Shift in Thread Trend?

It was a maintenance nightmare, or so I'm told.

It was a hydroflume, right? I've heard those things got to be headaches as they aged, and I'm sure a lot of those headaches had to do with the rides aging as well as those rotating platforms that were probably over-complicated.

I love log flumes so I'm not happy that the ride isn't there anymore, nor am I happy that there are practically no trees left on the site (no surprise there) but I can at least understand why the park would be compelled to remove the ride... unlike other times when perfectly good rides are removed.

Shoot the Rapids or Shoot the (fill in the blank) was a precursor to White Water Landing and I believe it was built in-house...though don't quote me on that. I don't recall hearing about any significant problems with WWL.

I didn't realize WWL was the second log flume to occupy that site.

According to the timeline from Pointbuzz, Shoot the Rapids opened in 1967. The Millrace opened in 1963. Interesting because from looking at pictures, It looked more primitive than Millrace. Shoot the Rapids was replaced by WWL in 1982.

People have told me that Shoot the Rapids was a pretty good ride. I wish I had memories of it. I know I was in the park when it was operating but I guess I was too young to remember it.

So which one was the maintenance nightmare? Both?

There's a pretty good picture of it on the fourth page of the postcard section here.

Shoot the Rapids definitely looks like something that was conceived in-house and not by a company like Arrow. But wasn't Millrace an Arrow ride? Why would Cedar Point build an Arrow flume and then build a flume of their own a few years later? Why not just go back to Arrow and save themselves the trouble?

If STR was built in-house, I wonder if that played a part in it getting replaced by an Arrow flume?

Yeah, Shoot-the-Rapids was an in-house thing, and of course WWL was an Arrow ride. It appeared very similar to Hershey's, maybe even from around the same time. Hershey's was closed the day of Chocolate Buzz, which was unfortunate because it was probably the most hot and humid day you could ask for.

I think Hershey's flume dates back to the mid-70's when the park transitioned from traditional park to theme park, meaning it predates the Cedar Point ride by a few years. Hershey's ride is a lot of fun- too bad it was closed when you were there, especially because that thing never seems to close.

---

It's nice that the park plants new trees but it seems that Maverick will be gone and the site redeveloped with a new attraction by the time those trees have a chance to mature

---

I doubt it. On Thursday, Maverick's line was one hour at 9:30 AM. That's a half hour before the general public is let in. I'm guessing it's going to be there a long long time.

As an aside, I took my daughter to Geauga Lake for a couple days this week. Coming in on the second day, she pronounced the waterpark side "better". I asked why, she said "It was prettier---not just all coasters like on the other side."

I swear this was done completely without coaching on my part.

I'm not sure if Maverick's line in 2007 is going to dictate it's popularity in 2027, but regardless, at some point that coaster is going to be old enough to warrant replacement with another attraction. And when that happens, I'm sure most of those trees will be removed. All I'm saying is that it would be nice if a greater effort were made to keep most trees because that's the only way trees are going to mature.

Interesting comment your daughter made. If a kid notes aesthetics, maybe adults notice them too?

I dabble in landscaping and some trees aren't worth saving. Those cottonwoods wreak havoc around property. In fact, they are the largest cause of A/C problems at the hotels. If they can be replaced with something that is not as much of a hassle then I don't mind seeing them go.

I'm talking about significant trees, like mature oaks and maples that are usually beautiful... and take decades to grow. Things like willows seem like a waste- nice as they are to look at, they're always making a mess and falling over because of their shallow root systems that love river banks and other wet areas. My parents had a bunch of willows in their backyard along a river and they all fell over in various storms, some because they fell into each other like dominos.

---

Lord Gonchar said:

Could it be that the added costs (in time, effort and whatever else) of pussyfooting around the existing trees is actually higher than leveling everything, getting the job done and working back up from there?

---

My own opinion is that the costs in the two situations you mention aren't that different. Most contractors would prefer bulldozing everything because it is easier on their part. Sometimes finesse, more time, and workmanship is worth the extra effort. (Maybe the people willing to pay $300 to get into a park would agree ;).)

Let me put it this way: in my experience, if you gave a contractor a plan that called for saving x number of trees throughout the site, but then told him you changed your mind, clear down all the trees and plant replacements-- he's not going to reduce his price by all that much, if at all.

Somebody (Jeff?) mentioned he'd like to see more mature trees planted. The problem there is, some tree species don't survive transplanting when too large. Oaks, for example, or any tree with a tap root have to be put in their final location when young-- not more than 8 or 10 feet or so.

Not every tree is worth saving. And the required construction usually requires some tree cutting. But too many times, developers (including park owners) think they need to go in and chop down everything because it makes construction somehow easier. I'm not convinced it does.

I understand. Like I said - honest question. I have no idea the cost of leveling a tree vs working around it. I was legitimately curious.

I suppose it is a convenience/time thing. Level the land, build the ride, worry about it later.

If CF ever needs Black Locust trees, they are sure welcome to come into my yard and take as many seedlings as they want.

Unlike oak and maple, they grow at an amazing rate and have nice blossoms late spring early summer. Downside: they have thorns.