I've often thought about doing something similar on Ohio State football game days. But I don't have enough room in my yard to make it worthwhile.

Basically the park added a pedestrian bridge for safety and subsequently changed where you enter the parking lot. People still try to enter the old way and find themselves having to turn around in this dude's parking lot. This guy takes advantage of that to make a few bucks at the expense of making people cross a busy road where there will soon be no traffic light.

This has nothing to do with the parking fee except for the one line quote from some guy who lives in Vermont. It's all about some local business owner taking advantage of the confusion caused by the changes SF made with their parking lot in interest of guest safety.

The pedestrian bridge was built much closer to the hotel, of which can be a long walk for people who park in the Great Escape parking lots (especially the South lot). They have to walk up North to the bridge, cross it, and then walk South again. It can be a real time-saver, especially of those who are just too tired to walk the unnecessary distance after a long day (especially since the lots are fenced/gated, so you can't just cut thru w/out crossing the bridge).

The only difference is that the fact that the price is the same. Who'd you rather give the 10 bucks to? Six Flags where who-knows how the money is distributed, or the individual owner who pockets the 10 bucks himself?
Also, don't forget that once you leave Cohen's lot, you're outta luck. Don't expect to go out for dinner & come back... vs. Great Escape where you can probably exit & re-enter if you want to grab something to eat elsewhere.

I can see both sides of the story... but I'm all for a little healthy competition. Solution? Lower your price, Six Flags!

Ohhh, OK. I thought (mistakenly) that SF would've built the bridge further up the road, closer to Demon, and closer to their own parking lot...

It was FREE parking last year, wasn't it? That makes the immediate jump to 10 bucks seem steep to me....but that's what the neighbors are asking (and getting), so I guess not... *shrug*

Six Flags forte is big parks like SFOT, SFOG, SFMM, SFGA, and SFGAm. SFNE is one park in the region that does fit with their identity. TGE is not. I believe that one reason Six Flags holds on to this park and does what they do with it is because the other major nearby parks are also Six Flags (SFNE and La Ronde). LC is the nearest serious non-Six Flags competition to TGE. All that I know is, if I lived somewhere between TGE and LC, I would prefer to go to the Lake if I was looking for a family oriented park.

What doesn't make sense is where they put the parking lot entrance. According to the article, the new Six Flags Drive is on Rt. 9 across from Glen Lake Road. Using some on-line maps, I estimate this to be 3/4 of a mile North of the main entrance. (Last year, the parking lot entrance was directly across from the main entrance.) As well, because of the trees and the curve in the road, it may be impossible to see the hotel or theme park from the entrance of Six Flags Drive. Guests like myself tend to look for the roller coasters first, and parking second. Maybe the new signs at Six Flags Drive are not sufficient.

Or maybe instead of improved signage, they'll install a Intamin Hydraulic Launch coaster with a 200-foot top hat directly over the parking lot entrance. (I can dream, can't I?)

As far as the town goes, I don't know if it's as much an issue of safety as it is that somebody is making money that they can't get their hands on. From the article, it sounds like their beef is that it's a new "business venture." (i.e., taxes, permits). Why should the town be concerned that this guy is charging people to park on his property? He's not forcing them-- and they certainly have other choices. He also has to pay for the upkeep and repairs to the lot that his own customers as well as the park's have used for years. If someone doesn't want to pay him, they can easily drive away.

There's limited gating on the East side where the handicapp parking is, however... and that's how it's easy to have anybody get through.

Parking WAS free last year, albeit it was also in a dirt lot. The paving was inevidable since they knew they were building the hotel way ahead of time & the lot was to follow since it was raised around 3 to 5' from all the earth dug up for the hotel. However, the ORIGINAL plan was to charge just $5.00 for parking ($15.00 season). They even sold some season parking passes at that rate for a short while, but when Snyder, Shapiro & Co. took over, they jacked everyone's parking to a minimum of $10 - $15.00 parking... so it didn't last too long.

The parking entrance is EASILY visable when you get off of the Northway at the correct exit when you pass Great Escape, because of the signage & the new turning lane... On the opposite lane, I'm not sure about signage initially, but you eventually see the entrance because of the middle turning lane.

The Panthers have come out and said they are going to charge people for walking to the arena next year. Now, mind you, there are two or more legitimate crosswalks with proper signage so it isn't like the pedestrians are jaywalking...but the Panthers want to charge the fee anyway.

I know why the amusement parks and stadiums all charge for parking....because they can. But, can you imagine being charged a fee to park at McDonald's, the local movie theatre, the mall, the grocery store?

Why we let businesses bend us over a chair I will never understand.

---

But, can you imagine being charged a fee to park at McDonald's, the local movie theatre, the mall, the grocery store?

---

Am I the only one who parks in places that have parking meters or in garages that charge per hour - places like that?

The idea of paying to park seems so foreign to so many that I'm wondering if I live in some bizzaro world and I'm missing out on a world where everything is free.

(not directed at you Wahoo, just used your quote as a jumping point for my opinion )

I know everyone is sick of hearing the analogies and some just flat out don't believe it, but...

You are paying to park at places like the mall, the theatre and McDonald's. The cost of maintaining a parking lot is figured into the cost of doing business and in turn affects the prices you pay inside. Ever seen the signs at a department store begging you to return the carts to help keep prices as low as possible? Same idea - you're paying for the carts you use too.

(that part was a little more directed at you, Wahoo - but not entirely )

Not that there ARE any legitimate parking lots for OSU football.

Why should certain states charge to drive on certain roads, while others just pass the cost along to the taxpayers? Personally, I have less of a problem paying to go over a large bridge or through a large tunnel than to just drive on a road, like the Ohio or NJ turnpikes.

A couple years ago or so, the MD govt. decided to raise certain fees, like license plates, tolls, etc. than to raise taxes. Why? It's the whole perception thing--people will complain about fees being raised, but, in general, won't complain as much as if their taxes had been raised.

Personally, I don't agree with Shapiro's price gouging on parking. Ineterestingly enough, in a recent interview, he said the following:

"I don't want any price gouging. You can't nickel-and-dime people."

This is ironic, since, to me, he IS gouging people on parking. If other park chains, on average, charge a decent amount less, then why does he think he should charge as much as he does? If I already view the other parks as gouging, how much more so will I view his prices? But then again, this is from my perspective. I suppose if you live in NYC and actually own a car and use it, you will be used to paying a lot to park it, and that will be the norm for you.

In Downtown Orlando, most of the houses around the TD Waterhouse Center let you park in their "lots" for a price at or lower than the regular lot. For those familiar with that area, lots of people do it because the walk is shorter from the "lake side".

rablat5 - good points and I certainly don't expect everyone to feel like I do. I just rarely see anyone say, "Hey, life happens. I understand the price of things and find annoyance at the little fees in life to be more of a hassle than just sucking it up and accepting the game."

I guess I'm that guy...and a lonely one at that.

I never think twice about road tolls, parking fees, taxes and crap like that. Not when I'm doing well financially and not when I'm doing not so well. Never.

It is what it is and, short of a major uprising, caring about things like that doesn't change them. Maybe when (if?) the revolution happens, I'll be out there fighting alongside everyone...until then it's not worth my energy or stress. Give me a call when we coordinate an effort to overthrow the establishment.

I also find in interesting that when business says, "Hey, we're business" that everyone cries foul and hates participating in the system, but when business drops a lie of, "Hey, we're here for you" everyone thinks it's all peachy keen. This seems even more pronounced with enthusiasts (who I generally regard as smart folk until this subject comes up) and the amusement industry.

I don't have a problem with Shapiro basically saying, "Hey, we're a business who's goal is to make money and I'm doing what I think is in the best financial interest of this company. Pay up." but the bluntness of that approach seems to get to people. I find it more deceitful when parks claim freebies like parking and such as if they're doing you a favor when they're doing nothing of the sort and in the end have the exact same goals as the guys like SF and Shapiro do - procure as much as your money as possible using whatever method makes you hand it over - whether it just be asking you for it (high prices) or tricking it from you (perceived value).

I am interested in where that Shapiro quote came from because in the context you use it, it does seem more than a bit hypocritical.

http://www.gecentral.com/MarkShapiroInterview.htm

He was basically talking about food prices and such, but to me, that's not the only places we're being gouged.

Yea, there's not a whole lot we can do about certain things. But what gets me more with Shapiro is that he's not in line enough with the other parks of this type, such as the Paramount, CF, etc. He's close on some things, but others I just think he's ripping us off more than usual, if you know what I mean.

Also, the cart before the horse mentality is kinda annoying--raising some prices (that were already high) before spending a season or 2 to fix some of the parks' problems.

---

From the article: Town Supervisor Daniel Stec said he's received phone calls from a few residents in the area about Cohen's operation.

"They said, 'Hey, the Great Escape was just forced to go through all these hoops to keep the pedestrians off the road, and now you've got people charging for parking, and they're walking across the road -- doesn't that defeat the purpose?'" Stec said."

---

So the point is that Great Escape was FORCED by the local gov't to build this pedestrian bridge for safety reasons. I'm sure they had to spend quite a bit of money for this as well. Now, the bridge is open and the gov't is allowing this other guy to do what they would not allow Six Flags to do. Do you not see that as wrong?

EDIT - And I assume when Six Flags had people walking across the road, the parking was free, right? So it would make sense that they start charging for parking if they had to build a multi-million dollar pedestrian bridge.
*** This post was edited by MrX 6/22/2006 6:19:57 PM ***

---

Also, the cart before the horse mentality is kinda annoying--raising some prices (that were already high) before spending a season or 2 to fix some of the parks' problems.

---

I don't think that's necessarily what they're doing though. I see two main points here:

1. The parks were undervalued and the company is in serious debt. Consider this a 'correction' of long standing poor pricing structure. (Actually, SF prices are not too far above most chain parks if you really take a look)

2. Even if they waited, the reaction would be the same. SF has always been the 'discount' chain. Suddenly people don't get to visit for pocket change and it stings. It makes no difference if it happened now or in 5 years when the turnaround is complete - the reaction to higher prices would have been the same. I'm with Red Zone on this. Get the pain out of the way and then build up from there. In a season or two when SF is actually delivering inside the parks like the other chains do, the pricing will already be in place and all is well.

---

Am I the only one who parks in places that have parking meters or in garages that charge per hour - places like that?

---

Jeff said:

---

But it doesn't cost $10 each trip to the mall when I barely spend a hundred bucks there per year!

---

Right, and I can even go to the mall and spend nothing at the mall and park for free. Certainly people go to the mall and don't buy anything, just browse, hang out or even just visit the arcade and are not contributing to the growth of the mall by paying it's inflated prices to help pay for the cost of maintaining the parking lot. The mall doesn't stop those people from parking there. I can even park there for free for certain events and take shuttle buses (also for free) to certain area events because it is more convenient and easier to get out of. Who accounts for that?

SFA (2005)
- gate: approx. $40
- parking: $10

PKD (2005)
- gate: approx. $45-48
- parking: $9

SFA (2006)
- gate: approx. $50
- parking: $15

PKD (2006)
- gate: approx. $50
- parking: $10

Now, for what you get, PKD is the better value here. You get a larger, more mature and better run park, which also has a water park, for the same gate price as SFA, and $5 less parking fee.

SFA shouldn't be more than what they were last year, which is already pricey enough. Hersheypark, which is a much better park, IMO, is $10 LESS than SFA this year, and parking is definitely less as well.

Another question would be, is Shapiro gonna leave the inflated prices as is for a couple years, or will they continue to go up each year? If they don't level out for a bit, he's still ahead of the game in pricing, and I don't think he should be. Gouging families left and right with over-overpriced things doesn't sound like a lot of family fun for the parents to me.

Working on it....but not in a militia sorta way, so those in charge of "saving democracy", don't come a-knockin' on my door just YET....I get pestered enough without the NSA coming by, LOL...there are no weapons in my house, registered or otherwise, and never will be.

Back to SF, etc., I think they ARE delivering, already, in all areas but the one that bugs enthusiasts the most (and the GP more than enthusiasts seem to think)....OPERATIONS! Get that in order, and then *equivalent pricing* becomes very reasonable. Of course, how many people really have parks from multiple chains within reasonable driving distances...

---

cyberdman said:
Who accounts for that?

---

I have to assume it's rolled into the fees the stores pay the mall owners to set up shop in the mall and it's up to them from there. It only makes sense.

From there it would trickle down to consumers through store pricing - probably also why the stores in malls seem to be higher priced, 'name' establishments.

Re:

So the point is that Great Escape was FORCED by the local gov't to build this pedestrian bridge for safety reasons. I'm sure they had to spend quite a bit of money for this as well. Now, the bridge is open and the gov't is allowing this other guy to do what they would not allow Six Flags to do. Do you not see that as wrong?

EDIT - And I assume when Six Flags had people walking across the road, the parking was free, right? So it would make sense that they start charging for parking if they had to build a multi-million dollar pedestrian bridge.
*** This post was edited by MrX 6/22/2006 6:19:57 PM ***

Who said for sure they were 'forced' to do this? Sound like good PR to me. My bet is that if they were 'forced' it came with a bunch of tax payer dollars attached or tax breaks. The real reason is not because SF was so concerned for safety. My guess is that the did not want to ship all that dirt away and they wanted a more upscale feel in the area surrounding their swank new $200+ a night hotel. Funny how they put the bridge by the hotel.

Personally, unless you are in a city with public trasportation available and limited parking, I think the whole 'pay to park' thing should be illegal. If they dare to get into a 'pay to walk' deal then they are really opening the door from the gov to step in and say, whooooa...this is really just a way to make your ticket prices look cheaper.

Personally I'd park in the guy's lot. In fact, it were closer I'd pay a buck more. If the locality takes the traffic light and cross walk (collusion to me) then they better be ready to get sued if someone get hit. It said he goes thru 40 cars a day. Some would say he should have to build a bridge too. I doubt if SF only had 40 cars a day in their lot they would have been 'forced' into building the bridge...so why force him too. Also, the local outlets up the road add to the traffic conjestion. Surely SF would have made an issue of this if they were footing the whole bill. Finally if SF had safety as a concern, the bridge would be open and accessoble to all. By the way, is there a law saying you MUST use the bridge to cross?

No folks, SF did the math and my guess is by 2007 they will be bringing big bucks on this lot deal.

FYI: We hit the Lake George area each year and GE as well. A few years back we complained how the park was falling apart and a few incidents during a recent trip. We did receive written word back from the GE/SFand some compl tickets. When we returned the next year impovements were indeed made. But a few years later, a boatload of inflated pricing for for food, drink and games (and now parking) is the norm for a relatively small family park open limited hours. The $10 fee was the final straw for us. We did not return in 06.....if that dude is still parking cars in 07, maybe we'll try the park again...or look into the Trolley. SF is not getting my $10 though!