CP/Maverick question

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:06 PM
Does anyone know if Cedar Point has restrictions on having a coaster stretch out over the lake? It seems that Maverick would have been the ideal type of ride to do it.
+0
Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:46 PM
Why does everyone want to build a coaster into the lake?
+0
Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:51 PM
There may be one (dont know the vaugeuries of Ohio beachfront law) but that nots the main reason there isnt a coaster over the lake.

Lake Eire is a huge lake, and takes a lot to freeze over, allthough the Midwest weather tries its hardest, during most of the winter only the part of the lake is frozen. This creates a huge problem (even if CP is able to design a support stucture that can weather the freezing/unfreezing process: ) ice pushes. An ice push is when the wind/lake pushes ice onto the shores (think of it like a glacier moving, but much faster and obviously more transiant.) No way a coaster support (which by the way needs to never move) would ever survive an ice push and not need to be realigned.

+0
Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:11 PM
Not to mention any construction on or in the lake requires permitting from the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as the unanimous approval from the governing bodies of eight states and two provinces.
+0
Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:34 PM
Not to mention that there wouldn't be much point, really. There are tons of coasters that go over water at some point. Sure it adds a unique feature some coasters don't have, but it's not like that sort of thing makes or breaks a ride.
+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:07 AM

Jeff said:
Why does everyone want to build a coaster into the lake?


because people want a coaster that actually sinks:)

I can't imagine the costs of pulling a project like that off, nor the risks.

+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:37 AM
Out into the lake would be a nice effect because instead of the small area of a pond "lake" like Cedar Point has, Lake Erie would add a different sense of thrill since you're coasting over an open lake in which you really can't see to the other side (well, meaning the Canada part... in Cedar Po!nt's case, I think Port Huron is directly across).

Anyway... how far out into the lake does Cedar Point own? I think there would be a crap-load of permits needed, but then again, I don't know much.

The main factor that would come into play is just because of the openness of the lake, the winds that create much larger waves & the brutal winter would have to ensure that any supports that would be placed out in the water would have to be really well dug deep into the ground.
You also couldn't have it go all that low towards the water since the height of the waves are unpredictable vs. the ponds in normal parks where the water barely ripples so you can have it swoop very close to the water's surface.

I think a more unique feature at Cedar Point would be for it to truly dip underground rather than extend out to the lake. Magnum is the closest you're probably ever going to see it swing out into the lake, and that's perfectly fine with me.

+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:35 AM

Touchdown said:
No way a coaster support (which by the way needs to never move) would ever survive an ice push and not need to be realigned.

Scary stuff. I'm never going to drive over a bridge again! :)


Jeff said:
Why does everyone want to build a coaster into the lake?

Because Cedar Point is running out of space. It's really the only place they have left to build. :)

+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:46 AM
They don't own anything in the lake. You don't own a Great Lake. Doing anything in the water requires you to deal with several environmental agencies, including the fed and state EPA, ODNR, probably the Army Corps of Engineers, etc.

And for what? So the lake can wash away your stuff? Does anyone remember what happened to the shore a few years ago between the break wall and the beach?

+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:44 PM

Gemini said:

Touchdown said:
No way a coaster support (which by the way needs to never move) would ever survive an ice push and not need to be realigned.

Scary stuff. I'm never going to drive over a bridge again! :)


Let me rephrase, you cant have a normal coaster support out there, but you could put a bridge size, massive, expensive support out there but its cost prohibitive ;).

+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:19 PM

Jeff said:
They don't own anything in the lake.

Who built the causeway & who owns that (city, state, or the park)? Wasn't that just a waterway before they filled it in? Technically, it was a part of Lake Erie before the causeway was built, was it not?

+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:00 PM
The causeway was built in the mid-50's if I remember correctly, and it required a law passed by the Ohio legislature and approval from the Army Corps. It's a rare exception that you won't find many places in the U.S. because typically such roadways are built and owned by the state.

If the old topographical maps are correct, then the part they had to construct was the portion just outside the tolls, and from the mainland to just past the bridge.

There is no point or cost justification for build a ride into the lake, because of the bureaucracy you'd drown in to get approval. It's the government's duty, as far as I'm concerned, to preserve the natural resource that is our shorelines too.

+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:25 PM
I dont get the facination of having a coaster in a monotone, flat, featureless setting either, why spend all that money when you can have the same experience in Muskegon when riding ST? If you are going to put some extra cash into making the ride location unique, pull a Kennywood and have the coaster criss cross another, (or like Mavrick, itself) or build it indoors, with either NO LIGHTS or a very very good themed environment (Disney.)
+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:59 PM
Take out some of that parking lot, and there should be room for another coaster.

Have a CP parking lot back off of the peninsula, and have a trolly or CP bus bring the folks there, kind of like disney world, i'd make it more dramatic.

+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:27 PM
^^ That won't happen in the next 10 or so years, man...

...Cedar Point may not have unlimited room left now, but rides age. Just as seen with Wild Water Landing, if a ride's popularity and/or age is seen as more of a deterrant rather than an attraction (according to the head honchos, not the park guests), then it'll be removed to make way for something newer. All parks do it... even those that have lots of room to expand... so I wouldn't hold your breath for "parking lot expansion" in regards to rides.

+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:54 PM
^And they can allways create space, just by moving/removing some flats. Look at what TTD used to be.
+0
Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:01 PM
Or they can just wedge coasters in just about anywhere. Hershey's done it, IB's certainly done it.

Wait....are we actually talking about CP's space issues? Must be my bed time I think...

+0
Friday, October 27, 2006 3:18 PM
Just as a side note they changed the angle on the original webcam and pointed it towards the future station/tunnel.

http://www.cedarpoint.com/public/fun/webcams/index.cfm

Tom

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...