our concerns. We'll stay wherever for the night. Much higher on the list are things like ... are there interesting things to see along the way and how are the roads for cycling.

So while a hiker/biker site might be kind of a neat feature at a campground, it's not going to be a make-or-break factor in choosing a route.

I think it's a bit of a "chicken and the egg" type of thing. While having a hiker/biker site may encourage bike touring in a specific area, it's hard to convince park officials that there's a need for them if there's not already demand. The big reason why there are so many hiker/biker sites along the Pacific Coast in Washington, Oregon, and California is because there are so many bike tourers there. Even without the hiker/biker sites, there will be still bike tourists. So accommodating a "for sure" group of people like bike tourists makes more sense. I can see putting a hiker/biker site in some random park, where no touring cyclist may ever show up (or rarely show up) may discourage the people in charge from putting hiker/biker sites in other parks.

I also am more likely to decide on a touring area on scenery, things to do, and road conditions. But if there was a scenario where all other things were equal, like I had the choice between two destinations that had equally good scenery and things to do, plus road conditions were good for both places, but one had hiker-biker facilities and the other didn't, I'd probably go for the one with hiker/biker sites. If anything, it's really nice to not have to stress over accommodations. It's nice to know that one would always have a spot to camp, especially when it's going to be cheaper than a regular campsite.

The no turn-away policy is the key element of hike/bike sites for me. In California the official policy says that even parks with hike/bike sites can turn away cyclists and hikers if they are full, but in practice it isn't done and the rangers will find some space, such as a picnic area, for the extra cyclists to use with the condition that they take down their tents fairly early in the morning. My experience at other parks has been mixed - while I've always found a place to camp the ranger attitude has varied from friendly to quite negative. E.g. once I was offered a site in a loop that was nominally closed for maintenance but another time I was just given directions to another park about 40 miles away (I ended up finding another camper who was willing to share their site and the cost). California State Park camping areas tend to fill up very early - frequently already a month or more in advance with people making reservations as soon as they become available. So having some no-reservation/no turn away sites is reassuring when planning a cycling trip where sticking to a day-by-day itinerary is difficult due to unforeseen weather, minor ailments, etc. OTOH, in my tour in Canada last summer (Jasper - Banff - Montana) the availability of campsites was much better.

The other big positive of the hike/bike sites is that they encourage interactions with other cyclists. Especially on popular routes like the Pacific Coast there will be other cycle tourers with whom to share experiences.

Um, well, I retired early and my budget is important. The difference between $25/nt and $5-10/nt is a consideration for me when I want to tour for awhile. It would affect my route planning. That's a difference of $500/month.

Absolutely. That's one of the biggest issues on the California coast and even the Oregon coast. Darn campsites are booked months ahead. Hiker Biker really helps. I was cycling and camping in Central Idaho last summer and there were campsites available almost everywhere, the cost was very low.. and the scenery was stunning.

I figure for most of us, this is a pretty fair statement and probably reflects the vast majority of tourers-that it would be a nice feature simply because of the lower cost of camping per night.
I can see also wanting a larger,more private campsite--especially travelling as a couple, where having more space and not necessarily seeking out the "hanging out with other cyclists" thing is a priority.
When I did the pacific coast years ago, it was fun being with other cyclists at the end of the day most of the time, so that was a real bonus.

good points.
I figure here in Canada for prov or fed parks, it is always going to make more sense to propose hiker biker sites in areas that are going to get the traffic, and or in conjunction with areas that promote bike tourism in general.
If a prov or fed park is always full in the summer, there wont be much incentive money wise to add hiker biker sites, if they are at their max of population anyway (I can understand that there is a limit to what facilities can handle, showers, bathrooms etc) so the "attract more clients" angle wont have a pull. Like I said, it might have some pull with encouraging cycle touring in general in an area, with a certain amount of economic spinoff to stores or whatever, but I guess in the big scheme of things, bike touring is never going to bring money into an area like car campers are who stay in an area for a week or more, and visit restaurants, shops, etc etc, so we have to be realistic about this aspect of promoting cheaper camping for cycle tourers.
When we used to car camp with the kids every summer at the same prov campground, this place on Lake Ontario was and is so popular that its like the places mentioned along the cali coast, booked months in advance. We used to have to book it on the internet as soon as they started their system up in the early part of the year. So places like that here in Canada probably dont have the interest to spend any money on this, as they have clients up the ying yang all the time.

When I started bike touring, it was nice to be able to fly to France and on a reasonable budget, be able to camp in municipal camping sites at fairly low costs, and combined with rarely eating in restaurants, be able to spend 3 weeks or a month travelling on a comfortable, but low budget per day.

I pushed for cheaper, smaller biker sites close to showers and a few years ago, Quebec added exactly that to nearly all their parks.

Welcome Cyclists - Sepaq

They already had sites for bikes/canoes/walkers but those are farther from services and more expensive,. The new sites are on the main campground or next to the welcome center. Note that the park's fee is extra and showers use quarters.

I almost got turned away in Lake Louise. I got the site of a reservation that never showed up. The next day, I got a "biker site", but it was just some smaller sites where they put cyclists. I suggested having some open area for cyclists. If enough people ask, maybe they'll change things. It's not like we're asking for much. Some car sites can take 10 cyclists. Walk-in sites are nice. They're more compact, more private and quieter.

Ontario wants to hear from cyclists: cycling@ontario.ca