E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Bobby P]

Arrived home this afternoon (Melbourne Grove, just outside the CPZ-to-be) after a mega grocery shop, car full and in need of unloading. Unusually there was no space outside my home (9 times out of 10, one can park almost directly outside).

So.... I had to park way off in the adjacent road (Tell Grove), and unload 18 heavy bags of shopping quite a distance to my front door. Back and forth, back and forth. And then it started to pour with rain. Got soaked. Annoying and no fun.

The point, of course, is that I'd rather deal with this minor irritation a thousand times over than to live under a CPZ regime. Been there, done that. The sheer unpleasantness of the stress of CPZ life for me and visitors (not counting the cost) still chills me to remember.

What I can't understand about those in favour is why they don't seem to realise this. I can only presume they are wholly ignorant of the stresses of CPZ living, in which case there are countless posts on here and previous threads from those with CPZ experience which people can read to inform themselves. I really can't see any other explanation for their point of view. It really is equivalent to voting to pay someone to deliberately come and decrease your quality of life. I can't believe such a large majority here are arguing "against" without a rationale: clearly, many have also "been there, done that" and found ED a blessed relief from it.

In the comparison between a) having to park on neighbouring roads sometimes, or even often, and b) having to pay a large tax for much the same, with horrendous over-zealous Council enforcers clamping or removing your legally permitted car on a regular basis - there surely is no contest.

[Siduhe]

That's a very fair point, I had assumed "resident" meant residential household, but can see it may well be taken from the electoral register or similar.

[flocker spotter]

[i]Posted by: mastershake Today, 10:20AM

just on the topic of those who disbelieve that commuter traffic is a problem. I live in a road immediately adjacent to the current proposed CPZ. This morning at 7am there were 5 spaces on our road. Just coming and going, I noticed that all were taken in the subsequent hour. Of these, 4 were taken by people dressed in suits, who proceeded to walk in the direction of the station; one person seemed to be walking, dressed for work, in the direction of the hospital.

Now there are no spaces on the road at all.

I have no idea why people drive to park near east dulwich station - maybe they're lazy, maybe they're trying to save on rail fares, maybe it's close to their children's school - but they do it and it is a problem.[/i][pre]

[/pre]

I have quoted this post because it demonstrates that the concept of commuter parking is heresay - rather than any proper study of commuter habits. As the above post comments - suit plus car shortly after 7am = commuter. What about the teachers at Goose Green school, for example? Teachers are usually in by 7:30 and would all be eligible for permits anyway. There seems to be no concept of non-residents have a valid community reason to park.

So in response to I don't know why people drive to ED station - the chances are very few do. All this CPZ does is make money for the council. It does nothing for our community. And therefore is of no value to ED.

[gsirett]

This really scares me. I really scares me that something that is so clearly not going to work and wrong for the community can be steamrollered through by a bunch of people who seem to have just convinced themselves that it?s doing good.

So many people on this thread, have made so many solid arguments against this proposal that I really cannot understand why our elected representatives seem intent on pushing this forward

I?ve had contact from 3 different such representatives (James Barber on this forum, Barrie Hargrove and Paul Gallard) on the subject. They?ve all put forward sensible arguments, but every one of them have been a set of arguments heavily in favour of this scheme, telling me why it?s a good thing and how ?evidence has shown [x,y and z]

I think they?re just trying to make a case. But why???

I?ve pasted Paul ?CPZ?s is what I do? Gallards response below.

I feel that unless we, the people who will be affected, do all we can to stop this, that it?s just going to happen.

So, please, please, please everybody make sure you write to:

[email protected] (he makes the decion) and COPY IN YOUR COUNCILLOR. Make sure you tell him/her that you insist your views, as an affected local resident, are taken into consideration. Tell them that their consultation method and data is not fit-for-purpose.

Tell him where you live. Tell him your views cannot be ignored (cos that?s what hes trying to do)

Make sure you ask your councillor to ask specific questions on your behalf. There?s so many good points on this thread: but we need to make sure these get pushed forward to our democratic representatives)

Make sure you complete the comment on the consultation:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200308/current/2280/grove_vale_area/1

Finally: anybody who is able to attend the Dulwich Community meeting on Monday, do so

Response from Paul Gallard

The majority of the streets around East Dulwich station do not have parking controls. The absence of controls on the public highway means that anyone can park: for some people this is a positive whereas others find it an inconvenience. CPZs have been successfully introduced in many parts of the borough, across London and the UK as a tool to manage parking demand, enabling priority to be given to residents and visitors ahead of commuters. We regularly consult with residents after introduction of a CPZ and they tell us that parking is much easier and that they support the continuation of those controls. With a finite amount of kerb space available for parking, the council?s policies do support the introduction of CPZs, where residents are in agreement. We do this to manage the limited resource of kerb parking, typically when demand exceeds supply as is the case in streets close to East Dulwich station. CPZs are also widely acknowledged as a tool for traffic restraint. Getting the consultation area right is a fine (and subjective) balance and it is for that reason that we discuss it, before starting, with the community council. The council?s constitution sets out that, before consulting on a CPZ, we will discuss the consultation boundaries (and methods) with the local community council. For this project we reported to Dulwich Community Council on 15/9/2011 and Camberwell Community Council on 22/9/2011 . Consulting too large an area (ie asking people we know don?t have a parking problem) is a waste of the available budget. Consulting too small an area runs the risk that people around the edge feel they are excluded. Finding an edge isn?t straightforward and it?s important to consider that this is only a consultation. No decision has been taken to implement a CPZ and therefore there may not be any effect upon your street. It is normal practice to consult only with those within the consultation area. However, street notices are erected within the area to inform the local community that a parking consultation is taking place. The consultation is generating a high volume of correspondence from both residents and businesses inside and outside the consultation area. All comments made during the consultation period will be summarised and included in our consultation report. I expect the draft report to be presented to Dulwich and Camberwell Community Councils in January 2012 before a Key Decision is taken by the Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment and Recycling in early 2012. We will update our Grove Vale consultation webpage closer to these dates. You can keep up-to-date on Community Council items here or make a request to be on their agenda emailing list. Kind regards Paul GellardPublic realm projects (parking design)

[mastershake]

As the above post comments - suit plus car shortly after 7am = commuter. What about the teachers at Goose Green school, for example?

Except for the fact that they were not walking in the direction of the school, but were clearly walking in the direction of the station, that point works.

There seems to be no concept of non-residents have a valid community reason to park.

I've never said that and i don't think many in favour of the CPZ have either. What a 10-12 exclusion would do is stop people leaving cars all dat for the station - as the facts, and as the experience of many, on here suggest, it is this commuter traffic that pushes things so they're unmanageable. Without commuter cars - and there are a lot of them - there would be enough space for both people shopping on LL, community workers, and residents and visitors.

So in response to I don't know why people drive to ED station - the chances are very few do.

but it's not 'very few'. It's more or less exactly enough to make parking anywhere near one's house a nightmare for people who live near the station.

and - just to reiterate - it does happen! i see it happening every single bloody day.

all those saying 'there might be a problem but a CPZ isn't the answer' - well then - what is?

[Chener Books]

Mr Barber:

a) if you have a car, can you park it in a 5m parking space?

b) will the concil cap the number of residents' parking tickets sold?

Here's a diagram illustrating a transport planner's presentational technique. It's a very simple example where an actual decrease in available parking can be presented as a 25% increase in parking spaces.

Slightly more complicated calculations apply for the proposed CPZ.

John K

[gsirett]

mastershake Wrote:

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

>

> all those saying 'there might be a problem but a

> CPZ isn't the answer' - well then - what is?

Maybe Mastershake, there isn't an answer......

Maybe living in a densly populated area area 4 miles from central london, you shouldn't expect the right to park directly outside your home. I often can't, so I have the same issues as you, and I'm outside the proposed scheme.

I accept it as part of city life. I've lived inside a CPZ before....same problem, just cost me >?100 PA and made life really difficult

What we all know WILL happen is that my situation is going to get much worse if this scheme goes ahead, along with 1000's of other people around the fringes. The only solution to THAT problem will be to create another CPZ,and then repeat until we join the edge of the one proposed in North Dulwich and SE LOndon is one big CPZ......i promise that you won't be as bothered about whether you have to walk 100m to your house then

[Loz]

Just re-iterating an earlier question, as there doesn't seem to be an answer forthcoming...

If the CPZ is 'self-funding' and TFL is paying for it, why aren't the permits free?

[peckhamboy]

mastershake Wrote:

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

> >

> I've never said that and i don't think many in

> favour of the CPZ have either. What a 10-12

> exclusion would do is stop people leaving cars all

> dat for the station - as the facts, and as the

> experience of many, on here suggest, it is this

> commuter traffic that pushes things so they're

> unmanageable. Without commuter cars - and there

> are a lot of them - there would be enough space

> for both people shopping on LL, community workers,

> and residents and visitors.

>

>

As long as none of those people wanted to park between 10 and 12. I'm sure the community workers would have no trouble with that.

The point is, the CPZ is a very blunt tool for a very complex situation. Also worth noting that, when the inevitable extension happens, it will bring in different zones, so that means when you can't park in your own street (and if you can't now, chances are you won't when the CPZ comes in) you won't be able to park in those convenient streets just outside the zone anymore. And you won't be able to park just off Lordship Lane when you're in a rush and need something from the shops. Or in fact, anywhere at all, because there's no space in your zone and you can't park in the other zones. Don't blame us if we say "told you so" in a couple of years when you come back on here to ask James Barber if the CPZ can be removed.

[James Barber]

Hi chener books,

My wife runs the family car and she can park it within 5m. Amazing parker.

Hi Loz,

TfL funding is for research, consultation and set-up costs and not revenue running costs. This is how almost. All CPZ's have been funded across Southwark. The last big batch was funded to off set the issues of the Central Congestion Charging Zone.

Hi gsirett,

We're back to perceptions of people reality. You perceive parking on your street to be fine. Many people near the station perceive parking stress. The consultation results will inform us all how many people have each of these perceptions.

I'd encourage as many interested people as possible to visit the public exhibition tomorrow at Grove Vale library starting at 10am. Council officers are bringing wadges of materials and evidence so should be able to answer very detailed questions.

[Loz]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Loz,

> TfL funding is for research, consultation and set-up costs and not revenue running costs. This

> is how almost. All CPZ's have been funded across Southwark. The last big batch was funded to off

> set the issues of the Central Congestion Charging Zone.

James,

In a previous posting you said,

Q3. what is the cost to the council (I seem to recall an earlier comment that TfL were funding this?

A3. Funded by TfL, parking enforcement costs would be within the existing contract.

So, with those two out, what are the costs of running a CPZ? A few lines and some signs do not require tens to hundreds of thousand of pounds to upkeep.

I think the people of ED are being fleeced here.

Are the proposed budgets for the CPZ (including revenue from parking enforcement within the zone) going to be made publicly available so we can see how much these 'running costs' are?

[gsirett]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi gsirett,

> I'd encourage as many interested people as

> possible to visit the public exhibition tomorrow

> at Grove Vale library starting at 10am. Council

> officers are bringing wadges of materials and

> evidence so should be able to answer very detailed

> questions.

And, of course, they will be fair/balanced materials that take into account the disadvantages and negative impacts too? (just like all of your literature I?ve seen on this so far)?

And they'll be presented by council officials who want to get the best overall solution for the whole community? (just like the 3 people for SC who?ve contacted me on this [including you])

And that evidence will be based on a very detailed, balanced data-set that hasn?t set out to look for the positives (oh, and takes into account the effect on neighbouring roads and the wider community)?

then great - democracy at work :))

[Chener Books]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi chener books,

> My wife runs the family car and she can park it

> within 5m. Amazing parker.

>

Truly amazing. The Driving Test standard is c8m. I think it might be better for you to have regard to the needs of average parkers rather than amazing ones.

I also think it would be better for you to engage with the data rather than perceptions.

John K

[ed_pete]

I'll be honest, I've not read through this whole thread. However as I was walking home from the station last night it occurred to me that if commuter parking around then station is an issue then why not use some of the huge amount of waste ground where the old hospital site was to create small car park - say for about 30 cars ?

Entrance could be via Jarvis Road off Melbourne Grove. It's still close to the station and there be no need for a CPZ.

Obviously there are issues of who owns this site, security, charging, what it going to happen in the long term etc etc However in my view this land is likey to remain undeveloped for some considerable time so why not make it useful ?

Just a thought.

[Loz]

ed_pete,

The council has a policy of discouraging car use in favour of 'sustainable transport'. That's why they like CPZs so much as they cut down on the total car space, thereby 'encouraging' people not to use cars.

So, your idea has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell, even though it might go some way towards solving the problem.

[James Barber]

Hi Loz,

The parking revenue account is publicly available - the surplus as mentioned previously is used for road safety in Southwark such as lollipop patrols.

Increasing it from ?99.30 to ?125 recently is excessive but my political hunch is it wont go up again until 2014 - but that's my cynical side coming out. They're free on council estates for the 1st permit for a household. But if they were made free we'd see dramatically less road safety measures or potentially more draconian parking enforcement.

Hi grisett,

Good I'll see you there around 11am?

Hi Loz,

With only 450 cars registered to the 1100 homes in the proposed streets encouraing more sustainable transport use is crucial - can you imagine what the area would be like if more people decided to buy and run cars on these streets?

Hi ed_pete,

Jarvis Road residents are not keen for that gate to used for anything new at the hospital. Building a car park would cost money. The minimum size would be much large than 30 spaces to have an attendant.

The land values are so high that it wouldn't be free so why would people pay to park there rather than for free on neighbouring streets?

[Loz]

Hi Loz,

The parking revenue account is publicly available - the surplus as mentioned previously is used for road safety in Southwark such as lollipop patrols.

Increasing it from ?99.30 to ?125 recently is excessive but my political hunch is it wont go up again until 2014 - but that's my cynical side coming out. They're free on council estates for the 1st permit for a household. But if they were made free we'd see dramatically less road safety measures or potentially more draconian parking enforcement.

So the profit from the CPZ will go towards subsidising other parts of the Southwark budget. The CPZ won't be 'self-funding', but accruing a surplus that will be used elsewhere.

Well, I thank you for your honesty. Can't say it's helped your case much. But it has really supported the anti-CPZ argument.

[mikeb]

From my experience of living in both a CPZ and then in ED, I can't believe that parking enforcement could get any more draconian ...

[James Barber]

Hi Loz,

I think the surplus actually comes from parking fines - but if I've made you happy then I'm delighted.

Do take a look at that account as the more people that take a look the better.

[JDR]

I may be repeating something already said as with 12 pages fo posts I was never going to read them, so apologies if this has been said elsewhere...

We were in a proposed increase zone about 4 years ago in Peckham (Anstey Road). We were asked about it and the company that did the consultation exercise did ask for views of those immediately outside the zone, so perhaps better representation than this sounds like its had...

There was a public consultation at Peckham Pulse and several neighbours including ourselves did go and give feedback, both positive and negative. I have to say that on this occasion they did listen to our feedback adn the eventual changes completely took into account alterations that were suggested by the residents. I don't know if the same people will be involved this time, but do take the time to give feedback - we were, and I hope you are pleasantly surprised

JDR

[bonaome]

I asked Barrie Hargrove if he thinks the consultation document is biased. This is what he said.

"...I do acknowledge that the consultation document for the Grove Vale area sets out very clearly what some people may well regard as being the benefits of a CPZ, that does not mean that it is "biased". If a proposal had say 11 advantages and only 3 disadvantages, I don't think it would be in anyone's interests in the sense of "unbiasedness" [sic] to put forward only 3 advantages..."

It seems Barrie doesn't think the disadvantages of a CPZ should be mentioned in a consultation document.

I asked him to clarify whether or not he knew that the current consultation would coincide with the current Grove Vale road works, which involve the complete suspension of all parking spaces on Melbourne Grove between Grove Vale and East Dulwich Grove, thereby forcing local residents to park in the adjacent streets - i.e. the streets being consulted on a CPZ? This is what he said ...

"Clearly it is important to get on satisfactorily complete the TfL financed Grove Vale improvement works as soon as possible. It is also important that as a local council were responded to local residents concerns about parking problems in their area. The two initiatives are only linked in so far as their has been a need to get them both underway."

Barrie thought it was really important to get the consultation underway asap. 9 months after the survey data was collected. He hasn't answered the question as to whether or not he knew that the consultation was happening at the same time as the Grove Vale road works.

I wasn't at his surgery last night in Peckham Library (or the Friday before) but says that he is going to be at the parking exhibition Wednesday 9 November 2011, @ 4:30pm but has to leave sharply at 5:30pm.

[Otto]

Anyone who can ought to get down to the grove vale library this morning to ask questions - james barber was there, as well as the people in charge of tne consultation. They were all very helpful.

[northlondoner]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Some days ago four questions were asked of me and

> I've just received the answers from council

> officers. Please see attached.

> I'll try and summarise here as well:

>

> Q1.how many resident only parking spaces will be

> available in the zone after implementation?

> A1. approx 558 assuming 5m average length per

> vehicles - 530 for permit holders and 28 shared

> use bays (pay and display and permit holders).

>

> Q2. how many cars belong to households within the

> zone?

> A2. survey showed average of 475 parked vehicles

> at 6am over a non school holiday Thurs, Sat and

> Sun. DVLA figures suggest 450 vehicles owned by

> people in the proposed streets.

>

> Q3. what is the cost to the council (I seem to

> recall an earlier comment that TfL were funding

> this?

> A3. Funded by TfL, parking enforcement costs would

> be within the existing contract.

>

> Q4. what is the forecast annual income from the

> zone?

> A4. Permit take up across Southwark CPZ's is 11%

> which would suggest ?16,000pa from resident

> permits. If 100% of car owners bought a permit

> then ?56,250.

[northlondoner]

>

>

> Q4. what is the forecast annual income from the

> zone?

> A4. Permit take up across Southwark CPZ's is 11%

> which would suggest ?16,000pa from resident

> permits. If 100% of car owners bought a permit

> then ?56,250.

James old boy this is such a BS answer. You're better than that. What about projected fines?

[northlondoner]

James. I think a lot of people on here - myself included - consider the consultation process wholly flawed ... or a bullshit survey, as bobbyp puts it rather more succinctly. What is the legal position if you guys press ahead with this deeply unpopular hare brained scheme anyway ?