#disasterdave

The closure of a popular and iconic ride at any amusement park sparks a range of emotions. Nostalgia, frustration, and anger were three felt among fans of Cedar Point after the announcement of the closure of Disaster Transport in 2012. This closure marked the end of an era for this iconic piece of the park. The decision to close Disaster Transport was received differently by the park’s official announcement and fan reactions. The official statement from Cedar Point in 2012 emphasized business factors, while fan responses on websites like the popular forum for theme park enthusiasts, “CoasterCritic”expressed sadness, nostalgia, and frustration.

The official statement from Cedar Point, as reported by Cleveland.com, serves a pragmatic purpose: it informs the public about the closure and justifies it through operational reasoning, including the need for space and the costs associated with maintaining the aging ride. This is presented in a formal, business-oriented genre meant to reassure the public and maintain the park's reputation. This decision is accurate with the previous actions of the Cedar Fair company, which is known for operating record breaking attractions. This announcement effectively chopped one of the only family oriented Roller Coasters in the park to make room for the new, record-breaking, wing coaster GateKeeper.

Cedar Point’s decision to close Disaster Transport in 2012 was part of a larger trend of updating and improving rides to keep the park competitive, a similar decision to the reasoning for the building of the ride in the first place – Cedar Point’s attempt to compete with Disney World. The ride had been in operation for over 30 years and had outlived its usefulness in terms of maintaining cutting-edge technology and safety standards. The fan reactions, however, occurred within a context of nostalgia and personal attachment to the park, as Disaster Transport had been a signature ride for many visitors. The official statement from Cedar Point targets the general public, potential visitors, media outlets, and most importantly, coaster fans. It aims to present the decision in a way that aligns with the park’s brand image, focusing on practical and business-related reasons for the ride’s closure.

The Cleveland.com article is authored by a reporter (Marcia Pledger of The Plain Dealer) who presents an objective, fact-based account of Cedar Point’s closure decision. The article opens with “Disaster Transport, Cedar Point Amusement Park’s only enclosed roller coaster, and the Space Spiral observation tower are both coming down, the Sandusky amusement company announced Friday” (Pledger, 2012). This opening is very matter-of-fact, offering almost no opinion on the change. The article also references a quote from Jon Shields, a spokesman for Cedar Point, providing clarification that they cannot confirm the addition of a new roller coaster, but want to make better use of the park by removing these two rides (Shields, 2012). The stance is business-oriented, with the article framing the closure as a necessary step for the park’s ongoing development. The context is one of corporate responsibility and the changing needs of amusement parks. This is a rather neutral stance taken on by the popular Cleveland news source, considering Cedar Point is an iconic part of Ohio Culture.

The cleveland.com article uses logic to justify the closure of Disaster Transport by citing different operational and financial factors, including the ride’s age and maintenance costs. The statement from Cedar Point argues that it wants to focus on new attractions to maintain its competitive edge, which is also evident in the announcement of the ride’s replacement to come

4 later on. The article also builds an appeal to the general ideas surrounding the park by quoting different official sources from the park to emphasise the idea that it is in the best interest of the park to close the ride and move on to bigger things. Appeals to emotion are only subtly present with the quick implication that the ride was well loved and mentioning the charity event that took place after the announcement of the ride’s closure. There is one very subtle reference to the theming of the ride itself, in the last line of the article Pledger writes “After 28 seasons of launching riders to Alaska and outer space, Disaster Transport will complete its last mission July 29, Cedar Point reported in a press release friday” (Pledger, 2012).

On the contrary, there are many coaster enthusiasts who were saddened to hear of the closure of Disaster Transport. In a very popular article from “CoasterCritic”, a well known blog-style publication detailing the opinions of fans and consumers of Cedar Point, sadness, disappointment and nostalgia over the closing of the ride was conveyed. Throughout the publication by “CoasterCritic”, a heavy emotional background was given to the removal of the ride, a theme present among many coaster fans. This article also details other fan reactions, mentioning “In only a matter of hours the Facebook group, Save Disaster Transport and Space Spiral popped up,” (The Coaster Critic, 2012). This forum of fans is an important contrast to note in the overall end of the ride.

After reviewing both sources I understand the necessity of the decision to close the ride, however, I think that the decrease of the family friendly environment of cedar point could have been slowed if the ride had been maintained. This is also a classic case of the tension between progress and nostalgia. There is an often underestimated importance of preserving the sentimental value of iconic rides. If the park had spent more time upgrading the ride, I do believe that there would be an uptick in ridership and more opportunities for expansion.