CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[singalto]

When I told Joanna, the woman in charge of this , that the extra long double yellow lines had already taken out 8 spaces where I live, then replacing the white lines with more double extended yellow lines, she very patronisingly told mehat ?I would find this would increase parking space by 40%! I told her that was totally ridiculous but she insisted she?s right! She probably goes to work on a unicorn.

[Clarke]

Documents arrived a week after the start of the consultation and the west side of Lordship Lane were excluded from consultation through the impact of parking displacement from one side to the other is absolutely obvious.

Total incompetence from the consulting engineering company employed by the council.

[Galileo]

Clarke Wrote:

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

> Documents arrived a week after the start of the

> consultation and the west side of Lordship Lane

> were excluded from consultation through the impact

> of parking displacement from one side to the other

> is absolutely obvious.

> Total incompetence from the consulting engineering

> company employed by the council.

What do you mean ?the west side of Lordship Lane??

[Penguin68]

What do you mean ?the west side of Lordship Lane??

I'm guessing the left hand side as you look towards Goose Green. It is (very broadly) North: South orientated.

[TheArtfulDogger]

singalto Wrote:

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

> When I told Joanna, the woman in charge of this ,

> that the extra long double yellow lines had

> already taken out 8 spaces where I live, then

> replacing the white lines with more double

> extended yellow lines, she very patronisingly told

> mehat ?I would find this would increase parking

> space by 40%! I told her that was totally

> ridiculous but she insisted she?s right! She

> probably goes to work on a unicorn.

So is that the real reason for the "parklets" a safe place to tie your unicorn up ! 🤔

[intexasatthe moment]

So is that the real reason for the "parklets" a safe place to tie your unicorn up ! 🤔 very good !

Lots of good points on the CPZ on the goose green councillors thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1932267,2003894,page=8#msg-2003894

[jimlad48]

I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to any area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to be the case. Parking massively increases compared to the previous situation. Yet despite regular repeated evidence to support this, people still doubt this. A shame.

[intexasatthe moment]

Jim do you mean that there are more available spaces to park ?

What do you think is the reason for this ?

I just don't understand how where I live ( might be different in other roads near the railway ) there will be an increase in parking spaces . Double yellow lines are proposed where there are currently none and we do not have a problem with commuters parking . There is always space to park .There won't be if the proposals are implemented .

[Hemingway]

jimlad - I dont doubt your experience but as you said earlier 'your life was miserable before the CPZ' for most of us, on the east side of Lordship Lane, that is just not the case - so there's no real benefit just increased inconvenience (visitors/tradesmen etc), an increase in cost and a real threat to the independent retailers on Lordship Lane that many of us love.

I've no doubt CPZ can help those near a station/hospital where daytime commuter parking is an issue - and it may well be near East dulwich station but that's just not the case where I live, which is 100 yds from the strip!

[MarkT]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to any

> area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to be

> the case. Parking massively increases compared to

> the previous situation. Yet despite regular

> repeated evidence to support this, people still

> doubt this. A shame.

"any area" Jimlad? I think the residents of Grove Park would disagree with you there. (see Charles Martel's Post of yesterday)

But Jimlad, I'm trying to understand your motivation here. Having successfully campaigned for your CPZ so you can have a guaranteed space in front of your door, what's in it for you to have this imposed on my patch. At the moment you can park in front of my door for free, and yes there is space on my street to park. Why would you campaign to lose that freedom?

[Zebedee Tring]

I haven't read the whole of this thread so my apologies if it has already been covered, but is it being proposed that there should be double yellow lines either side of dropped kerbs throughout the borough and not just in CPZs?

I am also concerned that Southwark intend to devote a great deal of scarce capital expenditure to "parklets" when there are much greater priorities, such as repairs to pavements. I have tripped over uneven pavements twice in the last few years, on one occasion fracturing my shoulder and subsequently having to undergo two operations. I know that I am only one amongst many who have suffered in this way.

[jimlad48]

MarkT Wrote:

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

> jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to

> any

> > area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to

> be

> > the case. Parking massively increases compared

> to

> > the previous situation. Yet despite regular

> > repeated evidence to support this, people still

> > doubt this. A shame.

>

> "any area" Jimlad? I think the residents of Grove

> Park would disagree with you there. (see Charles

> Martel's Post of yesterday)

>

> But Jimlad, I'm trying to understand your

> motivation here. Having successfully campaigned

> for your CPZ so you can have a guaranteed space in

> front of your door, what's in it for you to have

> this imposed on my patch. At the moment you can

> park in front of my door for free, and yes there

> is space on my street to park. Why would you

> campaign to lose that freedom?

Mark, I campaigned actively for a CPZ to make my life quieter and safer and easier (so I could get deliveries in etc). I don't actually own a car, so the ability to 'park outside my door' is actually irrelevant.

I'm merely expressing a factual position on what has actually happened and trying to challenge some of the rumours and myths linked to CPZs. I'm not involved in any part of the campaign on the ground - merely offering a different point of view here online.

Why would people want to have CPZ imposed? My impression at the moment is that the results will see a cross Dulwich split with areas near the stations likely to vote yes, and areas away from it likely to vote no. If the council splits the results, and puts a partial CPZ into play, then the risk for those who vote 'no' is that they will see the trickle effect - in other words displaced traffic will start trickling down to find the next parking spaces.

Be aware that if you vote no, you may win a very short term victory, but if parts of Dulwich go into a CPZ, then there is likely to be a long term parking impact generated, which will only see this issue adressed again in due course.

[Rockets]

Perhaps one consideration for the council to help relieve the parking issues would be to return the double-yellows (that they only extended within the proposed CPZ area - read into that what you will) to how they used to be. There is a direct correlation between parking getting worse and the arrival of the "legal maximum" double-yellows and they were extended to deliberately remove parking spaces and to create justification for the CPZ.

I agree with jimlad that a split area CPZ is merely the pre-cursor to a full-area CPZ and people should resist as much as they can (if they are so inclined).

And for anyone who wants to have their say use this link as it is the ONLY input Southwark are willing to accept as part of the process: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you buy a house next to a train station, you must expect some commuters to park near it (You yourself will have no need to drive to a station of course, but would still like to store a car there during the day - apparently something which deserves priority). This whole thing feels a bit like chucking your litter over the neighbours fence. You move somewhere it's hard to park, campaign to privatise the road (giving Apcoa the right to milk a public amentity for their profit) and push traffic onto roads further out. How about we just accept that people have an equal right to use public space.

The best way to encourage people out of their cars is to improve public transport provision (something which probably is less of an issue if you live next to a train station, but isn't so convenient for everyone).

[alex_b]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to any

> area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to be

> the case. Parking massively increases compared to

> the previous situation. Yet despite regular

> repeated evidence to support this, people still

> doubt this. A shame.

I don't doubt that there will be a reduction in cars parking in the CPZ, I'm sure there are enough commuters and cars/vans/taxis being stored to reduce the number of cars on the street. However the point singalto and others were trying to make, is that these particular CPZs come with a massive increase in double yellow lines and other on-street structures to reduce the total available parking spaces. On Adys road for instance, the numbers of cars would have to fall by 60+% to be able to achieve a 40% increase in parking spaces due to all of the loss of parking spaces that are proposed.

Perhaps in your street they didn't implement pointless double yellow lines, parklets and cycle lockers so that you did see a 40% reduction. I think at best we'll come out about even from this CPZ, but more likely slightly down on the available parking.

[jimlad48]

When they did the CPZ they did come up with yellow lines and cycle lockers and pay and display bays and so on. Yet we still have more parking spaces now than before - the only time there is pressure is weekends when people drive in for shifts at Kings and no restrictions are in place.

The issue for many areas is that the commuters are quite prepared to park a long walk from the station (as seen in the Toastrack / DKH area) if that get them a free parking space. The persistence is quite impressive.

[intexasatthe moment]

rahrahrah "If you buy a house next to a train station, you must expect some commuters to park near it (You yourself will have no need to drive to a station of course, but would still like to store a car there during the day - apparently something which deserves priority). This whole thing feels a bit like chucking your litter over the neighbours fence. You move somewhere it's hard to park, campaign to privatise the road (giving Apcoa the right to milk a public amentity for their profit) and push traffic onto roads further out. How about we just accept that people have an equal right to use public space. "

I completely agree .Have been wondering how to phrase my view ,glad that you've put into words what I think .

[charity007]

I absolutely despise the double yellow lines and the loss of 8 parking spaces within a stones throw of my house as someone else has already noted.

I see no reason they exist beyond income generation for the council.

I do not want a CPZ either. I do not want to pay the council to pay near my house.

Also on the tripping dangers - i tripped and injured myself badly on a very loose tile on the footpath. Not a penny did the council compensate me for my lost income from work but within a week the tile was fixed.

Rant over

[Charles Martel]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to any

> area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to be

> the case. Parking massively increases compared to

> the previous situation. Yet despite regular

> repeated evidence to support this, people still

> doubt this. A shame.

The reason the the 40% figure is doubted is that it is not based on any real evidence from an area like most of the proposed East Dulwich Car Poll tax Zone. In this area most roads are lined with terraced houses and the residents park their cars on the road. So for each house there is generally one parking space. If a road has 100 houses and each resident has 1 car then there will be 100% occupation of the available parking space. For a CPZ to reduce the number of parked cars by 40% you would need 40% of the residents to give up their cars. That is simply not going to happen in East Dulwich. None of my neighbours are going to give up their cars because of a ?125 car poll tax. Neither are their visitors going to stop coming and parking. So even if this Car Poll tax Zone were to be implemented it will have little or no benefit for the residents of most of the area. Currently occupation of the available parking space is not 100% in any case.

East Dulwich is simply not an area that fills with cars on Monday morning and empties out on Friday afternoon. Generally speaking the roads in East Dulwich around Lordship Lane are pretty full of cars in the evenings and at the weekends all the time. The only time roads in this area are anything like the ?after? photo in the consultation document is between Christmas and New Year when people pack up and leave for the holidays.

Clearly the 40% figure was simply cut and pasted from DKH along with the idea that we are facing a tidal wave of commuters who will supposedly park up by the library for easy access to the station.

The comparison with the DKH CPZ is completely bogus. That area has two railway stations and King's College Hospital on its doorstep to attract commuters. Obviously King's has a very large workforce and large numbers of patients and visitors travelling to and from each day. It was known that some parts of the surrounding area were recommended to staff and visitors for free parking access to the hospital only a short walk away. Clearly no one is going to park in East Dulwich to access Kings College Hospital. East Dulwich has no such large employer and therefore is not a destination for large numbers of commuters.

There is no evidence, outside of a small area around the station that there is any problem in this area with commuters taking up parking space. Certainly no one in the council has done any work to verify whether there is such a problem. When I went to the drop in session on Saturday I expected the council to have some data to justify this desire for a CPZ. All they would have to do to get a definitive answer would be to roll their ANPR car around the area, log number plates and see how many were registered outside the area.

[roywj]

Jimlad48 gives a good insight.

If you are unsure about the effects of a CPZ being implemented in East Dulwich have a look at the positive effect it has had locally in areas such as Herne Hill, Sunray Avenue, roads on the Denmark Hill Estate and last week Village Way. Even have a look on google maps and you will see a huge difference.

People are also missing the fact that there are a lot of cars parked up that do not move for months at a time. I've noticed that many have been moved from Village Way onto East Dulwich Grove taking up valuable parking spaces. These are in addition to a number that have been parked on the road listed for sale but never seen to be sold. I understand there was a similar issue on East Dulwich Road. A CPZ will end these issues.

[ed_pete]

I simply don't get why Village Way has a CPZ, all the houses have driveways. Just a huge inconvenience to those that parked there.

[Zebedee Tring]

Perhaps I can repeat the question that I asked earlier in this thread, namely is it being proposed that there should be double yellow lines either side of dropped kerbs throughout the borough and not just in CPZs??

[MarkT]

Zebedee,

Hare seems to have answered your question on a new thread, yet another separate thread on this subject - "Be careful what you wish for"

[Zebedee Tring]

Thanks, Mark.

[Johnjohn]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Perhaps I can repeat the question that I asked

> earlier in this thread, namely is it being

> proposed that there should be double yellow lines

> either side of dropped kerbs throughout the

> borough and not just in CPZs??

No, my understanding is that double yellow will be implemented across all dropped kerbs (+2M either side) within the CPZ.

This would not be retrospectively applied to established dropped kerbs outside the CPZ.

Of course any NEW dropped kerbs approved do get the double yellow treatment anywhere within the borough.