E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Chener Books]

Mr Barber is now running a parallel unofficial consultation exercise?

John K

[James Barber]

gsirett Wrote:

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

> Listn to what SSBA (the traders association) have

> ot say on Tuesday.......I know those points do

> sound dramatic but they are based on reaserch from

> the Chamber of Commerce. It is EXACTLY what has

> happened in other areas.

SSBA reps also turned up at the Dulwich Community Council to try and persuade us that Lordship Lane didn't need a new crossing outside the Coop. Fortunately other traders present pressed the case for it and the consultation had majortity of traders who responded in favour. "they represent a perspective but they don't represent all traders" as one trader very forcibly told me last week.

I find it hard to understand why traders would want commuters to park locally before shops open and return after the shops have closed in preference to a few streets having controlled parking freeing up parking outside the controlled hour. If I could understand why they prefer the former to the latter I'd might understand that part of the no campaign better. I get the domino fear and that is why I'm wavering. But the spurious arguments make the no campaign look a bit silly at times.

[easytiger]

If memory serves correctly only 100 businesses signed a petition against the crossing, out of 300 businesses. that makes it a minority. Which means they cannot have their say. One crossing is a better idea, i think. Two crossings at the same time, not so sure. The CPZ results, james, have shown the majority against this. The leader of the council and his friends said no this this.

If you want to improve parking in certain roads then seek an alternative measure and don't pee so many people off as it will affect others. Why can't you just understand this?

[James Barber]

Hi easytiger,

Clearly the majority of people who responded are against controleld parking.

I'd be delighted to know what the alternatives you're proposing are?

Nothing would give me greater pleasure (in the next 36hours) than voting NO tomorrow with a clear solution to the problems residents in some East Dulwich ward streets have.

[first mate]

James,

But you cannot be sure that, as you stated earlier in this thread, CPZ "will have the desired affect", that means it is not a clear solution either.

[peckhamboy]

James, in order to have a clear solution, is it not necessary to have a clear understanding of the problem? The only 'problem' that a CPZ might solve would be all-day commuter (by which I mean real commuter) parking but it is far from clear to what extent that is actually a factor here. And the risible survey conducted on behalf of the council does not provide answers - it provides a finger in the air guess as to how many cars might not belong to residents but is certainly not reliably accurate and does not distinguish (as many have pointed out) between the many different categories of non-resident.

If the problem is in fact primarily that a small number of streets are over-subscribed by resident demand (and this theory is certainly not disproven by the figures available and the voting pattern), then the domino effect is in fact the only way in which a CPZ provides a 'solution', and becomes the purpose rather than the effect. The only advantage for residents within the zone therefore is that it forces those who can't or won't find the money for a permit to park outside the zone, freeing up spaces for those who can and will.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I am so opposed to this particular CPZ. The original outline would have left several streets within a 4-5 minute walk of the station so was no deterrent to commuters - meaning that the CPZ would not achieve its stated aim. The new options were not consulted on (at best the implication was that a couple of streets might be left out if significantly opposed, not that only a couple of streets would be included if that was the only support the council could scrape together). A 2 or 3 road CPZ is frankly barmy and inconsistent with the original premise for introducing one. A 7 road CPZ where 5 of the 7 roads voted against a CPZ makes a mockery of the consultation.

I have said before - the only realistic option is to make the suggested improvements under Option 2, and conduct a more detailed analysis of causes of any problems in order to have a proper solution. For example, if parking problems in Tintagel Crescent are down to casual shoppers and school traffic, making it one way or even a dead end could help reduce that, and working with the school to encourage walking, lift-sharing and use of public transport by staff and parents would do more than a CPZ that doesn't apply at drop-off or pick-up times.

[Gidget]

Does anyone have an agenda for tomorrow's meeting at St. Barnabas?

[peterstorm1985]

peckhamboy Wrote:

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

> The only advantage

> for residents within the zone therefore is that it

> forces those who can't or won't find the money for

> a permit to park outside the zone, freeing up

> spaces for those who can and will.

>

> And that, in a nutshell, is why I am so opposed to

> this particular CPZ.

Me too. I thought James Barber was against individuals being able to 'buy' a personal space to the detriment of others but the CPZ as proposed (in any of its forms) will do exactly that.

[buddug]

James wrote: "Clearly the majority of people who responded are against controleld parking.

I'd be delighted to know what the alternatives you're proposing are?"

Well James, think of it like this. We now know what is not an alternative, and that's a CPZ. You say above that the majority who responded are against it. Does that help you make up your mind? Therefore, at tomorrow's meeting let's knock it on the head once and for all, shall we. Then, it's up to you and your little band of merry men at Southwark council to come up with a solution to help those few people having problems on their streets. After all, it's what you're paid to do.

[buddug]

Furthermore, James wrote: "Nothing would give me greater pleasure (in the next 36hours) than voting NO tomorrow with a clear solution to the problems residents in some East Dulwich ward streets have."

You are being disingenuous here. You know very well that there can be no clear solution to the minority of residents suffering at tomorrow's meeting without hurting the majority who voted against the CPZ. That is not acceptable in a democracy. What is so wrong with how the Camberwell vote went on the 9th, i.e. option 2, whereby other more reasonable solutions can now be debated for badly affected streets? It's time to put your democratic thinking cap on James. Because, let's face it, if you don't know how you'll vote today, you certainly won't tomorrow. Nothing will have changed over the next day, and you know it (I'm beginning to smell an abstention...)

[James Barber]

Hi buddug,

Camberwell councillors had no streets wanting controlled parking. They could'nt vote for controlled parking on a different community council area - that would set a really awkward precendent. So of the two options they were practically being asked to consider they chose option 2 over option 1.

IF the results and reports had been of 3 options for controlled parking only in South Camberwell I would have done exaclty the same thing.

[fazer71]

Trying to understand the reasons for objecting to this CPZ?

Anyone with a brain and an ounce of logic can see that the resident?s / neighbours suffer from commuter parking both from the Station and from local workers. Who will also be able to pay for a permit.

It?s not rocket science Train Stations = Parking Problem.

Most areas which have this problem end up with a CPZ as it?s the only way to control the problem.

There is no other solution.

Any neighbour who objects to this CPZ is either a halfwit (concerned about Southwark milking its ?125 fee) a commuter (Inc local business) or

they have more concern for neighbours four streets away than for the ones who live next-door.

I just don?t get it makes no sense ?.

[jblack]

Fazer, train stations do not automatically = parking problem. To the extent there is additional parking demand created by the station, it is not so great as to be significantly noticeable 4 mins walk away. And the service from ED station is hardly worth making a special journey for...

Milk76, you wrote that option 4 (experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Melbourne, Oxonian,Tintagel C and Tintagel G, Zenoria) had approval of 54% of residents. Do you not think it somewhat misleading to make that claim when 57% of residents in Elsie, Melbourne, Oxonian, Tintagel Gardens and Zenoria were opposed to the CPZ?

[fazer71]

jblack Wrote:

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

> Fazer, train stations do not automatically =

> parking problem. To the extent there is additional

> parking demand created by the station, it is not

> so great as to be significantly noticeable 4 mins

> walk away. And the service from ED station is

> hardly worth making a special journey for...

B"%"?%"?%"?%"?%""?%KSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[peterstorm1985]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

>

> There is no other solution.

>

It seems that only certain streets have the same level of parking problem (or there would be closer agreement amongst residents of all streets near to the station). This indicates that there is something special or odd about certain streets. Having seen the stats I would interpret the figures to indicate that some streets simply have too many car owners rather than pressure from commuter parking (due to multiple occupancy of properties).

Putting that to one side, there are alternative solutions to a CPZ.

A less expensive (to the residents) option would be to make those streets with the greatest problem less attractive to the dreaded train 'commuters'. Blocking one end of those streets would make them a time risk for anyone wanting to jump on the next train, such that they would try another street first. The minor additional irritation for residents would, presumably, be acceptable, particularly as the blocked street end would, potentially, create an additional two parking spaces (those that would otherwise be too close to the junction.

Unfortunately, you are unlikely to get this as the statistics suggest that resident numbers are the issue, not commuters.

(Perhaps you could apply for one of those Cleaner,greener safer grants to block off the end of the road to reduce pollution and provide a safer place for children).

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> It?s not rocket science Train Stations = Parking

> Problem.

Fazer - if that is the case, why have the two closest roads to the station - Melbourne Grove and St Francis Place, rejected the CPZ? Why are these fabled 'commuters' rejecting these closer roads to park on the already-overcrowded Derwent Grove? And even parking and trudging to the station from the reasonably far-away Tintagel Crescent?

Or could it be that something else is the base cause of the two roads' parking issues? Like just too many people with cars live on these roads?

[fazer71]

Can you use the results of the consultation?

There response rate was so low it makes the results laughable.

The people are especially odd not the streets?..

Too many cars due to too many properties may be part of the problem but there is no solution for that is there? Though a CPZ would have some impact.

Make the streets less attractive are you joking?

Dead end streets are you kidding?

Such flimsy flaky ideas would be a waste of money.

Until a genius comes up with a better system

All over the civilised World in one shape or other the solution, Has, Is and Can only be a CPZ?.

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Can you use the results of the consultation?

> There response rate was so low it makes the

> results laughable.

Eh? St Francis Road (not Place as I said originally) had a 39% response rate (higher than Derwent Grove) and Melbourne Grove 20%.

>

> The people are especially odd not

> the streets?..

>

> Too many cars due to too many properties may be

> part of the problem but there is no solution for

> that is there? Though a CPZ would have some

> impact.

It sure will ... on the surrounding streets. Which is precisely the problem that everyone in surrounding streets fears.

[fazer71]

Who cares about surrounding streets?

Do they give a damn about the streets near the station? errr nope.

[buddug]

James wrote: "Camberwell councillors had no streets wanting controlled parking. They could'nt vote for controlled parking on a different community council area - that would set a really awkward precendent. So of the two options they were practically being asked to consider they chose option 2 over option 1."

er, have you any idea of how a democracy works?

[fazer71]

All you need to know about Democracy is that it?s not perfect but it?s the best this we've come up with.

Much like a CPZ ????..

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Who cares about surrounding streets?

>

>

> Do they give a damn about the streets near the

> station? errr nope.

Errr, the surrounding streets *are* streets near the station.

[Bobby P]

It's really really simple, James.

If I have difficulty parking sometimes on my road, and have to park in the next road where there are spaces, it is an inconvenience. Not a massive social problem, an inconvenience to me. But still, no one is paying any extra fees or having anything imposed on them that they don't want.

If on the other hand I have difficulty parking on my road and therefore demand the Council give me a personal parking space (or a one-road-only CPZ), I am not solving the problem, I am merely pushing it onto neighbouring streets. A sledgehammer to crack a nut, which creates a new problem for my neighbours that didn't exist before.

So surely the least disruptive choice is to live with the fact that I may on occasion have to park where there is space - even on the next road - thus keeping parking free, and meanwhile have the Council look at any sensible options there may be to free up places on my particular road (James, several ideas have been mentioned in posts above, which should be properly researched by the Council - i.e. your Option 2).

What is ridiculous, James, is to try and appease a tiny minority on one or two roads (whose only problem is they sometimes have to park next door to where they'd ideally like to be) at the expense of the vast majority of residents who do not want a CPZ.

[fazer71]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Errr, the surrounding streets *are* streets near

> the station.

Ah Genius,

That could be true but the consultation results are completely flawed by the poor response rate and as such they mean nothing?.. zero zip nish?.. nada?

It only shows a small %age of the story and none of the detail.

Southwark should have use a divining rod... or picked some numbers out of a hat.

[Sporthuntor]

Just a thought...is the real issue on tintagel crescent teachers/staff from GG school parking during school hours?