Parking charges have gotten out of hand
-----------------
Roller Coasters or sports? I guess there are questions nobody can answer!
STEELrevenge2 said:
Kennywood only charges $400 for Perferd parking and anywhere else it's FREE!!-----------------
KENNYWOOD
Is that a typo... $400?
-----------------
Roller Coasters or sports? I guess there are questions nobody can answer!
RideMan said:
"Consider this--(...)
The practical upshot of all this is that extracting cash from my pocket before I enter the park reduces the amount of cash I have available once I am inside. Would it not be better to roll the parking charge into the admission price, so that the parking revenue does not cut into the cash that I would otherwise be able to spend inside the park?
--Dave Althoff, Jr."
Dave -- Maybe, but... I can see three reasons a park might prefer to charge for parking separately.
One, it allows them to advertise lower ticket prices, which is more likely to convince vacationers to come to the park. (I'm including daytrippers, so this doesn't just apply to "resort destinations".) Two, although including the parking fees with admission would allow more discretionary money within the park, there is less guarantee a guest will spend it once they get in. By charging for parking, you can ensure that your guests let loose of some of that discretionary money. Three, I suspect (but cannot say for certain) that the margin is higher on parking than it is on goods purchased within the park. Especially when you consider that maintenance of the lot is very nearly a foregone conclusion... It becomes a fixed cost rather than variable costs (like the price parks must pay for food or sales items ... the more they sell, the more they must buy to sell). Parking money essentially becomes gravy. (Apologies to either amusement industry pros or paving experts who may know the situation is more complex than I've rendered it.)
So ... while no money for parking means more money to spend inside the park, it seems advantageous for parks to charge for parking, as long as guests are willing to pay.
rollergator said:
...I get to do a *bit* of forecasting and such, but not nearly enough for my tastes....having a Bachelor's in Econ. is kinda like having a really nice car, but no gas (looks better in the driveway than it performs on the road....)....
LOL. I have a Bachelor's in Econ too. Guess what I do for a living? Repair computers. But I did get it because ... *gasp* ... I liked the perspective it offered, at least as far as macroeconomics goes. Macro is a very generalized discipline in my opinion. It borrows concepts from any other field that seems useful to make predictions about the way the world works ... and that ain't just about money, either. ;)
Plus, to ruin a quote from Ghostbusters, it gives you the right to tell most people: "Back off man, I'm an economist." :)
Jeremy
1) The parking facility is accounted for separately from gate admissions. Rather than giving traffic and parking an allowance from admissions, the parking lot pays for itself, and kicks the overage into the park.
2) Park operators are incorrectly viewing it as free money. It's not free money; it costs them in reduced spending inside and customers who are already upset with them before going through the front gate.
3) Parks don't care what the admission price is. Advertising a lower admission price is so 1970's...parks are more apt these days to advertise the size of the discount. A Cedar Point admission is roughly $30 this year...but the gate price is $42. Not because they expect people to pay $42, but because they want to advertise the $13 savings they're giving you with the standard discount. So why not price the park at $42 for the park - $13 for the discount + $4 for one ticket's share of the $8 parking fee and toll + $5 for a reasonable discount = $38 with $5 discount passes available? Because "Save $13" gets more attention than "Save $5".
Notice that at no time have I suggested that the parks not collect the parking revenue; I've merely suggested that they not collect it at the parking toll booth!
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Although I agree $8 is high, I think $10 is worse. So even though CP charges $8, I don't yet feel "raped". Of course, I'm also a season pass holder so I've got a parking pass. Also, part of that charge includes the causeway upkeep, not just the parking lot itself. I don't imagine that comes cheap, especially with Lake Erie winters tearing away at it.
I had to laugh at the "walk half a mile" comment, especially when that is a bit of an exageration in my opinion. Most people don't think about how far back Magnum or MF are from the front gate, but don't complain about THAT walk (or run).
I DO recall a time, in the mid 1960's, when CP did have parking trams.
-----------------
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
I think the difference between a sporting event and an amusement park is the places where you park. I can see spending money to park at a downtown lot, independently owned from the sports team, using a valuable piece of real estate. Paying to park at an amusement park is more like paying to park at a mall. I know of only one mall that charges to park. So, we are paying the amusement company for the privilege of doing business with them. I think that’s what upsets people.
Turning to CP, the park I’m most familiar with. I think the Causeway is run by a wholly owned subsidiary called something like the Cedar Point Bridge Company. 50 cents of your parking fee goes towards the causeway. So really parking is $7.50 and the Causeway toll is $.50. Thankfully, CP offers season parking passes, so the parking cost isn’t much of an issue for me.
A tip for people going to CP: Get there early and eat breakfast in one of CP’s outside the park restaurants. Breakfast is a pretty good value, Boathouse has really good ala carte and TGIF’s at the Breakers has a great buffet. The restaurants will refund your parking fee, so you get a good breakfast and free parking at CP.
*** This post was edited by Pete on 5/23/2002. ***
You must be logged in to post
