Do you want Controlled Parking YES or NO

[spider69]

When Khans ULEZ masterplan comes in there will be parking for all who can afford to buy a new car.

Most cars from ordinary people will be priced off the road including builders etc etc vehicles, so loft conversions, plumbers etc will not be on the road.

Will CPZ's be dismantled?

Has the full implications of this been thought out?

[DulwichLondoner]

bels123 Wrote:

>

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/2111/Pa

> rking_zones_-_before_and_after_photos.pdf

>

> These before & after photos from nearby CPZs show

> otherwise - Southwark typically expect a 40%

> reduction in parked cars.

>

> As well as a few other benefits below - cleaner

> air, less congestion and encouraging sustainable

> travel are my personal favourites. More free

> spaces would also result in less of the daily horn

> beeping and aggression when cars can't squeeze

> past each other at what is about to become the

> entrance to the new secondary school.

>

> - more parking spaces for local residents and

> businesses (by preventing commuter and long stay

> parking)

> prioritised parking for different types of

> motorists (eg. residents, disabled visitors,

> delivery companies, motorcycles, businesses)

> - less congestion

> - more convenient parking options for residents'

> visitors or trades persons

> - improved journey times for buses

> - greater reliability with your delivery slots

> - improved road safety (by designating where it's

> safe to park and where it's not)

> - cleaner air (by deterring non essential car

> journeys)

> - reduced noise levels

> - new developments (by reducing the impact on

> existing communities)

> - new businesses and assistance to existing

> businesses (by making available parking permits)

> - sustainable travel (by encouraging motorists to

> walk or cycle)

A couple of photos don't prove anything. When were the photos taken? How often are the roads like that? Etc. Maybe statistics should be taught since kindergarten because it seems no one ever realises that single cases are completely, utterly and totally irrelevant - you need to understand if/how/to what extent the case you have witnessed is representative before inferring any conclusion! This level of ignorance is the perfect breeding gound for fake news.

As many have pointed out, commuters' long stays can easily be prevented by setting up a CPZ for only a couple mof hours a day. This keeps long-stay commuters away, while still making it possible to visit a local shop without paying through your nose for parking.

Pro-CPZ talibans tend to forget that there is a difference between areas like Oxford street and the rest of the M25! Within zone 1 there are lots of good public transport options; outside of zone 1, it depends. For many families with children public transport is a nightmare: many tube and train stations are not accessible, lifting prams onto a train may not be banal, buses may have the space for prams already occupied (twice it took me almost an hour to go from Goose Green to Brixton because of that; I now drive), and booking an Uber would require you to bring your own car seat to then conveniently carry around.

[bels123]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> while still making it

> possible to visit a local shop without paying

> through your nose for parking.

Surely these are the very journeys we should be trying to limit and if parking restrictions help change that behaviour I'm all for it. The air quality isn't going to improve if we all keep using cars without challenging ourselves, or being challenged, to find alternatives. Not easy I know especially with little ones but the cost of this convenience is their health at the end of the day.

[rendelharris]

Quite - in the whole transport debate there's far too much "I'm all in favour of reducing car use - as long as my specific car use isn't restricted."

[mikeb]

@ Bels123 - thanks for being so open. CPZ is not about improving parking but about discouraging driving. I think some people are not as open as you on this point.

[rendelharris]

mikeb Wrote:

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

> @ Bels123 - thanks for being so open. CPZ is not

> about improving parking but about discouraging

> driving. I think some people are not as open as

> you on this point.

Why can't it be both? And why, in a city where 10,000 people a year die prematurely as a result of pollution and children in some areas are growing up with stunted development, both physically and mentally, as a result of same, is taking steps to reduce pollution seen as a bad thing?

[mikeb]

@ Rendel - because I don't perceive a CPZ as increasing parking availability overall, although I admit this is becoming a closer deal as (i) yellow lines around junctions are being rolled out across the borough (ii) ED is becoming the only place in the local area that does not have a CPZ and so has some 'parking tourists' coming round.

[wulfhound]

For many families with children public transport is a nightmare: many tube and train stations are not accessible, lifting prams onto a train may not be banal

This feels a bit overstated, TBH - was mine & my partner's reality for quite some years - she doesn't drive or cycle; a surprising number of people with kids don't have the choice of driving (for money, medical or other reasons). Mostly people on the trains are great about helping one another out; the only station which ever gave me real pause for thought was Battersea Park: the staircases there just aren't fit for purpose.

buses may have the space for prams already occupied (twice it took me almost an hour to go from Goose Green to Brixton because of that; I now drive)

That's unfortunately true.. and people are not as accommodating as they might be about folding down, or about buying sensibly sized prams / pushchairs to use on public transport. Some prams are much better designed than others in that respect; the bendy buses were wonderfully accommodating of buggies despite some of their other disadvantages.

and booking an Uber would require you to bring your own car seat to then conveniently carry around.

For that and other reasons relating to Ewwwber, I'm glad of the existence of black taxi apps which work along the same lines. Expensive yes, and those old TX cabs are a major offender regarding air quality, but knowing they're there as an emergency option is really reassuring. They can carry prams, buggies and young kids without a car seat - some special legal exemption apparently.

[Mscrawthew]

Which is exactly what the council are hoping to acheive!

mikeb Wrote:

-1------------------------------------------------------

> @ Rendel - because I don't perceive a CPZ as

> increasing parking availability overall, although

> I admit this is becoming a closer deal as (i)

> yellow lines around junctions are being rolled out

> across the borough (ii) ED is becoming the only

> place in the local area that does not have a CPZ

> and so has some 'parking tourists' coming round.

[mikeb]

@MsCrawthew - I know, it's quite a transparent tactic. Doesn't stop it being effective though.

[Rockets]

Has anyone noticed the two huge disabled bays that just appeared in front of the Dulwich gym on Crystal Palace Road? Now I appreciate the need for disabled people to have easy access to the gym but will they be removing the bay about 25 yards further up the road that rarely has any vehicle parked in it and are we to interpret the size of the bays that Challenger tanks are now the vehicle of choice for the disabled?

Yet another reduction in parking spaces and another small council-initiated step towards an unwarranted and unnecessary CPZ....

[singalto]

Rockets, Ihave a disabled badge and drive a small car but have never been able to park in the disabled bays you mention.

[Chick]

No

[eddeal1]

NO NO NO...SHAME ON YOU JAMES.

[NewWave]

No definitely not. It will have a detrimental effect on local buisinesses and kill the area.

[natty01295]

KHANS - ULEZ (STUPID)!!!

Everyone will be priced Off the ROAD!!!!!!

[alex_b]

natty01295 Wrote:

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

> KHANS - ULEZ (STUPID)!!!

>

> Everyone will be priced Off the ROAD!!!!!!

Everyone? Petrol vehicles would have to be over 15 years old and diesels over 5 years old to be caught by the ULEZ. I think this is a proportionate response to the crisis in air quality in London.

[spider69]

Have you when moving around the area enclosed by the north and south circular roads look at the number of cars that fall into the 15 year petrol period. Most are in pristine condition and well looked after better than some new cars.

Just walk down your own street and local area and look.

Many people will not be in a position to replace their vehicles and from my own observations ownership of these vehicles seem to fall into the OAP/younger age ownership bracket where income is tight. It is far better to just let these cars die a natural death when repairs start to cost many times more than the value of the car and rising costs levied on the motorist also start to hit.

If an OAP It is their lifeline and mine at 72 to the outside world and the mileage driven is very very low.

Cycling and walking any great distance is not an option for many.

Agree it is ill thought out.

Applicable 100% for the congestion zone area's where traffic is heavy but not a blanket ban inside the N/S circulars where many roads are not overrun with traffic.

If applicable to inside the N/S circular why not outside? Does traffic just suddenly appear as if by magic on the N/S roads and all emissions before suddenly stop dead and disappear not moving anywhere.

[rendelharris]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> Many people will not be in a position to replace

> their vehicles and from my own observations

> ownership of these vehicles seem to fall into the

> OAP/younger age ownership bracket where income is

> tight. It is far better to just let these cars die

> a natural death when repairs start to cost many

> times more than the value of the car and rising

> costs levied on the motorist also start to hit.

>

> If an OAP It is their lifeline and mine at 72 to

> the outside world and the mileage driven is very

> very low.

Ironically these will be the same OAPs who make up the largest proportion of the 10,000 premature deaths from air pollution in London each year. It doesn't matter how "well looked after" a pre-2006 vehicle is, it won't meet the required emissions standards.

[Penguin68]

Ironically these will be the same OAPs who make up the largest proportion of the 10,000 premature deaths from air pollution in London each year.

Although, as the emissions standards as regards petrol cars are primarily about carbon dioxide, one must wonder how many OAPs are being slaughtered by an excess of that gas. The much younger NOx diesel vehicle ban is a different issue.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Ironically these will be the same OAPs who make up

> the largest proportion of the 10,000 premature

> deaths from air pollution in London each year.

>

> Although, as the emissions standards as regards

> petrol cars are primarily about carbon dioxide,

> one must wonder how many OAPs are being

> slaughtered by an excess of that gas. The much

> younger NOx diesel vehicle ban is a different

> issue.

Petrol cars still emit particulate pollution. This article may be of interest: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03714-9

[Penguin68]

Petrol cars still emit particulate pollution. - Agreed, but far less damaging than the levels of NOx emitted by diesels, and the petrol car 'ban' is levelled at standards set for CO2 emissions. The article makes no comment on the (even then known) 'cheat' aspects of laboratory tested diesel vehicles - so I am not clear whether the comparisons between petrol and diesel emissions in it would stand up to real road usage conditions.

[Pugwash]

Now that I have retired I do not use my car as much, when going down LL or Peckham I use public transport. However having some mobility problems (not severe enough for a Blue badge) my 2004 registration car is essential to do supermarket shopping at Sainsburys, visit my family and grandchildren in Orpington and Sussex. The car is well maintained, thanks to Andrew Brock (prior to his retirement) and now Turners. My children work, one needs her car to get from Orpington to Redhill and uses her car to visit clients at work. The other daughter works in the middle of the countryside where there are no buses other than 2 a day, and is 15 miles cross country from home. All of us are aware of the environmental impact of emissions, but we do try to act responsibly re car use.

[Ontherun]

Are any results ever going to materialise?

[natty01295]

What About Motorcycles

Http://www.weridelondon.com

Cost: Motorcycles & Scooters riders are happy to pay their way in proportionate costs. With the introduction of the (Ultra Low Emission Zone) ULEZ charge, older motorcycles & scooters will have to pay the same tariff as cars (?12.50 per day) This is despite Transport for London?s own data showing that motorcycles & scooters contribute less than 1% of the pollution in London. Adding this to the issues of insurance highlighted above, motorcycles & scooter riders are having to pay more and more to get to work.

Get Involved:

Write to your elected official and/or to the police, sentencing council and others related to the 'no chase policy'

Support us on social media by posting photos of you with your helmet in a work/home environment

Join our awareness rides. Keep an eye on this page or our Facebook Events page. You can also sign up on our mailing list if social media is not your thing! Scroll to the bottom of this page to sign up.

Take part in TfL consultations to make sure your voice is heard

Share your ideas here.

Stickers are available for free in the Bike Shed shop or through our online store. If you would like to donate funds to help running We Ride London, click here.