Just left Elkhart and Goshen IN. Compared to last year, things are rebounding nicely RV wise, but a way to go. Surprised to see several mfgrs are bring out new lines--obviously to compete in place of the many failed marks. Guess our bigest complaint regarding RV site prices is that many of the RV parks, especially in the northern tier have added the word "RESORT" to their name and have raised their prices 50%--no improvement to the facilities at all. We use PA and CCA when possible and have found many enjoyable campgrounds at a sometimes reduced rate.
We also use PA and CCA a lot and have found them to be a real money saver. For us, the amenities at the park are rarely used and I see no since in paying extra for them. We also stay at Wal-Mart and other concrete boondocking places to cut down on costs. We see very expensive rigs there also. It isn't just the doing it on the dime folks either.
That's great to be able to stay at hotel/condo resorts for around $50. I stayed at a Condo in Kauai on the beach for $60 a night. Orlando has 2 bdrm apts for 100 bucks a week There are some great deals to be had at hotels right now. However, the truth is I much prefer to stay in my own RV. Hotels are gross and so are vacation rental homes. There are lots of germs and filth of other people I don't want to sit or lay on. Most RV parks we have stayed at have been between $14-37 in the past two mnths of RVing. That seems pretty reasonable considering we've been traveling all though the West - including CA. Both are a nice way to travel, I just feel more comfortable and homey in an RV.
Most weekends that we are able to camp, nearby hotels are double or more than a campground. Or there are no hotels nearby if we are in the woods. Most of our camping is done on weekends during the "season", so we rarely would be able to enjoy "off season" or "shoulder" rates for hotel rooms. Plus, with older kids now (teenagers), I would really rather have two hotel rooms which, of course, doubles the cost. I don't even want to get into the difficulties of hiding a campfire in a hotel room. For us, right now, camping on a per night basis is more cost effective.
QUOTE(Tom @ Jun 4 2010, 08:32 AM) [snapback]22378[/snapback] I don't even want to get into the difficulties of hiding a campfire in a hotel room. :lol: :lol:
I live in Oregon and there are very few places to stay for 40 or 50 dollars a night in a hotel or condo. Used to live in California and it was the same. What a lot of people do not under stand is a modern RV will use way more power than anyone could ever use in a motel room. The costs to run a RV park have gone up significantly. The days of $20 dollar a night spots are going away. Yes you will still find them but not as easily as before. If people want to so called camp in a paved parking lot that is great but that is not for me. I will pay for a spot in a clean and nice campground and enjoy it. Buy the way people that complain that they do not want to pay for a place for a few hours sleep are usually the ones you will find using the most amenities. Electric, water and sucking down the band width on the Wi- Fi when they have their own air card. Emptying their stale water to put in fresh water in the tank. Running electric heaters to save their propane and so on. Just an observation in my 20 years of camping. The Oregon coast has its share of RVs on the road. Many state parks book in the summer months and California it is hard to find a spot on the coast in the entire summer. It does not make sense to park $100 + thousand dollar vehicles on the side of your house to save a few bucks on fuel or camp fees. That is a no win situation. So get out and enjoy while you still can. The cup is always half full! Pog.
Just completed a 16-day, 3K+ mile trip to the West Coast and I have to say the prices being charged by NE campgrounds are fairly high compared to locations in the the Southwest. I'm retired military so I planned our family trip to stay at mostly military campgrounds as much as possible (primarily because they are less expensive & highly secured). I paid from $17-$27 per night, and most have the same (or better) amenities than private campgrounds. As far as private campgrounds, I paid as low as $33 to as high as $60 (only because it was the only campground we can find in Sedona AZ). Heck, in Las Vegas, we got a room in Circus Circus because my wife found a deal for $23/night vs. their RV campground that was charging $80/night! We parked the RV in the parking lot & stayed in the hotel instead. Personally, I don't mind paying a bit more if the sites are nice (concrete & level), showers & restrooms are clean, laundry & WIFI are free, etc. But I also wouldn't mind "roughing it" in a Walmart parking lot if nearby campgrounds are charging more for what I see as unreasonable for the condition & the services they provide.
I agree with all the other posts that the RV parks need to be mindful of their cometition, but also keep in mind that the demands for "extra" services has increased as well. It used to be if you had a flat space with 20amp electrical, a water spigot, and maybe a sewer hookup, you could call it a "site" and 90% of your visitors would be happy. Now the newer coaches almost "requre" 50amp hookup and most people need Wifi, Cable TV, etc. and the RV parks that don't keep up may be left behind. It's the same as movie theaters. It used to be as long has you had compfrtable seats you could bring them in, but then statium seating came in and now all the older theaters have closed that had flat seating. All these "extras" do cost money, and I can't see RV parks that don't increase their fees to defray upgrade costs surviving long. Just look at the complaints on this site. More and more, people complain that they can't get wifi or it was weak or intermitant.
Just curious and perhaps an RV park owner can enlighten me. I fully understand there are costs to maintaining an RV park - especially parks that offer all sorts of amenities ( e.g., pool, clubhouse, games, golf, etc.) What I'd like to know is how difficult would it be to "segregate" a park for those who want the amenities and those who just want hook-ups and set price accordingly? I ask the question because in the 6 years we've been on the road, we have never once used any amenities offered by any RV park where we've stayed. Our interest is simply to have a place to put our m/h while we're off seeing area sights. I don't think we're unique. I'm sure there are other RVers simply looking for hook-ups, not resort amenities.
QUOTE(ttg @ Jul 22 2010, 01:55 AM) [snapback]23116[/snapback] Just curious and perhaps an RV park owner can enlighten me. I fully understand there are costs to maintaining an RV park - especially parks that offer all sorts of amenities ( e.g., pool, clubhouse, games, golf, etc.) What I'd like to know is how difficult would it be to "segregate" a park for those who want the amenities and those who just want hook-ups and set price accordingly? I ask the question because in the 6 years we've been on the road, we have never once used any amenities offered by any RV park where we've stayed. Our interest is simply to have a place to put our m/h while we're off seeing area sights. I don't think we're unique. I'm sure there are other RVers simply looking for hook-ups, not resort amenities. I understand the question from the RV'er perspective as I RV a lot myself in my offseason. From an owner's standpoint, it doesn't make any sense. From a logistics standpoint it would be tough to enforce that policy. How do I control who uses the showers, the clubhouse, the swimming pool? Do I make everyone wear a silly wristband, and have checkpoints throughout the park to make sure a "Basic Amenities" customer isn't using the pool/laundry/clubhouse? From a financial standpoint, look at it from a business perspective. I have a mortgage on the land, marketing & advertising costs, payroll, etc. that are fixed expenses. I have about a 3-4 month window to make as much revenue as I can to cover these expenses, net a profit, and stow away some capital for future upgrades (or when the state/county/city comes knocking for Lord knows what). Look at the scenario this way: If I have 100 sites at $40 per night, why would I segregate 20 sites down to $20 per night just because a few customers want to save a few dollars? The land for the discount sites costs the same as the land as the full-rate sites. And what happens if the other 80 full-amenities sites are full, but now only 5 of the reduced-amenities sites are occupied, and I have 15 open spots because other customers want full-hookups and full amenities and are willing to pay for it, but I can't offer it? Now I've just shot myself in the foot and lost 15 full-revenue RV sites by trying to accommodate a few people who don't like paying the full rate. I'm not trying to be defensive, but there are plenty of Wal-Mart's and state parks that undercut private RV parks enough, and many of RV parks are struggling to stay afloat as it is.
beastdriver: Thank you for your post. It's good to know that there are places to visit and stay for a reasonable price when RVing is no longer feasible. We are avid RVers at the moment, traveling with our fifth wheel. But I can see that there will come a day when we won't feel like maintaining our fifth wheel (washing, waxing, cleaning, keeping in good repair), loading it up for our trips (back and forth from the house to the RV no matter how much you leave in the RV), setting up when we arrive at our campsite, taking down when it's time to leave. RVing does require some strength and determination. We're older and the day is coming quicker that will make RVing more of a chore than a pleasure. It's good to know the options that will be available to us when that time comes.
