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

[malumbu]

Today it was announced that there would be a 2/3rd likelihood that the 1.5 degrees threshold for global temperatures indicating that climate change is accelerating.

What will you say to your grandchildren when they asked you what you did.  Oh we campaigned for the status quo.

Get some perspective rather than your own parochial self interest.  Wouldn't your efforts be better placed trying to make a difference?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602293

[Spartacus]

Mal 

A CPZ doesn't stop driving , it just charges people to do what they already are. 

[first mate]

Charles Martel said:

"There is an obvious argument for a CPZ in areas where there are problems caused by people coming from outside the area wanting to park, however this was obviously not the case in most of East Dulwich. Is it likely that people will think it is in Nunhead? As residents will just buy permits the CPZ will do nothing to reduce resident parking. Despite the fact that 70% of Southwark is supposedly covered by CPZs already that 70% has not become the car free utopia that some seem ideologically fixated on creating. It is therefore important not to fall into the trap of car owners vs. the rest of society that the council wants to lay. All of my neighbours who cycle to work also own cars, as do most of the ones who use public transport or walk."

Note the comment about many who cycle or use active travel also own cars. Many who cycle also admit to having to make a number of journeys a year by car (Malumbu). On another thread a poster commented that car ownership in the long-term cycling utopia of Amsterdam is only slightly less than in Southwark, despite pervasive CPZ. 

[Rockets]

9 hours ago, malumbu said:

Today it was announced that there would be a 2/3rd likelihood that the 1.5 degrees threshold for global temperatures indicating that climate change is accelerating.

What will you say to your grandchildren when they asked you what you did.  Oh we campaigned for the status quo.

Get some perspective rather than your own parochial self interest.  Wouldn't your efforts be better placed trying to make a difference?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602293

Malumbu - is there any evidence that CPZs make a difference - the fact that some suggest they help climate change is perhaps the most obvious form of greenwashing out there? What they do is make the council money and no-one should be in any doubt that that is the council's motive.

[modernMajorGeneral]

Follow on opposethecpz.org. We are organising resistance. The site has things you can do.

Edited June 1, 2023 by modernMajorGeneral

[Charles Martel]

It is very good to see people getting organised against these CPZ proposals.

Southwark council is relying on apathy and very deceitful green washing to foist a poll tax onto people who simply own family cars parked outside their family homes on quiet residential streets. 

Despite the fact that the CPZ was rejected in most of East Dulwich in 2019 the council's stated aim is a borough wide CPZ, regardless of the opinion of local residents.  Therefore opposing this now in Nunhead is important.

 

 

 

[rollflick]

According to local cllr McAsh, whose portfolio has just expanded to streets, taking that from faltering Cllr Rose, the council now is:

"implementing an accelerated controlled parking zone roll-out with the aim of achieving 100% coverage by August 2024", i.e. across the whole borough:

I am more of a fan of CPZs than many on here. Parking restrictions will really help the buses on much of Lordship Lane so long as designed well (though the Nunhead CPZ could be designed much better for buses). But really the council should:

1) be clear in consultations that this is what it's planning on CPZs and that the consultation is just about the details, otherwise it's misleading.

2) improve alternatives at the same time - it is falling far behind other inner London boroughs on integrated delivery, almost all the others have published coherent Borough Healthy Streets Delivery Plans while Southwark consults on waffle like "Prioritise equity in all transport schemes so everyone can achieve their potential".

There will always be disagreements on transport & parking issues, but it's made unnecessarily worse by how incompetent our council is compared to its peers and that our cllrs are unable to be honest about this or much else.

[first mate]

The thing is it is not clear what their mandate is to do this. Before the last election Cllr McAsh gave his word that no street in ED that did not want CPZ would be forced to have it.

Where in the last Southwark Labour manifesto was the intention to make the whole of Southwark, and specifically ED and Nunhead, made clear?

Edited June 1, 2023 by first mate

[Spartacus]

On 01/06/2023 at 18:00, rollflick said:

 

I am more of a fan of CPZs than many on here. Parking restrictions will really help the buses on much of Lordship Lane so long as designed well (though the Nunhead CPZ could be designed much better for buses). But really the council should:

Let's be honest, a CPZ won't make the roads clear for buses, that's achieved via urban clearway, red routes and bus lanes. 

A CPZ will just add parking bays that residents and visitors pay for! It won't magically clear the road of all parked cars.

Of course, even if we do achieve faster bus journeys tfl won't increase the frequency and buses will stack up along the route  whilst passengers listen to "the driver has been instructed to hold this bus for a short while to even out the service" 

As others have queried, can someone point to where in labour's election manifesto it said they were going to roll out a Borough wide CPZ tegardless if its needed or not ? 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by Spartacus

[CPR Dave]

This is coming to all of Dulwich now so it's worth any affected getting behind the Nunhead campaign too and trying to stop this as much as possible.

 

There is a Southwark petition here:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=50000035

Southwark aren't going to do anything with this at all unless it gets to 250 signatures, and realistically it needs at least 500. If you want to stop CPZs in East Dulwich, the nest place to start is by helping Nunhead. We can then ask them to return the favour when petitions go up for our CPZs. 

 

Get your voices heard, and get those you know who are also against this to sign the petitions. 

[CPR Dave]

225 people have signed this ePetition now. 

 

Spread the word!!

[megalaki84]

Driving needs to be disincentived. I'm extremely pleased about Southwark wide CPZ. Far too many people have a car when they don't need one and "convenience" alone is not a morally neutral choice.

If you really need a car on the odd occasion, there's car clubs or rental. Owning a private vehicle that gets used 4 times a year is just selfish, irresponsible and a kick in the teeth to our children.

Edited July 10, 2023 by megalaki84

[first mate]

I'm afraid life can just be a bit more complicated for some and a car may not be used every day or even every week but is required. Sometimes rental cars can fill the gap but not always. Part of the issue can be relatives who need more care or who do not live on the doorstep. Public transport does not always fill that gap either. This is not about 'convenience'. 

 

[megalaki84]

Sure but that excludes 95% of cars on our streets. CPZ is controlled parking, not no parking. There needs to be a disincentive for the vast majority of people, who don't actually need a car but just have one because they like it. The people who actually need one should be able to put their reasoning in and get a permit. We disincentive smoking by hiking the price up, we should do the same with cars. 

 

[Spartacus]

6 minutes ago, megalaki84 said:

Sure but that excludes 95% of cars on our streets. CPZ is controlled parking, not no parking. There needs to be a disincentive for the vast majority of people, who don't actually need a car but just have one because they like it. The people who actually need one should be able to put their reasoning in and get a permit. We disincentive smoking by hiking the price up, we should do the same with cars. 

 

Again, another supporter of punish the drivers to get them out of their cars without supplying credible alternatives. 

If you want people to give up their cars then there must be a better frequent and safe (in the situation of covid) alternative public transport system to incentivise them to do so.

Saying get out and walk and cycle is not the answer. 

[malumbu]

I don't agree.  For many driving is like an addiction.  You need stick as well as carrot.  Surely you must know people that however good the alternative they will still use their car.  There is some wonderful research by the Behavioural Insights Team (aka Government Nudge Unit) at Heathrow a few years ago.  Whatever you did do make it attractive to reduce driving to work just didn't work.  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586376/sustainable-travel-evaluation-of-low-cost-workplace-interventions.pdf

Some extracts

Increasing sustainable travel can help create growth in the economy and tackle climate change by cutting carbon emissions. It also influences our health, by improving air quality and physical activity, and can drive productivity by reducing congestion and providing easier access to jobs.

As the UK’s largest single site employer, with about 76,000 staff who work for 350 employers, Heathrow Airport provided a large scale setting to test the impact of behavioural insights on increasing sustainable travel, with almost half of employees travelling in Single Occupancy Vehicles at the outset of the study.

A range of light touch interventions were trialled, and many of them did not yield a significant effect.

And my favourite:  A key learning from this project is not to take self-reported opinions at face value when devising transport interventions. The gap that sometimes exist between stated preferences and observed behaviour is a well-documented phenomenon, which was reaffirmed by this project.

Back to my views - this remind me so much of much of the debate here - "Oh I really believe in sustainable transport"  "but they really have to have perfect alternatives before ?I will ditch the car"  (And even then I wont)

[first mate]

29 minutes ago, megalaki84 said:

Sure but that excludes 95% of cars on our streets. CPZ is controlled parking, not no parking. There needs to be a disincentive for the vast majority of people, who don't actually need a car but just have one because they like it. The people who actually need one should be able to put their reasoning in and get a permit. We disincentive smoking by hiking the price up, we should do the same with cars. 

 

Where are you getting this 95% figure from? Which streets are we talking about? All streets in the UK, all in London, in Southwark or just in Nunhead and ED?

Who are you to define what people's needs are? For instance, do you fly, do you wear leather, do you eat meat and or processed foods, do you use gas central heating or use a wood burner, wear non-sustainable clothing..., what about a loft conversion or a side return? Obviously you don't own a car but I think to make a direct comparison between cars and smoking is ludicrous.

[legalalien]

I see there are a lot of public questions on this issue tabled for tomorrow’s council assembly meeting

 

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s115428/Public question report.pdf

[first mate]

I really hope someone is taking very detailed notes on responses.

[Rockets]

Wow...the council seem to have hit a raw nerve with the CPZs.....

[CPR Dave]

They won't worry about though because self defeating morons keep voting them back in!

[malumbu]

How to win friends and influence people, eh? Obviously those who voted Johnson in were all  intelligent and public spirited.  What a daft post labelling many in the area as morons.  As I have siad before if you feel you can make a difference stand for the council yourself.

[CPR Dave]

might well do so next time out.

By then there will a right/centrist labour government failing spectacularly in a recession and a labour council who've gone round picking the pockets of all their constituents thinking they could get away with anything in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

Seems ripe pickings to me. Not sure the incumbents have thought that far ahead.

[megalaki84]

Sorry, this isn't a money grab and I find the suggestion offensive. This is an issue of a council trying to do what it can to reduce its impact in the largest crisis humanity has ever faced. What are your children going to think of you if you had a had a car but didn't need one? You just thought it was nice, a bit more comfortable, thought you looked cool? What will they think of you when they find these comments?

If you need a car, you need a car. But the vast majority of car owners simply don't in Southwark. As a minority of the Southwark population (less than 30%), car owners exert a greatly outsized toll through vehicle accidents, air quality and climate change. If they choose to exercise that cost on the rest of society, society should make them pay for the right to do so. 

[CPR Dave]

That's your claim, not theirs. Their claim is that this about social justice.

Nothing to do with "the largest crisis humanity has ever faced" (obscene language by the way in context of certain appalling genocides, some of which the left like to wash over, of course).

There's evidence on another thread that this only about making people people pay more money to use the roads for car storage.