Southwark car plan for the Borough

[spider69]

Heading

7. Not enough space

for all resident's

cars/force them to

park far away

Answer

We must prioritise the kerbside space across the zone, our priority is safety

and reducing parking stress. The council aims to reduce private car

ownership and cannot guarantee a space on the public highway for anyone.

If anyone doubted Southwark's master plan for car ownership in the borough the above statement resulting from the new DKH CPZ confirmation statement is confirmed.

Southwark wants cars off the road.

You have now been warned and informed.

[redjam]

Why the tone of doom? Seems eminently reasonable to me that the council would want private car ownership to decrease given the terrible pollution and congestion levels in the city.

Obviously one would hope they would provide an incentive by improving public transport (not seeing much evidence of that so far) but the aim of reducing - not eliminating, incidentally - car ownership in itself seems absolutely fair enough.

[Abe_froeman]

"Posted by Abe_froeman 18 May, 2017 11:30

I don't think Southwark make much effort to hide the fact they are anti private car ownership and would like to make a lot more money out of people who insist on having their own car."

[Earl Aelfheah]

Why do they keep approving drop kerbs and allowing people to concrete their front gardens then? Why are they supporting the privatisation of public space, via CPZs? How does that reduce private car ownership exactly? I guess it prioritises the transport needs of wealthier residents? So in that sense there is a form of regressive rationing.

[PeckhamRose]

They make money to create dropped kerbs. If they'll make money from it you can do it. I did not, however, realise that one needs planning permission to concrete over front gardens. Why is that allowed? I bet their Ecology Office doesn't like that. Why employ an Ecology officer then allow people to concrete over front gardens? As far as car reduction is concerned, they really will lose out both ways. The money they make from fines!

[Penguin68]

Southwark's car plan makes a lot more sense in the north of the Borough than it does in the south - but then Southwark has always ignored the needs of the old Camberwell borough, focused as it is round Tooley St. The joining of the two areas never made sense, and makes even less sense now. If we had a borough of our own to make the case for better local transport maybe we would have got some, but the north has always been well served, so why should Southwark bother? Our local road topologies are far more forgiving for private transport, and we are far more in need of it than those in the north with their rail heads and tube lines.

[sally buying]

Southwark's plans combined with Khans plan for motor vehicles within the N/S circular roads will insure that only the well off will be able to own a motor vehicle to meet all the charges.

[Zig-Zag]

And to make matters even worse for us SE Londoners, savage cuts are proposed to several of our bus routes. I hope the "Consultation"....if you can call these exercises a consultation, when I've yet to see them take responses into account democratically, gets plenty of responses. We have hardly any tubes, limited train lines and no Boris bikes. Now TFL plans to cut our buses and price us out of cars.

[Abe_froeman]

Rahrah, dropped kerbs mean fewer parking spaces on thd road and more yellow lines under the new plan which means more parking pressure. More parking pressure means people clamouring for a pay to use controlled zone.

It is nudge theory and they have become exceedingly good at it.

[James Barber]

It is certainly true that the current administration is keen on installing double yellow lines where they are not needed. circa 7,500m have been installed in the Dulwich area on corners to 'reduce crashes' based no statical evidence.

Th new cycle quiet way along Crystal Palace Road has been designed with significant extra double yellow lines - despite the proposals being opposed by the majority of cyclists and residents.

The new Dog Kennel Hill area CPZ is supported narrowly by the majority of respondents. The details of it include again lots of excessive double yellow lines.

I find it totally puzzling why our roads are having all these unnecessary parking restrictions.

Flip side is driving has never been cheaper.

[edanna]

What are the plans to cut bus routes Zig-Zag?

Zig-Zag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And to make matters even worse for us SE

> Londoners, savage cuts are proposed to several of

> our bus routes. I hope the "Consultation"....if

> you can call these exercises a consultation, when

> I've yet to see them take responses into account

> democratically, gets plenty of responses. We have

> hardly any tubes, limited train lines and no Boris

> bikes. Now TFL plans to cut our buses and price us

> out of cars.

[Zig-Zag]

The TFL consultation is due in mid Sept. The bus cuts are across London and you may be OK in East Dulwich but I'm in West Dulwich and will be affected. SouthEastern have just cut our only train into London down to every 30 mins at weekends as well, so I'm feeling particularly grumpy!

The bus proposals can be found at this site

https:853london.com/2018/08/15/tfl-plans-permanent-cutbacks

You need to scroll to the end of the article to see all routes affected

[edanna]

Thanks for that Zig-Zag. The 40 is on the list, which is a crucial bus service for East Dulwich, with a potential rerouting at Elephant to Clerkenwell Green. The 171 terminating at Elephant would also affect a lot of people. All of these changes will have a bigger effect on people who can?t easily hop on and off different buses. I?m relieved the frequency of the 40 isn?t mentioned - hopefully that will stay the same.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If TFL want people out of their cars, then they have to improve public transport in Southeast London. A good start would be a bike parking facility, like the one at Finsbury Park, in Brixton. Also Southwark need to work with them to extend Boris bikes.

Of course, extending the tube into SE London would be best, but it appears that new lines are now entirely contingent on being able to direct public money in a way that subsidises the profits of 'luxury' housing developers.

[Abe_froeman]

Housing development is good for the council because it means more council tax and more business rates from the associated shops and supermarkets. If they have to contribute to the cost of transport it is better for them to do it in an area where they will see some return in the long term.

The prospects of covering those costs by increasing tax revenues in the same way in a fully developed area full of nimby's such as East Dulwich are very low.

Same goes for Boris bikes. It's much better value for the council to let those new disruptors whose biokes are just left anywhere on the pavement provide dockless bike hire rather than have to fork out for boris bike infrastructure .

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's 'better for the council' suggests some wayward priorities. I thought the council was here to serve their constituents and do what is best for them.

[Penguin68]

But they may chose to penalise some constituents in order to benefit others. That's simply an extension of the graduated taxation that is inherent in differential council tax rates (loosely) linked to housing values. Just saying...

[natty01295]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why do they keep approving drop kerbs and allowing

> people to concrete their front gardens then? Why

> are they supporting the privatisation of public

> space, via CPZs? How does that reduce private car

> ownership exactly? I guess it prioritises the

> transport needs of wealthier residents? So in that

> sense there is a form of regressive rationing.

YES

it's true

Climate change + Global warming

UK need to be Greener