Florida State Parks - Really?

[booster]

Originally Posted by @Michael

Minnesota State Parks did this up until a few years ago. The rangers that I talked to said that for popular campgrounds it didn't work. Families were showing up at 7pm on Friday not knowing if they had a site, getting turned away and having to either drive another hour to the next park or head back home.

Their solution, which I support, is to require all sites to be reserved but to accept reservations on the same day. That allows last-minute campers to secure a site prior to leaving home and without having to drive from park to park looking for an open site. It does however, make it unlikely that one will find a site at a popular campground at the last minute.

In theory - as suggested in this and other threads, an alternative would be to hold back a small number of sites from being reserved until a week (or a day) before, allowing last-minute campers a shot at a site. If too many are held back though, sites will go empty.

They have been tweaking it a bit lately, and I haven't checked lately, but the big issue I think still is no shows and no way to release the sites in time for others to use just like many other places.



The big problem in the North Shore parks is that they are 100% full a long time before the arrival days so no same day to find unless there is a cancellation. No cancellation no shows leave the site empty.



The Wyoming policy does address this for days after the first day, but not for the first day.



Perhaps adding a confirmation call/text/whatever by around noon of the day of arrival could be put on top of the Wyoming way, but only for one day reservations.

[Davydd]

I like Arizona state parks. If full they let us stay overnight in the parking lot just like Walmart. We have done that a couple of times. It works for Class Bs and you can still use the park for other than camping.

[Ken Blow]

I guess it’s just the luck of the draw. While in Florida in October with a Class B - I called two different State Parks after 3pm and was able to secure a spot both times. I had seen the 1pm cutoff on the website, so just tried my luck at calling.

Maybe being a shorter rig, there is always more options over a 45 footer. I don’t know if “Size Matters” in the case or not. Plan on going to FLA again in April, so I will keep this in mind.

[MsNomer]

Don't ignore small-town and county parks.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by Snowy

So if i were king . . .

Having read your considered comments, we hereby appoint you King!

[Winston]

Originally Posted by @Michael

Families were showing up at 7pm on Friday not knowing if they had a site, getting turned away and having to either drive another hour to the next park or head back home.

Michael, we think you're addressing the issue of campground capacity. Most of us understand that, generally, there isn't enough campground capacity. Making a campground 100% reservation doesn't change that.

Those of us who travel by FCFS (First Come, First Served) know that arriving at 7pm Friday is an absolute formula for disappointment. FCFS campers know they must arrive early Friday or, better yet, on Thursday. No guaranty, even so, but we have a chance. With Minnesota's 100% reservation campgrounds, there is no time we can arrive and have a shot at a campsite, we're locked out.

But your hypothetical "family" has an alternative. Yes, they have to plan well in advance and reserve, but they have a means by which they can secure a site. Why not give the FCFS camper a chance as well?

[@Michael]

Originally Posted by Winston

With Minnesota's 100% reservation campgrounds, there is no time we can arrive and have a shot at a campsite, we're locked out.

The 100% reservation in MN and other states is effectively the same as FCFS, except without a hold-back of sites specifically for FCFS. If a site is available, you drive in, claim the site and pay. The only difference is whether or not you pay at a Ranger Station when you arrive or on your smartphone an hour before (or after) you get there.

The advantage to 100% Reservation is that if a site is available, I can guarantee myself a site as soon as I decide to visit a particular park - typically the morning of. With non-reserved, walk-up FCFS, I roll the dice and drive to the campground before knowing if I have a site and drive away if I don't.

Originally Posted by Winston

Why not give the FCFS camper a chance as well?

The related question is whether or not a fraction of sites should be held back for last-minute campers - either FCFS walk-ups or same-day online reservations.

With site availability a constrained resource, access must be prioritized using some mechanism. If prioritization is necessary, I see no reason that a park should deprioritize people who plan ahead in favor of those (like me) who do not.

It's coming up on a holiday weekend. Should airlines be required to hold empty seats just in case a last-minute passenger walks up to the counter and expects a seat?

[booster]

Originally Posted by @Michael

The 100% reservation in MN and other states is effectively the same as FCFS, except without a hold-back of sites specifically for FCFS. If a site is available, you drive in, claim the site and pay. The only difference is whether or not you pay at a Ranger Station when you arrive or on your smartphone an hour before (or after) you get there.

The advantage to 100% Reservation is that if a site is available, I can guarantee myself a site as soon as I decide to visit a particular park - typically the morning of. With non-reserved, walk-up FCFS, I roll the dice and drive to the campground before knowing if I have a site and drive away if I don't.



The related question is whether or not a fraction of sites should be held back for last-minute campers - either FCFS walk-ups or same-day online reservations.

With site availability a constrained resource, access must be prioritized using some mechanism. If prioritization is necessary, I see no reason that a park should deprioritize people who plan ahead in favor of those (like me) who do not.

It's coming up on a holiday weekend. Should airlines be required to hold empty seats just in case a last-minute passenger walks up to the counter and expects a seat?

I would certainly say that some sites should be held back and released later, probably best in stages until the use date time.


I base that on the people I have talked to and worked with over the years.


You would be amazed at how many people aren't allowed to schedule vacation time off very far ahead of time. For many it is in days or a few weeks tops. There is zero chance of them getting a site on the north shore unless the guess at when they will be able to get time off and it works out. Otherwise the lose some cash to the cancellations. Double the hassle if you have two such workers in the family who aren't allowed to schedule ahead.


Even professional staff can run in to that sometimes in other ways. Several places I worked let vacation time be scheduled for the full year on January one, but they did it by seniority so the non senior people never got any of the most desirable days off.



State Parks are exactly that, State Parks aka the peoples parks, yet we are effectively locking out a large segment of those people with these kinds of rules. That seems grossly unfair to me.


Airlines are private businesses so they get to set whatever rules they want, within the law.

[Snowy]

Originally Posted by @Michael

It's coming up on a holiday weekend. Should airlines be required to hold empty seats just in case a last-minute passenger walks up to the counter and expects a seat?

When i first read this i thought that it was a good argument for reducing or maybe even eliminating FCFS-designated sites. But there are two problems. First, airlines are private businesses and they have every right to design a system that maximizes revenue. I believe the same about private campgrounds. Public campgrounds are here to serve the public, and that means all the public, including FCFSers. The second problem with this analogy is that there aren't people cruising around popping into airports wanting a seat to a specific destination. If there were, maybe the airlines would find that they can maximize revenue by holding some seats for FCFSers.

This is why i think a period of experimentation should be set aside to determine the true demand from FCFSers, and then some reasonable balance be struck between the reservers and the FCFSers in terms of allocating this scarce resource. Although some entities have tried some policies along these lines, i do not believe that anyone has gone through enough experimentation to determine how to best optimize for maximum occupancy while providing some access to each style of travel for the majority of parks. NB: The current systems that favor reservers are not leading to maximum occupancy, and the FCFS-style of travel is something some of the public wants.

[dr_innovation]

Originally Posted by Snowy

... Public campgrounds are here to serve the public, and that means all the public, including FCFSers. The second problem with this analogy is that there aren't people cruising around popping into airports wanting a seat to a specific destination. ..
.

Maximizing public benefit for the state residents does not require serving FCFS. It means maximizing utilization and average customer satisfaction, which good reservation systems do. Florida is being stupid if they don't take on-site reservations for non-booked campsites just because of a 1 pm limit. Computers don't sleep and don't care about time.

In terms of efficient use of public resources, if a camper booked a site, paid for it, and did not show, that is not the reservation system's fault and not an inefficient use of the resources. in Colorado, the system will prevent the same user from booking the same night in different camps (hoarding), but they don't cancel even if you don't show up on the first day. Though I would be good with a system that required a check-in it would require the park actually check what spots were open, which is a lot of labor that would generally be wasted time.

We do a lot of same-day booking in CO, but it's way better for me to be online checking which places have sites and booking them while on the road. If we had to show up and only then learn FCFS sites were missing it would be a waste of my time and maybe the other parks' resources (if we ended up in a public parking lot because we missed at one park). I don't think we even consider state parks that don't take reservations. Overall satisfaction surveys shows residents were much happier with the revised reservation system. Only problem we've has is that a much larger fraction of sites were "closed" and not included in the reservation system, with state auditors concerned that it was locals doing it for family/friend/profit -- i.e. defrauding the system. (e.g. see https://www.durangoherald.com/articl...m-audit-finds/) Abuse is likely an issue that would occur with FCFS-reserved subset of sites where the state could not even track them.

Oh and lots of business folks do try to fly the same day and often pay a very high price for that privilege -- my last same-day booking cost me 350$ more than the normal price when I booked at 2pm. They also pay people for over-booking when the plane is oversold. On that same flight where I paid $350 extra as it approached its 6pm boarding, they were offering $900 to anyone willing to give up their seat because the flight was oversold. That might be an interesting feature to add to the reservations system -- people willing to sell the spot to same-day people wanting instant reservations -- and willing to pay for it.

[Snowy]

Originally Posted by dr_innovation

Maximizing public benefit for the state residents does not require serving FCFS. It means maximizing utilization and average customer satisfaction, which good reservation systems do. Florida is being stupid if they don't take on-site reservations for non-booked campsites just because of a 1 pm limit. Computers don't sleep and don't care about time.

In terms of efficient use of public resources, if a camper booked a site, paid for it, and did not show, that is not the reservation system's fault and not an inefficient use of the resources. in Colorado, the system will prevent the same user from booking the same night in different camps (hoarding), but they don't cancel even if you don't show up on the first day. Though I would be good with a system that required a check-in it would require the park actually check what spots were open, which is a lot of labor that would generally be wasted time.

We do a lot of same-day booking in CO, but it's way better for me to be online checking which places have sites and booking them while on the road. If we had to show up and only then learn FCFS sites were missing it would be a waste of my time and maybe the other parks' resources (if we ended up in a public parking lot because we missed at one park). I don't think we even consider state parks that don't take reservations. Overall satisfaction surveys shows residents were much happier with the revised reservation system. Only problem we've has is that a much larger fraction of sites were "closed" and not included in the reservation system, with state auditors concerned that it was locals doing it for family/friend/profit -- i.e. defrauding the system. (e.g. see https://www.durangoherald.com/articl...m-audit-finds/) Abuse is likely an issue that would occur with FCFS-reserved subset of sites where the state could not even track them.

Oh and lots of business folks do try to fly the same day and often pay a very high price for that privilege -- my last same-day booking cost me 350$ more than the normal price when I booked at 2pm. They also pay people for over-booking when the plane is oversold. On that same flight where I paid $350 extra as it approached its 6pm boarding, they were offering $900 to anyone willing to give up their seat because the flight was oversold. That might be an interesting feature to add to the reservations system -- people willing to sell the spot to same-day people wanting instant reservations -- and willing to pay for it.

I think you make a good point about FCFSers who want to just show up and get a site. Perhaps it would be good to distinguish FCFSers from "cruisers." In this case, cruisers might be defined by people who wander around and would make plans with only hours or a day or two before arrival. "Cruisers" can be distinguished from "reservers" as the latter make their plan weeks to months ahead of time. As a B person, maybe having a parking lot where FCFSers can park overnight while they sort out their plans, like Davydd pointed out, is a good compromise for FCFSers. I still want to make sure that cruisers are accommodated, and some sort of reservation system that only progressively releases some sites close to or on the day of arrival may be the best way to accommodate them.

In terms of the airline analogy, of course there are sometimes last minute seats available for a high price. Usually that is because the plane just didn't fill up, but sometimes airlines will keep some seats back until just before the flight if the odds are high that fare-insensitive travelers will show up to take those seat(s). Airlines use very sophisticated yield management systems to maximize revenue for each flight. I do not think that we can expect national or local parks to be this sophisticated, and i don't think that the only goal of a public campground should be based on revenue maximization, or even strictly maximizing use of the space. I still believe making some priority for cruisers seems like a good public purpose.

I guess my main point is that there are lots of ways to design these systems, and if i were king, i'd do experimentation to maximize use of the resource while accommodating different modes of travel. Parks that prioritize reservers, and allow all sites to be booked far ahead, will be unfair to cruisers.

As discussed above, i do believe that some sort of penalty if a reserver is a no show and doesn't call to cancel the reservation should be implemented. Reservers should be incentivized to cancel reservations if their plans change so as to free up this all too scarce resource.

Finally, i do not believe that a person should be able to sell their spot if they decide not to show. That would just encourage scalpers.

[MsNomer]

Good Heavens!! Don't even THINK about allowing resale.

[booster]

I think we need to differentiate between true FCFS and later availability as it applies to overall fairness.


As much as it would be nice to have, true FCFS has been shown (at least to us) as impractical in very popular places. We went through the whole thing at Zion before they changed to reservations. It was like Walmart on Black Friday chaos.


So that leaves only trying to make the system fair to all people, not just the ones that have resources and ability to reserve a long time ahead. The discussion has had several good solutions suggested, I think, like staged releases of sites, confirmations of use prior to arriving, etc. Adding perhaps a "lottery" draw of requests for reserving sites, perhaps of all lengths of time before arrival could be made to work. Collect a list of requests over a limited length of time after sites (hopefully staged releases) and use random draw to select might help even it out for call in vs computer and computer and connection speed issues with quick first open things that reserve that way. Of all mentioned, I the the Wyoming one is quite good.



Minnesota has also touted greatly improved approval ratings for the state parks and it is, unfortunately, highly flawed data because the only voters in the evaluations were from those that actually stayed in the parks. None of the people that have been frozen out of getting a stay were included, so they were also totally silenced.


Somewhere, somehow, there has to somebody willing to actually try hard to fair and inclusive while also maintaining good actual fill rates so the bills get paid. Right now that doesn't seem to be happening as the systems are drifting to the quick and easy for the people setting up the systems. The easy way leaves a lot people without a way to get a site in many places.

[dr_innovation]

Originally Posted by Snowy

....
As discussed above, i do believe that some sort of penalty if a reserver is a no show and doesn't call to cancel the reservation should be implemented. Reservers should be incentivized to cancel reservations if their plans change so as to free up this all too scarce resource.

Finally, i do not believe that a person should be able to sell their spot if they decide not to show. That would just encourage scalpers.

Agree about the need for incentives to cancel. It was part of what I replied about our state system. If we cancel 0-7 days ahead, we get nothing back for the first day, which is part of why we became last-dayers since the weather here can change quickly, and work can come up, so we just went with choosing our destinations day of travel. But on reflection, that no refund means that there is no incentive to cancel any 1-day reservation. I was not thinking people could sell their spot but more like if I cancel and the park gets to resell the spot then I get some $$ back from the park. Then there is an incentive to cancel.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by @Michael

The 100% reservation in MN and other states is effectively the same as FCFS . . .

Michael, you've lost us on this comment. We cannot comprehend how you equate Full Reservations to FCFS?

Originally Posted by @Michael

The advantage to 100% Reservation is that if a site is available, I can guarantee myself a site as soon as I decide to visit a particular park . . .

That's a great advantage, one which we often use, too. But, the point is, most of the time, such sites are not available. They're only available to those who plan and, indeed, plan a long time in advance.

Originally Posted by @Michael

With site availability a constrained resource, access must be prioritized using some mechanism. If prioritization is necessary, I see no reason that a park should deprioritize people who plan ahead in favor of those (like me) who do not.

On this point we'll have to agree to disagree. The point of our continuing campaign in support of sharing the sites between Reservation and FCFS is provide camping opportunities for all styles of travel. The trouble with your Reservation Prioritization is that you disenfranchise all but those who can, and are willing to, plan their lives months/years in advance.

Originally Posted by @Michael

It's coming up on a holiday weekend. Should airlines be required to hold empty seats just in case a last-minute passenger walks up to the counter and expects a seat?

We are fond of analogies - - analogies are often helpful in clarifying a concept. 'Reservations', however, are applied across a wide scope of situations - - some very suited to reservations, others, less so. We wouldn't, for example, suggest FCFS for a popular rock concert. As commented above, we, too, don't see a large demand for FCFS airline seats except as required to accommodate flight cancelations and, in these situations, passengers (usually) can find an alternate flight/route to their destination.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by dr_innovation

Maximizing public benefit for the state residents does not require serving FCFS. It means maximizing utilization and average customer satisfaction . . .

It's interesting that you chose to place this in the context of "state residents". For us, this raises the question whether state parks exist primarily for the benefit of state's residents? If the answer is yes, then our home state of Michigan should discontinue it "Pure Michigan" campaign designed to lure out-of-staters to our state and state parks.

We have avoided discussing ‘in-state’ verses ‘out-of-state’ campground usage as it seems to cloud our principal concern of providing campground access for all. Booster, in an earlier post to this thread, suggested that the Reservation System favors out-of-staters. We have reached the contrary conclusion. First, we suspect that most campground users have always been relative ‘locals' - - even prior to reservations. It stands-to-reason, these are the folks who can get-out for a few days, usually weekends, with a comparatively short commute. But the reservation system has cemented the ‘local lock’ on their nearby parks. Travelers, prior to reservations, could occupy weekend campsites by arriving early - - before the larger ‘local’ crowds left work and could arrive. Today, every single weekend campsite is booked months in advance (at any desirable campground) by locals. How do we know these are locals? Look at the reservation book shortly after it opens. The weekends are gone. Midweek remains available. Travelers, those of us from out-of-state driving hundreds or thousands of miles are equally likely to book midweek as a weekend. And those locals don’t have to ‘plan’ their lives in any real sense to make these early reservations. How much planning does it take to say: “Hey Marge, let’s take the kids to our local state park this summer for a weekend?”

So, without offering an opinion whether local campgrounds should primarily be for locals, we close the above paragraph simply noting this “unintended consequence” of the Reservation System.

Originally Posted by dr_innovation

In terms of efficient use of public resources, if a camper booked a site, paid for it, and did not show, that is not the reservation system's fault and not an inefficient use of the resources.

This will have to be another of those “we’ll agree, to disagree” issues. We categorically reject the notion that “we paid for it, we have the right to waste it”. As we categorically reject the idea that leaving a scarce natural resource unused is “not an inefficient use of the resources.” And, yes, it is the reservation system’s fault. When one discovers that an adopted system wastes resources, they must correct the waste or face the challenge that their system is wasteful.

[booster]

Winston, I probably could have worded my comment about reservations "favoring" out of state users. What was meant, but not said, is that I think that because out of start persons tend to be on a trip and not a weekend camping outing, They would generally be more prone and amenable to reserving far ahead of time so they know they will have a place in an unfamiliar area away from home. When we are going far from home I always try to get at least some of the places we know we are going reserved but it is difficult due to picking the right days. We usually leave some free form ones in between to give more flexibility.



Any reservation system that gets cancellations and relists them quickly is more of an advantage to local people, though, due to their closeness.

[dr_innovation]

Originally Posted by Winston

It's interesting that you chose to place this in the context of "state residents". For us, this raises the question whether state parks exist primarily for the benefit of state's residents? If the answer is yes, then our home state of Michigan should discontinue it "Pure Michigan" campaign designed to lure out-of-staters to our state and state parks.

I view it as a state resource, and if the state wants to encourage tourism (which CO does as well), then they can choose to allocate the resources how they feel is maximizing the overall benefit for the state residents. This includes encouraging out-of-state visitors to use the parks for the other benefits the visitors bring to the state. I believe reservations help with that.


I do think some of the ideas of progressive releases of sites (maybe with a random selection of which sites are released when). would be a good improvement for reservation systems as many people, both local and out-of-state, reserve but not 6 months in advance

Originally Posted by Winston

We have avoided discussing ‘in-state’ verses ‘out-of-state’ campground usage as it seems to cloud our principal concern of providing campground access for all. Booster, in an earlier post to this thread, suggested that the Reservation System favors out-of-staters. We have reached the contrary conclusion. First, we suspect that most campground users have always been relative ‘locals' - - even prior to reservations. It stands-to-reason, these are the folks who can get-out for a few days, usually weekends, with a comparatively short commute. But the reservation system has cemented the ‘local lock’ on their nearby parks. Travelers, prior to reservations, could occupy weekend campsites by arriving early - - before the larger ‘local’ crowds left work and could arrive. Today, every single weekend campsite is booked months in advance (at any desirable campground) by locals. How do we know these are locals? Look at the reservation book shortly after it opens. The weekends are gone. Midweek remains available. Travelers, those of us from out-of-state driving hundreds or thousands of miles are equally likely to book midweek as a weekend.

While weekend book first, I would respectfully disagree with your conclusion and agree with Booster. It would be interesting to get hard data, but I've never seen such an analysis about campground utilization. (Maybe someone should setup a poll here just to get some data, even if biased. I would argue reason weekends book first is that most people don't work weekends -- local or not. And higher weekend utilization is true for hotels as well, for which there is published data. this is even though many people think of hotels as "business".

When we book an out-of-state trip, it is almost always booking weekends (maybe a long 3-4 day weekend stays), as regular working folks have more weekend time off and we leverage that. Even if we fly-and-stay for out-of-state trips, we book much more weekend time than a weekday. And while we used to FCFS at local places on a whim, I would never book an out-of-state trip where I don't know where at least my weekend, when camps have always been crowded, would be booked. On our last trip to Cali, where we decided to drive the van instead of flying, we did exactly that, the weekends we booked when we knew we had to be there (for a wedding), but we did leave flexibility for the mid-week out and back as we stopped to bike and were less certain. Then again, in my view, off-season midweek is not really taking the risk of being locked out of finding a place -- but we still booked the day of travel at places in NM/AZ where we could make reservations that day.

[booster]

No studies that I know of about who books when, but I can bet the states have all that and then some, but will never publish it.


My ideas come from what we see in both local and far away sites. The parks that are very full all the time, tend to have a higher % of non locals, it appears to us. Parks that may not fill on the first day or week of availability seem to get more locals, especially if they are the parks that are only full on weekends. Out of state trips for us, except for Wisconsin (from Minnesota) generally aren't worth the drive for a weekend for us as we like to stay for a a minimum of 3 full days which is usually 4 nights, and most of the time at our favorite places it would be week or more.


Weekends everywhere are full and I think the % local depends on how close to the date of use there are still openings as the folks you get then are the ones that can't or won't reserve way ahead and that brings in more locals.

[@Michael]

Originally Posted by dr_innovation

When we book an out-of-state trip, it is almost always booking weekends

Ditto. We book ahead the weekends in the general area that we intend to travel, and (generally) book weekdays on the same day.

Originally Posted by Winston

Michael, you've lost us on this comment. We cannot comprehend how you equate Full Reservations to FCFS?

My comment was:

"The 100% reservation in MN and other states is effectively the same as FCFS, except without a hold-back of sites specifically for FCFS."

I.E. if in a 100% reservation State, sites were held back until the day of, then it would be essentially the same as FCFS.

Originally Posted by Winston

we, too, don't see a large demand for FCFS airline seats except as required to accommodate flight cancelations and, in these situations, passengers (usually) can find an alternate flight/route to their destination.

My take on that: I don't see a large demand for FCFS campground sites except as required to accommodate "cruisers" and, in these situations, campers (usually) can find an alternate campground near their destination.