Some pertinent comment/information regarding the 'financial value' of "commercial" Vs "non-commercial" campers -
Interesting - if their surveys are indicative it may begin to sway councils even further regarding continuing to provide (or develop) "free" areas.
Cheers - John
KFT said
10:54 PM May 25, 2014
I don't think the CP's are getting the message IMHO.
The travellers who want to purchase low cost/no frills or free camp sites are the people the CP's would likely never see anyway.
I think also from memory of reading that research the figures for the amount spent by "commercial" campers vs Low cost/free campers was flawed because there was a group they did not include in the low cost/free spending patterns. The true figures were the other way around IE the free/low cost campers actually spent more.
I note also that the CP's are in the minority as far as accommodation revenue at only 12%.
They may wake up one day
frank
Vic41 said
02:06 AM May 26, 2014
I see the reference in the article to 2013 BDO report, I think this is this research company who must have been engaged by the Caravan Industry to research the issue.
I notice the partner mentioned here had 13 years working for a Big 4 Accounting firm? See;
-- Edited by Vic41 on Monday 26th of May 2014 02:08:06 AM
GaryKelly said
07:37 AM May 26, 2014
If someone conducted a survey to determine how much car buyers spent at a Rolls Royce showroom compared to those at a bicycle shop the results would probably indicated that the Rolls Royce buyers had more money.
_wombat_ said
07:47 AM May 26, 2014
this information was conducted by THE industry, so no more.
Dougwe said
08:34 AM May 26, 2014
Sounds like a load of wombat cubes.
I reckon there is room for both but even then I would like to see an area, even down the back of a CVP with much cheaper rates i.e. $5-10 per night. Also a cheaper rate at CVP for the solo traveler, then just maybe the CVP owners wouldn't complain so much as the older traveler might use them more. Who knows, they might even have less vacant sites each night. My way of thinking is $10 is better than nothing. The PR wouldn't hurt either.
Bryan said
08:38 AM May 26, 2014
_wombat_ wrote:
this information was conducted by THE industry, so no more.
Very true
But the general tax paying public is being exposed to one side of the story and would vote accordingly
_wombat_ said
08:38 AM May 26, 2014
Dougwe wrote:
Sounds like a load of wombat cubes.
I reckon there is room for both but even then I would like to see an area, even down the back of a CVP with much cheaper rates i.e. $5-10 per night. Also a cheaper rate at CVP for the solo traveler, then just maybe the CVP owners wouldn't complain so much as the older traveler might use them more. Who knows, they might even have less vacant sites each night. My way of thinking is $10 is better than nothing. The PR wouldn't hurt either.
Part quote: I would like to see an area, even down the back of a CVP with much cheaper rates i.e. $5-10 per night.
that would suit you, down the back with the wombat cubes I hope you get what you want and I will supply the cubes free of charge
Earl said
08:56 AM May 26, 2014
See who runs the Camping and Caravan Industry Association
The paid ad in the newspaper was a full page ad and included a large picture of a caravan on the road and the Caravan Industry Association of WA logo and their website, www.caravanwa.com.au which promotes travel in WA and the caravan park.
The focus of the ad to me seemed to be directed at shires and their ratepayers not to fund free or low cost camping sites.
I wonder how they survey came up with those figures? As a hypothetical comparison, for every traveller comes to town and stays in a town caravan park for a number of days how many other don't but still spend their money during that time. Yes, the town caravan park person will refuel and buy food (most for use in the van) but in the meantime during their stay how many of those staying in nearby free or low cost camps also go into town and refuel, buy food and other supplies and pay for attractions as well.
Add to those the many who are passing through and just stop for fuel and food or other supplies at the same time, how could the survey include them?
Just another attempt to force councils with pressure from their ratepayers to close free or low cost camping areas IMHO to force travellers into the town caravan parks.
-- Edited by Vic41 on Monday 26th of May 2014 10:21:24 AM
Brenda and Alan said
10:10 AM May 26, 2014
Reading para 3 would indicate that van parks pay 0.38 cents more into the community than they take in. If this was the case they would all be bankrupt. Very shonky reporting of a very shonky survey.
Alan
rockylizard said
10:49 AM May 26, 2014
Brenda and Alan wrote:
Reading para 3 would indicate that van parks pay 0.38 cents more into the community than they take in. If this was the case they would all be bankrupt. Very shonky reporting of a very shonky survey. Alan
Gday...
What the article is trying to say is that for every $1 GROSSED through the books of a caravan park, the community's economy is $1.38 better off.
That is not that the van park spends $1.38 for every $1 the van park grosses, but rather that should $100,000 be the van park's 'turnover', the local economy reflects activity, to the value of $138,000, from those who have visited their community, stayed and spent on local attractions and businesses.
I do not find it difficult to accept that the majority of those who stay in van parks are quite probably 'still-working' and therefore have the ability to spend more and often stay longer. I would would also suggest it would be fairly indicative that those who make the most use of 'free' camping spots within or close to a town are the 'retired/semi-retired' folk - trying to contain their costs.
One thing is increasingly certain. The folk in many towns, on or near 'tourist' attractions, or 'attractive' sights (eg beaches, lakes etc), are becoming more intolerant of crowds of vans and back-packers crammed into their towns. Even if the rubbish is left in bins someone has to empty these bins and often these bins become overflowing due to the volume of campers. Additionally, even with a policy of "self-contained only", many still camp overnight and jest let it all 'run free' - OK in some circumstances, but often so many campers make the place almost unsanitary (and perhaps soggy). Councils are elected officers and will respond to their constituents' concerns.
Given the photos I see posted on the various forums of member's camps in their travels I do feel much sympathy for the communities that suffer the 'northern exodus' of old folk, and back-packers. This is particularly so in those beachside, lakeside areas close to built-up areas with dozens of vans etc in what are really only 'rest areas' or picnic areas for the locals.
And the volume of 'old folk' travelling is not diminishing.
I must admit I agree with Dougwe. A 'compromise' solution definitely could be that van parks provide an area "down the back" on a clear area at a nominal price (eg $5-$10) for an overnight or two to restock, shower, wash clobber, and visit a local attraction. One would think that would be a 'win-win' to all.
Cheers - John
Bugsy said
10:53 AM May 26, 2014
If you read this report (not commissioned by the industry itself) Queensland Outback Central West Visitor Profile and Satisfaction Survey found under Queensland on this page www.freechoicecamps.com.au/studiesstats.html it come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
The above quoted article was/is an attempt by the CCIAWA to influence the WA government's plans to increase low cost camping in WA.
shekon said
12:14 PM May 26, 2014
The report is only one paragraph long as it continues to repeat itself all the way through. Still that aside I am wondering if we could come up with another name other than free camping. If we think about it, really there is no such thing, Ok we may not pay for site fees when in these spots, however in these towns that supposedly only benefit from CP dwellers, on the way to the camp spot, all travellers will stop for the fuel, food, clothing, camp supplies, etc, no not all at once but it is spread out. So once the money is spent on these things we choose to go where we feel like going, wether it be a CP or a camp site free or otherwise.
The last I heard we were still a free country and we had choice. The CP owners seemingly wish to take this away from those who travel. I think it would be a small group of vocal people getting all the publicity. The squeakiest wheel gets heard the loudest type of thing.
Those of us out there camping in a free camp or CP, are too busy having a good life and enjoying ourselves to be worried about this type of thing. These CP owners would probably do well to have a look in the mirror and if their grumpy ideals are showing on their faces and to their guests well that is why they have empty sites.
I have no idea what the answer is, except to continue to enjoy life while I can. I stay in both free camps and CPs but the price of some of the CPs are just ridiculous. I agree with Dougwe, a single price would be an advantage also, and something these grumps could look at, to attract a whole group of travellers that so often get overlooked.
Oh well that is life and my 2cents worth, now I will go and sit and watch the waves roll in, soak up the sun, not at a free camp, but at a well priced CP, in a little town where I have spent a number of $$$$ in the 2 weeks that I have been here.
Big Gorilla said
12:45 PM May 26, 2014
Dougwe wrote:
Sounds like a load of wombat cubes.
I reckon there is room for both but even then I would like to see an area, even down the back of a CVP with much cheaper rates i.e. $5-10 per night. Also a cheaper rate at CVP for the solo traveler, then just maybe the CVP owners wouldn't complain so much as the older traveler might use them more. Who knows, they might even have less vacant sites each night. My way of thinking is $10 is better than nothing. The PR wouldn't hurt either.
I agree whole heartedly with you Doug. In fact I've posted on this subject before. One Park that has this facility is in Ouyen, north western Victoria. As I recall a no frills site was $5.00. The photo below shows the $5.00 area..
Many CPs do have a solo rate, extra for 2 people.
-- Edited by Big Gorilla on Monday 26th of May 2014 12:46:17 PM
I wish they would give the demographics of the users. Cant imagine many pensioner nomads being able to afford to stay and spend like that. Must be younger people - maybe with kids to be entertained????
I guess we would need to show our seniors card for the cheap discount 'down the back'. I was asked if I had one today at the Beaudesert CP - I forget to ask for discounts!
goannaway said
06:59 PM May 26, 2014
I'm in a caravan park now as there are no free or cheap camping around in the mid west coast of WA. It is costing me $33 a night for non power site but that also is for a no water site too, it's at the back of the park called the overflow area. I am using my tank water and there are signs saying not to fill your tanks with park water although power sites have taps. Asked for a seniors discount and was told no discounts for unpowered sites. So much for wanting people to go to caravan parks when in a free(cheap) camp I would be doing the same as I am now, also paying this money to the park we have decided not to spend money except for fuel, so no money to the town just the park.
Paul
aussietraveller said
07:23 PM May 26, 2014
The figures quoted in this report are at best rubbery and I believe designed to mislead their local community.
Vic41 said
07:35 PM May 26, 2014
goannaway wrote:
I'm in a caravan park now as there are no free or cheap camping around in the mid west coast of WA. It is costing me $33 a night for non power site but that also is for a no water site too, it's at the back of the park called the overflow area. I am using my tank water and there are signs saying not to fill your tanks with park water although power sites have taps. Asked for a seniors discount and was told no discounts for unpowered sites. So much for wanting people to go to caravan parks when in a free(cheap) camp I would be doing the same as I am now, also paying this money to the park we have decided not to spend money except for fuel, so no money to the town just the park.
Paul
Where abouts are you Paul and do you have the Camps 7 book?
goannaway said
12:31 AM May 27, 2014
Hi Vic In Denham at the moment, heading for Hamlin Pool then on to Perth, friends with us are going north when they leave us and we have the camps 6 book
Vic41 said
01:18 AM May 27, 2014
Thanks goannaway, I know when Yeoeleven stayed in that area he booked at Denham Tourist Info Centre for low cost camping next to the cp at Monkey Mia, it is written in his blog under his signature. I think it cost him about $10. Used the same facilities in the main cp there.
About a week ago I free camped at Gladstone Lookout on the North West Highway almost directly in line and to the east of Denham, 346 in Camps 7 but not sure what number in Camps 6. Others along that highway also.
Doesn't help much if you want one on the coast though, unless you go further south (eg; Coronation Beach, 7 kms off the highway on bitumen road, north of Geraldton, $6 for pensioners, no water or power available, long drop toilets only. Sign on the highway said camp full but when I went there the caretaker said two had just departed, so was in luck. It is a case of first in, best dressed, or park there until someone leaves.
-- Edited by Vic41 on Tuesday 27th of May 2014 01:20:26 AM
graham (chickenman) said
08:58 AM May 27, 2014
Who in there right mind ever use a onsite cabin in a caravan park?
The caravan parks charge almost the same price or more then a motel, but they don't supply linen? not sure if you have to use your own pillows?
A motel charges a single rate a double rate and a family rate ,mostly displayed at the front on the motel so you got a bit of a idear how much its gong to cost overnight.
But a caravan park charges app $10.00for each chld making it far more expensive then a motel?
Fancy having to carry your own sheets and blankets and pillows? are the caravan parks operating in the 1940's & charging 2014 rates?
A example below on what one caravan park charges at Chinderah south of Tweed heads.
No wonder these caravan parks are crying poor, those prices be a 1/2 tank of petrol for me
-- Edited by graham (chickenman) on Tuesday 27th of May 2014 08:59:33 AM
graham (chickenman) said
09:20 AM May 27, 2014
A big credit to the biggera waters big 4 caravan park on the northern end of the Gold coast.
At there swimming poll they have 3 cameras that rotate like every 30 secs or so and still get a vision of the whole pool, mother and father can be in there cabin and relaxing while the kids are in the poll, its transmitted on a tv channel and also being recorded in the office as well.
So if little Jonnie punches little jimmy on the nose at the poll it is recorded and action taken quick smart.
I was a permament resident there for almost 10 years.
Roving-Dutchy said
09:40 PM May 27, 2014
HI Graham
We are evidently not in our right minds, as we have stayed in many onsite cabins in caravan parks, in Tassie and most of the mainland states. We find them cheaper than motels and all bedding and towels are provided for a couple also tea and coffee making facilities, they are way ahead of a motel room, there is separate room away from the bedrooms, cooking facilities are provided and a place to sit and eat your meals, in our travels so far the cost comes down to about the same as towing a van and staying on a powered site as there is a saving on fuel costs and if going to Tassie or WA it is far cheaper to fly and rent a small car and stay in cabins rather than tow a van long distances.
We have travelled all over Australia tenting, camper trailer, caravanning and in motorhomes and stayed in cabins and in every case there are pros and cons whichever way you travel, but all are great ways of getting around our great country.
So Graham why not try something different you just might find that you enjoy.
Cheers
David
Vic41 said
09:51 PM May 27, 2014
All the cabins I have stayed at in WA have had linen/pillows etc supplied, the price is set by the number of beds in the cabin, so a single bedroom with double/queen etc on its own will be a lot cheaper than a two or three bedroom cabin. The charges are for the number of beds and size of the cabin, not the number of children etc like they do for caravans etc.
There are also optional cheaper ones which do not have toilets or bathrooms and you need to use the caravan park ablutions, this is reflected in the price you pay, but these are in the minority, not all parks have them.
Thanks for the feedback on them as an alternative for long distances in some locations David, worth thinking about!
Getting to your main destination quicker would also be a plus as far as food goes as well as fuel.
-- Edited by Vic41 on Tuesday 27th of May 2014 09:54:23 PM
Oz Gypsy said
01:36 PM May 28, 2014
_wombat_ wrote:
this information was conducted by THE industry, so no more.
Yes, the BDO note at the foot of the document says very specifically,
Data taken from the Caravan, RV & Accommodation Industry of Australia..........
Cheers
-- Edited by Oz Gypsy on Wednesday 28th of May 2014 01:43:10 PM
jules47 said
08:59 AM May 30, 2014
When we were in Tassy summer of 2012/13, we were in the far north and found that the "free" camp behind the visitors centre had been closed due to the area being abused with rubbish, etc.
The caravan park nearby had three separate pricings - Best, medium and cheap - can't remember what "best" price was, but medium was $26 with power and water, and the cheap was $12 - behind a fence, no power or water - but use the facilities in the park - wasn't too bad, we stayed in the "medium" area, just because we could - lol!!! Much better value than the Glenorchy showgrounds - was $25 for powered site (very gerrybuilt system), and the shower block was very substandard - very hard to find a level spot as well. Only thing going for it was the convenience - close to shopping centre, bus to town etc.
It's amazing how you can take some facts and twist them around. Now if I read this right, 25 parks SELECTED after surveying 344 parks shows income of $854,091 and expenditure of $541,383 leaving $312,708for whatever.. BUT in the report somehow the parks have an average turnover of $1.4m
I could go on tearing this thing apart but..
some of these tidbits make me smile.
Trends----
-Tourist Park establishments have decreased by approximately 280 parks between December 1997 and March 2012. That equates to approximately 4 or 5 parks every quarter over the last 15 years
The reduction in the number of parks has seen onsite van numbers fall, as well as the number of powered and unpowered sites
Over the same period, industry revenue has gone from $500m to $1.2bn, which works out to about 6.75% growth rate per annum (compared with CPI rate of 2.7% over the same period)
The past two years has seen a slowdown in the revenue growth of Tourist Parks (5% growth from June 2010 to March 2012)
Occupancy rates have risen, although the average park on a typical night would have in excess of 50 powered or unpowered sites unused and available for occupancy
Cabin numbers have more than doubled, leading to a higher number of employees per park on average
Park improvement and development is high on the list of priorities, however, capital expenditure
Saw this ad in the paper today, some interesting comments supporting the caravan parks and opposed to towns providing free camping;
Gday...
Some pertinent comment/information regarding the 'financial value' of "commercial" Vs "non-commercial" campers -
Interesting - if their surveys are indicative it may begin to sway councils even further regarding continuing to provide (or develop) "free" areas.
Cheers - John
The travellers who want to purchase low cost/no frills or free camp sites are the people the CP's would likely never see anyway.
I think also from memory of reading that research the figures for the amount spent by "commercial" campers vs Low cost/free campers was flawed because there was a group they did not include in the low cost/free spending patterns. The true figures were the other way around IE the free/low cost campers actually spent more.
I note also that the CP's are in the minority as far as accommodation revenue at only 12%.
They may wake up one day
frank
I see the reference in the article to 2013 BDO report, I think this is this research company who must have been engaged by the Caravan Industry to research the issue.
I notice the partner mentioned here had 13 years working for a Big 4 Accounting firm? See;
http://www.bdo.com.au/people/graham-wakeman
-- Edited by Vic41 on Monday 26th of May 2014 02:08:06 AM
this information was conducted by THE industry, so no more.
I reckon there is room for both but even then I would like to see an area, even down the back of a CVP with much cheaper rates i.e. $5-10 per night. Also a cheaper rate at CVP for the solo traveler, then just maybe the CVP owners wouldn't complain so much as the older traveler might use them more. Who knows, they might even have less vacant sites each night. My way of thinking is $10 is better than nothing. The PR wouldn't hurt either.
Very true
But the general tax paying public is being exposed to one side of the story and would vote accordingly
Part quote: I would like to see an area, even down the back of a CVP with much cheaper rates i.e. $5-10 per night.
that would suit you, down the back with the wombat cubes
I hope you get what you want and I will supply the cubes free of charge 
See who runs the Camping and Caravan Industry Association
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mobile-home-park-owner-hosted-fundraiser-for-lib-mp-chris-hartcher-20140524-38vde.html
The paid ad in the newspaper was a full page ad and included a large picture of a caravan on the road and the Caravan Industry Association of WA logo and their website, www.caravanwa.com.au which promotes travel in WA and the caravan park.
The focus of the ad to me seemed to be directed at shires and their ratepayers not to fund free or low cost camping sites.
I wonder how they survey came up with those figures? As a hypothetical comparison, for every traveller comes to town and stays in a town caravan park for a number of days how many other don't but still spend their money during that time. Yes, the town caravan park person will refuel and buy food (most for use in the van) but in the meantime during their stay how many of those staying in nearby free or low cost camps also go into town and refuel, buy food and other supplies and pay for attractions as well.
Add to those the many who are passing through and just stop for fuel and food or other supplies at the same time, how could the survey include them?
Just another attempt to force councils with pressure from their ratepayers to close free or low cost camping areas IMHO to force travellers into the town caravan parks.
-- Edited by Vic41 on Monday 26th of May 2014 10:21:24 AM
Alan
Gday...
What the article is trying to say is that for every $1 GROSSED through the books of a caravan park, the community's economy is $1.38 better off.
That is not that the van park spends $1.38 for every $1 the van park grosses, but rather that should $100,000 be the van park's 'turnover', the local economy reflects activity, to the value of $138,000, from those who have visited their community, stayed and spent on local attractions and businesses.
I do not find it difficult to accept that the majority of those who stay in van parks are quite probably 'still-working' and therefore have the ability to spend more and often stay longer. I would would also suggest it would be fairly indicative that those who make the most use of 'free' camping spots within or close to a town are the 'retired/semi-retired' folk - trying to contain their costs.
One thing is increasingly certain. The folk in many towns, on or near 'tourist' attractions, or 'attractive' sights (eg beaches, lakes etc), are becoming more intolerant of crowds of vans and back-packers crammed into their towns. Even if the rubbish is left in bins someone has to empty these bins and often these bins become overflowing due to the volume of campers. Additionally, even with a policy of "self-contained only", many still camp overnight and jest let it all 'run free' - OK in some circumstances, but often so many campers make the place almost unsanitary (and perhaps soggy). Councils are elected officers and will respond to their constituents' concerns.
Given the photos I see posted on the various forums of member's camps in their travels I do feel much sympathy for the communities that suffer the 'northern exodus' of old folk, and back-packers. This is particularly so in those beachside, lakeside areas close to built-up areas with dozens of vans etc in what are really only 'rest areas' or picnic areas for the locals.
And the volume of 'old folk' travelling is not diminishing.
I must admit I agree with Dougwe. A 'compromise' solution definitely could be that van parks provide an area "down the back" on a clear area at a nominal price (eg $5-$10) for an overnight or two to restock, shower, wash clobber, and visit a local attraction. One would think that would be a 'win-win' to all.
Cheers - John
The above quoted article was/is an attempt by the CCIAWA to influence the WA government's plans to increase low cost camping in WA.
The last I heard we were still a free country and we had choice. The CP owners seemingly wish to take this away from those who travel. I think it would be a small group of vocal people getting all the publicity. The squeakiest wheel gets heard the loudest type of thing.
Those of us out there camping in a free camp or CP, are too busy having a good life and enjoying ourselves to be worried about this type of thing. These CP owners would probably do well to have a look in the mirror and if their grumpy ideals are showing on their faces and to their guests well that is why they have empty sites.
I have no idea what the answer is, except to continue to enjoy life while I can. I stay in both free camps and CPs but the price of some of the CPs are just ridiculous. I agree with Dougwe, a single price would be an advantage also, and something these grumps could look at, to attract a whole group of travellers that so often get overlooked.
Oh well that is life and my 2cents worth, now I will go and sit and watch the waves roll in, soak up the sun, not at a free camp, but at a well priced CP, in a little town where I have spent a number of $$$$ in the 2 weeks that I have been here.
I agree whole heartedly with you Doug. In fact I've posted on this subject before. One Park that has this facility is in Ouyen, north western Victoria. As I recall a no frills site was $5.00. The photo below shows the $5.00 area..
Many CPs do have a solo rate, extra for 2 people.
-- Edited by Big Gorilla on Monday 26th of May 2014 12:46:17 PM
I guess we would need to show our seniors card for the cheap discount 'down the back'. I was asked if I had one today at the Beaudesert CP - I forget to ask for discounts!
Paul
Where abouts are you Paul and do you have the Camps 7 book?
Thanks goannaway, I know when Yeoeleven stayed in that area he booked at Denham Tourist Info Centre for low cost camping next to the cp at Monkey Mia, it is written in his blog under his signature. I think it cost him about $10. Used the same facilities in the main cp there.
About a week ago I free camped at Gladstone Lookout on the North West Highway almost directly in line and to the east of Denham, 346 in Camps 7 but not sure what number in Camps 6. Others along that highway also.
Doesn't help much if you want one on the coast though, unless you go further south (eg; Coronation Beach, 7 kms off the highway on bitumen road, north of Geraldton, $6 for pensioners, no water or power available, long drop toilets only. Sign on the highway said camp full but when I went there the caretaker said two had just departed, so was in luck. It is a case of first in, best dressed, or park there until someone leaves.
-- Edited by Vic41 on Tuesday 27th of May 2014 01:20:26 AM
Who in there right mind ever use a onsite cabin in a caravan park?
The caravan parks charge almost the same price or more then a motel, but they don't supply linen? not sure if you have to use your own pillows?
A motel charges a single rate a double rate and a family rate ,mostly displayed at the front on the motel so you got a bit of a idear how much its gong to cost overnight.
But a caravan park charges app $10.00for each chld making it far more expensive then a motel?
Fancy having to carry your own sheets and blankets and pillows? are the caravan parks operating in the 1940's & charging 2014 rates?
A example below on what one caravan park charges at Chinderah south of Tweed heads.
http://www.haciendacv.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemid=150
To stay over night in your own van
$57.00
No wonder these caravan parks are crying poor, those prices be a 1/2 tank of petrol for me
-- Edited by graham (chickenman) on Tuesday 27th of May 2014 08:59:33 AM
A big credit to the biggera waters big 4 caravan park on the northern end of the Gold coast.
At there swimming poll they have 3 cameras that rotate like every 30 secs or so and still get a vision of the whole pool, mother and father can be in there cabin and relaxing while the kids are in the poll, its transmitted on a tv channel and also being recorded in the office as well.
So if little Jonnie punches little jimmy on the nose at the poll it is recorded and action taken quick smart.
I was a permament resident there for almost 10 years.
HI Graham
We are evidently not in our right minds, as we have stayed in many onsite cabins in caravan parks, in Tassie and most of the mainland states. We find them cheaper than motels and all bedding and towels are provided for a couple also tea and coffee making facilities, they are way ahead of a motel room, there is separate room away from the bedrooms, cooking facilities are provided and a place to sit and eat your meals, in our travels so far the cost comes down to about the same as towing a van and staying on a powered site as there is a saving on fuel costs and if going to Tassie or WA it is far cheaper to fly and rent a small car and stay in cabins rather than tow a van long distances.
We have travelled all over Australia tenting, camper trailer, caravanning and in motorhomes and stayed in cabins and in every case there are pros and cons whichever way you travel, but all are great ways of getting around our great country.
So Graham why not try something different you just might find that you enjoy.
Cheers
David
All the cabins I have stayed at in WA have had linen/pillows etc supplied, the price is set by the number of beds in the cabin, so a single bedroom with double/queen etc on its own will be a lot cheaper than a two or three bedroom cabin. The charges are for the number of beds and size of the cabin, not the number of children etc like they do for caravans etc.
There are also optional cheaper ones which do not have toilets or bathrooms and you need to use the caravan park ablutions, this is reflected in the price you pay, but these are in the minority, not all parks have them.
Thanks for the feedback on them as an alternative for long distances in some locations David, worth thinking about!
Getting to your main destination quicker would also be a plus as far as food goes as well as fuel.
-- Edited by Vic41 on Tuesday 27th of May 2014 09:54:23 PM
Yes, the BDO note at the foot of the document says very specifically,
Data taken from the Caravan, RV & Accommodation Industry of Australia..........
Cheers
-- Edited by Oz Gypsy on Wednesday 28th of May 2014 01:43:10 PM
The caravan park nearby had three separate pricings - Best, medium and cheap - can't remember what "best" price was, but medium was $26 with power and water, and the cheap was $12 - behind a fence, no power or water - but use the facilities in the park - wasn't too bad, we stayed in the "medium" area, just because we could - lol!!! Much better value than the Glenorchy showgrounds - was $25 for powered site (very gerrybuilt system), and the shower block was very substandard - very hard to find a level spot as well. Only thing going for it was the convenience - close to shopping centre, bus to town etc.
Here is the report original.
Make interesting reading.
http://www.caravanwa.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Economic-Value-of-a-Caravan-Park-to-a-Local-Council-Area-BDO-Report-2012.pdf
It's amazing how you can take some facts and twist them around. Now if I read this right, 25 parks SELECTED after surveying 344 parks shows income of $854,091 and expenditure of $541,383 leaving $312,708for whatever.. BUT in the report somehow the parks have an average turnover of $1.4m
I could go on tearing this thing apart but..
some of these tidbits make me smile.
Trends----
-Tourist Park establishments have decreased by approximately 280 parks between December 1997 and March 2012. That equates to approximately 4 or 5 parks every quarter over the last 15 years
The reduction in the number of parks has seen onsite van numbers fall, as well as the number of powered and unpowered sites
Over the same period, industry revenue has gone from $500m to $1.2bn, which works out to about 6.75% growth rate per annum (compared with CPI rate of 2.7% over the same period)
The past two years has seen a slowdown in the revenue growth of Tourist Parks (5% growth from June 2010 to March 2012)
Occupancy rates have risen, although the average park on a typical night would have in excess of 50 powered or unpowered sites unused and available for occupancy
Cabin numbers have more than doubled, leading to a higher number of employees per park on average
Park improvement and development is high on the list of priorities, however, capital expenditure
has slowed in more recent times