DisneylandForward

[Darkbeer1]

Look, the city is NOT going to give up Disneyland Drive. The road was paid for using a variety of sources, including State and Federal Funds.

I am dealing with the city trying to take over control of Beach Blvd in the city limits. Buena Park did it a few years ago, and has made it better.

The city started the process a few years ago, and the state aka Cal-Trans (current owner) still isn't happy. And it saves the state money!

Disneyland Drive is overseen by the city, OCTA (Orange County) and Cal-Trans. They look at vehicular traffic counts, and Disneyland Drive has a high one, with destinations like locals going home, Convention Center guests, the Resort area businesses, etc. The I-5 exit places a lot of vehicles onto the road, and the Ball and Disneyland Drive intersection is very busy, even when the overpass is open. Placing every car onto Ball Road is not acceptable to those in charge.

Once again, this deal has to work for the city, and its residents. Closing down a busy thoroughfare that residents use on a regular basis is no way to try and get your proposal approved.

 

[Jiggsawpuzzle35]

Look, the city is NOT going to give up Disneyland Drive. The road was paid for using a variety of sources, including State and Federal Funds.

I am dealing with the city trying to take over control of Beach Blvd in the city limits. Buena Park did it a few years ago, and has made it better.

The city started the process a few years ago, and the state aka Cal-Trans (current owner) still isn't happy. And it saves the state money!

Disneyland Drive is overseen by the city, OCTA (Orange County) and Cal-Trans. They look at vehicular traffic counts, and Disneyland Drive has a high one, with destinations like locals going home, Convention Center guests, the Resort area businesses, etc. The I-5 exit places a lot of vehicles onto the road, and the Ball and Disneyland Drive intersection is very busy, even when the overpass is open. Placing every car onto Ball Road is not acceptable to those in charge.

Once again, this deal has to work for the city, and its residents. Closing down a busy thoroughfare that residents use on a regular basis is no way to try and get your proposal approved.

Let’s build a tunnel Then.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Look, the city is NOT going to give up Disneyland Drive. The road was paid for using a variety of sources, including State and Federal Funds.

I am dealing with the city trying to take over control of Beach Blvd in the city limits. Buena Park did it a few years ago, and has made it better.

The city started the process a few years ago, and the state aka Cal-Trans (current owner) still isn't happy. And it saves the state money!

Disneyland Drive is overseen by the city, OCTA (Orange County) and Cal-Trans. They look at vehicular traffic counts, and Disneyland Drive has a high one, with destinations like locals going home, Convention Center guests, the Resort area businesses, etc. The I-5 exit places a lot of vehicles onto the road, and the Ball and Disneyland Drive intersection is very busy, even when the overpass is open. Placing every car onto Ball Road is not acceptable to those in charge.

Once again, this deal has to work for the city, and its residents. Closing down a busy thoroughfare that residents use on a regular basis is no way to try and get your proposal approved.

More and more highways is not the path to making things work.

 

[TP2000]

The road under Downtown Disney bridge has a dip. Just extend the dips a half story under grade so the bridge rises a half story above grade. Easier to walk over.

I agree that you can dip and shape Disneyland Drive onto whatever grade you want. Disneyland Drive is not a pedestrian access point for its majority. The only real pedestrian sidewalk exists from Magic Way north to Ball Road, and from Katella north to the Grand Californian. When I drive there, I mostly only see CM's walking to/from the bus stops on Ball or Harbor on those small sidewalks.

The rest of Disneyland Drive has absolutely no sidewalks at all, or the designers really make you work for it to find the pathway on a sidewalk to nowhere. This is not a vibrant streetscape, and it never will be. So add another dip or two to facilitate bridge placement, who cares?

Disneyland Drive is a key roadway that must be maintained as a roadway, but it has been a Pedestrian No Man's Land since it opened 22 years ago. There's no point in trying to salvage it beyond a 4 lane road going 40 mph to someplace else.

This is not an environment for pedestrians, so do whatever you want with this Autopia however way works best.

 

[MisterPenguin]

How about a road *over* DL?

 

[el_super]

It’s still a design problem that can be solved. You can build access roads into the plan. You could use internal transit for hotel guests.

Or use the large street into Disneyland Hotel (doesn't have a name), connect it to Downtown way then into Paradise Way to give access to the hotels. Everything east of this is therefore theme park space.

You both reminded me that ... this road KINDA already exists. The original entry road to Downtown Disney (which on Google Maps is listed as "Downtown Drive" ran all the way from Magic Way down to Paradise Pier and and the entrance for the Hotel Self Parking:

Back in 2001, when the "resort" debuted, it was used for an internal transportation/bus route between Level 1 of Mickey and Friends and the Paradise Pier Hotel. They had some really snazzy double-decker buses with resort logo branding running up and down this street to move guests around, and just like the monorails at Walt Disney World, they were free!

After 9/11, they shut the bus down and the route has basically just been used internally ever since.

To @lazyboy97o 's point: they could create an internal transport solution that would work. Park hotel guests at the parking structure and have them take a bus/monorail/gondola to the existing hotels. Truck access for DLH is already using Walnut street, so the biggest issue would be the truck access for Downtown Disney/GCH which could, if it was required, be reconfigured to run on existing Disney property.

 

[el_super]

Look, the city is NOT going to give up Disneyland Drive.

Seems like a very business unfriendly stance for the city to take. Don't they want to see Disneyland grow?

 

[J4546]

i think a great idea for the expansion of hollywood land would be to make it full of dark cool small old style rides kinda like CA version of fantasy land in DL. They could keep the entire 40s hollywood theme and use theater facades on the show buildings to make it look like a bunch of old theaters like on broadway steet. they can have signs like Now Showing: Frozen or Avengers or Dick Tracy or whatever. Using theater facades that arent tied directly to a movie allows the space to be flexible. You could put in new stuff every 5-10 years to coincide with a new movie release. PLus you could fit like 1 major e ticket MMRR style dark ride and 4-5 smaller ones

 

[BayouShack]

My approach to Disneyland is from the 5 North. For the longest time, before I knew better, my exit was off Disney Way. I’d pass the old Pumpa, the now Manchester lot, and arrive at Harbor Blvd.

Now, today you’re directed down Harbor to Toy Story lot. But before then all you had was Mickey and Friends. But, you wouldn’t have to gunk up Harbor, and Katella or Ball to get there. Resort would traffic would pass through Harbor into a special road servicing just DLR.

You could use Timon, or more often you’d be sent further down that road, between Katella and Screamin’, then you’d turn right on Disneyland Dr to Mickey and Friends. Some of you may remember this!

Essentially, you’d never have to drive down any of the normal city streets. Disney Way and Disneyland Drive (horribly confusing names BTW) connected the 5 directly to your destination in DLR.

As an aside, Toy Story Lot must be responsible for so much of the congestion on Harbor. But I digress.

It’s totally not feasible to close Disneyland Dr and have all that traffic go down Walnut. But, you could revive the old way of handling traffic and bend Disneyland Drive around the property, hugging Walnut. Just enough of the original Disneyland Drive could survive to service Grand Californian. Or you could add another avenue (so DCA has continuous land to its West) depending on how you want to handle the plot of land.

The idea is basically blocking of Disneyland Drive to through traffic so that the entire resort occupies one uninterrupted plot of land, while still managing traffic.

Of course, you’d have to remove some of the DLH. But I wanted to show how you could carve out a huge piece of land with complete flexibility... unhindered by Disneyland Dr.

 

[BayouShack]

OK, so if you wanted to go the whole jumbo parks route, you'd need a bridge over a small road for the Grand Californian. But it's still better than two massive appendages growing off each park, dangling there by a thread. And without that nasty road, Downtown Disney doesn't have that awkward dead zone (bridge) in the middle of it. So here's a fancy way of doing the whole super sized Disneyland/DCA thing

I'm no engineer, but, if the city allows it, paving a new road feels cheaper than a series of bridges, tunnels, and/or dips. And a more efficient use of space. You have one bridge compared to a minimum of two, and it would be going over a potentially much narrower, lower trafficked road.

 

[Curious Constance]

It’s highly offensive to hear people referring to I5 as the 5.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It’s totally not feasible to close Disneyland Dr and have all that traffic go down Walnut.

Why is it not feasible? Traffic would not all shift to Walnut. Some might but other traffic will shift to other routes depending on their purpose. It’s a shift that would happen potentially for years just to build the new bridges. Keeping the road open during construction only drags out the disruption to traffic, the noise, any utility service distractions and the cost (which makes the “possibility” even less likely). If they’re not built simultaneously you could be looking at the better part of a decade total of construction and disruption. At that point traffic patterns have shifted and Disneyland Dr may well end up being viewed as a new road that induces new demand still leaving roads like Walnut with more traffic.

Ultimately we need to be break this idea that our cities and local communities exist to serve cars, especially cars that are passing through. We pour billions into more and bigger roads and it gets us nothing but more blight. Yes, that comes with some inconveniences like traffic but done well the rewards are far greater. Think of all of the roads that Central Park interrupts sending traffic onto different roads but you don’t see many people talking about how Manhattan is worse off having the park. The historic core of Savannah is made up of squares that constantly interrupt traffic but they’re the defining, charming characteristic of the city and the removal of a couple for easing traffic flow is now seen as a serious mistake to be corrected.

The Disneyland Resort is an inward facing superblock, something generally frowned up in urban design. Breaking up super locks is therefore also generally considered a positive. This is ostensibly why the Strawberry Fields are to be broken up. But the reason superblocks should be broken up is to reduce the scale of the urban environment, to transform it from something intended for cars and through traffic to something smaller with more street frontage and more pedestrian friendly. Disneyland Dr between Katella Ave and Ball Rd does not do that, it is largely a highway that passes through. This is the same problem with Gene Autry Way, it is designed as a highway to move cars quickly and the block oriented away from the road. Building more overpasses, especially big ones that really blend with the parks, over Disneyland Dr will only make the road worse. It will further remove “eyes on the street” making the area more attractive to people engaged in undesirable activity.

So what then is the higher use of the land, not just at Disneyland Dr but also throughout the rest of the Anaheim Resort? Is it a place for through traffic or a destination? Is the Resort District better served with wannabe highways cutting through or by being a place for tourism and entertainment?

 

[BayouShack]

Why is it not feasible? Traffic would not all shift to Walnut. Some might but other traffic will shift to other routes depending on their purpose.

I enjoyed your response. I agree with your assessment. Also I shouldn’t of been so absolutist with that claim about traffic. But having Walnut as the fourth road that squares off the resort feels especially risky. It’s essentially a residential street, since houses have their driveway on it. I think that makes it the lowest tier of the road on the hierarchy. I only know the basics from City Skylines, though It just feels wrong for that road to take on the Disneyland Drive traffic. I’m especially familiar with Walnut because I abused it to get to my bar of choice from TDA after work. Good times!

I think we’re on the same page that Disneyland Drive is a blight. And awful for pedestrians.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I enjoyed your response. I agree with your assessment. Also I shouldn’t of been so absolutist with that claim about traffic. But having Walnut as the fourth road that squares off the resort feels especially risky. It’s essentially a residential street, since houses have their driveway on it. I think that makes it the lowest tier of the road on the hierarchy. I only know the basics from City Skylines, though It just feels wrong for that road to take on the Disneyland Drive traffic. I’m especially familiar with Walnut because I abused it to get to my bar of choice from TDA after work. Good times!

I think we’re on the same page that Disneyland Drive is a blight. And awful for pedestrians.

You’re right that we should not speak in absolutes. Cities are odd, complex and even contradictory things. Something that is generally bad can be a huge asset (like the superblock of Central Park). Paris is famous for its old ad how medieval streets and Haussman’s boulevards that were sliced through the city.

I understand the desire to maintain a residential environment. There’s nothing pleasant about uprooting people or making their home life a negative experience. There is also the callous reality that cities grow and change. What was once farms is now homes. What was one a suburb is now considered part of the urban core. It’s one of those tough questions, especially when it means displacing residents for tourists, but a serious and, more importantly, honest consideration of the Resort District’s future should consider the possibility of allowing the Resort District to grow to the west.

If one is truly concerned about maintaining the residential and local character of Walnut St then I think one would have to be opposed to Disney’s “possibilities.” The stated purpose is to allow for growth and expansion which means more people in the area. More people coming into the Resort District means more traffic, so those looking to just pass through will naturally start to look at alternatives. Yes, day trippers are supposed to take The 5 right into garages but Disney is also proposing more development on the Strawberry Fields away from those connections. Apps like Waze will also show alternatives, especially if they are calculated as being faster. I imagine some would say that Disneyland Drive is well suited to be that alternative for through traffic but that is why I mention construction. Disney says they are not seeking City funds, so depending on how the overpasses are built that means probably some combination of Disney paying the city to do the work and Disney handling the work themselves. Knowing how long it takes governments to complete road projects and for Disney to build even a simple food shed the whole thing runs the risk of turning into a contest of who will take longer to build their portion. Then there is also the Eastern Gateway bridge that will likely disrupt traffic as well. So even if we knew for certain that when all is said and done Walnut retains its residential character, when is that? 10, 15, 20 years from now?

While I am clearly more comfortable with more traffic on Walnut, I also don’t think it has to be all or nothing. Avoiding the temptation to add lanes would help. Even something as crude as building two roads, one for local traffic and one for through traffic is something that has been done in other places. The bold ask for locals could even be that some meaningful amount of development is required to embrace the local urban environment that engages with the city.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I agree that you can dip and shape Disneyland Drive onto whatever grade you want. Disneyland Drive is not a pedestrian access point for its majority. The only real pedestrian sidewalk exists from Magic Way north to Ball Road, and from Katella north to the Grand Californian. When I drive there, I mostly only see CM's walking to/from the bus stops on Ball or Harbor on those small sidewalks.

The rest of Disneyland Drive has absolutely no sidewalks at all, or the designers really make you work for it to find the pathway on a sidewalk to nowhere. This is not a vibrant streetscape, and it never will be. So add another dip or two to facilitate bridge placement, who cares?

Disneyland Drive is a key roadway that must be maintained as a roadway, but it has been a Pedestrian No Man's Land since it opened 22 years ago. There's no point in trying to salvage it beyond a 4 lane road going 40 mph to someplace else.

This is not an environment for pedestrians, so do whatever you want with this Autopia however way works best.

You used to be able to cross the street here at West St/DL Dr after parking at the structure and walk to Downtown Disney, entering right next to the Esplanade. They stupidly did away with this walkway and made you walk further and further through the entirety of Downtown Disney, where no one wants to go unless they're staying at the DL Hotel. Stupid.

 

[SSG]

It’s highly offensive to hear people referring to I5 as the 5.

Right?? Grinds my gears like crazy.

 

[DanielBB8]

Walnut St brings up an interesting issue. The neighborhood bordering Walnut, Katella, Ninth, and Ball Rd should instead be acquired by Disney on a piecemeal basis until it owns enough homes to expand the resort into. Then again, just acquire distressed amusement properties due to the pandemic.

 

[DrAlice]

It’s highly offensive to hear people referring to I5 as the 5.

But how else will you know that someone is from Southern California?

You used to be able to identify those of us from Northern California by our liberal use of the word "hella". Gwen Stefani/No Doubt messed that up in the early 2000s with their "Hella Good" song. (And since we are airing grievances: They are from SoCal and they stole our word!!! )

 

[Disney Irish]

But how else will you know that someone is from Southern California?

You used to be able to identify those of us from Northern California by our liberal use of the word "hella". Gwen Stefani/No Doubt messed that up in the early 2000s with their "Hella Good" song. (And since we are airing grievances: They are from SoCal and they stole our word!!! )

Maybe Gwen secretly wished she was from the Bay.

 

[chadwpalm]

Maybe Gwen secretly wished she was from the Bay.

I'm gonna go with a hard no on that one.