DispatchMaster

I have no idea what you're trying to "prove" at this point, but pointing out that KI's attendance didn't exactly track the area's population growth doesn't achieve that. I could also cherry-pick data to "prove" an obviously-wrong point (The debut of Diamondback led to a 4% decrease in YOY attendance. Clearly installing coasters is a bad idea! ) The point is, there is a clear trend line of sustained attendance growth even if we can point to individual years where the data fluctuates. And that attendance growth trend is finite and constrained by, among many other things, regional population.

Probably just wait until the Cincy Metro Area population grows enough to support that level of attendance. Amusement parks are what they are, and so long as the parks maintain a certain level of cap ex to maintain their appeal relative to other forms of recreation, they will continue to be a draw. But because they're a known quantity, the idea that building a certain coaster/attraction will create a sustained jump in attendance doesn't make sense, and in fact is not supported by whatever attendance data we can get our hands on, nor is it supported by first hand accounts of the folks who work in the industry. In fact, their known quantity status likely means the most realistic way to achieve growth would be to diversify what they offer, rather than install some RCT fever dream roller coaster. That's why up in Sandusky they've been diversifying with Sports Force Park, Sawmill Creek, etc.

The only thing that can even come close to being "statistically" demonstrated is that there is a long-term trend of attendance growth. You're trying to draw a broad conclusion (based on a clear personal bias, I would add) using a few points of data, which is not "statistics". There are a lot of variables even if we ignore the global pandemic - weather, regional economy, market competition, ticket price, season pass mix, pricing promotions, etc. - and the more variables there are, the larger your data set needs to be to be considered statistically-robust. But, and this should go without saying, but here we are, we can't ignore the global pandemic! The pandemic had profound impacts on the economy, travel, etc., that continue to affect the economy to this day, and regional amusement parks are quite obviously not immune to that impact. Also, as TombRaider points out, these numbers are not reliable. They're estimates, and "estimate" is nothing more than a fancy word for "guess". It's not what would be considered hard data. And without hard data, any detailed analysis is useless (garbage in = garbage out).

Ah yes, the "I was just kidding" after-the-fact defense. The classics never die!

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not being serious with this claim, because it would be a really absurd argument to point to pandemic-affected attendance as evidence of what you're suggesting. Obviously no one is so incredibly obtuse that they'd make such an argument in good faith, right?

By all accounts the same holds true for Cedar Point. The coaster lineup is maintained and refreshed in order to maintain the park's draw, since attendance growth is finite. That's why Orion didn't need to be 13' taller, why a set of dueling water coasters is a reasonable use of cap ex, etc.

I fail to see how: "it's complicated" the existence of litter somehow justifies the intentional act contributing additional litter it's OK to litter if, in the litterer's subjective opinion, it's easier to clean up their litter compared to other litter For me, it's pretty straightforward - don't make a mess that someone else will have to clean up*. *The obvious exception being places where patrons are expressly not permitted to clean up, e.g. full service restaurants.

Am I understanding you correctly that you recently reprimanded a group of kids for leaving their litter strewn about and forced them to clean it up, and are simultaneously seemingly proud that you littered as a kid, while proclaiming you would do so again?

Seeing that sort of behavior astonishes with "who could be so clueless" wonderment, but then I remember that there are also people who think it's OK to leave their trash behind in a movie theater, and that reminds that more people than I'd like to admit are just self-centered morons who weren't raised right.

Well on that sort of thing I am definitely in agreement! In fact, I would trade several years worth of new marquee rides for a renewed focus on those things, especially live entertainment. Things were trending that way under Ouimet, but that focus has been all but abandoned since, at least at CP. As much as I love rides, it's the other stuff that creates lasting core memories, at least for me.

That's funny, my first thought was that the color scheme was great. It's a rare combination, and the colors are pleasing to the eye. To each their own.

That is not at all what I am saying. If I were defending the park for adding nothing, sure, this would be a fair response to that. They have objectively improved the water park with this addition. That adding two water coasters and expanding a kids' area with a new set of slides "a commitment to mediocrity"? You're free to critique, of course, but calling a significant water park expansion "a commitment to mediocrity" does not strike me as a "fair" critique. Respectfully, the park you grew up with in the 80's and 90's was a far less mature park with fewer rides, areas, and attractions that what exists today. As such, the potential for growth and rate of growth was much higher then compared to today. Take the coaster roster for example. It's true that from ~1990 to ~2000 the park's net coaster count went from 5 to 12, and since has gone only up to 15 (forgive me if my quick math is incorrect, but I think I'm close enough), but to expect linear growth would mean the park should have ~25 coasters today, ~10 more than they currently have. While I'm sure those who think RCT sandbox mode is real life would think they should have ~25 coasters, any reasonable observer should, I think, realize that such growth is not sustainable (see: Geauga Lake). Heck, even CP, the so-called "Roller Coaster Capital of the World" hasn't seen nearly the same rate of growth in recent years that it saw in the 90's. Growth is not, and can not, be infinitely linear. The fact of the matter is that there are few "holes" in the park's lineup compared to the 80's and 90's, and that, I think, is also true of the water park.

It's always impossible to meet enthusiasts' expectations. KI is getting not one, but two water coasters for next year, and people are complaining about that. It's like trying to please a spoiled child, who opens their gift, sees that it's in the wrong color or whatever, and tosses it aside in disgust and whines that it's not what they asked for. It's just ridiculous. At least ride the darn thing before moaning about how it didn't meet some set of arbitrary "expectations". Or, better yet, don't set expectations! Just enjoy the hobby for what it is, and find joy in the fact that we're fortunate enough to have sufficient disposable income that we're able to spend time indulging in the hobby. Lots of folks are far less fortunate, and as such are not nearly as spoiled.

Social media is comprised almost entirely of people complaining about something or other, so that's a terrible barometer. Social media is not real life. For every person whining on FB, there's a hundred more who will happily enjoy a new ride, even if said ride doesn't meet the impossible standards of enthusiasts who do almost nothing but complain. I mean, it's pretty incredible when you think about it. You're already deriding an attraction that hasn't even been built yet. That's not normal.

You'd have to ask their marketing department why their strategy doesn't align with the cap ex strategy. It's the new Cedar Fair, where the strategies are made up, and the per caps don't matter!

My point was only that, given the scale of the project, CP's choice was between Intamin and any number of other manufacturers, none of which have experience at this scale. As such, the choice was either risk another disaster with Intamin, or give another firm a go at it, which has the added benefit of increasing competition within the industry on large scale projects.

From your piece: With regard to the above, you're assuming the goal is to draw guests from beyond the local market, which I don't think is the case. This addition seems more like the standard practice of keeping the slide lineup reasonably fresh and modern, with the goal of maintaining the water park's draw for regional guests. In that view, this seems like a great addition - cost effective, with an eye toward reliability and capacity, and variety with the added kids' slides. Now, should Cedar Fair be aiming higher across the board with what they offer? Yes, on that I would agree! But that's a slightly different argument, in that it's more of a criticism of CF management and vision overall, rather than the choices individual parks have to make within the framework set by the chain.

Aside from Intamin, who as you concede has a troubled history, who else in the industry has a history of producing attractions of this magnitude? And again, even Intamin's Formula Rossa has been SBNO for 7+ months with zero explanation as to why, so...

In other words, if it was between Intamin and Zamperla, it was a choice between a company that is known to produce unreliable and sometimes dangerous and lethal rides versus one that produces reliable rides on a smaller scale. Seems like an easy choice to me, even considering the massive failure of getting the ride running this season.

Absent an actual link or something, I am deeply skeptical of the claim that Intamin approached CF, because, as I said, that is simply not how they have ever approached projects in the past. And it's also not how Tony described the process with TT2 specifically, though I think it was during a Q&A on an Instagram Live or some such thing prior to the ride's opening. As for the car analogy, any reputable mechanic can work on any car, regardless of the OEM, so the analogy falls apart. And again, that's without considering the poor relationship between CF and Intamin.

This is a pretty extraordinary claim, so what is your source? Because, according to the park for this project specifically, and for every project basically ever, the park invites several companies to come with a ride concept that meets a certain set of criteria (family-friendly invert, water ride, record-breaking airtime coaster, etc.), and this sets of a discussion between the park and manufacturers, and eventually a contract is agreed upon with one of them. And in the case of TT2, CF (again, according to CF themselves) wanted to see what could be done with the existing ride structure, and invited multiple companies to bid on their vision for the project, and to my recollection, CF never mentioned any of the other companies involved, probably because that would violate mutual NDAs that were signed at the onset of the project. As for the implication that Intamin would have been a better choice, even if we ignore the awful history of their rides' performance and tendency to try and kill their passengers, there's not much reason to think they could have done any better. After all, how's Formula Rossa running these days?

The people who will be enjoying RiverRacers won't know or care who the OEM is. They'll simply have a ton of fun on it, because they're not jaded enthusiasts who can't let a new ride announcement happen without finding something to complain about.

Yeesh, that service counter being that gross is despicable. How is keeping that counter at least somewhat tidy not drilled into employees from day 0?

Apologies for the double post, but this!!! For the life of me I do not understand the constant "bait and switch" whining and hand wringing over whether the value proposition of a product may change in the future. Either the pass (with or without the add-ons) is worth the cost or it isn't, period, end of story. That anyone spends more than 30 seconds making that calculation in their head is bewildering to me, especially considering these season passes are ridiculously cheap compared to virtually any other entertainment product. And if it's that much of a stressor for some of you, maybe just take BeastFarmer's sage advice here and just not buy it.

How is it "fine print" if it's exactly the same size as the rest of the text? If someone purchases something and expects it to do something they were explicitly told it would not do, how is that anyone's fault other than the purchaser? I'm trying to understand the logic here. Either the pass + add-ons is worth the cost, or it isn't. Per the company selling the product, there won't be additional benefits, period. And if for some reason they decide to add additional benefits down the line, how does that worsen the value proposition?