Project 2022: Pantheon

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Status
Not open for further replies.
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

warfelg said:
If I had to put forth my best guess for the timeline from here (this is what I did before leaving planning department in local government)
~11/2017 the Notice of Intent for an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) is filed, this is where the public can become involved, learn about the scope of the work, and alternatives that would be less impactful the work is.
~4/2018 Notice of Intent wraps up and a draft of the EIS is published for public review, has to stay up for 45 days.
~6/2018 Final EIS is published, where again it has to wait at least 30 days before it can become finalized.
~7/2018 Any field pens that need to be moved are moved, clean up of ground level growth
~8/2018 Utilities marked/Trees for removal marked
~10/2018 Trees start coming down, open field foundations start being dug.
~11/2018 Foundations start to get poured
All of 2019 construction happens
Click to expand...

Aren't EIS's done only for publicly owned projects (i.e. roadway projects)?  From what I have seen in the past with Busch projects and other private land development projects are height waivers, site plans, and special use permits (if the land use doesn't match the zoning).  After doing some digging a while ago, I found the submittal dates for past major projects at Busch:

  • Apollo's Chariot - Height Waiver submitted 10/7/1997, Height Waiver approved 12/9/1997, Site Plan submitted 3/20/1998, Opened 3/30/1999. Height Waiver Approval (pg. 5)
  • Griffon - Height Waiver submitted 1/23/2006, Height Waiver approved 4/11/2006, Site Plan submitted 4/19/2006, Opened 5/18/2007. Special Use Permit for Expansion Approval (pg. 127)
  • Mach Tower - Height Waiver submitted ??/??/2010, Height Waiver approved 6/8/2010, Site Plan submitted 7/20/2010, Opened 8/18/2011. Height Waiver Approval (pg. 55)
  • Verbolten - Height Waiver submitted 11/24/2010, Height Waiver approved 2/8/2011, Site Plan submitted 2/10/2011, Chesapeake Bay Board meeting 3/9/11 (for RPA buffer impacts), Opened 5/18/2012. Height Waiver/Special Use Permit Approval (pg. 43)
  • Tempesto - Height Waiver submitted 10/7/2013, Height Waiver Approved 11/12/2013, Initial utility markings requested 2/20/2014, Site Plan submitted 4/21/2014, Opened 4/25/2015. Height Waiver Approval (pg. 73)
  • Project Madrid - Height Waiver submitted 6/29/2017, FAA submittal 7/5/2017, Initial utility markings requested (assumed to be for this project) 7/19/2017, Height Waiver approved 8/8/2017, FAA approval 9/18/2017. Height Waiver Approval (pg. 67)

With all of that being said, I believe that the site plan will be the biggest indicator as to when we will expect to see an opening. From all of the past projects, opening dates were roughly one year after the site plan was submitted to the county (with the exception of Verbolten, which was a year and three months). Also, site plans were submitted anywhere from 2 days to five months after height waiver approvals, thus if history is any indication, we should see a site plan submitted to the county by the beginning of 2018. With the past timelines, this should put the opening of the attraction in 2019. Also, so far the longest time between height waiver submission and opening of the attractions has been a year and a half - also pointing towards a 2019 opening, unless this is an attraction with much larger scale than previous ones.

Side note: I couldn't find much information about when submissions/approvals occurred for InvadR. I also don't think there was a height waiver submitted for the project.
 
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

warfelg said:
If I had to put forth my best guess for the timeline from here (this is what I did before leaving planning department in local government)
~11/2017 the Notice of Intent for an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) is filed, this is where the public can become involved, learn about the scope of the work, and alternatives that would be less impactful the work is.
~4/2018 Notice of Intent wraps up and a draft of the EIS is published for public review, has to stay up for 45 days.
~6/2018 Final EIS is published, where again it has to wait at least 30 days before it can become finalized.
~7/2018 Any field pens that need to be moved are moved, clean up of ground level growth
~8/2018 Utilities marked/Trees for removal marked
~10/2018 Trees start coming down, open field foundations start being dug.
~11/2018 Foundations start to get poured
All of 2019 construction happens
Click to expand...

Aren't EIS's done only for publicly owned projects (i.e. roadway projects)?  From what I have seen in the past with Busch projects and other private land development projects, submittals are usually for height waivers, site plans, and special use permits (if the land use doesn't match the zoning).  After doing some digging a while ago, I found the submittal dates for past major projects at Busch:

  • Apollo's Chariot - Height Waiver submitted 10/7/1997, Height Waiver approved 12/9/1997, Site Plan submitted 3/20/1998, Opened 3/30/1999. Height Waiver Approval (pg. 5)
  • Griffon - Height Waiver submitted 1/23/2006, Height Waiver approved 4/11/2006, Site Plan submitted 4/19/2006, Opened 5/18/2007. Special Use Permit for Expansion Approval (pg. 127)
  • Mach Tower - Height Waiver submitted ??/??/2010, Height Waiver approved 6/8/2010, Site Plan submitted 7/20/2010, Opened 8/18/2011. Height Waiver Approval (pg. 55)
  • Verbolten - Height Waiver submitted 11/24/2010, Height Waiver approved 2/8/2011, Site Plan submitted 2/10/2011, Chesapeake Bay Board meeting 3/9/11 (for RPA buffer impacts), Opened 5/18/2012. Height Waiver/Special Use Permit Approval (pg. 43)
  • Tempesto - Height Waiver submitted 10/7/2013, Height Waiver Approved 11/12/2013, Initial utility markings requested 2/20/2014, Site Plan submitted 4/21/2014, Opened 4/25/2015. Height Waiver Approval (pg. 73)
  • Project Madrid - Height Waiver submitted 6/29/2017, FAA submittal 7/5/2017, Initial utility markings requested (assumed to be for this project) 7/19/2017, Height Waiver approved 8/8/2017, FAA approval 9/18/2017. Height Waiver Approval (pg. 67)

With all of that being said, I believe that the site plan submission date will be the biggest indicator as to when we will expect to see an opening.  From all of the past projects, opening dates were roughly one year after the site plan was submitted to the county (with the exception of Verbolten, which was a year and three months).  Also, site plans were submitted anywhere from 2 days to five months after height waiver approvals, thus if history is any indication, we should see a site plan submitted to the county by the beginning of 2018.  With the past timelines, this should put the opening of the attraction in 2019. Also, so far the longest time between height waiver submission and opening of the attractions has been a year and a half - also pointing towards a 2019 opening, unless this is an attraction with much larger scale than previous ones.

Side note: I couldn't find much information about when submissions/approvals occurred for InvadR. I also don't think there was a height waiver submitted for the project.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor, Alf33, thopping and 4 others
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

kingadam said:
Aren't EIS's done only for publicly owned projects (i.e. roadway projects)?  From what I have seen in the past with Busch projects and other private land development projects, submittals are usually for height waivers, site plans, and special use permits (if the land use doesn't match the zoning).  After doing some digging a while ago, I found the submittal dates for past major projects at Busch:
Click to expand...

If you check out page 2-3 in here:
http://jamescitycountyva.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/500

5. Surveyed plans, which include the following
items, if applicable:
• Site layout
• Drainage and erosion control plans
• Utility plans
• Landscape plans
• Drainage calculation data
• Water/sewer data sheets
• Traffic, roadway, and parking data
• Lighting plans
• Water demand calculations
The James City Service Authority (JCSA) Standards
and Specifications for Water and Sewer Systems and
the Regulations Governing Utility Services outline
the standards for submitting utility plans. Copies of
these standards are available from the JCSA office,
757-253-6800.

And section 3, page 2-3 here:
http://jamescitycountyva.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/495

That's EIS, included with site plans ;) You can't build without a study of how it impacts the environment. I should have been a little clearer with my wording but those delays after submitting for a reason. EIS/Site Plans and stuff like that tend to blend together for me. Plus you got the little nuances from state to state and locality to locality. I'm not 100% up on JCC, but I've tried to read as much as possible. And as I've said before, wouldn't shock me if JCC gives BGW some leeway on how much of this has to be public. Just going with what we saw with the Invadr plans, it didn't show the track right away, but the path was shown. That's for utilities and environmental impact t know how much area is effected.

Basically long story short here with that I was getting to, and what you're timeline on all those other coasters show: It still is going to be a while before things on property happen.

FWIW, if this is a coaster interacting anywhere close to the water, here's the best look:
Verbolten - Height Waiver submitted 11/24/2010, Height Waiver approved 2/8/2011, Site Plan submitted 2/10/2011, Chesapeake Bay Board meeting 3/9/11 (for RPA buffer impacts), Opened 5/18/2012. Height Waiver/Special Use Permit Approval (pg. 43)
Click to expand...
That bolded is going to be more complicated depending on how much it interacts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor, Alf33, thopping and 3 others
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Thanks Warfelg, I guess I just thought you meant an EIS in the traditional sense like in roadway projects where they study different alternatives, including a no-build alternative. I also know there is a lot more than just the plan sheets that are included in the submittal package that the public doesn't really see - the site plan narrative, drainage calcs, etc. Thanks for the behind-the-scenes timeline though! I guess mine is more of a timeline through the public's perspective.

I definitely agree that any wetlands impacts will complicate the approval and design process, especially since this will presumably be a new build using no existing footers, etc. If this is the case, this portion of the process would likely be longer than Verbolten's, as Verbolten at least utilized BBW's old footers, minimizing the actual impacts to the RPA. I think this is why we are seeing a much earlier height waiver submission than with past projects (for a presumed 2019 opening, even earlier for a 2020 opening) - if the wetland impacts are major, this portion of the process could take much longer than what we have seen in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor, Alf33, AlpenChariot and 2 others
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Now what Estimated Cost Are we looking at here? 20-30 Mil possibly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

kingadam said:
Thanks Warfelg, I guess I just thought you meant an EIS in the traditional sense like in roadway projects where they study different alternatives, including a no-build alternative. I also know there is a lot more than just the plan sheets that are included in the submittal package that the public doesn't really see - the site plan narrative,  drainage calcs, etc.  Thanks for the behind-the-scenes timeline though!  I guess mine is more of a timeline through the public's perspective.

I definitely agree that any wetlands impacts will complicate the approval and design process, especially since this will presumably be a new build using no existing footers, etc.  If this is the case, this portion of the process would likely be longer than Verbolten's, as Verbolten at least utilized BBW's old footers, minimizing the actual impacts to the RPA.  I think this is why we are seeing a much earlier height waiver submission than with past projects (for a presumed 2019 opening, even earlier for a 2020 opening) - if the wetland impacts are major, this portion of the process could take much longer than what we have seen in the past.
Click to expand...

Definitely interesting to what we're looking at. Yea, the public timeline is really different from the "behind the scenes". You would be amazed from the other side how may times we say no, or change this, or how about that to lots of proposals. One thing that I think BGW has a leg up is it sounds like they have a great working relationship with JCC Planning department and committee. So most likely they go to them with a bunch of alternatives from day one. A full on EPA EIS is more for that, but almost every build (excluded are things like permeable or semi-permeable surfaces like a gravel path or something like that) has some version of a EIS, and when you want to build something and 'not building' isn't an option then an EIS can be rolled into the actual plan. (man, I had to go back and read on some of that since it's been a while)

It would most likely take just a hair longer than typical, and since I'm not 100% up on Virginia and JCC's Chesapeake Water protection laws and everything (I was an adviser to the board for the Susquehanna Valley in PA). But I can guess on some things:
~Apollo was built before to 2001 and 2012 changes that allowed it to go through so fast
~Griffon cam before the 2012, has the water basin, and was built in place of another attraction that likely had just as much non-permeable surface area
~Invadr/Mach Tower/Tempesto don't interact with the water, and 2 were built on what was already impermeable surfaces.
~Verbolten is going to be the closest look at what this new ride is going to see. With the event building they had to file some stuff. I bet why it went quickly is that they were reusing BBW's footers and path when it comes to interacting with the river.

This is going to be an interesting study from my POV as a study as to what's going on. New construction with all these new regulations in place and the potential of a removal of quite a bit of buffer growth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor, AlpenChariot and Adam
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

2muchpopcorn said:
Now what Estimated Cost Are we looking at here? 20-30 Mil possibly?
Click to expand...

Fury325 cost $30mil. Not sure if that includes the work to the front gate or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

warfelg said:
I bet why it went quickly is that they were reusing BBW's footers and path when it comes to interacting with the river.  
Click to expand...

They indeed highlighted that impact mitigation in the application.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Youhow2 said:
I want someone who isn't Intamin to pull an Intamin. I305ish with a couple of inversions sounds like the move.
Click to expand...

So... Mack? RMC?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

madmax said:
Youhow2 said:
I want someone who isn't Intamin to pull an Intamin. I305ish with a couple of inversions sounds like the move.
Click to expand...

So... Mack? RMC?
Click to expand...

I'm not a Fan of the Mack. Maybe the RMC would do. That single rail track is very interesting.

Lets go with Premier Rides. I'd love to see them build more things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

It looks like much of Biten is still setup in the building from what I could see walking by. The exit doir is open so you get a pretty good view on your way to Lumberhack. I really didn't see any signs of work other then the removal of props. Also looking at the building and its lay out with the significant lanscaping work that was done a few years back I question how easy it would be to transform it back into a ride station. It might ve easier and cheaper to knock it doen and start fresh. Just my personal and non professional observations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor, Mushroom, Zachary and 1 other person
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Id say Intamin, Mack, B&M, or RMC Are the options. RMC Being the most unlikely obviously
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

2muchpopcorn said:
Id say Intamin, Mack, B&M, or RMC Are the options. RMC Being the most unlikely obviously
Click to expand...
I believe we're looking at Intamin or B&M. Just my gut. I personally would love it to be B&M given the terrain and past work. A B&M giga wing flying into the Rhine would be awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

MadridBot said:
the ride must be built my 3/18/19. This makes it a 2019 attraction without a doubt. The last picture proves this.
Click to expand...

What I read is that the permit expires on 3/18/19 (I'm sure it could be extended) that does not mean they have to be done in 2019. There is nothing stopping them from being done in 2018 for a 2019 open. Also that is March of 2019. That is just about in time for the open. Presumably they will be just be cleaning up by then.

Still we have no idea what they hell they are building.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor and Cthru3
RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

The FAA determination on air hazards referencing the 3/18/19 date can indeed be extended.   See here for the reference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad