RUMOR: Free parking coming to WDW

[Rob562]

I'm not going to debate whether the rumor is true or not, but rather look at it as a general discussion on the merits of such an idea...

I think it would be a good selling point for Disney advertising. Some of the smaller amusement parks in the country, which have always had free parking, still use that as a selling point (albeit a minor one). Canobie Lake Park, Funtown USA and Knoebel's all have free parking (and often take pride in it).

As for the Resort Guests losing the perk of free parking, perhaps they could come up with a way of offering Preferred Parking to WDW Resort Guests. That way they still keep a benefit of some kind.

One question that it would raise would be what do they do with Annual Passes? Do they include them with the hypothetical Preferred Parking? Do they *lower* the cost for an AP? How about current AP-holders when the switch happens? Do they get a refund? A discount on their renewal? An extention of their expiration date?

Lastly, if it happened, perhaps one of the best side-effects would be that it could mark the return of direct buses between the parks and Downtown Disney. With the removal of the cheapskates' "need" to park for free at DD, they could once again offer direct service.

In fact, I wonder if this last point would actually be the key factor in the removal of the parking fees. Doing so would mean that cheapskates (who probably wouldn't be buying much of anything at DD anyway) don't park there. This opens up the parking for people who DO want to drive there, and makes their visit more relaxing with the now plentiful parking, meaning they might buy more. The re-introduction of direct buses from the parks might mean increased traffic to the stores, restaurants and nightclubs of Downtown Disney from those people who *don't* have cars.

Hmmmm.......

-Rob

 

[mousermerf]

Well, if parking trams get doors, wont they need more CM's to run trams?

And they apparently are understaffed as it is - so ditching parking booth people seems to be the solution.

MGM's parking seems very cramped and almost to the point where it is too small for the park. AK is getting tight as the park gets busier too - but MK and Epcot have massive areas that are no longer parked since Magical Express has been instituted. For Easter the parks were busy overall but parking wasn't particularly busy.

Buses were a small nightmare though.

 

[Rob562]

Well, the Studios' lot has always been too small. Soon after the park opened, they had to add onto the lot because it was filling up daily. Looking at the satellite photos, you can see that the outer lots (beyond the line of trees) is noticably a different color than the inner lots. If that ENTIRE area was added afterward, that means that the Studios lot was TINY when the park first opened.

Part of the problem with the Studios and AK lots is that a large chunk of each of them is set aside for Cast Member Parking. Easily 1/4 of the Studios lot, and 1/6 of the AK lot is CM parking. I think the AK lot was designed that way, but I don't think that the CM lot at the Studios was always part of the main parking lot. Does anyone know for sure?

At MK and Epcot, all of their CM parking (with some exceptions) are in lots far away from the Guest lots. (Plus, they're friggin' HUGE lots to begin with...)

At AK, they have a very easy solution to parking problems. There's still a large section that is unpaved out beyond Dinosaur (I think it's dinosaur). You loop around it before coming back in along the tram lane. There's enough room for a good 8 or 9 rows out there.
(And speaking of AK's lot... I know it's probably supposed to be Savannah-like, but could you PLEASE add some landscaping? Trees? Plants? Anything? AK's lot feels so DESOLATE compared to any of the other lots.)

There's a bigger problem when it comes to Studios' parking. They are very crunched for space. They've bumped their Guest lot as far out as they can before hitting a canal. So, their best bet would be to re-take what is now the CM lot, make it for Guest use, and put the Studios CM parking elsewhere. My guesses would be either a large backstage parking structure (expand the currently-existing Animation Building one, perhaps?), or clear out some trees on the other side of the main entrance road from World Drive and put a CM lot there. Then connect it over to where the CM entrance is now via overpass or underpass.

-Rob

 

[phenom1307]

Well, the Studios' lot has always been too small. Soon after the park opened, they had to add onto the lot because it was filling up daily. Looking at the satellite photos, you can see that the outer lots (beyond the line of trees) is noticably a different color than the inner lots. If that ENTIRE area was added afterward, that means that the Studios lot was TINY when the park first opened.

Part of the problem with the Studios and AK lots is that a large chunk of each of them is set aside for Cast Member Parking. Easily 1/4 of the Studios lot, and 1/6 of the AK lot is CM parking. I think the AK lot was designed that way, but I don't think that the CM lot at the Studios was always part of the main parking lot. Does anyone know for sure?

At MK and Epcot, all of their CM parking (with some exceptions) are in lots far away from the Guest lots. (Plus, they're friggin' HUGE lots to begin with...)

At AK, they have a very easy solution to parking problems. There's still a large section that is unpaved out beyond Dinosaur (I think it's dinosaur). You loop around it before coming back in along the tram lane. There's enough room for a good 8 or 9 rows out there.
(And speaking of AK's lot... I know it's probably supposed to be Savannah-like, but could you PLEASE add some landscaping? Trees? Plants? Anything? AK's lot feels so DESOLATE compared to any of the other lots.)

There's a bigger problem when it comes to Studios' parking. They are very crunched for space. They've bumped their Guest lot as far out as they can before hitting a canal. So, their best bet would be to re-take what is now the CM lot, make it for Guest use, and put the Studios CM parking elsewhere. My guesses would be either a large backstage parking structure (expand the currently-existing Animation Building one, perhaps?), or clear out some trees on the other side of the main entrance road from World Drive and put a CM lot there. Then connect it over to where the CM entrance is now via overpass or underpass.

-Rob

it's giraffe...dinosaur is the one right before it

 

[tigfan]

Apparently Disney is considering eliminating parking lot fees at its theme parks. If they go forward with the plan, you'll never have to hand over cash to a parking lot plaza attendant ever again!

Don't get too excited. The price of parking will likely be folded into a ticket price increase--maybe three or four bucks a ticket.

Its a brilliant "shell game" on Disney's part. They get to advertise "free parking" while saving money eliminating all those parking lot money takers. Depending on the ticket price increase, they'll potentially make more money per carload of visitors than the current parking fee. And hotel visitors and off-property shuttle bus riders will also pay the increased ticket even though they aren't parking.

Again, this is only a rumor. Has anyone heard more firm plans, dates, etc?

Wow, kinda throwing the cart before the horse here aren't you? It's just a rumor, not even a confirmed fact, and you're already accusing Disney of playing a "shell game"? All this is based purely on your speculation that they'll even increase the ticket price. That seems a little extreme.

 

[sleepingchrissy]

I really do not understand why people complain about paying what is it 10 doller to park.. I mean If you drive to every park yeah its a waste of money but if you park at the TTC and take the buses and monorail everywhere I would say the 10 dollers is well worth it.

Disneys park ticket prices are crazy to begin with there is no need to jack them up if free parking comes into effect.

I agree that they do not need to increase park tickets as to allow free parking, however I agree for a different reason. 10 dollars is actually quite a lot over a course of a vacation. Its 10 dollars a day. On the last trip my husband and I went on we were there for about 12 days (we didn't stay on Disney, not by choice) and so parking ended up costing us about 120 dollars! That's alot. I just think that it really isn't fair for resort guests to have to pay for a ticket increase so that others can park for free, since resort guests cannot benefit from free parking.

 

[CarlHS]

Remember, there is a rumored new "park" (Night Kingdom) and a new land (Bestlie Kingdomme) coming and staff is pretty thin as it is, so they will need to reallocate staff. Universal will be poaching staff as well to handle the bigger crowds Potterland will cause to shift to IoA.

The Parking lots will not suffer any problems at all:

There will still be parking staff to guide you to your space.
You will wait in 1 line only (just before your space) not 2 (the one at the toll booth).

Downtown Disney may free up slightly from those who park there, and it needs to.

I don't recall any ads stating "Stay on property for free parking" so I doub't any guests would go off property because other people no longer have to pay for parking.

Shuttle use by off site hotel guests will not likely change much either as many of those users came on a plane. The ones that came by car and want to save $11 by using the shuttle, will still likely continue to use the shuttles to avoid traffic, the ability to being dropped off at 1 park and be picked up at another, the gas savings, etc.

I question how profitable the parking is when you add up staffing, toll booth operations (managment, maintenence, security, accidents, legal issues, etc.). This profit can be easily made up in a slight ticket hike ($.50 to $1.00 at most).

Also, the first impression factor of "Hey, no charge to park" has added "warm fuzzy feeling" value.

 

[DisneyMusician2]

I think even the small resort guest perk is enough to keep them from eliminating it completely...

Wouldn't make too mcuh sense to me.

Nor does it affect me, as I don't like to rent a car

 

[Skyway]

To those who think it would be unfair to bundle parking fees into an admission ticket because it would be "unfair" for resort guests to pay for parking they won't use...keep this in mind:

Parking doesn't really cost anything. Disney (and other parks) have been charging people big money to park SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN.

Sure, they pay for blacktop sealer and weed killer and light bulbs and property taxes. But so do shopping malls, libraries, restaurants, and other places that have free parking lots. Disney hotels don't charge for parking. Nor do Blizzard Beach, Downtown Disney, or golf courses. So why do theme parks require a separate parking fee? NO REASON, OTHER THAN TO TAKE IN MORE MONEY.

Of course, that's Disney's right as an American profit-making company.

So why not just shift that profit center to a higher-priced admission ticket and eliminate parking fees?

Your admission ticket pays for so many things you probably don't think about or use-- like the coffee served to Disney's corporate lawyers who use reams of paper to print out union contracts that determine how much of your admission fee will be spent on syringes and band-aids to give cast members flu shots.

Why can't that same admission fee cover a seven-foot by three-foot piece of pavement to park a car?

Disney's gonna raise ticket prices no matter what. Why not give some visitors a "freebie" even it is just an illusion or a "shell game" ? (kind of like the "free" Magical Express shuttle bus that is technically paid for in your hotel rate whether you use the airport bus or not. Disney is not losing money on that bus service, or they wouldn't be doing it)

 

[sbkline]

People keep mentioning the money the company would save by not having to staff the parking lots, but I wonder how much the company would really save because of this.

If the company were to fire all the parking attendants, then yes it would save them money because they just let all these employees go. However, if they simply found them another position in the company, then they're not really saving any money on payroll.

By finding them new positions in the company, would these be "needed" positions, or simply a position that they created for the person in order not to have to fire him? If, for example, Rob the parking attendant would get transferred to maintenance staff, what happens the next time someone on maintenance quits? Is Rob just "extra" such that they really don't need to hire a new guy to take the place of the person who left? If so then Disney IS saving money in the long run by eliminating parking fees and therefore eliminating the position of parking fee collector (or whatever the title is).

However, what if there is always a demand for more maintenance staff? What if Jack the maintance man retires and they still need someone to take his spot, despite the fact that Rob transferred over last month from being a parking fee collector? If so, then the company is still paying Rob, in addition to hiring someone else to take Jack's place, so eliminating the parking fee isn't saving the company any money...at least not in Rob's case. Unless he took a pay cut to go to the maintenance crew.

 

[bigorangeandy]

Disney would still need to keep a parking lot staff. I could see lots of cars trying to get to the first row, then driving the wrong way down aisles. The parking lot was designed to be the most efficient when you have someone directing traffic, and showing you where to park.

 

[TubaGeek]

If they actually make parking free, I'll eat my laptop.

 

[JimboJones123]

I think this would be a VERY smart move.

They could easily make it up elsewhere. What % of parking guests are APs or resort guests anyways?

IMAGINE the goodwill though.

I can't park for a local sports event for under $15 these days. Most amusement parks charge at least $10.

The downside will be far be a perk missing for resort guests. I know I'd rather spend $30 more a night than pay the $10 a day for parking. It makes no sense, but parking has become one of those expenses that are more aggrevating than anything else.

I do barely like the idea as a guest, even though it does cheapen the value of my resort hotel stay.

As management, if you can do something to offset that "value" gained to resort guests, I would be TOTALLY for the idea. It's a pretty sharp promotion, with a very low financial impact.

 

[Disneyfan1981]

It'd be a bold move but I don't see it happening. For many of the reasons already stated but ultimately because I don't think the lots could handle the capacities that'd be using the parking if it were actually free, I think the numbers that'd readily use it would shock

 

[JimboJones123]

If all the "shuttle" resort guests started parking themselves, there would be a world of trouble.

 

[Disneyfan1981]

Not to mention that even though Disney tries to get those who park to use their transportation to get from place to place, park to park....I have a feeling that many would be more likely to physically move their cars from place to place making lot wait times in the lots and parking space hunting a nightmare. It happens more than people think, I even did it a couple of times on my last visit

 

[WDWFigment]

To those who think it would be unfair to bundle parking fees into an admission ticket because it would be "unfair" for resort guests to pay for parking they won't use...keep this in mind:

Parking doesn't really cost anything. Disney (and other parks) have been charging people big money to park SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN.

Sure, they pay for blacktop sealer and weed killer and light bulbs and property taxes. But so do shopping malls, libraries, restaurants, and other places that have free parking lots. Disney hotels don't charge for parking. Nor do Blizzard Beach, Downtown Disney, or golf courses. So why do theme parks require a separate parking fee? NO REASON, OTHER THAN TO TAKE IN MORE MONEY.

Of course, that's Disney's right as an American profit-making company.

So why not just shift that profit center to a higher-priced admission ticket and eliminate parking fees?

Your admission ticket pays for so many things you probably don't think about or use-- like the coffee served to Disney's corporate lawyers who use reams of paper to print out union contracts that determine how much of your admission fee will be spent on syringes and band-aids to give cast members flu shots.

Why can't that same admission fee cover a seven-foot by three-foot piece of pavement to park a car?

Disney's gonna raise ticket prices no matter what. Why not give some visitors a "freebie" even it is just an illusion or a "shell game" ? (kind of like the "free" Magical Express shuttle bus that is technically paid for in your hotel rate whether you use the airport bus or not. Disney is not losing money on that bus service, or they wouldn't be doing it)

This is part of the reason why I don't see it happening. You say parking doesn't cost Disney anything. I'll put aside the argument that it does (upkeep, CMs, etc), and focus on the lost revenue if parking goes free. As others have stated, this will be folded into the ticket costs. Ticket costs that would probably go up anyway as Disney seeks to make more money.

So you're telling me that on top of the typical $4 jump in ticket prices, they're going to raise ticket prices another $2 or so? For a total of $6? All to appease the 15% (estimate given by another poster--even if it isn't 15%, if it's anywhere below 50%, my point is valid) that drive to the parks? How does that sit with the other 85% (or 51+%)? I know I won't be too happy that I 1) pay for parking that I don't use (granted, the average guest won't know this...I'll rephrase: "I won't be too happy with the additional ticket cost increase"), and 2) that I'm 'losing' a perk for staying on site. So why make that 15-49% happy at the expense of the majority? To me, it doesn't make sense as a profit-turning organization. Perhaps there are other reasons I'm missing.

Further, I think it flies in the face of everything WDW has done to entice people to stay on property. DME, DDP, EMH--all these things convince people to stay on property; just as not having to pay for parking convinces them. I would find it more likely if someone said Disney is raising parking costs to $20 per day to entice more people to stay on property. At least that would be fitting with their scheme to undercut Universal and co.

But then again, maybe they are starting to fear that their enticement strategy is about to backfire, with some guests "defecting" to Universal and its resorts? :shrug:

 

[hrcollectibles]

Remember, there is a rumored new "park" (Night Kingdom) and a new land (Bestlie Kingdomme) coming and staff is pretty thin as it is, so they will need to reallocate staff. Universal will be poaching staff as well to handle the bigger crowds Potterland will cause to shift to IoA.

The Parking lots will not suffer any problems at all:

There will still be parking staff to guide you to your space.
You will wait in 1 line only (just before your space) not 2 (the one at the toll booth).

Downtown Disney may free up slightly from those who park there, and it needs to.

I don't recall any ads stating "Stay on property for free parking" so I doub't any guests would go off property because other people no longer have to pay for parking.

Shuttle use by off site hotel guests will not likely change much either as many of those users came on a plane. The ones that came by car and want to save $11 by using the shuttle, will still likely continue to use the shuttles to avoid traffic, the ability to being dropped off at 1 park and be picked up at another, the gas savings, etc.

I question how profitable the parking is when you add up staffing, toll booth operations (managment, maintenence, security, accidents, legal issues, etc.). This profit can be easily made up in a slight ticket hike ($.50 to $1.00 at most).

Also, the first impression factor of "Hey, no charge to park" has added "warm fuzzy feeling" value.

I thought They had like 55,000 employees

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I think the argument that this would affect where people choose to stay is highly suspect.

Does anybody pick an on-site stay based solely on free parking? Who decides to spend $80/night at the All-Stars as opposed to $30/night at the EconoLodge to save $10/day at the parking plaza?

I would assume most on-site guests see free parking as a nice bonus, at the most.

(The ticket increase is something else altogether, but if it's factored in around the time of year when Disney has typically announced annual admission hikes, most people won't even notice.)

 

[Wilt Dasney]

People keep mentioning the money the company would save by not having to staff the parking lots, but I wonder how much the company would really save because of this.

If the company were to fire all the parking attendants, then yes it would save them money because they just let all these employees go. However, if they simply found them another position in the company, then they're not really saving any money on payroll.

Knowing Disney, they'd transfer the parking people to different (non-union) departments and cut the hours for people already there.