lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
There is growing evidence that reducing the isolation of motor vehicles increases safety.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
New Disneyland Parking Garage and Transportation Hub
- Thread starter RMichael21
- Start date
NobodyElse
Well-Known Member
Links to valid studies or evidence would be greatly appreciated.
It seems counter-intuitive to assume that removing pedestrians from potential direct contact with vehicles would decrease safety (at least for the pedestrians). I know that so-called "common beliefs" have been disproved in the past, but I'm curious to see where you're headed with this.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Here is an article if you wish to start getting into the subject: https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2...estrians-all-share-the-road-as-equals/388351/
This report is linked to in that article: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/review-of-simplified-streetscape-schemes.pdf
The reason it works is because more activity and tighter spaces puts drivers on edge, causing them to slow down and pay more attention. Isolation for motor vehicles is equated with highways and drivers behave as such even on surface streets. Drivers could be less attentive at crosswalks because they assume pedestrians have all been routed to the bridge. Less people on the sidewalks also opens up the horizontal view, and a wider horizontal view also causes drivers to act more like they are on a highway.
Essentially, as @choco choco mentioned with induced demand, calming traffic and reducing congestion is not accomplished with what most people think would work. Instead it is often the opposite that is more effective.
Ismael Flores
Well-Known Member
I'm all for Public transportation I ride the Metrolink and fly away buses and prefer them to driving
But the fact is that is not the solution for the Disneyland resort. The southern acakifornia rail system, bus system and any other public transportation in simple words suck and is overly expensive. A family driving to the resort is much less expensive and less time consuming then any of those methods.
When it cost at least 10 dollars to get from Los Angeles or inland empire per person to ride a train plus having to deal with limited train schedules that o my run during commuting hours it's impractical for a family to use that instead of driving. Add to that having to take multiple connections from train to buses while carrying young children by the time you arrive the resort not only has it gotten expensive but exhausting. Then you have to either be up before sunrise to see if you can catch a train at a decent hour then have to be on a timed schedule before the last train strands you in Anaheim.
People are going to drive no matter what Southern California is a place where a car is needed wether you are a resident or a tourist because their is no infrustructure in place. So the best solution is to add a place to put those thousands of cars until people en charge like these morons in the city council wake up and see the reality of things.
There are times to stand up to large corporations and their are times to recognize when those corporations are what is keeping that city alive and prosperous. Anaheim would be a drug, prostitute ridden mess if it wasn't for Disney
But the fact is that is not the solution for the Disneyland resort. The southern acakifornia rail system, bus system and any other public transportation in simple words suck and is overly expensive. A family driving to the resort is much less expensive and less time consuming then any of those methods.
When it cost at least 10 dollars to get from Los Angeles or inland empire per person to ride a train plus having to deal with limited train schedules that o my run during commuting hours it's impractical for a family to use that instead of driving. Add to that having to take multiple connections from train to buses while carrying young children by the time you arrive the resort not only has it gotten expensive but exhausting. Then you have to either be up before sunrise to see if you can catch a train at a decent hour then have to be on a timed schedule before the last train strands you in Anaheim.
People are going to drive no matter what Southern California is a place where a car is needed wether you are a resident or a tourist because their is no infrustructure in place. So the best solution is to add a place to put those thousands of cars until people en charge like these morons in the city council wake up and see the reality of things.
There are times to stand up to large corporations and their are times to recognize when those corporations are what is keeping that city alive and prosperous. Anaheim would be a drug, prostitute ridden mess if it wasn't for Disney
NobodyElse
Well-Known Member
Thank you, and I will read those in due time.
I kind of thought that would be the crux of the argument. I see the reasoning, but as a pedestrian I would rather use a bridge in place of an eliminated crosswalk. As a driver, I'd rather drive under that bridge as well. I know I'm being simplistic (and haven't yet read your materials) but it's still my gut feeling that traffic (of both means) tends to naturally flow better unimpeded.
I wonder if there is historical data showing accidents at those Las Vegas Blvd. before and after the bridges were installed?
Last edited:
NobodyElse
Well-Known Member
Okay, I read (most of) the two links provided above. They seem to report mixed results (as one would probably suspect). I'm all for thinking outside the box and I applaud these folks for their efforts. I just don't see many of these principles being applied to Harbor.
One idea is that change and unfamiliarity makes people slow down and pay more attention. That make sense, but one example showed that after a period of time (this in reference to a new roundabout) that some drivers got more aggressive, rather than courteous.
One scenario suggests removing lines in the road, as well as removing curbs (signifying that no area is specifically designated for cars or bicycles or peds only). I just don't see that working for Harbor either.
It seems that any solution should take into account wants and needs of all, but of course there will be sacrifices. Limiting vehicular speeds to 5 Mph would certainly cut down on high speed collisions. As a reasonable driver, I wouldn't appreciate that plan. Consideration should be made to achieve a reasonable balance between safety and convenience.
Does anybody really think that the interactions between vehicles and pedestrians on Disneyland Drive (formerly West Street) around the hotel are less safe now than they were before the DTD bridge addition?
One idea is that change and unfamiliarity makes people slow down and pay more attention. That make sense, but one example showed that after a period of time (this in reference to a new roundabout) that some drivers got more aggressive, rather than courteous.
One scenario suggests removing lines in the road, as well as removing curbs (signifying that no area is specifically designated for cars or bicycles or peds only). I just don't see that working for Harbor either.
It seems that any solution should take into account wants and needs of all, but of course there will be sacrifices. Limiting vehicular speeds to 5 Mph would certainly cut down on high speed collisions. As a reasonable driver, I wouldn't appreciate that plan. Consideration should be made to achieve a reasonable balance between safety and convenience.
Does anybody really think that the interactions between vehicles and pedestrians on Disneyland Drive (formerly West Street) around the hotel are less safe now than they were before the DTD bridge addition?
flynnibus
Premium Member
It's not that far off really...
Anaheim was chosen for it's location to transportation and population. That is no longer such a narrow crosshair anymore given the state of domestic transportation. (just like factories used to be placed based on resources and transportation)
Factories are huge capital investments of infrastructure that is largely permanent (like Disneyland's build out) - but that doesn't stop industry from shutting down and building new elsewhere. Costs, regulation, and margin pressures do add up enough to make such huge moves not only viable, but necessary.
The real difference here is... would there be another location with enough DELTA to make it work... not that it couldn't be done. But it's unlikely to ever happen for Disneyland just for the history and due to burbank. But the factory town really isn't that far off of a analogy.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Cities want commercial because they produce more taxes and need less services. Contrast this with something like apartments... which bring more people per sqft that need services like schools/hospitals/police but not necessarily scaling tax income. Developers want to capitalize on hot housing markets pushing higher and higher priced high density housing... which is great for developers, but puts more strain on the local tax base.
For instance my county is the richest in the country... but it struggles because its all residential and mostly rural and strains to pull in more commercial.
Areas like the valley struggle with converting from low density suburban planning to new concentrations of employment demanding urban style development (density+transit) while also struggling with providing housing that would be considered affordable.
I don't really think blocking change in the resort district (or lack of blocking) is at the root of anaheim's issues. The things they need to address are largely OUTSIDE that area. Traffic/parking are really localized issues.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Want a great example of that. Here... a long standing problem was getting the Metro system extended. Everyone wants it.. but politicans couldn't find the backbone to figure out how to get it funded and paid for by government. So check out this slick willy move...
The government ran a toll road in the tech corridor... which also had a free access road to the airport. The metro is supposed to run to the airport and beyond.. and of course the airport really wants the metro as it gives better access to DC. So the airport authority proposes... Give us control of the toll road... and we'll pay for the Metro expansion phase to the airport.
So now the Politician gets to say "I got the metro built!!" and he doesn't raise taxes to do it! What a hero! But he's done it by mortgaging the future by giving the toll road over to the airport authority so they can fund their effort through future tolls. And of course tolls have already gone up 5x what they were before. Ahh... the wonders of abusing the public's inability to look past the tip of their nose...
NobodyElse
Well-Known Member
When I drove by the "triangle lot" this week, I noticed several "pour in place tilt-up" walls have been erected. It appears to be a large warehouse type structure. It looks like any parking would be around it's perimeter (or in the adjacent existing Frontierland Construction lot).
NobodyElse
Well-Known Member
This all sounds very familiar. (Years ago I used to work one week each month in Reston.)
flynnibus
Premium Member
Yup, depending on how long ago it was.. you'd be amazed with the place now. When I started out here in the 90s... it was wayyy different. Long gone are the days of needing coins for the tollbooths.. and not because of EzPass
The Law of Induced Demand indeed applies to Disney, but it seems as though you're making the argument here that Disney simply shouldn't expand, or even exist? If you build more of it, more people will come, the Law of Induced Demand says. So in reality, your solution for traffic is simply for Disney to not be as popular of a destination, so people don't come. Thus eliminating the need for better traffic control and management. Yes?
It's simply not reasonable to expect that Disney will actively try to not get people to come to their resort. The park will, as long as it exists, be the number one tourist destination in the region, and Disney has an active interest in making a profit off of the property it owns. Therefore the goal should be to better manage the traffic, not simply attempt to eliminate it.
Disney is not going to look for people to use trains and shuttle buses to come to the Resort, especially ones that Disney doesn't own. Disney wants an entirely cohesive experience for their Guests, and a parking structure that they control, from the moment you enter it to the moment you leave, is the ideal solution. Disney has a big stake in marketing that experience for their Guests, and the Guests have shown a demand for it. It's simply not feasible to expect that the masses won't use the most convenient method of transportation and must find another route to the most popular tourist destination in the region.
There's quite a few concepts in your post that I do think Disney could take a note from, the clinging to centralized tollbooths being a big one. But not building a structure to better manage the demand that they receive, and simply trying to offload the demand into a Somebody Else's Problem field is bad for their business, and not being a good steward to the local area either.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
The Anaheim Planning Commission will be celebrating the one year anniversary of the Eastern Gateway announcement by finally putting a parking plan request onto their docket for their Monday meeting!
But they will be discussing Disney's latest proposal to expand the Toy Story Parking Lot into the last unused corner of Disney's property there. The sticking point seems to be Disney's desire to build a perimeter wall a few feet taller than current Zoning Code allows.
http://local.anaheim.net/departmentfolders/planning/PC/Item5.pdf
Nothing about the Eastern Gateway will be discussed at Monday's planning meeting.
But they will be discussing Disney's latest proposal to expand the Toy Story Parking Lot into the last unused corner of Disney's property there. The sticking point seems to be Disney's desire to build a perimeter wall a few feet taller than current Zoning Code allows.
http://local.anaheim.net/departmentfolders/planning/PC/Item5.pdf
Nothing about the Eastern Gateway will be discussed at Monday's planning meeting.
choco choco
Well-Known Member
No, no, I was simply arguing against the idea that the parking structure would make traffic better. It was me warning people that, actually, traffic is gonna get worse and to expect that.
My post even says that we are all complicit in the parking structure. Customers want it, Disney wants it, Anaheim wants it. That's fine, so we're gonna get the structure -- and, we're gonna get all the rest that comes with it. That was why the latter half of my post suggested a bunch of measures that could help ease the unavoidable downsides.
nevol
Well-Known Member
Disneyland cannot depend on public transportation. Yes, building more roads in cities creates more traffic. But Disneyland's business model depends on quick accessibility and convenience and time savings that public transportation does not allow. Like an airport, a vast number of people need to be able to drive there on their own terms and in full control. It is not a place that people can afford to waste time getting to and making mistakes and depending upon other variables. The introduction of new variables, surprises, and inefficiencies in the arrival / pre-arrival sequence to what is supposed to be an experience that sells pleasure will dramatically negatively impact the overall experience. In cities (not saying that Anaheim isn't a city, but the majority of traffic on its city streets in that area are serving Disneyland) I support making driving more difficult and encouraging more walking, biking, local trips to commerce and services, and public transportation. Cities that already have alternative public infrastructure in place make living without a car incredibly easy, a no-brainer. In people's daily lives, such inconveniences encourage people to cut down on road use, live closer to work, or look for alternative modes of transportation. But in Los Angeles, this just is not a realistic option. LA is spending some 40 billion dollars to build new public transportation. It is incredibly expensive and will take decades to complete. Los Angeles and its greater region is still a car-centric one, and it is far easier for Disneyland to spend a few hundred million private dollars on a parking garage that is compatible with the region's connectivity and transportation preferences than it is to wait for the day that may never come when access from throughout the region is faster and more convenient than car travel, or to put pressure on local government to spend public dollars on a transportation system that will benefit a private enterprise. Disney made itself public enemy number one in Anaheim when they got the city to fund the resort district enhancements; imagine how widespread the animosity will be if new tax increases go through at the county, regional, or state levels to fund transportation projects that Disney helped design, encouraged, or put political pressure on our elected officials to benefit from. Even if there are more beneficiaries in that scenario than Disney and it serves the greater good, people will always remember the narrative that a massive corporation encouraged the use of public dollars for private benefit.
Essentially, my opinion is that the difference between urban transportation planning and the introduction of those tactics to the Disneyland Resort area is that a visit to Disneyland is optional, while navigating city streets to get to work, buy groceries, and seek other services is vital to survival. People will endure inconveniences and change their behavior to mitigate them when their survival depends on it. Introduce any more inconveniences to arriving to Disneyland, and people will choose to avoid the mess altogether. So much of the traffic on the streets in that area are related to Disneyland, and while enabling traffic in cities through expanded freeways that were intended to relieve traffic actually enable longer commutes and development in the long term that create more traffic, by making travel more feasible and tolerable momentarily, there is an upper limit to how many cars can be attracted to Disneyland. At some point, attendance levels off. And furthermore, I seriously doubt it will have any role in increasing traffic. Why? Because traffic to Disneyland is not caused by the ease of access to Disneyland and its nearby infrastructure; it is caused directly by demand for Disneyland. Demand is increasing, and Star Wars Land will continue to drive that growth in demand. People arriving to Disneyland by car are not considering other modes of transportation, and they aren't considering the location of parking. They simply arrive and go where they are directed. Building more conveniently located lots will relieve that chaos of chasing resort parking through the public way and keep the cars attracted to the area specifically for Disneyland closer to their final destination. Building transportation connectivity to off-site parking like the Angels Stadium area creates no benefits at a massive expense. People will still drive, they would just be driving 2.5 miles east and leave their cars further away before being bused in on expensive and wasteful transportation systems with only two destinations. Without ubiquitous transit use at the regional level, and heavy or high speed rail running down the 5, in which case people won't need to drive and won't need parking garages, all Disney would accomplish by making parking less convenient or moving it elsewhere is expanding the sprawl and reach of Disneyland's infrastructure into nearby communities. That would be far more politically disastrous, taking viable commercial and residential areas off the table that could serve local community needs, making even more real communities LESS walkable and actually creating conditions that encourage even more traffic by placing massive square mile heat island asphalt parking lots that do not serve them in between them and everything else in their communities. Transit works best when trips to the station are less than a half mile; In Chicago, where I am from, many stops along the Blue Line are placed in the center landscaped divider of the highway. The ramps to access said stations are already 1/3 of a mile, making the stations conveniently accessible to a far smaller population (those living within .5 mile - .33 miles or .17 miles). Using 1/2 mile as the upper limit for choosing to take transit or even for walking to and from a grocery store or similar service without using a private automobile, we can support all of the arguments that I have just made.
1. Disneyland won't be able to depend on public transportation until it is efficiently networked both locally and regionally, with a station within a half mile of every resident of the greater Los Angeles region; such a plan would cost nearly a trillion dollars in public funding or result in a dramatic rezoning and reorientation of the city concentrating all housing and services within a half mile of a more limited distribution of transit locations, which is entirely unrealistic and would take a hundred years to achieve.
2. In the absence of this ubiquitous public transportation, making driving to Disneyland less convenient or redistributing that parking to far-off lots will simply redistribute Disneyland parking to farther away locations, illogically placing it in the way of unrelated communities, without cutting down on the overall supply of parking and creating demand for infrastructure connecting Disneyland to those lots. Places like the hollywood bowl benefit from such systems, because their locations dictate it; they are in topographical or urban areas that cannot accommodate parking with a closer proximity to their venues. The use of off-site parking is unavoidable. This could also discourage visits to Disneyland altogether.
3. Pushing Disneyland parking into areas completely unrelated to Disneyland creates all harm and no benefits to people in those communities. Again, with the walkability threshold for the sake of this argument being the classic 1/2 mile, having a parking lot in people's communities that does not serve them prevents businesses, services, and residences from occupying that 1/2 mile threshold, and pushes those services farther away. Residents will be less likely to walk around that alien wasteland of a parking lot, which will surely take up a half mile to a full mile depending on if people have to walk along one or more of its sides, which will force that particular community to drive more, creating more traffic for local trips, traffic that will mix with disneyland traffic.
As for the security perimeter, Disney is totally justified in their decision to expand it. Their "mall cops" are guarding the only non-federal property in the United States to have been granted the FAA no fly zone status that federal buildings share after 9/11. We talk about it like it is "just an amusement park," but clearly, it is far more than that. It is essentially a physical manifestation of the Post-War American Dream. It so perfectly represents our commercial and corporate culture and our individualistic values to the extent that Parisians treated Disneyland Paris as cultural imperialism in the nineties. They likely have a lot of security infrastructure that we know nothing about and receive threats we never hear of. If they think that pushing the security checkpoints further from their expensive assets on the resort grounds will improve their ability to protect their assets and the park guests, then so be it.
The entire approach is very short, and is in that odd phase of being close enough and short enough to be walkable for park guests, but longer enough from what is there to upset people and adjacent businesses, and still too short to make a people mover or tram system feasible or necessary. How often do we see people complaining about their walk from the Disneyland Hotel or the Paradise Pier Hotel? These distances are similar or even farther, but I assume that a vast majority of those paying $400+ a night for rooms "on site" aren't taking the monorail and don't psychologically feel like they are off property or far away from the park entrances. There is a lot of anxiety about a loss of traffic to these businesses, but the share of that loss has never been measured or proven, and the security perimeter is still within 300 feet of their businesses, arguably closer than it ever was. The anxiety of local businesses, rather than actual guests, is what is driving this opposition. Guests are free to agree with the assessment, but ultimately it is a concern raised by people with a profit motive. Pedestrians likely would never think twice about the new approach, but the unsubstantiated uproar by the local businesses has armed the public with a vocabulary and list of arguments that they can then agree with and echo.
Concessions on Disney's Part
1. I think that opening the back wall that divides the adjacent hotels to the security checkpoint rather than routing everybody south, east, and back north is an option that ought to be considered.
2. Moving walkways like those found in airport terminals will give those who don't want to walk the option not to, leaving the restaurants along Harbor as the only stakeholders lacking a reconciliation from Disney.
3. If Disney builds onto the bridge an "exit only" stairwell and elevator, guests will be able to move freely from the bridge to street-facing restaurants, restoring most of the demand and accessibility. If they find a way to add a security check for pedestrians onto the bridge from Harbor, then all the problems raised by those opposing stakeholders will be resolved.
4. Introducing foot traffic from Harbor to the bridge means
a. keeping security closer to the gates without making many other adjustments to the plan,
b. adding a security check where DCA's expansion is set to go, cutting into the park's development square footage at the expense of guest experience, or
c. dividing the bridge with a wall like the Newark airport terminals so that the majority of guests entering through the sprawling security checkpoint near the parking garage and people returning to it are funneled into one half of the bridge, while those joining the bridge from harbor are isolated and funneled through a separate checkpoint on top of or just past the bridge.
d. Widening the bridge to accommodate a security checkpoint and access for harbor blvd pedestrians could work, but would ultimately lead to a bridge taking up air rights wider than the two private properties owned by Disney that the current bridge connects. Could you imagine a smaller hotel operator being okay with their street frontage and facade facing a new bridge serving Disney, even if it will exist to serve them, ironically? Objectively would it be any uglier than a sprawling arterial road? People will want the access without the dramatic changes.
I can only speak to my perspective, experiences, and solutions. I believe the parking structure is necessary, the bridge will save lives and prevent a rare catastrophic incident involving pedestrians and a vehicle running a stop light, and the security perimeter is understandable, but likely the most negotiable component of this plan. The approach looks permanent, nice, and spacious. I just hope that Disney finds some room for negotiation so that they can get moving on this project, and I appreciate everybody's ideas and perspectives on the matter. I would hate for it to lead to cancellation of DCA park plans or other resort development, as local and corporate politics have so often in the past.
Essentially, my opinion is that the difference between urban transportation planning and the introduction of those tactics to the Disneyland Resort area is that a visit to Disneyland is optional, while navigating city streets to get to work, buy groceries, and seek other services is vital to survival. People will endure inconveniences and change their behavior to mitigate them when their survival depends on it. Introduce any more inconveniences to arriving to Disneyland, and people will choose to avoid the mess altogether. So much of the traffic on the streets in that area are related to Disneyland, and while enabling traffic in cities through expanded freeways that were intended to relieve traffic actually enable longer commutes and development in the long term that create more traffic, by making travel more feasible and tolerable momentarily, there is an upper limit to how many cars can be attracted to Disneyland. At some point, attendance levels off. And furthermore, I seriously doubt it will have any role in increasing traffic. Why? Because traffic to Disneyland is not caused by the ease of access to Disneyland and its nearby infrastructure; it is caused directly by demand for Disneyland. Demand is increasing, and Star Wars Land will continue to drive that growth in demand. People arriving to Disneyland by car are not considering other modes of transportation, and they aren't considering the location of parking. They simply arrive and go where they are directed. Building more conveniently located lots will relieve that chaos of chasing resort parking through the public way and keep the cars attracted to the area specifically for Disneyland closer to their final destination. Building transportation connectivity to off-site parking like the Angels Stadium area creates no benefits at a massive expense. People will still drive, they would just be driving 2.5 miles east and leave their cars further away before being bused in on expensive and wasteful transportation systems with only two destinations. Without ubiquitous transit use at the regional level, and heavy or high speed rail running down the 5, in which case people won't need to drive and won't need parking garages, all Disney would accomplish by making parking less convenient or moving it elsewhere is expanding the sprawl and reach of Disneyland's infrastructure into nearby communities. That would be far more politically disastrous, taking viable commercial and residential areas off the table that could serve local community needs, making even more real communities LESS walkable and actually creating conditions that encourage even more traffic by placing massive square mile heat island asphalt parking lots that do not serve them in between them and everything else in their communities. Transit works best when trips to the station are less than a half mile; In Chicago, where I am from, many stops along the Blue Line are placed in the center landscaped divider of the highway. The ramps to access said stations are already 1/3 of a mile, making the stations conveniently accessible to a far smaller population (those living within .5 mile - .33 miles or .17 miles). Using 1/2 mile as the upper limit for choosing to take transit or even for walking to and from a grocery store or similar service without using a private automobile, we can support all of the arguments that I have just made.
1. Disneyland won't be able to depend on public transportation until it is efficiently networked both locally and regionally, with a station within a half mile of every resident of the greater Los Angeles region; such a plan would cost nearly a trillion dollars in public funding or result in a dramatic rezoning and reorientation of the city concentrating all housing and services within a half mile of a more limited distribution of transit locations, which is entirely unrealistic and would take a hundred years to achieve.
2. In the absence of this ubiquitous public transportation, making driving to Disneyland less convenient or redistributing that parking to far-off lots will simply redistribute Disneyland parking to farther away locations, illogically placing it in the way of unrelated communities, without cutting down on the overall supply of parking and creating demand for infrastructure connecting Disneyland to those lots. Places like the hollywood bowl benefit from such systems, because their locations dictate it; they are in topographical or urban areas that cannot accommodate parking with a closer proximity to their venues. The use of off-site parking is unavoidable. This could also discourage visits to Disneyland altogether.
3. Pushing Disneyland parking into areas completely unrelated to Disneyland creates all harm and no benefits to people in those communities. Again, with the walkability threshold for the sake of this argument being the classic 1/2 mile, having a parking lot in people's communities that does not serve them prevents businesses, services, and residences from occupying that 1/2 mile threshold, and pushes those services farther away. Residents will be less likely to walk around that alien wasteland of a parking lot, which will surely take up a half mile to a full mile depending on if people have to walk along one or more of its sides, which will force that particular community to drive more, creating more traffic for local trips, traffic that will mix with disneyland traffic.
As for the security perimeter, Disney is totally justified in their decision to expand it. Their "mall cops" are guarding the only non-federal property in the United States to have been granted the FAA no fly zone status that federal buildings share after 9/11. We talk about it like it is "just an amusement park," but clearly, it is far more than that. It is essentially a physical manifestation of the Post-War American Dream. It so perfectly represents our commercial and corporate culture and our individualistic values to the extent that Parisians treated Disneyland Paris as cultural imperialism in the nineties. They likely have a lot of security infrastructure that we know nothing about and receive threats we never hear of. If they think that pushing the security checkpoints further from their expensive assets on the resort grounds will improve their ability to protect their assets and the park guests, then so be it.
The entire approach is very short, and is in that odd phase of being close enough and short enough to be walkable for park guests, but longer enough from what is there to upset people and adjacent businesses, and still too short to make a people mover or tram system feasible or necessary. How often do we see people complaining about their walk from the Disneyland Hotel or the Paradise Pier Hotel? These distances are similar or even farther, but I assume that a vast majority of those paying $400+ a night for rooms "on site" aren't taking the monorail and don't psychologically feel like they are off property or far away from the park entrances. There is a lot of anxiety about a loss of traffic to these businesses, but the share of that loss has never been measured or proven, and the security perimeter is still within 300 feet of their businesses, arguably closer than it ever was. The anxiety of local businesses, rather than actual guests, is what is driving this opposition. Guests are free to agree with the assessment, but ultimately it is a concern raised by people with a profit motive. Pedestrians likely would never think twice about the new approach, but the unsubstantiated uproar by the local businesses has armed the public with a vocabulary and list of arguments that they can then agree with and echo.
Concessions on Disney's Part
1. I think that opening the back wall that divides the adjacent hotels to the security checkpoint rather than routing everybody south, east, and back north is an option that ought to be considered.
2. Moving walkways like those found in airport terminals will give those who don't want to walk the option not to, leaving the restaurants along Harbor as the only stakeholders lacking a reconciliation from Disney.
3. If Disney builds onto the bridge an "exit only" stairwell and elevator, guests will be able to move freely from the bridge to street-facing restaurants, restoring most of the demand and accessibility. If they find a way to add a security check for pedestrians onto the bridge from Harbor, then all the problems raised by those opposing stakeholders will be resolved.
4. Introducing foot traffic from Harbor to the bridge means
a. keeping security closer to the gates without making many other adjustments to the plan,
b. adding a security check where DCA's expansion is set to go, cutting into the park's development square footage at the expense of guest experience, or
c. dividing the bridge with a wall like the Newark airport terminals so that the majority of guests entering through the sprawling security checkpoint near the parking garage and people returning to it are funneled into one half of the bridge, while those joining the bridge from harbor are isolated and funneled through a separate checkpoint on top of or just past the bridge.
d. Widening the bridge to accommodate a security checkpoint and access for harbor blvd pedestrians could work, but would ultimately lead to a bridge taking up air rights wider than the two private properties owned by Disney that the current bridge connects. Could you imagine a smaller hotel operator being okay with their street frontage and facade facing a new bridge serving Disney, even if it will exist to serve them, ironically? Objectively would it be any uglier than a sprawling arterial road? People will want the access without the dramatic changes.
I can only speak to my perspective, experiences, and solutions. I believe the parking structure is necessary, the bridge will save lives and prevent a rare catastrophic incident involving pedestrians and a vehicle running a stop light, and the security perimeter is understandable, but likely the most negotiable component of this plan. The approach looks permanent, nice, and spacious. I just hope that Disney finds some room for negotiation so that they can get moving on this project, and I appreciate everybody's ideas and perspectives on the matter. I would hate for it to lead to cancellation of DCA park plans or other resort development, as local and corporate politics have so often in the past.
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
It's important to remember that the surface streets and freeway access on the east side of the Resort District was all way overbuilt almost 20 years ago. CalTrans and the City of Anaheim worked together to dramatically expand the I-5 corridor and its access points along the west side of the Resort District, the planning for which occurred in 1992-1995, and the construction and building occurred in 1996-1999.
Santa Ana Freeway reconstruction approaching Disney Way interchange - 1997
CalTrans designed and engineered this huge freeway expansion working under the assumption that the parking plans and expansion ideas that Disney released in the early 1990's would actually come to fruition. CalTrans planners paid no attention to the developing executive drama that began to play out as the construction began in 1996, with Paul Pressler replacing old-gaurd execs and the modest DCA budget slashed further. CalTrans could have cared less that a stucco Paradise Pier was replacing WestCot plans, they just knew Disneyland was building a new theme park and believed Disney when they said they would be building 15,000 parking spaces on the east side of the property like these early 1990's WDI models showed.
That's why the Katella/Disney Way offramps on the Santa Ana Freeway are HUGE and never back up. That's why Disney Way is six lanes wide. It's almost 20 years old now, but it was all designed to handle way more cars than it currently does. Even with the addition of the 8,000 space Eastern Gateway, the I-5 infrastructure and surface streets that feed it are still overbuilt by a healthy margin.
The addition of the Eastern Gateway will also relieve the pressure that builds up on the west side of the property as most cars try to get into Mickey & Friends. CalTrans designed the freeway access assuming most southbound cars would exit at Disneyland Drive and enter that western parking structure, while most northbound cars would exit Disney Way and enter the second eastern structure. Instead, for the last 15 years most northbound cars also try to drive to the opposite side of the Resort District to get into that structure, clogging Harbor and Ball Road and putting extra pressure on Disneyland Drive. They have no eastern alternative, except the growing Toy Story Lot which only puts more pressure on Harbor Blvd.
Disney pulled a bait and switch on CalTrans and Anaheim and only built the western structure. If CalTrans had known an eastern structure was still two decades away, their mid 1990's planning and budgeting and construction would have been very different.
Santa Ana Freeway reconstruction approaching Disney Way interchange - 1997
CalTrans designed and engineered this huge freeway expansion working under the assumption that the parking plans and expansion ideas that Disney released in the early 1990's would actually come to fruition. CalTrans planners paid no attention to the developing executive drama that began to play out as the construction began in 1996, with Paul Pressler replacing old-gaurd execs and the modest DCA budget slashed further. CalTrans could have cared less that a stucco Paradise Pier was replacing WestCot plans, they just knew Disneyland was building a new theme park and believed Disney when they said they would be building 15,000 parking spaces on the east side of the property like these early 1990's WDI models showed.
That's why the Katella/Disney Way offramps on the Santa Ana Freeway are HUGE and never back up. That's why Disney Way is six lanes wide. It's almost 20 years old now, but it was all designed to handle way more cars than it currently does. Even with the addition of the 8,000 space Eastern Gateway, the I-5 infrastructure and surface streets that feed it are still overbuilt by a healthy margin.
The addition of the Eastern Gateway will also relieve the pressure that builds up on the west side of the property as most cars try to get into Mickey & Friends. CalTrans designed the freeway access assuming most southbound cars would exit at Disneyland Drive and enter that western parking structure, while most northbound cars would exit Disney Way and enter the second eastern structure. Instead, for the last 15 years most northbound cars also try to drive to the opposite side of the Resort District to get into that structure, clogging Harbor and Ball Road and putting extra pressure on Disneyland Drive. They have no eastern alternative, except the growing Toy Story Lot which only puts more pressure on Harbor Blvd.
Disney pulled a bait and switch on CalTrans and Anaheim and only built the western structure. If CalTrans had known an eastern structure was still two decades away, their mid 1990's planning and budgeting and construction would have been very different.
Last edited:
nevol
Well-Known Member
killerIt's important to remember that the surface streets and freeway access on the east side of the Resort District was all way overbuilt almost 20 years ago. CalTrans and the City of Anaheim worked together to dramatically expand the I-5 corridor and its access points along the west side of the Resort District, the planning for which occurred in 1992-1995, and the construction and building occurred in 1996-1999.
Santa Ana Freeway reconstruction approaching Disney Way interchange - 1997
CalTrans designed and engineered this huge freeway expansion working under the assumption that the parking plans and expansion ideas that Disney released in the early 1990's would actually come to fruition. CalTrans planners paid no attention to the developing executive drama that began to play out as the construction began in 1996, with Paul Pressler replacing old-gaurd execs and the modest DCA budget slashed further. CalTrans could have cared less that a stucco Paradise Pier was replacing WestCot plans, they just knew Disneyland was building a new theme park and believed Disney when they said they would be building 15,000 parking spaces on the east side of the property like these early 1990's WDI models showed.
That's why the Katella/Disney Way offramps on the Santa Ana Freeway are HUGE and never back up. That's why Disney Way is six lanes wide. It's almost 20 years old now, but it was all designed to handle way more cars than it currently does. Even with the addition of the 8,000 space Eastern Gateway, the I-5 infrastructure and surface streets that feed it are still overbuilt by a healthy margin.
The addition of the Eastern Gateway will also relieve the pressure that builds up on the west side of the property as most cars try to get into Mickey & Friends. CalTrans designed the freeway access assuming most southbound cars would exit at Disneyland Drive and enter that western parking structure, while most northbound cars would exit Disney Way and enter the second eastern structure. Instead, for the last 15 years most northbound cars also try to drive to the opposite side of the Resort District to get into that structure, clogging Harbor and Ball Road and putting extra pressure on Disneyland Drive. They have no eastern alternative, except the growing Toy Story Lot which only puts more pressure on Harbor Blvd.
Disney pulled a bait and switch on CalTrans and Anaheim and only built the western structure. If CalTrans had known an eastern structure was still two decades away, their mid 1990's planning and budgeting and construction would have been very different.
Old Mouseketeer
Well-Known Member
There has been some brilliant analysis and conjecture in this thread. IMHO, Disney is late in adding the necessary parking to the resort. Toy Story Lot was a stop-gap measure that only partially addressed the lack of parking and added a new liability, namely the contractual obligation to provide parking on selected dates for the convention center which require using K-Lot's CM parking for guest and convention parking and rerouting CMs to some combination of Angel Stadium and Honda Center. BTW, this also requires an additional stipend for all CMs covered under the "Master Services" union contract who work that day (I think it's $3 per day).
There were some very good points about over dependence on cash toll booths and single price car admissions, regardless of number of passengers. But I think one important component was under-addressed: APs. The current structure of AP admissions is unsustainable. Disney needs to find a better model to regulate the number of APs in the parks. With all the computing power available today, there has to be a way to better regulate attendance. If Disney offered limited access to the parks by reservation in peak periods, they could make attendance more predictable and more controlled. If my pass allowed me limited admissions during certain peak periods, and if I could link it to family and friends like FP at WDW, they could get a better handle on attendance. Linking parking to the number of passengers could also cut down on single driver parking.
Disney let the parking situation get out of hand. They passed a major milestone with DCA 2.0 opening without additional parking stock. However, Anaheim is complicit and whatever ing contest they are currently engaged in has to stop.
My biggest objection, however, is the lack of transportation or moving sidewalks between the Eastern Gateway and the Esplanade. This is just cheap. Universal can do it in Orlando--why not Disney? The Westcot masterplan referenced upthread shows peoplemovers from both the east and west parking structures. The current tram model from M&F is outdated and inefficient. What is needed is a system that loads at-grade with automated doors and sufficient capacity for wheelchairs, ECVs, and strollers. Current trams are extremely inadequate and beneath Disney standard. I think Disney is being shortsighted. Why tire your customers out before they even walk through the gate--they're only going to get more tired, hotter, and crankier as the day goes on?
There were some very good points about over dependence on cash toll booths and single price car admissions, regardless of number of passengers. But I think one important component was under-addressed: APs. The current structure of AP admissions is unsustainable. Disney needs to find a better model to regulate the number of APs in the parks. With all the computing power available today, there has to be a way to better regulate attendance. If Disney offered limited access to the parks by reservation in peak periods, they could make attendance more predictable and more controlled. If my pass allowed me limited admissions during certain peak periods, and if I could link it to family and friends like FP at WDW, they could get a better handle on attendance. Linking parking to the number of passengers could also cut down on single driver parking.
Disney let the parking situation get out of hand. They passed a major milestone with DCA 2.0 opening without additional parking stock. However, Anaheim is complicit and whatever ing contest they are currently engaged in has to stop.
My biggest objection, however, is the lack of transportation or moving sidewalks between the Eastern Gateway and the Esplanade. This is just cheap. Universal can do it in Orlando--why not Disney? The Westcot masterplan referenced upthread shows peoplemovers from both the east and west parking structures. The current tram model from M&F is outdated and inefficient. What is needed is a system that loads at-grade with automated doors and sufficient capacity for wheelchairs, ECVs, and strollers. Current trams are extremely inadequate and beneath Disney standard. I think Disney is being shortsighted. Why tire your customers out before they even walk through the gate--they're only going to get more tired, hotter, and crankier as the day goes on?
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
EXACTLY!!! You're one of the biggest tourist attraction destinations in the WORLD. ACT LIKE IT!!!! You want people to be pleasantly surprised, impressed, and happy when they reach the gates, and most importantly, ready to fork out the big bucks!