Impromptu Campers Not Welcome

[hbn7hj]

Good point on the pricing. My friends paid $96/night for three weeks in Moab. Public campgrounds would catch hell for demand pricing.

[Jon in AZ]

Copying hotel reservation and pricing models only works when campgrounds are privately owned, for-profit ventures on private land.

Public campgrounds are built on land held in trust by the government on behalf of the people. The minute we forget who holds the land, we have failed the public trust and are in a race to the bottom.

[MsNomer]

That is so true. I hope they never forget.

It is also true that people would be willing to pay. A couple days ago, a friend told me she was offered $1,000 PER NIGHT to rent her older Class C. (She wisely refused—the prospective renter scraped both sides of the rig he eventually rented.)

[GeorgeRa]

Perhaps we should find concessioners for state and national parks, should work, right. Remember Ahwahnee hotel, Curry Village forced to change names to Majestic and Half Dome, what a fight. This was insane, finely it is over.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/16/74208...demark-dispute

[avanti]

Moderators' note:

We just deleted several posts from this thread because their content was primarily political in nature, with no RV content.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

. . .
"Campers who do not show up by 12 noon the day following the first night’s reservation will forfeit all payments and campsite will become available for first-come, first-served or new reservation."

Such 'indulgence' is, of course, why there are never full reservation-only campgrounds - - there are always those who fail to show and whose absence is not documented and rectified until noon the next day.

[Winston]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

. . . when you buy a good or a service, it becomes yours . . .

. . . every effort is made to acknowledge the buyer's rights . . . It is not incumbent on the buyer to defend their purchase rights . . .

. . . we see an intrinsic acknowledgement of the buyer's rights. That purchased campsite belongs to the buyer . . .

We continue to advocate that the mere payment of money should invest few, if any, rights in the "buyer". We are not dealing with normal, plentiful and fungible articles of trade - - we're dealing in scarce state and federal lands. Your litany of presumed 'buyer's rights' should be rejected.

Instead, buyers should accept "responsibilities" in return for being granted the "privilege" to exclude the many others who would happily occupy the site.

[rowiebowie]

Finally, something being done about "no-shows" in Texas State Parks. A first step, but a good one. Multi-day stays will be forfeited at noon on the second day unless park is notified.

This link is for RV a recent Miles youtube episode at 5:09.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AynTSRmiFuA&t=309s

[RossWilliams]

I have been at first come first serve campgrounds where every site is full by noon. Should sites be held open for the "class" of camper that arrives late?

Most parks have limited staffing. Requiring them to confirm arrivals and take calls defeats one of the purposes of having an online reservation system. A lot of parks no longer require any check on. So park staff would have to physically go to each site to confirm people had arrived and then check to see if they had called and then cancel the reservation. With no mistakes. And then deal with the people who arrive late to find their campsite full and claim they called or they were out of cell range.

All for the purpose of not letting people reserve sites online ahead of people who just show up looking for a place to camp.

[booster]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

I have been at first come first serve campgrounds where every site is full by noon. Should sites be held open for the "class" of camper that arrives late?

Most parks have limited staffing. Requiring them to confirm arrivals and take calls defeats one of the purposes of having an online reservation system. A lot of parks no longer require any check on. So park staff would have to physically go to each site to confirm people had arrived and then check to see if they had called and then cancel the reservation. With no mistakes. And then deal with the people who arrive late to find their campsite full and claim they called or they were out of cell range.

All for the purpose of not letting people reserve sites online ahead of people who just show up looking for a place to camp.

I think you are distorting what has been said.


I don't think it has been seriously suggested that sites should be held until late in the day for late arrivals. Having a driveup only full be noon should be a win/win for all IMO. Full usage for the park and no need to reserve 6 months ahead which is impossible for some people. Travelers know where they are, for the most part, so same day is good, I think, at least for some of the sites. It doesn't have to be driveup, it can be same day reservation so everyone gets a shot at the sites, no staff required, no confirmation required. Open up reservations at like 6-7am and good to go.


Cancellation policies are tougher to work out as people always want to game the systems for their own advantage. Personally, I think the Texas change is a start, but won't do anything for stopping the folks willing to eat the cost. To get it work, they probably need to also add a ban on anyone who no shows twice or so in a rolling time frame, with the ban for a time long enough to discourage the abuse.


Again, the bottom line for me is that the current systems are biased toward those that can reserve far ahead of use, and mostly excludes those with inflexible schedules. This may or may not include travelers, but they would not be my top focus. The also are made to almost encourage abuse by those inclined to do it. I think it grossly unfair to be setup that way. How it can be fixed, whatever works for all is good with me, however it is done.

[MsNomer]

Good Heavens, I hope this doesn’t come to public parks:

"Demand pricing at an RV park — just like airlines and hotels

For campers, for example, there’s the adoption of demand pricing, which many readers of this site have misunderstood. Demand pricing is not having one set of rates for in-season and one for off-season, or one set of rates for weekdays and one for weekends. Demand pricing is, first and foremost, dynamic: The cost of the same site for the same date will change from day to day, depending on when you make your reservation and how many similar sites are being sought by other campers at the same time. It’s what airlines do, and it’s why you will no longer be able to get a set answer to the question, “What does a water and electric back-in site at your campground cost?”

That means there are no rate sheets (ever try to get one of those from Delta?). It also means that if you stay on a site Tuesday and Wednesday and then swing by the office to see about extending by a day, you may end up paying a different rate — even though Thursday, under more traditional pricing schemes, was just another weeknight."

https://www.rvtravel.com/andy1003/

[avanti]

Originally Posted by MsNomer

It’s what airlines do

Yeah.

Demand pricing would be a fine idea if building another public campground was as easy as buying another airplane.

As has been suggested above, the fundamental problem with public campgrounds is that demand greatly exceeds supply and there is little prospect of that changing. So, we are dealing with an inherently inelastic system. In such a situation, demand pricing would do little more than increase government revenues, but likely not enough to encourage supply expansion.

Demand pricing is a solution to the wrong problem.

[Belzar]

With the current shortage of camp sites, I don't think it should be expected for campgrounds to operate differently than a busy hotel. If sold out, a hotel does not hold back rooms just in case someone shows up late in the day and no-shows pay full price. Wandering without reservations is a fun way to travel but other than off-season, is probably a thng of the past.

[Belzar]

[QUOTE=avanti;128897]Yeah.

"Demand pricing would be a fine idea if building another public campground was as easy as buying another airplane. "

I disagree. If revenue was high enough, facilities could be expanded by government or contractors. And, with market pricing, demand would decrease to meet supply restrictions (say, $250/night for a site in Yosemite Valley on a summer weekend...still a bargain vs. the Awanee Hotel.)

[booster]

Originally Posted by Belzar

With the current shortage of camp sites, I don't think it should be expected for campgrounds to operate differently than a busy hotel. If sold out, a hotel does not hold back rooms just in case someone shows up late in the day and no-shows pay full price. Wandering without reservations is a fun way to travel but other than off-season, is probably a thng of the past.

There is a big difference between privately owned hotels and airlines, and campgrounds that are owned by the state a federal government. In essence the campgrounds are being used, or being forced not to be used, campgrounds they own so, IMO, fairness is a top priority for them. If we were a talking about private campgrounds, it is an entirely different thing altogether.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by booster

There is a big difference between privately owned hotels and airlines, and campgrounds that are owned by the state a federal government. In essence the campgrounds are being used, or being forced not to be used, campgrounds they own so, IMO, fairness is a top priority for them. If we were a talking about private campgrounds, it is an entirely different thing altogether.

Agree.

The decision to build and operate public parks is a political, not an economic decision. If the goals that motivate creating such parks could be accomplished by the free market, the government would have no business competing with for-profit entities. But they can't.

[Snowy]

Building additional public facilities is a political decision as Avanti says, but revenue would probably figure into the politics. My understanding is that many (all, some?) public parks are funded at least in part by user fees. I know that national and state parks in Alaska are funded in part by user fees. If building another park costs the taxpayer little or nothing because it will be funded by the sort of user fees that could come with some sort of dynamic pricing scheme, then more will probably be built. I don't think the political process would result in all spots at all parks being subject to such pricing, but it could result in new parks, perhaps with better (cleaner) facilities for those willing to pay more or go off season.

[Kegan]

Perhaps this was suggested elsewhere, but why not a hybrid situation. A given campground could allot a portion (say 80%??) to online reservation, and the remaining can be obtained on a first come-first serve basis only at the campground itself. That would provide solutions to both factions, no?

[tgregg]

I think the 20% set aside would go unused most of the time. I don't think each park would see that many 'impromtu campers' each day.

I think an overflow parking area with no facilities that could only be used for over night parking would be good enough for the few that might show up without a reservation.

[rowiebowie]

[QUOTE=tgregg;129061I think an overflow parking area with no facilities that could only be used for over night parking would be good enough for the few that might show up without a reservation.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree. It's relatively easy and much cheaper just to pave a parking area rather than build much needed additional campsites. So in the meantime, this option would allow campers to stay in the park, tour the park the next day, and dump tanks/fill with potable water for a reduced fee.

We encountered this option at Karcher Caverns State Park in Arizona. While we'd certainly rather have had a campsite, but it allowed us to tour the caverns the next morning and hike a few trails before moving on. Without this option, they would not have gotten our money for the cavern tour as we'd have headed up the road.