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

[mjstaceyuofm]

An emergency replacement sounds like a sewer failure, not necessarily a haphazard growth issue. Sewers do collapse. I've seen it happen before. It may not be a capacity issue, but more of an age/material issue.

The story described at DL sounds like a case of poor maintenance. Communities (or in this case, a large facility - i.e. DL or WDW) should be doing routine televising of their sewers to check for deficiencies. Let's hope this is not the case in WDW. Although there's no reason to indicate they are doing routine maintenance on their sewers....

 

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Adequate using what standard?

Does it matter? Would your answer change? Is there a standard?

JC

 

[DisneyKidds]

Adequate using what standard?

RM - that would be ASTM 3.575 Section 4, Subsection 4.5.......................I don't know . I don't know that there is a measureable standard many of us would understand. Try this standard on for size - does the WDW transportation system allow people to move in an efficient and effective manner?

Is that all you want to know?

Yes, you did answer the first question. You feel that WDW infrastructure, as designed, is adequate as general public transportation systems go. You can pass go and collect your $200 . You are now allowed to discuss how the WDW public transportation systems should have been designed another way .

 

[DisneyKidds]

But until we can zero in on what specifically DK wants to talk about

I suppose that remains to be seen to an extent. You see, the subject of this thread is a direct quote from another of our friendly posters. We'll see where it takes us. I'm just trying to facilitate a discussion on that subject. Your post was a good start.

 

[wdw4us2]

I don't think I feel aligned with either position 1 or 2. I'm somewhere in between.

I think the infrastructure regarding the roadways of WDW is problematic as things now stand. I don't believe the original intention of WDW planners was to have their roadways clogged with buses for the resorts. The monorail should have been expanded years ago while the Disney Co. was still flush with cash during the 1990's. They instead chose to keep adding buses for each new resort they opened. If the monorail had been expanded to some of the resorts, I don't think you would see the road congestion that currently exists.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I don't think I feel aligned with either position 1 or 2. I'm somewhere in between.

I figure most will be. I provided 1 and 2 as a way to frame out the issue. Those are the extremes. While there will be a few who might align themselves with 1 or 2, the majority of people will probably fall somewhere in the middle.

 

[WebmasterCricket]

Originally posted by wdw4us2
I don't believe the original intention of WDW planners was to have their roadways clogged with buses for the resorts.

If people used the busses, there would be far less congestion. It's not the busses causing the jam-ups, it's all the rental cars.

JC

 

[hopemax]

If people used the busses, there would be far less congestion. It's not the busses causing the jam-ups, it's all the rental cars.

So the question is: How do you get people out of rental cars?

And when your trying to get to your room at the All-Stars, from your 8pm priority seating at 1900 Park Fair, and the buses stopped running from the MK at 8PM because the park closed at 7PM, and your facing a ride to DD, perhaps it's better to just hop in that rental car.

Which points to whether Disney's transportation system is adequate serving the needs of it's guests.

 

[raidermatt]

Does it matter?

Yes.

Would your answer change?

Possibly.

Is there a standard?

I hope so. How can you answer whether something is well done without definining what "well done" means?

You feel that WDW infrastructure, as designed, is adequate as general public transportation systems go.

Hey, a successful comminication!

Try this standard on for size - does the WDW transportation system allow people to move in an efficient and effective manner?

It seems reasonably efficient. As Show points out, there are going to be times of stress, like at park closings, but the system seems to hold up reasonably well. Anyway, this stress is more the result of closing the park with an event than anything else, which isn't really an infrastructure issue. Changing this practice could alleviate a lot of frustration at closing time...

Effectiveness is another issue. In the sense that it allows people to move about, it does pretty well. Though the difficulty in getting from resort to resort is inexcuseable. I would be embarassed to tell a guest that they should call a cab rather than take Disney transportation, yet this is what you are told because its true. If nothing else, this needs to be corrected.

But really, what should the effect be? Is it only to get somebody from A to B? Or does something like the Monorail add value over a bus, assuming equal trip time? (Before I'm accuesed of being a Socialist, added value equals increased demand, which translates into increased revenue, either through increased volume or higher prices)

I think the transportation system should be a "part of the Magic", and in this area, it could be a lot better. We've been through this before, and this does not necessarily mean an expanded Monorail line, so there's no need to start pulling out construction cost figures. (and if somebody does, make sure you do a full impact analysis that at least includes the projected revenue increase, the impact of less parking space needed per guest, ...)

Maybe it is as simple as an all inclusive Monorail system with adjusted hubs, or maybe that's only a piece of it. Boats can play a part. But more of the same busses, or even "cleaner" busses, are not the best answer. (Though I think it was Scoop who suggested some kind of double-decker bus, which at least has some uniqueness to it...).

I'm not a transportation engineer, or any kind of engineer for that matter. Nor am I an Imagineer. So don't ask me to actually design a workable transportation system for WDW complete with a complete cost/benefit analysis to justify the capital expenditures. None of us here have access to that kind of info...or if anyone does they've been holding out...

But what I do know, is that the bus system as it stands does not really fulfill the original goal of being the modern, unique system that was intened for WDW. Maybe the Monorail is part of the answer, maybe its light rail, maybe its a people mover, or maybe its a fleet of llamas...but whatever it is, there's an opportunity that is being lost with the current system.

 

[wdw4us2]

hopemax,

You're exactly right! Disney won't be able to get people out of their rental cars or their own vehicles until the transportation system at WDW is made to operate more efficiently.

BTW Mr. J. Cricket - even the WDW bus drivers will tell you there are too many Disney buses on the roadways. I have had many conversations with them while riding and most of them feel the current transportation system is lacking.

 

[raidermatt]

If people used the busses, there would be far less congestion. It's not the busses causing the jam-ups, it's all the rental cars.

So the question is: How do you get people out of rental cars?

Exactly. If the mass transit isn't adequate enough to convince enough people to skip the rental car, it would seem the mass transit system is not effective.

 

[stlphil]

Put an occasional poster closer to position 1.

Planning for a static attendance level is not an option, since Disney is a public company and therefore must always strive to grow and increase revenue. But did they grow too fast? Perhaps. Lets divide infrastucture into four parts and take a look.

1. Water, sewers, electrical. Traditional engineering. From all accounts executed brilliantly (although I know you used to be able to swim in the lakes. Is this a symptom of an infrastructure inadequacy?)

2. Transportation- It seems that there is somewhat of a consensus this is "adequate". But is it? Walt's dream for the Florida Project (its reason for being) was that it would be a showcase for solving the infrastructure issues of cities. After a good start, WDW transportation has stumbled badly as viewed by this criterion. And the busses to me are a symptom of a bigger problem than giving up on magical transportation like the monorail. Look at a map of the property. Did they really take transportation planning into account when locating the various elements? I may be showing my ignorance here, but it doesn't seem so to me. Many of the elements seem haphazardly located. Why is Animal Kingdom so remote, or why is Blizzard Beach so isolated? Better planning could have located the elements so you didn't have to spend a gazillion dollars connecting them. A counterpoint to this is the Epcot resort area- several hotels and resort activities with easy connections to two theme parks, yet it doesn't really feel overcrowded. What we have now Worldwide is too many far flung hotels and other venues for the transportation system to handle efficiently, and thus too little incentive to use it.

3. Theme Park infrastructure- as mentioned in an earlier post, Disney really dropped the ball here. In the early 90s the policy changed so that there would be no additions at the Magic Kingdom, only replacements. I was incredulous when I heard this years ago. How can you reconcile this policy with the need for a public company to expand (increase attendance) while maintaining good show? You can't. Adding new theme parks is not the answer; you don't want to cannibalize attendance from the old parks, you want to grow them all. And MK attendance did in fact increase without the infrastructure enhancements to absorb the crowds.

4. The Infrastructure of Magic. This thread got started as a followup to another thread where some of the posters argued that the World is now too big to handle the demand for the "Magical" observation deck at the California Grille. To me this is really shortsighted thinking, "taking the easy way out". For if the infrastructure of magic was properly (ima)engineered to anticipate the larger crowds in the World, there would have been enough new magical spots created along the way to keep demand for any current spots under control. I see little of this happening; most additions are reactive and not proactive.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well!! Three pages and we still haven’t settled on what we’re going to talk about? Mr. Kidds!! My hat’s off to you!! This is your best confusion to date!!

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.

Is this what we’re talking about? If so…. I will not participate. Next thread please!!!

If this is not the subject "on the table" then I will have to ponder. But as usual Mr. Matt and the wonderful Hopemax certainly have hit the mark. And did you get a load of that “occasional poster” stlphil!!! WOW!!! Only 19 posts to his/her credit and already someone who “Gets It”!!!

 

[SnackyStacky]

I have absolutely NO engineering credentials, so I really am clueless as to most aspects of infrastructure.

However, as a tourist there, I can say that I don't believe that the roadways are very efficient. At all.

The only way you know where you're going is the signage. They've done a very good job with the signs. I've never gotten lost. BUT, I have found myself drifting lanes because I'm paying more attention to signs than to the road. There's no driving directions to get to the parks. Whenever I'd ask, they'd tell me to just follow the signs. I've never had an accident because I go in the off-season, but during peak season, I'd have to imagine it's nuts!

And why am I using my car in the first place? Because I can park hop (meaning leave the gates at Park A and be inside Park B) in about 20 minutes. Whereas with Disney transportation, it takes at LEAST 45 minutes. The only exception is the Magic Kingdom because of the ferry or monorail to and from the TTC. But if you go from one park to the next, they take you to the TTC, right?

Anyway, my point is, that I find their public transportation inadequate, and their roadways....not inadequate, but misused? Maybe?

 

[raidermatt]

I didn't really address non-transportation infrastructure, but stlphil did a great job with these two pieces:

Theme Park infrastructure- as mentioned in an earlier post, Disney really dropped the ball here. In the early 90s the policy changed so that there would be no additions at the Magic Kingdom, only replacements...How can you reconcile this policy with the need for a public company to expand (increase attendance) while maintaining good show? You can't. Adding new theme parks is not the answer; you don't want to cannibalize attendance from the old parks, you want to grow them all. And MK attendance did in fact increase without the infrastructure enhancements to absorb the crowds.

Besides only doing replacements, there are outright closures with NO replacement. Less attractions for more people... Eventually this will bite you on the rump. Maybe "eventually" is now?

The Infrastructure of Magic. This thread got started as a followup to another thread where some of the posters argued that the World is now too big to handle the demand for the "Magical" observation deck at the California Grille. To me this is really shortsighted thinking, "taking the easy way out". For if the infrastructure of magic was properly (ima)engineered to anticipate the larger crowds in the World, there would have been enough new magical spots created along the way to keep demand for any current spots under control. I see little of this happening; most additions are reactive and not proactive.

Yes, and perhaps a better example is Cindy's breakfast. Disney was fine with the fact that most who wanted to experience this never got the chance. Only when a non-affiliated website started working Disney's reservation system for profit did Disney react by changing the reservation policy, and adding a second Princess meal.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

I would love to see some more alternative (non-bus) transportation but I think it must be closely examined before anything is implemented. For example in the Epcot Resort Area where you have boat transportation to two parks, it takes a RIDICULOUS amount of time to travel anywhere. To get by boat from Disney-MGM Studios to Epcot takes nearly an hour, whereas I can walk from the Studios to Epcot in exactly 21 minutes. (i did actually time it). Also while the monorail works well for the close knit MK resorts and the nonstop haul to Epcot it may be a much slower process on a larger scale with more stops, perhaps an upgraded monorail more like an automated city train with shorter stops.

The lake problem is something that is affecting all of central Florida and it is bacterial growth due to high temperatures and lack of precipitation. As Voice said these problems MAY be reduced by water treatment plants but are they really worth the near 70 million construction cost and 2 million annual operating expense so a few guests at Poly and Grand Floridian can swim in the lake when both resorts have beautiful pools?

As for sewage and stuff, I have often seen maintenance being done in that area and I know storm run-off and drainage are always being worked on and improved. WDW is a world leader in water conservation techniques which I can post more about if anyone is interested.

As I already posted about the roads, I have seldom encountered traffic except at park closing, special events (ie WDW Marathon), and at Hotel Plaza Blvd. The hotel plaza Blvd problem was recently solved, and I must say in brillant fashion, you would now never know the extent of the traffic that used to plague the area. As for traffic lights they are there to slow traffic and ensure safety as well as balance flow between cross streets not to inconveinence you. It is seldom that I find myself waiting more than one traffic light cycle at any light.

 

[raidermatt]

I would love to see some more alternative (non-bus) transportation but I think it must be closely examined before anything is implemented.

Absolute agreement here. That's why I'm not asking for specific types of transportation.

For example in the Epcot Resort Area where you have boat transportation to two parks, it takes a RIDICULOUS amount of time to travel anywhere. To get by boat from Disney-MGM Studios to Epcot takes nearly an hour, whereas I can walk from the Studios to Epcot in exactly 21 minutes.

I think if you get to the boat dock as a boat is about to leave, it won't take an hour, but I agree it takes a lot longer than 21 minutes. And of course you can't always get to the boat dock at the right time either.

I think this does illustrate a point. Everyone seems to know that the boats are not the fastet route, due to the multiple stops around the lake. (though a lot of it depends on which resort you are at and to which park you are going). But doesn't the fact that many people take the boats anyway say something about the popularity of alternative methods of transportation?

Since few of us ride ferries to work, a boat ride is a unique and pleasant way to get around, so we'll sacrifice a few minutes. Most guests are much less forgiving of the busses.

So certainly I think speed is a component of what WDW transportation should be, but I don't think its necessarily the "critical path" component. In other words, the fastest method will not always be the best method. For instance, offer a boat that takes 20 minutes, or a bus that takes 18 and many, if not most, will still take the boat. Of course guests would not want to sacrifice TOO much time.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Is this what we’re talking about?

You tell me. You were the inspiration for this thread. The subject matter is a direct quote of yours (except you didn't pose a question, you made a statement of fact that WDW has been all that). Here is your stage to elaborate. Here is your chance to talk about that. After all, you did say you wanted to talk about it.

I suppose this thread will ultimately address two questions. The first would have to be the very question at hand. Has WDW grown without the proper infrastructure? That has to involve discussing what currently exists, how it was implemented, and where you feel it's inadequacies lie. Will you talk about that?

The second question would be how WDW should have grown and how the infrastructure should be different. However, can we really talk about this before we talk about that first question?

 

[vernon]

In general I would say most of the "infrastructure" ( water, sewers, gas, electrics and roads ) seem well thought and laid out. IMHO the main drawback is the current transportation system. As WDW has grown the bus and road system is stretched to breaking point, coupled with society becoming more aware and concerned about the damage to the environment I think a whole new mindset is needed to bring the transport system up to date. IMHO disney knows this is true, but the internal divisions within the company make it difficult to cost and fund such a large undertaking.
The best "new" system would be one that links ALL the hotels to ALL the attractions The attractions benefit because they would gain customers if it was easier to visit them and the hotels benefit from 1) the extra cost of staying on site could be easier to justify with the reduced need to rent a car and 2) because more people would travel resort to resort, eating at those resorts while checking out resorts other than those they were staying at. IMHO all parties know they would probably benefit from such a system, they'd rather someone else pay for it.

Upgrading the transportation system is not going to be cheap ( and never would have been) in those situations it's always likley that delays will occur as people argue about who benefits the most and who should fund it, the rest of the set up is outstanding, IMHO

 

[crusader]

In keeping with the 4-part theme stlphil so brilliantly divided for this debate I also have no real complaints about part 1. Simply because I have yet to experience any problems in this area.

I was always curious though why you were only able to swim at the Ft Wilderness beach in the lagoon and at no other resort.

There would be a potential for problems though if the construction streamlining which was evident in building AK really meant cutting significant corners to beat the opening of IOA.

The transportation system was bound to take a few shots. I disagree that it is inadequate. We live in the age of instant gratification and a WDW trip seems to bring out that kamikaze mentality within alot of guests. Any downtime in waiting for a bus or boat disrupts their routine and heightens the stress level - which ultimately leads to complaining. If there really was the relax and enjoy attitude, taking a 20 minute ride to get somewhere wouldn't be an issue. Afterall this was supposed to be a vacation.

The other two areas I agree with.