Parking Prices Getting Out Of Hand

Do you smell something?

Raven-Phile:

I don’t trust valet drivers after my experience with one in Chicago

"You fellas have nothing to worry about... I'm a professional."

I always trust valets.

Tommytheduck:

"You fellas have nothing to worry about... I'm a professional."

Professional what?

I was a Valet for 4 years, in 3 different cities and the only car I ever damaged was my own. Managed to lock more than one set of keys inside of cars though.

And I may have done a 0-60 run in a brand new 911 Turbo, but I'm sure the statute of limitations has passed on that one.

I don't get it. With very few exceptions (Elitch Gardens comes to mind...) amusement parks operate their own parking lots, and the lots are of interest only to people visiting the park. Some of these park operators are treating parking as a "free money" revenue source (I actually read an article about a decade ago where a major park operator described it as exactly that) but I don't understand that mindset, knowing that an overly expensive parking experience, especially given the condition of some of these amusement park parking lots, does nothing but put the customer in a really bad mood before he even gets in the gate. I remember when I got hit with a gigantic parking fee at SFGAm some 20 years ago (I think it was $20) my immediate reaction was to resolve not to spend another dime in that park. No lunch, no souvenir, no Churro, no drink...not a dime.

Did the park notice? Probably not. But I was certainly not in a very good mood when I entered the park, and it didn't get much better.

I'm not saying the parks don't deserve the revenue. But they know how many cars they park in a season, they know their ticket mix, and they know exactly how much parking revenue they can attribute to any given ticket. So why not build the parking fee appropriately into the admission price (at every level) and then advertise the crap out of parking being "free". It's quite literally the Holiday World model. Make people think they're getting a great deal when they visit the park. In the process, reduce the costs of operating the parking facility and reduce the expectations of the people parking there (it's really annoying to pay $25 to park and then damage the car in an unmaintained parking lot!).

Seriously, in the circumstances which apply to almost all amusement parks, there is really only one good reason to charge anything for parking: so that they can give it away as a bonus. But if you're going to use "free parking" as an inducement to sell season passes, it works just as well at $5 as it does at $50. And a $5 parking fee is going to make the customers a lot less unhappy when they get to the gate.

Personally, I think Fun Spot Orlando has the right idea...

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

^ We were the same way at SFGADV the first time we paid $25 to park. Six Flags is the best at making people mad before they make it through the front gate, and it shows in the attitude of their crowd.

That's why we haven't been. In my day to day life I deal with unfriendly people and the last thing I want to do is patronize a place that encourages that poor attitude and behavior. Every time I visit a Six Flags we end up mad about something.

The last time at SFA on the way out I said to my wife, "Why do we put ourselves through that to ride a few ok coasters?" That's when we decided to stay away until there's a ride worth visiting for.

Kentucky Kingdom uses, by default, the state fairgrounds/expo parking lot. When we first started going there you could pay as little as 3 bucks to park.
We went to the fair a couple summers ago and I can’t remember what parking was but if it was even 6 dollars I’m surprised.
I’ll never forget hearing a KK rep when talking to a gathering of enthusiasts, say “People in our area have trouble with a dollar” when asked about parking fees there. But the prices are set by the fair commission, not the park, and the message was that they follow what the local market will bear.
As mentioned above, parks use free parking as a benefit to owning a season pass. When parking is 20+ bucks an arriving guest might think twice about their admission options and get a pass. That provides no parking revenue allowing the one-offs to make up the difference.

RideMan:

Did the park notice? Probably not. But I was certainly not in a very good mood when I entered the park, and it didn't get much better.

To be fair, you were at a Six Flags park in the mid 2000s. That's really all you needed for a bad mood to be warranted.

Coasterfantom2:

The last time at SFA on the way out I said to my wife, "Why do we put ourselves through that to ride a few ok coasters?"

This year it will be 20 years since my last visit. It's still the closest theme park to my home, even after I moved from VA to WV 10 years ago.

Similar to the idea that a park can reduce the price it charges for drinks and increase its profit (by selling more at the lower price) -- which is a subject that was discussed here (though I think more at PB) with some regularity a while back, the idea of inclusive pricing and offering certain things for "free" as a way of increasing profits isn't really novel or high level econ. Parks that charge for parking have made the business decision that they maximize profits by charging for parking. And yes there are people who are unhappy with paying for parking--and some who may refuse to go because of it--just like there are people who are unhappy with drink prices (and some who refuse to buy drinks in the park). But there are also people who don't think twice about paying for parking and who buy plenty of drinks at current prices. And at this point passes often include "free" parking and there are drink plans (for the day and season) which fix your costs.

I like a la carte pricing. Use more, you pay more; use less, pay less. But also understand that it adds logistical issues. Its a balance. Technology can help with a la carte pricing efficiencies/logistics (and makes dynamic pricing easier as well).

Parking fees are one of the things I consider when planning a trip and hotel. I would be willing to spend a little extra for a hotel close to destination as I could eliminate those fees by walking. Last time in Florida (2011 IIRC) we stayed stayed at a cheaper hotel right on International Drive and walked the 15 minutes to Universal, or took the courtesy shuttle.

Same thing with big cities. I look at the convenience. Sure you can save a lot of money on hotel staying outside city, but then you have to deal with costs of parking garages or hassles of finding a place to park (which can be a nightmare in itself). Best to just pay the extra to stay downtown and have everything within walking distance.

It is crazy to think that nowadays you are paying more to park than you paid for general admission back in the day!

As for admission tickets, I agree and wonder how many people actually buy them at gate. Many years ago during Halloweekends when we renewed passes and received free tickets for admission, it took forever to get rid of them. Everyone that was walking up already had tickets. it was like, "dang, I can't even give these away!".

If the park could support free parking, they'd already have it.

Parks used to use the excuse that they were using the parking revenue to operate and maintain the parking lot. Axle-swallowing potholes in said parking lot along with the lack of any amenities (gate transportation, staff to direct vehicles entering the lot, and now even staff to collect parking fees) seems to suggest that isn't exactly the case. I can understand departmentalization and compartmentalization, where traffic and parking has to pay for its own budget, but then how do you square that kind of operation with "giving away" parking with a season pass?

There are other issues, of course. When Cedar Point introduced the $99 Gold Pass which includes parking, I know they saw an increase in the number of vehicles in the parking lot, just because parking suddenly became "free" for a lot of customers who might have car-pooled before (or not come at all?) But with the increasing percentage of season pass visitors especially in parks like Cedar Point and Kings Island, I wonder which park will be the first to finally realize that including parking with the admission just makes more sense for everyone, and lets them promote the crap out of "now with FREE PARKING!!!". I have long thought Kings Island would be the first due to its insanely high percentage of season pass visitors, but Cedar Point has perennial issues with the City of Sandusky wanting to enact parking taxes...and while for various logistical reasons it might be more difficult to implement at Cedar Point, they might actually have the best reasons for doing so.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

On the last two visits to King's Island, when I went to the park, they didn't even scan my pass. I literally just held up my phone and waved me through lol. On the visit before those, they didn't even look to see if we had a pass and waved us through. Like, come on in!

-Chris

As the percentage of passholder guests (who are getting "free" parking included with their pass) increases, doesn't the benefit you get from promoting "FREE PARKING" decrease? And it would provide some disincentive (at least for some people) to buy a pass if parking were "free" for everyone.

Cedar Point would have gone through the analysis when they priced the Gold Pass and determined they needed to include parking to get to the numbers they wanted. As part of that process, they would have looked at increased number of cars in the lot (make something cheaper and there will be more of it purchased -- though now much that affects any given day or any given season, I am not sure). Same analysis would apply to "free" parking for all.

At some point, more parks may move to "free" parking. In a sense they have moved there to a certain degree with passes that include parking. Pricing strategies are reviewed regularly and change as deemed appropriate. We shall see.

And yet some parks (Disney) have moved to "Premium Parking" for those who want to park closer. Since Disney has the parking lot trams I'm not really sure what the value is, other than feeling good about yourself for parking in a premium space.

Presumably the benefit is not having to wait for/take a tram or otherwise walk further to your vehicle. Whether its worth the premium price will vary by person.

Cedar Point has premium parking too which is closer. No trams but the same analysis applies in terms of value. Different people view it differently.

And pricing for parking for events in general tends to be based on distance. Parking closer to the event tends to cost more. Whether its worth it (in terms of walking further, getting out ahead of traffic (which tends to be worse closer to the event), etc) is up to everyone to decide.

Epcot and DHS still don't have the trams back. Imagine what Walt would think.

It's a conspiracy to extract more premium parking fees out of guests.