I'm highly skeptical that the cost to return ratio is going to make this thing financially viable. And that's going to be a major roadblock to this, or any other system.
It says in the article, "Green says it would be privately funded and would require a small percentage, roughly 10-percent, of Branson eight-million yearly visitors to be financially viable." In other words, for this thing to pay for itself it's going to need 800,000 riders a year, or more, to be viable. I wonder what the cost per rider is that they are thinking for that. And do they think they'll actually get that many riders? I don't know.
I know Vegas monorail was built on a lot of the same kind of build up, need, and promises of how it would pay for itself. And with costs to build it being 3-4 times this cost, and a ridership that has varied from 4-7 million each year (Or 5-8 times the ridership this says it needs) it went bankrupt in 2010. Not a good omen for something with similar goals, and something that will be looked at.
Honestly, I don't see something like this happening, and especially not being vialble and able to keep operating, without government funding or taxes specifically for it. I don't think it will get the ridership (seniors are not going to leave their cars in mass), nor do I think it's going to draw that many people to ride it to SDC. (for evidence, look at the bus routes that used to run to SDC, all of which are now defunct)
Not to be a debbie downer, but I just don't see this as a workable project, in any form, without massive government help on the financial end. And I don't think it's the type of project that is worth the massive $$ investment into it, or the small return it would get out of it. Neat idea? Nice if it was there? Absolutely. Worth it? I don't think so.