TL;DR: that idea is inoperative.
Drop people off at Bay Lake Tower so security can somehow re-purpose the bus terminal lanes for expanded security? OK, so buses drop people off across a very busy, essential service road, so people have to queue at the crosswalk? Heavily weight the crosswalk signal cycle towards pedestrian traffic, meaning long green times or frequent green signals? Then traffic becomes impossibly backed up on World Drive, which affects the flow of buses into the Bay Lake Tower loop. Absent that a crowd forms on the far side of the crosswalk, waiting to cross.
And leaving the park, having the Contemporary walkway one-way leaving the park accomplishes what? Nominal physical separation from incoming guests? The walkway is about four feet wide, so not much room for physical separation for just departing guests. Plus it has the same crosswalk queue issues as the re-purposed bus lanes for incoming guests. Plus, as buses back up on World Drive because of the crosswalk cycle time, people will queue at the Bay Lake Tower bus pickup area.
If the idea is that TTC screening is a choke point causing crowds (one of the main reasons it’s dumb from a security standpoint, but that’s another topic), then push the tram drop-off back past the Seven Seas Drive underpass and force people to spread out more. But that does nothing to avoid the ongoing queues for trams. So it’s not a viable solution for maintaining physical distancing either.
This is why any “solution” to providing adequate physical distancing, when that is still our only viable defense against community transmission, that doesn’t tightly limit and control park capacity is inoperative. And by “control” I mean assigning specific, reserved, narrow time slots where a limited number of offsite guests can arrive to park, or allow similarly small number of onsite guests to board park transportation. If that number is sufficiently limited then it avoids that repurposed security folderol.
But then here’s the biggest land mine that blows up any of these improbable scenarios: there is a minimum number of guests that need to be in the park each day for Disney to not lose money on park operations, and that limit is very likely higher than the number of guests that could be in the park and maintain safe physical separation.
Any of the money (read labor cost) saving cuts which could reduce the parks’ minimum operating costs have a negative feedback effect that will drop attendance. Only open certain rides and food service? Well who would want to pay full price for a limited park experience? Cut admission prices to increase attendance for a partially open park? It’s going to some spot-on forecasting to find the price that maximizes revenue for a given crowd size.
And who’s going to pay the travel and hotel expenses to come from out-of-state to visit half a park? Locals aren’t much help, both because they’re less profitable guests to begin with, and central Florida is getting crushed by unemployment.
Disney absolutely can’t get this wrong. Because the first time an infected cluster develops at one of the parks, even a small one, it’s lights out. There will be no hand-waving or clap-louder-ing that make that seem acceptable. The stock will go into free fall and there may not be a company left.