Magic Mountain attorneys cite pre-existing condition, low G-forces in X2 lawsuit

Time to strap that guy up on the back wing seat and let it rip!

Do we know of any similar incidents with the two 4D coasters overseas? I’ve not seen anything.

Friends have said the only really “rough” area is the last ravine turn and going up into the brake run. Possibly this track could be redesigned. The real question is with Six Flags sitting on massive debt, MM not doing the attendance/profit it once did, and the extremely high operating costs of X2, will this all culminate in removing X2? Personally, if I were sitting at the CEO’s desk I’d probably pull the plug until the park can justify having such an expensive ride.

Gunkey Monkey:

Friends have said the only really “rough” area is the last ravine turn and going up into the brake run.

Raven turn (not criticizing, lord knows my autocorrect failures are legendary).

The Half Half (or Fly-to-Lie and Lie-to-Fly as is the technical term) is no picnic either.

The first drop and the big Raven turn are just exquisite. The rest of it, I can't do any more. It's not quite Drachen Fire level of abuse, but it's damn close.

Time to just sell off Magic Mountain.

OhioStater:

Time to just sell off Magic Mountain.

Of perhaps all of the remaining parks, Magic Mountain is probably the one with the most value as a non-operating park.

While this lawsuit (and others) are still to be determined on their merits, there is no arguing that the land around MM has been developed greatly in the last few years, and that won't stop in the near future.

Almost certainly the most valuable real estate in the company, given location and size of the property.

But is it possible that the park's location is the reason real estate in that area is so valuable in the first place? Don't parks attract tourism, which in turn, attracts housing and jobs? Like Pigeon Forge, for example?

No, most amusement park real estate becomes valuable because development finally catches up to where they were built. Most modern theme parks were built in open land, along interstate highways, typicaly 14-25 miles from the downtown urban core (KI, KD, BGT, BGW, WoF, MM, etc.). (Great Adventure and Opryland were exceptions, for opposite reasons). It was only a matter of time (decades, but still inevitable) before urban sprawl eventually caught up to those areas. Those areas aren't developed because seasonal park workers wanted to live there, they got built up because the city expanded into suburbs and exurbs, eventually filling in all the space between the urban core and the parks. For those parks at or near the confluence of two interstates (two main arteries or a main and a spur/bypass) the time span for that growth was even shorter.

Pigeon Forge is an exception, as it's a destination area (30 miles from Knoxville and at the edge of a national park. I would liken Pigeon Forge's growth to mimic Orlando (although obviously not the same scope, but certainly similar). Most all other Non-Disney parks aren't that way.

It happened with Drive-ins, Horse racing tracks, and has now come for most of the parks built in the early 70's. When we do lose the next round, I don't think they'll build new ones, just "further out". The economics don't support a new build. Otherwise we would have seen it in Houston, Miami or San Diego.

LostKause:

But is it possible that the park's location is the reason real estate in that area is so valuable in the first place?

I can't imagine it would be. People live somewhere because it is close to where they need to be most days, and it is a pleasant place to live. Enthusiasts might see an amusement park as that place, but normal people look at it and just see traffic, noise, and lots of annoying teens/early 20s guests.