Lightning Lane at Walt Disney World

[LSLS]

You need to assume that the 1K in line has been moving at the rate of 1K per hour for a 1K ride. Absent LL, they have no wait. The ride hasn't reached its 'tipping point' of backing up.

Unless, again, you have 1K people show up all at once.

If 1k are in line they do have a wait from when they enter the que. So the person at the back of the line always has a 1 hour wait. They don't need to all show up at once. Once the line is established, they simply need to replenish at the same rate at which one car/train/whatever dispatches.

 

[Disstevefan1]

If all the attractions had a higher hourly capacity everyone's wait times would go down.

If there were more attractions, everyone's wait times would go down.

I think there was a time Disney worked to lower wait times. In my opinion, today, the higher the wait times, the more money they can make with LLs.

 

[MisterPenguin]

If 1k are in line they do have a wait from when they enter the que. So the person at the back of the line always has a 1 hour wait. They don't need to all show up at once. Once the line is established, they simply need to replenish at the same rate at which one car/train/whatever dispatches.

OK, *if* 1K is in the queue for some reason. And it's a PPH 1K ride. Then yes, you could say "the last person has an hour wait," therefore, it's an out wait ride.

But I can say "the first person has zero wait," therefore it's a zero wait ride.

That's not how math works.

And starting with a full queue is not how estimating wait times overall work.

The day starts off with an empty queue. If in the first hour, 1K show up for PPH 1K ride, they all get to ride within that first hour of the park assuming they all don't show up at once.

And if throughout the day, 1K keep showing up every hour -- spread out over that hour -- then none of them have any wait.

 

[mysto]

If 1k are in line and hourly capacity is 1k, then it rains, a person arriving an hour later has no wait.

 

[Splash4eva]

I'm putting this here for future reference.

A WDW Industrial Engineering doc fell off the back of a truck last week. It had this interesting table on it, related to how much ride capacity is allocated to Lightning Lane, for attractions in the ~1,000 guests/hour capacity range:

Low Attendance: 13% of ride capacity
Medium Attendance: 26% of ride capacity
High Attendance: 32% of ride capacity

32% of ride capacity works out to around 320 guests per hour for this particular set of attractions.

That doesn't count DAS use of LL.

Anecdotally, we think total LL use during peak times is 40-43% of ride capacity, so DAS use would be ~8-11% of ride capacity.

We can't know if that's right without more documentation. But it feels right, and vibes have to count for something.

So the countless claims that DAS was taking up way more were false & incorrect and basically proves DAS was NOT the reason LL created longer wait times

 

[Purduevian]

So the countless claims that DAS was taking up way more were false & incorrect and basically proves DAS was NOT the reason LL created longer wait times

How do you come to that conclusion? DAS specifically was excluded from these numbers. For instance on a busy day the split could have been 32%LL, 32% DAS, and 36% standby.*

*I'm not saying this was the case, just that the numbers don't say anything about DAS use.

 

[LSLS]

OK, *if* 1K is in the queue for some reason. And it's a PPH 1K ride. Then yes, you could say "the last person has an hour wait," therefore, it's an out wait ride.

But I can say "the first person has zero wait," therefore it's a zero wait ride.

That's not how math works.

And starting with a full queue is not how estimating wait times overall work.

The day starts off with an empty queue. If in the first hour, 1K show up for PPH 1K ride, they all get to ride within that first hour of the park assuming they all don't show up at once.

And if throughout the day, 1K keep showing up every hour -- spread out over that hour -- then none of them have any wait.

We are starting different places. The original post was if you show up to a line at 2:00 in the afternoon, you are explaining what happens when people show up at opening and they all rush to a line. This isn't giving you the wait time for everyone at any given time, it's the wait time for you if you show up and there are 1k in line. Maybe the original post should have stated that assumption that there were 1k already in line when you show up, but that was where he was going. I'll say again, it's a very simplistic model of what LL could be doing to wait times. Obviously there are a ton of variables that could go into this, but it gives an idea to the original question. The math works if you use the assumptions. Just like your math works if you assume as 17 people leave one a train, 17 more show up in that exact time frame.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

OK, *if* 1K is in the queue for some reason. And it's a PPH 1K ride. Then yes, you could say "the last person has an hour wait," therefore, it's an out wait ride.

But I can say "the first person has zero wait," therefore it's a zero wait ride.

That's not how math works.

And starting with a full queue is not how estimating wait times overall work.

The day starts off with an empty queue. If in the first hour, 1K show up for PPH 1K ride, they all get to ride within that first hour of the park assuming they all don't show up at once.

And if throughout the day, 1K keep showing up every hour -- spread out over that hour -- then none of them have any wait.

The problem is that you have people on a message board, trying to simplify a line/throughput mechanic which is anything but simple. That's not a dig or an insult, its just the issue really doesn't lend it self to simple add this many people in line a and it absolutely effects line b. You would need dedicated 3d modeling software (doesn't have to be 3d i know but i like seeing the models better than just the data points) utilizing monte carlo algorithm and numerous data points, line makeups, loading speeds, variables for line breakdowns, employee lag, ect., to develop a model to show expected effects on lines and wait times based upon percentage of utilization of LL lines vs standby line, and how both change when throughput in either line is changed. I mean there are minors/concentrations in business schools/computer science departments on this specific field in order to maximize efficiency in stores, restaurants, factories, ect. Just looking at adding x number or percentage of people to 1 line doesn't really give you any practical data on through a day how wait times will really be effected.

 

[MisterPenguin]

We are starting different places. The original post was if you show up to a line at 2:00 in the afternoon, you are explaining what happens when people show up at opening and they all rush to a line. This isn't giving you the wait time for everyone at any given time, it's the wait time for you if you show up and there are 1k in line. Maybe the original post should have stated that assumption that there were 1k already in line when you show up, but that was where he was going. I'll say again, it's a very simplistic model of what LL could be doing to wait times. Obviously there are a ton of variables that could go into this, but it gives an idea to the original question. The math works if you use the assumptions. Just like your math works if you assume as 17 people leave one a train, 17 more show up in that exact time frame.

Yes, indeed.

I'm saying it's unusual to start with 1K in line.

So, let's start the day with zero in line for a 1K-ride and 1K-guests show up over the course of that first hour. Theoretically, no wait.

So, what does LL do to that? Let's take a simple number, 20% of capacity for a 1K-ride.

So, let's run through the first hour... 1K guests show up for standby. But now, there are 200 guests that get to cut them in line. After one hour, the 200 LLs get through, but only 800 standby.

So, starting with hour-2 of the day, there are now 200 in standby. They all didn't wait in the queue a full hour. They showed up in the rate of 1K standby per hour. They had an average wait of 200/hour, which is 3-4 minutes.

In the next hour, another 1K standby show up and another 200 LL get to cut the line. Since we've gone past the tipping point of the line, guests in the queue will be accumulating hour over hour (until the wait is so long, that they chose not to ride). All 200 LL get to skip the line. And the end of the hour, there will be 400 in standby. There wait time will be, on average, 7 minutes.

And so it goes on. At this rate, the number in standby will eventually exceed even 1K in line.

Once the line gets to 1K in the queue, they will still let 200 LLs go on quickly. Those who now get on line will have more than an hour wait. It will be 72 minutes. In the next hour, it will be 86 minutes, etc...

The effect on line length depends on several factors, most notably, has the number of riders (LL and Standby) have gone past the 'tipping' point of the ride's capacity? If it does, standby time will continually inflate. But standby time continually inflates even if there is no LL, but the tipping point has been reached.

If standby and LL together doesn't hit the tipping point, no one will have to wait (e.g., picking Nemo as a LL).

 

[Trueblood]

View attachment 835298
Quick simple chart, but LL is essentially reducing the hourly capacity of attractions available for LL. So, if an attraction has an hourly capacity of 1,000 riders an hour with no LL, it'll be an hour long wait. If, using Len's latest data, it's a busy day and LL takes 32% of capacity away, that wait-time climbs an additional 28 minutes.

Len mentioned this excludes DAS use, so it's unfortunately quite shocking how much is being taken away from standby.

From another perspective, the ride capacity is 1,000 riders an hour regardless. LL riders aren't in the standby line, so they make the standby line shorter. Toying with some quick-n-dirty simulation: it looks like if 13% of the people have LL, they can expect to get through the LL line in around 1/7th the time of standby, where at 32% with LL it's closer to half the time.

 

[lentesta]

I don't suppose there was a similar truck issue years ago that gives an idea an idea of what those numbers were with fast pass.

75-80% was typical.

 

[Splash4eva]

How do you come to that conclusion? DAS specifically was excluded from these numbers. For instance on a busy day the split could have been 32%LL, 32% DAS, and 36% standby.*

*I'm not saying this was the case, just that the numbers don't say anything about DAS use.

Unless im not understanding the reply…

Anecdotally, we think total LL use during peak times is 40-43% of ride capacity, so DAS use would be ~8-11% of ride capacity.

 

[lentesta]

Yes, indeed.

I'm saying it's unusual to start with 1K in line.

So, let's start the day with zero in line for a 1K-ride and 1K-guests show up over the course of that first hour. Theoretically, no wait.

So, what does LL do to that? Let's take a simple number, 20% of capacity for a 1K-ride.

:

The effect on line length depends on several factors, most notably, has the number of riders (LL and Standby) have gone past the 'tipping' point of the ride's capacity? If it does, standby time will continually inflate. But standby time continually inflates even if there is no LL, but the tipping point has been reached.

If standby and LL together doesn't hit the tipping point, no one will have to wait (e.g., picking Nemo as a LL).

I haven't verified the math, but this is one of the core issues that gets missed a lot: People can arrive in the LL after you get in the Standby line and still get on the ride before you. That's not possible with just Standby lines.

Priority queues are a lot harder to model.

 

[Purduevian]

Low Attendance: 13% of ride capacity
Medium Attendance: 26% of ride capacity
High Attendance: 32% of ride capacity

ROTR capacity ~1,200 an hour and lets say on average operates 10 hours a day with an average LLSP of $22. It is pulling in ~$70,000 a day, or ~$25,500,000 a year.

 

[lentesta]

ROTR capacity ~1,200 an hour and lets say on average operates 10 hours a day with an average LLSP of $22. It is pulling in ~$70,000 a day, or ~$25,500,000 a year.

That's in line with what I'm thinking.

You can understand why ROTR hasn't gone down for the extended maintenance it needs. Management isn't going to take a $10MM revenue hit voluntarily.

 

[monothingie]

That's in line with what I'm thinking.

You can understand why ROTR hasn't gone down for the extended maintenance it needs. Management isn't going to take a $10MM revenue hit voluntarily.

Same with FOP, Tron, GOTG, 7DMT, etc.

Milk it for what it's worth and run it into the ground, the new Disney motto.

 

[Purduevian]

That's in line with what I'm thinking.

You can understand why ROTR hasn't gone down for the extended maintenance it needs. Management isn't going to take a $10MM revenue hit voluntarily.

I can also see why Disney is building so much now. In the past, a new ride opening had an indirect revenue source (increased ticket sales, merch, hotel stays, food ect.), but it's hard to prove something is the cause.

Now if Disney builds a banger of an attraction, they can basically guarantee a direct $15-$25 million a year revenue (probably for like 10-15 years), plus all the same indirect revenue.

Cars Road Rally, Villans E ticket, Monster's door coaster, Indy and or Encanto, all have a new justification for being built.

 

[monothingie]

I can also see why Disney is building so much now. In the past, a new ride opening had an indirect revenue source (increased ticket sales, merch, hotel stays, food ect.), but it's hard to prove something is the cause.

Now if Disney builds a banger of an attraction, they can basically guarantee a direct $15-$25 million a year revenue (probably for like 10-15 years), plus all the same indirect revenue.

Cars Road Rally, Villans E ticket, Monster's door coaster, Indy and or Encanto, all have a new justification for being built.

Not everything new has to be an D/E-Ticket.

There's a powerful lesson that will likely be learned if the only motivation for developing new attractions is to rake in LL revenue.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I can also see why Disney is building so much now. In the past, a new ride opening had an indirect revenue source (increased ticket sales, merch, hotel stays, food ect.), but it's hard to prove something is the cause.

Now if Disney builds a banger of an attraction, they can basically guarantee a direct $15-$25 million a year revenue (probably for like 10-15 years), plus all the same indirect revenue.

Cars Road Rally, Villans E ticket, Monster's door coaster, Indy and or Encanto, all have a new justification for being built.

They focus on what they can add to LLSP. What makes a land complete is cast aside in favor of the revenue stream.

 

[HauntedPirate]

There's a powerful lesson that will likely be learned if the only motivation for developing new attractions is to rake in LL revenue.

Unless that lesson is taught during an MBA class at Wharton or Stanford, it's not going to be learned during the Bob reign or under anyone either Bob hired.