Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
It's a great idea to aggravate the largest employer in your city. Especially when that employer is responsible for your huge tax surplus.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
New Disneyland Parking Garage and Transportation Hub
- Thread starter RMichael21
- Start date
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
I have to magine that Moreno and the mayor arent complete idiots and are well aware of the level Disney has lifted the city to and that they have them to thank for their huge surplus in tax revenue, sooooooo I guess they figure they can make life difficult for them since they know there isn't much Disney can or will do about it?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
How many towns across the country are dying and have died because they were too wrapped up in one single enterprise? At what point should those communities have looked beyond that one enterprise?
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
We're not exactly talking about a saw or lumber mill here, are we?
And how exactly do they think they will be helping their citizens out by stalling Disney? By Gridlocking the entire city when Star Wars opens?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Unlike a factory or mill, moving the Disneyland Resort seems like a far bigger challenge. Odds are that the new garage will do little to nothing to reduce congestion, just as new road/highway capacity induces demand and ends up not reducing congestion. Disney also looses out with congestion/
D
Deleted member 107043
This is a situation very similar in some ways to what's happening all across the state: suburban cities opening doors to commercial development (JOBS!) but refusing to add housing and invest in infrastructure.
There's no question that the advent of Disneyland has both benefitted and wrecked Anaheim, with much of the long-term damage sitting squarely in the lap of an incompetent local government, refusing to legislate on behalf of residents (ie: the development of affordable housing, adequate access to and from DLR, etc), yet approving every Disney Park expansion and new hotel development they can. Disney alone did not create these problems, it was accomplished with endorsement from City and regional government leaders.
As others have indicated, this is going to be one hot mess come 2019 if they don't figure out something soon.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Equating Anaheim's relationship with Disneyland to Flint, Michigan's relationship with the long-closed GM factories or Wheeling, West Virginia's relationship with the shuttered coal mines is quite a stretch. Apples and oranges really.
Nothing goes on forever. I suppose there will eventually come a day when Disneyland closes due to lack of business. But when that happens, either our culture will have changed so radically that it won't be an issue or something will have gone so terribly wrong with human life on this planet that a closed theme park will be the least of our worries.
choco choco
Well-Known Member
It's a great idea for politicians to rubber stamp anything a large corporation wants. That's what I want in my politician, somebody who looks after the interest of the rich guy at the expense of the people who can't look out for themselves.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
On the flip side I like my politicians to make sudden, drastic changes of opinion when it's time for them to consider the ramifications of their next election. I especially like it when those changes of heart, to benefit themselves, are disguised as an ovewhelming concern for children in their city. Then they start making decisions that everyone will regret in two years when you can't leave the house to buy a loaf of bread or get to school and work on time due to traffic. But the politician who contributed to the mess? Moved on to bigger and better things and could care less about those little Anaheim kids now. That's really what I prefer in a candidate.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
If there is such confidence in the permanent of Disneyland Resort, then that is even more reason not to do just as Disney desires.
choco choco
Well-Known Member
Exactly which part of Disney's design, which they are unwilling to change, is the traffic alleviating portion?
FerretAfros
Well-Known Member
Funny, as a frequent tourist in Anaheim, I'm struggling to recall how the city invested in my non-existent children, other than providing some over-burdened infrastructure that was largely paid for by the Resort District's special tax district. Where exactly does that 17% hotel tax (one of the highest I've seen anywhere in the world) go, if not back to services for the residents of the City of Anaheim? And how about that higher-than-normal 7.75% sales tax? While aesthetically pleasing and pretty well-maintained, there hasn't been a meaningful investment in the Resort District infrastructure (which is pretty much all those good-for-nothing tourists use) in nearly two decades
I know for a fact that the City of Anaheim has some great urban planners on staff, who are able to find innovative solutions for projects like this. I personally worked with them several years ago on a certain high-profile statewide multi-billion dollar transportation project, and they were among the best crew from any jurisdiction we worked with. But as is always the case, their hands are tied by what the politicians of the moment will allow. The project that Disney proposed was very flawed, without access to the business and their patrons along Harbor Blvd, but it wasn't so bad that they couldn't have created a reasonable solution working with the city staff; this is a problem that the politicians created
In the eternal words of Janis Joplin, "freedom's must another word for nothing left to lose." That attitude worked out so well for her, and I suspect the Council may find themselves in a similar situation at the next election
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
I also think Disney's plan could use some serious improvement. I hated the cutoff from Harbor and how uninspired and plain the whole thing was. But stalling and trying to foil ANY plans from proceeding is not going to help anyone's kids in the long run.
Out of curiosity how do they think they are helping Anaheim's kids by doing this?
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
Providing a space to put thousands of cars? Or I guess the cars could park on city streets or business parking lots, I suppose.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
It's the part where existing I-5 freeway ramps from both north and south, ramps that were already overbuilt by twice their needed size 15 years ago to handle this exact parking plan, lead directly into an 8,000 space parking garage. With attached mass-transit plaza that moves hundreds of buses a day off of busy Harbor Blvd. and puts them on under-used Manchester Ave. instead.
Instead of thousands of cars driving around on Katella and Harbor and Ball Road going to satellite lots like Toy Story and the Convention Center, the cars zip right off the Santa Ana Freeway and get swallowed up by the parking garage. And then those motorists are turned into pedestrians and walk onto Disneyland property via dedicated skybridge.
Out of curiosity @choco choco , what would be your plan to park an additional 8,000 cars and handle a few hundred shuttle buses per day?
Last edited:
choco choco
Well-Known Member
Ok, to get to this is gonna require a long post, but I wanna preface it by saying Anaheim doesn't have a problem with the parking structure or Disney's building of it. They have a problem with the Sky Bridge, and its lack of access to it. So us arguing about a parking structure is basically no way gonna solve the last remaining core issue to this project.
I also have to say that my main contention (which was posted many months ago on this exact thread) is that Disney is stubborn in their design for this sky bridge. The fault is Disney's, for adhering to their already really dubious design for this (the core of which is that their security checkpoint is poorly located) and refusing to change some things around. Disney have the money and the space, and the idea that a company that has over two hundred acres to play with and at least three different locations on it to place their various mall cops is actively picking on people with 1/20th the land area is embarrassing for the large company. I hate politicians even more than anybody on this thread does, but good on them for showing some backbone for once against a corporation they have already handed out decades worth of tax breaks to.
Ok...
The first way to address this is to debunk the idea that this parking structure is being built with any consideration towards traffic, from either the city or the theme park.
Basically, the best way to alleviate traffic is to not build the parking structure. This is Urban Planning Rule 101, which lazyboy97o already alluded to. It's called The Law of Induced Demand, and its been proven over and over again in transportation engineering. If Disney or Anaheim really cared about about traffic, they wouldn't build a structure at all. They would use the dearth of parking to force people to find other ways come: a system of shuttle buses from around the Southland for instance, similar to the Flyaway bus to LAX or the Hollywood Bowl shuttles--both programs of which are widely popular.
So the fact that they are building this large lot means both Disney and Anaheim don't give two snits about traffic. In fact, both are complicit in increasing it. This is the underlying reality everybody needs to accept right now, because decades of Urban Planning evidence is gonna bear it out: this parking structure is only going to make traffic worse. There will now be two backed up exits off of the 5, instead of the one we have now (in fact, I'm surprised Cal Trans hasn't gotten involved in this project). Harbor and surrounding areas is gonna get worse. Katella is gonna get worse, and the Ball Road areas around Mickey and Friends are gonna remain just as bad. Worse traffic is just gonna be the new reality around the resort area, and it absolutely will be worse than if there had never been a structure built there at all.
But, like I said, everybody is complicit with increased traffic being a base given, and now all we've got is to do the best with that given. Which means, basically, what are some small actions that can be done to help lessen the traffic that is inevitably coming? I've actually already written about how I would fix the parking system elsewhere, but the most basic action was to get rid of the main chokepoint: the tollbooths. There's absolutely no reason I can think of to keep them. Why wouldn't somebody straight enter parking and be directly lead to a parking spot? And at the spot is an attendant holding a tablet with Square or a moneybox ready to take your money directly after you've turned off the engine? When this transaction is done, the attendant moves on to the next available spot. This gets cars off the road quicker, and lessens emissions because there aren't rows of cars idling about.
For late arriving AP's who find a spot after circling around, there are complimentary methods to the roving attendent. Parking meters for each spot. Pay kiosks where you would have to buy a ticket to put on a dashboard. There's phone payment, where each spot is numbered and you pay for the spot by entering in your spot number and paying by mobile. I just don't understand the adherence to 50's style tollbooths. You also know what happens if tollbooths, and numerous lanes associated with them, are eliminated? More parking spaces! A parking structure wouldn't have to waste precious square footage (the bottom floor of Mickey and Friends, for instance, is wasted on tollbooths) and have more parking space.
I would also consider changing pricing around, where there are discounts for carpooling. The most expensive parking price is for the single driver. This would instantly eliminate many of the solo cars off the road, and free up their slots for more efficient vehicles.
There also should be talk of utilizing other parking lots in the area, some of them farther away, and people being shuttled in. The farther the lot, the cheaper the parking price, leading a large number of cars away from the main Resort area and spreading them out broadly over a wide area. Angel Stadium's lot is underused. So is the Pond's parking lot. There's loads of blank space in the Platinum Triangle.
And there should have been consideration, when planning the Eastern Gateway, of having direct on and off ramps off the 5 straight into the structure, so that cars won't have to make a difficult right turn (if coming from the North) and then waiting at another intersection. If coming from the south, there's a whopping four intersections between you and entering this new lot. That this wasn't discussed is the biggest sign to me that traffic mitigation is not a factor in this project. Neither Disney or Anaheim care.
NobodyElse
Well-Known Member
^^ Thanks for taking the time to write that up, and I may address some of the points later, but for now I've got a question. Do you not believe that a bridge over Harbor would ease traffic and improve safety by eliminating much of the vehicle / pedestrian interaction there?
(And later we can discuss the wide popularity of flyaway from the Irvine transportation center to LAX.)
(And later we can discuss the wide popularity of flyaway from the Irvine transportation center to LAX.)
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
There is growing evidence that reducing the isolation of motor vehicles increases safety.
NobodyElse
Well-Known Member
Links to valid studies or evidence would be greatly appreciated.
It seems counter-intuitive to assume that removing pedestrians from potential direct contact with vehicles would decrease safety (at least for the pedestrians). I know that so-called "common beliefs" have been disproved in the past, but I'm curious to see where you're headed with this.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Here is an article if you wish to start getting into the subject: https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2...estrians-all-share-the-road-as-equals/388351/
This report is linked to in that article: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/review-of-simplified-streetscape-schemes.pdf
The reason it works is because more activity and tighter spaces puts drivers on edge, causing them to slow down and pay more attention. Isolation for motor vehicles is equated with highways and drivers behave as such even on surface streets. Drivers could be less attentive at crosswalks because they assume pedestrians have all been routed to the bridge. Less people on the sidewalks also opens up the horizontal view, and a wider horizontal view also causes drivers to act more like they are on a highway.
Essentially, as @choco choco mentioned with induced demand, calming traffic and reducing congestion is not accomplished with what most people think would work. Instead it is often the opposite that is more effective.