Residents Parking Permits

[Siduhe]

The problem with putting a CPZ just around the station area is that it just pushes the problem back a few streets - I suppose that was the original thinking.

What I'm still not clear on is whether anyone has demonstrated to a reasonable degree that the problem is being caused by non-residents. There have been a few comments that parking clears up early evening, but also some people reporting that it doesn't. At the same time I've seen articles in the press that say people are avoiding the massive increases to suburban rail fares by driving to places like ED and then getting on the train where fares are comparatively cheaper.

If the squeeze on parking is being caused by non-residents parking during commuting hours, I can see where a limited CPZ (not at the weekends and only 12-2 weekdays might help). However, if it's caused as much by increased popularity of the area to live, then it won't.

Does the Council do any kind of research specifically on this aspect? If so, how is it carried out?

[puzzled]

the only research these rapacious ratbags do is into how much they can rip us off for

[kford]

The problem is that CPZs - and all parking - is contracted out, in Southwark's case to APCOA (Airport Parking Company of America). It then becomes business, so any notion of it being a cause for safe, considerate parking goes out of the window.

[Jeremy]

kford Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> any notion of it being a

> cause for safe, considerate parking goes out of

> the window.

Already the case with all parking enforcement throughout the country.

[kford]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> kford Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > any notion of it being a

> > cause for safe, considerate parking goes out of

> > the window.

>

> Already the case with all parking enforcement

> throughout the country.

The exceptions are the old-fashioned civil Traffic Wardens (not Parking Attendants) who patrol places like Parliament Square. Get a ticket from one of those and you know you're in the wrong, although they're more likely to just politely move you on your way.

[Hackblade]

Noooooo... I hate the idea of parking wardens scuttling around. The lack of them is one of the many pleasant things about life in East Dulwich.

You forget how annoying they are until you visit somewhere like Brixton.

[mastershake]

If the squeeze on parking is being caused by non-residents parking during commuting hours, I can see where a limited CPZ (not at the weekends and only 12-2 weekdays might help). However, if it's caused as much by increased popularity of the area to live, then it won't.

I live very near the station and the roads are full to bursting any time after (but not before) 8am, and they're usually busy til about 7 at night. At weekends, even when there's a major church service, there are always spaces.

It's very clear that the majority of the problems are caused by people driving to somewher near the station.

This was the case in Herne Hill too, which is why they eventually worked out the extremely effective 12-2 system, and extended it to about 10 minutes' walk from the station. It didn't entirely solve the problem - the areas just outside were still quite busy - but it was certainly a massive improvement.

[Huguenot]

It's difficult because a large number of people on this forum are those that drive to the station and park in those roads - not everyone will share your need for a solution.

It was particularly insightful that when we ran a CPZ survey on this forum there was a majority against a CPZ, but that was because the majority of respondents did not live on affected roads. In fact they parked on the affected roads when they were doing a quick run to Lordship Lane, or a convenience run to the station.

The ones talking about what a 'nightmare' a CPZ is, and how they don't work etc. etc. may have an entirely different agenda - to keep their options open to park outside your house.

The majority of those on the affected roads (90%+) actually voted for a CPZ, in spite of the potential cost and hassle.

The traders are aginst a CPZ, but seem strangely unwilling to find out how much of their trade actually comes from people parking on affected roads. As a consequence I don't think they're being honest either. It's possible they don't want a CPZ solely for personal convenience.

So, as I say, this isn't an honest debate, it's full of competing agendas and forked tongues. That's why it gets so heated.

[Loz]

The majority of those on the affected roads (90%+) actually voted for a CPZ, in spite of the potential cost and hassle.

Sorry - I call "bull****" on this. Is this based on figures from the council (and if so where are the full set) or did you just make them up because it sounded good?

[Huguenot]

No, it was from the survey that we ran on this forum. If you check paragraph two, the clue is in the phrase "we ran a CPZ survey on this forum".

The full results were distributed at the time on this forum, so they'll still be here somewhere. I'll have a look and see if I still have a copy.

Don't worry too much though Loz, because the survey was run on the forum, there's still plenty of scope to say that you don't believe/accept the data, that the sample size isn't representative, or that people were lying etc.

Which group are you in BTW? Is it as a resident on one of the affected roads, one of the peeps who make use of the affected roads on trips to LL or the station, or a local trader?

[mastershake]

from my herne hill experience, when there were parking restrictions 9-5 monday to friday (as the scheme originally ran) it had a really adverse effect on the HH shops. But once this was brought to council attention they sorted it so it was only 12-2 and the shops seemed a lot better as a result and the problem of station parking was more or less solved too.

I'm sure if i lived further away from the station - if i had to drive to eat in East Dulwich, for instance - i wouldn't be so much in favour. everyone's opinion on this will be more or less determined by a) where they live and b) whether they consider it ok to have to pay to park outside their own house.

[Huguenot]

All sounds very sensible masterclass - I'd refine it somewhat, to whether people have a problem parking outside their house, whether they think a CPZ would fix it, and how much that solution would be worth to them.

The Herne Hill solution seems very sensible too.

I don't understand why local traders don't just get the answer to some of these questions.

It would take absolutely NO effort to ask their customers when they pay how they got to the shops that day. If they say by car, they can ask them where they parked, and whether they wouldn't have gone shopping if they'd had to pay and display.

If they make a note of both that and the sum spent you could very quickly and easily put a cash value against the possible impact of a CPZ on trade.

It's because local traders refuse to do this that I question their honesty.

[Penguin68]

It's because local traders refuse to do this that I question their honesty.

'Honesty' - they may be being lazy, they may consider asking customers intrusive questions may appear nosy and put customers off, they may wish simply to avoid the issue they may... but honesty? That is over-egging the pudding.

The most you might be able to question is their intellectual honesty, but only if they had entered a debate (which I don't think they have) and obfuscated.

Why, if someone doesn't do what you have advocated (on a web site) are they being dishonest? They may consider they have better things to do with their time. Outwith this forum I don't believe (but am very happy to be corrected) that there are currently concrete proposals to introduce a CPZ in ED.

[Huguenot]

This isn't the first time there's been a thread about a cpz, and traders have commented on other ones.

I didn't say they were dishonest, I said it raises questions about it. They've never responded on this and doubt fills a vacuum.

Neither was I calling them liars. Honesty can also refer to open-heartedness, and dishonesty can mean being disingenuous. These were the meanings that I was looking to explore.

It clearly is possible to interpret it any way they want, and people looking for offence can always find it.

[calculus]

from my herne hill experience, when there were parking restrictions 9-5 monday to friday (as the scheme originally ran) it had a really adverse effect on the HH shops. But once this was brought to council attention they sorted it so it was only 12-2 and the shops seemed a lot better as a result and the problem of station parking was more or less solved too.

So if it works in Herne Hill with the 12-2pm restricted hours I assume it might work here as well yes? I would have thought the effect of this on local shops would be minimal. It doesn't even need to be 2 hours, it could be half an hour, as the end result, to stop people driving here and parking for the train would be the same. One thing I would be interested to know is whether a "zone" has to be a certain size. Could it be just a few streets or would it have to extend up to the library as someone suggested?

[mastershake]

the extent of the HH one seemed fairly arbitrary, but on reflection it extended to about 10 minutes' walk to the station.

I'm not sure it was the key to the future of the world, as the roads just outside it were always fairy busy, but still.

[Huguenot]

The length of time is probably as much to do with practical implementation as principle: in order for it to work drivers would have to have a reasonable expectation of being caught.

For example, if it took 20 wardens to police all the roads in a 30 minute window, it would only take 5 wardens to police all the roads in a two hour window. If you then decided that the cut-off point for motorists was a 50:50 chance of getting caught you'd only need to do half the roads on alternate days, cutting the requirement to 2.

Since the wardens are part funded by the residents permit fee, the larger the time window, the cheaper the permit.

[Huguenot]

Ten minutes walk is around 500 yards.

[Loz]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, it was from the survey that we ran on this

> forum. If you check paragraph two, the clue is in

> the phrase "we ran a CPZ survey on this forum".

>

> The full results were distributed at the time on

> this forum, so they'll still be here somewhere.

> I'll have a look and see if I still have a copy.

>

> Don't worry too much though Loz, because the

> survey was run on the forum, there's still plenty

> of scope to say that you don't believe/accept the

> data, that the sample size isn't representative,

> or that people were lying etc.

>

> Which group are you in BTW? Is it as a resident on

> one of the affected roads, one of the peeps who

> make use of the affected roads on trips to LL or

> the station, or a local trader?

I declared my status waaay earlier in the thread. I live about 5 mins from the station, but have an off-road parking space.

And you should have the survey results - a little search failed to find the results, but did uncover that you yourself set it up. It was in March 2008.

The big problem with CPZs is that people grab them in the old "Something must be done. This is something..." solution-hunting mode. CPZs rarely solve the problem at hand and, more often than not exacerbates it. But time and time again is is put forward as the one and only solution.

[Marcus]

I have off street parking so not really a problem for me. I can only speak for Melbourne Grove - there is a huge problem with commuter station paking... If the Herne Hill model works then that is possibly the way forward? However, as has already been mentioned, once the council starts with the CPZs it can quickly get out of hand. Suddenly it's all about revenue generation, more indirect taxation and more traffic wardens...! We already have those awful camera cars that work the high street. Is it fair to say that they, quite literally, emanate the putrid stench of evil? (Even if they do occasionally perform a valid service.)

[Fuschia]

I used to live near a tube station and we had residents parking. It had a lot of disadvanages... when my car got pranged and I had a loan car... had problems getting a temp permit and got ticketed... another time the permit just fell off the window on a hot day... another time they suspended my bay when I wa son holiday. Each of these times I got a ticket and my appeal failed. It all worked out very pricey. Visitor permits had to be bought in person by going to a prking shop that was open awkward hours, with several proofs of address, and ironically, an expensive pay and display car park of its own...

[Bobby P]

I live on Melbourne Grove, pretty near the station, and (in contrast to others' views) have never in 7 years' residency here had problems parking my car on the street. Occasionally I have to park a few yards up the road, rather than directly outside my house, but this is normal in any large town. So I find it hard to understand why some seem to have such a parking problem in this vicinity, unless it's because they are always expecting the available space to be outside their front door.

Indeed, in contrast to other areas of London I have lived, I find that the lack of restricted parking is one of the joys of E.Dulwich - which adds greatly to its "liveability". As others have stated, CPZs do not usually help with parking congestion (it simply got worse in my old N.London neighbourhood after the CPZ was introduced) and only add to endless hassle and dubiously issued tickets for residents - not to mention their visitors. In my own experience in other CPZ's, while I was able to challenge and overturn wrongly issued tickets on appeal (given out for instance because of overnight bay suspensions), they greatly added to the stress of urban living. Thank goodness we don't have to put up with this in ED.

Honestly, any form of CPZ - even if only for two hours in the middle of the day - would give rise to these unappealing side effects while doing nothing to relieve parking congestion.

[calculus]

I live on Melbourne Grove, pretty near the station, and (in contrast to others' views) have never in 7 years' residency here had problems parking my car on the street. Occasionally I have to park a few yards up the road, rather than directly outside my house, but this is normal in any large town. So I find it hard to understand why some seem to have such a parking problem in this vicinity, unless it's because they are always expecting the available space to be outside their front door.

With the greatest respect I can only deduce that (a) you only take your car out for a drive in the middle of the night, (b) have been phenomenally lucky, consistently over 7 years, or © are talking nonsense. How can you find it hard to understand why people don't want to drive around for half an hour to find a space in a street within the "vicinity" of their house? And by vicinity I mean within 3 or 4 streets of the house. This has nothing to do with parking "outside the front door". No one has suggested this expectation from what I have read on here. Based on what you say, I think I'll try parking on Melbourne Grove with all the spaces you say there are!

[Bobby P]

Calculus, I have no objection at all to you parking on Melbourne Grove, since I am sure there is room for you too.

I do indeed use the car at all hours, and can only tell you the truth as I have experienced it, i.e. that parking close to my house is pretty easy. Others above have picked Melbourne Grove - with its proximity to the station - as prime CPZ territory, which I think would be disastrous for the reasons stated.

[James Barber]

Testing residents about whether they want a CPZ and if the initial research shows they do and its' implimented costs around ?50,000.

AS reported around Herne Hill they've created controlled parking that instead of operating 7am-6pm operates from noon to 2pm. So it has the effect of killing commuter parking but trying to minimise the effect for visitors etc with options for visitor parking.

No reason why a CPZ near ED station could'nt be created that operated 11am to noon - this minimises impact on passing trade for shops. Would mean visitors coming for lunch wouldn't be impacted and local residents could park on their streets - which currently many report they find almost impossible.

In fact another street Holmdene has successfully pleaded to join the Herne Hill CPZ. The implimentation resulting in zero reduction in car parking spaces and no additional yellow lines. So, Loz don't know why you'd think lots more yellow lines would go in.

Some considerable time ago a consultation was run in the ED area - we must be talking 8-10 years ago. What was proposed was the full CPZ operating from 7am-6pm which I think really heavy handed opertating hours.

Since that time the idea of operating just in the middle of the day has been developed and appears to have been very successful in the Herne Hill area to fight commuter parking.

Short term though we've tried to reduce the parking pressure by using CGS funds to triple the number of Car Club cars in East Dulwich from 4 to 15.

Otto, TRRL research shows you need to place cycle parking maximum of 20-50m from the front door. I've spoken to council officers and the train operating company about could we have mopre cycle lockers and we couldn't think of wher to put them that met this criteria. Beside ED station is various bits of woodland which I'm told are privately owned or have no access or the access would be a couple of hundred metres walk away.