Earl Aelfheah

I agree, but 'if it were genuinely about commuter parking' is a the point. For what it's worth, I don't think it will have a significant impact on shoppers. It is more likely to adversely effect those who travel in by car to work in the area. I don't understand why residents should have priority over school teachers, shop workers etc. Genuinely I don't. The roads are paid for out of general taxation and should exist as a public amenity. There is no entitlement to the space outside your house and actually many residents vehicles barely move during the week (my own included). Surely the school teacher travelling to work has more claim to parking than the person just using a space for storage, if we're going to start creating a hierarchy of deservedness?

I'm sure that those spaces used to be restricted parking (you could stay there for a couple of hours I think).

I personally think there is more justification for people driving into the area to work here than there is for most residents to keep a car on the road (many of whom work in the city). Lot's of the cars on my street barely move (including, I must admit, my own). If we are going to start rationing spaces, why do residents get priority over school teachers, shop workers and carers? The whole idea of some sort of special entitlement to the public highway nearest your house makes no sense to me. The streets are maintained via general taxation and should be a public amenity.

Three permits per household is ridiculous. It should be one maximum (if we have to privatise the streets in this way at all). I think it will be particularly difficult for school teachers, many of whom can't afford to live in the local area.

The biggest danger to cyclists and pedestrians is motor vehicles. This is not an opinion, it is clear from the statistics.

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It seems to me that a CPZ is > only controversial in ED. Everywhere else in > London at this radius from the centre has one. > Every city in the country has them. Come to think > of it, every city in the world I've ever visited > does and their existence is unremarkable. This is > how sensible cities (and especially ones that were > built for the era of the horse and cart) manage > traffic. There are few places in zone 2 London which are so far from a tube station, or which don't have hire bikes for getting to / from the station. There are few other parts of 'inner london' that don't have a cycle superhighway, or where you can't get to a tube station after a short bus journey. In this part of SE London, bus journeys and bike journeys aren't 'last mile' transport, they're the main way of getting all the way into town.

Wasn't he part of the cabinet that brought on this whole omnishambles? If I was him, I would be keeping very quiet on the subject of brexit.

Complaints are also often overblown. I have heard people complaining that it's impossible to park on our street, when the truth is that they mean "impossible to park directly outside my house". It's something which you can see in many of the responses on here. People who live on the same street with apparently, different experiences of reality. I would hope that the council doesn't make such huge investments based on such a small number of anecdotal accounts.

chuck it over the fence.

@Galileo - I guess that it's more difficult to park during the week because people tend to go away at the weekend and during the day, people drive into the area to work (teachers, carers, doctors, etc). I'm not sure a CPZ will necessarily change this.

'lifestyle kitchens'!?

Just received the consultation through the post. It?s a huge set of documents. How much is this costing?

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although a staunch Remainer (hardened after May's > red lines), I, and I suspect a lot of Remainers, > would've initially accepted a Brexit that > reflected the closeness of the vote, i.e. > something akin to the Norway deal, whereby we keep > the benefits of being in a CU, thus solving the > Irish border problem, and also maintain FOM. But > Brextremists like Johnson and Davis got greedy, > egged on by a frothing right wing press, and > pressured May into her Mansion House speech and > those red lines. Add in triggering A50 without a > plan, then losing her majority at the snap GE, we > have ended up in the mess we have. All of their > own doing. Meanwhile, the Brextremists have > continued to move the Brexit goal posts so that > they're now on a completely different pitch with > talk of No Deal. This was never the form of Brexit > that was proposed pre-referendum, so it's > unacceptable to propose it now, and hopefully > Parliament will ensure it never happens. However, > it's the legal default if May's fudge deal is > rejected as seems likely, so the only way out of > this impasse is to revoke A50. There isn't enough > time to do anything else. There's talk about > extending A50 to July, but the EU have previously > indicated that they would only do that for a > genuine reason such as a GE or 2nd ref, not to > carry on kicking the can down the road. > Until Brexit came along the world saw us as a > sensible, pragmatic nation, we could do with some > of that now... I completely agree.

The government has spent almost 3 years focused on little other than Brexit. It's already cost us huge amounts of money and who knows the additional opportunity cost. We can't even agree the withdrawal terms. We haven't even started on our future relationship. That's when the real fun will start (assuming the withdrawal agreement get's the wave through). We're at a total impasse.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a CPZ makes drivers think twice about using > their cars for short journeys and reduces the > amount of cars circling trying find the last > remaining space that?s worth paying ?125 (?2.40 > equiv per week) I'm not sure it's going to do either of those things.

I really object to all the drop curbs. As if we don?t give over enough public space to motor vehicles they also get the right to drive across the pavement. The integrity of pedestrian space should be preserved.

After all, ?cyclist? and ?drivers? aren?t different people. They?re the same people moving around in different ways.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think part of the problem is that those > cyclists > > that do break the road law - and they are very > few > > comparatively - know that they?re doing it and > > have it already justified in their mind; as > such > > they respond forcefully to anyone who > challenges > > them. > > Isn?t more that cyclists can be challenged because > they?re not in a sound isolated metal boxes? The > driver who almost ran me over as I was crossing > the zebra crossing on East Dulwich Grove was > completely oblivious because she had her iPhone in > front of her face. I?m sure she knew she was doing > it and had justified it to herself somehow, I?m > sure she?d have been forceful if I could have > challenged her, but of course I couldn?t. > Similarly the red light jumpers at every crossing > or the majority of motorists that speed, they all > are choosing to do so, but cannot be challenged in > the way cyclists can. Exactly. If it were possible to challenge motorists about their behaviour in the same way it often is with cyclists, then I?m sure the responses would be similar.

All the activity on making car ownership mildly more inconvenient or expensive, whilst doing little to offer alternatives, feels a lot like displacement activity.

I wish the council put half the effort they have into pursuing CPZs over the years, into lobbying for better public transport. It seems everything is being pinned on cycling, which, while an option for many, does not something that appeals to all. If it was a case of using a bike to make a short trip to the tube, that's one thing. But not everyone want to, or is capable of, cycling into the centre of town. Just making it easier to cycle to Brixton (our nearest tube) and safely leave a bike there (by replicating what they have done in terms of secure bike parking at Finsbury Park), would be a massive boon. Why, when the Santander bikes expanded in every direction, Did Southwark decide not to fund them coming to the SE? Why is there no Cycle superhighway in SE London? If you look at almost any transport map of London (tube map, cycle superhighway map, hire bikes), SE appears as a blank space. The only exception is long distance, suburban rail lines, which are run according to the needs of those commuting in from outside the capital. The train services are not bad to be fair. But there should be other, more regular and convenient alternatives and the Council should be lobbying on our behalf.

Haven't been to Liu's for ages. Really fancy it now.

Look, it's pretty clear that the council want controlled parking across the borough. It's been pretty clear for a number of years now and one way or another, they are going to push it through eventually. It's easier to make private transport more difficult than it is to increase and improve the alternatives.

There is a question along the lines of "..if nearby areas vote in favour of a CPZ, would you then like one too (CPZ tend to displace traffic into neighbouring areas)." So that's nice. If your neighbour lobs their rubbish over the fence, would you like to chuck it over the other side.

The 'consultation' period is pretty short, no?

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Food for thought over this discussion > > With the proposed ultra low emmision zone set to > be introduced in 2021, cars in East Dulwich will > have to meet the new emissions standards, be > electric or have a daily charge imposed to use > them. > > This should reduce the number of diesel and older > polluting cars in or entering the area > > It will also lower the out of area commuters using > East Dulwich as they will have to pay to get here > unless their cars meet the new standards > > Will this be enough to reduce the particulates > element behind some people wanting a CPZ ? > Especially as a CPZ won't be introduced until just > before 2021 so proving if the CPZ worked or if it > was the ULEZ will be difficult as the results will > be intertwined. > > With the argument that the businesses will or > won't be effected, has anyone asked them for input > and support (either for or against) > > Maybe this is a call to action for the East > Dulwich Action group as they claim to represent > the traders 🤔 > > Regardless people should get online and do the > survey to get their views represented otherwise, > like most things, if the result isn't what you > want there can be no whinging after if you didn't > put your official response in. I actually think the ULEZ will do more to reduce the number of vehicles in the area than any CPZ will do.