Long live the Eastern Gateway or how I learned to love the Anaheim City Council after the election.

[lazyboy97o]

Lazyboy, some places work better than others.

Harbor between Manchester and Katella has many Hotels/Inns whose ONLY access are driveways on Harbor. If the Anaheim Hotel becomes a 4 Diamond, the proposed plans do move its driveways to Disney Way (One exit remains on Harbor mainly for Fire Access).

Since you cannot remove these driveways, the safest option is to remove, or at least reduce, the amount of pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Removing pedestrians is almost never the safest option. All you do is encourage more reckless driving.

 

[Disney Irish]

Are you going to pay my billable rate?

You're the one complaining about urban design and the current proposals in the Resort District, not me. So not my bill to pay.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Are you going to pay my billable rate?

Submit your proposal to TWDC or to the IHOP/Denny's, they are the ones who can benefit.

The city spending is on very tight restrictions currently, and has a good staff anyways.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Removing pedestrians is almost never the safest option. All you do is encourage more reckless driving.

With the driveways and other traffic issues, the speeds on Harbor won't be going up if you remove pedestrians.

 

[Darkbeer1]

By the way, the combination of folks dropping off guests and CM's on the West side of Harbor has caused many accidents and other safety issues. By removing the sidewalk, and drop off areas, makes the road a much safer area for everyone, pedestrians and vehicles.

And speeds will still be regulated with traffic lights, lost tourists driving, etc. You still will need a driveway for Disney property for emergency vehicles (at least two), and the Candy Cane Inn has its only driveway on Harbor.

 

[lazyboy97o]

With the driveways and other traffic issues, the speeds on Harbor won't be going up if you remove pedestrians.

It's not that actual speeds increase but that the desired speeds in people's head increases. It's an issue of psychology. Drivers treat more open spaces more like highways. This is why suburban developments that don't have sidewalks and street trees for the very same safety concerns are more dangerous with cars driving recklessly through them versus older ones with narrower streets, trees and sidewalks.

 

[Darkbeer1]

It's not that actual speeds increase but that the desired speeds in people's head increases. It's an issue of psychology. Drivers treat more open spaces more like highways. This is why suburban developments that don't have sidewalks and street trees for the very same safety concerns are more dangerous with cars driving recklessly through them versus older ones with narrower streets, trees and sidewalks.

Street Trees will be on the West Side and Median.

Traffic lights at Manchester, Disney Way and Katella will remain.

All the plan does is to reduce the foot traffic on Harbor. The East side sidewalk must remain for local access, as will the multiple driveways. A set of bridges can remove crosswalks, and shift more pedestrians to corridors designed specifically for them.

Placing a pedestrian bridge at the new pathway on Disney Way next to the Pumbaa Structure, or even tied into the South West corner of the structure to the South side will improve safety for everyone, especially with increased vehicle traffic to the parking structure. Having the sidewalk on the South side of the street now takes away the pedestrians crossing the entrance/exit ramps.

The pathway between Harbor and Manchester, with the multiple entrances to the Hotels/restaurants, and becomes a defacto pathway from the Hilton project on Manchester to Disney Way. Now you have a nicely maintained pathway, with landscaping just for pedestrians.

It will be a project that will tie in the area with a set of items to improve the pedestrian flow, and will be safer.

Same with the plans for OC V!be and the Angel Stadium Project. Another Pedestrian bridge, maybe more, to be added to the one currently used to cross the Train Tracks. Pushing the vehicles away from the buildings, to remove people needing to cross parking lots and more, new parks, etc.

But this area will be easier to do, as they will build new, for the most part, to create a more pedestrian friendly environment, something they can't do on Harbor Blvd.

 

[TP2000]

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.

View attachment 482161

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.

Fabulous summary and insight! I'm reminded how I have enjoyed your contributions here and on other sites for many years, and I thank you for this latest fascinating read.

I don't know that I can add much, but one of the things that has struck me recently was that I've read over and over for years in multiple planning documents and transit studies that Harbor Blvd. is a major north/south thoroughfare for the entire County, and you must plan to balance the bazillion cars per day that drive through the Anaheim Resort District on their way somewhere else. They travel along Harbor not because they are going to Disneyland or Captain Kidd's Buffet, but because they are going from Fullerton to Garden Grove, and so Disney and Anaheim had to plan for that in their not entirely pedestrian friendly plans from 1997 for Harbor Blvd. cosmetic upgrades.

But at the end of March, when Disneyland had been closed for two weeks, I took a walk through the deserted Resort District and I was flabbergasted by the complete lack of vehicle traffic on the streets around Disneyland. I drove in from Villa Park, and Katella and Ball east of the I-5 freeway had noticeably lighter but still busy late afternoon traffic. The traffic loads further east in Orange along Taft and Tustin Avenue as I aimed for home east of the 55 Freeway were normal and busy. But Harbor Blvd. was deserted, like a bad zombie apocalypse movie.

I just walked right out into the empty street and stood there silently for a few moments, then took this photo.

It was surreal. Now obviously the Covid lockdown regionwide had something to do with this. But if I had tried this stunt a mile east of here on State College Blvd. I would have been run over. And if I'd tried this three miles further east on Tustin Avenue I would have been killed instantly by a hundred speeding cars.

My point? I now question the long standing conventional wisdom that Harbor Blvd. must be designed to carry a gazillion cars per day between Fullerton and Huntington Beach. I don't think that's true to the extent the urban planning models of the 20th century showed and were used to base the Resort District's planning uses on.

When I go to check out Downtown Disney next week, I'm going to try this same photo stunt. It should be interesting to see how Harbor Blvd. looks with the regional economy bustling again but the Anaheim Resort District still under strict lockdown.

 

[Darkbeer1]

As someone who goes to the Staples Center/LA Live location on a regular basis, The city has figured out a way to close a couple of streets on the North side of Staples Center, but reopen them ASAP, to maintain vehicular traffic flow.

It shows how hard it is to retrofit a built up area, since the Convention Center has been there for decades, along with many other structures.

You can't force private owners to move, especilly in California. It can take CalTrans a decade to get the land they need to expand a freeway. And courts have ruled that if needed, rerouting the project, if feasible, is the better option than using enimate domain.

Today's zoning emphasizes things like Pedestrian Access and better traffic flow in regards to driveways, etc. So moving forward, newer locations, and ones being transformed, you can do the things you want.

But the Hotels/Inns on Harbor have no desire to sell, or even transform.

The Anaheim Hotel was thinking about it, and agreed to a tax rebate program, which would replace it with a 4 Star Hotel, that the city can require bigger/better sidewalks, move driveways, etc.

So since you CAN'T move the Hotels and driveway access areas, you have to go for the options available to you, and an Eastern Gateway with new pedestrian pathways that include multiple access point from the East end of the Inns to the new pathway is basically the best option you will get currently.

No way can/will they close Harbor Blvd. All you can do is try and remove things. (Pedestrians, vehicles, etc.)

 

[lazyboy97o]

No way can/will they close Harbor Blvd. All you can do is try and remove things. (Pedestrians, vehicles, etc.)

Who said anything about closing Harbor Blvd? Removing is not the only option. Integrating is another option with far more success behind it than removing and isolating.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Who said anything about closing Harbor Blvd? Removing is not the only option. Integrating is another option with far more success behind it than removing and isolating.

And that is what they are doing. Moving Buses, shuttles and ride share to Manchester for Disneyland Access, and shifting DLR day vehicles to Pummba and the new Toy Story/Bullseye entrance on Katella to take those vehicles off of Harbor.

Building Pedestrian Bridges to remove crosswalks and reducing vehicle/pedestrian cross points.

Building new larger, safer, more pedestrian friendly pathways with many access points to serve most of the Harbor businesses.

Nobody is removing, just shifting the traffic flows over a larger area, which now includes more businesses into the more friendly pedestrian area.

I would call that a good plan, based on the current situation and restrictions.

 

[DrAlice]

Who said anything about closing Harbor Blvd? Removing is not the only option. Integrating is another option with far more success behind it than removing and isolating.

Your arguments sounded like you were implying removal (before I saw this post, I was about to ask you if this is what you meant). Perhaps, for the sake of argument, you could detail what you actually mean.

 

[FerretAfros]

It does if you remove pedestrians from some of the most congested crosswalks. Tourist care less about crossing thru an already green light especially if handfuls of them do it not only creating a hazard but also backing up traffic. There are constrantly groups of tourist crossing between cars because the crosswalk and sidewalk are not wide enough for the mass of tourist that arrive throughout the day and that leaves in exodus in the evenings.

Pedestrians aren't the ones creating hazards. The vehicles are the hazard. When left to their own devices, pedestrians rarely create conflict points for each other.

If you flip the perspective, the crosswalks are congested and too many people are crossing at each one because they are inadequate for the volumes of pedestrians in the space. More crossing locations, shorter crossing distances, and better signal timing could all help prioritize pedestrian movements in a safe manner. Instead of forcing pedestrians to play Frogger to cross a busy thoroughfare, there needs to be a better balance between who the space is designed and intended for.

When thinking about Harbor Blvd, one needs to consider the context. Is it a corridor that's primarily served by high-speed autos on their way to far-flung destinations with only the occasional pedestrian? Or are pedestrians and transit are the predominant modes to a variety of neighboring locations, and personal vehicles tend to be more trouble than they're worth? Obviously it's somewhere in the middle for this particular location, but it's been trending ever more toward pedestrians for decades.

The city spending is on very tight restrictions currently, and has a good staff anyways.

It's not the City's responsibility to come up with a design that works. It's their responsibility to accept or reject the developer's (in this case, Disney) project for how it does (or doesn't) fit with the City's needs. The developer is always going to look out for their own best interests, but the City needs to look at what's best for the urban fabric as a whole. While the previous Eastern Gateway design checked all of Disney's boxes, it did so without regard for the surrounding context.

It shouldn't cost the City any more to reject a bad proposal than it does to approve it. This isn't a funding issue, it's a matter of having the will to do it right. Given the impact that it will have for decades to come, they need to be willing to invest the effort to do it in a way that works for the City as a whole, not just an individual business.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And that is what they are doing. Moving Buses, shuttles and ride share to Manchester for Disneyland Access, and shifting DLR day vehicles to Pummba and the new Toy Story/Bullseye entrance on Katella to take those vehicles off of Harbor.

Building Pedestrian Bridges to remove crosswalks and reducing vehicle/pedestrian cross points.

Building new larger, safer, more pedestrian friendly pathways with many access points to serve most of the Harbor businesses.

Nobody is removing, just shifting the traffic flows over a larger area, which now includes more businesses into the more friendly pedestrian area.

I would call that a good plan, based on the current situation and restrictions.

Pushing things away is not integration. Pushing access further away disincentivizes use and encouraging it will require intentional blighting to make more convenient spaces undesirable.

Your arguments sounded like you were implying removal (before I saw this post, I was about to ask you if this is what you meant). Perhaps, for the sake of argument, you could detail what you actually mean.

The solution to sidewalks and crosswalks that are too small for their traffic is to increase their size to better handle the capacity.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Pedestrians aren't the ones creating hazards. The vehicles are the hazard. When left to their own devices, pedestrians rarely create conflict points for each other.

If you flip the perspective, the crosswalks are congested and too many people are crossing at each one because they are inadequate for the volumes of pedestrians in the space. More crossing locations, shorter crossing distances, and better signal timing could all help prioritize pedestrian movements in a safe manner. Instead of forcing pedestrians to play Frogger to cross a busy thoroughfare, there needs to be a better balance between who the space is designed and intended for.

When thinking about Harbor Blvd, one needs to consider the context. Is it a corridor that's primarily served by high-speed autos on their way to far-flung destinations with only the occasional pedestrian? Or are pedestrians and transit are the predominant modes to a variety of neighboring locations, and personal vehicles tend to be more trouble than they're worth? Obviously it's somewhere in the middle for this particular location, but it's been trending ever more toward pedestrians for decades.

It's not the City's responsibility to come up with a design that works. It's their responsibility to accept or reject the developer's (in this case, Disney) project for how it does (or doesn't) fit with the City's needs. The developer is always going to look out for their own best interests, but the City needs to look at what's best for the urban fabric as a whole. While the previous Eastern Gateway design checked all of Disney's boxes, it did so without regard for the surrounding context.

It shouldn't cost the City any more to reject a bad proposal than it does to approve it. This isn't a funding issue, it's a matter of having the will to do it right. Given the impact that it will have for decades to come, they need to be willing to invest the effort to do it in a way that works for the City as a whole, not just an individual business.

It is the city's responsibility to protect everyone using public streets and sidewalks (aka owned by the city). The Median Fence HAS to be designed and paid for by the city. Yes, you can ask the developer to pay for it in the approval process, or hire a city approved company to build to the city's specifications.

The sidewalks on Harbor are 100% the city's responsibility.

As I mentioned, if the Anaheim Hotel opts to build a new property, then that location can be forced to design better driveway placements and sidewalks.

But for the vast majority of properties on Harbor, the driveways are not moving.

The comment about the city paying was directly to lazyboy asking to be paid for his work, and I directed to private businesses, Disney, and the ones who don't like Disney plans, to show there is a better way.

Also, the city owns the Convention Center, which now has the city looking at things from multiple angels.

The Health and Safety is the key one.

But they also have to insure that both Delivery Vehicles, and attendees can travel on the roads and access the center. Plus the Hotels are very important for the Convention Center, plus TOT revenue.

Most of the Pedestrian bridges will be built by the city, since it is part of the public sidewalk system.

The city is responsible for the roadways, from designing and marking the lanes, including turning lanes, etc.

The Traffic Lights also are city property, and controlled by the city

 

[lazyboy97o]

It is the city's responsibility to protect everyone using public streets and sidewalks (aka owned by the city). The Median Fence HAS to be designed and paid for by the city. Yes, you can ask the developer to pay for it in the approval process, or hire a city approved company to build to the city's specifications.

The sidewalks on Harbor are 100% the city's responsibility.

As I mentioned, if the Anaheim Hotel opts to build a new property, then that location can be forced to design better driveway placements and sidewalks.

But for the vast majority of properties on Harbor, the driveways are not moving.

The comment about the city paying was directly to lazyboy asking to be paid for his work, and I directed to private businesses, Disney, and the ones who don't like Disney plans, to show there is a better way.

Also, the city owns the Convention Center, which now has the city looking at things from multiple angels.

The Health and Safety is the key one.

But they also have to insure that both Delivery Vehicles, and attendees can travel on the roads and access the center. Plus the Hotels are very important for the Convention Center, plus TOT revenue.

Most of the Pedestrian bridges will be built by the city, since it is part of the public sidewalk system.

The city is responsible for the roadways, from designing and marking the lanes, including turning lanes, etc.

The Traffic Lights also are city property, and controlled by the city

I’m guessing an urban designer understands who owns what.

 

[Darkbeer1]

OK, we have a unique situation.

Disney HAS to isolate itself, with limited access points including security checks. This isn't just Disney wanting to do it. It is mandated by Homeland Security and multiple law enforcement agencies. That can't and won't change.

Removing the West side sidewalk also improves security, and also eliminate areas of dangerous vehicle/pedestrian cross points.

So the access point for the East side of the property is moving farther away from the main gates, just like the West side check was moved quite away West to the DLH.

So the access point has to be between Harbor and Manchester. Disney, with input from the Hotel owners has created Pathways off of Manchester and Disney Way to go to the access point. Yes, it moves thing a half block, but now in an area that is away from vehicles. The East side sidewalk remains open for Pedestrians, but now designed to have a lower amount of traffic, as there is no way to expand the sidewalks or move the driveways.

You also have plenty of access points on the East end of their properties to the new walkway, now allowing more pedestrian flow in a north - south direction.

You end up with a larger, more friendly area, with more flow to get folks from more hotels to access the other businesses in the area.

It should help the GardenWalk to get more visitors and also spread out the options available within walking distance.

 

[cmwade77]

The former Transportation will be expansion space, therefore creating higher capacity, therefore needing more parking spaces.

If you look at pre-COVID numbers, the current amount of parking spaces is not enough for peak days, even with the full conversion of Toy Story/Bullseye for guests.

But as stated, Disney can do it in two phases, build the pedestrian and transit stuff first, then time the structure build to open the same time the expansion does.

Also don't forget that unless something has changed, my understanding was that the Toy Story lot wasn't allowed to remain a parking lot for more than a certain number of years.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Also don't forget that unless something has changed, my understanding was that the Toy Story lot wasn't allowed to remain a parking lot for more than a certain number of years.

It currently has a CUP Zoning change for Farming to Parking Lot use. Yes, it does expire, but the remedy is going in front of the Planning Commission again. And if approved, would also be a limited amount of years, as the city still wants to extend Gene Autry Way from Haster to Harbor, right through the parking lot. So if the city has no immediate plans, it will support an extension for a few years.

The end goal is to do some Horse Trading, giving Disney permission to do something it wants in exchange of selling the needed land for the extension.

 

[TP2000]

It currently has a CUP Zoning change for Farming to Parking Lot use. Yes, it does expire, but the remedy is going in front of the Planning Commission again. And if approved, would also be a limited amount of years, as the city still wants to extend Gene Autry Way from Haster to Harbor, right through the parking lot. So if the city has no immediate plans, it will support an extension for a few years.

The end goal is to do some Horse Trading, giving Disney permission to do something it wants in exchange of selling the needed land for the extension.

I always found the whole Third Park! rumors for that land to be funny because Anaheim has made no secret that they want to extend Gene Autry Way right through the middle of that land to the Convention Center. It's been featured in their planning documents for a couple decades now.