SFOG1991

I do understand a lot of the risks, they just don't seem to completely justify it. It would be nice to see them at least do the roof top option and employee parking to reduce the number of acres sacrificed. Those options seem like no brainers, but I am definitely seeing the many reasons against using the guest parking lots.

GAdv does have one of these towers. In all my years visiting the park, I've never once seen it manned. I guess even if it was manned, the view would be blocked completely with the panels over the parking. I can see the risk there. If it isn't a huge issue for malls with parking garages, I'm not sure why it would be such an issue at a theme park.

^I agree, but as I said, the mention of the rider standing appears to be a typo copied over from another article Mirror posted on a similar subject. I am just saying it seems particularly difficult to stand on a top scan of any kind, unless onlookers mistook the fact that his restraint had come lose with the idea that he was intentionally standing in the moments before he fell.

In addition to the money reason, I could see that being an additional reason. Although I think all parks should have a security tower in the parking lot to prevent any type of criminal behavior. Long term, building this over the parking lot seems like a much better idea, but I am sure it is cheaper to destroy 66 acres and waste space. Hopefully the park gets turned down but is given some kind of additional tax break incentive to build this over their parking. Is New Jersey one of the states that offers payment to owners of solar power that produce excess power and are connected to the power grid, allowing for that excess power to be used elsewhere? I assume they are considering how common these panels are over shopping mall parking lots in New Jersey compared to states that I know don't provide payment incentive for private production of solar electricity.

I think that is a typo as it is awfully similar to the quote from this article the Mirror posted about another flat ride fatality just a few days ago: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/theme-park-horror-teen-crushed-7392575 In addition, it's not really possible to stand up on a top scan from my experience on the models that operate here in the U.S.

I haven't followed the solar farm thing very closely since it was first announced, but why don't they consider doing it over the parking lot? Has this been addressed in any way? It would save 66 acres of forest, provide shade for people parking, and they look good honestly: I'm sure it cost more, but honestly how much more? It still seems worth it as the 66 acres of land probably hold more value than the cost difference of construction.

It was probably the best idea the park has had in 15+ years. Attendance skyrocketed. I'm wondering if, with Cedar Point, the dry park is already enough of a draw for the vast majority of their visitors, and they look at Soak City as an upcharge that a percentage of the people already visiting regardless will buy into. Whereas at World's of Fun, the combination of admission actually draws more people to the park as a whole. I just feel like this is great incentive at Worlds of Fun but not nearly as enticing at Cedar Point, because the people come anyways, regardless of the inclusion of a free water park. Therefor keeping it as a separate admission promises higher revenue with the water park in its current state. I could see Cedar Point expanding the capacity and attractions of Soak City, retheming/renaming it, and combining the two parks into one admission with some strong marketing tactics and pricing plans that bring in more 3 day visitors, and turn more 1 day visitors into 2 day visitors. Places like Universal Orlando already do this, with great pricing incentive to stay for 3 days. It makes it hard to pay just a slightly lower amount for 2 days. Of course, people think they are getting a third day for 10 dollars essentially, but then they buy food and make other expenses throughout the park. As long as the capacity management is there I don't see why Cedar Point wouldn't want to entice people to stay a day longer than they have historically.

That's terrible. I'm surprised this was all caught on video as well. I am actually amazed this doesn't happen more often with knockoff Chinese rides. Hopefully it won't become a more common occurrence as the rides get older and possibly go without proper maintenance.

I am wondering the same, because you would have the climb that thing on hands and knees. Looks good for a well themed airtime hill though so I'm just going to tell myself it's for an awesome coaster.

This. I know my hopes are high since I am expecting Skyrush 2.0 + inversions, but this did seem to be crawling.

It's in a Boardwalk-themed area. One of few areas where a ride that looks like a carnival ride actually fits the theme. And people are still complaining that it looks bad. Not to mention, it's a Tilt a Whirl. There really is no way to make it not look like a carnival ride. The one at SFOG looks really great just with decent placement, good paint/graphics, and nice signage/queue. This one doesn't look amazing by any means but maybe once they completely clean up the area it will look better. It fits into the theme even if it looks like a carnival ride anyways, and who doesn't love a tilt-a-whirl!

That we are! And yes- there is (like most service/entertainment/retail businesses) a "fine line" relative to managing expenses to be profitable, while not harming customer satisfaction. On the subject of expenses/profitability- the General Manager's for each park are aware that long lines that often occur at concession stands, rides, etc. They also see the potholes in park lots, weeds in the landscaping, fresh paint needed, just as we do! With that- they do care, however- have an expense budget allocated to them, that cannot be exceeded....and with the right management team in place, the parks run well. SF margins do not allow everything to be a pristine as a Disney park.....different business model, and different expectations with the GP. Am I happy about that? No!- as I'd love a SF park to have the level of staffing and upkeep as a Disney, but again- the business model does not allow that. I agree completely but my point is that by continuing to push season passes at lower and lower costs, while driving up attendance, they are digging a hole. It is great that they are up in revenue and attendance (suggesting end all profits are up) but if they are making more, corporate is hopefully considering the fact that there is a direct need to spend more in service quality and crowd control to coincide with that. Lowering season pass prices and driving up attendance really isn't that hard of a concept, so what I am saying is I hope they have a game plan to equally drive up service and attraction capacity to at least match that, or else they are digging themselves into a hole long term if quality of service falls, customer satisfaction decreases, and the Six Flags brand reputation changes for the worse. As I said, it is great they are doing well but it seems like the direction they are going in could be damaging long term if they don't properly address the issue of driving up attendance without driving up capacity. They may already be doing this and I am sure they have smart people addressing this, but when you compare to someone like Cedar Fair it just seems apparent that their long term growth and success has a solid plan behind it with the way they invest while Six Flags seems heart set on spending less and bringing in more people. I am not a fan of Cedar Fair and the way they invest into their parks but it just seems from my view to make a lot more sense.

Yeah the tourism aspect is completely different because CLP is the largest tourism destination in the entire region behind PA's largest lake not far away. Obviously Playland isn't the biggest tourism destination in the NYC area. Anyways I hope they can just get some kind of government support (tax exemptions maybe) so that they can survive. I would love to see a world where Playland and Legoland both could succeed.

^Exactly. I know smaller parks have tight budgets but nice fencing can't be that expensive. I mean Conneaut Lake Park has all wooden fencing and it looks great and we know they have no money and the property is a mess overall. I just feel like any park that can afford permanent rides should go for the next option above temporary fencing for their queues and ride areas.

^I've been to Conneaut Lake Park recently and still fully support it and there is no way Playland is in as fallen a condition as CLP. I believe both parks should be saved. I don't know the details of Playland, but in Conneaut's case, the park draws a lot of tourism and tourism related spending compared to anything in the region, so between that, it's historic qualities, and its free public use land, it deserves help. I can only image Playland is in a similar situation (just with a lot more of their assets still in one piece). On the topic of the thread I have nothing against LEGOLAND but I wouldn't want that to be the cause of closure for Playland. LEGOLAND's are great.

I really can't wait to go because I hear great things about this park as well as Six Flags Mexico. I would love to visit another Six Flags as nice overall as my home Six Flags.

^The place is basically historic so honestly I would rather see them drag along than go away and watch the entire property get razed. Struggling historic amusement park > stripped wasteland, more uninspired high density residential development, commercial shopping centers, etc.

Rye Playland > Another LEGOLAND I hope Playland can succeed.

Just going to defend Conneaut Lake Park here and say the park itself is actually beautiful and they have great rare rides. The park may not have the money to keep everything looking great but the public trustees who own the park (as well as the community) are crazy passionate and committed to the park. I love the place! As for the thread topic, this isn't a particular example but I hate when a permanent park with permanent rides surrounds said rides in temporary fencing/barricades or chain link fencing.

^I agree that the safari is absolutely amazing. I am so glad I did it. It is honestly Disney level except much larger and longer. It's an amazing attraction that had me shocked considering I was at a Six Flags park. I still think the original parks, SFOG and SFOT can compete overall (I just feel like those parks fulfill every category across the board most consistently), but yes the SFGAdv safari and having El Toro and Kingda Ka make the park hard to beat.

Peach Mello Yello is I prefer Grape Mello Yello. Let's be honest.. we just all prefer Mello Yello regardless of the flavor chosen.

They suck in cold weather too. At least if you wear a beanie or something it will protect your head during impact. If your ears aren't covered, get ready for the pain of having your numb sensitive ears bashed repeatedly.

Do we know how Vekoma SLCs do in colder weather or how much annual maintenance this one seems to require? I just wonder because they could easily cut Mind Eraser from the line up and I know here at SFOG having HITP seems to really cram off season maintenance which is probably why some rides only have one train throughout HITP (and possibly why they hold back from operating every coaster).

^So we are basically on the same page with our thoughts. I agree it would be very hard for them to dig themselves out of the "value" hole they have created, and I am glad it is working for them, but I think long term that could collapse unless they are very strategic in slowly altering their long term plan. Maybe the value aspect to drive revenue and attendance is just a phase of their real plan, which could be more like what we are suggesting, or maybe not, who knows. I just can't imagine the constant strive to outdo themselves with pricing while putting customer experience and service on the back burner being a good plan long term. I don't mind the way they are investing into the parks but I do think they should put a little more emphasis on increasing capacity.