MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[TrainsOfDisney]

They could have leaned into the riverboat as part of Tiana's at WDW.

If a co-op can own a salt mound in New Orleans it can certainly own a riverboat!

 

[Brer Panther]

you would hear guests groaning that they have to walk “all the way around this water” when leaving BTMR, Splash, and HM.

Won't they still have to walk "all the way around", but in this case just have to walk all the way around the Cars ride?

 

[Smiley/OCD]

You might be right and it certainly serves the power “agenda”

But it’s a disastrous move. We’ve seen this play before

First, he’ll have to shave his head…

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Hey... THAT works!
As there is a riverboat so prominently a part of that film.
It's kind of mind boggling how Disney is so bone headed.
They could have leaned into the riverboat as part of Tiana's at WDW.

At least with the Belle (unlike the AA’s in Tiana), we knew she worked…and NOT in B mode…

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am yes, always willing to be educated though

Just knowing total attraction capacity doesn’t tell you if that is enough. You need to know if people are experiencing enough during a day. Attractions per Guest per Hour is the metric that is used to determine required capacity and then if the park is adequately supporting visitation. A few long experiences (wait + attraction time) will push towards a lower number while a lot of smaller and shorter experiences will demand a higher number. Attractions with more immediate available help to offset those with longer waits because people look at their days on the whole, so the average works well to assess.

So you want to fill it in with nothing? Are you hearing yourself?

Cars isn't going to create some mass demand, but will create a ton of capacity. It's going to pull people already at the park through the park. Villians may create some additional demand but that can easily be handled through 4 decent capacity attractions. Not even referring to if they end up with a Villians show or quick service eatery.

Where do a I say fill anything with nothing? The park is already operating at a significant deficit. Four attractions aren’t going to suddenly jump it beyond that.

Sure a table service has some capacity loss from a quick service but between the rising food cart amount and possible new quick service(s?) + maybe table who knows? I think we'll be fine. Like I said, there is no huge food capacity problem. Mobile ordering gives you your food in like literally 5 minutes. Incentivizing mobile ordering is one way that Disney has created "capacity" by having people wait outside of the lines + buildings instead of filling up the area and overwhelming the staff. It allows for a good balance between not having as much capacity in the actual restaraunts but having a growing market of people who are often there to try 1 snack that could be completely out of line and handed a snack easily.

Having ½ to ⅓ the hourly capacity is not “some” capacity loss, it’s a fraction. Skipper’s Canteen didn’t even use the full space, so it’s probably more on the order of ¼ of the capacity of the Adventureland Verandah.

Restaurant capacity is a function of dining area and kitchen area. Mobile order does not create capacity. The limiting factor is more the kitchen and definitely not the order area. Everybody using mobile order would just make crowding worse because people would be located elsewhere.

Did Be our guest and Gaston’s add any capacity?

Again, table service has about ½ - ⅓ the hourly capacity as a quick service with the same dining area. Gaston’s Tavern is quite small and its limited menu places it more as a kiosk* than a true quick service dining. Be Our Guest is larger, but it is not so large as to make up the lost capacity. Dropping the quick service breakfast and lunch also reduced its hourly capacity during those hours.

*Kiosk in the sense of programming does not just mean literal physical kiosks. It more describes that level of offering between ODV (outdoor vending) which is things like popcorn and ice cream carts, and true quick service restaurants.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’m very interested to see and hear about the actual impact of removing this river by people other than highly influential bloggers and locals, in other words the common guests.

From my observations the river in the MK wasn’t really appreciated as much as it is at other parks. Pretty much any open space bordering that river would be used as stroller parking, so you couldn’t really sit near it and enjoy the view.

When walking in the areas the river physically impacts the most, you would hear guests groaning that they have to walk “all the way around this water” when leaving BTMR, Splash, and HM.

I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me but I have heard it said that the MK is a more destination park than it is local. Meaning these people are there to crank out rides more-so than guests at Disneyland. And people looking to maximize rides aren’t taking the time to soak in the atmosphere and spend time taking it slow. Many of the atmospheric and smaller story telling aspects of the park are more appreciated on a 5th, 6th, 7th visit or someone local who is there quite frequently. Is Orlando management catering to those very frequent visitors or are they trying to maximize revenue from the once every 5-10 year crowd. I think it’s the latter.

For example, I have been to Epcot 8 times in the last 12 years. Me and my wife never went deep into the pavilions until our 5th visit when we had already rode most of everything numerous times in the past and we came without our kids. We have a trip planned now but with our kids again, and we are not planning on going back deep into those pavilions if there isn’t a ride. And trust me we aren’t alone, you go back into the Moroccan and Chinese pavilions and nobody is back there, definetly no children. They even put those kids passport things back there, and still little traffic.

Now im not saying get rid of the Moroccan pavilion, what I’m saying is in the MK, where developed space is a premium, they probably don’t want a footprint as big as that river being so underutilized especially when guests there don’t value it.

Disney’s hotel business is largely focused on timeshares. That doesn’t make sense unless there’s a deep well of repeat visitation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That’s not how that math works out. Every new guest needs to be able to get on at least 8 attractions, which was the historical barometer Eisner had utilized as what constituted a good day. I’d argue that’s soft and 10 would be better, but we’ll go with 8.

That number has moved upwards towards about 10 experiences per day. Experiences being a key word as it is more expansive than attractions and can include things like meet and greets, parades and nighttime spectaculars. But over a 12 hour day it still means less than 1 attraction per hour.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Genuine question but what do you redevelop the island as? Tom Sawyer is not working, kids these days barely know the story.

What part of Tom Sawyer Island required any familiarity with Tom Sawyer? Since when do people need a relevant media franchise to understand concepts like play and exploration?

 

[James Alucobond]

Won't they still have to walk "all the way around", but in this case just have to walk all the way around the Cars ride?

I think their point was that you can do a full loop without doubling back, so, for example, Haunted Mansion > Hall of Presidents > Country Bears > Tiana > Thunder Mountain > Cars > Haunted Mansion again, ending up essentially back where you started rather than having to turn around after Thunder Mountain.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

What part of Tom Sawyer Island required any familiarity with Tom Sawyer? Since when do people need a relevant media franchise to understand concepts like play and exploration?

This is why people still take the time to explore the Swiss Family Treehouse.

People may not have read the book or seen the movie, but they know what a Treehouse is and can appreciate how much more elaborate and attractive the WDW version is compared to ones found in local backyards.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

That number has moved upwards towards about 10 experiences per day.

Out of curiosity when did it switch from 7.4 to closer to 10?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think their point was that you can do a full loop without doubling back, so, for example, Haunted Mansion > Hall of Presidents > Country Bears > Tiana > Thunder Mountain > Cars > Haunted Mansion again, ending up essentially back where you started rather than having to turn around after Thunder Mountain.

This premise sort of ignores Adventureland. So even after a second path between The Haunted Mansion and Big Thunder Mountain Railroad is open, there will still be doubling back through some part of the west side of the park.

Also, they could have provided boat service between the two points.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Just knowing total attraction capacity doesn’t tell you if that is enough. You need to know if people are experiencing enough during a day. Attractions per Guest per Hour is the metric that is used to determine required capacity and then if the park is adequately supporting visitation. A few long experiences (wait + attraction time) will push towards a lower number while a lot of smaller and shorter experiences will demand a higher number. Attractions with more immediate available help to offset those with longer waits because people look at their days on the whole, so the average works well to assess.


Where do a I say fill anything with nothing? The park is already operating at a significant deficit. Four attractions aren’t going to suddenly jump it beyond that.


Having ½ to ⅓ the hourly capacity is not “some” capacity loss, it’s a fraction. Skipper’s Canteen didn’t even use the full space, so it’s probably more on the order of ¼ of the capacity of the Adventureland Verandah.

Restaurant capacity is a function of dining area and kitchen area. Mobile order does not create capacity. The limiting factor is more the kitchen and definitely not the order area. Everybody using mobile order would just make crowding worse because people would be located elsewhere.


Again, table service has about ½ - ⅓ the hourly capacity as a quick service with the same dining area. Gaston’s Tavern is quite small and its limited menu places it more as a kiosk* than a true quick service dining. Be Our Guest is larger, but it is not so large as to make up the lost capacity. Dropping the quick service breakfast and lunch also reduced its hourly capacity during those hours.

*Kiosk in the sense of programming does not just mean literal physical kiosks. It more describes that level of offering between ODV (outdoor vending) which is things like popcorn and ice cream carts, and true quick service restaurants.

I disagree that mobile order does not add capacity, I suppose it does not in the typical way but it allows more people to eat who would have skipped a long line at that area. Instead of being frontloaded all into 1 ordering section and hogging up tables while they wait for their parties order to be done, they would most likely be checking out some shops/rides in the area nearby.

Let's give an example to a simple low capacity restaraunt like Casey's Corner. Let's say Casey's Corner is fairly full today and there's 1 table left. Without mobile ordering, Party A gets in line right before Party B. Party A has the rest of their party go find a seat so they can sit and eat while they wait in a let's say 10 minute long line. That party is essentially sitting there, doing nothing and taking up a seat that someone else could have taken. It doesn't take that long to eat some hotdogs anyway. So the solo person who just got their food and had no one to save them a seat, has to go elsewhere because Party A took the last seat. A new party walks in and sees the 10 minute line and decides to look for something else to eat that they might not like as much. Party A finally gets to order and gets their food in around 15 minutes total, plenty of time for that first guy to finish a hotdog. Party B behind them also has no seat and will go elsewhere or wait around for another table to open up (but 10 minutes of line just went through and people are still eating or coming up and saving seats)

This is lessened when a lot of people (not everyone) mobile orders as less seat saving while waiting in line helps everyone, even though you can't blame people cause everyone is doing it. It allows for a more fluid guest dynamic and people who want a certain treat can get a guaranteed time to get it, allowing them to choose from more options rather than what currently has a line. 25 minute line at launching pad (unlike but you get my point). Perfect, that person can go be in carousel of progress (it's a nearby, no wait time experience that kills the time that they might not have had and lets the restaraunt know the approximate demand before they're actually here and what to start cooking a bunch of)

 

[lazyboy97o]

Out of curiosity when did it switch from 7.4 to closer to 10?

I can’t actually say with any specificity. I would note that it was 7.4 attractions and that it was very much the bottom limit of guests considering a far cheaper day as acceptable. It’s a shame we can’t ask Judson Green what the hell he was thinking, he definitely gets overshadowed by Paul.

 

[James Alucobond]

This premise sort of ignores Adventureland. So even after a second path between The Haunted Mansion and Big Thunder Mountain Railroad is open, there will still be doubling back through some part of the west side of the park.

Also, they could have provided boat service between the two points.

Yes, I was simply explaining the point the original poster made. It could obviously have been alleviated in different ways, but the three-way node being created at the back between Villains, Liberty Square/Fantasyland, and Frontierland/Adventureland obviously allows for more/faster circulation options than exist at present.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I disagree that mobile order does not add capacity, I suppose it does not in the typical way but it allows more people to eat who would have skipped a long line at that area. Instead of being frontloaded all into 1 ordering section and hogging up tables while they wait for their parties order to be done, they would most likely be checking out some shops/rides in the area nearby.

Let's give an example to a simple low capacity restaraunt like Casey's Corner. Let's say Casey's Corner is fairly full today and there's 1 table left. Without mobile ordering, Party A gets in line right before Party B. Party A has the rest of their party go find a seat so they can sit and eat while they wait in a let's say 10 minute long line. That party is essentially sitting there, doing nothing and taking up a seat that someone else could have taken. It doesn't take that long to eat some hotdogs anyway. So the solo person who just got their food and had no one to save them a seat, has to go elsewhere because Party A took the last seat. A new party walks in and sees the 10 minute line and decides to look for something else to eat that they might not like as much. Party A finally gets to order and gets their food in around 15 minutes total, plenty of time for that first guy to finish a hotdog. Party B behind them also has no seat and will go elsewhere or wait around for another table to open up (but 10 minutes of line just went through and people are still eating or coming up and saving seats)

This is lessened when a lot of people (not everyone) mobile orders as less seat saving while waiting in line helps everyone, even though you can't blame people cause everyone is doing it. It allows for a more fluid guest dynamic and people who want a certain treat can get a guaranteed time to get it, allowing them to choose from more options rather than what currently has a line. 25 minute line at launching pad (unlike but you get my point). Perfect, that person can go be in carousel of progress (it's a nearby, no wait time experience that kills the time that they might not have had and lets the restaraunt know the approximate demand before they're actually here and what to start cooking a bunch of)

It’s not something you can disagree with because it is just not how it works. Mobile order only venues are more space and operationally efficient, but they have no advantage in throughput. Dining capacity isn’t just table availability. You could add an infinite number of tables and still have insufficient capacity. The kitchen is the primary constraint. If a kitchen can only support 500 meals per hour then that does not somehow increase because the orders are being placed differently.

But here’s the kicker, because dining areas are sized to kitchens, if people taking tables during the clear course of having their meal is a serious issue then you do in fact have a capacity and design problem!

 

[Chi84]

It’s not something you can disagree with because it is just not how it works. Mobile order only venues are more space and operationally efficient, but they have no advantage in throughput. Dining capacity isn’t just table availability. You could add an infinite number of tables and still have insufficient capacity. The kitchen is the primary constraint. If a kitchen can only support 500 meals per hour then that does not somehow increase because the orders are being placed differently.

But here’s the kicker, because dining areas are sized to kitchens, if people taking tables during the clear course of having their meal is a serious issue then you do in fact have a capacity and design problem!

But the problem goes away if people order, get their food and then go to their table and eat it.

There has been a huge improvement in the QS dining experience since mobile ordering started.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But the problem goes away if people order, get their food and then go to their table and eat it.

There has been a huge improvement in the QS dining experience since mobile ordering started.

The problem doesn’t go away, it just gets shifted elsewhere and hidden behind a screen. You aren’t guaranteed near immediate pickup with mobile order.

 

[Chi84]

The problem doesn’t go away, it just gets shifted elsewhere and hidden behind a screen.

It goes away for the people eating at QS locations.

Hidden behind a screen? What problem?

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

The problem doesn’t go away, it just gets shifted elsewhere and hidden behind a screen.

It doesn't get shifted away to other dining other than when its actually better. If you're a family and you see that the Casey's Corner has a 30 minute wait to get your food while Cheshire Cafe is immediately, you might end up choosing Chesire Cafe. That family doesn't have to roam across the entire park to make their choice and end up overbearing 1 restaurant over another. It allows for underutilized restaurants that don't have long lines usually to be more equalized as people can check directly how long they will have to wait to get their food and make an informed decision. So while it doesn't increase actual capacity, it does increase the overall capacity of people who can realistically eat at once as it helps divide the people up around the park easier.