Attachment 3 - Traffic Further Issues Response_TTPlus10553_20220330.pdf

      Query 3
12.   Addressing Council’s third query “A travel management plan is required, having sufficient detail, which
      addresses staff parking arrangements and travel demand management measures that firstly enforce low resort
      guest private car usage (such as measures to address the questions in items 2(i) and (ii) [understood to mean
      3(1) & (ii)] of RFI) and secondly measures to facilitate low resort private car usage (there are a multitude of
      potential proposals put forward in the reporting, such as scooters, shuttle buses, ebikes, etc., but nothing is
      being actually proposed or committed to).”.
13.   I am unsure how something can be identified as a “potential proposal” but then also “[not] actually proposed”.
      To clarify my opinion, the advice I am presenting is that the alternative modes be delivered (by a combination
      of direct actions of the proposed development, and aligned with the commentary earlier in this advice, by
      Council’s active support insofar as some elements are outside the purview of one individual development). I
      consider the more appropriate consideration of Council in this regard would more appropriately have perhaps
      been to ask for information related to where the e-scooters may be placed for example — this particular item is
      not consequential as it is evident that ample space for this is available, and in any event, as will be demonstrated
      later in this advice, the proposed development in fact will have ample car parking spaces available and
      accordingly some of these spaces could be re-purposed if required. This is aligned with Council’s own actions
      on Hastings Street whereby some car parking has been repurposed for the use of scooters and motorbikes.
14.   There appears to be some concern related to envisaging how such a situation could be conditioned as part of
      an approval. In the TTPlus RFI response dated 21 November 2022 paragraph 14, it states “[the conditioning of
      cycles, mopeds and scooters] is similar to other services that new developments must provide, such as refuse
      collection. The details of the refuse collection contract are not typically part of the application process, but key
      to the application is that refuse collection is possible and that conditions are in place requiring the operator to
      have suitable refuse collection arrangements. To this end, I consider that this matter can be dealt with via
      conditions requiring a minimum number of alternative mode vehicles to be operational at any time during the
      life of the proposed development.” From a traffic engineering point of view, all Council’s generally require for
      refuse collection is ensure that large RCVs are able to manoeuvre on site and require that the developer have
      an active contract to collect refuse. The commitment is in the conditioning. A similar level of conditioning will
      suit in this instance. There are no manoeuvring issues for vehicles in this case, and it is my opinion that Council
      could condition that these are provided and maintained by the operator of the site.
15.   A similar approach can be applied to the recommendation to provide shuttle services to assist in the attenuation
      of the use of private motor vehicles.
16.   Notwithstanding the above, I note that this issue was largely addressed in TTPlus’ previous response to
      Council’s RFI. At no stage has this development ever proposed to provide 1 space per four rooms. The Gold
      Coast scheme provision of 1 space per 4 units was cited as an example of a modern approach to providing
      parking provision at a modern resort facility — from a Council in SEQ that already suffers from significant traffic
      issues and is trying to mitigate — a state of affairs it was presumed that Noosa Council was seeking to avoid in
      the first place — an approach that I agree with. The examples provided showed that 207 spaces exist on the
      site, the maximum demand related to the existing uses is 155 spaces, thereby leaving a residual supply of in
      excess of this 1 space per four rooms rate — this was clear without any detailed analysis. In the RFI response
      dated 22 Nov 2021 it was noted that with additional parking provision proposed to be provided by the proponent
      would lead to a supply of in the order of 1 space per 1.6 rooms, if one took the absolute highest parking demand
      from the 2017 parking survey undertaken as the benchmark for existing demand levels. At many times of the
      day, including when the subject proposal’s demands are at their peak, the actual available supply would be
      more than this.
17.   The reality is that the highest level of observed parking demand is not necessarily the appropriate benchmark
      to use as the typical design demand for parking on the subject site.
18.   Two surveys of the parking for the Noosa Springs site have been undertaken for the project. The first was
      conducted in June-July of 2017, and the second was conducted Jan-Feb 2022.




      Report2_10553—20220328.docx                                                                                 3


[OCR of page images]
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Query 3

Addressing Council’s third query “A travel management plan is required, having sufficient detail, which
addresses staff parking arrangements and travel demand management measures that firstly enforce low resort
guest private car usage (such as measures to address the questions in items 2(i) and (ii) [understood to mean
3(1) & (ii)] of RFI) and secondly measures to facilitate low resort private car usage (there are a multitude of
potential proposals put forward in the reporting, such as scooters, shuttle buses, ebikes, etc., but nothing is
being actually proposed or committed to).”.

lam unsure how something can be identified as a “potential proposal” but then also “[not] actually proposed”.
To clarify my opinion, the advice | am presenting is that the alternative modes be delivered (by a combination
of direct actions of the proposed development, and aligned with the commentary earlier in this advice, by
Council's active support insofar as some elements are outside the purview of one individual development). |
consider the more appropriate consideration of Council in this regard would more appropriately have perhaps
been to ask for information related to where the e-scooters may be placed for example — this particular item is
not consequential as it is evident that ample space for this is available, and in any event, as will be demonstrated
later in this advice, the proposed development in fact will have ample car parking spaces available and
accordingly some of these spaces could be re-purposed if required. This is aligned with Council’s own actions
on Hastings Street whereby some car parking has been repurposed for the use of scooters and motorbikes.

There appears to be some concern related to envisaging how such a situation could be conditioned as part of
an approval. In the TTPlus RFI response dated 21 November 2022 paragraph 14, it states “[the conditioning of
cycles, mopeds and scooters] is similar to other services that new developments must provide, such as refuse
collection. The details of the refuse collection contract are not typically part of the application process, but key
to the application is that refuse collection is possible and that conditions are in place requiring the operator to
have suitable refuse collection arrangements. To this end, | consider that this matter can be dealt with via
conditions requiring a minimum number of alternative mode vehicles to be operational at any time during the
life of the proposed development.” From a traffic engineering point of view, all Council’s generally require for
refuse collection is ensure that large RCVs are able to manoeuvre on site and require that the developer have
an active contract to collect refuse. The commitment is in the conditioning. A similar level of conditioning will
suit in this instance. There are no manoeuvring issues for vehicles in this case, and it is my opinion that Council
could condition that these are provided and maintained by the operator of the site.

A similar approach can be applied to the recommendation to provide shuttle services to assist in the attenuation
of the use of private motor vehicles.

Notwithstanding the above, | note that this issue was largely addressed in TTPlus’ previous response to
Council's RFI. At no stage has this development ever proposed to provide 1 space per four rooms. The Gold
Coast scheme provision of 1 space per 4 units was cited as an example of a modern approach to providing
parking provision at a modern resort facility — from a Council in SEQ that already suffers from significant traffic
issues and is trying to mitigate — a state of affairs it was presumed that Noosa Council was seeking to avoid in
the first place — an approach that | agree with. The examples provided showed that 207 spaces exist on the
site, the maximum demand related to the existing uses is 155 spaces, thereby leaving a residual supply of in
excess of this 1 space per four rooms rate — this was clear without any detailed analysis. In the RFI response
dated 22 Nov 2021 it was noted that with additional parking provision proposed to be provided by the proponent
would lead to a supply of in the order of 1 space per 1.6 rooms, if one took the absolute highest parking demand
from the 2017 parking survey undertaken as the benchmark for existing demand levels. At many times of the
day, including when the subject proposal’s demands are at their peak, the actual available supply would be
more than this.

The reality is that the highest level of observed parking demand is not necessarily the appropriate benchmark
to use as the typical design demand for parking on the subject site.

Two surveys of the parking for the Noosa Springs site have been undertaken for the project. The first was
conducted in June-July of 2017, and the second was conducted Jan-Feb 2022.

Report2_10553—20220328.docx 3