SFoGswim said:
Define "a lot" and then compare it to the yearly attendance of the park.
We could also compare the number of people who would categorically refuse to ride a 400ft. tall coaster versus those who would do the same for a mid-sized woodie. Or the difference in initial cost, or cost to run and maintain, or capacity.
Even still, the point remains, building coasters for the purpose of attracting people from far flung places is just not the business model for 99% of parks in the world.
SFoGswim said:
Define "a lot" and then compare it to the yearly attendance of the park.
Let me just ditto exactly what matt. said. However, it's all irrelevant to my original point, which was in response to this:
manofthechurch said:
LOL were you joking? You had to be!
...The utter disbelief that anyone would dare say, in all seriousness, that they would rather ride a mid-sized woodie over Kingda Ka.
But, despite all that, it's ridiculous to imply that the small wooden coaster mindset would drive a major amusement park down the drain. Even the major parks add mid-sized, non-record-breaking coasters from time to time.
Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."
Vater said:
Even the major parks add mid-sized, non-record-breaking coasters from time to time.
Heck, they even put in kiddie coasters from time to time! ;)
Intimidator 305 the tallest most hated coaster nobody has ever ridden...
You must be logged in to post