Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Lots of Lime bikes at the junction with Peckham Rye, were laying on the ground during the week.

 

Yeah, I picked up a fallen one along College Road the other day. Not sure if it had been left that way, blown over in the wind, knocked over by a pedestrian / scooter-ist / cyclist clipping it or bumped into by a car pulling a 3-point turn but whatever - it was still functional. I rode it down to the Village and left it by the bike stands there and it all seemed to be working OK. And it was removed from being in the way!

  • 1 month later...

Some form of experimental traffic orders relating to E-bike and E-scooter parking appear to be on the way - not yet clear whereabouts in Southwark


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50031189&PlanId=748&RPID=7198016


Will keep an eye out for the decision and post if local.

Some form of experimental traffic orders relating to E-bike and E-scooter parking appear to be on the way - not yet clear whereabouts in Southwark


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50031189&PlanId=748&RPID=7198016


Will keep an eye out for the decision and post if local.

 

Locally I've spotted changes where there's no parking in the park next to Sainsbury's and around Dulwich Hamlet FC, but you can park in Sainsbury's car park still.


In Peckham, I parked outside the Peckhamplex and was told it's now a "designated parking area" and there are designated parking areas on LL by the shops. You can still park on the side roads such as Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Grove though.

Bic basher said: "In Peckham, I parked outside the Peckhamplex and was told it's now a "designated parking area" and there are designated parking areas on LL by the shops. You can still park on the side roads such as Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Grove though."


You can park on those roads for now but as Cllr Rose continues to ramp up parking pressure (parking space for hire bikes being just the latest wheeze) you can guarantee that those streets will be CPZ, before long. Let's face it, that is what these allegedly environmentally moves are really all about, making sure everywhere is wall to wall CPZ...kerching.


Consider again what environmentally friendly council does all the above but simultaneously offers to turn swathes of local parkland into a private nightclub in the height of summer.

Parking pressure comes from living in a dense urban agglomeration of 8.9 million people with 2.6 million cars that are parked 95% of the time...and the expectation that parking for private cars should be free.

But it isn't free is it? Every year the vast majority of car owners pay a tax that goes into a central Govt consolidated fund. That money is used for myriad projects, including infrastructure, like roads.


You must pay that tax even if your car is parked in the street and never driven. So I dispute the notion that car owners expect and get absolutely free parking.


CPZ is primarily a mechanism for Councils to generate income and the car is an easy target. Parking pressure has been artificially constructed to a great degree. We all know this. We've witnessed it happening locally.


I do wonder though when the council will start going after those who own wood burning stoves...? Far more damaging to the environment and health.


I also wonder how on the one hand they can witter on about greening streets while on the other they actively seek to privatise and ungreen local parkland?

Most analysis shows that driving is highly subsidised (that is, the amount bought in to the exchequer from car related taxes, doesn't cover the costs of all the money spent on infrastructure and 'clean up' from the impacts). Many of the costs are 'externalised'. If you just look at the huge amount of space given over to cars in London, this is fairly self evident.

Most analysis shows that driving is highly subsidised (that is, the amount bought in to the exchequer from car related taxes, doesn't cover the costs of all the money spent on infrastructure and 'clean up' from the impacts). Many of the costs are 'externalised'. If you just look at the huge amount of space given over to cars in London, this is fairly self evident.

Can you post links to these studies Rahx3 ?

Google "externalised costs of motoring UK" and you'll find several studies that all reach similiar conclusions.


But here is an example: https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/document/the-true-costs-of-automobility


"A report by the Dresden Technical University in Germany calculated that externalised costs amounted to £303bn per year across the 27 EU member states – According to the authors of the report: “It must be stated that car traffic in the EU is highly subsidised by other people and other regions and will be by future generations: residents along an arterial road, taxpayers, elderly people who do not own cars, neighbouring countries, and children, grandchildren and all future generations subsidise today’s traffic.”


The study said UK drivers accounted for £48bn of costs, or about £815 per person per year. This figure did not include costs from resulting from congestion or ill health caused by sedentary lifestyles.


Motoring related taxes have never been hypothecated, but even if they were, at the time the report was released there would be a £10bn shortfall between revenue from motoring taxes and the £48bn costs."


But frankly, when you just look at how much public space is provided for cars (with only 54 per cent of London households having access to a car), it's fairly clear that cars are hugely subsidised.

The study you cite is for across the EU and is from 2012.


I am not sure how you can accurately extrapolate use of taxes in UK from this?


But you are changing the goalposts. The assertion was that UK car users all expect and get free parking on the street. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case.

RAHx3 it's not for us to find studies to validate your claim, it's for you to prove.


The study referenced is not for inferstructure costs vs taxes raised so a bit of red herring plus and as pointed out it's 11 years old and not UK specific.


Please supply a UK specific study and make it relevant to taxes raised vs inferstructure spend otherwise stop spouting that costs aren't covered without proof.


Interesting argument that you are truing to raise that everyone subsidises car drivers regardless if they drive or not.


Its akin to arguing that if you don't have kids, you shouldn't pay towards schools or if you never use a train you shouldn't pay towards the railways. Some things are there for the benefit of all and roads are a prime example as they allow goods to be moved, private cars, public transport and cycling.

I was asked for a link so I provided one (Yes, it looks at several countries across Europe, including the UK). If you're not happy with that one and would like another, you could use Google Scholar, I'm not a librarian. There is general consensus that the externalised costs of motoring exceed the revenue paid in taxes. It is also the case that driving in a city like London has significantly higher externalised costs than the average, so in truth the subsidy here is far greater (hence schemes such as congestion charging and ULEZ).


There are more than three million licensed vehicles in London, and the average car is parked for at least 95 per cent of the time. TfL data shows that 43 per cent of all cars are parked on-street (at the kerbside). A simple calculation taking into account the size of a standard parking space shows that parked vehicles alone take up well over 14 km2 (1,400 hectares) of space on our roads and streets – or the size of 10 Hyde Parks.

  • 1 month later...

For info, council proposals for experimental traffic orders to out in place parking areas for e-bikes and escooters , proposed locations in the Appendix


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50031189

Hopefully it goes hand-in-hand with people actually using them as the parking bays on Lordship Lane seem to be full to bursting with e-scooters desperately seeking a rider. Has the council released any data on usage of the trial in Dulwich to this point - how many journeys are being made and from where to where?

Has the council released any data on usage of the trial in Dulwich to this point - how many journeys are being made and from where to where?

 

It's more complicated than that.

The trial is being run by TfL in conjunction with three operators (Lime, Dott and TIER) and the councils, some of which stopped their trials at the originally agreed point, some of which extended their trials as per the Government's directive.


The "extension" of the trials was to hide the fact that the proposed Transport Bill through Parliament to legalise them has been delayed.


So the data is with the operators and TfL and is intended to be London-wide; although the councils are all providing feedback it's not up to them to be publishing usage data.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I’m in exactly the same position.  They badgered me for ages to have a water meter fitted.  I’d prevaricated simply because it’s so tedious dealing with these people but eventually gave in when the communications became increasingly frequent and aggressive and it was done in March 2023. I just assumed I’d then be charged on actual consumption but I received an email this morning with details of the latest price increase and it said, “Since your property doesn’t have a water meter, your bill is calculated in advance based on fixed rates rather than water usage”.  I’m sure they’ve realised I’d be paying much less if they billed me on actual consumption but have not gone out of their way to inform me.  Trawling through their website, for me anyway, is an unutterably tedious chore, but I think I’ll now have to work up the energy over the weekend to pick up the phone on Monday morning and have a word with them.  
    • Great Service again from Andy.  Contacted him with a couple of issues with toilet cistern and shower.  He came over and sorted it all out quickly. Good advice given, reasonable charge for the jobs.  Highly recommend Andy!   
    • Just seen this.  Your post was a bit unnecessary.  I was simply responding to the previous post that children should be cycling on the pavement. But as you say I know shed loads about transport.  Not to the depths that some go down to the minutia.  Some call me the space cowboy.  Some call me the gangster of love.  I think of myself as the people's poet.  You have to laugh at yourself. Echoing what DKH said, we weren't there, you don't know the parent was making a snide remark, My favourite Dulwich parent story was a few years ago were friends when we were in the Herne garden a few years ago, who let their children run riot.  Bless.  One decided to turn the hose on spraying some poor drinkers.  Now most of us would be mortified, but the friends welcomed their child's creativity.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...