E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Hare]

James Barber wrote: "Camberwell councillors had no streets wanting controlled parking. They could'nt [sic] vote for controlled parking on a different community council area - that would set a really awkward precendent [sic]."

A point of accuracy which may help Cllr Barber to understand the process as it has been administered elsewhere. At the Camberwell Community Council meeting on 10th January, before the councillors present expressed their view about the appropriate recommendation, Veronica Ward particularly asked whether they were being asked to make a recommendation with reference to the South Camberwell area alone or whether, having heard the evidence from the officers on the whole of the CPZ area consultation, they should be considering the proposed CPZ area in its entirely. She was clearly instructed that the recommendation that the Community Council were being asked to make should refer to the whole of the proposed CPZ area.

Thus, not so much a "really awkward prececent" but actually guidance to the sitting councillors. On this basis, Cllr Barber therefore appears either mistaken or misguided in his assumption that he must make reference only to the results of the consultation that arise from roads within the Dulwich Community Council boundary.

It is difficult to see why so much debate has arisen from the apparently clear outcome of the consultation. The report tells us that prior to the consultation, there were "44 requests from residents in the study area for a CPZ. This is where a resident has either made either a complaint or a general enquiry to the council, either directly to officers or via their elected members to request resident parking controls or a consultation." Of those who made their views known from streets within the proposed zone, there were a total of 84 responses in favour of a CPZ. So, despite ample opportunity for the lobby to gather momentum, the net gain in support has been just 40 additional people. It would seem logical to expect that if there was a strong movement in support of this form of parking controls, more than 40 people across the proposed zone would have taken the opportunity to tick the relevant boxes.

Finally, I note that there are challenges issued on this forum to those who resist the call for a controlled parking zone to offer an alternative solution. It is difficult to understand why it should be seen as the responsibility of the general public to develop solutions when what the consultation has set out to do is to canvass opinion on a specific response to a perceived problem. If the outcome of the consultation is that a significant majority of those responding do not believe the proposals to be in the best interests of the wider community, then surely councillors would reject them and instruct the paid officers, not the members of the public, to research and propose alternatives.

[fazer71]

Indeed.... it should be so... but it's a touch more complicated than that.......

As has been mentioned time and time again the response rate of the consultation was so low it can't (by anyone with a brain) be taken to represent anything other than a failure to produce any credible results.

Ergo.... the numbers quoted are meaningless.

[Peckhampam]

Fazer 71...you seem to be suffering from what you accuse other people of-i.e. lack of brain and logic but you also do not seem to have a working pair of eyes. You say

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

only one thing wrong with your pronouncement-my street which is included in the proposed CPZ has no parking problem and plenty of spaces.

[Penguin68]

There is a concept used by evolutionary biologists, social anthropologists and psychologists amongst others to suggest why collaborative and cooperative behaviour has evolved outside kin groups ? this is called reciprocal altruism (it is described amongst evolutionary biologists using games theory as a ?tit-for-tat? strategy in the game of Doves and Hawks).

This theory posits that there is an evolutionary advantage in cooperation and collaboration which transcends kin-group altruism and suggests that selfishness (Hawk-ishness) is not a good long-term position.

I suggest that those who see binding together against the introduction of a CPZ (because of the ?creeping harm? it can cause within a community) as very much belonging to the Doves group, with their response to CPz-ers who ?selfishly? want an immediate apparent advantage (?Hawks?) ? ?then stay out of my street? ? as a ?classic? tit-for-tat response.

It is interesting that a lib-dem (James) is so clearly within the Hawk camp here, and against the concept (if he thinks this through) of cooperation and reciprocal altruism. His attitude is much closer to that with which Tories are more often (perhaps erroneously) linked.

[fazer71]

Peckhampam

Can / has that been shown by a Parking Survey?

Penguin68

This has nothing to do with politics it about parking.

We?re not talking about bringing back hanging (there?s huge public support for that) it's a CPZ Controlled Parking Zone.

Part of the evolution of the civilized we?re not in Jungle we?re in one of the worlds mega cities and so we have little choice but to be organised and ration what we have.

[James Barber]

peterstorm1985 Wrote:

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

> 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.

>

Hi Peterstorm1985,

I had asked about this in the past before we introduced spedd humps on these roads. Melbourne Grove the shops would object due to blcokngi of passing trade, Derwent and Elsie couldn't as you have t have a place for rubbish trucks to turn. One-way streets result in greater speeding - not having to consider anyone coming the other way and they also deter cyclists who wont cycle the long way round.

[Huguenot]

To the contrary Penguin68.

Residential streets can be presented as a resource being exploited by greedy residents outside the CPZ by who wish to control and consume other people's resources, whilst paying no penalty from their own assets (since the residents inside the CPZ would not drive up to Scutari Road to park their own car).

This is not a collaborative action, and could not be presented as remotely altruistic. That's like a school bully stealing your lunch and saying 'it's for your own good'.

The convenience of this bullying mob is seen to vastly exceed the needs of young families, older people and the disabled to park within a reasonable distance of their home.

If those outside the CPZ were in any way collaborative, they would recognise that the CPZ is small compromise to make the lives of less mobile groups marginally easier.

But they don't because they're greedy and selfish.

[peckhamboy]

Except that the disabled are actually entitled to have a disabled bay outside their house, so the cpz can't be aimed at them. Of course, we could always have dedicated bays for families and the elderly. But imagine the outcry. Be honest - the people asking for a cpz are doing so for themselves, not out of altruism for the young, elderly or disabled. Some of them may fall into one or more of those categories. Chances are that many of those opposing a cpz also do. Look at it another way - bringing in a cpz on such a small scale will inevitably have a massive knock-on effect. And who will suffer most? Young families, the elderly and the disabled. Why would you support a scheme that victimises these types of people?

[Loz]

That's a big (and mistaken) assumption that opposition is generally from as far away as Scutari, Hugo. Most of the opposition seems to be coming from a majority of the streets inside the proposed CPZ zone plus the immediate streets surrounding the proposed zone.

Let's face it - the council tried to gerrymander a result by shutting surrounding streets out of the consultation, even though they are obvious stakeholders in the issue. But the consultation still returned a pretty clear 'no', so if you want to talk bullying, then trying to push through this measure in the face of such opposition easily classes as such.

Drawing on dubious emotional arguments such as 'but think of the young families, older people and the disabled!!' doesn't really help, especially mischievously citing the disabled who can, if they apply, get a parking place right outside their house anyway.

So trying to couch this argument in terms of helping 'less mobile groups' is just a tad disingenuous. Especially if, as is expected, the CPZ with either not work or just create a bigger problem elsewhere as the excess residents from Derwent seek fee-free parking elsewhere (ironically, probably the same groups you claim to seek the help, as they will be the least likely to be able to afford the rather high - in fact, one of the highest in London - parking permit fee.)

[Zak]

Forgive me for returning to James Barber but many of us will be meeting up with him tonight at the Community Council meeting. James, after weeks of posting I think you still don't get it.

Southwark carried out an expensive Consultation Exercise around what they believed to be a burning issue. Out of 1159 people polled, only 84 ( 7%) came out in favour of a CPZ That?s the result. It?s been put to the vote. You can?t try and re-run it after the event in order to whip up support and claim that people actually meant to vote another way.

Please stop trying to undermine the results of the consultation exercise. Some people will always be disappointed that their views didn?t win the day, but you have to face the facts: Southwark claim that there was high level of demand ( 44 contacts ?in recent years?! ) but still only 84 people out of 1159 voted in favour of a CPZ ? merely an extra 40!.

[Loz]

Zak Wrote:

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

> 44 contacts ?in recent years?!

In five years, I believe. So about 8 per year, with no indication if these are separate individuals or a small number lodging multiple complaints.

One suspects that Southwark would not be making such a big deal over 8 complaints per year unless they stood to make a wodge of money out of it. How many people are complaining about bins and recycling?

[Penguin68]

Huguenot

As someone on the far side of the world you have not had an opportunity actually to view parking on those streets for some considerable time.

The 'evidence', such as it is, suggests that a significant number of vehicles which are deemed to be 'causing' the problem belong either to current residents (just too many resident cars for the road speace available) or to people commuting into ED to provide such services as being teachers, working in local shops etc. - i.e. they belong to that 'community' which is ED.

All of which would benefit from that concept of reciprocal altruism. Despite confident assertions to the contrary, the evidence of which streets are being parked up when (see my earlier note on the emptiness of Ondine Road in the middle of the day) suggest that ED station is not a huge attracter of 'foreign' cars of City commuters. Constant street works all around ED do frequently temporarily shift parking from one street to another, as kerb-sides are restricted (and this never seems to stop) but CPZ's won't have any impact on that at all.

The 'survey' was actually undertaken whilst this was happening locally (I am sure just by chance) which would have exacerbated the appearance of some local problems.

[Siduhe]

Ergo.... the numbers quoted are meaningless.

I'm totally confused by this analysis - if the consultation results are meaningless because of the low response rate, then presumably you feel the same way about the numbers of people who have complained to the Council about parking issues over the last few years (44 in total) and about the Council's own analysis of parking strains (conducted on a single Thursday, Saturday and Sunday of the same week - yes, a single weekday)?

On this basis, there is no justification at all for a CPZ - other than your assertion that "it's not rocket science" that one is needed. Or am I missing something?

[fazer71]

Siduhe

I don?t think the 44 complaints mean much either.

The locals only have them/our selves to blame and so the decision will be taken by the elected local politicians.

That's democracy in action.

Southwark could run another ?85,000 consultaion.

A 2.1 out of 10 response rate = meaningless

An independent parking survey could be carried out but at what cost when we are all aware there is a parking problem in many streets.

[Huguenot]

Loz I was only responding to Penguin68's assertion that people outside the CPZ were acting altrusitically by campaigning against it. I thought that was really stretching it! :))

I have no doubt that everyone is acting in their own interests.

Penguin68 I know what you're saying, but reciprocity and altruism doesn't apply when the costs of this parking behaviour is being carried disproportionately by such a small part of the population.

Besides which, you're trying to have it both ways:

Either...

If the streets the CPZ are on are usully empty anyway then there will be no edge concentration, no zone creep, no impact on traders (their customers don't park there anyway) and no impact on the community - the costs will only be carried by the residents of those streets.

Or...

If the roads are usually packed with over-subscribed residential parking, then the edge concentration will exist anyway from overflow, so there will be no zone creeep, no impact on traders (their customers can't park there anyway) and no impact on the community - the costs will only be carried by the residents of those streets.

In both these 'failure' scenarios the cost is only borne by the residents.

However, the CPZ is a winner if suspicions about commuters are true.

If that is the case then a one hour ban will deliver more space for residents, more space for traders customers, the community rids itself of transport parasites, and the commuters will have to use public transport: a winner for everyone.

In other words the entire community reaps the benefit. This is a no-lose gamble for them!!!

It's the CPZ that represents the most altruistic solution, as it regulates self-interest out of otherwise essentially parasitic activity.

[jblack]

.

[Penguin68]

Huguenot

Here's another scenario - the CPZ isn't actually a solution to the 'problem' - which is over-parking by legitimate local people to ED - local either through residency or through the fact they work in ED - but when a few roads are CPZ-ed many pople who live in those roads and have cars in them chose not to pay the ?125 a year to park in their own roads (maybe they are the ones who didn't vote for a CPZ or voted against it). Instead they move to park their cars (for free) in the next streets - so the CPZ streets are empty (-er) and the non CPZ streets, which didn't really have a problem, are parked up by CPZ street freeloaders.

CPZ voters who are prepared to pay can now park where they want (so they have selfishly got what they want) but people in adjacent streets now have a problem as the CPZ street people who don't want to pay (maybe they have a couple of cars and it would cost too much) now start taking their spaces so that what was a workable problem for them, if it was a problem at all, suddenly gets worse.

What people are forgetting is that CPZ road residents who don't want to pay the council's aditional road tax will be part of the displaced parking problem into other streets, not just the filthly 'foreigners'. And these people may well have voted against a CPZ precisely because they didn't want to pay, so you can hardly blame them.

[Loz]

Hugo,

A more likely outcome is that a small percentage of better off residents buy parking permits and say, "Wow, this CPZ means I can park my car really easily". Meanwhile all the poorer residents who can't justify ?125 for a permit park in the next street, causing mayhem. Much like what is being reported from Lucas Gardens.

Is that a pass or fail for the CPZ? The person with oodles of space to park the Merc would think it was just lovely. I would say it is a huge fail, though. Solving a problem by creating a bigger one somewhere else isn't a desired outcome in the wider sense.

But... if a permit was added automatically (car owner or otherwise) to the poll tax charge for the street, you just might just convince me as that would stop the residents moving to the free areas. And Southwark would make a mint.

[peterstorm1985]

Nice idea Loz, but if each property had a permit for just one car, all those second cars would still be parking in the adjacent streets..... (And all those with a permit but no car could sell their allocation to a 'commuter' and how we would all laugh at the result)

[Gidget]

peterstorm1985 Wrote:

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

> Nice idea Loz, but if each property had a permit

> for just one car, all those second cars would

> still be parking in the adjacent streets..... (And

> all those with a permit but no car could sell

> their allocation to a 'commuter' and how we would

> all laugh at the result)

don't think that would be allowed as the car would have to be registered at the property.

[fazer71]

Loz Wrote:

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

> A more likely outcome is that a small percentage

> of better off residents buy parking permits and

> say, "Wow, this CPZ means I can park my car really

> easily". Meanwhile all the poorer residents who

> can't justify ?125 for a permit park in the next

Yes It's proper rip off !!!!!

35p a day for a permit????????.

There are so many car owners living on the breadline around the station it a right disgrace!

[peterstorm1985]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

>

> There are so many car owners living on the

> breadline around the station it a right disgrace!

It only takes one for there to be an injustice

[Huguenot]

"It only takes one for there to be an injustice"

That's an illogical proposition. Cars have all sorts of running costs associated with them, and this is just one of those.

Cars are a privelege not a right, and owning one comes down to have suffficient income to sustain them.

[peckhamboy]

So what you're saying is that the less well-off shouldn't own a car in the first place if they can't afford to pay for costs they had no way of knowing would be imposed on them?

The problem though is that just as cars are a privilege not a right, so a permit is an option not an obligation. Meaning that those who can't or won't pay (and let's face it, if a CPZ is introduced over just 3 streets, why would you pay?) can choose to park just outside the zone.

[first mate]

Agenda and address for community council meeting tonight- start time 7pm.

Please everyone, try to be there.

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=3992&T=0