Original source · versioned page text
Attachment F - Carparking Evaluation -Noosa Carparking Study - McGagney report
Noosa Council
Noosa Car Parking Study 2017 - 2032
Final Report
6.2.2 Summary of Parking Policy Options
The parking policy options discussed above, their efficiency and effectiveness, have been summarised in Table 6-9. Shades of green have been used to visually display each
option’s score, with a darker green indicating a better score. It should be noted that higher costs score lower and are thus a lighter green. Efficiency considers the relative costs
and benefits of each parking policy option while effectiveness considers the ability of the parking policy option to impact upon parking demand in the short- and longer-term.
Table 6-9: Parking Policy Options
Efficiency Effectiveness
Parking
Key Features Potential Risks Short- Long-
Strategy Benefits Costs Value
term term
Provides market flexibility to determine Results in increase in demand for available public parking supply
Remove appropriate lower parking supply Does not facilitate in-lieu payments (a key potential revenue source)
minimums / No additional administrative burden for Noosa Encourages developments with high parking demands to locate elsewhere (fringe)
High High Average Average High
apply parking Shire Inappropriately low maximum parking rates can result in spill-over to surrounding
maximums Encourages parking sharing and unbundling parking supply
Facilitates redevelopment of existing sites Potential for new developments to shift parking burden to others
Provides market flexibility to not deliver on-site Requires Noosa Shire establish a value for parking that is low enough to be
parking attractive but high enough to fund the provision of improved travel options;
In-lieu Improves viability of redevelopment of smaller Shifts responsibility for the provision of parking from the developer to the council;
payments / sites Users are not directly charged for the cost of parking, violating the principles of
voluntary Potentially funds the provision of improved travel economic neutrality and consumer choice; Average Low Average Average Average
Infrastructure options (alternative non-car travel modes) Stymies the emergence of private parking operators and a more diverse market for
Agreements Provides flexibility if parking minimums are too parking;
high / restrictive Preserves the need for methods to estimate minimum parking requirements; and
Potentially places large administrative burden on Noosa Shire
A trading mechanism that transfers parking Administrative costs for Noosa Shire
Transferable resources from those developments which Even with limits on supply, a flexible DA process is considered more robust than
parking require less parking to those who require more artificial trading mechanism Average Low Average Low Low
entitlements Increases the flexibility with which developments Must be carried out in conjunction with parking maximums
may operate in a situation with limits on supply
Encourages higher utilisation of existing / future Difficult to enforce from a Council perspective
reduced parking supply Requires parking minimums for implementation by developers
Travel
Supports strategic objectives around Potential reduced revenue from voluntary “Infrastructure Agreements”
demand
consolidated and reduced parking and alternate Will need to be tailored to specific parking environments. Should not be applied
parking Average Low Average Average Average
travel across Noosa indiscriminately.
reduction
Can be implemented to reduce parking
measures
requirements if parking minimums are currently
inappropriately high
71
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.