Possible Frontierland expansion

[G00fyDad]

Any expansion that happens at MK now would just result in more people coming to MK making any capacity increases moot if not worse. It is a dynamic known as induced demand.

What they need to do is what they are doing which is expanding the other parks to pull guests away from MK and making the attractions at MK run more efficiently.

The rub is they should have done this a decade ago to avoid this problem.

 

[Master Yoda]

Disney wouldn't increase max capacity even if it had the facility to do that. So if we use a basic example(easy numbers) if Park A can hold at max 10,000 guests and operator added rides/shops/F+B/pathways to take it to a 25% increase in capacity the operator wouldn't increase the max capacity, that they can add in, by more than 10%.

For example the more people that are in the park i.e the less personal space around each guest the chance of voluntary spending decreases. Which Disney/Universal/Seaworld/Merlin Entertainment doesn't want. So if we use some real live numbers MK is 100,000 if they increase the capacity on mass scale adding 25% capacity - they would then stop allowing guests in at the same 100,000 guests so the induced demand wouldn't be an issue. The line of thinking is not the attractions are the supply but the number of people(places) allowed in MK. Because you are fixing the supply of number of places allowed, this shouldn't occur - induced demand assumes that as supply increases then demand would increase.

The problem with your math is that it assumes the parks are fine at current max capacity. They are not. The parks are quite cramped and miserable well below max capacity.

It also assumes that installing some new E-ticket would not increase demand. It would without question bringing the parks further past comfort level and closer to that max capacity.

You see this in highway design which is where the term induced demand comes from. You have a 2 lane highway that is getting more traffic than it can deal with. Logic dictates that you add a third lane and increase capacity to solve the issue. The problem is more people start to take that highway and you wind up right back where you started.

The actual solution tends to be building a different highway that will take traffic away from the problem highway. Another less popular solution is to create an additional toll lane on that highway that will increase capacity without increasing demand.

For any expansion to work under the current conditions, it would have to not increase demand. That is a really hard sell to a bean counters and probably even harder to do as adding a new hot dog cart seems to spike attendance these days. The other option is to increase price, which has to a limited point, been done.

 

[deWild]

DL's version of SM is vastly superior to our version at MK. Not even close.

For TSI, with how crowded the parks are, I'd like to see them utilize that land more. Stick with the Americana themes of Liberty Square and Frontierland, as well as playing off of the Rivers of America. TSI is split into two portions, right? The lower portion (smaller) and the upper portion (much larger). Theme the lower portion to something similiar to New Orleans Square. If you don't want to take directly from NOS in DL, then what about maybe an 1800s St. Louis? Then, the upper portion could be themed to the Pacific Northwest. Stick with the Rivers of America theme, but essentially following along with the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The lower portion, mimicking a town, could house restaurants, shops, and maybe a dark/boat ride. The upper portion, could hold another 2-3 attractions, two small and one big, to help eat up and disperse crowds.

I don't think 2-3 attractions on the upper portion of TSI is feasible from a land point of view. However, if there was a portion of the island that had to be scrapped to make way for future expansion, I would say slash the back. IF management decides to remove the front portion (the part of the island you can see from walking along Frontierland) I would say your concept of an 1800's St. Louis is a wonderful idea. If the back part was scrapped, management could reroute the Liberty Belle through this and, piggybacking off of your idea of an 1800s St. Louis theme, why not make the Belle pass through an 1800s style canal? The Chain of Rocks Lock could work with your St. Louis idea. For the front, retheme TSI, which would keep WDW's 'New Orleans Square' distinctly different from DL's, and then the back could dredged for a canal and anything north of the canal could be filled in for future expansion.

 

[SirLink]

New Fantasyland was intended as a necessary capacity boost with an initial proposal that included one new attraction. It was improved to include an additional solid D ticket with C ticket capacity. They were then disappointed that it didn't increase attendance when that was never the intention.

Disney hasn't added an E-ticket to the Magic Kingdom in 25 years. The park needs additional ride capacity and another headliner or two. New Fantasyland would have been a perfectly fine addition to the park if they had also added other major attractions more recently than Splash Mountain.

You do realise that you can have ambitious C's and D's as well right. Poohs Hunny Hunt and Monsters Inc Ride and Go Seek rides more than prove that point. MK also does need new E-tickets as well. The race for short rides is also part of the problem such as modern water rides being no more than 4 minutes. The longer the attraction the more guests you can put through the higher turnover to get guests back to eating and shopping and generating some revenue.

Disney were disappointed because they were sold the notion of increased number of guests, in turn spending more that never materialised.

 

[jt04]

Any expansion that happens at MK now would just result in more people coming to MK making any capacity increases moot if not worse. It is a dynamic known as induced demand.

What they need to do is what they are doing which is expanding the other parks to pull guests away from MK and making the attractions at MK run more efficiently.

The rub is they should have done this a decade ago to avoid this problem.

My only disagreement is that by waiting the technology available will be far more advanced.

School of James Cameron thinking.

 

[Master Yoda]

My only disagreement is that by waiting the technology available will be far more advanced.

School of James Cameron thinking.

To a point, I agree on the dealy. Disney badly needed an infrastructure update in the worst way which they did. My major beef is that expansion plans should have been breaking ground as soon as it was done.

Here we are years later and Epcot has barely been touched, DHS's expansion it 2 years +/- away from being finished and AK's expansion just went on line.

 

[SirLink]

The problem with your math is that it assumes the parks are fine at current max capacity. They are not. The parks are quite cramped and miserable well below max capacity.

It also assumes that installing some new E-ticket would not increase demand. It would without question bringing the parks further past comfort level and closer to that max capacity.

You see this in highway design which is where the term induced demand comes from. You have a 2 lane highway that is getting more traffic than it can deal with. Logic dictates that you add a third lane and increase capacity to solve the issue. The problem is more people start to take that highway and you wind up right back where you started.

The actual solution tends to be building a different highway that will take traffic away from the problem highway. Another less popular solution is to create an additional toll lane on that highway that will increase capacity without increasing demand.

For any expansion to work under the current conditions, it would have to not increase demand. That is a really hard sell to a bean counter and probably even harder to do as adding a new hot dog cart seems to spike attendance these days. The other option is to increase price, which has to a limited point, been done.

Demand can go up all it wants, Disney as the operator can limit the amount of traffic inside its parks, you increase the capacity of MK through additions to 25% you don't have to increase max capacity to 125,000 that would be ludicrous. I'm saying add 25% in terms of capacity and keep maximum guests allowed to between 100,000 to 110,000.

You can increase demand and you can fix the supply to a figure lower than the actual supply level is.

 

[Master Yoda]

Demand can go up all it wants, Disney as the operator can limit the amount of traffic inside its parks, you increase the capacity of MK through additions to 25% you don't have to increase max capacity to 125,000 that would be ludicrous. I'm saying add 25% in terms of capacity and keep maximum guests allowed to between 100,000 to 110,000.

You can increase demand and you can fix the supply to a figure lower than the actual supply level is.

Sure you could artificially restrict supply, but Disney never will.

The closest you will get is them jacking up the price of tickets to the point where demand drops.

 

[SirLink]

Sure you could artificially restrict supply, but Disney never will.

The closest you will get is them jacking up the price of tickets to the point where demand drops.

But from what I have e been told the numbers of maximum guests haven't changed since before construction of NFL and after the mine train. So based on that information I would have to respectfully disagree with you.

 

[Master Yoda]

But from what I have e been told the numbers of maximum guests haven't changed since before construction of NFL and after the mine train. So based on that information I would have to respectfully disagree with you.

The numbers actually vary depending on which attractions are open, staffing levels, etc.

 

[SirLink]

The numbers actually vary depending on which attractions are open, staffing levels, etc.

Like I said the 'numbers of maximum guests' I'm not talking about a random tuesday in February I'm talking peak season with all rides operational and that assumes staffing numbers of a similar level. Like I said the information whilst highly confidential makes me to believe that Disney can do what I described. Like I said I respectfully disagree with your ascertainment that they can't limit supply whilst increasing demand from an expansion of the MK.

 

[marni1971]

Pretty sure that I was the biggest critic of the change from FLE 1.0 to 2.0 on these boards..

Pretty much the only critic.

 

[RSoxNo1]

You do realise that you can have ambitious C's and D's as well right. Poohs Hunny Hunt and Monsters Inc Ride and Go Seek rides more than prove that point. MK also does need new E-tickets as well. The race for short rides is also part of the problem such as modern water rides being no more than 4 minutes. The longer the attraction the more guests you can put through the higher turnover to get guests back to eating and shopping and generating some revenue.

Disney were disappointed because they were sold the notion of increased number of guests, in turn spending more that never materialised.

Ride length has no bearing on capacity. At the end of the day, if you build quality attractions it will improve the park. It's not that hard. New Fantasyland is quality, but nothing about it is revolutionary or epic. It's a nice addition.

 

[Master Yoda]

Like I said the 'numbers of maximum guests' I'm not talking about a random tuesday in February I'm talking peak season with all rides operational and that assumes staffing numbers of a similar level. Like I said the information whilst highly confidential makes me to believe that Disney can do what I described. Like I said I respectfully disagree with your ascertainment that they can't limit supply whilst increasing demand from an expansion of the MK.

They can limit supply. The problem is they won't nor would it be logical for anyone to expect them to. Disney is a volume business and their prices are based on such. If you lower the volume then the price has to go up to maintain the same margins.

 

[Rodan75]

I would think that before the 50th they need to:

1. Maximize the occupancy and throughput of every attraction at MK. That could be via plussing or refurbs or replacing existing attractions with attractions that will improve occupancy and capacity. I think they should be mindful of 'opening day attractions' heading into the 50th, that doesn't mean they can't be replaced, but if they do, it should be with something that outweighs the criticism. We all have our darlings, but some of them simply don't pull their weight (regardless of reason/excuse)...they need to.

2. They need to open a state of the art immersive attraction, something that like FoP or Shanghai Pirates that just elevates the guest experience above and beyond what they've had for the last 50 years.

You can't do 2 without doing 1 and whether they can successfully accomplish 1 before the 50th seems doubtful.

 

[SirLink]

They can limit supply. The problem is they won't nor would it be logical for anyone to expect them to. Disney is a volume business and their prices are based on such. If you lower the volume then the price has to go up to maintain the same margins.

Well when your marketing your experience as premium I expect there to be enough elbow room at the current rate of entry, which for me is kinds near zero ... . They can operate comfortably and generate huge amounts of income from WDW at current capacity. We aren't talking about reducing current levels we are talking about fixing currrent levels. We are just talking at WDW and Disney not being nakedly greedy. Which in today's society an take some corporate responsibility which would be a great image for the many chiefs at Disney. If ya want to discuss this further best you PM myself.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

The whole point of building a new attraction from a business perspective is to bring more people in.

 

[KCheatle]

I'm completely on board with a revitalization to Frontierland. It's needed it for awhile. I think it would be great to get back to a classic experience of the "wild wild west." That being said, I agree that Disney needs to get its ducks in a row before it takes this on. I feel like the whole operation runs more smoothly the more people are spread out. MK is already a 1.5-2 day park as it is. With a Frontierland expansion, it would be a solid 2-2.5 day park. Epcot right now is only a 1-day park because you can't get FP+ for the 3 major rides. Otherwise, I think for most people it would only be a 1/2 day park; maybe a 1-day park in order to experience the dinner cuisine options. HS is a 1/4 day park (at best). With the completion of Star Wars and Toy Story, I think it could turn into a 1-day park, but in reality they aren't adding that much ride-wise. Only 4 new rides (correct?). I'm not sure 4 rides is enough to turn that park into a solid day. AK, too, is still a 1/2 day park in my opinion. Maybe it's a 1/2 day in the evening now so you can catch the show and Pandora at night. But, still, not enough to keep me there the entire day. IMHO, they need to add attractions/experiences/rides/shows (whatever you want to call them) to the other 3 parks two-fold before they think about adding anymore to MK. Plus, I think every step they take forward with MK just highlights the stagnancy of the other parks. So, hopefully, they'll bolster Epcot, HS, and AK well-before they think about updating MK again.

 

[Tod&BigMamaOdie]

New Fantasyland was intended as a necessary capacity boost with an initial proposal that included one new ride. It was improved to include an additional solid D ticket with C ticket capacity. They were then disappointed that it didn't increase attendance when that was never the intention.

Disney hasn't added an E-ticket to the Magic Kingdom in 25 years. The park needs additional ride capacity and another headliner or two. New Fantasyland would have been a perfectly fine addition to the park if they had also added other major attractions more recently than Splash Mountain.

I agree. and not only has Disney not added an E-ticket attraction to the Magic Kingdom in 25 years, the attraction count now is roughly the same (is it +1 maybe?) as it was then AND there are more people visiting than then. The MK needs more high capacity attractions, even if “B, C, or D” types (and an "E" or two would be nice as well!).
Also, one of them smart fellas said “Rising tides raise all ships”. When Star Wars opens at DHS, a) that park is going to be an overwhelming nightmare and b) people will not just come to WDW for SW. They will visit and overflow into the MK, which perception (I believe) is it's a must, and what’s going to soak it up?

ETA - Now let's move IASW to EC and please! get this man some Pandas!

 

[tirian]

I agree. and not only has Disney not added an E-ticket attraction to the Magic Kingdom in 25 years, the attraction count now is roughly the same (is it +1 maybe?) as it was then AND there are more people visiting than then. The MK needs more high capacity attractions, even if “B, C, or D” types (and an "E" or two would be nice as well!).
Also, one of them smart fellas said “Rising tides raise all ships”. When Star Wars opens at DHS, a) that park is going to be an overwhelming nightmare and b) people will not just come to WDW for SW. They will visit and overflow into the MK, which perception (I believe) is it's a must, and what’s going to soak it up?

ETA - Now let's move IASW to EC and please! get this man some Pandas!

The MK's attraction count is lower now than in it was in 1996. You could also argue the park's capacity and throughput were higher because Space and Pirates had two queues gobbling guests instead of just one. Placemaking was also stronger, with cannons firing atop POTC and a swath of simple experiences scattered throughout Main Street and Liberty Square. Plus, if you include stage shows in TL, ToonTown Fair, and the Castle, there was actually more to do in 1996 than in 2017.

However, there's no denying the FL expansion greatly improved that land's aesthetics, compared to the fence that was there before. Is it better than the 20K lagoon? That's a matter of personal opinion. (I don't miss the subs, which were never convincing IMO.) Plus, FL finally feels like a place instead of a corridor.