DEBATE: Has WDW been built haphazardly, too quick and without proper infrastructure?

Discussion in 'Disney Rumors and News' started by DisneyKidds, Mar 3, 2003.

  1. DisneyKidds

    DisneyKidds <font color=green>The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mo

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2001
    Messages:
    4,437
    OK, folks - this should be a good one. One of our other "discussions" has veered into territory that begs for it's own thread. The question sits before you. As any good debate will have, we need two opposing opinions.

    Position 1. This is the camp that says that WDW has been overgrown and overburdened, without management adequately addressing the effect that the growth over the past 10/20/30 years has had on the WDW experience, which has clearly been impacted in a negative way. I will leave it to someone from this camp to elaboreate and provide the usual comments about "inept management and the fascination with the soon to be announced ABC gameshow called 'squeezing for dollars'" ;).

    Position 2. This is the camp that says that WDW has experienced growth that has been beneficial to both Disney and their guests. Furthermore, management has dealt with this growth in an appropriate manner, allowing the WDW experience to not be impacted in a negative way. Again, someone from this camp can elaboate and provide the usual "Disney apologist" comments ;).

    There are many, many positions in between. So let's hear 'em.

    For the record, I am a 'tweener, leaning toward position 2. One of the biggest agruments I hear from camp 1 is that managements record on WDW infrastructure, primarily related to roads and transportation, is woefully inadequate. All I can say is that, since 1991 when we started visiting WDW as adult consumers, I have not notice any appreciable, negative change in the congestion, or ability to navigate, on the WDW road system. (And yes, that is just one man's experience and is in no way intended to imply that others haven't had different experiences). I even love the Magical signs ;) :tongue:.
     
  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement


    to hide this advert.
  3. WebmasterCricket

    WebmasterCricket <font color=blue>Administrator<br><font color=red>

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,985
    Describe what you specifically mean by "infrastructure" in this context please. WDW resort wide?

    also

    What time frame do you want used for the "overgrown/burdened" part?
     
  4. DisneyKidds

    DisneyKidds <font color=green>The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mo

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2001
    Messages:
    4,437
    Whatever "infrastructure" is, let's assume WDW resort wide. As to defining infrastructure in this context, I should let some of our friends who inspired this thread weigh in. Baron? You have your ideas on infrastructure, and what should be considered "critical infrastructure" - care to share? AV? Your definition?

    Infrastructure can include everything from roadways and public transportation to sewers and water treatment. I'll throw this out. At a minimum, "infrastructure" includes communication, transportation, and public utilities. As I mentioned, I most often see comments on the dissaisfaction with roadways and transportation, but are there other areas where people feel WDW infrastructure falls short?

    As for time frame - let's take it to the beginning, the dawn of WDW. Let's consider the last 30 years. If it exists, has there been a problem of short sightedness since the beginning? Have the problems just been over the past 20 years, 10 years? I'm sure everyone will have a different opinion. I'll guess that we'll get a lot of responses that say the problems started in 1986 ;).
     
  5. WebmasterCricket

    WebmasterCricket <font color=blue>Administrator<br><font color=red>

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,985
    Yes, I'm reading he other thread, so I'm far from a dumb fish taking any bait.

    -But-

    I'd really like to hear some position 1'ers before I open by big mouth.

    JC
     
  6. DisneyKidds

    DisneyKidds <font color=green>The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mo

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2001
    Messages:
    4,437
    Hmmm...............well, I've never been so insulted in my life ;). Are you implying that little 'ole me has cast a line and am just baiting?....................moi? Surely you jest :crazy:.

    Ok, joking aside, this is not an attempt to bait or sucker or anything of the sort. Serious topic, serious debate. Heck, Baron asked for it ;).
    You know what I say Cricket - always let your conscience be your guide ;). I know your opinion isn't based on what anyone else has to say.
     
  7. mjstaceyuofm

    mjstaceyuofm Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2002
    Messages:
    424
    If this is the criteria, then my response would be that WDW HAS NOT been built haphazardly and without the proper infrastructure. There are laws and permitting issues that regulate water and wastewater systems and I'm sure a hotel/facility would not be allowed to open if the proper infrastructure wasn't met or proper permits acquired. There's too much liability involved if you start throwing laws out the door. In other words, you just can't go out and build something without having the proper infrastructure in place, even Disney... I understand that they act as their own governing body (Reedy Creek), but there are still state and federal regs and statutes that define how these types of services are provided.

    I would venture that things such as water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, phones, communication, solid waste services, etc. are all on the up and up. Roads and transportation are a different beast. Roadways are rated using a system that grades a road based on its congestion, how it flows, daily traffic, etc. A road is given a "grade" or Level of Service, LOS of A through F. A being the best, F being the worst. In most cases, roads rarely fall into the A-B category and are more often in the C-F range. Even new federal projects given money to fix roads with LOS F often times only bring them up to LOS D. There's a difference between safety and convenience. Safety issues such as bridges, blind intersections, etc… are typically fixed, but the fix may not improve the LOS. Am I making any sense to anyone out there???

    Yes, I am a registered engineer in MI and FL (specifically working on transportation projects) so I do know what I'm talking about, although engineers have a reputation for being poor communicators....

    These basic services or infrastructure are most likely well thought out and planned. It’s where you get into issues such as Disney’s own internal transportation system that you start to wonder about how well the “Disney Infrastructure” stacks up.
     
  8. WebmasterCricket

    WebmasterCricket <font color=blue>Administrator<br><font color=red>

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,985
    In fact, it's quite a departure from what most people think (I think).


    Before expalining, I'll state what as of yet is not obvious. I am close to a #2. Really close. Not fully a 2, but mathmeticians would need a pretty big calculator screen to put in all the 9's nedded to make a 1.999999999999999999. I'm not a civil engeneer, but I know 2 of them. I even went to WDW for 2 days with one of them. To hear him go on about what a marvel of engerneering the roadways and "infrastructure" at WDW is, would bore you to tears. I know, I myself nearly cried and gave him the "shut up about the damn drainage ditches before I choke you to death" look more than once.

    I'm not here to discuss the magical nature of an RTS bus either, so don't go there (at least with me :) ).

    I am however wondering for those of you leaning toward #1 side, if you have given any thought to "Mr. Disney engineer". No, I didn't mean Imagineer, I meant engineer. Do you really believe that the infrastructure was just slapped together on a Saturday morning and made final on Sunday night? Years and years of enviornmental studies go into making an expressway on ramp. Think of how long they must have goofed around with making roads and parking lots that go through protected nature preserves, wetlands and right on by gift shops. Mind boggling!

    With that said, not everything can be perfect.

    I do believe that Disney should have discouraged on site driving from the day EPCOT started construction. I have always thought that an idea like the below image depicts, would have worked out much better for everyone.

    [​IMG]

    One big, huge, oversized world record setting parking lot!

    Everyone not staying at an onsite hotel, parks that's right in the "World of Parking", no exceptions!

    "Hi I'm with..."
    "Parking lot"
    "But I have..."
    "Parking lot"
    "I'm a DVC..."
    "So what, parking lot"
    "I need special..."
    "P-A-R-K-I-N-G L-O-T"
    "I'm willing to pay..."
    "Oh, well I didn't realize you didn't see our Parking lot. Let me point in it's general direction for you.--->>>"


    I have a few other points and complaints, but Riff Raff and Mrs. Raff along with the little Raffs need to get out of the cars!

    I'll leave it at that for now. There is, of course, more to come :)

    While we are on the subject, does anyone know when the first official bus was used to move people around? It wasn't from day one was it?

    JC
     
  9. WebmasterCricket

    WebmasterCricket <font color=blue>Administrator<br><font color=red>

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,985
    I believe Matt posted a simmilar sentiment about Mr. Engineer before I did. Of which, he knows obvoiusly more :)

    JC
     
  10. mjstaceyuofm

    mjstaceyuofm Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2002
    Messages:
    424
    "Mr. Disney engineer" - what am I missing???? :confused:

    So being an engineer, I'm kind of slow on the uptake - am I missing something or are y'all pokin' fun at me???? :p :crazy:
     
  11. WebmasterCricket

    WebmasterCricket <font color=blue>Administrator<br><font color=red>

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,985
    No Matt, not at all. I was typing my post while you were typing yours. I was not referring to you even in the slightest. I wrote it the way I did just so not confuse the real world engineers with those that Disney calls Imagineers. If I had seen your post first, I would have worded it quite differently.

    I was quite happy and also surprised to see your post and mine agreed on the same basic developmental points.

    JC
     
  12. WebmasterCricket

    WebmasterCricket <font color=blue>Administrator<br><font color=red>

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,985
    Unless of course you DO work for Disney :)

    JC
     
  13. DisneyKidds

    DisneyKidds <font color=green>The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mo

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2001
    Messages:
    4,437
    Matt - I don't think he is poking any fun at you. In fact, I believe he is saying that you already made this very key point - that WDW infrastructure has been thru the professional wringer and has been thoroughly designed by qualified, law abiding engineers.

    That leads into a comment I have to make, although I hate to make it so early. It has to do with an area where this thread is sure to go, but maybe we can answer questions about existing infrastructure before we get into it. That would be this. We can all agree that WDW infrastructure was developed and designed by engineers, probably very good engineers. What I am sure many a postiton 1er is going to say is that "That is not good enough. Disney should have found a way to make common infrastructure uncommon. Disney should have developed the super-d-duper-public-transpotation-system-of-the-future. Disney is in the business of imagineering and not engineering."

    Yeah, we can and will migrate to that eventual discussion, but let's try and focus on the real, the here, the now, and the actual infrastructure that exists. Is that inadequate and haphazard? and why?
     
  14. WebmasterCricket

    WebmasterCricket <font color=blue>Administrator<br><font color=red>

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,985
    The "Shoulda-woulda-coulda's" can hang their hats at the door. "Proper" is the question on the table, and the #1's are going to be hard pressed to land a marlin on that question.


    JC
     
  15. WebmasterCricket

    WebmasterCricket <font color=blue>Administrator<br><font color=red>

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,985
    DK: Was that you or me that just threw a pipe-bomb in the lake and scared all the fish away?

    JC
     
  16. DisneyKidds

    DisneyKidds <font color=green>The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mo

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2001
    Messages:
    4,437
    Yup, if not for mj all I'd be hearing is the chirping of the Cricket(s) ;). It is early though. I thought I spotted a rare daytime Baron post, but I'm sure he'll need most of the evening to put together his dissertation on this one. I do look forward to it.

    If all the 1ers can muster is the woulda-shoulda's I don't mind going there, but it will be interesting what comments we see while dispensing with reality first, if possible. I'm sure we'll hear a word or two ;).
     
  17. Dznefreek

    Dznefreek DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,825
    So you are posing a question without knowing what you are asking.
     
  18. raidermatt

    raidermatt Beware of the dark side. Anger...fear...aggression

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Messages:
    6,464
    As far as I know, the sewers and water systems are holding up...but if anybody has any exploding toilet stories, I might change my mind.

    Transportation: It sounds like you want to use a bare bones definition of what a "good transportation" system would be. A definition that would apply to any city in the country.

    Under that definition, yeah, WDW's is probably fine.

    Was it built haphazardly, or was has it been meticulously planned from day one, and updated as each change took place?

    I have no idea. Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea how extensive the planning sessions were, and whether they used any kind of cohesive long-term strategy.

    Using the above definition of an adequate transportation system, yeah, it works.

    Clearly there is a significant population that thinks Disney's mass transportation options are not adequate, so they drive.

    Same as any city.

    So, yeah, it works. It gets people around, many guests use it and those who don't drive their cars.

    Is that all you want to know?

    Adequate using what standard?
     
  19. hopemax

    hopemax Note to Self:

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2000
    Messages:
    5,654
    It appears we need credentials. Mine is a BS Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering, 1997.

    I don't think the camp 1 or camp 2 descriptions are going to adequate for this discussion. It certainly depends on what specifically is being discussed. In some areas, such as the ones that Mr. Cricket brought up (water, sewer, power, communications), I would say 2. But there are other areas where I do think Disney has been lax, and other areas where they have overexpanded.

    One of them is Disney internal transporation. When Disney entered Florida they took the position that they were going to experiment with alternative methods of moving people from point A to point B. Somewhere along the way, management has decided that they would rather let someone else do the experimenting and stick to the old standbys of buses and letting other people do the driving. And I don't think that has been or is going to be enough. Disney has already felt the effects of too few bus drivers. A guest shouldn't have to take a Mears bus to get from one park back to there hotel (I've done that, Disney was short so they contracted out).

    Another area is park infrastructure. Looking at the Magic Kingdom, over the last decade, attendance has increased from 11.5 million people to 15 million people or a 30% increase. But I don't think they have done enough to make sure those 30% more people have a place to go once they enter the gate. IE. Attractions. I know that's something we've beaten to death, but I think that if Disney had done a better job of updating attractions that were falling in popularity, and actually adding a couple more attractions, we wouldn't need things like Fastpass (another topic that has been beaten to death). And if Disney felt they couldn't fund those updates because they had to pay for MGM, Animal Kingdom water parks, resorts etc. Then yes, Disney expanded too fast. My biggest concern of adding something like Aladdin's Magic Carpets is that it's money that could have been used to finance a "people soaker," something with a high capacity to handle those 30% more guests that I think that park desperately needs.

    But until we can zero in on what specifically DK wants to talk about, I don't know what else I should say.
     
  20. DisneyKidds

    DisneyKidds <font color=green>The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mo

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2001
    Messages:
    4,437
    No, I know exactly what I am asking. The "whatever it is" bit was just a way of saying "before we talk about what to include in infrastucture for purposes of this discussion". Do you like that better?
     
  21. hopemax

    hopemax Note to Self:

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2000
    Messages:
    5,654
    Matt brought up exploding toilet stories. This question asked specifically about WDW. But at Disneyland in fall/winter 2001 they had to do an emergency replacement of the Fantasyland sewer system. I have a friend who is a civil contractor for the Navy (subs) and she had been worried about that sewer system for years and even left comments at city hall.
     

Share This Page