Validity of the 5 Year Planing Cycle

[Phantom Theater]

If I do recall correctly, we were repeatedly told that there was nothing planned for Firehawks old site and that the decision to remove it was made mid-summer. That clearly turned out to be very untrue, unless they planned a coaster for Firehawks old spot immediately after deciding to remove it. There are probably plans for Vortex's old site, otherwise I think they would have left the station to turn it into a haunt attraction. I mean, SOB's is still there, the giant Crypt box still stands as a tiny haunt attraction, there'd be no reason to demolish it other than to use that land for something else.... It is sad nonetheless, but you can't hold onto the past! The future is always bright, and I see great things to come. 

[KIghostguy]

52 minutes ago, Phantom Theater said:

If I do recall correctly, we were repeatedly told that there was nothing planned for Firehawks old site and that the decision to remove it was made mid-summer. That clearly turned out to be very untrue, unless they planned a coaster for Firehawks old spot immediately after deciding to remove it.

The decision to remove Firehawk was made mid-summer 2018. Planning for Orion began in June of 2018 and the Firehawk site was selected not long after.

[CorkscrewMcPuke]

2 minutes ago, KIghostguy said:

The decision to remove Firehawk was made mid-summer 2018. Planning for Orion began in June of 2018 and the Firehawk site was selected not long after.

Makes me wonder why they've selected to keep the SoB station standing for so long. With Orion taking up such a large plot of land nearby, I'm not sure what they would do with it. I suppose they could expand into the old Lion Country Safari area.

[BoddaH1994]

1 hour ago, CorkscrewMcPuke said:

Makes me wonder why they've selected to keep the SoB station standing for so long. With Orion taking up such a large plot of land nearby, I'm not sure what they would do with it. I suppose they could expand into the old Lion Country Safari area.

The previous GM championed the idea of haunt attractions in which you can just turn the lights on and be ready to go. This was a time and cost cutting measure. 
 

The SOB station, being perceived as out of the way, was a good candidate to turn into a maze. 
 

I do not know how the new GM feels about this, but I can tell you that from a guest perspective you can tell that the look and feel of the park is more important to him. That’s why in the past few years you’ve seen things fixed, lightbulbs replaced, etc during the course of the season rather than just putting them off until the next year.** To me, a station like Vortex’s that’s out on the midway wouldn’t be conducive to what he’s trying to do. 
 

**All of this is speculation, however it should be noted that the GM is primarily responsible for the vision, funds, and resources available to the park. 

[teenageninja]

9 hours ago, KIghostguy said:

The decision to remove Firehawk was made mid-summer 2018. Planning for Orion began in June of 2018 and the Firehawk site was selected not long after.

I believe this to be highly unlikely, given previous comments on coaster building cycles.

[KIghostguy]

38 minutes ago, teenageninja said:

I believe this to be highly unlikely, given previous comments on coaster building cycles.

This is absolutely true. The date was confirmed to me by Mike Koontz during my second interview with him 10/13/2019. Planning at Kings Island typically begins two years before the attraction opens.

[King Ding Dong]

1 hour ago, teenageninja said:

I believe this to be highly unlikely, given previous comments on coaster building cycles.

Yeah, whatever happened to the whole 5 year process for a coaster?  So basically now they can start designing a custom coaster, then start pouring footers in about a year now?  
 

That is seriously impressive as it takes considerably longer to plan and build a Starbucks hut, these people know what they are doing!

[KIghostguy]

7 minutes ago, King Ding Dong said:

Yeah, whatever happens to the whole 5 year process for a coaster?  So basically now they can start designing a custom coaster, then start pouring footers in about a year now?  
 

That is seriously impressive as it takes considerably longer to plan a build a Starbucks hut, these people know what they are doing!

Yes, it is a two-year process, at least for Kings Island. Planning for Diamondback began in 2007, Banshee in 2012, Mystic Timbers in 2015, Orion in 2018. It’s been that way for a while. True development on The Beast didn’t begin until 1977. Sometimes it does take longer (Son of Beast was green lit in 1997), sometimes the process is shorter (planning for Firehawk began October 2006).

[Phantom Theater]

12 hours ago, KIghostguy said:

The decision to remove Firehawk was made mid-summer 2018. Planning for Orion began in June of 2018 and the Firehawk site was selected not long after.

I definitely would not consider anytime before June mid-summer. If anything, June/July is midsummer. Must have been a pretty quick planning process! Probably what they’ll do with Vortex 

[King Ding Dong]

Lets face it guys, we have been lied to for years about the coaster planning process. This revelation is a devastating blow to the credibility of the enthusiast community.  

[Benjamin22]

I don’t think anyone’s ever said it takes 5 years to actually design a coaster, I think the five year  process is just a general idea of what they’d like to do during those five years and I assume it frequently changes for the years further down the road.

[King Ding Dong]

7 minutes ago, Ben43065 said:

I don’t think anyone’s ever said it takes 5 years to actually design a coaster, I think the five year  process is just a general idea of what they’d like to do during those five years and I assume it frequently changes for the years further down the road.

If the search function here worked better (or I was better at using it), you would be proven wrong.   The mantra on this board for at least the past several years has been a 5 year process from decision to build a coaster and opening of finished product.   Never saw any evidence to support that claim but I have seen many on here berated in the past to dare think otherwise.

[Benjamin22]

6 minutes ago, King Ding Dong said:

If the search function here worked better (or I was better at using it), you would be proven wrong.   The mantra on this board for at least the past several years has been a 5 year process from decision to build a coaster and opening of finished product.   Never saw any evidence to support that claim but I have seen many on here berated in the past to dare think otherwise.

That’s what I always thought the 5 year plan meant. I just don’t see how’d you spend 5 years designing a regional park coaster. If I recall a wing coaster for GateKeeper was decided upon at IAAPA 2011 which was just 2 years prior to its opening.

[BeeastFarmer]

Well, if that were the case, Kentucky Kingdom would have been planning for Lightning Run in 2009 when it was still Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom.  I think the parks have to be nimble enough in the long term planning to get short term benefits.  I'd bet there is a Kings Island 2025 plan out there in a folder somewhere, but things change.  

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by IndyGuy4KI
Fixed underline

[GigaG]

I think the "5 year plan" theory is based in some truth, from Cedar Point. I recall that when Maverick was being built the "5-year plan" may have been thrown around a bit. I specifically remember them talking about Maverick being planned when TTD opened, which is 4 years. So in some cases, parks do plan ahead that much.

 

But nobody said they *had* to, as long as everybody involved can manage a shorter timescale.

[TombRaiderFTW]

I don't remember if this was enthusiast speculation or actually based on things park officials have said, but I vaguely recall it being said here a while back that the park has a 5-year plan that might include, say, "add a coaster in 4 years," but maybe the finer details of that coaster aren't decided until this two-ish year period mentioned here. Like, maybe the park decided in 2015 or something that they'd add a coaster in 2020, but they didn't start soliciting ideas from manufacturers until 2017 or 2018.

[Kenban]

1 hour ago, King Ding Dong said:

If the search function here worked better (or I was better at using it), you would be proven wrong.   The mantra on this board for at least the past several years has been a 5 year process from decision to build a coaster and opening of finished product.   Never saw any evidence to support that claim but I have seen many on here berated in the past to dare think otherwise.

Its complicated, because it is not a 5 year design period, its 5 years from the start of planning.  For instance last I heard B&M has a 5 year waiting list for a custom coaster.  Cedar Fair likely has a standing order of one ride a year, and corporate likely decides about 3 years out which park is getting that coaster, and what it will be, or possibly even just get skipped, and not order a B&M that year, since the waiting list is not a firm commitment.  Its also possible the waiting list is a little shorter now its been a few years since I heard about the 5 year wait.

At the same time corporate does have a 5 year plan for every park, which lists when they want to do major projects, the details are worked out closer to the date.  But up until the order is placed, and maybe even after, plans can and do change.  Its possible to start planning a few months out from attractions opening if there is the will and the resources.  One of the main purposes of the 5 year plans is long term financial planning, and 5 years out it will be pretty vague.

Has this coaster been in the works for 5 years?  It likely depends on your perspective, since corporate likely had a coaster on the schedule for 2020 at Kings Island 5 years ago.  But 3 years ago there was likely more then one option for what it would be, or where it would be located.

Having said all of that, a lot of work is done by corporate, and frankly no one at the park even Mike Koontz is told when the process starts.  Nothing is set in stone until the design is finished and the ride is ordered, and the dates given by Mike Koontz are likely accurate from the parks perspective.  But I suspect if you were to speak with the right people at corporate and they are willing to talk, you would get different answers.

[Pagoda Gift Shop]

Mike Koontz shared at Coasterstock 2018 that he had submitted a capital expenditure plan for a Gigacoaster.  That lines up with the later 2018 decision to use the former Firehawk site, likely after board approval for a 2020 opening.

I would suspect that all the GMs submit plans to the Cedar Fair board regarding spending plans, etc.  The board would then ultimately decide how much will be spent, and "who gets what".  

[BoddaH1994]

22 minutes ago, Kenban said:

Its complicated, because it is not a 5 year design period, its 5 years from the start of planning.  For instance last I heard B&M has a 5 year waiting list for a custom coaster.  Cedar Fair likely has a standing order of one ride a year, and corporate likely decides about 3 years out which park is getting that coaster, and what it will be, or possibly even just get skipped, and not order a B&M that year, since the waiting list is not a firm commitment.  Its also possible the waiting list is a little shorter now its been a few years since I heard about the 5 year wait.

At the same time corporate does have a 5 year plan for every park, which lists when they want to do major projects, the details are worked out closer to the date.  But up until the order is placed, and maybe even after, plans can and do change.  Its possible to start planning a few months out from attractions opening if there is the will and the resources.  One of the main purposes of the 5 year plans is long term financial planning, and 5 years out it will be pretty vague.

Has this coaster been in the works for 5 years?  It likely depends on your perspective, since corporate likely had a coaster on the schedule for 2020 at Kings Island 5 years ago.  But 3 years ago there was likely more then one option for what it would be, or where it would be located.

Having said all of that, a lot of work is done by corporate, and frankly no one at the park even Mike Koontz is told when the process starts.  Nothing is set in stone until the design is finished and the ride is ordered, and the dates given by Mike Koontz are likely accurate from the parks perspective.  But I suspect if you were to speak with the right people at corporate and they are willing to talk, you would get different answers.

This is a more accurate representation of any “5 year plan” or expenditure cycle that KI or any park would use. 
 

So, for example, outward planning leads to more vagueness the further out it gets. So they have a relative grasp on what 2020 is going to look like but probably only have a vague formulation of what 2025 will look like. Especially since you don’t know the economic climate or the evolving wants and needs of the guests 5 years out. I remember asking when the park was going to get WiFi 12 or so years ago. The question was answered with a “yeah right.” Now the WiFi is a big deal, integrated into a lot of their marketing and social plans. Oh, and it costs millions to implement at a place like KI. So what I’m saying is that in 2015 they probably knew that 2020 was going to be a big expenditure year, but beyond that it was probably nothing more than loose drawing board stuff.

[KIghostguy]

5 year plans are very vague and allow a lot of flexibility. Actual planning for major coasters, etc. does not typically begin at Kings Island until 2 years before its intended opening season.

[CoastersRZ]

Essentially when they say a five year plan, what they are meaning is that they would like to install a coaster in year four as their new product.  They start investigating the products, etc., just to see whats out there.  They may even shift it a year based on other trends/needs of the park. It does not mean that they have selected a firm to design the coaster, or even locked in on a coaster at that point but they start generating ideas.  Remember that some of the ideas for Kings Island originate at Planning and Design at corporate.  The actual design time, once contracts are signed is closer to the two year timeline.

[Browntggrr]

The internal aspects of planning take considerably longer than the external planning/ quoting.

5 years from initial discussions to final product operating is likely spot on.

[KIghostguy]

9 minutes ago, Browntggrr said:

The internal aspects of planning take considerably longer than the external planning/ quoting.

5 years from initial discussions to final product operating is likely spot on.

By very, very initial, then yes. But initial discussions for a GCI wooden coaster began in 2015. Initial discussions for a B&M invert began in 2012, etc. There is a difference between the five year plan and "actual" planning for a project.

[Shaggy]

On 1/27/2020 at 12:27 PM, TombRaiderFTW said:

I don't remember if this was enthusiast speculation or actually based on things park officials have said, but I vaguely recall it being said here a while back that the park has a 5-year plan that might include, say, "add a coaster in 4 years," but maybe the finer details of that coaster aren't decided until this two-ish year period mentioned here. Like, maybe the park decided in 2015 or something that they'd add a coaster in 2020, but they didn't start soliciting ideas from manufacturers until 2017 or 2018.

Jumping in... 

I've found that the process most parks (and park officials) are vague about - is the one by which they "plan" a new attraction.  Of course it differs on the chain/company.  But in general its also seemed to me as though it was treated as the big "secret" they don't want to share to enthusiasts. (Specifically how far ahead they are planning additions.)

But "planning" is a broad term and could cover anything from initial desires, or interest in new attractions that a park may have, to financial projections, to guest surveys, to topography/spacial surveys, to design/attraction solicitations, to signing of the agreement, to purchase, to construction start etc.  So a blanket statement of "this is when the planning began" by various persons directly involved in the project may solicit different responses depending who is doing the answering.  Ask the CFO they may tell you it was when they submitted a budget for it... ask the park's resident engineer they may indicate when they are first told to seek ride/coaster designs or land specs... ask the ride's designer and they may tell you it was when they first dreamed up the attraction... ask the park's GM and they may tell you it was when they first asked staff to compile information related to viability of a new attraction.  

There's also numerous things that can also affect the timeline of those "plans."  For instance we know for a fact that Kings Island had planned for an Intamin Drop Tower to arrive in 1997 - to the point of advertising it in park.  But ultimately, the ride was dropped (or, as I understood, sent to Canada) and (P)KI expanded the water park instead.  The fact that a park may make the determination of a ride install - but ultimately push it up or back based on effecting variables - has always stood out in my brain.  So many things could act as a catalyst for change in direction - and I expect parks face them more than we'll ever know.  That having been said, if a park intially proposes a ride for a certain area of the park, but ultimately cancels it, then revisits it years later - how do you determine that actual "planning" period start time?

I've heard murmurs that Six Flags gives parks the opportunity to "request" rides based on financial projections for the parks.  But, the ultimate decisions are made later - in a sweeping effort by corporate - on whether to allow them or not.  However when I questioned the GM of a larger SF park - he completely danced around the subject.  (Rightfully so.)  Judging by the later openings of new attractions (as a whole) I think its safe to assume the SF decision making process is much more 12th hour than what Cedar Fair's seems to be.  If this is true, that tells me they "ask" for the rides they'd like to have, then corporate looks at feesibility of the project, then ultimately red-light or green-light it, then begin the hard-install and ride contract process - but none of this likely begins until AFTER financial projections are in for the current seasons. 

At KI specifically - the "planning" of things seems to have varied from time to time as well.  In 1987, Vortex's install was the culmination of a 5-year financial projection that began around 1981-82.  But fast forward to the Paramount Days, and in the years when "Wild Thornberries" flume was added - the park was reliant upon a team of "designers" located in California that "dreamed up" Paramount- themed attractions and "proposed" them to the GM's of the park - who then made their choice.   At that very same time, last minute things could alter those "plans" - like the decision to not install the Vekoma Flying Dutchman in lieu of Scooby's Castle and Delirium.

Could it be that enthusiasts have latched on to the "5 year planning" or "3 year development" terms based on different things we've heard from different park people at different times?  Probably... maybe?  .

Ultimately - I think I've concluded in my own mind that the reason why officials often tend to be "vague" about the process by which an attraction is planned is because it is not an exact science.  Some parks seem, from the outside, much more organized about the process - that's for sure.  But when parks have made public statements like "this coaster took 5 years of planning and development" or "this project is the culmination of a 3-year investment" its not necessarily meant as a "this is how we do things", rather its meant to exemplify how complicated, time-consuming and important the process was.

It would be fun to be a fly on the wall for development meetings - actually I think its something most of us enthusiasts dream of.  For those of us vested in the history of a park, or an attraction, its a huge source of intrigue.  I, for one, am most interested in the story "behind" and attraction - often moreso that riding the attraction itself... especially if there are plot twists. 

I doubt... as laypeople... we'll never know for sure.

Finally - before you hounds and post critics start barking and accusing me of "making false claims" or "lying"- I cite the following persons as the basis for the things I've mentioned in this post.... The former Head of Paramount's Kings Island Marketing and PR - Jeffrey Seibert, the former Head of Maintenance and Construction at Kings Island - Dave Focke, and Former Creative Director for Paramount Parks - Dave Cobb.  And no, that doesn't make me an expert - or a highly respected person - it just makes me a human that listens to what others have told me.

Shaggy

 

 

 

 

 

 

[silver2005]

Jumping onto Shaggy's points- I have a theory that CF has certain projects in place for rides they deem to be on their waning years and are simply prepared to go with those plans once those times come.  

With SOB, it was pretty obvious, with Firehawk it made sense because it was a notorious maintenance nightmare, and with Vortex, it was about the ride's lifespan.  I suspect they've had that plan regarding KD's Volcano as well, and probably for Anaconda, and Nighthawk and Vortex at Carowinds.

[KIghostguy]

21 minutes ago, Shaggy said:

But fast forward to the Paramount Days, and in the years when "Wild Thornberries" flume was added - the park was reliant upon a team of "designers" located in California that "dreamed up" Paramount- themed attractions and "proposed" them to the GM's of the park - who then made their choice.  

Paramount Parks Design and Entertainment was based out of Charlotte, at least under and prior to Anthony Esparza. It's possible they relocated out to California after he left in 2003, but I haven't talked with anyone from that division at that time.

Quote

At that very same time, last minute things could alter those "plans" - like the decision to not install the Vekoma Flying Dutchman in lieu of Scooby's Castle and Delirium.

I am curious if you can say any more about the Vekoma Flyer story source. Dave Focke emphatically told me that that was never a plan for Kings Island, as did Tim Fisher, Jane Cooper, and Anthony Esparza.

[Shaggy]

51 minutes ago, KIghostguy said:

Paramount Parks Design and Entertainment was based out of Charlotte, at least under and prior to Anthony Esparza. It's possible they relocated out to California after he left in 2003, but I haven't talked with anyone from that division at that time.

I am curious if you can say any more about the Vekoma Flyer story source. Dave Focke emphatically told me that that was never a plan for Kings Island, as did Tim Fisher, Jane Cooper, and Anthony Esparza.

I was told specifically by Jeff Siebert that it was...  If he was mistaken, then so be it.  Since I am not affiliated in any way with the inner workings of Kings Island, I can only go by what I was told - as you only can.  You may consider that "making false claims" but in truth, its repeating what I was told - just as you have.

As for PPD&E - when Dave Cobb designed IJST - it was my understanding the division was located in California - where he resides to this day.

[KIghostguy]

44 minutes ago, Shaggy said:

I was told specifically by Jeff Siebert that it was...  If he was mistaken, then so be it.  Since I am not affiliated in any way with the inner workings of Kings Island, I can only go by what I was told - as you only can.  You may consider that "making false claims" but in truth, its repeating what I was told - just as you have.

Interesting, thank you for that. I’ve always been curious about where that story originated. It's a great story and one I've always wanted to be true, but after my own interviews, it doesn't seem likely that it was ever a serious plan.

[MrSourNinja]

2 minutes ago, KIghostguy said:

Interesting, thank you for that. I’ve always been curious about where that story originated. It's a great story and one I've always wanted to be true, but after my own interviews, it doesn't seem likely that it was ever a serious plan.

Never heard the story. Can you explain more?

[KIghostguy]

8 minutes ago, MrSourNinja said:

Never heard the story. Can you explain more?

You can read it here: