Maximum Capacity/Occupancy of the Parks?

[Timekeeper]

I've read a few posts relating to the maximum capacity/occupancy of the WDW parks and the general consensus appears to be that: (1) these numbers are not released by Disney, and (2) these numbers are dependent on many variables, such as whether attractions are closed, and can fluctuate from day to day.

So, my questions are:

1. Will the FLE increase the maximum occupancy of of the MK? Logically, it seems obvious that it would increase maximum occupancy, but I wonder by what percentage?
2. Have any of the WDW parks ever reached maximum occupancy, meaning that no guests were being allowed in (whether off the clock CM, AP, resort, or day guest)?
3. When we think "maximum occupancy," many of us think of publicly posted fire marshal notices in buildings. So, assuming that there are maximum occupancies for the parks, how could those numbers be kept "secret"? Are there no fire marshal-type administrative rules for open parks, and so Disney can set its own numbers?

 

[Master Yoda]

I've read a few posts relating to the maximum capacity/occupancy of the WDW parks and the general consensus appears to be that: (1) these numbers are not released by Disney, and (2) these numbers are dependent on many variables, such as whether attractions are closed, and can fluctuate from day to day.

So, my questions are:

1. Will the FLE increase the maximum occupancy of of the MK? Logically, it seems obvious that it would increase maximum occupancy, but I wonder by what percentage?
2. Have any of the WDW parks ever reached maximum occupancy, meaning that no guests were being allowed in (whether off the clock CM, AP, resort, or day guest)?
3. When we think "maximum occupancy," many of us think of publicly posted fire marshal notices in buildings. So, assuming that there are maximum occupancies for the parks, how could those numbers be kept "secret"? Are there no fire marshal-type administrative rules for open parks, and so Disney can set its own numbers?

1. Yes. No idea how much but I would be surprised if it exceeded a 10% increase. My guess would be less than 5%.
2. I think Epcot hit somewhere between phase 2 and phase 4 on NYE 1999. Phase 1 and 2 closures at MK are fairly common during Holiday periods.
3. No clue.

 

[fosse76]

When we think "maximum occupancy," many of us think of publicly posted fire marshal notices in buildings. So, assuming that there are maximum occupancies for the parks, how could those numbers be kept "secret"? Are there no fire marshal-type administrative rules for open parks, and so Disney can set its own numbers?

Since the parks themselves are outdoors, there is no fire code regulation that could apply to them. Only buildings are regulated by fire codes (and the buildings themselves are definitely regulated). I mean, you are already outside, and fire codes regulate creating safe environments and establishing evacuation procedures from buildings.

 

[Timekeeper]

Since the parks themselves are outdoors, there is no fire code regulation that could apply to them. Only buildings are regulated by fire codes (and the buildings themselves are definitely regulated). I mean, you are already outside, and fire codes regulate creating safe environments and establishing evacuation procedures from buildings.

True, I just thought that given the unique nature of a theme park, guests are not really "outside." As we all know, being "outside" at WDW means being "on stage," and thus evacuation to a limited area outdoors (like Main Street or any walkway) might not be sufficient, especially when those areas are often very crowded or standing room only.

I'm not questioning the safety of WDW, or whether there are sufficient evacuation plans in place - I'm sure that there are. It just seems strange to me that a business location, much of which is outdoors, would be completely unregulated with respect to maximum occupancy. :shrug:

 

[wm49rs]

True, I just thought that given the unique nature of a theme park, guests are not really "outside." As we all know, being "outside" at WDW means being "on stage," and thus evacuation to a limited area outdoors (like Main Street or any walkway) might not be sufficient, especially when those areas are often very crowded or standing room only.

I'm not questioning the safety of WDW, or whether there are sufficient evacuation plans in place - I'm sure that there are. It just seems strange to me that a business location, much of which is outdoors, would be completely unregulated with respect to maximum occupancy. :shrug:

Disney has it's own internal code for maximum park capacity. They simply choose not to make it public. But they have reached capacity before throughout the year, mainly during the holidays, certain days during the summer, and I believe occasionally during the Spring Break time in April.

 

[Timekeeper]

Disney has it's own internal code for maximum park capacity. They simply choose not to make it public.

That seems a bit silly, being that the "number" would be easily identifiable by anyone willing to sit within view of the turnstiles all day and manually "count" the number of guests entering a park on a day on which it reaches capacity. It's not exactly the Coke recipe or the internal programming code of a breathalyzer. Of course, determining which day is going to hit "capacity" would be a shot in the dark, but with holidays one could probably do a good job narrowing it down.

Some road traffic monitoring, for example, used to be (and maybe still is) done by people physically counting cars moving through a specific area. So I'm sure someone would be willing to do it for a few bucks. :hammer:

 

[Timekeeper]

Related Question:

What happens when the parking lots reach maximum capacity but the parks have not reached maximum occupancy?

1. Does this ever happen on the busiest day(s) of the year?
2. Where do CMs direct traffic to park?
3. Are there any backup lots used under these conditions?
4. Are guests ever just completely out of luck and turned away (because all resort and theme park parking lots are full)?

 

[DisneyJoe]

Related Question:

What happens when the parking lots reach maximum capacity but the parks have not reached maximum occupancy?

1. Does this ever happen on the busiest day(s) of the year?
2. Where do CMs direct traffic to park?
3. Are there any backup lots used under these conditions?
4. Are guests ever just completely out of luck and turned away (because all resort and theme park parking lots are full)?

http://touringplans.com/walt-disney-world/capacity-closures

"Sometimes parking lots fill before the theme parks do. If this happens, Disney may divert cars to an alternate parking lot and provide bus transportation to the park whose lot is full. For example, sometimes the Hollywood Studios lot fills and guests are diverted to the gigantic Epcot parking lot."

 

[Timekeeper]

http://touringplans.com/walt-disney-world/capacity-closures

"Sometimes parking lots fill before the theme parks do. If this happens, Disney may divert cars to an alternate parking lot and provide bus transportation to the park whose lot is full. For example, sometimes the Hollywood Studios lot fills and guests are diverted to the gigantic Epcot parking lot."

So there's never been a situation in which the parking lots for all 4 of the theme parks are filled to capacity?

 

[DisneyJoe]

So there's never been a situation in which the parking lots for all 4 of the theme parks are filled to capacity?

I've heard of all 4 parks being closed for a few hours during Christmas week one year, but the boards don't usually buzz about the parking lots.

 

[wm49rs]

That seems a bit silly, being that the "number" would be easily identifiable by anyone willing to sit within view of the turnstiles all day and manually "count" the number of guests entering a park on a day on which it reaches capacity. It's not exactly the Coke recipe or the internal programming code of a breathalyzer. Of course, determining which day is going to hit "capacity" would be a shot in the dark, but with holidays one could probably do a good job narrowing it down.

Some road traffic monitoring, for example, used to be (and maybe still is) done by people physically counting cars moving through a specific area. So I'm sure someone would be willing to do it for a few bucks. :hammer:

Not silly if you consider some of the security issues pertaining such information. And again, they know what their capacities are at each of the parks, why is it a problem that information is not made public?

 

[Timekeeper]

Not silly if you consider some of the security issues pertaining such information. And again, they know what their capacities are at each of the parks, why is it a problem that information is not made public?

1. What security issues could possibly relate to knowing/not knowing what the official "cut off" number is? We already have pretty good estimates of park attendance, so we know approximately how many guests might be in the parks. By knowing that the specific cut off is 1,000 or 5,000 more than the estimate isn't that big of a deal. As was discussed earlier, we've already seen days on which, for example, admission became restricted to resort guests. If anything, guests would only be benefited by knowing, for example, that any given park is estimated to reach capacity at a certain time in the day, before making a potentially long drive out to WDW. But, being that this apparently doesn't happen, or rarely happens, it's a moot point.

2. Who here said it was a "problem" that the information is not made public?

If Disney gets to decide "the magic number" for themselves, then there's really no point in having a number to begin with, as it's not "enforceable" by virtue of any kind of administrative code. Say Disney decides that the number for the MK is 100,000, and the park is at 100,000. I highly doubt that Disney would turn away a Make A Wish family at the turnstiles, or a family with reservations at a restaurant inside the park, etc. Unless Disney is willing to turn these guests away, the number doesn't really matter.

If we think about it, the fire marshal's number (for buildings) is only relevant because it's that of the fire marshal. If a upscale restaurant only wants to admit 50% of that number, that's up to them, but it's not supposed to exceed that number. If the only number that Disney has is a self-determined one, then it's less relevant of a number. If I got to decide the speed limit on the roads for myself, then there would be no purpose for speed limits, because I could drive at whatever speed I want. :sohappy:

 

[wm49rs]

1. What security issues could possibly relate to knowing/not knowing what the official "cut off" number is? We already have pretty good estimates of park attendance, so we know approximately how many guests might be in the parks. By knowing that the specific cut off is 1,000 or 5,000 more than the estimate isn't that big of a deal. As was discussed earlier, we've already seen days on which, for example, admission became restricted to resort guests. If anything, guests would only be benefited by knowing, for example, that any given park is estimated to reach capacity at a certain time in the day, before making a potentially long drive out to WDW. But, being that this apparently doesn't happen, or rarely happens, it's a moot point.

2. Who here said it was a "problem" that the information is not made public?

If Disney gets to decide "the magic number" for themselves, then there's really no point in having a number to begin with, as it's not "enforceable" by virtue of any kind of administrative code. Say Disney decides that the number for the MK is 100,000, and the park is at 100,000. I highly doubt that Disney would turn away a Make A Wish family at the turnstiles, or a family with reservations at a restaurant inside the park, etc. Unless Disney is willing to turn these guests away, the number doesn't really matter.

If we think about it, the fire marshal's number (for buildings) is only relevant because it's that of the fire marshal. If a upscale restaurant only wants to admit 50% of that number, that's up to them, but it's not supposed to exceed that number. If the only number that Disney has is a self-determined one, then it's less relevant of a number. If I got to decide the speed limit on the roads for myself, then there would be no purpose for speed limits, because I could drive at whatever speed I want. :sohappy:

Since the magic "cutoff" number is directly related to the number of people in the park, Disney is not going to make public any numbers. And since they are always on a list of potential targets, just how many people are in the parks at their greatest capacity will probably always remain out of the public realm, leaving nothing but speculation.

And, you seem to have a distinct concern for the "unregulated" practices at Dinsey. First, not enough uniformed police officers monitoring the unruly drunken crowds at the Food & Wine Fstival, now the fact that Disney won't release maximum capacity numbers to the public at large.......

 

[Timekeeper]

And, you seem to have a distinct concern for the "unregulated" practices at Dinsey. First, not enough uniformed police officers monitoring the unruly drunken crowds at the Food & Wine Fstival, now the fact that Disney won't release maximum capacity numbers to the public at large.......

The keyword here is "seem."

Topics of "concern" and topics of "discussion" are not always the same thing. Everyone on these boards have posted threads and replies relating to different topics, but I would not jump the gun to conclude that everyone's posts must somehow reflect their "distinct concerns." Underage drinking is both illegal and potentially dangerous. That is enough to "concern" at least a few people out there.

The latest report regarding the monorail collision shed light on a few operational "regulations" pertaining to the operation of monorail trains. So, should we really criticize people for having concerns regarding regulations (or the lack thereof)? Being proactively concerned can (or could have) save lives. Most of us would agree that safety is worthy of "concern."

 

[wm49rs]

The keyword here is "seem."

Topics of "concern" and topics of "discussion" are not always the same thing. Everyone on these boards have posted threads and replies relating to different topics, but I would not jump the gun to conclude that everyone's posts must somehow reflect their "distinct concerns." Underage drinking is both illegal and potentially dangerous. That is enough to "concern" at least a few people out there.

The latest report regarding the monorail collision shed light on a few operational "regulations" pertaining to the operation of monorail trains. So, should we really criticize people for having concerns regarding regulations (or the lack thereof)? Being proactively concerned can (or could have) save lives. Most of us would agree that safety is worthy of "concern."

Underage drinking and the necessity for uniformed police ala Universal are topics of opinion, not empirical signs that the parks are a dangerous place during F&W.

And trying to associate the publishing of park capacity numbers with the monorail accident is one of the most egregious strawman arguments I've read around here for quite some time.

 

[Timekeeper]

Underage drinking and the necessity for uniformed police ala Universal are topics of opinion, not empirical signs that the parks are a dangerous place during F&W.

1. I left opinions regarding that topic in its respective thread. You, my friend, brought it up in this, unrelated, thread.

And trying to associate the publishing of park capacity numbers with the monorail accident is one of the most egregious strawman arguments I've read around here for quite some time.

2. You might want to google straw man (two words) argument. As you can see from the post above, the reference to the monorail collision was with respect to your critique of my [apparent] "distinct concern for the "unregulated" practices at Dinsey" [your words, not mine], not related to park attendance. If the operation of vehicles were not a "distinct concern" of Disney, then Disney wouldn't need regulations.

So, it looks like having "concerns" might just be for the better (versus the negative light in which you cast my "concerns").

:brick:

 

[wm49rs]

2. You might want to google straw man (two words) argument. As you can see from the post above, the reference to the monorail collision was with respect to your critique of my [apparent] "distinct concern for the "unregulated" practices at Dinsey" [your words, not mine], not related to park attendance. If the operation of vehicles were not a "distinct concern" of Disney, then Disney wouldn't need regulations.

So, it looks like having "concerns" might just be for the better (versus the negative light in which you cast my "concerns").

:brick:

Actually, "unregulated" was your word. Hence the quotation marks.....

And bringing an unfortunate accident that was the result of several different failures has little to do with a discussion over park capacity and why Disney does not announce what that number is for their parks.

And your concerns are less over what Disney does, as opposed to the fact they don't share the information with the general public. It appears you somehow deem this to be a weakness on their part, such as not having a regiment of uniformed police officers at the F&W Festival is an indication of underage drinking running amok......

 

[Timekeeper]

And your concerns are less over what Disney does, as opposed to the fact they don't share the information with the general public. It appears you somehow deem this to be a weakness on their part, such as not having a regiment of uniformed police officers at the F&W Festival is an indication of underage drinking running amok......

I haven't suggested that Disney not sharing park maximum occupancy is demonstrative of a "weakness." I suggested that (in my opinion) it seems silly to treat something that is seemingly akin to a fire marshal's publicly posted safety limit as some sort of trade secret. As you might be aware, there's no real trade secret in information that can be discovered by lawful means, such as counting the number of guests for myself. And here, I use that term (trade secret) generally, and not as a legal term of art. I suppose it's just another example of Disney zealously protecting all sorts of information, regardless of how that information might otherwise be discoverable.

And your concerns are less over what Disney does, as opposed to the fact they don't share the information with the general public. It appears you somehow deem this to be a weakness on their part, such as not having a regiment of uniformed police officers at the F&W Festival is an indication of underage drinking running amok......

There's that straw man we were looking for :sohappy:

Cheers

 

[fosse76]

Since the magic "cutoff" number is directly related to the number of people in the park, Disney is not going to make public any numbers. And since they are always on a list of potential targets, just how many people are in the parks at their greatest capacity will probably always remain out of the public realm, leaving nothing but speculation.

And, you seem to have a distinct concern for the "unregulated" practices at Dinsey. First, not enough uniformed police officers monitoring the unruly drunken crowds at the Food & Wine Fstival, now the fact that Disney won't release maximum capacity numbers to the public at large.......

I'm sure the maximum capacity changes daily based on a variety of factors. Theme parks budget based on they attendance they expect. It's how they determine which restaurants and shops are open, how many staff members they will have in each shop and food location, how many ride vehicles will run (which can change based on demand for any particular attraction), how much security is needed, how much food is ordered, etc. When I worked at Six Flags, there were times we stopped admissions with only 30,000 in the park (even though I'd worked with 45,000 plus in the park) simply because they had only budgeted for 28,000. There are just so many factors that there just is no hard number, though they may have determined a fixed number based on maximum staffing.

 

[wdwfanatic4yrs]

Related Question:

What happens when the parking lots reach maximum capacity but the parks have not reached maximum occupancy?

1. Does this ever happen on the busiest day(s) of the year?
2. Where do CMs direct traffic to park?
3. Are there any backup lots used under these conditions?
4. Are guests ever just completely out of luck and turned away (because all resort and theme park parking lots are full)?

in know that last x-mas we went to epcot on new years eve, and as the bus was taking us to the park, you could see the parking lot was full and there were cars parked in the grass everywhere. cars parked right by trees and everything. in all the years we've gone i'd never seen it like that. glad we didn't have to worry about trying to get out of the parking lot.