We are there

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

To the original topic one shouldn't feel like they cannot complain even if they would vacation there again but I do think it can come down to voting with your wallet when it gets to that point.

If in the end you'll still go I think you should still be able to complain but it puts a different perspective on it. Maybe that means it's just you're uncomfortable with spending more than previously but you'll still do it without adjusting anything, maybe it's that you're adjusting your travel plans to accommodate higher costs, maybe you're adjusting the extras you used to get (souvenirs, hard-ticket events, etc), and a variety of other things.

 

[WDW_Ding]

I suppose you could say having a car is unnecessary but I for one think it would be unnecessary to have to get a taxi just to get to CVS if I want to or need to (which we did that on our past trip) or have to get a taxi just to go to Universal or have to get a taxi just to get to the grocery store should we want to when other means of transportation is feasible. And while Uber/lyft is an option in terms of alternative transportation they are relatively new. Plus even Disney has a rental car facility onsite.

Reading what you have posted, I would say that perhaps you have needs/desires that aren't the same as many WDW visitors and don't really fit in with how WDW wants to arrange things.

I don't judge you for it, but you shouldn't be surprised when WDW charges you extra because you are trying to shove a square peg in to a round hole.

The way I see it, and the way I think WDW sees it, is this: if you are staying at a WDW resort, it must be because you want to stay on WDW property for the length of your stay.

That is why WDW goes to extremes to set up their transportation system.

Now, WDW doesn't box you in totally. You can bring your car and park it at the resort. You can use a taxi. You can use Uber/Lyft. You can drive to the parks.

Should WDW charge for parking at the resorts? I'm indifferent about it because it doesn't affect me; I don't bring a car to WDW and even if I did, I'm DVC and wouldn't pay because of that.

I will say, however, that I am extremely happy that WDW didn't just bake this fee in to the general room charge. Let the people who are actually bringing a car pay the parking fee. There is no need to add it in and make everyone pay it, even those who don't bring a car.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Reading what you have posted, I would say that perhaps you have needs/desires that aren't the same as many WDW visitors and don't really fit in with how WDW wants to arrange things.

I don't judge you for it, but you shouldn't be surprised when WDW charges you extra because you are trying to shove a square peg in to a round hole.

The way I see it, and the way I think WDW sees it, is this: if you are staying at a WDW resort, it must be because you want to stay on WDW property for the length of your stay.

That is why WDW goes to extremes to set up their transportation system.

Now, WDW doesn't box you in totally. You can bring your car and park it at the resort. You can use a taxi. You can use Uber/Lyft. You can drive to the parks.

Should WDW charge for parking at the resorts? I'm indifferent about it because it doesn't affect me; I don't bring a car to WDW and even if I did, I'm DVC and wouldn't pay because of that.

I will say, however, that I am extremely happy that WDW didn't just bake this fee in to the general room charge. Let the people who are actually bringing a car pay the parking fee. There is no need to add it in and make everyone pay it, even those who don't bring a car.

I'm not so sure I follow you because yes I'm sure Disney intended to keep you more captive especially by offering DME...but they don't have to include a rental car facility onsite period.

Your comment of "if you are staying at a WDW resort, it must be because you want to stay on WDW property for the length of your stay." would mean that Disney should not offer rental car services onsite..they should instead make you work for it thus lessening the desire to go offsite since it is less convenient. They should not allow Uber or Lyft to even step foot on property. They could even go so far as to have strict control on taxis, etc.

I'm against parking fees in principle. Regardless of whether I have a vehicle or not I don't like them. They make much more sense when in Downtown style places, etc because there is only a finite number of available space for parking..still doesn't mean I like them. I don't like resort fees either based on principle.

But I will say you really don't know how Disney decides to allocate pricing. For all we know their food pricing (like at your resort) is adjusted to account for something else business wise, for all we know the drug-store items found within the store at the resort goes up so they can get a little extra $, etc. So when you say you're "extremely happy that WDW didn't just bake this fee in to the general room charge" you really don't even know that there isn't something else that Disney has chosen to just incrementally increase the room rate to accommodate something else and that something else could be something that you don't personally ever use. Adding a parking charge should be a concern for all guests whether they physically have a car at some point in a parking spot at their resort overnight...because it means the liklihood of something else being parsed out as a separate charge increases over time.

 

[WDW_Ding]

I'm not so sure I follow you because yes I'm sure Disney intended to keep you more captive especially by offering DME...but they don't have to include a rental car facility onsite period.

WDW started DME in 2005. I'm guessing that they opened the car rental space on property before that. Perhaps if they had started DME earlier, they wouldn't have opened the car rental spot.

Anyhow, just because WDW has a car rental spot on property, doesn't mean WDW really wants you to rent a car. I'm sure part of the reason WDW has a car rental spot on property is because they charge a nice rental fee to the car companies.

WDW obviously wants you to stay in property for your entire visit. This isn't even worth arguing about.

Your comment of "if you are staying at a WDW resort, it must be because you want to stay on WDW property for the length of your stay." would mean that Disney should not offer rental car services onsite..they should instead make you work for it thus lessening the desire to go offsite since it is less convenient. They should not allow Uber or Lyft to even step foot on property. They could even go so far as to have strict control on taxis, etc.

No. What I was stating is that, to WDW's mind, if you are staying on property, you must/likely want to stay on property for your entire trip. Otherwise, why not stay off site? That is why they invest millions in the WDW transportation.

I further stated, to WDW's credit, that they don't force you to give up your car. You can bring your car, rent a car, hire a driver, etc. I mean to say that this is a credit to WDW. They build a huge transportation infrastructure and yet still let people, like you, drive themselves around, if that is what they want.

they make much more sense when in Downtown style places, etc because there is only a finite number of available space for parking..

Are there not a finite number of spaces at the resorts?

Adding a parking charge should be a concern for all guests whether they physically have a car at some point in a parking spot at their resort overnight...because it means the liklihood of something else being parsed out as a separate charge increases over time.

Often, parsing out (to use your terminology) fees is the most equitable way to charge fees. Why should I have to pay a resort parking fee, if I didn't have a car?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

WDW started DME in 2005. I'm guessing that they opened the car rental space on property before that. Perhaps if they had started DME earlier, they wouldn't have opened the car rental spot.

Anyhow, just because WDW has a car rental spot on property, doesn't mean WDW really wants you to rent a car. I'm sure part of the reason WDW has a car rental spot on property is because they charge a nice rental fee to the car companies. WDW obviously wants you to stay in property for your entire visit. This is isn't even worth arguing about.

Ah..so it's the "Disney doesn't really want you to" argument. Whether Disney wants you to or not they don't make it overly difficult to obtain a rental car on their own property that by all means to those who are captive onsite have the ability to *gasp* go offsite or drive themselves to the parks or other resorts should they choose to and that was my point. Of course Disney would prefer you stay onsite and exclusivey use their transportation but they can easily shut down the rental car facility, they can easily restrict uber/lyft access especially now that minnie vans are out (which some DISers have thought about that), etc Though they haven't..yet at least.

No. What I was stating is that, to WDW's mind, if you are staying on property, you must/likely want too stay on property for your entire trip. Otherwise, why not stay off site? That is why they invest millions in the WDW transportation.

I further stated, to WDW's credit, that they don't force you to give up your car. You can bring your car, rent a car, hire a driver, etc. I mean to say that this is a credit to WDW. They build a huge transportation infrastructure and yet still let people, like you, drive themselves around, if that is what they want.

No you said ""if you are staying at a WDW resort, it must be because you want to stay on WDW property for the length of your stay." Surely even you realize that people stay onsite for a variety of reasons.

People also do split stays though the hassle of switching resorts (whether it's onsite or offsite) weighs in on the decision. We even talked about split stays with Universal but for me it's the idea of going to WDW X number of days in a row and then Universal X number of days in a row versus splitting up the days was my concern. But also financially speaking it was better because of the overall room rate to stay at WDW the entire time (perhaps when Universal's new hotel that is more cost effective opens up that will change).

Disney has a multi-type transportation infrastructure because of its sheer size. If it was much much smaller in size your transportation options would be less. Disney knows that because of its size allowing vehicles only makes sense. I would think that's pretty understandable. In fact Disney is expanding its DHS parking lot in anticipation of Star Wars and Toy Story land.

Are there not a finite number of spaces at the resorts?

That don't fill up except for a few trouble resorts that are closer to the parks. When I say finite I mean the 6 car spaces in Waikiki in the hotel's garage underneath the hotel. I mean the parking garage that not only houses workers of the hotel but also guests of a hotel in a downtown area. I mean the one-way alley that could fit something like 20 cars maybe if you block people's ability to actually get their car out in the Newark hotel near Penn Station we stayed at. Charging for parking in those situations usually become a necessity due to the environment the hotel is in because feasible they don't have space for even a fraction of their overall guest capacity.

Often, parsing out (to use your terminology) fees is the most equitable way to charge fees. Why should I have to pay a resort parking fee, if I didn't have a car?

It may be. But it doesn't make it more guest friendly. Most people don't want to pay for internet, and then a charge to use the pool, and then a charge to use parking, and then a charge to get breakfast, etc. It's usually why places either have no outright charge for those amenities or they charge a resort fee which includes those amenities. But your argument would be the same for someone who is charged a resort fee but doesn't plan on eating at the hotel, doesn't plan on parking at the hotel, doesn't plan on using the internet at the hotel, doesn't plan on using the pool at the hotel.

 

[Jennasis]

Bottom line...the resort has always charged for parking and resort fees for all via their exorbitant resort rates. They have simply chosen to double dip now and add on additional frivolous fee that doesn't actually do anything.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Bottom line...the resort has always charged for parking and resort fees for all via their exorbitant resort rates. They have simply chosen to double dip now and add on additional frivolous fee that doesn't actually do anything.

I think that's the main rub if one considered the rack room rate to include amenities and now one amenity so far is being spun off into a separate charge it can really be offputting, whether you actually use the parking space or not. We know they aren't reducing room rates to offset this but if they were then the argument of "I'm glad because I don't use a car while there" would make a lot more sense as it would truly be impacting only those who brought vehicles by any means to the resorts overnight.

 

[disneyholic family]

For the third time, can you explain what you're talking about here? Can you give any specific examples so that we can understand what you mean?

read a rental contract....any of them on any house rental site..they're all the same..

.

 

[disneysteve]

read a rental contract....any of them on any house rental site..they're all the same..

.

Since you are unwilling to answer the question for some reason, I'm done here. Enjoy.

 

[WDW_Ding]

Ah..so it's the "Disney doesn't really want you to" argument. Whether Disney wants you to or not they don't make it overly difficult to obtain a rental car on their own property that by all means to those who are captive onsite have the ability to *gasp* go offsite or drive themselves to the parks or other resorts should they choose to and that was my point. Of course Disney would prefer you stay onsite and exclusivey use their transportation but they can easily shut down the rental car facility, they can easily restrict uber/lyft access especially now that minnie vans are out (which some DISers have thought about that), etc Though they haven't..yet at least.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. I'll only add that if there is such a meme as the "Disney doesn't really want you to argument", I'm unaware.

My only point is that it might be (how could I really know?) that WDW has a way in which they would prefer their guests to act and that they take certain steps to guide people towards it. For example, they would rather their guests use WDW transportation, and so they do certain things to nudge people toward that. Or they want people to eat at certain times or in greater volume at certain restaurants, so they do things to achieve this.

I'm trying very hard to have a discussion about all off this without claiming some sort of stance on whether or not WDW visitors should drive or just use the WDW transportation. That said, and all things being equal, I would rather that all WDW guests use the WDW transportation because I think it would be more efficient. But I don't have a grudge against guests that do use cars. The most controversial thing (I guess) I've said during this conversation is that I find it fair that, if WDW is going too charge resort guests to park, WDW charges them with an add-on fee. I don't think it would be fair for WDW resorts to just bump the cost of the rooms up 20 bucks per night, in the service of getting a parking fee, when many guests don't even bring cars. Let those who drive pay the parking fees.

No you said ""if you are staying at a WDW resort, it must be because you want to stay on WDW property for the length of your stay." Surely even you realize that people stay onsite for a variety of reasons.

You are nitpicking at my terms, so I'll ask that you forgive me my poor choice of words.

 

[disneysteve]

whether or not WDW visitors should drive or just use the WDW transportation

I don't think those are the only 2 choices and therein lies some of the problems in this conversation.

Lots of onsite guests don't just stay on property. They visit other area attractions like Universal, SeaWorld, Kennedy Space Center, I-Drive 360. They shop for groceries at Publix. They pick up other items at Target or WalMart. They do a volunteer shift at Give Kids the World Village. Maybe they visit friends and family in the area. Perhaps they plan dinner one night at Celebration Town Tavern. Who knows. The point is that where people choose to stay in no way limits them, or should limit them, to what they do or where they go on their vacation.

All of that said, I agree that applying the parking charge just to the guests who are actually using the parking services makes sense. I'm okay with that.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here. I'll only add that if there is such a meme as the "Disney doesn't really want you to argument", I'm unaware.

My only point is that it might be (how could I really know?) that WDW has a way in which they would prefer their guests to act and that they take certain steps to guide people towards it. For example, they would rather their guests use WDW transportation, and so they do certain things to nudge people toward that. Or they want people to eat at certain times or in greater volume at certain restaurants, so they do things to achieve this.

I'm trying very hard to have a discussion about all off this without claiming some sort of stance on whether or not WDW visitors should drive or just use the WDW transportation. That said, and all things being equal, I would rather that all WDW guests use the WDW transportation because I think it would be more efficient. But I don't have a grudge against guests that do use cars. The most controversial thing (I guess) I've said during this conversation is that I find it fair that, if WDW is going too charge resort guests to park, WDW charges them with an add-on fee. I don't think it would be fair for WDW resorts to just bump the cost of the rooms up 20 bucks per night, in the service of getting a parking fee, when many guests don't even bring cars. Let those who drive pay the parking fees.

What I am trying to say is you use terms like "unnecessarily drive" "It doesn't affect me I'm DVC", etc. Without thinking about the fact that there could be ramifications that actually affect you and you don't even know it. You don't even know if Disney decides to raise the rack rate of a room to offset a cost elsewhere (something that you may not even use either).

As for your conversation about not claiming some sort of stance on whether or not WDW visitors should drive or just use WDW transportation-Respectfully you already have claimed a stance in a variety of your comments.

You are nitpicking at my terms, so I'll ask that you forgive me my poor choice of words.

Uh no that's not being nitpicky at all. You say must then changed it to must/likely. Disney knows that for at least a certain segment of their guests they would prefer to have alternative means to get around the entire WDW Resort property (which is quite large) or to get off-site regardless of their actual vacation stay being entirely onsite. If they didn't expect people to drive (either by their own vehicle or by a rental vehicle) period they would not have parking lots at their resorts or theme parks and as expansive as they generally are nor would they make it very easy to get offsite.

Consider the All-Stars and how much parking is available there. Disney def. didn't need to provide that much parking but they did:


Or AOA/POP:

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I don't think those are the only 2 choices and therein lies some of the problems in this conversation.

Lots of onsite guests don't just stay on property. They visit other area attractions like Universal, SeaWorld, Kennedy Space Center, I-Drive 360. They shop for groceries at Publix. They pick up other items at Target or WalMart. They do a volunteer shift at Give Kids the World Village. Maybe they visit friends and family in the area. Perhaps they plan dinner one night at Celebration Town Tavern. Who knows. The point is that where people choose to stay in no way limits them, or should limit them, to what they do or where they go on their vacation.

 

[WDW_Ding]

Lots of onsite guests don't just stay on property. They visit other area attractions like Universal, SeaWorld, Kennedy Space Center, I-Drive 360. They shop for groceries at Publix. They pick up other items at Target or WalMart. They do a volunteer shift at Give Kids the World Village. Maybe they visit friends and family in the area. Perhaps they plan dinner one night at Celebration Town Tavern. Who knows. The point is that where people choose to stay in no way limits them, or should limit them, to what they do or where they go on their vacation.

I get that. And there are also those who don't do any of those things. I'm very glad that WDW makes allowances for both types of vacationers.

As for your conversation about not claiming some sort of stance on whether or not WDW visitors should drive or just use WDW transportation-Respectfully you already have claimed a stance in a variety of your comments.

If you'll allow me to say so, when I have stated a my preference, I have done so gently and without trying to be unnecessarily controversial. I feel as though I am being attacked as someone who hates people that drive at WDW. A careful reading of what I have posted in this thread, I hope, will prove otherwise. I have stated my preference, but have also admited that there are perfectly good reasons for others to have the opposite opinion. I also feel as though I'm being attacked for stating that it is likely WDW's preference that guests stay on property as much as possible. This hardly seems controversial to me.

Uh no that's not being nitpicky at all. You say must then changed it to must/likely

My full, original statement was:

The way I see it, and the way I think WDW sees it, is this: if you are staying at a WDW resort, it must be because you want to stay on WDW property for the length of your stay.

The word "must" was perhaps a poor choice, but it is hardly something that I would expect someone to try to nail me to the cross with. Maybe I should have said "likely" or "might" or "could."

You and others have presented me with some scenarios where guests want to stay on WDW property but also go outside of WDW. Of course, now that I reflect, this is correct. I, myself, have taken a Lyft to Universal and IoA from WDW.

Here is what my very first post of substance in this thread stated:

I totally get it.

But what I think WDW is trying to do here, aside from making some extra cash (I'm not ignoring that), is prod people in to using the WDW transportation more and cars less.

And I'll bet they will be at least somewhat successful. I can tell you that when I visit WDW I fly in, take Magical Express to the resort, use the WDW transportation while there, and use Magical Express to get back to the airport. In fact, one of the things I have always loved about WDW is that I don't have to drive a car the whole time I'm there! WDW has set up an incredible transportation system...I'm very happy to use it!

I understand that some people don't want to use the WDW transportation, but to Disney, there are a lot of reasons why they want you to.

Among those reasons:

* you are less inclined to leave WDW property (although it is only a 20 dollar Uber/Lyft ride to Universal)
* you don't clog up the roads with your car
* they can build fewer parking lots

There are probably other reasons, but I won't belabor the point.

This is partly a money-grab, yes. But it is likely also a gentle push to get folks to use the WDW transportation more, which I actually appreciate.

Looking at it a different way: would you rather WDW charge extra to use the bus/monorail/gondolas/boats or ask the people that (perhaps) unnecessarily insist on driving their cars, even though they are staying on property?

I present this including the obvious typo I made. When I wrote "Looking at it a different way: would you rather WDW charge extra to use the bus/monorail/gondolas/boats or ask the people that (perhaps) unnecessarily insist on driving their cars, even though they are staying on property?" what I meant to write was "Looking at it a different way: would you rather WDW charge extra to use the bus/monorail/gondolas/boats or ask the people that (perhaps) unnecessarily insist on driving their cars, even though they are staying on property, to pay extra?"

I said this because, sure, WDW could just be making a naked money grab here, with the charging of resort parking. However, maybe they are trying to bring in extra money to upgrade/expand the transportation system. I pose this question because they are currently building the gondola system and need to upgrade the monorail system. These are expensive projects. So, if that is what they are doing, then who should pay? Those using the WDW transportation or those using their own cars? It was simply meant to be a thought exercise, since I (or anyone else here) couldn't really know what has motivated WDW to suddenly implement resort parking fees.

I never meant it to be some sort of statement of fact or hard-formed opinion.

Disney knows that for at least a certain segment of their guests they would prefer to have alternative means to get around the entire WDW Resort property (which is quite large) or to get off-site regardless of their actual vacation stay being entirely onsite. If they didn't expect people to drive (either by their own vehicle or by a rental vehicle) period they would not have parking lots at their resorts or theme parks and as expansive as they generally are nor would they make it very easy to get offsite.

I never claimed otherwise.

I fear this conversation has really lost the thread...

 

[KingLlama]

I feel like I'm watching two ping-pong matches going on at once and I can't keep up with the score of either one of them.

 

[superme80]

I wouldn't say we are "there", but we are getting close. We are a Disneyland family. I have 3 boys. We are getting an incredible deal on tickets because my dad is coming with us. If it wasn't for that, tickets would have be a lot more expensive. That would cut into our budget by a lot. I am looking at going to Disney World in a few years, but I am 90% sure we will stay off site. The perks for staying on site are not worth paying the prices for us.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I get that. And there are also those who don't do any of those things. I'm very glad that WDW makes allowances for both types of vacationers.



If you'll allow me to say so, when I have stated a my preference, I have done so gently and without trying to be unnecessarily controversial. I feel as though I am being attacked as someone who hates people that drive at WDW. A careful reading of what I have posted in this thread, I hope, will prove otherwise. I have stated my preference, but have also admited that there are perfectly good reasons for others to have the opposite opinion. I also feel as though I'm being attacked for stating that it is likely WDW's preference that guests stay on property as much as possible. This hardly seems controversial to me.



My full, original statement was:



The word "must" was perhaps a poor choice, but it is hardly something that I would expect someone to try to nail me to the cross with. Maybe I should have said "likely" or "might" or "could."

You and others have presented me with some scenarios where guests want to stay on WDW property but also go outside of WDW. Of course, now that I reflect, this is correct. I, myself, have taken a Lyft to Universal and IoA from WDW.

Here is what my very first post of substance in this thread stated:



I present this including the obvious typo I made. When I wrote "Looking at it a different way: would you rather WDW charge extra to use the bus/monorail/gondolas/boats or ask the people that (perhaps) unnecessarily insist on driving their cars, even though they are staying on property?" what I meant to write was "Looking at it a different way: would you rather WDW charge extra to use the bus/monorail/gondolas/boats or ask the people that (perhaps) unnecessarily insist on driving their cars, even though they are staying on property, to pay extra?"

I said this because, sure, WDW could just be making a naked money grab here, with the charging of resort parking. However, maybe they are trying to bring in extra money to upgrade/expand the transportation system. I pose this question because they are currently building the gondola system and need to upgrade the monorail system. These are expensive projects. So, if that is what they are doing, then who should pay? Those using the WDW transportation or those using their own cars? It was simply meant to be a thought exercise, since I (or anyone else here) couldn't really know what has motivated WDW to suddenly implement resort parking fees.

I never meant it to be some sort of statement of fact or hard-formed opinion.



I never claimed otherwise.

I fear this conversation has really lost the thread...

Full disclosure I haven't read nor will I read your most recent comments but I do actually agree with KingLlama and had felt that way when I made a prior comment that ultimately the dialogue was getting too off track of the thread for too long. We'll just leave it as an agree to disagree moment.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Reading what you have posted, I would say that perhaps you have needs/desires that aren't the same as many WDW visitors and don't really fit in with how WDW wants to arrange things.

I don't judge you for it, but you shouldn't be surprised when WDW charges you extra because you are trying to shove a square peg in to a round hole.

The way I see it, and the way I think WDW sees it, is this: if you are staying at a WDW resort, it must be because you want to stay on WDW property for the length of your stay.

That is why WDW goes to extremes to set up their transportation system.

Now, WDW doesn't box you in totally. You can bring your car and park it at the resort. You can use a taxi. You can use Uber/Lyft. You can drive to the parks.

Should WDW charge for parking at the resorts? I'm indifferent about it because it doesn't affect me; I don't bring a car to WDW and even if I did, I'm DVC and wouldn't pay because of that.

I will say, however, that I am extremely happy that WDW didn't just bake this fee in to the general room charge. Let the people who are actually bringing a car pay the parking fee. There is no need to add it in and make everyone pay it, even those who don't bring a car.

I get what you are saying but for some driving to WDW is the only realistic option - I mean, if you live in Tampa you aren’t going to fly there - so it does penalize them ... I get it is people are using their cars to go “off campus” and Disney wants to keep them captive, but sucks for people that need to drive and stay on site the entire time (using Disney transportation while there) until check out that they get charged

 

[disneysteve]

sucks for people that need to drive and stay on site the entire time (using Disney transportation while there) until check out that they get charged

Here's an idea for Disney. Build a remote parking lot on the outskirts of property, sort of like the economy lot at the airport. Charge a daily fee to park there but at a reduced rate from the resort parking - maybe $8-10/day. Let that be for people who need to store their cars during their stay but don't plan to touch it the whole time. Have a paid shuttle service, like the Minnie Vans, to get people to and from their cars at the start and end of their trip. So a 7 night stay might cost you $90 instead of the $170 you'll pay now at a Deluxe. Plus this frees up parking spaces at the resorts for day guests and people who want easy access to their cars.

 

[hertamaniac]

I know this fee hits me right in the face. It's the magnitude of the fee that doesn't appear to be gradually phased in that I have an issue with. If they earmarked this to update the transportation, and are using the resort parking fees to help subsidize that, then I would have preferred they accumulated that funding with a more graduated increase.

Maybe Disney found that local AP's don't contribute to resort revenues as much as long-term visitors and is part of this fee equation; I don't know.

Q: So with the Star Wars hotel coming, I wonder if that will be a new Super-Duper Deluxe category with ~$40/night parking?