Epcot Center/Buena Vista Drive Interchange Project

[Figment2005]

But it wouldn't be easier. It would be more difficult. You'd have to transfer and transfers are annoying/difficult. Example: People think it's the greatest thing to be able to get to Epcot from a Magic Kingdom monorail resort but it actually takes much longer to monorail over to the TTC, get off, walk down the ramp, walk back up the next ramp, wait for the Epcot train, then monorail over to Epcot than it does to just take the bus straight from the Contemporary or whatever.

Yes and no with that. If the timing is right, and there are enough trains running, the time could be less than taking a direct bus. For example, the Grand Floridian. It takes roughly 8-10 minutes to get from the resort to the TTC. From there, about 1-2 minute to walk from the resort side to the Epcot side. If a train is not at the Epcot side, you're looking at roughly 4-8 minutes before the next train, but if there is a train, it is only about 8 minutes until you are dropped off at Epcot.

Long story short, in a best case scenario you are looking at about 20-25 minute to arrive at Epcot from the Grand Floridian. In a worst case scenario, looking at 30-35 minutes. With a bus, a best case scenario is going to be about 30-35 minutes because it easily takes 15-20 just to drive to Epcot, but the bus also supports the Polynesian and the Contemporary. In a worst case scenario, you are looking at around 40-50 minutes to make the journey because you waited 20-25 minutes for the bus to show up, and then still had the time allotted to check in at the other resorts and then make the drive to Epcot.

Lets not forget to mention the amount of people a single train can hold in comparison to a single bus. A bus is what 60 people? Correct me if I'm wrong please. The monorail can hold that many people in a single car. So the monorail is not as bad as it may sound because of the transfers.

 

[toolsnspools]

Thank you.

What I have heard is far from coming to fruition, though it is looking more likely.

Maybe then I will be able to elaborate.

So can I presume that the closing of the speedway will mean more than a larger parking lot? Building a transportation hub will take some space, and there is plenty of space where the speedway currently sits.

 

[marni1971]

So can I presume that the closing of the speedway will mean more than a larger parking lot? Building a transportation hub will take some space, and there is plenty of space where the speedway currently sits.

I can't any more yet I'm afraid.

 

[toolsnspools]

I can't any more yet I'm afraid.

I appreciate that and look forward to when you can reveal more.

 

[CDavid]

Lets not forget to mention the amount of people a single train can hold in comparison to a single bus. A bus is what 60 people? Correct me if I'm wrong please. The monorail can hold that many people in a single car.

The monorail, or most any form of rail transportation, is indeed far more efficient at moving large numbers of passengers than buses. However, I don't think I have ever seen a monorail actually loaded to maximum capacity. Sixty people per car is the theoretical limit, but that means that each section of a car (two sections per car) must accommodate thirty persons - ten seated and twenty standing. That standee area is awfully tight and very little personal space; People are really going to have to be squeezed in to achieve that. Not sure I've personally witnessed more than 9 or 10 standees per section, which means the monorail is often not being loaded to absolute capacity, even during peak periods; People just naturally aren't going to pack themselves in so close (and then there are strollers and packages).

Has anyone here ever been in a monorail car with forty standees per car - twenty in each section, and all seats occupied?

 

[Figment2005]

The monorail, or most any form of rail transportation, is indeed far more efficient at moving large numbers of passengers than buses. However, I don't think I have ever seen a monorail actually loaded to maximum capacity. Sixty people per car is the theoretical limit, but that means that each section of a car (two sections per car) must accommodate thirty persons - ten seated and twenty standing. That standee area is awfully tight and very little personal space; People are really going to have to be squeezed in to achieve that. Not sure I've personally witnessed more than 9 or 10 standees per section, which means the monorail is often not being loaded to absolute capacity, even during peak periods; People just naturally aren't going to pack themselves in so close (and then there are strollers and packages).

Has anyone here ever been in a monorail car with forty standees per car - twenty in each section, and all seats occupied?

You are absolutely correct on that, and along those lines, a bus will rarely ever be at maximum capacity either. Now, I have seen a monorail packed completely during tour group season. South Americans do not have the same personal space reservations that us spoiled Americans do.

Just for kicks, lets take into effect the wheelchair, ECV, and stroller crowd. In order for a bus to load an ECV or wheelchair, everyone else has to wait outside until the 5 minute process is complete. For a stroller, the stroller must be folded before even entering the bus. Both of these are hassles for both those directly involved or waiting outside. Now with the monorail, yes theoretical capacity is diminished, but nobody is truly inconvenienced by a wheelchair, ECV, or stroller. Depending on the beam, 1 or 2 cars is set aside specifically for wheelchairs and ECV's, while a stroller will fit on any car without the hassle of folding it.

So, for a family without ECV's, wheelchairs, or strollers, the bus is a completely viable option. However, for families, which the majority of guests are, that bring along a stroller in particular, the monorail is a much more hassle free method of transportation.

 

[Brad Bishop]

You are right that "A" monorail is not the answer. Although a monorail expansion would certainly be part of a solution along with light rail, peoplemovers, and moving sidewalks.

I think that the main problem was that it was originally a very visionary, forward-thinking project with the Magic Kingdom just being a theme park in a much grander EPCOT.

Then it just became a resort with the building of the EPCOT theme park.

 

[Brad Bishop]

Why would monorail links between the theme parks make sense? How much traffic is really from people park hopping? Now, if there was a single massively large parking area for all theme parks, and it required transportation to get to the parks, that might make sense.

I agree. I think part of the problem is the romanticizing of the monorail but, if it did connect the theme parks, as a guest, you'd have to figure it out like:
"Oh, I need to get on the monorail at Animal Kingdom, ride it through Hollywood Studios to Epcot, get off at Epcot and transfer to the line that takes me to the TTC, and, once there, transfer to the Express line."

At that point it'd probably be faster and easier to just take the bus from Animal Kingdom straight to the Magic Kingdom.

I've thought about this and the only thing that really kind of makes sense is a "Theme Park Line" which would be to take the Express line and couple it with the Epcot line and then route it to Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdom as one, dual track, continuous loop (except for the loop at Animal Kingdom and around the lake at the Magic Kingdom). That way you could just get on the Theme Park line, going in the proper direction at Epcot and Hollywood Studios, and know that, eventually, you'd end up at the theme park you wanted.

The practical questions still pop up:
- how many people are really park hopping to make this worth it.
- it'd still be faster and more efficient to use buses. It's not sexy, it's just the way it is.

 

[PhotoDave219]

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.

Osceola High School had their prom there.

 

[MGMBoy]

Solution found!

*Drops mic and walks away*

 

[RSoxNo1]

In theory, the Next Gen system can be used to improve the transportation system. That was always the selling point in the park, i.e. this area is crowded, lets get a churro cart there. In the same vein, they should be able to discern where guests are located and even where they want to go using information gathered from Next Gen. With that information, busses can be sent accordingly.

 

[halltd]

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.

I disagree with you on this point. You can very easily look at WDW property as a city with commuters...if you only look at the guests on property...which is what the transportation is for. What do these guests do every day...on average? They get up in the morning and commute to a theme park. Then, at the end of the day, they commute home from a theme park. How is that any different than a ton of people commuting into and out of a city on a daily basis for work? It's not.

In my perfect world, the roads are meant for local tourists/Florida residents and guests staying off-property that have cars, etc... The transportation network should be geared toward hotel guests and getting them efficiently to and from the parks/DTD/water parks. I'd even argue a non-bus transit system would allow guests to get to and from resorts much easier than with buses and would increase guest spending at resorts without them having to rent cars (which we all know Disney would LOVE if no one ever rented a car to drive to property or they wouldn't have the Magical Express). Even if it was just as efficient as the buses, I strongly feel the activity of getting to the parks in something like the monorail adds a HUGE amount to the guest experience that you just can't put a price on. How many times have you heard kids (or adults) get super insanely excited about the monorail? Ok, how many times have you seen a kid/adult get super insanely excited about the bus? That right there is WHY people go to Disney. Not because it's efficient or run of the mill, but because it's "super insanely exciting".

My biggest issue with buses is that they share roads and have to stop and intersections and traffic lights/stop signs, and are stuck in congestion when there is an accident, etc... Any type of rail system or monorail, or people mover, or whatever else you want to consider can operate on it's own infrastructure and thus be as efficient as possible and totally unaffected by traffic/accidents/tourist who don't know how to drive.

To add to whoever said earlier that adding lanes doesn't help efficiency, they're right. Just look at South Florida as an example. 95 is like 10-12 lanes now and is still congested. What are they adding now, express lanes...at the expense of the normal lanes. See what happens when you offer a non-stop route without interruption, it moves faster...just like rail. Don't get me starting on Miami using voter-approved Metrorail money to fund these Lexus Lanes, though.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think that the main problem was that it was originally a very visionary, forward-thinking project with the Magic Kingdom just being a theme park in a much grander EPCOT.

Then it just became a resort with the building of the EPCOT theme park.

Even theme park resorts and time share developments can be well planned.

 

[Progress.City]

Yes and no with that. If the timing is right, and there are enough trains running, the time could be less than taking a direct bus. For example, the Grand Floridian. It takes roughly 8-10 minutes to get from the resort to the TTC. From there, about 1-2 minute to walk from the resort side to the Epcot side. If a train is not at the Epcot side, you're looking at roughly 4-8 minutes before the next train, but if there is a train, it is only about 8 minutes until you are dropped off at Epcot.

Long story short, in a best case scenario you are looking at about 20-25 minute to arrive at Epcot from the Grand Floridian. In a worst case scenario, looking at 30-35 minutes. With a bus, a best case scenario is going to be about 30-35 minutes because it easily takes 15-20 just to drive to Epcot, but the bus also supports the Polynesian and the Contemporary. In a worst case scenario, you are looking at around 40-50 minutes to make the journey because you waited 20-25 minutes for the bus to show up, and then still had the time allotted to check in at the other resorts and then make the drive to Epcot.

Lets not forget to mention the amount of people a single train can hold in comparison to a single bus. A bus is what 60 people? Correct me if I'm wrong please. The monorail can hold that many people in a single car. So the monorail is not as bad as it may sound because of the transfers.

Light rail has a much greater capacity, greater efficiency, faster acceleration, and not to mention lower costs to construct and operate. Light rail can be built above ground (like monorail) or at grade. Best is a combination of elevated and at grade, with the elevated sections over roads.

I forgot to mention that all the parts are standardized, which means multiple companies can compete for parts, bringing prices down considerably.

BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) has its own lanes and the buses trigger the lights so that they never have to stop. BRT can be a good temporary answer and light rail can always be built on the bus lanes.

 

[Progress.City]

Even theme park resorts and time share developments can be well planned.

Isn't that ironic?

 

[Figment2005]

Light rail has a much greater capacity, greater efficiency, faster acceleration, and not to mention lower costs to construct and operate. Light rail can be built above ground (like monorail) or at grade. Best is a combination of elevated and at grade, with the elevated sections over roads.

I forgot to mention that all the parts are standardized, which means multiple companies can compete for parts, bringing prices down considerably.

BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) has its own lanes and the buses trigger the lights so that they never have to stop. BRT can be a good temporary answer and light rail can always be built on the bus lanes.

Does light rail have the clean looking infrastructure that the monorails have? I'm not familiar with them as I have not lived anywhere light rail existed. When I think of elevated light rail, I think of New York with large steel structures.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Does light rail have the clean looking infrastructure that the monorails have? I'm not familiar with them as I have not lived anywhere light rail existed. When I think of elevated light rail, I think of New York with large steel structures.

Here is light rail at grade level.

Here is an elevated light rail.

 

[googilycub]

Does light rail have the clean looking infrastructure that the monorails have? I'm not familiar with them as I have not lived anywhere light rail existed. When I think of elevated light rail, I think of New York with large steel structures.

The largest issue is the overhead wires that light rail require. The above photos seem to be chosen because the hide them.

That being said, modern light rail infrastructure will look much cleaner that NYC or Chicago style L trains. One can get around the overhead wire issue by using a third rail for electrical distribution like most subways use. That method has safety issues that one must protect against.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The largest issue is the overhead wires that light rail require. The above photos seem to be chosen because the hide them.

That being said, modern light rail infrastructure will look much cleaner that NYC or Chicago style L trains. One can get around the overhead wire issue by using a third rail for electrical distribution like most subways use. That method has safety issues that one must protect against.

A catenary system is not required. The vehicles could utilize an internal combustion engine or use batteries, like the Red Car Trolley at Disney's California Adventure whose catenary is only for show.

 

[CDavid]

Light rail has a much greater capacity, greater efficiency, faster acceleration, and not to mention lower costs to construct and operate. Light rail can be built above ground (like monorail) or at grade

Does light rail have the clean looking infrastructure that the monorails have? I'm not familiar with them as I have not lived anywhere light rail existed. When I think of elevated light rail, I think of New York with large steel structures.

Where light rail (streetcar, elevated, etc.) fails compared to monorail is when it is (properly) part of the 'show' and overall presentation within a resort district (Walt Disney World). Elevated rail could have been built in place of the monorail in 1971 - it wasn't, and for very good reason. That is not to say that such modes could not have a place in WDW transportation, of course.

The largest issue is the overhead wires that light rail require. The above photos seem to be chosen because the hide them.

That being said, modern light rail infrastructure will look much cleaner that NYC or Chicago style L trains. One can get around the overhead wire issue by using a third rail for electrical distribution like most subways use. That method has safety issues that one must protect against.

Modern catenary is not overly visually obtrusive, and even less so for most streetcars. Third-rail manages to coexist safely with residential neighborhoods, but overhead power is preferable.