E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

My beef is that I live less than 100 yards from the end of the zone. At tricky times (school drop off/pick up/funerals/weddings) I often park in Ondine. Why does the top half of Ondine Road even come into station commuter parking - it's nowhere near it?

Since this will have a knock on effect on Adys Road, I cynically predict that our street will become a CPZ after not very long.

[peckhamboy]

James

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I'm struggling to see how maximum occupancy of less than 100% is "stress". By my reckoning, that amounts to occasional or intermittent or potential future stress. But not actual stress justifying the introduction of a CPZ.

For the record, I live about 20m outside the proposed zone. According to your earlier comments, I realise that means my comments carry very little weight. Given that my street is likely to be one of the worst affected under the proposals I hope that those making the final decision will not take the same view.

[trizza]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

James, thanks.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that 20% of the vehicles are "commuters" of some description and would no longer park in the CPZ were it to be enforced.

Please can you tell us what overall % of parking spaces in the CPZ would be reduced as a consequence of it being introduced e.g. as a consequence of more yellow lines, pay and display etc. This seems to be a fairly fundamental point because unless this is a very low figure then the CPZ is unlikely to have any impact on parking availability!

[gmackenney]

Thanks for the figures James - appreciate the greater transparency. One thing I'd like to point out is that under the rule that 80%+ is 'parking stress', then looking at the data it would appear that a CPZ will only alleviate the parking stress for 4 streets within the consultation zone: Jarvis, Oglander/Copleston, Oxonian, Tintagel. All the other streets will remain above 80% even if the commuters are removed (maximum occupancy minus commuter occupancy during the day). Moreover, this calculation doesn't take into account the reduction in total available spaces due to spaces devoted to non residents (such as the 'time restricted free bays' and 'loading bays'). Elsie Road appears to be worst off with 116% occupancy even if commuters are removed!

Would it be possible to see even more detail on the data please James? Of particular interest to me personally would be total number of cars (i.e. not percentages) parked in the street and how it changes through the day - this will be essential in determining whether a 10-12 CPZ would have the desired effect.

Also, could we see information on how may 'safe' spaces there are today versus how many would be devoted to permit holders under the CPZ? I can't determine this from the consultation material. Will this information be made available at the open day at GV library?

[peterstorm1985]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

>

Mm, excuse me but could everyone just look at those really helpful numbers that Mr Barber kindly provided in the second of his attached files. In particular, the numbers that say that max occupancy in Elsie Road was 134% and max commuter/non-resident was 18%. So, when they have a CPZ there should be 18% more spaces due to lack of commuters etc but 34% less spaces due to clearer certainty of what is/is not a legal space.

That means that some of the cars defined as residents will have to move to another street (and how will that affect the figures in that street?). Not quite what you might hope when you pay your ?125 per year.

[James Barber]

Hi Peckhamboy,

Some other posts indicated posters concerned about the knock on effects of these proposals to Nunhead and Forest Hill. Clearly if you live 20m from the edge you may well be affected if the proposals proceed.

Hi trizza,

100% of what the surveyors considered safe parking would be provided.

Hi gmckinney,

Clearly any reduction in parking pressure is a reduction and all streets would go below 100% but yes even with controlled parking some streets will still feel stressed - my hunch is 80% means people can park very close to their homes. So yes people wont necessarily be able to park as close to their front doors as they like.

Hi peterstorm1985,

On reflection I suspect Elsie Road is about people parking across dropped kerbs - parking above the theoretical/safe/legal maximum. Those residents have been asked to indicated that if it progresses whether they would want double yellow lines to protect access or take pot luck.

Talking to the western side residents even numbers on Saturday they have terrible problems with parents parking across their drives at school drop and pick-ups. Some also find the drives of double benefit as effectively they privatised the highway - if somone else parks there they complain to the police and the vehicles gets towed away but if they or their friends park their they don't report it and they have the parking off street as well.

One alternative would be to keep the drives as they are but that would require larger controlled parking signing on the entrances to Elsie Road.

[Loz]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

Happy to - I live in a street adjacent to the proposed CPZ zone.

[Loz]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

Was there a different definition for 'non-resident parking' (considering the stats refer to 'Average commuter/non-resident')?

[Penguin68]

This is sounding less and less like an ED forum and more and more like the Royston Vasey Forum - 'local roads for local people...'

Let us not forget there are 2 types of commuters - those who park in ED in order to catch public transport and continue their journey, AND those who come in to work here - in the two schools adjacent to the proposed CPZ, in the shops and restaurants - all adding value to our community - well, until they can find a job in an area more friendly to incomers anyway. Maybe it's local jobs for local people as well. Did the apparatchiks who did the parking survey discriminate between onward commuters and people who come here to work and serve - well, I doubt it.

James wrote in response to a suggestion of mine to increase parking that it would:

just encourage more car use along our roads and make East Dulwich station a destination for far more people to drive to.

This from the man who only 18 months or so ago, if memory serves, was asking how we might attract more people to visit ED to improve its economy (one of the endless Waitrose debates as I recall). Obviously making it easier to park here would (a) do this but (b) not to his liking.

[trizza]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Peckhamboy,

> Some other posts indicated posters concerned about

> the knock on effects of these proposals to Nunhead

> and Forest Hill. Clearly if you live 20m from the

> edge you may well be affected if the proposals

> proceed.

>

> Hi trizza,

> 100% of what the surveyors considered safe parking

> would be provided.

>

> Hi gmckinney,

> Clearly any reduction in parking pressure is a

> reduction and all streets would go below 100% but

> yes even with controlled parking some streets will

> still feel stressed - my hunch is 80% means people

> can park very close to their homes. So yes people

> wont necessarily be able to park as close to their

> front doors as they like.

>

> Hi peterstorm1985,

> On reflection I suspect Elsie Road is about people

> parking across dropped kerbs - parking above the

> theoretical/safe/legal maximum. Those residents

> have been asked to indicated that if it progresses

> whether they would want double yellow lines to

> protect access or take pot luck.

> Talking to the western side residents even numbers

> on Saturday they have terrible problems with

> parents parking across their drives at school drop

> and pick-ups. Some also find the drives of double

> benefit as effectively they privatised the highway

> - if somone else parks there they complain to the

> police and the vehicles gets towed away but if

> they or their friends park their they don't report

> it and they have the parking off street as well.

> One alternative would be to keep the drives as

> they are but that would require larger controlled

> parking signing on the entrances to Elsie Road.

Sorry James, I may be being stupid but I don't think your answer addresses my question.

Simply put - have the council worked out how many parking spaces will be "lost" if the CPZ is introduced as a result of new yellow lines, pay & display bays, disabled bays etc?

Without this information is it impossible to compare like with like - unless of course it's the case that no spaces will be lost if the CPZ is introduced.

[James Barber]

Hi Penguin68,

We want more non car visitors.

Schools, restraurants etc work perfectly well in other parts of Southwark with 8.30am-6.30pm mon-fri controlled parking. So I don't get the either/or proposition.I've ensured an option of controlled parking operating 10-12 to minimise the inconvenience for visitors other than commuters. Equally if I ran a business I'd be pretty stupid to park close to my business if I think shoppers need to park nearby.

Hi Trizza,

My understanding is no legal parking would be lost. Space currently unenforced would be enforced so it would reduce that type of parking.

If residents don't want it I'll be defending their rights to not have it. But I don't get that it would be the end of the world/ED and I have lived in a CPZ and on a Red Route before - and the enforcement was thorough.

[peckhamboy]

Trizza, I suspect you're wasting your time. The answer is that no "safe" spaces will be lost, with the exception of a handful of loading bays etc. What you won't get is how many spaces currently used for parking will be lost to the yellow lines, "amenity improvements" (see references to building out from the pavement to plant trees) and so on.

Some more interesting background here(see item 15) - I'm slightly confused by the officer's report that suggests a consultation on "the principle" of a CPZ has already been carried out. Perhaps James Barber can enlighten us?

I note that the report suggests 1159 dwellings are within the CPZ and that the consulattion and implementation cost is estimated at ?80,000, with funding already allocated. For the sake of argument, if we assume that 80% of dwellings own a car, that makes 927 cars, at ?125 pa, amounting to council income of ?116k pa before taking into account pay and display income. Anyone else think we're being taken for a ride when we're told that the permit fee is just to cover costs and not to provide an income?

From the initial design, it looks as if circa 20 spaces will become pay and display/shared use. At ?2.60 per hour, for 2 hours a day, 5 days a week, that's a potential additional income of ?27k pa.

Elsie Rd and Tintagel Crescent both appear to be gaining 10 pay and display spaces, Derwent Grove is gaining 3 time limited spaces. In the absence of detailed information, (and therefore apologies for the 'finger in the air' figures, but if anyone can provide accurate figures I'm happy to re-work the maths) my best guess from the plans is that Elsie Rd has approx 55 parking places deemed "safe" - this is Councillor Barber's "100%" figure. Max occupancy at present is 134% (74 cars). Ave commuter/non-res is 18% (10 cars), meaning that residents' cars account for 116% of available parking spaces (64 cars) so currently 9 residents have to park on another street or in unsafe spaces (which presumably includes people parking across their own dropped kerbs). Post CPZ, 64 residents' cars will fight for 45 resident only spaces (or 142% of available parking spaces). So 19 of you will be parking on another street.

Sounds like a good plan.

[Wino]

As has been stated many times already, I feel it is very blinkered to presume that introducing a CPZ to a section of a local community will not affect the whole community in the long term. That is why any consultation should include the whole community.

Aside from the valid points made by many on this thread and similarly made by many when Southwark last tried to introduce a scheme (to a wider area and using the most biased 'consultation survey', with scare stories about how the introduction of the congestion charge zone would bring hordes of car-driving commuters to East Dulwich to park and we would become log jammed), I am curious as to the situation of the pro-CPZ posters. A few times there has been mention about difficulty returning from shops and finding parking space? With Sainsbury's a five minute walk up hill and Lordship Lane within a 5-10 minute walk, is a daily shop drive a necessity? How many cars do some of the pro posters own? Just an honest question to give a proper perspective to the situation as I believe the issue (if any) is more down to multi-car ownership and more car owning residents than street space, than an influx of central London/city based commuters.

Surely, when one chooses a property you take into consideration it's advantages and disadvantages?

A house near/next to a mainline station in an area with no tube:

Positive

Higher in value than similar properties that are further from the station

Convenient for transport links

Negative

May have higher demands on available parking spaces

Live further away and you get a cheaper property but you have a 10-20 min walk to the station, but parking may be easier.

I am strongly against any CPZ anywhere in East Dulwich, as I believe there is not a commuter issue as so asserted by Southwark. I have in the past walked some of the allegedly affected streets and varying times of the day and day of the week and there always appear to be a space or two and a pretty regular turnover. Sometimes inconsiderate parking means that there are 2-3 spaces in a street.

For the record I have one car and live off Northcross Road.

[Penguin68]

Schools, restraurants etc work perfectly well in other parts of Southwark with 8.30am-6.30pm mon-fri controlled parking.

My point, James, is that the case being made (emotionally) is about onwards commuters - and yet the parking survey would not be able to distinguish between those and people who have driven in to add value locally, by working in schools etc.

I might want to exclude (actually I don't, but for argument's sake I might) a banker using ED Station as a quick hop into town, but I wouldn't want to exclude a hard pressed primary teacher who is educating the local children. But both are 'commuters' under the rules being promulagated (non residents parking locally during hours of work).

Oh and who is this 'we' who only wants more non-car visitors? If I have a shop I want people to buy lots, not what they can get into a shopping bag on a bus, if I have a restaurant or a bar I want a group of people to arrive (with designated driver) because they are sociable and spend more. You may want more non-car visitors, but then you (very evidently) want a CPZ. There are many people (I am certainly one) who look on cars as a boon and a ticket to personal freedom. I use public transport im London, but not because I enjoy it.

[Chener Books]

How long is "one legal parking Space"?

You seem to have missed my question Mr Barber.

This information is needed to calculate the number of proposed parking spaces.

Percentages are statistics. They are not data.

John K

[Loz]

If I lived on Elsie Road or Zenoria Road I'd be severely worried about this. Elsie Road is going to lose at least 34% of their parking space (as their 'maximum' was 134% of legal spaces) and Zenoria will lose 15%.

In fact Elsie is going to be hit a lot worse than that with the additional loss to the 10 pay and display places.

[prickle]

re: the report posted by James B, pls can someone explain how max/min occupancy rates are calculated? How can it be over 100%? Does it mean double parking?

Elsie Road is down as being over 100% at all times. I live on Elsie Road and can't reconcile this with my experience. We have a real problem at beginning and end of school day with school run traffic. I guess this accounts for the 134% quoted. But 114% on a Sunday??

Also someone talked about in-coming commuters - a lot of people working in the Grove Vale shops park on Elsie - Rupert from the music shop, the man from the takeaway amongst others.

[Chener Books]

Loz Wrote:

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

> If I lived on Elsie Road or Zenoria Road I'd be

> severely worried about this. Elsie Road is going

> to lose at least 34% of their parking space (as

> their 'maximum' was 134% of legal spaces) and

> Zenoria will lose 15%.

>

> In fact Elsie is going to be hit a lot worse than

> that with the additional loss to the 10 pay and

> display places.

Given the quality of the documentation provided, I would prefer to calculate the number of "legal spaces" myself.

John K

[Bobby P]

Looking at the posts on here, it's clear we have some bright, reasoned people making some extremely logical arguments about the effect of the proposed CPZ, based on the evidence. The majority of these posts are naturally against. It is true, if one can be bothered to look at the documents James posted, that the Council's own research and figures do NOT support the fact that the roads are inundated with commuters, and clearly show that the reduction in spaces a CPZ will bring will not therefore improve the lives of those on the roads nearest the station.

Just for clarity again, I live on the part of Melbourne adjacent to the zone (and have one car). I therefore walk down Melbourne (station end), Derwent, Elsie etc. regularly. Since this issue raised its ugly head on this forum before, I've always made a point of counting the number of free spaces on these roads during various times of the day, and (while I know it is anecdotal) have never seen these roads 100% parked up, i.e. there has always been at least one space, usually two or three available to park in, even during "commuter parking" hours. And I've looked a lot.

Taking aside the issue that those who choose to live on houses very near a station in Zone 2 should really expect parking to be harder than those who live a long walk away, it does beg the question in my mind about the second type of posting on here, less reasoned and more emotional, from people who say they can't park outside their houses with shopping or children. What did they expect when they moved into these particular roads? It really is hard to fathom. Perhaps they should have bought/rented houses away from the station, where the rest of us really have no problem parking. Perhaps they don't look very far up the road - or on the next road - for their parking, or aren't too good at getting their family tractors into the 2-3 spaces that always seem to be available on these roads whenever I've walked down them. The knock-on affect of their hope - and it is an utopian and vain hope - to be able to park much closer to their doors is that Southwark will get to start ruining ED with CPZ's, and thus it does affect every poster on this forum.

The third type of post, from James, is politically motivated (views on car drivers coming to ED or not etc., concerns about what constitutes strictly "legal" parking, tales of how stringent the enforcement was when he lived in a CPZ told as if this were an admirable or noble thing) and he so clearly wants this to happen (along with his Council colleagues) that it is hard to have a rational argument. While I admire that he posts here and tries to engage, he only has to look at the conclusions that are easily drawn from his own posted research documents (not to mention plain old common sense) to realise that the CPZ will be an expensive disaster for current residents both in and out of the proposed zone. On the other hand, I guess the Council needs the cash, so....

[peterstorm1985]

prickle Wrote:

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

>

> Also someone talked about in-coming commuters - a

> lot of people working in the Grove Vale shops park

> on Elsie - Rupert from the music shop, the man

> from the takeaway amongst others.

Ah, don't worry about them. I'm sure Rupert and the man from the Takeway shop won't be able to afford the business parking permit rate so you'll save a couple of spaces there. Great to see the life and blood of the community being treated so well by Southwark.

[flocker spotter]

I am delighted to see Mr Barber engaging with this issue. I live on Oglander in the triange off Grove Vale that is not included in the scheme. As such I am extremely concerned that our local streets will become a community car park making it impossible for residents to park anywhere. We won't be able to park in our street because it will be the only place in the area with unrestricted parking - but we won't be able to park in our neighbouring streets either because they will be for residents only. I think it is truly shocking that people affected by the scheme by proximity have not been inlcuded in the consultation. Given the choice of paying for residents parking permits and losing the chance to park near my house, I would prefer the former.

[atria]

I have found most posts to be respectful and a good exchange of different views. However, a recent post (will not give any credit to it as deserves none) is not at all representative of situation. If you commute within proposed CPZ i would not expect support but many residents are not in this category. There are a variety of reasons for requesting a CPZ and there are simply no spaces at regular intervals throughout the day. The situation has deteriorated over the years and is now a stressful situation. Now stress is an emotion but why can't people walk or get a bus to their nearest station. I share concerns as many others on costs and council using as a revenue generator. This must and will be challenged. Each road has different concerns and through consultation via residents meetings it is hoped we can resolve.

[Chener Books]

A quick back of an envelope calculation suggests that CPZ Resident Permit holders who live south of Grove Vale would optimise their chances of finding an empty space by trying Derwent Grove first.

John K

[kr988]

Guys I live on Derwent Grove. The last time there was a consultation on this was 9 years ago. A lot has changed in 9 years. East Dulwich station has massively grown as a commuter station to London Bridge. The development happening there at the moment is going to create a lot more office space and with the cost of property pushing people out further and further from central London you can expect much more people commuting from where it is convenient and cost efficient to do so. So, far from not being a problem, commuter parking is already and will become ever more of a problem.

I've read here that people living near a station shouldn't expect to be able to park near their house and if they don't like it they should have considered buying further from the station. Can I ask why exactly is it more busy near a station if it's not for commuter parking taking up more spaces? A CPZ was designed in the first place to help residents who face this issue. This is the first time I've heard the argument that people coming to work or park to commute from an area should just be accepted by residents. As regards the poor guys in the music shop and takeaway I'm sorry but why are they not commuting to work via public transport rather than taking parking spaces on roads where some residents find it hard to park? It's normal for people to not be able to park close to where they work especially when it is so close to public transport and if people want to commute to a station via a car then they should go to a station where there is a car park and not disrupt residents near that station.

I vehemently contest the posts that say that there's always spaces. If there was why do you think anyone would argue to pay money for a CPZ? I'm sure that in their experience it is the case that they are usually lucky to find a place but by the same token people who cannot are not just arguing the toss for the sake of it. I took a week of last week and had a lot of trouble trying to find a space near our house during the day. I was doing laps of East Dulwich! This has nothing to do with my parking skills or fear of a bit of a walk from my front door. I don't have a tractor either. The fact is East Dulwich is a great place to live with a young family and if you do have kids picking them up from schools and different clubs and stuff is just a normal way ?of life. Throwing a couple of kids on your back and trekking a couple of streets is tough going.

I spoke to a good few people on our road last night and most were in favour of a CPZ. There were some that weren't and they highlighted some very good points why they weren't. These were people being able to ring up after parking in the morning and pay for the 2 hours remotely (I'd be rightly cheesed off if it came it and people started finding loopholes that would undermine the effectiveness of it). I've also seen something about loosing spaces and that the council are just using this as a revenue generator and it is cheaper elsewhere. These are all points which should be cleared up and clarified so that the CPZ we'd get actually does the job a lot of people wants it to do. The people I spoke to that were not in favour of it though did seem very pragmatic and were more interested in getting the right deal for us and if we hash this out honestly we can vastly improve the majority of people's living experience.

[gmackenney]

Agreed kr988. The worst of all worlds would be a CPZ which makes life harder for those just outside the zone whilst failing to provide the benefits it promises. I just hope that James is able to provide the additional data I requested on a previous post which makes it clear exactly how many residents spaces would be lost following the introduction of a CPZ, and whether or not that number of spaces would support the number of residents cars.

Edit: To be clear though, based on the evidence so far I'm far from convinced that the CPZ will have a significant positive impact to the lives of those within it