tandempower

A time-share, for those who don't know, is a condominium where multiple owners 'own' a certain number of weeks per year. Many people didn't like the idea of having to vacation in the same place every year so time-share networks formed allowing people to choose from a variety of different destinations. Effectively, time-sharing is a way to own a vacation residence without keeping it empty when you're not there. Basically, it's a form of co-ownership.

What about a time-share network type system for bike camping? Basically, people could buy up pieces of undeveloped land zoned to allow camping and then register their land as a time-share with other bike campers. Since there would be little, if any, need to maintain the land besides whatever effort campers want to put into keeping tent-spots cleared, the cost would be presumably lower than what you'd expect for other time-shares or other types of lodging.

What do you think? Would it be nice to own a share of a widely dispersed network of undeveloped parcels whose only use would be for primitive campers without the need to park a motor-vehicle? Do you think there would be sufficient demand to make such a thing happen? Do you think people who don't want to camp there might invest purely as a means of conserving land as undeveloped? Do you foresee any legal or political obstacles that might occur, such as people molesting each other and then suing the conglomerate for failing to protect them against their assailant? Any other benefits or drawbacks you can imagine?

alan s 

I honestly think you would be better off turning the land into cat ranches, where you could spend your time herding cats.

staehpj1

Would it be nice to own a share of a widely dispersed network of undeveloped parcels whose only use would be for primitive campers without the need to park a motor-vehicle?

In theory maybe. I don't think it is likely at all that it would be able to reach a critical mass given the huge amount of territory that encompasses the rural US, the limited number of touring cyclists, and the general availability of cheap or free places to camp over much of that area.

Do you think there would be sufficient demand to make such a thing happen?

No, I think it is pretty unlikely.

Do you think people who don't want to camp there might invest purely as a means of conserving land as undeveloped?

I think it doubtful.

Just maybe it might work on a very limited basis for limited and specific places where there is demand and no existing place to camp. I think this would be most likely if a major organization was behind it and there were enough folks interested that the amount money invested per person would be very small.

For this to make any sense on a grander scale free or cheap camping would have to be pretty scarce. In my experience most places it is not. The places where it would be most useful might be states along the east coast. The problem with that is that there are probably fewer folks interested in touring there, higher land costs, and a higher likelihood that the chosen sites will become teenage drinking hangouts.

indyfabz

Only if he's immune from suit by any injured cats.

mstateglfr 

Cool idea, not too sure on the demand though as there seem to already be ample camping sites in the places where I have lived.

Machka 

+1

BigAura

Nice idea, but I've never purchased a time-share and probably wouldn't buy into this either. That said, I do enjoy Warmshowers and have participated both as host & hosted. Warmshowers is simple, without the upfront commitment/buy-in.

alan s 

Looks pretty risky, actually. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1SmgLtg1Izw

MassiveD

One feature of cycling is that we don't get that far every night, and another is that a lot of the time we are looking for free places to camp. So the granularity of camp-sites would mean a lot more would be required than for other forms of camp ground, about 100Xs the number. But nobody wants to pay for them, and the network isn't much use until it is completed, or well rolled out.

MassiveD

Another aspect is that time shares are located where people want to be, coasts, etc... But perforce a lot of bike time shares would be places people don't want to be.

robow

As soon as I read this, I was already thinking of that video, that is funny.

Oh and back to the time-share, not going to happen on any decent scale. The touring community is already a small enough niche so that a likely possible audience doesn't exist.

3speed

I think another problem is that most tourers tend to go to different places. I doubt many people keep doing the same tour over and over, so there wouldn't be a lot of demand for permanent ownership over any one area. Maybe you could get something of the sort together if there were a lot of weekend tourers in a particular area, but I wouldn't see it happening.

Machka 

+1

CliffordK

Why not just use local, state, and federal campgrounds?

At say $10 per night, or a few bucks for a season pass, the cost might be at most a few hundred a year (assuming one doesn't find free camping).

To make your timeshare work, you'd have to get say 500 people together, each buying an "interesting" piece of land for say $100,000. That is a lot of nights at campgrounds. And, some locations will certainly be more expensive than others... how to maintain equality? If I buy in with a $5000 piece of land and you buy in with a $500,000 piece of land.

I think your biggest issue might be maintenance. What if some neighbors start dumping trash on your property? Not all guests clean up after themselves? How are you watching it? Advertising it? I've picked up other people's trash on occasion when driving, but I'd have low tolerance for lugging home too much of other's trash when I would be out biking.

Now, once you built the initial net, you could start selling more and more permits (with the risk of getting multiple campers at a place at a time). However, if it is truly an unmonitored primitive network, it would be hard to guarantee people won't just use your net without paying.

Again, you'd be best off having each participant owing and caring for their own local piece of property, but that gets back to the high personal investment.

Machka 

+1

staehpj1

I see that you are in Oregon, so for you in your home state and the neighboring states that is probably a great option. Depending on where you would be touring that might not be even remotely possible. For example, in much of the eastern US $30-40 rates are pretty normal and most places offer no hiker biker sites or rates. State and local season passes often do not exist in many jurisdictions. I'd say that in the east they most often do not, but if they did they would do no good for someone just passing through that jurisdiction and camping once or twice.

I don't think a timeshare arrangement or the other proposal by the OP are likely solutions though.

Personally for me the best solution is to do most of my touring in places where free or cheap camping is pretty readily available. Fortunately on most of the more likely long routes in the US that is the case for the large majority of the trip. It is typically the case for the majority of any coast to coast route, the Pacific coast, and most routes in the Cascades, Sierras, or Rockies, as well as the plains states.

indyfabz

Thanks. I had forgotten about that one. Love it.

indyfabz

You can also camp for free on most unimproved U.S.F.S. land. I believe the same is true for BLM land.

Machka 

We have experienced expensive campgrounds on the east coast too ... but I just typed: free camping Maine and free camping Virginia (just grabbing two east coast states off the top of my head) into Google and there are some options. But a person might have to do a bit of research ... and might have to be prepared to get off the main routes a bit.


A timeshare, however, sounds too expensive, too much hassle, and too much commitment.

ak08820

First of all, the timeshare concept mentioned by OP does not work for all, even in the traditional lodging mode. In many cases, a timeshare turns out to be as expensive or more than paying for traditional lodging with no strings attached. There may be genuine exceptions. However, many if not most timeshare sales are scams and overpriced traps that lock you in paying hundreds or thousands of dollars of recurring, annual, ever increasing maintenance costs on real estate that you "buy" temporarily - e.g., 10-20 years in many cases. I have seen ads offering a timeshare for free if you assume the ongoing maintenance costs. So, a timeshare facility for bikers may be impractical in most cases.

I believe that the best solution for paid bike touring lodging is already in place in the form of Hiker/Biker Rates at existing campgrounds. In view of the low volume and operating cost it is not economically practical to build any kind of dedicated Bike Only lodging facility of any kind. So IMHO, making the Hiker/Biker rate available at as many of the CGs as possible is the best possible and practical solution.

I wonder how one can proceed to have the state park authorities consider making Hiker/Biker rates available where they are not. Should we start a petition for each state that needs it?

CliffordK

I was thinking about rest areas. It would be nasty to camp in one, but they are designed to allow car drivers to park for a few hours, or overnight, then move on. However, it appears as if many states requires a person to actually have a car to sleep in one. That would seem to be discriminating against the cyclists. Perhaps one could petition states to open them up to cyclists for overnight camping, assuming one could get to it.

Maybe one should consider road/cyclocross touring. I have encountered quite a few nice camping areas, perhaps a mile or two from the trailhead. I wouldn't want to park the bike at the trailhead, but one might be able to do light trail riding to get to a campsite off the beaten path.

As far as the "timeshare"... the easiest version would be to organize "couch surfing", and camping on a person's property. I don't think I'd publish my address, but I could probably allow people to at least camp a night or two on my property if I was comfortable with the individuals.

ak08820

I requested Adventure Cycling Assoc. if they could work on making more parks offer hiker biker rates and they responded that they already are working on it at national level.

indyfabz

By national level do they mean with federal agencies, like the BLM and the U.S.F.S.? Seems it would be difficult to do with state park systems as every system has its own "mini-economy" and other reasons that drive rates, and they are controlled by the individual states. For example, and as you probably know, New Jersey charges one flat camping rate ($20) for in-state residents and one flat rate ($25) for non-residents. How you arrive makes no difference. Presumably, the two-tiered rate structure is based on the feeling that non-residents should not be able to take advantage of state spending on parks, which spending comes from tax dollars. In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, there is no additional charge for non-residents. (Again method of arrival makes no difference.) Also, the camping fees vary by park and are likely affected by a variety of factors, including frequency of use and individual park operating costs.

I have always been curious about the reasoning/motivations behind hiker/biker discounts. For example, I have taken advantage of it at Sprague Creek Campground in Glacier N.P. a total of six nights during three different visits. The rate was $5/person/night if you arrive by foot or bike. Let's say the car rate was $20. Is that substantial discount being offered to encourage fewer cars in the park? Is it based on the fact that I am not occasioning as much wear and tear on roads in the campground? Is it based on the fact that I am one person and thus not using as many utilities as someone who camps in an RV with more people? A combination of those and/or other factors?

ak08820

Here is the response I received from ACA - verbatim.
"Thanks for reaching out to us about hiker/biker sites at state parks. We have identified this as an issue over the last year and are currently pursuing ways to work with state parks at the national level on increasing hiker/biker sites and implementing no-turn-away policies for bicycle travelers, among other bike-friendly initiatives. You can read more about our efforts on a blog post from last year: Bike Travel Best Practices for State Park Campgrounds | Adventure Cycling Association. We are currently working to make connections with state parks and speak to managers about accommodating bicycle travelers, and unfortunately translating this into action in government agencies can often take quite a while. We have made progress in our initiatives with national parks, so we are hoping to have similar success with state parks: Natchez Trace Parkway Project Will Enhance Safety for Cyclists | Adventure Cycling Association.



You can follow our blog category on the Adventure Cycling website, Building the U.S. Bicycle System, for reports on progress. "

staehpj1

I wonder how often the hiker biker sites actually wind up being cheaper per site.

On reason I wonder is that cars typically have multiple people in them. In your example a car with 4 people would pay the same and one with 5 people is actually paying less per person.

Also they typically crowd multiple cyclists, sometimes quite a few, into one site on pretty much all of the hiker biker sites that I have stayed in. When on a popular cycling route they actually often wind up charging more per site to cyclists, sometimes quite a bit more. I have been in sites with 20 cyclists crowded into one site. When travelling in a group of only three we several times found that they were trying to charge us more than if we had arrived by car. That seemed especially unreasonable since we were sharing one tent. We sometimes and insisted that we wanted a regular site. In one case they charged $20 per car and $10 per bike. We asked for the car rate for our group and rode on when they refused. In a couple other instances we actually were allowed to stay in a regular site at the car price.