Project 2022: Pantheon

[Cthru3]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I don't get how a tower ride would need two years of construction.

I posted several pages back how long the timetable was at BG for height waiver to construction to opening for a couple coasters and Mach Tower. Even though at this point only a obviously large coaster makes sense we have no proof. All if this coaster talk is ridiculous. It's probably just fireworks. Don't try to make a guess in a rumor thread.

 

[Shane]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Quotes

Even More Quotes

Quotes Galoare

It's a Quotes BANAZA!

THESE QUOTES ARE MAKING ME THIRSTY!

As a quick reminder, there is no need to quote the post directly above your post and please clean up previous quotes before posting; there is no need to post a quote within a quote within a quote etc. It takes up entirely too much screen real-estate.

I know we have quite a few new people even since Zachary posted the last reminder not that long ago.

Thanks, carry on...

 

[Celticdog]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

There is a lot of speculation on starting date of this project. BG still has to submit a Plan of Development to James city County for review. That plan will need to contain some elements of the attraction, but more importantly it will need to show limits of disturbance, erosion and sediment control measures and stormwater management facilities. Once those drawings are submitted they become public and can be viewed by anyone. James City County officials will need to review those drawings. That process takes at least 30 days. I'm sure JCC will issue some comments and revisions, which will take time to address and then a second submittal with another review of about 30 days. This basic process for submittal and approval is approximately 90 days. After approval, there is an assortment of paperwork that must be done prior to actual construction. It is possible to start as early as January, if they submit within the next month.

I'm sure there will be a few individuals who will state that BG is exempt from the standard review and approval process. While BG may get preferred treatment by JCC, they are not exempt from the Virginia Erosion Control Regulations or the Virginia Stormwater Regulations.

Someone should keep an eye out at JCC for new projects submitted for review.

 

[warfelg]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

There is a lot of speculation on starting date of this project. BG still has to submit a Plan of Development to James city County for review. That plan will need to contain some elements of the attraction, but more importantly it will need to show limits of disturbance, erosion and sediment control measures and stormwater management facilities. Once those drawings are submitted they become public and can be viewed by anyone. James City County officials will need to review those drawings. That process takes at least 30 days. I'm sure JCC will issue some comments and revisions, which will take time to address and then a second submittal with another review of about 30 days. This basic process for submittal and approval is approximately 90 days. After approval, there is an assortment of paperwork that must be done prior to actual construction. It is possible to start as early as January, if they submit within the next month.

I'm sure there will be a few individuals who will state that BG is exempt from the standard review and approval process. While BG may get preferred treatment by JCC, they are not exempt from the Virginia Erosion Control Regulations or the Virginia Stormwater Regulations.

Someone should keep an eye out at JCC for new projects submitted for review.

About the only things that they could be exempt from is public hearings and/or detailed plan submittal IMO. This would allow them to show the scope of the work without showing the details until they are ready. Or they could so what they did with the height, where they did the details behind closed doors, and in the public hearing just say "here's how much area is effected, here's how their planning to offset that.

 

[TheCoasterSource]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

51 pages in and still no one has any clue to whats going on. Keep up the good work guys!

 

[basseyfish]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Delete this after i ask but i dont know where else to ask, where is the howl o scream thread? Or is there not one

 

[metalman]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Special events forum.

 

[Merboy]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Delete this after i ask but i dont know where else to ask, where is the howl o scream thread? Or is there not one

Hello! Yes it's here.

The ParkFans Forum > Officially Covered Parks > Busch Gardens Williamsburg > Special Events > Howl-O-Scream 2017

 

[thopping]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

<cut ...>
I'm sure there will be a few individuals who will state that BG is exempt from the standard review and approval process. While BG may get preferred treatment by JCC, they are not exempt from the Virginia Erosion Control Regulations or the Virginia Stormwater Regulations.

About the only things that they could be exempt from is public hearings and/or detailed plan submittal IMO. This would allow them to show the scope of the work without showing the details until they are ready. Or they could so what they did with the height, where they did the details behind closed doors, and in the public hearing just say "here's how much area is effected, here's how their planning to offset that.

^ + 1
...Nor exempt from federal regulations/legislation.  But complying with regulations for specific reasons and revealing plans (that may be deemed proprietary/trade secret) to the public are entirely different, and compliance with the former does not require the latter.

e.g. I build a coaster and it is in a waterway, watershed, and wetlands area (plausible scenario here).  I document structures that are located in waterways, watersheds, and wetlands that require impact mitigation.  I document the extent of site work that would disturb soils that could erode into the above.  For a coaster, that means I show where supports may be and the boundary of the site work, mitigations (e.g. silt fences, wetlands protection and/or relocation, etc.) which are part of my application.  That doesn't mean I document the complete coaster layout and elements for a public hearing.  The prior hearing was because of potential impact to neighboring property (i.e. individually-impacted adjacent public) due to a specific local regulation concerning excess height and impact to visual/property value--not to document how the structure would comply with local/state/federal legislation or regulations, to address in this hypothetical example, assumed protection of natural resources (i.e. the general public).

I'm pretty familiar with some of these processes but it's been a long time since I worked on them (and then, it was for public transportation not "attractions")--someone may wish to add additional color.

As for the bologna comments... many of these theories have elements of plausibility and non-plausibility.  They're all good speculation and suitable for a rumors thread, but I'm taking them with a grain of salt as comments from the admins, or lack thereof, speak volumes...

 

[warfelg]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

...Nor exempt from federal regulations/legislation.  But complying with regulations for specific reasons and revealing plans (that may be deemed proprietary/trade secret) to the public are entirely different, and compliance with the former does not require the latter.

e.g. I build a coaster and it is in a waterway, watershed, and wetlands area (plausible scenario here).  I document structures that are located in waterways, watersheds, and wetlands that require impact mitigation.  I document the extent of site work that would disturb soils that could erode into the above.  For a coaster, that means I show where supports may be and the boundary of the site work, mitigations (e.g. silt fences, wetlands protection and/or relocation, etc.) which are part of my application.  That doesn't mean I document the complete coaster layout and elements for a public hearing.  The prior hearing was because of potential impact to neighboring property (i.e. individually-impacted adjacent public) due to a specific local regulation concerning excess height and impact to visual/property value--not to document how the structure would comply with local/state/federal legislation or regulations, to address in this hypothetical example, assumed protection natural resources (i.e. the general public).

I'm pretty familiar with some of these processes but it's been a long time since I worked on them (and then, it was for public transportation not "attractions")--someone may wish to add additional color.

As for the bologna comments... many of these theories have elements of plausibility and non-plausibility.  They're all good speculation and suitable for a rumors thread, but I'm taking them with a grain of salt as comments from the admins, or lack thereof, speak volumes...

I'm well aware of all of that. I spent quite a few years as a township planner before changing careers.

What I'm stating is in some cases townships/counties/manicupalities with some form of entertainment aspect can be exempt from making the exact location of things public until they want too. They can talk about an area, the impact on the area, and make that up for the public debate. AKA the boundary or the work.

I've been on that side before as a new part of a restaurant was being put in and they wanted to keep it secret what it would exactly look like. So in public hearings we talked about general impact, scope of work, height of the addition. We let it slide with actual looks because the "unique feature" was a 3 story "lighthouse" with a bar at the top. They didn't want anyone to know about it, so we let them show us how it looked behind closed doors and in public meeting had to talk about how the impact was without saying what it was.

 

[thopping]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Yes, I was trying to agree with you...

My explanation was more aimed at your nested quote (what you quoted) and the idea of preferential treatment or exemption from approval/review...and quoting you in agreement.  No special treatment, at least that's not how it's supposed to work, nor exemption from the legislation or regulation (without e.g. legislation to make that so)...

Now what may be excluded from public view, initially and even from later FOIA efforts, for various reasons, whether deemed proprietary/trade secret or as you mention entertainment provisions... that is a different subject. Which I think was part of your point as well.  And compliance doesn't necessarily require public disclosure.

These quotes are making me thirsty!

 

[Cthru3]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I don't believe I saw anyone say the information we have received is correct. I'm just not ready to say "No that's wrong". I'm thinking more along the lines of "could be". Like you said certain things are plausible. There are things I know and things I'm pretty sure of. These reports could be complete lies or they may have slivers of the truth hidden in. Im willing to listen though. The more you give someone a chance to speak the more you learn. As I'm sure you noticed there have already been slip ups.

 

[thopping]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I don't believe I saw anyone say the information we have received is correct...

Well, except in one case for the inference that it is from a contractor on the job and thus may be more reliable.  And apparently something was posted before and removed as it wasn't posted as the admins would prefer. So there maybe something to it (I never saw whatever it was), but then again the updates elicited the "bologna" comment as if someone has a way of knowing that but can't yet say, and nothing as far as we know has been submitted to the admins to verify the contractor claims...  I don't know what to make of these alleged contractor leaks at this point, so I take them with a grain of salt.  Right now, I view them in the same category as tram and railroad operator updates.  

But I agree with your comment generally... there's plausibility and non-plausibility in all of the speculation...which is fine for the rumors section, and fine to listen and offer comment.  But I will withhold believing any of it is actually accurate leaked information from a contractor on the job until I see Zachary or someone has verified it and did due diligence on the sources...

 

[warfelg]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Yes, I was trying to agree with you...

My explanation was more aimed at your nested quote (what you quoted) and the idea of preferential treatment or exemption from approval/review...and quoting you in agreement.  No special treatment, at least that's not how it's supposed to work, nor exemption from the legislation or regulation (without e.g. legislation to make that so)...

Now what may be excluded from public view, initially and even from later FOIA efforts, for various reasons, whether deemed proprietary/trade secret or as you mention entertainment provisions... that is a different subject. Which I think was part of your point as well.  And compliance doesn't necessarily require public disclosure.

These quotes are making me thirsty!

My bad!

But yea. If (big if) it's true that there are plans, the county behind closed doors has likely already done a whole heck of a lot of this impact study. It's going to be one interesting study from an academic standpoint because that's about the widest point of the Rhine, and a crossing that big without going into the river (which would require some sort of draining of an area if they did go into the river) would require some massive footers.

Just because I'm familiar with it, here's what Hersheyparks Spring Creek looked like during construction:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sywHK7vtoAc/V0W8R27xpjE/AAAAAAAAAgo/5q1lCzu26_MzDPAwMg5rPxNcKEEzteEAgCHMYCg/6288639469682796081
And after:
https://www.intaminworldwide.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/skyrush_05-1400x780.jpg

I'm not sure how deep the Rhine is but I imagine it would be a far tougher undertaking to do.

Sorry more agreeing that looks like disagreement.

 

[thopping]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

So... back to the speculation.

IF this "attraction" did have an ampersand element, that would be quite interesting, and I'd prefer that over the Mr. Freeze-like spike that was speculated earlier. I don't like non-circuit coasters and view the whole spike thing as gimmicky. Of course, we do have Tempesto...

The ampersand would also allow the ride to start/end in Festhaus Park, cross the Rhine, yet not go much into Festa Field. I have previously been thinking of a drop into the Rhine from the balloon test high point, which infers a lift hill in Festa Field--which would also make the ride much bigger. Or vice-versa, and the ampersand is in Germany and actually there's nothing going on with Drachen Fire's station related to this.

I hadn't thought about the high point being other than the top of a hill...

 

[thopping]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

But yea. If (big if) it's true that there are plans, the county behind closed doors has likely already done a whole heck of a lot of this impact study.  It's going to be one interesting study from an academic standpoint because that's about the widest point of the Rhine, and a crossing that big without going into the river (which would require some sort of draining of an area if they did go into the river) would require some massive footers.

...

Sorry more agreeing that looks like disagreement.

No worries.

I definitely agree with the above too--if an actual waterway is involved, there's probably a whole lot more effort that is underway for the study/approval process.

Although I don't see the waterway as a barrier that necessitates not going into the river. The "river" of course is a reservoir, so much less consistent "river" flow to address from Grove Creek or whatever the original stream is. If they provide sufficient space for aquatic wildlife to transit, minimize disruption to the "river" floor, and maybe even just coffer dam off the work areas on either side around the support structures that would be in water... maybe not too bad. I'm not an expert in this area though... just know enough to be dangerous.

 

[MAZ]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

*Yawn*....zzzzzz

 

[Adam]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

But yea. If (big if) it's true that there are plans, the county behind closed doors has likely already done a whole heck of a lot of this impact study.  It's going to be one interesting study from an academic standpoint because that's about the widest point of the Rhine, and a crossing that big without going into the river (which would require some sort of draining of an area if they did go into the river) would require some massive footers.

Just because I'm familiar with it, here's what Hersheyparks Spring Creek looked like during construction:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sywHK7vtoAc/V0W8R27xpjE/AAAAAAAAAgo/5q1lCzu26_MzDPAwMg5rPxNcKEEzteEAgCHMYCg/6288639469682796081
And after:
https://www.intaminworldwide.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/skyrush_05-1400x780.jpg

I'm not sure how deep the Rhine is but I imagine it would be a far tougher undertaking to do.

Sorry more agreeing that looks like disagreement.

Due to the Rhine's size, they would likely never drain it. This can be avoided by using cofferdams for the footings that would be in the river (if they are building anything that has footings in the water). They use the same technique for building bridge piers in water sometimes - drive sheet piling sealing off the footing area, drain the water from inside the sheet piling area, drive piles into the ground for the footing, install forms and rebar, pour concrete & set, fill the area with water again, remove sheet piling. Basically a more localized version of what you're talking about, at each footer.

 

[warfelg]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Due to the Rhine's size, they would likely never drain it. This can be avoided by using cofferdams for the footings that would be in the river (if they are building anything that has footings in the water). They use the same technique for building bridge piers in water sometimes - drive sheet piling sealing off the footing area, drain the water from inside the sheet piling area, drive piles into the ground for the footing, install forms and rebar, pour concrete & set, fill the area with water again, remove sheet piling. Basically a more localized version of what you're talking about, at each footer.

I'm quite aware of that. I was giving an example of what that looks like.

 

[Mushroom]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Due to the Rhine's size, they would likely never drain it.  This can be avoided by using cofferdams for the footings that would be in the river (if they are building anything that has footings in the water).  They use the same technique for building bridge piers in water sometimes - drive sheet piling sealing off the footing area, drain the water from inside the sheet piling area, drive piles into the ground for the footing, install forms and rebar, pour concrete & set, fill the area with water again, remove sheet piling.  Basically a more localized version of what you're talking about, at each footer.

Please note that I am not in the "We're getting a giant coaster" camp, but to play devil's advocate here, coaster track could easily cross the Rhine nowadays without putting a single footer in or near the water. Modern coaster designs like the thick box spine on B&M track and strong steel trusses on Intamin provide enough support for long stretches of track.

Spoiler: Believe it or not, the distance between the two tallest supports on Intimidator 305 is wider than several points on opposite banks of the Rhine, meaning the same steel truss could be used to facilitate a government-compliant river crossing at Busch.