Parking permit 100% cost increase

[Bic Basher]

It's no surprise that Southwark want to turn Dulwich into the north of the borough where public transport reins supreme by reducing car usage by using the LTN and CPZs to raise revenue out of car owners.

Unlike the north of the borough, we don't have a public transport service that residents have in Bermondsey enjoy with the Jubilee line operating every 3 minutes or the regular bus service that residents in Peckham, Camberwell or Walworth Road have, so it's not a surprise that residents still use cars despite the revenue making schemes.

[first mate]

The fact is many residents are reliant on cars. It is an inconvenient fact. Dictating by force will only work up to a point.

The council have not been straight about reducing car use. I still do not believe they genuinely want to, but in a cost of living crisis they have had to come up with some sort of reason to justify hiking parking fees and have greenwashed their true motivation. I think they are charging as much as they think they can  away with, knowing that many will be forced to find a way to cough up.

 

[Bic Basher]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

The fact is many residents are reliant on cars. It is an inconvenient fact. Dictating by force will only work up to a point.

The council have not been straight about reducing car use. I still do not believe they genuinely want to, but in a cost of living crisis they have had to come up with some sort of reason to justify hiking parking fees and have greenwashed their true motivation. I think they are charging as much as they think they can  away with, knowing that many will be forced to find a way to cough up.

 

And the fact is that Dulwich has people who can afford to pay these charges and fines for driving on certain LTN roads.   The LTN for example was cheap to organise (using government money to set up) and then see the revenue roll in regardless of the implications for residents on boundary roads or elderly residents inside the LTN who find it harder to reach local services.

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Yes, the council does want to reduce car use. I don’t think they’ve hidden that fact. I’m not sure who wouldn’t want to see reduced car use.

The PTAL around East Dulwich train station is not low. There is err… a train station there.

 

Earl, with all due respect I refer you to the councils own traffic management report from April 2018.....have a read, it's quite enlightening....especially in relation to PTALs (P.S. anti-car and pro-LTN lobbyists hate this report and hate the fact it exists as it demonstrates a pragmatic approach from the council before the madness set in!)

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjHnMeK2df-AhUEbsAKHfhHDakQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2TVoXhGyqSCzaMl7HGk3TT

[Penguin68]

14 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I’m not sure who wouldn’t want to see reduced car use.

Well, I wouldn't. In ED I do want to see a reduction in the use of highly polluting vehicles, such as elderly diesels, but I see no reason to want to see individuals and families and working people having to curtail or stop their activities for business, for pleasure or for, e.g. household management because other people don't like the idea of personal choice or freedom.

We live (well, those of us who are actually ED residents on these boards) in a part of London poorly served by public transport, compared to many other parts of the capital (4 trains, sometimes two trains an hour is not well served; bus frequencies being reduced, very poor east: west public transport provision at all etc. etc. - it's all in the report linked above). 

On too many occasions trains are out of service at weekends, for engineering work, on too many occasions buses are re-routed (or simply stopped) because of road works. When I do rely on public transport I have to give myself an hour longer for any given journey than it should take if I have a deadline to meet (a hospital appointment, a meeting etc.) or risk being late, and (for a medical appointment) losing it. And at my age I don't have that many spare hours left to waste.

And, once again, let me remind everyone that working people often rely on vehicles to access their clients or to transport materials. Home-Care workers, rushing between jobs (time isn't paid for that, disgracefully) would be unable to live on their minimum wage if they had additionally to use public transport between jobs, with the time penalties that implies. Privately owned vehicles are frequently life-lines, and not just for the car owner.

[Earl Aelfheah]

PTAL varies across the area. Some of Dulwich has a relatively low PTAL (for London, which generally has excellent transport). Around the station (because of the station), it is much higher. This is where the parking restrictions are. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat 

[Rockets]

Here is what the report actually says:

 

The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

This is confirmed also by more general DfT accessibility statistics which show that, in general the area has a lower public transport accessibility level than the remainder of Southwark whilst by car it tends to be on par with the other parts of the borough or somewhat higher for hospitals, particularly due to the proximity of Dulwich Community Hospital.

 

The council's intention is to roll the CPZs across the whole of the borough - surely given the low PTAL scores across the Dulwich area surely it is unfair of the council to target car users in the area the same as they are in the north of the borough?

So much of the transport make-up of the area is determined by public transport accessibility and it is not good in the Dulwich area - people own cars because they have to as the other options are severely lacking, and as Penguin points out - public transport is getting worse not better and I suspect if the council ran the report again the PTAL scores would be even lower.

[Earl Aelfheah]

They're asking you pay 60p a day to store a car on the street. They're not 'attacking car drivers'. This thread was about parking charges which apply around the station. The latest data linked to by above suggests that the PTAL around the station, Champion Hill, Goose green and toward Peckham goes higher than 3, even up to '5' in some areas (although a '3' is itself 'moderate')- take a look. Around the village it is lower, as too is housing density; lot's of green space and few buses.

[first mate]

But Earl, they are using every possible means to extend CPZ, they are not intending to limit it to areas around the station, they want it borough wide. 

[Rockets]

Earl, they are asking for another £100 a year for a CPZ permit - how can that be justified during a cost of living crisis - have their costs to run the CPZ gone up so much that they have to pass on that huge increase? Nope, I doubt it. So it's clear it is a financial war on car owners - a stealth tax.

 

One wonders how much they really want to charge people and where the price increases will stop.

 

Southwark will always remind people that 40% of Southwark households do not have access to a car (as if owning a car is something people should be ashamed of) but I suspect many of those 60% who do have access to one are living in the southern parts of the borough with the lowest PTAL scores and often with the longest journeys for work and play.

 

I can't help but think that Tooley Street's view is distorted because their HQ sits within the northern part of the borough, huge swathes of which are blessed with PTAL scores of 6b. The council should be spending time trying to improve PTAL scores before hitting car owners with yet more costs - but public transport is getting worse the further south you go in the borough. Interestingly enough negative impact on PTAL scores was used by the council in their lobbying of TFL to not cut bus routes that travelled across the borough when TFL had their funding crisis.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Rockets

[rollflick]

It's been Southwark policy since at least its 2011 transport plan to discourage driving through parking charges, the problem is the CPZ consultations are misleadingly framed around questions like "do you find it hard to park your car?" rather than "we've committed to discourage traffic through managing parking, how best to set fees and restrictions to achieve this?". Southwark is legally required to follow the Mayor's (as in Sadiq) Transport Strategy - and Southwark's current local implementation plan, which it has a legal duty to implement, commits to borough wide CPZs by 2025. There are new CPZ consultations for QR Peckham & Nunhead that yet again fail to mention this.

Anyway compared to Islington where annual permit is going up to £860 for the most polluting cars and Lambeth where it will be up to £500, Southwark is yet again failing to live up to its promises about doing all it can for the environment, such as by discouraging the vehicles with the biggest impacts through graduated charges. https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?id=8414&LLL=0

Reducing parking is important not just to cut pollution but also replacing asphalt with trees and planting to absorb heat and flash flooding as 40C summers become common. East Dulwich is a particular hotspot where this needs to happen urgently. e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62243280. Other boroughs have been investing parking revenue in climate adaptation for a decade.

Edited May 3, 2023 by rollflick
clarity in 2 places

[Bic Basher]

1 hour ago, rollflick said:

 

Reducing parking is important not just to cut pollution but also replacing asphalt with trees and planting to absorb heat and flash flooding as 40C summers become common. East Dulwich is a particular hotspot where this needs to happen urgently. e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62243280. Other boroughs have been investing parking revenue in climate adaptation for a decade.

From what I can see, the heat issues are largely to the east of LL between Barry Road and Goose Green which don't even have a LTN!

The area of the Dulwich Village LTN is largely 1 or 2, so not at risk, while Melbourne Grove is 3.

[malumbu]

Some good points by Rofflick, good that not all of us are chanting "it's a blooming liberty".

I'd like a question along the lines:  We are in a climate crisis and are failing to meet legal limits on emissions.  40,000 people die each year in the UK due to poor air quality.  What will you to reduce your emissions and carbon footprint?

Answers could include: Reduce (or hopefully stop) frivolous purchases

Do not get into the insane habit of online shopping, only to return many of your purchases

Reduce my car use, and where I need to use it consider sharing journeys, drive smartly (avoiding unnecessary acceleration and braking) and preferably max out in terms of both a fuel efficient vehicle and general sustainability (manufacturing, life time and the like).

Better still ditch the car, use alternatives and where necessary car clubs/car sharing schemes

Reduce my meat consumption and look wherever possible to locally produced sustainable food

Reduce my single use plastic consumption

etc etc etc

Few would vote to put up everyday costs, but most of you can afford the extra, and as fuel prices drop that's saving £100s for the average driver compared to the peak.

 

 

 

[first mate]

Don't you think a lot of people in this area are already doing most of the above?

The fact remains that a vehicle is often necessary for certain types of occupation and to service the needs (needs not wants) of the vulnerable or elderly. You know this to be true. We are not talking about transport of items from the UK to our second home in France ( definitely in the want category) but serious, genuine needs. 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

No. I think lots of people regularly burn fuel moving more than a ton of steel, to travel short distances on their own. This is what all the data shows. That's not to say that some don't use the car for necessary journeys (travelling longer distances, with kids, or to move big items), but we know that a significant number of trips are single occupancy, under 2km and could easily be undertaken in different ways. Many also store cars on the street that rarely move anywhere at all, but take up huge amounts of room. Nearly all other 'on street' storage is charged - be it a skip, or a place in a bike hanger. Considering the damage that motor vehicles do to others, it is ridiculous that so much public space is handed over to private vehicle storage 'free' (i.e. with a subsidy).

Edited May 4, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I notice you qualify necessary journeys as involving children and travelling longer distances, moving large items. You have totally ignored the issues of the vulnerable, those with mobility issues, those requiring frequent care, either by professionals or family, those who must have a vehicle for their work.

When you refer to "all the data", is this ED specific data or crunched from figures UK and even European wide? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Obviously I would include those too. There are probably other examples of essential car journeys - those given weren't meant to be an exhaustive list. But if you sit on a bus in rush hour you'll see that almost every car has 1 person in it. 1 ton of steel (or more), to carry 1 person. TFL data suggests a little over a third (35 per cent) of all car trips are shorter than 2 km (and another 32 per cent are between 2 and 5km). A significant number of those journeys could be undertaken very easily by bus, bike, or foot. Not all of those individuals are vulnerable, disabled, or moving large items. This is not sustainable.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

...personally, I believe it is a reasonable aspiration to discourage some of those journeys, in order to reduce pollution and congestion and improve health.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Please, please do not compare Southwark to Islington - it's chalk and cheese in terms of PTAL scores. In fact, the high PTAL scores in Islington is one of the reasons their car ownership rates (around 30%) are some of the lowest of any local authority not only in London but the country as a whole. Islington became popular due to it connectivity to the centre of London and the gentrification there was built on the fact it was so easy to get into the city. You can very easily get around and in and out of Islington without the need for a car.

 

Take a look at Islington's PTAL score map - the outer reaches of the borough around Finsbury Park (both Victoria and Piccadilly tube line access, Overground and National Rail)  have PTAL scores of 6a and 6b - it's probably one of the best connected London boroughs for consistently high PTAL scores. Southwark is very much not with huge swings in PTAL scores from north to south of the borough and yet Southwark treats some, and wants to treat all of it's constituents, as if they have the same transport choices as those in boroughs like Islington. And, despite your claims of Islington charging more, the charge for a regular sized family car there is £235 compared to Southwark now charging £225.

 

I find it incredible that during a cost of living crisis that the council would be so blinkered as to nearly double the CPZ charges - it's utterly tone deaf but exactly what we have grown to expect from Tooley Street.

 

[Rockets]

17 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

...personally, I believe it is a reasonable aspiration to discourage some of those journeys, in order to reduce pollution and congestion and improve health.

Yes but you do realise that us Dulwict'ites already walk more short journeys (68% from the council's own figures) than any other part of the borough? So not sure the "the problem is short unnecessary car journeys" really hold much weight here but, of course, the council loves to apply the "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" narrative to support many of it's own ideologies!

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's the usual arguments from the usual people.

We care about pollution, congestion and road safety: But no restrictions on car use, free on street parking, more rat running and bigger cars are all fine.

We want more active travel and better public transport: But no improvements to infrastructure for bikes, pedestrians or buses (more important to have space for car storage than wider pavements, protected bike lanes, or room for buses to pass each other)

Edited May 4, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Yes but you do realise that us Dulwict'ites already walk more short journeys (68% from the council's own figures) than any other part of the borough? So not sure the "the problem is short unnecessary car journeys" really hold much weight here but, of course, the council loves to apply the "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" narrative to support many of it's own ideologies!

Most Londoners walk a lot. But a third or car journeys are still under 2km. I don't know why you think one fact invalidates the other.

[first mate]

Because you are talking in generalities not specifics, what applies in one part of London may not hold elsewhere. Different demographics, different geography, different infrastructure. It is complex but the approach to the issue is overly simplistic and is creating as many problems as it seeks to solve.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So you don't support any efforts to discourage short, single occupancy journeys, or you don't believe they exist here?

[first mate]

You are not responding to my comments, other than with deflections.

I had already said, in an earlier post, that I think most people round here are already reducing car journeys, cycling more, using public transport where possible, walking. Local stats, as cited by Rockets seem to evidence this.

Do you think that those with major caring needs, mobility issues and work that requires a vehicle should simply out up and shutup?