Epcot Center/Buena Vista Drive Interchange Project

[Progress.City]

For heavens sake, Peter, someday I'm going to go down there and help you dig them up. You cannot ever seem to get through your head that whatever purpose they had at the time of construction no longer exists. I know they are there, it has been publicly shown that they are there and why they were put there at the time of Epcot's construction, everybody knows they are there, someplace under the grass. At what point is it that you are going to accept that it means nothing currently any more the a ball point pen that an engineer dropped and it has since been covered over with dirt. We get it! They planned differently at one time. At one point in time I planned on being king of a nation. Ask me how that's working for me.

Yes, I get all that. It was put in for a project that was cancelled, just like how vacant land still exists at HS for David Copperfield - another cancelled project.

 

[DDLand]

Here is an interesting article on the subject.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=469096&page=1

What it seems to break down to is there are a number psychological X factors that have to be considered when designing highways. While it makes perfectly logical sense that more lanes equals greater capacity, us stupid humans tend to mess it up.

I see where a logical argument can be made in here in commuter situations. In fact, I see a lot of similarities between this and adding more attractions to overcrowded theme parks. Add more rides, and you probably will just attract more people. Still, I struggle to see the crossover at WDW.

In order to apply this to WDW, you have to assume that people are getting to the theme parks using alternative routes. That by theoretically adding an extra lane to World Drive (just work with this as an example), people will take that instead of something else to get to MK. Or there's a less desirable route to get into the park. Except, that's the way almost every guest gets to MK already. There isn't really a worse way to get into MK. You could argue some Resort Guests will stop using Transport in favor of the new roads, but that's unlikely. Many Resort guests don't have a car or don't want to use one for a variety of reasons. That's unlikey to have a major effect.

Most cities commuters are like water in a colander. If you made the hole at the bottom bigger, it won't really make a difference because one of the other less desirable routes will simply get less traffic while that same original road takes on more. The difference with WDW is it's like a bottle. There's only one (maybe two or three) in and one out. By widening a bottle head it will have a big difference because you'll be spreading the same amount of cars over more roads. It won't attract new ones. There was no less desirable place for the water to escape in the first place. It's all improvement.

Personally, I would like a more thoughtful infrastructure design. Even if lanes "work," they're not what WDW stands for.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The additional lanes attract additional vehicles. People changing lanes also delays traffic and more lanes means more changes.

Here is an interesting article on the subject.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=469096&page=1

What it seems to break down to is there are a number psychological X factors that have to be considered when designing highways. While it makes perfectly logical sense that more lanes equals greater capacity, us stupid humans tend to mess it up.

See my reply to @PhotoDave219. All of the research and models about traffic patterns and driver behavior can be absolutely tossed out the window when we're restricting our scope to ON Disney property. Total vehicles is relatively fixed as a function of resort guests and theme park attendance, unlike a city which is much more fluid.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

There is no reason you cannot design a rail based system (light-rail, monorail, etc.) at a reasonable construction cost which operates on a point-to-point basis. It would be more efficient than a "hub & spoke" layout, but more importantly, it has long been demonstrated that people do not like to change trains (or buses or airplanes), even between modes. Passengers want a one-seat ride from origin to destination.

Rail does not require hubs any more than buses do.



Infrastructure does matter, however, when it is "on-stage" or otherwise part of the "show", which by definition would include transportation within Walt Disney World. The dumpsters aren't placed out in plain view (doesn't mean you can't ever catch sight of one, of course); When trash receptacles have been on-stage, such as trash cans in the parks, they have (generally) been themed or at least distinctively presented. There are whole threads around here devoted to well themed restrooms, while even parking lots are at least landscaped - no plain, ugly asphalt jungles. Point is, the presentation of infrastructure within a resort district does indeed matter.



The one way to get more people out of their cars and into mass transit is to make the transit option more convenient than driving. We all know the drawbacks and delays inherent in Disney bus transportation - they aren't more convenient, and thus people drive.



Science is hardly always true, unless you believe that the Earth has aged 2 billion years in roughly the same amount of time that Walt Disney World has existed. Science is always developing and knowledge expanding, and what was once thought to be true is revealed to be incorrect. Believing in science (sometimes to avoid belief in something else) doesn't make it true any more than believing in the tooth fairy makes her real.



Expanded road capacity is not necessarily the same thing as reduced congestion. @lazyboy97o is correct; Studies have shown that roads tend to reach capacity soon after they're expanded. You cannot solve transportation issues solely by building more lanes/roads. There are limits to how much you can do, and literally how wide you want (or are able) to build a highway. Hence, the push for greater rail-based options across the nation (but they don't come cheap).



Rails are actually the modes greatest asset, not a liability (dedicated right-of-way, instead of mixed with congested road traffic).



A loop would be silly and a hub - again - far less efficient than just running the trains (of whatever type) directly to the destination. Fortunately, Walt Disney World has a relatively limited number of origins (resorts) and destinations (parks and Disney Springs) as opposed to literally thousands for a major city (bus stops every couple blocks, for instance, on miles of route). Things are far more manageable.



And to a much greater degree, arguably, than the entire NGE debacle. Perhaps for less cost, too, depending on whose numbers you use.

Manageable number of endpoints? Connecting every park to every resort would be hundreds of unique lines. There's no way it could be constructed at anything resembling a reasonable cost around the existing buildings and roadways, to say nothing about the land management concerns about doing this whole thing in a swamp.

 

[lazyboy97o]

See my reply to @PhotoDave219. All of the research and models about traffic patterns and driver behavior can be absolutely tossed out the window when we're restricting our scope to ON Disney property. Total vehicles is relatively fixed as a function of resort guests and theme park attendance, unlike a city which is much more fluid.

If your point was true there would be no congestion issues to begin with. Time is also part of why additional lanes fail. By the time they open the usage has increased.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Yes, I get all that. It was put in for a project that was cancelled, just like how vacant land still exists at HS for David Copperfield - another cancelled project.

Thank you.. for the first time not trying to make it into a big old secret about how Disney had plans to run the Monorail to DtD (or whatever name it had back then). So many of us acknowledge that it was planned at one time, almost none of us ever said that those old footings didn't exist. We were all just trying to understand why you continued to argue about a known entity. Even if only temporary, welcome back to the world of reality and let's not talk about those footers ever again.

 

[Progress.City]

Thank you.. for the first time not trying to make it into a big old secret about how Disney had plans to run the Monorail to DtD (or whatever name it had back then). So many of us acknowledge that it was planned at one time, almost none of us ever said that those old footings didn't exist. We were all just trying to understand why you continued to argue about a known entity. Even if only temporary, welcome back to the world of reality and let's not talk about those footers ever again.

That's not how I perceived it at the time. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[CDavid]

The big difference there is that Walt Disney World is not Washington, DC. In a real city, people are making commuting decisions based on traffic tolerance. Walt Disney World isn't going to have 20% more bus route or 20% more guests just because the roads are 20% wider.

I rather thought that the idea of redeveloping Downtown Disney - which includes the expanded road infrastructure - was indeed to attract more guests to the area. You are trying to argue the number of guests travelling within Walt Disney World is fixed, when in actuality it continues to grow. Greater accessibility into Disney Springs, due to the expanded roadwork, will itself help draw more people in. Road capacity will be significantly increased; Road congestion ultimately will not necessarily be so improved.

Manageable number of endpoints? Connecting every park to every resort would be hundreds of unique lines. There's no way it could be constructed at anything resembling a reasonable cost around the existing buildings and roadways, to say nothing about the land management concerns about doing this whole thing in a swamp.

Are you being serious? Why would a rail based option of any type - monorail, light-rail, conventional rail, peoplemover - require unique dedicated lines to each resort? That's just silly. Buses (and private vehicles) do not need unique roads to each resort - so why do you think trains would?

You build a few trunk routes with branches to each individual destination, just as done anywhere else in the United States and around the world. This isn't rocket science.

Railroad infrastructure doesn't come cheap (though numbers thrown around are often exaggerated) but it could be implemented at a reasonable cost for the achievement and transportation efficiency obtained.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You build a few trunk routes with branches to each individual destination, just as done anywhere else in the United States and around the world. This isn't rocket science.

Railroad infrastructure doesn't come cheap (though numbers thrown around are often exaggerated) but it could be implemented at a reasonable cost for the achievement and transportation efficiency obtained.

Honestly I think we agree in principle. It would be fantastic to get the guest transit vehicles out of the roadways and onto dedicated rails, I just disagree with your assessment of how dramatic of an improvement that would be. I think it's marginal at best and doesn't come anywhere close to justifying the cost.

Circling back to your other point about Disney Springs drawing additional visitors, I certainly agree. But they're coming to experience Disney Springs, not because they've ALWAYS wanted to come to Downtown Disney and just never did because there weren't enough traffic lanes. Yes, there will be increases in the vehicles on Buena Vista Drive that coincides with the widening of the roadway, but it's not a causal relationship.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Honestly I think we agree in principle. It would be fantastic to get the guest transit vehicles out of the roadways and onto dedicated rails, I just disagree with your assessment of how dramatic of an improvement that would be. I think it's marginal at best and doesn't come anywhere close to justifying the cost.

Circling back to your other point about Disney Springs drawing additional visitors, I certainly agree. But they're coming to experience Disney Springs, not because they've ALWAYS wanted to come to Downtown Disney and just never did because there weren't enough traffic lanes. Yes, there will be increases in the vehicles on Buena Vista Drive that coincides with the widening of the roadway, but it's not a causal relationship.

Except that about a half century of research says it is a causal relationship...

 

[PhotoDave219]

The big difference there is that Walt Disney World is not Washington, DC. In a real city, people are making commuting decisions based on traffic tolerance. Walt Disney World isn't going to have 20% more bus route or 20% more guests just because the roads are 20% wider.

Alas, the infrastructure was ignored for 15 years.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Except that about a half century of research says it is a causal relationship...

Again, it's apples and oranges. Walt Disney World's traffic patterns have absolutely nothing to do with the traffic patterns in Boston, New York, DC, or any other place where that research may have been conducted. Commuters and leisure travelers behave differently. Travelers with the option to take the subway behave differently than those choosing between a bus and a rental car. Folks in their home cities can plan alternate routes around congestion better than visitors to a strange place with no knowledge of the roadways. Etc.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Again, it's apples and oranges. Walt Disney World's traffic patterns have absolutely nothing to do with the traffic patterns in Boston, New York, DC, or any other place where that research may have been conducted. Commuters and leisure travelers behave differently. Travelers with the option to take the subway behave differently than those choosing between a bus and a rental car. Folks in their home cities can plan alternate routes around congestion better than visitors to a strange place with no knowledge of the roadways. Etc.

The research is not just about commutes and has been shown to apply generally, not just in big cities. There is also a local population that does decide to come or not on more of a whim.

 

[ford91exploder]

The research is not just about commutes and has been shown to apply generally, not just in big cities. There is also a local population that does decide to come or not on more of a whim.

What makes mass transit successful is schedule reliability and frequency if either the schedules are not reliable or the mode does not run frequently enough it will fail.

 

[Progress.City]

Disney could at any time do anything they want with transportation. It's at the whim of management. They may progressively move to BRT and that could evolve to light rail. Or they can just opt for a PRT system. There's a PRT system being built right now in Tel Aviv called SkyTran. If that is successful, I see no reason why that system or others like it can't be built at WDW.

 

[Progress.City]

Here's the answer...

http://www.skytran.us/skytran/

It's being built right now in Tel Aviv.

 

[Next Big Thing]

I don't know that anything within Disney's walls will ever be "cool" enough for the real partiers.

You must not have heard about House of Blues club nights. Nothing that happens within that place once it opens is "Disney safe" or something they want guests to know happens. But i'll be damned if it isn't packed to the brim every week.

 

[Monorail_Red_77]

I felt the same way about its fortunes until I finally watched the Old Man pitch it himself. By the end you're pretty much sold. Makes you realize what type of person he was. I'd watch this before passing judgement:

You may not think it will bomb after that. Of course, he was the ultimate salesman. The good things for his investors is he also had impeccable taste.

Nothing communist about it. He planned to have several corporations take the offices and reserve rooms for their employees. Part of an employees salary was free housing, and I'd imagine mass transit. The plans also called for different levels of zoning. If you wanted a house in suburbs you could get it. More of city person? Get an apartment. Totally flexible. I'd imagine that you could get better housing if you'd like, based off of income.

I'd say this about as far away from communist as you can get. In fact, I'd say this would've been pretty close to a corporatist society.

Yes, kinda reminds me of hearing of the old mine towns that were company owned back in the old days. Everything was comany owned so you probably really didnt get much of a paycheck. Need groceries put it on your tab with the company, need housing, hey company owned too.

 

[Monorail_Red_77]

As posed before, how much need is there for this?

I have no proof, but I think there is a lot of inner park transfers. Have you experienced a packed monorail going to MK from EPCOT? They sure aren't going to their car in the EPCOT parking lot. Granted I've also seen very empty monorails going between TTC and EPCOT too.

Ever leave MK late afternoon around 5 when the park is open late? pretty empty too and that is express mk to ttc.

But I'm sure there is data floating around somewhere that could show inner park transfers or at least guest flow on the different modes of transportation between the parks.

 

[Figment2005]

THIS. Those who advocate for connecting the 4 parks by monorail miss the point.

Everyone complains about the bus system. But the main purpose of the busses is to connect the RESORTS to the parks. Expanding the monorail to connect AK and Epcot together serves very little purpose. But connecting AK to all the resort hotels via an efficient and timely rail line would be a huge benefit.

The trick is figuring out how to do that when you have 30+ distinct destinations that are all largely unconnected from each other and arranged in no easily groupable manner. How do you move a mass of thousands of people all descending on rail/bus/monorail at park closing in the span of about 1.5hours and get them to one of 30 destinations without making them transfer 3 or 4 different times or having them go way out of their way to one end of the property just to backtrack? The sprawl and isolation of the resorts makes the WDW transportation conundrum such a tough one.

Each of those lines passes near a selection of deluxe resorts. Who's to say that there couldn't be a station located between studios and Epcot for those resorts, and then a station at the turn around near Animal Kingdom for the lodge? The only "express" type loops would be the Epcot line itself and, of course, the express line from TTC to MK. If that were the case, then an argument could be made that a large chunk of bus traffic could be mitigated.

Now, if an expanded line was sent towards DTD or Disney Springs or whatever, you could theoretically add a few more large resorts to the loop. With the proper setup, all deluxe hotels could become monorail hotels leaving only the mods and values requiring bus service.