Ride Access Pass Systems and Disabled Access (pre 2024)

[ChristmasPud]

Solved this issue by marrying one with both.

I believe they meant either condition vs people without either. Not physical vs mental disasbilities.

erm no, just no.
More then enough abled bodied disabled people who need rap (myself included) that going "Oh you can walk? main queue it is" that it's not an option.

He means can they queue, not can they walk. This is the current RAP paradox, a queue for people who can't queue in the main queue, when the RAP queue is now a long queue in itself. So who can't queue?

I've been a carer for someone who qualified and I'd have been pretty annoyed if someone judged why we were using RAP. And yet we were queueing, since the RAP queues so long, so I began to question myself, do we need it after all? Whose call is it to judge for each person? Extremely hard to judge.

Especially as the main queue would move quicker if there was shorter RAP queue.

I certainly don't have the answer!

 

[imanautie]

I believe they meant either condition vs people without either. Not physical vs mental disasbilities.


He means can they queue, not can they walk. This is the current RAP paradox, a queue for people who can't queue in the main queue, when the RAP queue is now a long queue in itself. So who can't queue?

I've been a carer for someone who qualified and I'd have been pretty annoyed if someone judged why we were using RAP. But then the RAP queues were so long that I began to question it myself. Extremely hard to judge and clearly open to abuse. Especially as the main queue would move quicker if there was shorter RAP queue.

I certainly don't have the answer!

"I think we've probably reached the point where realistically RAP should only be open to those who are in wheelchairs or otherwise physically impaired to the point that you have problems standing for more than a few minutes. "

would seem to suggest otherwise...

 

[rob666]

The only realistic solution, plain and simple, is to limit the number of people on the park to the limit of ride capacity for the day.
It is simple to calculate, and to set in the days of booking only, but days would sell out very quickly.
In the days of cheap season passes however, you get what you pay for.
If you only want to queue for half an hour, fasttrack or go away, we don't care, we have got your money.
This situation is related to annual passes.
Scrap 'em and the problem would be eased greatly.

 

[imanautie]

The only realistic solution, plain and simple, is to limit the number of people on the park to the limit of ride capacity for the day.
It is simple to calculate, and to set in the days of booking only, but days would sell out very quickly.
In the days of cheap season passes, you get what you pay for.
If you only want to queue for half an hour, fasttrack or go away, we don't care, we have got your money.
This situation is related to annual passes.
Scrap 'em and the problem would be eased greatly.

Honestly that seems like it would be good for the guest experience of all, altrough still would need some level of disabled queues.

 

[James]

Ideally, you need an adaptive system in place that at first gives the RAP user the same length virtual queue as the main queue, and where you might get the issue where you've got 10+ RAP users all accessing the queue at the same time, an automated system is in place that stagnates the RAP users, adding 5 mins (I've picked that time out of thin air as an example) or more to ensure there is not a massive RAP queue forming defeating the purpose of it. It could actually help persuade RAP users to spread out more around the park and go on other rides first.

I largely agree with @siralgenon that limiting RAP users to one ride per day is unfair. If it comes to that then it just proves the current system is not fit for purpose.

 

[imanautie]

Ideally, you need an adaptive system in place that at first gives the RAP user the same length virtual queue as the main queue, and where you might get the issue where you've got 10+ RAP users all accessing the queue at the same time, an automated system is in place that stagnates the RAP users, adding 5 mins (I've picked that time out of thin air as an example) or more to ensure there is not a massive RAP queue forming defeating the purpose of it. It could actually help persuade RAP users to spread out more around the park and go on other rides first.

I largely agree with @siralgenon that limiting RAP users to one ride per day is unfair. If it comes to that then it just proves the current system is not fit for purpose.

Another unpaid promotion of accesso here, but TE2! TE2 for all! (Basically MDE but for the accesso platform)
They have stuff in place to be able to dynamically spread the guest load around a resort via various offers and messaging.

 

[Craig]

I largely agree with @siralgenon that limiting RAP users to one ride per day is unfair. If it comes to that then it just proves the current system is not fit for purpose

I do get the argument for letting people choose themselves. But then I also get the argument that you try and please the majority of guests.

The vast majority of people, even excluding non RAP guests visit one or two times a year, so they have this one or two occasions where they can visit and ride everything on park. If you cater for a relative minority to go on their favourite ride five times and therefore significantly increase the virtual queue for that ride, you could be looking at a 2+ hour queue if the RAP queue is being run properly. Allow people to ride once on peak times, and you allow everyone to queue for sensible periods of time (in comparison anyway!). So yes, there’ll be a few people who perhaps miss out on repeat goes on their favourite obsession of a ride, but the majority of others who rarely visit have a much more comfortable trip.

As I mentioned, the alternative for those single ride obsessives is to choose those quieter days, you’ve just got to cater for the majority when you have such a relatively small park/capacity.

 

[imanautie]

I do get the argument for letting people choose themselves. But then I also get the argument that you try and please the majority of guests.

The vast majority of people, even excluding non RAP guests visit one or two times a year, so they have this one or two occasions where they can visit and ride everything on park. If you cater for a relative minority to go on their favourite ride five times and therefore significantly increase the virtual queue for that ride, you could be looking at a 2+ hour queue if the RAP queue is being run properly. Allow people to ride once on peak times, and you allow everyone to queue for sensible periods of time (in comparison anyway!). So yes, there’ll be a few people who perhaps miss out on repeat goes on their favourite obsession of a ride, but the majority of others who rarely visit have a much more comfortable trip.

As I mentioned, the alternative for those single ride obsessives is to choose those quieter days, you’ve just got to cater for the majority when you have such a relatively small park/capacity.

Alterantivly the park could try limiting abled guests to 1 ride on the major's a day, but we all known merlin won't.

 

[Craig]

Alterantivly the park could try limiting abled guests to 1 ride on the major's a day, but we all known merlin won't.

But that wouldn’t really make a difference when one of the major issues is that the RAP capacity for many rides is heavily limited to certain rows. And going back to my earlier point, the vast majority of guests would tour those big rides once anyway on peak days, as that’s pretty much all the time they’d have to do so. Able bodied guests will end up physically queuing for a “true” time anyway

Equality has to work both ways, and there’s no solution where everyone will be happy. The parks have to accept that you can’t tailor make a solution to suit every scenario.

As you’ll see from my earlier posts, long term I’d prefer to see a proper technology supported solution. But until that comes up, this is a happy medium to ensure the majority of those once or twice a year visitors get at least a decent experience.

 

[imanautie]

But that wouldn’t really make a difference when one of the major issues is that the RAP capacity for many rides is heavily limited to certain rows. And going back to my earlier point, the vast majority of guests would tour those big rides once anyway on peak days, as that’s pretty much all the time they’d have to do so. Able bodied guests will end up physically queuing for a “true” time anyway

Equality has to work both ways, and there’s no solution where everyone will be happy. The parks have to accept that you can’t tailor make a solution to suit every scenario.

As you’ll see from my earlier posts, long term I’d prefer to see a proper technology supported solution. But until that comes up, this is a happy medium to ensure the majority of those once or twice a year visitors get at least a decent experience.

Thats still putting abled guests above disabled guests, where as by actually enforcing the rules they already have improves the experience for both abled guests and disabled guests, and one that doesnt risk being legally dubious.

 

[Craig]

Thats still putting abled guests above disabled guests, where as by actually enforcing the rules they already have improves the experience for both abled guests and disabled guests, and one that doesnt risk being legally dubious.

But you know as well as I do that you can’t give 100% equal access on paper when:

- There are physical limitations where RAP guests can sit on some rides, which lowers their capacity.
- The number of RAP guests on those busy days far exceeds the RAP capacity of those rides.

Something simply has to give on those excessively busy days while a long term solution is found. If that means limiting major ride numbers on those peak days then so be it.

 

[imanautie]

But you know as well as I do that you can’t give 100% equal access on paper when:

- There are physical limitations where RAP guests can sit on some rides, which lowers their capacity.
- The number of RAP guests on those busy days far exceeds the RAP capacity of those rides.

Something simply has to give on those excessively busy days while a long term solution is found. If that means limiting major ride numbers on those peak days then so be it.

To be clear I am not against limiting ride numbers on peak days, I am however against limits being placed solely on disabled guests, that is where the issue lies currently.

 

[Craig]

To be clear I am not against limiting ride numbers on peak days, I am however against limits being placed solely on disabled guests, that is where the issue lies currently.

But you’ve got the accept there will be difference between the two thanks to the different capacities. Non RAP users will have a physical queue that’s true to the wait time and fill the available seats regardless.

Even removing non RAP guests from the equation, surely ensuring the majority of RAP guests get a fair chance on as many rides as possible is the fairest possible way of running the service in busy days. I’m curious as to what other option there is in the short term?

 

[imanautie]

But you’ve got the accept there will be difference between the two thanks to the different capacities. Non RAP users will have a ohh social queue that’s true to the wait time and fill the available seats regardless.

Even removing non RAP guests from the equation, surely ensuring the majority of RAP guests get a fair chance on as many rides as possible is the fairest possible way of running the service in busy days. I’m curious as to what other option there is in the short term?

Limit it for all, or limit it for non.

Thats it.

 

[pjanvil]

Limit it for all, or limit it for non.

Thats it.

So if we assume a 120min queue for Dragons Fury. RAP can get a slot 2 hours to come back. Meanwhile non RAP is in queue for 2 hours. In the mean time say Monkey Swinger has a queue of 30min. RAP user can comfortably walk there and back and have a ride then return to Fury. Ride count of RAP user in 2 hours: 2 rides. Non RAP user ride count in 2 hours: 1. That's equal access is it?

 

[imanautie]

So if we assume a 120min queue for Dragons Fury. RAP can get a slot 2 hours to come back. Meanwhile non RAP is in queue for 2 hours. In the mean time say Monkey Swinger has a queue of 30min. RAP user can comfortably walk there and back and have a ride then return to Fury. Ride count of RAP user in 2 hours: 2 rides. Non RAP user ride count in 2 hours: 1. That's equal access is it?

Thats an unrelated issue to the current issue?

 

[pjanvil]

My point is its already not equal

 

[Matt N]

Out of interest, why are RAP users only allowed to sit in certain rows?

I can perhaps understand it for non-ambulant RAP users (e.g. wheelchair users), as sitting them in the back row means that they only have to walk the lowest distance possible, but why do ambulant RAP users need to be sat in certain rows?

Surely an RAP user who can walk unaided is no different to someone not using RAP in terms of evacuation, no? (For clarity, I mean that they won’t need someone to help them evacuate in the event of a breakdown like a non-ambulant RAP user, such as a wheelchair user or someone with crutches, might.)

 

[Skyscraper]

Out of interest, why are RAP users only allowed to sit in certain rows?

I can perhaps understand it for non-ambulant RAP users (e.g. wheelchair users), as sitting them in the back row means that they only have to walk the lowest distance possible, but why do ambulant RAP users need to be sat in certain rows?

Surely an RAP user who can walk unaided is no different to someone not using RAP in terms of evacuation, no? (For clarity, I mean that they won’t need someone to help them evacuate in the event of a breakdown like a non-ambulant RAP user, such as a wheelchair user or someone with crutches, might.)

Think it's because someone with autism or similar may need support exiting a ride during an evac, and if they're sat at the back they'll be assisted first.

 

[imanautie]

Think it's because someone with autism or similar may need support exiting a ride during an evac, and if they're sat at the back they'll be assisted first.

*Assisted at the right time, it's not always first.