Parking permit 100% cost increase

[Rockets]

Earl, the problem here is the council has zero clue what creates the traffic challenges in the area and applies broad, wide-sweeping generalisations to create an anti-car narrative without actually spending any time to determine what is happening. They have done it time after time because, unfortunately, a lot of people lap them up and repeat them without actually determining if they are correct or not.

Remember the side-street, supposed, massive increase in miles driven which turned out to be utter rubbish - repeated verbatim by the council and councillors yet and created a narrative that pro-LTN lobbyists ran with?

 

The fact is more Dulwich'ites walk more short journeys (68%) than any other part of the borough so short car journeys are clearly not the issue here - but the council doesn't seem to care and nor do those campaigning for "change" - they hope the mud sticks.

 

If you don't understand what the problem is how on earth can you find a solution to it?

[Huggers]

But The residents parking system was not introduced in order to reduce local car ownership but to reduce outsiders coming in and parking. That’s how It was sold to us. So  the doubling of the fee which was originally to pay for the system management is pretty cynical.  There was no notice of this increase and no ‘car reduction/environmental  justification’ message from the council. 

[exdulwicher]

41 minutes ago, Huggers said:

But The residents parking system was not introduced in order to reduce local car ownership but to reduce outsiders coming in and parking. That’s how It was sold to us. So  the doubling of the fee which was originally to pay for the system management is pretty cynical.  There was no notice of this increase and no ‘car reduction/environmental  justification’ message from the council. 

This is one of the challenges that you get with parking.
Suppose a station has a small car park and, when it fills up, people start parking on the surrounding streets to the detriment of residents, deliveries etc. Or alternatively, a paid-for parking system is introduced (like in Dulwich Park). To avoid that, people again search out free parking on surrounding streets - there are notable other issues with this such as "cruising" (where people are driving round and round for ages trying to find a space which further adds to congestion etc).

To solve this, a CPZ (or some other restriction like double yellows) is introduced and to avoid that, people start parking further out again.

Like LTN's, it's a bit of a catch-22 situation - they don't work well in isolation. If you have a small CPZ (eg, around a station), people simply park for free outside it and walk in. So you end up needing more CPZ. That in itself is not a bad thing - parking controls are one of the most effective means of  private vehicle constraint.

The issue with resident permits is that it costs a lot to administer (and the system needs to be self-financing) and it is not entirely equitable - OK not much in private car usage is equitable but those with big driveways effectively have their own zero-cost parking while those with on-street parking have to pay. As an aside, you get the same with ULEZ - those who can afford to buy/lease an EV or other compliant vehicle do so and then, because they've paid a lot of money for it they want to, or feel that, they should use it as much as possible and the at-source payment is near zero - no ULEZ, no parking fees at home etc

There are further considerations - a vast amount of public space is given over to (effectively free, or very highly subsidised) storage of private property which is again extremely unfair. 

There's a good report here on the issue:

https://centreforlondon.org/publication/parking-kerbside-management/

It's not an easy thing to solve though. Parking is, quite accurately, regarded as a "third rail" in political circles. Touch it and you die!

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by exdulwicher
Edit to fix the hyperlink

[Froglander]

40 minutes ago, Huggers said:

But The residents parking system was not introduced in order to reduce local car ownership but to reduce outsiders coming in and parking. That’s how It was sold to us. So  the doubling of the fee which was originally to pay for the system management is pretty cynical.  There was no notice of this increase and no ‘car reduction/environmental  justification’ message from the council. 

Yes, this is what the shysters said.  

[Peckham Park]

At one point I was in favour of a CPZ in my area near Peckham Rye Park. Lots of cars from the Goose green side of East Dulwich Road (including the businesses) park on my street due to the CPZ in operation. However with this latest rate rise I just see it as the cash cow that Southwark love to milk. It maybe a 100% increase this year, but they’ll keep increasing it massively year on year. There will be a huge divide between those who have drives (mostly those who live in dulwich village with their LTN) and the rest of us who can’t afford to park a car out on the street. 

[malumbu]

It's disingenuous to always go on about those less able in life.  It's great that you are concerned (as am I, and I have the badge to wear) but I expect that most people use this up to support their own self interest.  Most people are not disabled and can manage to walk a mile or two, cycle two or three miles and catch a bus.  Where this is not the case arrangements should be in place to ensure other initiatives are in place.

If you've got an hour or so go down to Herne Hill Velodrome and watch disabled people on adapted bikes https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/cycling-sessions/

And read Isabelle Clement's amazing biography www.gov.uk/government/people/isabelle-clement

https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/honorary-mbe-awarded-to-wfws-director/

 

[Sally Eva]

The right to use the highway belongs to the King and all parking is obstruction of other people's right of way. This is the whole basis of parking charges. The kerb side does not belong to the person who gets there first. All parking is obstruction, we have just got so used to it we feel entitled to do it. We are not

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/part/IX/crossheading/obstruction-of-highways-and-streets

[first mate]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Well Mal, I suspect more are affected than you suspect.

And as for your "disingenuous" charge I would say it is pretty disingenuous to doubt the lived experience of others because it doesn't suit your narrative,  preaching others give up vehicle use while you also ask, on this very forum, for help with a large car to ferry a door to your second home in France.

Bang on all you like about cycling. It is your hobby, after all. However, cycling is not for everyone, quite apart from mobility issues and work-related practicalities, many simply do not feel safe...not necessarily cars but certainly buses and lorries, but we need those, don't we. There is also the crime aspect, weather, geography and on it goes. ED just isn't Amsterdam.
 

 

It's disingenuous to always go on about those less able in life.  It's great that you are concerned (as am I, and I have the badge to wear) but I expect that most people use this up to support their own self interest.  Most people are not disabled and can manage to walk a mile or two, cycle two or three miles and catch a bus.  Where this is not the case arrangements should be in place to ensure other initiatives are in place.

If you've got an hour or so go down to Herne Hill Velodrome and watch disabled people on adapted bikes https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/cycling-sessions/

And read Isabelle Clement's amazing biography www.gov.uk/government/people/isabelle-clement

https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/honorary-mbe-awarded-to-wfws-director/

 

 

[RichH]

So we have:

1. People who own cars that they use for various perfectly legitimate reasons whether that be social/pleasure, domestic, business, mobility etc.  

2. Other (relatively silent) folk don't own cars but are quite happy and capable to walk/cycle or use public transport.

3. A small but extremely vociferous group who don't own cars but have the belief that no one else should do either.

4.  The Council, who, like any big business, will adopt almost any tactic to maximise their gains and minimise their losses whilst retaining their business/political credentials. 

5. A few individuals that use this forum as a pulpit from which to preach their interminable "I Am The Way" political sermons.

We have here the perfect recipe for another 100+ page "behemoth" where everybody will agree with nobody.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

It's disingenuous to always go on about those less able in life.  It's great that you are concerned (as am I, and I have the badge to wear) but I expect that most people use this up to support their own self interest.  Most people are not disabled and can manage to walk a mile or two, cycle two or three miles and catch a bus.  Where this is not the case arrangements should be in place to ensure other initiatives are in place.

If you've got an hour or so go down to Herne Hill Velodrome and watch disabled people on adapted bikes https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/cycling-sessions/

And read Isabelle Clement's amazing biography www.gov.uk/government/people/isabelle-clement

https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/honorary-mbe-awarded-to-wfws-director/

 

Malumbu, is it the also then disingenuous for the council to build their anti-car narrative on the basis that, and I quote, 40% of Southwark residents don't have access to a car?

[CPR Dave]

[quote]The residents parking system was not introduced in order to reduce local car ownership but to reduce outsiders coming in and parking[/unquote]

This was an obvious lie that 68% of respondents at the tine saw through.

The CPZs were introduced here primarily as a stealth tax that could be increased at will year on year and secondarily as a Marxist plot to banish private car ownership.

 

The other comparable is having a garden. The council don't like people owning their own private gardens so introduced the garden waste stealth tax too.

[RdeN]

On 02/05/2023 at 19:01, 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.

 

The point is not what we want, we all want a world where a car is not needed. The point here is what the Council should do for you, the tax payer. The council is there to serve you. The council should help us not making out lives harder by some general higher goal. What is next? Sending troops to Ukraine? A butcher sells meat, a Council should help its constinuitents to live easily, more practically. Simple as that. Anything else you are not fullfilling your mission.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I am a taxpayer and I would like to see a reduction in car use. Less pollution, less congestion, wider pavements, more planting, safer cycling routes (so that my kids can travel independently), and faster buses.

At the moment, huge amounts of public space is prioritised for private car storage - many of which barely move from one week to the next. It is absolutely the role of the council to allocate scarce resources in the way that creates the fairest and broadest benefit to constituents. Prioritising private car ownership in all instances (as some are arguing for) is not that.

If you sit on a bus (carrying up to 30 people), you'll notice that many of the cars which are holding those people up, are single occupancy, or are empty / parked. Some will be the result of necessary journeys, many won't - they'll involve short trips which could be walked in less than 20 mins.

The council should look to disincentivise someone using a 2 ton piece of heavy machinery to move themselves a few streets to grab a paper, in my opinion.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Quote

 

The council should look to disincentivise someone using a 2 ton piece of heavy machinery to move themselves a few streets to grab a paper, in my opinion.

Massive assumption there Earl and just not the reality.

[Rockets]

And therein lies the problem. Too much of the council-led narrative on these measures is based on assumptions, best-guesses, misinformation and wide-sweeping generalisations which are lapped-up and repeated verbatim by the supporters of these interventions (the short-journey one being a prime example as it holds no weight in the very area the council is pushing these measures).

 

Earl, you mention buses - you know that buses are now being delayed due to the additional congestion being caused by LTNs - see the unholy spat between our local councillors and their bullying of TFL officials when TFL dared to publish a document that challenged the council "LTNs don't cause any problems" narrative?

 

Again, it is very easy to be critical of the amount of space dedicated to parking spaces for cars but if you haven't taken the time to determine why that is and the factors that contribute to that then you are only telling half the story and being, perhaps deliberately, blinkered.

 

The council has been very clear that residents in Dulwich are more reliant on cars because of a number of factors: a combination of the fact that PTAL scores in the area are low and there being more families in the area. You can't ignore that and if you don't address those factors then people will always need cars and I suspect the council knows this but then looks on it as a good source of revenue generation (even during a cost of living crisis) as their ideology is that you are well-off if you have access to a car.

 

[rollflick]

It's staggering how much better - as in clearly presented, easier to view on small/old screen, transparent, honest - Lambeth's consultation for a West Dulwich CPZ is than Southwark's for a Nunhead CPZ.

Compare https://westdulwich.commonplace.is/proposals/controlled-parking-zone/step1 with https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/nunheadcpz2022/

Whatever your views on parking, LTNs etc - and clearly we'll never see consensus here on those! - can't we all agree that better consultation is needed, that our useless council really needs to pull its socks up and that it really shouldn't be hard for it to learn from others?

Edited May 5, 2023 by rollflick

[Rockets]

I did love this line in the Lambeth CPZ which demonstrates the FUD council's sell to people:

 

Although Lambeth is one of the leading boroughs for sustainable travel with almost 80% of trips by residents made by walking, cycling and public transport, and 60% of households being car free, emissions from transport still make up almost a quarter of the total emissions from the borough.  

 

The use of the word transport is key here as private cars, which are targeted by the CPZs, make up a small partof emissions from transport with buses, delivery vehicles, lorries and taxis taking the lion's share of blame. Included in Lambeth's categorisation of transport and the 25% is: river, rail, motorcycle, taxis, PHVs, non TFL bus and coach, TFL bus and coach, HGV and LGVs and cars so why they feel the need to reference that is, ahem, anyone's guess ;-)......probably because if they listed what private cars owned by residents contribute people would be like...is this a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

Layer on top of that the fact that in other Lambeth documents they say 40% of emissions in our air emanate from outside London and you realise just how futile it is to try to claim that CPZs will contribute significantly to cleaner air - it's clearly absolute nonsense but a convenient untruth that councils peddle as it deflects attention from the bigger contributors like construction and domestic and industrial heating.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Rockets

[Bic Basher]

Regarding buses, one of the reasons why I was against the reduction in the speed limit to 20mph in Southwark is the fact that buses take considerably longer than they did previously from my own personal experience.    Factor in the extra traffic that now clogs up East Dulwich Grove and parts of Lordship Lane during the rush hours and school run due to the Dulwich Village LTN and you can see why despite Covid restrictions being removed that buses are having a harder time attracting post Covid passenger use.

[mr.chicken]

On 05/05/2023 at 10:54, Earl Aelfheah said:

I am a taxpayer and I would like to see a reduction in car use. Less pollution, less congestion, wider pavements, more planting, safer cycling routes (so that my kids can travel independently), and faster buses.

At the moment, huge amounts of public space is prioritised for private car storage - many of which barely move from one week to the next. It is absolutely the role of the council to allocate scarce resources in the way that creates the fairest and broadest benefit to constituents. Prioritising private car ownership in all instances (as some are arguing for) is not that.

I agree, and especially in a cost of living crisis, they should be doing as much as they can to provide safe, affordable forms of transport, which means more or less not cars. For example you can buy this incredibly fancy and expensive bike for about the same price as the annual cost of car ownership (excluding everything to do with purchasing, i.e. depreciation, interest, etc). Once you include the capital cost of a car and those associated costs, you could afford to buy and throw away a very expensive and capable electric cargo bike every single year and it would cost you less than owning a car.

Alternative transport to cars, including buses are only practical with fewer cars on the road so that people are safe cycling, and buses aren't stuck in car traffic. And, it will also improve safety for other users since on average cyclists are substantially more law abiding than motorists with the gap widening further as cyclists are given more safe infrastructure.

[Spartacus]

I'm curious 

If you own a cargo bike but live in a flat where do you store it ? 

It obviously won't fit in the onstreet cycle storage units. It may not fit in your hallway or may block access for other flat owners if you put it in a shared hallway and you possibly may not have garden access.

Therefore they seem to be really only suitable if you live a large enough house and maybe only viable for the richer part of the population rather than the masses. 

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

I'm curious

I doubt that. What you seem to be angling towards is a "gotya!" the conclusion of which mysteriously leads to solutions which benefit car owners (who skew wealthier than non car owners) and no one else. You also (intentionally?) ignored the actual point that car ownership is very expensive compared to bike ownership, and therefore prioritising bike ownership is what will help in a cost of living crisis.  Car ownership is expensive and is rather underrepresented by those on lower incomes. Anything which prioritises cars over other forms of transport will prioritise the on average wealthy 40%  with access to cars.

There are plenty of other options other than that particular cargo bike, one I picked for it's high cost in order to illustrate just how expensive car ownership is. You know that. We both know that. So why adopt the air that it's the only alternative.

 

 

[malumbu]

Mate has one and he is happy to keep it on the street.  For cargo bikes designed just for carrying cargo I expect that there is less likelihood of them being stolen, but for the people carriers I expect easier to offload on Brick Lane or Gumtree (personal experience of where my stolen bikes went)

Bic - reducing speed limits generally increases capacity on the roads as vehicles can drive closer together more than compensating for the reduction in speed limit.  This is why variable speed limits were originally introduced, say on the M25.  In recent years, for example on the M4 coming out of London lower speed limits were introduced as less NO2 is emitted.

I'm not sure if the benefits continue as low as 20mph, but the main issue here is junction design and other infrastructure and that most people are dreadful drivers in that they are heavy on the brake and accelerator.  I was always tempted to video cars on Court Lane before the restrictions - accelerate to 30mph, brake to 15mph, repeat 14 times.  Rather than drive between 23 and 15 slightly accelerating before the hump and then backing off to around 15 just before you accelerate again.  Try it and you will be surprised and challenge yourself to see how far you can go by just using the accelerator to control speed.  The next part of that game is to continue onto junctions where you don't have right of way and see how many times you can anticipate without braking.

20mph has to go hand in hand with infrastructure and at times local authorities could get this better, I'm thinking across London not necessarily local.  Lambeth Bridge South Side is a particularly bad example.

And a general plea don't make these discussions personal.  Most wont agree with me but this is supposed to b e a forum as opposed to a soap box, eg many WhatsApp groups and Nextdoor.com  If I have caused offence in the past (most likely when it was supposed to be teasing/banter/ironic) my apologies.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by malumbu

[malumbu]

BTW you've lost me Mr C.  You say that buses are only practical if there are less cars on the road.  Well I've been using them for years and whilst my commute was almost always by bike, I'd use the bus (185) occasionally, ideally before 7.50 due to the school run (ie greater congestion eg on Camberwell New Road - Sacred Heart before the bus lane) as I could get a seat and read, and it cost me around a third of the real cost of motoring, and that was excluding parking and the congestion charge which would take the bus to around 5% of the cost of driving to central London.  It was a few minutes quicker by train but hated standing up and the changes.

 

Meant to attach this on 20mph - worth a read

www.gov.wales/introducing-20mph-speed-limits-frequently-asked-questions#74859

[mr.chicken]

 

26 minutes ago, malumbu said:

BTW you've lost me Mr C.  You say that buses are only practical if there are less cars on the road. Well I've been using them for years and whilst my commute was almost always by bike, I'd use the bus (185) occasionally, ideally before 7.50 due to the school run (ie greater congestion eg on Camberwell New Road - Sacred Heart before the bus lane) as I could get a seat and read, and it cost me around a third of the real cost of motoring, and that was excluding parking and the congestion charge which would take the bus to around 5% of the cost of driving to central London.  It was a few minutes quicker by train but hated standing up and the changes.

I was simplifying for the purpose of brevity. Oversimplifying perhaps! The practicality of buses increases as there are fewer cars on the road. If they're just stuck in the same traffic as cars, and you get to store cars for free, then for car owners they're kind of like cars but less convenient, which means only people who have to take them will take them. Excellent video here which centres around the Downs–Thomson paradox.

What's interesting is that if cars are de-prioritised so other means of transport get faster, then for the remaining people taking car journeys, it will improve their journey times too. There's quite a lot of places where it's a bit of a slog to get there by bus, but also a bit of a slog by car right now.

[Rockets]

Very interesting that the link shared from TFL's analysis of who owns the cars says, in summary:

 

Londoners are more likely to own a car if they live in outer London, live in an area with poor access to public transport, have a higher income, have a child in the house, and are of Western European nationality.

 

Which pretty much describes the Dulwich area so you have to decide, as a council, do you attack an area to solve a problem that wasn't of the area's making and are born from a number of factors that can neither be fixed quickly or by the people who the own cars. Southwark has made their choice - if you have poor public transport and a child and if you can afford a car that remains the best option for most.

 

And let's be honest cargo bikes, which remain almost exclusively the domain of the upper middle classes with big houses or companies serving the demands of upper middle classes, are never a good example of an active travel alternative! 😉 that's going to make a huge difference!