Lots of onsite guests don't just stay on property. They visit other area attractions like Universal, SeaWorld, Kennedy Space Center, I-Drive 360. They shop for groceries at Publix. They pick up other items at Target or WalMart. They do a volunteer shift at Give Kids the World Village. Maybe they visit friends and family in the area. Perhaps they plan dinner one night at Celebration Town Tavern. Who knows. The point is that where people choose to stay in no way limits them, or should limit them, to what they do or where they go on their vacation.
I get that. And there are also those who don't do any of those things. I'm very glad that WDW makes allowances for both types of vacationers.
As for your conversation about not claiming some sort of stance on whether or not WDW visitors should drive or just use WDW transportation-Respectfully you already have claimed a stance in a variety of your comments.
If you'll allow me to say so, when I have stated a my preference, I have done so gently and without trying to be unnecessarily controversial. I feel as though I am being attacked as someone who hates people that drive at WDW. A careful reading of what I have posted in this thread, I hope, will prove otherwise. I have stated my preference, but have also admited that there are perfectly good reasons for others to have the opposite opinion. I also feel as though I'm being attacked for stating that it is likely WDW's preference that guests stay on property as much as possible. This hardly seems controversial to me.
Uh no that's not being nitpicky at all. You say must then changed it to must/likely
My full, original statement was:
The way I see it, and the way I think WDW sees it, is this: if you are staying at a WDW resort, it must be because you want to stay on WDW property for the length of your stay.
The word "must" was perhaps a poor choice, but it is hardly something that I would expect someone to try to nail me to the cross with. Maybe I should have said "likely" or "might" or "could."
You and others have presented me with some scenarios where guests want to stay on WDW property but also go outside of WDW. Of course, now that I reflect, this is correct. I, myself, have taken a Lyft to Universal and IoA from WDW.
Here is what my very first post of substance in this thread stated:
I totally get it.
But what I think WDW is trying to do here, aside from making some extra cash (I'm not ignoring that), is prod people in to using the WDW transportation more and cars less.
And I'll bet they will be at least somewhat successful. I can tell you that when I visit WDW I fly in, take Magical Express to the resort, use the WDW transportation while there, and use Magical Express to get back to the airport. In fact, one of the things I have always loved about WDW is that I don't have to drive a car the whole time I'm there! WDW has set up an incredible transportation system...I'm very happy to use it!
I understand that some people don't want to use the WDW transportation, but to Disney, there are a lot of reasons why they want you to.
Among those reasons:
* you are less inclined to leave WDW property (although it is only a 20 dollar Uber/Lyft ride to Universal)
* you don't clog up the roads with your car
* they can build fewer parking lots
There are probably other reasons, but I won't belabor the point.
This is partly a money-grab, yes. But it is likely also a gentle push to get folks to use the WDW transportation more, which I actually appreciate.
Looking at it a different way: would you rather WDW charge extra to use the bus/monorail/gondolas/boats or ask the people that (perhaps) unnecessarily insist on driving their cars, even though they are staying on property?
I present this including the obvious typo I made. When I wrote "Looking at it a different way: would you rather WDW charge extra to use the bus/monorail/gondolas/boats or ask the people that (perhaps) unnecessarily insist on driving their cars, even though they are staying on property?" what I meant to write was "Looking at it a different way: would you rather WDW charge extra to use the bus/monorail/gondolas/boats or ask the people that (perhaps) unnecessarily insist on driving their cars, even though they are staying on property,
to pay extra?"
I said this because, sure, WDW could just be making a naked money grab here, with the charging of resort parking. However, maybe they are trying to bring in extra money to upgrade/expand the transportation system. I pose this question because they are currently building the gondola system and need to upgrade the monorail system. These are expensive projects. So, if that is what they are doing, then who should pay? Those using the WDW transportation or those using their own cars? It was simply meant to be a thought exercise, since I (or anyone else here) couldn't really know what has motivated WDW to suddenly implement resort parking fees.
I never meant it to be some sort of statement of fact or hard-formed opinion.
Disney knows that for at least a certain segment of their guests they would prefer to have alternative means to get around the entire WDW Resort property (which is quite large) or to get off-site regardless of their actual vacation stay being entirely onsite. If they didn't expect people to drive (either by their own vehicle or by a rental vehicle) period they would not have parking lots at their resorts or theme parks and as expansive as they generally are nor would they make it very easy to get offsite.
I never claimed otherwise.
I fear this conversation has really lost the thread...