Parking permit 100% cost increase

[Rockets]

37 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

... 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/ 

And why might that be do you think? 😉

The answer is actually in the article:

Over the last decade, the use of motor vehicles has been increasingly restricted in the financial heart of the U.K. 

 

It's a bit like the mind-blowing revelations the council shared with us that on roads closed by LTNs traffic declined significantly....well blow me down...that's a surprise! 😉 

 

The article goes on to say:

 

However, cyclist numbers are at 102% of pre-pandemic levels.

 

A 2% increase on pre-pandemic levels on cyclists in the city - wow, that's worryingly low is it not and goes to validated the reality that the cycling revolution is just not materialising? Especially given all the money spent and disruption to buses caused by the installation of cycling infrastructure in and around the City (over bridges especially).  

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

And why might that be do you think? 😉

The answer is actually in the article:

Over the last decade, the use of motor vehicles has been increasingly restricted in the financial heart of the U.K. 

 

It's a bit like the mind-blowing revelations the council shared with us that on roads closed by LTNs traffic declined significantly....well blow me down...that's a surprise! 😉 

 

The article goes on to say:

 

However, cyclist numbers are at 102% of pre-pandemic levels.

 

A 2% increase on pre-pandemic levels on cyclists in the city - wow, that's worryingly low is it not and goes to validated the reality that the cycling revolution is just not materialising? Especially given all the money spent and disruption to buses caused by the installation of cycling infrastructure in and around the City (over bridges especially).  

Yes. If you restrict motor vehicles and put in cycle infrastructure, you get more cycling and fewer cars. This is literally the point you've been railing against previously. 

That's not what the council data on LTNs show, people can look it up for themselves. Happy to discuss on the LTN thread if you want.

Yes, a 2% increase over the pandemic, despite the number of people commuting into the office dropping overall. A resumption of the 40% increase in pre-pandemic growth (plus 2%).

[malumbu]

Back to my earlier challenge, Rocks, do you use buses or simply come up with reasons not to use them?

Returning to the subject do CPZs affect you or is it just another cause to attack Southwark??

They may well be brought in where I live and the locals are already up in arms.  We should take a step back and put self-interest to one side.  A family member has them and it seems to work fairly well - this is near to a station (in the home counties) that is used for commuting.  Important issues are costs, enforcement charges and accommodating friends and other visitors.  This allows people to park for up to two hours and gives residents books of half day permits free of charge.  Accommodating parking near shops is fairly important - noting of course that huge swathes of central London have no free parking but shops stay in business. 

Right, off to the Lounge now to discuss LTNs - feel free to join me

 

[Rockets]

Earl, I am sorry but where are you getting the 40% cycling growth figure from?

When you first mentioned it you said: levels of cycling remain 40 per cent higher than levels before the pandemic.

 

Now you seem to be saying that the 40% growth was pre-pandemic - which again is not backed-up by the facts from the very report you claim to cite as it states that growth in cycling from 2015 to 2019 was muted. Can you explain what this 40% figure is and relates to and where you got it from?

 

So since the pandemic started and since the mayor spent hundreds of millions on digging roads to put in cycle lanes there has only been only a 2% increase in the numbers of cyclists in the City - you should be very worried by that as it clearly shows the cycling revolution is a bit of a flat tyre. Commuting numbers into London during 2022 were estimated to have returned to around 65%- 70% of the pre-pandemic levels so in that context a 2% increase is very, very low don't you think?

[Rockets]

22 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Back to my earlier challenge, Rocks, do you use buses or simply come up with reasons not to use them?

Returning to the subject do CPZs affect you or is it just another cause to attack Southwark??

They may well be brought in where I live and the locals are already up in arms.  We should take a step back and put self-interest to one side.  A family member has them and it seems to work fairly well - this is near to a station (in the home counties) that is used for commuting.  Important issues are costs, enforcement charges and accommodating friends and other visitors.  This allows people to park for up to two hours and gives residents books of half day permits free of charge.  Accommodating parking near shops is fairly important - noting of course that huge swathes of central London have no free parking but shops stay in business. 

Right, off to the Lounge now to discuss LTNs - feel free to join me

 

Malumbu - I do use buses but I also walk a lot in London because 1) I love walking and 2) it can often be quicker than sitting in a bus in traffic caused by the carnage devoting so much to cycling has caused (particularly over bridges). I take trains and tubes in the main but you'll often find me walking from London Bridge to Soho/West End along the banks of the Thames or the same journey from Victoria past Buckingham Palace. I don't use buses locally because I walk or cycle everywhere - I am a fully paid-up member of the 68% walking local journeys brigade. For the record I don't have a second home in France or anywhere else for that matter (sorry couldn't resist ;-))

 

CPZs do affect me because Southwark plans to roll them out across the whole borough and I think the unwarranted near 100% increase in the cost of a CPZ is totally unfair and incredibly blinkered of a council that is supposedly concerned about a cost of living crisis.

 

How much are they planning to charge in your borough for the CPZ and why are people up in arms? Maybe they see what's happening in Southwark and think hang on, this has nothing to do with commuter parking or the environment but as way for the council to fleece us during a cost of living crisis. 

[mr.chicken]

22 hours ago, Rockets said:

(sorry couldn't resist ;-))

MakIng personal digs is something you should have learned to resist by now. It really drags down the tone of the conversation.

[Kip59]

Any info on how to challenge controlled parking proposal in Nunhead?

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, mr.chicken said:

MakIng personal digs is something you should have learned to resist by now. It really drags down the tone of the conversation.

Ha ha...trust me if Malumbu is big enough to give it out (and I have been on the receiving end of plenty from them and taken it all in good spirits - see their last post on the original LTN thread in the lounge they made yesterday) then I am pretty sure they don't mind a little in return!

 

And on the subject of people in glass houses...you don't exactly have an unblemished track record of posting to keep the tone!

 

Very interestingly every single one of your 80 posts on this forum is about the LTNs - you've never posted about anything else  - careful that will really annoy Malumbu as they take a real dislike to people that don't talk about anything other than LTNs!!! 😉 

 

[first mate]

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha...trust me if Malumbu is big enough to give it out (and I have been on the receiving end of plenty from them and taken it all in good spirits - see their last post on the original LTN thread in the lounge they made yesterday) then I am pretty sure they don't mind a little in return!

 

And on the subject of people in glass houses...you don't exactly have an unblemished track record of posting to keep the tone!

 

Very interestingly every single one of your 80 posts on this forum is about the LTNs - you've never posted about anything else  - careful that will really annoy Malumbu as they take a real dislike to people that don't talk about anything other than LTNs!!! 😉 

 

I would add, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

[mr.chicken]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha...trust me if Malumbu is big enough to give it out (and I have been on the receiving end of plenty from them and taken it all in good spirits -

Well this thread was pretty free of personal attacks, until you thought to change it, and after lowering the tone you seem to wish to drag it down further:

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Very interestingly every single one of your 80 posts on this forum is about the LTNs - you've never posted about anything else😉

Interesting, you have gone from inventing data to simply making up facts. There's a phrase used to describe what you are claiming. It's "not true".

Personal attacks are low. Personal attacks based on invented facts area lower still. Since you're prepared to simply invent things to support your "view" that casts a lot more doubt over your other claims.

 

 

[Rockets]

Mr Chicken, all people have to do is click is click on the icon above the 81 and can see exactly what you have posted about what subjects, your clear vested interests (I suggest from some of your posts we can guess you are directly benefiting from the closures) and your tone during those discussions. They can judge for themselves but it’s a bit rich you complain that I am somehow lowering the tone given some of your musings in the past - maybe you are a born-again poster?

 

But then again as we have seen time and time again the hypocrisy gene is strong amongst many of the pro-LTN/war on car lobby….

[mr.chicken]

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Mr Chicken, all people have to do is click is click on the icon above the 81

If that works as well as you claim then appears that you failed to do that effectively. Again, why invent this untrue fact? Having trouble with actually debating the topic? 

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

 (I suggest from some of your posts we can guess you are directly benefiting from the closures)

Reduced car traffic and pollution, sign me up! I also want the roads to be safe to cycle on, and they're getting there. I entirely support the measures because I believe it will improve life in the area for many. That includes me.

Do you think I'd advocate Things I thought would make life worse?

As for vested interests: if you don't live in the area then why are you posting here? If you do, then you have a vested interest, just like the rest of us.

 

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

it’s a bit rich you complain that I am somehow lowering the tone given some of your musings in the past - maybe you are a born-again poster?

This has a bit of the ring of "sir please sir he did it first" about it. Even if we accept your claims at face value---something I'm now disinclined to do---you  are still lowering the tone of this thread. And apropos nothing you decided to dredge up some bit of the past just to take a dig at a poster when you couldn't rationally rebut his arguments.

 

 

[first mate]

Mr Chicken,

It is glaringly obvious you are going after Rockets in an apparent attempt to discredit him. 

It is lovely that you are personally only experiencing benefits from the imposition of LTNs, however many are not and that fact is not going to disappear just because it suits you.

Such is the strength of feeling that if one of the most vociferous pro LTN posters  is found to be not practising what they preach, you should not be surprised if they are called out. 

In an earlier post you commented that fewer cars on the roads- as a result of LTNs- would mean that when you need to use a car it will make your journey easier. This suggests you do see a 'need' for car journeys? Can you elaborate on what you would term a necessary car journey and whether this would ever apply to you?

Edited May 12, 2023 by first mate

[DuncanW]

Has this become the new LTN thread by stealth?

[first mate]

Duncan, fair point. Not deliberate, it is just that all the issues LTN, CPZ, parking charges, are intertwined.

[mr.chicken]

4 hours ago, first mate said:

In an earlier post you commented that fewer cars on the roads- as a result of LTNs- would mean that when you need to use a car it will make your journey easier. This suggests you do see a 'need' for car journeys? Can you elaborate on what you would term a necessary car journey and whether this would ever apply to you?

First mate, you are putting an awful lot of words in my mouth. I get it's easier to argue against an extreme position, but the point isn't simply to argue is it? It is broadly speaking whether the status quo is as good and equitable as things can be transport wise, whether measures are equitable, and whether they improve things.

Anyway to this point specifically: What's with the scare quotes around "need"? It sound like you have an underlying point you wish to make, but I don't quite follow what it is. Can you be plain?

And what counts as a necessary car journey?  Depends what you mean by necessary. I prefer to think of it in terms of what activities people might reasonably wish to do, and what practical ways there are of doing them. People want to shop, commute, go on holiday occasionally, do school runs, visit friends and relatives etc etc etc. All reasonable things which people should be able to do.

Did you read the links or watch the videos on the paradox? If you don't know the basics of transport systems design, this conversation won't be especially productive. I'll assume you did.

If you're heading out of London for example to somewhere not well served by public transport, a car is going to be the most practical choice in many cases.

If you want to move a moderate amount of stuff, well that depends. Cargo bikes can move a lot. A really surprising amount. The Dutch seem able to take a jaunt to a not so local Ikea quite happily on one. For those to be practical, we need better low car routes because being mixed in with thundering huge vehicles isn't safe.

Bigger things might need a van. I've had things which would be impractical without a motor vehicle but since I'm not licensed to drive a HIAB, I went for the delivery option.

Anyway I own no car. Or cargo bike. I've seen people hit or worse on the roads, and I value my neck. I've exchanged pleasantries with drivers who believe they have more of a right to the road before, but it's not something I wish to do on a regular basis. It's getting to the stage that I think I might be able to repair and use my bike which will make it somewhat quicker to get around than walking.

There are no *necessary* journeys in the strictest sense. There are plenty of reasonable ones which people will take. The more of them that are practical without cars the better for everyone including drivers.

 

There aren't that many petrol heads, trainspotters, cyclists or... walkerists? There are just a lot of people who want to be able to go places and do things and most people will take the quickest reasonable method of transport. That's people and you won't change them. 

 

As it is it's kind of a pain in the arse to do quite a lot of reasonable journeys because the roads are clogged by cars, so slow by car or bus and dangerous by bike. I know we can do better and there are very few ways to actually do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by mr.chicken
autocorrect y u

[first mate]

Mr Chicken,

I am not putting words into your mouth. On Wednesday you posted rather more words than I on the subject. You said:

"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 couldbe done with other means of transport in principle, but not inpractice given London as it is now".

What were the journeys that made driving necessary in your case? Or are you saying that journeys where you 'need' to drive are not actually necessary?

 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by first mate

[mr.chicken]

6 minutes ago, first mate said:

What were the journeys that made driving necessary in your case? Or are you saying that journeys where you 'need' to drive are not actually necessary?

It's fruitless trying to discuss with you. You put words in my mouth, deny it then do it again in the following sentence. Then you just parrot the same question over and over, ignoring my answers.

Nonetheless, if you respond to what I actually wrote, I will respond and do it in good faith. I'm not going to engage with a fantasy of what you want me to have written.

[CPR Dave]

Another great successful effort by the cuclists to have a car discussion lounged. Well done .

 

[mr.chicken]

17 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

Another great successful effort by the cuclists to have a car discussion lounged. Well done .

 

To which cuclists do you refer? I've certainly seen plenty of attacks and demonizing of cyclists. Or are you counting me an an honorary cyclist because I disagree with you on the solutions to transport problems? Can one be a cyclist without actually riding? I don't know what solutions you propose.

[Rockets]

Well the thread had meandered off the original subject so understandable new admin lounged it.

The pro-LTN lobby really do tie themselves in knots - so many times they have posted things that actually validate the anti-lobby arguments (like Earl's post and the mysterious 40% growth figure and the shocking 2% increase in cycling in the city post pandemic)...so many just parrot off stats and figures that do nothing but undermine their arguments and then go running off for cover by throwing some distraction like Mr Chicken's "lowering the tone" accusation. It's like the kid who is losing the football game and plays the it's my ball I am taking it home....

 

And Mr Chicken, you have only ever posted in relation to road closures and war on cars - not a single other post that suggests you have anything else to contribute to life in Dulwich. You first posted just when the debate over LTNs was it's highest so something obviously triggered you to join in - you stated you lived near Calton Avenue so we can only presume you are benefitting from the closures and happy to support them.

 

Good for you, I am benefitting from the closures as well (look back on my posts and it's not difficult to work out where I live - we actually might be neighbours) but I am wise enough to realise that my benefit is to the detriment of others and that the closures are not delivering what is promised and I can see through the bravado and chutzpah of the council and it's supporters as they try to tell us what a great success it has been. It you're happy going along with the narrative because it serves you well then good for you.

The hypocrisy of some on the pro-LTN/war on cars is beyond belief sometimes: happy to tell others how to live their lives and how they should not be using cars yet happy to keep a car/use a car when it suits them and then moan that the roads are clogged by other car users and then use that as some flimsy validation for their ideology that cars are bad. It's laughable at times - invariably born-again middle-classers happy to ignore the fact that the world they occupy and live in is not the reality of the majority - modern selfishness masked by a massive dose of greenwashing.

[mr.chicken]

21 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And Mr Chicken, you have only ever posted in relation to road closures and war on cars - not a single other post that suggests you have anything else to contribute to life in Dulwich.

 

Since when are you gatekeeper of the topic? Why do you believe that, say, posting about an interesting animal has and bearing on whether I have an opinion on traffic? And why do you think activity on this forum is the arbiter of contributing to live in Dulwich.

It's clear you are better at attacking people than you are their points. But please if you are going to attack me, I'd thank you to not invent a false posting history about me.

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The hypocrisy of some on the pro-LTN/war on cars is beyond belief sometimes:

It's only hypocrisy to you because you adopt wildly extreme views where it'sa war on cars or drivers from people with a deep seated hatred for motorised transport. Therefore a dyed in the wool car hater must be a hypocrite.

Trouble is that position is a fantasy of yours, not reality. Efficient transport isn't about hating or loving any one mode of transport. One thing I do know is that the clogged roads are not good for cars, buses, cyclists or pedestrians. You think it's hypocrisy somehow for me to not pick on one of those to hate. I think transport can be better in this city in a way that will benefit everyone. One has to be realistic, cars do not make efficient use of the roads compared to almost anything else. It's not about banning cars and then laughing at the former car owners, it's about providing cost effective, efficient, practical and safe transport options.

I don't hate people for using cars. People are going to use the most practical form of transport available. That's fair, and human.

[malumbu]

Ah shame it was getting interesting (commented on being moved to the Lounge). Not sure why those most concerned don't post on the lounge, like I do, and where we used to have epic discussions on issues including traffic policy in the past.

Anyway, pleased that Rockets does all the right things on active travel yet this is such a paradox as you are so concerned about interventions by Southwark that affects motorists.  I will reach out using another channel.

Returning to buses I was rather obsessed a few years ago.  Two big concerns were buses mounting and damaging the cycle route on Peckham Rye.  The Council had done a lovely job, but the slightly raised curb has long since been a complete mess.  If there is a commercial vehicle parked on the left eg to unload in the shops, the buses naturally move to the right and mount the cycle road.  There is enough space not to do this, but it is tight.  So you either get drivers not to do this (and risk taking off the odd door mirror), widen the bus lane (bit limited due to for example street furniture) or close the parking spot.  I approached both Southwark and TfL on this and got bugger all response.

My other obsession were cars and vans parked on the double yellows and what appeared to be the lack of enforcement.  This caused big delays for buses and peed me off.  Southwark didn't respond to complaints but the FOI showed there was a fair degree of enforcement although I never saw any.  The shopkeepers dummies that Southwark employed (an 'affectionate' term used by five live for the assistant referees they used to have by European footy matches) even though supposedly enforcement officers only seemed to direct bin lorries.

But that problem disappeared when they closed Rye Lane to traffic, and doesn't have seem to have returned. 

 

[Rockets]

Mr Chicken - I was merely highlighting the fact that you have only ever posted on this forum about LTNs or things about cars and pondered what the motivation for that was and whether you had a vested interest on the basis of that - it is highly unusual for anyone to post solely on one set of topics - even though many accuse someone like me of doing so. 

 

And let's look at the evidence - you have posted 86 times and those posts have been exclusively in threads with 4 subject lines:

1) Parking permits

2) LTN - Our Healthy Streets

3) All Streets Matter

4) Driving Nightmare

 

So, unless you are claiming your other posts have disappeared, or you have multiple accounts (which I am sure you are aware due to the nonsense the previous admin had to deal with is banned), it seems you only post on one set of subject matter - so I haven't invented anything.

 

I have never suggested I was the gatekeeper of the topic but, in the same regard, are you appointed judge and jury on the tone of people's posts? No, I didn't think so and let's be honest you have been more than happy to be less than civil to people in the past so it seems a bit rich for you to be critical of others. Additionally, you should know that I am more than happy to debate and do spend a lot of time countering people's points - and that's usually the point the pro-lobby resort to attacking me because they don't have a considered response when presented with some of the realities of the numbers and items them present in support of their position.

We will agree on one thing however and that is that I also believe there is a way to make transport better for everyone - where we probably disagree is the path authorities in London are taking to try and get us there.

 

 

[CPR Dave]

Mr Chicken, have you considered changing your name to Mr Sealion?

It would suit you better.