Attachment 3 - Traffic Further Issues Response_TTPlus10553_20220330.pdf

      Query 2
4.    With regards to Council’s second query “How does the hotel manage potential hotel guests who want to travel
      by private car when the number of car parking spaces available are already being utilised?”. It is unclear if this
      is an expectation on Council’s part that this will happen occasionally or routinely.
5.    If this was an occasional occurrence (as currently parking does overflow the site during the middle of the day
      maybe once or twice a year) then there really is nothing to mitigate — the occasional parking overflows that
      occur at the moment have not been a cause for Council action previously, nor for operation to be considered to
      be problematic. In any event, as identified in previous reporting, the site has capacity for some overflow car
      parking.
6.    In the event the issue identified relates to a potential routine failure of the carpark to accommodate the parking
      demand, this has been discussed further below.
7.    The starting point for considering the concern from this point of view is that it ought not to be neglected that it is
      in fact the Noosa Plan that asks development in the Noosa Heads area to embrace the idea of discouraging the
      use of private motor vehicles and promoting alternative modes of transport — indeed Council should not only
      be actively supporting and encouraging such uses that look to deliver on Council’s own vision, but also take an
      active role in assisting to deliver that vision — this should include actively encouraging alternative mode
      operators to locate to Noosa to help serve willing developments, such as that which is proposed in this instance.
8.    The emergence of developments embracing this sound traffic engineering principle will assist to ‘break the
      cycle’ of private motor vehicle dependence. A development such as the proposal enhances the prospect of
      businesses operating services such as e-scooters, taxi services, ride-share etc from both developing and
      broadening their footprint. For example, Beam scooters currently operate at Port Douglas, where they have
      found that a positive operating environment exists at resort facilities.
9.    Assuming that patrons will simply always arrive in a private motor vehicle misunderstands the nature of the
      behaviour change that is sought to be driven by the proposed development, which as noted, is ultimately sought
      by the Council’s own planning scheme. Noosa is trying to force behaviour change by ensuring that limited
      parking is available, especially in the Noosa Heads area where this development is proposed and that
      alternative transport modes are utilised instead. By approving this development and other similar developments
      then this goal can be achieved. There is a degree of both ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ required to deliver on Council’s
      vision. The change sought is dependent on the behaviour changes espoused here. The fact that an occasional
      overflow may occur whilst the necessary behaviour change is ramping up or manifesting is not a long-term
      consideration.
10.   If routine overflow of the carpark occurs overnight or during the middle of the day on weekends, there are
      mitigation measures that can be put in place. I note that Gold Coast hotels handle this situation by charging
      guests for parking. It is not unusual to see Gold Coast hotels offering parking in addition to rooms for $10-$20
      per night. This is an option that is open to the hotel to ensure parking does not routinely exceed capacity. This
      operating practice can be readily observed by looking online at booking websites to understand how limited
      parking provision is handled on the Gold Coast. By and large, it is handled by the hotels simply charging for
      parking as a secondary line item. Most hotels charge between $10-$20 per night. None of them claim to offer
      the transport alternatives proposed here with the exception of some walking provisions.
11.   An even better approach, in my opinion, is to have car parking included in the standard room rates and provide
      patrons a discount (aligned with seasonal demands, even modified to suit residual supply level at any given
      point in time) if they elect to not require a car parking space. In this way, the act of not arriving with a private
      motor vehicle is presented as an incentive to a patron. It is my recommendation that this costing structure be
      implemented with the proposed development — if necessary to appease Council’s concerns in this regard, a
      suitable condition of approval could be formulated to ensure that it operates in this fashion.




      Report2_10553—20220328.docx                                                                                   2


[OCR of page images]
10.

11.

Query 2

With regards to Council’s second query “How does the hotel manage potential hotel guests who want to travel
by private car when the number of car parking spaces available are already being utilised?”. It is unclear if this
is an expectation on Council’s part that this will happen occasionally or routinely.

If this was an occasional occurrence (as currently parking does overflow the site during the middle of the day
maybe once or twice a year) then there really is nothing to mitigate — the occasional parking overflows that
occur at the moment have not been a cause for Council action previously, nor for operation to be considered to
be problematic. In any event, as identified in previous reporting, the site has capacity for some overflow car
parking.

In the event the issue identified relates to a potential routine failure of the carpark to accommodate the parking
demand, this has been discussed further below.

The starting point for considering the concern from this point of view is that it ought not to be neglected that it is
in fact the Noosa Plan that asks development in the Noosa Heads area to embrace the idea of discouraging the
use of private motor vehicles and promoting alternative modes of transport — indeed Council should not only
be actively supporting and encouraging such uses that look to deliver on Council’s own vision, but also take an
active role in assisting to deliver that vision — this should include actively encouraging alternative mode
operators to locate to Noosa to help serve willing developments, such as that which is proposed in this instance.

The emergence of developments embracing this sound traffic engineering principle will assist to ‘break the
cycle’ of private motor vehicle dependence. A development such as the proposal enhances the prospect of
businesses operating services such as e-scooters, taxi services, ride-share etc from both developing and
broadening their footprint. For example, Beam scooters currently operate at Port Douglas, where they have
found that a positive operating environment exists at resort facilities.

Assuming that patrons will simply always arrive in a private motor vehicle misunderstands the nature of the
behaviour change that is sought to be driven by the proposed development, which as noted, is ultimately sought
by the Council’s own planning scheme. Noosa is trying to force behaviour change by ensuring that limited
parking is available, especially in the Noosa Heads area where this development is proposed and that
alternative transport modes are utilised instead. By approving this development and other similar developments
then this goal can be achieved. There is a degree of both ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ required to deliver on Council's
vision. The change sought is dependent on the behaviour changes espoused here. The fact that an occasional
overflow may occur whilst the necessary behaviour change is ramping up or manifesting is not a long-term
consideration.

If routine overflow of the carpark occurs overnight or during the middle of the day on weekends, there are
mitigation measures that can be put in place. | note that Gold Coast hotels handle this situation by charging
guests for parking. It is not unusual to see Gold Coast hotels offering parking in addition to rooms for $10-$20
per night. This is an option that is open to the hotel to ensure parking does not routinely exceed capacity. This
operating practice can be readily observed by looking online at booking websites to understand how limited
parking provision is handled on the Gold Coast. By and large, it is handled by the hotels simply charging for
parking as a secondary line item. Most hotels charge between $10-$20 per night. None of them claim to offer
the transport alternatives proposed here with the exception of some walking provisions.

An even better approach, in my opinion, is to have car parking included in the standard room rates and provide
patrons a discount (aligned with seasonal demands, even modified to suit residual supply level at any given
point in time) if they elect to not require a car parking space. In this way, the act of not arriving with a private
motor vehicle is presented as an incentive to a patron. It is my recommendation that this costing structure be
implemented with the proposed development — if necessary to appease Council’s concerns in this regard, a
suitable condition of approval could be formulated to ensure that it operates in this fashion.

Report2_10553—20220328.docx 2