Hersheypark Buys SFMM's Monorail Trains

ChiefRedskin89 wrote:
Ok that solves one problem but creates more. Rhineland, their main merchendise area would be done. It would probably be the most deserted area of the park. Also what if people want to go from Comet Hollow to Midway or vise versa, thats a hike!

I would imagine that most of those Rhineland shops would be moved to the new main entrance. Rhineland and Tudor Square would probably be revamped as new ride areas later on.

ChiefRedskin89 wrote: Thats just ignorant. Thats like expecting the costumer to change to you when you have to change for the custumer. Hershey Park is rediculously hilly and in turn needs a people mover MORE then other flat parks. And also how on earth does Disney have Different clientele then HersheyPark?

Not ignorant or rude. Just telling it like it is. I would imagine that most of the complainers of walking are either out of shape or overweight.

Disney attracts and targets a more wealthy customer base from all over the country - even all over the world.

While Hershey seems to be trying to cater more to the wealthy in recent years, and while they occasionally draw guests from around the country, they are a regional theme park, getting most of their business from the PA, NY, NJ, and MD markets. Different clientele.

I'm going to apologize in advance for this incredibly long post (and also for spelling errors that are more than likely to occur). Here are my thoughts on what is being discussed at length in this thread:

I, too, have heard talk about the entrance moving to where the Claw sits. In fact, I heard this rumor back in either 2001 or 2002 (because I was actually employed at the park back then...and for the last 3 years...I'm definitely not a "newbie"). If you ask my opinion on the matter, if this is the way they wanted to go they should have made moves back then...not now. 2002 was the last year for Cyclops. They should have started reorganizing the park for a main gate relocation instead of installing the Claw at that time. This kind of leads me to believe that they would like to keep main gate where it is.

Personally I would hate to not walk through the charming Tudor/Rhineland area. That to me IS HersheyPark! It is what makes the park different and less commerical than those beloved Cedar Fair/Six Flag parks. HersheyPark is unique, quaint and a local park. Plus, as it was mentioned, moving the entrance will take it further from Chocolate World. Those who think the two butt heads are crazy. They are both "owned" by the Hershey Trust Co. That company wants both succeed financially. Why would they want to separate the two? Being in close proximity to each other means they can entice guests to both locations. Separating them, some guests would go to one and not the other - not good business sense.

Some might argue that the Claw location is the center of the park. I agree...for now. A park expansion is more likely to occur towards the Comet Hollow side of the park rather than the Wildcat side of the park. Therefore making the current main gate location the center of the park. Crossing (either overhead or underground) Park Blvd. is far more likely than crossing HersheyPark Drive. HP Drive is a far greater traffic throughfair than Park Blvd.

As for talk about the Arena. It is not going anywhere. It is a historic landmark. Repairs are needed, but not a demolition. The museum moved so that it could grow. The arena is used for a LOT MORE than just "some storage." It houses the vault (I think I've mentioned this on the site somewhere else) where all the money from HE&R is processed and prepared for the following day. It is securities main base. That is a 24 hour operation and centrally located to HE&R facilities that they must check. Many sporting events (local and competition style), training, practices, graduations, other competitions take place in the Arena. It is a warehouse for several departments and offices for several departments. If they remove the Arena for ride/midway space for the park, where do propose these offices and warehouse go? They need to be incredibly close to the park because the people that work there/items stored there are need for the park to operate smoothly and to assist guest with a variety of needs.

Now onto the stadium. I don't see it being moved. The fact that it is historic is new to me...cool all the same. That structure is a HUGE draw. It is a money maker not only for HE&R but for Derry Township (all the arrests made from intoxicated people = fines that need to paid). It is the only major outdoor concert location in the mid state. Moving it to another location on the property wouldn't really solve any issues. In fact it has the potential to create others IMO.

Now for the topic at hand: the Monorail. I am all for an expansion and transport vehicle. Just because there is a people mover in the park does not mean that all guests will use it. Don't forget that there are popular rides between the current Monorail station and where we are thinking another one will go. People will still walk the midway, either to get on those rides or because they feel like walking. I will probably still walk the park because I like the excerise. The games, food stands and stores will still get business. After all, Music Box Way is host to quite a few musical acts that gather crowds all on their own. This area of the park, if you have ever paid attention, is very congested walk-way wise. It would be lovely to see that midway freer for the walking guests. Transport will be welcome to families with small children and those with strollers. I will be glad to have some stroller free walking space too. I despise strollers and anyone that visits any park with me will quickly learn that haha. I think a transport system will greatly benefit Hershey. The happier you can make guests the more likely they are to let go of their money. People are lazy these days...give them something to make traversing the park easier and they will probably spend more money eating the over priced food AND not complaining about it. They might even play more of those rigged midway games for the inexpensively produced stuffed items. Either way...an transporter will be a win for guests (lazy ones and those that will have an easier time moving about the park due to less foot traffic) and a win for the park (happier people spend money and will return again if they have a pleasant experience). By the way...the Monorail is a popular ride. The line is often at least 1/2 way down the ramp and I've seen it exceed its ramp on crazy crowded days.

Oh and one last thing: the lot between the service center and Arena is never half empty (except first thing in the morning and very late at night). You obviously don't pass thru there often. Do you even know who parks there? It is all the managers for the different departments and those that work in the service center. If all of these employee spaces are relocated for another entrance, where would they go? It is more than just the buildings mentioned. There is the service center and maintenance buildings, the tram parking, all 3 lots for parking, the employee entrances (because employees should always have their own entrances) and the employee cafe. Where do you propose these places go? Certainly employees (especially managers) shouldn't be made to park far away and eat their meals equally far away...they only get 45 minutes and that is to include walking time to and from. Where do are the delivery trucks supposed to go? Where will the warehouses be if the arena is demolished? There are way too many things that would need to be rearranged to simply remove the arena and make an new entrance.

I have comments about the location of the water park, but I will save those for another discussion. I also hope that I have not offended anyone with my above remarks. Please know that is not my intention. It just seems there are a lot of wild claims being made and it doesn't seem like those are coming from people that have actually been employed there. If you have ever worked there, or currently work there you will see that my statements are all true (at least to the best of my knowledge).

One comment from me on the Arena, likely not going anywhere any time soon... article written in February: http://www.pennlive.com/east-shore/index.ssf/2011/02/hershey-derry_township_historical_society_offers_rare_glimpse_of_hersheypark_arena.html

I just read over Leah (HPfangirl4life)'s post and she makes 100% sense on what she's saying. We were discussing on some of these issues yesterday at the park. As far as Magnum PA's post about Hersheypark not really caring about Chocolate World is totally false. If HP didn't care about Chocolate World, they wouldn't be mentioned in both the monorail and Kissing Tower spiels. And I also agree with Leah regarding moving the main entrance. If you look at the recent renovation to Tudor Grill into Hersheypark Place, why would they do this when the current entrance's days are numbered. Chocolate World will not be utilized as a "tram stop" en route to a new park entrance that is further away, which was mentioned earlier. Like Leah said, they'll most likely find a way to expand on the south side of the park, even if they have to either re-route Park Blvd or build a bridge over it. By not bringing Attraction 2012 the whole way down into the catering area, this area could be utilized as a connector into future expansion. If this is the case, then a monorail expansion is definitely necessary, and the current main entrance would be in the "center" of the park.

Magnum PA:

Why?

The existance of the Arena is completely relevant to the topic at hand, and to Hersheypark's future expansion plans. Trying to control what people can and cannot talk about is a good way to lose participants.

Because evidence has been shown time and time again that it is not going anywhere.

gb980109

Because parks couldn't afford the maintenance cost.

I think it would have been more of a liability problem than a maintenance problem for the Sky Ride.

Magnum PA:

HPCrazy wrote:

I really don't get why you don't understand this. For example, look at the Magic Kingdom at Disney World. It's the most visited theme park around. Having a train around the perimeter with multiple stations doesn't seem to hurt them financially. It doesn't prevent people from being on the midway spending their money on food, gifts and games. In fact, I know alot of people who are happy for it because it saves them time if they're at the back of the park and they want to leave, they can hop on the train and be deposited right at the park exit.


I understand the benefits of a people mover in a large park. Even I like the convenience. But I don't get why we're comparing Hersheypark with Disney. There is no comparison. Different clientele. Different park and different situation completely.

This I agree with you on. Comparing HP to Disney is like comparing a potato to an apple; both are food, but one is very different from the other. Not a good comparison.

I agree with HPfangirl4life. Unless the guests are going to be sitting in the monorail cars all day, the crowds at the standing probably won't go away, but like I said, just possibly spread out more.


I'm glad that everyone posting here seems to be commenting respectfully and not calling each other names.

HPCrazy wrote: As far as Magnum PA's post about Hersheypark not really caring about Chocolate World is totally false.

Wow. Where to start? How about I just don't? This site is becoming not worth my time or effort.

Leah made some solid points, which I won't dispute here. But her post accurately reflects the point of view of a seasonal employee. As she said, she's not 100% sure, which is what a seasonal employee should say.

This site is full of seasonal employees and fanboys who are not in the know. And stating that anything I said is "totally false", not only is naive, but terribly short-sighted. Just how do you know anything I've shared here is totally false? You don't. 'gb980109' doesn't know either. Neither does your "insider" 'pushingbuttons'. (just to name a few who have tried to call me out). They may know operations, but that doesn't mean they know anything about future plans.

I have no animosity toward any of you. Everything is open to discussion. But I'm just getting tired of having to defend myself constantly. I know what I know, and just because no one here likes what I have to say does not mean that I am wrong. Just accept it as a contrary point of view.

So, peace out Keystone Thrills. It was mostly fun while it lasted. I'll check in every once in a while.

But before I go let me state, for the last time, a few things that I know as fact, whether you like it or not.

- The Hershey Company and HE&R are two separate and distinct companies, and they have not gotten along in recent years. They work together because they have to. The relationship was created long ago. Hersheypark wouldn't survive without the Hershey brand (owned by the Hershey Company), and the Hershey Company gets a nice piece of business from HE&R's efforts. They don't get along but they work together for their own benefit.

- Plans have been made to move the entrance to the Arena/Claw area. Whether or not HE&R pulls the trigger is another story. I believe doing it would be for the long-term benefit of the park. It would make no sense to expand the park toward the golf course across or over Park Blvd. It would make sense to move employee parking and turn employee parking into more amusement park.

- There are many in the company that would like the Arena to go away. Yes, it's registered as a historic place, but that does not mean that it will last forever. And just because a few college teams play there and the park uses it as storage and office space, does not mean that the building would be safe if they could demolish it. It just may happen. If not, it may be incorporated in a new park expansion as an attraction.

- Again, all we know is that the park bought some old monorail trains from Magic Mountain. As a result of that little act, you guys have the park expanding all over the place. It's a little silly.

What you know is severely outdated (no measurable return on viral marketing? Lol!).

- Look, it's commonly known that The Hershey Company and HE&R haven't worked well in all the history of both companies. They are separate and distinguished companies. Hershey is a publicly traded, majority owned company by the Trust while HE&R other is privately, wholly owned by the Trust. But, in recent years, specifically since Hershey was nearly sold, they've had the best relationship in their histories. See the Reese's Xteeme Cup Challenge and the new park logo. You mentioned how HE&R is dependent on the Hershey brand...the Trust would have sold the brand had it not been for the local outrage.

- Any plan to move the main gate has been in the park's version of "development hell" for more than a decade. I'd see Back to the Future 4 happen just as soon as the main entrance move.

- There are people who want to get rid of the arena. That's not a secret. But what ends up happening? Much like the park doesn't have a 400 foot tall coaster, so does the Arena survive.

Wow, and right after I said that, you had to go ahead and call some people out and then put down everyone on the website and try to put yourself above everyone else in saying "I know how a park works and you don't" etc. Let me say this, none of us here knows how a park works and I would think if they would, they would treat others with a little more respect.

As for the monorail, and your thinking that we're all expecting the park to expand all over the place, I think you're putting words into out mouthes. So what? We all know that there still could be a chance that either those won't see the rails again or the track being expanded. Personally if that doesn't happen, then it's not going to affect me. Just some good "what-if?" discussion.

As someone said, "not every site is for them, and if you don't like it, then don't join or post".

For everyone who has been talking about rerouting Park Blvd. and changes to the monorail, I would like to point out this bit from Screamscape:

Possible Future Expansion Plans - (5/3/10) I’m glad to report that we were contacted by someone who claims to have worked on the plans for the rerouting of the roads behind Hersheypark who tells us that the Hersheypark Monorail was taken into consideration and the plans for the new roads were designed to go around it, so it will not be removed.
(5/2/10) I believe some of this may have been mentioned before but this article from March outlines some proposed road changes, relocations and an intersection removal all around the area of Hersheypark where the back section of the Monorail route goes, which is sure to have some kind of effect on the park. Specifically the bit about realigning the way Cocoa Ave. and Park. Ave connect, which you can see in the map would make the easiest way to do this to run the new road right down the same path that the monorail beam takes.
Previous rumors from last fall also mentioned a possible plan to move the western side of Park Blvd. so that it would travel through the golf course site instead, opening up that property for the next 100 years of happy expansion possibilities. Unfortunately the only really solid way to access this section of the park would be right through the current main entrance area, requiring a new main entrance area to be built elsewhere. The most likely idea could be to just simply move it over slightly to take up the location of the current backstage road and building(s) between the current entrance and the Arena, allowing them to keep on using most of the existing gift shops and amenities now in place in Tudor Square.
Keep in mind this is all very long term planning being rumored here… stuff that would probably take most of the next decade to see realized… if they opt to go that way. I was just thinking that perhaps some of this was a related trade-off… a bit of Quid Pro Quo if you will.
(9/11/09) Screamscape sources tell us that Hersheypark is looking into plans that would relocate Park Blvd on the south side of the park to take a new path through the old Country Club site. The old road will be removed allowing for Hersheypark to expand into the remainder of the property there over the years as needed.

Now, my speculation: Could Hersheypark be removing that part of the monorail in the next year or two as part of this discussed road rerouting?

The road rerouting actually deals with the Park Ave, Park Blvd, and Coco Ave intersections.

PDF map of the plan:
http://www.hrgprojects.com/derrytownship/maps/743-422.pdf

Text description:
http://www.hrgprojects.com/derrytownship/Projects/743-422.pdf


They will be replacing the bridge over Spring Creek...
http://www.pdotdev1.state.pa.us/MPMSWeb/MPMSMain.nsf/Project/19056?OpenDocument

Detailed bridge plan:
http://www.tcrpc-pa.org/adeptiv/web/file/view.asp?ID=2326

So I don't think Park Blvd is being realigned anytime soon if they are spending 2.3 million to replace the bridge by "maintaining the existing alignment".


Edit: conflicting information... From the Derry Township meeting minutes:
"Supervisor Ballard asked for a summary of the Park Boulevard Relocation project. Mgr. Negley
said the Township owns two bridges, the Lingle Avenue Bridge and the Park Boulevard Bridge.
The Park Boulevard Bridge is the bridge near Chocolate World. It is adequate now, but it will
fail in approximately 10 years. We have been saving for this bridge for a number of years in
trying to limit the Township’s capital exposure. The first phase of any project is a preliminary
engineering phase. This is an expensive proposition and would take nearly all the money the
Township has saved for this.

Vice-Chairman Fedeli said this project will not only help with the relocation of the bridge but it
also will reroute and straighten the “wavy” road that goes around Chocolate World.
Chairman Abruzzo said the County has an interest to help with this project because it may
actually create more useable space for the Hershey entities, which would be a good thing. We
get the benefit of having a bridge and a safer road placed in the Township for a small
commitment on our part."

http://66.109.247.163/DerryTownship/images/stories/minutes/supervisors/2011/february222011.pdf

I thought it was mentioned somewhere that the monorail was taken into consideration with the Rte 743 realignment project so it wouldn't have to be removed. Now wheither or not with this recent purchase of SFMM's trains, that could possibly change if this monorail expansion comes to fruition, by eliminating the outside portion by the factory. All we can do is wait and see what happens.

Update to my previous post. Looks like the plans I posted are now out dated for an estimated 21 million dollar relocation plan...

Some Key Points:
- funded by a “Public-Private Partnership”
- will open 30+ acres of land for development.
- Mr. Emberg said the property owners have tentatively agreed to donate the right-of-way for the new alignment.
- funds for the Park Blvd Bridge project will go to realignment

Presentation – Park Boulevard Realignment – Brian Emberg (HRG)
Mr. Emberg presented the Derry Township proposal to realign Park Boulevard. The presentation
included an overview of the site, recent investment in the area of the project, and the existing
condition of Park Boulevard. The Township emphasized that the existing facility is not adequate
to perform the function it is being used for today. The proposal is for an approximately 4,000
foot, two lane facility on a new alignment including sidewalks to better handle existing and
future traffic. The realignment project is currently on the RTP, and a project to replace the local
bridge on the existing alignment, MPMS 19056 Park Blvd Bridge, is currently on the TIP.
Mr. Emberg presented a funding strategy for the realignment and made a request for MPO
action. The funding strategy is based on a $21,493,000 total cost estimate: $650,000 for
preliminary engineering will be local funds provided by Dauphin County, and the remaining
phases funded by a “Public-Private Partnership”. Mr. Emberg requested that the MPO take
action to:
• Amend the TIP to add $650,000 of local funds for preliminary engineering for the
Park Boulevard Realignment
• Request that the existing Park Boulevard be removed from the federal aid system, and
that the new alignment be added to the federal aid system
Discussion
Mr. Memmi said this project will be good for economic development. It will open 30+ acres of
land for development. It will boost the tourism industry, which is one of Dauphin County’s
Page 2 of 7
largest industries.
Mr. Adams asked about funding the right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Emberg said the property
owners have tentatively agreed to donate the right-of-way for the new alignment.
Mr. Sloand said he understands that a meeting had taken place in which Derry Township had
requested that the local bridge funds programmed for Park Blvd Bridge (T588) be replaced with
other funding and applied to the new project. The rest of the project will be an 80/20 federal –
local funding split. Mr. Emberg said the funding match split for final design and construction has
not been determined yet.
Mr. Memmi pointed out recent successful public-private partnerships, and a similar strategy
could be used to move this project forward.
Mr. Hoffer asked if adding the PE phase to the TIP as local funds will encumber any MPO
funding, or if the action will only program funds already committed by Dauphin County. Mr.
Sloand said the action will not encumber any MPO funds. Mr. Panko said only the funds
committed by Dauphin County will be programmed by the action requested.
Mr. Panko asked if the priority is on replacing the existing bridge or on realigning the road. Mr.
Memmi said the funds for the Park Blvd Bridge project will go to realignment, unless the
realignment project is not completed, in which case the existing bridge must be replaced because
it is structurally deficient. Commissioner Haste said the Park Blvd Bridge project prompted
consideration of the best way to deal with the needs and led to the development of the
realignment project. He said replacing a bridge on an inadequate facility is a poor investment.
Mr. Panko said the Park Blvd Bridge project is in advanced construct, and FHWA would like the
project moved forward or removed from the TIP. He asked if the bridge funds programmed for
that project should be removed. Ms. Myers-Krug suggested replacing the Park Blvd Bridge
project federal funds on the TIP with local funds.
Mr. Hoffer said he supports the realignment project and agrees that replacing a bridge on an
inadequate roadway is a poor use of funds.
Mr. Memmi asked that if the Park Blvd Bridge project funds are replaced with local funds that
the Township receive some assurance that the bridge will be replaced if the realignment is not
constructed.

#266-2: Mr. Turner moved to recommend the Coordinating Committee take action as
necessary to move the Park Blvd Realignment project forward while preserving
funding for the Park Blvd Bridge project, that the process be started to remove the
existing Park Boulevard alignment from the federal aid system and add the new
alignment, and that the PE phase of the Park Blvd Realignment project be added to
the TIP as local funding. Mr. Hoffer seconded the motion, and the motion passed
unanimously.

I have filed a request for a copy of the presentation.

CoasterBGW wrote:Update to my previous post. Looks like the plans I posted are now out dated for an estimated 21 million dollar relocation plan...

I have filed a request for a copy of the presentation.

This is already publicly available online. A new bridge is being built and the old bridge will be torn down.

Here's a link to the project PDF: http://www.hrgprojects.com/derrytownship/Maps/SR%200743%20Map.pdf

Here's the picture of it.

Where is it? I must have missed it?

This is new as of April 8th, 2011. Not approved yet.

CoasterBGW wrote:Where is it? I must have missed it?

This is new as of April 8th, 2011. Not approved yet.

Oops! Haha, I confused Park Boulevard with Park Avenue. Well, that happens from time to time, I suppose.

This is a good news to see, that's for sure.

I am writing a blog entry with all the details... interesting stuff...

Will your blog update have anything about the specific route of the realignment? I've heard two concepts, one which is align Park Boulevard to go straight to Chocolate Avenue and meet at an intersection, the other, which would have Park Boulevard go straight to the railroad tracks, bend and go straight down to where Ridge Road is, where it would meet with the current alignment of Park Boulevard.

Don't leave Magnum!! You're usually the only one who shares my opinions on Hersheypark!

My view of the monorail is this--

It would be awesome to see them expand it in some way. With Hershey building more and more downtown it would be cool to have that be their "downtown Disney" type stop on the monorail. I think I drew a map on TPR a long time ago about how cool it would be if they one day built a hotel (cheaper hotel..) near Giant Center and had stations there.. Chocolate World.. and inside the park.

But seriously.. why expand this antique monorail system? If parts are so hard to come by what would the life span be on this model of monorail? 10-15 years? Plus as the well of spare parts runs dry there will be one less train.. two less trains.. etc.

I'd love for Hershey to expand the monorail or add some kind of true transportation ride, but I think starting over fresh would make the most sense.. no rerouting.. no impossible to find parts.. no completely open air trains (winter/rain).. just tear down the current track and build a completely new modern system.

*I have no knowledge of how old the current monorail is but looking at the trains... old..

CoasterEricHP wrote:But seriously.. why expand this antique monorail system? If parts are so hard to come by what would the life span be on this model of monorail? 10-15 years? Plus as the well of spare parts runs dry there will be one less train.. two less trains.. etc.

It'd be probably more between 15-20 years down the road that a total replacement would begin to go under consideration. Hersheypark's biggest issue with continual operation were the lack of the type of tire that the Monorail trains run on. That issue was resolved last year. Parts wise, the only other issue is the type of autopilot that it operates on, and the real solution to that if that were to be a problem is to eliminate the autopilot and go complete manual operation - a la driving a Dry Gulch Railroad train, except it's a Monorail train. Those autopilots sure are famous...or infamous!

The Monorail opened in 1969. It is an old ride, but it's still serviceable, and the park can't really afford a new monorail at this point. So, why not buy up what you can for the current Monorail, do what you can with it, and make it work? If it's possible to expand the Monorail as is (and per the 1970/71 Hershey Park becomes Hersheypark plan), why not? If you've got the shot now, and it's pretty affordable to do, they should take it.

I just finished the blog. It will be up at http://keystonethrills.wordpress.com/ once Chris approves it tomorrow.

gb980109 wrote:It'd be probably more between 15-20 years down the road that a total replacement would begin to go under consideration. Hersheypark's biggest issue with continual operation were the lack of the type of tire that the Monorail trains run on. That issue was resolved last year. Parts wise, the only other issue is the type of autopilot that it operates on, and the real solution to that if that were to be a problem is to eliminate the autopilot and go complete manual operation - a la driving a Dry Gulch Railroad train, except it's a Monorail train. Those autopilots sure are famous...or infamous!

The Monorail opened in 1969. It is an old ride, but it's still serviceable, and the park can't really afford a new monorail at this point. So, why not buy up what you can for the current Monorail, do what you can with it, and make it work? If it's possible to expand the Monorail as is (and per the 1970/71 Hershey Park becomes Hersheypark plan), why not? If you've got the shot now, and it's pretty affordable to do, they should take it.

I agree with this. Sure the monorail is an old ride and they were able to get their hands on some more trains at a dirt cheap price. As was mentioned before, Intamin makes a monorail beam similar to the one at Hershey. It would actually be cheaper to build the beam instead of the whole works (beam and new trains). Their two trains and the old SFMM trains can just be updated to fit the new system, no big deal. I also heard about the tire issue and that originally had me a bit concerned. I'm glad they were able to resolve that problem.

Yeah, the old diagram from the early 70's shows an expanded monorail system and the park wasn't even planned out to be as large as it is now. If they were trying to make it work then, then they sure as heck can make it work now.

CoasterBGW wrote:I just finished the blog. It will be up at http://keystonethrills.wordpress.com/ once Chris approves it tomorrow.

Can't wait to see it!

Just approved the blog post now.

Just read over CoasterBGW's post on the blog and wanted to add my opinions to all of this.

First off, looking at this image:



The red line represents a re-aligned Park Blvd which, according to what he found out, would allow 30 additional acres of park expansion on the south side of the park property in what was part of the old Parkview Golf Course. The planning docs mentioned something about 1) the current Park Blvd bridge being replaced or 2) the road being re-aligned to 4,000-something ft (correct me if I'm wrong on this). It also mentioned something about construction with the road re-alignment and new bridge starting in 2012 - 2014, so I'm guessing the second option is something that they're taking forward.

I'm thinking that the LaMarcus Bros website is related with this because they do mention about some kind of construction happening in 2012:

Kangaroo Bridge – In 2009, Jeffrey and Rocky LaMarcus temporarily relocated to New Zealand to design the above-ground foundation for the Kangaroo Bridge connecting the north and south islands. Construction is set to begin in early 2012.

If 2012 - 2014 is the accurate timetable of construction, this would also give Hershey plenty of time to refurbish two of SFMM's monorail trains and re-fit them as well as their own two trains to a new monorail beam which could go into the expanded 30-acres somehow, as well as be re-routed through the existing park, allowing plenty of room for four train use. The old diagram from the early 1970's representing "Hershey Park to Hersheypark" does show an expanded monorail running alongside a stretch of Park Blvd so perhaps they could do that (if needed) to run it into the expanded area. It would also give guests a nice glimpse of both the Comet and the new roller coaster.

Something else to think about....I don't think it was an accident that the LaMarcus Bros website was posted around the same time that the SFMM monorail trains were delivered to the park. From how I'm taking it, that site seems to be their "viral marketing campaign" for a monorail/park expansion and not just the new roller coaster. The R.I.T. pretty much is focusing on the new roller coaster coming in.

But anyways, those are my thoughts on the current situation.

Wow I go away to the beach for a few days and come back to this whole argument. Why hasn't anyone said anything about my suggestion for a parking garage? Do you guys think this Kangaroo bridge that the Lemarcus Brothers are building means they are expanding over to the golf course or maybe over HP drive to the old airport? I really think big changes are coming to Hershey in the next few years. Nothing will surprise me at this point.

I think we'll see them go over to the golf course before we see them expand over an already busy highway.

I have been floating around here for months and have been going to Hersheypark since '85.
I agree a new park entrance might be the way to go. I just cant see HP moving the entrance any farther away than where it is currently. I bet the sales at choclate world far surpass any other vendor in the park.
I just cant see them moving people away from that while entering or exiting the park.

FlyersFan wrote:Wow I go away to the beach for a few days and come back to this whole argument. Why hasn't anyone said anything about my suggestion for a parking garage? Do you guys think this Kangaroo bridge that the Lemarcus Brothers are building means they are expanding over to the golf course or maybe over HP drive to the old airport? I really think big changes are coming to Hershey in the next few years. Nothing will surprise me at this point.

The golf course is the likely route, see my blog post: http://keystonethrills.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/hersheypark-over-the-next-decade-2/ on recent governmental meetings.

Parking garages are INSANELY expensive.. I did a report on them for an Urban Geography class a long time ago and I think back then it was something like $15k a space to build. So for a 10,000 space garage you're looking at close to $150,000,000 to build it. That doesn't even touch maintenance costs which probably heavily outweigh that of a surface lot.

(One of Universal Orlando's garages is roughly 10k spaces)

About parking garage costs: My town is considering building a parking deck and presented two options ($8.11m for 362 spaces and $8.44m for 431 spaces) Extrapolating off those two points, a 10,000 space garage would be about $55m. Still expensive, but not $150m

If they're planning on going over into the golf course, there won't be any need to build parking garages as this wouldn't affect the parking lots at all.

CoasterEricHP wrote:Parking garages are INSANELY expensive.. I did a report on them for an Urban Geography class a long time ago and I think back then it was something like $15k a space to build. So for a 10,000 space garage you're looking at close to $150,000,000 to build it. That doesn't even touch maintenance costs which probably heavily outweigh that of a surface lot.

(One of Universal Orlando's garages is roughly 10k spaces)

Wow I never knew a parking garage was that expensive. I can see why that wouldn't be done now. Considering Universal Orlando has 2 that are connected and from what you say it cost them around 300,000,000 to build it. It was a viable option for Hershey until cost was factored in. I'm amazed Universal could or would that much to build a garage system, but I guess when space in an option sometimes you just have to do whatever you have to do. That is of course if that is really what it costed.

^It'd be interesting to find some figures on how much it cost to build IOA, Citywalk, and the parking garages. I think IOA was around $1.2 billion to build. I bet the entire complex was near $2 billion. Crazy!

Crazy yes but it's a great area. The Universal parks are my favorite place to visit when I am in Orlando.

Keep in mind that there will be no southwestward expansion unless the Park Blvd re-route is approved. It seems that HE&R is willing to pay for a good bit of it (private funding), and that can't hurt. But if the township decides against it, the park will not expand in that direction.

The other roadblock would be the large piece of land owned by the Hershey Company that seems to be in the way. They're not going to just give it to HE&R, it will have to be purchased. From the looks of the map, HE&R's current property is the old pool site, and a thin strip of land that leads over to the Falconry Experience and into the old golf course.

So, there won't be an expansion until the road is moved, and the Hershey Company sells the land to HE&R, two things that look to cost HE&R a good chunk of change.

I agree with those that would rather see the front gate move to the middle of the current park set up. The park can still be expanded, but centralizing the main gate would be a smart move on the parks part. Then the monorail would also be at the park entrance (or close to it), and the park could use it more effectively as a people mover.

Someone mentioned a "Downtown Hershey" type thing. From what I heard, that was one of the ideas behind the main gate move. The arena and its parking lot were to become a 'city walk' area with shops and restaurants, and of course, the main entrance to Hersheypark.

Someone else also mentioned that the Herhseypark could shuffle some parking lots and expand the park into some of the lots that currently border the park (behind Wildcat). I would agree here too. The park needs to get wider before it gets longer.

I know we've had this discussion at least already in this thread, so I won't say anything beyond this post. That being said, The two branches of the company are enjoying their best relationship in years since the failed attempt at selling the chocolate company. I would be shocked if there was an issue moving land between those two companies. Why would one part of the company want to make it harder for the other to succeed, especially when they have to give up something as simple as land they aren't using.

^Alright, enough of that.

Anyway, I would be surprised if the park blvd. change was not approved, because the town has no motivation to hurt the biggest source of tourism for the town. Derry saying no would be like Cupertino stopping Apple from putting in a new campus.

I doubt it is denied too. Derry township asked Dauphin County who then approved $650,000 of their own funds to provide the preliminary engineering. To me that sounds like both local governing bodies support it.

Resolution #9-2011 - Application for County Aid from Derry Township for Liquid Fuels Funds in the amount of $650,000 for preliminary engineering phase of the Park Boulevard (T-588) Relocation and Bridge DRT-1 Replacement.

http://stage.dauphincounty.org/content/?/about-the-county/meetings/2011-meetings/march-2-2011-agenda

tedgarb wrote: I know we've had this discussion at least already in this thread, so I won't say anything beyond this post. That being said, The two branches of the company are enjoying their best relationship in years since the failed attempt at selling the chocolate company. I would be shocked if there was an issue moving land between those two companies. Why would one part of the company want to make it harder for the other to succeed, especially when they have to give up something as simple as land they aren't using.

My comments have nothing to do with the relationship between HE&R and the Hershey Company, or the climate of that relationship. I was merely stating the fact that the land is owned by the wrong company for a park expansion to take place. A transaction would have to be made, and it wouldn't be a donation of land. HE&R would have to purchase it from them, most likely at a fair market price. (millions?)

tedgarb wrote:Anyway, I would be surprised if the park blvd. change was not approved, because the town has no motivation to hurt the biggest source of tourism for the town. Derry saying no would be like Cupertino stopping Apple from putting in a new campus.

Of course, Derry Township recognizes that Hershey butters their bread. But, if they feel the funds would be better allocated to another, more pressing project, they can reject the proposal. It all depends how essential to HE&R's growth the township feels the expansion in that direction is.

I'm not saying that either won't happen. I'm just saying that for it all to take place it will take some time, and a good bit of money on HE&R's part - something that will factor into their own decision to move forward.

Park Connoisseur wrote:

My comments have nothing to do with the relationship between HE&R and the Hershey Company, or the climate of that relationship. I was merely stating the fact that the land is owned by the wrong company for a park expansion to take place. A transaction would have to be made, and it wouldn't be a donation of land. HE&R would have to purchase it from them, most likely at a fair market price. (millions?)

Fair point.

Park Connoisseur wrote:

Of course, Derry Township recognizes that Hershey butters their bread. But, if they feel the funds would be better allocated to another, more pressing project, they can reject the proposal. It all depends how essential to HE&R's growth the township feels the expansion in that direction is.

I'm not saying that either won't happen. I'm just saying that for it all to take place it will take some time, and a good bit of money on HE&R's part - something that will factor into their own decision to move forward.

IIRC, the bridge along Park Blvd. is expected to fail in the next decade, and the town has decided to move the road in lieu of replacing the bridge. I'm not sure exactly how pressing the need is to replace the bridge at the moment, but I would imagine that it will be done before the bridge is anywhere near collapsing.

Park Connoisseur wrote:But if the township decides against it, the park will not expand in that direction.

This seems highly unlikely, given that the bridge needs to be replaced. They've eliminated the bridge replacement project in favor of the road shift project, as evidenced by the request of $650,000 investment by the County.

Park Connoisseur wrote:The other roadblock would be the large piece of land owned by the Hershey Company that seems to be in the way. They're not going to just give it to HE&R, it will have to be purchased. From the looks of the map, HE&R's current property is the old pool site, and a thin strip of land that leads over to the Falconry Experience and into the old golf course.

So, there won't be an expansion until the road is moved, and the Hershey Company sells the land to HE&R, two things that look to cost HE&R a good chunk of change.

The land issue is no longer an issue. With the closure of the east plant, The Hershey Company has no need for the truck storage across from Comet's turnaround. From what I understand, the Trust is purchasing the land that The Hershey Company owns with the factory - and that includes the land you referenced. Once the Trust completes the purchase, they'd assign the land in question to HE&R.

Park Connoisseur wrote:Someone else also mentioned that the Herhseypark could shuffle some parking lots and expand the park into some of the lots that currently border the park (behind Wildcat). I would agree here too. The park needs to get wider before it gets longer.

I agree that a wider park is better than a longer one. They would be better of expanding west, rather than to the south. Expanding west almost certainly requires the removal of the service center, and I think it would be a good time to see Hersheypark Stadium go. Parking eaten up there could easily be shuffled in the road re-alignment by adding the equivalent loss in the area around Chocolate World. And yes, I think Hersheypark Stadium needs to go. I know there's historic value in it's a depression era project, but it's a terrible venue.

tedgarb wrote:IIRC, the bridge along Park Blvd. is expected to fail in the next decade, and the town has decided to move the road in lieu of replacing the bridge. I'm not sure exactly how pressing the need is to replace the bridge at the moment, but I would imagine that it will be done before the bridge is anywhere near collapsing.

If it's expected to fail in the next decade, then I'd say it's pretty pressing to replace it. Road / bridge projects are always the kind of projects that could see long delays before it actually happens. An example is the Linglestown / PA Route 39 project. The genesis of the project occurred in 1996 and ground wasn't broken (so to speak) until 2009. A delay that severe is highly unlikely, especially given the principle players in the project, which are the Trust (as owners of The Hershey Company and HE&R) and the township/county as local authorities.

How can you say the stadium needs to go? I take it you don't go to concerts there. It really isn't a bad facility to watch a concert. I have been to concerts in over 50 venues and don't think it is bad. I do think if they wanted to keep it for just concerts and not have the football, soccer, track and band competitions they could expand the star pavillion. I am a fan of the pavillion type atmosphere. I do think the stadium needs a big time update but don't think they will tear it down. The concerts are a major money maker for them and when you think about it the stadium is the only permanent outside concert venue outside of Philly and Pittsburgh in the state. The stadium isn't going anywhere.

Yes, I've been to concerts at the Stadium. It's a terrible venue. First off, the Stadium is just bunch of concrete. There's not much to it. The sound system is horrible, sitting in the grand stands is a weak experience, and if you're in the front row, you're looking straight up the whole time.

The location of the stadium isn't ideal any more given that the park needs room to grow. It's much for the best to tear down the stadium, build an amphitheater near the Giant Center, and build another stadium for sporting events.

Hershey isnt the only outdoor venue out side of Philly or Pittsburgh. There's also Montage Mountain in Scranton. Any amphitheater of standard size (~25,000 seats with the lawn) is better than Hersheypark Stadium.

Basically your main gripe is that the place is old and outdated which I agree with. I am the one who earlier in this thread said it needed to be torn down and rebuilt out near the Giant Center. It seemed nobody liked that idea. I still think it is a viable option and that they should look at doing it. There are much nicer stadiums out there and Hershey could use an upgrade but they will not take it out anytime in the near future.

Sorry I missed Montage it really isn't my favorite place to see a concert. I go to 1 show a year at the stadium and always sit on the field so that may be where our differences lie. I don't even go out on the concourse unless I have to use the bathroom (which is terrible).

As for your comment about being in the front row and looking up the whole time have you ever been to a concert at the Wells Fargo Center or Lincoln Financial Field in Philly? If your on the bar your looking basically straight up there too. The stage is raised so the poor souls in the back can see. If anything Hershey could take a row or 2 out of the front and that problem is solved or at least helped.

All in all I just like having a stadium that has big name concerts about 7 miles from my house. It needs replaced or remodeled but I don't want to see Hershey just do away with the venue. It is old, it isn't the best place to see a concert but it is local and saves me from having to drive to Philly or D.C. for a concert.

gb980109 wrote:The location of the stadium isn't ideal any more given that the park needs room to grow. It's much for the best to tear down the stadium, build an amphitheater near the Giant Center, and build another stadium for sporting events.

I agree here. As someone mentioned earlier, there is a lot of golf course land around the Giant Center. It would make a great home to a new sports/concert facility, and there would be plenty of parking for concert-goers with the accompanying addition parking lots. It makes too much sense.

As sad as it is to see old familiar buildings go, it seems that the stadium (and the Arena for that matter) have exceeded their serviceable life and are out-dated. They are sitting in the way of progress at this point.

The park needs to expand, and while expanding southwest toward the golf course is still an option, the most effective way to do it is to go west into the parking lots. The stadium's footprint could be employee parking, freeing up space for a park expansion behind the Wildcat. The service center could remain at this point.

If the park expands southwest toward the golf course, it won't go past the 300 Park Blvd. offices. They will become landlocked again. The funny thing is, that is the area in which the waterpark should have been built. For some reason, Hersheypark decided against it. Now, they are looking to expand the park there. Odd.

For me, the boardwalk's location is the driving force for moving the main entrance. If it would have been built in where the park is looking to expand now, the entrance would be a non-issue.

Regarding the Park Blvd. move - don't forget that that road services 300 Park and Chocolate World, as well as complex parking lot exits. Would they bypass that whole area, as was drawn out above? Would HE&R or the township really want a dead end next to Chocolate World?

Any way you look at this possible expansion your looking at some major expenses on HE&R's part. Paying to move Park Blvd. and paying for the Hershey Company's land (I can't imagine that it will be just given to them, even if the Trust purchases it first) may be the least expensive route. Is it in the best long-term interest of the park? Maybe not.

Park Connoisseur wrote:
Regarding the Park Blvd. move - don't forget that that road services 300 Park and Chocolate World, as well as complex parking lot exits. Would they bypass that whole area, as was drawn out above? Would HE&R or the township really want a dead end next to Chocolate World?

I don't see how you are bypassing anything by realigning the road. They can leave the existing road to just past Chocolate World to keep access and it would likely become a private roadway on HERCO property. In addition, they likely have a plan because there is a few references to a "Hershey Access Management Plan" in the documents.

CoasterBGW wrote:I don't see how you are bypassing anything by realigning the road. They can leave the existing road to just past Chocolate World to keep access and it would likely become a private roadway on HERCO property. In addition, they likely have a plan because there is a few references to a "Hershey Access Management Plan" in the documents.

Well, of course you're bypassing something. You're bypassing 300 Park, Chocolate World, the parking lot exits, and the Falconry Experience if you reconnect Park Blvd. at the Giant Center intersection (which I think is going to happen, by the way). But it wouldn't be a private roadway to access those places, as it seems that guests would need to use the road too.

The only solution at that point is to cut the road off just behind the Chocolate World entrance.

A private road is any roadway not controlled by the federal, state, or local government. If it is on HERCO / Hershey Company property it is a private road; the only restrictions on the road are what the owners wish to place on the road.

And I think we are on the same page with your last statement, I suggested in my post also to keep the existing road to just past CW. However, it will be difficult to find any plans for this because once the road is relocated Hershey no longer needs to file public paper work.

From the PennDOT project database:

Geographic Limits: - Park Blvd. between the intersection with Ridge Rd. and reconnecting with the existing Park Blvd. roadway in the area of the Hersheypark parking lots in Derry Twp.

If all of this has gotten this far I'm sure they have considered all alternatives...moving a road is not something you do on a whim. We're working on one in my township and it's been in the works for 4 years and we're still 3 years form starting.

Also wanted to bring this up...couldn't there always be the possibility of if...and it's a big if....the stadium moves, does anyone else think there is the possibility of a park expansion in both directions. Maybe where the stadium is there could be more of the boardwalk area and the part down by the golf course could gain rides. Then instead of relocating the entrance the park could build two entrances, one by the boardwalk attractions and the current entrance.

Just a side note about the Stadium that most probably don't know is the condition of the locker rooms. I beleive I said this before but there in horrable shape. They are extremely outdated, half the showers don't work, climate control is almost non-existant, and even for my reletivly small team we had trouble fitting in.

I've heard rumors from working at my previous engineering firm of having a factory tour at the actual plant (rather than Chocolate World) in the future, and possibly utilize the old Monorail stop to do so. The existing chocolate factory is essentially being replaced by the west plant expansion, which would leave this building underutilized. Maybe the added time of loading and unloading near the chocolate factory warranted the purchase of additional trains.

They wouldn't be able to run four trains on the current track beam unless they expand it.