Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
I don’t think I ever said they would raise ticket prices….what I did say is I would rather the park spend my money for things for the park….things all the guests can enjoy.

That's probably one of the least logical thoughts I've had the ability to read here in awhile.

But to indulge a bit - by that thought process if the park installed any other guest-facing convenience infrastructure you don't have a need for without an upcharge, you'll be upset about it?

Sounds like you just like tilting at windmills to me...
 
It would be easy for them to throw a dozen chargers up so they say they have EV charging, but it easily could become a big deal. If BGW offered charging for every car via solar, that could be a bigger operation than the park itself. Is it a park that happens to have charging, or a charge station that happens to include an amusement park? There will be justification for the latter eventually but this big? But I look for an additional factor in having BGW do it, such as great power hookups including partnership combined with variable charge rates due to having all day -- e.g. if you show up late afternoon during a heavy A/C usage day you probably won't get a full charge.
 
I don’t think I ever said they would raise ticket prices….what I did say is I would rather the park spend my money for things for the park….things all the guests can enjoy.

You raised the idea of “guests subsidizing” the installation. You did not, in fact, say anything about the park taking money from other projects to pay for it.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Luke
You raised the idea of “guests subsidizing” the installation. You did not, in fact, say anything about the park taking money from other projects to pay for it.
probably most non EV owners think its a waste and would rather the company use the money they have invested as a guest to make the actual park better which in turn makes their experience better.


id rathr have a half million spent on other parts of the actual park.
 
  • Eye-Roll
Reactions: Jonesta6
I don’t think I ever said they would raise ticket prices….what I did say is I would rather the park spend my money for things for the park….things all the guests can enjoy.
Can "all the guests" enjoy a new roller coaster? 😇

Remember, the key phrase here is "all the guests." Your choice of words, nobody else's.

The parking lots are part of the park, by the way. Just as a theatre director knows the ushers and staff are the very first and very last things the audience experiences when they go to a show, and therefore matter, parking IS part of the guest experience at the park. In fact, people pay a fair amount specifically to "experience" that specific part of the park. First thing they see when they arrive, last thing the see when they leave. It should be as high quality as possible.
 
Can "all the guests" enjoy a new roller coaster? 😇

Remember, the key phrase here is "all the guests." Your choice of words, nobody else's.

The parking lots are part of the park, by the way. Just as a theatre director knows the ushers and staff are the very first and very last things the audience experiences when they go to a show, and therefore matter, parking IS part of the guest experience at the park. In fact, people pay a fair amount specifically to "experience" that specific part of the park. First thing they see when they arrive, last thing the see when they leave. It should be as high quality as possible.
Agreed, so let’s upgrade the trams….oh but that costs money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coasternerd
Has anyone objected to better tram service? At whom was that snark directed?
It was commented that the parking lot was part of the park and the first and last thing the guests experience, and I agreed and said they should upgrade the trams…..referring to the fact I would rather the park spent money on upgrades to what they have already in place of spending money on something new.
 
  • Eye-Roll
Reactions: Luke
It isn't one or the other, thankfully, especially since the park hasn't seemed terribly interested in substantially improving the trams in the first place. Might as well do something else to improve the parking experience, then.

I'm all for incentivizing behaviors that benefit everyone, as EV adoption does. A few bucks to encourage patronage and upcharge spending from EV driving customers is both good PR and good marketing. Pretty simple, really. Particularly if the promotion can be delivered basically for free due to net metered credits. Then it is especially obvious that nobody gets left behind.
 
Dumb math, maybe but...

Using the 'if you build it they will come' thought process:

Drivers with EV cars aren't necessarily avoiding the park, but those that aren't local may be interested in level 2 (not super fast but not super slow) charging.

For every vehicle using a charger, let's assume that they have at least 2 people in them and that 1/2 are actively deciding to come up the park because the charging hookup is on offer - 1 less thing to be concerned with when the trip is already a few hours long and drains a good chunk of a full battery.

If the park put in let's say 20 charging stations at an average cost of $5k each (source: https://evcharging.enelx.com/resources/federal-and-state-electric-vehicle-incentives - this site indicated it's about $1k - $10k per charger depending on various requirements, plus between Dominion and Federal incentives I'm splitting the difference), and they're powered by solar energy most of the time with an install cost around $14k per panel with enough juice to charge a car (source: https://www.energysage.com/solar-pa...o solar panels,ranges from $12,240 to $16,560. - this is totally a made up estimate within their stated average range for Virginia), it'd take them perhaps 10-15 years to break even on power consumption if nobody was to use them.

However, per my previous assumptions, they're almost always in use during most of the operating calendar, with 50% of the spots on average bringing at least 20 non-regular guests a day that the park otherwise wouldn't have had.

Assume each new guest spends an average of $150 per visit - includes parking, admission, food/beverage, and any shopping.

Assume repeat guests spend less, an average of $40 per visit for food/beverage and any shopping - they have memberships where parking is included.

$150 per person x 20 new people per day = $3,000 in new guest revenue a day.

$40 per person x 20 repeat people a day = $800 in repeat guests revenue.

That means each operating day the park makes $3,800 from the guests using chargers.

At a glance at their calendar, there's roughly 9 months worth of open dates, but we can round down to 8 to be conservative.

($14k per solar panel + $5k per charger) x 20 chargers = $340,000 in installation costs. We can tack on another $10k per year in various related maintenance costs for the first year to be $350k.

8 months × 30 days (average) per month = 240 days of a year the charging spots are full.

$3,800 in guest spending per day x 240 operating days = $912,000 in gross revenue.

Subtracting out the estimated $350,000 installation and maintenance cost, year one will have them at a net revenue of $562,000 with the following year at $902,000 assuming there isn't any new installations or large replacements needed.

Obviously, these are all estimates based on assumptions - change the assumption and the numbers will possibly tell a different story.

But based on that kind of math, even if you increased installation and maintenance costs within the ranges from my sources and decreased the usage, the math generally has the park at a positive net revenue after paying off their costs within the first year and not changing pricing anywhere.

So if that's even somewhat close to reality, why shouldn't they do it if it gives them extra revenue they can theoretically sink into park improvements (more realistically will go to investors or debt payments, but that's a whole other conversation on park finances few if any of us are all that familiar with)?
 
It isn't one or the other, thankfully
I wish people understood this. If you do things correctly, you address all of the issues. It's not like this is a single parent family trying to survive -- this is a major corporation with the ability to invest in these things and, typically, it seems the only reason why they don't invest is in order to increase management bonsues, etc.

Actually, this whole mentality is a huge problem in general. Saying it's unfair that someone gets a benefit that they don't because they don't have the needed item/materials to do so is very close to the same thing. Why is it such a focus on what others get instead of just asking yourself if you are happy with what you paid and got.

Doing things for the good of all people should be a priority for all people...... instead we have too many people that are purely focused on themselves and no one else and it's damaging us as a nation.
 
Drivers with EV cars aren't necessarily avoiding the park, but those that aren't local may be interested in level 2 (not super fast but not super slow) charging.
I think that's exactly right. Level 2 makes a ton of sense given that cars are generally parked for hours. They don't need level 3 charging: the speed difference isn't particularly useful for most in this case, nor is the greater expense of installing level 3 chargers warranted.

So if that's even somewhat close to reality, why shouldn't they do it if it gives them extra revenue they can theoretically sink into park improvements (more realistically will go to investors or debt payments, but that's a whole other conversation on park finances few if any of us are all that familiar with)?
Why indeed! Thanks for doing some math around it.

I feel there is clearly a huge mentality shift required when we think about EVs. In particular, we all have a certain innate sense for how much it costs to drive a long way. That sense is completely rooted in generations of experience with gasoline powered vehicles. Filling your gas car at the pump may cost a bundle, but it is incredibly less expensive to juice up an EV at residential or commercial power rates for trips of similar distances. To fully charge an EV that has brought 3-4 people to the park costs the equivalent of giving them perhaps $3 off admission at the gate, tops. I've gotten bigger discounts just for buying parking online, and much bigger discounts for bringing an empty Coke can to the front gate of a park or two.

Yet even among the EV owners I know, charging remains an outsized and powerful enticement, valued well beyond its monetary value, because everybody is still rooted, at least a little bit, in the gas-POV mentality of a "full tank." It may not cost much in an EV, but it represents hundreds of miles of travel, and that's a big deal to any driver, no matter what they own.
 
Thinking of another aspect, on my yearly day trip to Great Adventure not being able to charge at the park would almost be a deal breaker if only had an EV. I spend an average of $20-25 in park, but would have no complaints whatsoever paying for charging since it would still be less than fuel.

I don't see driving 500 miles in a day for one person to ride coasters a particularly good thing to encourage though. I don't see the new giant EVs such as the Hummer as exactly progress either, and asking a Corolla driver to subsidize their fuel is cute.
 
Last edited:
I don't see the new giant EVs such as the Hummer as exactly progress either, and asking a Corolla driver to subsidize their fuel is cute.
Would you be against EV charging being included in with the Preferred Parking? That way it isn't "free" to General Parking.
 
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad