Construction between Contemporary and TTC

[DisneySongbird]

Disney seems rather hesitant to have guests walking in close proximity to traffic and the routes you suggested do just that. I think the last time they built sidewalks along a regularly traveled road was when they built the CM pathways along W Buena Vista between BB and the All Stars in the mid 90's

Yeah, that's the logical explanation for why it hasn't been done, although I don't consider it to be a reasonable hesitancy - even if my usual followup to this line of thinking (which is that not having the facilities in place creates a bigger hazard for those who won't be deterred from walking) is null and void here since Walt Disney World, unlike most public environments, does in fact have the power to stop people from walking there anyway.

Obviously, carving a new fully separated facility is a lot harder (and a lot more expensive) than simply paving those sidewalks, and that segment of World Drive is probably about as low risk as you're going to get anywhere on property. Maybe a themed fence or barrier setup of some kind to ease the worried minds on the risk analysis and executive teams? That'd still be fairly cheap...

 

[JoeCamel]

Yeah, that's the logical explanation for why it hasn't been done, although I don't consider it to be a reasonable hesitancy - even if my usual followup to this line of thinking (which is that not having the facilities in place creates a bigger hazard for those who won't be deterred from walking) is null and void here since Walt Disney World, unlike most public environments, does in fact have the power to stop people from walking there anyway.

Obviously, carving a new fully separated facility is a lot harder (and a lot more expensive) than simply paving those sidewalks, and that segment of World Drive is probably about as low risk as you're going to get anywhere on property. Maybe a themed fence or barrier setup of some kind to ease the worried minds on the risk analysis and executive teams? That'd still be fairly cheap...

If they can ram Brightline under the 528 they could tunnel under the canal to put a walkway through. Cost benefit is not there but it would make happy runners. Lagoon side has a bunch of infrastructure buried through it.

 

[flynnibus]

In full disclosure Disney does own the I.P. for 20,000 Leagues under the sea and even had a ride at MK 1971 - 1994! It would be quite creative for a Deluxe Resort to be developed with a 20,000 Leagues under the sea theme. Could you imagine Nautilus water taxis to and from MK!
View attachment 572070

No they don't own it. Jules Verne's novel is in the public domain.

Disney does of course... own the IP to their 1954 film adaptation of the novel..

 

[GimpYancIent]

No they don't own it. Jules Verne's novel is in the public domain.

Disney does of course... own the IP to their 1954 film adaptation of the novel..

Of course.

 

[DisneySongbird]

If they can ram Brightline under the 528 they could tunnel under the canal to put a walkway through. Cost benefit is not there but it would make happy runners. Lagoon side has a bunch of infrastructure buried through it.

No clue what the necessary clearance is to keep that canal fully navigable but unless it's something truly absurd ("we need to be able to sail the Liberty Belle through here" levels of absurd) I can't imagine the tunnel ending up cheaper than a bridge or two, and a bridge with scenic views would make runners (and me!) even happier than a tunnel.

 

[danlb_2000]

No clue what the necessary clearance is to keep that canal fully navigable but unless it's something truly absurd ("we need to be able to sail the Liberty Belle through here" levels of absurd) I can't imagine the tunnel ending up cheaper than a bridge or two, and a bridge with scenic views would make runners (and me!) even happier than a tunnel.

The Liberty Belle DOES need to go through there, that's how it gets to the drydock.

 

[DisAl]

The Liberty Belle DOES need to go through there, that's how it gets to the drydock.

I don't know what the draft on the Liberty Belle is but it can't be more than about 4' since the Rivers of America is no more than about 6' or 7' deep at most.

 

[DisneySongbird]

The Liberty Belle DOES need to go through there, that's how it gets to the drydock.

Didn't know that! Well, you learn something new every day. That does pretty solidly kill the bridge option unfortunately, and the tunnel is definitely not passing cost/benefit. I still hold out hope for the sidewalks as previously mentioned and I think it's a shame that Disney is hesitant to add such.

I don't know what the draft on the Liberty Belle is but it can't be more than about 4' since the Rivers of America is no more than about 6' or 7' deep at most.

Sure, but I was thinking a pedestrian bridge over the water as a dedicated path rather than punching a second tunnel under it - so what matters is the clearance height, which for the Liberty Belle, is at least 50 feet. (In other words: no chance.) A movable bridge would accomodate it, but that's its own logistical headache.

 

[DisAl]

Didn't know that! Well, you learn something new every day. That does pretty solidly kill the bridge option unfortunately, and the tunnel is definitely not passing cost/benefit. I still hold out hope for the sidewalks as previously mentioned and I think it's a shame that Disney is hesitant to add such.


Sure, but I was thinking a pedestrian bridge over the water as a dedicated path rather than punching a second tunnel under it - so what matters is the clearance height, which for the Liberty Belle, is at least 50 feet. (In other words: no chance.) A movable bridge would accomodate it, but that's its own logistical headache.

There are a lot of boats that use the water bridge such as the ones that run from Wilderness Lodge and the campground to the MK. Boats pass through every few minutes.

 

[DisneySongbird]

There are a lot of boats that use the water bridge such as the ones that run from Wilderness Lodge and the campground to the MK. Boats pass through every few minutes.

Yeah, and a fixed span with around 16 feet of clearance at high tide would allow the WL/FW ferries through no problem (and obviously everything smaller like the Boston Whalers and Sea Raycers could get through as well) - and 16 feet is a perfectly reasonable height to build a bridge at with no real need for anything more than a gently sloping ramp to get people up and over. 99% of the boat traffic isn't a problem and likely enhances the appeal of a bridge to have a scenic overlook onto the boat traffic.

Even the larger yachts can be accomodated by 22~28 feet of clearance, which is starting to push it but still in the realm of possibility with some creative switchback designing.

It's really just the few enormous ships that pose an issue; building a fixed span bridge with enough clearance to get the Belle under it almost certainly requires a prohibitive staircase/elevator assembly on either side in order to get guests up to the 50+ foot height the bridge would need to be at for the Belle to clear safely, and building a movable bridge means you're stuck maintaining the machinery that goes into moving the bridge forever.

 

[JoeCamel]

Yeah, and a fixed span with around 16 feet of clearance at high tide would allow the WL/FW ferries through no problem (and obviously everything smaller like the Boston Whalers and Sea Raycers could get through as well) - and 16 feet is a perfectly reasonable height to build a bridge at with no real need for anything more than a gently sloping ramp to get people up and over. 99% of the boat traffic isn't a problem and likely enhances the appeal of a bridge to have a scenic overlook onto the boat traffic.

Even the larger yachts can be accomodated by 22~28 feet of clearance, which is starting to push it but still in the realm of possibility with some creative switchback designing.

It's really just the few enormous ships that pose an issue; building a fixed span bridge with enough clearance to get the Belle under it almost certainly requires a prohibitive staircase/elevator assembly on either side in order to get guests up to the 50+ foot height the bridge would need to be at for the Belle to clear safely, and building a movable bridge means you're stuck maintaining the machinery that goes into moving the bridge forever.

Um, @lazyboy97o how many feet of run up are required to get to 50 feet and how many landings?

 

[lazyboy97o]

16 feet is a perfectly reasonable height to build a bridge at with no real need for anything more than a gently sloping ramp to get people up and over.

16’ of rise means over 200 linear feet of ramp on each side.

 

[hopemax]

It's really just the few enormous ships that pose an issue; building a fixed span bridge with enough clearance to get the Belle under it almost certainly requires a prohibitive staircase/elevator assembly on either side in order to get guests up to the 50+ foot height the bridge would need to be at for the Belle to clear safely, and building a movable bridge means you're stuck maintaining the machinery that goes into moving the bridge forever.

Is there such a thing as a removable span? Like a crane or lift barge, that literally picks up the span and moves it into Bay Lake or the Lagoon, the two nights, a few months apart, every however many years, that the Liberty Belle or a large vessel would need passage? While the other however many days it isn't needed, can be bolted into place? Can you rent something like that?

 

[DisneySongbird]

Um, @lazyboy97o how many feet of run up are required to get to 50 feet and how many landings?

According to the ADA, the maximum allowable grade is 12 feet of run for every foot of rise on a ramp and a landing is necessary every 3 feet of rise; so we're looking at a minimum of 17 landings and 600 linear feet of ramp not counting those landings... or a pair of elevators. (EDIT: and this would be 600 feet of an 8.33% grade, which is a pretty punishing climb for the uninitiated - there's a world of difference between that and the 4% I consider tolerable in my answer below. If you want 4% here, it's going to be 1250 linear feet - just under a quarter mile.)

16’ of rise means over 200 linear feet of ramp on each side.

200 feet is about the distance in a straight line moving backwards from the water's edge to about halfway up the parking lot at the South Garden Wing on the CR side. Edge to the opposite edge of the parking lot's about 400 feet for a very gentle 4% grade. If we really wanted, we could lift off from the beach behind the Garden Wing and stretch this thing out to a 1% grade by wrapping around the edge of the land on the CR side but this feels a little excessive when 4% is well within tolerances.

Since we only need one of the two canals on either side of the island to be fully navigable in this hypothetical, we can get away with a 1% sloping descent starting from the north end of the island and landing us easily around the dock at WL.

16 feet wouldn't be a problem.

 

[fgmnt]

You gotta figure if the company is targeting a new resort hotel within the view of Cinderella Castle, it would have to be on the plot of land that sits between the GF - MK pathway, the service canal, and Floridian Way, no? Why build the bridge unless your wanted to build a new hotel with walking access to the castle park?

 

[castlecake2.0]

I can’t see them ever building a bridge over the water bridge just to put a walking path there .

 

[cranbiz]

I can’t see them ever building a bridge over the water bridge just to put a walking path there .

I don't either.

 

[DisneySongbird]

I can’t see them ever building a bridge over the water bridge just to put a walking path there .

I could see them doing it if not for the Liberty Belle needing to go through there. Unfortunately...

As it is, the sidewalks really do solve the access issue while posing no real logistical challenges and doable on a budget consisting of shoelaces and pocket lint. The only issue there is that Disney is unwilling to expand pedestrian access - possibly because of unfounded risk aversion or possibly for less charitable reasons. My hypothesizing about a dedicated bridge aside, I'd be more than happy to just be given pedestrian access to World Drive.

 

[castlecake2.0]

I could see them doing it if not for the Liberty Belle needing to go through there. Unfortunately...

As it is, the sidewalks really do solve the access issue while posing no real logistical challenges and doable on a budget consisting of shoelaces and pocket lint. The only issue there is that Disney is unwilling to expand pedestrian access - possibly because of unfounded risk aversion or possibly for less charitable reasons. My hypothesizing about a dedicated bridge aside, I'd be more than happy to just be given pedestrian access to World Drive.

I do wish there was more pedestrian access around property, but I understand why Disney wouldn’t necessarily want people walking all over the place through unsupervised areas.

 

[flynnibus]

I can’t see them ever building a bridge over the water bridge just to put a walking path there .

Incredibles pods and air tubes... that's the answer