Jump to content

gmackenney

Member
  • Posts

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gmackenney

  1. Please PM me if you have lost a set of keys on Peckham Rye.
  2. Spaces will be lost a number of ways: 1. Junctions will have yellow lines where 'dangerous' parking was previously tolerated. 2. Some bays will not be exclusively for CPZers - e.g. shared use bays and loading bays etc. 3. Where 'advisory' markings exist in front of driveways, these will either have to be replaced with parking bays (losing the use of the off street parking space) or a yellow line (keeping the off street space but losing the 'reserved' space in front of the house).
  3. Those living immediately adjacent to the zone (e.g. me) and those living within the zone are unlikely to commute to it. Are you seriously telling me that if I live on Oglander or Ondine Road that I'm going to get in my car and drive to Tintagel to drop my kids off at school or park in Derwent to pick stuff up from the bakers? A large proportion of contributors to this thread are concerned residents in the immediate area. I accept that there are some (such as yourself) that live nowhere near the affected area. What's is also missing from your commentary is that the overwhelming majority of people within the zone have rejected it. I fully understand that a consultation is not a vote, but it should stand as a reasonable view of public opinion (discounting for a moment the numerous signatures on petitions that have been collected). What is antagonising me in particular (and I suspect others) is that James Barber stated before the consultation result was that the opinion of those within the CPZ zone would carry more weight for him than those outside. Now that the consultation results are in and do not show support for the CPZ, he is trying to make the figures fit his argument - something that I and other antis were accused of earlier in the thread. The fact is that most of those anti CPZ would not have a leg to stand on if the consultation result went the other way - there would be no need to argue - the CPZ goes ahead with the backing of those living there. However, because of the bias shown by the council towards introducing this scheme and the thinly disguised motive of revenue generation, the anti guys are having to put in a disproportionate amount of effort in to get their voice heard versus those pro CPZ - hence the frustration. It shouldn't be like this - the guys in the zone have spoken and have said they don't want it. For Giles - thanks very much for your efforts on this - I listened to your radio interview and was impressed at the eloquent argument you put forward on it.
  4. I take exception to being branded a 'bully' for expressing an opinion. None of my posts have in any way detracted from the right of those for the CPZ to express their opinion. In fact a large proportion of the no camp acknowledge that certain streets in the proposed zone have a parking issue and acknowledge that it's no fun having to park far away from one's house when laden with kids / shopping etc. To the point about rational argument: the only rational assertion in the council's original consultation document is that there is a parking problem. What it didn't do was to explain how acute that problem was and in which streets. There was no clarity on how the proposed design was arrived at. There was a total absence of any 'downsides' other than an acknowledgement that some parking would be displaced. There was no data on how many spaces would be available under the proposed design. There was no information on permit holder take up. In short it was very light on the facts which may be used to drive a rational debate. This thread at the very least has made some of that information more transparent. I live in a street adjacent to the zone. In saying "If you don't want to live in a CPZ that's entirely fair - but that's no justification to prevent other people who DO want to live in a CPZ from doing so." are you suggesting that my opinion should not be considered, when my street may take the parking displacement? My prior post was intended to reflect the real concerns of those immediately adjacent to the zone. I don't believe it is irrational to suggest that © a more acute problem will be created for streets immediately outside the zone: parking will be displaced into streets which are within easy walking distance of the local amenities. Particularly the Oglander Road triangle. (d) a problem will be created in streets which presently don't have a problem: again due to displacement. (e) that CPZ's spread: the Herne Hill CPZ is currently under consultation to grow on the Lambeth side. (f) that the parking problem should not simply be moved onto other streets (g) that those just outside the CPZ don't want to live in one and that the introduction of this CPZ increases the likelihood that they will come under that regime. I will admit that 'fundamentally altering the character of the area' is highly subjective. I would however counter that 'I have a parking problem so something must be done' is an equally subjective view. With respect to my comment about the 'whole area being swallowed by a CPZ', in my conversations with the parking officials at the Grove Vale library open day, they showed me a map of the current CPZ spread of Southwark. Currently we are bordered by a number of CPZs including the Herne Hill and Peckham Rye ones. My view is that it won't be long before the inevitable CPZ spread will cause the whole area to be covered. (It is only my opinion however!). "The council are rightfully trying to prioritise the needs of local residents who should have a say in whether their own residential area gets turned into a parking lot by parasitic commuters and convenience shoppers." Presumably it is OK to prioritise the needs of these residents over those in the immediate vicinity? I'm not a 'parasitic commuter' or 'convenience shopper' since I can walk to the amenities in question and I suspect a large number of those who've expressed a no view are also in that category. Finally, to your point "I don't believe that the council are deliberately trying to ignore the 'no' vote at all." I found out about the proposed CPZ on this thread. I was not 'consulted' in any way. The council have hung up a few notices on lamp posts inside the zone. Whilst the council are now acknowledging the no vote, they have attempted to put in the CPZ 'quietly' and with little transparency. Whilst James Barber and I disagree on this issue, he has at least taken the trouble to engage with local residents - attempts to get other councillors to engage have failed. My local councillors in 'The Lane' ward have completely ignored correspondence on this issue.
  5. Also, I don't think the fact there is a problem is disputed. What's disputed is whether the 'solution' will work.
  6. Over simplified again huguenot. How about © You are convinced that the council (either deliberately or otherwise) will make a more acute problem for those just outside the zone than the problem that currently exists inside the zone. (d) You believe that the CPZ will create problems where none exist today. (e) You are concerned that the CPZ will spread, fundamentally changing the character of the area (f) You don't believe that the parking problems which are suffered by the few streets in the zone which have them should result the whole area being swallowed by a CPZ. (g) Bluntly and quite selfishly, you don't want to live in a CPZ None of the above are any more right or wrong than those for the CPZ. Of course the petition is going to be made up largely of opposition. The opposition the council are conveniently trying to ignore.
  7. I also have only one login and live in a road adjacent to the CPZ! I'm against for the reasons I've stated earlier on this thread.
  8. Hi James, Would you care to share with us the specific numbers you've spoken about in your conversations with council officers to counter gsirett's assertions? Moreover, I fail to see why the petition needs to answer the same questions as the consultation - presumably the consultation survey already does that. Either you're opposed to the CPZ (in which case sign the petition) or you're for it (in which case don't sign). Seems simple enough to me. After all, the consultation document was hardly presenting a balanced case!
  9. I agree. A half baked CPZ (due to budgetary constraints) is even worse than a well thought out CPZ. Frankly I'm against either since I don't think these things solve a problem - they merely shift that problem around. The budgetary constraints thing was also pulled out as an excuse to not consult residents in surrounding streets. Something else I also remembered from the day - one of the parking officers also suggested it might have been more logical to only have the end of Ondine Road closest to Grove Value included in the proposed CPZ. It is interesting that these assertions are coming to light now rather than as input into the CPZ design process! I would not have been able to knock that logic, particularly if it meant that Oglander and Everthorpe were in - this would have led to a design which tied in with the proposed objective of reducing commuter parking. The fact is no design would be perfect, but this design is a long long way away from that! In fact I would say that the design is primarily targeted towards creating a problem for surrounding streets necessitating extension and secondarily towards creating the impression that it is somehow helping people within the zone.
  10. Note also the 'unsafe' spaces that are being used informally today (e.g. parking over driveways). Under the CPZ residents will need to make a choice - add a yellow line (losing the space, but retaining use of their driveway) or add a CPZ space (losing guaranteed access to their driveway). Either way, a parking space is lost and those cars will need to park somewhere (either inside or outside the zone). I also visited the event at GV library yesterday. At the time I was there, quite a lot of heated exchange (not from me!) was taking place, all of it firmly in the against camp. All of the arguments put forward have already been put forward on this forum. I also spent quite a bit of time looking at the detailed data with Paul Gellard. Clearly there are parking pressures in certain streets - that's not disputed. What's being discussed more is whether the CPZ will help those residents. What is clear, however, is that there will be a disproportionately negative effect on certain streets in proximity to the CPZ almost immediately necessitating its extension (e.g. Everthorpe, Oglander etc.) There were a couple of things which came out of my visit yesterday: - The parking team are aware of parking displacement issues, but their only answer in response was that the likely outcome would be residents in affected streets be consulted (i.e. the CPZ would extend). Even from the outset, the guys designing this thing are quite clear that it is going to cause displacement and therefore the CPZ will likely grow if it is established. - They also acknowledge that the design is somewhat illogical with respect to the streets in the V-shaped cutout (Oglander, Everthorpe etc). They would have preferred to include additional streets including Oglander, Everthorpe etc, but the available budget does not allow. - They stated that there isn't huge parking pressure currently in the streets north of Grove Vale. This begs the question why they're included. - It is council policy to introduce CPZs - other's at the event can back up this claim - just in case you're in any doubt as to the council's agenda. I've also noticed something in the data. All of the streets appear to 'lose' residents throughout the day. e.g. Derwent starts with 62 residents, but by 20:30, 10 residents are still missing. That 10 feels somewhat high to me - surely most will be home by that time? It is my feeling that such residents are counted as 'Visitors' when they return. I'm going to be putting this question to Paul Gellard via email.
  11. James As stated earlier - I don't claim to have the answers. Does a lack of alternatives mean that the CPZ is the solution by default? No. The other alternative 'solution' would be to leave things as they are. What we're trying to do here is compare a world with and without a CPZ for all those affected, and not just those inside the CPZ. Fundamentally, is the gain for those in the CPZ worth the pain of those outside? If you're on the council it certainly is as it's a shoe-in that the CPZ will extend. Re East Dulwich Road - what I was trying to point out here is that the council have prioritised road safety over parking capacity - commendable in my view as I certainly appreciate it being easier to walk down that stretch as a pedestrian. However, very little (if any) thought goes into the knock on effects. Why should I believe the council are behaving any differently with regard to the CPZ? As for the cycle detour - please. Irrespective of the way the one way stretch would face, the main part of the East Dulwich Road which runs parallel is not far down. I frequently walk down that stretch of road and rarely see cyclists using it. As for slowing vehicular traffic down, don't other measures such as speed tables work? My point here is that before that change, it was abundantly clear that there would be parking pressure after, and yet the solution chosen does not appear to have taken that into account.
  12. James - I appreciate that the council is in a difficult position here. My concern is that 'something must be done' irrespective of its efficacy. The CPZ is self-funding, but there are also other effective ways to improve parking capacity which seem to be ignored. Motorists pay for the improvements - job done. I am not going to naively claim that alternative solutions would come for free. And I certainly would not claim to have alternative solutions. My beef is that the one alternative that has been proposed is likely to make life miserable for more people than it would help. I do have one suggestion for East Dulwich Road though - I understand why the bays were removed from the pavement side (to allow people to walk there), but why scatter the bays from one side of the road to the other? Instead, why not make it a one way street (it's pretty narrow) and concentrate the parking on one side? Looking at the passing spots, several spaces could be created with this simple measure. In addition, encouraging properties to convert their driveways (e.g. by dropping the kerb across the whole road as opposed to dropping one drive at a time) could also ease pressure.
  13. One other thing... I think the evidence is far from clear - that's why there's so much traffic on this thread. 11 pages on this issue alone, most of it unequivocally opposed to the CPZ. At what point will the council start to listen to popular opinion? Oh, I forgot - those outside the CPZ aren't entitled to one. Who exactly does this CPZ help? The few streets near the station that have a parking issue. Who does it adversely impact? Those streets surrounding. As I stated earlier - shifting a problem to other streets is not a satisfactory solution.
  14. James - you and Paul Gellard have been very helpful in trying to get answers to peoples questions. However, I think the statement "Those answers don't seem to fit their argument so they ask for more answers. " is somewhat unfair and frankly dismissive. We are looking for more detail to understand exactly how a CPZ is going to help. Naturally as you look at the dribbles of info coming out it is going to lead to more questions. And in fact in many cases the data you've provided does fit our argument! For example, in an earlier post you provided the details on how full the roads are in percentage terms. Naturally people are going to ask how those percentages are derived, and what space will be left once the design is in place. That's not to say the data doesn't fit an an argument - it simply says the data is incomplete to draw a well reasoned conclusion. We've now subsequently been provided with an aggregate number which shows how many spaces are going to be in the CPZ overall, and how many residents cars there are overall. This would be fine if parking levels were uniform across all streets in the CPZ - but they're not. Simply dismissing people because they're asking awkward questions is unlikely to make the noise go away. If the evidence clearly was showing that a CPZ will have a positive impact, those against simply wouldn't have the ammunition to cast doubt on the benefit case. The fact that things are less than clear and that the council has been less than transparent from the start of this consultation is going to arouse suspicion. Frankly it's disappointing that the council aren't doing the level of analysis required to make the benefit case clear. My understanding from Paul Gellard is that more detailed information about how the parking analysis was done will be available at the open day at GV library. I'm looking forward to seeing it!
  15. Quite a few of us against acknowledge there is a problem is some streets. What's disputed is how acute that problem is; what the cause is (commuters vs visitors etc); and whether a CPZ addresses that problem. I'm unsure how one can come to the conclusion that a CPZ is automatically the answer on the basis of the flimsy consultation which is absent of supporting data (e.g. number of parking spaces lost, street by street parking analysis etc.) but full of wooly stuff about trees and cycle parking. People for the CPZ seem to want to sweep these issues under the carpet. They don't want you to know that there are doubts about whether the CPZ will work or not and happily gloss over or ignore well reasoned arguments against. They certainly won't want to quantify the negative effect on the surrounding streets. They disregard the views of people who've previously lived in CPZs. They show no interest in the statistics and the conclusions drawn from them. And if you're in doubt as to whether CPZs grow or not - Google 'Herne Hill CPZ consultation'. Naturally those in the surrounding streets are worried and with good reason. I don't doubt that parking in some streets is harder than others. That forms part of the pros and cons that should be evaluated when living in a property. For example, my street is close to Goose Green playground. In the summer, parking becomes an issue in my road due to people driving to the playground. However, I also frequent that park with my children and the proximity to that amenity is something I enjoy with the possible disadvantage of not being able to park in my street at times. In addition, we also take some of the overflow parking from East Dulwich Road where the council recently removed half the parking spaces. If these problems became acute, I'd consider moving. The fact is, I love living here and parking outside my house or even in my street is not something I expect to be able to do all of the time given that I live in Zone 2. Everyone in this community needs to live alongside one another. Shoving the problem around does not constitute a 'solution' in my book.
  16. James - sorry to be pedantic, but 20% commuters and visitors. Whilst imperfect, it is fair to assume there aren't too many commuters on Saturdays, so taking the commuter+visitor number on Saturday away from the weekday leaves one with a reasonable approximation of just how many commuters there are on weekdays: 7%. Still a significant number, I agree, but are we going to lose more than 7% of the spaces in the new layout? Do we have any idea where all these rail commuters are coming from? Looking at a map of the local area, there aren't too many places where you're much more than a mile away from a mainline station serving London Bridge (i.e. within walking distance). Honor Oak, Peckham Rye, North Dulwich, Forest Hill stations - these all cover a relatively small area. Is ED station really that much of a destination station for commuting to London Bridge? Judging by the numbers I'd say not. Moreover, the capacity of London Bridge station won't have an impact on the capacity of ED station. It's already pretty rammed at peak time. Unless there is an upgrade of ED station as well (longer platforms etc), I can't see the upgrade of London Bridge having a huge effect. London Bridge serves most of the south coast - not just greater London. Isn't a lot of the parking problem (aside from residents themselves) patrons of local businesses? If so, are we considering the effect on those local businesses (and the character of the area) as they start to close?
  17. John K makes a good point. Up to now I had been considering each street an island. Derwent Grove residents need to consider the effect of displacement parking from streets like Elsie where large numbers of spaces are to be lost. The figures suggest a marginal improvement for Derwent, but not all streets in the CPZ will be as lucky. Also agree with Loz and peckhamgatecrasher. Personal attacks on JB are not helpful. His opinion differs from the majority on here, but at least he's here!
  18. Don't doubt it's stressful - our stress is not as acute, but we live on the edge of the CPZ behind a run of shops and near a playground which places inevitable stress on our parking. We rarely park right outside our house, and often have to park in adjacent roads. This isn't an issue which is confined to the roads near to the station. That said, I definitely don't want a CPZ because I think it will just make things much less flexible - fewer spaces to park in, restrictions on where you can park due to zoning etc. One thing I would say is that we need to look at how much we think the parking pressure is going to be eased by this CPZ. Looking at the data for Derwent Grove specifically - on a weekday, 21% of the spaces are occupied by visitors / commuters. On a weekend that number is 14%. Presuming that the difference between a weekday and the weekend is commuters, you'll effectively reduce parking stress by 7% on weekdays assuming that the remaining visitors will still visit albeit outside the CPZ hours (10-12?). If the number of spaces lost to the CPZ is above 7%, it is likely that you'll still have problems parking in your street outside the CPZ hours. Our car tends to see most use at the weekend, when we visit relatives etc. This could explain why you have fewer problems at the weekend than during the week. As for the evenings, naturally commuters will go home, but so will patrons of the local businesses. It's been said many times before, but the largest contributor to the number of spaces used is the residents themselves and a CPZ shouldn't affect this much. I appreciate that you have real problems parking and that it is very difficult with small children (I have 2 young children myself). However, if we assume the data supplied by James is accurate, there is a great deal of doubt as to whether a real benefit would arise. Apologies if I sound like a stuck record, but we need all the facts in front of us, including the number of spaces lost. I received a reply from Paul Gellard to my email today and he has said that more data will be available at the open days at GV library - as to whether this will include 'lost spaces' not sure.
  19. James - agreed that there are negative and positive consequences and that there isn't 1 right answer. What people are trying to get to is just how negative / positive those consequences are. If the CPZ will mean no additional free space in the zone then clearly that won't be a success. What we're trying to ascertain is how many free spaces there will be so people can make a call on whether they think this CPZ going to deliver the benefits it promises. FYI, I also didn't know about the HH extension until I Googled it! Looking at that extension the area being covered looks pretty large. Whilst I'm giving you a hard time about this, believe it or not, I do appreciate the (albeit slanted) engagement we are getting! It's great to get some of the data out in the open so people can make their own minds up.
  20. I believe the Herne Hill CPZ has been subject to a consultation to extend it further this year: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/TransportStreets/HerneHillCPZExtensionStage2.htm
  21. James - your bias is evident for all to see on here. At no point have you even engaged on the downsides of this CPZ. Everything you've said here is about how great it's going to be for the residents inside the CPZ, completely disregarding those who live immediately outside. I find it a little rich that the data which you supplied is considered irrelevant when it presents a less favourable view of the CPZ, but had enough relevancy to form the basis of the consultation. I think the number of spaces lost to this CPZ is an absolutely vital component to present a balanced view. Unfortunately a number of people have probably already voted positively in the absence of this information. If logic and reason are an irrelevance, then I'm afraid none of us have any hope of this being a balanced consultation. I just hope enough people against this CPZ will come out and say so, and that their voices will be heard.
  22. Except Elsie which remains well above 100%. To the point above - unless we know how many spaces are lost we don't know whether this will help. Taking the maximum occupancy and removing the 'visitors' for the 'under stress' streets leaves these streets which remain under stress after the introduction of the CPZ: Derwent: 82% East Dulwich Road: 93% Elsie Road: 116% Ondine Road: 86% Zenoria Street: 90% How many spaces will be removed from these streets? Using the maximum occupancy figures, at least this many will be lost (the amount the max occupancy is over 100)%: Derwent: 3% East Dulwich Road: 7% Elsie Road: 34% Ondine Road: 0% Zenoria Street: 15% I've not attempted to factor in the spaces which won't be available to residents. It would be helpful to have the actual numbers of spaces and cars in front of me to draw useful conclusions. Gut feel tells me that Elsie almost certainly will be worse off. Zenoria probably no better off.
  23. Irrespective of whether the evidence suggests that the CPZ will / won't help? I prefer objectivity over subjectivity. I accept that there is a parking problem in some of the streets included in the CPZ. What I'm having difficulty with is whether a CPZ is the answer to that problem. Without the data which says how many spaces will be available to park in if the CPZ is introduced, I fail to see how residents can make a well informed choice either in favour or against. A large chunk of the information is missing! What is clear to me is that the CPZ will reduce the number of spaces available in these streets (irrespective of who uses them) and those people will elect to park in the surrounding streets necessitating the extension of the CPZ. What we don't know is how many spaces will be lost and how acute that effect will be. I strongly suspect that if this CPZ goes ahead it will by necessity have to merge with surrounding ones such as the one near Peckham Rye station. Why? because the stations aren't that far apart - certainly within 15 mins walk of each other. Is this better than the situation we (as a community) have today? I guess the choice is either parking stress for the streets near the station, or parking stress (and clamping / towing stress) for all of the streets sucked into this CPZ.
  24. Agreed kr988. The worst of all worlds would be a CPZ which makes life harder for those just outside the zone whilst failing to provide the benefits it promises. I just hope that James is able to provide the additional data I requested on a previous post which makes it clear exactly how many residents spaces would be lost following the introduction of a CPZ, and whether or not that number of spaces would support the number of residents cars. Edit: To be clear though, based on the evidence so far I'm far from convinced that the CPZ will have a significant positive impact to the lives of those within it
  25. Thanks for the figures James - appreciate the greater transparency. One thing I'd like to point out is that under the rule that 80%+ is 'parking stress', then looking at the data it would appear that a CPZ will only alleviate the parking stress for 4 streets within the consultation zone: Jarvis, Oglander/Copleston, Oxonian, Tintagel. All the other streets will remain above 80% even if the commuters are removed (maximum occupancy minus commuter occupancy during the day). Moreover, this calculation doesn't take into account the reduction in total available spaces due to spaces devoted to non residents (such as the 'time restricted free bays' and 'loading bays'). Elsie Road appears to be worst off with 116% occupancy even if commuters are removed! Would it be possible to see even more detail on the data please James? Of particular interest to me personally would be total number of cars (i.e. not percentages) parked in the street and how it changes through the day - this will be essential in determining whether a 10-12 CPZ would have the desired effect. Also, could we see information on how may 'safe' spaces there are today versus how many would be devoted to permit holders under the CPZ? I can't determine this from the consultation material. Will this information be made available at the open day at GV library?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...