first mate

Charles Martel said: "There is an obvious argument for a CPZ in areas where there are problems caused by people coming from outside the area wanting to park, however this was obviously not the case in most of East Dulwich. Is it likely that people will think it is in Nunhead? As residents will just buy permits the CPZ will do nothing to reduce resident parking. Despite the fact that 70% of Southwark is supposedly covered by CPZs already that 70% has not become the car free utopia that some seem ideologically fixated on creating. It is therefore important not to fall into the trap of car owners vs. the rest of society that the council wants to lay. All of my neighbours who cycle to work also own cars, as do most of the ones who use public transport or walk." Note the comment about many who cycle or use active travel also own cars. Many who cycle also admit to having to make a number of journeys a year by car (Malumbu). On another thread a poster commented that car ownership in the long-term cycling utopia of Amsterdam is only slightly less than in Southwark, despite pervasive CPZ.

Can anyone reveal the data source for the assertion that there has been a "rapid increase in 2 car ownership in Nunhead and East Dulwich"?

In the Environment and community engagement scrutiny session (link posted earlier) Cllr Rose talked about the need to better identify gaps in air quality data to get a more nuanced picture and understand where to place monitoring. They are also looking at air quality text alerts to help residents make choices about times and routes of travel etc.

If only any councillors were even partly active on this forum!

Has anyone done the calculations on average cost to a one car household after imposition of a CPZ. That is residents permit, visitors short stay permit and then all day permits for building/ maintenance work? If, as was suggested at the recent council scrutiny session, storage hangars will now be placed on streets for private hire companies, what will be the price of those? Will there be larger hangars to house private cargo bikes...at what cost? I anticipate a future where instead of private cars, much of the street scape will be given over to metal bike hangars and hire cars. If private car ownership dwindles to nothing, the need for hire fleets will probably rise and they will have to be kept on street to be accessible. If and when private car ownership dwindles expect there to be increasing charges for on street bike storage, the massive loss of revenue will have to be plugged somehow.

In response to the OP, I think that you need to carefully scrutinise all and any reasons given for the need to impose CPZ on Nunhead. You'll probably be given data on emissions which, if the ED experience is anything to go by, are dodgy ( see Heartblock's posts). I saw an assertion on this thread that there has been a massive rise in two car ownership in Nunhead, and this has led to parking pressure on some streets. No idea if this is true or source for that info. You may find Cllrs spending a lot of time speaking to any residents that do want CPZ. Ensure your voices are heard too. Hold your Cllrs to account. If the subject is under discussion on the Nunhead Forum, look for a sudden influx of new posters who are pro CPZ. They may well not be local residents but part of organisations who want CPZ.

Yes, there does seem to be a sudden resurgence in trolling and of certain posters, and clear efforts to effect lounging of any threads associated with threads on CPZ, LTNs, parking. I wonder why now? I also saw on the Nunhead thread on CPZ a resurrection of the 'frightened and cowed residents desperately in want of CPZ but too scared to say so' line. They ( if they actually exist at all) are already well represented as S'wark are set on a mission of borough wide CPZ and consultation is not public, so 'scared residents' just seems like another dubious tactic. It reminds me of the early days of ED CPZ when we were told residents were being stalked daily for parking slots by commuters. We also had extremely busy posters like pro cycling Rendel Harris (who disappeared pretty much once ED CPZ consultation was effected). I also feel that the pro LTN/ CPZ narrative is shifting from pollution and more to the use of space for free by cars, when that space could be better used for other things. At the scrutiny session Cllr Rose used almost identical phrasing to that recently trotted out on this forum. In the recent scrutiny session, there were also indications that S'wark will soon be going after wood burning stoves, gas hobs and even gas boilers...if they can.

Heartblock, Some damning statistics there. Is this not something our councillor James McAsh can clarify, especially as he is now has the climate change portfolio?

ED forum version of "I did not have sex with that woman". Or, do we have our very own forum Trump? Either way, this is a deflection game. I'm off back to the main threads.

Interesting. What is the thinking around Cllr Rose? Why might she not be a Cllr in October?

Smashing examples of circumlocution, convolution and obfuscation. Still no answer to Rockets' and Spartacus' rather straightforward question.

Yes indeed and as I keep saying, while 'saving the planet' by imposing ever increasing fees for owning any sort of car, the council are simultaneously giving over key areas of park land for polluting events, complete with generators and land churning vehicles. On top of this, attendees can be picked up and dropped off by car, with dedicated points so to do. Go figure! You'd have thought any sort of journey by car would be discouraged. But, in this case, they are making it easier. There is only one way to make any sense of these contradictory 'green' policies and that is revenue for the council.

Some interesting stuff from Council Scrutiny session onEnvironment and Leisure. It gives detail on Council ambitions for CPZ, LTNs, hire bikes and stated mission to have hire bike hangars on the roads, necessary storage for when we all give up our cars, including e-cars. Cllr King raises an interesting question as to whether emissionsmeasured are sometimes mixing woodburner with vehicle emissions.

Some interesting stuff from Council Scrutiny session on Environment and Leisure. It gives detail on Council ambitions for CPZ, LTNs, hire bikes and stated mission to have hire bike hangars on the roads, necessary storage for when we all give up our cars, including e-cars. Cllr King raises an interesting question as to whether emissions measured are sometimes mixing woodburner with vehicle emissions.

Thanks, it's interesting to hear about the two plumbers and one electrician who work using e-bikes in London... but doesn't really help the bulk of us who are going to have to fork out even more for basic house maintenance in addition to what will be regular parking permits. Just cannot see this mode of transport taking off en masse among general building trades any time soon. Happy to be proved wrong though. If I have understood, all day permits are £33.80 for the first ten days, rising to £60.80 per ten days thereafter? Given the recent massive hike in residents parking permits I wonder how long it will be before all day visitor permits also get hiked?

Who has this alleged "poor and exclusionary" behaviour silenced? It certainly hasn't silenced you! Hyperbole is definitely a tactic though. No doubt you will now say I have put words into your mouth.

Well for those residents in need of home adaptations, maintenance work etc.., get it done soon. Cannot imagine what the costs will be after 2025. Looking forward to plumbers, electricians and builders on cargo bikes services.

I will look again. When I saw the yellow sign yesterday, it looked as though the drop off was on Colyton. Happy to be corrected. But, creating a designated taxi drop off point seems at odds with a lot of the Council's stated aims around car use.

Encouraging use of taxis to access an event in a park seems at odds with the council's stated desire to reduce car use.

ED did not successfully challenge CPZ, instead a fair number of streets voted against. Because the council had promised to honour the majority verdict of each street it meant that a fair few streets are still CPZ free, which has stemmed CPZ rollout for now. In fact, this created a bit of a problem for the council as one key street had a majority against CPZ and had the council honoured its promise to allow the majority view, it would have reduced parking pressure in an area they wanted to be all CPZ. So in this case the council reneged on their own process and split the road in two, treating it as two distinct roads. Currently, many roads in ED are still CPZ free, however, I am sure the council will find ways to artificially create more parking pressure soon. They are pretty creative at this sort of thing.

I see that the entrance to the park on Colyton road is a designated Gala taxi pick up and drop off point. Has that been the same in other years?

Mr Chicken, I am not putting words into your mouth. On Wednesday you posted rather more words than I on the subject. You said: "Every time I drive, I deeply wish the council would do more to get people out of cars, because when I need to drive, I find the roads very clogged. We know many of the journeys are ones that couldbe done with other means of transport in principle, but not inpractice given London as it is now". What were the journeys that made driving necessary in your case? Or are you saying that journeys where you 'need' to drive are not actually necessary?

Malumbu said "It looks as if everyone is now happy with LTNs." Don't know how you decided that? Clearly everyone is not.

Duncan, fair point. Not deliberate, it is just that all the issues LTN, CPZ, parking charges, are intertwined.

Mr Chicken, It is glaringly obvious you are going after Rockets in an apparent attempt to discredit him. It is lovely that you are personally only experiencing benefits from the imposition of LTNs, however many are not and that fact is not going to disappear just because it suits you. Such is the strength of feeling that if one of the most vociferous pro LTN posters is found to be not practising what they preach, you should not be surprised if they are called out. In an earlier post you commented that fewer cars on the roads- as a result of LTNs- would mean that when you need to use a car it will make your journey easier. This suggests you do see a 'need' for car journeys? Can you elaborate on what you would term a necessary car journey and whether this would ever apply to you?