lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
TRON and Ratatouille are both knee jerk reactions dropped into a park as is wherever they could fit, spatial design be damned. That’s why TRON is sitting away in a corner behind a tight corner. It’s a great example of the vicious cycle of costs. TRON survived while the theater died because TRON can be marketed and will show up on surveys. It’ll induce demand, not soak up demand, but something had to be added and Disney’s costs are too far out of control to do something that can just be accepted as a cost of business.Adding a new E-ticket that will likely be virtual-queue-only for two years is probably the worst possible thing imaginable from a capacity perspective.
We tend to talk about capacity as throughput-per-hour, and there's some utility to that. But really what we care about when we talk about capacity is crowding. To alleviate crowding, you need square footage to put bodies, not attractions that entertain guests for 60 seconds and then dump them right back on the footpaths to further clog up the Tangled/Peter Pan/Small World bottleneck. They need indoor physical queues that people are willing to wait hours in, and large theaters that can hold hundreds of people for 25 minutes at a time.
Animal Kingdom Kites and reopening Indiana Jones would do more to alleviate perceived crowding than TRON, which will almost certainly make crowding *worse,* not better.
Hourly capacity is the primary metric but what you are mostly describing is instantaneous capacity, how much space is there to put people at a single moment. This is where longer rides, which typically have more ride vehicles, help more with crowding than a short ride that reaches a similar hourly capacity. An offshoot is then instantaneous queue capacity, so a higher capacity ride will have more people in 20 minutes of space and people are more willing to wait for longer experiences.