DaptoFunlandGuy

If Dreamworld get to call MDMC a thrill ride, then Jet Rescue definitely qualifies.

I totally agree with you, but I wouldn't say no to an awesome 'space mountain' type ride - just a coaster in the dark with a kickass soundtrack and awesome space-lighting and effects. i'd probably just be disappointed though.

LOL. if the ramps were to follow Kopps road (down to the east on the north, and down to the west on the south) it'd be a distance you'd be walking anyway. I have to say though - we need to dig deeper. There is one resident submission which mentions several of the other approvals MW have lodged recently (including coaster, hotel and lakeside) and he makes specific mention of setback distances of the new coaster from the highway and service roads 'according to the plans' - i'm wondering whether the coaster plans may have been divulged to local residents... there could be a way to find them afterall...

That chair doesn't have wheels?

Whilst the ramp itself probably isn't an issue (only the bottom 5 metres or so can't be parked under, and on the other side they have the room) its the wires I can't see them getting around - especially here when you see just how low they actually are: google street view of Kopps Road

Well, he did say 'like' Tron, although his point about the theming being what makes it really cool is probably what kills the idea...

A footbridge wasn't what i thought would be most likely - given the HV lines running down the boundary. Looking at the height, any average footbridge \ overpass that i've seen would be quite close to the lines - they'd have to move them higher which would most definitely require them to pay Energex. I'd have thought a pedestrian tunnel \ underpass would have been more viable. nice pick up Skeet.

Pirates of the Caribbean is a Disney property. Try again!

I don't think we'll see them remove the gate anytime soon - they already make a mint selling 'christmas parties' and family fun days at WWW - I doubt they'd want to allow those visitors entry into DW as well...

The river rapids have already been replaced once (although, that was back in the days of Terror Canyon I & II still operating). I think if they decide to remove what they have (and I really hope they don't as they are a fun set of body slides with minimal wait) - then I think its time that entire hill got reworked into something very different.

no. they can't. not without a complete redesign of the stationhouse.

And so what will they do with the double pass the park posts to them?

but if a person were so stupid as to endanger their own life by entering the ride envelope whilst the ride is in motion, what good would an emergency release button do? same outcome, but with financial cost.

LOL. I think the park would have certain controls in place - such as knowing which addresses they send the free FN offer to, and asking for your address so that they can POST the tickets out to them. I don't think they'd be that silly as to leave themselves open to a backdoor freebie like that.

the thing about the 60 metre coaster, cabins, hotel and golf thingamabob is that they all exist on land within the movie world zoning - which is zoned for these types of activities. as you know, but for the benefit of others - the big difference here is that MW is asking the council to rezone the land to permit the carpark, hence the MCU or 'material change of use' - and is the reason why so many objections make reference to the current zoning plan for the area, and how different this proposal is from that plan. I feel like the other developments referred to, whilst they may receive objections, would sail through a lot easier based on the zoning of the entertainment precinct for that purpose. It would be hilarious though to see these same residents object to the other applications when some of these guys have said things like 'why don't they build on the land they already have?'

I've read most of them. skipped quite a few 17kb ones because i know its going to be the same one paragraph drivel. The thing that gets me on many of these though is how they point out that VR should pay to upgrade the roads and roundabout, when by their own evidence, the road and roundabout are already not coping with the traffic flows, which as some of them point out, aren't affected by traffic from the park which has its own dedicated intersections feeding to the motorway. So sure they want to add 700+ cars to that roundabout, and that probably means they should contribute to the cost of the upgrades, but not made to pay for them in its entirety. Other things that get my goat: its a green space and should be retained - no, it's private land owned by a corporation. it is zoned for development (albeit residential) and nothing would prevent a developer from dropping 100+ townhouses on the site which would probably: *increase traffic without an obligation to upgrade roads *increase antisocial behaviour (a usual occurrence for an almost entirely rental demographic *be difficult to sell, as there is minimal barrier to park and highway noise birds live there - bullshit - birds live wherever they can build a nest (oh and most don't nest in eucalypts because they are too sparse) the road can't handle any more traffic (they fail to acknowledge that traffic using the carpark would travel in the opposite direction to the peak traffic flows, so only the roundabout would be affected) the park should build a carpark elsewhere on their land as they have heaps of vacant land (but don't realise the number of other uses the currently vacant land will have - eg Hotel) the old cades county plan identifies the block as green reserve (the old cades county plan has been superseded numerous times) many of the objectors have not lived in the area prior to the park opening - therefore moved into the area with full knowledge of the parks operations and activities - some of them only in the past 5 years or less. they point to the other parking areas on property and their lack of landscaping, or lacklustre landscaping with poor attention paid to upkeep, without realising - unlandscaped lots were approved as were by the council at the time, and those that were landscaped and have subsequently been killed off - this mainly comes from guests walking through garden beds and otherwise damaging them (i think this was in reference to the AOS carpark as it is the only one I know of with any decent effort and planting within the parking areas itself, rather than on the edges...) they complain about increased noise, when the highway generates far more they complain about fumes - as if the 700 cars would all sit there with their engine running all day - and again - the highway would contribute far more, especially in traffic jams etc i could go on and on, but in summary - very few of the objections lodged raise anything that is valid, and those that do make valid points fail to identify that many of these points have already been addressed by the park.

except common sense and a willingness to preserve their own life...

This one is a particularly interesting read - not for their objection, but for all the attached documents - who knew they were so informative to local residents, and they even give free tickets to local residents for fright nights! 58811087[011].pdf

Although the link worked on the first day, this link once again points to some guy's carport application elsewhere on the coast. stupid GCCC pdonline! Although I found it last time i went looking, its tedious. Skeet can you include the lot \ plan number next time so I can just search on that? Nevermind - Lot 2 on plan SP114768

Yes I must admit the Yahoo7 article I read this morning (thanks @Theme Park Girl!) did word it far more appropriately - stressing no guest safety issues were found. In terms of the PINs and prohibition notices, these things have been through numerous safety audits by externals in the past. The 'interlock gate' for buzzsaw is something that will prevent the operator from exiting the operation booth mid-ride, potentially putting them inside the ride envelope - which of course is a risk. When doing a risk assessment, you can look at certain control measures for this: instruct operator not to exit the booth until the ride has come to a complete stop Cost: Free. Risk of injury: only to idiots Make operator wear 'breakaway' type strap that e-stops the ride if they move too far from the console Cost: Minimal. Risk of injury: only to idiots, only to people who don't engage the strap properly. Risk of people defeating the safety feature. Use dead-man switch Cost: Minimal. Risk of injury: it is possible depending on the location of the ride vehicle at the time the operator releases the switch that injury could still occur... to an idiot Use interlock gate preventing operator from leaving the booth whilst ride is in motion Cost: medium. Risk of injury: No risk of injury by moving ride vehicle, however if a fire were to occur on the stationhouse whilst the ride was in motion, this would prevent the operator from moving away from the fire, but since this isn't the risk we're trying to manage we just won't think about that. It is overkill if you ask me, and is probably why previous audits didn't identify an interlock gate to be installed - you've got one very experienced operator trained in safety procedures, and all you've got to do is tell them 'don't touch the electric fence'... but in our WH&S environment - we have to protect the idiots. This is why hair dryers have warnings that say 'do not use in shower'. The other items i've seen on the prohibition \ improvement notices aren't big issues, they're picky issues, but given the current environment, inspectors would want to identify EVERYTHING because nobody wants to sign off a ride in this current climate and then find out that decision was responsible for someone's death. I think also if inspectors came out saying 'clean bill of health' people would probably call foul, given what we have learned of TRRR.

BreakingNews - SegaWorld's RailChase makes a comeback!

Doesn't movie world have some sort of hedge out the front, cut into the name of 'movie world' ? I'm almost certain I remember seeing that. I think i'd prefer, rather than Dreamworld doing their name, would be just a nice classy yet iconic image - nothing too detailed as it would cause hell to keep flowers and such in the right colours year round, but something - even if it were just a kangaroo shape.

it's not new since TRRR though. Since the GL incident, many local rags have made a point of reporting on every little breakdown as a massive catastrophe.

@Jamberoo Fan stop overthinking everything. they're not going to add an extra level of parking on the ground floor of their hotel. it would be ugly, and there would be no benefit to the hotel guests. even if they did, view the hotel as it's own little precinct. the hotel operators aren't going to want 'general public' disturbing their guests even if they did, they aren't going to allow places to be reserved \ paid for even if they did, few people would pay to park at the far end of the carpark (even if bad weather was forecast... if you expect bad weather that will damage your car, you probably won't go to a theme park) Mate you make some really thoughtful and insightful predictions and speculations, but fuck me sometimes you just take it to the extremely ludicrous. You make so many predictions and speculations about things we might as well just conclude here and now that you forecast, predicted or otherwise estimated that everything would happen at some point between now and the end of the world.

Nobody else does either!