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.
I actually wrote two emails to Great Adventure last week, and I flat out asked them their intentions for KK. Of course they were rather obtuse and evasive. The most definitive answer I received was that the ride might cease operations by the end of this year or perhaps next year. Either way, I was given the impression that KK might not be long for this world.
Coasterhound36:
The most definitive answer I received was that the ride might cease operations by the end of this year or perhaps next year.
So if this is true, and I don't have any reason to think it's not true, then they haven't decided the details of closing the ride yet, and that's why they haven't announced anything. Sounds reasonable to me.
-Travis
www.youtube.com/TSVisits
You must be logged in to post