Originally Posted By ssWEDguy And since we're talking maglev, here's a Sept 2006 German incident that Disney would of course prefer to avoid. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/germ any/article/0</a>,,1878980,00.html
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 The problem with monorails (at least to shortsighted Disney execs and MBAs) is the initial building cost is so high. There's simply no forward thinking at WDW to think long term. At some point, depending on how much expansion is done, the cost of busses will rise above the monorail because the costs will have been paid off. The busses costs constantly go up in just repair and gas. Those costs aren't static. Unlike the trains. Once they're paid for, they're paid for. The sad thing is the footers for rail expansion to Disney-MGM and the Epcot resorts were installed back in the late 1980s. That would be a very logical point to start expansion before going further afield, like DAK and/or DD spurs.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< There's simply no forward thinking at WDW to think long term. At some point, depending on how much expansion is done, the cost of busses will rise above the monorail because the costs will have been paid off. The busses costs constantly go up in just repair and gas. Those costs aren't static. Unlike the trains. Once they're paid for, they're paid for. >>> I've often wondered about this, and would be very interested to know what the numbers show as far as long-term costs. If you were to borrow the money (such as by issuing corporate bonds) to expand the monorail at WDW and amortize the buildout costs over its useful life and add in the finance and operational costs, how would this compare to the cost of operating the bus fleet? I really don't have an intuition as to how the numbers would work out. What would be disappointing would be if it were cheaper to operate the monorail over time, but this option was rejected due to the mentality that was expressed in the (in)famous DCA PowerPoint stack: minimize upfront costs even at the expense of ongoing efficiency.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I don't know exact numbers, but I was told by an exec years ago that to build the Disney-MGM and Epcot Resorts loop would have cost close to a billion dollars. I found that figure to be very, very high. But, even if true, how much did Go.com cost Disney? How about Fox Family? Or payouts to Ovitz and the Little Midget? How about startup businesses that Disney SHOULD NOT be in ... everything from Club Disney and DisneyQuest to Mobile ESPN? Clearly, expanding the monorail system would have many positives, including being able to push the cost onto guests by branding resorts as monorail resorts that haven't been and raising rates. Money would be saved by cutting buses. They wouldn't need to constantly add lanes to roads and rebuild bus depots for new resorts that come online. And monorails move people a whole lot more efficiently than buses, so maybe an MBA can come up with a PowerPoint showing that guests will gain an extra 3.78 hours per five day stay in which they can spend, spend, spend! ;-)
Originally Posted By Mr X Why not just charge a nominal fee for monorail usage? I've mentioned this in the past, and some objected, but to me not many tourists are going to mind a small charge IF the system is really maxed out and cool. Also, they could make it cheaper for "lenght of stay" monorail passes too... It works at TDR, and they've got the best monorail service of any Disney park. Clean, efficient, and quick.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> how would this compare to the cost of operating the bus fleet? << Here's a big intangible when it comes to justifying something like the monorails over buses. I've grown to hate the buses. Maybe most other guests don't hate them (yet). Maybe they view them as "a real world thing" that has creeped into this most magical place, making it just a little bit less magical. But the guests sure don't like them. The best I can say is that they are "accepted" because thankfully at least they are there. I can't remember the last time I had a conversation with a guest talking about "how magical the buses are." Can you? Yes, they are clearly better than real world buses. But they are still buses. Slow, noisy, and they belch exhaust fumes. The buses sure don't contribute to the "Where Dreams Come True" message. Selah.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<I've often wondered about this, and would be very interested to know what the numbers show as far as long-term costs. If you were to borrow the money (such as by issuing corporate bonds) to expand the monorail at WDW and amortize the buildout costs over its useful life and add in the finance and operational costs, how would this compare to the cost of operating the bus fleet? I really don't have an intuition as to how the numbers would work out. >>> I am inclined to speculate that the long term costs of a monorail are far greater than a bus fleet. On the fact alone that busses are a dime a dozen. The monorail vehicles are one of a kind. Sure fuel is a consideration, but repair and maintenence are as well. For example, a new electro-magnetic motor set for one single monorail tram, which needs to be replaced or refurbished once a year, may cost as much as 10 new buses. These are not real costs, I have no idea what the real costs are, I am just guessing at how the busses could actually be not only cheaper, but much cheaper. Contrary to popular belief, under Iger, there are MANY MANY more and competant bean counters now than there were in the previous administration.
Originally Posted By hightp DVC_dad, I had a similar thought as you. But there are other ways in which the monorail could be much more cost efficient. For instance, each monorail train pulls 4 cars (or is it 5) therefore, there are 3-4 fewer buses and drivers needed. That alone is a $100K savings per year. Your right that parts could be more expensive for monorails, than buses, but I would tend to think that you would buy less parts for the monorails, than the buses. The monorails would save time, though, as stated earlier. They wouldn’t have to compete on the roads with other traffic and could get to the parks much faster, provided there weren’t too many stops. It’s too bad we’ll probably never see it happen.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> I am inclined to speculate that the long term costs of a monorail are far greater than a bus fleet. << Maybe so, but then again so what? The costs of building and maintaining a castle are a whole lot more than just putting up a square office building. This place wants to be about magic and vision, not just about competence. "Where Dreams Come True," right? >> there are MANY MANY more and competent bean counters now than there were in the previous administration. << God love 'em, you DO need bean counters. You really do. Many of my best friends are bean counters. But the literature will show that you don't want the bean counters to always have the final, controlling vote. The 55% voting edge should go to the visionary.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy To be fair, even during Walt's day it was hard to get visionary things done. On more than one occasion he went out to get money privately to fund a new project. He owned the atraction personally for a long time. They even charged separately for it. You don't see that kind of commitment, except from visionaries. And you don't remember the ones who crash and burn.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<This place wants to be about magic and vision, not just about competence. "Where Dreams Come True," right?>> It's a marketing slogan, not what the WDC really is, and vision more-or-less died with Walt. There is nothing about Disney that stands for futurism; it's stickly an entertainment company.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<vision more-or-less died with Walt.>> I take that back, as Walt's Imagineers had some vision when they built EPCOT, but the vision was still more about creating a fantasy than actually trying to promote any particular ideas or concepts..
Originally Posted By DVC_dad True so true on all counts. The castle point is very well made, and I agree, but I don't see the Monorail ever becomming the main source of transportation at WDW. It isn't now unless you are just looking at tranporation from the Transpotation Station into the MK. Not only that...someone said it all when they spoke of one of the bus driver flipping a bus onto its side. Yes they do move quite swiftly don't they? LOL I say rebuild the roads with high banked curves and remove the speed limit for buses.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>These are not real costs, I have no idea what the real costs are, I am just guessing at how the busses could actually be not only cheaper, but much cheaper. << It would be cheaper not to build anything else at WDW. It would be cheaper to just shut down Space Mountain and let it sit shuttered. It would be cheaper to do a lot of things but Disney doesn't do that. The Las Vegas 7-station system cost a little more than $300 million. None of it was paid by public funds. They are now planning on building extensions to the airport and a handful of additional casinos. $300 million is nothing for Disney Theme park capital. Not in compairison to what you would get with a monorail system. One Disney insider publically claimed that M:S was 200 million. The Pooh ride at DL was 60 million. Go back to Spirit's examples of the "B"illions spent on go.com and Fox Family. Seven stations & 4 miles w/ trains for $300 million? Deal. If it does happen I would hope Bombardier wouldn't be used; it will be interesting to see There will never be a bus-less system at WDW, the point is to improve on the main people-moving routes and add capacity and efficiency. A monorail would accomplish that. Any new monorail system would be driver-less like Tokyo and Las Vegas. Lastly on Las Vegas' website it proudly claims that their monorail system is responsible for eliminating 4.4 million car trips and 135 tons of carbon monoxide each year. To add to ssWEDguy's post, Who wants more than necessary Carbon Monoxide in the Most Magical Place on Earth? >>Contrary to popular belief, under Iger, there are MANY MANY more and competant bean counters now than there were in the previous administration.<< First, it's not contrary to popular belief. Second, it's not true. There are less 'bean counters' at Disney now than their was in 1999. I'm a huge fan of Iger, but I wouldn't commend him with the idea of him directly hiring more bean counters who 'get it'. >>For instance, each monorail train pulls 4 cars (or is it 5) therefore, there are 3-4 fewer buses and drivers needed. That alone is a $100K savings per year.<< Actually each monorail has 6 cars but they can not be seperated like a normal car on a train can be. So whatever metrics you used to calculate that based on 4 or 5 cars, I would increase it.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Deal. If it does happen I would hope Bombardier wouldn't be used; it will be interesting to see ..... how Disneyland's updated trains turn out.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I like when ChiMike returns to the LP and makes all sorts of great points that I don't have to go to the trouble of typing up myself I will say I didn't realize that the Vegas system only cost $300 million. If that is the case I can't see how the exec that told me the billion figure for the Studios/Epcot Resort loop was even in the right ballpark. But either way, Disney has the $$$ when it wants to throw it away/burn it on bad ventures. Let's say it would cost the price of DCA ... $600 million to expand the system. You do it. It's a no brainer in so many ways. As to the beancounters, yes, they are necessary ... a necessary evil in my book. But they aren't creative. They aren't visionary. If the beancounters ran Disney in the past, we never would have gotten Snow White or Fantasia or Disneyland much less anything like EPCOT Center. The biggest problem Disney has had since Frank Wells tragic passing has been the proliferation and raising in stature and importance of the MBAs and consultants ... the non-creatives ... the ones who believe you cut cost/quality at every opportunity. The fact my stock is hovering around $31 should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that is a very bad business strategy. And, no, I don't need an economics degree to see that.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Don't remind me. I think I hold on to my Disney stock now as more of an attachment than an investment at this point. I just have to throw the stock price out there because it so utterly and completely defeats any arguments about why costs need to be reigned in and cuts need to be made. After a decade of cutting and getting 'lean and mean' the only net result is less value for shareholders and a diluted 'brand.' And you're welcome. I always like to see you around!
