> After road/congestion charging, parking controls
> and charges are the most effective means to cut
> motor traffic, and with it air pollution and CO2
> emissions. Over 3/4 of those surveyed in
> Southwark's biggest consultation exercises
> supported cutting traffic and concern about
> climate change is at record levels. So the borough
> has compelling grounds to take action. The mayor's
> policy requires Southwark to ensure "London’s
> streets will be used more efficiently and have
> less traffic on them", so Southwark has adopted
> policies to "Introduce a borough wide CPZ & Review
> parking charges to charge most polluting vehicles
> more." The time limit for challenging that is
> over and any CPZ decision taken on the basis of
> that policy will be robust.
None of this has any relevance to a small CPZ covering a few streets around East Dulwich station. If the residents of that area are happy then good for them. However the CPZ will do precisely nothing to cut the volume of through traffic on any of the routes through this area. It really is absurd to suggest that it will when we have virtually stationary queues of traffic which we can all see every morning and evening on these routes. Southwark council cannot dictate the number of cars allowed to drive along the South Circular, the Old Kent Road or anywhere else in the borough. So instead of solving the problem, they try and use the problem to charge residents who own cars a poll tax. How can any rational person think that just giving Southwark council an extra £125 will solve anything, much less climate change? In the 80s Southwark was declared a nuclear free zone. That did not end the Cold War. Now Southwark has declared a climate emergency. Perhaps this will have more impact, but I doubt it.
> The suggestion that parking policies are about
> favouring driving residents over driving commuters
> is not true and not reflected in any borough
This statement is totally ridiculous. The whole argument made in the council's CPZ consultation proposal was that residents were asking for a CPZ because they wanted to be able to park their cars. This was restated by local councillors at a meeting I attended in April. Now if you are saying that what the council says is a lie and that they have a hidden agenda, then many would agree with you.
> That's not of course to say everyone will or
> should agree with parking controls, at least those
> who don't could suggest alternatives to cut
> emissions to respect the desires of the majority
> for a healthier, greener borough.
No. The people who are in favour of new policies should be the ones explaining how their proposals will actually achieve their desired outcomes. How exactly does a CPZ cut through traffic? How exactly does charging residents a fee for parking their cars outside their houses cut air pollution? Why would a charge of £125 change the behaviour of someone who can afford to keep a car on the road in any case?
To cut traffic effectively we would need to introduce a national road pricing scheme, but the people running this country would regard that as too difficult.
To cut CO2 emissions we need to build all the nuclear power stations we should have built in the 70s and 80s, but didn't because of superstitious idiots. All the people who were against nuclear power then should take their share of responsibility for the carbon emissions they opted for instead. With a nuclear reactor you can even make jet fuel out of sea water [www.smithsonianmag.com