Parking permit 100% cost increase

[Spartacus]

3 hours ago, first mate said:

 

I also feel that the pro LTN/ CPZ narrative is shifting from pollution and more to the use of space for free by cars, when that space could be better used for other things. At the scrutiny session Cllr Rose used almost identical phrasing to that recently trotted out on this forum.

 

OMG 

Are you saying that Councillor Rose is active on the forum 🤣

[first mate]

If only any councillors were even partly active on this forum!

[mr.chicken]

7 hours ago, first mate said:

If and when private car ownership dwindles expect there to be increasing charges for on street bike storage, the massive loss of revenue will have to be plugged somehow. 

It may be worth nothing that car ownership in Amsterdam, somewhere notoriously friendly too many forms of non car transport, is 37%, a little lower than Southwark, but not by that much.

 

[monica]

On 02/05/2023 at 14:25, Penguin68 said:

Well, I would certainly encourage those who agree with you to walk on the roads locally, unrestricted by parked vehicles slowing the traffic. Or are you suggesting increasing pavement widths by 5 ft or so on both sides of the road? If so I do hope you plan to charge pedestrians for occupying so much of the real estate? For comparatively so little time. 

Do you use the local shops? If you are happy for the CPZ to come into Nunhead, then that is your opinion, however the  local businesses and the 65% of nunhead residents who do not want the CPZ would disagree. As per usual the armchair critics love to share their opinions and not take on board others??? 

 

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, monica said:

Do you use the local shops? If you are happy for the CPZ to come into Nunhead, then that is your opinion, however the  local businesses and the 65% of nunhead residents who do not want the CPZ would disagree. As per usual the armchair critics love to share their opinions and not take on board others???

The idea that CPZs harm local shops sounds intuitive, after all if people can't drive in they won't go to the shops so the reasoning goes, but is it actually correct? On Lordship Lane, the pavement gets really clogged by many people, yet a couple of meters of width is allocated to cars which are often single occupancy and stay there for a fair amount of time. There are far more pedestrians than could arrive by car and it turns out that people vastly overestimate the amount of business from cars versus non car users. Here's an interesting article from before the LTNs were a thing and from a US HQ'd company, so hard to argue they have enough skin in the game to be biased:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-11-26/4-reasons-retailers-don-t-need-free-parking-to-thrive

 

[Rockets]

The last time the council did a survey of visitor trends to Lordship Lane (back in 2015) the results were very interesting and suggested Lordship Lane was a bit of a destination high street drawing people from a wide area (which makes sense) - the report said: [Lordship Lane] draws people from a wider than average area:

 

57% of those surveyed were from SE22, SE15 or SE12 - the remainder came from 29 "further and more widely distributed" postcodes dotted all over London.

 25% had travelled for more than 30 minutes to get there

22% had arrived by car which was twice the average of any other Southwark High Street (bar Walworth Road).

 

It was one of the key points the traders on Lordship Lane used to lobby the council when they planned a very broad CPZ zone in the very first instance as it would have had a negative impact on it.

 

So, for Lordship Lane it certainly looks like it would have a negative impact - and remember, this report was done in 2015 when the Lane had few eating destinations and the report stated that:

However, while frequency of visit is high and average spend a little above average, a third of the visitors are rather unenthusiastic about what is on offer, while another third are there because of the range of shops. Lordship Lane serves shoppers in many retail categories but underperforms on foodservice.