I agree Airfield had better theming and atmosphere. Ride-wise, however, Corkscrew was a super-short prototype, and Cycle Chase had technical issues (which was a bummer, because it was a great showpiece addition). I’m just saying that Boardwalk’s got a solid lineup, and could be as charming as Airfield with some more theming and prettying-up. It just needs some love.
Too bad someone doesn't do that to force Knott's to fix some accessibility issues, such as the fact that many restaurants are completely inaccessible when the doors are closed when they can be easily fixed with a push to open button. There will obviously be some things Knott's can't fix, but there is a lot they can with minimal expense. Overall Knott's is nice, but there are things that need to improve in terms of accessibility, but then there are other ways that they do better than other theme parks with accesibility, but that doesn't mean they can't improve.
There are actually a lot of exceptions to that clause, it gets tricky. Basically to sum it up, is if there is any way it can be made accessible without making it a completely different experience, it must be done. Alternative experiences can be acceptable in some cases, such as the alternative experience at Finding Nemo Subs at Disneyland. Or if there is say a barrel roll, then there would need to be a way for someone in a wheelchair to bypass the no accessible portion(s) while still experiencing everything else.
Actually, Cedar Fair does have the money to do something like that, what they don't have is the money to get the rights for more IPs. But something like this could be done, although they would have to be careful not to violate any parents, etc. That Disney might have.
Where are these exceptions to Exception 3?
Cedar Fair doesn't need an IP for a spook house. Knott's ghost town is good enough to theme it to.
As I said, basically if you read further, it states that if there is a way to make it accessible without fundementally altering the experience, then it must be made accessible as much as possible.
Quite right, but they would also have to make sure they don't run afoul of patents, copyrights, etc. On the ride concept itself.
Read what further? I quoted the entirety of Exception 3 and the Access Board’s definition of “amusement attraction.” Exception 3 is the only time amusement attractions are mentioned in Chapter 2. You said it was in the quoted clause, but it is not, so where else are you claiming this language exists regarding amusement attractions?
That is just part of any attraction build process. I don't think that is a huge portion of any attraction budget. Besides things like trackless vehicles and projections are not exactly a new thing. Cedar Fair could even build a Soar'n type ride. Other places have had that kind of ride for years.
|
This is incorrect.
In other words, they know that other business depend on them operating and they understand the impact of shutting down a major theme park could be devastating to the community and in the long term cause more disease and deaths than simply stating open and adjusting some operations.
So you can’t actually quote the section you said should be read? Is this another part of the secret code? Accessibility doesn’t just mean people using wheelchairs which is why areas outside of an accessible route can and do still have scoping requirements. Apartments can be especially complex as they often also have additional requirements laid out in the Fair Housing Act Design Manual.
Cedar Fair isn't as afraid of lawsuits like Disney is.
I guess they are afraid after all....
Accessibility applies to stairways too. Not having an elevator means zilch when it comes to an accessible bathroom. Believe it or not, disabled people are not all confined to wheelchairs.
