Loz

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Loz, > Yes it does feel counter intuitive but London Bridge expansion is only factoring in the impacts > it has in SE1 not on he whole of Southwark. I'm not sure I've fully digested the significance > of London Bridge station being expanded to support 2/3rds more passengers from more frequent and > longer trains. So instead of 48M passenger a year something upto 80M max. capacity a year with > definite 35% growth by 2016 (presumably from the likes of the Shard etc) ie. 65M. > But for this ED station CPZ we could expect the current average 20% parking from commuters by +7% > by 2016 and upto +13% when London Bridge gets close to capacity. That argument is grasping at straws, somewhat. The CPZ is allegedly needed because there is no parking. You can't have a 7% to 13% increase in commuter parking if there is no parking now. Or are you saying there isn't a problem now, but there might be in the future?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was raised earlier in this thread. London Bridge station is planning for expansion and will > from 2018 be able to cope with 2/3rds more passengers (currently 48M pa/ED station 1.6M pa). > So for those that are really against a CPZ here you should be objecting to the Planning > Application that will increae parking pressures around East dulwich station - > http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.P > geResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9540800 Sorry, James, but did you just recommend the people of London should object to a massive increase in public transport capacity? Because it will 'increase the car problem'? Really? Now *I'm* starting to think you are losing it!

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh come now, it wasn't that dull. Alexandra Burke > reclaimed her crown of 'most insincere, least > likeable' with a desperately toe-curling > performance which screamed 'hire me, > pleeeeeeeeease' from the rooftops of ITV. I'll give a big 'OK.com' to that opinion, *Bob*. Well I would if I knew what the hell it meant.

puzzled Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cllr barber is mega buaybody with a deep seated loathing of cars. he believes we should all be > forced to ride bloody bikes like he does. people like barber are a menace to any sane community and > the sooner he is voted off the council and anything else where he wields his prejudices the better. Whilst I think that James Barber is completely and utterly wrong regarding championing a CPZ in East Dulwich, I would have to defend him as a councillor. He is hard working, competent and a credit to Southwark council. He just happens to be wrong on this issue. It happens. It does not make him a bad councillor.

kr988 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1)James Barber was asked by numerous residents for this consultation I think it's unfair to blame him > for listening to a fair proportion of his constituents. > 2) Please make an informed decision by attending relevant meetings and the Grove library this > Saturday and the Wednesday after.I do feel that figures are being quoted by the forum to blind > people into making a decision that suits them and not the people currently affected by this > problem. > 3) Apparently Southwark figures for permit take up is between 4% to 40%. Certainly this favours the > argument for displacement parking but also means there should be a definite reduction in congestion > on roads near the station in a CPZ,if a maximum of 40% of residents want parking in the day and there > is no commuter parking. > 4) looking at the plans for Derwent at least it looks like most of the road is available for > parking with no bays apart from a pay and display ( that permit holders can use) that I can see . > Also apparently Elsie and Melbourne are being consulted on whether they want parking bays > outside their drives that they or their visitors can use to maximise spaces available. > 5) 125 pound a year is about 10 pound a month and if a 2 hour parking restriction goes through > visitors and tradesman should be able to work around this without extra cost and hopefully park > more easily. > 6) I totally understand neighbouring roads objecting because they don't wants to face the > nightmare parking that some roads are facing but I am disappointed that some on the forum are arguing > against CPZ claiming they don't work and are purely revenue generating.Please go to the > meetings and get the facts and make an informed decision. Look, I can understand your thinking here. You have a problem, something must be done and this is something. So it must be done. Unfortunately, it is not going to solve your problem (unless, as you seem to hope, that all your neighbours will be too cheap to buy a permit). As I said before, Southwark are not offering a 12 month trial of the CPZ. Have you ever stopped to wonder why? It's because they don't work. But they do raise a lot of money.

If you use Firefox you can delete cookies for an individual site quite easily. If you use Internet Explorer, then, well, use Firefox.

louloulabelle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh please. When will the good people of dulwich > stop labelling each other particularly us mums. > And for the record I will go where ever I please > with my kids whenever it suits me. And you wonder why the ED mums get labelled, with that attitude...

You'd need to carve that thing with a chainsaw.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marmora Man Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > What the hell does this mean? > > It goes to show how poorly informed you are. Mee-ow!

Who the hell came first?

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I find it very amusing that a number of people on > this thread are objecting to the introduction of > the CPZ because they live near by and worry about > the knock on effect are also disuputing that there > is any issue with commuter parking.... > > Surely that is slighly contradictory?!?!!? Not at all. The knock on effect is threefold: 1) A small percentage of commuters spread over a number of streets is not a big problem. Push them out to a smaller number of the nearest streets adjacent to the zone will cause a bigger issue 2) Lowering the total number of generally available spaces will push resident parking onto adjacent streets. Elsie Road being a particular case in point. 3) Non-payers at the edge of the zone will opt to park in adjacent streets, rather than pay ?125. Ditto with their guests.

If I lived on Elsie Road or Zenoria Road I'd be severely worried about this. Elsie Road is going to lose at least 34% of their parking space (as their 'maximum' was 134% of legal spaces) and Zenoria will lose 15%. In fact Elsie is going to be hit a lot worse than that with the additional loss to the 10 pay and display places.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hi Loz, > If you look at the word document I think it explains. People that drove into the area after > 6am and left the area much later that day were assumed to be commuters of some description. Was there a different definition for 'non-resident parking' (considering the stats refer to 'Average commuter/non-resident')?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would be really helpful for people posting to say what their relationship to this consultation > is - do they live on a proposed controlled parking street and if not how far away. Happy to - I live in a street adjacent to the proposed CPZ zone.

Thanks for that James. Always good to have the stats. 1) How did the survey establish who was and wasn't a resident? 2) Leaving out Hayes Grove figures (as they are all zero) there were 14 streets surveyed, yet only 4 hit maximum occupancy before 10am the morning. This would suggest that commuters are not the problem, as you would expect them to be mostly parked before 8.30am. 3) Is Grove Vale included in the CPZ? Most CPZs exclude main roads, but the initial plan suggests it is within the zone.

I would pay to see a mugger pleading for their 'victim' to give them their phone back! :)) Absolute epic fail on the mugger's part.

Truth now is irrelevant to the Telegraph story. The stat has done the damage intended. Personally, I think the protest is also managing to damage itself by overstaying its welcome at St Paul's. The 'aim' was to occupy London Stock Exchange. Whatever the agenda of St Paul's is for asking them to move on, the protesters should move on. They have their new Finsbury Sq site.

Surely hiring a transit will negate any profit?

The official Occupy London chant: "WHAT DO WE WANT" - "We're not sure yet" "WHEN DO WE WANT IT" - "Now!!" Repeat until it's time to go home. My it's chilly.

Just read the consultation document and it actually says an average of 20%. Once you add in the loss of parking space due to extra yellow lines (and head over to Herne Hill to see the dramatic loss of actual parking space this causes) plus, as James Barber noted, the large number of people that will now get dropped kerbs installed then you can expect parking to get harder and not easier. But, by the time you work this out it will be too late. Note that the council isn't offering a 12 month trial on this - for a very good reason. I believe no CPZ has ever been dismantled. They are expensive and useless, promise a lot and deliver little - which is why councils love them.

LillyD Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a former resident of a street within the proposed CPZ, I just wanted to reiterate the point > made by SairahPillai. Living within the proposed cpz, the parking situation during working hours > was awful, especially with a young baby. I repeatedly found myself having to park a 10 minute > walk from my house. It was significantly better on weekends so it clearly was a commuter issue. This could, of course, be a false conclusion. Many people, like myself, only use their cars during the weekends. I believe that is what the council tried to establish when they came to their conclusion that 10-14% of the parking are being taken by commuter cars. In other words, a CPZ will not solve the problem.

atria Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks Siduhe. I reckon might be closer to 20% but not sure any statistics can be completely relied > upon (did Southwark have a swat team following each person to see if went to station). I see your > point here but from proposal don't see any offset or loss of parking as we can't park today. Even > 10-14% in Derwent Grove would be a benefit to us and suspect higher. But atria, you won't see those 10-14% returned to you for your benefit. CPZs reduce the amount of parking available as they paint a *lot* of yellow lines in places where you now park. Expect zero change in the parking situation, except you will now be paying ?125 year to not be able to park. And once these things are implemented they are damn near impossible to get removed.

Office gang activity?

I found a corking pricing anomaly. I often travel to Bridgend, Wales. If I buy a super off-peak ticket at Paddington it costs ?69. If I buy it at ED station it is ?71, so a very reasonable ?2 to cross London both ways. But, one day I needed to buy a single super off-peak from Bridgend back to ED - and they wanted a rather incredible ?71! How much to Paddington, I asked - it was ?40. So an amazing ?31 was being charged to cross London!!

Being, quite obviously, not part of the supposed 1% that is terrorising the populace, I must therefore be part of the 99%. These people claim that a) they are representing me and b) they are bringing the movement together as a true democracy. I don't recall voting for them. They don't represent me. I suspect I am very much not alone in thinking they don't represent me. Why are they claiming they are? It's a movement based on a lie.