Screamscape - Monorail Expansion Rumor

[orky8]

I think you could add multiple loading areas in each station. So MK could simultaneously load 2 trains one to Epcot one to DAK & HS. At peak times you could load maybe one for each park. At 50 - 55MPH without slowing down for stops these times could probably be reduced to around 10 minutes for the longest stretch.

I think that is overcomplicating the system. I have proposed a bypass area at the TTC to compensate for those needing to go just between the parking and MK, but otherwise, I think simpler is better.

I live in DC. At each station I can take the subway in one direction or the other. While NYC has express lines, it has many, many more stations and hence the need. There are only 5 stops total here, so I think simpler is better (and probably cheaper). And, each stop is only 90 seconds, so you're not saving that much time for the extra complication. Even if you add a Blizzard beach stop (seeing as it is on the way), that stop will only be active during operating hours for blizzard beach, so at night, the monorail can just go right through the station.

 

[Kamikaze]

I think that is overcomplicating the system. I have proposed a bypass area at the TTC to compensate for those needing to go just between the parking and MK, but otherwise, I think simpler is better.

I live in DC. At each station I can take the subway in one direction or the other. While NYC has express lines, it has many, many more stations and hence the need. There are only 5 stops total here, so I think simpler is better (and probably cheaper). And, each stop is only 90 seconds, so you're not saving that much time for the extra complication. Even if you add a Blizzard beach stop (seeing as it is on the way), that stop will only be active during operating hours for blizzard beach, so at night, the monorail can just go right through the station.

Five stops total? What about the resorts? Getting from the park to the TTC/parking is only HALF of the equation.

Once again - if you have to put guests on a bus to get to the monorail, the bus should just take them directly to the park. No reason for the second step.

 

[s8film40]

There has to be a hub because of cost. How do you get from your resort to the trains?

The parks act as local hubs. If you can move people from park to park much faster you don't have to have each individual hub have all of the same duplicate routes. This is the key problem with WDW current transportation is there are five hubs (each park and DTD) each of these hubs has about 20 destinations to serve to the different hotels as well as routes to the other hubs, so 25 each. Five hubs with 25 destinations is 125 individual destinations roughly. It takes huge resources to fill this, and every time a new hotel opens 5 routes are then added or 5 routes are expanded. The only solution is to add more buses or combine routes and further increase travel time for passengers. If you get to a point where people can travel between hubs within about 15 minutes you can then devote all those buses to running much faster bus service to the local destinations.

 

[s8film40]

I think that is overcomplicating the system. I have proposed a bypass area at the TTC to compensate for those needing to go just between the parking and MK, but otherwise, I think simpler is better.

I live in DC. At each station I can take the subway in one direction or the other. While NYC has express lines, it has many, many more stations and hence the need. There are only 5 stops total here, so I think simpler is better (and probably cheaper). And, each stop is only 90 seconds, so you're not saving that much time for the extra complication. Even if you add a Blizzard beach stop (seeing as it is on the way), that stop will only be active during operating hours for blizzard beach, so at night, the monorail can just go right through the station.

It sound complicated but for the guest perspective it's now more simplified. The stations would have signs with designated loading areas for each park. All they would need to do is know what park they want to go to and board that monorail. Most guests don't know where parks are in relations to one another anyway so many wouldn't know whether they would need a north or south train anyway.

 

[Kamikaze]

The parks act as local hubs. If you can move people from park to park much faster you don't have to have each individual hub have all of the same duplicate routes. This is the key problem with WDW current transportation is there are five hubs (each park and DTD) each of these hubs has about 20 destinations to serve to the different hotels as well as routes to the other hubs, so 25 each. Five hubs with 25 destinations is 125 individual destinations roughly. It takes huge resources to fill this, and every time a new hotel opens 5 routes are then added or 5 routes are expanded. The only solution is to add more buses or combine routes and further increase travel time for passengers. If you get to a point where people can travel between hubs within about 15 minutes you can then devote all those buses to running much faster bus service to the local destinations.

So you're busing from the resorts to the closest park?

 

[orky8]

Five stops total? What about the resorts? Getting from the park to the TTC/parking is only HALF of the equation.

Once again - if you have to put guests on a bus to get to the monorail, the bus should just take them directly to the park. No reason for the second step.

I'm not proposing a Panacea to all bus use. I'm proposing to link all the parks and put the Epcot resorts on the monorail line.

That said, the current web of busses seem unsustainable. That service can be cut back or reduced by using the monorail to get guests closer to their destination. If I were Disney, I'd run hourly service from each park to each resort, but continual service to the nearest hub. Well, ok, if I were disney I'd add people movers at each hub and eliminate the busses pretty much entirely.

You're argument is essentially that because the monorail can't eliminate all bus use, its expansion serves no purpose. That is wrong. At a minimum, expaning to all four parks can eliminate pretty much all busses serving the MK resorts. It would also add value to the park-hopper. Value that I believe could easily be passed onto the price of such tickets.

Finally, its the "Disney" thing to do, though I understand this is probably a pipe dream that will never happen because accountants now run all American companies into the ground because they don't understand that product matters. For some reason, this country thinks having an MBA is more important than having passion for your product, despite the fact that practically all the greatest entrepeneurs were college drop-outs at best (see Walt Disney, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs) who had passion and ideas. But I digress, and someone already commented that Monorail threads tend to stay on topic...

 

[s8film40]

So you're busing from the resorts to the closest park?

Yes, It simplifies everything. You wouldn't need to know what bus to take. You leave your resort board the bus that would arrive every 5 mins. When you get to the closest park you either go in or take a monorail to one of the other parks. You can be from a resort to any park in about 25-30 minutes at most. Resort to resort at most around 45 minutes. However MK resorts would not use buses instead existing monorail/watercraft transportation also Epcot resorts could have a monorail stop. So for many resorts bus transportation would almost be completely eliminated.

 

[orky8]

It sound complicated but for the guest perspective it's now more simplified. The stations would have signs with designated loading areas for each park. All they would need to do is know what park they want to go to and board that monorail. Most guests don't know where parks are in relations to one another anyway so many wouldn't know whether they would need a north or south train anyway.

I still disagree. And you don't need to know directions. This is how practically all subway systems work. For example, at DHS there should be one platform and tracks on both sides. The signs on the one side say to MK and Epcot. The signs on the other say to AK. Worst case scenario, you get on the wrong train, you'll still get there because the system is a loop. I've never heard of a system where each station has seperate trains/platforms for each destination.

 

[Did Knee]

There has to be a hub because of cost. How do you get from your resort to the trains?

I dunno. If you are in NYC how do you get from Broadway in Manhattan to 21rst Avenue in Brooklyn? Sure there are hubs, but if your main lines serve the main traffic lines then they are few and far between. The ideas above talk about a grand loop with AK in the south and MK in the north with an Epcot/ resort station and a DHS station. With that in place the only thing buses are needed for is DTD as all else is served by the grand loop. I think this makes sense.

one caveat: Moderate and value resorts would still not be served by the monorail and would still need buses. But to me, awesome transportation options is a big perk for shelling out the big bucks for Deluxe

 

[Master Yoda]

Some sort of on-rails mass transit (monorail, wed-way, light rail, etc) will happen in WDW when one of three scenarios occur.

1. It becomes more economically viable than the current system. Simply put, if something is less expensive to build, run, and maintain then the current bus fleet and can provide equal or better service then it will get done.
2. They have no choice. If the current bus system becomes overwhelmed and can not be expanded further, some sore of mass transit like the monorail can take some of the load.
3. Disney can get someone else to pick up the tab.

Until one or a combination of those things happen, don't expect the monorail to be expanded.

 

[s8film40]

I still disagree. And you don't need to know directions. This is how practically all subway systems work. For example, at DHS there should be one platform and tracks on both sides. The signs on the one side say to MK and Epcot. The signs on the other say to AK. Worst case scenario, you get on the wrong train, you'll still get there because the system is a loop. I've never heard of a system where each station has seperate trains/platforms for each destination.

At DHS this makes sense. The issue is there are four major destinations at WDW, you want to be able to give people the most direct route to these destinations. So for MK or DAK at each end you may want to split it up. Say for example you have around 1000 people leaving the park, about 330 are going to Epcot, 330 to DHS and about 330 DAK. Rather than put all of them on monorails going to all destinations it would make since to put them each on a train going directly to where they want to go. During slow times it may make since to run trains to all destinations but at peak times the system could be far more flexible and fewer station stops could save a lot of time and cycle the trains back for reloading more quickly.

 

[s8film40]

Some sort of on-rails mass transit (monorail, wed-way, light rail, etc) will happen in WDW when one of three scenarios occur.

1. It becomes more economically viable than the current system. Simply put, if something is less expensive to build, run, and maintain then the current bus fleet and can provide equal or better service then it will get done.
2. They have no choice. If the current bus system becomes overwhelmed and can not be expanded further, some sore of mass transit like the monorail can take some of the load.
3. Disney can get someone else to pick up the tab.

Until one or a combination of those things happen, don't expect the monorail to be expanded.

You forgot scenario #4 which is the least likely:
They decide to go back to treating WDW like a first class resort and provide the highest quality of service and cutting edge vacation experience to their guests regardless of costs.

 

[Master Yoda]

You forgot scenario #4 which is the least likely:
They decide to go back to treating WDW like a first class resort and provide the highest quality of service and cutting edge vacation experience to their guests regardless of costs.

That scenario was up there with aliens or unicorns showing up and building it. I understandably left those scenarios out.

 

[Gregoryp73]

I'm surprised that the monorails currently used have not been fitted with Solar on the roof...I would think that it would cut down on energy usage to some extent...

 

[s8film40]

That scenario was up there with aliens or unicorns showing up and building it. I understandably left those scenarios out.

Yep one thing is for sure WDW isn't what it used to be, and never will be again.

 

[s8film40]

I'm surprised that the monorails currently used have not been fitted with Solar on the roof...I would think that it would cut down on energy usage to some extent...

Solar power would barely run the LED lights and certainly nothing more. It wouldn't likely return enough savings to even pay for the cost of the panels.

 

[Gregoryp73]

Solar power would barely run the LED lights and certainly nothing more. It wouldn't likely return enough savings to even pay for the cost of the panels.

I thought it may be able to at least run the air-conditioning compressors...The other thing I would be interested in seeing is if a couple of 1.8mw windmills placed somewhere on property would be feasible. Not sure what the wind is like in central florida, but 2 of these would be more than enough power to run just the monorail system. I think the current numbers are 5,511,200 KWH yearly to run the monorail...on average a single 1.8MW windmill would provide 4,500,000 KWH yearly. At 3.5 million a piece it would cut the system cost without detracting too much from views.

 

[c-one]

That is, unless they figured out that by the time they hit x number of DVCs, they will have a way to fund it. Or, perhaps they found some tax breaks for utilizing a "greener" transportation method.

I'm all for government investment in environmentally-safe public transit, but I'd be royally peeved if that money went to the Disney company. This is a fun conversation but tax breaks for green transit should go to cities, not for-profit companies. Transportation issues in WDW are miniscule by comparison.

This is one of the biggest misconceptions around these boards. "Fixed" rail systems are never as fixed as they seem. Why do people think WDW "traffic flow" is any different than rush-hour in the biggest cities in the world which use rail to get around. You add more trains to the track as rush hour ramps up from the terminals or you insert trains via spurs further along the track. It's done everywhere in the world. In fact it's been done for the last CENTURY in cities like London, Paris, and New York. This isn't rocket science here. Trains or any fixed-guideway system with its own right-of-way are monumentally more efficient at moving large sums of people quickly. There really isn't any debate about it.

Good point.

They are fixed in where they cover and expanding capacity is difficult because of the limited paths. What you are talking about isn't increasing capacity, but is actually about reducing capacity. They run under capacity at off times and ramp up to full capacity during peek. They cant keep adding without altering the system. They flex by running shorter trains and less trains.

No one debates trains are more capacity efficient along a set path - but that isn't the problem wdw has. Wdw's problem is the desire for a full mesh route map and people don't want to ride buses. That's what it boils down too.

good counterpoint.

 

[s8film40]

I thought it may be able to at least run the air-conditioning compressors...The other thing I would be interested in seeing is if a couple of 1.8mw windmills placed somewhere on property would be feasible. Not sure what the wind is like in central florida, but 2 of these would be more than enough power to run just the monorail system. I think the current numbers are 5,511,200 KWH yearly to run the monorail...on average a single 1.8MW windmill would provide 4,500,000 KWH yearly. At 3.5 million a piece it would cut the system cost without detracting too much from views.

I'm not very electrically inclined but I know that a Mark Vi monorail operates on 600 VDC and during acceleration pulls between 1500 and 2000 amps. My understanding is Volts x Amps = Watts but apparently this isn't exactly accurate but this formula would result in 900,000 - 1,200,000 watts of power needed per train.

I think the only time windmills would be efficient is during a hurricane assuming of course they survived it. It just isn't consistently windy here.

 

[flynnibus]

I think it is assumed that an expanded system like this would be modernized and be much more dynamic than the current one.

So this no longer becomes a 'monorail expansion' but a 'completely new monorail system' - making it even less likely to happen. My point wasn't that it can't be done - but that it can't be done with what they have now so it's not just a matter of running a few new beams, etc. You're starting from new except for some of the beam.. but in the sense you guys are whipping up, the existing system is but a fraction of the total system you propose.

Currently MK to TTC takes 3:30ish (according to YouTube videos).
TTC to Epcot Takes 9 minutes (again, per YouTube videos).

The distance between International Gateway and AK is about the same as between TTC and Epcot.

Lets just estimate 24 minutes active travel time.

Each station stop should take no more than 90 seconds. I understand right now, they aren't run this efficiently, but it can and should be using automation for doors and drivers (ala Las Vegas monorail or your standard airport train system). So, 1.5 mins each for TTC, Epcot, and DHS stops.

These are what the travel times should be:
MK to Epcot (which now essentially serves the Epcot resorts as well): 17 mins
MK to DHS: 20 Mins
MK to AK: 30 Mins

As to skipping over trains, there is no need to. The system runs in both directions now, like a normal mass transit system. At the Epcot station you can go either North to MK or South to DHS and AK.

So if it still takes 30+mins to get from A to B - and I still had to transfer for resorts. What did this massive investment you propose gain us?

If you can't bypass trains - that means everyone along a route needs to share the same resources. So while a monorail may carry 4-5x the # of people a bus can.. if you've made the same train responsible for 4-5x the number of destinations.. you've wiped out all the capacity advantages the train had. You've got one vehicle instead of 4-5, but you've not added capacity, you've not shortened the trip, and you've made the trip have more legs to it. How is this an improvement?

\As for the argument that there has to be a hub, I dispute that. Look at the NYC subway system. Oodles of people going in every direction with few real hubs, but it still gets them there efficiently.

Because in NYC - you are forced to transfer and use feeder networks. The very things people hate about WDW's current transportation... and the thing all the dreamers completely overlook. The WDW customers are clammering for direct routes - not tiered systems.

The parks act as local hubs. If you can move people from park to park much faster you don't have to have each individual hub have all of the same duplicate routes. This is the key problem with WDW current transportation is there are five hubs (each park and DTD) each of these hubs has about 20 destinations to serve to the different hotels as well as routes to the other hubs, so 25 each.

It's not the problem - it's the design. The problem is you are chasing this from a 'how do I build a more efficent transportation system' and not starting with the objective of 'how do I answer the customer concerns with the system today'. Customers don't like transferring, they don't like buses, they don't like the overall time routes take, they don't like not all paths are direct paths. Your monorail suggestions address none of those problems. All they do is attempt to put the most expensive form of transport along a route based on a need of 'a park needs a monorail' as opposed to saying 'a destination has this much demand'.

Why would you suggest putting in the most structured, most expensive, highest capacity form of transport to a destination based on type of destination instead of it's actual need. For instance, the All Stars complex serves FAR more people per day than say AK does.. yet you propose running the high capacity train to AK instead of to All Stars.

You guys are designing with 'passion' instead of addressing the actual needs. Which results in trophy systems that don't actually improve the situation they were built to address.

Lack of total capacity is not the main problem.. so when you are proposing putting in higher capacity, but fixed line, system - right from the start you know you are going down the wrong path.

The advantage Disney has over public transit system is the amount of demand for a destination is relatively fixed. They don't have to build future capacity into a route. If a hotel has 1,000 rooms, it's not going to grow at 15% a year like a commuter route may.

A replacement/enhancement for the bus system of today must (in order of importance)
1) reduce the total time of transit
2) provide a 'self-centered' experience - this train goes where I want to go
3) provides an elegant experience

If it doesn't do that - in that order - you won't please the guests.

Need proof? That's why there is direct service to the MK now instead of TTC. Total transit time trumps experience for the majority of guests. And Disney caved to it.