Southwark-wide CPZ

[Penguin68]

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

in proper electric car charging infrastructure.

I'm afraid that presupposes they are in favour of electric cars, but there is clear evidence, in their own statements, that they wish to drive any (my emphasis) private car ownership out of Southwark. Providing car infrastructure (even for electric cars) therefore would be contrary to their policy. This has everything to do with political principal and very little actually to do with e.g. pollution or public health and well-being. A council which is prepared to charge owners and users of cars specified for the disabled (and/ or block them from entering public spaces) has no interest in the well being of those who live, or pass through, 'their' space.

[mr.chicken]

What's all this got to do with the CPZ, @Rockets ?

 

 

[heartblock]

Southwark Council has done nothing to improve public transport (as this has been discussed as a reason for CPZ - which incidentally I support, even though dangerous parking and idling cars are still part and parcel of every school run to Alleyn’s, JAGs and the other private schools on the Herne Hill/Dulwich border).

In fact the bus journeys of buses on LL, ED Grove and Croxted to get to work, school etc are much, much worse and a lot longer in term s of journey time,  since this Council put in certain policies.

Meanwhile Manchester brings in a fleet of publically owned yellow bee electric buses - fantastic. 

 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

I'm afraid that presupposes they are in favour of electric cars, but there is clear evidence, in their own statements, that they wish to drive any (my emphasis) private car ownership out of Southwark. Providing car infrastructure (even for electric cars) therefore would be contrary to their policy. This has everything to do with political principal and very little actually to do with e.g. pollution or public health and well-being. A council which is prepared to charge owners and users of cars specified for the disabled (and/ or block them from entering public spaces) has no interest in the well being of those who live, or pass through, 'their' space.

Completely agree. They seem to have allowed themselves to be so blinkered by their own ideology that they have lost sight of the goal.

[mr.chicken]

Well the latest round of speculation makers about as much sense as the other histrionic conspiracy nonsense about the council and transport, so sure, why not?

[first mate]

At the Southwark Council environment scrutiny session earlier this year it was made very clear that electric cars are on borrowed time and would be the next target. They don't want any cars, so they say, but do not seem in a hurry to get rid of the council fleet. However, if more people dump petrol and go electric, the council will be circling for revenue.

P68said: "I'm afraid that presupposes they are in favour of electric cars, but there is clear evidence, in their own statements, that they wish to drive any (my emphasis) private car ownership out of Southwark. Providing car infrastructure (even for electric cars) therefore would be contrary to their policy. This has everything to do with political principal and very little actually to do with e.g. pollution or public health and well-being. A council which is prepared to charge owners and users of cars specified for the disabled (and/ or block them from entering public spaces) has no interest in the well being of those who live, or pass through, 'their' space."

[Rockets]

Surely encouraging, and helping facilitate, people to go electric should be a priority for the council if their goal really is to reduce emmissions?

It's clear car ownership in Dulwich is high for a number of reasons (notably age of the population- at both ends - more families and low PTAL scores) and it will always be that way so rather than trying to convince people they don't need cars maybe embrace a form of car that reduces emissions. Seems pretty obvious.

[mr.chicken]

This is one of the more hilarious threads. Perhaps if you'd been less busy trying to hound any pro LTN people off forum and more time listening this would not come as a shock.

 

Pollution is one of the many problems with cars. Changing to electric cars will fix a good fraction of the car pollution problem but none of the others. For the cars that remain, electric is the way to go.

But there are still too many cars.

You know those buses you pretend to care about getting stuck in traffic?  Electric cars won't fix that, it will just make the stationary traffic less filthy. Unsticking the buses means fewer cars, electric or otherwise.

[Rockets]

Mr Chicken - so glad it is entertaining you!  I think it is often you that is trying to hound people off the thread with your aggressive, accusatory and angry contributions.

 

As I was saying a pretty obvious solution - we hear time and time again from the council that LTNs, CPZs etc are all here to make air quality better but they do virtually nothing to help the transition to electric vehicles. They should be asked why not - it seems to me this is a massive missed opportunity for them. 

 

And Mr Chicken, roads are getting increasingly congested (and remember car ownership has been declining in London steadily for some time before any interventions) because councils are closing more and more roads to through traffic and forcing buses and other vehicles to share less and less road space as they build more and more and bigger and bigger cycle lanes, and despite claiming the opportunity for a 10 fold increase in cyclists post Covid cycling in London has increased by just 11%.

 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Rockets

[malumbu]

Office of Zero Emission Vehicles is part of government responsible for delivering EV ambitions.  Not doing a bad job. Southwark will have received funding eg for on street parking.  Your time would be better spent on a little research rather than going off on one again, Labour complain complain, Southwark complain complain, Mayor Khan complain complain 

[mr.chicken]

@Rockets you may have noticed that the central government had banned ICE car sales from 2030. That's a far larger thing than the council can do plus this way they don't have to put up with the inevitable gales of whining and pointless judicial reviews.

So in other words, the council are doing their bit, the government is doing their bit and it's all moving forwards. I know you think the council are at a superhuman level of competence.

Also you are factually incorrect about congestion because it has increased in the control areas well away from where LTNs are installed. The boundary roads have seen less increase than places far from the LTNs, so it looks very much like LTNs have had a positive effect.

PS your "no u" is somewhat below your usual level trolling. Can't you do better?

[heartblock]

Can you guide us all to this less increase in congestion and how is congestion defined?

Because the Dept of Transport says...

Regardless of whether it is defined physically or relatively, the effects of increased congestion are typically characterised by:

•   Slower speeds
•   Longer journey times
•   Increased queuing at junctions or bottlenecks
•   Increased stopping and starting
•   More time spent stationary
•   Less predictable journey times

Which definitely fits into TFL's complaints to Southwark Council re: certain roads post implementation of you-know-whats.....

Not numbers of vehicles.

Which begs the question.

Why did Southwark avoid measuring congestion as suggested by many a resident.

[malumbu]

Rocks you will find these stats on government's on street charging funding interesting: https://maps.dft.gov.uk/ev-charging-map/index.html

Southwark is the star with over 1700 on street chargers per 100k, no other London borough comes close, its around fives times more than adjoining boroughs and ten times more than some of the outer boroughs.

So how does this tie in with your view that Southwark doesn't want EVs?  Would you agree that Southwark deserves a pat on the back for the provision of on street chargers? 

[first mate]

16 hours ago, heartblock said:

Can you guide us all to this less increase in congestion and how is congestion defined?

Because the Dept of Transport says...

Regardless of whether it is defined physically or relatively, the effects of increased congestion are typically characterised by:

•   Slower speeds
•   Longer journey times
•   Increased queuing at junctions or bottlenecks
•   Increased stopping and starting
•   More time spent stationary
•   Less predictable journey times

Which definitely fits into TFL's complaints to Southwark Council re: certain roads post implementation of you-know-whats.....

Not numbers of vehicles.

Which begs the question.

Why did Southwark avoid measuring congestion as suggested by many a resident.

@chicken, hoping you answer Heartblock?

[Rockets]

On 03/09/2023 at 22:03, mr.chicken said:

@Rockets you may have noticed that the central government had banned ICE car sales from 2030. That's a far larger thing than the council can do plus this way they don't have to put up with the inevitable gales of whining and pointless judicial reviews.

So in other words, the council are doing their bit, the government is doing their bit and it's all moving forwards. I know you think the council are at a superhuman level of competence.

Also you are factually incorrect about congestion because it has increased in the control areas well away from where LTNs are installed. The boundary roads have seen less increase than places far from the LTNs, so it looks very much like LTNs have had a positive effect.

PS your "no u" is somewhat below your usual level trolling. Can't you do better?

So what are the council doing to help facilitate people moving to EVs...as that will clearly be the only option for a new car in 6.5 years?

Not sure about anyone else but I am not seeing an increase in charging points across the area (I do on private driveways but nothing on the roads).

Seems like a huge missed opportunity to me.

[malumbu]

Go up three posts and I have given you some excellent information on how much Southwark has done.  Park your prejudices and become better informed.

(To save you doing some research Southwark are streets ahead in comparison with all other London boroughs in terms of on street parking, Please unconditionally acknowledge this positive result from your local authority).

Out of interest have you not seen people charging their cars via a cable and a window on the street.  The evil oil companies are also putting charge points in filling station forecourts as well as supermarkets.

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Go up three posts and I have given you some excellent information on how much Southwark has done.  Park your prejudices and become better informed.

(To save you doing some research Southwark are streets ahead in comparison with all other London boroughs in terms of on street parking, Please unconditionally acknowledge this positive result from your local authority).

Out of interest have you not seen people charging their cars via a cable and a window on the street.  The evil oil companies are also putting charge points in filling station forecourts as well as supermarkets.

Ha ha Park your prejudices....boom boom...did you see what you did there? 😉

 

Westminster leads in terms of numbers in London (which came as some surprise) but it is interesting that those boroughs that have areas in the most central parts of London perform better than those that don't. Do you have any idea why that might be, given there is more reliance on cars the further you go out would expect the reverse to be in play? Or is there something else perhaps that we are missing in terms of the underlying data?

There are 56,000+ registered cars in Southwark so some way to go don't you think?

 

Where we live in Dulwich there are very few charging points and we have councillors who say, publicly, that EVs are not the answer and should be discouraged - which doesn't fill anyone with confidence that they are going to try and help accelerate EV rollout.

 

Sorry if this has triggered you but I thought it was a sensible idea to encourage the council to use money from the fines and CPZ charges to reinvest it in encouraging people to take up EVs. And remember this was an idea that came to me after I saw how many more houses now have EV charging points along Friern Road and made me wonder why the council was not doing more to help facilitate the transition for on-street parking in the area.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 18/08/2023 at 11:38, Penguin68 said:

Neither, of course, is your bicycle - are you now arguing that cyclists should be paying a contribution towards their use of the paved roads, or pedestrians their use of pavements? Maybe someone with a baby carriage should be paying extra. The roads were built and paved for the public benefit of all - and the sides of the roads were designed - in most streets - to allow vehicles to be parked up. Without such an allowance we would be forced to move to the 15 minute cities that people talk about - logically where we work, shop, bank, are cared for if sick in our own tiny enclaves.  This is a desire to move back to a medieval village existence. Not for me, I'm afraid.

But actually, the car hatred is all about class war and envy. Destroy the kulaks and their cars. Again, not for me, I'm afraid. Such a political vision is of course one it is legitimate to hold (unless, like your predecessors, you do actually kill all the kulaks) - but I suspect, even in socialist Dulwich, it isn't that popular

All tax payers fund the roads and pavements, regardless of how they travel - by foot, bike, bus or car. There is not free on street storage for bikes. You think there should be for cars and I don't see why?

It's fascinating that you think opposing publicly subsidised / free car storage is 'socialist'. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Free car parking in streets (sorry earl NOT storage) has been around since the invention of motorised transport. 

If everyone nationally paid to park in the street from day 1 then it wouldn't be an issue but councils are selectively using it as a revenue generator which is where the issue lies. 

Personally I think all road users, including e-xxxs , cars and bikes should pay towards maintaining the roads as we all use them. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Spartacus

[exdulwicher]

59 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Personally I think all road users, including e-xxxs , cars and bikes should pay towards maintaining the roads as we all use them. 

They do. Local roads are maintained by the council so anyone who pays council tax contributes to that. I mean you have those free-loading kids who don't pay any taxes plus the folk on benefits but basically all council taxpayers, whether they own a car or not, whether they use a bike or not, all pay for the roads. 

And before you start about "yeah but drivers pay road tax..." there are plenty of cars subject to £0 VED.
https://www.carwow.co.uk/guides/running/which-cars-are-exempt-from-road-tax#gref

[Spartacus]

And when the electric cars are taxed, will you also advocate that a form of road tax be levied on e- xxs and cycles too or as a cyclist are road taxes not on the agenda.

Saying everyone pays currently is not quite the whole story as motorised vehicles are expected to pay ved (with the exception of electric currently as a drive to boost numbers) so why shouldn't e bikes and scooters also pay when the time is right and all motorised vehicles pay? 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Free car parking in streets (sorry earl NOT storage) has been around since the invention of motorised transport. 

If everyone nationally paid to park in the street from day 1 then it wouldn't be an issue but councils are selectively using it as a revenue generator which is where the issue lies. 

Personally I think all road users, including e-xxxs , cars and bikes should pay towards maintaining the roads as we all use them. 

Lot's of people currently store their car(s) / commercial vehicles on the road, for free. There are even commercial vehicle hire businesses storing heavy machinery on the street locally. Most streets are full of cars which barely move from one week to the next. Why should so much publicly owned and maintained land (which we all pay), be allocated for the storage of private / commercial vehicles, with no cost to the owner? To reiterate the point made previously, a private vehicle is not a public service. Even a space in a bike hanger is charged at a small fee. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Loving your narrative using Storage in place of Parking to try and justify a point.

Even introducing a CPZ is a charge for Parking (hence the name Controlled PARKING Zone) 

Parking has been allowed since the invention of the motorised vehicle, and the alternative is people pave over their gardens to park there.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Parking is allowed under a CPZ, it's just not always free. And that's not to say that there is no free parking in a CPZ, between certain hours, in certain locations at certain times. What there isn't is free long term storage for vehicles on street.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Totally disingenuous EA. It is about revenue, pure and simple, why try to hide it? Again it is not storage. A bike hangar is storage. A garage is storage.