CPZ: Proposed Controlled Parking in East Dulwich

[Earl Aelfheah]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> This is Southwarks view on CPZ'S

>

> The council is actively supporting car clubs as an

> alternative to car ownership, every car club

> vehicle removes the need for our residents to own

> a car or own a second car. Zip Car and DriveNow

> have a contract with Southwark Council and they

> have purchased virtual permits for their vehicle

> fleet which allows them to park in any permitted

> parking bay in Southwark.

> Kind regards

> Joanna Redshaw

A roundtrip in a Zipcar is ?33 a day. It's cheaper and easier to get an Uber.

[alex_b]

Consultation documents just arrived by post in Adys Road. The "interesting" thing is that the loss of parking spaces and other street amendments proposed in the Quietway "consultation" are also shown which makes me think that they're going ahead despite the widespread objections. I don't really see how we can say no to a CPZ given we're set to lose so many spaces from the street already and already have pressures from commuters and lots of trade vehicles stored on the street.

[Huggers]

I live in Bellenden area and just received counCils third consultation attempt, to get us to say yay.

[Galileo]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> A CPZ will not magically free up the space in

> front of your house. It won't address the fact

> that there are more residents with cars than there

> are spaces. You'll simply be paying to park a

> street away. Whilst it may not be unreasonable to

> want to park in front of your house, it may be

> unrealistic.

>

> What might start to make a difference is improved

> public transport, cycling provision and some 'last

> mile' options.

I can park outside my house on a Sunday, mostly on a Saturday, and late in the evening/overnight. I can?t park anywhere near my house during the working day. How come I these spaces do magically appear overnight and at the weekend?

[jimlad48]

Its fascinating to see the same arguments emerge on both sides. Having gone through a CPZ campaign where our street was a commuter dumping ground during the week, its clear the same problems exist elsewhere.

What I will say is, nearly 18 months into our CPZ, is that I've never seen it quieter down our roads. There are spaces all over the place, there is pay and display parking (rarely used) and everyone I've spoken to has commented on how much better the parking is. It won't solve all your problems, but it will make it a lot easier.

I walked through a large chunk of the DKH zone today during rush hour, and was impressed at how its gone from being super busy to being very quiet, with spaces all over the place - this is an 11-1pm zone that people worried would still be busy. In fact once the commuters leave when a CPZ is introduced, it gets a lot quieter very quickly.

A key fact to remember - firstly pay and display parking is also usable by Residents with a permit- so locals are not deprived of a space when those bays come into use. Instead they are still available for you at no extra cost.

I keep hearing the claim that there are more resident cars than spaces. This is a lie plain and simple. Our CPZ saw road parking spaces increase by about 40% on a daily basis, which is line with Southwark experience. Anyone that tells you that a CPZ takes away spaces for residents is stretching the truth, and there is zero evidence to support this charge.

It is a charge often levied here without a shred of substantiated evidence. Every CPZ that I have seen come in locally has produced quieter safer roads - traffic use decreases, parking space increases despite perception of fewer spaces. The only time toastrsck gets busy now is weekend when people come for weddings or shift work at Kings.

Please donr forget Southwark have studied this closely over the years. Their data is clear that there will be at least a 40% drop in road use in your area as a result of a CPZ. This is based on all CPZ experiences to date.

Unless you lose 41% of parking spaces, you will have more spaces than cars.

[rollflick]

dulwichresident01 wrote

> I don?t think we should start making ?assumptions? on how local businesses will be affected without speaking to them

> first. Several I?ve spoken with are extremely concerned, one even stated that it could affect up to 30% of their trade.

But should we rely on the assumptions of local businesses either, dieselresident01?

Studies in multiple countries show shopkeepers overestimate how many of their customers drive in by about 100%:

http://www.tut.fi/verne/wp-content/uploads/Shoppers-and-how-they-travel.pdf

The 2015 council survey showed only 22% of Lordship Lane visitors drove. Of that 22%, if the CPZ goes in, many would still just use the remaining free parking. Those who want to stay longer than the 30 mins are unlikely to notice paying ?2.75/hour. After all that'll barely buy you a turmeric latte these days.

NB soon to be ?3.25/hour for diesel

[trinidad]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > What evidence is there that commuters are using

> > the side streets off Lordship Lane? I can't

> > believe that people drive to ED from outside

> the

> > area in order to park up and then get on our

> > 'amazing' public transport services into

> central

> > London.

>

> I don't know about around Lordship Lane but I can

> definitely say that in Copleston Road - about

> equidistant from ED station from the bottom of

> Lordship Lane where we are - large numbers of

> commuters come and park up and walk down to the

> station every morning.

I am also on the one way part of copleston road, most mornings I see commuters who routinely park on the road, exit and walk towards ED train ststion. I received my CPZ consultation pack today.I personally will be objecting to this proposel, I feel this is a way of the local authority will raise revenue. Us drivers already pay a small fortune for the luxery tro drive our vehicles. Yes the council has frozen the ?125.00 annual charge over the last few years, but this charge will increase, along with traffic wardens / enforcement up and down the road, experiencing issues with vistors and delivery drivers, nah, its hard at the moment, but not impossible to park on copleston road, you just might have to wakk a little sometimes, but you will find a space. I say, vote no to the CPZ

[trinidad]

Reg Smeeton Wrote:

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

> I've always been resistant to CPZ because of its

> knock-on impact on non-CPZ areas, and also on

> people who work locally (eg retail and the primary

> schools) who may not have easy public transport

> commutes.

>

> Regarding the proposed cost however, since the

> charge only applies to car-owners who are

> generally not among the most deprived members of

> the community, ?125/year, ?2.50 a week, doesn't

> seem extortionate in the grand scheme of things.

> It costs that much just to park on the street for

> one hour up on Champion Hill.

You might not think ?125.00 was much, but other families may fell different, especially if three permits are needed, thats ?375.00 what a nice little earner for the local authority!!

[uncleglen]

I expect we will all be squeezed until the pips squeek....https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9791

[dulwichresident01]

The problem is that they?re saying ?125.00 ?initially?! We all know that once it?s in the price will keep on going up! Just google other neighbourhoods and you?ll see. It was only on the news and in the papers yesterday about the death of local high streets caused by local councils...

[trinidad]

I think the best thing to do is air our concerns through the consultation process again, and say NO

[jimlad48]

?125 cost has been frozen for years and it last 10 years has gone up a total of ?5

I am going to sound harsh too and say that if you can afford to run, maintain and unsure 3 cars in london, theb you should be able to find an extra ?125 each.

[bels123]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> ?125 cost has been frozen for years and it last 10

> years has gone up a total of ?5

>

> I am going to sound harsh too and say that if you

> can afford to run, maintain and unsure 3 cars in

> london, theb you should be able to find an extra

> ?125 each.

And the families with 3 cars in one household must be few and far between.

[rorsome]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> I am going to sound harsh too and say that if you

> can afford to run, maintain and unsure 3 cars in

> london, theb you should be able to find an extra

> ?125 each.

I have to agree. I can drive but do not own a car and live on one of the roads in the scope of the consultation. Whilst I appreciate that public transport will not be appropriate for everyone and every journey, I am in support of any measures that will mean fewer car journeys are made in the borough, which (according to my limited research) controlled parking does (Scientific American). Done sensitively, controlled parking can have a positive economic impact on an area.

[Galileo]

dulwichresident01 Wrote:

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

> The problem is that they?re saying ?125.00

> ?initially?! We all know that once it?s in the

> price will keep on going up! Just google other

> neighbourhoods and you?ll see. It was only on the

> news and in the papers yesterday about the death

> of local high streets caused by local councils...

It?s been ?125 for years and years. It?s hardly risen. I paid a similar amount in Brixton over a decade ago.

As for the poor families with 3 cars ... they Cana ford to own and run 3 cars! I?d prefer my 3 kids weren?t breathing in all the particulates from their 3 cars personally.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Food for thought over this discussion

With the proposed ultra low emmision zone set to be introduced in 2021, cars in East Dulwich will have to meet the new emissions standards, be electric or have a daily charge imposed to use them.

This should reduce the number of diesel and older polluting cars in or entering the area

It will also lower the out of area commuters using East Dulwich as they will have to pay to get here unless their cars meet the new standards

Will this be enough to reduce the particulates element behind some people wanting a CPZ ? Especially as a CPZ won't be introduced until just before 2021 so proving if the CPZ worked or if it was the ULEZ will be difficult as the results will be intertwined.

With the argument that the businesses will or won't be effected, has anyone asked them for input and support (either for or against)

Maybe this is a call to action for the East Dulwich Action group as they claim to represent the traders 🤔

Regardless people should get online and do the survey to get their views represented otherwise, like most things, if the result isn't what you want there can be no whinging after if you didn't put your official response in.

[AylwardS]

The consultation is open, closes on 31 January. The documents are online at https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/ There is a drop in session where you can go to ask questions on 26 January from 1400-1700 at Push Studios, 17 Blackwater Road if you have questions concerns and want to know more before filling in the consultation.

Parking problems and paying for parking is just one of the things you encounter living in London. Never welcome but part of living in a civilised societies that rules are needed so everyone can get along. They don?t work for everyone all the time and where they may seem excessive to a sensible person there is always a selfish person who would do what?s restricted. Who hasn?t seen a car parked on double yellow lines somewhere they cause a hold up for other traffic? Lucky you if you drive in London and haven?t been held up, not quite the same but an example that what seems wrong can help in the end.

As a resident in what is now the Dog Kennel Hill zone for over 20 years I have seen a number of consultations for a parking zone and an increase in parking problems. Since the introduction of the zone parking, and driving around the zone, is much easier.

The East Dulwich zone will be bigger and commuters are not the only problem but the proposal looks reasonable. The split of bays means there will be parking for all types of user and people will still be able to park and visit local businesses, although if from outside the area they will need to pay if they want to stay longer than half an hour and if from within the zone and wanting to park without paying they will need to use the shared use bays not the short stay parking bays as the permit won?t be valid there.

To put a couple of the concerns expressed on this thread in context:

Local businesses will be affected - do any of the businesses on Lordship Lane sell anything that can?t be carried / delivered. There is always the option of taking a taxi. Lordship Lane won?t be the only high street with paid for parking in London, and in 20+ years of living in East Dulwich I nearly always walk to Lordship Lane, I?m sure I?m not the only one - yes other people will have different situations but I?m sure there are plenty of people who walk to use the shops and restaurants in Lordship Lane.

People can pay for the short period by phone and leave the car all day. The signs in the consultation document have a limit on all paid for parking. In the Dog Kennel Hill zone the restriction is only for 2 hours but there is a limit on the paid for parking bays so a car can not be left there all day. The consultation paperwork refers to Thorburn Square and having looked at the traffic order for that it has a restriction so cars can?t return to the same bay so if someone did pay to park and leave the car there all day a call could be made for enforcement and a penalty issued. Its a common problem and I wouldn?t expect the Council to write the traffic order from scratch but use one they?ve written before, and if that isn?t in the original order and does prove to be a problem its easier to amend an order once its in place than put a new one in.

Whether you support a CPZ or not read the documents for yourself, comments on here aren?t always accurate even with the best of intentions, and respond to the consultation.

[bonaome]

Zig-Zag Wrote:

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

> I imagine the reason they found people spent more

> when they come to Lordship Lane by foot or public

> transport rather than by car is because those

> shopping by car only have a short window of time

> to shop before they risk a parking ticket!

Unfortunately, I think the answer may be even simpler. In the TfL research pack on the economic benefits of cycling/walking etc, next to the box that says people on foot spend up to 40% more, is a box saying people on foot also come twice as often.

I'm reminded of when once TfL shared with me (on a professional basis - I once managed some of their advertising) the great news from a survey they had commissioned that cycling rates in London had risen dramatically! And the number of people thinking about cycling had doubled!! Sadly, they were looking at two waves of research, one conducted in November and one in July.

[tommyboy]

Any idea why Townley Road isn?t included in the proposed CPZ plans? The traffic, including school buses during term times is terrible and vehicles are often parked on double yellow lines. Have also seen vehicles parked across driveways on this and Dovercourt Road.

[bels123]

tommyboy Wrote:

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

> Any idea why Townley Road isn?t included in the

> proposed CPZ plans? The traffic, including school

> buses during term times is terrible and vehicles

> are often parked on double yellow lines. Have also

> seen vehicles parked across driveways on this and

> Dovercourt Road.

Dulwich Village are starting early discussions re CPZ so I?m guessing it makes sense for Townley Rd to be included within that one. East Dulwich consultation mainly follows the Goose Green ward boundary I think.

[tommyboy]

Many thanks.

[rollflick]

bonaome - the reason is once you get in a car you may as well keeping on driving to the supermarket etc. That's why enabling people to walk and cycle more is good for local shops.

dulwichresident01 Wrote:

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

> It was only on the news and in the papers yesterday about the death of local high streets caused by local councils...

Err any source for your latest claim? It's widely reported as internet shopping and lack of consumer confidence: https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/shops-most-risk-after-high-13837036

This isn't your average CPZ that's just about parking, the proposals include measures to improve walking, cycling and buses (i.e. help the majority of people get to Lordship Lane) plus environmental enhancements through extra greenery and tackling air pollution. Southwark certainly don't always get it right but this looks really good.

Surely if we'd like people to spend less time and money online, making our public spaces cleaner, safer and nicer is the way to go?

[christgill]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> Food for thought over this discussion

>

> With the proposed ultra low emmision zone set to

> be introduced in 2021, cars in East Dulwich will

> have to meet the new emissions standards, be

> electric or have a daily charge imposed to use

> them.

>

> This should reduce the number of diesel and older

> polluting cars in or entering the area

>

> It will also lower the out of area commuters using

> East Dulwich as they will have to pay to get here

> unless their cars meet the new standards...

>

Per TfL website... "Petrol cars that meet the ULEZ standards are generally those registered with the DVLA after 2005, although cars that meet the standards have been available since 2001. Diesel cars that meet the standards are generally those registered with the DVLA after September 2015."

I don't think many cars will be excluded - ?500-?1000 will get you a post 2005 car on eBay.

[bonaome]

rollflick Wrote:

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

> bonaome - the reason is once you get in a car you

> may as well keeping on driving to the supermarket

> etc. That's why enabling people to walk and cycle

> more is good for local shops.

That conclusion doesn't follow. The TfL meta-research selected for the pack says that people on foot spend more (roughly double, I think it said) and that half as many people drive as walk (it actually says 40% - but to keep the maths simple ...) so, 2 people come on foot and spend ?10 each, 1 person drives and spends ?10. Total spend ?30. ?20 spent by people who walk, i.e. twice as much as the ?10 spent by the driver, who is outnumbered 2:1 by pedestrians.

I'm not saying the above is right. But it does fit the statistics TfL offer. And another possible conclusion is that the only reason the driver stops to spend ?10 on LL is that they are already in their car on their way to Sainsbury's to do a big shop. If they can no longer park in the side streets off of LL and pop in for a coffee and a bun at Jade or busy a nice card from Greetings etc, then perhaps they simply won't come and spend on the lane will drop.

[Sally Eva]

The TfL research is here: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic-benefits-summary-pack.pdf

Take-away messages:

people who walk and cycle spend up to 40% more than those who drive to their local high st

walking, cycling and public realm improvements (such as those suggested in this consultation) increase business on the High St by up to 30%

making it easier to walk and cycle and improving attractiveness of high streets increases the number of people who use them -- even though businesses often don't believe this

There's a lot more on the same lines -- all in pictures :)