20 dollars for parking now...? Come on now...

[5kidsmommy]

Do people really factor in "free parking" as an on-site perk? I know I don't. That being said, it is a pretty nice perk for annual pass (if you go that route).

That's why they can do it. Most people will still pay it .. even if the parking price went up to $25! Raising parking prices a few dollars (when you are paying hundreds just to get INTO the park) is chump change (relatively) but will bring in tons of money DAILY to the parks.

Disney seems to be as popular as ever. Supply/Demand .. they can keep raising prices as long as people still show up (and it appears they are showing up more and more every year).

I definitely factor in parking as one of the costs. If I am there for a week I factor in the cost of parking, which is part of the reason no matter what I can't justify staying offsite. I can't make the numbers work for us. The savings would be minimal.

 

[Nancyg56]

We just paid $45 a day (plus a tip for the valet in and out) to park at a hotel in New Orleans this past weekend. New Orleans is crazy in terms of parking costs. Daily parking costs are $25-30 dollars a day minimum. I believe that the free parking for onsite guests makes the parking fee increase seem like a better perk. We always stay onsite and hardly ever have a car and don't ever drive to the parks when we do so it's a moot point for us. I think free parking for onsite guests is a perk that could make some people rethink offsite accommodations when now several days worth of parking gets into the $100 range whether it makes sense or not. People are funny. A three dollar increase in parking fees amounts to $15 dollars for 5 days worth of parking. What's $15 added to a trip that probably costs close to $1000? The parking increase won't change anything about the way we do Disney. Cheers!!!!!!

I think that parking at the hotel we stayed at in NYC was $50 per night. Crazy! We took the train so we did not have that cost, but yikes! After paying a huge amount for a tiny room, adding 50 per day to park?

My DH refuses to go to home shows that charge to park in their own lot, then you pay entrances on top of that. I don't agree because if I want to go, I will need to pay. I leave him home. LOL!

I do not want to argue if Disney needs to raise the rates of passes, parking, dining, etc, but I do know that as guests we cannot have it both ways.
We want clean and well maintained parking lots that have a tram to get us to the gates. That means we need to agree to pay those folks as well as the costs that go along with the lot.

We want awesome shows, fireworks and attractions. That means we need to cover the costs of maintaining them and considering the costs to go along with producing them.

We want CM's cleaning restrooms, tables, and assisting us, and we want them paid a decent wage. Well.....that costs money.

We want character interactions in the parks. Do not get me started about the wages these people should be paid....

I know how much I can spend on a WDW vacation, or any vacation destination. If I can remain within the budget I go. If not, I put it off until I can afford to go. But Disney is not a right of passage that it must subsidize in order that every American can go. No. Disney is a business and the obligation is to not only consider the guests, but all of the stakeholders involved. I do understand principle. My DH and his refusal to pay $8 to park in a dirt parking lot outside of the building that houses the home show is his line in the sand. The increase in parking may be someone else's bottom line, but for me, I consider the total cost vs. my own perceived value. If I cannot justify the cost, I stay home. I will not blame a business for my own perception of value, or my own budget priorities.

 

[goofyintoronto]

Parking at Canada's Wonderland amusement park (just outside Toronto) is $20 as well!

Yes it is!!! There is a place to park for free while at wonderland though....its secure and literally right across wonderland (Jane street) and totally free.

 

[Nancyg56]

I set aside my parking money months prior to the trip, made an envelope for each day so that was taken car of long in advance. Changing the price overnight would have totally thrown me off but I understand as times pass prices go up.

My children are usually gifted a Six Flags season pass from their Nana for Christmas. This year we had to get to the park before May so they could be activated. I ended up taking a day off during April vacation so we could get that taken care of (luckily the parking fee was included in their pass). We got there right at opening, parked in one of the first rows but my children insisted on still taking the tram as that is part of the fun/experience for them. Anyway, all of this to say Six Flags New England (which I think is the one you speak of since you mention Riverside) does have parking lot trams.

They did not when we went, and I was exhausted! I'm glad they are there now.

Yes, it was Six Flags New England, and the few times we went with my DGD were just an expensive letdown for us, a entire day of Kady wanting games, Pa paying for games for the girls, Pa and the girls winning junk at games, and me frustrated that the gift shop refused to sell or to give me a plastic shopping bag to cart over $200.00 worth of junk through that ginormous park. I had to make a purchase to get the darn plastic bag.

Gosh I miss Riverside!

 

[amylevan]

Its not about affordability. Its about principle. Some people have limits they are willing to pay for things. When the price of X exceeds what I am willing to pay, I will either do without it or cut costs in other ways. It is not worth $20 a day to park my car to me. Therefore I will offset it by cutting costs in other ways. As I posted in a thread yesterday, Epcot has over 11,000 parking spaces. If half of those are filled everyday thats $40 million dollars a year on that one parking lot if only half the spots are filled.

That parking lot is 140 acres in size. There is 43,560 sq ft in an acre. 140 x 43,560 = 6,098,400 sq ft. An average paving cost of $1.50/sq ft x 6,098,400 = $9,147,600 to pave/resurface the parking lot. An asphalt overlay is recommended every 7 to 12 years so we'll go with 7 to be at the low end. In 7 years the parking lot would generate $280,000,000 with a cost of approx $10 million for the asphalt overlay. That leaves two hundred and seventy million dollars in 7 years just for Epcots parking lot..

Just off the top of my head I could spend a few more millions on parking lot maintenance.

Sealcoating - low end $0.20/sf every 3-5 years. So if they do that once before resurfacing at year 7: app $1.2 million

Plus all the regular maintenance:
Cleaning drainage regularly is no small feat - (can you imagine the flooding during their summer storms if the drains weren't regularly maintained!)
Painting lines.
Lighting.
Sealing cracks.

And eventually the parking lot will have outlived its useful life and need complete reconstructing.

Plus, maintenance of their other roads and BRIDGES and monorail? I can only imagine what the bills for bridge maintenance is. (And yes, Reedy Creek officially does the roads and bridges on WDW property, but WDW is ultimately paying for them.)

I'm not saying WDW isn't making money. But they are a company. They are supposed to.

 

[bpadair32]

People who pay $20 to park at a local theme park probably aren't making multiple day visits. When we go to Disney we do 7-10 park days. We stay offsite because it's cheaper and more comfortable for our family of 6. Between the changes in fastpasses and raising parking prices, Disney is become less and less appealing to us.

Then stop going. Its really that simple. Disney is a luxury. I really think that you are not the target audience for Disney. They are not that interested in people that stay offsite and pop in and out. They want people that stay onsite, eat onsite, shop onsite, etc., and for those people this changes nothing.

Its not about affordability. Its about principle. Some people have limits they are willing to pay for things. When the price of X exceeds what I am willing to pay, I will either do without it or cut costs in other ways. It is not worth $20 a day to park my car to me. Therefore I will offset it by cutting costs in other ways. As I posted in a thread yesterday, Epcot has over 11,000 parking spaces. If half of those are filled everyday thats $40 million dollars a year on that one parking lot if only half the spots are filled.

That parking lot is 140 acres in size. There is 43,560 sq ft in an acre. 140 x 43,560 = 6,098,400 sq ft. An average paving cost of $1.50/sq ft x 6,098,400 = $9,147,600 to pave/resurface the parking lot. An asphalt overlay is recommended every 7 to 12 years so we'll go with 7 to be at the low end. In 7 years the parking lot would generate $280,000,000 with a cost of approx $10 million for the asphalt overlay. That leaves two hundred and seventy million dollars in 7 years just for Epcots parking lot.

Even after deducting employees, trams, and other costs, I really don't think Disney is going to miss the $100 I'm cutting from my trip because of what I feel, is an exorbitant cost to park my car. When the magic meets the money, I am ok with paying it. But recent years has proven, to me, that the magic is not meeting the money. We have drunks roaming Epcot, fights breaking out in parks with no one being held accountable, a disastrous FP+/ADR system, food that is lack luster, crowds that take heavily from the guest experience, and more. Aside from its size, Disney is on its way to becoming the next Six Flags.

Couldn't disagree with you more. I think the food is great, the crowds are part of going to a theme park, the FP+ and ADR system work great for us, and its as magical as ever.

I know this is going to sound harsh and I apologize in advance if I offend anyone. But the bottom line is that if it is too expensive....don't go. A trip to WDW is not one of our inalienable rights. It was, is, and always will be a luxury regardless if you stay in a park view club level room at the Grand Floridian or at the Motel 6 25 miles away from Buena Vista. Yes, it is a cash grab. But Disney has 1 goal and it isn't to make magic for everyone. The goal was, is, and always shall be to make $ for their investors and if charging $20 for parking does a better job at that than the current parking fee, then so be it. I'm betting that they'll find that the parking fee has very low price elasticity, i.e. the demand will not change much based on this increase. So why not increase the price until they reach an elasticity point? That is what the inventors want.

Precisely.

If an increase of $3 on parking is the make/break point on a Disney vacation for somebody, then I don't think it's the vacation they should be taking.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike paying for parking as much as the next person, but it's just the reality of the times we live and $20+ is pretty much the norm at most venues.

Yep.

 

[ZellyB]

We just paid $45 a day (plus a tip for the valet in and out) to park at a hotel in New Orleans this past weekend. New Orleans is crazy in terms of parking costs. Daily parking costs are $25-30 dollars a day minimum. I believe that the free parking for onsite guests makes the parking fee increase seem like a better perk. We always stay onsite and hardly ever have a car and don't ever drive to the parks when we do so it's a moot point for us. I think free parking for onsite guests is a perk that could make some people rethink offsite accommodations when now several days worth of parking gets into the $100 range whether it makes sense or not. People are funny. A three dollar increase in parking fees amounts to $15 dollars for 5 days worth of parking. What's $15 added to a trip that probably costs close to $1000? The parking increase won't change anything about the way we do Disney. Cheers!!!!!!

Well, just speaking for myself the parking fees would never make or break the cost curve for on-site versus offsite. We typically don't stay for really long trips, but even if you did a 10 day stay, the parking adds up to $200 total. Short of getting lucky on a value room, no way I can't find a better deal offsite to more than make up for the $200. We do rent a car and that has a bigger bite of a cost, so maybe could do better on-site value but, again, probably not by much. Anyway, while I hate to see the price go up, for me it is still not enough to deter me from going nor will it be a big enough change to make onsite a better price option.

Then stop going. Its really that simple. Disney is a luxury. I really think that you are not the target audience for Disney. They are not that interested in people that stay offsite and pop in and out. They want people that stay onsite, eat onsite, shop onsite, etc., and for those people this changes nothing.

You know, I see these comments fairly frequently and I just think that is inaccurate. Disney is certainly interested in making staying on-site an incentive, but to say they aren't interested in off-site visitors seems crazy to me. I'm not sure the general total number of visitors they have on a given day and how many of those are on-site visitors, but I suspect a significant number of guests who visit are not staying on-site. I'm pretty sure Disney cares about getting my dollars for my ticket entrance and the food I eat while there and the shopping I do while there just as much as they do the money they get from on-site visitors. I don't know, just seems an odd thing to say that Disney isn't interested in what I suspect is a substantial portion of their business.

Oh, and I imagine Disney would say they consider everyone a "target audience", whether they can afford $20 a day parking or not. Disney is in the business of enticing visitors of all levels and I really don't think they would want to be considered a luxury vacation even if more and more they are becoming one.

 

[bpadair32]

You know, I see these comments fairly frequently and I just think that is inaccurate. Disney is certainly interested in making staying on-site an incentive, but to say they aren't interested in off-site visitors seems crazy to me. I'm not sure the general total number of visitors they have on a given day and how many of those are on-site visitors, but I suspect a significant number of guests who visit are not staying on-site. I'm pretty sure Disney cares about getting my dollars for my ticket entrance and the food I eat while there and the shopping I do while there just as much as they do the money they get from on-site visitors. I don't know, just seems an odd thing to say that Disney isn't interested in what I suspect is a substantial portion of their business.

Don't misunderstand. They are happy to take your money. But you are not their target. The question isn't strictly about attendance numbers. Its about revenue per person. The revenue per person of an onsite guest is almost certainly going to be quite a bit higher than offsite. So if they have to sacrifice offsite guests to make capacity or increase the number of onsite guests, that is going to give them a bigger revenue boost.

 

[JennyMP03]

Whether someone is Disney's "target" or not, you could be slightly more magnanimous than telling them to "stop going" in such a dismissive manner. These trips are important to many families, and many people must budget very carefully for them. The price increases don't affect you? How marvelous for you! No reason to be flippant toward those who are struggling.

 

[ZellyB]

Don't misunderstand. They are happy to take your money. But you are not their target. The question isn't strictly about attendance numbers. Its about revenue per person. The revenue per person of an onsite guest is almost certainly going to be quite a bit higher than offsite. So if they have to sacrifice offsite guests to make capacity or increase the number of onsite guests, that is going to give them a bigger revenue boost.

No, I understand what you mean, I'm just making assumptions that Disney does not currently have enough on-site rooms to come close to filling the capacity they currently see in the parks. So, I imagine they still very much want to get off-site folks into the parks. They definitely make more off on-site visitors, but until such time that their on-site housing capacity is close to or equal to the park capacities, I can't imagine they want to alienate off-site visitors too much.

 

[bpadair32]

No, I understand what you mean, I'm just making assumptions that Disney does not currently have enough on-site rooms to come close to filling the capacity they currently see in the parks. So, I imagine they still very much want to get off-site folks into the parks. They definitely make more off on-site visitors, but until such time that their on-site housing capacity is close to or equal to the park capacities, I can't imagine they want to alienate off-site visitors too much.

I don't think that they want to alienate them too much either. But my point is that if they alienate a few, and convert a few to onsite, that is going to raise their bottom line, so they are going to target everything they can to get the onsite dollars.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

These prices keep going up but no ones salary is increasing at this rapid rate what are they doing outside of justifying and satisfying their shareholders to this park increase?

It just leaves a very sour taste in my mouth that I know some people won't be able to afford all this Nickle and diming.

Again no ones salary in the USA is going up to justify all these increases the minimum wage is still crap and disbey pays their front end employees crap as well.

 

[bpadair32]

These prices keep going up but no ones salary is increasing at this rapid rate what are they doing outside of justifying and satisfying their shareholders to this park increase?

It just leaves a very sour taste in my mouth that I know some people won't be able to afford all this Nickle and diming.

Again no ones salary in the USA is going up to justify all these increases the minimum wage is still crap and disbey pays their front end employees crap as well.

1. Increasing value for their shareholders is their job.
2. Disney is a luxury not a right, so some people can't afford it, thats the way it is.
3. They don't have to justify it. Demand is higher than supply that means price goes up. People making minimum wage probably weren't going to Disney any how.

 

[bpadair32]

Whether someone is Disney's "target" or not, you could be slightly more magnanimous than telling them to "stop going" in such a dismissive manner. These trips are important to many families, and many people must budget very carefully for them. The price increases don't affect you? How marvelous for you! No reason to be flippant toward those who are struggling.

If you are struggling, why are you springing for a luxury vacation. People in this country have their priorities seriously out of whack.

 

[Chelley00]

And an extra $30 for a ten day trip is more than made up for in the reduced cost for your hotel/condo stay, so is this really a big deal?

.


Guess my point wasn't clear. Disney is doing everything they can to force people to stay onsite. it makes it not an appealing vacation for large families or those on a budget

 

[ZellyB]

.


Guess my point wasn't clear. Disney is doing everything they can to force people to stay onsite. it makes it not an appealing vacation for large families or those on a budget

I think what was meant is that the price went up $3 so the increase over the old pricing for a 10 day trip is an extra $30 from what it would have been, not that $30 is the total cost.

And, clearly Disney wants as many people as possible to stay on-site although I'm not sure that this type of increase has that much intent behind it. It's likely just part of a normal increase that is reviewed each fiscal year and tied into general increases in cost and ensuring that they are charging what the market will bear.

 

[jtowntoflorida]

Parking in cities is a very limited commodity and it makes sense that "they" charge a lot for it. Parking in a former swamp in the middle of nearly 30,000 acres owned by same company that runs the parking is totally different. The people who stay onsite get parking (and internal transport) for free. This is just another effort to get more money from offsite guests, who don't contribute as much to the bottom line as those of us who pay a lot of money to stay onsite.

 

[ZellyB]

One other thought on the luxury vacation idea. I honestly think Disney would not want to be considered a luxury vacation, even if in reality they are becoming one. I suspect Disney far prefers to continue to market themselves as a family-friendly vacation and one that has mass appeal, and they are merely working toward finding what is the maximum they can charge while retaining maximum attraction to as many people as possible.

I'm not outraged by the price increase or anything. I expect to see increases and $20 for parking won't change my decision to go or not. But, I do think that on a message board devoted to fans of the parks, it's normal to be unhappy about higher prices. I can afford $20 to park, but I'd rather pay $17. I mean wouldn't everyone prefer to pay less if they could? I also think as fans of the parks we hate to see that they begin to price people out of the market. We really enjoy going. We can afford to go. It's unfortunate that the park pricing may prevent others from enjoying it.

 

[MrInfinity]

Whether someone is Disney's "target" or not, you could be slightly more magnanimous than telling them to "stop going" in such a dismissive manner. These trips are important to many families, and many people must budget very carefully for them. The price increases don't affect you? How marvelous for you! No reason to be flippant toward those who are struggling.

I don't get why it's "dismissive" to tell someone not to go. If I felt like:

The magic is not meeting the money. We have drunks roaming Epcot, fights breaking out in parks with no one being held accountable, a disastrous FP+/ADR system, food that is lack luster, crowds that take heavily from the guest experience, and more. Aside from its size, Disney is on its way to becoming the next Six Flags.

...I would definitely not go! Unless you liked those things maybe...

Or:

Between the changes in fastpasses and raising parking prices, Disney is become less and less appealing to us.

Again I would go less and less. That is not dismissive, it's honest.

We all have to decide what to do w our money. If I didn't love our experiences at WDW and feel they were worth the cost, I wouldn't spend the money on them. So if the people above who said those things are still going to go, then obviously there are some positives that they're just not mentioning, which happen to outweigh those negatives and make the trip still worth it to them. If there aren't positives which outweigh those negatives, then it is sound advice to suggest they not go.

 

[Nancyg56]

.


Guess my point wasn't clear. Disney is doing everything they can to force people to stay onsite. it makes it not an appealing vacation for large families or those on a budget

They are not forcing people to stay oncite. They are providing incentives that many families want to take advantage of. I am a pretty smart cookie so I know the transportation, the dining, the luggage transport, the parking etc is not free. I am paying for these services and for my family,(last trip 9 people, 2 rooms GF) they are worth the cost. WE are on a budget, so we save. I make choices on a daily basis. New car? Nope. New furniture? No. Dinner out tonight? Not tonight. I do not smoke, I cook most meals, I almost always refuse to buy my coffee out, but will spend a buck at McDonalds because I like their coffee, and I drink cheap.

My next trip is split between three of us, CSR, no preferred room, and not many extras at all. Again, my budget and I will remain within what we determined is acceptable in my home.

Do not misunderstand, I know vacationing is hard on when there are more than 4 in a family. I had three kids so I did day trips. Period. That was what I could afford and until I could spend more we slept at home. WE packed picnic lunches on our day trips because I could not afford to eat all our meals out. Flying anywhere was out of the question. I never felt it was up to any business to find ways to ensure that I could vacation in their resort.

It is less expensive to stay offsite, and if you do so you can opt for the transportation that the hotel offers and skip parking fees. My sister is still trying to get us to stay at her time share next trip. Nope. I'll save a little longer and stay onsite. For me the incentives are worth the cost They are not for my sister.