Parking at the Fort...Charges Coming?

[mickeyfan0805]

All in all, it seems like a reasonable application of the fee to the Fort. While you may or may not agree with the fee overall, it sounds as though the way the fee will play out for the Fort is reasonable in the context of what they are doing across WDW. I'm glad to know they are exempting towed vehicles, tow vehicles and golf carts.

Admittedly, I don't get as worked up about price increases as some (prices go up on everything, it doesn't surprise me with WDW) - and there are always more people wanting to come to WDW, they are clearly not having trouble selling at current prices. As for us, we are going around and around because we have gone every calendar year since 2007 and current plans have 2019 breaking that streak. We're still trying to figure out if there is a way to swing an extra trip to keep it going!

 

[bloomcruisers]

So how would this be charged?
We travel with my daughter and her family of 4.
We drive a minivan and use a tent.
She drives a pop up Volkswagen camper van which she and SIL sleep in.
The kids share our tent.
Once they pop up their camper van, it doesn’t move. We all fit in the minivan if we drive somewhere.
So will their pop up be charged to sit there but one that gets towed in will not?

 

[4077]

So how would this be charged?
We travel with my daughter and her family of 4.
We drive a minivan and use a tent.
She drives a pop up Volkswagen camper van which she and SIL sleep in.
The kids share our tent.
Once they pop up their camper van, it doesn’t move. We all fit in the minivan if we drive somewhere.
So will their pop up be charged to sit there but one that gets towed in will not?

This is the type of thing that will get interesting....in MY mind, having a Volkswagen camper van and then another vehicle is no different than having a Class A, B, or C which you park and camp while another vehicle is your transportation locally. I believe it was all ready shown previously (by someone calling to ask and then posting here) that this would not require any extra payment. I would think you shouldn't have to pay any extra parking either following that logic, but as with all these situations, I guess you will have to ask to find out for sure. Best bet is to call directly to Fort and speak with CM there and explain the situation.....my opinion.

 

[bloomcruisers]

This is the type of thing that will get interesting....in MY mind, having a Volkswagen camper van and then another vehicle is no different than having a Class A, B, or C which you park and camp while another vehicle is your transportation locally. I believe it was all ready shown previously (by someone calling to ask and then posting here) that this would not require any extra payment. I would think you shouldn't have to pay any extra parking either following that logic, but as with all these situations, I guess you will have to ask to find out for sure. Best bet is to call directly to Fort and speak with CM there and explain the situation.....my opinion.

We have 10 nights next month and 5 in September both booked before the big booking price change date so will have a chance to ask then.
Just trying to figure out the long range options.
Thinking about it, I guess we could get a U-Haul car trailer for a day and tow it through the gate if we had to

 

[JETS70]

I have never understood any hotel charging to park in their lot when you are staying there, on Disney property or not.

Agree @BETH & PETE. It almost makes you think that Disney would have been better off just showing this as an increase in room rates rather than a "new" parking fee. Makes Disney look even more greedy by now charging for what used to be an amenity of staying on Disney property. Also, the additional parking fee could result in guest canceling that reservation at Chef Mickey's or other "special" activity that was planned. Lets face it, the parking fee could be significant based on where and how long you stay. IMO

Steve

 

[mickeyfan0805]

Agree @BETH & PETE. It almost makes you think that Disney would have been better off just showing this as an increase in room rates rather than a "new" parking fee. Makes Disney look even more greedy by now charging for what used to be an amenity of staying on Disney property.

Steve

I'm convinced that their goal here is not as much about the parking revenue as it is about creating another motivation for people to stay within the Disney bubble. With this cost, a week-long car rental just jumped by $100-$150, making a lot of people a lot more likely to use DME and Disney transport - keeping ALL of their spending within the Disney property. This way, Disney gains either way - if someone rents a car, they get the $150, if they don't rent the car, they get that (and more) in extra on-site spending. A resort fee increase would not have generated the same results.

Agree @BETH & PETE. Also, the additional parking fee could result in guest canceling that reservation at Chef Mickey's or other "special" activity that was planned. Lets face it, the parking fee could be significant based on where and how long you stay. IMO

Steve

As I understand it the fee only applies to overnight stays - it should have no impact on restaurant and activity visits to particular resorts.

 

[Ds4angels]

@mickeyfan0805 i agree with hat thought process. Was talking to friends and if you don't rent a car and still choose to Uber outside the bubble for your souviners it would still be cheaper. Walmart t-shirts $15, WDW $25. The outlets seem to be about 20-50% cheaper then in the bubble. So if Disney really wanted to mess up the works they'd ban Uber/Lyft. (which would be interesting to see if they do this later on)

To me and many people I've spoke with, it just leaves a bad taste in their mouth, yes Dis is a corporation and yes they are there to make money, but I've read a few articles where WDW is making more money but with less guests, with all the add on (desert parties, EMM, ect).
But again I really think WDW wants new blood, not those who remember what service used to be like.

 

[JETS70]

As I understand it the fee only applies to overnight stays - it should have no impact on restaurant and activity visits to particular resorts.

You are right about no fees for dinner reservations and such. What I was referring to might be the guest who trades the Chef Mickey's reservation or other special activity to offset the cost of the parking fee.
JMO
Steve

 

[grumpyaggie]

The way I read this is that if I show up with a pick-up pulling a toy hauler with a golf cart in it. There will be no parking fees.
If me and 4 friends each with a car in one site. Four fees will be added. Will this help reduce the practice of throw-a-way sites?

 

[snowmedic]

Hopefully it will cut down on the number of cars in one site blocking others from trying to back there rig into their site.

 

[KristinU]

Will this help reduce the practice of throw-a-way sites?

I almost wonder if it will drive more people to use the Fort than the Values - one free parking spot rather than no free parking spots. Ugh.

 

[chartle]

I almost wonder if it will drive more people to use the Fort than the Values - one free parking spot rather than no free parking spots. Ugh.

I really doubt people are going to move from a room with 2 beds and a bathroom not down the street to stay in a tent or RV just to have free parking. Also is there a fee for the values?

 

[mickeyfan0805]

Will this help reduce the practice of throw-a-way sites?

I wish it would, but my guess is that people with throw-away sites will simply claim they have no car - and since there wouldn't ever be a car there, there is no way for anyone to show otherwise. Not sure it would have much of an impact.

 

[KristinU]

I really doubt people are going to move from a room with 2 beds and a bathroom not down the street to stay in a tent or RV just to have free parking. Also is there a fee for the values?

No, not actually STAY at the Fort but use it as a throw-away for the onsite perks.

I'm assuming parking at the parks is still free for onsite resort guests. One of the perks that drive people to do the throw-away thing.

 

[chartle]

No, not actually STAY at the Fort but use it as a throw-away for the onsite perks.

I'm assuming parking at the parks is still free for onsite resort guests. One of the perks that drive people to do the throw-away thing.

I just don't see how getting around a new overnight resort parking fee by booking a site at FW helps offsite guests. Its a perk they don't need.

 

[WDW1979]

...A resort fee increase would not have generated the same results.

I think we'll get the resort fee increase as well. I don't think this new parking fee will put a dent in the upcoming annual resort fee increases.

 

[Jimsig]

I really doubt people are going to move from a room with 2 beds and a bathroom not down the street to stay in a tent or RV just to have free parking. Also is there a fee for the values?

$13 at the values

 

[mickeyfan0805]

I just don't see how getting around a new overnight resort parking fee by booking a site at FW helps offsite guests. Its a perk they don't need.

I think the question was pointed towards this fee potentially curtailing the practice offsite guests from purchasing throw-away sites. There is currently a practice of people purchasing sites for the purpose of gaining onsite benefits (Magicbands at no cost, charging, EMH, 60+10 day FP+, 180+10 day dining, etc...). They stay offsite, paying much less for their housing, but pay for a low-cost tent site in order to get these benefits. The suggestion, I think, was that this parking fee might put a dent in that practice, as it essentially raises the price of the site.

I personally think it is too easy to skirt this rule in the throw-away situation to have such an impact, but I think the idea was that this would deter the practice, not further it.

 

[chartle]

I think the question was pointed towards this fee potentially curtailing the practice offsite guests from purchasing throw-away sites. There is currently a practice of people purchasing sites for the purpose of gaining onsite benefits (Magicbands at no cost, charging, EMH, 60+10 day FP+, 180+10 day dining, etc...). They stay offsite, paying much less for their housing, but pay for a low-cost tent site in order to get these benefits. The suggestion, I think, was that this parking fee might put a dent in that practice, as it essentially raises the price of the site.

I personally think it is too easy to skirt this rule in the throw-away situation to have such an impact, but I think the idea was that this would deter the practice, not further it.

But its already been posted that this doesn't apply to campsites but as I type this I'm thinking did people who did this also register more than 1 car? Since you allowed 10 people on a site is it something that more than 1 family with more than 1 car do?

 

[amcc]

But its already been posted that this doesn't apply to campsites but as I type this I'm thinking did people who did this also register more than 1 car? Since you allowed 10 people on a site is it something that more than 1 family with more than 1 car do?

There were plenty of people who booked the throw away sites with 10 people registered and got more than 1 car free parking. The magic bands read you were a guest and as many guests were in the reservation could get free parking just scanning the bands.