larrygator

I did not know that Wometco still existed. I remember when they became the launched a pay subscription TV channel in the 70s before we had cable TV.

Benny - Thanks for the PPS Park pictures. I always enjoy adding new parks to the Park Index

Just caught up on last night's episode, quite the move by Hayden and Ciera. Usually the young player that is low on the king's totem pole refuses to see how low they are on the totem pole but Ciera gets the game.

I'd say it is doubtful. The Lake George area is unique in that many families go there on local vacations and not just for The Great Escape. I don't think any other SF parks in are "destination" areas like Lake George. Six Flags Great Adventure? Families do not vacaton in Jackson, New Jersey! Exactly. It's freakin' Jackson, NJ. Regardless, There's a good 2-3 Million people that Six Flags is letting sleep elsewhere and spend money elsewhere. Keep people on your property. 2-3 Million people sleeping elsewhere. Where are you getting this number from? Most of their guests sleep in the comfort of their own beds after a day at SFGAdv. Great Escape's hotel can get by because people visit the Lake George region in the off season, also. You need off season guests to fill rooms and keep hotels profitable.

Not going to happen.

I completely forget about that tunnel. At that point I thought we were going to be robbed by some banditos.

Please continue discussions in the favorite dark ride thread.

I'm still saying that a babboon exhibit will be put into the area by the former Rolling Thunder in the next few years.

At those popular times you could be waiting up to 90 minutes for a table. Just like at an amusement try for a late lunch (3PM) to have the shortest wait.

Domestically I still need to visit some parks in the Southwest and would add SFoT and SFFT to the trip. Fly in San Antonio Day 1 - SFFT Day 2 - SFoT Day 3 - Joyland, Western Playland Day 4 - Cliffs Day 5 - Wonderland Day 6 - Frontier City Day 7 - Fly home

$6 or $7 for a watered down Coke.

I think the understanding of a population density map would explain why there are none in Northern Australia.

$4 for a soda is absolutely insane. Even for a theme park (or other captive audience for that matter). Don't go to a sporting event or concert in New York!

Cedar Fair: i305 Six Flags: El Toro SeaWorld Entertainment: Montu Merlin: Nemesis Herschend: Powder Keg Universal: Space Fantasy Disney Parks: Grizzly Runaway Mine Train (or whatever it's called) Parques Reunidos: iSpeed Compagnie des Alpes: Goliath Palace Entertainment: Sky Rocket OCT Parks China: agree with Chuck, pick a MegaLite

Agreed, if though OSU will get destroyed by FSU. Auburn would give FSU a better game, that that shouldn't jump them ahead of an undefeated OSU team.

I prefer Sbivering Timbers to the Comet, but it is not all about thrills when comparing parks. Great Escape is the better park.

I like the manner in which you are presenting your photos and story. Very genuine and matter of fact without forcing humor when it's not there.

Some companies understand and use Social Media properly. Others are still trying to figure it out or use it the wrong way.

I'll have to go with waiting an hour for a random Mexican kid (Mauricio) at Parque Bicentennial while with TPR to ride a Jungle Mouse. Thanks to last minute quick thinking of Elissa!

I think that if T2 is getting this much work done on it, then it will be a great ride! I wonder why the other bad Vekoma SLCs don't get this treatment, haha! There is no evidence that this treatment makes the ride that much better

^Good points. While I understand the concerns of the locals, I find it over the top that protesters are saying things like "what's next a ferris wheel" or using diagrams of multi-car/train rollercoasters and saying how loud they are. Mountain coasters are extremely quiet and I rarely hear people yelling while riding. And they can be made to blend in with the mountain better than a chairlift.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24234359/beaver-creek-residents-sue-stop-vail-resorts-from Sorry for the double post, but here is an article describing the fight the the locals are having with the proposed mountain coaster. Lots of propaganda as residents are just trying to protect their property value exaggerating what a mountain coaster is. Just look at the pictures in the attached article. Beaver Creek residents sue to stop Vail Resorts from building coaster By Jason Blevins The Denver Post 10/03/2013 Beaver Creek homeowners filed a lawsuit against Vail Resorts on Thursday, accusing the resort company of deception as it develops what they call an "amusement complex" at the privately owned base of the tony ski area. The lawsuit, filed by the Beaver Creek Property Owners Association — which includes a dozen condominium groups with hundreds of owners — targets Vail Resorts and Eagle County, which approved the development plan. "We don't know where this will go. Will there be more roller coasters? Will there be a Ferris wheel? Where will it stop?" said Barry Parker, vice-president of the homeowners association. "We are not against development. We are pro-Beaver Creek. We are pro-Colorado. We just want to protect and maintain the beauty of these very, very special outside environments." They want to protect their investments too. Homeowners pay big dollars for property adjacent to the slopes of Beaver Creek, where the median listing price for homes is $4.3 million. Owners rely on covenants and design regulations — many of which were forged by the resort company in the late 1980s as Beaver Creek first developed — to safeguard property values. "We believe Vail is violating its own documents," Parker said. "I can't do anything to the exterior of my house without approval from the design review board. Vail doesn't want to play by their own rules." While the original 1988 county-approved development plan included an alpine slide, a 1994 amendment to the plan deleted any reference to alpine coasters. "We allege it was deleted on purpose because Vail recognized it was not an appropriate use," said Tom Schouten, a board member and Beaver Creek homeowner. When Vail floated an alpine coaster plan in 2006 — directly out of the Beaver Creek base village — residents objected, filing a lawsuit in 2007 and eventually persuading the resort to reconsider the project. Vail's Breckenridge ski area has an alpine coaster and the company's flagship Vail Mountain has included a similar "forest flyer" in its proposed summer development plans. After meeting with residents and county officials several times this spring and summer, the resort moved its "forest flyer" further up the hill, with tracks about 550 feet from the nearest home and more than 1,300 feet from the base. Doug Lovell, chief operating officer at Beaver Creek, said the homeowners group is "totally mischaracterizing the forest flyer," making sure to note that the track through the woods "is not a roller coaster." The semantics is important. Federal legislation in 2011 urged more year-round development of recreational opportunities at ski areas but clearly forbade "amusement parks." "We think the people at Elitch Gardens would be amused by their portrayal," Lovell said in an email. "After spending so much time with property owners to respond to their concerns expressed in 2006 ... we are very surprised and disappointed that they are reactivating their lawsuit because our dramatically revised plans are responsive, terrific, and will engage a broader group of kids from different income and diverse backgrounds at our premier resort and in the outdoors as only we know how to do," Lovell said. Still, some residents feel duped. The resort company a few years ago won support from the local homeowner groups for a children's center, with its own gondola and tubing course. Residents helped the company raise funds to support the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act. In exchange, Parker said the resort company promised to find "a more suitable location" for its elevated forest flyer. (He calls it a "roller coaster.") "They said it would be further up the mountain, out of sight and out of sound," Parker said. "This is a 3,000-foot elevated track within 150 yards of bedroom windows." The land around the base area was locked into a conservation easement more than 20 years ago as part of a Beaver Creek deal with Eagle County. Colorado Open Lands holds that easement and director Dan Pike said while the easement does not specifically address roller coasters or forest flyers, it is "pretty permissive for improved recreational uses." Pike said he hasn't seen any proposals from the resort company and couldn't comment on specifics until then. Still, he doesn't field many requests for alpine coasters on his conservation easements. "That would be the first proposal we've ever had like that," he said.

http://www.aspentimes.com/news/9107158-113/ski-forest-areas-coalition It sounds like complaints are based on the proposed addition of an alpine slide and/or mountain coaster, but I haven't seen the proposed idea. Feds’ direction on ski areas scrutinized by Scott Condon A coalition of conservation groups wants the Forest Service to reconsider its proposal to allow ski areas to charge a fee for uphill use. A coalition of eight conservation groups is fighting to prevent ski areas from adding roller-coaster-like rides for summer business and from restricting access for winter uphill skiers and snowshoers. The coalition filed comments with the U.S. Forest Service on Nov. 25 on a proposed national directive by the agency that will set the rules for summer activities and clarify that a fee can be charged for uphillers. Rocky Smith, a longtime forest-policy analyst for conservation groups in Colorado, said the potential for the “coaster” rides was the most alarming part of the directive for the group. “The law says, ‘There shall not be amusement parks in ski areas,’” he said. But Vail Resorts has applied to the Forest Service to install a “forest flier” at its flagship ski area, Vail Mountain. “Forest fliers are roller coasters, which in turn are an amusement ride,” said the comments submitted by the coalition. “The directive must prevent ski areas from becoming or hosting amusement parks.” Congress passed the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act in 2011. U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, introduced the bill to define what ski areas can and cannot do on federal lands within their permit areas for summer activities. Now the Forest Service is working on the rules necessary to implement the law. It is taking public comment on its proposal through Dec. 2. Udall’s act authorizes zip lines, mountain-bike terrain parks and trails, disc-golf courses and rope courses. It prohibits tennis courts, water slides and parks, swimming pools, golf courses and amusement parks. Smith said the big issue is the Forest Service’s interpretation of “amusement park.” Ski areas are understandably seeking ways to improve their bottom line, he said, so they want a broad interpretation of what is allowable during summers. The coalition is concerned that the Forest Service will side with the ski industry by allowing “coasters” — a ride where a sled-like container with wheels glides along on rails that whisk through the forest. “They are really playing fast and loose with the language,” Smith said, referring to the Forest Service. The proposal for a “coaster” isn’t expected to be isolated to Vail. White River National Forest Supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams previously said that several ski areas are watching how Vail Mountain’s summer-adventure proposal will be reviewed to help them form their own summer plans. So far, Aspen Skiing Co. has focused primarily on expanding its mountain-bike trail system at Snowmass’ Elk Camp for its summer activities. The company also has discussed the possibility of a zip line. Smith said the conservation groups decided to submit comments after seeing how the Forest Service is interpreting an amusement park as two or more rides in close proximity to one another. That means that large ski areas could erect rides as long as they are a long distance apart. The coalition believes that violates the intent of Udall’s bill. “With the emphasis on speed and the need for permanent metal structures, such facilities do no ‘harmonize with the natural environment,’ nor ‘encourage outdoor recreation of nature” as required by the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act, the coalition said in its comments. The coalition wants wording that says “no amusement-park rides can be allowed at ski areas, period.” Colorado Ski Country USA, a trade association for the state’s ski industry, is preparing comments but hasn’t submitted them yet, according to a spokeswoman. The appropriate staff person couldn’t be reached at the Denver-based National Ski Areas Association because of the holiday week, so it couldn’t be determined whether the organization will weigh in. In addition to defining what summer amenities will be allowed, the Forest Service’s directive clarifies that ski areas can charge uphill skiers and snowshoers for use of groomed trails, parking lots and other services. The coalition suggested changes in wording to make sure ski areas cannot exclude non-paying members of the public. “While use by such people can be limited to certain parts of a ski-area permit area and/or certain times of the day, the proposed language here is too loose to ensure that non-paying use would not be prohibited altogether,” the coalition’s comments said. The members of the coalition that signed off on the comments are: Sheep Mountain Alliance, of Telluride; Sequoia ForestKeeper, of Kernville, Calif.; Conservation Congress, of Livingston, Mont.; Heartwood, of Bloomington, Ind.; WildEarth Guardians, of Santa Fe, N.M.; Klamath Forest Alliance, of Orleans, Calif.; Environmental Protection Information Center, of Arcata, Calif.; and Rocky Mountain Recreational Initative, of Nederland. I'll try to find more details on the proposal.

^Good question, but I've merged it with an existing thread.

I like this assessment. Besides Talon, Steel Force and the log flume nothing quite stands out.