Southwark-wide CPZ

[Rockets]

9 hours ago, megalaki84 said:

No, all tax payers pay for roads, not just car owners. Road tax is paid to the Treasury, it isn't allocated to road maintenance and everyone pays.

I deeply object to paying for a minority of the population to endanger my children, pollute their lungs and trash their climate. 

Someone's been drinking Cllr McAsh's "justice" Kool-Aid!

 

And the claims that 95% of people in Southwark could go car-free are as blinkered and fantasy-fuelled as you have come to expect - no doubt built on someone's personal experience and the expectation that because they can live a certain lifestyle then everyone else can. London isn't Camberwick Green I am afraid....

[Penguin68]

The general assumption being made by some of the car phobes here is that no one needs to (or does) leave London or even the immediate vicinity. If you only shop in your local shop (assuming you live close enough to one), and only go where you can reasonably cycle then, indeed, you may not need a car. However, if you travel further afar (or east/ west) or on the weekend, or during the innumerable strike days, or around them, or are in any way disabled by age or infirmity, or want to travel late(r) at night or... well the list is endless but if you have a car, and can drive, then using one will either make certain journeys possible at all, or will allow you to get somewhere (and back) in a fraction of the time that being self-propelled or relying on (often non existent) public transport will allow. Not needing a car in ED isn't the same as not needing a car.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Penguin68

[malumbu]

On 09/07/2023 at 10:56, Penguin68 said:

I'm sorry (no I'm not) but that's complete rubbish. Maintaining the status quo is an entirely acceptable option on many occasions. Only an idiot or a troll would suggest otherwise. You may need alternatives for some issues, but by no means all. There may be no valid solution to a problem, in which case doing nothing is far more sensible than doing something which doesn't work, which has cost, inconvenience and no acceptable outturn. For you, reading your posts, the only acceptable solution to, it would seem, any problem is to ban car and car usage, or get as close to that as can be managed. You will in fact accept no other solutions, whatever the problem is. And, as I gather you in fact have no dog in a local fight which this is, your opinion would belong in the Lounge, where you would like everything traffic based to be lodged, rather than on a board which addresses local to ED issues. Perhaps you could start your own 'I hate cars' thread there, and not bother local to ED people on this board discussing local to ED problems.

Not really sure why you why you are resorting to insults, not very grown up.

Well not surprisingly I disagree, we are screwing up the planet and all need to take action.  I expect you and others are doing the right thing but the rest of us need to do so too.  I don't know where this nonsense of me banning cars comes from.  It's less driving and smarter driving, using more environmentally appropriate vehicles, reducing single occupancy (ie better utility) and smoother driving (an easy win, that so many have no idea).

I've posted elsewhere this really interesting study at Heathrow by government's Behaviour Change Team.  Sadly whatever you did do make it attractive to reduce driving to work it ust didn't work.  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586376/sustainable-travel-evaluation-of-low-cost-workplace-interventions.pdf

Some extracts

"Increasing sustainable travel can help create growth in the economy and tackle climate change by cutting carbon emissions. It also influences our health, by improving air quality and physical activity, and can drive productivity by reducing congestion and providing easier access to jobs."

Surely you have no objection to this

"A key learning from this project is not to take self-reported opinions at face value when devising transport interventions. The gap that sometimes exist between stated preferences and observed behaviour is a well-documented phenomenon, which was reaffirmed by this project."

This is so familiar on the various LTN threads "Oh I really believe in sustainable transport"  "but they really have to have perfect alternatives before I will ditch the car"  (And even then I wont)

Not sure why you would object to spending a little more on driving, if it was to reduce the overall mileage, ie encourage others to ditch non-essential car journeys or ones where there is a straight forward alternative.

I'm ready for the barrage that the research above is poorly evidences, or biased.   I see  very useful piece of work that justifies a more stick based approach because many human beings can't be trusted to do the right thing.

 

 

 

[Jim1234]

This is clear profiteering by the council - I'd like to see all cars banned (minus a large exception list), this is just tinkering. 

[malumbu]

Odd response - definition of profiteering "the practice of making or seeking to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market".  Not sure if any of those apply.

What did you think of my previous post?

 

[CPR Dave]

None of that is relevant to allowing people to keep cars as long as they pay more tax for paving slabs and benches every 110m Malumbum. 

 

This policy is not about saving the planet or even lowering emissions. It's about allowing people to carry on driving cars but picking their pockets at the same time.

 

Labour have abandoned their Green New Deal, they don't even pretend to care about "tree huggers" or the climate anymore. They just want to tax people they have decided are rich. 

[legalalien]

Just for info there’s a fairly clear statement of the council’s position in the response to public questions submitted to last night’s Council Assembly

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s115573/Public questions report with responses.pdf

As well as the car owners v non car owners fairness point, there’s also the point that it’s not fair for car owners in some parts of the borough to have to pay for parking permits, while others don’t. That was mentioned in the cabinet meeting as a reason for why the council believe the borough-wide roll out has a popular mandate ie it is likely to be supported not just by non car owners but also by car owners living in areas that currently have CPZs.

Haven’t watched last night’s meeting but video is here 

Streets for People promo video here

 

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, legalalien said:

As well as the car owners v non car owners fairness point, there’s also the point that it’s not fair for car owners in some parts of the borough to have to pay for parking permits, while others don’t

In the past CPZ';s were sold to punters who 'voted' for them on the basis that they then had access to a scarce resource which was being 'taken' from them by incomers - not on the basis that this was simply a local cost of ownership - now that punters who were in parking distress have paid for that alleviation others (who do not have parking distress as there is not that competition on space) are being told that it's not 'fair' that people who have had to pay for something they needed should be 'penalised' by people who do not need special access to parking getting away with not paying for something which offers them no additional benefit. 

At least Southwark should be honest - they have decided to monetise roads even further as there is no restriction on what they can do or charge, so they are avoiding capping. Of course, legally, they cannot spend this money on anything other than roads, but I am sure that 'roads' will start to mean a great deal more than it used to in common parlance. 

We can expect wholly exorbitant charges (or indeed no permission granted) for those who apply in future to build off-street parking. 

This is, simply, a shakedown by the north of the borough, hugely well supplied with public transport, on the middle class south of the borough, already poorly served (and increasingly more so) by TFL and the train companies (not of course in the control of Southwark). 

I wonder what parking fees Lime bikes etc. are paying for occupying road and pavement spots - and in a haphazard way which motorists would be penalised for. But 'fairness' is very much a one-way street when it comes to our Masters in Tooley St. 

[first mate]

How is it 'fair' to charge those with access to much better transport networks but who also want a car the same as those who live in areas with low PTAL scores and therefore need a car?

In ED the rationale for CPZ was for the people who had bought houses next to the train station and because of commuter parking were unable to park as near their homes as they'd like.

Cllr McAsh and Rose obviously feel they now have a trump card with the social justice line and it gives them carte blanche. It is of course a nonsense. This is about a revenue stream for the council.

[Pro uno builders]

Due to nature of my work 

I've paid over £4000 in drive through penalties as well as parking tickets 

People like me who must work in different locations every day are being hit hard by school roads and parking penalties when we must drive through roads we can't drive trough anymore or park to deliver services which we do

Where is the logic of greener London with less pollution if a journey from forest Hill to dulwich village which used to take 5 min must be done by driving around and it takes 30min plus on super congested roads thanks to restrictions 

Or we pay pcn and get where we want to be on time . And then we pay another pcn because we are not allowed to park there anyways . .

Green air ?

It's a Joke 

I used to spend £50-£70 on fuel every week 

Now it's over £100 to do the same journey 

I used to start work at 8am 

Nowdays i start at 10am so i dont have to drive around like an idiot 

and then from 11-1pm i need to pick my car up and hide it in my pocket so I don't get fine 

Not only working less hours 

But also charging clients more in order to pay the fines that in some cases cannot be avoided 

Well done 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Pro uno builders

[Metallic]

The complete rubbish spouted at the first consultation meeting at Dulwich Library was an insult to our intelligence.  (McCash wants to use parking places for parklets by the way - lovely seating that is backing on to a road, has rubbish and dope paraphernalia left in it - nice outside your house.  And a few months ago I was told by the woman who is local chair of Police panel that crack apparatus was found by the Burial Ground.)  CPZs are an inevitable move to get you from using your car and that is the most anti-social behaviour on behalf of the council who give not one jot about anyone living in non urban areas like Dulwich Village and West Dulwich south of the South Circular.  We all have to travel to decent food shops and some of us are too old to walk and carry.

[first mate]

They want to make 'parklets' while at the same time moving forward on hiring out our actual parks for polluting, commercial large scale events for many weeks of high summer. So green!

[Pugwash]

The Dulwich Hill CPZ meeting will be held at Christ Church Barry Road 6 - 8 pm Monday 17th July.   Very conveniently only a few Dulwich Hill residents have received leaflets giving details.  No need to pre book as church can hold a large number of people.

[Juliane]

Hi all,

I have started a new ePetition to stop the introduction for a CPZ in Dulwich Hill, and I saw that a couple of other very similar ones have sprung up at the same time. If you are in support, could you please sign it?

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListDisplay.aspx?$LO$=1

I have just signed the ePetition for 'No paid parking in the Queens Road and Nunhead Areas' in solidarity.

According to an email from the council:

The number of signatures is required below for the matter to be debated at the following meetings:

Council Assembly - 1500 signatures

Cabinet - 500 signatures

Multi-Ward Forum - 250 signatures

[megalaki84]

I have just submitted a petition in SUPPORT of the CPZ. Will provide the link when approved by the council.

Only fair that the council sees that there are two sides to this story. If the.car lobby gets a hearing, would be wonderful for the other side to get one too

Edited July 14, 2023 by megalaki84

[first mate]

Quite right. I just hope your signatories are broadly from within the local communities affected and not mobilisation of LCC members and similar groups all around London.

[CPR Dave]

Julian I think you need to get some of those other petitions cancelled and have just the best one that everyone signs.

You need to get 500+ signatories to have any impact so 4 petitions with 200 signatories each is hopeless.

 

[Kathleen Olander]

On 13/07/2023 at 14:00, first mate said:

They want to make 'parklets' while at the same time moving forward on hiring out our actual parks for polluting, commercial large scale events for many weeks of high summer. So green!

That's spot on.  By the way anyone know what happened to the 'parklet' that sprung up overnight outside Romeo Jones in DV and then disappeared again a short while later?  

 

[Ella Menopee]

It was hit by a car. Southwark took it down and won’t replace it as apparently one of the business owners on that stretch of road objects to it being reinstalled. 

[CPR Dave]

I'm not surprised. They are a terrible eyesore. The state of the parklets near East Dulwich Station is appalling.

It looks like a slum round there.

[vladi]

Excuse my ignorance but WTH is a "parklet"? 

[first mate]

A parklet is a little area of green or planting that is put in the street, Around about the footprint of a couple of cars or bike hangar. The idea is that you can have a bench and sit there and chat to friends and enjoy 'nature' etc.. As we have just heard, it rarely ends up like that as the council cannot afford to upkeep parks let alone parklets.

I don't know about anyone else but not once have I seen anyone sitting and resting or chatting on the parklet benches near me.

 

On the subject of parks, while the council want to make mini parks in our streets, they also aim to turn our beautiful, large areas of already green park into events spaces for hire, causing flora and fauna to be trashed every year by thousands of revellers. This is the council's topsy turvy outlook on how to be green and save the climate. Underpinning it all of course is money, money, money.

Edited July 15, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

13 hours ago, megalaki84 said:

I have just submitted a petition in SUPPORT of the CPZ. Will provide the link when approved by the council.

Only fair that the council sees that there are two sides to this story. If the.car lobby gets a hearing, would be wonderful for the other side to get one too

Good luck with that! I seem to remember someone putting a supportive petition up around LTNs and the number of signatories for that was dwarfed by those in opposition and it was used as part of the lobbying.

11 hours ago, vladi said:

Excuse my ignorance but WTH is a "parklet"? 

A seating area dedicated to the exclusive use of the middle classes to discuss how gpod LTNs and CPZs are, drink and eat extraordinarily over-priced "artisan" coffee and pastries whilst talking about which ski resort they plan to holiday in during the winter and whether the Maldives or Mauritius is their destination of choice for the summer. Discussion may also turn to which Tesla they plan to buy now they have paved their front garden and which private school they plan to send their offspring to.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Rockets

[Jules-and-Boo]

More like school kids eating greasy chicken 

[CPR Dave]

Maldives and Mauritius are better fir winter sun.