Epcot Center/Buena Vista Drive Interchange Project

George

Liker of Things
Premium Member
You seriously cannot comment on something that isn't even a new attraction???? A new or expanded roadway is a secret? C'mon, really?!?!?

If it is some kind of big change to the transportation system, I can see why you would not want to comment on it, especially if it may not come to fruition. For someone like me who used to just take buses, monorails, and boats around WDW when I was in HS (just a local, dorking around the property having fun) the transportation system is interesting and is an attraction (in a way) unto itself. @marni1971 would hate to have a bunch of nerdy nerdatrons, like yours truly, hounding him for the next decade because we weren't flying around the property with our jet packs.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Because from an infrastructure and cost standpoint, it's incredibly inefficient. And it's not like the current system guarantees speedy transport for guests. If it meant waits were no more than 5 minutes then it would perhaps be ok, but it's still not uncommon to wait 15 or 20 minutes.

WDW has around 30 hotels. The point to point method means each of these hotels has at least 5 bus lines (the 4 theme parks and DTD). That's around about 150 distinct bus routes crisscrossing WDW, varying on crowd levels and whether some hotels (like the All Stars) are sharing one route or if each has its own. Let's say there are (average) 2-3 buses on each route to move people about. That's 300-450 buses and upwards of 900 drivers (multiple shifts, remember) just to move people from their resort to the parks. The same movement of people could be done with fewer buses and with shorter waits if it was reorganized to be a coherent network rather than a bloated shuttle system.

If Disney insists on only using buses, then instituting a network of "express" bus lines with dedicated lanes down the main roadways of WDW with transfer points to "local" resort buses makes infinitely more sense than it does to keep trying to maintain the point to point system that is currently in place. If done properly, it would mean less overhead, better use of resources, and (I think) shorter overall waits and higher overall bus speeds.
I'm no civil engineer but I think the load/unload times at the connection points would more than outweigh any efficiency gains in your model. I get what you're going for but your system doesn't consider 1) disability access (a huge delay every time there's a need to change buses), or 2) guest intelligence. Sometimes "simple" needs to be prioritized over "efficient."
 

hpyhnt 1000

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately there's some (quite a bit of?) crossover as they're all a part of Imagineering, so yes, I'd say there are good reasons why Marni can't say anything.

I was going to say the same thing. There are all kinds of confidentiality/non disclosure/proprietary/any other synonym for "private" agreements out there these days. I'm sure his sources are bound in some way, which then limits Martin's ability to discuss anything.

Considering that @marni1971 has an entire website dedicated to Disney information and fun facts, I don't think he is keeping quiet just to spite all of us (at least I hope not!).
 

MGMBoy

Well-Known Member
I'm no civil engineer but I think the load/unload times at the connection points would more than outweigh any efficiency gains in your model. I get what you're going for but your system doesn't consider 1) disability access (a huge delay every time there's a need to change buses), or 2) guest intelligence. Sometimes "simple" needs to be prioritized over "efficient."

Very true but there are some systems that make accessibility almost a non-issue. The trains we use in Portland loose around 15 seconds to extend a ramp, load a wheelchair/ECV and retract the ramp. It is true that simple needs to take priority over efficient but can't we have a little of both?
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Very true but there are some systems that make accessibility almost a non-issue. The trains we use in Portland loose around 15 seconds to extend a ramp, load a wheelchair/ECV and retract the ramp. It is true that simple needs to take priority over efficient but can't we have a little of both?
But if it were a train system there would have to be "hubs". Think five different TTCs throughout property. That means one bus to get from your starting point to one hub, then a second bus to get from your destination hub to your final destination. Still makes things more complicated and requires more transfers.
 

MGMBoy

Well-Known Member
But if it were a train system there would have to be "hubs". Think five different TTCs throughout property. That means one bus to get from your starting point to one hub, then a second bus to get from your destination hub to your final destination. Still makes things more complicated and requires more transfers.

That's why you would spoke it out like I showed above. In terms of "simple" there would be one choice at your hotel (bus to nearest park), two options at that park (stay and play or train to hub) and once at hub would just choose train headed to your destination. Since the trains would (in theory) be more direct and less prone to traffic problems, a trip from the Hub to MK would be around 5-7 minutes.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
I am absolutely stunned that anyone is applauding the implementation of 10 lane highways and more city busses as Disney's magical future.

This is insane.
Not everything needs to be or can be magical. If you have to pee in Adventureland, you're going to use a white porcelain urinal very similar to what you'll find in the Orlando International Airport. When you park your car at Epcot, you'll likely find black asphalt with white painted spaces similar to the Walmart on 192. The rolling steel cages used to transfer your luggage from DME to your room kind of look like... rolling steel cages. The dumpsters behind Wilderness Lodge look eerily similar to this dumpster I saw one time at a McDonald's.

Infrastructure isn't sexy, nor does it need to be. It needs to be safe, clean, and reasonably efficient.
 

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
Cap, your thinking is how we ended up in this mess to start with. It's like they developed the property by flinging darts at a map. They didn't have a comprehensive transportation plan before they sprouted hotels like dandelions. You, my friend, are cheering them on. You literally are cheering them for grabbing the ball and running full bore in the wrong direction.

What WDW needs is not. I repeat, NOT 10 lane highways and more city busses.
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Cap, your thinking is how we ended up in this mess to start with. It's like they developed the property by flinging darts at a map. They didn't have a comprehensive transportation plan before they sprouted hotels like dandelions. You, my friend, are cheering them on. You literally are cheering them for grabbing the ball and running full bore in the wrong direction.

What WDW needs is not. I repeat, NOT 10 lane highways and more city busses.
What does it need?
 

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
Not everything needs to be or can be magical. If you have to pee in Adventureland, you're going to use a white porcelain urinal very similar to what you'll find in the Orlando International Airport. When you park your car at Epcot, you'll likely find black asphalt with white painted spaces similar to the Walmart on 192. The rolling steel cages used to transfer your luggage from DME to your room kind of look like... rolling steel cages. The dumpsters behind Wilderness Lodge look eerily similar to this dumpster I saw one time at a McDonald's.

Infrastructure isn't sexy, nor does it need to be. It needs to be safe, clean, and reasonably efficient.
Wow, just wow.

You actually believe the stuff you post? Really? So dumping the monorails, ferries, launches and replace them all with city busses would be acceptable to you?
 

Otterhead

Well-Known Member
I think it's entirely possible to have an infrastructure that balances sexy/romantic mass transport (monorails, ferries) and smaller, utilitarian transit (buses) without overhauling everything from scratch.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
You actually believe the stuff you post? Really? So dumping the monorails, ferries, launches and replace them all with city busses would be acceptable to you?
You don't see the unbelievably huge difference between "don't spend billions of dollars on new monorail lines" and "destroy all of the existing monorails"? The monorail works well for what it is. Five stops located in close physical proximity on a round trip loop. It is NOT a viable solution to resort-wide transportation on the scale necessary to get guests where they need to go at anything resembling a reasonable cost to build and operate.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
I think it's entirely possible to have an infrastructure that balances sexy/romantic mass transport (monorails, ferries) and smaller, utilitarian transit (buses) without overhauling everything from scratch.
Exactly, like the "leave it alone, we already have that" system.*

But please fix up the monorail interiors.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
As I said earlier. A monorail extension. Extensive use of light rail, people movers, and moving sidewalks. There is no one size fits all answer to how incompetently they developed the property, but 10 lane highways inside of WDW property is insane.
Would you, for the love of God, please stop saying "10 lane highways" and "city buses" like you're describing the drive from LAX to the Staples Center? Traffic is what it is. Adding lanes will make it less congested. I can't see how you're spinning that into a bad thing.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom