New Highway?
Scalemaster34
Looks like they are putting in a new four lane highway... is this a new back
entrance to Animal Kingdom?
--
Keith
°O° + °Õ° = °õ° & °õ° & °õ° & °o°
Lilith
<scalem...@nospamy.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Anyone know what Disney is building over by Animal Kingdom?
>Looks like they are putting in a new four lane highway... is this a new back
>entrance to Animal Kingdom?
I dunno about a highway but they are putting in a new attraction,
"Epedition Everest." It's supposed to involve an encounter with a
Yeti.
--
Lilith
admiralBoom
That's Western Way - part of the very original design plans for WDW
that will connect Florida's Western Beltway with Buena Vista Road. It
was originally designed to connect Osceola Parkway (Blizzard Beach has
since gotten in the way) to "points northwest" because it was not known
back then what Florida would build in the western corridor (but now
those plans are well known and under construction as well).
As a side note, one of the 'points northwest' was noted as 'future
expansion - airport' - fueling the rumors (years ago) that WDW would
build it's own public airport...
Boom
wlc
Would that be Expedition Everest??
wlc
"admiralBoom" <admir...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1131561725.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Darrell Jefress
"admiralBoom" <admir...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1131561725.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> That's Western Way - part of the very original design plans for WDW
> that will connect Florida's Western Beltway with Buena Vista Road. It
> was originally designed to connect Osceola Parkway (Blizzard Beach has
> since gotten in the way) to "points northwest" because it was not known
> back then what Florida would build in the western corridor (but now
> those plans are well known and under construction as well).
Thanks, Boom - is it known for sure if it will connect with BVR or with
World Drive?
Seems like I remember something about it connecting with the former
somewhere south of Coronado Springs.
There are, needless to say, early rumors that the "fifth gate" will be built
off this new road, somewhere south of the Palm course and north of CSR.
DJJ
Scalemaster34
Looks like I'll be able to bypass Hwy 27 & Hwy 192 in the future....
I found a map
(http://www.dot.state.fl.us/turnpikepio/pdfs/westernbeltway.pdf) of the new
Highway. Looks like it comes really close to Disney property. Wonder if
the "off-ramp" that connects the Wester Beltway to Disney's Highway System
has any privately owned property. If not, I might be able to drive to WDW
without going thru all the tourist areas..
admiralBoom
Western Way will (does) connect to BVR just west of CS - we actually
ripped out some of the former CM access road to make the interchange.
Look for gate changes at CS also.
Fifth Gate ? Fifth Beatle ? Fifth Element ? Hmmmmmm - That would mean
that we would have to expand Epcot Center Drive (ECD) out to meet
Western Way. Hmmmmmm
Boom
admiralBoom
> admiralBoom wrote:
> >> Keith
> >>
> >> That's Western Way - part of the very original design plans for WDW
>
>
> I found a map
> (http://www.dot.state.fl.us/turnpikepio/pdfs/westernbeltway.pdf) of the new
> Highway. Looks like it comes really close to Disney property. Wonder if
> the "off-ramp" that connects the Wester Beltway to Disney's Highway System
> has any privately owned property. If not, I might be able to drive to WDW
> without going thru all the tourist areas..
>
Keith
Actually, the path of the proposed beltway took it ON to WDW property.
RCID donated those (few) acres to Florida to make sure the beltway got
built (I think WDW threw in some cash too...)
That also means that Western Way is entirely private (Disney owned).
Enjoy your drive !!
Boom
Mike C
admiralBoom wrote:
> ...
> it was not known
> back then what Florida would build in the western corridor (but now
> those plans are well known and under construction as well).
>
What are those plans? I was there in April went for a drive around that
area (Reams to Hancock to Seidel to Avalon). I saw the Western Beltway
construction near the end of Seidel, but NOTHING else. It looked like I
could have been in the middle of Kansas, it was so empty. In fact, I
was quite relieved when I got to Avalon, because it was so empty I
thought I had made a wrong turn. :-)
Are they (Florida or private developers) planning to build that area
out now that the Beltway is coming in there? If so, I certainly saw no
sign of it (yet)
Mike
Darrell Jefress
> Fifth Gate ? Fifth Beatle ? Fifth Element ? Hmmmmmm - That would mean
> that we would have to expand Epcot Center Drive (ECD) out to meet
> Western Way. Hmmmmmm
In other words . . . . . . . . . if we begin to see road construction near
that intersection . . . . . Of course, until anything's announced, the
construction would probably be kept away from guests' eyes.
One of my earliest memories of WDW is the very first day I ever drove onto
the property, back in January of 1992. I wasn't going to any parks, so I
spent the day driving around to different resorts and just looking around
and taking photos. I remember coming across some new road construction, but
because I didn't know my way around the property at the time, I had no
inkling of where it might be going.
I feel like it might have been off World Drive - maybe the extension of
Buena Vista. There wasn't anything out there yet, and the All-Stars wouldn't
open for another 2+ years. (It wasn't near PO/DxL, I know - those roads were
already built.)
Ever since then, as I've gotten to know the property much better, I've
pondered what I might have been seeing. The BV extension seems most likely,
just because I think I was facing west, and there was nothing around at the
time. Be fun to go through a regression session and tap my faded memory.
DJJ
FallenAngel
"Scalemaster34" <scalem...@nospamy.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8Eocf.9199$kd....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Tony Rice
r...@midco.net:
> http://www.miceage.com/kevinyee/ky110105a.htm
Interesting article.
The topic of AK not causing guests to add an extra day to their visit is
not a good one IMHO. The parks are crowded, even in the supposed off
season. Before AK you could go in the doldrums of early Oct, Early Nov,
and Early Dec an walk on rides. You cant do that anymore. There are
always waits. Disney has continued to build hotels which just adds bodies
in those parks.
I'd venture a guess that while guests haven't added a day to their stay,
they shortening the amount of time between visits.
Add a 5th park, add a 10th park and it's not going to affect the length of
most people's stays. But it will get them back to see what they've not
seen.
Mike C
Tony Rice wrote:
> "FallenAngel" <hke...@usd.edu> wrote in news:5smdndTIQrxjDe_eRVn-
> r...@midco.net:
>
> > http://www.miceage.com/kevinyee/ky110105a.htm
>
> Interesting article.
>
> The topic of AK not causing guests to add an extra day to their visit is
> not a good one IMHO. The parks are crowded, even in the supposed off
> season. Before AK you could go in the doldrums of early Oct, Early Nov,
> and Early Dec an walk on rides. You cant do that anymore. There are
> always waits. Disney has continued to build hotels which just adds bodies
> in those parks.
>
I agree. It's not as if these parks are under-utilized. Even AK was 5th
in US attendance last year.
But I do think they need to address the transportation problem at some
point. Are buses really the long term answer? I'd rather see investment
in transportation (monorails, light rail) than a 5th gate...
Mike
disneyfan.nyc
original plan for the "Florida Project". Obvious, several things at WDW
were never built from the original plans, but the possible ideas still
popped up from time to time.
disneyfan.nyc
methods of transportation. One idea allegedly floating around was to
expand the monorail. Essentially, it would split at EPCOT and run east
towards downtown disney and west to Animal Kingdom. after that, those 2
points would eventually be connected running along the southern
perimeter of the resort area of WDW, crossing All Star Resorts,
Disney/MGM Studios, Pop Century, Caribbean Beach.
From a community planning concept it's a great idea and would even
continue (in a small way) Walt's original vision for WDW to be a
connected community. Even though the construction cost would be huge,
it would eventually result in lower transportation costs as well even
less diesel spewwing buses on the property.
Mike C
disneyfan.nyc wrote:
> Because growth is expected to continue, Disney has looked at alternate
> methods of transportation. One idea allegedly floating around was to
> expand the monorail.
I would *love* to see ubiquitous monorail coverage. But honestly, at
this point I'd be happy with a nice light-rail system connecting all
the major venues. Basically, ABB -- anything but buses. :-)
Mike
Rudeney
>
> Even though the construction cost would be huge,
> it would eventually result in lower transportation costs as well even
> less diesel spewwing buses on the property.
While I would love to see additional Monorail routes, I don't believe the
construction and maintenance costs for that would ever be lower than a bus
fleet. Even if you amortize the construction cost out over 20 years or
more, Monorail trains are still more expensive to maintain and run than
buses. Not only that, the current Monorail trains cannot move as many
guests per unit of time as the buses.
As for the buses, they actually do not spew diesel fuel; they burn it.
While the exhaust is certainly unpleasant and can have undesirable effects
on the environment, it actually takes much more energy per passenger-mile to
run a Monorail.
--
- RODNEY
Mike C
Rudeney wrote:
> While I would love to see additional Monorail routes, I don't believe the
> construction and maintenance costs for that would ever be lower than a bus
> fleet. Even if you amortize the construction cost out over 20 years or
> more, Monorail trains are still more expensive to maintain and run than
> buses.
Even with the added labor and liability costs? Labor for all those bus
drivers, and liability for the greater frequency of accidents on a bus
(which shares the road with hundreds of reckless drivers)?
> Not only that, the current Monorail trains cannot move as many
> guests per unit of time as the buses.
But is that really true? I've heard conflicting views on the subject. I
read a post recently that said buses couldn't touch monorails when it
comes to total throughput during busy times. That was always my
impression: that the higher capacity and short load time of a monorail
made it much more efficient at moving large crowds than buses.
It's an important question, because the bean counters would be much
more likely to OK monorail expansion if it can be shown that they
provide a significant advantage in operating cost or capacity.
So does anyone know the definitive answer, with hard numbers?
Mike
Scalemaster34
Sorry don't have any hard numbers...
I'm sure Disney would love to get rid of the Buses. But I think the guys in
the transportation department know that people want to get from point "R" to
point "P" as quickly as possible. And that a combined Monorail and Light
Rail system would currently require too many stops and transfers points and
thus much time - a trip might take up to an 1-1/2. Most people with cars
would just start driving, causing congestion on the roadways and in the
parking lots - defeating the purpose of the whole transportation system.
What Disney really needs is a completely automated "Light Rail" type system
where guest could board a "Car" at their Resort and travel directly and
quickly to the Park of their choice without having to stop at other Resorts
or to transfer to another form of transportation like the Monorail.
The only expansion I see ever taking place might be a direct line to the
Airport...but Disney might could build an Airport cheaper than a Monorail
Expansions..
Mike C
Scalemaster34 wrote:
> I'm sure Disney would love to get rid of the Buses.
I don't think they could ever get rid of *all* the buses. They'd still
have to maintain some for odd routes and overflow. I'm suggesting that
they need to get to the point where buses are "option B" or "option C"
rather than "option A, B, and C".
> But I think the guys in
> the transportation department know that people want to get from point "R" to
> point "P" as quickly as possible. And that a combined Monorail and Light
> Rail system would currently require too many stops and transfers points and
> thus much time - a trip might take up to an 1-1/2. Most people with cars
> would just start driving, causing congestion on the roadways and in the
> parking lots - defeating the purpose of the whole transportation system.
>
Stops and transfers are two quite different things. I think you could
have a monorail loop with as many as 8-10 stops and people wouldn't
mind, as long as the stops were brief. This is especially true in a
monorail, where the ride itself is enjoyable. And if each loop had 2
tracks (clockwise, counter-clockwise), now you're talking about a max
of 5 stops to service 10 destinations.
Transfers are another story... people tend to hate transfers and
anything more than one transfer on a route would tend to drive people
away. But, as I said, they could still maintain a *small* fleet of
buses to handle the really obscure routes.
So, I think they could build 1-3 large (possibly bidirectional) loops
with lots of stops and at most 1 transfer, and people would use them.
Financial issues aside, of course. :-)
> What Disney really needs is a completely automated "Light Rail" type system
> where guest could board a "Car" at their Resort and travel directly and
> quickly to the Park of their choice without having to stop at other Resorts
> or to transfer to another form of transportation like the Monorail.
>
I think you're referring to PRT (personal rapid transit) systems. This
is the holy grail of public transit. But, like most holy grails, this
one seems to be all but unattainable :-)
PRT systems have never gotten off the ground, despite 40-odd years of
research and billions of dollars invested. It just doesn't scale. Maybe
some future breakthrough will make it practical, but today the
technology just isn't there.
But, they could use conventional light rail, rather than monorails, if
monorails are too expensive. Still preferable to buses.
Mike
Bruce A Metcalf
>Scalemaster34 wrote:
>
>> What Disney really needs is a completely automated "Light Rail" type system
>> where guest could board a "Car" at their Resort and travel directly and
>> quickly to the Park of their choice without having to stop at other Resorts
>> or to transfer to another form of transportation like the Monorail.
>
>I think you're referring to PRT (personal rapid transit) systems. This
>is the holy grail of public transit. But, like most holy grails, this
>one seems to be all but unattainable :-)
>
>PRT systems have never gotten off the ground, despite 40-odd years of
>research and billions of dollars invested. It just doesn't scale. Maybe
>some future breakthrough will make it practical, but today the
>technology just isn't there.
PRT technology is just fine, and has been for over thirty years. The
problem isn't scale, it's that the first phase of a PRT system has to
be pretty large to be worth the trouble.
Disney has looked at PRT as a replacement for both bus *and* monorail.
It failed to pass muster, but perhaps not for the reasons you might
expect.
The key to the WDW transport system is the "fireworks exit" from the
Magic Kingdom. On a busy night, you want to move about 85,000 guests,
along with their loot, strollers, wheelchairs, and ECVs, in about an
hour. This is tougher than it looks.
Estimates for PRT systems look like it would take 10-12 lanes of
equipment to board folks that fast, and there would have to design the
entrance area to maintain access to the ferryboats. This is as much of
an artistic challenge as it is an engineering one, and pretty much
ended consideration of PRT (at that time).
Monorails do move people faster than buses, given any reasonable
number of bus stops. Ferryboats move them about twice as fast as the
monorail. (Or about the same, according to monorail staff -- no dog in
this fight.)
I for one would love to see WDW become a gigantic demonstration
project for PRT technology. I think the technology is a good match, it
would free up interior roads and permit relocation and distribution of
parking areas, and it could eliminate bus, monorail, and parking lot
trams in the process. Except for a sentimental attachment to the 1959
monorail system, what's to lose?
Of course, WDW is a business, and has to ask instead, "What's to
gain?" The missing part of this puzzle is sponsorship. Disney needs a
major manufacturer with deep pockets to share the ~$1B cost of
construction in return for the demonstration project, which in turn
would bring them business in the form of other buyers. So far, nobody
has been willing to take that hook. (Though given my personal
assessment of urban transit planning, they're probably right to be
reticent.)
Of course, things will continue to change. The cost of labor for
drivers and maintenance staff will continue to increase, as will the
price of oil. Should Disney monorails suffer the sort of fire that
struck Seattle's, they could be moth balled faster than you might
think possible.
And who knows? In the new "Iger Era", all sorts of new things might be
possible.
--
TDC Zazu,
Librarian of the Disney Reverence Shelf
and Protector of All Disney Railroads
Derek Janssen
> "FallenAngel" <hke...@usd.edu> wrote in news:5smdndTIQrxjDe_eRVn-
> r...@midco.net:
>
>
>>http://www.miceage.com/kevinyee/ky110105a.htm
>
>
> Interesting article.
Yeah, that's got to be the *longest* fanboy stretch of a "Maybe they're
building a new park 'cause AK's boring!" tie-in to normal maintenance
construction that we've seen in quite a few years now...
Derek Janssen (and we've seen some champions in our day)
dja...@charter.net
Randy Berbaum
: PRT technology is just fine, and has been for over thirty years. The
: problem isn't scale, it's that the first phase of a PRT system has to
: be pretty large to be worth the trouble.
: Disney has looked at PRT as a replacement for both bus *and* monorail.
: It failed to pass muster, but perhaps not for the reasons you might
: expect.
: The key to the WDW transport system is the "fireworks exit" from the
: Magic Kingdom. On a busy night, you want to move about 85,000 guests,
: along with their loot, strollers, wheelchairs, and ECVs, in about an
: hour. This is tougher than it looks.
: Estimates for PRT systems look like it would take 10-12 lanes of
: equipment to board folks that fast, and there would have to design the
: entrance area to maintain access to the ferryboats. This is as much of
: an artistic challenge as it is an engineering one, and pretty much
: ended consideration of PRT (at that time).
This is why I think that monorails (or other bulk transport) to travel
park to park with regional "hubs" (possibly included with the park stops)
where a PRT or other "local" themed transport to connect the hub to all
the resorts in the area. This would reduce the crowd surge at the PRT
systems. For example a fireworks exit of 88,000 that then is spread among
5 hubs (Downtown resorts, AK resorts, Studios resorts, Epcot resorts, MK
resorts) would cut the crowd at the PRT hub to aproximately 1/5th. And if
there is some other park that is still open as well as Downtown/PI, these
would bleed off some of the surge. As well as the fact that the bulk
transports would break the surge into many smaller surges, this would make
the PRT hubs much more doable. IMHO
: Monorails do move people faster than buses, given any reasonable
: number of bus stops. Ferryboats move them about twice as fast as the
: monorail. (Or about the same, according to monorail staff -- no dog in
: this fight.)
: I for one would love to see WDW become a gigantic demonstration
: project for PRT technology. I think the technology is a good match, it
: would free up interior roads and permit relocation and distribution of
: parking areas, and it could eliminate bus, monorail, and parking lot
: trams in the process. Except for a sentimental attachment to the 1959
: monorail system, what's to lose?
: Of course, WDW is a business, and has to ask instead, "What's to
: gain?" The missing part of this puzzle is sponsorship. Disney needs a
: major manufacturer with deep pockets to share the ~$1B cost of
: construction in return for the demonstration project, which in turn
: would bring them business in the form of other buyers. So far, nobody
: has been willing to take that hook. (Though given my personal
: assessment of urban transit planning, they're probably right to be
: reticent.)
This is one other reason for keeping the PRT to more local transport, the
price per mile for long distance transport would be reduced if the
majority of long haul was more bulk transport than personal transport.
: Of course, things will continue to change. The cost of labor for
: drivers and maintenance staff will continue to increase, as will the
: price of oil. Should Disney monorails suffer the sort of fire that
: struck Seattle's, they could be moth balled faster than you might
: think possible.
Don't forget the constantly increasing cost of insurance/repair maint
costs of the ever larger bus stables.
: And who knows? In the new "Iger Era", all sorts of new things might be
: possible.
Since you mentioned the Seattle monorail problem, do you think that there
is someone higher up in the Disney co who might spot that possibility and
begin the process of advance planning for that eventuality? Over the past
decade or so I have come to the conclusion that most of management hides
their heads in the sand and only begins infrastructure plans after
something happens. Then they respond to the frustrated guests with "well,
this problem happened and so you'll have to put up with the difficulties
while we scratch our heads" (and other portions of the body). And by the
time that solid ideas are come up with someone mentions that "hey, we
bought all these busses to cover the interim and they seem to be working
so lets just keep using them and not worry about coming up with something
that works better.
Meanwhile we are hearing more and more people here complaining about how
insane it is to try to catch a bus back to their resort at park closing at
any park. And more and more people are disgusted with the busses and
driving themself, causing more and more crowding of the roads, which hold
sup the busses, which induces more personal drivers......
Randy
==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Mike C
Bruce A Metcalf wrote:
> ...
> Estimates for PRT systems look like it would take 10-12 lanes of
> equipment to board folks that fast, and there would have to design the
> entrance area to maintain access to the ferryboats. This is as much of
> an artistic challenge as it is an engineering one, and pretty much
> ended consideration of PRT (at that time).
This is actually what I meant by "it doesn't scale". The very fact that
10-12 lanes are needed to support the required throughput is an
indication that the technology is impractical for such a high-volume
task.
Don't get me wrong... I *love* the idea of PRT, and I really hope they
come up with a breakthrough to make it more practical. But my
impression is that the technology is still in the pre-pre-prototype
phase, because some problems (i.e. the loading problem) simply have not
been solved in a practical way.
> ...
> I for one would love to see WDW become a gigantic demonstration
> project for PRT technology. I think the technology is a good match, it
> would free up interior roads and permit relocation and distribution of
> parking areas, and it could eliminate bus, monorail, and parking lot
> trams in the process. Except for a sentimental attachment to the 1959
> monorail system, what's to lose?
Lots and lots of money. :-)
Seriously, I agree that Disney would be an ideal match for PRT, because
(a) they have the space, (b) they have the money (see "Katzenberg",
"Ovitz", and "ABC Family"), (c) they own all the land, and (d) they
have a transportation problem that PRT could (*could*) solve.
Also, isn't exactly the type of thing Epcot was supposed to be?
Experimental, prototype, and all that? I'd like to see them start right
there: in the Epcot/MGM resort area. Build a little PRT system to link
the Epcot resorts with Epcot and MGM, like the original monorail loop
linked the MK resorts.
But... as you said, they did look at it and passed on it. Maybe it's
just not a mature enough technology for them to take even a
(relatively) small risk on it...?
That's my impression of PRT: nobody (including Disney) is willing to
put up *so* *much* money on what is essentially an unproven technology.
I say "unproven" because, as of today, there are no PRT systems
anywhere that would support anything close to the capacity that Disney
would require.
Heck, Disney won't even pay a $B for monorail expansion, even though
that technology has proven its usefulness for decades... I can't see
them gambling such a huge amount on something as risky as PRT.
> ...
> And who knows? In the new "Iger Era", all sorts of new things might be
> possible.
>
I would love to see it. But, I'd equally love to see some other ABB
transit option. :-)
(ABB: Anything But Buses)
> --
> TDC Zazu,
> Librarian of the Disney Reverence Shelf
> and Protector of All Disney Railroads
Mike
Mike C
Randy Berbaum wrote:
>
> This is why I think that monorails (or other bulk transport) to travel
> park to park with regional "hubs" (possibly included with the park stops)
> where a PRT or other "local" themed transport to connect the hub to all
> the resorts in the area. This would reduce the crowd surge at the PRT
> systems. For example a fireworks exit of 88,000 that then is spread among
> 5 hubs (Downtown resorts, AK resorts, Studios resorts, Epcot resorts, MK
> there is some other park that is still open as well as Downtown/PI, these
> would bleed off some of the surge. As well as the fact that the bulk
> transports would break the surge into many smaller surges, this would make
> the PRT hubs much more doable. IMHO
I love this idea. A perfect mix of a high-capacity/low-flexibility
transport (monorails), with a low-capacity/high-flexibility PRT to
cover the last mile. And since small distances are involved the PRT
could run at slower speeds (I'm thinking a souped up TTA-type system
that ran faster and could route down different paths).
The major drawback is the transfer... but I think they could design it
to be relatively painless if they lined up monorail exit with the PRT
entrance, and vice-versa.
And, I don't think any of this would eliminate the buses; just relegate
them to choice B. For people who love buses or hate transfers, the
buses would still be available (though MUCH less overburdened).
> ...
> Meanwhile we are hearing more and more people here complaining about how
> insane it is to try to catch a bus back to their resort at park closing at
> any park. And more and more people are disgusted with the busses and
> driving themself, causing more and more crowding of the roads, which hold
> sup the busses, which induces more personal drivers......
>
Exactly. Buses are at best a tactical solution. At some point they have
to start thinking strategically, don't they?
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
Mike
Rob Steere
news:1132463092.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I love this idea. A perfect mix of a high-capacity/low-flexibility
> transport (monorails), with a low-capacity/high-flexibility PRT to
> cover the last mile. And since small distances are involved the PRT
> could run at slower speeds (I'm thinking a souped up TTA-type system
> that ran faster and could route down different paths).
>
> The major drawback is the transfer... but I think they could design it
> to be relatively painless if they lined up monorail exit with the PRT
> entrance, and vice-versa.
>
Actually, this is almost *exactly* the transportation system Walt envisioned
for his original EPCOT concept. It's actually very well explained in the
Epcot section of the Disney Treasures Tomorrowland DVD. Residents would use
the monorail to get to the city center. Then, the Peoplemover would branch
off like spokes out to the residential areas. You would simply go to the
boarding platform for the peoplemover to your "spike". Along the way, the
trains would slow down and enter a station, some people would get on or off,
then the doors would close and the train would speed up again to go to the
next station. At the end of the spoke, the train would turn around and make
its way back. The Peoplemover in Disneyland was originally a small scale
prototype for what he was envisioning for Epcot.
Each park's monorail station would act as the Hub for the nearby hotels.
From there, one or more Peoplemover lines would branch out. Take Animal
Kingdom, for example. From that station, you could have three lines going
outward. One solely to AKL. Another that would serve all three All-Stars.
And a third that would handle Coronado and Blizzard Beach. That way, a
hotel-to-park trip would require one peoplemover ride and one monorail ride.
A hotel-to-hotel trip would require a peoplemover ride, a monorail ride and
then another peoplemover ride. (In some instances, only back to back
peoplemover rides, like All-Star to AKL.
A workable idea, already thought of by Walt himself, but whether it would be
physically or financially practical is another matter. But cool nonetheless.
:-)
-Rob Steere
TDC Master Sergeant of Enforcing Movement All the Way to the End of the Row
GoH '86
12 days to WDW!!!
ste...@charter.net
Randy Berbaum
: Each park's monorail station would act as the Hub for the nearby
: hotels. From there, one or more Peoplemover lines would branch out.
: Take Animal Kingdom, for example. From that station, you could have
: three lines going outward. One solely to AKL. Another that would serve
: all three All-Stars. And a third that would handle Coronado and
: Blizzard Beach. That way, a hotel-to-park trip would require one
: peoplemover ride and one monorail ride. A hotel-to-hotel trip would
: require a peoplemover ride, a monorail ride and then another
: peoplemover ride. (In some instances, only back to back peoplemover
: rides, like All-Star to AKL.
That's how I envision it. And unlike light rail, since people mover type
vehicles can handle fairly steep hills (both up and down) any location
where a track crosses a roadway it can climb over the roadway. This way
there is no (or very limited) chance of interaction between guest
transport and street level traffic. This has always been a big plus (to my
mind) of the monorails. When have you ever heard of a fender bender
between a guest car and a monorail at WDW. The same can not hold true for
busses (I've heard mentions of once a week or more for some form of
misshap involving a bus).
Also since these trains are electrically powered it would be easy to
enclose trackways (either at ground level, burried or elevated) to provide
all weather use. Also using the peoplemover station as a refference point
it wouldn't be too hard to design vehicles with the station floor and the
vehicle floor at the same level allowing "roll on/roll off" access for
wheeled mobility vehicles.
BTW, I mentioned "burried". In the florida location a sub ground placement
wouldn't be good due to high ground water, but a "tube" built on the
ground and then burried similar to a berm would allow the trackage to be
protected from inadvertant foot traffic or wildlife. And with the berm any
wildlife (or even walkways for people and exercise trails) can cross over
the track.
: A workable idea, already thought of by Walt himself, but whether it
: would be physically or financially practical is another matter. But
: cool nonetheless.
: :-)
This could even be implemented in stages. For example if the monorail was
extended the short distance to the studios with a midway station adjacent
to the International gateway, a single Peoplemover loop circling crecent
lake could connect that IG station to all the Epcot resorts. Then when the
expenditures had been recoverd from, a PM loop linking the Studios station
with the CBR and Pop. Such a staged expansion could continue until all the
parks (and downtown) were linked by monorail, and every resort linked with
the nearest hub. And in the meantime the bus transport can continue, but
as more resorts get linked to the system, the number of busses required
for daily, non exceptional operation could be reduced, at about the rate
of retirement of aging vehicles. There will always be a need for quick
response busses to cover unusual situations or ones that happen
infrequently. But the number of them required for day to day normal
operation would reduce.
BTW, in far flung resorts (such as PO, CBR and Ft Wilderness) the same PM
loop that circles the resort can also provide transport within the resort
if the incoming and outgoing point is at the main building (where
restaurants, recreation, etc tends to be). This could even allow the
creation of larger, more spread out resorts with the majority of services
centralized. If someone has a "vehicle" always ready and waiting just
outside (or even inside) their building that will whisk them right to the
food court fewer guests would worry about the fact that the two buildings
are spaced 1/4 mile or so away. And since the vehicles have room for roll
on/off vehicles, a "luggage trolly" could even be rolled on to transport
luggage to and from the room in comfort.
Just some brain storming and wishfull thinking.
MLK75
eyeballs out than read his drivel.
"Derek Janssen" <dja...@nospam.charter.net> wrote in message
news:XjPff.34024$7s1....@fe04.lga...
Patty Winter
Rob Steere <ste...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>Each park's monorail station would act as the Hub for the nearby hotels.
>From there, one or more Peoplemover lines would branch out. Take Animal
>Kingdom, for example. From that station, you could have three lines going
>outward. One solely to AKL. Another that would serve all three All-Stars.
>And a third that would handle Coronado and Blizzard Beach. That way, a
>hotel-to-park trip would require one peoplemover ride and one monorail ride.
So the monorail station would not be *at* the park? The hub for the
Peoplemovers would be a ways away from the park, which is why you say
that riders coming from the hotels would have to transfer to the monorail
to get to the park? And then there would also be monorails running between
the parks, right?
And at the hotels that currently have multiple stops (I dunno about
Coronado Springs, but, say, CBR or PO), there would need to be some
way to get people from their part of the hotel complex to the PM station.
Or else have multiple PM lines going to the park hub from that one hotel.
>A workable idea, already thought of by Walt himself, but whether it would be
>physically or financially practical is another matter. But cool nonetheless.
It certainly is! Boy, wouldn't it be great to see something like this
actually happen.
Patty
Mike C
> Actually, this is almost *exactly* the transportation system Walt envisioned
> for his original EPCOT concept. It's actually very well explained in the
> Epcot section of the Disney Treasures Tomorrowland DVD. Residents would use
> the monorail to get to the city center. Then, the Peoplemover would branch
> off like spokes out to the residential areas. You would simply go to the
> boarding platform for the peoplemover to your "spike". Along the way, the
> trains would slow down and enter a station, some people would get on or off,
> then the doors would close and the train would speed up again to go to the
> next station. At the end of the spoke, the train would turn around and make
> its way back. The Peoplemover in Disneyland was originally a small scale
> prototype for what he was envisioning for Epcot.
>
See, this is what astounds me. Back in the 1980s they gave a lot of lip
service to "trying to preserve Walt's vision" when they built EPCOT.
But here we have relatively detailed plans for a transportation system
that would fit in perfectly in today's World, and they apparently
ignored it completely.
Walt was a transportation nut. It's evident in his original designs.
Not only the monorails, trams, and ferries that encircle the park...
look inside MK itself: the train, the skyway, TTA, various Main Street
transportation options. Almost all of these are *functional* as
transportation, not just "rides". It's one of the things that really
differentiates MK.
Now look at EPCOT and beyond: only EPCOT has the monorail. And, inside
the parks... almost nothing. No sign of the multi-tiered transportation
system in Walt's original plan. Throughout the entire explosive
expansion of the 90s, it's clear that transportation was relegated to
an afterthought.
Walt, who knew that an elegant and functional public transportation
system should be the *foundation* of expansion, would be shocked to see
such expansion held together by cars and buses. It's too bad.
Fact is: the monorails and ferries are NOT just rides. They are
functional, essential components of a robust public transportation
system that also happen to be elegant, enjoyable, entertaining "rides".
Eisner's (and others') greatest WDW failure is treating monorails and
ferries as "just rides", thereby making them expendable.
Mike
Randy Berbaum
: So the monorail station would not be *at* the park? The hub for the
: Peoplemovers would be a ways away from the park, which is why you say
: that riders coming from the hotels would have to transfer to the monorail
: to get to the park? And then there would also be monorails running between
: the parks, right?
If the monorail station for the park also included the hub for the PM they
could indeed be at the parks. Think of the TTC with the monorail station
on the upper level and a PM station underneath. transfering from the
monorail to the PM would involve going down a ramp, and vise versa up a
ramp. The PM would only connect direct from a resort to the nearest park.
But if you wanted to travel to any other park you would transfer from your
PM to a monorail to carry you to that other park.
: And at the hotels that currently have multiple stops (I dunno about
: Coronado Springs, but, say, CBR or PO), there would need to be some
: way to get people from their part of the hotel complex to the PM station.
: Or else have multiple PM lines going to the park hub from that one hotel.
What if the PM entered the resort at the front lobby area, then exited to
circle the resort, with stops at the traditional bus stop locations. Then
it would circle back to the lobby area before exiting the resort on the
way to the nearest park. The same loop track would provide both transport
within the resort and between the resort and the nearest park, where easy
transfer to a monorail for park to park transport would be available.
Bruce A Metcalf
think that several of the responders have either missed my point or
failed to grasp the definition of PRT. Permit me to try to explain
myself more clearly.
First, a PRT *system* is not a closed loop like the PeopleMover. It's
a *network* of tracks and switches that route individual vehicles to
their destination based on a decentralized control system. Thus to
talk about a "PRT loop" is to miss the whole point.
It's also missing the point, to suggest transfer stations between
modes. One of the key financial arguments in favor of a PRT system is
that it can *eliminate* other modes. This means no monorails, no
buses, and even no parking lot trams. No transfers are a key benefit
-- portal to portal, air conditioning, and automated control.
"Mike C" wrote:
>Zazu wrote:
>
>> Estimates for PRT systems look like it would take 10-12 lanes of
>> equipment to board folks that fast, and there would have to design the
>> entrance area to maintain access to the ferryboats. This is as much of
>> an artistic challenge as it is an engineering one, and pretty much
>> ended consideration of PRT (at that time).
>
>This is actually what I meant by "it doesn't scale". The very fact that
>10-12 lanes are needed to support the required throughput is an
>indication that the technology is impractical for such a high-volume
>task.
I disagree that it's impractical. Difficult, yes, but if Disney can't
find a way to move people efficiently, Imagineering will invent
something new.
>Don't get me wrong... I *love* the idea of PRT, and I really hope they
>come up with a breakthrough to make it more practical. But my
>impression is that the technology is still in the pre-pre-prototype
>phase, because some problems (i.e. the loading problem) simply have not
>been solved in a practical way.
There are two "loading problems" involved in using PRT for moving
large crowds. One is that a long boarding platform could be delayed by
a single slow-loading vehicle. The answer to this is to permit
vehicles to move sideways to load/unload. If anyone has ridden
Disneyland's new Space Mountain, the way their disabled/slow loader
vehicle goes on and off line is a good example.
The other challenge is how to manage loading among a number of
platforms. This is the sort of challenge that Disney has written the
book on, and may be disregarded.
>Zazu wrote:
>> I for one would love to see WDW become a gigantic demonstration
>> project for PRT technology. I think the technology is a good match, it
>> would free up interior roads and permit relocation and distribution of
>> parking areas, and it could eliminate bus, monorail, and parking lot
>> trams in the process.
>
> I agree that Disney would be an ideal match for PRT, because
>(a) they have the space, (b) they have the money (see "Katzenberg",
>"Ovitz", and "ABC Family"), (c) they own all the land, and (d) they
>have a transportation problem that PRT could (*could*) solve.
True, but what they don't have at present is a willingness to sink
large amounts of capital into a project without sponsorship. Yes, the
buses are terribly inefficient and costly, but most of that is labor
and maintenance which are expensed (and charged back to the resorts
served). The monorail expansion failed not because it cost $1B, but
because it couldn't be amortized in five years.
Again, this is one thing many hope will change under Iger.
>Also, isn't exactly the type of thing Epcot was supposed to be?
>Experimental, prototype, and all that? I'd like to see them start right
>there: in the Epcot/MGM resort area. Build a little PRT system to link
>the Epcot resorts with Epcot and MGM, like the original monorail loop
>linked the MK resorts.
But again, PRT is a very difficult thing to build in stages. Until the
entire system is in place, you have to maintain both old and new
transport systems, establish transfer stations between modes, and your
ability to displace old boarding stations with new can be troublesome
if the old is still in use.
The technology has been there for thirty years. It's not rocket
science (unless we let NASA bid <g>). Heck, the talent to design,
build, install, and operate the system is already on staff! It would,
however, require a substantial leap of faith, and that's something
that gigantic corporations are just not very good at by their very
nature.
>But... as you said, they did look at it and passed on it. Maybe it's
>just not a mature enough technology for them to take even a
>(relatively) small risk on it...?
The main veto on PRT came from WDI. The art director took one look at
a sketch of 12 lanes of PRT boarding in front of the Magic Kingdom and
gave birth to kittens right there on the conference table!
>That's my impression of PRT: nobody (including Disney) is willing to
>put up *so* *much* money on what is essentially an unproven technology.
>I say "unproven" because, as of today, there are no PRT systems
>anywhere that would support anything close to the capacity that Disney
>would require.
Nobody but a large city *needs* anything close to the capacity that
Disney would require.
Like other products from batteries to carpeting, Disney is a
worst-case environment for many products and systems. Things Disney
wears out in a year last decades in the real world. Thus such a
demonstration project would be proof that PRT could be put to work
just about anywhere on the planet.
Now, if Disney isn't courageous enough to put up the money (with a 10
to 20 year ROI), we'll just have to find a manufacturer who wants to
*own* this field, and has deep enough pockets to buy it.
>Heck, Disney won't even pay a $B for monorail expansion, even though
>that technology has proven its usefulness for decades... I can't see
>them gambling such a huge amount on something as risky as PRT.
I don't see it as a gamble, and its the long ROI, not the raw cost
that's been the financial stumbling block. Clearly, there are
technical challenges, but none that appear overwhelming or that
require dramatic new technology. Getting the design of the MK station
past Imagineering will probably be the biggest issue.
You find the money, I'll kick the shins!
Mike C
Bruce A Metcalf wrote:
> Delighted as I am to see the response my little note has generated, I
> think that several of the responders have either missed my point or
> failed to grasp the definition of PRT. Permit me to try to explain
> myself more clearly.
>
> First, a PRT *system* is not a closed loop like the PeopleMover. It's
> a *network* of tracks and switches that route individual vehicles to
> their destination based on a decentralized control system. Thus to
> talk about a "PRT loop" is to miss the whole point.
>
I think there were at least three different things discussed:
(1) Pure PRT: fast, high capacity, transfer-less, point-to-point
personalized transit.
(2) PeopleMover: from the Epcot plan
(3) Hybrid PRT: Multiple, isolated, smaller capacity PRT-like systems
linked by monorail (Randy's idea)
True, (3) may not be strictly "PRT" anymore, but it doesn't mean it is
without merit.
> It's also missing the point, to suggest transfer stations between
> modes. One of the key financial arguments in favor of a PRT system is
> that it can *eliminate* other modes. This means no monorails, no
> buses, and even no parking lot trams. No transfers are a key benefit
> -- portal to portal, air conditioning, and automated control.
>
But my feeling is, maybe they're setting the bar too high. They sell
PRT as "the universal system that replaces everything", and the
engineering problem escalates. If they could start small (smaller area,
smaller capacity, lower speeds), then the engineering problem might be
more manageable, which (I would think) should bring the cost down
significantly.
>
> I disagree that it's impractical. Difficult, yes, but if Disney can't
> find a way to move people efficiently, Imagineering will invent
> something new.
>
That's what we're all waiting for. :-)
(Though I do understand that imagineering can't do it without money and
mandate).
>
> There are two "loading problems" involved in using PRT for moving
> large crowds. One is that a long boarding platform could be delayed by
> a single slow-loading vehicle. The answer to this is to permit
> vehicles to move sideways to load/unload. If anyone has ridden
> Disneyland's new Space Mountain, the way their disabled/slow loader
> vehicle goes on and off line is a good example.
>
> The other challenge is how to manage loading among a number of
> platforms. This is the sort of challenge that Disney has written the
> book on, and may be disregarded.
>
That's really been my point all along (even if I'm not very good at
expressing it). There are very difficult engineering problems to
overcome for a pure PRT system, and who better to address those
problems than the very people who have mastered the art of maximizing
loading throughput on rides for 50-odd years?
But my other point is, why be confined by the constraints of PRT?
Maybe, rather than trying to adhere to the zero-transfer ideal, they
could design a single, efficient transfer from monorail to a series of
smaller, localized, PRT-like systems for transport within a resort
area. That's Randy's suggestion, and I think it would be workable (not
to mention, it's similar to Walt's initial concept, with the
mini-PRT-like systems replacing PeopleMovers).
In essence, you'd be removing the "rapid" from PRT (PT?), letting the
monorails take care of the high-capacity transport. This should
significantly reduce complexity, since the engineering challenges with
PRT have generally been caused by the "rapid", not the "personalized".
Then the problem becomes optimizing the transfer from monorail to
individual PT systems, which should be a simpler problem, right?
>
> But again, PRT is a very difficult thing to build in stages. Until the
> entire system is in place, you have to maintain both old and new
> transport systems, establish transfer stations between modes, and your
> ability to displace old boarding stations with new can be troublesome
> if the old is still in use.
>
This is what puzzles me. The decentralized nature of PRT should make it
easy to build in stages, right? Couldn't they start in one resort area,
and leave the design open so that it could be expanded to other resort
areas in the future by adding inter-resort-area links?
> The technology has been there for thirty years. It's not rocket
> science (unless we let NASA bid <g>). Heck, the talent to design,
> build, install, and operate the system is already on staff! It would,
> however, require a substantial leap of faith, and that's something
> that gigantic corporations are just not very good at by their very
> nature.
>
This is where an incremental plan might sell better: show how an
intra-resort-area personalized transit system (either pure PRT or,
preferably, some cheaper, low-capacity version) could reduce bus
traffic by x%. Leave the bus system in place so the entire thing
doesn't have to be done at once, but show how much could be saved by
*reducing* the bus fleet.
Of course, the long term plan could still have an option for
eliminating buses altogether, by making the PRT universal... but the
short term would not require it.
I do realize that this is just speculation on my part, since I have no
access to hard numbers. So I acknowledge that this might all be
completely impractical given the hard numbers. :-)
> ...
>
> You find the money, I'll kick the shins!
>
I can't even find the money for our next trip!
> --
> TDC Zazu,
> Librarian of the Disney Reverence Shelf
> and Protector of All Disney Railroads
Hey, thanks for all the inside info on this stuff. I really love to
hear the nitty gritty details.
Mike
Scalemaster34
transportation system. That with even one transfer point you might be
adding 20 minutes to a trip, which would be unacceptable. I would hope that
Disney would keep the existing Resort Monorail System, but the Epcot section
could be abandoned IF operating cost are prohibitive.
I don't see Disney doing a true PRT System where each unit is only designed
for one family, and can reach any destination in the system by simple
pressing a button like in an elevator.
What I would envision would be a PRT System based closely on the existing
bus model. Each PRT module (car / train) would be as large as current buses
and each would be pre-programmed to make a loop between one Park and one (or
more depending on loads) Resort. Each Park would have a Station with
loading areas for each Resort, Park and other destinations - parking areas,
water parks, downtown disney, boardwalk entertainment area... Each loading
area would need to have space for several modules at the same time, Guest
would choose their destination by choosing which PRT module to board. And
at each resort there would also be a "module" that would be pre-programmed
to stop at a particular Park, Water Park or Downtown Disney just as the
Buses do now. The only problem would be Guest would still have to make a
transfer in order to travel from Resort to Resort, the only way to fix this
would be to truly make some of the modules "personal", by allowing guests to
enter a destination on the control panel.
And I don't see this being a mechanical rail type system, but electronic
using maglift technology.
The problems would be how fast can the modules go, and how closely can they
be spaced on the same line???? Can a system be designed to SAFELY monitor
all the modules on the lines and in the Stations, and be capable of safely
stopping or rerouting modules in case of a breakdowns??
And the biggest problem would be can a system be designed so that no
breakdown, system failure or act of terrorism would stop or even greatly
reduce the flow of traffic??
Scalemaster34
>> Rob Steere wrote:
>>> Actually, this is almost *exactly* the transportation system Walt
>>> envisioned for his original EPCOT concept. It's actually very well
>>> explained in the Epcot section of the Disney Treasures Tomorrowland
>>> DVD. Residents would use the monorail to get to the city center.
>>> Then, the Peoplemover would branch off like spokes out to the
>>> residential areas. You would simply go to the boarding platform for
>>> the peoplemover to your "spike". Along the way, the trains would
>>> slow down and enter a station, some people would get on or off,
>>> then the doors would close and the train would speed up again to go
>>> to the next station. At the end of the spoke, the train would turn
>>> around and make its way back. The Peoplemover in Disneyland was
>>> originally a small scale prototype for what he was envisioning for
>>> Epcot.
>>>
>>
>> See, this is what astounds me. Back in the 1980s they gave a lot of
>> lip service to "trying to preserve Walt's vision" when they built
>> EPCOT. But here we have relatively detailed plans for a
>> transportation system that would fit in perfectly in today's World,
>> and they apparently ignored it completely.
>>
the Future". Of course in Walt's day technology was much slower, from the
time an idea was created, designs made, prototypes built, tested, released
in a limited bases, and finial released to the public might take several
years. Even when EPCOT was built in its much revised version, Innovations
was a major show case of "future" technologies, but today technology moves
much faster. Most of what's showcased at Innovations are items currently
available. In fact in today's world most technology items you buy at the
store are already "outdated" a newer model is currently in production.
Walt's original idea for EPCOT of a working community always on the leading
edge of technology would not have worked.
>> Walt was a transportation nut. It's evident in his original designs.
>> Not only the monorails, trams, and ferries that encircle the park...
>> look inside MK itself: the train, the skyway, TTA, various Main
>> Street transportation options. Almost all of these are *functional*
>> as transportation, not just "rides". It's one of the things that
>> really differentiates MK.
>>
>> Now look at EPCOT and beyond: only EPCOT has the monorail. And,
>> inside the parks... almost nothing. No sign of the multi-tiered
>> transportation system in Walt's original plan. Throughout the entire
>> explosive expansion of the 90s, it's clear that transportation was
>> relegated to an afterthought.
>>
>> Walt, who knew that an elegant and functional public transportation
>> system should be the *foundation* of expansion, would be shocked to
>> see such expansion held together by cars and buses. It's too bad.
>>
>> Fact is: the monorails and ferries are NOT just rides. They are
>> functional, essential components of a robust public transportation
>> system that also happen to be elegant, enjoyable, entertaining
>> "rides". Eisner's (and others') greatest WDW failure is treating
>> monorails and ferries as "just rides", thereby making them
>> expendable.
>>
>> Mike
I agree that Walt would have wanted some form of transport system to be
incorporated in the design of WDW and for each of the Park and Resort
expansions. At some point the buses system is not going to be the most
efficient or cost effective option for WDW, and Disney will invest in
upgrading the System. If it's going to cost say $1Billion to create the new
system with very low operating cost, but the current system of buses only
cost say $1Million to currently operate, then there really is no reason to
invest in the making an changes. But if the cost to operate the existing
system continues to rise, at some point it will be "worth" making the
initial investment to change over. Personally I'd love to see a fancy
transportation system built at WDW, but not at the cost of new attractions
at the Park or even at the cost of building a 5th Park.
But I don't see the Monorails being a part of that system anymore - a
network of "HUBS" at each park with a Monorail connecting all four park
together then some type of light rail system connecting the nearby resort to
the "HUB" either by a loop or direct connections - would create much longer
travel time than the current bus system with its direct routes and no
transfer points. Each additional stop and transfer will just be adding to
the amount of time that it will take to travel from point "D" to point "W".
Imagine... Wait at Resort (10 MIN) > Travel to next Resort in line (5MIN) >
Wait at Resort for guest to unload and load (10 MIN) > Travel to HUB
(10MIN) > Walk to and Wait for next Monorial (15 MIN) > Travel to next Hub
(10 MIN) > Wait at HUB for guest to Unload and Load (10 MIN) > Travel to
next Hub and finial destination (10 MIN).
Note: On a fixed rail system the waits at each stop must all be the same in
order to keep trails evenly spaced... so each stop must be based on "worst
case". So while I can see each stop only taking 5 Min, some, especially at
the HUB may take at least 10 Min or more, require all cars to stop for the
same amount of time.
People with cars would opt to drive instead of waiting, and just create more
problems on the roadways and in the parking lots.
admiralBoom
> I for one would love to see WDW become a gigantic demonstration
> project for PRT technology. I think the technology is a good match, it
> would free up interior roads and permit relocation and distribution of
> parking areas, and it could eliminate bus, monorail, and parking lot
> trams in the process. Except for a sentimental attachment to the 1959
> monorail system, what's to lose?
>
> Of course, WDW is a business, and has to ask instead, "What's to
> gain?" The missing part of this puzzle is sponsorship.
> And who knows? In the new "Iger Era", all sorts of new things might be
> possible.
-Boom
Patty Winter
admiralBoom <admir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Bruce A Metcalf wrote:
>>
>> Of course, WDW is a business, and has to ask instead, "What's to
>> gain?" The missing part of this puzzle is sponsorship.
>
>http://www.sts.siemens.com/
Hmm, Boom, do you think you could convince Siemens that the Spaceship
Earth track needs to be extended to Animal Kingdom Lodge? And Port
Orleans, and CBR, and ..... :-)
Patty
Scalemaster34
Siemens is planning on sponsoring more than just Spaceship Earth! They are
also sponsoring:
Illuminations
Osborne Family Lights
Disney's Electrical Parade
Parade of Dreams
New attractions (displays) at Innoventions
&
Disney says it plans to explore ways to integrate some of Siemens'
technologies into its current attractions and resorts.....
So it sounds like something has made Siemens consider Disney as a wise
investment for their company... maybe Siemens is just counting of on all of
Disney Lighting, Communications and Automation business, or maybe there is
something else they are interested in partnering in....
admiralBoom
Boom
... The agreement also calls for Disney and Siemens to collaborate on
modernizing information technology that the entertainment company uses
on theme park attractions and at its resorts ...
... and other things
Rudeney
>
> ... The agreement also calls for Disney and Siemens to collaborate on
> modernizing information technology that the entertainment company uses
> on theme park attractions and at its resorts ...
I would have figured that. It sounds like this is going to be a good deal
for both companies. Disney gets some sponsorship and Siemens gets not only
a great place to advertise, but also a flagship US customer.
> ... and other things
Is it just me, or does everyone hate it when Boom strings us along like
this! It's worse than the weekly cliffhangers on Lost or Prison Break!!!
:-)
--
- RODNEY
Patty Winter
admiralBoom <admir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Already done. Hard part was getting Jeremy to extend the narration ...
Hey, any time you need someone to supervise a recording session with
Jeremy Irons, you just give me a call. ;-) (I actually used to be a
production engineer, so....)
>... The agreement also calls for Disney and Siemens to collaborate on
>modernizing information technology that the entertainment company uses
>on theme park attractions and at its resorts ...
>
>... and other things
Well, you know which "other things" to suggest to them... :-)
Patty
--
========= pa...@wintertime.com ===== N6BIS ===== Sunnyvale, Calif. ========
"Too expensive for the Army?" "I don't think they ever tried to
market it to the billionaire base-jumping, spelunking market."
===========================================================================
Patty Winter
Rudeney <rud...@mickeypics.com> wrote:
>admiralBoom wrote:
>>
>> ... and other things
>
>Is it just me, or does everyone hate it when Boom strings us along like
>this! It's worse than the weekly cliffhangers on Lost or Prison Break!!!
>:-)
LOL! Hey, Boom, if you ever get tired of engineering, you could always
go into series television. ;-)
Patty
admiralBoom
I only meant to say that Siemens has been working with Disney on many
projects lately - the 'other things' part was meant to step away from
the thinking that the sponsorship deal was the ONLY thing that would
benefit Disney. I was also inferring that Siemens' (very large)
transportation division could come in handy, now that Mr. Iger is in
charge. It's no secret that he (and the recently promoted Mr. Weiss)
has been looking at expanding / modernizing the transportation
system(s) at WDW.
Boom
Rob Steere
news:mKogf.13220$i7.1...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> But I don't see the Monorails being a part of that system anymore - a
> network of "HUBS" at each park with a Monorail connecting all four park
> together then some type of light rail system connecting the nearby resort
> to
> the "HUB" either by a loop or direct connections - would create much
> longer
> travel time than the current bus system with its direct routes and no
> transfer points. Each additional stop and transfer will just be adding to
> the amount of time that it will take to travel from point "D" to point
> "W".
> Imagine... Wait at Resort (10 MIN) > Travel to next Resort in line (5MIN)
> >
> Wait at Resort for guest to unload and load (10 MIN) > Travel to HUB
> (10MIN) > Walk to and Wait for next Monorial (15 MIN) > Travel to next Hub
> (10 MIN) > Wait at HUB for guest to Unload and Load (10 MIN) > Travel to
> next Hub and finial destination (10 MIN).
>
> Note: On a fixed rail system the waits at each stop must all be the same
> in
> order to keep trails evenly spaced... so each stop must be based on "worst
> case". So while I can see each stop only taking 5 Min, some, especially
> at
> the HUB may take at least 10 Min or more, require all cars to stop for the
> same amount of time.
>
Actually, I think you were misunderstanding the resort-end of the system we
put forward. While the monorails between the Hubs would operate on an
interval basis, the Peoplemover "spokes" branching out from the hubs would
be constantly running, just like the TTA at WDW and the now-removed
Peoplemover at Disneyland. It's not like the trams at the airport, which
essentially operate just like the monorails in terms of interval-dispatch.
There would be a LOT of trains on the system. They would never stop moving.
As they entered the station, they would slow down and meet up with the train
in front of it. They would then crawl through the station at the same speed
as the platform (whether that's a rubber belt like Haunted Mansion or a
round platform like the TTA). Passengers would get on and off. The doors
would close, and as the train exits the station, it would accelerate down
the track towards the next station. Because there's always a continuous
string of vehicles within each station, there's little waiting to board a
car.
Randy brought up the subject of handicap accessibility. I assume that they
could make the platform level with the car to allow rolling on and off.
Also, for Guest safety, there would have to be a Cast Member stationed at
each and every station to help guests and stop the system in an emergency.
Although I haven't physically counted how many stations there would be on a
theoretical full Peoplemover system, I bet one-CM-per-station would still be
less than the number of bus drivers on-duty at one time...
Actually, I just counted... If they replaced every Disney resort bus stop
with a Peoplemover station, that would be 37 stations, not counting Fort
Wilderness. (Not sure how'd they handle in there, but there's 14 stops). Add
in two water parks, and you have 39. I'll bet there's more than 39 bus
drivers on-duty at one time... From a strictly financial standpoint, I'd bet
that a CM working a Peoplemover platform would earn less than a bus driver
would.
-Rob Steere
TDC Master Sergeant of Enforcing Movement All the Way to the End of the Row
GoH '86
10 days to WDW!!! (Almost single digits!)
ste...@charter.net
Rudeney
> Sorry Rodney, I'm not guilty this time.
Dang! I thought there was more! I bet there is and you are just toying
with us! ;-)
The fruits of this relationship are definitely something to look forward to.
--
- RODNEY
Steve Russo
(dammit, I hate it when that happens).
Rudeney
> Rudeney wrote:
>>
>> It's worse than the weekly cliffhangers on Lost or
>> Prison Break!!! :-)
>>
> And I thought I was the only one that got hooked by those shows....
> (dammit, I hate it when that happens).
Well, we had to find *something* to watch while The Sopranos is on hiatus!
--
- RODNEY
Steve Russo
Well, I also became hooked on 'Rome' - but that's over as of Sunday
night.
admiralBoom
Rudeney wrote:
> admiralBoom wrote:
> > Sorry Rodney, I'm not guilty this time.
>
> Dang! I thought there was more! I bet there is and you are just toying
> with us! ;-)
>
Now why would I do that ? There are no secrets at WDI (are there ?).
Boom
Scalemaster34
Boy I hope you someone at WDI has some secretes they're planning or letting
out soon.
Ryan Cragg
fixate on PRTs and don't bother looking at the fairly large number of
aerial cable transit options out there. Funitels are detachable, which
would allow switching of lines at stations for routing purposes, they
won't run into each other in stations (well, not very hard anyway), and
are a proven technology. I guess the main difference is that a PRT
carries its motor with it, while funitels have a large motor in the
station. Some might argue that this gives a single point of failure
that could halt the entire system, but a PRT car with a motor failure
would also halt most of the system. The odds of a PRT car suffering a
failure in the system is likely greater than the odds of a funitel car
(or motor) suffering a failure.
Anyway, just rambling at this point...
-rc
Bruce A Metcalf
>How about something like at funitel? I always wondered why people
>fixate on PRTs and don't bother looking at the fairly large number of
>aerial cable transit options out there. ... I guess the main difference is that a PRT
>carries its motor with it, while funitels have a large motor in the
>station. Some might argue that this gives a single point of failure
>that could halt the entire system, but a PRT car with a motor failure
>would also halt most of the system.
Not if the PRTs were designed to push one another in such cases. Mind,
a broken wheel would still shut down a segment, but the vehicles
behind the breakdown would be able to back out and only the single
vehicle's passengers would have to be evacuated.
I'd also be a lot happier having to evacuate a single ground-level PRT
vehicle than an entire aerial cable line. One must suspect that was
one of the reasons for closing Disney's Skyways, and it's still a
concern for the monorails.
Like all other modes, PRTs have advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages of their ability to couple up strings of arbitrary length
can also be used to make high density stations and lines more
efficient. Lots of options to explore, and only the lack of a test bed
to inhibit development.
Bruce A Metcalf
"Mike C" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bruce A Metcalf wrote:
>> Delighted as I am to see the response my little note has generated, I
>> think that several of the responders have either missed my point or
>> failed to grasp the definition of PRT. ...
>>
>> First, a PRT *system* is not a closed loop like the PeopleMover. It's
>> a *network* of tracks and switches that route individual vehicles to
>> their destination based on a decentralized control system. Thus to
>> talk about a "PRT loop" is to miss the whole point.
>
>I think there were at least three different things discussed:
>(1) Pure PRT: fast, high capacity, transfer-less, point-to-point
>personalized transit.
Right!
>(2) PeopleMover: from the Epcot plan
Wrong! It's very difficult to board guests with strollers, ECVs, or
luggage, and any delay at any station soon bogs down the whole line.
You'd also need separate lines for each pair of destinations to avoid
multiple transfers and corresponding delays. Not a reasonable option,
IMHO.
>(3) Hybrid PRT: Multiple, isolated, smaller capacity PRT-like systems
>linked by monorail (Randy's idea)
A timid approach that won't utilize the best features of PRT, and
maintains the overhead of multiple systems. I would expect this type
of system would fail to pass financial muster. Remember, we're trying
for both better *and* cheaper!
>> It's also missing the point, to suggest transfer stations between
>> modes. One of the key financial arguments in favor of a PRT system is
>> that it can *eliminate* other modes. This means no monorails, no
>> buses, and even no parking lot trams.
>
>But my feeling is, maybe they're setting the bar too high. They sell
>PRT as "the universal system that replaces everything", and the
>engineering problem escalates.
Or not. By eliminating three other transportation systems, the number
of engineering problems are reduced, along with the maintenance
issues. It may still require the same number of labor hours as the
present mix, but because there's only one set of skills and parts
involved, greater efficiencies can be obtained.
>If they could start small (smaller area,
>smaller capacity, lower speeds), then the engineering problem might be
>more manageable, which (I would think) should bring the cost down
>significantly.
Costs would be lower. So would benefits.
And if a small system were built to standards lower than that required
by the final system build out, you'd just be adding one more mode to
the mix (or trashing that small system).
No, best to set final system standards and build everything to match,
even if some capacities aren't used immediately.
>There are very difficult engineering problems to
>overcome for a pure PRT system, and who better to address those
>problems than the very people who have mastered the art of maximizing
>loading throughput on rides for 50-odd years?
While I agree that Disney has the skills, I disagree that there are
very difficult engineering problems involved. Vehicle design? Track
design? Control logic? The biggest issue I can foresee is getting that
many small, reliable, air conditioning units.
There are, as I've said, substantial political and financial hurdles.
There will also be social hurdles to deal with, given the absence of
cast from the vehicles and the growing percentage of guests who are
not fluent in English (or even literate enough to read written
instructions). Fortunately, voice communication with the vehicles is
another trivial engineering problem.
>But my other point is, why be confined by the constraints of PRT?
I'd love to hear what you believe those constraints are, other than
those I describe above.
>Maybe, rather than trying to adhere to the zero-transfer ideal, they
>could design a single, efficient transfer from monorail to a series of
>smaller, localized, PRT-like systems for transport within a resort
>area. That's Randy's suggestion, and I think it would be workable....
Okay, let's give this a serious look for a moment. Say we elected to
built a PRT system for the Caribbean Beach Resort. Buses continue to
serve the resort, but they would only stop at the Customs House or
some new location. Given the loop road at this resort, a single
PeopleMover track might be considered. With short trip times, you
could probably get by with protection from rain and skip A/C in favor
of guest-operated windows.
A PeopleMover system would save the cost of the internal bus loop, and
reduce the number of buses that serve the resort because they won't
have to make the full loop. OTOH, you'd have to build a circular
station for each "island", and since some guests will have trouble
loading/unloading with kids and baggage, they'd each need to be
staffed with someone who could slow or stop the whole system. I
honestly can't see this providing the guest with a faster trip except
that raised platforms could be used.
Overall trip time would be about the same as the current buses, and
going one "island" backwards would require traveling the full loop. (A
bidirectional system would have to cost twice as much.)
OTOH, a PRT system could be built with offline stations which lets the
vehicles stop for as long as the guests need without impeding the flow
of other vehicles. Speeds could also be higher because vehicles would
only slow for their destination station. A few links across the lake
and a few turnback loops would permit a shorter worst-case trip, and
provide alternate routes in case one section is out of service.
Making the system bi-directional wouldn't double the cost, as stations
could be built on only one side, with the turnback loops allowing a
"U-turn". Some stations might still need cast attendants, especially
the busy ones at the entrance and Old Port Royale, but a video (and
audio) link might be sufficient to serve the others.
Now, think a moment and you'll realize that either system described
would have to be built above grade like the monorail to avoid
conflicts with auto traffic. This would add substantially to the
construction cost. But how to avoid it?
The answer is to rebuild the resort, moving guest parking to one or
more locations outside the outer loop of track. Yes, it would mean
guests could no longer park near their room, but with the improved
transportation, this might not be such an issue (it's not now at
deluxe resorts like the Grand Floridian or Animal Kingdom Lodge). With
the cars now safely outside the loop, it can be lowered to ground
level -- perhaps even built atop the current roadway -- with
substantial savings.
Even more interesting, the existing parking lots could be redeveloped
into gardens or even more resort rooms. Think of the profit margin
there! (Especially if the new rooms are built DVC.)
By using a PRT system to replace both buses and private cars at the
resort, substantial savings might be found in raw operating costs,
esthetics, and land use. Convincing guests to leave their cars behind
and use Disney Transport (which doesn't go to Universal) is already a
WDW priority.
Notice that even this small scale project would benefit from using PRT
rather than PeopleMover systems, and that full benefits require it to
replace *all* other modes of transport.
>(not to mention, it's similar to Walt's initial concept, with the
>mini-PRT-like systems replacing PeopleMovers).
In case you haven't heard, Walt's dead. He's been dead for nearly 40
years. Some things have changed in that time, including the
development of PRT technology. I'd like to think Walt would like it's
ability to customize the service provided to each individual family.
More on that in another post soon.
>In essence, you'd be removing the "rapid" from PRT (PT?), letting the
>monorails take care of the high-capacity transport. This should
>significantly reduce complexity, since the engineering challenges with
>PRT have generally been caused by the "rapid", not the "personalized".
>Then the problem becomes optimizing the transfer from monorail to
>individual PT systems, which should be a simpler problem, right?
I strongly disagree. Note especially the issue of complexity. You are
suggesting two modes of transport, not one. You are adding transfer
stations that PRT doesn't use. And perhaps most importantly, you have
made travel more complex for the *guests*, who are the reason we built
WDW in the first place.
Nope, not gonna convince me that modal transfers are good. Won't
believe it. Will keep arguing until everyone believes. <BG>
>> But again, PRT is a very difficult thing to build in stages. Until the
>> entire system is in place, you have to maintain both old and new
>> transport systems, establish transfer stations between modes, and your
>> ability to displace old boarding stations with new can be troublesome
>> if the old is still in use.
>
>This is what puzzles me. The decentralized nature of PRT should make it
>easy to build in stages, right?
Easy to phase for construction, not easy for operation during the
transition.
>Couldn't they start in one resort area,
>and leave the design open so that it could be expanded to other resort
>areas in the future by adding inter-resort-area links?
Okay, this is small thinking again, which works against what PRT is
trying to accomplish. It's not several small networks with links
between them, it's one network that covers everything.
A good analogy is the Internet. Originally a number of dense local
networks that were linked by a backbone of somewhat limited capacity,
it now appears to all but the few technical cognoscenti to be one
planet wide network (plus AOL).
On the Internet, I'm not terribly likely to email others on my local
network (I can just yell at my wife in the next room instead). I use
the network to chat with folks all over the place, as I'm doing now.
Similarly, very little traffic at WDW is resort-to-resort, and traffic
between neighboring resorts is even less common. No, most traffic is
between resorts and theme parks -- non-local destinations. Thus the
system needs to be optimized for the long-haul, not the local traffic.
This is why a local demonstration project will not produce dramatic
results. No matter how good we make a system for Caribbean Beach, not
all that many folks will ride it who aren't going to transfer to get
somewhere else.
Yeah, chicken and egg. I know.
>> [Building a PRT system] ...would require a substantial leap of faith,
>> and that's something that gigantic corporations are just not very
>> good at by their very nature.
>
>This is where an incremental plan might sell better: show how an
>intra-resort-area personalized transit system ... could reduce bus
>traffic by x%. Leave the bus system in place so the entire thing
>doesn't have to be done at once, but show how much could be saved by
>*reducing* the bus fleet.
Not all that much of a savings, unfortunately. You still have to
maintain the garage and all the mechanics so long as even a single bus
is operated.
>Of course, the long term plan could still have an option for
>eliminating buses altogether, by making the PRT universal... but the
>short term would not require it.
No, the financing would require a fairly prompt changeover. Until you
eliminate one of the old modes, you don't reap the substantial
financial savings. Indeed, you increase overall costs.
>I do realize that this is just speculation on my part, since I have no
>access to hard numbers. So I acknowledge that this might all be
>completely impractical given the hard numbers. :-)
I must admit, most of my numbers are pretty squishy at this point.
Some day, maybe I'll find someone who can help me firm them up. If
it's somebody from inside, we could probably make them fairly stiff
indeed.
Perhaps this is where I should concentrate my efforts. Anybody out
there wanna help?
>Hey, thanks for all the inside info on this stuff. I really love to
>hear the nitty gritty details.
Ah, if only I were a bit farther inside... then I probably couldn't
talk about it in public at all!
Bruce A Metcalf
>I agree that Disney needs a system that replaces all the other
>transportation system. That with even one transfer point you might be
>adding 20 minutes to a trip, which would be unacceptable.
Exactly!!!
>I would hope that
>Disney would keep the existing Resort Monorail System, but the Epcot section
>could be abandoned IF operating cost are prohibitive.
Exactly wrong!!!
Sorry, but the monorail has got to go. It's an expensive system to
maintain, and it's in the way of the PRT tracks. Think about it a
moment, 10 lanes of PRT between the MK bag check and the lagoon? Gonna
need both the monorail station, the bus stops, and maybe some of the
ferry dock space to fit it all in.
The option of using the monorail to transport guests to a transfer
point, TTC or elsewhere, misses the point that the monorail is maxed
out already, and would need a third beamway to replace the traffic now
handled by buses.
I'll miss them too.
>What I would envision would be a PRT System based closely on the existing
>bus model. Each PRT module (car / train) would be as large as current buses
>and each would be pre-programmed to make a loop between one Park and one (or
>more depending on loads) Resort.
Okay, what you describe is a glorified PeopleMover system. I described
the limitations of such a system in a previous post, so I won't beat
that dead horse again here. At the very least, you need a system where
delays to one vehicle don't impact the rest of the system.
(Ironically, just like buses!)
You'd also have to choose between having one station per destination
-- needing far more space than the PRT proposal -- or having multiple
destinations per loop. And as the destinations per loop increase, so
do the opportunities for a delay to impact the loop.
Sorry, if you just want electric buses, why not build electric buses?
>The only problem would be Guest would still have to make a
>transfer in order to travel from Resort to Resort, the only way to fix this
>would be to truly make some of the modules "personal", by allowing guests to
>enter a destination on the control panel.
>I don't see Disney doing a true PRT System where each unit is only designed
>for one family, and can reach any destination in the system by simple
>pressing a button like in an elevator.
But I do!
Think about what you like least about bus travel. I come up with two
basic objections: waiting for the *right* bus to arrive, and having to
ride with (somebody else's) screaming children. Monorail? Waiting for
*any* monorail to arrive, plus the same kids. And can you imagine
using either to travel with luggage?
The "P" in PRT stands for personal for a good reason. You'll travel
only with your own group, which pretty much solves the screaming
problem (unless they're your own). Because *all* vehicles can go to
*any* destination, you don't have to wait for the *right* bus, just
the next one.
Let's think about how your trip can be personalize beyond just
limiting fellow passengers and going straight to your destination
(which are reasons enough for some):
What if you could scan your room key or park pass and have the audio
system speak and the interactive video display in your language? What
if the default destination when you board at a theme park or at a
different resort after having booked dining reservations there would
be your home resort, and the stop closest to your room? What if you
could start your morning by asking to be taken to the least crowded
theme park, or the least crowded you haven't yet visited this trip?
What if one option would be to take a grand tour of WDW, with a
narration of the views matched to each section of track, again in your
native language, and adjusted for things you've already seen or
visited? What if the on board system was linked to dining
reservations, and you could pick from a list of restaurants that will
have an open table for a group your size by the time you arrive there?
Many folks already consider that riding the monorail is one of the big
attractions at WDW. Imagine how much better that experience could be
if it were customized to your preferences, your language, and linked
to other data resources!
Yeah, lots of ideas for WDI to chew on there!
>And I don't see this being a mechanical rail type system, but electronic
>using maglift technology.
The technology chosen isn't a major issue. Most any could be made to
work, and I'm content to leave that choice to the engineers who have
the solid data and costs.
My personal preference is rail, as it's very mature and quite
flexible. It's easy to build at ground level, and with hard plastic
wheels, can climb pretty steep grades (in the land of no ice, anyway).
For minimum track cost, you could go for rubber tires on pavement with
a guide wire, like the Universe of Energy's moving theaters. If you
could manage to exclude cars, trucks, and buses, you could "build"
most of the track needed in a few days.
>The problems would be how fast can the modules go, and how closely can they
>be spaced on the same line???? Can a system be designed to SAFELY monitor
>all the modules on the lines and in the Stations, and be capable of safely
>stopping or rerouting modules in case of a breakdowns??
There is no arbitrary limit to speed, as that's dependent on civil
engineering and technology choice. Optimum speed can be calculated for
any given network, but it's not likely to be a limiting factor,
especially if the vehicles can be entrained.
I don't place much value on having a *system* to globally monitor
things. Much better to have ongoing navigation with a failsafe design.
Routing should be done with local nodes, in communication with but not
dependent on system controls. Frankly, if ride systems from
Mission:Space to Space Mountain to Splash Mountain to Peter Pan can be
made to operate safely, PRT won't be a big issue.
>And the biggest problem would be can a system be designed so that no
>breakdown, system failure or act of terrorism would stop or even greatly
>reduce the flow of traffic??
This is why a network is preferred to any number of fixed loops. Just
like the Internet routes around damage, so can a well designed
transport network. The key to doing so quickly is communication and
smart monitoring algorithms, and those have been well developed
already in other fields.
A single vehicle failure could be addressed by pushing it with other
vehicles, if still mobile. If not, vehicles behind it could back out
and proceed while ground-based rescue or repair proceeds.
There's been a whopping lot of theoretical work done on PRT networks
in the past three decades. Turns out there's not a whole lot left to
invent -- just a whole lot left to demonstrate.
Bruce A Metcalf
Siemens would be a great partner for a PRT system. They have the
manufacturing and programming capacity, experience in communications
and failsafe signaling and vehicle control, and perhaps even deep
enough pockets to pull this off.
Hmm. Better go call my broker.
Mike C
Bruce A Metcalf wrote:
> [...]
> >(2) PeopleMover: from the Epcot plan
>
> Wrong! It's very difficult to board guests with strollers, ECVs, or
> luggage, and any delay at any station soon bogs down the whole line.
> You'd also need separate lines for each pair of destinations to avoid
> multiple transfers and corresponding delays. Not a reasonable option,
> IMHO.
I wasn't advocating PeopleMover, just listing it. :-)
In fact, of the three, PeopleMover is my least favorite option; I
prefer pure PRT. If pure PRT is not feasible, then I like a hybrid PRT
approach.
But, if PRT is out of the question, then I'd certainly prefer some kind
of PeopleMover system to buses and cars...
I guess it comes down to this: if pure PRT is a realistic option in the
near future, then I say go for it! But, if PRT's limitations (see
below) will prevent implementation for many years to come, then I think
they should look at alternatives. That's all I'm really suggesting.
>
> >(3) Hybrid PRT: Multiple, isolated, smaller capacity PRT-like systems
> >linked by monorail (Randy's idea)
>
> A timid approach that won't utilize the best features of PRT, and
> maintains the overhead of multiple systems. I would expect this type
> of system would fail to pass financial muster. Remember, we're trying
> for both better *and* cheaper!
"Timid" is better than "nothing". :-)
As I said, I'd love to see the bold, ambitious approach. But I also
feel that they are already 10 years late in implementing a workable
transportation infrastructure (ABB) and if pure PRT is going to take
years to sell and then years to build... well that might be too little
too late.
At what point will limitations and frustration with the bus system
start inhibiting attendance and growth? Maybe that's already happening?
Can they afford to debate PRT for years to come? Which is better:
monorail/light-rail/hybrid-PRT/PeopleMover TODAY, or pure PRT in the
distant future?
If they can implement the full PRT solution today (technilogically and
financially), then they should do it. If not, then they *should* look
at alternatives. *If* one of those alternatives is a hybrid system that
incorporates one or more small scale PRT systems that can later be
linked together, and *if* such a system can be built today, then that's
the route I'd take.
A lot of IFs there, admittedly. :-)
> [...]
>
> >If they could start small (smaller area,
> >smaller capacity, lower speeds), then the engineering problem might be
> >more manageable, which (I would think) should bring the cost down
> >significantly.
>
> Costs would be lower. So would benefits.
>
> And if a small system were built to standards lower than that required
> by the final system build out, you'd just be adding one more mode to
> the mix (or trashing that small system).
>
> No, best to set final system standards and build everything to match,
> even if some capacities aren't used immediately.
>
Not lower standards, but smaller scope. This could be done, I'm sure,
in a way that would allow for expandability later. The key point is
that PRT is (1) a network, not a loop, and (2) *decentralized*.
Building for expansion should be relatively easy, especially for
engineers and executives that are faced with the much more difficult
problem of expanding *monorails* (fixed loop, difficult or impossible
to link into)
Is it the ideal? No, but it's better than nothing. If a small scale PRT
system at (say) CBR can be built and demonstrated, that might open the
flood gates to expand to all resorts, then to inter-resort, etc. But
the initial implementation would be manageable (read: LOW RISK).
It's a pretty tough sell to say you're (1) spending $billions, (2)
implementing unproven technology on a grand scale, and (3) eliminating
all other transportation options including the *beloved* monorail. If I
were a financial guy, I'd be *very* hesitant.
But if you could say you're (1) spending $millions, (2) implementing a
small scale prototype that could be incorporated into a larger system
later, and (3) preserving existing options to ease the transition....
well that sounds a lot more palatable.
To me, the latter is *much* less risky, and offers the same potential
long-term benefit as the former.
The best thing about a phased approach: once it's done and proven on a
small scale, you can get the executives to take a ride on the system
and fall in love with it. Executives can see first hand the
personalized key-based service, multi-lingual capabilities, and all
that. That's where you'd get final approval for the grand vision...
>
> >There are very difficult engineering problems to
> >overcome for a pure PRT system, and who better to address those
> >problems than the very people who have mastered the art of maximizing
> >loading throughput on rides for 50-odd years?
>
> While I agree that Disney has the skills, I disagree that there are
> very difficult engineering problems involved. Vehicle design? Track
> design? Control logic? The biggest issue I can foresee is getting that
> many small, reliable, air conditioning units.
Maybe "engineering problems" is a misleading term. Really, the main
"problem" I am referring to is the sheer size of the loading platforms
required to support high capacities. From what I understand, this has
been PRT's Achilles heel from the beginning: how to support very high
capacities without immensely large loading platforms.
>From your original post on this topic, it sounds like Disney had not
completely solved the loading problem, but were trying to work around
it (by figuring out how to fit a huge PRT terminal at the MK gate).
And, in fact, you indicated this was the main stumbling block for
implementing pure PRT.
So, if the size of the loading platforms is the problem, and loading
platform size is directly related to capacity, then how can capacity be
reduced? A hybrid approach would be one way to do that... and maybe in
the interim they'll come up with optimized loading
architectures/strategies that will work at the busiest terminals. Or
maybe, PRT will work so well on a small scale that they'll figure out a
way to incorporate the huge loading platform.
Or... maybe a small scale PRT will be a dismal failure (it could
happen) and a major disaster will have been averted. Seriously... can
you imagine implementing the grand vision, eliminating all other
transportation options (including the monorails), and then finding out
that the PRT has serious unforeseen problems? It's certainly within the
realm of possibility; remember the Denver airport baggage handling
system? If it's only within one resort area, only that resort area is
affected; if it's implemented across the whole property, then...
<shudder>
>
> >But my other point is, why be confined by the constraints of PRT?
>
> I'd love to hear what you believe those constraints are, other than
> those I describe above.
>
As I said above, it seems to be one major constraint: the size of the
loading platform required to support Disney capacities.
Would you agree with the statement that the loading platform size
requirement is (at the very least) a very difficult nut to crack? And
that the size requirement is directly correlated with the capacity
requirement?
Of course, there are other issues as well: mainly that most of the
components have not been proven to work in a real production setting.
Not that they won't work, but they haven't been *proven* to work in te
real world.
>
> [excellent analysis of PRT/PeopleMover at CBR deleted]
>
> Notice that even this small scale project would benefit from using PRT
> rather than PeopleMover systems, and that full benefits require it to
> replace *all* other modes of transport.
>
I agree that PRT would be preferable to PeopleMover...
But, again, "full benefits" is a lofty goal that may not be achievable
in the short term. As it stands right now, in the endless search for a
be-all end-all solution, they have a system with almost no benefits
(cars and overburdened buses).
I'm suggesting that a partial system that has *some* benefits in the
short term, with the potential for *full* benefits in the long term,
would be worthwhile.
> >(not to mention, it's similar to Walt's initial concept, with the
> >mini-PRT-like systems replacing PeopleMovers).
>
> In case you haven't heard, Walt's dead. He's been dead for nearly 40
> years. Some things have changed in that time, including the
> development of PRT technology. I'd like to think Walt would like it's
> ability to customize the service provided to each individual family.
> More on that in another post soon.
OK, I deserved that. :-)
I'm really not the kind of person that thinks "What would Walt do?" for
every major decision in life. But, in this case, there is one thing
that Walt believed, that I strongly agree with: that transportation
should be the foundation of development, NOT an afterthought. For too
long, transportation has been neglected by a CEO whose passion is
architecture, not transportation, and transportation has floundered.
Maybe Iger will re-prioritize transportation, but it hasn't happened
yet (has it??? You and others have hinted that it has, and that would
be A Good Thing.)
So, when I talk about Walt's vision, I'm not saying they should
slavishly follow his plans like religious dogma... but they should at
least have their own plan, something other than "more roads, more
parking, more buses".
>
>
> >Then the problem becomes optimizing the transfer from monorail to
> >individual PT systems, which should be a simpler problem, right?
>
> I strongly disagree. Note especially the issue of complexity. You are
> suggesting two modes of transport, not one. You are adding transfer
> stations that PRT doesn't use. And perhaps most importantly, you have
> made travel more complex for the *guests*, who are the reason we built
> WDW in the first place.
>
> Nope, not gonna convince me that modal transfers are good. Won't
> believe it. Will keep arguing until everyone believes. <BG>
>
I hate transfers. Who doesn't? But there's one thing I hate worse than
transfers: BUSES!
If I'm going to wait 15 minutes for a bus at some isolated bus stop,
I'd prefer to take a PRT (which should have much lower wait times) to a
centralized monorail stop for transfer. Maybe the monorail would have
wait times, but I'm guessing it would move more smoothly than the
typical bus line...
Again, a pure PRT would be great, but to me, a one-transfer
PRT/monorail hybrid would be infinitely preferable to a bus.
> >This is what puzzles me. The decentralized nature of PRT should make it
> >easy to build in stages, right?
>
> Easy to phase for construction, not easy for operation during the
> transition.
>
But that's true of any major construction project. I still say that the
very decentralized nature of PRT makes it *easier* during transition
than any other transportation option, making it an ideal candidate for
phased construction.
>
> >Couldn't they start in one resort area,
> >and leave the design open so that it could be expanded to other resort
> >areas in the future by adding inter-resort-area links?
>
> Okay, this is small thinking again, which works against what PRT is
> trying to accomplish.
It's NOT small thinking! There's a huge difference between "thinking
small" and "starting small".
Relying on buses and cars is thinking small (really, really small). I'd
also say that building PeopleMovers is thinking small.
But building an expandable, resort-area PRT is not thinking small; it's
thinking *big* (really big, IMO) but *starting* small.
> It's not several small networks with links
> between them, it's one network that covers everything.
>
> A good analogy is the Internet. Originally a number of dense local
> networks that were linked by a backbone of somewhat limited capacity,
> it now appears to all but the few technical cognoscenti to be one
> planet wide network (plus AOL).
>
The Internet may appear to be *one* network, but it's not. It's
actually thousands (millions?) of networks interconnected. That's where
the name "Internet" came from: the INTERconnection of private NETworks.
AOL is actually no different than any of the thousands of other private
networks that happen to be interconnected via the Internet.
When you "connect" to the Internet, you are just connecting to a
private network that happens to be interconnected to others via the
Internet. The only things universal (centralized) about the internet
are addressing (your IP address, which may actually be shared) and
naming (your domain name).
> On the Internet, I'm not terribly likely to email others on my local
> network (I can just yell at my wife in the next room instead). I use
> the network to chat with folks all over the place, as I'm doing now.
>
Right, but you always start and end on your local private network. The
Internet would never have evolved as a top-down system. Without
existing private networks to interconnect, it's unlikely the Internet
would have developed the way it did.
Maybe that's the case with PRT as well: maybe a full-blown PRT will
never be built top down. Maybe starting with small isolated systems is
the only practical path to full PRT.
That said, I do agree that local traffic at CBR would not be a very
good test of PRT. See below...
> Similarly, very little traffic at WDW is resort-to-resort, and traffic
> between neighboring resorts is even less common. No, most traffic is
> between resorts and theme parks -- non-local destinations. Thus the
> system needs to be optimized for the long-haul, not the local traffic.
>
> This is why a local demonstration project will not produce dramatic
> results. No matter how good we make a system for Caribbean Beach, not
> all that many folks will ride it who aren't going to transfer to get
> somewhere else.
This is true for CBR, but what about the Epcot/MGM resorts? That area
has two major destinations and several hotels. Now you have
resort-to-resort traffic as well as resort-to-and-from-parks. Traffic
would be moderate but not extreme, a perfect place for a
proof-of-concept.
> >traffic by x%. Leave the bus system in place so the entire thing
> >doesn't have to be done at once, but show how much could be saved by
> >*reducing* the bus fleet.
>
> Not all that much of a savings, unfortunately. You still have to
> maintain the garage and all the mechanics so long as even a single bus
> is operated.
>
Well, maybe "savings" is not the way this should be sold. There's more
to business than cutting costs...
For example, consider an Epcot-area PRT system: how much buzz would
that create for those resorts? How many people would book a stay there
just to see the new system? How many would come back again and again
just for the PRT?
Beyond that: how much *media* attention would a PRT generate? For the
media, the term PRT is like a magnet: build it and they *will* come.
Imagine the free media attention they would get by implementing such a
one-of-a-kind system. (Really, can you imagine all the news shows
broadcasting live for the unveiling of the largest fully functional
commercial PRT system on the planet?). Of course, these things are
always tough to quantify...
An interesting question: I wonder what WDW would be today without the
monorail? Would it be as popular? How many millions of people would
have fallen in love with Disney "magic" if their daily commute to the
park was on an overcrowded bus?
Sell PRT as the next generation monorail: costly, yes, but something
that will set Disney apart for generations to come.
All this, by the way, in addition to having a functional transportation
system again...
> [...]
>
> I must admit, most of my numbers are pretty squishy at this point.
> Some day, maybe I'll find someone who can help me firm them up. If
> it's somebody from inside, we could probably make them fairly stiff
> indeed.
>
> Perhaps this is where I should concentrate my efforts. Anybody out
> there wanna help?
>
I'd be glad to help, though I doubt I'd be very helpful from my
location in western New York State. :-)
>
> --
> TDC Zazu,
> Librarian of the Disney Reverence Shelf
> and Protector of All Disney Railroads
Mike
admiralBoom
Boom
Mike C
admiralBoom wrote:
> ... not to mention a PMT (PRT-like) test track in Sweden ...
>
> Boom
OK, I think I'm getting it now... this could be huge! I can't wait to
see what comes of it!
I don't know how much you know or how much you can say, but... is this
anywhere close to becoming a reality?
Mike
Patty Winter
Bruce A Metcalf <ra...@figzu.com> wrote:
>
>What if you could scan your room key or park pass and have the audio
>system speak and the interactive video display in your language?
Great idea.
> What if the default destination when you board at a theme park or at a
>different resort after having booked dining reservations there would
>be your home resort, and the stop closest to your room?
You could then drink as much alcohol as you like at dinner and still
be assured of finding your way back to your room! Or at least someplace
close to your room, at which point you could presumably stagger over to
the nearest CM and get help figuring out which room is yours. ;-)
>What if you
>could start your morning by asking to be taken to the least crowded
>theme park, or the least crowded you haven't yet visited this trip?
Oooh, I like! PRT lottery!
>What if one option would be to take a grand tour of WDW, with a
>narration of the views matched to each section of track, again in your
>native language, and adjusted for things you've already seen or
>visited? What if the on board system was linked to dining
>reservations, and you could pick from a list of restaurants that will
>have an open table for a group your size by the time you arrive there?
More intriguing ideas, Bruce.
Thanks to everyone who has posted information and opinions on this
very interesting topic. I'll keep my fingers crossed that someday
it comes true. WDW certainly has the conditions that should provide
motivation to implement something like this.
Patty
NJE
> only with your own group, which pretty much solves the screaming
> problem (unless they're your own). Because *all* vehicles can go to
> *any* destination, you don't have to wait for the *right* bus, just
> the next one.
>
> Let's think about how your trip can be personalize beyond just
> limiting fellow passengers and going straight to your destination
> (which are reasons enough for some):
>
installed in California it was cutting edge "gee-whiz" technology. It
had been used at special venues (World's Fair I think) but wasn't
something that people expected to use every day.
The PRT idea is at that same stage right now. Like any big project it
would have its pros and cons but the WDW environment is probably an
ideal situation to make it work. The various destinations are well
defined so the entire system can be engineered as a whole and the
infrastructure can be built with a minimum of outside interference
(there is a reason Disney maintained so much control over their
property.)
This doesn't mean its an easy solution but it deserves a lot of serious
consideration. If some people feel that Epcot's Future World hasn't
kept up with the times the transportation system can be looked at the
same way. Planning now for something innovative means you have a better
transportation system in the near future. Not planning anything means
you have buses.
--
NJE
Bruce A Metcalf
"Mike C" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bruce A Metcalf wrote:
>>
>>>(2) PeopleMover: from the Epcot plan
>>
>> Wrong! It's very difficult to board guests with strollers, ECVs, or
>> luggage, and any delay at any station soon bogs down the whole line.
>> You'd also need separate lines for each pair of destinations to avoid
>> multiple transfers and corresponding delays. Not a reasonable option,
>> IMHO.
>
>I wasn't advocating PeopleMover, just listing it. :-)
>
>In fact, of the three, PeopleMover is my least favorite option; I
>prefer pure PRT. If pure PRT is not feasible, then I like a hybrid PRT
>approach.
When I've heard "hybrid PRT" before, it's meant one of two very
different things:
1) Small PRT networks connected by some other mode, resulting in major
delays at transfer points. ('Nuff said on that already.)
2) A PRT network that permits vehicles to be automatically entrained
-- either with mechanical couplings or just control logic -- so that
they can run as a group and thus reduce headways to near zero.
The second I much endorse, as I think it will be required to get
adequate capacity at Park stations.
>I guess it comes down to this: if pure PRT is a realistic option in the
>near future, then I say go for it! But, if PRT's limitations (see
>below) will prevent implementation for many years to come, then I think
>they should look at alternatives. That's all I'm really suggesting.
I have to endorse the search for viable alternatives. After all, my
PRT proposal is just that -- a viable alternative to the present
mixed-mode system.
>>>(3) Hybrid PRT: Multiple, isolated, smaller capacity PRT-like systems
>>>linked by monorail (Randy's idea)
>>
>> A timid approach that won't utilize the best features of PRT, and
>> maintains the overhead of multiple systems. I would expect this type
>> of system would fail to pass financial muster. Remember, we're trying
>> for both better *and* cheaper!
>
>"Timid" is better than "nothing". :-)
Well, perhaps not. If all it does is add an additional transfer to
some trips, and increases to system complexity by adding another mode
to maintain, then it's worse than what we have.
OTOH, I would endorse a small startup -- like the Caribbean Beach
proposal -- *IF* it is planned to be part of a larger network, and is
so engineered.
Demonstration projects are, by definition, wasteful. But if that's
what it takes to get a decision made, then their cost falls into the
same category as pretty engineering drawing blowups. (Hey, just
because I *hate* "dog & pony shows", it doesn't mean I'm unwilling to
use them as a practical tool when necessary!)
>As I said, I'd love to see the bold, ambitious approach. But I also
>feel that they are already 10 years late in implementing a workable
>transportation infrastructure (ABB)...
If by "ABB" you mean "ASEA Brown-Boveri", I'm not at all convinced
their system could be scaled up for this purpose. If something else,
what?
>... if pure PRT is going to take
>years to sell and then years to build... well that might be too little
>too late.
Not much point in debating this issue. The Wayback Machine has been
out of service for decades. Gotta start from now.
>At what point will limitations and frustration with the bus system
>start inhibiting attendance and growth? Maybe that's already happening?
I believe it is.
>Can they afford to debate PRT for years to come? Which is better:
>monorail/light-rail/hybrid-PRT/PeopleMover TODAY, or pure PRT in the
>distant future?
I gotta go with "neither". Were there a will to improve the present
system, or a financial situation that permitted ROIs of more than five
years, we could start planning immediately. Anything this large will
take years to implement, as you suggest. That's not a compelling
argument against it, IMHO.
>If they can implement the full PRT solution today (technilogically and
>financially), then they should do it. If not, then they *should* look
>at alternatives. *If* one of those alternatives is a hybrid system that
>incorporates one or more small scale PRT systems that can later be
>linked together, and *if* such a system can be built today, then that's
>the route I'd take.
>
>A lot of IFs there, admittedly. :-)
Yup. Okay, I'll agree that starting smaller PRT networks sooner beats
installing a complete system later. But you have to finish the
engineering design and analysis on the *whole* system before you can
spec out the small networks. If the vehicle design for the small
networks proves incompatible with the MK boarding system, we've lost
ground.
>> >If they could start small (smaller area,
>> >smaller capacity, lower speeds), then the engineering problem might be
>> >more manageable, which (I would think) should bring the cost down
>> >significantly.
>>
>> Costs would be lower. So would benefits.
>>
>> And if a small system were built to standards lower than that required
>> by the final system build out, you'd just be adding one more mode to
>> the mix (or trashing that small system).
>>
>> No, best to set final system standards and build everything to match,
>> even if some capacities aren't used immediately.
>
>Not lower standards, but smaller scope. This could be done, I'm sure,
>in a way that would allow for expandability later.
Good. We're in agreement on this.
>The key point is
>that PRT is (1) a network, not a loop, and (2) *decentralized*.
>Building for expansion should be relatively easy....
Yes, provided that the expansion is planned first. It's easy to build
in junctions for expansion, but you need to build the right number in
the right places, and that puts us right back into the task of
designing the whole system first.
>Is it the ideal? No, but it's better than nothing. If a small scale PRT
>system at (say) CBR can be built and demonstrated, that might open the
>flood gates to expand to all resorts, then to inter-resort, etc. But
>the initial implementation would be manageable (read: LOW RISK).
>
>It's a pretty tough sell to say you're (1) spending $billions, (2)
>implementing unproven technology on a grand scale, and (3) eliminating
>all other transportation options including the *beloved* monorail. If I
>were a financial guy, I'd be *very* hesitant.
>
>But if you could say you're (1) spending $millions, (2) implementing a
>small scale prototype that could be incorporated into a larger system
>later, and (3) preserving existing options to ease the transition....
>well that sounds a lot more palatable.
>
>To me, the latter is *much* less risky, and offers the same potential
>long-term benefit as the former.
There is much truth in what you say here. Where I have found life to
diverge from these theoretical statements is that it's sometimes
easier to get $1B than it is to get $1M. The PR value of a large
project can balance some costs in ways a small project could not.
I'd also suggest we follow the example of the WDI approach: Put the
Big Plan forward, work it out completely, and sell the Big Picture.
Then if that fails, have fall-back positions ready. This may seem
obvious, but you have to have the big plan first before you can carve
out smaller plans from it.
>The best thing about a phased approach: once it's done and proven on a
>small scale, you can get the executives to take a ride on the system
>and fall in love with it. Executives can see first hand the
>personalized key-based service, multi-lingual capabilities, and all
>that. That's where you'd get final approval for the grand vision....
Sometimes it works this way, sometimes not. What's the quotation?
"Make no small plans, for they have not the power to move men's
souls." Just as Disneyland couldn't have been sold to its investors
one attraction at a time, I think this project has to be sold in a
package big enough to impress. Phasing and demo projects then just
become part of the implementation.
>>>There are very difficult engineering problems to
>>>overcome for a pure PRT system, and who better to address those
>>>problems than the very people who have mastered the art of maximizing
>>>loading throughput on rides for 50-odd years?
>>
>> While I agree that Disney has the skills, I disagree that there are
>> very difficult engineering problems involved. Vehicle design? Track
>> design? Control logic? The biggest issue I can foresee is getting that
>> many small, reliable, air conditioning units.
>
>Maybe "engineering problems" is a misleading term. Really, the main
>"problem" I am referring to is the sheer size of the loading platforms
>required to support high capacities. From what I understand, this has
>been PRT's Achilles heel from the beginning: how to support very high
>capacities without immensely large loading platforms.
I think you've put your finger directly on the problem. This was
certainly the challenge that pushed PRT off the list of options the
last time WDW Transportation went through the planning process.
>>From your original post on this topic, it sounds like Disney had not
>completely solved the loading problem, but were trying to work around
>it (by figuring out how to fit a huge PRT terminal at the MK gate).
There's not much to be done about it. The system *will* need an MK
terminal with huge capacity. The question is how to design one that
isn't so physically huge that it offends the sensibilities of WDI art
direction. (or the tolerance of our guests).
>So, if the size of the loading platforms is the problem, and loading
>platform size is directly related to capacity, then how can capacity be
>reduced?
I disagree that platform size is directly related to capacity. A
simple examination of various attraction capacities will reveal that
there's not a direct relationship. I believe the key to the PRT
network design is to come up with a more efficient station design that
would reduce the apparent size of the station to attractive
proportions.
>A hybrid approach would be one way to do that... and maybe in
>the interim they'll come up with optimized loading
>architectures/strategies that will work at the busiest terminals.
Naw, without a technical solution to the MK fireworks dump, the system
is DOA. That's got to be solved first, especially as several possible
solutions will require special features on the vehicles, requiring
design before construction.
>Ormaybe, PRT will work so well on a small scale that they'll figure out a
>way to incorporate the huge loading platform.
Better we do that first. If we *can't* solve the platform problem, the
PRT will be a big waste of money and guest time.
>Or... maybe a small scale PRT will be a dismal failure (it could
>happen) and a major disaster will have been averted.
True, but it's better to focus on building a system that *will* work,
rather than one that won't.
>... can you imagine implementing the grand vision, eliminating all other
>transportation options (including the monorails), and then finding out
>that the PRT has serious unforeseen problems?
What, you mean like Test Track? <BG> Better engineering management
should preclude that.
>>>But my other point is, why be confined by the constraints of PRT?
>>
>> I'd love to hear what you believe those constraints are, other than
>> those I describe above.
>
>As I said above, it seems to be one major constraint: the size of the
>loading platform required to support Disney capacities.
Oh good! We've got the problem reduced to a single issue!
>Would you agree with the statement that the loading platform size
>requirement is (at the very least) a very difficult nut to crack? And
>that the size requirement is directly correlated with the capacity
>requirement?
I've already stated that I don't believe that size and capacity are
directly related, and I've numerous examples to demonstrate this.
I'm not ready to admit that platform capacity is a "tough nut to
crack", as I haven't yet taken a serious look at it. Indeed, I'm not
sure I have the analytical tools to do so. Anybody reading this who
does, please contact me off list.
>Of course, there are other issues as well: mainly that most of the
>components have not been proven to work in a real production setting.
>Not that they won't work, but they haven't been *proven* to work in te
>real world.
Same's true of every new component. That's why we use computers for
design rather than slide rules or SWAGs.
Mostly....
>> [excellent analysis of PRT/PeopleMover at CBR deleted]
>>
>> Notice that even this small scale project would benefit from using PRT
>> rather than PeopleMover systems, and that full benefits require it to
>> replace *all* other modes of transport.
>
>I agree that PRT would be preferable to PeopleMover...
>
>But, again, "full benefits" is a lofty goal that may not be achievable
>in the short term. As it stands right now, in the endless search for a
>be-all end-all solution, they have a system with almost no benefits
>(cars and overburdened buses).
The search isn't endless. We did a study, came up with a conclusion
based on available technology, available funding, and corporate
"courage", and decided the current mix of monorail/bus/tram was the
best option at this time. With luck, this thread will filter up to the
right people and a new study will be commissioned. With *great* luck,
different conclusions may be reached.
>I'm suggesting that a partial system that has *some* benefits in the
>short term, with the potential for *full* benefits in the long term,
>would be worthwhile.
So long as it's designed to be fully compatible with the larger
network, I agree.
>> >(not to mention, it's similar to Walt's initial concept, with the
>> >mini-PRT-like systems replacing PeopleMovers).
>>
>> In case you haven't heard, Walt's dead. He's been dead for nearly 40
>> years. Some things have changed in that time, including the
>> development of PRT technology. I'd like to think Walt would like it's
>> ability to customize the service provided to each individual family.
>> More on that in another post soon.
>
>OK, I deserved that. :-)
Sorry I hit you so hard, but I was afraid we might get stuck on that
point. It's happened to me before.
>I'm really not the kind of person that thinks "What would Walt do?"....
It's still a good question if you put it in the context of "What would
Walt do today, had be stayed abreast of developments since his death?"
I'd like to think Walt would be tickled to grasp the technology and
substitute PRT for his PeopleMovers.
>... But, in this case, there is one thing
>that Walt believed, that I strongly agree with: that transportation
>should be the foundation of development, NOT an afterthought.
Right!
>For too long, transportation has been neglected by a CEO whose passion
>is architecture, not transportation, and transportation has floundered.
>Maybe Iger will re-prioritize transportation, but it hasn't happened
>yet (has it??? You and others have hinted that it has, and that would
>be A Good Thing.)
No sign of that sort of change yet, but it's still early days. I'm
withholding final judgement about Iger until I see the FY07 budget.
>So, when I talk about Walt's vision, I'm not saying they should
>slavishly follow his plans like religious dogma... but they should at
>least have their own plan, something other than "more roads, more
>parking, more buses".
Agreed. This is one place where more isn't better.
>>>Then the problem becomes optimizing the transfer from monorail to
>>>individual PT systems, which should be a simpler problem, right?
>>
>> I strongly disagree. Note especially the issue of complexity. You are
>> suggesting two modes of transport, not one. You are adding transfer
>> stations that PRT doesn't use. And perhaps most importantly, you have
>> made travel more complex for the *guests*, who are the reason we built
>> WDW in the first place.
>
>I hate transfers. Who doesn't? But there's one thing I hate worse than
>transfers: BUSES!
>Again, a pure PRT would be great, but to me, a one-transfer
>PRT/monorail hybrid would be infinitely preferable to a bus.
Me too, but there's no point in designing things for me, or people who
think like me. I have to design systems for the vast majority of
guests, many of whom can't tell the difference between a parking lot
tram, a monorail, and a steam train (nor would they care if you
explained it).
Try thinking about making transfers and waits when you have a
double-wide stroller three tired kids and no spouse. The desirability
of a no-transfer system suddenly goes up, and the difference between
bus, monorail, and PRT goes down.
>>>This is what puzzles me. The decentralized nature of PRT should make it
>>>easy to build in stages, right?
>>
>> Easy to phase for construction, not easy for operation during the
>> transition.
>
>But that's true of any major construction project. I still say that the
>very decentralized nature of PRT makes it *easier* during transition
>than any other transportation option, making it an ideal candidate for
>phased construction.
Yup, very true. You can add vehicles and network segments
incrementally, with only a download of the new network maps to the
local nodes needed to put new track into service.
>>>Couldn't they start in one resort area,
>>>and leave the design open so that it could be expanded to other resort
>>>areas in the future by adding inter-resort-area links?
>>
>> Okay, this is small thinking again, which works against what PRT is
>> trying to accomplish.
>
>It's NOT small thinking! There's a huge difference between "thinking
>small" and "starting small".
Fair enough. But you still need to start by selling (and designing)
the big plan. I think this is the only place we disagree at this
point.
>> It's not several small networks with links
>> between them, it's one network that covers everything.
>>
>> A good analogy is the Internet. Originally a number of dense local
>> networks that were linked by a backbone of somewhat limited capacity,
>> it now appears to all but the few technical cognoscenti to be one
>> planet wide network....
>
>The Internet may appear to be *one* network, but it's not. It's
>actually thousands (millions?) of networks interconnected. That's where
>the name "Internet" came from: the INTERconnection of private NETworks.
>
>When you "connect" to the Internet, you are just connecting to a
>private network that happens to be interconnected to others via the
>Internet.
Sure, you and I know this, but your average WebTV browser couldn't
care less. The links between networks is invisible to them. And it's
invisible because of an overarching design the preceded the 'Net as we
know it. The TCP/IP protocols are what permits data packages to
traverse the networks without having to be repackaged -- analogous to
passengers traveling the PRT network without transfers.
But the Internet is terribly inefficient because of the ad hoc method
of it's construction. There are bottlenecks, and failures at some
vital nodes can bring down (or slow) large segments of the system.
This is a Bad Thing, and something we would want to avoid in our PRT
network.
To avoid such bottlenecks and critical nodes, we have to design the
system as a whole, and we have to model it's operation to see if our
design is valid. This has to be completed before we can specify
vehicles, nodes, and the number of tracks connecting various local
areas.
The fact that an ad hoc system like the Internet or the national
highway system works (mostly) isn't a valid argument against
comprehensive and careful design before building phase 1.
>> On the Internet, I'm not terribly likely to email others on my local
>> network (I can just yell at my wife in the next room instead). I use
>> the network to chat with folks all over the place, as I'm doing now.
>
>Right, but you always start and end on your local private network. The
>Internet would never have evolved as a top-down system. Without
>existing private networks to interconnect, it's unlikely the Internet
>would have developed the way it did.
Very true. But we're not talking about connecting existing networks.
We're not talking about a system where each local network is
independently owned, operated, and designed. We're talking about a
transportation system for a large area that's all owned by a single
company who also employs the designers and builders. It's not a very
good parallel.
>Maybe that's the case with PRT as well: maybe a full-blown PRT will
>never be built top down. Maybe starting with small isolated systems is
>the only practical path to full PRT.
Building from the bottom up may well be the correct approach. I
maintain that design *must* be from the top down, and that design may
have very large implications for the local nets.
>> Similarly, very little traffic at WDW is resort-to-resort.... most traffic is
>> between resorts and theme parks -- non-local destinations. Thus the
>> system needs to be optimized for the long-haul, not the local traffic.
>>
>> This is why a local demonstration project will not produce dramatic
>> results. No matter how good we make a system for Caribbean Beach, not
>> all that many folks will ride it who aren't going to transfer to get
>> somewhere else.
>
>This is true for CBR, but what about the Epcot/MGM resorts? That area
>has two major destinations and several hotels. Now you have
>resort-to-resort traffic as well as resort-to-and-from-parks. Traffic
>would be moderate but not extreme, a perfect place for a
>proof-of-concept.
Agreed, it might have made been a better example, but I was looking
for the absolute minimum system for my example.
>>>Leave the bus system in place so the entire thing
>>>doesn't have to be done at once, but show how much could be saved by
>>>*reducing* the bus fleet.
>>
>> Not all that much of a savings, unfortunately. You still have to
>> maintain the garage and all the mechanics so long as even a single bus
>> is operated.
>
>Well, maybe "savings" is not the way this should be sold. There's more
>to business than cutting costs...
Very true! But I believe that in the long term, cost will be lower
with a full PRT system. This will be a major point in selling the
Company on the change, so is not to be neglected.
>For example, consider an Epcot-area PRT system: how much buzz would
>that create for those resorts? How many people would book a stay there
>just to see the new system? How many would come back again and again
>just for the PRT?
Excellent questions! Marketing questions, alas, that I feel unprepared
to address. Further, one must ask if the added glitz of the system
would permit pricing to be increased enough to pay for an independent
system. These resorts run full enough that filling their empty rooms
won't make enough of a difference.
>Beyond that: how much *media* attention would a PRT generate?
I respectfully submit that it would be directly proportional to some
power of the size of the system. One resort, or one resort area, will
not have a fraction of the impact that a resort-wide system would
have.
>For the
>media, the term PRT is like a magnet: build it and they *will* come.
... if you have good photo ops, and if it seems likely to be
significant enough to warrant air time.
>Sell PRT as the next generation monorail: costly, yes, but something
>that will set Disney apart for generations to come.
Exactly! I can hardly wait.
Rob Steere
news:po7fo19iuvthlqlil...@4ax.com...
>>>From your original post on this topic, it sounds like Disney had not
>>completely solved the loading problem, but were trying to work around
>>it (by figuring out how to fit a huge PRT terminal at the MK gate).
>
> There's not much to be done about it. The system *will* need an MK
> terminal with huge capacity. The question is how to design one that
> isn't so physically huge that it offends the sensibilities of WDI art
> direction. (or the tolerance of our guests).
>
Well, to get down to the random thinking of such a theoretical system and
station....
First, I believe that the ferries between the MK and the TTC would HAVE to
stay. I think their removal would just overwhelm the theoretical PRT system.
I'd also *consider* keeping a single monorail line that ran solely for the
purpose of the MK-TTC Express line. But, the PRT system might just be able
to handle the capacity.
First off, I haven't done as much research into PRT systems as you guys
obviously have. I've read a few articles and looked at some pages showing
what Raytheon was doing with their PRT2000 concept. (Which I found out
after-the-fact that they had set up the next town over from where I was
living at the time).
But, my vision of the MK setup would be a zoned loading system. On-site
hotels would be divided up into one of three zones/platforms (A,B,C) for
boarding pursposes only, sort of like how they currently divide up the bus
stops outside MK. Zones owuld have nothing to do with areas of the property.
It would be necessary to make sure that the number of hotel rooms assigned
to each zone would be approximately equal, rather than number of hotels or
where on property they are. That way a theoretical crowd leaving the MK
would divide itself up close to evenly among the boarding platforms. Yes, I
know that the individually-customized destination aspect of the PRT concept
means you don't have to do this, but if you just make four platforms and say
"choose any one", can you REALLY trust the guests to do it evenly? The
fourth loading zone (D) would be for TTC-bound passengers (if the monorail
is eliminated).
There would be two separate raised stations, one on either side of the
entrance. One where the monorail platform is now, the other on top of where
the bus stations are. Each platform would have two sides, like the MK
monorail station (So you have the A/B station which for this description
we'll call the one towards the Contemporary and the C/D station towards the
Grand Floridian).
Now the track part of my idea is more difficult (a drawing would probably
help me explain it). Running through the area would be four parallel tracks.
The outer-most tracks would run to the baording platforms. The two inner
tracks would be more of like "mainline" tracks, going straight through the
middle of both stations. Now for the tricky bit, there would be switches
interconnecting the four tracks *between* the two stations (i.e. pretty much
right in front of the MK gates). So, a car leaving the A platform would
leave the station, and then switch over to one of the central mainline
tracks. An incoming car bound for the C platform would go through the middle
of the A/B platform and then switch off to the C platform between the two.
And with the outer tracks continuing straight forward into the other
station, it would allow greater flexibility for the system to route cars in
case of a breakdown, or to reposition cars from one station to another with
a minimum of switching.
[My inspiration is the NYC subway system, with a 4-track system, allowing
express trains to bypass stations where they don't have to stop.]
Each individual platform would have multiple loading positions. (Let's just
say 8) I could see each platform being run by three CMs, possibly only two.
A grouper at the head of the line, and one on the exit side for the
platform. A third "floater" on the boarding side would help out where
necessary. So, with a line full of Guests, the grouper would then direct
Guests into loading zones according to the capacity of the cars. (i.e.
"Family of four. Position 1. Family of six, positions 2 and 3") Each
position would have some sort of safety gate or door. The car would come in,
first open its opposite side door to let out any passengers inside (if
necessary) onto the unload platform on the other side of the tracks. Then
the load doors and gate would open, and in goes the family. If you have 8
(or 10 or 12) cars loading essentially at once, and then they dispatch as
they are ready from front to back, and then the next 8/10/12 cars file in
while the grouper has set up the next bunches of people....
The grouper could even have some sort of switch control to tell the system
how many loading positions they're using. Slow mid-day periods they could
only be using 2 or 3, but the mass exodus they'd need to be at full
capacity.
There would most likely be long "holding tracks" for empty cars upstream of
the stations. And incoming cars with passengers can stop at any of the four
stations. The only problem you might get is that Guests would likely unload
at a different station than the one they'll have to go to when they leave.
As for programming, you can handle it in a few different ways. You could
have each PRT car customize the options depending on which station it was
loading at, and make them the only options. (Like at the TTC-only Platform
D, the riders would not get a choice at all. Or if platform C serviced POR,
POFQ, SS, OKW and Typhoon Lagoon, those would be your ONLY options on the
screen.) Another possibility is that it would default to those choices, but
in the bottom corner have an "other destination" button for maximum
flexibility. (This would also allow "knowledgeable" users of the system to
truly choose the platform with the shortest line no matter where they were
headed). I'm sure similar stations could be built at all the parks.
To save some time on dispatch, resorts with multiple stops (like CBR, POR,
CS) could wait until the car was underway to ask specifically which stop to
go to. So, the Guest gets in, says they're going to CBR, and the car takes
off to minimum in-station time, and then it says "OK. Now which stop at
Caribbean Beach would you like to go to?"
I know this was just a whole bunch of rambling on about a theoritcal system,
but who knows... Maybe some day.... ;-)
And Bruce, you may now rip apart my plan and tell me of all the things I
didn't consider. :-)
-Rob
TDC Master Sergeant of Enforcing Movement All the Way to the End of the Row
GoH '86
6 days to WDW!!! (I can't believe it's less than a week away...)
ste...@charter.net
Bruce A Metcalf
>"Bruce A Metcalf" <ra...@figzu.com> wrote in message
>news:po7fo19iuvthlqlil...@4ax.com...
>>>>From your original post on this topic, it sounds like Disney had not
>>>completely solved the loading problem, but were trying to work around
>>>it (by figuring out how to fit a huge PRT terminal at the MK gate).
>>
>> There's not much to be done about it. The system *will* need an MK
>> terminal with huge capacity. The question is how to design one that
>> isn't so physically huge that it offends the sensibilities of WDI art
>> direction. (or the tolerance of our guests).
>
>Well, to get down to the random thinking of such a theoretical system and
>station....
>
>First, I believe that the ferries between the MK and the TTC would HAVE to
>stay. I think their removal would just overwhelm the theoretical PRT system.
Agreed. So long as the TTC is still a big parking lot, you may as well
continue to run mass transit to serve it.
One option that PRT provides is to distribute parking all over the
property (or off-property). Nobody has to remember where their car is
because their parking pass (or a link on their AP or other admission
media) will remember it for them.
>I'd also *consider* keeping a single monorail line that ran solely for the
>purpose of the MK-TTC Express line. But, the PRT system might just be able
>to handle the capacity.
Keeping a monorail line (or two) in service would help with the
traffic load, but I believe we're going to need that space for
additional PRT station platforms. Pity, as I said before, I'll miss
the monorail.
>But, my vision of the MK setup would be a zoned loading system.
But avoiding such zoning is one of the signal advantages of PRT!
Please explain why you believe such an effort would produce greater
boarding efficiency -- enough greater to overcome the challenge to
guests.
>Yes, I
>know that the individually-customized destination aspect of the PRT concept
>means you don't have to do this, but if you just make four platforms and say
>"choose any one", can you REALLY trust the guests to do it evenly?
No, but that's not as important as the guests *perceiving* it to be
even loading. The efficiency of the system does not (alas) depend on
fairness in maintaining a strict FIFO for passengers. It's certainly
*nice*, but not at the cost of lowered efficiency.
>There would be two separate raised stations, one on either side of the
>entrance.
You are presuming that the optimal design would have thru-tracks. It
may be no great burden on the system to build stub-ended stations.
This would also permit one station to be built on old bus stop,
maintaining the monorail until that half is at full capacity.
Mind you, I'm not at all certain that thru tracks *aren't* the optimal
approach, I'm just pointing out that you've made a signal decision
here.
>Running through the area would be four parallel tracks.
I don't believe this is going to be possible. My original calculations
called for 8 to 10 tracks, Disney's calculations showed 10 to 12
tracks would be required. Probably going to have to scale up your
design by a factor of 3.
>The outer-most tracks would run to the baording platforms. The two inner
>tracks would be more of like "mainline" tracks, going straight through the
>middle of both stations. Now for the tricky bit, there would be switches
>interconnecting the four tracks *between* the two stations (i.e. pretty much
>right in front of the MK gates). So, a car leaving the A platform would
>leave the station, and then switch over to one of the central mainline
>tracks. An incoming car bound for the C platform would go through the middle
>of the A/B platform and then switch off to the C platform between the two.
>And with the outer tracks continuing straight forward into the other
>station, it would allow greater flexibility for the system to route cars in
>case of a breakdown, or to reposition cars from one station to another with
>a minimum of switching.
Okay, this isn't unreasonable. But it will require an elevated station
so guests can get to the far tracks and ferryboat. Stub-end tracks at
ground level avoid this particular challenge.
It might also be possible for tracks to "jump" over a central aisle,
depending on clearances and grades permitted -- another way around the
same issue.
>Each individual platform would have multiple loading positions. ...
>I could see each platform being run by three CMs, possibly only two.
Okay, so now you want to have positions for 12 CMs -- or 36 CMs if you
have to triple capacity as earlier projections show. This is more than
the entire monorail system currently uses. Yes, they will also replace
an unknown number of bus drivers, and they won't be at the same
(higher) labor grade, but that's still a whole lot of people.
Mind you, it will take some CMs to help out, but the system really
needs to be automated to the maximum extent possible. Not too, guests
exiting the MK will already have had one trip on the system, and the
spiel will have explained in their preferred language how to return
(for what good that will do).
>So, with a line full of Guests, the grouper would then direct
>Guests into loading zones according to the capacity of the cars. (i.e.
>"Family of four. Position 1. Family of six, positions 2 and 3")
The design needs to be as efficient at loading the farthest spot as
the closest one. I'm not yet sure how to accomplish this without major
labor costs.
>Each position would have some sort of safety gate or door.
Yeah, now that even Small World needs safety gates, it's unavoidable
that all new installations will get them.
>The car would come in, first open its opposite side door to let out any
>passengers inside (if >necessary) onto the unload platform on the other
>side of the tracks.
This presumes doors and platforms on both sides. A likely option, as
it will offer greater flexibility in station design and routing, but
one with additional complexity and cost. Probably going to be needed
though.
>If you have 8 (or 10 or 12) cars loading essentially at once, and then they
>dispatch as they are ready from front to back, and then the next 8/10/12 cars file in....
Yes, but this only works if none of the boarding parties delays
things. I've been looking at designs that would permit vehicles to
depart individually, or at least in incomplete batches to get around
this.
I'm also considering a separate boarding platform for guests with
wheelchairs, ECVs, strollers, or who otherwise need assistance. The
able-bodied and alert might even get Speedramps!
>Slow mid-day periods they could only be using 2 or 3 [boarding positions],
>but the mass exodus they'd need to be at full capacity.
Running below capacity is a trivial problem once adequate peak
capacity is obtained.
>There would most likely be long "holding tracks" for empty cars upstream of
>the stations.
Very true. We'd probably want to see some staging tracks near each
park (and possibly resorts as well) to hold idle vehicles. As nearly
any vehicle not moving blocks others, and moving vehicles consume
energy, such staging areas are probably essential to an efficient
system.
>As for programming, you can handle it in a few different ways. You could
>have each PRT car customize the options depending on which station it was
>loading at, and make them the only options.
I have a fundamental objection to any approach that limits
destinations based on boarding location. This would actually
complicate programming, IMHO. Better to design the stations so this
isn't necessary.
>To save some time on dispatch, resorts with multiple stops (like CBR, POR,
>CS) could wait until the car was underway to ask specifically which stop to
>go to.
There's no need for *any* station to be specified at boarding. It's
probably a good idea to obtain destination data before departure, if
only for guest comfort, but as it's likely to be some time before the
first junction, guests will have some time to do so without incurring
delay. OTOH, bulk loading -- at parks or even busy resorts in the
morning -- should dispatch immediately the doors close for best
efficiency.
>So, the Guest gets in, says they're going to CBR, and the car takes
>off to minimum in-station time, and then it says "OK. Now which stop at
>Caribbean Beach would you like to go to?"
If guests are using their resort ID, they just scan it and are
automatically taken to the stop closest to their room (with option to
override, naturally). Without a resort ID, the system should default
to the lobby.
>I know this was just a whole bunch of rambling on about a theoritcal system,
>but who knows... Maybe some day.... ;-)
>
>And Bruce, you may now rip apart my plan and tell me of all the things I
>didn't consider. :-)
Even Disneyland began as a theoretical system, and look what happened
to it! Your design ideas aren't bad, though they are in some places
about as uninformed as mine. You have, however, jumped to a number of
conclusions that aren't yet proven. This isn't to say that any of them
are wrong (nor that my first guesses are right), only that there's a
lot to study and calculate before we can make a declaration like "four
tracks at MK" or even "It'll work."
Though I'm betting it will, some day!
Mike C
Bruce A Metcalf wrote:
> Warning: Another long one.
>
This reply is relatively short, since I think we basically agree on
almost all ponts...
>
> When I've heard "hybrid PRT" before, it's meant one of two very
> different things:
>
> 1) Small PRT networks connected by some other mode, resulting in major
> delays at transfer points. ('Nuff said on that already.)
>
> 2) A PRT network that permits vehicles to be automatically entrained
> -- either with mechanical couplings or just control logic -- so that
> they can run as a group and thus reduce headways to near zero.
>
I've been referring to (1). But you've all but convinced me that a
hybrid approach is not desireable as a *long* *term* goal. I now feel
that any hybrid system should only be hybrid during the transition.
>
> >As I said, I'd love to see the bold, ambitious approach. But I also
> >feel that they are already 10 years late in implementing a workable
> >transportation infrastructure (ABB)...
>
> If by "ABB" you mean "ASEA Brown-Boveri", I'm not at all convinced
> their system could be scaled up for this purpose. If something else,
> what?
>
No, nothing that technical: "Anything But Buses". :-)
Sorry, I used that term a few times in this thread, so I didn't define
it this time.
As you might have guessed, I hate buses. I'd much prefer monorail
transfers, light rail, rickshaw... *anything* but a bus!
> [...]
> Yup. Okay, I'll agree that starting smaller PRT networks sooner beats
> installing a complete system later. But you have to finish the
> engineering design and analysis on the *whole* system before you can
> spec out the small networks. If the vehicle design for the small
> networks proves incompatible with the MK boarding system, we've lost
> ground.
>
Couldn't agree more.
> [...]
> I'd also suggest we follow the example of the WDI approach: Put the
> Big Plan forward, work it out completely, and sell the Big Picture.
> Then if that fails, have fall-back positions ready. This may seem
> obvious, but you have to have the big plan first before you can carve
> out smaller plans from it.
>
Indeed, if there were fall-back positions for the 12-lane MK loader
during the last proposal, PRT might already be under construction.
>
> Sometimes it works this way, sometimes not. What's the quotation?
> "Make no small plans, for they have not the power to move men's
> souls." Just as Disneyland couldn't have been sold to its investors
> one attraction at a time, I think this project has to be sold in a
> package big enough to impress. Phasing and demo projects then just
> become part of the implementation.
>
Good points. I think we both agree now that some sort of comprehensive
plan for the entire resort should be in place before any construction.
But this wouldn't preclude phased construction based on that plan.
> [...]
>
> >Ormaybe, PRT will work so well on a small scale that they'll figure out a
> >way to incorporate the huge loading platform.
>
> Better we do that first. If we *can't* solve the platform problem, the
> PRT will be a big waste of money and guest time.
>
I see that now. I had been working under the assumption that monorail
or some other high capacity transit option could handle the fireworks
dump problem, i.e. in a hybrid PRT/monorail system. But you've
convinced me otherwise.
So, if loading is the problem... let's solve it here! If a team of
engineers and traffic experts can't solve it, then maybe we can! :-)
(Seriously, I'd *love* to be a fly on the wall in those meetings. This
stuff really interests me...)
> >As I said above, it seems to be one major constraint: the size of the
> >loading platform required to support Disney capacities.
>
> Oh good! We've got the problem reduced to a single issue!
Well, admittedly, there *may* be one or two other issues... :-)
But loading platform size seems to be the biggest blocker.
> [...]
>
> >It's NOT small thinking! There's a huge difference between "thinking
> >small" and "starting small".
>
> Fair enough. But you still need to start by selling (and designing)
> the big plan. I think this is the only place we disagree at this
> point.
>
No, I think we agree. Earlier I felt that hybrid PRT was a potential
long term goal, but I no longer believe that. So I agree that the big
plan should be a prerequisite to any construction.
BTW, I'm still not totally sold on PRT in general, as opposed to
monorail or even light rail. Right now, there is too much I *don't*
know about PRT for me to be totally convinced, although this discussion
has swayed me considerably.
The problem is, there is a *lot* of polarized opinion on PRT out there.
People seem to either love it or hate it, so it's difficult to find an
objective view. So, when someone says "PRT can never work", is that
opinion based on solid mathematical analysis, or is it just hyperbole?
I really need to do some more in-depth reading on the technology, to
judge it for myself.
But, if PRT can work *anywhere*, it's Disney. I hope they take a
serious look at it...
> --
> TDC Zazu,
> Librarian of the Disney Reverence Shelf
> and Protector of All Disney Railroads
Mike
Bruce A Metcalf
>
>> When I've heard "hybrid PRT" before, it's meant one of two very
>> different things:
>>
>> 1) Small PRT networks connected by some other mode, resulting in major
>> delays at transfer points. ('Nuff said on that already.)
>>
>> 2) A PRT network that permits vehicles to be automatically entrained
>> -- either with mechanical couplings or just control logic -- so that
>> they can run as a group and thus reduce headways to near zero.
>
>I've been referring to (1). But you've all but convinced me that a
>hybrid approach is not desireable as a *long* *term* goal. I now feel
>that any hybrid system should only be hybrid during the transition.
I can live with that. But we will have to look at (2) pretty
carefully, as I suspect that sort of technology will be required to
cover theme park exits and peak traffic.
>> Okay, I'll agree that starting smaller PRT networks sooner beats
>> installing a complete system later. But you have to finish the
>> engineering design and analysis on the *whole* system before you can
>> spec out the small networks. If the vehicle design for the small
>> networks proves incompatible with the MK boarding system, we've lost
>> ground.
>
>Couldn't agree more.
>
>
>> I'd also suggest we follow the example of the WDI approach: Put the
>> Big Plan forward, work it out completely, and sell the Big Picture.
>> Then if that fails, have fall-back positions ready. This may seem
>> obvious, but you have to have the big plan first before you can carve
>> out smaller plans from it.
>
>Indeed, if there were fall-back positions for the 12-lane MK loader
>during the last proposal, PRT might already be under construction.
True, but the cost to design and specify that MK loading system would
have taken more manpower than was available for the whole
transportation study, hence it didn't happen.
I think this was the result of the study being done by operations and
shops people, rather than Imagineering. In the spirit of the, "Does it
have to be a light bulb?" joke, what was needed was a whole new way to
look at boarding systems. Perhaps we can work on that here.
>> "Make no small plans, for they have not the power to move men's
>> souls." Just as Disneyland couldn't have been sold to its investors
>> one attraction at a time, I think this project has to be sold in a
>> package big enough to impress. Phasing and demo projects then just
>> become part of the implementation.
>
>Good points. I think we both agree now that some sort of comprehensive
>plan for the entire resort should be in place before any construction.
>But this wouldn't preclude phased construction based on that plan.
Exactly! Just make sure we do those two things in the right order. <g>
>So, if loading is the problem... let's solve it here! If a team of
>engineers and traffic experts can't solve it, then maybe we can! :-)
Who says I'm *not* an engineer and traffic expert?!? <BG>
>... I think we agree. Earlier I felt that hybrid PRT was a potential
>long term goal, but I no longer believe that.
Goes back to my first principles: Make things simple and magical for
the guests. Transfers, no matter what other advantages, work against
that. Glad we're together on this now.
And thanks for challenging me to prove my point. Sometimes I don't
doubt myself often enough.
>... I'm still not totally sold on PRT in general, as opposed to
>monorail or even light rail. Right now, there is too much I *don't*
>know about PRT for me to be totally convinced, although this discussion
>has swayed me considerably.
Frankly, I'm not yet totally sold on PRT as being a viable solution to
the WDW transport system either. We'll have much work to do defining
system performance standards and designing new boarding systems before
we can even consider the cost and phased construction challenges.
I'll admit to having a fondness for PRT that many have for monorails.
It's not entirely logical, and sometimes it's just plain wrong (both
of them). But if PRT is to be built anywhere (and deserve the name),
there has to be a first installation, and I honestly believe that WDW
would provide a spectacular proof-of-concept location.
Not to mention the chance for the one manufacturer to get in on the
ground floor of a new industry!
>The problem is, there is a *lot* of polarized opinion on PRT out there.
>People seem to either love it or hate it, so it's difficult to find an
>objective view. So, when someone says "PRT can never work", is that
>opinion based on solid mathematical analysis, or is it just hyperbole?
Opposition to PRT is generally hyperbole, fueled by a vested interest
in some other mode or an unnatural fear of the unknown. Contributing
to this problem is the large number of (generally unsuccessful)
systems that are *not* PRT, but get that label applied to them. Most
are nothing more than horizontal elevators.
When valid opposition to PRT exists, there will be a numerical
explanation of why it's not appropriate. If there's no such numerical
analysis available, presume hyperbole.
>I really need to do some more in-depth reading on the technology, to
>judge it for myself.
Two works to suggest:
"Fundamentals of Personal Rapid Transit"
by Jack H. Irving, et al
Lexington Books (1978), ISBN 0-669-02520-8
The original and still definitive work on the subject, still
valid after all these years. Out of print, but available thru ILL.
"Innovation and public policy: The case of personal rapid transit"
by Catherine G Burke
Lexington Books (1979), ISBN 0-669-03167-4
Presently on my "to read" list, and interestingly, from the
same publisher.
>But, if PRT can work *anywhere*, it's Disney. I hope they take a
>serious look at it....
Isn't that exactly what we've been doing here?
Paul
have great Disney-nature.
Bruce is correct about needing a full-scale plan so that such a project
will turn out right, but there also has to be a successful proof-of-
concept, as some have mentioned.
I would like to see it started out of Epcot, hit all the (current) DVC
spots, DTD, and maybe the golf courses on that end of property and
Typhoon Lagoon. I know we would have used it a great deal on our last
trip to get around SSR, from SSR to OKW and DTD, etc. Maybe DVC would
have some capital for such a proof-of concept also....
Another place which could be fully planned and implemented on a smaller
scale, providing a proof-of-concept for WDW would be... Disneyland
Resort! (And their monorail should not be in jeopardy, since it is
mainly a ride.)
--
Looking forward to February (??) -- (DL or WDW) (maybe)
Paul in NH (PSS)
p s s a w y e r at c o m c a s t dot n e t
Mike C
> "Rob Steere" <ste...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >I'd also *consider* keeping a single monorail line that ran solely for the
> >purpose of the MK-TTC Express line. But, the PRT system might just be able
> >to handle the capacity.
>
> Keeping a monorail line (or two) in service would help with the
> traffic load, but I believe we're going to need that space for
> additional PRT station platforms. Pity, as I said before, I'll miss
> the monorail.
>
One thing that Disney has an abundance of, that others do NOT, is
space. For that reason, most PRT designs I've seen seem to be
constrained by space and are limited because of that constraint.
Now, in the case of MK, there isn't a lot of space at the gate, but
maybe there are alternatives... (see below)
> >Yes, I
> >know that the individually-customized destination aspect of the PRT concept
> >means you don't have to do this, but if you just make four platforms and say
> >"choose any one", can you REALLY trust the guests to do it evenly?
>
> No, but that's not as important as the guests *perceiving* it to be
> even loading. The efficiency of the system does not (alas) depend on
> fairness in maintaining a strict FIFO for passengers. It's certainly
> *nice*, but not at the cost of lowered efficiency.
>
I agree that zoned loading should only be done if necessary to support
capacity.
> [...]
> >Running through the area would be four parallel tracks.
>
> I don't believe this is going to be possible. My original calculations
> called for 8 to 10 tracks, Disney's calculations showed 10 to 12
> tracks would be required. Probably going to have to scale up your
> design by a factor of 3.
>
>
I have two questions:
(1) Is that 8 to 12 tracks just for loading, or for transit? Assuming
loading is the bottleneck, I would guess that the number of parallel
tracks needed for loading would be more than the number needed for
actual transit once loaded (e.g.: BTMRR has two load tracks for one
ride track). So which is it in this case? If it's 8-12 needed just for
transit, does that imply 20 or more loading platforms?
For now, I am assuming that 8-12 is the number of loading platforms.
(2) The fireworks dump is the worst case exit scenario, but what about
*entry*? Is there any entry scenario that comes close to the capacity
required by the fireworks dump?
My gut feeling is that the fireworks dump is the worst case scenario
*by* *far*, followed by parade dumps and any other *triggered* exit.
When there is no hard trigger to influence traffic, then randomness
spreads it out.
What I'm getting at is, what is the worst case *entry* capacity? I
assume it would be at park opening, but even that is not a *triggered*
event like the fireworks dump. The difference is, people may know when
the park opens, and may plan for it, but there is not the level of mass
coordination seen during a fireworks dump, where a far reaching event
causes tens of thousands of people to react at almost the exact same
moment.
So, let's say the worst case *entry* scenario (park opening) is half
the load of the worst case *exit* scenario (fireworks dump). Then,
entry would require 4-6 tracks, and exit would require 8-12, right?
What if they had 4-6 tracks at the entrance to the park, and one or two
other "overflow exits" that only operate during peak times? For
example, there is the backstage area behind main Street and
Adventureland... what if they put an overflow PRT loader in that area,
to be used only when needed?
I've never seen that area in person, you can get a great view from
above using Google Earth. The area I'm talking about is between Main St
and the Jungle Cruise. Not a ton of space, but enough to maybe build a
little 2-4 track loader in there. And it's right near the main exit
too, so it'd be easy to route people there. I think the parades go
through this area, so you'd have to work around that, but...
There's also the area behind Splash Mountain. They could have an
exit-only-to-PRT gate in there somewhere. And what about the other
side, behind Toontown? That's just green space back there... they could
even make that an entry point if they really needed to.
A few things to consider about this approach:
(1) If they're exit-only, CM staffing would be minimal (especially now
that there are no more hand stamps). So, what if someone exits by
mistake and can't get back in? Hop on the PRT and come around to the
front!
(2) If backstage areas have to be moved, so be it. This is a billion
dollar project; I can't see it being a major problem. And, again, space
is something they do have plenty of... they can literally move the
backstage areas across the street without much trouble.
(3) More than likely, any PRT plan will already have track that goes to
backstage areas (CMs are people too! :-)) so it might even be something
that "comes for free". I.e., if they're already building track to the
backstage area behind Splash Mountain, they could just build a public
area and use it for overflow. Of course, guests would never be routed
TO that station, only from it.
(4) There is precedence for moving people through backstage areas
during busy times (people have reported walking behind Main St. during
the parade). So even if they didn't want to hide all of the backstage
stuff, they could still use a backstage loader during the worst of the
worst (New Years Eve fireworks?)
(5) There is precedence for adding a second *entry* gate in a park
(International Gateway), so why couldn't they put another entry gate
over by the Toontown train station? They have tons of room there, and
if you look at the layout of Toontown... that could almost be the
"Kids' Main Street". Families with young kids may choose to enter there
as a shortcut to the kid areas of Toontown and Fantasyland, leaving the
main gate for the older crowd. And, during less busy times, they could
just close that gate for entry and use it for exit only. PRT just
wouldn't go there that day...
Basically, what I'm getting at is that the very nature of PRT means you
are NOT restricted to a single load/unload area, so why not get
creative? There's no way they'd have designed multiple gates in the
past, because monorails and ferries are not very mobile, but with a PRT
system... why not?
The big plus for this approach: the space burden on the front gate is
relieved, so maybe ferries and even monorails can continue to run! They
could maybe phase out one monorail track and use one side of the
monorail loading station for PRT loading, but keep the other side for
monorail resort traffic. Maybe, someday in the future, monorails would
go away completely, but that decision wouldn't have to be made
immediately.
Here's what I'd do: Take down one monorail track and use that half of
the loading station for PRT loading. Maybe that space will allow for 2
loaders (?). Then, I'd replace all the bus stops with PRT loaders
(maybe 4 there?). This gives 6 loaders for entry. Then I'd build an
alternate entry/exit gate by Toontown with a 4-loader station. The
Toontown station would be open for entry during busy times, and
optionally closed (exit only) during slow times. This gives us 6 full
time loaders for entry, with 4 more availaible for busy times, and 10
full time loaders for exit. If this isn't enough (New Years Eve
fireworks), I'd open up the Cast Member PRT station behind Main Street.
> [...]
>
> >If you have 8 (or 10 or 12) cars loading essentially at once, and then they
> >dispatch as they are ready from front to back, and then the next 8/10/12 cars file in....
>
> Yes, but this only works if none of the boarding parties delays
> things. I've been looking at designs that would permit vehicles to
> depart individually, or at least in incomplete batches to get around
> this.
>
> I'm also considering a separate boarding platform for guests with
> wheelchairs, ECVs, strollers, or who otherwise need assistance. The
> able-bodied and alert might even get Speedramps!
>
I like this idea!
Speedramps are good as an *alternative*. Imagine having a slow lane and
a fast lane at each high-capacity PRT stop: in the slow lane the cars
stop completely and loading is inefficient. This is where the
wheelchairs/ECVs/strollers go. It's also where you go if you don't feel
able-bodied enough to use the fast lane. The fast lane would feature
speed ramps for optimal loading, and would keep the cars moving,
ensuring that no track capacity gets wasted.
And then... people choose! Don't want to fold up the stroller? Go to
the slow lane. In a hurry? Go to the fast lane. Hate speedramps? Go to
the slow lane. Most people can choose on the spot: they may prefer the
slow lane during less busy times, but during the rush they may decide
to fold up the stroller and go to the fast lane. Of course, some have
only one choice (disabled, etc) but even the slow lane will move much
quicker with the fast lane speedramp moving the crowds so well.
>
> >There would most likely be long "holding tracks" for empty cars upstream of
> >the stations.
>
> Very true. We'd probably want to see some staging tracks near each
> park (and possibly resorts as well) to hold idle vehicles. As nearly
> any vehicle not moving blocks others, and moving vehicles consume
> energy, such staging areas are probably essential to an efficient
> system.
>
This is where Disney's benefit is singular. They have the space to do
these things. These cars have to be readily available, but "out of the
way". City-based PRT designs are severely limited by this requirement,
since there is no room for the staging areas. It's probably one of the
main reasons why cities don't attempt PRT. Disney has tons of room to
store these cars. Just look around MK on Google Earth or some other
aerial view software: there are literally acres of space that can be
used for staging. Having space available makes all the difference.
This is why I believe that a front-gate-only PRT system is doomed to
failure. For this to work, they need to take advantage of the space
they do have (east and west of MK), not butcher space already in use
(south).
Mike
John
its possibility. Remember - Disney won't do anything that isn't
completely conceptualized internally, because somebody can sue them that
they 'stole' the idea. Now that you've put some great ideas in
writing, you can be pretty sure that none of it will happen. So -
anybody got an idea how you can get Disney to contract with you on it?
You build it and run it, and they lease the service from you. Of
course, now that I've said that, it won't be done either, will it?!?
admiralBoom
I know a lot about what MIGHT be coming. As to what is 'close' to
reality, only a select few know (and I am not one of them). Chances are
that if this subject is going to be part of any 'major announcements'
next year, I'll find out only a day or two before you.
WDI has spent many years and many millions on research concerning the
transportation issue, both because it's a problem at WDW and because
it's shown to be a major attractor no matter where it's built.
Everything being discussed in this thread has been debated and tested
and theorized and modeled at WDI at one time or another.
One of the problems that WDI has had over the years is the change in
technology. A project of this size, built 10-15 years ago, would have
ended up being out-of-date by the time it opened. The good news is that
this is no longer true. The technology used in automated transportation
systems has become very mature and stable.
Some of the other problems include politics, corporate cooperation
(both money and experience) and lack of a solid set of future plans for
WDW. These have also mostly gone away. From this one might gather that
we'll be hearing from Mr Iger very soon.
As to what I've seen, I'm not at liberty to be specific except to say
that over the last 20 years I have seen drawings and models of just
about every possible mode of transportation, designed (sometimes
squeezed) to fit on WDW property.
If we could only fly like the birds because they know a thing or two
about getting around ! No, I'm not off my rocker Bruce...
Boom
Tom Moeller
"admiralBoom" <admir...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1133227528.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Mike and others,
>
> I know a lot about what MIGHT be coming. As to what is 'close' to
> reality, only a select few know (and I am not one of them). Chances are
> that if this subject is going to be part of any 'major announcements'
> next year, I'll find out only a day or two before you.
> If we could only fly like the birds because they know a thing or two
> about getting around ! No, I'm not off my rocker Bruce...
>
> Boom
Coooool! So, Soarin' is an attraction now, but it's actually a testbed and
loading area for a future catapult ride! I like it! I think it's already
aimed properly to fling people over to the MK... Don't get enough g-force on
Mission:Space? Try this one out!
tom
Mike C
admiralBoom wrote:
> Mike and others,
>
> I know a lot about what MIGHT be coming. As to what is 'close' to
> reality, only a select few know (and I am not one of them). Chances are
> that if this subject is going to be part of any 'major announcements'
> next year, I'll find out only a day or two before you.
>
So now, the question is, how do we get to be one of the "select few"?
:-D
> WDI has spent many years and many millions on research concerning the
> transportation issue, both because it's a problem at WDW and because
> it's shown to be a major attractor no matter where it's built.
> Everything being discussed in this thread has been debated and tested
> and theorized and modeled at WDI at one time or another.
>
> One of the problems that WDI has had over the years is the change in
> technology. A project of this size, built 10-15 years ago, would have
> ended up being out-of-date by the time it opened. The good news is that
> this is no longer true. The technology used in automated transportation
> systems has become very mature and stable.
>
> Some of the other problems include politics, corporate cooperation
> (both money and experience) and lack of a solid set of future plans for
> WDW. These have also mostly gone away. From this one might gather that
> we'll be hearing from Mr Iger very soon.
>
Until now, I didn't realize how much they've invested in research on
the transportation issue. The fact that they've had deep discussions on
something as ambitious as PRT is quite a pleasant surprise. From my
position on the outside, it always seemed like they were just being
frugal and short-sighted with the buses; now it seems that at least
part of the reason for the ubiquitous buses was that they were waiting
for technology to catch up to their ambitious transportation visions;
in essence, the reason for inaction was not short-sightedness, but
rather, extreme long-sightedness!
So, in retrospect, the decision to halt monorail construction makes a
lot more sense... why spend so much on monorails if a superior
technology like PRT may replace them all within 15 years? Why invest in
any mass transit system when it doesn't fit in with your extremely
ambitious long term vision?
Of course, as you say, it was also politics and money. But it's
encouraging to know that it wasn't *all* politics and money. At least
WDI was still thinking about the problem.
Fascinating.
>[...]
>
> Boom
Thanks for your insight into all of this. The Siemens link (12 year
partnership with Disney!) is especially interesting.
Mike
Bruce A Metcalf
>Bruce A Metcalf wrote:
>> "Rob Steere" <ste...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >Running through the area would be four parallel tracks.
>>
>> I don't believe this is going to be possible. My original calculations
>> called for 8 to 10 tracks, Disney's calculations showed 10 to 12
>> tracks would be required. Probably going to have to scale up your
>> design by a factor of 3.
>
That was 8-12 loading platforms. The design calculations assumed that
each platform would load by platoon -- that is to say a batch of
vehicles would come in, load/unload, then depart as a new batch came
in.
>I would guess that the number of parallel
>tracks needed for loading would be more than the number needed for
>actual transit once loaded (e.g.: BTMRR has two load tracks for one
>ride track).
That's correct. A couple of platform lengths away, you can start to
merge into a smaller number of tracks. How many tracks it would take
to support 8-12 loading platforms depends on a large number of
variables, but would likely be no more than half the number of
platform tracks.
>(2) The fireworks dump is the worst case exit scenario, but what about
>*entry*? Is there any entry scenario that comes close to the capacity
>required by the fireworks dump?
Nope. Worst case entry is about 1/4 of the worst case exit.
>So, let's say the worst case *entry* scenario (park opening) is half
>the load of the worst case *exit* scenario (fireworks dump). Then,
>entry would require 4-6 tracks, and exit would require 8-12, right?
Correct. If the above numbers are correct, only 2-3 tracks would be
needed for entry.
>What if they had 4-6 tracks at the entrance to the park, and one or two
>other "overflow exits" that only operate during peak times?
Disregarding for a moment the lack of services at alternate exits --
merchandise, guest relations, package pickup, stroller return, etc --
how would you propose to convince 3/4 of the guests to use such exits
when they know very well where they came in?
Remember too, that the worst exits happen at the end of very long
days, and the residual IQ of many guests is much less than what they
started the day with. (I'm not calling guests stupid here, just
tired.)
>The area I'm talking about is between Main St
>and the Jungle Cruise. Not a ton of space, but enough to maybe build a
>little 2-4 track loader in there.
Only if you never want to see another parade. That space is *very*
busy during normal park operations.
>There's also the area behind Splash Mountain. They could have an
>exit-only-to-PRT gate in there somewhere.
Again, interference with parade operations would be the big issue
there.
>And what about the other
>side, behind Toontown? That's just green space back there... they could
>even make that an entry point if they really needed to.
Possible, if you don't mind wading the creek to get there.
>A few things to consider about this approach:
<several valid points snipped>
>Basically, what I'm getting at is that the very nature of PRT means you
>are NOT restricted to a single load/unload area, so why not get
>creative?
Why don't we prove that one gate won't work first. We're a long way
from doing so.
>The big plus for this approach: the space burden on the front gate is
>relieved, so maybe ferries and even monorails can continue to run!
Ferries yes, monorails no. The key to making PRT pay for itself is by
*eliminating* several other modes of transport. Monorail and buses in
particular. Plus we'll need the space occupied by the MK monorail
station for the PRT station.
>> >If you have 8 (or 10 or 12) cars loading essentially at once, and then they
>> >dispatch as they are ready from front to back, and then the next 8/10/12 cars file in....
>>
>> Yes, but this only works if none of the boarding parties delays
>> things. I've been looking at designs that would permit vehicles to
>> depart individually, or at least in incomplete batches to get around
>> this.
>>
>> I'm also considering a separate boarding platform for guests with
>> wheelchairs, ECVs, strollers, or who otherwise need assistance. The
>> able-bodied and alert might even get Speedramps!
>
>I like this idea!
Then you haven't had to separate stroller parties from walking guests
at park close. It's a very labor-intensive task, and labor is one of
the things we need to minimize.
>Speedramps are good as an *alternative*.
But only that. They aren't appropriate for strollers, wheelchairs,
ECVs, or the less-than-agile. Legal doesn't like them at all.
>> >There would most likely be long "holding tracks" for empty cars upstream of
>> >the stations.
>>
>> Very true.
Not necessarily. The beauty of the PRT system is that then entire
*network* becomes a staging area!
It might be appropriate to have small amounts of staging near the
parks to smooth out interruptions in the flow, but we'll have to
crunch numbers to see how much, if any.
There will also have to be storage tracks for slack times. No point in
leaving the vehicles orbiting when they can sit still. The staging
could be part of this storage system.
>This is where Disney's benefit is singular. They have the space to do
>these things. These cars have to be readily available, but "out of the
>way". City-based PRT designs are severely limited by this requirement,
>since there is no room for the staging areas.
On the contrary, storage can be at some distance from the main points
of use, and with predictable crowd flows, they can be dispatched in
time to be available when needed.
>It's probably one of the
>main reasons why cities don't attempt PRT.
<cough> political cowardice <cough>
>This is why I believe that a front-gate-only PRT system is doomed to
>failure. For this to work, they need to take advantage of the space
>they do have (east and west of MK), not butcher space already in use
>(south).
I guess we'll have to disagree until one of us can muster the
calculations to prove our position. <G>
Bruce A Metcalf
>If we could only fly like the birds because they know a thing or two
>about getting around ! No, I'm not off my rocker Bruce...
This hornbill doesn't see a thing wrong with that statement, or any of
your other sage remarks!