first mate

?

That's a lot of cyclists who feel it necessary to drive a car at some point and one would imagine a fair proportion are also car owners- I haven't looked at the figures, so don't know sample size etc...

Interesting that 85% of those who cycle feel the need to own a car.

And then people will want CPZ in your street and so it goes on. S'wark knew the only way they could shoehorn in this revenue raising measure was by going street by street and creating a domino effect and then piling on as many additional pressures as they could devise (unnecessary mass double yellow lines, closing off streets etc..).

Hi James, Just to be clear, by area do you mean the area in total respresented by you as a councillor or do you mean a majority positive response street by street, so that some streets are CPZ and others not? If the latter, are 'positive responses' counted per property or per person? jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear all > > I am back from my holiday! > > 1) All responses to the consultation are > considered. However, I have made a commitment - > backed by the Leader of the Council - that the > scheme will only be implemented in an area if the > majority of residents living there respond to the > consultation positively. > > 2) I do not know what the cost will be to > implement the scheme. It will clearly depend on > the size of the area of coverage, along with a > number of other variables which are subject to the > consultation. The revenue from parking permits is > intended to cover the costs though. > > 3) The CPZ consultation will have cost nowhere > near ?2.5m. I do not know the exact figure for > this consultation but in the past they have been > around ?20,000 - so less than 1% of the figure you > heard! > > 4) I doubt that the Council put any money into > Dulwich Hamlet FC but I can check to make sure. > > 5) Still looking into the Quietway, which predates > me. ArtfulDogger, can you email me directly with a > specific set of queries you want me to answer? > > Best wishes > James

Penguin68 I do sympathise with eveything you say and to those that harp on about pollution and health as the raison d'etre for all this (with good reason I might add) they need to be absolutely crystal clear S'warks current clutch of measures will have a significant positive impact in this respect, because the rate of change is also going to cause a lot of stress to many, and stress is also a killer. I also hope we are not handed out advice along the lines that unless we can live and operate purely locally we should all move and live elsewhere.

If you have serious caring responsibilities for relatives living outside of town you need a car. Public transport is not reliable enough for emergencies, nor are zip cars. Cycling obviously a non- starter. This is a reality of modern life where we no longer live in communities made up of extended families. Agree with cycling for short journeys when possible but that option is limited in many ways. Rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We have to get more people walking and cycling > and > > not driving. Numerous reasons for this including > - > > global warming, child obesity, health, > economics, > > reducing oil dependence...We have a climate > change > > crisis and should be acting accordingly. > > Walking and cycling are not always alternatives to > driving (you probably wouldn't walk to Brighton > for example) and many people would not want to > cycle with their kids to into central London. I'm > all in favour of getting people to walk and cycle > more, but there need to be real alternatives to > the car, ideally frequent, fast, reliable public > transport. > > Southwark put a lot of effort into making driving > more expensive, slower and less convenient. But > this just make peoples lives more difficult, it > rarely moves them out of their cars. This cannot > be the only lever you pull.

A beautiful Jay has been visiting my garden. I understand they are not good news for fledglings but gorgeous plumage.

Indeed, as in Chaucer's The Parliament of Fowls! Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Asset Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > . They like to > > plot under piles of damp leaves. > > > Plot :))

My hunch would be that if you approached the Council with a request to close your street they would probably launch a consultation or even a trial. mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I met a lost and very polite white van driver > coming down Green Dale yesterday morning as he > tried to find a way to get out of the Champion > Hill maze. > > Is it right that Champion Hill is now a dead end > if entered from Dog Kennel Hill? I don?t think > the signs make that clear. > > This is nimbyism at its finest. When can I have my > street turned into a private road that only > residents can drive along?

I am sure you will disagree but I do not view this measure as discrete from all the other traffic management issues currently underway. By closing off certain roads you can increase the volume of traffic on others. A proportion of road users will be en route but others will be travelling with a view to parking somewhere. Increasing the demand for parking on roads or in areas where there was not an issue before. This along with all the other measures arguably increases the likelihood of demand for CPZ. In short having failed before S'wark want the job done this time and are throwing everything they have to ensuring the outcome they want.

In my experience applicants are put through the most incredble hoops to get a BB, rather like PIP assessment.

Quite machiavellian to create shorter term problems and pollution as a necessary step towards improving health. The thing is, many do not believe health is the primary motivation, revenue is. There lies the rub. One might argue the means to the end is enough to cast doubt.

Yes, I have seriously considered these but then I also wonder about how safe to leave such things when one needs to! I do feel that feeling safe is a consideration, especially cycling at night.

PeterW, I think you make good points however as someone who does cycle part of the time I would say that the geography of ED is problematic in that we have two very steep hills either side. This is something of a block for those less physically able and needing to get to work. Even more so if you have to carry equipment around for your work. A flat Dutch landscape of the type I cycled in my youth makes a huge difference. All that said you also referred to people less likely to walk and cycle when roads feel so perilous and feral and I agree but would observe this is not just about lunatic drivers but a sense of feeling safe in general. Walking or even cycling in the dark can feel unsafe full stop and this is an aspect that is not really being addressed, I feel.

There is a need for hard evidence on parent driver habits, proximity of home to school etc? I don't understand the reasoning. Proposed road blocking only works if the majority of parents stop using cars, if not the problem will remain but be displaced a street away. I am not clear what evidence there is to demonstrate the majority of parents will stop? If the same driving habits occur in the displaced space surely children will be just as at risk there? So what will be the remedy then? In regard to a paucity of wardens, other posters have suggested they are a fairly regular feature. Even so, a number of random FPNs might have served as some deterrent. Unless it has been trialled we cannot know can we? It is the seeming reluctance on S'warks part to do this that is odd.

I do wonder why FPNs have not been issued for parking on double yellows etc, especially if there are wardens in situ? In terms of pollution and physical dangers, won't the problem simply be displaced to streets adjacent to the blocked road outside each school? So there will be stats produced to show success and a reduction in the problem but that will only be immediately outside the schools? Will the majority of those currently driving their children in to school just stop?

Hemingway clearly prefaced his/ her comment on the Palmerston with the word "unrelated". Think your final comment was unnecessary Rendel and not worthy of you.

Assume it is wretched Concordia Health who bid and won?

They must have been directed not to enforce. The cynical side of me wonders if this is a deliberate ploy to add as much fuel as possible to the council drive for mass CPZ, yellow lines, road closures.

How odd that wardens would not issue fines for dangerous parking. Have Southwark instructed them not to, I wonder? Passiflira Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bessemer Grange should have had CEO's (otherwise > known as traffic wardens) patrolling the school at > drop-off and pick-up times, prior to the street > closure. Why didn't they if there was such a > parking problem? The head must have known about > parking issues but the head has now imposed other > parking issues on the local surrounding community > i.e. inside and outside of the yellow gates. > > I've noticed that the two disabled parking bays > directly opposite the school are due to be taken > out (notices on lamp-posts recently) but nothing > about the zig zag lines directly outside the > school so what's the point of them? > > So now the surrounding area have to put up with > cars parked on double yellow lines, across > driveways, across zebra crossing zig-zags, > neighbours cars being damaged. This is just > around the corner from Bessemer Grange and this > also impacts on children's safety. > > The area is suddenly (since last Sept/Oct) being > patrolled by CEO's on foot and in cars but they > are reluctant to issue any fines in the area. > I've spoken to them regularly about the problem in > the area since the Street Closure but they all > seem very friendly with the parents driving into > the school.

The thought of this practice inhabiting a 'prize' site like the community hospital is deeply worrying. How did they manage to swing that? This practice has a very chequered history.

How many women? Did men never complain or were only women targeted? How many different 'commuter stalkers' were identified.

James, Think the devil will only be apparent if and when a number of schools around ED implement this at the same time. The first few will not make much of an impact but will set a precedent for others to follow suit. That is why it needs proper consultation across the community, not the council favoured piecemeal approach. I should add that when a number of schools were in the development phase- Harris ED and Charter the issue of lack of parking and drop off points was raised many times. I seem to recall soothing assurances that parents and pupils would mostly walk or cycle.

The introduction of 'commuter stalkers' as another reason to proselytise for CPZ just seemed odd. Hemingway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Hemingway Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Oh that sounds likley - stick 'commuter > > stalking' > > > as a reason for CPZ in the consultation > > document. > > > jimLad for someone who doesn't live in the > > area, > > > and if i recall doesn't have a car, you seem > to > > be > > > a very vocal presecence on this thread.... > > > > Sorry, could you point me to the rules on the > > website that bar non 'local' people from > > commenting please? > > > > I am offering factual practical advice on our > > experience to help inform peoples decision > making. > > I am very open about the fact that I actively > > campaigned for a CPZ, and I am very clear on > the > > benefits we have accrued from it. I am offering > a > > different perspective based on the experience > of > > what actually has happened when it was > > implemented. I appreciate not everyone supports > > CPZs, but surely good debate is about offering > > both perspectives, not an echo chamber? > > > > I wasn't aware this was a crime. I also joined > EDF > > many years ago as a good source of local > advice, > > and have posted on a variety of topics. Heaven > > forbid me for trying to participate in a > > discussion forum with views you don't agree > > with... > > > I didn't say you couldn't post, anyone can, just > pointing out that you don't live in the proposed > area, live in an area where CPZ was imposed but > there wasn't a strong and vibrant high street that > will be effected , and you don't have a car. Feels > like you do have an agenda though.......