I heard a bunch of people say for a few months that the park can’t build over the Rhine anymore at all. Is that true?
Building over water?
- Thread starter Hamptonian
- Start date
If there's a will there's a way, but it'll likely be incredibly expensive and include a lot of environmental impact approvals including the known RPA buffer disturbance approvals. This is why when VB was built they refurbished existing BBW footers since it required less expense and approvals.
But it seems the park was at least looking into the possibility as late as 2019 or so when looking through the Project Madrid plans submitted to the county - I believe @Zachary wrote this article Project Madrid Site Plans – BGWFans that dives into what those plans contained.
To be fair though, it remains unclear if the park was seriously considering constructing this project as outlined in the documents, or if this was more of a preliminary filing to determine if they believe it's worth moving forward. Obviously, they didn't and instead we got Pantheon out of it... Plus potentially DarKoaster though we'll see if the new FHP coaster is an Intamin or not.
But it seems the park was at least looking into the possibility as late as 2019 or so when looking through the Project Madrid plans submitted to the county - I believe @Zachary wrote this article Project Madrid Site Plans – BGWFans that dives into what those plans contained.
To be fair though, it remains unclear if the park was seriously considering constructing this project as outlined in the documents, or if this was more of a preliminary filing to determine if they believe it's worth moving forward. Obviously, they didn't and instead we got Pantheon out of it... Plus potentially DarKoaster though we'll see if the new FHP coaster is an Intamin or not.
Yeah I remember all that and after it was scrapped I kept hearing people saying the park can’t even do like a verbolten style turn over the water and they were only allowed to do so since they had the footers already. I didn’t know if “cant” is the optimum word or if “won’t” is better.
Granted this is speculation, but I'm guessing it comes down to a simple cost vs benefit equation - are they going to maximize profits (since that seems to be the core KPI driving these capex projects) with an extremely expensive and time-consuming project, or could they get a similar return for something simpler to construct?
The park can build out over and into the Rhine. The Rhine is a manmade impoundment and is regulated accordingly. This was confirmed within the Project Madrid Joint Permit Application (JPA). @Zachary has a copy of the JPA and the review responses from the various state and federal agencies. The RPA is not as much of a burden as some may believe. Disturbances within the RPA can easily be mitigated with landscaping and vegetation. The real impediment to development within or over the Rhine is cost. It is not cheap to work in an inundated aquatic environment. As @horsesboy said: it can be an extremely long permitting process. Some reviews by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can take over one year. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is taking almost as long on permit reviews.
Don't think so - I think it was between some kind of utility bridge or possibly for lighting or other similar purposes.
There was a lot of speculation. I thought that they would be used to hold barges in place for construction and dredging purposes. The Project Madrid did have a significant amount of construction within the Rhine on the southside for the purpose of building a forebay impoundment. My theory is the construction for that forebay would be easier from the water side rather than landward side due to the extremely steep slopes.
The thing that gets me is concrete capping pilings is not a normal thing anyone does, regardless of the intention for the pilings.
Construction barges usually have their own temporary steel pilings for mooring that the crews will pound in then remove as needed.
Granted, getting one of these barges into the Rhine is a whole project in itself, so there's that.
My guess is they'd probably have had to build some kind of platform system instead - but for temporary use in a non-tidal freshwater pond, I don't see why concrete would be necessary unless there was a reason for making the pilings permanent.
Construction barges usually have their own temporary steel pilings for mooring that the crews will pound in then remove as needed.
Granted, getting one of these barges into the Rhine is a whole project in itself, so there's that.
My guess is they'd probably have had to build some kind of platform system instead - but for temporary use in a non-tidal freshwater pond, I don't see why concrete would be necessary unless there was a reason for making the pilings permanent.
I agree. The concrete caps threw me off too. The only time I really see them in use is for permanent boat moorings or as bumpers along docks.
I thought about the permanent uses and the only thing I could come with is for Rhine River Cruise moorings for fireworks cruises.
I thought about the permanent uses and the only thing I could come with is for Rhine River Cruise moorings for fireworks cruises.
I still think a bridge of some sort was the reason for these pilings - just searching for 'concrete capped wooden piling' turns up several results indicating concrete is used for distributing a load while the pilings create a stable foundation.
Given their proposed location spanning the Rhine, and the materials proposed likely being inappropriate for the dynamic loads of a ride structure, it's also unlikely these would have been used for any other type of structure.
If they had chosen to use pilings for mooring boats, concrete wouldn't necessarily make it any easier as any embedded attachment point (ring, cleat, or something else) could be mounted to the pilings directly - it's pretty common to see this in marinas when boaters aren't just slipping their lines over the pole in the first place.
Given their proposed location spanning the Rhine, and the materials proposed likely being inappropriate for the dynamic loads of a ride structure, it's also unlikely these would have been used for any other type of structure.
If they had chosen to use pilings for mooring boats, concrete wouldn't necessarily make it any easier as any embedded attachment point (ring, cleat, or something else) could be mounted to the pilings directly - it's pretty common to see this in marinas when boaters aren't just slipping their lines over the pole in the first place.
Last edited:
I think I figure out the use for the concrete capped pipes. They are place for the robotic deer to stand.