E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[fazer71]

Loz Wrote:

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

> fazer71 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Carrie Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Adam

> > >

> > > - the rest (77%) are either against is or

> could

> > > not be bothered to respond.

> >

> > Carrie what kind of logic is that ?. Biased

> logic.

> > You can make no assumtions from those figures

> that the (77%) were Against.

> > For all we know thay could well be For.

> >

> > Maybe remove / edit your post ?

>

> Carrie made so such assumption. '(77%) are either

> against is or could not be bothered to respond' is

> a correct reading. You misquoted.

>

> So maybe remove / edit your post, fazer71? We

> wouldn't want misinformation being spread, would

> we?

OR they are FOR IT and didn't respond..... read it again.......

If this is the logic we have to put up with.

No wonder we're struggling with a CPZ.

Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Edit

I'm removing my post later today because it's interfering with the main thread which is not ?how clever we all are ? but if we should have a CPZ??

[peckhamboy]

I've found the details provided by the council (through James Barber) previously re permit take-up and council income. They make for very interesting reading (and are worse than I thought).

"Parking income across the borough is broken into three main streams:

-permits (15%)

-pay and display / car parks (21%)

-PCN (64%)

Permit take-up, as an average across all CPZs in Southwark, is 11%.

With 1159 properties within Grove Vale area, 11% would equate to ?16,000 pa from resident

permits."

The council response of course states that they can't predict PCN income for the zone. Worth noting that it is 4 times as high as permit income though...

The main point however is that the main reason CPZs work is that, according to the council's own figures, 89% of residents within CPZs do not buy a permit. Personally, I find that quite shocking, given that elsewhere James states that average car ownership is 56% in Southwark - higher in ED - and it shows quite dramatically how a CPZ moves a problem rather than addressing the cause. If these figures were extrapolated to ED, and 80% of cars in the zone started parking on neighbouring streets to avoid the permit charge, the whole area would be a disaster apart from a small isolated zone of calm where residents have 4 spaces to every car!

[Carrie]

Fazer - I said 77% were EITHER against OR could not be bothered to respond - I made absolutely no assumption whether those in the cohort who did not respond were either for or against - I would imagine there would be a mix of opinion in that band of people, some for, some against, some who simply could not make up their mind!

[trizza]

As a slight aside, this link is interesting: http://barnetcpz.blogspot.com/p/comparison-of-residents-parking-charges.html

The residents of Barnet are having an almighty fight with the Council over increases to their permit prices. The table showing the cost of other boroughs' permits is quite shocking. I understand Southwark propose charging ?100+ This is clearly right at the top end of London boroughs. For example, permits are free in Hillingdon or between ?15 and ?50 in Greenwich etc.

The cost of implementing and enforcing CPZs can't be that different across London so I would suggest the very high proposed by Southwark is simply profiteering. The other thing that shocked me was how much it costs in Barnet to have the parking suspended outside your house (presumably for a skip or similar) - that's ?63 A DAY!!

[Bobby P]

The facts are:

CPZ moves any parking problem to neighbouring roads. Indisputable, especially since take-up of permits by residents is always so low.

Those (myself included) who have seen similar CPZ's brought in where they live (on a very congested residential road right by a station), have seen no improvement in parking, but had extra expense in permit and visitor permits we could nary afford, plus endless hassle with wrongly issued tickets on our cars (always eventually challenged and rescinded).

Southwark's figures show they expect 64% of the revenue to come from parking tickets. These will be tickets issued to residents (during bay suspensions etc. or for other "disputable" infringements), not just to "commuters".

In what way does that improve the lives of residents or anyone else? Please believe those of us who've had this experience, and hoped it would solve our parking issues - it really didn't - and the proposed zone is certainly very similar to the one I lived in.

Those of us strongly opposed are not trying to make anyone's live worse, merely to point out that CPZ is not the panacea some people wish it were. And living under one is a very unpleasant experience which affects everyone's quality of life.

This needs to be fought tooth and nail for the Dulwich area at the meeting on 24th. Option 1 or 2 are the only viable ones.

[bonaome]

One thing that might help a bit would be if people parked more considerately. It's been mentioned on this thread before, sorry for repeating but maybe worth considering with option 2 - mark out regular spaces along the kerb at, say 6.5m or 7m to encourage people to park within them. Apparently this happens in Australia. I don't believe it's enforced with a fine. It just reminds people/makes them think a bit more about parking more considerately.

[Mscrawthew]

Well said Bobby P. Those who have never lived in a CPZ zone seem to be wearing very thick Rose coloured glasses.

[kford]

bonaome Wrote:

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

> One thing that might help a bit would be if people

> parked more considerately. It's been mentioned on

> this thread before, sorry for repeating but maybe

> worth considering with option 2 - mark out regular

> spaces along the kerb at, say 6.5m or 7m to

> encourage people to park within them. Apparently

> this happens in Australia. I don't believe it's

> enforced with a fine. It just reminds people/makes

> them think a bit more about parking more

> considerately.

Good idea. In inner Melbourne suburbs, parking permits are given out FREE to residents, to stop shoppers and commuters taking up spaces in residential streets.

[fazer71]

Carrie Wrote:

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

> Adam

>

> It really is not ridiculous to suggest that people

> within a cpz would choose not to pay. The figures

> for Derwent Grove show that there are 82

> properties which were consulted. Only 31 forms

> were returned - a response rate of only 38%. Of

> those returned 19 were in favour of the CPZ and 12

> were against. That means that only 23% of the

> residents of Derwent Grove are in favour of a CPZ

> - the rest (77%) are either against is or could

> not be bothered to respond. It is not ridiculous

> to suppose that some of those who voted against or

> did not respond are not willing to pay ?125 for

> the privilege of parking on the road on which

> their propery is located and would rather park on

> a neighbouring road for free!

Using that logic

You could then say 85% were either FOR or could not be bothered to vote for the CPZ ...

Utter Twaddle

Is this is what we all have to put up with twisted numbers percentages which mean nothing.

Why.

The edumaction system is to blame.

Both the residents and the council employees haev been failed by the education system!

Bad edumacation = Parking problems .... Obviously .... that together with the right to vote ..... = parking hell.

[fazer71]

I?ve got several solutions.

1. Build an underground car park under goose green

2. Build an underground car park under peckham rye.

3. On the demolished site of the Dulwich Hospital build an underground carpark or a multistorey.

There?s plenty of available land

It?s just a matter of looking long term rather that being tight and thinking about the next election.

Only there is no long term planning.

Just Jobs for the Boys (Southwark council staff) and a fudge here and a fudge there.

Any all you Objectors to the CPZ are playing right into their hands by not working towards a complete CPZ system you are goint to get us a lovely expensive Fudge.

Cheers

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Any all you Objectors to the CPZ are playing right

> into their hands by not working towards a

> complete CPZ system you are goint to get us a

> lovely expensive Fudge.

A CPZ *is* a lovely expensive fudge.

[Bobby P]

But we really don't want a "complete CPZ system", fazer71, as we don't wish to pay for it in cash and stress. Freeing up badly used space on the roads I would be in favour of. Introducing a CPZ throughout the entire area is a sledgehammer to crack a nut at best, and in my experience totally ineffective at dealing with the ultimate issue (which is residents' cars are beginning to fill the streets to capacity - though we're not quite there yet, as we can indeed all still park our cars - for free - albeit sometimes on neighbouring roads.)

[fredricketts]

One way to start to resolve the problem with parking in East Dulwich.

Would be to change the stupid UDP planning laws, that allows the Council and developers

to convert and build houses, without any consideration to car parking, this has been the main reason for our problems with parking.

AND STOP TURNING EAST DULWICH INTO A TOWN. When it?s always been a Village.

None of our problems are going to get sorted out on this site, but I must say it?s a good place to start. The council need to consult with the people in these roads, not over a five minute period, but as long as it takes, it seems that Mr B Hargrove is in such a hurry to get this through, why? It?s taken at least ten years to get to this state, so a few months more won?t make any difference

[fazer71]

Tightening the UDP would result in building out into the green belt don?t start that argument.

Not viable if anything the UDP needs relaxing to allow for more high-rise development as currently we have very poor use of land for a metropolitan area.

I looked at a flat in Clapham and it had no right to a parking permit in the CPZ so that?s how parking is controlled there we could do the same for new developments in ED. But if there is no CPZ then that type of restriction can?t be implemented.

Anyone must be able to see that.

Cars can not stand in the way of housing, homes for people are more important than parking spaces for cars.

Besides East Dulwich has a very good transport infrastructure.

Dulwich is an area of London not a Village we live in the metropolis.

[Penguin68]

Besides East Dulwich has a very good transport infrastructure

Which tends to fall apart at the weekends as all the lines are taken out for remedial works (obviously not all, all the time, but enough to make a car a necessity if you don't want to be trapped in ED or reliant on buses which can take an inordinate time to get anywhere). That (and the difficulty of transporting small children and stuff on public transport, or being old and creaky) is why so many are car reliant. ED for fit, young, childless people who don't go anywhere at weekends is not a watchword I want to live with.

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi BraandNewGuy,

> Apologies I really had thought I'd responded.

> Of course any solution for some will be better

> than any of the other proposed recommendations.

> Recommendation 1 - do nothing - is clearly a

> rubbish option if you passionately want something

> done about parknig on your road.

> No.2 - is rubbish if you regularly park on corners

> and couldn't care less about the impact that has

> on others.

> No.3 - Melbourne Grove - if you don't care about

> parknig pressures perhaps don't have a car then

> this is a rubbish option to you.

> No.4 - if you live outside the proposed streets

> this is a rubbish option for you as you may well

> prefer the problem to stay where it is.

> Etc. It's all down to perspective.

With respect, the question was: "Is it possible that there is currently no "solution" that is better than the status quo?" And you haven't answered it - you've just said that the status quo isn't ideal for everyone, which I don't disagree with.

And it's not "all down to perspective", otherwise we might as well just decide the issue by having a shouting match. In my naivety, I'd hoped that our elected representatives would be able to weigh up competing interests and wishes in an attempt to come up with the best solution for the community as a whole. There's been little sign that this has happened.

[fazer71]

You'll still have a parking space for you kiddy 4x4 only 1 bed flats (owned by young fit childless people) would be restriced.

It's all doom doom doom, fear of change and progress.

I still think goose green would make the ideal underground car park.

Or the Dulwich hospital plot as a multistory car park for the shop keepers and their staff and the commuters

Or turn 1/50 of Peckham rye into an open air car park that?d miss it just the dogs for their dumping activities.

Here in London and much of the UK we have the most bizarre aproach to parking for cars.

There?s plenty of available land for parking look at Peckham Rye impossible to park anywhere near it?

It?s the same with our seaside resorts no parking anywhere.

WHY ?

[peckhamboy]

Because councils quickly learnt that by restricting parking to a small number of over-stretched car parks, they can charge a fortune for legit parking and make another fortune out of fines everywhere else?

[fazer71]

Maybe

But there is a NIMBY force at work too.

I remember an article about the locals of Weston not wanting parking on the seafront because it would spoil the view.

We need to use the Force against the evil NIMBY Empire... but... there's never a Jedi around when you need one though...

Sorry I'm between contracts and chilling out watching the trilogy....

[James Barber]

Unrestricted parking provision results in Los Angeles style land use where most land is devoted to stationary parked cars. So paving over Peckham Rye isn't the answer.

Cars a necessity? Half Southwark households exist without cars.

[gsirett]

James. Stop trying to change the world and focus on the concerns of the people who voted for you.

As much as you try to tell us that youve only got our concerns at heart, time and time again you show your true colours: you have a political agenda that you you wish to try out on the people of east dulwich

[buddug]

James wrote: "Cars a necessity? Half Southwark households exist without cars."

So that's your agenda. You're anti car! Or do you have one?

Whatever, it's a vacuous statement to make as it really depends on the individual - their individual needs, whether they can afford to run a car, obviously, and their work situation. I, for instance, like many workers, had to have one as I worked near London Bridge until 1.30am every night for a year. It would otherwise have involved a nasty walk in the dark on my own to the bus stop from the office, a terrifying wait at around 2.30am in Peckham bus station (!) and not getting home till nearly 3am (plus the walk at that time down my street). Night workers - and nurses, in particular, will work well into the night, much more than I had to, and so they need cars, both men and women. Or, James, do you want London to stop at midnight. Get real, for God's sake. We can't all live in a bubble like you do.

[Bobby P]

James - I need a car for my work, or I would not get any. You must understand that not everyone shares your circumstances or politics. It's patently stupid to pretend that everyone can live without a car - that utopia is a long way away. In the real world, we need to earn a living, and the freedom of a car does enable some of us to stay solvent.

[fazer71]

James

Cars are here now and there will be even more in the future there will always be cars either electric hydrogen of oil gas driven.

Public transport is not capable of providing a complete solution just look at all the empty busses driving round and round in the UK it?s a joke.

We?re better of looking at the long term solution finding more parking places and organising who will to get those places.

I'm sure there are some bright sparks who can work it out.

I?m a simpleton and I can see double yellow lines so far down streets ?for safety? its ridiculous taking up 3 or 4 car spaces where there is no risk.

Lordship lane is a joke.

Would we really miss a strip either side of Peckham rye and a strip on one side of Goose Green. I don?t think so.

It?s inevitable that ?Half Southwark households exist without cars? they will at some point be buying a car.

Car ownership is still going up we need to call you

King James Canuute (holding back the cars)

[Senor Chevalier]

So here's my CPZ anecdote.

When I moved into a flat in North London some 10 years we took the trouble to ensure the CPZ was suspended outside the flat so that the last occupant could park their van on the way out and I could park my car close on the way in. First day in new Flat. Moving house always a bit of a ball ache. Next morning - no car outside. I could have sworn I parked it there. This isn't a bad area is it? Surely it hasn't been nicked. Called the local police who suggested I call the local car pound. And surprise, surprise, notwithstanding the fact that the bay had been suspended for my express use, my car had been towed away.

Cab across to Camden and then had to shell out ?400 on my credit card or they would not release it. No argument. "You've got to write in guv". Wonderful.

About 3 letters and 6 weeks later I got my money back including the cab fare. Great system - love it.