Traffic and Parking. 14. Prior to approval of development at Cheakamus and South Base and any new parking spaces, the Developer will work with the Ministry of Transportation and the Resort Municipality of Whistler to complete Traffic Impact Assessments and address any demands that the development of these areas may have on traffic and the Function Junction/Highway 99 intersection.
Traffic and Parking. A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) was submitted by the applicant. The traffic impact statement suggests that the expected new vehicle trips generated by the proposed development are expected to have a negligible impact on the existing traffic operations on the adjacent streets and intersections. As such, there is expected to be sufficient residual capacity along the Cow Bay Road corridor to accommodate the expected increase in traffic associated with the proposed development. The statement was reviewed by HRM engineering staff and determined to be acceptable. Existing MPS policy directs Council to consider if the parking area is adequate while addressing potential impacts on adjacent development and meeting residents needs. The proposed 16 parking spaces for 12- unit residential development is slightly higher than one space per unit but lower than the LUB required 1.5 space per unit for multi-unit development. Staff advise that it is suitable to provide a lower minimum parking supply rate as this proposed development is located along a transit route and Active Transportation path. This also helps promote the use of sustainable transportation modes other than single‐occupant commuter vehicles.
Traffic and Parking. A Traffic Impact Statement submitted by the applicant was reviewed by engineering staff and determined to be acceptable. This statement found that the number of vehicle trips resulting from the proposed building addition are not expected to negatively affect traffic operations on the surrounding street network. The current entrance for the existing residential buildings will not change. The existing access is from the end of Xxxxxxxxx Court and is shared with the residential buildings at 00 xxx 00 Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx. The supply of parking, including spaces for visitors, was a concern expressed through the engagement process. However, the Land Use By-law does not require on-site parking for visitors of apartment building sites and the proposal exceeds LUB requirements for the overall number of parking spaces provided. In terms of bicycle parking, the addition will include spaces for bikes as per LUB requirements.
Traffic and Parking. Patrons of and those employed by WWSC (or its contracted pool operation service) may use the parking lot in Royal Oak Park (the “Parking Lot” as shown on Exhibit B) during the months that the Warson Xxxxx Pool is in service. The City though shall maintain all authority and control over the parking lot and may limit some or all use of the Parking Lot when other City activities, events or public safety concerns require. The WWSC and its patrons must abide by all the requirements contained in the Traffic Code of the City of Warson Xxxxx, St. Xxxxx County, and the State of Missouri. At least forty-eight (48) hours prior to any events (such as swim meets) for which it may reasonably be expected that Warson Xxxxx Pool patrons may attempt to park on Warson Xxxxx Drive or other City streets, WWSC shall give the City notice of such event. WWSC will instruct its patrons where parking is available and not to park where posted as “No Parking.” The City shall be responsible for the general maintenance and upkeep of the Parking Lot except that if the Parking Lot is damaged by WWSC or its agents or patrons, WWSC shall be responsible for City’s cost for repairs. The City will endeavor to schedule any work that might affect the usage of the Parking Lot to between September and early May but, if any work becomes necessary during pool season, the City will give WWSC notice at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to undertaking any activity.
Traffic and Parking. CSU and the City agree to encourage multi-modal methods of transportation, such as walking, bicycles, buses, and shuttles, as well as vehicles, to the Stadium for Major Events. CSU is developing a traffic management and campus parking plan for Major Events at the Stadium (the “Traffic/Parking Plan”), and CSU agrees to confer with the City about the Traffic/Parking Plan and any amendments, additions or replacements of or to said Plan. The Parties agree to work together in good faith, in continuation of the spirit of current practices, regarding such approvals and such a Plan. The Parties acknowledge that the initial Traffic/Parking Plan will be based on the expectations for the initial operation of the Stadium, and that any Traffic/Parking Plan will likely require modifications over time, depending upon attendance, traffic patterns, and the availability of public transportation, as well as the evaluation of impacts based on experience with events at the Stadium. The Parties agree to review and develop plans to address costs associated with heightened or special parking enforcement in areas around the campus on Major Event days as part of post-event review process described below in Section 8(B), and on an ongoing basis.
Traffic and Parking. Coordinate all traffic and parking issues, as applicable, related to the daily and Event activity. This effort may include but is not limited to internal traffic flow, client parking needs, available parking spaces, Stadium Site accessibility, the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota traffic control, Metro Transit with regard to the light rail trains and station, parking ramp and lot owners and operators, and the staffing of all entrances and gates. The Manager shall meet with the Team, the City of Minneapolis, Metro Transit and/or other government officials regarding traffic management plans on a periodic basis as reasonably requested by the Authority.
Traffic and Parking. The London Plan (2011) policies 6.3, 6.9, 6.10 and 6.13 seek to regulate parking in order to minimise additional car travel and encourage use of more sustainable means of travel. Core Strategy Policy CS 1 R and draft policy 53 of the Development Management DPD, also seeks to provide a managed response to car use and traffic growth associated with new development. Policy T6 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (2004) requires new development to address the related travel demand arising from the scheme and policy T13 requires new development to comply with the Council’s maximum car parking standards. Residents have queried why a Transport Assessment (TA) was not provided with the application. Transport Assessments help to inform the Local Authority of the likely implications of a development. Although not a legal requirement, the Department for Transport (DfT) guidance on transport assessments suggest that a TA would be appropriate for this size of development but also that the need for a formal transport assessment is determined by the relevant local authorities. The Highways Authority have considered the application and are of the view that a transport assessment is unlikely to add to what has already been acknowledged in terms of some adverse traffic impact and possible mitigation measures. On this basis it is felt that a full transport assessment will be of little benefit in deciding on this planning application. At peak times, in the morning and afternoon, the existing school already results in short term, localised congestion, as parents and guardians drop off and pick up children from the school. This pattern, and impact, is repeated across the Borough, and across the Country. There is potential for and a likelihood that this disruption will increase, as the pupil numbers rise. A significant number of representations submitted, report a concern over the transport impacts of the development. Outside of this time, service vehicles and visitors to and from the existing and the proposed school are unlikely to give rise to significant interference of traffic using the surrounding roads. Given the local catchment of the school, the very limited scope to re-engineer surrounding roads to meet future demand, and the particular and individual patterns and circumstances of the parents and careers of pupils, the short term, localised impacts of these peaks are an inevitable and unavoidable disruption that has become part of London traffic’s character. There is ...
Traffic and Parking. The proposal makes provision for 11 parking spaces, one electric vehicle charging point and secure storage for ten bicycles. In terms of parking provision, table 6.2 attached to policy 6.13 of The London Plan recommends that for two-bedroom flats, less than one space per dwelling be provided. Since The London Plan was adopted, the Mayor has amplified housing policies with Housing: Supplementary Planning Guidance (2012). This recommends that for suburban development of two-bedroom properties in an area with a PTAL rating of 3-4, then up to
Traffic and Parking. The NPPF sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. It emphasises the importance of reducing the need to travel, and encouraging public transport provision to secure new sustainable patterns of transport use. The London Plan (2011) Policies 6.3, 6.9 and 6.13 seek to regulate parking in order to minimise additional car travel, reduce trip lengths and encourage use of other, more sustainable means of travel. The Parking Addendum to Chapter 6 of The London Plan (2011) sets out maximum parking standards for new development dependant upon their use and level of public transport accessibility. Saved policies T6 and T13 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (2004) state that the Council should have regard to the transport impact of development and whether a proposal is likely to create significant on-street parking problems and potential highway and traffic problems. In broad terms this is an ideal location for the proposed uses given the ultra high level of public transport accessibility given the proximity of Harrow on the Hill train and bus stations combined with stringent parking controls over an extensive area which renders the site highly reliant on public transport which is of course encouraged and welcomed. The Council’s Highways Authority has advised that the proposed A1 retail and D2 gym use is unlikely to generate significant additional vehicle trips owing to continued linked trips generated by other and comparable destinations to and from this town centre location. Although there are other educational facilities within the proximity of the site, the proposed D1 educational use will be substantively dependant on public transport and will therefore be the most significant change to the current use profile. The existing underground car park consists of 96 parking spaces. It is proposed to restrain use of these spaces by allocating up to 10 spaces for disabled users of the facility with up to 30 secure and accessible cycle parking spaces within the basement area. The proposed level of cycle parking is below The London Plan (2011) standards, which require 1 space per 125 sqm food retail (5 spaces), one space per 110 staff and 20 visitors for gyms (5 spaces) and one space per 8 staff / students for colleges (60 in total), and so should be increased to a figure of at least 70 to cater for all of the proposed use classes, and so a planning condition is recommended to secure this. With th...
Traffic and Parking. The proposal makes no provision for parking spaces. Although there is no controlled parking zone in the area, there is parking restraint in the form of a lack of available on- street parking and ‘no parking’ areas in Northolt Road and Shaftesbury Avenue. It is anticipated that this type of development would not generate significant traffic movements. Given the nature of the development, the constraints on parking in the vicinity and the public transport accessibility, this is considered acceptable. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal makes no provision for secure cycle storage, which is a requirement of policy 6.9B of The London Plan (2011).
