park south planning bd staff memo

8/13/2019 Park South Planning Bd Staff Memo

1/15

21 Lodge Street

Albany, NY 12207

518.434.2532

(fax) [email protected]

www.albanysustainability.org

ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT

CAPITALIZE ALBANY CORPORATION

21 Lodge Street

Albany, NY 12207

518.434.2532

(fax) [email protected]

www.capitalizealbany.com

NEIGHBORHOOD&

LONG-RANGE PLANNING

21 Lodge StreetAlbany, NY 12207

518.434.2532

(fax) 518.434.9846

[email protected]

GERALD D.JENNINGS

Mayor

MICHAEL J.YEVOLI

Commissioner

CITY OF ALBANYDEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING

TO: MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD

FROM: DOUG MELNICK,AICP|CNU-A,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

RE: PLANNING BOARD MEETING,NOVEMBER 21,2013

DATE: NOVEMBER 21,2013

Based upon Planning Staffs professional experience, research, andconsultation with other professionals, we feel that additional analysis anddesign considerations need to be investigated prior to our recommending that

the Planning Board issue a positive recommendation to the Common Council

on the proposed Columbia/AMC/Tri-City proposal. Specifically,

1. The height of the parking structure should ideally not exceedthat of the liner buildings proposed to buffer its presence on

adjacent residential streets. The distribution of residential, office

and commercial could be redesigned to allow for appropriately-

sized liner buildings and/or below-grade levels could be

incorporated into the design. In the event that any portions of the

garage faade is visible beyond the buildings or from the street,

it must be treated appropriately so as to not visibly detract from

the surrounding areas.

2. The ground floor of the parking garage should be designed in amanner that allows for conversion to commercial or office use if


2/15

5. The number of on-street parking spaces available within thevicinity of the proposed uses should be a considered in

establishing overall parking need. Consultation with

transportation consultants have verified that it is extremely likely

that on-street parking spaces will be utilized prior to those

located within the garage due to mere convenience. A

preliminary analysis indicates that there will be between 100 and

150 on-street parking spaces to remain subsequent to project

completion.

6. Application of a shared parking calculus should be employedwhere two or more uses are able to share the same parking

spaces because their parking demands occur at different times of

the day.

7. The applicant(s) should be encouraged to submit aTransportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) that isapproved and reviewed annually to identify the potential, and

success, of all means of appreciably reducing parking demand to

be generated by the proposed uses, such as: parking cash out

programs; free or discounted transit passes; priority parking for

ridesharing (carpools or vanpools); bicycle parking and related

amenities; car-sharing; efficiencies in use and management of

existing parking facilities.

The increase in the allowable number of stories for buildings proposed to be

located between and including 11-41 New Scotland Avenue is found to be


3/15


4/15


5/15


6/15


7/15


8/15

FINAL MASTER PLANfor Seattle Childrens

V. COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

A . C O M P R E H E N S I V E T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N

Childrens has long been recognized as a leader in Transportation Demand Management (TDM), receiving awardsfrom the Governors ofce, King County and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its excellent commuterbenets and achievements in vehicle trip reduction. The hospitals programs to reduce drive-alone commutingand vehicle trips to the campus have resulted in a drive-alone rate of only 38 percent among daytime employees,down from 73 percent in 1995 as measured by a state-administered Commute Trip Reduction survey. Thisaccomplishment is signicant both for a hospital and for an employer located in a neighborhood with limited public

transit service.

With the input of the Citizens Advisory Committee, SDOT and DPD, Childrens has developed a ComprehensiveTransportation Plan (CTP) to focus on sustainable transportation programs. The CTP includes a TransportationManagement Plan (TMP) to mitigate vehicle trafc related to MIMP expansion by shifting even more employeesand visitors from single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) to bicycling, walking, shuttle and transit. In addition, the CTPgoes above and beyond the traditional TMP elements by including a substantial investment in transportationinfrastructure improvements outside the hospital campus.

The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) enhancements described in this document, consisting of enhancedshuttle, bicycle and incentive programs, are expected to further reduce the percent of employees driving aloneto work, leading to an SOV mode split of 30 percent or lower among daytime employees at MIMP build-out. Forcomparison, this meets or exceeds the 2020 goal of 70 percent non-SOV travel set for the University DistrictUrban Village in the City of Seattles Comprehensive Plan (see Appendix J for a complete discussion of theTMP enhancements and the methodology used to calculate the proposed TMPs SOV and vehicle trip reductionbenets).

The rst three elements of the hospitals CTP represent major enhancements in programs that are operated withinChildrens as part of this highly successful TMP. The balance of the CTP consists of ve new elements that go well

beyond the measures usually associated with a transportation management plan.

Elements 1-3: Enhanced Transportation Management PlanChildrens proposed enhanced policies and programming for its TMP include expanding its Transportation Demand

C ff


9/15

PLANNING BOARD REPORT #37-09

MAINE MEDICAL CENTERS CHARLES STREET ADDITION

VICINITY OF BRAMHALL, CONGRESS AND GILMAN STREETS

FIRST YEAR REPORT

ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION/TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

[ADDRESSING CONDITION vi OF THE MAY 2005 SITE PLAN

AND SITE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL]

MAINE MEDICAL CENTER, APPLICANT

Submitted to: Portland Planning Board

Portland, Maine


10/15

Stanford University Medical Center

Trip Generation and Parking Demand Study


11/15

University ofVirginia

Transportation Demand Management Plan


12/15

Transportation Demand Management Plan

Steering Committee Direction

The steering committee discussed the appropriate level of TDM implementation. There was

consensus that the University of Virginia should pursue TDM in a moderate to aggressive way.

Members of the steering committee supported the implementation of a program that reduces

single occupant vehicle travel as much as possible without creating disruption to employees

ability to complete work responsibilities and meet personal obligations. It was suggested that

Phase 2 of this plan should consider the income and geographic impact of the TDM program on

specific populations. Phase 2 should also ensure that the program is consistent with existing or

modified human resource and benefit policies. The impacts on neighborhood parking around

Grounds should also be assessed.

With implementation of the moderate to aggressive TDM program, University can expect a

3 percent reduction in automobile mode share (with an 8 percent shift from single occupant

vehicle to carpooling) and a reduction in parking demand of between 625 and 775 spaces for the

2015 and 2025 scenarios, respectively when compared to the Baseline scenario. This reductionin parking needs is likely to result in substantial cost savings associated with the development of

new parking resources. Rough estimates gauge this cost savings to be in the range of $15 to

$27 million over the timeframe considered in this study.

Preliminary Conclusions

The analysis contained in this report shows that TDM can play a significant role in the

development of the Grounds Plan and future growth. TDM can help reduce automobile traffic

associated with growth in enrollment and employment at the University of Virginia and can help

reduce or eliminate the need for an increase in the parking supply. The degree to which TDM

can assist with these objectives will be determined based on the Universitys selected approach -


13/15

MunicipalParkingRequirements(MedicalOfficeorSimilar)

Municipality

PopulationMinimum

Requirement

Notes

ConnecticutBridgeport 146,425 3/1000sq.ft.

Hartford 124,893 2/1000sq.ft.

NewHaven 130,791 1.67/1000sq.ft.

NewLondon 27,707 3.3/1000sq.ft.

Stamford

125,109

3

/

1000

sq.

ft.

Waterbury 109,915 6/1000sq.ft. NorequirementinCBD

DelawareWilmington 71,292 2/1000sq.ft.

MainePortland 66,214 2.5/1000sq.ft.

MassachusettsLowell 108,522 3.3/1000sq.ft.

NewBedford 94,929 5/1000sq.ft. Reduceto1/1000sq.ft. after 10,000sq.ft.

Pittsfield 44,168 4perpractitioner

Springfield 153,552 3/1000sq.ft.

Worcester 182,669 4pertreatmentroom

NewHampshireManchester 110,209 5/1000sq.ft.

Nashua 86,933 1/1000sq.ft. Maximumof5/1000sq.ft.

P t th 21 379 4 / 1000 ft M i f 4 4 / 1000 ft


14/15

NewYorkBinghamton 46,551 2pertreatmentroom

Buffalo 259,384 4/1000sq.ft. 1.5/1000sq.ft.inTransitStationAreaDistricts

Cohoes 16,174 4/1000sq.ft.

Ithaca 30,331 4/1000sq.ft.

NewRochelle 78,388 4/1000sq.ft. 2.9/1000sq.ft.inCentralParkingArea

MountVernon 67,896 3.3/1000sq.ft.

Rochester 210,532 5/1000sq.ft.

Poughkeepsie 30,847 4spacesperpractitioner Plus1spaceper2employees

Rome 32,840 4/1000sq.ft.

SaratogaSprings 26,960 5/1000sq.ft.

Schenectady

66,078

3.3/1000

sq.

ft.

Syracuse 144,170 3spacesperpractitioner

Troy 49,946 5spacesperpractitioner Plus1spaceperemployee

Utica 61,822 5spacesperpractitioner

WhitePlains 57,403 5/1000sq.ft. 3.3/1000sq.ft.inCentralParkingArea

Yonkers 198,449 5/1000sq.ft. 2.5/1000sq.ft.inCBD&GovernmentCenterDis

PennsylvaniaAllentown

118,974

5

/1000

sq.

ft.

Harrisburg 49,279 3.3/1000sq.ft. Plus1per2employees

Lancaster 59,360 4/1000sq.ft.

Reading 88,102 5/1000sq.ft.

RhodeIslandCranston 80,579 4/1000sq.ft.

Pawtucket 71,170 1/1000sq.ft. Maximumof3/1000sq.ft.

Providence 178,472 2/1000sq.ft.

Vermont


15/15

park south planning bd staff memo

Documents