MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[solidyne]

But not a living river with steamboats and rafts traveling it. I’m guessing it will be more of a stream like we have in fantasyland. Which is fine. I’m certainly hoping it looks nice.

Someone referred earlier to Epcot's Canada, and I'm really hoping for that vibe here but x10. Just hoping for the best!

 

[jah4955]

But not a living river with steamboats and rafts traveling it. I’m guessing it will be more of a stream like we have in fantasyland. Which is fine. I’m certainly hoping it looks nice.

I wish everyone could have seen how alive the river was before the closures of even the canoes and keelboats.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Someone referred earlier to Epcot's Canada, and I'm really hoping for that vibe here but x10. Just hoping for the best!

After the failure in EPCOT, there is no confidence, all we have is hope.

I am also hopeful, because like the failure in EPCOT, whatever we get in MK we are stuck with for the foreseeable future.

 

[Raineman]

The project is replacing the Riverboat and TSI. Two attractions that most guests didn’t even do once.

Do you have any data to back that up?

 

[Disstevefan1]

The project is replacing the Riverboat and TSI. Two attractions that most guests didn’t even do once.

Its funny, I would get destroyed for spreading misinformation like this as fact, LOL.

 

[Raineman]

Its funny, I would get destroyed for spreading misinformation like this as fact, LOL.

If he had said "Two attractions that most guests PROBABLY didn't even do once", then it is an opinion and an arguable point, but, as you said, he's presenting it as fact. We'll see if he has the data I asked for to back up his claim.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Do you have any data to back that up?

I mean…. I love the riverboat and think it’s 100% wrong to get rid of it - but it’s pretty obvious that the majority of guests did not ride it. It was seeing like 300 people per hour probably…. So 2,400 a day. pirates can do more than that per hour.

 

[Raineman]

I mean…. I love the riverboat and think it’s 100% wrong to get rid of it - but it’s pretty obvious that the majority of guests did not ride it. It was seeing like 300 people per hour probably…. So 2,400 a day. pirates can do more than that per hour.

I don't disagree with you, but his specific claim that most guests didn't even do them once seems to be a bit of hyperbole, imo.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

If he had said "Two attractions that most guests PROBABLY didn't even do once", then it is an opinion and an arguable point, but, as you said, he's presenting it as fact. We'll see if he has the data I asked for to back up his claim.

He was presenting it as fact, and its a little hard to argue its not.

I mean if you want to see hard data to support almost anything related to WDW operations, you are not going to get it. People posting on message boards don't have it, and company insiders/employees who do aren't going to be putting their jobs at risk to publish it.

However, the fact that those two offerings were never monetized into fast pass/lighting lane/genie plus offering is at very minimum circumstantial evidence of the lack of utilization of the two attractions.

 

[JD80]

He was presenting it as fact, and its a little hard to argue its not.

I mean if you want to see hard data to support almost anything related to WDW operations, you are not going to get it. People posting on message boards don't have it, and company insiders/employees who do aren't going to be putting their jobs at risk to publish it.

However, the fact that those two offerings were never monetized into fast pass/lighting lane/genie plus offering is at very minimum circumstantial evidence of the lack of utilization of the two attractions.

Let's just use common sense and general observation. I think it's very safe to say these two offerings were hardly ever used compared to any other offering in the park.

 

[Raineman]

He was presenting it as fact, and its a little hard to argue its not.

I mean if you want to see hard data to support almost anything related to WDW operations, you are not going to get it. People posting on message boards don't have it, and company insiders/employees who do aren't going to be putting their jobs at risk to publish it.

However, the fact that those two offerings were never monetized into fast pass/lighting lane/genie plus offering is at very minimum circumstantial evidence of the lack of utilization of the two attractions.

If no data exists, that's fine. But don't present something as fact when there is nothing to support it other than assumptions or anecdotal evidence. I was not commenting on the "underutilization" of this area as a reason why this change is being made; that has been beaten to death in this thread. I was simply commenting on his presentation of his claim as fact, when it is still an opinion based on circumstantial evidence.

 

[James Alucobond]

If no data exists, that's fine. But don't present something as fact when there is nothing to support it other than assumptions or anecdotal evidence. I was not commenting on the "underutilization" of this area as a reason why this change is being made; that has been beaten to death in this thread. I was simply commenting on his presentation of his claim as fact, when it is still an opinion based on circumstantial evidence.

Even if the boat were running at max capacity every half hour of every day, it could only circulate about a fifth of the Magic Kingdom’s current average visitation. But it’s also almost never running at max capacity and does not run during all of the park’s operating hours, so its true utilization is actually much lower. It’s physically impossible for most (i.e. >50% of daily visitors) to ride the boat.

 

[Raineman]

Even if the boat were running at max capacity every half hour of every day, it could only circulate about a fifth of the Magic Kingdom’s current average visitation. But it’s also almost never running at max capacity and does not run during all of the park’s operating hours, so its true utilization is actually much lower. It’s physically impossible for most (i.e. >50% of daily visitors) to ride the boat.

But he didn't specify "daily" visitors. "Two attractions that most guests didn’t even do once." At no point in this have I mentioned anything regarding the viability of ROA/TSI, the capacity of these attractions, or the even the fact that there were less people on these attractions recently than there was in the past. I am aware of all of this, regardless of what my personal feelings are on this whole change. I was simply pointing out that his statement, as posted, cannot be considered a fact unless there is supporting data. That's it, and nothing more. Too many people in forums like this make claims that cannot be proven, and are just rumors and opinions, and should never be presented in a way that makes them sound like 100% fact.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

If no data exists, that's fine. But don't present something as fact when there is nothing to support it other than assumptions or anecdotal evidence. I was not commenting on the "underutilization" of this area as a reason why this change is being made; that has been beaten to death in this thread. I was simply commenting on his presentation of his claim as fact, when it is still an opinion based on circumstantial evidence.

First, no one is saying the data doesn't exist. It exists, but no one is going to go on a public message board, and provide it.
Second, there is plenty to support the fact as it is being presented. Take the lack of a FP/Line skip option as support that the utilization of the attractions were so poor, that WDW didn't feel it was able to monetize it. Take the fact that WDW is deciding to expend a significant portion of its budget to replace these attractions, as opposed to saving money and keeping something people are using. Take the size of the raft that would bring people over to TSI, the amount of time it takes for a trip to the island, and you get a utilization per hour that is extremely low, and that's without the fact that lines were forming to take the trip over and many time rafts weren't leaving fully packed. Circumstantial evidence is still viable evidence. We send people to prison based upon it all the time.

 

[Raineman]

First, no one is saying the data doesn't exist. It exists, but no one is going to go on a public message board, and provide it.
Second, there is plenty to support the fact as it is being presented. Take the lack of a FP/Line skip option as support that the utilization of the attractions were so poor, that WDW didn't feel it was able to monetize it. Take the fact that WDW is deciding to expend a significant portion of its budget to replace these attractions, as opposed to saving money and keeping something people are using. Take the size of the raft that would bring people over to TSI, the amount of time it takes for a trip to the island, and you get a utilization per hour that is extremely low, and that's without the fact that lines were forming to take the trip over and many time rafts weren't leaving fully packed. Circumstantial evidence is still viable evidence. We send people to prison based upon it all the time.

"Two attractions that most guests didn’t even do once." The lack of a fastpass option, the budget considerations, the per hour capacity-none of that provides conclusive, irrefutable evidence to support that specific claim that he made. Does all of that support the idea that less people are visiting TSI/ROA now, and that Disney made this decision because of that and knows that they will make alot more $$ with Cars attractions? Absolutely. And in most legal systems, circumstantial evidence on it's own cannot irrefutably prove anything-it can be a key factor, but circumstantial evidence can be influenced by biases and assumptions, and should never be used to fully prove or disprove anything; it is very effective when combined with direct evidence. There have been many cases that have been overturned where the conviction was based only on circumstantial evidence. And I unless there is direct evidence that TSI & ROA were "Two attractions that most guests didn’t even do once.", it's not a fact in my eyes. Anyone else can believe what they want.

 

[peter11435]

Its funny, I would get destroyed for spreading misinformation like this as fact, LOL.

It’s not misinformation. It actually is fact.

On any given day the percentage of MK guests who rode the riverboat was in the single digits.

 

[peter11435]

If no data exists, that's fine. But don't present something as fact when there is nothing to support it other than assumptions or anecdotal evidence. I was not commenting on the "underutilization" of this area as a reason why this change is being made; that has been beaten to death in this thread. I was simply commenting on his presentation of his claim as fact, when it is still an opinion based on circumstantial evidence.

I’m not making assumptions or giving opinions.

 

[Raineman]

I’m not making assumptions or giving opinions.

You just stated the "single digit percentage" riverboat ridership-where did you get that number? is that data available anywhere?

 

[plutofan15]

The project is replacing the Riverboat and TSI. Two attractions that most guests didn’t even do once.

My kids did TSI once when they were about 9 & 7 years old and that was enough for them. My daughter found it "boring" and my son, while he said it was "cool", also said it took too much time waiting for the rafts to get back and forth to the island. It was a time consuming attraction to be sure.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

You just stated the "single digit percentage" riverboat ridership-where did you get that number? is that data available anywhere?

300 an hour X 8 hours is 2,400.
daily attendance at MK is at least 30k.

You don’t need the hard numbers to see this.

I’m passionately pro-riverboat and believe it is 100% a mistake to remove it but the facts are correct.