E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[fazer71]

Aii

Greece

Which is what we're starting to look like....

[jonsuissy]

I'm with fazer71 on this one.

We need to build a better world. Build a future for our kids, grandkids etc where they can have a world free from pollution.

Lets get everyone onto their bikes or walking - anything sustainable for the kids.

As fazer71 implies, all we need some imagination.

Lets do it, lets build that world.

You and me fazer71, we can do it!

[peterstorm1985]

jonsuissy Wrote:

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

> I'm with fazer71 on this one.

> We need to build a better world. Build a future

> for our kids, grandkids etc where they can have a

> world free from pollution.

> Lets get everyone onto their bikes or walking -

> anything sustainable for the kids.

> As fazer71 implies, all we need some imagination.

> Lets do it, lets build that world.

> You and me fazer71, we can do it!

Perhaps instead of a CPZ we could rip up all the road surfaces of the streets near the station and turn it into an urban forest with a cycle track running through.

[first mate]

I would respectfully suggest that the first stage to building a better ED is to ensure this badly designed and ill conceived CPZ plan is thrown out. Send the councillors back to the drawing board knowing that we cannot be steamrollered into accepting propodals that do not stand up to scrutiny.

I hope that as many people as possible will attend the key ED Community Council on the evening of 24th January at St Barnabus Hall. Our future depends on it.

[fredricketts]

First mate.

I will be there with you and I hope all the sensible minded people in ED, will be there as well.

It?s about time the Councils start to practice what they preach, involvement in your community,

for a better future, but what they mean is: we will do what we think is right, and what earns the most money. Keep

piling people in to East Dulwich and elsewhere, without any consideration for car parking, more offences committed,

more money for the Councils to squander on hare- brained schemes that are of little use to the community. Cars are

here for life, make no mistake, and we will have to deal with it, but not by letting excess people into an already

overpopulated area. The Councils are a law unto themselves and imposing schemes on an unwilling community.

[Otta]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

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

> Cars a necessity? Half Southwark households exist

> without cars.

>

> What a ridiculous statement. There are plenty of

> people for whom a car is absolutely a necessity.

No, there are plenty of people who would claim, and probably even believe that a car is a necessity. The majority of these people are wrong.

[Otta]

Our future depends on it.

Pudding somewhat over egged there, whichever side you're on.

[Chippy Minton]

Otta - here's my situation. Monday-Friday I have to get my youngest to nursery for when it opens at 8.30am. Even if I get there bang on when it opens, by the time I get in, get the coat off and say goodbye it's usually 8.40. Ten minutes later, the other two have to be at school which is two miles from the nursery and with no public transport linking them. I then have to get to work in Biggin Hill for before 10am (a journey that is usually about an hour and half on public transport if I go from dropping them off at school). Explain to me how a car isn't a necessity.

Lucky you if a car isn't a necessity. For plenty of others, it is.

[????]

Other things that aren't a necessity

Electricity

Computers

Trains

etc

Behave idiotic luddites, 95% of UK journeys are done by car ...public transport investment to solve this is largely a mytopian dream. The TRILLIONS that would be needed aren't there, the car is here for the forseeable and darn convenient and handy it is too.

Soooo before the idiots in Southwark Council try and destroy SE22's nice, relatively unique, retail environment for the sake of a short term money grab can they try and actually think for once (not holding my breath politicians generally have the vision of bats).

Most people from SE5, SE21, SE6, SE24, etc who pop here for a browse in their cars will not be jumping on the 37, 63, 176 etc if they can't park, they'll go elsewhere and many retailers will close and vbe replaced by crap, (SEE PECKHAM?CAMBERWELL)

Get some brains Southwark, get real car haters.

[kford]

You forgot 'councils'.

[fazer71]

A parking space is worth ?10,000 +.

The financing costs of 10k on your mortgage at 5% over 25 year is about ?60 a month or ?720 a year.

?125 a year for a guaranteed parking space outside your home is cheap.

Parking the facts we will all need to accept in the East Dulwich Metropolis.

1. We will have more and more cars because pubic transport and legs do not work for anyone who wants to get from A to B when they want to... 24hrs a day 365 days a year and more people = more cars.

2. Local authorities will make money from car parking and CPZ?s. Get over it!

3. There will be fewer and fewer spaces due to ?safety?.

Read this for fun?.

Because there are so many accidents and injuries on the roads as they currently are. It?s so dangerous I get anxiety just thinking about walking anywhere in case I end up in hospital. I?m so pleased all those double yellow lines are there to protect me and that every year or two the roads are rearranged with new crossings new layouts new curbs and then a couple of years later they rearrange it again and again they a dig up for new gas and water and new telephone and electric and drainage it?s great. Except when those road works make it even more dangerous than it usually is which means code red which is why they work so fast to get the roads repaired quickly and don?t leave them idles for weeks on end as sadly that?s when more accidents happen because the people responsible are too busy in their offices drinking tea and pushing paper rather than checking what?s going on.

4. Policies there are no plans to build more parking and there never will be. (The money is being spent on Concrete house hysteria and similar job creation ventures oh and rearranging to make the roads safe see above fun 3.).

5. New development will never have a requirement for more parking because homes are for people ?not cars? which is good. There is no way we can add more car parking spaces to the current housing stock. (Unless we bulldoze a few Victorian streets and rebuild 4+storey with underground parking). Or point 4. Is reversed.

6. ?

I?m happy to pay ?125 a year and if there is still not enough parking I?d pay ?250 or ?400 a year, it?s still going to be cheaper than buying a parking space. I?ll just buy a cheaper car maybe a Zero road tax car.

Or it can stay as it is we pay nothing and have nothing because that?s were we are going see facts 1.-5. We?ll run out of parking some time soon even if cars are electric zero pollution cars they?ll still need a parking space.

We have few options reality and the facts are against us.

With a 1hr CPZ we will still get the shoppers keeping the area alive unlike Camberwell and Peckham which have almost 24/7 CPZ.

If we are talking about a 1 hr CPZ restricting parking between 12 and 1pm shoppers can still buy a ticket to cover that 1 hour period.

Unfortunately Logic = CPZ

[eddie]

On a lighter note?????

Traffic wardens will be prevented from issuing parking tickets to councillors by a new computer system in Southend. The number plates of councillors cars will be entered into the handheld devices used by wardens so that if they try to issue a penalty charge notice it will be rejected. The council says that this is to save on the cost of printing permits for its 51 representatives to use. [b]They will be trusted to pay when they are off duty.[/b]

Made me smile.

[Bobby P]

fazer71 "I?m happy to pay ?125 a year and if there is still not enough parking I?d pay ?250 or ?400 a year".

Glad to hear that sounds like a bargain to you. I don't think most will agree.

[fazer71]

umm

Yes but they'll happily pay ?50 a month for SKY or ?500 for an Iphone which they don't know how to use.

Nothing worst than spending your money on something you really need or use.

[Otta]

get real car

haters.

Ha ha, you go Quids!

I don't hate cars at all, I just don't accept that people just couldn't live without them.

Move closer to your job, or get a job closer to home. Send your child to a nursery closer to the other kid's school.

I do sympathise, but you make choices in your life, and when making these choices, you consider the fact you drive. If you didn't drive you'd just make different choices.

[gm99]

@Fazer71

With a 1hr CPZ we will still get the shoppers keeping the area alive unlike Camberwell and Peckham which have almost 24/7 CPZ.

Not sure if you have been to either Peckham or Camberwell recently, but my daily experience is that both are pretty busy and very much alive.

[Chippy Minton]

I'll look forward to telling you to move house once your kids approach school age and you start moaning about catchment areas in East Dulwich etc.

Choices in life...exactly...everyone calibrates their life differently and I choose my life knowing that a car IS a necessity.

Get real car haters +1

[Otta]

I don't think you understand the word Necessity, that's all.

[Otta]

I'll look forward to telling you to move house once your kids approach school age and you start moaning about catchment areas in East Dulwich etc.

I never said anything about moving for a school place.

[fazer71]

C ontrolyour

P osts

Z ipitup

[Huguenot]

John K asked about what the costs of running a car were that James had suggested was around 1 day a week.

The AA calculate all the running costs of cars - including depreciation and maintenance alongside obvious costs such as petrol, tax, mot and insurance.

It's estimated at 86p a mile for a family car doing around 5,000 miles per year - or about ?4,400 a year. With an average annual income around ?25k a year, it means people work on average one day per week just to feed their car addiction.

Like any addicts, most car obsessives will go into denial about that figure.

The principal issue with cars is that people have been indoctrinated into associating cars with other things - with being an adult, with being 'free', with having social status.

So when Otta points out that the definition of necessity is very weak when it comes to cars (especially given the price people pay), most of those aggressive rejections are because other issues are coming into play.

Can hater? Me, no. But I wish some people could look objectively at what it is they do with their cars and admit it's simply a coloured lump of metal that's not worth the price they pay.

[trinity]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

>

> It's estimated at 86p a mile for a family car

> doing around 5,000 miles per year - or about

> ?4,400 a year. With an average annual income

> around ?25k a year, it means people work on

> average one day per week just to feed their car

> addiction.

>

I don't think this is a fair statement. In this example the family are paying ?4400 for transport for the year. If alternative forms of transport, buses or trains etc would cost the family for example ?3000 then people are paying ?1400 to feed their car addiction.

[Huguenot]

Only 25 years ago 40% of households had no car at all. However, kids still got an education, shopping still got done and people still got to work.

Now 65% of cars are owned by households with two or more cars.

There is no doubt that for some families cars are a necessity, but these figures also tells you that there are a huge amount of car owners who got rich quick off the back of their property and filled their boots remortgaging to satisfy a greed for cars.

There is a great deal of confusion betweenn 'necessary' and 'convenient'.

The forces allied against the CPZ are far more likely to be in the convenience segment rather than the necessity one - it's just a numbers game.

[peterstorm1985]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

>

> The forces allied against the CPZ are far more

> likely to be in the convenience segment rather

> than the necessity one - it's just a numbers game.

Not convinced of this Huguenot. Those who work unsociable hours (or those who carry tools to work) - where there may be a real need as public transport is not available/suitable - are most likely to be in the lower income brackets. To them a CPZ just means another bill that they can do without.

If there is no CPZ, the pressure of too many cars for the spaces will be most likely to make car ownership less appealing to those who don't actually need a car. There is a natural balance to be achieved. A CPZ may reduce the parking pressure for a short term but availability of spaces will only encourage more of those who 'want' rather than 'need' a car to go out and buy one.

[Huguenot]

It is somewhat ironic that a community should be willing to protect a minority working unsociable hours when its convenient to them, but not to support a minority of families and elderly people who need to park close to their houses when it's inconvenient ;-)

Double standards that perhaps reveal a more selfish motivation?