Cedar Point will keep parking price at $8

Posted Thursday, April 17, 2003 4:30 AM | Contributed by wkyc.com

Despite a recently approved eight percent parking tax for the city of Sandusky, Cedar Point will maintain the $8 fee this season.

From WKYC/Cleveland.

Related parks

Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:41 AM
Well we can now see that CP is actually paying the cost of the tax.
Thursday, April 17, 2003 6:39 AM
john peck's avatar Its' nice that they are eaing that tax, but I still think $8 is completely unnessessary and rediculous
Thursday, April 17, 2003 6:50 AM
CPLady's avatar It's $2 cheaper than what some parks are charging.

I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead

Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:06 AM
The tax seems to be in dispute because it is a tax designed to tax a single business disguised as a multi-business tax. I doubt they could get away with just saying we're taxing Cedar Point's parking even though that is what it basically is.
Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:42 AM
$8 is completely unnessessary and rediculous

Let's compare this price to others:

Cheapest spaces at Detroit Metro Airport within walking distance of the terminal: $10.

Downtown Ann Arbor: $0.90/hour.

The Palace of Auburn Hills (concerts or Pistons game): $10

Ann Arbor Pioneer High School, for Michigan football games: $30. (That's to park on grass, but close to the stadium.)

And for John, who lives in Columbus: 2002 parking rates for Ohio State home football games: $10.

Seems to me that $8 is a bit under the "going rate" for parking.


Thursday, April 17, 2003 8:05 AM
Considering PKI charged us $9 last weekend, I think $8 is very competitive. Who knows what SFWOA will charge this season....it may even vary from week to week! ;)

-Mikey*** This post was edited by olympic10086 4/17/2003 12:06:18 PM ***

Thursday, April 17, 2003 10:28 AM
To add to the list:

PKD charges 10 bucks.

- John
Dag, yo

Thursday, April 17, 2003 3:04 PM
One of the most important rules of business is that nothing is free. You'll be paying for that tax whether you realize it or not.

Jes's Roller Coasters DJ Jes
Six Flags Worlds Of Adventure Ride-Ops Crew 2002-2003(Find Me, Win a prize!)

Thursday, April 17, 2003 3:55 PM
I still think $8 is completely unnessessary and rediculous

Thats not rediculous at all, I think thats pretty good. SFGAm charges $10 and Allstate Arena in Chicago charges $15 for parking!

Final Deja Vu Count for the 2002 Season: 52

Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:09 PM
john peck's avatar Not to offend here, but I find it sad that people believe a park that charges $8 to park is "reasonable"

Keep in mind what type of areas some non park attractions are in: mostly crowded areas or downtown. CP or PKI or Great America are way out where no other businesses can park there. If I owned a park in a downtown area for example, i would charge parking to keep other businesses traffic out of my lot. Thats where the parking charges originated from back in the day.

Now, as we build new parks in what was originally a field, with nothing around it, I find it completely unfair and unjust when they hit you with a $7 charge to park your car. Heck, im spending $40 just to get in the park. Well, thats $7 less than I'll spend in there, thank you, and Ill go home with a little bit of a negative vibe.

I understand that some of that goes towards lot maintainence and salary, great... add it to my admission ticket! But how much of that "really" goes towards lot maintenance? Have you seen PKI's or SFWOA's cracked, warped, uneven lots lately?

Now also, If I enjoy the park, Im certainly going to go, whether it be on a parking pass or carpool, or God Forbid with me only and cash in hand, but I dont have to keep my mouth shut and like the parking price.

I posted a similar topic to this last year on CB called: "Parking charges have gotten out of hand" We had a good conversation going on, check it out.

Thats just me, and it's my opinion, and I'm not going to change it.
*** This post was edited by john peck 4/17/2003 9:15:22 PM ***

Friday, April 18, 2003 4:01 AM
Forgive my inability to properly quote, but...

Michael Darling said: To add to the list: PKD charges 10 bucks.

Don't make up figures, and don't insert figures of which you are uncertain. PKD has never charged $10, which is, might I add, a very unreasonable price for parking. PKD charges $7 for parking, which is still a bit steep. I am in agreement that $8 is far too expensive.

I would like to add that in my opinion, comparing prices of parking at amusement parks to prices of parking at other parks, airports, ballpark stadiums, etc. does not in any way help to dissipate the fact that $8 is too expensive. Sure, those other locations might be more expensive... but $8 is still too expensive for many.

But on the main topic, what measures could CP take (or could CP have taken) to "appeal" this taxation decision, so to speak?*** This post was edited by xtraxtreme 4/18/2003 8:13:00 AM ***

Friday, April 18, 2003 4:57 AM
First of all, customers are already paying a VERY high price to enter these forms of entertainment, amusement parks, pro games, etc. In some cases, the parking area may not be owned by the same company. In that respect, it is another company trying to milk profits from someone elses patrons because they can.

In the case of the parks, i beleive they own their lots in most cases. Now i could understand Disneyland where they spent all the money on a parking garage. But at parks that have existed for 20 some years? No. Lets compare a few other forms of entertainment (that have much lower ticket prices to start)

short track stock car racing. Average ticket price $10, parking $0

Movie theatres in suburb locations (where parks are normally also) Appx $6 to $8 ticket, parking $0.

Malls and shopping centers don't charge to park normally. Why? Because they would lose all their customers. There is usually another option right around the corner. Amusement parks are not like that, and they sit a standard. Parking fees keep climbing up at a rate that is not equal to inflation. Kings Islands original parking fee was $1. We have not seen an 8x rise in costs in 30 years. Its unreasonable, greedy and taking advantage of the customers, same as the overpriced food.

Friday, April 18, 2003 6:12 AM
It's not just short track auto racing. I've been going to MIS for the indycar races since 1995, and parking has always been free. Same at Mid Ohio Sports Car Course (except for the infield area, where they charge a small fee for the whole weekend. This is control the amount of cars in the limited space, i.e. they sell a fixed number of them and when they're gone, they're gone). They Indy infield was free on race day, it was just the fourth of July before you got out ;-). The only races I've had to pay for parking have been the temporary circuits, such as Cleveland and Toronto, and these sites were not run by the promotors. They were just enterprising business people (Toronto), or a city lot that is normally pay (Cleveland).

That said, I'm not against the parking fee at places. This discussion isn't really about parking fees anyway. It's about a poorly run government entity singling out a business to cover their deficets. This business already provides a large percentage of their revenue to begin with, but it is not enough for the politicians.

I personally resent being treated as a freeloader by the city (They come in and use our resources to go to the attractions that provide most of our revenue. The $%#$##@$$s.). Does the city think it would be better for them if Cedar Point didn't exist?

The Toledo Blah, One of America's Great Birdcage Liners

Friday, April 18, 2003 6:14 AM
BTW, some malls do charge for parking. They are usually urban malls, but a couple of examples are the City Center in Columbus, Water Tower Place in Chicago. (Yikes, you ever had to pay to park in Chicago. That's steep)

The Toledo Blah, One of America's Great Birdcage Liners

Friday, April 18, 2003 7:36 AM

In almost all of my examples, your following claim is untrue:

Keep in mind what type of areas some non park attractions are in: mostly crowded areas or downtown.

That's not true of: Michigan football games (you park in a big field or around a golf course in a town surrounded by farmland for miles), Detroit Metro (almost nothing to one side of it), and The Palace (way out in the suburbs of detroit). However, lots of people want to park closer rather than farther. That makes parking a scarce resource, rating higher costs irrespective of the underlying cost of the land. Would I rather pay less? Sure. But, do I think it is within market rates? Yes.

I'd rather pay less for admission, too, but compared to alternative entertainment options (e.g. my cheap-seats, faculty-discounted UM football tickets cost more than a discounted 1-day park admission to everywhere but Disney) it seems like a fair price.

Thats just me, and it's my opinion, and I'm not going to change it.

Nothing like an open-minded debate.


Friday, April 18, 2003 4:39 PM
Even if CP decided to raise the parking fee to $9 to cover the tax and keep the rate where mass amounts of change arent needed, I dont see a problem with it.

Alot of you just arent used to high parking fees or fees at all for that matter. Heck, I tell my parents that most big amusement parks now charge at least $40 to get in and they look at me like that is insanely high. It all boils down to what you are used to paying and being from the Chicago area, $8 to park is reasonable for the standards I am used to. Brookfield zoo charges almost $8 to park and Lincoln Park zoo in Chicago charges $9 to use their lot. If you want to hit the museums, Shedd Aquarium, etc, you can expect to pay between $6 to $13 just to park your car.------------------
Arena football has arrived in the Windy City. Go "Chicago Rush"

Friday, April 18, 2003 9:06 PM
I don't think it's outrageous to charge $8 (or more) based on what other facilities charge. I say it's ridiculous because virtually all that money is profit. I am guessing--yes, guessing--that a little portion of the parking fee goes toward a maintenance fund, then the rest of it is easy money for the park. Even with this tax, I feel around $5 is the max virtually any non-urban park should be charging.

But why do they charge so much? Because they can. Consumer elasticity.

Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Saturday, April 19, 2003 4:46 AM
Indeed General Public, it is price elasticity of demand. Raising parking prices will not lead to any significant loss in demand (largely because of the limited alternative options to travelling to a park) so overall profit will be increased. Similarly, the decision about what price to charge in the first place is easily made as relatively high because demand for parking at this price will be only slighlty lower than at a lower price.

The same thing can be seen in motorway service station prices, at least in this country - ridiculous high prices because there is no competition for providing food, drink etc. while you're on a motorway.

Saturday, April 19, 2003 6:22 AM
Interesting. What CP has done was to lower the price of parking so that the $8.00 includes the 8% tax, thus reducing the amount (albeit just a little bit) of tax revenue.

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2020, POP World Media, LLC