E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[StraferJack]

The crazy bit is suggesting we can somehow limit London to certain number of residents

But it isn?t crazy to talk about what happens when the population does grow

Cars take up a physical space ? no matter what technology does, that?s going to remain a constant for a long time to come

In a street with 50 homes, and 50 cars and 50 parking spaces that?s fine

In a street with 50 homes , 50 parking spaces but 80 cars (as some people say a 2 car home is a reality, nay necessity) it?sa problem

If that street has flats then we have 100 homes, 50 parking spaces and maybe 200 cars

You could demolish 10 of those homes and build a multi-storey car park if you like (you could suggest what happens to the people who have lost their homes) but then you still have 180 cars trying to use the same road space

Now multiply that out across every street across town and the solution has to be less use of cars. But I?m open to hearing what people who think otherwise have up their sleeves as a solution

But simply saying ?public transport is rubbish, I need my car? isn?t an option that everyone can fall back on. Some people DO need to use a car ? no question. But many people just want to ? a different thing entirely

[peterstorm1985]

If you ease the parking problem, you merely make owning a car more attractive for those that don't yet have one*. Unless there are real restrictions on the number of permits that Southwark hands out in exchange for cash, a CPZ will never stop parking stress in the longer term, particularly with the likely increase in numbers outlined by James Barber.

There is a natural level of irritation that most of us will suffer and one that we will not. If Southwark made more efforts to impose the current parking restrictions that exist, ie towing cars off double yellow lines, a few more residents might decide a car isn't for them.

*Before kids and all the associated hassle a single space anywhere in the street makes owning a car look attractive. Only once kids etc come along does that space 'need' to be closer to your door. But by then you've already got the car/lifestyle. Am I the only one to suspect that Foxtons have already written the wording to promote the CPZ to naive potential purchasers as a guarantee of easy parking.

[buddug]

This post by James about the population in London rising by 1 million by 2031 and how many of these hordes will be coming to East Dulwich is just a shameless and scaremongering attempt to distract us from the current CPZ proposal and some of you, Strafer jack, are running with it. Can we please return to planet earth?

[StraferJack]

buddug - I'm against the CPZ but I don't think it's unrelated to my post about people's expectations re: cars and parking

[Chener Books]

Planet earth calling...

Southwark Council has stated that the (sole?) reason for not including the impacted adjacent streets in the formal consultation was cost.

This marginal cost should have been costed and rejected before it was decided to go with the restricted consultation.

This financial calculation of the rejected marginal cost can be put into the public domain.

The probable cost components for each marginal consultee are:

a) an extra copy printed copy of the consultation package at run on cost

b) the letter box delivery

c) extra data processing cost if the consultee responds

Perhaps a maximum of ?2 per marginal consultee.

John K

[buddug]

In 2031, Strafer Jack?! Don't encourage him, that's all I'm saying.

[Huguenot]

This may sound daft - but if the Herne Hill CPZ is installed and working, then why isn't there feedback on the success of that scheme?

Is it just that the people opposed to the CPZ don't want to hear that it actually worked? And the edge concentration didn't have the impact people thought? And that in fact everyone's happier and the communters have been pushed out and local residents are free to live their lives without the sensation that they're living in someone else's carpark?

[buddug]

Ahh. Thankyou, Chener Books, and you Huguenot, even though I don't agree with your views.

[Loz]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> This may sound daft - but if the Herne Hill CPZ is

> installed and working, then why isn't there

> feedback on the success of that scheme?

>

> Is it just that the people opposed to the CPZ

> don't want to hear that it actually worked? And

> the edge concentration didn't have the impact

> people thought? And that in fact everyone's

> happier and the communters have been pushed out

> and local residents are free to live their lives

> without the sensation that they're living in

> someone else's carpark?

Is that true - or are you guessing? The only facts I've heard about Herne Hill is that they are just starting a consultation to expand it. I presume because of the edge concentration problem.

[Huguenot]

Or maybe the local residents have discovered just how pleasurable life is without parasitic commuters and lazy shoppers hijacking their neighborhood?

Seriously... easy way to find out isn't there? Go survey the local residents and see who wants it removed and who wants it kept?

Or are the 'no' group not keen on that?

[gm99]

@ Chener Brooks

Southwark Council has stated that the (sole?) reason for not including the impacted adjacent streets in the formal consultation was cost.

Just to mention that my impression, formed from living just outside a different CPZ currently being introduced, is that not consulting 'impacted adjacent streets' is general policy and not specific to the ED consultation. Ideed, my recollection is this was something that the Lib Dems (Kate Heywood) campaigned on during the Brunswick Park bye-election in March 2011 - calling for the Lucas Gardens and Southampton Way consultation to be re-done specifically because it did not formally include neighbouring streets.

[first mate]

gm99,

No doubt that is the case. If you want to get CPZ started in a few streets and then roll it out, I can think of no better strategy than the above.

On another note, with regard to John/Chener Books' excellent point about costs, why would the cumulative cost of street by street consultation ultimately be less than doing a large chunk in one go?

[Loz]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Or maybe the local residents have discovered just

> how pleasurable life is without parasitic

> commuters and lazy shoppers hijacking their

> neighborhood?

You're guessing now, aren't you...

> Seriously... easy way to find out isn't there? Go

> survey the local residents and see who wants it

> removed and who wants it kept?

The council are claiming limited funds in not consulting all the right ED residents about the CPZ. I'd be surprised if they fork out to survey another part of the borough.

> Or are the 'no' group not keen on that?

I'm sure we'd be OK with the council doing that. But, as I said, I can't see them doing it.

[first mate]

From the Herne Hill forum-

Controlled Parking Zone for Herne Hill/Milkwood Road area - updates

Yesterday evening there was a meeting for stakeholders involved in the proposed extension to the CPZ for Herne Hill.

The Lambeth Transport and Highways department wanted to discuss the results from the second round of consultation about extending the CPZ currently in the north of the area further down south towards the station.

Unfortunately Lambeth Transport and Highways department failed to provide any of the results information prior to the meeting and did not have any spare copies of how the voting had gone at the meeting.

Of the two copies of the results that were available (one had been obtained specifically by e local resdient callling up the Transport Department and requesting the information) it was apparaent that some of the statistics on percentatges in favour or against for individual roads didn't actually add up correctly. Lambeth Transport and Highways have promised to go back and check their addition and issue the full corrected results. We will post them here for downloading as soon as they are available.

In additoon there was not provided the breakdown of voting by postcode so as to get a better idea as to what stretches within a street were in favour, no overall view or against a CPZ. This information is available to the Transport and Highways department but was not provided to the meeting. Lambeth Transport and Highways department promised to send it out and we will post it here for everyones information.

One enterprising local resident has done a full survey of the area to see what houses have off-street parking already and it will be interesting to see if there is any correlation as to voting patterns and existing off-street parking availability. This information will be available here as soon as it is sent through for download.

There is a public meeting to be held on the 27th October to review the findings of the survey and decide the next steps.

Many local residents gave up their evening to contribute to the meeting and had done a great deal of work prior to the meeting which was shared with all. It was a shame that key information was not made available by Lambeth Traffic and Transport department to make the evening more productive.

Update 6.00 p.m. Wednesday - files now available for download:

MORE INFO on HERNE HILL HERE:http://www.hernehillforum.org.uk/sites/default/files/u41/Herne_Hill_SECOND_STAGE_CONSULTATION_REPORT_FINAL_%20%283%29.pdf

[Huguenot]

Regarding the 'guessing' I was merely balancing the books on your 'guess' ( as per this commment: "...they are just starting a consultation to expand it. I presume because of the edge concentration problem" © Loz )

I wasn't suggesting the council did the survey.

There seems to be tens of people and traders mobilised without good reason on a speculative, aggressive and ambitious no campaign - a much better use of their energy would be to actually find out if they're useful or not?

I suspect they don't want to do that because they're scared that the answer may inconvenience them (which is what I suspect this no campaign is all about anyway).

[first mate]

The conclusion of the Herne Hill 2nd stage consultation states that most streets in the area are not in favour of CPZ.

[Huguenot]

first mate, was there any study of the people who have actually had the CPZ and whether they're satisfied without the outcome? That would seem to be the key figures.

[Huguenot]

Surely, the fact that the second area did not want a cpz suggests that actuslly the 'edge' concentration had not impacted them significantly?

Does that lay to rest one of the 'no' campaign arguments?

[fredricketts]

The council are blaming the Cost, for not consulting people outside the zone.

What it cost to take up the humps in Melbourne Grove, just so the buses could go down there, and then to put them back again, would have covered the cost of consultation in the whole Of Dulwich. And after all, we are only asking to be consulted, on what, I think we have a right to know. We live here, the council does not. Its The Councils and Government that have caused these problems, by overpopulating areas. It is not us that have let all these flats and conversions take place, without taking in to consideration the affect that it will have on communities? car parking habits. Is East Dulwich now going to be blighted with PCZ, just to make the Council more money to waste on stupid Humps that are not even driven over? Dulwich used to be a Suburban area, and now because of greed by Councils and Government, we are now becoming an urban area. East Dulwich has had parking problems now for the last ten years, that how long the residents of Ashbourne Grove have been complaining to the Council, in one ear and out the other, PCZ is not the answer, it?s the Councils way in the back door for the rest of Dulwich. AND WHY SHOULD WE PAY TO PARK IN STREETS WERE WE LIVE. AND PAY FOR VISITORES TO VISIT US?

[first mate]

Or perhaps many more houses in HH have room on their land for offstreet parking?

It occurred to me that if CPZ goes through in ED in any big way we may see those who can tarmacing/paving over front gardens to park cars- that is if they can move the myriad bins :)

[first mate]

H,

You have a point. However, from what I have read and understood, the initial impact is good, but over time the benefits are lost as creep truly takes hold. Anyhow,the points you make are the sort questions we need answering before anything is implemented anywhere, in my view.

I haven't done a street survey and so cannot say for sure, but my general impression of Herne Hill is that houses are rather larger than ED on average and possibly more opportunity for offstreet parking, so perhaps HH is not the best comparison.

Here's a little comparison chart on another site:http://www.bacchus.org.uk/html/pros_and_cons.html

[buddug]

Huguenot wrote:

'Surely, the fact that the second area did not want a cpz suggests that actuslly the 'edge' concentration had not impacted them significantly?

Does that lay to rest one of the 'no' campaign arguments?'

Not really. This is actually the main argument of the 'yes' campaign.

Like lemmings heading for a cliff, they are saying that streets not in the CPZ proposals but very close - most of yes campaign are in this group - should also be included in the CPZ because otherwise they won't be able to park in their own streets at all. I know, crazy isn't it?!

[Loz]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Regarding the 'guessing' I was merely balancing the books on your 'guess' ( as per this commment:

> "...they are just starting a consultation to expand it. I presume because of the edge

> concentration problem" © Loz )

Yes, but at least I plainly said I was presuming.

> I wasn't suggesting the council did the survey.

Why not? Why should the residents of ED to do the council's work. If they want the CPZ, they should prove it is going to work.

> There seems to be tens of people and traders mobilised without good reason on a speculative,

> aggressive and ambitious no campaign - a much better use of their energy would be to actually

> find out if they're useful or not?

>

> I suspect they don't want to do that because they're scared that the answer may inconvenience

> them (which is what I suspect this no campaign is all about anyway).

This campaign - due to the council's poor publicity - has only had a few short weeks to get itself together. In that time it has done brilliantly in highlighting all the issues that *should* have been in a fair consultation document, but the council decided to keep quiet about.

The council should be justifying why it is putting in a CPZ and they should have done the research to show this. I can reverse your logic and ask that, if Herne Hill was really a success, why the council has not done the survey you are suggesting to show this. Maybe *they* are the one's scared of what they'll find.

As I said, it should not be up to the residents of ED to do the council's work. If they want a CPZ they should prove that a) there is a problem and b) a CPZ will actually solve this problem. At the moment it sounds more like 'TFL have given us some cash to install a CPZ - let's put one in around ED station". And that's not good enough.

[EmilyE]

Huguenot - Hardly a survey, but friends who live Herne Hill way in a CPZ hate it.

[treehugger]

If you live in a CPZ and have the room to Tarmac your front garden over to park in, I assume you are then exempt from the charge and have effectively privatised the strip in front of your home so that it is only available to you and not to anyone else. And you don't have to pay for a permit... What's to stop people doing this? Clearly the results would be horrendous, but in principal, could it happen?