DHS Soundstage 1 Renovation - Toy Storia Mania expansion

[Hula Popper]

My stats guy says that's not statistically significant over the course of an entire year though.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Using 2011 and 2013 as the times around the 2012 RSR debut, TSMM wait times averaged ~3 minutes lower after RSR opened. My stats guy says that's not statistically significant over the course of an entire year though.

Here's the chart:

But people with no evidence to support their theory said that adding new attractions would fix the problem. Other than your concrete evidence, what proof do you have?

 

[zakattack99]

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Using 2011 and 2013 as the times around the 2012 RSR debut, TSMM wait times averaged ~3 minutes lower after RSR opened. My stats guy says that's not statistically significant over the course of an entire year though.

Here's the chart:

Ok but just for giggles If we pick a Disneyland ride that is known for long waits (I can't think of one now it's late) did the wait time for it dscrease in a significant way? My thought being a new ride may not fix crowd wait times in the park it's constructed in however it redistributes people from the other parks. Like say RSR might not help TSM waits but lower 7DM.

 

[lentesta]

because it pulled more people INTO the park

If I had to pick a reason, it would be this. Without doing the analysis, I'd guess that many old IOA and USF attraction wait times went up after the Potter additions.

 

[lentesta]

Ok but just for giggles If we pick a Disneyland ride that is known for long waits (I can't think of one now it's late) did the wait time for it dscrease in a significant way? My thought being a new ride may not fix crowd wait times in the park it's constructed in however it redistributes people from the other parks. Like say RSR might not help TSM waits but lower 7DM.

My guess is that the effect diminishes with distance. I could be wrong, though, so I'll ask. It'll take a while to get a response, since they're working on another project right now.

 

[zakattack99]

My guess is that the effect diminishes with distance. I could be wrong, though, so I'll ask. It'll take a while to get a response, since they're working on another project right now.

No rush =). Without any numbers I would tend to agree with your statement here. Thanks for your input!

 

[Monorail_Red_77]

Guest satisfaction rates for it were so low that they figured it was better to have it be closed and offending nobody than keeping it open to anger guests with "I wanted 60 minutes for that??!?!!"

I thought the show was great. However, It has more of a pre-show feel to it. I too thought it was too short to be a full experience by itself. However, great use of technology and special effects. I just think it was lacking in something to be a stand-alone ride/show. Perhaps they could incorporate the special effects, etc. into a full ride. That would be pretty cool. They could incorporate that into almost any ride. Great Movie Ride, tunnel scene in Jungle Cruise, Pirates at MK, or a whole new ride itself.

 

[Chubs51]

If I had to pick a reason, it would be this. Without doing the analysis, I'd guess that many old IOA and USF attraction wait times went up after the Potter additions.

Part of the issue might also be the ride in question- the arcade-y scoring system lends itself to being ridden repeatedly. Essentially, I'd guess that rides like that have a bit more of a buffered wait time than, say, Splash Mountain or 7DMT, where you're not going to get a high score.

 

[Jon81uk]

I thought the show was great. However, It has more of a pre-show feel to it. I too thought it was too short to be a full experience by itself. However, great use of technology and special effects. I just think it was lacking in something to be a stand-alone ride/show. Perhaps they could incorporate the special effects, etc. into a full ride. That would be pretty cool. They could incorporate that into almost any ride. Great Movie Ride, tunnel scene in Jungle Cruise, Pirates at MK, or a whole new ride itself.

I've heard it is going into Shanghai's pirates of the Carribean.

 

[dstrawn9889]

i believe it was only to be a limited time deal, showcasing and testing new types of effects

 

[Ignohippo]

It seemed to close so suddenly and at a time when a bunch of other stuff closed. One would think it would have stayed open just to have increased capacity in the park. So, I thought it closed so suddenly because they would use that space as part of TSPL -- and the walkway between the former Captain Jack attraction and TSMM would be the entrance to where the rides of TSPL would be. Maybe the Captain Jack area would be a new M&G or (in an ideal world) a queue to a dark ride.

But it seems like it is just sitting there. Was the closure just about saving operation costs?

As I understand it, it was a test for Shanghai's POTC and it was never meant to be around for long (unless it were insanely popular). I wouldn't be surprised to find out some of it was shipped out for use over there.

I never had a chance to see it though.

 

[Ignohippo]

I've heard it is going into Shanghai's pirates of the Carribean.

i believe it was only to be a limited time deal, showcasing and testing new types of effects

Sorry, I didn't see your comments. Yes, that's what I've heard. It was a test for the effects for Shanghai's POTC.

 

[flynnibus]

But people with no evidence to support their theory said that adding new attractions would fix the problem. Other than your concrete evidence, what proof do you have?

You're also comparing very different environments with multiple variables.. and drawing conclusions about one of them. That is horribly wrong.

For starters...
DCA isn't strapped for attraction capacity... DHS is
DCA isn't strapped for the kid demographic... DHS is
DCA's TSMM was not extremely overloaded (high waits)... DHS is.
Carsland significantly boosted overall park attendance - that means you need to account for that increased load
Attractions are not necessarily equal for demand pull - especially if they require significantly more investment. Ex: RSR is a 60+min wait regularlly.. TSMM was 30-40min typically. Takes more 'investment' to goto RSR instead of TSMM.. that eats at how much canabalizing of demand there is too.

DCA was quite balanced - DHS (still) is not.

The uptake on available capacity is is not necessarily a linear function. The further you get into deficits for supply, the more desperate people will get and tolerate more waits. The more surplus there is, the tolerance for wait will not track linearly with supply necessarily.

It's nice to say 'if there is a new attraction eating 1200/hr - that will reduce the count waiting on other attractions by that much' - but the world isn't that pristine and pure. But what we do know is DHS is in a severe deficit of desirable attractions for people.. so if you add something compatible, and desirable, it should help siphon load off.

People do not like to wait for attractions at 100+mins.. when normally the expectation is more like 15-30mins. That is an additional variable that would make it easier for people to float to an alternative attraction if it were compatible and desirable.

 

[Ignohippo]

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Using 2011 and 2013 as the times around the 2012 RSR debut, TSMM wait times averaged ~3 minutes lower after RSR opened. My stats guy says that's not statistically significant over the course of an entire year though.

Here's the chart:

No offense, but the reason is obviously more people in the park once Carsland opened. You're probably increasing park attendance by at least 30%.

The idea that it went down at all once CarsLand opened is somewhat amazing.

 

[Ignohippo]

You're also comparing very different environments with multiple variables.. and drawing conclusions about one of them. That is horribly wrong.

For starters...
DCA isn't strapped for attraction capacity... DHS is
DCA isn't strapped for the kid demographic... DHS is
DCA's TSMM was not extremely overloaded (high waits)... DHS is.
Carsland significantly boosted overall park attendance - that means you need to account for that increased load
Attractions are not necessarily equal for demand pull - especially if they require significantly more investment. Ex: RSR is a 60+min wait regularlly.. TSMM was 30-40min typically. Takes more 'investment' to goto RSR instead of TSMM.. that eats at how much canabalizing of demand there is too.

DCA was quite balanced - DHS (still) is not.

The uptake on available capacity is is not necessarily a linear function. The further you get into deficits for supply, the more desperate people will get and tolerate more waits. The more surplus there is, the tolerance for wait will not track linearly with supply necessarily.

It's nice to say 'if there is a new attraction eating 1200/hr - that will reduce the count waiting on other attractions by that much' - but the world isn't that pristine and pure. But what we do know is DHS is in a severe deficit of desirable attractions for people.. so if you add something compatible, and desirable, it should help siphon load off.

People do not like to wait for attractions at 100+mins.. when normally the expectation is more like 15-30mins. That is an additional variable that would make it easier for people to float to an alternative attraction if it were compatible and desirable.

Well said.

The addition of new attractions takes park attendance up, which makes wait times at all other attractions go up as well.

In the case of TSMM, the only way to truly reduce wait times (other than adding the third track) is to add MULTIPLE attractions. One or two won't do much simply because DHS is so lacking.

The wait times at TSMM are a direct result of there being entirely to little to do for their target audience. Adding a third track is a complete slap in the face. It's a band-aid, treating the symptom rather than the illness.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Well said.

The addition of new attractions takes park attendance up, which makes wait times at all other attractions go up as well.

In the case of TSMM, the only way to truly reduce wait times (other than adding the third track) is to add MULTIPLE attractions. One or two won't do much simply because DHS is so lacking.

The wait times at TSMM are a direct result of there being entirely to little to do for their target audience. Adding a third track is a complete slap in the face. It's a band-aid, treating the symptom rather than the illness.

And that band-aid would be perfectly reasonable if they were also already beginning construction of several large-scale additions, which we all anticipate occurring in the near future. However, Disney seems to be once again relaxing at DHS when 6-12 months ago, their moves suggested that work on updating the park would commence after Christmas 2014. I find this incredibly confusing and frustrating. Obviously, any new addition will take years to open, so short-term capacity fixes (extra TSMM track, fireworks in the park year-round) would make sense if half of the park were going behind construction walls. However, as the powers-that-be continue sticking their heads in the ground over the DHS-problem, what little they are doing generates more frustration than optimism in me. I'll feel better if WDW1974 was correct and clearing begins in a week and a half. But, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[BrianLo]

DHS has basically all the problems, I don't for a second deny that, it needs far more attractions! But why can't they increase capacity on an attraction that people really want to ride? What's so wrong with that?


Wait times are a function of ride capacity, attendance levels and interest.

Adding additional rides can only affect interest so much, before it starts to raise attendance and counter-acts the benefit. No matter how many rides DHS builds, attendance is simply too high to begin with, and will only get higher.

TSMM works at DCA because attendance is modest and interest is quelled by other attractions.

TSMM fails at DHS because attendance is moderate and interest is moderately-high from lack of attractions.

TSMM fails at TDS because attendance is moderately-high, despite interest supposedly being quelled by other attractions.

The wait times at TSMM are a direct result of there being entirely to little to do for their target audience. Adding a third track is a complete slap in the face. It's a band-aid, treating the symptom rather than the illness.

Capacity is the illness. Wait times are the symptoms. Attendance and Interest levels are the aggravators. You can fudge attendance and interest levels all you want by adding attractions, but the core problem always remains that the attraction simply cannot pump very many people through.

Capacity is the pump, it's the heart. It's all good and fine until you overwhelm it with too much volume. Slow the rate (interest), lower the volume (attendance) and you'll avoid the symptoms (congestive heart failure), but that doesn't mean you don't have a bad heart at the end of the day that just cannot pump very much blood through.

 

[RSoxNo1]

You're also comparing very different environments with multiple variables.. and drawing conclusions about one of them. That is horribly wrong.

For starters...
DCA isn't strapped for attraction capacity... DHS is
DCA isn't strapped for the kid demographic... DHS is
DCA's TSMM was not extremely overloaded (high waits)... DHS is.
Carsland significantly boosted overall park attendance - that means you need to account for that increased load
Attractions are not necessarily equal for demand pull - especially if they require significantly more investment. Ex: RSR is a 60+min wait regularlly.. TSMM was 30-40min typically. Takes more 'investment' to goto RSR instead of TSMM.. that eats at how much canabalizing of demand there is too.

DCA was quite balanced - DHS (still) is not.

The uptake on available capacity is is not necessarily a linear function. The further you get into deficits for supply, the more desperate people will get and tolerate more waits. The more surplus there is, the tolerance for wait will not track linearly with supply necessarily.

It's nice to say 'if there is a new attraction eating 1200/hr - that will reduce the count waiting on other attractions by that much' - but the world isn't that pristine and pure. But what we do know is DHS is in a severe deficit of desirable attractions for people.. so if you add something compatible, and desirable, it should help siphon load off.

People do not like to wait for attractions at 100+mins.. when normally the expectation is more like 15-30mins. That is an additional variable that would make it easier for people to float to an alternative attraction if it were compatible and desirable.

Do you for one second think that adding a 3rd track will be less effective at decreasing the wait time than adding 3 new attractions? They need to do both, but the 3rd track is absolutely necessary.

 

[ISTCPilot1989]

Do you for one second think that adding a 3rd track will be less effective at decreasing the wait time than adding 3 new attractions? They need to do both, but the 3rd track is absolutely necessary.

The people working the ride also need to figure out how to load people on better. Last week, I went on the ride as a single rider. I was the only person in my car. By car, I mean the 8 person max (4x2). How can you not find 6 other people? I also have no problem sitting next to a random person.

 

[PorterRedkey]

Do you for one second think that adding a 3rd track will be less effective at decreasing the wait time than adding 3 new attractions? They need to do both, but the 3rd track is absolutely necessary.

At first, I questioned the logic of spending money on expanding old rides when the park was so sorely in need of a higher ride count. However, the more I learn about the DHS situation, I feel it is clear that both are needed.

I really couldn't believe that TSMM had a hourly throughput of around 900 people per hour. Regardless of any additional attractions, 900 peeps per hour is just too low for how popular and how repeatable the ride is. Even 1350 isn't the best, but it is still a 33% improvement.

If the additions to the park are as grand in scope as we believe they are, this additional track may only keep the wait times equal to what they are now, due to the additional guest interest the overall park expansion creates.