Proposed East Dulwich CPZ

[macutd]

look! it's just a tax. Don't agree to CPZ. The only winners are the council

[Jacqui5254]

And it does NOT mean you can park outside your house, ffs!!!!

[Mscrawthew]

Totally agree Jacqui, it normally means even less parking spaces by the time they mark them out.

[Lowlander]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Soon the whole of London will have controlled

> parking. Everyone who can afford it, will be able

> to pay to keep a car outside their house, but

> won?t be able to use it to actually travel

> anywhere. Meanwhile teachers, carers and loc

> shop workers can admire the unmoving ?cars as

> sculpture? on the privatised roads as they

> struggle on their way to work.

I own and drive a 10 year old car. Cost ?1000. I pay VED of ?230 a year (car tax if you like), insurance ?400, service and MOT average ?250. I expect to own the car for five years so approx annual cost - including depreciation - before fuel is ?1150.

My mileage is low - 1000 miles a year - roughly ?175 a year in fuel.

Total cost of running a car - ?1325

Total cost of an annual zone 1-2 TfL season ticket - ?1364

My neighbours have three cars - I have to park sometimes far from my house -how is that fair!> None of us really should be driving in London, apart from those who really need to (elderly/disabled)

[worldwiser]

Well at ?1.33 per mile you really may as well get ubers everywhere and save yourself the trouble of ownership and indeed the walk from wherever you're able to park. Plenty of people who are neither elderly or disabled depend on their car for all sorts of reasons. I for one could not do my job without one. Tradespeople of all types could not. People with young children find life quite restricted without one. People who live in parts of the city that are abysmally served by public transportation find life difficult without one. Oh, like ED or the entirety of South-East London.

And I don't need or want to be able to park my car outside my door. I'd just like to reliably park it within 3 streets.

[intexasatthe moment]

Do ppl really think that ED is abysmally served by public transport ?

[SJK]

Mscrawthew Wrote:

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

> Totally agree Jacqui, it normally means even less

> parking spaces by the time they mark them out.

Also, having parking bays marked out the length of every street and the multitude of signs and parking meters that will go with them will look horrible. It will really spoil the lovely residential streets in ED.

[rendelharris]

SJK Wrote:

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

> Mscrawthew Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Totally agree Jacqui, it normally means even

> less

> > parking spaces by the time they mark them out.

>

>

> Also, having parking bays marked out the length of

> every street and the multitude of signs and

> parking meters that will go with them will look

> horrible. It will really spoil the lovely

> residential streets in ED.

I reckon the hordes of trade vans, motorhomes and taxis that are being stored in the non-CPZ areas (like Copleston Road and Soames Street, at present) do far more to uglify our lovely streets than any parking infrastructure ever could. I don't regard CPZs as an unalloyed good but it's becoming increasingly clear that if there are going to be any they have to be everywhere or those areas without them start to resemble an industrial estate parking lot.

[rendelharris]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> Do ppl really think that ED is abysmally served by

> public transport ?

Weird, isn't it? I've lived all over South London for fifty years and have never felt better served for public transport than I have living in the centre of ED!

[SJK]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> SJK Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Mscrawthew Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Totally agree Jacqui, it normally means even

> > less

> > > parking spaces by the time they mark them

> out.

> >

> >

> > Also, having parking bays marked out the length

> of

> > every street and the multitude of signs and

> > parking meters that will go with them will look

> > horrible. It will really spoil the lovely

> > residential streets in ED.

>

> I reckon the hordes of trade vans, motorhomes and

> taxis that are being stored in the non-CPZ areas

> (like Copleston Road and Soames Street, at

> present) do far more to uglify our lovely streets

> than any parking infrastructure ever could. I

> don't regard CPZs as an unalloyed good but it's

> becoming increasingly clear that if there are

> going to be any they have to be everywhere or

> those areas without them start to resemble an

> industrial estate parking lot.

This seems like a gross over exaggeration. I've never noticed "hordes" of vans or motorhomes lining the streets of ED. Yes, there are a few here and there but at least they are not a permanent fixture!

[rendelharris]

> This seems like a gross over exaggeration. I've

> never noticed "hordes" of vans or motorhomes

> lining the streets of ED. Yes, there are a few

> here and there but at least they are not a

> permanent fixture!

Not talking about ED as a whole but certain areas abutting CPZs. I invite you to take a stroll down Soames Street any normal working day and you'll find around 30%+ of the parked vehicles are commercial. Standard practice for tradespeople working at premises within CPZs now to drop their materials and tools off at the site then drive to the nearest non-CPZ streets to leave their vehicles.

[rendelharris]

Just to add to my "gross over exaggeration" above, yesterday, as well as commercial vehicles (the majority seem to have been removed for the holidays) there were no fewer than eight black cabs on Copleston/Soames, none of them with carriage licence plates, clearly being stored by a seller or leaser of same.

[zoester]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> Do ppl really think that ED is abysmally served by

> public transport ?

Yes, because it is! It takes us an hour at 7:15am to go 6 miles to green park. There might be multiple buses or choices of routes but none of them are simple and if you get held up by a minute or so the chances of the entire journey braving impacted are very high meaning what should take 30 minutes takes double half of which is spent waiting around for the next link to happen

As for the parking bays on streets idea, it doesn?t sound great but the alternatives aren?t either. We live on upland road and parking is a total nightmare particularly when it comes to school pick up and drop off. Most people who have drive ways don?t actually use them and opt to park on the street instead. All in all transport and parking in ED leaves a lot to be desired.

[intexasatthe moment]

Well maybe I have a peverse view but to me that situation is one where ED is well served by public transport but the sheer weight of traffic/congestion results in slow journey time for all road vehicles with 4 wheels .

The area is well served by bus and train .There may be particular destinations where an underground service would hasten the journey but that doesn't equate to ED having abysmal public transport .

[Mscrawthew]

Its not the parking that's a problem, the area has quiet good transport links. The problem is the abysmal service we receive from the train and bus companies!

[intexasatthe moment]

What are the problems with the bus companies ?

[Mscrawthew]

There are a lot less buses at the times when they are needed most. Trains from ED are cancelled more than they run and from 7.40 onwards the buses are packed to the rafters!

[rendelharris]

Mscrawthew Wrote:

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

> There are a lot less buses at the times when they

> are needed most. Trains from ED are cancelled more

> than they run and from 7.40 onwards the buses are

> packed to the rafters!

This comment rather illustrates the perception/reality conflict that makes people think that ED is poorly served for public transport. There are plenty of sites where one can view historic train data; for example, for the last month, the morning services (6-10AM) between ED and London Bridge had around 98% of timetabled services running. The worst service (7.53) had 13% cancellations. By no means satisfactory, and the rail companies should be held to account (and renationalised!) but to suggest that more than 50% of scheduled services are cancelled is ludicrous.

[Mscrawthew]

It's reality everyday when you are trying to get to work. As always the pedant rendel.

[rendelharris]

Mscrawthew Wrote:

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

> It's reality everyday when you are trying to get

> to work. As always the pedant rendel.

It's not pedantry, when someone makes an utterly ridiculous and demonstrably untrue claim that over 50% of trains from ED are cancelled, to offer the facts demonstrating this isn't even close to bring the case. It may be your perception, but it very definitely is not the "reality everyday". Sorry if the facts are not to your taste.

[Mscrawthew]

Sorry if you can't just read something without adding imaginary figures. Hope you had fun trying to find them!

[rendelharris]

Mscrawthew Wrote:

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

> Sorry if you can't just read something without

> adding imaginary figures. Hope you had fun trying

> to find them!

So as the facts don't match your perceptions, you accuse the person offering you the facts of making them up? Rather a pathetic way of conducting a debate, isn't it? You can check the facts I have offered you above for yourself at www.recenttraintimes.co.uk. Alternatively you could offer a scintilla of evidence for your claim that "Trains from ED are cancelled more than they run"? But if you can't either refute my facts or offer any of your own, don't embarrass yourself trying to bluster your way out of it by accusing the evidence of others of being "imaginary" - that's both childish and impolite.

[Mscrawthew]

Rendel, do you commute from ED everyday? Apart from the fact that nobody apart from you mentioned a figure of 50% then it appears that you seem to be arguing with yourself?

[BrandNewGuy]

"Trains from ED are cancelled more than they run." That means more than 50%, yes? It's not that difficult to understand. Yes, the service could be better, but you're just plain wrong.

[rendelharris]

As BNG points out, if more trains are cancelled than are run, that's over 50% cancelled. Bizarrely you appear not to understand what you yourself have written.

No I do not commute daily from ED, but my wife does, and she's fairly certain that there is not a 50% cancellation rate.

If that's not what you meant, then admit it, but as your statement stands you are claiming that 50%+ of trains from ED are cancelled.