S:RoS's on East Coast

An extra station is *not* cheap. In addition to the concrete and building supplies, you have many expenses for extra safety and control systems for that station. Plus, you have to staff more employees, it takes up more room, etc. It's not even close to cost effective.

What coaster is cost effective? lol!!!! Well, I guess I can name some, but that company went out of business just recently...;)

-----------------
www.tripowered.com - some call me....Titan?

Any coaster that sees more people through the gate (and thus extra spending) is cost effective. If coasters weren't cost effective, then parks wouldn't build them.

That said, an Intamin coaster (with two stations) can obviously be cost effective. However, I'm sure SF couldn't justify the extra expense of a second station when they could get Giovanola to build a high-capacity ride for less. Both rides would draw in the same amount of people.

-Nate

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you 100%! I was being a bit facetious. I don't know if parks really make money back on coasters unless they have mega-high survivability (ala Coaster at PNE, Cyclone at Coney, etc.). I think they make theirs on accessories purchased at the park, foods, etc. Still, I agree. I would have a hard time buying a ride I know has very little customer turnover, i.e. Deja Vu. I don't think any park, Six Flags or otherwise, wants to eat that sandwich again:)
--------------
I am smarter than you. Don't believe me? Click here.

I would also love to for a Intamin Hyper in the great NW as would most coaster enthusiasts from this region. To bad is unlikely since we have jack besides Silverwood and the up and coming EV. Hopefully SF will continue to invest in to EV so we can maybe get that Intamin Hyper.

-----------------
84 coasters and counting

Hunter11, that won't happen at EV. I would love it too, but the restrictions are mighty tough here. I live in Seattle, and it's more than heresay. It's a fact that there is a 150ft cap in Federal Way. That keeps the term "hyper" permanently out of the picture:( Still, I am hoping to God that they will bring something with that Intamin flair to the northwest. 'Twould be a great thing. Then, perhaps, I will get a visit from some of the people in my nationwide friend network! Can you say Intamin and GCI, Six Flags? Gosh, I hope so.....:)

-----------------
www.tripowered.com - some call me....Titan?

coasterdude318 said:
Any coaster that sees more people through the gate (and thus extra spending) is cost effective. If coasters weren't cost effective, then parks wouldn't build them.

Well, Six Flags seems to have cut back on building them. Maybe because they weren't cost effective.

-----------------
A rollercoaster? What's that?

"MF has 3 trains and its an Intamin, If SFMM wanted a Intamin hyper with 3 trains it would have been possible".

It's not up to SFMM to make that decision...

-----------------
"Escuse me, can you tell me where the heck the Mystery Lodge is"?

ApolloAndy, while roller coasters are certainly cost-effecient (otherwise, like I said - why build them?), the way Six Flags was building them was probably not. It's been stated several times that it often takes two years for coaster to "pay itself off", and when you're building one every year or two you can't really be making much money (with a few exceptions).

-Nate