While it's easy to get bogged down in a Business X vs Business Y mindset, the scale of the changes that were proposed under the previous Eastern Gateway design were best discussed at a higher urban planning level. Instead of focusing on how one specific person gets to one specific destination, it's more important to look at the general patterns and modes of circulation, and how they interact with one another.
With the density of land-uses surrounding the parks, the area is best suited for pedestrians making local trips; in many ways, it functions similar to a healthy downtown, where people park once for multiple nearby destinations accessed primarily on foot or by transit. It's a tightly knit urban fabric with new destinations and points of interest every few feet, rather than a sprawling suburban area with destinations miles apart.
One of the biggest accomplishments of the DCA-era was the creation of the Anaheim Resort District, and the urban design guidelines that came with it. It was able to convert the surrounding area from an auto-centric pedestrian wasteland into an approachable, active, walkable area fitting of a world-renowned destination.
While today's Resort District isn't perfect (sidewalks too narrow for the volume of pedestrians, too many driveway entrances creating conflict points, long 'dead' stretches with no points of activity along Disney property frontages, extremely long crosswalk distances etc.), it's a huge improvement over what was there before, and is one of the most walkable areas of its size in southern California. To continue this level of activity, the trip generators (storefronts, bridge access points, etc.) need to continue to be along the street front, rather than hiding them at the interior of the site.
Regardless of what one thinks about the walking distance from the parking structure and transit plaza to the ticket booths, there needs to be serious contemplation of who is the primary user for this area. Is it the family that drives in from Irvine for the day and leaves that night, never stepping foot off Disney property? Or is it the family that stays for several days, spending money in a variety of local businesses? Obviously both are important to the vitality of the Resort District, but the previous design didn't seem to acknowledge a balance of the two; it only met Disney's needs without considering the needs of the neighborhood as a whole (as is to be expected, from a project entirely funded by Disney).
This is the time for the City to really step back and look at the big picture. This is a big enough project that it will serve as an inflection point in the larger development of the Resort District: they can either embrace the urban nature of the area and use forward-thinking designs, or they can revert to obsolete planning practices that aren't compatible with the land use. While it's easy to think about cars first in southern California, it really isn't the best solution for this particular stretch of land.
I've said before that the City and Resort District really dodged a bullet when the previous design was cancelled over concerns about aesthetics. While the visual design of the bridge was forgettable-at-best, the way that it isolated Disney property from the surrounding neighborhood would have been a huge detriment for years to come. The current urban design of Harbor Blvd is surprisingly good considering its roots, but this is a chance to make it better if done thoughtfully.
