Walt Disney World gondola / cable car

[Bush Beast Forever]

Didn't want to start a new post on this given it isn't about one of our parks per se but thought I would post this here given it is relevant to our discussion about improving transit to the Spit/SW given the possible development of a 2nd casino to the south of SW and the possible development of a cruise terminal at the Council car park to the east of SW.

Anyway it is looking increasingly likely (albeit neither confirmed nor denied by Disney) that Disney is going to build a high capacity cable car / gondola system to link 5 areas in Disneyworld:

http://m.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/02/21/theres-a-strong-rumor-that-disney-world-will-be-getting-a-massive-gondola-system#

System will supposedly look like this based on building permits showing what look suspiciously like turning stations:

http://www.wdwthemeparks.com/rumors/2017/02/13/transportation-system-to-connect-hollywood-studios-epcot-caribbean-beach-pop-century-and-art-of-animation#prettyPhoto

If true I think this is quite powerful validation of the technology given Disney will be paying for all of this out of their own resources and thus would have looked extremely closely how it stacks up vs alternatives with regards to capital and operating costs, capacity, reliability and needless to say safety.

 

 

[Santa07]

It's probably been said a million times before, but I would love some similar sort of transportation between MW and WnW (and potentially TopGolf when it opens).

Edited February 25, 2017 by Santa07

[Bush Beast Forever]

2 hours ago, Santa07 said:

It's probably been said a million times before, but I would love some similar sort of transportation between MW and WnW (and potentially TopGolf when it opens).

It could be even more extensive and link WnW, PC, TG/lakeside precinct/AOS, MW and the mooted hotel. This would create a half reasonable integrated resort for guests staying a couple of days at the hotel.

One of the benefits of a gondola system is it can be easily routed over buildings as long as the support towers are tall enough.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I don't think it validates the transport method at all - they already have a monorail, and no plans to shelve it. They use buses extensively throughout the resort. They don't have an existing tram line and infrastructure being built around the resort that they could spur from - so in that sense, (and the fact that the system would be in constant use all day long - Disney transportation is already bursting at the seams) it works - they can go over existing obstacles, towers don't require much land to cover a long distance, and pretty well everything in the Orlando resort is man made to some extent.

Contrast to the gold coast - and a lot of the reasons that would make it viable in WDW aren't present here.

Just my view.

[joz]

I guess one thing about it we don't really know though is what is the cost?  If it's going to end up being a quarter of the cost of Light Rail then it could be a fine idea.  My preference would be for a spur tramline running from south of Sundale Bridge to Sea World, but if a Cable system is way cheaper to build and run and does basically the same thing thing then why not?

[Santa07]

A gondola from the main tram line to Sea World could actually work really well. Building a gondola system in the right spot could give some great views, and that certainly could be a fantastic spot for achieving that. Although probably a little slower than a tram, it would provide direct and frequent access to the park.

[Bush Beast Forever]

3 hours ago, AlexB said:

I don't think it validates the transport method at all - they already have a monorail, and no plans to shelve it. They use buses extensively throughout the resort. They don't have an existing tram line and infrastructure being built around the resort that they could spur from - so in that sense, (and the fact that the system would be in constant use all day long - Disney transportation is already bursting at the seams) it works - they can go over existing obstacles, towers don't require much land to cover a long distance, and pretty well everything in the Orlando resort is man made to some extent.

Contrast to the gold coast - and a lot of the reasons that would make it viable in WDW aren't present here.

Just my view.

Mate I know you feel the need to jump in on EVERY discussion but you should at least be consistent in your arguments with what you've said in the past. E.g. this time around you conveniently forgot about the time when you said a spur line off the existing tramline wouldn't work:

On 01/01/2017 at 11:21 AM, AlexB said:

The only way I see rail working is for a completely separate line being attached to an existing station - See Hong Kong Disneyland for example. Build the line, buy two trains, have them run opposite each other with a short passing loop\siding at the halfway mark allowing them to cross paths.

They don't impact on the rest of the network at all.

But, as has been pointed out, the road area along the spit is tight in some places, and even getting a single line through there would be difficult. Elevated track works perfectly because you can drop a pylon almost anywhere without impacting much - hence why monorail works well.

On your broader point yes a cableway has some characterisitcs that make it really useful for what Disney is proposing but I'd argue it also has advantages in the case of the Spit.

Namely a cableway has the ability to cross the Broadwater cost effectively and therfore link the tram and the major traffic generators of SW / the mooted casino resort / the mooted cruise terminal with a system roughly half the length of having to link to the tram station at Main Beach Station.

E.g. Koblenz in Germany built a high capacity cableway spanning roughly the same distance as you would need to get from SW to either Broadwater Parklands Station or the Southport Station for only US$20m in 2011.

For what it is worth I still believe if a cableway isn't chosen that a monorail (which I understand is your favourite solution) would work better than a spur line of the tram to provide public transport to the Spit.

P.S. Just my view.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Bush Beast Forever

[Gazza]

Id rather a cableway than a light rail spur, because it avoids the narrowness of SW drive, can be more direct, and has a bit of tourist appeal.

 

Doing a light rail branch so close to the systen core invokes the issue of dividing frequency:

http://humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-branching-or-how-transit-is-like-a-river.html

If you have a track pair, branching means only 1 in 2 trams can serve each side of the branch (you can also do something god awful like "one tram in four" but that trashes legibility and would lead to uneven passenger loading)

If you have to do a branch, it needs to be towards the end of the line so the division in frequency doesn't have a negative impact.

Think of the way in Brisbane the split between the Ipswich and Springfield branches happens at Darra...Works well because outbound of Darra the population density drops off, so only having half the trains to each branch is bearable because demand at each station is lower.

Whereas on the GC doesn't work because you are splitting the frequency at main beach, even though Southport, GCUH etc have heavy demand and would suffer.

[Bush Beast Forever]

Good point Gazza re spur lines usually being near the end of the line where passenger loadings reduce. If you look at Sydney the Illawarra line has a spur at Sutherland that serves Cronulla. If the line split further up e.g. Hurstville where passenger loadings are near their peak it wouldn't work nearly so well.

I'd also note that the current proposal from the casino developers has the proposed spur in stage 2 of the works and even then as an "opportunity" along with a ferry service marked as an "opportunity" and a walkway from Broadwater Parklands to Southport CBD marked as an "opportunity".

Call me cynical but I read "opportunity" as "give us the casino licence now and we'll make some noises about building this spur line/ferry/walkway but ultimately just end up running some courtesy buses for the gambling addicts."

[rappa]

Can we not discuss spur lines off the tram AGAIN. 

Because this already happened once and see up turning into a mind numbing hell over the correct use of the term spur and a whole bunch of other boring shit. 

 

Jusy take it that everyone means a separate line of the tram that doesn't impact on the main line. 

[joz]

^ Yeah that's what I mean.  You can connect it so you can use the existing depot but I reckon changing trams is OK

[Bush Beast Forever]

Fair enough djrappa but if it isn't a genuine spur line (i.e. same vehicle switches to a different track) then the shuttle service can be any technology as once you force interchange keeping the same tech makes little difference.

That is a passenger wouldn't really care whether the interchange is with a another tram, or a monorail, or a people mover or a cableway. All they would care about is safety, comfort and travel time.

Also only raised the dreaded spur as AlexB used it as a primary reason why cable tech wouldnt be of use on the GC.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Bush Beast Forever

[rappa]

Yel we're on it. Just for the love of god don't re hash the discussion about if we should have a tram up the spit or not.