Walking to Grand Floridian?

[grimley1968]

Swim across the canal and be done with it!

Nah. They should build a tunnel. Surely that wouldn't be expensive, right?

 

[steve76]

Swim across the canal and be done with it!

A small trampoline on each side of the canal. Have a bit of a run up and then bounce over.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Nah. They should build a tunnel. Surely that wouldn't be expensive, right?

I have two words for you: Big Dig

 

[ntsammy5]

A small trampoline on each side of the canal. Have a bit of a run up and then bounce over.

Pure genius!

 

[kaytieeldr]

Er, if it's a drawbridge then it can be at any height you want. It can be at the same level as the path. Alternatively they could just keep the EWP floats somewhere else, like where they keep all of the other boats. I really don't think it's beyond Disney's capability to find a workable solution to getting across a canal!

They keep all the other boats at the various resorts - not an option for the ELP floats. As for workable solution, apparently Disney has determined there's not a need to invest money on something that, most likely its own research has shown, will be utilized by relatively few Guests.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

They keep all the other boats at the various resorts - not an option for the ELP floats.

Why not?

As for workable solution, apparently Disney has determined there's not a need to invest money on something that, most likely its own research has shown, will be utilized by relatively few Guests.

Now you are just making stuff up. All we know is Disney chooses not to connect the path. Just like they choose not to connect paths all over WDW. No need to make up an assumption that Disney has done research on how many people would or wouldn't use the path.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Why not?

Why? Why should Disney relocate the floats which have started and ended at the same location since the EWP's inception?
Where would you put them? If, as at least one person has reasonably surmised, Disney doesn't provide walking access between MK and GF because they don't want Guests to see backstage, how can it make any sense to relocate the entire parade to a 'frontstage' location? What happens to the magic?

Now you are just making stuff up.

No. You must have missed where I qualified my response with "apparently" and "most likely". Everybody else in this thread appears to be allowed to make assumptions without being attacked. I'm surmising based on common sense. People have been walking since, well, forever. Disney knows this. The parks allow/require a great deal of walking to experience. In all the year the Grand Floridian has existed, Disney has apparently determined (i.e. not seen sufficient demand, or much need) that such a route would not be used enough to justify spending the money.
What about safety? Sure, the GF side is already lit, per grimley's research. But the path appears to be somewhat isolated; whereas the walkway to the Contemporary is visible and apparent. If there was an emergency, vehicles can get to Guests efficiently on this latter route - less feasible in relation to a walking path/bridge/overpass. Then, too, the MK-GF route seems to open itself to the possibility of 'stupid guest tricks', given its relative isolation.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

Why? Why should Disney relocate the floats which have started and ended at the same location since the EWP's inception?

I didn't say Disney *should* relocate the boats. I merely challenged your assumption that moving the boats "wasn't an option." It's one thing to say Disney chooses not to move the boats. It's another to say they can't.

You must have missed where I qualified my response with "apparently" and "most likely".

I got those. I just don't see anything that would make it apparent that Disney has conducted a survey, nor do I see any reason that it is most likely that Disney had conducted a survey.

Everybody else in this thread appears to be allowed to make assumptions without being attacked.

Sorry if I was a bit strong there. My bad. I do see a difference between people thinking something, supposing something, suggesting maybe something - and the words "apparently" and "most likely". I'm also a bit frustrated by the many attempts by people in this thread to suggest that the distance is far too for people to walk, or that people wouldn't want to.

I'm surmising based on common sense. People have been walking since, well, forever. Disney knows this. The parks allow/require a great deal of walking to experience. In all the year the Grand Floridian has existed, Disney has apparently determined (i.e. not seen sufficient demand, or much need) that such a route would not be used enough to justify spending the money.

My question is - why do you think Disney came to their decision because people don't want to walk, rather than because Disney doesn't want them walking? (see for instance the discussion of Disney not wanting people to see back stage areas).

What about safety? Sure, the GF side is already lit, per grimley's research. But the path appears to be somewhat isolated; whereas the walkway to the Contemporary is visible and apparent. If there was an emergency, vehicles can get to Guests efficiently on this latter route - less feasible in relation to a walking path/bridge/overpass. Then, too, the MK-GF route seems to open itself to the possibility of 'stupid guest tricks', given its relative isolation.

Safety makes perfect sense to me as one of the reasons Disney might not walk people to walk. There are lots of possible reasons, or combination of reasons. I don't know.

However, I do know that (1) people really like the idea of a resort being walkable to a theme park, (2) 0.67 miles is not too far for many guests to walk, (3) a drainage canal does not pose an insurmountable barrier that Disney can't figure out how to cross.

Therefore, I really don't think the problem is technological, nor one of a lack of demand. Disney - for their own reasons - chooses not to make it happen.

 

[goofy4tink]

And there you have it...for whatever reason, Disney has chosen not to build a bridge.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I got those. I just don't see anything that would make it apparent that Disney has conducted a survey, nor do I see any reason that it is most likely that Disney had conducted a survey.

Thirty-eight years of Electric Water Pageant, maybe, combined with a likely lack of requests? I'm sure there's no formal survey - but what about a general tally of how many GF Guests ask about walking between the resort and the park?

I don't think Disney thinks people don't want to walk; I just think Disney thinks (knows?) Grand Floridian Guests don't want to walk to and from the Magic Kingdom - or at least not enough to justify the expense of whatever structure would be involved.

 

[P.I. Squirrel]

There are actually several thousand bricks down that path. I would hate to be one who purchased a brick, then found out it was WAY down at the end where no one would see it.

 

[grimley1968]

There are actually several thousand bricks down that path. I would hate to be one who purchased a brick, then found out it was WAY down at the end where no one would see it.

Ahh, PI Squirrel really is a PI!

I bet this path is there just for those bricks, now that I read this (I didn't realize this until PI Squirrel pointed it out), rather than my original guess that they built it in a half-hearted attempt to build a path to GF. This definitely fits more in the mold of the "guests pay for it, we build it" mindset that the Disney corporation is known for in the last few decades, versus the forward thinking mindset of further back, when they'd build a monorail first and then pay for it with increased resort and park attendance.

 

[cigar95]

The Walk Around the World project was originally announced as a path that would go all the way around the Lagoon. This could be another case of Marketing and Facilities not communicating with each other.

Whatever the case, the lack of a walkway tells us that Disney has done whatever amount of research they feel is necessary to make the decision, since the decision was made quite a few years back. (Could be a lot of research, could be an informal survey, could be nothing at all - but since they made the decision, they obviously had as much information as they felt necessary.)

Nothing prevents them from revisiting that decision, but so far there doesn't seem to be any indication that this is happening.

Personally, I like the boat ride. (Even though I have taken the walking path to its terminus, just because I like going anywhere in WDW that I'm allowed to go, at least once.)

 

[CarolMN]

How much research does it take to figure out that adding a walking path doesn't produce revenue or cut costs?

 

[DisneyWalker44]

How much research does it take to figure out that adding a walking path doesn't produce revenue or cut costs?

What makes you think it doesn't? People *like* walkways. People like having walking access to theme parks (even if they already have boat and/or monorail access). Read what people write on the resorts that have walking access and you'll see that's true.

Anything that enhances a resort is going to bring in some guest and increase revenue. Build that walkway, and you increase GF revenue. Increase it a ton? Probably not. But you can't just laugh it away say it won't increase revenue at all.

Disney does a ton of things that doesn't immediately increase revenue, plant flowers, nice landscaping, boats. Doesn't mean they don't increase revenue in the long run.

 

[Andrew Bichard]

The Walk Around the World project was originally announced as a path that would go all the way around the Lagoon. This could be another case of Marketing and Facilities not communicating with each other.

The Walk around the World path was dropped when Disney started selling the engraved photos at the entrance to Epcot.

As further evidence that it was originally intended to go all around the lake, there is a section of path with engraved bricks between Grand Floridian and Polynesian, outside the Wedding Pavillion. They are engraved with a wedding design and the names of couples.

Andrew

 

[SteveMouse]

2 words: toll bridge

 

[kaytieeldr]

How much research does it take to figure out that adding a walking path doesn't produce revenue or cut costs?

What makes you think it doesn't? People *like* walkways. People like having walking access to theme parks (even if they already have boat and/or monorail access). Read what people write on the resorts that have walking access and you'll see that's true.

2 words: toll bridge

There you go! That resolves any issue with a connection being non-revenue-producing!

Sure, people like walkways. Millions and millions of people like - or at least expect - to walk; millions visit Walt Disney World every year.

But just building a connection costs money - which could be more effectively spent elsewhere - and produces no revenue. A toll booth is perfect.