Solutions to high density parking around East Dulwich Station.

[citizenED]

Just for starters:

1. Assign more Car Club spaces in those streets. The council could entice residents to join Car Club by subsidizing fees. (No, I do not work for Car Club)

2. Set up Boris Bike ED

3. Subsidized rents for tenants who sign no-car agreements.

4. Promotion of Oyster Cards in those streets.

5. Council should speak to British Rail (sic) about improving services from ED station.

6. Council could promote the use of on-line grocery shopping.

Oh, and Estate Agents should have to tell prospective property buyers that "..of course, it's bloody impossible to park round here..."

[bonaome]

Mark the streets out into bays. They would not be compulsory. You wouldn't get a fine for spanning more than one bay. The idea is that simply by having them people are encouraged (nudged) into parking more considerately.

[kford]

What bonaome said. Works in oz.

[all_star]

A cap on number of vehicles per house? (our neighbour has 4 on the street)

[all_star]

A ban on people parking commercial work vehicles on these streets?

[Penguin68]

I also believe that planning has to be more realistic - it is frankly stupid to suppose that increasingly people will choose not to have cars as a lifestyle choice - there is absolutely no evidence for this, particular for people choosing to live outside city centres where transport is poor and expensive (as it is in SE London). Travelling into town is OK, just, but if you want to travel across SE London, or to leave it, then without a car your journey will be complex and slow (and will often involve having to travel into the centre to find a way out again!). Anyone who can afford a car will be driven (sic) to get one, Car Clubs notwithstanding. People with children, or frail through age (but not necessarily disabled) will also choose cars if they can.

What this means is that car ownership is an issue where planning permission is being granted to increase the number of households in a locale, either through splitting existing houses into flats, or by purpose-building accommodation. Parking provision at least at the real local levels (not some generalised Southwark level) should be part of required planning.

Providing parking for Lordship Lane visitors (reasonably priced) - perhaps by intelligent use of the old hospital site, would additionally alleviate parking problems - cheap 'all-day' permits for local traders (and indeed people working locally in schools etc.) might encourage inward commuters off local streets - especially where the parking was seen as secure. They could even be paid for and provided via the employer as a 'perk' like luncheon vouchers (whatever happened to luncheon vouchers?) Decent parking would also probably be a better 'attractor' into Lordship Lane shops and restaurants - particularly for lunch-time trade - than the discussion about 'never to happen' Waitrose or M&S arriving - and is actually in local control, potentially, rather than begging flagship shops to come. Maybe the Northcross Road market could prosper more if there was better parking for non-locals to visit.

It strikes me that you can either bury your head in the sand and wish cars (and car owners) would go away, or recognise that this isn't going to happen and work with car owners, not against them. My experience says that the carrot more frequently works than the stick (and that the people who use the stick enjoy the beating more than they enjoy the result) - so anti-car folk enjoy the unhappiness of those with cars who they have managed to punish more than they really appreciate the wider 'beneficial' impact, if any, of their actions. It was notable that the congestion charge, while permanently reducing the number of vehicles in Central London only increased traffic speeds through London (the claimed reason for it) for a short time, until other anti-car measures reduced it back to its old 12mph.

[Penguin68]

A ban on people parking commercial work vehicles on these streets?

Well, let's hope you never need a plumber or an electrician or somebody to rod you drains, or deliver a parcel to you (or your food via Occado) or mend anything.

[first mate]

I also think free bays should be looked at, just to see if it would maximise parking spaces.

One way streets at the station end of streets like Derwent Grove. Routing traffic round towards Dulwich hospital site where some land could be used to provide low cost parking permits for dulwich businesses with multiple car use (estate agents) and commuters.

Limit of cars per household- ideally one.

[peckhamboy]

first mate Wrote:

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

>Routing traffic round towards

> Dulwich hospital site where some land could be

> used to provide low cost parking permits for

> dulwich businesses with multiple car use (estate

> agents) and commuters.

>

Nice idea but I can't see it working on a voluntary basis. Estate agents use their cars to show people round properties and I can't see the likes of Bushells and Foxtons making prospective clients walk from LL up to the old hospital in order to drive back to see a house on Landells Road for example. And unfortunately, a CPZ is probably the only non-voluntary way to make people park further away...

That said, do Foxtons really need 10+ cars? The problem is that they provide the cars as an employee perk so it would require a change to their business model to reduce car use, but I believe Foxtons needed a change of use for that building so it was incredibly short-sighted of the council to allow Foxtons in without limiting car parking as part of the consent conditions.

[kford]

Fair point about Foxtons, or indeed any of the many estate agents, who all tend to use cars as means of showing folk around.

[Twirly]

Penguin68 Wrote:

> Travelling into town is OK, just, but if you want

> to travel across SE London, or to leave it, then

> without a car your journey will be complex and

> slow (and will often involve having to travel into

> the centre to find a way out again!). Anyone who

> can afford a car will be driven (sic) to get one,

>

Totally agree with this. I have a friend who lives in Herne Hill, and it takes less than 10 minutes for her to get to me in the car - it can take over an hour if she has to use the bus. It would be quicker to walk, but having been mugged at knife point in the past, she's obviously not that keen on doing that at night.

This may surprise some of you (and I don't live near the station) but I've found it easier to park since the recession. I assume that some households have got rid of a second car, or are doing without one altogether. I only learnt to drive 5 years ago and got my first car (a very late starter!) and when I first bought it, I could rarely park near my flat on Oakhurst, I usually had to park right up the other end of the street or round the corner. These days, it's rare that I can't get parked near home.

[peterstorm1985]

Twirly Wrote:

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

>

> Totally agree with this. I have a friend who lives

> in Herne Hill, and it takes less than 10 minutes

> for her to get to me in the car - it can take over

> an hour if she has to use the bus. It would be

> quicker to walk,

I don't think public transport will ever be able to beat the car for short journeys unless on main transport routes. (If I want to get to Kings Hospital the time of car/bus is often identical but only because it takes so long to park the car at Kings and the bus journey follows the same route). I can't see any way that bus/train/tram transport could be improved to provide a direct equivalent for local transport.

But what about taxis? I wonder how many people who have cars sitting outside (within 100yards?) of their house for the working week actually sit down and do the sums to see if taxis and occasional car hire would actually be cheaper.

From Herne Hill it should be easy to cycle.

Personally, I rather hope that the increased interest in electric cars will improve the availability (and initial cost) of electric micro cars. You can get two of them into a standard space. Not so good for transporting a family of 4 though.

[Jeremy]

For me, taxis and hire cars would probably work out cheaper than car ownership, but it simply would not be as convenient.

Improving the train service is a noble aim, but I don't think many people use their cars for travelling to central London, so this wouldn't persuade anyone to ditch their car. In fact, it might actually result in increased commuter parking.

[trizza]

Marking out bays seems a relatively simple (and low cost) option that could potentially improve the situation.

[peterstorm1985]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> For me, taxis and hire cars would probably work

> out cheaper than car ownership, but it simply

> would not be as convenient.

>

And there of course is the problem (thanks for your honesty Jeremy), and in some ways a reason not to spend money making car ownership easier (by making car parking more available). The more attractive it is the more that we will all want one of those nice shiny, warm and cosy, personal forms of transport. The trouble is that the bus will never have a stock of mints/crisps/cans of drink, cushions, small library (or even a TV in some cases) for passengers, or be perfectly clean, or only have nice people in it.

There is no real solution other than to accept that if you live in a street with too many potential car owners, you'll have to hunt for a space. And if you're next to a school, or a row of shops/businesses, or even a train station, you'll just need to hunt a bit harder.

[Twirly]

> I don't think public transport will ever be able

> to beat the car for short journeys unless on main

> transport routes. (If I want to get to Kings

> Hospital the time of car/bus is often identical

> but only because it takes so long to park the car

> at Kings and the bus journey follows the same

> route). I can't see any way that bus/train/tram

> transport could be improved to provide a direct

> equivalent for local transport.

>

> But what about taxis? I wonder how many people who

> have cars sitting outside (within 100yards?) of

> their house for the working week actually sit down

> and do the sums to see if taxis and occasional car

> hire would actually be cheaper.

>

> From Herne Hill it should be easy to cycle.

>

> Personally, I rather hope that the increased

> interest in electric cars will improve the

> availability (and initial cost) of electric micro

> cars. You can get two of them into a standard

> space. Not so good for transporting a family of 4

> though.

Agreed about public transport. Unfortunately my friend doesn't cycle (and nor do I) and neither of us are likely to start for our own reasons.

I did actually look at the cost of running my car vs. a car club a year or so ago. It was cheaper to run my car by far, just for the long journeys I do each year, never mind the shorter ones I do on a weekly basis. I was quite disappointed.

Right now, I need a car to transport equipment around as I'm setting up as a massage therapist. When it comes time to replace my car, I will certainly look at an electric one, but as I do several long road trips a year an electric car on it's own might not be enough. I shall look at the possibilities when the time comes, depending on the budget.

But I agree with the general point that car ownership is probably going to continue to increase, unfortunately.

[peckhamboy]

Interesting point about electric cars - they're no use for longer journeys, so actually a lot of people who buy one have it in addition to a petrol car, increasing demand for spaces on the roads.

[Jeremy]

Plug-in hybrids are the way forward - i.e. fuel efficient hybrid cars, which can be ran purely on batteries for shorter journeys.

[peterstorm1985]

peckhamboy Wrote:

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

> Interesting point about electric cars - they're no

> use for longer journeys,

Their range is steadily increasing but at present you're right. But if the long journeys are occasional then hire cars are a sensible option (much cheaper than car club for greater distances).

so actually a lot of

> people who buy one have it in addition to a petrol

> car, increasing demand for spaces on the roads.

Those who have an electric car in addition, do so for commuting into town - due to being able to avoid the congestion charge. A shame there is no way of making the congestion free status only work for those without a second car.

[Penguin68]

A shame there is no way of making the congestion free status only work for those without a second car

The point about congestion charging is to reduce the negative impact of cars in Central London - that clearly includes the environmental impact of exhaust gases. If you are using an electric car in Central London you are thus contributing to cleaner air and that's why you don't pay the charge.

And what's wrong with making car ownership easier? - are we taking some moral anti-car, anti people with cars stance here?

[peterstorm1985]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

>

>

> And what's wrong with making car ownership easier?

> - are we taking some moral anti-car, anti people

> with cars stance here?

No moral stance at all - simply that the easier it is, the more people will buy them, and the harder it will be to park.

[Huguenot]

If you don't know what the problems are with increased car ownership then you're off your head.

Let's start with creating one - every 1.5 tonne car generates 25 tonnes in waste during it's manufacture, it generates as much in atmospheric pollution in creating it as it generates in 10 years of running it, the resources consumed in the creation of cars creates disproportionate distribution and demand around the world giving rise to international conflict.

What about acccommodating them - 50% of the land space in London is given over to cars for roads, parking spaces, car parks and car related services like petrols stations and garages. Roads that could otherwise be used for beautiful metropilitan open spaces, efficient public transport systems and environmentall friendly acccommodation for our spiralling populations.

What about running them - not just the contribution to climate change by running them, but the particulates give rise to the massive modern incidence of respiratory diseases such as asthma and allergies. Hypocritical British people with an insatiable greed for the oil to build and run cars march in the streets in protest at the wars necessary to feed their greed. Idiots.

What about health impact - the sedentary nature of public transportation has generated a new generation of fat lazy Britons whose cardiac and general fitness problems cost the nation billions a year that could be spent more wisely on our communities, gainful employment and social services.

What about the social impact - cars have contributed heavily to the fractured society in which we now live, isolated from our peer groups, with divided communities and escalating social divisions. Mothers are so pertrified of stranger danger that the drive their kids to school every morning, so they can get to work on time to pay for the car that took them. How stupid is that.

Moreover, like any addiction, the more we consume them, the more they prevent and create barriers to finding a solution.

Isolated individuals living miles from friends, scared of empty streets with dim lighting, prevented from accessing underfunded overstuffed ineffective public transport systems who use their vehicle to hide from strangers on streets filled with stress generated by vehicle congestion.

If you recognised these problems, you wouldn't be voting for cars.

If, like Penguin68, you still think they're a great idea and we should knock down more buildings to make more space for cars, you're quite simply off your tits. A cretin.

[BrandNewGuy]

Maybe you could let us hypocritical fat lazy idiots and stupid cretins who are off their tits know what you would actually do.

[Penguin68]

If, like Penguin68, you still think they're a great idea and we should knock down more buildings to make more space for cars, you're quite simply off your tits. A cretin.

Huguenot - that's frankly offensive, and on a number of different levels. And I did not suggest, anywhere, at any time, knocking down buildings to make more space for cars.

Perhaps you could choose to troll some other community website from your eyrie in Singapore. And I very much doubt your claim that 50% of the space in London is dedicated to cars. There are very few places, for instance, where the roads are as wide as the adjacent land - forgeting for one instant the multitude of parks and public land throughout London.

[Huguenot]

No additional space for cars at all - no more parking space, nor more carparks and no more garages.

I'd put a fixed and annually reducing quota on the number of vehicles allowed in London and regulate older cars off the road. Any available permits (between quota number and deregulated vehicles) would be available on an auction basis with 'second cars' and those for the genuinely needy put at differentiated prices.

The funds generated would subsidise a citywide taxi service aimed at 1 taxi per 200 people, available by SMS, Phone App or online with a view to any call for a taxi resulting at a taxi at your door within 7 minutes 80% of the time. That would create a taxi service of 75 cars for ED alone - enough to guarantee access for everyday tasks, but put people on public transport for work journeys.

A new approach to Keynesian economics would see 'austerity' strategies exchanged for a massive investment in public infrastructure including a citywide monorail scheme to rival the tube and standard rail systems and more buses running more routes at more predictable intervals.

Needless to say, cars would face increasing restrictions on road use, with more time given over to bus and cycle lanes.

Every school would have a 'no stopping' rule extending to 400 yards in all directions.