Adam KowaleskiUniversity of South Florida

Florida’s Coast-to-Coast Cycling Trail: Human Factor Design for Free Camping

Bicycle tourism and long-distance touring is an established and growing venture by cyclists and recreationalists; it generates millions of dollars. Florida is working to connect a system of bicycle-dedicated trails which will span 250 miles across the state, beginning in St. Petersburg and terminating in at the Atlantic Ocean near Canaveral. Current plans focus on connecting the gaps, but do not anticipate some needs of long-distance riders; prohibited camping and parking lots that close at sundown are prime examples. This paper seeks to model potential use of the trails, particularly multi-day use across the entire state, by using survey data gathered from cycling communities and maps. A well-arranged trail system of this magnitude should offer a safe and comfortable experience tailored to a tourer. Human Factor design motivates the proposed addition of free camping within the existing infrastructure.

INTRODUCTION

A concerted effort has been underway for a 2 years to connect a series of trails in Florida which will unite the east and west coast of the state (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2014). City leaders, residents, and businesses across the state have already enjoyed economic and quality of life improvements by creating large paved trails and facilities (Florida’s Coast to Coast Connector Trail, 2015).

Counties, parks, and businesses have a common goal of closing the existing gaps in the system and the collaborative effort cites “Economy, Tourism, Health, Transportation, Recreation, Conservatism, and Quality of Life” as the motivating factors (First Edition, 2015).

Existing Map

Concerning bicycle tourism particularly, both inter and intrastate, Lamont labored to generate a modern understanding of the activity by building on previous definitions (Lamont, 2009):

Trips involving a minimum distance of 40 kilometers from a person’s home and an overnight stay (for overnight trips), or trips involving a minimum non-cycling round trip component of 50 kilometers and a minimum four-hour period away from home (for day trips) of which cycling, involving active participation or passive observation, for holiday, recreation, leisure and/or competition, is the main purpose for that trip. Participation in cycling may include attendance at events organized for commercial gain and/or charity

(competitive and non-competitive), as well as independently organized cycling.Note that Lamont emphasizes multiple motivations for a cycler to get on the

trail for an extended period of time. The author will build on the competitive aspect by adding that cyclers will be attracted to the challenge of completing an arduous task: riding the entire trail and adding it’s completion to their list. This is no different than a climber summiting a mountain top. In essence – once the trail is complete, many cyclers will be excited to ride it completely.

To accommodate riders on the trail system for multiple days, camping becomes a primary focus. Many facilities are already established providing safe parking, bathrooms, and water; more are planned as part of the state’s cooperative effort unfolds. Considering Human Factors design, one element has been overlooked which could further bolster the attractiveness of the adventure ride: free camping.

Free camping, in this work, is defined as:A dusk-to-dawn only campsite chosen by the rider anywhere along the trail within a set distance from the path.

“Free” denotes no paid fee and liberty to choose. Time-constraining camping from dusk-to-dawn has two main motivations. People utilize the trail in a myriad of ways and primarily during daylight hours. Often you will see people walking alone, in groups, or with dogs or strollers. There are also skateboarders and inline skaters. Some folks even use them as primary transportation to go shopping or to work. So, firstly, there can be no obstructions during peak times. Secondly a frank point, camping can be perceived as an eye-sore to otherwise pristine locations; the constraint would prevent anyone from setting up permanent or semi-permanent campsites. There aren’t commonly users from dusk to dawn; some parks close at dawn.

SURVEY DATAAn independent survey was conducted by the author through two prominent

online bicycling forums, bikeforum.net and forums.mtbr.com. These two websites are free to users and have sub-topics for all things bicycle related. The survey was posted in the touring and bikepacking sub-sections of both sites intended to target the riders most likely to utilize the Coast to Coast, or C2C, system in its entirety. 16 cyclers participated. The general intent of the survey was to target would-be riders for a baseline idea of how long it will take them to ride and what amenities they would be looking for.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 1 shows a spread of common amenities a cycler might find or seek at a destination. Online camping reservations received no votes for “completely necessary”; the majority of respondents viewed this option as “irrelevant.” The author concedes this is a very small pool of data, however this type of rejection toward “checking in” with a park marks the ethos of many touring cyclers and bikepackers.

Vanderpool notes in New frontiers: Bikepacking is pushing the boundaries of mountain bike adventure--and creating opportunity at retail “More people are getting out for quick one-night "micro-trips" or planning multi-day backcountry tours for their vacations.” Riders want spontaneity and freedom to ride the trail as they please.Assuming that camping is the primary modus operandi of C2C riders, exploring the possibility of free camping becomes more relevant, Figure 2 enumerates this almost completely.

The trail will be 275 miles from St. Petersburg to the Canaveral area (Coast to Coast Connector, 2014). Let’s look at riding data from Figures 4 and 5. If we take the maximum value from each bucket with the highest response rate we get 8 hours each day average 12 miles per hour, which is 48 miles per day. At that rate it would take between 4 and 5 days to complete the trail. This moves our discussion to Figure 3, where we see a majority of riders in this survey are looking for a 2-3 day excursion.

HUMAN FACTOR DESIGN – FREE CAMPING

Free camping can be approached and implemented as an administrative design principle, meaning it will not require physical manipulation of the existing system. The main components of introducing this allowance are dissemination of rules (via website and park signage), protecting and marking any ecological sanctuaries, and enforcement.

For free camping to be an official practice trail users will need to receive the rules. Fortunately, touring cyclers are already programmed to look for maps, both online and on the trail, in order to plan and complete their routes. Both of these locations would be effective in communicating with riders.

Writing rules for touring riders can be very similar to what is expected of campers. Many state and local parks request that riders obtain a permit. The permit explains that users must respect markers, stay on the trail, clean up after themselves, and refrain from using illicit drugs and alcohol. Once they have signed an agreement they will be given a permit to access the area or trail.

Ecological markers on many trails currently exist. These include signs marking certain plants or wildlife and “do not enter” areas. Campers would have no exception to existing protected areas. Of more concern, though, is preventing long term damage to the surrounding trail. As noted earlier the routes are pristine and introducing free camping measures should be administered in a way to guarantee the ground’s status. Other users far outnumber tourers, therefore it would be unacceptable to allow a practice that would permanently alter the trail to benefit a small fraction of its users.

Growcock and Pickering studied campers’ effects on vegetation and concluded that “…approaches such as dispersed camping policies in areas with moderate to highly resistant vegetation and low levels of use may be appropriate. Where ecosystems have lower resistance, or there is likely to be higher use than was tested for here, a concentrated camping strategy and/or limiting camping to hardened sites may be more appropriate.

The most effective ecological comparison for free camping actually lies off of the existing trail. Jay B. Starkey Park offers front and backcountry campsites which has the same terrain as much of the C2C trail. A study of the campsites’ vegetation in relation to the frequency of their use could be performed; this would yield a good idea of how spaces off the bike trail would be affected by campers. One could also assume in this comparison that campsites off the trail would be much less trafficked than permanent front country sites often used by recreational campers. In other words, if the front country campsites (composed of grass and trees) and are highly trafficked and in healthy condition, one could assume less trafficked spaces of similar makeup would also remain healthy.

Lastly, enforcement is necessary. Park rangers would be the prime operators in enforcing the rules. A review of park practices would be necessary to determine what kinds of changes to current working schedules would be needed.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONSThe author concedes that 18 survey participants is a small pool of data with a

high standard deviation (around 2 in all figures). Firstly, to build on the administration of free camping, a more extensive survey would need to be completed. Further data would need to be compiled such as what kinds of grass line the trails. Although it may be a generally low-cost implementation, economic worth would also need to be measured; a larger survey would need to include an attraction model based on attraction to this amenity.

Further, although the current trail system is not complete, a majority of the trails are present and riders can utilize roads and subdivisions to complete a ride from coast to coast. A trial run could be conducted by a small group at average speed to gather consensus on camping conditions.

The trails construction is evidence, among many other things, that cycling in Florida is a popular attraction. It is the authors belief that touring cyclists will camp along the trail whether it is allowed or not and therefore it is more practical to consider an amicable design to make the C2C trail a cycling destination.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carl, K., Brown, S. A., Dror, M., & Durcikova, A. (2013). Bicycle tours: Modeling the

perceived exertion of a daily path. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports,

9(2), 203-216.

Coast to Coast Connector. 2016. Fgtf.org. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.

<http://static1.squarespace.com/static/552ea744e4b034c9174834f7/t/

553fe164e4b0860773a25834/1430249828700/ctcc_map_final%5B1%5D.pdf>.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2014). Coast to coast connector.

(No. Status Report: July 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014).

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/: Florida Department of Environmental

Protection.

Florida’s coast to coast connector trail. FL Greenways and Trails Foundation. (2015).

[Video/DVD]

Growcock, A. J., & Pickering, C. (2011). A guilt-free roll in the grass: Minimal short-

term impacts from short-term camping in the Australian alps. Journal of

Ecotourism, 10(1), 86.

Vanderpool, V. (2014, 06/01; 2016/2). New frontiers: Bikepacking is pushing the

boundaries of mountain bike adventure--and creating opportunity at retail.23,

1+.