• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

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

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
What you might call seedy, I call safer.

Placing a solid barricade down the middle of Harbor, disguised by Bushes... Parts of it are already there to prevent people from crossing the street. Adding K-Rail berms (4 feet high or so) next to the Sidewalk, not so much yet, But the new Magic Way Bridge will have that in parts. Las Vegas has done that at corners with very positive effects.

Since we are retrofitting, you need to have ramps to move people up to the bridge level, but still allow access to shops at street level.

The Las Vegas version have been given design awards and met with success on many levels


Your tune would change as soon as someone set up camp in one of the empty spaces.

Getting physical barriers close enough to intersections to prevent people from using them means encroaching on visibility triangles, so not exactly safe.

While Venturi and Brown encouraged us to learn from Las Vegas, it has never been considered a very good urban environment. The first award you list is even for highway design, not urban design.
 

NobodyElse

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Build a whole elevated promenade/garden going from DL to convention center to stadium to various parking garages/lots. People can get on and off at various points to visit the merchants below.

cf. NYC Highline
The High Line is really cool, but it has the unique distinction of being a historic, pre-existing structure. It also gets bonus points for being operated as a "not for profit".

***
Friends of the High Line raises nearly 100% of the High Line’s annual budget.

Owned by the City of New York, the High Line is a public park programmed, maintained, and operated by Friends of the High Line, in partnership with the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation.
***
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
I agree with eliminating the need to go up/down between levels. The Vegas system was a public/private one paid for in part with the casinos, who want traffic flow to entice them.

But then, during the summer, staying on the upper level but going inside a building with AC is a plus in my book.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
The High Line is really cool, but it has the unique distinction of being a historic, pre-existing structure. It also gets bonus points for being operated as a "not for profit".

***
Friends of the High Line raises nearly 100% of the High Line’s annual budget.

Owned by the City of New York, the High Line is a public park programmed, maintained, and operated by Friends of the High Line, in partnership with the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation.
***
The High Line started as a means of removing the large mechanized vehicles from out of the street, although elevated lines did develop their own problems. It’s presence also does not coincide with attempts to ban pedestrians along the streets below. It is an additional park layer, not an attempt to be the only pedestrian layer.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Your tune would change as soon as someone set up camp in one of the empty spaces.

Getting physical barriers close enough to intersections to prevent people from using them means encroaching on visibility triangles, so not exactly safe.

While Venturi and Brown encouraged us to learn from Las Vegas, it has never been considered a very good urban environment. The first award you list is even for highway design, not urban design.
But there are big differences. For example, if we use the Harbor-Katella Intersection as a 4 bridge (or 4 1/4 circles) as an example. At grade level in the corners you have a CVS, Walgreens, 7/11 and the strip mall, all active businesses that have a stake in keeping the area clean and safe and don't want to be totally isolated.

APD does a much better job of keeping the Resort area safe a mainly clear of vendors/panhandelers. (Yes, a few show up but contained for the most part).

Now, as for Urban Design, the mish mash of the area will never be solved, and that is just the fact it is an older area. Yes, things improved with the creation of the Resort Area in the 1990's, but clearly grandfathering kept it from being done completely, same with today and tomorrow.

Also, APD is one of the agency using cameras as tools in a multifaced way. DHS has helped in that department. But there is a real time traffic control facility that uses cameras, computers and live humans to help use traffic lights to move vehicle surges through intersections, especially for major events starting/ending at the DLR, Convention Center, Angel Stadium, Honda Center and accidents/road construction.

They also use it in public parks, Ctr City and elsewhere for safety and catching criminals.

Anaheim is looking at primarily the safety of vehicles (and the driver/passengers) and Pedestrians, and improving traffic flow. Sorry, but urban design is a secondary issue currently. Of course, they don't want ugly, but then, they want to be smart with the money and will priortize to keep the budget reasonable.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
But there are big differences. For example, if we use the Harbor-Katella Intersection as a 4 bridge (or 4 1/4 circles) as an example. At grade level in the corners you have a CVS, Walgreens, 7/11 and the strip mall, all active businesses that have a stake in keeping the area clean and safe and don't want to be totally isolated.

APD does a much better job of keeping the Resort area safe a mainly clear of vendors/panhandelers. (Yes, a few show up but contained for the most part).

Now, as for Urban Design, the mish mash of the area will never be solved, and that is just the fact it is an older area. Yes, things improved with the creation of the Resort Area in the 1990's, but clearly grandfathering kept it from being done completely, same with today and tomorrow.

Also, APD is one of the agency using cameras as tools in a multifaced way. DHS has helped in that department. But there is a real time traffic control facility that uses cameras, computers and live humans to help use traffic lights to move vehicle surges through intersections, especially for major events starting/ending at the DLR, Convention Center, Angel Stadium, Honda Center and accidents/road construction.

They also use it in public parks, Ctr City and elsewhere for safety and catching criminals.

Anaheim is looking at primarily the safety of vehicles (and the driver/passengers) and Pedestrians, and improving traffic flow. Sorry, but urban design is a secondary issue currently. Of course, they don't want ugly, but then, they want to be smart with the money and will priortize to keep the budget reasonable.
Good urban design has safety built into the very design, it doesn’t have to be supplemented with a bunch of extras like additional police patrols or surveillance systems. It is about balancing between users. Being an existing space is no excuse to double down on a philosophy that simply does not work, as reacting to change is a part of urban design.

Trying to essentially build a highway in a dense urban space does not make vehicles safer, even with very expensive things like bridges and surveillance systems. Vehicular safety revolves around potential points of conflict and these schemes only amplify those points, even if they do get pedestrians up into very, very expensive bridges that require more ongoing maintenance than good design would require. Driveways, travel lanes and intersections are all multiple points of conflict that get exacerbated by removing pedestrians and creating barriers to their presence as it adds visual barriers and encourages highway-style driving inappropriate to the environment.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Good urban design has safety built into the very design, it doesn’t have to be supplemented with a bunch of extras like additional police patrols or surveillance systems. It is about balancing between users. Being an existing space is no excuse to double down on a philosophy that simply does not work, as reacting to change is a part of urban design.

Trying to essentially build a highway in a dense urban space does not make vehicles safer, even with very expensive things like bridges and surveillance systems. Vehicular safety revolves around potential points of conflict and these schemes only amplify those points, even if they do get pedestrians up into very, very expensive bridges that require more ongoing maintenance than good design would require. Driveways, travel lanes and intersections are all multiple points of conflict that get exacerbated by removing pedestrians and creating barriers to their presence as it adds visual barriers and encourages highway-style driving inappropriate to the environment.
But demonizing vehicles and impeding their flow is not a positive step for most stakeholders in the Resort area.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
But demonizing vehicles and impeding their flow is not a positive step for most stakeholders in the Resort area.
Not prioritizing vehicles above all else and only using one lens, of a Modernist highway, is not demonizing. While it seems counter intuitive, measures that fall under the general category of “traffic calming” can increase vehicular throughput in urban spaces. Yes, there are examples that didn’t work out but the odds of them working out are far, far greater than doing more “obvious” measures like trying to remove pedestrians, add lanes or generally increase travel speeds. These strategies work because they place people in the mindset of being in a slower environment with more obstacles, which results in greater attention paid to what is occurring outside the driver’s immediate lane. This increases throughput because it removes the nonsense, collisions and potential collisions that needlessly drag movement to a halt.
 

FerretAfros

Well-Known Member
Now, as for Urban Design, the mish mash of the area will never be solved, and that is just the fact it is an older area. Yes, things improved with the creation of the Resort Area in the 1990's, but clearly grandfathering kept it from being done completely, same with today and tomorrow.
Urban design has nothing to do with aesthetics, and everything to do with how people use the space itself. There are countless examples of cities around the world that have good urban design with a variety of aesthetics, from traditional to modern to ugly to pretty. I concede that Harbor Blvd's aesthetics aren't especially remarkable, but the way that the space is used has the potential to be world-class.
But demonizing vehicles and impeding their flow is not a positive step for most stakeholders in the Resort area.
Who are most of the stakeholders in the Resort area, and how do they use Harbor Blvd? I suspect most who really need to use Harbor Blvd between Katella and Ball Rd arrive by vehicle, park somewhere for an extended period, and complete their local trips on foot or by transit.

People staying at the Carousel Inn aren't driving to dinner at Mimi's. The 7-11 isn't doing a lot of business from people who live two miles away. Patrons of Captain Kidd's better not be going anywhere after dinner that involves a locked car sitting in traffic. These businesses all rely on high volumes of pedestrians that stop in as they're walking by. Extracting pedestrians to aerial walkways would significantly reduce the ability for impulse buys and last-minute sales.

This isn't about demonizing vehicles, nor is it about people who are just passing through with neither an origin nor destination in the immediate vicinity. It's about finding a solution that best fits the prevailing uses of the area, which just happens to be pedestrians and transit. Head a mile in any direction and vehicles are dominant mode, but this one stretch of road is different. And I suspect that improving alternate routes for vehicles to bypass this area would improve mobility for them as well, given how unbearable the situation has become.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
I barely use Harbor Blvd since I use the Mickey & Friends parking structure when I visit Disneyland. However, since I’m a local and I might pass through the area, Katella and Harbor are hard to avoid. Pedestrian bridges should be the primary solution to separate the people from cars. Anaheim is so far behind compared with Las Vegas, which has the additional problem of drunken walkers and soliciting.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
I barely use Harbor Blvd since I use the Mickey & Friends parking structure when I visit Disneyland. However, since I’m a local and I might pass through the area, Katella and Harbor are hard to avoid. Pedestrian bridges should be the primary solution to separate the people from cars. Anaheim is so far behind compared with Las Vegas, which has the additional problem of drunken walkers and soliciting.
Correct, the barriers are the DLR, the Convention Center, The Toy Story Lot and surrounding area without a road going through it (and why the city wants the Gene Autry extension) and the I-5. You are left with Harbor, Katella and Ball as through roads to get past them.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
If you look back to the 1990's, Anaheim had planned its roadways well, an overpass over Ball to get to Mickey and Friends, only using 1 block of city roadway from the I-5 South.

Pummba was designed the same with I-5 North and South placing cars onto Disney Way avoiding Harbor, and just crossing Katella.

The original DCA guest parking was the original Disneyland Parking Entrance, also using Disney Way, just crossing Harbor.

Unfortunately, due to the Disney Execs at the time, they decided to put Pumbaa on Hold, and leave it a flat lot than a Structure. Disney got hold of the Strawberry Field, something nobody expected in the late 1990's. While some at Disney were hoping for a new development (Hotels, Third Park, etc.), due to the underperforming DCA, that was not going to happen. So they decided to use it for Parking, as they wanted to build DCA 2.0 and close the remaining part of the original Disneyland Parking Lot, now placing vehicles onto Harbor.

At the same time, due to the creation of the Resort Area, the city started to expand its Convention Center, And of course, they built more parking, and more trucks needed to deliver facility items for booked shows. This brought more vehicles to the area. The main access is Harbor, Katella and West (which is the original name for Disneyland Dr, renamed in 2000 for the small segment).

Anaheim GardenWalk was designed with its main entrance on Disney Way, and Clementine was supposed to be a large bus depot area in the basement level of AGW.

The growth of both the DLR and the Convention Center brought more Hotels, which of course brought more vehicles.

And then we have the local residents, that population has grown due more housing being built.

The locals have voiced frustration with their commutes. As a West Anaheim leader, I hear it all the time, and Ball and Katella are our main routes. Harbor is in Central Anaheim, but many of us locals use it as one of only a few options that don't add miles to our commutes. And with the price of gas, well, adding miles for little to no time gain leaves us with Harbor for North/South travel.

If you look at the OCTA Routes, Harbor is a key route from Fullerton to Newport Beach, and has to go through the Resort Area. When roads are closed for Marathons, etc. The detours are miles away. It happened with the UNITE HERE protest earlier this year, and folks had to walk over a mile to catch a bus that wasn't running on Harbor or Katella. There are no secondary routes.

The Gene Autry extension is the only real option for shifting vehicles away, and getting them on/off the freeway and off the city streets.

The city doesn't want to increase speeds on the roadway, instead it wants more efficient flows, with less stopping and starting and get better traffic light syncing. They also want safer roads with less accidents. One of the goals with the Eastern Gateway was to move buses/shuttles off of Harbor using Manchester/Clementine, allowing the locals to flow more easily to get thru the Resort Area.

We see the 2028 Olympics coming, and want to be ready to help host them. By using Pedestrian Bridges, we can improve traffic flow for both Pedestrians and vehicles.

But the City of Anaheim has built a dense, large block of the Platinum Triangle (Honda Center/ARTIC/Angel Stadium and surrounding businesses and housing), and the Resort Area next to each other, with the I-5 splitting it in 2. These are the Main Roadways with basically no other viable options, and using Waze/Google Maps, etc. will prove that.

So splitting traffic onto different vertical options is what we have left. Undergrounding is not an option due to all the current water/sewer/power/etc. currently there. So bridges are the option we have.

I would love to see more of the extra wide, say a city block long, bridge like the one proposed over Katella at the Honda Center. But that is 100% privately funded. The Magic Way bridge is Disney Funded, as was the Disneyland Drive DtD bridge was. (The city did help out with the street being lowered). The Eastern Gateway Bridge will be Disney Funded. The ARTIC Bridge was funded by OCTA originally, but then the city bought the entire thing.

The City was hoping for help in the Disney Way bridge from the 4 Diamond that was going to replace the Anaheim Hotel and from the AGW. That opportunity will not happen now.

The SB1 Funds are a great chance to get at least some of these bridges built. Are they the perfect solution. No, but having something basic that can save lives and prevent injuries is a good thing. And Las Vegas has proven that.
 

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
As I believe I mentioned in the old thread, I'm a fan of this type of over-crossing. (I ran across this one near Stavanger Norway a couple of years ago.)
View attachment 370037

The advantage I feel this design has over the Las Vegas Strip solutions is that once you are up, you can get to any part of the intersection without first going back down to street level. I would love to see a variation of something like this to eliminate the crosswalks at Harbor & Katella.

(Or really beef up the structure to include a centralized raised platform for the gondola station connecting to the ARTIC area. ;) )
yeah been there as well, love the design.
as i mentioned before, it seems that places around the world have no issue coming up with clever ways to expedite traffic problems.
 

Ismael Flores

Well-Known Member
Yeah, not to mention the thought of shutting down Harbor and Katella for a substantial length of time.
any major project will always inconvenience people that shouldnt be a reason to not consider a project that will benefit many in the future and fix major concerns.

i saw a project similar to the one i described done in a major city in the downtown area in a city in Mexico within 2 years and the outcome really improved the areas traffic.
 
Last edited:

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
any major project will always inconvenience people that shouldnt be a reason to not consider a project that will benefit many in the future and fix major concerns
The city has stated to Disney that going underground on Harbor for the Eastern Gateway was a non-starter due to the insane price Disney would have had to pay to reroute the underground utilities installed first in the 1950's and added to over the decades. And that was just for a small section.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
deleted was ranting no issue
Let me state that what I was told is Disney sat down with city staff early on in regards to the Eastern Gateway, looking for guidance in the needs Disney had to provide to the city in order to get approval. Of course, something had to connect the Eastern Gateway to the main part of the DLR. So the possibility of doing an underground connection was brought up. The city said that for many reasons, it would be very costly. Disney asked how much? And the city gave an educated guess as to how much, and listed what had to be moved, and what needed to be part of the tunnel to meet building codes. The city than asked if Disney wanted to pay city staff for a proper full estimate. Disney said thanks for the ballpark figure, but no, it wasn't needed, as they already knew the cost of the bridge, which was a bargain compared to a tunnel. Heck, Disney could pay for multiple bridges and still have money left over. I think the bridge costs was around $15 Million when the Gateway Project was discussed in public venues.

Sorry, but I have a wording style that talks in generalities to avoid releasing info I am not suppose to share.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Let me state that what I was told is Disney sat down with city staff early on in regards to the Eastern Gateway, looking for guidance in the needs Disney had to provide to the city in order to get approval. Of course, something had to connect the Eastern Gateway to the main part of the DLR. So the possibility of doing an underground connection was brought up. The city said that for many reasons, it would be very costly. Disney asked how much? And the city gave an educated guess as to how much, and listed what had to be moved, and what needed to be part of the tunnel to meet building codes. The city than asked if Disney wanted to pay city staff for a proper full estimate. Disney said thanks for the ballpark figure, but no, it wasn't needed, as they already knew the cost of the bridge, which was a bargain compared to a tunnel. Heck, Disney could pay for multiple bridges and still have money left over. I think the bridge costs was around $15 Million when the Gateway Project was discussed in public venues.

Sorry, but I have a wording style that talks in generalities to avoid releasing info I am not suppose to share.
That story sounds like a manufactured excuse so that Disney could claim they explored alternatives with the City. Public utilities, rights of way and building code are all a matter of public record. Disney has the architects, engineers and estimators on staff or easily available for hire to quickly generate a conceptual ROM (rough order of magnitude) estimate.
 
Top Bottom