Earl Aelfheah

Sure, but whilst it may be getting used for that purpose, they don't need to designate it as such. We don't label other short term parking for specific purposes - we don't paint 'grabbing some milk' on parking bays. Just seems a bit odd.

There is a quite a bit of detail in the regulations I linked if you're interested. This (from Shropshire council), gives a slightly easier to digest summary of the relevant legislation : https://shropshire.gov.uk/committee-services/documents/s15733/8 Appendix 1 Parking Strategy Proposals - Charging rules and guidance on use of car parking income.pdf The question about 'income generation' is a nuanced one. In a literal sense, parking charges obviously bring in money (income), but also cost a lot to implement and administer. The idea however, that councils are only introducing CPZs for the specific purpose of income generation is wrong imo, and would break the regulations above. Income is used to fund the administration of the schemes themselves, and where there is any in year surplus, it is ringfenced for specific things, like street and transport improvements. The reality of Local Authority funding is that most are struggling just to cover the cost of services they are statutorily obliged to provide (social care, waste collection etc). Many are on the brink of bankruptcy. They do not have a big pot of money for public realm improvements that income from parking permits enable them to redirect (and again, if this is what was happening, it would be a breach of the regulations).

Here is a link to the relevant legislation that strictly regulates how the money raised can be used if you’re interested https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/55 Yes, it is. If you read my previous post I have listed some of the ways it can be used. (👆🏾this one) Road safety and public realm improvements would include things like filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces etc.

They fund themselves. That’s the point. The money raised has to be put back into running these sorts of initiatives and cannot be used to fund other services. If they could then there might be an argument that they were being used to raise money to run the council (as some seem to be suggesting, but which is not actually the case).

.

I was commenting on that bit. That’s why I quoted that bit.

If you believe this then I can understand why you may think its 'fair' for coaches to pay. I personally don't think it's about this. The use of controlled parking zones is strictly regulated and isn't used for generating income for the council. The money has to be redirected into improving the streets and improving road safety, they can't be used to fund council services.

I think the right question is: Would you prefer all of those kids arrived on your road individually by car? As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on it, in reality, making coaches pay for a permit isn't going to stop them parking on that road. If residents feel better knowing that a coach has to have a permit, fine, although it seems a bit weird. The purpose of a CPZ is to partly to reduce parking stress and mass transit actually helps with that aim. Councils can't use CPZs for income generation, as previously explained. There use and how the money generated is used, is strictly regulated. CPZ's aren't really aimed at reducing car ownership. Southwark say they're intended to prioritise parking for residents, short-term visitors to shops and business. I believe it's also intended to tackle concerns raised by residents about inconsiderate and unsafe parking related issues linked to local schools. As pointed out previously, this thread isn't about LTNs, but just to correct the record (as I know you wouldn't wish to deliberately spread misinformation) research actually found that residents started driving less once their area became an LTN: The Impact of 2020 Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on Levels of Car/Van Driving among Residents: Findings from Lambeth, London, UK : WestminsterResearch.

I don't have a strong view on whether coaches should need parking permits tbh, but tend to lean towards thinking they shouldn't, no. One coach probably carries what, 90 kids? It takes up considerably less room and causes less congestion and pollution than the 90 SUVs that would likely replace it if it went. Single occupancy vehicles obviously a much bigger problem, and mass transit to some extend, is part of the solution.

It’s really weird that they’ve explicitly marked the parking bays ‘school drop off’. Never seen this before and not sure why it’s necessary or desirable to encourage them to be used for that one specific purpose.

Sometimes it’s this. Others I suspect it’s just laziness / thoughtlessness. Brent council install signs outside schools and other sites where idling is an issue. They also have an online form where you can report issues so they can target engagement campaigns. https://www.brent.gov.uk/environment/air-quality/no-idling-campaign I’m not aware of Southwark doing anything in this space?

The idling engine thing is infuriating (and an offence). Needs to be better enforced and fines issued.

Just directly answering a question that was (apparently) posed seriously What is the saying… “ask a silly question….”

Oh, Ok. Well CPZ's aren't sentient. So I would say that it's impossible for them to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary journeys.

Is this a serious question?

Their recommendation for a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods? You can keep doubling down (I have no doubt you will), but your claim that Southwark's policy is that LTNs should only be deployed in the north of the borough, is not right. You could correct your ‘mistake’.

What guidance? You have quoted Southwark council as recommending: Dulwich Village is in the borough. It's also just one of several LTNs the council have introduced across Southwark.

Which parts of the south of the borough have high PTAL scores? Does Dulwich Village have high PTAL scores? That's quite the non sequitur: You claimed Southwark said LTNs should only be deployed in the north of the borough. You've then quoted them saying the opposite. I've already named some of the areas in the South of the borough with high PTAL scores, including Herne Hill, Peckham, Camberwell and parts of East Dulwich. I've explicitly said that the Village does not have a high PTAL score and explained some of the reasons for why that might be. I have said why I believe that a high PTAL score does not suggest one should avoid interventions that reduce motor traffic, or improve the ease and safety of walking and cycling, but the opposite. But you realise that LTNs are less likely to succeed in areas that do not have high PTAL scores don't you Again, that's quite the non-sequitur. What you have quoted does refer to where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to, as you wrongly claimed. Might I suggest that there is some deflection going on?

So the recommendation is a borough wide programme of LTNs. Not a policy of only introducing them in the north of the borough? This is about where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to. Exactly. Dulwich Village buses pass through the centre of the village. It's surrounded by big houses / is low density. It also has a number of large open spaces, parks and fields. So there are fewer people within a short walk from the bus.

I don't really understand how the first point fits with the last. If you are surrounded by parks and fields, there are large houses/ low density, and fewer roads, then you probably are going to have to walk further to get public transport. You seem to accept that. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting? Buses cutting through parks and playing fields? You could perhaps increase the frequency of buses through the village, but you would still have to walk to the main road. But point was that a low PTAL (it's not low across most of the local area) does not suggest the need to pursue policies encouraging more motor traffic and congestion and which make it more difficult to get about by foot or bicycle - quite the opposite.

I really don't think this is what Southwark say. They've clearly implemented LTNs across the borough. On the PTAL scores... it varies across the area, as it does for most London neighbourhoods; But the vast majority of East Dulwich is rated between a 3 and 5 ('moderate' to 'very good'). Peckham, Camberwell, and Herne Hill generally have a high ('excellent') PTAL score. The Village is much lower, largely due to it's low density and wide open spaces. One Dulwich have tried to use PTAL to undermine the case for LTNs in and around Dulwich. I suspect this is because it sounds a bit technical / 'sciencey', and few people know enough to question how 'One' Dulwich use it, or it's relevance to LTNs. If you're in an area that's fairly reliant on bus, bike and foot as the main alternatives to motor vehicles for short journeys, then reducing traffic is just about the best thing you can do in the short to medium term to make getting around easier, safer, and quicker.

I really don't think this is the reality of LA funding. It allows you to do things you otherwise wouldn't do, it's not allowing you to reallocate money you just had sitting there.

Councils are struggling just to fund the services they're legally obliged to provide. If money wasn't raised in this way then they would simply have to do less to improve road safety or invest in the public realm. It doesn't fund, or cross-subsidise any other activities. I don't think this is relevant. Clearly it is not the councils policy that active travel interventions should only take place in the North of the Borough.

Where is this guidance? All of the policy documents that I have seen have committed the council to action around active travel across the borough. I have not seen anything that states they are only looking to increase walking and cycling in the North. As stated many times before, Councils can’t use parking as a revenue-generating tool. The use of any surplus that results from parking is strictly governed by legislation and is tightly controlled. It can only be used for activities specified in Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended). These activities include: public realm improvements road safety initiatives freedom passes for disabled people and people over 60 The most affluent households are far more likely to have access to a car. The negative impact of motorised transport disproportionately affects disadvantaged groups; including transport-related air pollution, climate change and traffic collisions. So a class war perhaps, but not in the way you think.

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/24799610.lordship-lane-east-dulwich-crash-pedestrian-hospital/