E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[sairahpillai]

First time on the forum but felt compelled to write as a resident on Derwent Grove.The current situation is very distressing for families who have no choice in having to move their car in working hours.I have two small children and regularly have to park on a weekday on another road crossing busy roads with shopping and toddlers to get to my house. Although parking is limitted on the weekend I can always park on my street so I don't understand those of you who feel commuter parking is not a problem.

I completely understand those of you who are concerned the same problem will move to their road but you are looking after your own needs as are the residents who live closest to the station and dealing with the nightmare of finding parking every weekday.

Instead of slating cpz come up with something else that may work because otherwise families will find it impossible to live in these roads altogether.I for one would consider moving if things don't improve soon.

[ali2007]

I used to live in a flat in Herne Hill - a good 10-15mins walk from Brixton tube station.

Lambeth council introduced a CPZ around the tube station, so all the drivers that were parking close to the tube, began parking on roads out of the CPZ that were a 5 min walk from the station

So Lambeth council introduced MORE CPZ's,this time on those streets that were a 5 min walk away from the tube. So drivers started parking in the roads that were a 7 minute walk from the station. So Lambeth council introduced MORE CPZ's on the roads that were 7 min walk from the station. So the cars started parking on the roads that were a 10 minute walk from the station.... you see where I'm going with this.

Now my flat, a good 10minute+ walk from the station has a CPZ. AND ALL THE ROADS IN BRIXTON HAVE CPZ's. Traffic wardens go up and down all day on their scooters, catching people out and ticketing them. And you cannot park anywhere. It's a totally hostile environment. Furthermore, visitors permits that were once quite reasonably priced, have gotten more and more expensive and I think I'm not wrong in saying that trader parking permits are now ?25+ per day. So when you want the plumber to come fix your boiler, add another ?25 to that bill.

While I sympathise with those that have trouble parking outside their houses (I sometimes have this because of the local pub!), the trouble is that if this is introduced, it will gradually roll out until all the streets have CPZ's and none of us will be able to park anywhere except on our small allocated patch of road and we'll all be charged for the privilege. You won't be able to pop along to the Leisure Centre, the post office, a cafe, to the dentist, to the doctor - because unless you live on that street, you won't have a permit. All the streets will have CPZ's eventually. Please say no to this.

[sairahpillai]

As I said everyone is really looking after their own needs here. I just want to be able to park on the street I live on. Traders can't park on our road as it is . Surely we should'nt be popping out to our local doctor,cafe and leisure centre in our cars .

[peckhamboy]

Perhaps we shouldn't all expect to be able to park right outside our houses, as well as living right next to a station in zone 2?

I think a bit of realism is needed here. Parking is an issue primarily because in some streets there are more residents' cars than there are parking spaces, due to the tendency for houses to be split into flats, and the increasing prosperity of the area meaning that more dwellings have a car and indeed that more dwellings have 2 cars. In a very small number of streets this parking issue is also exacerbated by parking for shops or for the station. A CPZ would prevent parking for the station (but not for the shops unless it were an all day controlled zone, which no-one seems to support), but still does nothing to address the underlying issues. Except that you're now paying to park in someone else's street because you still can't park outside your own house. Oh, but at least you've shoved the commuters onto someone else's street, so now the parking issue affects twice as many streets but hasn't improved anywhere.

[Adam&Fiona]

Must admit I haven't read everything across all the pages, but unless I've missed something I can't believe that people have overlooked a more obvious solution.

In my opinion a massive amount of parking space can be created by marking suitable spacing along the roads. On every road in every area there are badly parked cars either through selfish people deliberately taking up too much room or people simply driving into a gap and stopping in the middle.

The number of "half car" spaces I see everyday walking along really annoys me, especially when it means I have to park away from where I need to be, simply because people do not park close to the vehicle in front / behind.

Can't we mark simple spacing that encourages closer parking, allows more cars to park on the same stretch of road and prevent all this nonsense about permits?

[Penguin68]

The council's solution to a parking problem is to reduce the amount of space to park in and to charge people to use it where previously it was free.

The broad equivalant of paving over fields in a famine and charging extra for water to water the few fields left. Good business but a bad societal attitude.

If there isn't enough parking, create more - there's a perfectly good old hospital site which isn't being used for anying and on which you could park cars - you could park lots of cars if you built a multi-story there.

But meeting a parking problem by creating more places to park - well obviously that's a stupid answer, isn't it?

Not when there's money to be made and control to be exercised.

[edhistory]

.

[atria]

I have contacted James Barber to seek clarification around % reduction following introduction of CPZ. A survey has been conducted tonight on Derwent Grove which showed alot of support for a CPZ. I do think some questions still exist following thread tonight and consultation/negotiation required before final details on costs/benefits are clear/transparent to all.

[LillyD]

As a former resident of a street within the proposed CPZ, I just wanted to reiterate the point made by SairahPillai. Living within the proposed cpz, the parking situation during working hours was awful, especially with a young baby. I repeatedly found myself having to park a 10 minute walk from my house. It was significantly better on weekends so it clearly was a commuter issue.

I now live on a street just outside the proposed zone and so we will most certainly be affected by displacement parking. I appreciate that this may mean that the zone has to be extended, but as SairahPillai comments - everyone is just thinking about their own needs and I don't see why people living near the station have to suffer disproportionately. I cannot think of a popular shopping area without a CPZ. Of course I would prefer not to have one, but parking does have to be addressed.

[Loz]

LillyD Wrote:

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

> As a former resident of a street within the proposed CPZ, I just wanted to reiterate the point

> made by SairahPillai. Living within the proposed cpz, the parking situation during working hours

> was awful, especially with a young baby. I repeatedly found myself having to park a 10 minute

> walk from my house. It was significantly better on weekends so it clearly was a commuter issue.

This could, of course, be a false conclusion. Many people, like myself, only use their cars during the weekends. I believe that is what the council tried to establish when they came to their conclusion that 10-14% of the parking are being taken by commuter cars.

In other words, a CPZ will not solve the problem.

[atria]

Loz - The report talks of 10-33% commuter cars. The figures are much higher for roads near the station. As i said Derwent Grove is closer to 20%.

[Loz]

Just read the consultation document and it actually says an average of 20%. Once you add in the loss of parking space due to extra yellow lines (and head over to Herne Hill to see the dramatic loss of actual parking space this causes) plus, as James Barber noted, the large number of people that will now get dropped kerbs installed then you can expect parking to get harder and not easier.

But, by the time you work this out it will be too late. Note that the council isn't offering a 12 month trial on this - for a very good reason. I believe no CPZ has ever been dismantled. They are expensive and useless, promise a lot and deliver little - which is why councils love them.

[Penguin68]

promise a lot and deliver little

No, you are quite wrong there - they deliver a lot of revenue to councils, particularly where they can tax unmercifully for infringements - favourite trick - suspending bays with cars hitherto legitimately in them and then clamping/ towing the cars - ?250 to get them back. They use (actually I believe wicked) private contractors to do this therebye washing their hands of the grief.

[James Barber]

Hi Loz,

If it happened I wouldn't expect a large number of front gardens to go - most potential ones have gone already. But some of the few left might go.

I also don't beleive a loss of legal parking would occur. It will make it plainly clear where parking taking place against the highway code is definately not allowed. Hence why some streets have seen more than 100% parking. Stopping such inconsiderate parking is partly where the safety argument comes from.

Hi Penguin68,

I can assure you no administration likes to hear about inconsiderate extreme enforcement. If anyone feels hard done by appeal and contact your local councillor. When I've received such casework of unfair ticketing I've helped get those ickets cancelled.

I think your suggestion of building multistorey car parks to solve the problem would just encourage more car use along our roads and make East Dulwich station a destination for far more people to drive to.

Equally why would people pay to park in a multi storey car parking next to free residential street parking?

[peckhamboy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

It will make it plainly clear where parking

> taking place against the highway code is

> definately not allowed. Hence why some streets

> have seen more than 100% parking. Stopping such

> inconsiderate parking is partly where the safety

> argument comes from.

>

Presumably it would do this by adding double yellow lines where there are none at present? Thereby reducing the number of places available to residents. Without the "attraction" of banning non-residents' cars, I wonder what the reaction of people in the CPZ would be if the council were simply consulting on the double yellows?

Don't get me wrong, I think there are a number of places where some double yellows would be quite useful. But let's not pretend that this is going to somehow mean that residents will magically have more parking spaces. I think it likely that 2 or 3 roads closest to the station will see an overall increase in spaces available to residents of the CPZ of maybe 2-3 spaces per street. Other streets still in the CPZ will however see an overall reduction of spaces available (since the parking pressure is not caused by commuters and the double yellows and marked bays will reduce the overall space). And guess what happens? They park in those spaces that appear near the station and hey presto - residents in those streets will complain in 6 months time that the CPZ has done nothing but made their lives a misery.

How about providing some actual cold hard facts like:

1. how many resident only parking spaces will be available in the zone after implementation?

2. how many cars belong to households wihtin the zone?

3. what is the cost to the council (I seem to recall an earlier comment that TfL were funding this?) of (a) implementing and (b) enforcing annually?

4. what is the forecast annual income from the zone?

[peterstorm1985]

Take a walk around those streets where there is substantial off-road parking and you will see cars parked on gaps between the drop kerbs that aren't a full car length. When the CPZ is introduced those gaps will be clearly off limits. They may be 'illegal' spaces at present but a blind eye and drivers' ignorance means there are more available spaces. No blind eyes and double yellow lines and where will those cars go?

I would be very interested to see the figures for those streets with more than 100% parking and the potential change. I don't want to see that a street is reported as having a potential 95% (say) post CPZ availability - such that it looks as if there is only a 5% reduction - when the truth is that it currently takes 110% so the reduction is significantly greater in real terms.

[Widdy]

At the moment people park almost up to the junctions, wheras the CPZ designated bays will mean that they need to be fully highway reg compliant, i.e not parking within 10m (or whatever the requirement is) of a junction etc. As Peterstorm says, there will also be certain gaps which need to be left either side of people's drives, whereas at the moment people leave just enough space for a car to get out. There will also need to be passing points, so there wont be allocated parking bays down either side of the road...plus pay and display bays which you cant park in with a permit.

It's not that I dont sympathise with people's parking problems - when I lived in Lambeth (in a CPZ) I had the same problem, but I just really dont think a CPZ in the answer. Personally I'd rather have to walk 10 minutes to get my car than have a CPZ - they're evil, horrible things that make your life and living in London an absolute misery!

Maybe I've been unlucky, but i've been caught out and towed more than once and it's a nightmare having to go to Morden (or wherever cars get taken in Southwark) to pick up your car and drive it home before work and paying ?300 for the privilege.

[James Barber]

Please see attached parking data and generic letter. So some cold hard facts!

Let me see if I can get the answers to the other questions.

[Chener Books]

Percentage of what?

John K

[James Barber]

Of legal parking space.

[Chener Books]

How long is "one legal parking Space"?

John K

[Loz]

Thanks for that James. Always good to have the stats.

1) How did the survey establish who was and wasn't a resident?

2) Leaving out Hayes Grove figures (as they are all zero) there were 14 streets surveyed, yet only 4 hit maximum occupancy before 10am the morning. This would suggest that commuters are not the problem, as you would expect them to be mostly parked before 8.30am.

3) Is Grove Vale included in the CPZ? Most CPZs exclude main roads, but the initial plan suggests it is within the zone.

[peckhamboy]

So, only Oxonian Street and Elsie Road have significant over-occupancy according to those stats. Funny places for commuters to park, and very weak justification for a fairly sizable CPZ to be imposed.

I also note that none of these stats give any indication as to how much parking space is required for residents, and therefore cannot possibly be used to justify the claims that the CPZ would make parking easier.

[mikeb]

Main problems are (a) more flats from houses and (b) more incidence of >1 car / household - which is why it's so much worse say in Clapham than round here. Commuter traffic is at most only a contributory factor. Net basis, CPZ will not increase parking availability for residents only increase costs from annual fees, visitors / tradesmen and the occasional accidental fine. And also will generate more bureaucracy at the council.

[James Barber]

It will be interesting to see what residents on the proposed streets input.

mikeb,

how can you saying stopping commuter parking wont make it easier for residents, if that's what they indicate they want, to park?

peckhamboy,

Virtually all the the streets are under parking strees i.e. 80% and above.

hi Loz,

If you look at the word document I think it explains. People that drove into the area after 6am and left the area much later that day were assumed to be commuters of some description.

I can;t recall if Grove Vale is proposed controoled parking - assuming you live in the area please do take a look at your consultation pack.

10am. On average 20% of the vehicles Mon-fri are commuter parking. Remove them and the streets will be easier to park in for those that have permits - again, if that's what residents indicate they want.

I don't understand why everyone is bluring what is a simple decision for residents. Do they mind the current parking stress. If they do are they willing to pay the price for controlled parking - heavy version or 2 hour lite version.

It would be really helpful for people posting to say what their relationship to this consultation is - do they live on a proposed controlled parking street and if not how far away.