Maximum trailer length in National Parks

[Protagonist]

Interestingly enough, I happen to have a copy of the current edition of the National Park Service "Park Road Standards." It dates back to 1984, and hasn't been updated since. They have a "design" trailer shown on one of the diagrams. The design trailer is a tandem-axle 30-foot travel trailer, 8 feet wide, where the rear overhang is 10 feet from the rear axle to the rear bumper. Overall length of the towing vehicle/trailer combination is 49 feet, from the towing vehicle's front bumper to the trailer's rear bumper. No consideration in the Park Road Standards for Class A motorhomes with a toad, no consideration for 5th wheel trailers.

But that's just the roads. There is no corresponding document that guides the design of campgrounds and campsites, except in the case of handicapped-accessible campsites, that have to meet Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines for outdoor spaces.

In general, campsites are considered necessary evils that detract from the "real" purpose of a National Park, which is the preservation of wilderness areas. Every road and every campsite is an encroachment of civilization into wilderness. Which is one reason why so many of their sites are primitive, meant for boondocking.

The real kicker in all of this is that NPS campsites are probably designed by people who have never been camping; that's the Government way. If they see a "design" vehicle in their guidebook that's 49 feet long, they probably think that 50 feet is long enough for any campsite parking.

[webspinner]

I applaud the preservation goals of the national parks. I love having more space for hiking and don't mind tight camping quarters as a tradeoff.

Most of the spots in Upper Pines seem to have been designed for cars and tents. That's how I remember camping there as a kid 50 years ago. Now that I'm getting creaky, I'm willing to shoehorn a 25' trailer into a tent spot, if I can just find the spots that will fit it. Even driving around the corners in the camping loops requires all of our attention.

[barts]

Originally Posted by Protagonist

The real kicker in all of this is that NPS campsites are probably designed by people who have never been camping; that's the Government way. If they see a "design" vehicle in their guidebook that's 49 feet long, they probably think that 50 feet is long enough for any campsite parking.

I would guess that almost all of Yosemite's campgrounds date from many years before Class A motorhomes or 45 foot truck & trailer combos.

While talking with one of the senior park rangers, he mentioned that they're considering providing electric service as a way of dealing with generator use, since this is the cause of complaints due to the fumes and noise they create. The large bold lettered sign describing generator hours at the campground entrance, and worried question by a ranger at checkin was obviously an attempt to deal with this. There are lots of people camping in tents right next to RVs w/ generators...

- Bart

[mefly2]

Glacier NP used to have painted lines on the roadway (by the entrance stations) marking max length of TV + TT IIRC.

[Denis4x4]

Protagonist said "In general, campsites are considered necessary evils that detract from the "real" purpose of a National Park, which is the preservation of wilderness areas. Every road and every campsite is an encroachment of civilization into wilderness. Which is one reason why so many of their sites are primitive, meant for boondocking."

Actually, there are designated wilderness areas that do not allow any motorized or mechanized machines. It talks an act of congress (literally) to land a helicopter in a wilderness area or to even use a chainsaw to clear trails. These are usually USFS properties.

Don't forget that the vast majority of these USFS and NPS campgrounds were designed and configured long before the crew cab pickups, Class A motorhomes and slide outs were SOP for RV'ers.

I'm more concerned by campers that are to cheap to pay the USFS/NPS fees and boondock on federal land near developed campgrounds. In fact, a lot of USFS offices have banned dispersed camping.

[ddruker]

That would be so awesome if Yosemite would put electrical outlets in the valley. I'm not sure I believe it, but it would be fabulous nonetheless - it gets to 100 degrees plus in the valley in the summer and would be great to have shore power for the AC.

[Len n Jeanne]

We love the National Parks!! But....

I agree that some NPS campground designers do not appear to have gone camping-- at least not with an RV. The Bay Bridge CG at Yellowstone is nice enough, and within walking distance of the marina. Trouble is, the entire CG appears to have been recently repaved, yet many of the sites are not level. To the point where, last June when we camped there with some friends, they couldn't get their motorhome level enough to run their fridge, even with risers under the downhill tires. Then the people across from us in a motorhome had parking that was parallel to the loop road, and nearly overlaping it. I thought they took an awful chance with their pot smoke wafting across the road, being so close and all. The Fishing Bridge CG with RV plug-ins packs in RVs more closely than any urban RV park we've visited. Good luck if your neighbours have slide-outs.

But some of the CGs do seem to be nicely designed, so that you can back in in a sort-of straight line.

The real problem we find with NPS CGs is just that they really tend to fill up early, at least at times we've visited. With no overflow camping in the park, it can be a long drive to the next reasonable place to camp. [See the Chaco Canyon thread!] In the Moab (Arches/Canyonlands) area, our go-to campground is the Horsethief Campground run by the BLM, near Deadhorse Point SP.

The main trailer restrictions seem to be on roads, like Going-to-the-Sun in Glacier. And a fee charged for most RVs (including Bambi!) going through the Zion Tunnel.

Zion, BTW has electrical hookups at their Watchman CG.

Off to Death Valley & Lake Mead in Feb./March, and would love any insights on camping there. We do have a reservation @ Furnace Creek.

[JamuJoe]

The real kicker in all of this is that NPS campsites are probably designed by people who have never been camping; that's the Government way. If they see a "design" vehicle in their guidebook that's 49 feet long, they probably think that 50 feet is long enough for any campsite parking.[/QUOTE]

ALSO - Many, if not most of the NPS campgrounds were constructed by the CCC or WPA at a time when vehicles and campers were much smaller.

[Road Geezer]

Like I said, Mather CG in Grand Canyon is newly designed and, looking at the map, has many more pull thru campsites then regular back ins. This is a campground that accommodates both RVs and tent campers. I think it represents an awareness about the changing types of campers using NPs.

The do have a separate campground with full hookups but much smaller sites. It's more like a KOA without the yurts.

[mojo]

The problem with National Parks is the guy who grabs a premium spot for his Prius and a pup tent that has a 50' parking area. Thus, leaving you to shoehorn a trailer and TV into a 20' spot or leave.

[mefly2]

Originally Posted by mojo

The problem with National Parks is the guy who grabs a premium spot for his Prius and a pup tent that has a 50' parking area. Thus, leaving you to shoehorn a trailer and TV into a 20' spot or leave.

Does the Prius party have less right to be there than a TT unit?
Suggest to leave for destination earlier to arrive earlier ... or look for other alternatives outside the parks. I can't tell you how many times folks in big "elite" rigs complained to me about the smaller "campers" taking all of the good spots! I was only a seasonal ranger; so, it wore off quickly. Frustrating, I know ... but just saying ... YMMV

[Protagonist]

My Interstate is only 23 feet long, not counting a cargo tray on the hitch receiver, and I don't have a toad, so out of consideration for my fellow campers, I try to find the smallest available campsite wherever I go, and save the bigger sites for people with bigger rigs.

Haven't stayed at a National Park yet, but by selecting the smaller spots at the state parks and CoE campgrounds I have been to so far, there has seldom been a lack of availability except on busy holiday weekends.

I don't always take the smallest spot, though, if said smallest spot has zero tree cover, or is right next to the entrance gate where everyone coming and going provides a disturbance (made that mistake only once). But all other things being equal, what on earth would I use the extra space for if I occupied a bigger one?

[webspinner]

I do recognize the Prius/put tent's right to a campsite, so it just makes the game a bit more challenging to find space for 45' of trailer and truck.

In Yosemite's Upper Pines campground, for instance, there are maybe a dozen spots out of about 200 that will comfortably hold us and let us drop our awning. There are a couple dozen more that we could shoehorn ourselves into.

My strategy, now that I've walked the campground and looked at nearly all the spots, is to keep a spreadsheet handy of the yes/no/maybe status of each site when I'm making reservations.

Or maybe we'll just pack the pup tent into the Prius...

[mojo]

Originally Posted by mefly2

Does the Prius party have less right to be there than a TT unit?

No, it's usually first come, first serve...but

I DO try to avoid parking right next to someone else if there is space.
I DO try to respect tenters with my generator.
I DO leave the big pull through for the "elite" motor homes if other space is available.

It's just common courtesy and awareness of ones surroundings.

[Janet H]

Some of the redwoods parks have stated limits around 25 feet and the spots are tough to get into. They clearly we re designed for car camping years ago. (at right angles to loop roads).

I guess they are unwilling to cut down those pesky big trees to facilitate easy parking.

[webspinner]

With our solar panels, we wouldn't mind if a few trees went missing.

Tree removal is a bit of an issue in Yosemite. Prior to European-American occupation, the valley was managed with regular burns by the indigenous people. This kept the trees to a minimum and made both game and enemies easier to spot. The absence of any fires in the valley in the past hundred years increases the fuel load and the possibility of a catastrophic fire.

I remember the open vistas in the valley when I was a child, half a century ago. Now many panoramic views are blocked by trees that wouldn't have been there several hundred years ago.

But visitors might be turned off by the sound of chain saws or the smoke of a controlled burn. It will be interesting to see what happens, and if any more space will open up in those campsites.

[ddruker]

Attached find a useful document detailing the capacities of the upper pines campsites in Yosemite valley... I've not been able to find a version of this for the other two major areas in the valley but I would be surprised if it does not exist.

I just spoke with a ranger at the phone number in the document who was not aware of this document (it is 13 years old) - and he said that it could be out of date.

I said I thought it would be great to bring this document up to date, he said no way, he didn't want to publish pad measurements and he directed me to recreation.gov for the official list of site capacities.

[ddruker]

And here is some more detail on the current draft future development plan for Yosemite valley vis a vis RVs and trailers... Note this could be implemented next year, in 30 years or never - so it's far from a done deal.

Parking

* Overnight visitors would still be able to drive into Yosemite Valley and park at their lodging or campsite.

* Day visitors to Yosemite Valley would park at the 550-space day- visitor parking area in Yosemite Village or would use an out-of-Valley parking area and take a shuttle bus into the Valley during the busiest seasons.

* Shuttle bus service would be expanded in the east Valley and new service would be provided in the west Valley.

* Until all shuttle buses become accessible, visitors with disabilities would be able to drive into Yosemite Valley.

Lodging

* Some lodging would be removed or relocated from highly valued natural resource areas, such as meadows and riparian areas.

* Yosemite Lodge motel units that are in the floodplain would be removed and the area restored to natural conditions.

* Emphasis would be placed on retaining and/or rebuilding traditional national park accommodations.

* Housekeeping Camp would have 100 units, which would be set back at least 150 feet from the Merced River.

* Curry Village would retain rustic tent cabins and cabins without baths in order to maintain the area's historic character. Some tent cabins in the rockfall zone would be removed.

Camping

* Campgrounds would be redesigned to include more varied camping experiences, including tent camping, RV camping, walk-in campsites with parking nearby, and walk-to campsites with no associated parking.

* Some campsites would have utility hook-ups, thus reducing noise from generators.

* Shower facilities would be built in some campgrounds.

[burnsdl]

Originally Posted by TWA640316

Has anyone had a problem with a 25 or 27 foot tailer being too long for some of the National Parks out west. We seen somewhere there was a maximum limit for some of the parks.

Stan

I just returned from 7 nights in Yosemite - stayed in Upper Pines campground, sites 79 & 84. I have a 2012 27FB and was able to park my F150 supercrew (shortbox) at each of the sites (not in overflow). I did park the truck perpendicular to the trailer; no problems at all.

[steverino]

Thanks burnsdl - thats good to know... we've been wanting to visit Yosemite again since we got our 27FB!

Steve