Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I can't imagine that a light rail system would be more efficient or less expensive than expanding monorail service.>> It costs WAY LESS to lay a mile of track than to build a mile of monorail beam. I also would imagine (but don't know) that since light rail is much more common the LR trains would be less expensive to buy and maintain than the monorail trains. <<I can see tremendous liability with operating a rail system that has potential to injure guests who might wander onto the tracks. It happens all the time on light rail systems across the country.>> I would do with light rail the same thing the monorail does... avoid grade level crossings. <<I am also surprised that Disney has tested extended-length buses that most larger cities use. I think that the use of larger capacity buses would improve a number of transit issues around the resort.>> I agree.
Originally Posted By leemac <<<<I am also surprised that Disney has tested extended-length buses that most larger cities use. I think that the use of larger capacity buses would improve a number of transit issues around the resort.>> I agree.>> DLP uses the so-called bendy buses that have become prevalent on the streets of London too. Mercedes-Benz even have gas versions.
Originally Posted By leemac <<A modest expansion of monorail service to include only the EPCOT resorts and Disney/MGM might improve the transit options for a significant number of on-property guests. >> I would vehemently disagree with this particular expansion. Now I can understand linking three of the theme parks together (Epcot/MK/D-MGM) but I take major issue with the Epcot resorts. Guests at Swan/Dolphin, BoardWalk and Yacht/Beach club can walk to both parks in under 15 minutes and have access to the Friendship boats. I see no benefit in doing this. It always saddens me to see hardly anyone walking to those parks from the Epcot Resorts Area. It is a beautiful walk and counts as exercise!
Originally Posted By plpeters70 “True, but transportation from the resorts to the parks are not attractions.†It’s really all in the way you look at it – true, they aren’t attractions at the parks, but they are something that guests experience on Disney property. And everything that guests experience on property will be attributed to Disney, and they need to make sure that the entire guest experience, whether they are in a park or not, is a “Disney-quality†experience. Post #30 gives me a little hope that they are realizing this, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^In this age of cost cutting, I wouldn't hold my breath. Unless they can convince the sharp pencil guys in finance that spending big bucks for a monorail (or something similar) will generate a certain ROI, it just won't happen.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 Oh, I agree with you -- I just don't think it's the way they should be doing business.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << I would do with light rail the same thing the monorail does... avoid grade level crossings. >> Unfortunately, that's where most of the cost savings for these systems comes from -- not having to build above grade. When you start building the heavier bridges required for light rail trains, you are effectively making it as expensive an infrastructure as monorail. << I would vehemently disagree with this particular expansion. Now I can understand linking three of the theme parks together (Epcot/MK/D-MGM) but I take major issue with the Epcot resorts. Guests at Swan/Dolphin, BoardWalk and Yacht/Beach club can walk to both parks in under 15 minutes and have access to the Friendship boats. I see no benefit in doing this. >> The benefit is that you don't need any more buses from these resorts to the MK if monorail service is available. That is one lengthy route that can be eliminated and bus resources can be focused elsewhere. And even with boats and walkways, there are still buses between the Epcot resorts and the parks -- you can eliminate these if a monorail service is available as well.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I would vehemently disagree with this particular expansion. Now I can understand linking three of the theme parks together (Epcot/MK/D-MGM) but I take major issue with the Epcot resorts.>> It does kinda make sense since this was the last 'planned' expansion. <<Guests at Swan/Dolphin, BoardWalk and Yacht/Beach club can walk to both parks in under 15 minutes and have access to the Friendship boats.>> Those boats are the slowest form of transport known to man. <<I see no benefit in doing this.>> Well, I truly hope your consulting doesn't involve future transport issues. <<It always saddens me to see hardly anyone walking to those parks from the Epcot Resorts Area. It is a beautiful walk and counts as exercise!>> It is. And I love to do it. But I'm not the typical guest. First, the typical guest doesn't want to take time for a nice walk. They want to go ride ToT or TT and they want fast, efficient transport that will take them to those places. Second, have you looked at the size of the average WDW guest recently? Exercise isn't something most are interested in.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << In this age of cost cutting, I wouldn't hold my breath. Unless they can convince the sharp pencil guys in finance that spending big bucks for a monorail (or something similar) will generate a certain ROI, it just won't happen. >> Unfortunately, there is no transportation alternative that offers any ROI. Either you spend money to upgrade buses, which is a smaller amount incrementally since there aren't any big infrastructure requirements or you spend a lot of infrastructure money for monorail service which pays off in the long run due to reduced fuel and personnel (bus drivers) costs. In the end, both options cost a lot of money but don't add a cent to the bottom line. Considering that there are no alternative fuels that are "cheap," I can't imagine that Disney wouldn't be crunching the monorail numbers again based on fuel costs alone in this area of energy uncertainty. I can also imagine that the cost savings from reducing the number of bus drivers on the payroll is not insignificant when you consider that a monorail system requires far fewer drivers than a comparable bus system.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Second, have you looked at the size of the average WDW guest recently? Exercise isn't something most are interested in. >> Exactly. They should be most interested in the nearest location of a defibrulator station for when they suffer a massive heart attack.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Anyone else feel it's weird for Disney fans to get behind buses as a 'solution' for transportation problems? Anyone else feel that old Walt or even old Michael, before he went soft, would have not thought that guests paying $400 a night to stay in a Disney resort (or much, much more if DVCers) should be required to take dirty, expensive, street-clogging buses in which they regularly are packed in like sardines and forced to stand (which is blatantly unsafe)? WDW was supposed to be guided by the EPCOT ideal ... not the WalMart model.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Anyone else feel it's weird for Disney fans to get behind buses as a 'solution' for transportation problems?>> The bus system the WDW currently has is not even close to what would be possible with a really first class and innovative bus system. To take a look at the current system and dismiss any possibility of bus transit because of what is there now totally ignores what COULD be there in the future. When I talk about a future with busses I see busses with futuristic styling, clean burning fuels, dedicated transitways to increase speeds, etc. In 1955 monorails were really cool. Now, at least to me, they are just one more way to get around WDW. If busses could do it just as well and for less money, why not??
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << When I talk about a future with busses I see busses with futuristic styling, clean burning fuels, dedicated transitways to increase speeds, etc. >> A very expensive proposition. There are no "cheap" clean burning fuels. Building separate roads would be just as costly as building a new monorail beam. Add to that the increased cost of "stylized" buses and it just doesn't make sense. The reason why buses are the transportation of choice right now is because the 1) run on existing infrastructure, 2) use widely available fuels that are relatively inexpensive, and 3) can be bought from any number of suppliers in bulk at reasonable prices (compared to a monorail train sourced from a single manufacturer).
Originally Posted By AuroraRose <<WDW was supposed to be guided by the EPCOT ideal ... not the WalMart model>> Can we get an AMEN????
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<WDW was supposed to be guided by the EPCOT ideal ... not the WalMart model>> You heard that directly from Walt, huh??
Originally Posted By Mr X No, RoadTrip, Walt would never care about that stuff. Cheap regular old buses would have been fine with him!
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>WDW was supposed to be guided by the EPCOT ideal ... not the WalMart model<< Walt's dead, and the current CEO has to answer to Wall St analysts. Heck, my company is getting dinged by the street because we "spend too much on IT". Wall St is no longer content with public companies delivering steady growth, it now insists of telling management on how they should run their companies. OLC, being privately help, doesn't have to deal with this short sighted mentality when it makes decisions on how to run TDL and TDS.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< OLC, being privately help, doesn't have to deal with this short sighted mentality when it makes decisions on how to run TDL and TDS. >>> OLC is not privately held - it's publicly traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.
