Adding EV Chargers

[mikes]

The cost associated with providing charging to cars is much lower than gas to cars, in both the initial set up of the facilities and continuous cost of the resource. Though there is still a cost, many business units have deemed it a worthwhile tradeoff to eat the overhead cost in exchange for the ability to market free charging, whereas the costs with doing the same with gas would be astronomical and could not be realistically offset by a potential business increase that can be attributed to the service.

You took my free gas literally..... I just want people to pair their share. Most people that have an EVs right now can afford it. Having FREE chargers at an amusement park isn't a social need. Our national electric grid needs love before we all switch to EVs. BG can add a charger at every spot for all I care. I briefly considered a Tesla as my next car, but I want one more high performance ice.

I know there was some chatter about taxing EVs per mile, if that hasn't been done yet, it needs to happen in some form. You shouldn't get free trips on the roads either.

 

[warfelg]

I find that reason as to why not to because that’s a business choice not a requirement. Hence why adding solar would be a great benefit because of then they can use that to directly charge the cars. Additionally (last I knew) there were benefits tax wise to putting chargers in your lots.

 

[Icer]

You took my free gas literally..... I just want people to pair their share. Most people that have an EVs right now can afford it. Having FREE chargers at an amusement park isn't a social need. Our national electric grid needs love before we all switch to EVs. BG can add a charger at every spot for all I care. I briefly considered a Tesla as my next car, but I want one more high performance ice.

I know there was some chatter about taxing EVs per mile, if that hasn't been done yet, it needs to happen in some form. You shouldn't get free trips on the roads either.

I agree, I do not think from BGW's perspective they would need to make this free at all. They could do a simple markup at the parking booths for "covered EV charging parking". I already question how much of an attraction free charging really has beyond the ability to charge in the first place, as right now people are willing to pay a premium for the convenience of charging somewhere not out of their way. As the infrastructure grows, I think free charging will become more and more appealing, but as of now just being able to charge places nearby is most valuable. In BGW's specific case, they don't really need free charging to lure people through the gates since there is already a financial barrier there, people would just be glad to be able to charge their car there rather than have to take more time out of their day to either charge at a station or find a hotel with chargers (idk how rare this is) in the area. It isn't something like the mall where you can drop in and charge your car for free while you shop a bit.

 

[halfabee]

It's an interesting question, I guess;

If a private business can provide a benefit to some customers essentially for free, and that act entices more business, then what's wrong with giving that benefit to those customers for free?

At that point, the entire concept of "paying their fair share" goes away.

Sure, you can charge a little bit for it. But then you degrade the enticement, which is half the point of providing the benefit in the first place.

 

[warfelg]

They could do a simple markup at the parking booths for "covered EV charging parking".

And people would pay for it and take spots from someone that needs those charging spots.

 

[warfelg]

It's an interesting question, I guess;

If a private business can provide a benefit to some customers essentially for free, and that act entices more business, then what's wrong with giving that benefit to those customers for free?

At that point, the entire concept of "paying their fair share" goes away.

Sure, you can charge a little bit for it. But then you degrade the enticement, which is half the point of providing the benefit in the first place.

Also, on average it’s $20 to supercharge an EV. Less through lower levels of charging. Let’s say they put in 100 of these spots. $2000 to charge those cars for BGWs cost. That’s likely a drop in the bucket of their electric consumption. And are likely making more than that off the people coming in.

Shit. They probably spend more advertising small events that don’t have near a same ROI than what EV charging would bring.

 

[panopticon31]

I think the acceptable compromise for asking customers to pay for charging would it be included as a perk of Preferred parking.
That way people can either pay the upcharge for preferred parking or up their membership level to get it included.

 

[halfabee]

Also, on average it’s $20 to supercharge an EV. Less through lower levels of charging. Let’s say they put in 100 of these spots. $2000 to charge those cars for BGWs cost. That’s likely a drop in the bucket of their electric consumption. And are likely making more than that off the people coming in.

They likely aren't paying anything (net) for the power anyway, assuming a solar installation is shading the vehicles, because the solar provides far more offsetting credits than are needed to cover charging costs entirely. It costs them nothing.

I like the idea of having more parking spaces covered by the shade of solar panels than there are charging stations beneath those panels. Literally, additional rows of covered parking that don't (yet?) have chargers serving them.

Charge more for covered parking, and gas cars get to park in the non-charging row(s). EVs get the charger spots. Differentiated parking passes enforce that.

Then if the park wants to expand the charging infra later, much of the construction work is already done. And in the meantime, the solar build-out provides even more offsetting credits against the park's overall power bill -- which I believe is an arrangement Dominion Energy offers.

 

[Zachary]

I feel like the pro-chargers side of this debate is sorta dancing around this aspect so I'm just gonna take the bull by the horns and make this case outright.

I fully support offering a perk to EV drivers that is worthless to ICE drivers. I think it's a good thing that ICE drivers (like myself) deal with disencetives—such as the inability to access the free power offered in SEAS parks' parking lots. SEAS, with their claims of environmental consciousness, SHOULD incentivize their customer base to behave in environmentally friendly ways. SEAS parks discourage the use of non-paper bags by charging for them. Despite, selfishly, finding this to be an inconvenience at times, I fully support the policy as it serves a societal good.

The perceived "unfairness" isn't an issue for me at all—in fact, I believe it's a good thing. Incentives to disproportionately benifit the adaptation of environmentally friendly behaviors and buying patterns are just a strictly good thing in my mind. Furthermore, such programs expressly align with SEAS' stated corporate ideals and their public relations/marketing interests.

 

[panopticon31]

They likely aren't paying anything (net) for the power anyway, assuming a solar installation is shading the vehicles, because the solar provides far more offsetting credits than are needed to cover charging costs entirely. It costs them nothing.

I like the idea of having more parking spaces covered by the shade of solar panels than there are charging stations beneath those panels. Literally, additional rows of covered parking that don't (yet?) have chargers serving them.

Charge more for covered parking, and gas cars get to park in the non-charging row(s). EVs get the charger spots. Differentiated parking passes enforce that.

Then if the park wants to expand the charging infra later, much of the construction work is already done. And in the meantime, the solar build-out provides even more offsetting credits against the park's overall power bill -- which I believe is an arrangement Dominion Energy offers.

Covered parking being what you get for VIP makes WAY more sense than the current setup of "VIP saves you 20-50 yards of walking"

 

[warfelg]

They likely aren't paying anything (net) for the power anyway, assuming a solar installation is shading the vehicles, because the solar provides far more offsetting credits than are needed to cover charging costs entirely. It costs them nothing.

I like the idea of having more parking spaces covered by the shade of solar panels than there are charging stations beneath those panels. Literally, additional rows of covered parking that don't (yet?) have chargers serving them.

Charge more for covered parking, and gas cars get to park in the non-charging row(s). EVs get the charger spots. Differentiated parking passes enforce that.

Then if the park wants to expand the charging infra later, much of the construction work is already done. And in the meantime, the solar build-out provides even more offsetting credits against the park's overall power bill -- which I believe is an arrangement Dominion Energy offers.

Oh well yea. But even at it’s not a huge cost if they were to install the charge points before the solar. The solar was just a thought to make it being free more tolerable that they really aren’t “taking” anything from the park.

 

[mikes]

I feel like the pro-chargers side of this debate is sorta dancing around this aspect so I'm just gonna take the bull by the horns and make this case outright.

I fully support offering a perk to EV drivers that is worthless to ICE drivers. I think it's a good thing that ICE drivers (like myself) deal with disencetives—such as the inability to access the free power offered in SEAS parks' parking lots. SEAS, with their claims of environmental consciousness, SHOULD incentivize their customer base to behave in environmentally friendly ways. SEAS parks discourage the use of non-paper bags by charging for them. Despite, selfishly, finding this to be an inconvenience at times, I fully support the policy as it serves a societal good.

The perceived "unfairness" isn't an issue for me at all—in fact, I believe it's a good thing. Incentives to disproportionately benifit the adaptation of environmentally friendly behaviors and buying patterns are just a strictly good thing in my mind. Furthermore, such programs expressly align with SEAS' stated corporate ideals and their public relations/marketing interests.

I think SEAS has to be very careful about advertising the good it does to the environment. Right now batteries don't come easily, hopefully some new tech comes soon to fix that. The shiny product that is sitting in the showroom does great things from that point forward.

 

[Icer]

And people would pay for it and take spots from someone that needs those charging spots.

Make it EV/plug in hybrid only? Either way, an issue that exists whether you charge a fee or don't.

 

[panopticon31]

I think SEAS has to be very careful about advertising the good it does to the environment. Right now batteries don't come easily, hopefully some new tech comes soon to fix that. The shiny product that is sitting in the showroom does great things from that point forward.

I dont think they should advertise it as being green. I think it should be marketed as a convienence for EV owners.

 

[halfabee]

Those enticed by the chargers, with or without the renewable/solar bit, largely will already know the environmental messaging anyway.

Also: it's a theme park which 99% of attendees reach via a gasoline powered vehicle, for a day of near-total frivolity. Most of the arriving vehicles contain no more than 1-4 people. The entire endeavor of going to an amusement park in the first place is generally un-green IMO. EVs can raise that super low bar a bit by simply being cleaner over their useful lifetimes than gas cars, which they are.

But RIP to the marketing department that pushes the message, "It's green ... ... ... -er than the way you otherwise would have gotten here."

 

[bill s]

The one disadvantage to the guest relates to preferential treatment. I might be willing to walk somewhat further around an electric car space, but there are limits, and if it's a lot further and has a lot of empty spots, it will really grind my gears.

Actually many electric cars could just drive themselves to a remote charging location. Just need a human or robot to put in the plug.

One disadvantage of electric cars for the park is guests might wait to eat if charging on the road. If spaces are limited, though, encourages getting there early.

The entire endeavor of going to an amusement park in the first place is generally un-green IMO.

Compared to staying home, of course, but not inherently compared to many exciting individual activities such as autosports and boating. Parks also use a small amount of land compared to the number of people they can serve or competing activities. In a populous future, if a good one, I expect amusement parks of some kind to become more important, and better connected to mass transport.

 

[Jonesta6]

Ummm... I'm not sure what the hell of the above post is supposed to be a logical argument

 

[WDWRLD]

I like the comments about having a Valet…..with BGW logic you would pay for it only to get to the lot and find a sign that says “valet not in operation today please park yourself”…….I mean they do it with the trams now and it’s become the normal.

 

[Coasternerd]

I like the comments about having a Valet…..with BGW logic you would pay for it only to get to the lot and find a sign that says “valet not in operation today please park yourself”…….I mean they do it with the trams now and it’s become the normal.

However with the trams (which could use a serious upgrade), more often than not arent running either because of staffing, it’s not busy enough, or trams are breaking down left and right. See: Winter Weekends and the dine with animals. They used trams for that and I was told that around every 10-15 minutes they had to grab another tram because the others kept breaking down.

 

[CoasterTalkBob]

Not the same at all. I should get some gas then. Why should it be free?

You're looking at this as a single product when, actually, it's part of a package. If you pay $20 to park your car and that $20 more than covers the cost of electricity why should they pay more? Why get all hung up on someone getting more than you? For that matter, when I go to through the drive through at McDonald's my meal should be cheaper because I'm not using the tables and chairs that they put in the lobby -- why should I have to pay for someone else's ability to sit when I never use it?