Kings Island Fast Lane

+1, then I'm going to take it away, so I can +1 it again!

But the single rider line doesn't change the wait time for folks in the regular line at all. The train would simply have gone out with an empty seat. Without the single rider line, they could have plucked a single rider from the regular line but that often times increases load times when you pull a single rider from 50 spots back in the line and wait for him/her to make his/her way to the front of the line. With the single rider line, you have those folks ready at the front of the line as needed. VQ does have an impact on the folks in the regular line.

And I don't have a problem with VQ. If properly run, it doesn't negatively affect capacity or operations. But it does negatively impact those in the regular line. Though I don't have a problem with that. Different people get different perks in life. Sometimes by paying a higher price for them and sometimes for other reasons.

That's a great point and makes perfect sense. But it doesn't really address the two issues I brought up:

1. Separate lines create less efficient operation.

2. Line cutting is line cutting - doesn't matter why you're there.

Those are two of the anti-VQ arguments and the single rider line does the same thing in both cases.

But you're right, it doesn't necessarily increase regular queue waits. (beyond the two-line inefficiency thing)

A big park removing a single rider line? Ewwwww! I think we need more of them. Perhaps there are some operational problems with them? The one at Griffon (Busch Gardens Virginia) seems to work well. They let people know in various places, then in person that groups cannot be put on the ride together.

That's a bummer, I was hoping to see more single rider lines. The popular B&M rides sure as heck need them.

Only parks I have been to with VQ are the Disney World parks. I never saw any operational problems in terms of efficiency. I have seen other folks here talk about other parks with VQ having those problems (resulting in trains being dispatched with empty seats). So I would see that as an implementation/administration problem rather than a VQ problem. Are there any parks that have efficiency problems with single rider lines? Are partially filled trains dispatched because of single rider lines at any parks?

I think there is also a diference in terms of possible inefficiencies when you are looking at plucking a single rider now and then from a single rider line (one or two per train -- sometimes none on any given train) and taking large numbers of folks from a VQ line.

Not all line cutting is equal. I view cutting in line as being in three separate categories: that which hurts me, that which has no effect on me and that which helps me. A single rider taken from the line in front of me (who was waiting longer than me) helps me in that rather than having 2 trains with one empty seat, both trains are full allowing 2 more people to ride and getting me to a seat faster. A single rider taken from the line behind me (or someone who didn't otherwise wait as long as I did), doesn't impact me as that was going to be an empty seat otherwise which didn't change my wait time. Taking large numbers of folks from a special line who didn't wait as long as I did, hurts me.

The inefficiency isn't in the merging itself. It's if the merging occurs in the station when a train is waiting. If the VQ line or the single rider line can be successfully merged outside the station so that a train's worth of people are ready to load and go (see: Disney) then that's a gigantic win for everyone involved. The problem is when they have to hold the air gates for VQers to load or rope off cars or in the case of single riders - reopen locked and checked restraints.

Ok, let me clarify a little. I do like single rider lanes when they are operating correctly. The one for the diamondback was awful, it would randomly open and close causing people to wait outside the que for the single rider lane to open. So when they closed it off at lets say 2 pm in the afternoon, when it would open at 2:30 pm or whenever they wanted to open it back up, it would have a full que of groups of people because the line was way shorter than the normal que.

GoBucks89 said:
I view cutting in line as being in three separate categories: that which hurts me, that which has no effect on me and that which helps me. A single rider taken from the line in front of me (who was waiting longer than me) helps me in that rather than having 2 trains with one empty seat, both trains are full allowing 2 more people to ride and getting me to a seat faster. A single rider taken from the line behind me (or someone who didn't otherwise wait as long as I did), doesn't impact me as that was going to be an empty seat otherwise which didn't change my wait time. Taking large numbers of folks from a special line who didn't wait as long as I did, hurts me.

Except a single rider line is most likely taking people that came after you. I doubt there's very many situations where the single rider line actually gets you on quicker than without. I'd say any benefit is just as insignificant and marginal as the detriment that VQ causes.

You'd probably be better off (or just as well off) in a situation where the ops call for single riders or paired riders to fill empty seats.

Maybe if a ride offered both VQ and single rider, it'd balance itself out? ;)

And come to think of it - if the logic that someone in line before you doesn't hurt when given first access, then it could be argued that I didn't get in line before you because I have the FOL access.

That is to say, you may have been standing there 20 minutes already, but the only reason I wasn't already in line too was because I was off doing something else knowing I had FOL available to me - the FOL access took me out of line in the first place. In which case you would've been behind me either way. No harm, no foul.

Lord Gonchar said:
Except a single rider line is most likely taking people that came after you. I doubt there's very many situations where the single rider line actually gets you on quicker than without. I'd say any benefit is just as insignificant and marginal as the detriment that VQ causes.

I agree that single rider lines are taking people that came after you. But its neutral to you (assuming no administrative inefficiencies). Your wait time doesn't change if the seat is empty or someone who got in the line after you gets on the train. Only way you benefit from plucking single riders and pairing them up is if both were in line before you (which won't happen often (if ever) when looking at separate single rider lines.

Small benefits are different from small detriments. No one can complain (at least not rationally) when then are benefited. Even if the benefit is small. But a detriment is subjective in terms of whether someone should care about it particularly when you repeat it throughout a day long park visit.

You'd probably be better off (or just as well off) in a situation where the ops call for single riders or paired riders to fill empty seats.

If it was done efficiently, you would be just as well off. Not sure how you would be better off. But its a lot harder to do that without the single rider line because you are plucking people from many spots behind the front of the line and having to wait for those folks to make their way to the front of the line (many times while the rest of the train is already loaded and ready to go).

Maybe if a ride offered both VQ and single rider, it'd balance itself out? ;)

I am in favor of single rider lines and VQs as long as both are done efficiently. Though there really is no balancing out as the single rider lines are neutral to those in the regular line and VQ lines are detrimental to those folks.

And come to think of it - if the logic that someone in line before you doesn't hurt when given first access, then it could be argued that I didn't get in line before you because I have the FOL access.

That is to say, you may have been standing there 20 minutes already, but the only reason I wasn't already in line too was because I was off doing something else knowing I had FOL available to me - the FOL access took me out of line in the first place. In which case you would've been behind me either way. No harm, no foul.

Someone who actually was in line ahead of me doesn't hurt me. They have been waiting longer than I have been waiting so they should ride before me. That is not true with VQ.

You may have very well decided to get in the actual line ahead of me had you not had FOL access. But you may very well have opted for that other ride (or getting something to eat, shopping, etc.) in which case you would not have been in front of me. And that applies to everyone using the FOL access/VQ system. And had you decided to get in line ahead of me, folks at the other ride (or restaurant, shop, etc.) would have had shorter lines.

FOL access/VQ systems allow guests effectively to be in multiple places at the same time which is a detriment to those who are limited to being in only one place at a time. You can say those other folks should pay the price or take whatever steps are required to get the FOL access or in the VQ system. And I agree with that. You can also say that the detriment is small. I don't have enough info to be able to know if that is true.

So it's okay if someone cuts in line as long as it's free and doesn't seem like it affects me, but it is morally wrong if they pay to do it and I notice that it affects me?

Yeah.

I think that's the general idea. I'm catching on to that, too.

GoBucks89 said:
Someone who actually was in line ahead of me doesn't hurt me. They have been waiting longer than I have been waiting so they should ride before me. That is not true with VQ.

But it could be true with VQ. In fact, a 'true' VQ works on that very premise. That I was there first, but my place was 'held' by whatever means the park uses.

The thing is almost no park does real 1-to-1 VQ anymore.

Where it may get hinky is with what I do while my place is being held and as you pretty much said - the variables are far too numerous to make informed conclusions.

I think FOL works on an entirely different premise - one of preferred access and completely different lines. With a FOL pass, I got into the line that gets loaded first. It's a matter of access. When you get in the stand-by line you accept that your access to the ride is secondary. The other line will load first and the remaining seats will be filled in with riders from your line.

Kind of like choosing to wait in the extra long line for the front or back of a train that most stations have. You made your choice - would someone who entered the station after you but choosing to ride in a lower-demand middle row be cutting because they got on the ride first?

Of course not. Everyone made their choice about how to access the ride.

All FOL does is add another choice in how you can access rides. Does it mean a longer wait for those choosing to ride in the secondary stand-by line? Sure, it can. But again we're faced with too many variables to make informed conclusions as to just what the effect is.

Hell, even a park like Knoebels that offers both ride-all-day and pay-per-ride plans creates different levels of access. Is it fair that someone who paid $35 gets unlimited rides while someone with just $10 in their pocket gets only a handful? They both knew what they bought. Every person buying a ride-all-day is making the lines longer because they can keep getting in them over and over - just because they paid more.

At what point does one draw this weird philosophical 'fairness' line? Is it fair that getting in line at one time might mean a 30 minute wait, but queueing at another time in the day might mean a 15 minute wait? Is it fair that some days lines are an hour and other days they're 20 minutes for the same ride? Is it fair that the day I visit might see certain rides closed and the day you visit everything is accessible?

We all make countless choices and those choices are all the variables that make up the big equation that determines the course of events during our day at the park. VQ/FOL is just another of those variables. Visit on a day that's low crowds or poor weather and you'll probably escape your day unaffected by these systems. Visit on a crowded weekend day and it could add some time to your already long waits.

It's not 'fair' to begin with. It's actually incredibly random. To try to mitigate that randomness some of us use commomn sense (don't visit on Saturday), some use community knowledge (don't get in line for Raptor first thing in the day), some use strategy (crowd flows from front-to-back, so start in the back and we'll get a bunch of ride in before lines build).

And some use other tools available (I'm dropping $50 to not have to wait in line for a good portion of the afternoon). To me it seems no different, less fair or illogical than any other technique one might employ to reduce their wait time for rides throughout the day.

Except that in the last scenario someone has (hard earned) money they're willing to spend and the park is willing to give them better access in exchange for money (so that they can keep prices for regular folks down, make money, pay staff, and be a successful business for many years).

Yeah. Charging more money affects everyone negatively and is immoral.

Come on Gonch. You know that a single rider line fills empty seats, and does nothing to make the line longer, whereas pay-to-cut totally makes the line longer. Since I view cutting in line as negatively affecting everyone else, single riders are not really cutting, because they are occupying empty seats that wouldn't be filled otherwise. Pay-to-cut users are filling seats that would have been filled anyways.

In other words, I don't think that anyone would care if a single rider got in line after them, but rode the ride before them, because it didn't affect their wait at all.

That seems like common knowledge to me.

Not only is a single rider line practical, having otherwise empty seats loaded, you have a heavier train and then a faster ride :) Most people like that idea.

But his point still stands. This whole time y'all have argued the fairness of it. Just because someone's order at McDonalds is simpler doesn't mean, in your first come first served world, that they should get their food quicker. So why not just split parties up for best efficiency and in all fairness since everything has to be fair?

And while I'm thinking about it, is seat poaching fair? Why should I be allowed to poach an empty seat if I just got off? Sure, it's not really affecting your perspective. But I got two rides and only waited for one.

LostKause said:
Come on Gonch. You know that a single rider line fills empty seats, and does nothing to make the line longer, whereas pay-to-cut totally makes the line longer. Since I view cutting in line as negatively affecting everyone else, single riders are not really cutting, because they are occupying empty seats that wouldn't be filled otherwise. Pay-to-cut users are filling seats that would have been filled anyways.

In other words, I don't think that anyone would care if a single rider got in line after them, but rode the ride before them, because it didn't affect their wait at all.

That seems like common knowledge to me.

See, now we're really fleshing out the perception of it all. :)

Someone can cut as long as it doesn't affect you. You're admitting that line cutting isn't inherently bad. Only under certain circumstances.

You should be entirely fine with the way some SF rides block off a row for VQ then. You can't even queue for that row, so you're not being affected.

Would the regular queue move faster if that row was open? Yep. But the regular line would move faster if the park forced full rows to ride (think Kennywood's 'no single riders' rule on a couple of their woodies) and eliminated the single rider line.

Flat-out, the single rider line pulls people from a secondary line and puts them in front of you in order of boarding.

It's the exact same practice - filling seats that otherwise would run empty from a second line and giving those people preference for filling the empty seats. Does it really matter is the empty seats are left to chance or created purposely? Does it matter if one two-seat row is blocked or if two single riders ride in separate rows? The end result is the same.

Tekwardo said:
And while I'm thinking about it, is seat poaching fair? Why should I be allowed to poach an empty seat if I just got off? Sure, it's not really affecting your perspective. But I got two rides and only waited for one.

Exactly.

Even better? What if people paid to access the single rider line?

Better yet, what if it single riders were charged less at the gate since they're helping the park out by filling trains?

What if the park gave you a little money back everytime you filled your row perfectly with no empty seats? Like an incentive.

Really, being a single rider should qualify one for sainthood. God bless those noble folk.