Monorail Expansion...maybe..

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Forget the monorail, personal hoverpacks is the way ahead

 

[thedisneyfan]

First of all, paragraphs and spell check are your friends.


How I am wrong? I did not post anything that was in terms of right and wrong.


Ok, explain how adding the monorail to more parks and resorts will add revenue.


Excuse me, but you don't respect everyone's opinion. If you did, you wouldn't be having this hissy fit because the facts don't fit what you want. I also did not attack anyone for saying "i want a monorail expansion." If you want it, thats fine. However, I did post showing why it won't happen and why it is a bad idea.

And as far as what you "know" about business. Well, I'd hate to know what business you run. I can't imagine a business owner being such an awful typist.
I run my own computer business, and we are doing very well. Just me and a partner, making six figures a month.

Remember, that grammar is our friend as well!

 

[gsimpson]

still as lively as ever...

the monorails in LV is not straight, its turns are in fact quite a bit tighter than the WDW turns. The LV monorail does not have 2 trains, it has 9. The LV monorail has far MORE stops than the Disney monorail. It is an automated system based on the same "control" system that have been used for years in the Docklands Light Rail system in London (same manufacturere, Bombarier of Canada). Longer runs cost less, not more. Driving the supports into the ground in LV and AZ is more expensive than installing them in Swamp lands (live and work with the construction trades here). Accoring to both Bombardier and the independant company hired to determine the cause of the massive failure in the early days of of the LV monorail it was in fact caused by the tight turning radius of the falsely so called "straight" track. You are of course correct in that Disney would not want a 107 outage, but in the unlikely event that Disney had a new monorail section that was out of service for 3 months I bet most people arriving at WDW would not turn around and go home upon the discovery of a dead monorail segment. The monorail would doubtless be expensive, but then so are a lot of the other non-revenue generating things at the park. I am certain Disney takes into account all of the revenue and non-revenue factors. For example (and I am sure many people like Inverno could speak to this better than I) I have no doubt that Disney pays out money every year to people who sue over bus accidents. I don't seem to recall there every being a Monorail accident with other park or guest vehicles???

I don't know what Disney is/will be doing with transportation at the parks. As attendance rises they will certainly need to do something to prevent New York or LA style grid lock on their streets. I assume all the people saying "it will never happen" are simply better informed than I am. I do note with humor that some of the same people said Disney would never base an attraction on Environmental Techtonics hardware for cost, "not invented here", and many other sound reasons and anyone thinking otherwise was ill informed and should not listen to those evil CMs.... and then came Mission Space.

 

[thedisneyfan]

Good argument, but there are a couple of problems. First, the Vegas line only goes straight. Much cheaper. It was also built above existing roadway, also lessening the cost.

ONLY STRAIGHT??? How so??? I'd like to see what your definition of crooked would be? The Vegas monorail is the exact opposite of straight. You neglect to discuss the extremely high cost of easements and/or land purchases that Vegas had. (WDW will not have this) Building above an existing city and urban infrustructure was by no means "cheaper." Utilities, sidewalks, roads, buildings and the like were all torn up, moved, and/or replaced to accomodate this monorail which did not by any means "lessen the cost." (Again WDW will not have this issue)

The last addition in Seattle was 14 miles, and cost $1.75 billion. Source here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/140880_monorail23.html
Thats $125 million a mile. And again, thats not on swampland.

First, Seattle has not even been built yet.
Second, Seattle may not have swamps, but it does most definitely have major earthquake problems which greatly add to the cost of the monorail. (WDW does not have this)
Third, Seattle also has hills and inclines which will add to the cost. (Again, WDW does not have this problem)
Fourth, a large cost of Seattle's project will be the same as the Vegas costs mentioned above. (Once again, WDW, as owner of the land, DOES NOT and WILL NOT have this problem)
Fifth, Seattle includes building 20, yes 20, stations. A WDW monorail expansion would not and should not include that many stations. Adding stations to MGM, AK, WWoS, AKL, DTD, and one or two other deluxe resorts does not equal 20 stations! http://www.elevated.org/project/route/maps/alignment_neighborhoods.asp (And once again, WDW will not have to purchase and demolish buildings and streets to make room for the few stations WDW would need)

The two DLR monorail extensions were extremely short, and probably can't be used to argue anything. They actually probably cost more per mile because of the short distance they went.

I believe that you argued, again and again, that the longer the distance needed for a WDW expansion, then the greater the cost would be per mile. Now, here, you argue that shorter distances actually cost more? Please explain which is it? :veryconfu Or at least please explain each time you post as to whether we are reading a post from Dr. Jeckyll or Mr. Hyde? Consistency is a must for an argument.

 

[thedisneyfan]

Here's the perfect example of how the "fact givers" have way, way, way over blown the costs of monorail expansion at WDW.

http://www.elevated.org/project/reports/

Go under the section titled "Capital and Operating Cost Data" and you will see how a WDW monorail expansion costs would be nowhere near the costs of Vegas or Seattle and how these cost claims by the expansion naysayers are so overblown and should be placed in Fantasyland.

A few examples of Seattles added costs:

$150,000,000+ for added costs to cross two bridges
$45,000,000+ for right-of-way costs
$40,000,000 for utility relocation (this would be part of the inaccurate "it's cheaper to build above a city" argument)
$40,000,000 for parking facilities
$18,000,000+ for street and sidewalk paving

It becomes more and more clear how the naysayers continue to overstate the costs of a WDW monorail expansion. Look at the facts and its clear that a monorail expansion would be a great way to decrease polution, decrease long term costs for transportation, increase revenues to connected resorts and shopping areas, and increase guest satisfaction.

 

[gsimpson]

three cheers for DisneyFan.

It is nice to see I am not the only one who believes the cost estimates being thrown about on this subject are absurd.

FYI, one of the primary reasons the Federal Gov will subsidize light rail and not Monorail is because laws dating back to the turn of the last century give them total regulatory authority over light rail, they haven't yet given themselves that authority over Monorail. Just another somewhat off topic tid bit.

 

[PBarton]

Does anyone here know the actual cost for constuction of a mile of normal road through WDW property? (Also allowing for traffic lights, signs, lighting etc)

It would be interesting to compare the Monorail vs Road costs.

 

[no2apprentice]

It becomes more and more clear how the naysayers continue to overstate the costs of a WDW monorail expansion. Look at the facts and its clear that a monorail expansion would be a great way to decrease polution, decrease long term costs for transportation, increase revenues to connected resorts and shopping areas, and increase guest satisfaction.

Okay, let's look at the facts:
"a great way to decrease pollution" You haven't posted any facts to support this.

"decrease long term costs for transportation" You haven't posted any facts for this.

"increase revenues to connected resorts and shopping areas" Once again, you haven't given any facts on this.

"increase guest satisfaction" Hello, facts, where are you?

Your overall statement has some good numbers, but your closing statement is all speculation and opinion. There are no hard numbers to support these statements. And these numbers would be very difficult to get, because some of them are numbers that only Disney would have.

The following is a quote from Inverno (Tyler) from the infamous "Monorail Expansion" thread in 2002.

Okay... I'll try my best to estimate a few costs... (Mind you, these are not solid numbers, but merely my best estimation based on factual numbers that I have seen, and my knowledge of Disney Transport & Monorails)

Monorail Trains -- $17m per train. I'm going to say we'd need 24 additional trains. That's $408 million right there, JUST for the trains alone. Never mind guideway, or stations. Guideway averages about $5m per mile. (I say average, because straightaways are cheaper... but curves/grades and special situations cost more). I'd guess we'd need approx 30 miles worth of guideway. About $150 million right there. Plus about $50 million for guideway within the resorts. (More on that later)

Now... We'd need to build a new train storage and maintenance facility. Those can get very expensive. Lots of switches, and lots of equipment. $10 million at least. Now, we have to build stations at the resorts, as well as a "Grand Central" type convergance point for all transfers. Now, keep in mind, I haven't even gotten into how on earth we'd fit a monorail into some of these resorts. Theming is a big element. And so is location. And they don't come cheap, either. We'll just say $200 million for all of the resort stations.

So far... thats $818 million dollars. And we haven't covered misc expenses, or "over budget"... because you know it'd run over budget. And, I didn't include replacement of our old trains. That would add an additional $204 million, which would make the grand total over ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

Okay, so yeah, maybe money does have something to do with it. But I can assure you... this system as I have described... would be the most efficient monorail system that they could build. However, it would take 2-3x as long to get to destinations, and require transfers. (two transfers to get to the MK... unless we rebuilt that system, which would cost another $50+ million.


By the way... Disney could buy about 65 busses for the price of one monorail. (not including guideway). Those 65 busses would have the flexibility to go anywhere at any time... bypassing other busses. Going off route to take someone someplace special. And most importantly... if one bus breaks down, they can quickly replace it. If one monorail breaks down, the entire system goes down.

 

[Thrawn]

the monorails in LV is not straight, its turns are in fact quite a bit tighter than the WDW turns.

It is straight except for those tight turns. As I said, the WDW turns are gentle.

The LV monorail does not have 2 trains, it has 9.

Its called an estimate. More to make my point than anything. Point remains the same, Disney would need far more trains than Vegas. If they had 9, Disney would need 18 or more.

The LV monorail has far MORE stops than the Disney monorail. It is an automated system based on the same "control" system that have been used for years in the Docklands Light Rail system in London (same manufacturere, Bombarier of Canada).

Then the current Disney monorail, yes. However, we are discussing future expansion. Bombadier is pretty much the only monorail manufacturer of note.

Longer runs cost less, not more.

Prove this please. Explain how it would cost less when Disney would need a huge amount of trains that would need to be all completed pretty quickly. They would need Bombadier to run extra shifts, and that cost would be sent to Disney. Also, the amount of things like steel and concrete goes UP as your order more, because there is only a finite amount available in the world. I'm sure you don't know this, but you do now.

Driving the supports into the ground in LV and AZ is more expensive than installing them in Swamp lands (live and work with the construction trades here).

There is no way possible. They have to bury the supports over 20 feet deep in the FL swamp. Otherwise, they'd just move with the mud. I cannot see how you can possibly make the argument that burying the supports through already built roadway would be more expensive than this. The roadway is a preexisting support, so there is no way they would need to go anywhere as deep. Plus, there is no close to the surface water table to worry about in the desert.

Accoring to both Bombardier and the independant company hired to determine the cause of the massive failure in the early days of of the LV monorail it was in fact caused by the tight turning radius of the falsely so called "straight" track.

Ok, great. So the low price tag was bad. Fantastic.

You are of course correct in that Disney would not want a 107 outage, but in the unlikely event that Disney had a new monorail section that was out of service for 3 months I bet most people arriving at WDW would not turn around and go home upon the discovery of a dead monorail segment.

Thats not the point. If the monorail at Disney was going to be down, how would the guests get to the park? Busses? So you propose that they set up the monorail and build it for $2 billion+, but then also keep the entire fleet of busses around in case there are problems with the monorail?

The monorail would doubtless be expensive, but then so are a lot of the other non-revenue generating things at the park.

Really? Every ride and attraction at a park is something that helps to bring customers in. Yes, the huge amount of detail and pristine upkeep that Disney does isn't something that directly makes them money, however, these things are what is expected of Disney themeparks, and therefore DO keep the people coming back.

I am certain Disney takes into account all of the revenue and non-revenue factors. For example (and I am sure many people like Inverno could speak to this better than I) I have no doubt that Disney pays out money every year to people who sue over bus accidents. I don't seem to recall there every being a Monorail accident with other park or guest vehicles???

Bus accidents are not as common as you would think. Also, there have been people hit by the monorails at the stations. I don't know if any of them have sued, but there is a reason they are installing the pneumatic gates at the monorail stations.

I don't know what Disney is/will be doing with transportation at the parks. As attendance rises they will certainly need to do something to prevent New York or LA style grid lock on their streets.

Agreed, but the monorail isn't the right thing to do.

I assume all the people saying "it will never happen" are simply better informed than I am.

Or can see why its a bad idea.

I do note with humor that some of the same people said Disney would never base an attraction on Environmental Techtonics hardware for cost, "not invented here", and many other sound reasons and anyone thinking otherwise was ill informed and should not listen to those evil CMs.... and then came Mission Space.

So, because people were wrong in one case, they will always be wrong? CMs say a lot of things, such as a fifth park will open in 2007. Just because they knew about one doesn't mean they know about everything.

 

[Thrawn]

ONLY STRAIGHT??? How so??? I'd like to see what your definition of crooked would be? The Vegas monorail is the exact opposite of straight. You neglect to discuss the extremely high cost of easements and/or land purchases that Vegas had. (WDW will not have this) Building above an existing city and urban infrustructure was by no means "cheaper." Utilities, sidewalks, roads, buildings and the like were all torn up, moved, and/or replaced to accomodate this monorail which did not by any means "lessen the cost." (Again WDW will not have this issue)

I've covered this already.

First, Seattle has not even been built yet.

So Seattle does not have any type of monorail right now? Yes, that addition isn't built yet. But they have alloted $1.75b for it, its not going to go down.

Second, Seattle may not have swamps, but it does most definitely have major earthquake problems which greatly add to the cost of the monorail. (WDW does not have this)

WDW does have hurricanes, which share a lot of similar safety concerns.

Third, Seattle also has hills and inclines which will add to the cost. (Again, WDW does not have this problem)

WDW has lots of rivers and streams which add to the cost.

Fourth, a large cost of Seattle's project will be the same as the Vegas costs mentioned above. (Once again, WDW, as owner of the land, DOES NOT and WILL NOT have this problem)

They will have to get easements about the roadways. They are still state property.

Fifth, Seattle includes building 20, yes 20, stations. A WDW monorail expansion would not and should not include that many stations. Adding stations to MGM, AK, WWoS, AKL, DTD, and one or two other deluxe resorts does not equal 20 stations!

It isn't going to be one loop to all of those places. And any new loop isn't going to be in the same place as the standing stations, especially at Contemporary. Unless, of course, they refurb the stations to take a third line. Also, what deluxes would you add? Yacht and Beach? Well, since you are there, you would have add Caribbean Beach and Boardwalk as well, since they are right there. Then, now that you have Boardwalk, you are going to have DVC complaints because one DVC has a monorail and the others do not. Even if you don't do Boardwalk, you already have that problem with BCV. Now, you either ignore the complaints from some of your most frequent guests (always a bad idea) or you in turn run it to all the DVC resorts.

http://www.elevated.org/project/route/maps/alignment_neighborhoods.asp (And once again, WDW will not have to purchase and demolish buildings and streets to make room for the few stations WDW would need)

They would have to change more than you think. Just because they own everything around there doesn't mean there will not be high costs for demolition of trees and buildings to get the monorail into the front or back of the resort.

I believe that you argued, again and again, that the longer the distance needed for a WDW expansion, then the greater the cost would be per mile. Now, here, you argue that shorter distances actually cost more? Please explain which is it? :veryconfu Or at least please explain each time you post as to whether we are reading a post from Dr. Jeckyll or Mr. Hyde? Consistency is a must for an argument.

There is a fine line. People that work in commodities will understand.
At amount A, you pay full price.
At amount B, which is more than A, you get a discount.
At amount C, which is more than B, you pay extra due to the vast amount.


(I will not be posting further in this thread, my points have been made numerous times, and the thread is no longer about arguing whether or not its a good decision, all I am arguing now are semantics.)

 

[TimeTrip]

There is a fine line. People that work in commodities will understand.
At amount A, you pay full price.
At amount B, which is more than A, you get a discount.
At amount C, which is more than B, you pay extra due to the vast amount.

In other words you'll use whichever argument you can for a given situation to make your point without really explaining why.

 

[CRO-Magnum]

Nobody can argue priorities...

Ok, explain how adding the monorail to more parks and resorts will add revenue. Remember, the monorail ride itself is free, you cannot charge for it. If you say "I'm going to raise room rates", well you have to pay off the cost first, which is at least $1 billion.

Positive attitude? I don't want Disney spending money on something that would be a BAD form of mass transit, as well as extremely expensive. I'd rather them take the $1 billion+ and build a bunch of e-tickets. You don't have to say you want a monorail expansion, your tone of your posts implies it.

because like opinions everyone has one and few are the same. However, I will argue about economic viability and after reviewing a number of your postings which, unfortunately, appear to be 50% focused on defending yourself, I take issue with some of your points.

Growing the monorail system will add revenue through multiple avenues. With more resorts on the monorail system it becomes a valuable added service for which guests have demonstrated a willingness to pay a premium. Reducing the barriers to access, the number one reason that people time and time again in surveys have said is what prevents them from turning an opportunity into a sale, leads to increased revenue. That is why stores have express checkout lanes, you purchase low context items on the internet (like movies, books, replacement items, etc.), and the entire concept of CRM came about. Having Downtown Disney, MGM, AK, and the water parks on the monorail reduces access barriers. People will spend money; Disney attracts the top 10% of wage earners in the US. However, people don't like to work (i.e. be inconvenienced) to spend their money.

Companies do not spend cash; rather they utilize credit. If you meant to imply that Disney would need to earn the money up front to invest it in a monorail you are incorrect. However, if you meant that there would be no profit until the ride is paid for that is also incorrect. If the increase in revenue is greater than the loan principal + interest due each year you have generated a profit! And you are not taxed on the revenue which goes to paying back the loan. Otherwise no company could ever grow on borrowed money.

One final comment on which I believe you and many others overlook is that as Disney has increased the cost of a stay (part tickets, hotel, food, etc.) at a multiple of inflation, they have moved up the socio-economic ladder. By moving up to the top 10% of wage earners, they are now focused on a group which has money to burn but in return wants simplicity, individual attention, and quality. As one of these people, I don't want to take a bus. I don't take busses at home there is no way I will take one on vacation. A monorail? Sure. The only reason I accept the bus system now is against my wishes, but I am driven by my children who find it a novelty.

The reality is it will actually cost Disney MORE MONEY to compete for their business than if they toned it down a bit and when after the top 30% as they had in the past. The farther up the socio-economic ladder your clientele gets, the more expensive it is to compete for their business. If they want to focus on the top 10%, then they need to improve access and that means a monorail or other unique, quality mass transit system that doesn't feel like mass transit. As a stockholder the gulf between Disney's appetite and their effort worries me!

 

[ONUpolarbears]

Hey guys,

Just found this link from WVU people mover. They've had it for 30 years. Wonder if Disney might be able to benifit fromt this. I know walt originally had the idea to use them in his original EPCOT design. Perhaps use a monorail to connect the parks and people movers to connect resorts to the main monorail station? Yes yes, I know...cost....price....bling etc. I wonder if the people mover would be that much cheaper. You still have to put in footings and what not. After seeing the video, I may just have to move to west virginia

Link: http://wvuminute.wvu.edu/Archive/?id=6

 

[mickhyperion]

Thanks PolarJim. I've been wondering about the costs and implications involved in using a people mover or WEDway system myself. I know Marni1971 has drawn up some ideas in the past showing how monorails could connect to the WEDway and to the resorts. Hey Marni, what have you found out about the feasibility and costs of the non-monorail parts of your plan?

 

[no2apprentice]

As one of these people, I don't want to take a bus. I don't take busses at home there is no way I will take one on vacation. A monorail? Sure. The only reason I accept the bus system now is against my wishes, but I am driven by my children who find it a novelty.

Um...you say there is no way you will use a bus on vacation, but then you say you do. Or am I reading this wrong?

As a stockholder the gulf between Disney's appetite and their effort worries me!

Okay, as one stockholder to another, answer me this: what makes more sense...spend somewhere between $800 million to $1 billion on a major monorail expansion that will make it more expensive to stay at the resorts, and take longer to get to their destinations, or put the money into attractions which is the major reason why people come to WDW?

 

[leebier]

I think a lot of the focus on the costs here is missing a major point which is that even if they were cheap, monorails are not best suited for the traffic flows of WDW.

Traffic is not anywhere close to evenly dispursed between source-destination pairs (as it is, at least in general, for a fixed rail subway system). At certain times in the day, there are tens of thousands of people all trying to go from 22 sources to the same 4 (or less) destinations. Then, at the end of the day, people are going from 4 (usually less) sources to 22 destinations. That means that the traffic load on the system MUST be flexable. On a fixed rail system, you can run trains a little faster or maybe add one or two more to the line, but generally, the number of people the system can transport between two points is constant all day long. And if those two points aren't close to one another (or on the same line), it means a transfer (or 2, or 3) from one line to another. Each transfer has the possbility of confusing guests (who don't want to be bothered, they're on vacation, remember?), loading/unloading strollers and wheelchairs, and getting into another line to board another monorail.

Buses are very very unsexy. They're not even very cool, no matter how many TVs you put on them or what you wrap them in. However, you can stand outside your hotel (or multiple places in the resort for the larger ones) and a bus will drive up that will take you DIRECTLY to your destination (yes, I realize sometimes buses pool routes, but fixing THAT is much easier than fixing the monorail) with no transfers, only one line, and only one loading/offloading of people with needs. Furthermore, if there are 400 people wanting to go from Point A to B at time T, they can just send as many buses as it takes to move all 400 at once, rather than make everyone wait through multiple trains until they all get on.

A well-controlled system means that buses can continually adapt all day to crowd flows. Parade at MK at 3? More buses start the MK routes at noon. Epcot staying open late? Send tons of buses to the other parks as they close. Afternoon Rainstorm? Clear out those water parks and fill up Downtown Disney. Power outage at Disney Studios? Get those people spread out all over the rest of the Resort. Character breakfast at Chef Mickey's? Increase flows from EVERYWHERE to the Contemporary for those few hours. Even if you could add significantly more trains to the track (which you really can't), to do so would take a long time, and still require stopping at every place along the way where people AREN'T going.

This is all, of course, assuming that one train doesn't break down, thus shutting down the entire line.

I won't disagree with anyone who wants to complain about how buses aren't fun or magical or what you want to see on vacation (though, of course, millions of people take trains to work every day, but the monorail stays magical). However, ANY fixed rail system is subject to these problems. Even if it cost only $1 to build the entire thing, it STILL wouldn't be an efficient way to run things. WDW's transit needs require point-to-point movement and high flexibility during the day, some of which can be planned (park opening/closing time are known in advance) but also the ability to adjust in 10-15 minutes to unexpected changes in traffic flows.

All of this energy people invest to justifying a monorail expansion or trying to explain why these problems wouldn't be so big of we just added this one thing or how it's cheaper than we think could be so well invested in discussing, debating, or even thinking of COMPLETELY NEW transportation ideas that are fun and magical.

Lee

 

[zjer]

Just me and a partner, making six figures a month.

It doesn't matter how many figures you and your "partner" are making, it matters where the decimal place is. I make six figures a month also. ($1500.00)









P.S. Does money make you an expert on every subject?

 

[zjer]

.


WDW does have hurricanes, which share a lot of similar safety concerns. (In reference to earthquakes)

The only similar safety concern it shares is to keep the train on the track and not to let the little people fall and go boom. You might want to google this one; An earthquake is a trembling or a shaking movement of the Earth's surface. Earthquakes typically result from the movement of faults, quasi-planar zones of deformation within its uppermost layers. A hurricane is a warm core tropical cyclone with maximum surface wind of 118 km/h (64 knots, 74 mph or greater hurricane force wind) in the North Atlantic, the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico, and in the Eastern North Pacific Ocean; maximum wind speed of 64 knots or more. Winds blow in a large spiral around a relatively calm center of extrememly low pressure known as the eye. Around the rim of the eye, winds may gust to more than 200 mph. Basically, earthquakes come from the ground, and hurricanes come from the air.



:lookaroun -"Oh crap, someone might read this..."

 

[Woody13]

I'm Too Sexy

Buses are very very unsexy. They're not even very cool, no matter how many TVs you put on them or what you wrap them in.

I'm too sexy for the bus too sexy for the bus
The bus is going to leave me

I'm too sexy for my shirt too sexy for my shirt
So sexy it hurts
And I'm too sexy for Hong Kong too sexy for Hong Kong
Paris and Japan

And I'm too sexy for your party
Too sexy for your party
No way I'm disco dancing

I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I do my little turn on the catwalk

I'm too sexy for my car too sexy for my car
Too sexy by far
And I'm too sexy for the train
Too sexy for the train does that cause you pain

I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I shake my little touche on the catwalk

I'm too sexy for my too sexy for my too sexy for my

'Cos I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I shake my little touche on the catwalk

I'm too sexy for my cat too sexy for my cat
Poor __________ poor __________ cat
I'm too sexy for the bus too sexy for the bus
The bus is going to leave me

And I'm too sexy for this song

 

[lilphil6487]

here's my opinion on this. personally, i think the monorail expansion would be amazing. however, it would be expensive. but think about this, disney has made some surprises in the past. If they arent goin to spend money on building any new parks, which even if they did have the money they wouldnt do it, whos to say that they wont do it. I honestly dont think that they would build any new resorts soon because they already have a lot, plus there are more phases of saratoga springs in the future. The only thing i could think of that they would use their money for is a big rehab of Epcot(which is in desperate need of one) and adding to MGM. The only reason I said MGM is because i get thru that park in half a day. The bus service is terrible. This past summer i was at the e ticket night at MK, me and my cousin waited an hour and a half and im not exagerating, for the bus back to pop century. I was ready to hop on a Carribean beach bus and jsut walk to pop century since it was close. I would have much rather taken a monorail to Transportation and Ticket Center and take another monorail from there to pop century. There could be a possibility that in the future they would expand the monorail. Im talkin as far away as the Disney World 50th Celebration. But hey, its just a thought. Once again i will state that it will most likely never happen, especially at PC, just so i dont get ppl posting messages flaming mine. But think about this question: What if?