DaptoFunlandGuy

Biggest load of garbage I've ever seen.

That's the one ThemeparkGC - good find.

I think so Flea - although the plans posted above don't include the track that I can see. I can't for the life of me find the old discussion. I'm certain its the same master plan though - there's no way we'd have a plan made in 2011 that we haven't heard of until now...

I think, if you're referring to "turnaround time" then a 10 minute turnaround isn't unlikely. Considering the ride cycle time is a little over 3 minutes, and that they wait for all riders to exit the station and crossover in front of the queueline, 10 minutes isn't totally unreasonable for off-peak operations...

A little behind the times there DisneyDoll... I think you mean "Apocalypse"... (They only had the terminator licensing in for about a year - then they stripped it and went to generic theming)...

Using inflammatory language such as 'they arrested terrorists' is quite alarmist. Until they've been before a Magistrate - they are 'alleged' or 'suspected' unless they are caught in the act. As I haven't noticed any hostage explosion plane crashes around here lately - I can only assume you are referring to arrests made as a result of raids for suspicion of terrorism. I think based on media reports, and the G20 website etc - it will be very unlikely that someone is going to get anywhere near a G20 event without thorough screening.

I've just spent half an hour searching the forum archives, because I am POSITIVE this has already been discussed... right down to the Johnny Rockets restaurant. If the concept masterplan was done in 2011, i'm guessing it was on these boards in 2011 or 2012. Pretty sure VRTP were in Partnership with Merlin (lego) entertainment back then too, which would explain the lego centre.

I agree Brad - but raising the price of the pass and delivering nothing extra wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Remember this is also storm season - hot sunny days, cooled down in the late afternoon by severe storms.

I wonder if any of the delegations will want to visit the parks? If that happens, you can bet things will be far worse!

Given the Celtic-Christian background, it's the correct and appropriate spelling for a contraction of "All Hallow's Evening" In Scots, the word 'Eve' is 'Even', and this is contracted to E'en.

but there is a tradeoff too - When passes weren't this cheap - fewer people purchased them. The cost of a Pass is a little more than a 1 day ticket - and previously most pass holders would have only gone maybe once a year or less prior to the pass. The value of these passes alone encourages more people to buy them - and whilst it is good value - some people may not use them more than 2-3 times, especially holidaymakers. Yes the in-park spend plays a part, but I don't think they're solely reliant on it - purely based on passes sold it is clear that they're making more money than they were pre-introduction of the VIP.

the 'india' rumour is old news, and also false. the rumour circulated that it was bound for an indian park ironically called Wonderland, but that rumour came out well before the ride was actually listed as sold - demon zoomerang actually only sold in July.

That is in your signature block - which you can edit by going to the user control panel.

Interesting view Joz - I guess because Movie World is "Hollywood on the Gold Coast" they can align themselves with American events... Hallowe'en is becoming much more prevalent here too. I think the 4th of July thing is probably too much (as would be thanksgiving)- because they are strictly an American holiday - like we have Australia Day - but Hallowe'en isn't restricted to the USA - it started in the British Isles (although not in the same candy-crushing fashion we have today) - so i'm not against it (but certainly won't be keeping a bowl of candy by the door). That said - the folks that do big christmas lights displays usually use hallowe'en as a 'dress rehearsal' for their lights (with a few spooky items pumpkins thrown in) I do think you're right though - a park called "Aussie World" would do better to focus on more aussie themed events - but i guess you don't need Hallowe'en to do scary mazes at night ala Tomb Raider....

I wasn't mimicking you - I was using the same term as you to show that I was giving it the same meaning as you - use of the same language to ensure we both were talking about the same thing. In my view it was an unrealistic expectation to expect the park to submit a query to the dept of planning over whether their existing approval (which they had) would cover the installation. As I said - theres a corporate lawyer somewhere getting his ass handed to him, but my point was that the park would have queried with the people they employ to know such things, as to whether or not something was needed, and those experts in their field would have assured the company that they were within their rights to do so. As I also said - this sort of thing happens all the time in construction - where a developer builder assumes, or receives improper advice (sometimes by the planning authority themselves) that they do not need approval - and then later find out that they do. Nobody did anything wrong here - but the Dept of planning took a different view of the existing development approvals to the park, and so requested the park provide another one. It's not really a big deal, but not anything the park really could have 'foreseen'. The dept of planning may very well have viewed it the same way that their lawyers did. There was no condescension intended - merely an attempt to explain why the park and their management really couldn't have foreseen this. I built a free standing carport to my house - my local council's website stipulated that a structure like this within certain dimensions did not require a BA - however it turns out, because it was near the fenceline of my property that one was required... so I completed and filed the necessary paperwork and received my rubber stamp and that was the end of it. Happy to move on Dianna - have you had a name change or created a new profile??? You've been away for a while - so welcome back either way!

There are different standards - but certain parks also prefer to manage the risk, rather than eliminate it all together - for example - coasters that don't go over public areas tend to have lower restrictions - but ones that go over public areas may just have nets installed to prevent falling objects. I wouldn't say Disney rides are less thrilling - CalScreamin' still packs a punch, and still goes over public walkways - it really isn't any different to say - superman, IMO.

^What he said.

Bah to Firefox crashes. there goes my post. In a nutshell - it is an unreasonable expectation for a developer to constantly 'double check' to make sure their existing approvals cover what they are doing - if they have legal advice that says it does... and don't kid yourself - an organisation such as Brookfield Multiplex would have clearly reviewed their existing approvals documents and paid very handsomely for advice on whether new approvals were needed. Somewhere a corporate lawyer is getting his ass handed to him... but clearly - they would have "double checked" as you say with their legal team, and been satisfied with the response. If every developer had to do this several times for every development - every level of government would experience delays in their planning areas over having to process such multiple requests - blowing out approvals processes from months to decades causing economic growth to grind to a halt. Nobody is saying LPS did something wrong intentionally. THis is simply an 'oops'. This happens ALL THE TIME in construction and development when an administering body realises that something has been done in a way that should have received an extra rubber stamp.

This year's VIP pass was an increased price though only slightly - wasn't it?

Based on what? the fact that media outlets pounce on a shin graze to report major injuries? The Disney parks are the highest profile parks in the world, and media often blows things out of proportion. Their 'safety record' is actually pretty good when looked at on a 'per cap' basis. Making statements like that without any basis (especially when others know it is incorrect) is why you frequently get served. Jobe hasn't let you get away with anything regarding LPS - don't start on other parks - you will get the same treatment. A small fire was started in the scenic theming (nowhere near, and nothing to do with the actual ride function) after fallout from a firework in the nightly park fireworks landed amidst the artificial forest. The ride was quickly evacuated, fire crews attended to the fire, which lasted less than 20 minutes and did not spread to any part of the ride system. The ride re-opened 2 hours after it was e-stopped, following a full safety inspection. Robb Alvey at TPR was actually onboard the ride when the fire started. He was evacuated at the unload station and by all accounts the incident was handled extremely well. He reported many details 'as it happened' and felt the media response to the incident was blown completely out of proportion. I'm sure Disney imagineers kicked into overdrive to repair the theming and I doubt much if anything will be noticeable when the ride reopens today. The incident, whilst technically caused by the park (as it was their fireworks) couldn't really have been foreseen, wasn't caused by poor maintenance or poor operation, and i'm sure following the event, they will review their fireworks safety procedures. In Disneyland - the park doesn't run the fireworks if the weather is too windy to avoid fallout reaching delicate areas. (such as an entire forest in AdventureFrontierland). Fantasyland is shut down for the duration of the show, and there are many cast members safety crew within Fantasyland to spot any potential fire hazards as a result of fallout. No doubt following their safety review they will either set limits on Wind in the direction of the 7DMT, place spotters on the ride to observe fallout, or other safety measures to prevent this occurring again. A storm in a teacup, or more precisely - a campfire on the 7DMT.

Yeah - saying Thunderbolt should still be running because other coasters run 30+ years is like saying that your 1988 Hyundai Excel should still be running because you saw a 1908 Ford Model T on the highway the other day. Different quality of manufacture, as well as different maintenance arrangements make a big difference. Like the old saying 'they don't make them like they used to'. Riders of Thunderbolt in the year or two pre-closure would definitely disagree with you that thunderbolt was better than Cyclone. Cyclone isn't fantastic, but it's better than the shudder-n-jolt. For further examples of coasters that shouldn't be operating but are - take a look at the various TPR videos of the Manhattan Express rollercoaster at New York New York Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. Enjoy Robb's astounding commentary on what should be considered a torture device.

I think Scooby is one of those weird beasts as far as filming goes - you take all your belongings with you, so a camera - in your bag or in your hand is still permitted on the ride. Can't imagine the footage would be very exciting though, given the dark aspect. Other coasters on the other hand do not permit you to take bags or loose articles on board, and therein would lie the problem of taking a camera on-ride.

Thanks for your views DisneyDoll. As I said earlier it is unlikely the park will have to remove it. Reading the article, it was LPS's view that their current planning arrangements meant they did not have to do a DA for construction of the hair raiser. Council have already said that while they disagree with how LPS have interpreted and applied those planning arrangements, they have accepted that this was the view LPS had. In other words - LPS did not believe they did anything wrong, and thought they had done all the right things. Council has stated they believe them. So if that were the case - why should they have 'made sure that all the DA's were signed before commencing construction' when it was there belief that one wasn't needed?

I'm sure that all things are taken into consideration - especially things such as the viability of the park to develop, and the previous court rulings on the rights of the residents who are complaining. Just because locals complain about development - doesn't mean the council will quash it if it is in the best interests of the community at large. As I've mentioned previously - my wife is construction administrator for Queensland's number 1 builder. A recent DA received several objections, and these are all taken into account by council when making their decision. In many cases this leads to certain conditions being placed on the developer. In the case of LPS - concerns over noise, for example, may require the park to install scream shields (anyone remember Maliboomer?) or set certain conditions as to the hours of operation. They could also force LPS to install a screen to block the ride from view - however most residents would probably prefer see a small white tower to a large blank wall. Whilst the council can technically refuse the DA, and require the park to remove it - it is my wife's experience that in these situations, unless the structure is defective, dangerous or otherwise unsafely constructed or operated - its very unlikely the council would make them remove it. *Sometimes it is better to ask forgiveness, than permission...