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

[Darkbeer1]

So your position is that Disney has allowed a unsafe situation to sit unaddressed for over three years now?

Yes, and many folks agree with that statement.

The redo of Toy Story/Bullseye, and now being able to do Security screening there is a partial remedy. So it is being addressed, but not fast enough for some.

And why getting the Eastern Gateway approved, and building the non-parking portions are key.

Disney was forced to go with the Pixar Pier Structure due to Mayor Tait and the Anti-Disney majority. Disney knew that they had to address the security issue, and why Disney has been funding S.O.A.R. so much lately. Disney found out the value of a Business Fiendly Council.

Pro-Growth, Pro-Law Enforcement Candidates Sweep Anaheim City Council Elections - Anaheim Independent

The Anaheim City Council elections were swept by candidates supportive of economic development, law enforcement, neighborhood investment and re-opening the local economy. Council seats in Districts 1, 4 and 5 were on the ballot. In Districts 1 and 5, incumbents Denise Barnes and Steve Faessel...

www.anaheimindependent.com

 

[el_super]

Yes, and many folks agree with that statement.

If it was a security issue, to the degree that Disney seemed to claim before, they would have made changes three years ago when they originally cancelled the Eastern Gateway.

They didn't.

They added security and ticket services to Toy Story to increase capacity, but they did nothing to reduce the capacity that was still located in the esplanade. If it was a security risk, why wasn't it shut down immediately? Why wasn't it relocated or reconfigured?

If your answer is that Disney didn't want to spend the money on something that wasn't absolutely necessary, you prove the point that Disney won't resurface the Eastern Gateway for quite a long time.

As for being pro-business, I will once again point out that the council didn't express any objections to the eastern gateway plan. Disney offered to pay for the construction of the bridge and there were none of the usual concerns over city subsidies and handouts. The groups that raised objections to the plan were the businesses along Harbor Blvd that were worried about losing foot traffic, and threatened to sue the city to preserve that foot traffic. Resort area businesses that were threatened by the plan.

Apparently you forgot that there has been a pro-Disney city council in Anaheim for over a decade now. They still pulled the Eastern Gateway plan. If, as you suggested, they resolved the issues with the local businesses and they were willing to drop their objections, then what reason would there be not to have surfaced this sooner? Since the pro-Disney council would have approved it anytime within the last three years, and if there were no objections from the local business, then the only obvious answer is that it wasn't a Disney priority any longer.

So why would it be now?

 

[Darkbeer1]

From 2016 to 2018, Mayor Tait, Dr. Moreno, Denise Barnes and James Vanderbilt formed an Anti-Disney majority. They fired all the previous Planning Commissioners and appointed new ones. It was clear at the first Eastern Gateway hearing that the Planning Commission, based on their statements, plus the fact the City Council would ruled against it on an appeal. Disney opted to halt the project at that time.

As for why Disney didn't rush to revive the project in 2019, well, they were focused on Galaxy Edge and seeing how it would impact the traffic flow around the resort. Alas, the expected crowds didn't appear, and Disney was in scramble mode. Leadership kept pushing it off. Also, the council wanted to focus on the Angel Stadium deal, and wanted to not deal with another high profile issue. Then COVID hit.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They feel too many unscreened guests can get too close. Also the vehicles in the Transportation Plaza, which could be carrying explosives.

Vehicles carrying explosives are stopped with bollards, planters and other solid objects that create a barrier that is narrower than a car. Even without the travel plaza, there remain a number of entrances on public roads in close proximity to the parks all visible from aerial imagery. They’re all protected with the same principle, a heavy object that stops the car or truck. Car bombs are good for attacking public spaces like a crowded street or maybe a crowded street with a crowded bridge (DoD design standards for blast resistance could easily be obtained by someone involved in a coordinated attack).

A crowd of unscreened guests is more of a target than a threat. Most people aren’t trying to attack and a group attack could also storm any of those other entrances. Even a single person could storm a backstage entrance LAX-style far easier than the public ones. The thing about screenings is that when they are tested they fail far far more often than they succeed. The thing nobody ever really wants to talk about with 9/11 is that the hijackers didn’t force there way through security. They knew the system and walked right in.

What really protects the parks is that they are parks. People can move around and disperse. You can’t just walk in a few feet and trap people. The idea that one small section is a critical issue when that condition exists almost completely around the parks doesn’t pass the smell test. There are also other means of addressing that space without the lousy urban design of the Eastern Gateway. Disneyland is surrounded by public spaces and that isn’t going to change.

 

[britain]

Vehicles carrying explosives are stopped with bollards, planters and other solid objects that create a barrier that is narrower than a car. Even without the travel plaza, there remain a number of entrances on public roads in close proximity to the parks all visible from aerial imagery. They’re all protected with the same principle, a heavy object that stops the car or truck. Car bombs are good for attacking public spaces like a crowded street or maybe a crowded street with a crowded bridge (DoD design standards for blast resistance could easily be obtained by someone involved in a coordinated attack).

A crowd of unscreened guests is more of a target than a threat. Most people aren’t trying to attack and a group attack could also storm any of those other entrances. Even a single person could storm a backstage entrance LAX-style far easier than the public ones. The thing about screenings is that when they are tested they fail far far more often than they succeed. The thing nobody ever really wants to talk about with 9/11 is that the high jackets didn’t force there way through security. They knew the system and walked right in.

What really protects the parks is that they are parks. People can move around and disperse. You can’t just walk in a few feet and trap people. The idea that one small section is a critical issue when that condition exists almost completely around the parks doesn’t pass the smell test. There are also other means of addressing that space without the lousy urban design of the Eastern Gateway. Disneyland is surrounded by public spaces and that isn’t going to change.

I believe the concern is for the terrorist who gets the idea of blowing up a car at the very front of the park. It’s about symbolism, like the symbolism of the prominent targets during September 11, 2001. and the current transportation plaza is just a little too close to accommodating that symbolic attack.

Sadly, yes there’s still plenty of places to hurt a lot of people. But the idea of blowing up a parking garage close to Disneyland isn’t as appealing symbolically to a terrorist.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I believe the concern is for the terrorist who gets the idea of blowing up a car at the very front of the park. It’s about symbolism, like the symbolism of the prominent targets during September 11, 2001. and the current transportation plaza is just a little too close to accommodating that symbolic attack.

Sadly, yes there’s still plenty of places to hurt a lot of people. But the idea of blowing up a parking garage close to Disneyland isn’t as appealing symbolically to a terrorist.

A condition that has existed for twenty years. Yes, the plaza would be the closest to the gates but it's not the only symbolic target that is easy to access. Just attacking any part of the Disneyland Resort would trigger a reaction. Somebody was able to get into Epcot and steal an entire animatronic after pieces had already been stolen. One of the persons investigated in that matter was entering Walt Disney World parks with forged credentials. These parks are not nearly as secure as people believe and the Disneyland Resort is filled with direct connections to public roads.

 

[Darkbeer1]

A condition that has existed for twenty years. Yes, the plaza would be the closest to the gates but it's not the only symbolic target that is easy to access. Just attacking any part of the Disneyland Resort would trigger a reaction. Somebody was able to get into Epcot and steal an entire animatronic after pieces had already been stolen. One of the persons investigated in that matter was entering Walt Disney World parks with forged credentials. These parks are not nearly as secure as people believe and the Disneyland Resort is filled with direct connections to public roads.

Is the DLR perfect in Security? Of course not, since it was built starting in 1954, and very compact.

But the Department of Homeland Security has made many recommendations, and Disney has tried to implement them. We saw the Western side get the bubble expansion, and disney has been working on the Eastern End, and why they want the Eastern Gateway, to expand that bubble.

All measure are designed to reduce threats. And taking multiple actions at the same time, hopefully catch the vast majority of attempts. But there is no way to totally prevent things from happening.

So improving things when they can is the goal regarding security.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Is the DLR perfect in Security? Of course not, since it was built starting in 1954, and very compact.

But the Department of Homeland Security has made many recommendations, and Disney has tried to implement them. We saw the Western side get the bubble expansion, and disney has been working on the Eastern End, and why they want the Eastern Gateway, to expand that bubble.

All measure are designed to reduce threats. And taking multiple actions at the same time, hopefully catch the vast majority of attempts. But there is no way to totally prevent things from happening.

So improving things when they can is the goal regarding security.

Improving the situation does not require the Eastern Gateway. You keep presenting this narrative that the Eastern Gateway, and its lousy design, are the only means of addressing certain issues, now it is security. That is simply not true. Disney could address security and push back access, particularly vehicular access, right now and still keep the area in use as a travel plaza or significantly improve how the Eastern Gateway interfaces with its context.

 

[el_super]

From 2016 to 2018, Mayor Tait, Dr. Moreno, Denise Barnes and James Vanderbilt formed an Anti-Disney majority. They fired all the previous Planning Commissioners and appointed new ones. It was clear at the first Eastern Gateway hearing that the Planning Commission, based on their statements, plus the fact the City Council would ruled against it on an appeal. Disney opted to halt the project at that time.

Ok... why was it so "clear" that the Planning Commission was going to reject the idea? What was the concept that they specifically objected to?

As for why Disney didn't rush to revive the project in 2019, well, they were focused on Galaxy Edge and seeing how it would impact the traffic flow around the resort. Alas, the expected crowds didn't appear, and Disney was in scramble mode. Leadership kept pushing it off. Also, the council wanted to focus on the Angel Stadium deal, and wanted to not deal with another high profile issue. Then COVID hit.

Yeah... exactly my point. Things changed and priorities changed. You're trying to imply that it's still a priority for them to add more parking to the resort, but it certainly doesn't seem that way. Their priorities have changed and it doesn't seem like they are going to surface this eastern gateway again for awhile.

 

[el_super]

Improving the situation does not require the Eastern Gateway. You keep presenting this narrative that the Eastern Gateway, and its lousy design, are the only means of addressing certain issues, now it is security. That is simply not true. Disney could address security and push back access, particularly vehicular access, right now and still keep the area in use as a travel plaza or significantly improve how the Eastern Gateway interfaces with its context.

Exactly. And let's be perfectly clear about this: If there was a dire safety situation that posed an immediate threat, Disney would take action. Regardless of how you feel about how Disney treats money, if they had outside security assessments saying that they needed to fix this or risk the liability, Disney would fix it with the same expediency as they added the metal detectors.

So it's important in this context to split out the difference between Disney using security as a justification to the city planning commission, and their real intention when those plans fall through.

 

[britain]

Improving the situation does not require the Eastern Gateway. You keep presenting this narrative that the Eastern Gateway, and its lousy design, are the only means of addressing certain issues, now it is security. That is simply not true. Disney could address security and push back access, particularly vehicular access, right now and still keep the area in use as a travel plaza or significantly improve how the Eastern Gateway interfaces with its context.

Have you ever been in the security line on the east on a busy day? I have, and the line started essentially on Harbor. To scoot the security gates any further east will require a removal of the bus plaza. And since that requires a lot of rethinking and work, you might as well move the security gates along with them and give DCA some expansion room in the process so that there will be some financial benefit to making the changes.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Have you ever been in the security line on the east on a busy day? I have, and the line started essentially on Harbor. To scoot the security gates any further east will require a removal of the bus plaza. And since that requires a lot of rethinking and work, you might as well move the security gates along with them and give DCA some expansion room in the process.

Pedestrian access and vehicular access are two different things. If the concern is a vehicular attack then you push back the vehicular access. The cost of reconfiguring hardscape is orders of magnitude cheaper than things like a parking garage and blast resistant bridge. If security is your urgent, prime concern then you go ahead and do the cheaper work now. The grand vision can wait, especially when you have an urgent security concern and you’ve already [partially] addressed your other major need (parking).

And again, the desire to reconfigure the security perimeter, add parking and gain some expansion space does not require the specific design of the Eastern Gateway. A more open, engaged urban design is more than possible so long as it is considered a priority.

 

[LastoneOn]

There are so many interwoven pieces. Compared to DL, what they go through at WDW is simple.

 

[fradz]

There's no point for Disney to keep the land if it's cut in half. What do you think the fair market value for a third park would be?

I disagree actually. A road above ground cutting a park in half is not unheard of.
To support your point : yes, the planned road is massive compared to other real life cases. Yes it will require an extra large amount of planning and budget with all bridges (and /or tunnels) etc. But it's definitely not impossible to do.
The thing is, this is the best plot Disney will have near the resort, ever. They have no choice IF they want a 3rd gate, it's that or it's Simba, and that's also not ideal. They will have to find an acceptable solution with the city.
(I know, I'm saying things that everyone already know..)

 

[el_super]

I disagree actually. A road above ground cutting a park in half is not unheard of.
To support your point : yes, the planned road is massive compared to other real life cases. Yes it will require an extra large amount of planning and budget with all bridges (and /or tunnels) etc. But it's definitely not impossible to do.

You are correct, it isn't impossible to build a road through that land in a way that makes a theme park still work. It isn't an engineering problem that can't be solved, but a financial one really. The biggest issue is the rule of diminishing returns: building a second park only nets a certain percentage of the original gate, and building a third park will cut into that even more. The third park will require a lot more infrastructure that needs to be built (DCA was able to share so much with Disneyland) and it will need to be overengineered to converse space (most likely tunnels/utilidors/basements).

So the third park was almost guaranteed to be smaller and more expensive than DCA, with just a fraction of the attendance. Adding this road thru the middle of it, is a daunting financial hurdle to jump. Competing against other projects, like a cheaper fifth gate at Walt Disney World, makes it impossible.

 

[fradz]

You are correct, it isn't impossible to build a road through that land in a way that makes a theme park still work. It isn't an engineering problem that can't be solved, but a financial one really. The biggest issue is the rule of diminishing returns: building a second park only nets a certain percentage of the original gate, and building a third park will cut into that even more. The third park will require a lot more infrastructure that needs to be built (DCA was able to share so much with Disneyland) and it will need to be overengineered to converse space (most likely tunnels/utilidors/basements).

So the third park was almost guaranteed to be smaller and more expensive than DCA, with just a fraction of the attendance. Adding this road thru the middle of it, is a daunting financial hurdle to jump. Competing against other projects, like a cheaper fifth gate at Walt Disney World, makes it impossible.

Agreed, and definitely agree that it's financially a tough one. In terms of resort infrastructure, we're in the Eastern Gateway thread so there's a least that... (Agreed that park-specific infrastructure will be a challenge)

Just want to add on your very last sentence: the marginal revenue generated by a DLR 3rd gate would be, imo, quite larger than a WDW 5th. Guests won't extend their stay in Orlando for a 5th park (10-15 days total AFAIK?), they'll just spend their time differently. Might pull some crowds off the competition for a day. Might.
Whereas in DLR, the way I see it, for non-locals, we're currently at 2-3 days for the resort. 70% in Disneyland and 30% in DCA. With the 3rd gate not being a 1min esplanade walk away, this could secure one full extra day.

I don't know, I just feel like DLR is more "at capacity" in normal times than WDW is, and has a greater "additional pull potential", but I might be wrong? It's definitely more of an attractive resort to me than WDW anyway (and with roughly the same flights durations for me)

Maybe as a final note, here's what Tim from Imagineerland was able to do with that plot. He also added a version 2 last year. (again, not an engineering problem, I know, but a financial one indeed).

 

[DanielBB8]

Pedestrian access and vehicular access are two different things. If the concern is a vehicular attack then you push back the vehicular access. The cost of reconfiguring hardscape is orders of magnitude cheaper than things like a parking garage and blast resistant bridge. If security is your urgent, prime concern then you go ahead and do the cheaper work now. The grand vision can wait, especially when you have an urgent security concern and you’ve already [partially] addressed your other major need (parking).

And again, the desire to reconfigure the security perimeter, add parking and gain some expansion space does not require the specific design of the Eastern Gateway. A more open, engaged urban design is more than possible so long as it is considered a priority.

Push to where? Harbor Blvd? Or push to Toy Story Lot and make that the new Transportation Plaza? Or Simba? This could be a waste of money if temporary. The best option is work on the Gateway Plaza that has a grand plan that’s already designed, but can be gradually built or redesigned if priorities change.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Push to where? Harbor Blvd? Or push to Toy Story Lot and make that the new Transportation Plaza? Or Simba? This could be a waste of money if temporary. The best option is work on the Gateway Plaza that has a grand plan that’s already designed, but can be gradually built or redesigned if priorities change.

Any of the above. There are a variety of options from moving and gating the bus access to moving the buses. It’s not a waste of money if there is an urgent security concern. If a security issue can wait a decade then it is not exactly pressing and could wait a couple more years and consider other design options.

 

[mickEblu]

Ok so the Eastern Gateway improves security AND provides an opportunity for expansion. Why do some of your care so much how it’s being explained by Disney? The same people that want Disneyland to stay closed for the next 12 years are the ones complaining about this too? Odd. Well, at least the pessimism is consistent.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Ok so the Eastern Gateway improves security AND provides an opportunity for expansion. Why do some of your care so much how it’s being explained by Disney? The same people that want Disneyland to stay closed for the next 12 years are the ones complaining about this too? Odd. Well, at least the pessimism is consistent.

That’s a great mischaracterization of several issues. The Eastern Gateway was lousy urban design as was explained at the time and several times since then. Design is all about process and Disney’s explanation is important because it is the justification for those poor design decisions. There are times where certain circumstances, conditions, logistics, regulations, etc. do push aspects of a design to be less than optimal. That does not appear to be the case with the Eastern Gateway.