Parking permit 100% cost increase

[CPR Dave]

Those residents will just leave if you attack them so.

I think the childless singletons on the council have no idea what it's like living round here trying to provide your child with a rounded upbringing.

The families will just move further out though where they can own a car (however cheap and old - another point of attack from the council and the Mayor) and access services and facilities which this Borough puts out of reach of normal people.

It's already happened elsewhere in Southwark.

Shiny new flats are purpose built for renty overseas landlords replacing estates built for families, causing closures of schools and dentists and GP surgeries and local shops.

And none of those landlords ever buy a parking permit.

Edited May 9, 2023 by CPR Dave
Typos

[mr.chicken]

It's rather overboard to claim that motorists are being attacked. While people feel it's so personal and driven by a desire to harm, there can be no productive discussion.

Reducing the subsidy for (on average) wealthy car owners is not an attack. But as the saying goes, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

[Peckham Park]

It’s a fallacy that only ‘rich’ people drive

 

[Spartacus]

I do love the way that when the pro lobby are asked a difficult question, rather than answering it, they go on the attack like Mr Chocken did earlier over the real practicality of cargo bikes.

I also love the falicy that cars are stored for free on the streets, an average car generates a lot of taxes during its lifetime. VAT when it's first sold,  year one and two VED, tax on fuel, parts, mechanics, Duty, MOT, congestion charge (where applicable), insurance premium tax  parking charges (car parks, some places CPZ) fines for going into (for example) the new LTN areas, yellow boxes, bus lanes... and now ULEZs if they dare to be older then most people's toddlers.  Do you wonder why people think it's a war on motorists?  All this lovely tax helps maintain the roads for all.

Yet a bike owner only pays vat on a new bike, parts and skimpy ultra tight lycra to show off their wad*, and that won't pay for the upkeep of the roads if motorised vehicles are removed. 

Let's be honest here, there's room on the road for all, some like or need a car, some like or need a bike, some like buses, some like walking and some use mobility aids so rather then making one category demons which will put their backs up, why not work together to have a shared ownership of public realm paid proportionally by all users?

 

* wad of cash you smutty lot 

[exdulwicher]

29 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

All this lovely tax helps maintain the roads for all.

Oh are we back on the "I pay road tax" argument?

Roads are paid for by council tax (for local roads); strategic road network / motorways etc are government funded via National Highways. There are very few hypothecated taxes - what you pay as "road tax" (correctly called Vehicle Excise Duty) or Fuel Duty doesn't go to the roads - it just goes directly into government coffers to be spent on whatever our wise government deems necessary.

There's a separate argument there because fuel duty revenues are dropping substantially due to more EVs so there's going to have to be a rethink to plug the large gap in finances. At the moment that's coming from things like parking charges, congestion / clean air charges but again, with EV (and most modern ICE cars) exempt from ULEZ/CAZ, there's going to have to be another think on that front as well.

36 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Let's be honest here, there's room on the road for all, some like or need a car, some like or need a bike, some like buses, some like walking and some use mobility aids so rather then making one category demons which will put their backs up, why not work together to have a shared ownership of public realm paid proportionally by all users?

What tax should pedestrians pay for using the pavement - that's public realm? Maybe kids should pay some tax - after all we send them to those taxpayer-funded schools and give them things like playgrounds?

Paying more tax doesn't mean you get more rights to anything.

[Spartacus]

Ex, you conveniently left out all the other taxes, that also go to the government and are granted to local authorities to spend on key projects like highway maintenance. Council tax alone doesn't cover the cost of running a council. Would love to see how loud Southwark squeal if they only got council taxes and think about other, less populated areas in the UK where it possibly costs more to collect Council Tax then it generates 🤔

Again you pulled walking out for tax exception, but you failed to mention cyclists, e scooter/ bike users, is that because you want to deflect the argument away from cyclists paying to use roads ? have you noticed that evs  and electric are now starting to pay congestion charges?  Something is giving already 🙄 

As I said, there's room for all and demonising one group won't win anyone arguments so why not work together rather than trying to drive cars out so you feel smug in your lycra shorts 😉 

[CPR Dave]

"Roads are paid for by council tax"

 

Not round here. Sputhwark make so much profit from taxing motorists that they actually struggle to keep up with the income.

There is a huge surplus for roads. 

 

[CPR Dave]

According to the council accounts Highways and parking reserves (cash held in the bank by the council) increased from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022 by £5,846,000 from £1,852,000.

 

That means that this time last year they were sitting on £7,698,000 of our money.

 

But it seems that just isn't enough money for them and now they are taking more from you if need to use your own car.

Southwark Council
https://www.southwark.gov.uk › ...PDF
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS 2021-22

Edited May 9, 2023 by CPR Dave
Typo and link to accounts

[mr.chicken]

12 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Yet a bike owner only pays vat on a new bike, parts and skimpy ultra tight lycra to show off their wad*, and that won't pay for the upkeep of the roads if motorised vehicles are removed.

Well you've certainly found a great way of lumping everyone on a bike into a convenient group you can look down on! Mindless tribalism is definitely better way to deal with congestion than sound engineering principles.

[malumbu]

Just going to reply but Mr Chicken just got in before.  I was going to add that on buses there has been arrangements that they are not always caught in traffic for maybe 50 years plus.  Bus lanes.  There can also be arrangements for priority at lights and of course preference at turnings.  Thanks for debating the issues Mr Chicken rather than flinging mud and/or going on another vicious attack at Southwark Council.

To be personal, and a genuine question, do those of you who get so angry about interventions to reduce car use use buses?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sit on any bus and you'll see that they're regularly and repeatedly held up by parked cars - because often there isn't room for vehicles to pass each other. This is true on Lordship Lane, where the pavements also get very congested and there are numerous 'pinch points'. If parking spaces were removed (whilst retaining some disabled parking), you could create more space for pedestrians, add extra seating and landscaping, create additional bike parking and speed up buses. It is a choice to prioritise the allocation of public space to a relatively small number of private vehicles.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[mr.chicken]

12 hours ago, Spartacus said:

I do love the way that when the pro lobby are asked a difficult question, rather than answering it, they go on the attack like Mr Chocken did earlier over the real practicality of cargo bikes.

You chose to ignore my reply. Impossible to have a genuine discussion if you do so.

12 hours ago, Spartacus said:

fines for going into (for example) the new LTN areas, yellow boxes, bus lanes...

If your car is generating a lot of fines, might I suggest you pay more attention to the road?

12 hours ago, Spartacus said:

and now ULEZs if they dare to be older then most people's toddlers.

Yes? We have ~4000 deaths per year in London due to pollution, a substantial fraction of which comes from road transport. Any given pollution maims and kills just the same regardless of how much or when you spent money on the machine that generates it.

12 hours ago, Spartacus said:

  Do you wonder why people think it's a war on motorists?  All this lovely tax helps maintain the roads for all.

Which "people"? You, for sure. I don't feel it's a war on motorists. Every time I drive, I deeply wish the council would do more to get people out of cars, because when I need to drive, I find the roads very clogged. We know many of the journeys are ones that could be done with other means of transport in principle, but not in practice given London as it is now. It's well established traffic engineering that de-prioritising cars will actually make car journeys better due to the Downs-Thompson Paradox.

12 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Let's be honest here, there's room on the road for all, some like or need a car, some like or need a bike, some like buses, some like walking and some use mobility aids so rather then making one category demons which will put their backs up, why not work together to have a shared ownership of public realm paid proportionally by all users?

That's precisely what I'm suggesting, but you seem to think that taking a wholistic view including all users is a war on motorists. So, it's hard to be productive in this regard.

Do you not feel it is absurd that it takes an hour to drive to Croydon but (according to google maps) 90 minutes to walk? The only way of making a journey like that better is paradoxically to de-prioritise cars so that there are other transport modes which are safe, quick and convenient.

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 05/05/2023 at 11:25, first mate said:

Massive assumption there Earl and just not the reality.

My neighbour literally 'pops to the lane' in his SUV every weekend to pick up a paper. It is the reality that there are many journeys like this, and I suspect that we all know it. 

I'm not criticising my neighbour by the way - We make it super easy and convenient to use vehicles in this way. We provide acres of free parking on residential streets. We allocate yet more free space outside the shops on the Lane. Of course people will make use of it.

The question is one of policy. Is it right to hand over huge amounts of public space to private vehicles, in such a way that it creates a situation where driving is the most convenient way to pick up a paper a few streets away? Or could all that space be allocated differently?

I suspect if we made it a bit more difficult to drive, people would simply switch to walking those types of journeys, and barely notice the difference.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

[removed as this isn't the thread to discuss LTNs]

Edited May 10, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

...just as the LTNs have encouraged many people to undertake short local journeys they previously drove, in other ways.

I believe the 'evidence' shows that people in ED (before the LTN introduction) were already undertaking proportionately more local, short journeys without using cars than in other areas anyway.

[Earl Aelfheah]

[removed as this isn't the thread to discuss LTNs]

Edited May 10, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl - you're wrong - the council data showed that the LTNs led to a decrease in car journeys within the LTNs and that some roads (that were monitored) showed increases in traffic (but we all know the council refused to monitor roads like Underhill which has soaked up a lot of the displacement).

 

In terms of walking I do not believe that the council has done an area-wide survey since their 2018 Traffic Management report that showed 68% of local journeys were being walked (the highest % in the borough of Southwark) - but we can presume that will have likely increased post-lockdown.

 

Cycling data was provided by one of Rachel Aldred's team who did visual analysis of a very limited area (Calton Avenue junction) which showed an increase in cyclists but was criticised for the counting methodology and timings (which appeared to have been timed around school drop-off and pick-ups for biggest impact).

 

I think we can all attest that there are more people cycling in the area than before the pandemic but whether is it enough to compensate for the problems caused by the road closures has yet to be addressed. Interestingly, TFL did release data recently from their 20 cycling monitors around London comparing to the same weeks in 2019 against post-pandemic levels up to April this year and there were very little changes in overall numbers of cyclists. 

 

[mr.chicken]

22 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Earl - you're wrong - the council data showed that the LTNs led to a decrease in car journeys within the LTNs and that some roads (that were monitored) showed increases in traffic (but we all know the council refused to monitor roads like Underhill which has soaked up a lot of the displacement).

🤣 Imagined data on Underhill Road supports your argument 🤣. But of course it does 😉. You don't actually know Earl is wrong. You're guessing.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

My bad. Shouldn't have mentioned LTNs. This isn't the thread for that.

Re. free parking - 

Ultimately it’s a trade off. Pedestrians, cyclists, buses and private cars compete for limited space. At the moment, huge amounts of public land are being prioritised for parked cars. 

If you want better public realm - wider pavements, more seating and planting, more room for bike parking and faster / unobstructed bus routes, then some of that space will have to be reallocated.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

31 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

🤣 Imagined data on Underhill Road supports your argument 🤣. But of course it does 😉. You don't actually know Earl is wrong. You're guessing.

 

Mr Chicken - we have to imagine the data on Underhill because the council refuses to monitor - now why might that be do you think Would you not agree that all likely displacement routes should have been monitored away from the LTNs to have an accurate and complete picture of the impact of the LTNs?

 

Earl - you are absolutely right about everyone competing for limited space but would you not agree that over the last 5 years huge amounts of public land in London have been turned over to active travel to the detriment of other road users like buses, lorries and cars? More road space has been turned over to cycling than any other road user yet the numbers from TFL suggest it hasn't positively impacted cycling numbers - is that concern? How much more needs to be turned over before it does start having a positive impact or do we keep going regardless of the negative impact on Londoners from increased congestion and pollution? 

[first mate]

Out round Bellenden yesterday, quite a few cyclists but not one using dedicated cycleway..why I don't know, but other than me it was empty. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

No, I don't accept that Rockets. According to TFLs most recent 'Travel in London' report, levels of cycling remain 40 per cent higher than levels before the pandemic.

Cycling on weekdays last autumn were typically around 20-25 per cent higher than pre-pandemic levels, despite less commuting, and around 90 per cent higher at weekends. They put this increase down the increase in the number of people living near to high quality cycling infrastructure.

The report also highlights substantial improvements in air quality, with estimated reductions of 20 per cent in NO2 concentrations.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 minutes ago, first mate said:

Out round Bellenden yesterday, quite a few cyclists but not one using dedicated cycleway..why I don't know, but other than me it was empty. 

Have to say, I personally don't like the cycleway around Bellenden (Southwark's 'flagship' cycle route.. the 'Spine'). It's badly designed. That said, I see loads of people using it daily, especially during the rush hour.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

... and cyclists now outnumber motorists in the City of London https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/03/01/cyclists-now-outnumber-motorists-in-city-of-london/ 

[Rockets]

33 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

No, I don't accept that Rockets. According to TFLs most recent 'Travel in London' report, levels of cycling remain 40 per cent higher than levels before the pandemic.

Cycling on weekdays last autumn were typically around 20-25 per cent higher than pre-pandemic levels, despite less commuting, and around 90 per cent higher at weekends. They put this increase down the increase in the number of people living near to high quality cycling infrastructure.

The report also highlights substantial improvements in air quality, with estimated reductions of 20 per cent in NO2 concentrations.

Earl, from which report are you taking those stats or from where are you taking them? Can you send a link because TFL's latest report doesn't mention 40% - certainly report number 15 which is the latest published report doesn't.

It does however say:

During the latter months of 2022 some of these patterns are persisting with the more general return to normal activities, albeit in the context of fine weather and other factors affecting the wider transport network. Representative weekday demand as of October 2022 was some 20-25 per cent higher than before the pandemic, with weekend demand still typically around 90 per cent higher.

 

But this was a forward-looking statement because Figure 4.3 on page 100 of that report 15 only reports up to the week of October 4th and the comments I think you have used were forward-looking (and derived from what I have pasted above) and yet the table I shared from Vincent Stops is the latest version of that Figure that has now been updated up to April 23 and shows that the trends reported weren't realised in reality and that overall cycling levels remain around the pre-2019 levels. Nothing from that chart indicates anywhere close to a 40% increase.