Just back from DVC tour- got some juicy tidbits (rumors)

[NemoMOm]

This all sounds exciting. Thanks for posting

 

[sjdisneywedding]

You know what else would be great? Helicopters that pick-up guests at the AKL entrance and drop them off outside the DAK gate. I bet people would LOVE that! Let's make sure Disney surveys guests on that one!

Oh, waitaminit. Disney's isn't actually going to implement helicopter transportation. Never mind, then.

The problem here is that guest response isn't the be-all, end-all to discussions of whether Disney will spend money on a project. Sometimes the things that people latch onto aren't even practical. A prime example is resort-wide monorail transportation. It SOUNDS great, but once you start getting into the logistics of it, the entire project crumbles.

Similarly a walking path SOUNDS great in the abstract, but the finished product still must deliver. The Epcot resort area "works" not just because paths exist but because of the way it is delivered. The walk from the Swan to Epcot may be on the longish side, but at least Disney has provided the appeal of the BoardWalk and Yacht/Beach Clubs. Before those resorts opened Disney ran trams from the Dolphin and Swan to Epcot because they didn't expect people to walk the distance.

If a path is part of additional development in that area, I can see it "working." But I don't see Disney blazing a trail in the wilderness and reconfiguring DAK's service areas just so they can say "hey, we've got a path here, too!"

thats a brilliant comparision, really it is

I never said anything about guest repsonses or surveys or anything for that matter

the point was brought up that there was a rumor about a back entrance to AK

you and others have given absolutely ZERO substantial reasons as to why it will not happen. only reasons why it MAY not happen. of course its just a rumor and it probably will never happen b deosnt mean it cant

some say theres nowhere for it to go...point out some options
then they say its too long...yet theres other paths just as long or longer
say doesnt matter its too hot or too cold anyway.....argue that
say well who likes to walk anyway.......some say they do
say well doesnt matter because Disney didnt put it in originally so theres no reason for it now

I think some like to argue just to hear themselves argue, which is fine, but dont expect me to just fold and agree with you

I could care less either way because
A) I usually drive anyway and
B) as I pointed out earlier I dont to walk/jog/bike much while on vacation

but that doesnt mean it CANT happen

 

[Mr Man]

OP here.

We made it to pg 10!! Huzzah (however, if this AKV walkway conversation doesn't turn positive), we may not see pg 11.

I need closure on these rumors (I only have one so far). Let's nice it up......

(singing) Kum-bay-ahhhhhhh my looooooord......Kum-bay-yaaaaaaaaaaaah.......

Ok....time for verse one

Someone's speculatin' my loooooooord........ Kum-bay-yaaaaaaaaaah.....
Someone's guessin' my loooooooord........ Kum-bay-yaaaaaaaaaah.......
Play nice or I keep singing..........

 

[sjdisneywedding]

.

Similarly a walking path SOUNDS great in the abstract, but the finished product still must deliver. The Epcot resort area "works" not just because paths exist but because of the way it is delivered. The walk from the Swan to Epcot may be on the longish side, but at least Disney has provided the appeal of the BoardWalk and Yacht/Beach Clubs. Before those resorts opened Disney ran trams from the Dolphin and Swan to Epcot because they didn't expect people to walk the distance.

If a path is part of additional development in that area, I can see it "working." But I don't see Disney blazing a trail in the wilderness and reconfiguring DAK's service areas just so they can say "hey, we've got a path here, too!"

come on, you think people are making the walk from S/D to see BW or BC. Its nearly 2 miles to Spaceship Earth

Give me a break with the 1.25 to 1.5 miles path is too long.

you must have the same maps with those imaginary buildings on them

as I said before a p[ath from the rear of the proposed AKV to the center of the AK is less than 3/4 of a mile.

will it happen, probably not, could it happen...ABSOLUTELY

 

[AKV707]

The op merely pointed out that this is a possibility. I think from all of the jousting back and forth here, that it is possible. Some may argue extremely unlikely, and that may be the case. There are valid arguments on both sides, and that does not mean that we should impune each other's viewpoints.

Many great points have been made in this thread and they are valid. (with the exception of the helicopters).

Let's be nice.

 

[tjkraz]

come on, you think people are making the walk from S/D to see BW or BC.

Your words, not mine.

I'm simply pointing out that a long walk that takes one past useful, themed structures is a lot more palatable than one thru the wilderness. The BW/BC area also represents useful infrastructure for guests. The BoardWalk itself puts 4 restaurants (5 if you count the bakery), a dance club, a piano bar, and other small shops within a very short distance of the Dolphin / Swan guests. The YC/BC adds another half-dozen restaurants, boat dock, and several shops to the mix.

Can the same be said for this proposed DAK jungle path?

Its nearly 2 miles to Spaceship Earth

Why do you keep bringing up Spaceship Earth? Do you really think that people walk from the BW all the way to the front of Epcot and then say "OK, now which attraction should I visit first?"

If you want a valid AK/DAK equivalent there, figure the distance between Jambo House and Kali River Rapids. Right inside the International Gateway you have immediate access to a handful of World Showcase pavilions. If you don't care for the WS, so be it, but that just represents your own personal bias.

Give me a break with the 1.25 to 1.5 miles path is too long.

Give me a break with the 1.25 to 1.5 miles ISN'T too long.

Left to choose between bus transportation and a 1.5 mile jaunt thru the woods, I'll take the bus. My kids are 6 and 4 yrs old and there's no way I'm going to try and drag them that distance. BW to Epcot is 1/3 to 1/4 of that distance and it's trouble enough trying to prod them along on that journey.

you must have the same maps with those imaginary buildings on them

as I said before a path from the rear of the proposed AKV to the center of the AK is less than 3/4 of a mile.

Let's see YOUR map. I already found you the photo several pages ago. Let's see some support for that argument--draw me your workable 3/4 mile walking path.

will it happen, probably not, could it happen...ABSOLUTELY

So you agree that it probably won't happen, and your only real argument here is that it "could" happen. If you want me to admit to the existence of steamrollers and pavers, then so be it.

Yes, the technology exists to create a path in the wilderness between AKL and DAK. I don't think anyone has ever denied that. But it seems we are all in agreement that, regardless of people's supposed fondness for walking...regardless of the exact distances involved...regardless of the results of any cost/benefit analysis...Disney probably will not create any sort of foot transportation between AKL and DAK.

 

[dwelty]

will it happen, probably not, could it happen...ABSOLUTELY

You could make the same statement about the earth suddenly exploding.

 

[pilferk]

boy you are all over the place

How so? My initial comment wasn't directed toward our conversation.

BTW the WL most certainly does have one and I already said I know about the activities at AKL with animals. point being you have to offer more than that, hence the low occupancy. it only goes so far.

WL has one? That's not part of FW? Where? I certainly missed it.

As for the rest..your completely unfounded theory on the reasoning behind the low occupancy. Not really the most solid of foundations. And as I said, they addressed the low occupancy in a different way. So far, it seems to have worked.

You want to be looked at as a top resort than act like it and have the amenities, pure and simply

They do have amenities. Just not the ONE you want them to have. YOU think it would "upgrade" the resort. But you have no proof it would.

I am point blank saying the path would be GREAT for the AKV/AKL and AK itself

I am not saying people MAY like it. I am saying people will like it. Period. Not my observation, not my feeling, not a rumor. Its a plain out and out fact.

Prove it. Prove that enough people, to make it viable and cost effective, would like it. Because a fact is something you can prove. Unless you have reams of market research, guest surveys, etc to offer up as proof?

Of course, you can't. So it's not fact. It's you wholly unsubstantiated, unfounded, speculative opinion.

You think it would be great. Bully for you. I think we've discussed why you may very well be incorrect. More importantly, Disney disagrees with you..at least so far. And in the end, really, that's all that will matter.

 

[pilferk]

thats a brilliant comparision, really it is

I never said anything about guest repsonses or surveys or anything for that matter

the point was brought up that there was a rumor about a back entrance to AK

you and others have given absolutely ZERO substantial reasons as to why it will not happen. only reasons why it MAY not happen. of course its just a rumor and it probably will never happen b deosnt mean it cant

As you've only provide reasons why it MIGHT happen, not why it DEFINITELY will happen. It goes both ways.

some say theres nowhere for it to go...point out some options
then they say its too long...yet theres other paths just as long or longer
say doesnt matter its too hot or too cold anyway.....argue that
say well who likes to walk anyway.......some say they do
say well doesnt matter because Disney didnt put it in originally so theres no reason for it now

An oversimplified and not entirely correct representation as to what's been said. If that's what you understand the conversation to have said, it explains the disconnect in the discussion.

I think some like to argue just to hear themselves argue, which is fine, but dont expect me to just fold and agree with you

I could care less either way because
A) I usually drive anyway and
B) as I pointed out earlier I dont to walk/jog/bike much while on vacation

but that doesnt mean it CANT happen

Nobody has said it can't. We've pointed out reasons why it probably won't.

You don't seem to like them, so you try to ignore them....which is fine, really. But, like you, don't expect us to fold and agree with you.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

So you agree that it probably won't happen, and your only real argument here is that it "could" happen. If you want me to admit to the existence of steamrollers and pavers, then so be it.

Yes, the technology exists to create a path in the wilderness between AKL and DAK. I don't think anyone has ever denied that. But it seems we are all in agreement that, regardless of people's supposed fondness for walking...regardless of the exact distances involved...regardless of the results of any cost/benefit analysis...Disney probably will not create any sort of foot transportation between AKL and DAK.

I dont think it will happen in the near future only because I simply think its not in the plans.

BUT I dont think its not in the plans based on the insane reasons some of you are listing

I think its merely a rumor and its probably not or ever has been envisioned as a necessity

that said I still think its a good idea could be a great ADD-ON to the resort. It wouldnt replace busses, it would not be mandatory to walk it

I cant sit back and just listen to the walk is too long.....its too expensive....its too hot

those are lame excuses

So let me ask you....do you think the open space between AKL and AK will remain undeveloped? as well as the area to the north?

 

[sjdisneywedding]

How so? My initial comment wasn't directed toward our conversation.



WL has one? That's not part of FW? Where? I certainly missed it.

As for the rest..your completely unfounded theory on the reasoning behind the low occupancy. Not really the most solid of foundations. And as I said, they addressed the low occupancy in a different way. So far, it seems to have worked.



They do have amenities. Just not the ONE you want them to have. YOU think it would "upgrade" the resort. But you have no proof it would.



Prove it. Prove that enough people, to make it viable and cost effective, would like it. Because a fact is something you can prove. Unless you have reams of market research, guest surveys, etc to offer up as proof?

Of course, you can't. So it's not fact. It's you wholly unsubstantiated, unfounded, speculative opinion.

You think it would be great. Bully for you. I think we've discussed why you may very well be incorrect. More importantly, Disney disagrees with you..at least so far. And in the end, really, that's all that will matter.

I think theres enough posted on this because you are not even reading the posts apparentely.

I said 10 times I dont even want the dumb path, just wish you could realize that your excuses are just that...excuses.

proof? of what? what proof do you have?

everything hear is based on opinion, unless of course you have the results of those surveys you keep talking about

 

[sjdisneywedding]

Nobody has said it can't. We've pointed out reasons why it probably won't.

You don't seem to like them, so you try to ignore them....which is fine, really. But, like you, don't expect us to fold and agree with you.

wouldnt expect anyone to....that would be pretty boring if everyone agreed

but you are right, I do not like or agree with the reasons that have been given as to why it wont

give me soemthing substantial

If you told me it was unbuildable land, or there was no land there to develop, or it was a further distance than other current paths, or other current paths were not being utilized, or there was a current path there for biking/jogging/walking, or even if other resorts with paths for jogging/biking didnt use them

anything with some substance

 

[tjkraz]

I dont think it will happen in the near future only because I simply think its not in the plans.

I believe that's what most others here have been saying as well.

BUT I dont think its not in the plans based on the insane reasons some of you are listing

Then why not share your own reasons...

I think its merely a rumor and its probably not or ever has been envisioned as a necessity

No argument here.

that said I still think its a good idea could be a great ADD-ON to the resort. It wouldnt replace busses, it would not be mandatory to walk it

I cant sit back and just listen to the walk is too long.....its too expensive....its too hot

those are lame excuses

Well, I guess that depends on the criteria for calling it a "good" idea. Sure it may sound nice as a bullet point on a resort amenities list for AKL. But how many people would really use it? Fifty percent of resort guests? Twenty percent? Two percent?

Putting myself in Disney's shoes, I don't know that I could brand the project a "good" idea if only 1-2% of resort guests even used the path. And really we have NO idea what the numbers may be.

Disney also needs to guard against turning an apparent positive into a negative by creating false expectations among guests. If guests hear that they can walk from AKL to DAK, and start thinking about the 1/3 mile BWV-to-Epcot type distances, I think there would be a lot of dissatisfaction from folks who discovered that the trip was 3x the expected distance.

The items above may be "lame excuses" to you, but IMO they ALL contribute in some way to the reality that no path exists.

I doubt that any one of those factors, by itself, was used as justification for not building a path. But when you view it as a whole, the evidence stacks up against the project.

If we do a direct comparison with the Epcot resorts area:

The AKL/DAK path would be longer.
The AKL/DAK path would service fewer guests.
The AKL/DAK path would not contain any other developments (restaurants, stores, clubs) to drive business in the area.
The AKL/DAK path would not eliminate the need for other forms of transportation.
The AKL/DAK path would be more difficult to secure and service since it's not surrounded by resort infrastructure.

Each of those reasons may seem "lame" on its own, but when you add them all up, in my opinion it's no mystery as to why a path was never part of the design.

So let me ask you....do you think the open space between AKL and AK will remain undeveloped? as well as the area to the north?

I have absolutely, positively no idea. And I think this is the 4th time now that I've said if Disney does actually do something with the land in between (another resort, shopping complex, etc.) a path may well be a byproduct of that development. But given what we know today, I can't see the construction of DVC villas to be incentive enough to invest in such a project.

 

[pilferk]

I think theres enough posted on this because you are not even reading the posts apparentely.

On the contrary, I've read every word. But, like you, I don't find the contrary arguments presented very compelling. Unlike you, I don't seem to be taking this discussion personally, or seeing it as a personal attack. I think you need to realize we're not attacking YOU, personally. We just disagree with you.

I said 10 times I dont even want the dumb path, just wish you could realize that your excuses are just that...excuses.

They're not excuses. They're logical reasonings and business justifications. You want to discount them as "excuses", which is fine, because they don't fit in with your opinion. But if you characterize them as excuses, you'd need to do the same with your line of thought.

proof? of what? what proof do you have?

everything hear is based on opinion, unless of course you have the results of those surveys you keep talking about

I didn't just make a statement that something was a fact. You said:

I am not saying people MAY like it. I am saying people will like it. Period. Not my observation, not my feeling, not a rumor. Its a plain out and out fact.

I say "Prove it".

Because, as you basically say in your most recent post, it's NOT fact. It's your opinion.

Unless you mean "Some people, somewhere on the planet, will like it". That I'll agree is fact. Irrelevant, but fact. The question you seem loathe to address is will enough people like it to make it cost effective to build. And the insinuation in the above quote from you is that you think it's a FACT that enough people will. I'd like to see proof of that fact....because that would certainly change my opinion on the matter.

 

[pilferk]

Well, I guess that depends on the criteria for calling it a "good" idea. Sure it may sound nice as a bullet point on a resort amenities list for AKL. But how many people would really use it? Fifty percent of resort guests? Twenty percent? Two percent?

Putting myself in Disney's shoes, I don't know that I could brand the project a "good" idea if only 1-2% of resort guests even used the path. And really we have NO idea what the numbers may be.

Disney also needs to guard against turning an apparent positive into a negative by creating false expectations among guests. If guests hear that they can walk from AKL to DAK, and start thinking about the 1/3 mile BWV-to-Epcot type distances, I think there would be a lot of dissatisfaction from folks who discovered that the trip was 3x the expected distance.

The items above may be "lame excuses" to you, but IMO they ALL contribute in some way to the reality that no path exists.

I doubt that any one of those factors, by itself, was used as justification for not building a path. But when you view it as a whole, the evidence stacks up against the project.

If we do a direct comparison with the Epcot resorts area:

The AKL/DAK path would be longer.
The AKL/DAK path would service fewer guests.
The AKL/DAK path would not contain any other developments (restaurants, stores, clubs) to drive business in the area.
The AKL/DAK path would not eliminate the need for other forms of transportation.
The AKL/DAK path would be more difficult to secure and service since it's not surrounded by resort infrastructure.

Each of those reasons may seem "lame" on its own, but when you add them all up, in my opinion it's no mystery as to why a path was never part of the design.

I couldn't have said it any better. Thanks tjkraz. That basically sums up my position on the subject, as well.

 

[dizzknee3]

I personally think the "lame excuses" are very valid points. There are many posts on these boards complaining about the walking distance from the Paddock Building at SSR to the Carriage house. I have been to Disney over 30 times and I stay at the Epcot resorts mostly and I rarely see anyone on the walking path to MGM and that distance is a bit under a mile. Especially in the summer months when the temp is well into the 90's it takes everything I have to walk to the busstop after a day at Animal kingdom! And with Disney catering to alot of families with small children(myself included), I think most guests would prefer to take the bus if there is one provided.

 

[Robo-Daddy 3000]

All of this talk about walking paths got me wondering about the walk from the GF to MK and then over to the Contemporary. I think there has to be very light foot traffic from GF to the MK. Has anyone ever done that walk? I'm not sure if that's really considered a walking path (from GF to CR) but it is a considerable hike. I do think that once Contemporary Villas opens, there will be more people walking to the MK than there were before.

 

[sjdisneywedding]

On the contrary, I've read every word. But, like you, I don't find the contrary arguments presented very compelling. Unlike you, I don't seem to be taking this discussion personally, or seeing it as a personal attack. I think you need to realize we're not attacking YOU, personally. We just disagree with you..

personally? pleasssssssssssssssse. maybe thats what you desire but it aint gonna happen! buts lets be honest, the 2 of you, (who by the way are the only 2 who continue to to protest the walkway so vigorously) are so wrapped up in trying to convince me it wont happen you cant even acknowledge the pro's for a walkway

In case you missed the other posters while you were trying to dismiss my opinions there were otheres saying not only would it be a good idea but they would also use it

Itsnot really worth debating then anymore. I have agreed, several times, the overall project probably wont take place anytime soon. I have agreed there are the potential pitfalls; a building, little swampy, cost, etc

but neither of you can even acknowledge the benefits of a path

Unless you mean "Some people, somewhere on the planet, will like it". That I'll agree is fact. Irrelevant, but fact. The question you seem loathe to address is will enough people like it to make it cost effective to build. And the insinuation in the above quote from you is that you think it's a FACT that enough people will. I'd like to see proof of that fact....because that would certainly change my opinion on the matter.

so again you keep saying cost effective, yet you dont know the cost or the benefits. so how can you just keep saying its not cost effective?

I cant get into cost analysis because I dont the info, all I can go by is otheres resorts. Other resorts have paths. People use paths. People use them to bike, walk, jog.

thats it, thats the only facts outs there
again unless yo are privy to some inside cost/benefit info
(or those surveys you keep referring to

 

[sjdisneywedding]

I personally think the "lame excuses" are very valid points. There are many posts on these boards complaining about the walking distance from the Paddock Building at SSR to the Carriage house. I have been to Disney over 30 times and I stay at the Epcot resorts mostly and I rarely see anyone on the walking path to MGM and that distance is a bit under a mile. Especially in the summer months when the temp is well into the 90's it takes everything I have to walk to the busstop after a day at Animal kingdom! And with Disney catering to alot of families with small children(myself included), I think most guests would prefer to take the bus if there is one provided.

hey thats no problem, thats what the busses are for. whats most guests? 75%, 90%, 99%?

its certainly not 100%

 

[wdw4life]

I'm staying at AKV for a few days on my next trip. Count me in as another person who probably wouldn't use a path if there was one. I'd rather take the bus.