-
Sorry, I should have said I was referring to one planning report.
I think the PTAL methodology is nonsense and easily abused. In places with low public transport levels and low PTAL ratings, it permits a further worsening of the situation, instead of doing what planning should do, which is to mandate improvements in public transport or higher levels of cycling and walking everywhere. As we have seen in many cases over the years, it's even possible to get around it in places with quite high PTAL ratings. The cumulative effect of PTAL has been that even if the number of car parking spaces is only increased in low-PTAL settings (and, as above, it's not even limited to that), the additional car parking in the fringe of predominantly public transport environments puts additional pressure on inward travel. It's inconsistent (a typical policy designed by inner-urban planners (I think in Hammersmith and Fulham originally), who didn't adequately take into account the needs of other kinds of environments) and should be replaced by much more robust controls.
You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick
The number of spaces is determined by the PTAL rating of a site determined by TfL, along with it's urban typology (urban/suburban/rural etc) and other factors as well. It's normally a pretty good estimate and does indeed take into account the frequency of buses.