Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Lots of Lime bikes at the junction with Peckham Rye, were laying on the ground during the week.

 

Yeah, I picked up a fallen one along College Road the other day. Not sure if it had been left that way, blown over in the wind, knocked over by a pedestrian / scooter-ist / cyclist clipping it or bumped into by a car pulling a 3-point turn but whatever - it was still functional. I rode it down to the Village and left it by the bike stands there and it all seemed to be working OK. And it was removed from being in the way!

  • 1 month later...

Some form of experimental traffic orders relating to E-bike and E-scooter parking appear to be on the way - not yet clear whereabouts in Southwark


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50031189&PlanId=748&RPID=7198016


Will keep an eye out for the decision and post if local.

Some form of experimental traffic orders relating to E-bike and E-scooter parking appear to be on the way - not yet clear whereabouts in Southwark


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50031189&PlanId=748&RPID=7198016


Will keep an eye out for the decision and post if local.

 

Locally I've spotted changes where there's no parking in the park next to Sainsbury's and around Dulwich Hamlet FC, but you can park in Sainsbury's car park still.


In Peckham, I parked outside the Peckhamplex and was told it's now a "designated parking area" and there are designated parking areas on LL by the shops. You can still park on the side roads such as Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Grove though.

Bic basher said: "In Peckham, I parked outside the Peckhamplex and was told it's now a "designated parking area" and there are designated parking areas on LL by the shops. You can still park on the side roads such as Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Grove though."


You can park on those roads for now but as Cllr Rose continues to ramp up parking pressure (parking space for hire bikes being just the latest wheeze) you can guarantee that those streets will be CPZ, before long. Let's face it, that is what these allegedly environmentally moves are really all about, making sure everywhere is wall to wall CPZ...kerching.


Consider again what environmentally friendly council does all the above but simultaneously offers to turn swathes of local parkland into a private nightclub in the height of summer.

Parking pressure comes from living in a dense urban agglomeration of 8.9 million people with 2.6 million cars that are parked 95% of the time...and the expectation that parking for private cars should be free.

But it isn't free is it? Every year the vast majority of car owners pay a tax that goes into a central Govt consolidated fund. That money is used for myriad projects, including infrastructure, like roads.


You must pay that tax even if your car is parked in the street and never driven. So I dispute the notion that car owners expect and get absolutely free parking.


CPZ is primarily a mechanism for Councils to generate income and the car is an easy target. Parking pressure has been artificially constructed to a great degree. We all know this. We've witnessed it happening locally.


I do wonder though when the council will start going after those who own wood burning stoves...? Far more damaging to the environment and health.


I also wonder how on the one hand they can witter on about greening streets while on the other they actively seek to privatise and ungreen local parkland?

Most analysis shows that driving is highly subsidised (that is, the amount bought in to the exchequer from car related taxes, doesn't cover the costs of all the money spent on infrastructure and 'clean up' from the impacts). Many of the costs are 'externalised'. If you just look at the huge amount of space given over to cars in London, this is fairly self evident.

Most analysis shows that driving is highly subsidised (that is, the amount bought in to the exchequer from car related taxes, doesn't cover the costs of all the money spent on infrastructure and 'clean up' from the impacts). Many of the costs are 'externalised'. If you just look at the huge amount of space given over to cars in London, this is fairly self evident.

Can you post links to these studies Rahx3 ?

Google "externalised costs of motoring UK" and you'll find several studies that all reach similiar conclusions.


But here is an example: https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/document/the-true-costs-of-automobility


"A report by the Dresden Technical University in Germany calculated that externalised costs amounted to £303bn per year across the 27 EU member states – According to the authors of the report: “It must be stated that car traffic in the EU is highly subsidised by other people and other regions and will be by future generations: residents along an arterial road, taxpayers, elderly people who do not own cars, neighbouring countries, and children, grandchildren and all future generations subsidise today’s traffic.”


The study said UK drivers accounted for £48bn of costs, or about £815 per person per year. This figure did not include costs from resulting from congestion or ill health caused by sedentary lifestyles.


Motoring related taxes have never been hypothecated, but even if they were, at the time the report was released there would be a £10bn shortfall between revenue from motoring taxes and the £48bn costs."


But frankly, when you just look at how much public space is provided for cars (with only 54 per cent of London households having access to a car), it's fairly clear that cars are hugely subsidised.

The study you cite is for across the EU and is from 2012.


I am not sure how you can accurately extrapolate use of taxes in UK from this?


But you are changing the goalposts. The assertion was that UK car users all expect and get free parking on the street. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case.

RAHx3 it's not for us to find studies to validate your claim, it's for you to prove.


The study referenced is not for inferstructure costs vs taxes raised so a bit of red herring plus and as pointed out it's 11 years old and not UK specific.


Please supply a UK specific study and make it relevant to taxes raised vs inferstructure spend otherwise stop spouting that costs aren't covered without proof.


Interesting argument that you are truing to raise that everyone subsidises car drivers regardless if they drive or not.


Its akin to arguing that if you don't have kids, you shouldn't pay towards schools or if you never use a train you shouldn't pay towards the railways. Some things are there for the benefit of all and roads are a prime example as they allow goods to be moved, private cars, public transport and cycling.

I was asked for a link so I provided one (Yes, it looks at several countries across Europe, including the UK). If you're not happy with that one and would like another, you could use Google Scholar, I'm not a librarian. There is general consensus that the externalised costs of motoring exceed the revenue paid in taxes. It is also the case that driving in a city like London has significantly higher externalised costs than the average, so in truth the subsidy here is far greater (hence schemes such as congestion charging and ULEZ).


There are more than three million licensed vehicles in London, and the average car is parked for at least 95 per cent of the time. TfL data shows that 43 per cent of all cars are parked on-street (at the kerbside). A simple calculation taking into account the size of a standard parking space shows that parked vehicles alone take up well over 14 km2 (1,400 hectares) of space on our roads and streets – or the size of 10 Hyde Parks.

  • 1 month later...

For info, council proposals for experimental traffic orders to out in place parking areas for e-bikes and escooters , proposed locations in the Appendix


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50031189

Hopefully it goes hand-in-hand with people actually using them as the parking bays on Lordship Lane seem to be full to bursting with e-scooters desperately seeking a rider. Has the council released any data on usage of the trial in Dulwich to this point - how many journeys are being made and from where to where?

Has the council released any data on usage of the trial in Dulwich to this point - how many journeys are being made and from where to where?

 

It's more complicated than that.

The trial is being run by TfL in conjunction with three operators (Lime, Dott and TIER) and the councils, some of which stopped their trials at the originally agreed point, some of which extended their trials as per the Government's directive.


The "extension" of the trials was to hide the fact that the proposed Transport Bill through Parliament to legalise them has been delayed.


So the data is with the operators and TfL and is intended to be London-wide; although the councils are all providing feedback it's not up to them to be publishing usage data.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
    • Aria is my go to plumber. Fixed a toilet leak for me at short notice. Reasonably priced and very professional. 
    • Anyone has a storage or a display rack for Albums LPs drop me a message thanks
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...