Thanks for sharing this story. I think it brings up a very important point that hasn't really been addressed in this thread. The Disney parks are largely loss leaders. I don't know the true economics, but I have been told by people who work for Disney, (not Disney World, but other arms of the company) that Disney really doesn't expect to make much money off of people from park visits. As they pointed out, ski resorts charge as much if not more than Disney for a one day ticket, and when you factor in that most people drive their admission costs down to around $40-$50 per day by buying multi-day passes, ski resorts are charging twice as much as Disney. And they are barely getting by with far less overhead. (Less electricity, far fewer employees, etc.)
So if Disney barely breaks even from your day in the park, how does it succeed. MARKETING!! They want you to go home and buy DVDs. They want your kids to watch the Disney Channel to drive up ratings which in turn drives up advertising dollars. They want their summer movie releases to make $400 million. What does any of this have to do with Mr. Toad? Easy. He simply wasn't marketable. Certainly not as marketable as Pooh. Sure, lots of people here miss ol' man Toad. But how many people here have spent ANY money whatsoever on Toad paraphenalia, movies, videos, clothing, etc.? And even if you have, compare that to the amount of money you have spent on Pooh and friends paraphenalia. The change over from Toad to Pooh was all about marketing. Or so I have been told.
So the story quoted above really puts this into focus. No one in that line was going to be paying Disney a single dollar in the future based on their love of Mr. Toad. But people pay Disney millions of dollars based on their love of Pooh and friends. Where this leaves us with a Mine Coaster vs. SWSA, I'm not sure. But I am sure that the marketing geniuses at Disney have a good idea.