New Disneyland Parking Garage and Transportation Hub

[NobodyElse]

You know, I'm sure there is a reason (probably because it's an all-or-nothing plan), but it baffles me as to why they didn't start construction on the parking structure long ago. Obviously the big sticking point is the bridge / security check and access to it, but regardless if people are getting to the parks by foot or shuttle, the extra parking capacity is necessary.

 

[Curious Constance]

Bring back the moving sidewalks!!!!!

 

[mickEblu]

Bring back the moving sidewalks!!!!!

If they build moving sidewalks I will pass Disneyland coming from the 5S. Get off the freeway, back on the 5N and exit again just to get to that parking structure.

 

[Disney Irish]

Bring back the moving sidewalks!!!!!

I wonder if the reason they were dropped from the project was not due to budget like had been rumored but safety and maintenance. Remember this pedestrian bridge is outdoors in the elements. Imagine how slick that thing would get even in the slightest of moisture in the air. Plus I'm sure its a maintenance nightmare to have that thing in the elements year round.

 

[NobodyElse]

I wonder if the reason they were dropped from the project was not due to budget like had been rumored but safety and maintenance.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Projected maintenance surely figured into the budget, and was an easy way to save money now and in the future. (Figuring in the real cost of customer satisfaction, etc. is somebody else's job.) ;-)

 

[NobodyElse]

Remember this pedestrian bridge is outdoors in the elements. Imagine how slick that thing would get even in the slightest of moisture in the air. Plus I'm sure its a maintenance nightmare to have that thing in the elements year round.

Let's not forget, Disney managed to operate this conveyance for many years. It has a lot to do with priorities.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You know, I'm sure there is a reason (probably because it's an all-or-nothing plan), but it baffles me as to why they didn't start construction on the parking structure long ago. Obviously the big sticking point is the bridge / security check and access to it, but regardless if people are getting to the parks by foot or shuttle, the extra parking capacity is necessary.

And what happens if you finish a massive new parking structure with no means of moving all of those people?

I wonder if the reason they were dropped from the project was not due to budget like had been rumored but safety and maintenance. Remember this pedestrian bridge is outdoors in the elements. Imagine how slick that thing would get even in the slightest of moisture in the air. Plus I'm sure its a maintenance nightmare to have that thing in the elements year round.

Universal Orlando Resort has moving walkways that are in open walkways. They are covered overhead, but that doesn't keep out wind swept rain.

 

[Disney Irish]

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Projected maintenance surely figured into the budget, and was an easy way to save money now and in the future. (Figuring in the real cost of customer satisfaction, etc. is somebody else's job.) ;-)

Actually they are mutually exclusive. One is part of a construction budget, the other is part of operations budget. Sure you can figure a better construction method of material that has a direct impact on the operational budget. But really they are two separate things when it comes to corporate budgets.

 

[Disney Irish]

Let's not forget, Disney managed to operate this conveyance for many years. It has a lot to do with priorities.

Yes, but is that operated now in Anaheim? No. If you have ever been on one of those moving walkways when they have even the slightest moisture you almost kill yourself. Its why airports tend to shut them down when there is a spill. For example here in the Bay Area we have BART. In San Francisco the stations are underground, and they have escalators to the street level. You see people slipping all the time and getting injured when it rains. They quickly get shutdown until they can be dried due to potential lawsuits.

 

[Disney Irish]

Universal Orlando Resort has moving walkways that are in open walkways. They are covered overhead, but that doesn't keep out wind swept rain.

But that is not California. Different rules and regulations.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But that is not California. Different rules and regulations.

There are outdoor escalators at Universal Studios Hollywood and Hollywood and Highland.

 

[Disney Irish]

There are outdoor escalators at Universal Studios Hollywood and Hollywood and Highland.

Those are escalators not a moving sidewalk. And I believe they are fairly enclosed and/or covered.

Also I never said they couldn't do it. My wonder was whether it was one of the reasons why it was dropped from the plan.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Those are escalators not a moving sidewalk. And I believe they are fairly enclosed and/or covered.

Also I never said they couldn't do it. My wonder was whether it was one of the reasons why it was dropped from the plan.

Escalators and moving walks are both 'conveying systems' per Section 3004 of the California Building Code. That conveying systems exist outdoors in the state is evidence against your explanation.

 

[NobodyElse]

And what happens if you finish a massive new parking structure with no means of moving all of those people?

Perhaps I didn't use enough words, but my implication was that they would "move all those people" in roughly the same manner that they do from the current Pumba lot. Visitors would either walk, or take a shuttle. The difference being that there would now be stairs or escalators added to the equation. Until they get the bridge situation ironed out, they could even build out the proposed load/unload areas and use them for shuttles to and from the existing areas off of Harbor (rather than driving onto the actual parking area as is done currently).

 

[lazyboy97o]

Perhaps I didn't use enough words, but my implication was that they would "move all those people" in roughly the same manner that they do from the current Pumba lot. Visitors would either walk, or take a shuttle. The difference being that there would now be stairs or escalators added to the equation. Until they get the bridge situation ironed out, they could even build out the proposed load/unload areas and use them for shuttles to and from the existing areas off of Harbor (rather than driving onto the actual parking area as is done currently).

The garage would serve a lot more people than the lot. That means more pedestrians or shuttles that the city needs to accommodate. The city lacks an incentive to approve the garage without improvements to access to the parks.

 

[NobodyElse]

The garage would serve a lot more people than the lot. That means more pedestrians or shuttles that the city needs to accommodate. The city lacks an incentive to approve the garage without improvements to access to the parks.

I know you know this, but people don't come to DLR for the parking - they come for the parks.

Anyway, they could always add shuttles to serve the extra people. If they didn't want to do that, they could restrict entrance to the new structure to two lanes. That way there wouldn't be any more stress on the walkways and shuttles at any given time than there is right now. The lot (structure) would just not reach capacity until much later in the day.

I don't want to argue. I hope we agree that the entire project, (whatever it ends up being) should get under way as soon as possible. I wish it was well under way already.

 

[NobodyElse]

Actually they are mutually exclusive. One is part of a construction budget, the other is part of operations budget. Sure you can figure a better construction method of material that has a direct impact on the operational budget. But really they are two separate things when it comes to corporate budgets.

Maybe I didn't comprehend your original statement:

I wonder if the reason they were dropped from the project was not due to budget like had been rumored but safety and maintenance.

It seemed like you were saying that the moving walkways were dropped either due to budget or safety and maintenance.

Now you're explaining to us that there's budget, and then there's budget. I contend that when it comes down to making a final decision, both are and should be taken into consideration.

 

[Disney Irish]

Maybe I didn't comprehend your original statement:



It seemed like you were saying that the moving walkways were dropped either due to budget or safety and maintenance.

Now you're explaining to us that there's budget, and then there's budget. I contend that when it comes down to making a final decision, both are and should be taken into consideration.

The rumors were that it was dropped from the project due to reduction of the overall project budget which is "Construction" and falls under Capital Expenditures. This does not take into account the Operations budget of the Parks and Resort division. To you it might be the same thing and should be taken into consideration. But when it comes to Corporations and their P&Ls they are not the same thing. They are VERY different line items.

 

[TP2000]

If they build moving sidewalks I will pass Disneyland coming from the 5S. Get off the freeway, back on the 5N and exit again just to get to that parking structure.

You could do that, sure. Or, you could just take the southbound Disney Way offramp and turn right into the structure from Disney Way. As seen in this map of the new facility, if it's ever built.

 

[mickEblu]

You could do that, sure. Or, you could just take the southbound Disney Way offramp and turn right into the structure from Disney Way. As seen in this map of the new facility, if it's ever built.

Lol oh. I guess that would be a lot more convenient!