Southwark-wide CPZ

[CPR Dave]

Very revealing that they mention all day CPZs.

No doubt that's what the outcome of these sham consultations will be then.

I suppose that was inevitable because the Council can't really enforce 2 hour parking zones. It costs too much money when they don't actually catch that many people and ticket them. So they just don't enforce them at all at the moment.

An all day zone is much more cost efficient to police and would pay for 48 new traffic wardens.

[mr.chicken]

35 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

An all day zone is much more cost efficient to police and would pay for 48 new traffic wardens.

So yet again, the problem is not the council, or Lycra, bikes, or the Illuminati, it's yet again entitled motorists. If drivers stuck to the rules, the council would not need to concern itself with something that it needs to police, just on the optimal outcomes.

But when entitled motorists come into the mix, the council has to pick the option that it's able to heavily enforce, because without heavy enforcement nothing will change.

 

 

[Penguin68]

Oh really... do grow up. The council wants to move to 24/7 CPZs because that way they make way more money - not because motorists will 'breach' the rules - what, by parking ad lib when and where it's legal to do so? In what way is that breaking any rule?

What I think CPR Dave was saying is that to maximise revenues, and to 'justify' employing loads of contractors you need to maximise the time they can catch people out and fine them. Herne Hill seems to have no problems with a two-hour window of CPZ - but then theirs was justified on the basis that it actually was aimed at commuters in an area of parking stress. There was an actual (parking) problem and it was actually and effectively addressed, without destroying local trade and livelihood. 

In the areas where the CPZ is now proposed there is no parking problem. So there is no remedy necessary. So this is just a fiscal land-grab. Oh, and just to remind everyone, parked cars don't pollute. Because they have no current emissions. So clean-air mavens may just as well complain that we have garden walls. And if they're not polluting, and they're not competing for space to park (and if they are not being driven they are not putting anyone else on the road at risk) then the CPZ proposal is actual about envy and greed. 

So let's have a shout out for that, eh?

 

 

[mr.chicken]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Oh really... do grow up. The council wants to move to 24/7 CPZs because that way they make way more money

Oh really... do grow up. It's not about the environment it's a conspiracy!

🙄 🤣

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Oh, and just to remind everyone, parked cars don't pollute. 

They pollute while they are being driven to the parking place. If there are fewer parking places to drive to, less of the polluting driving gets done.

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Herne Hill seems to have no problems with a two-hour window of CPZ - but then theirs was justified on the basis that it actually was aimed at commuters in an area of parking stress. There was an actual (parking) problem and it was actually and effectively addressed

Completely different thing designed to tackle different problem was different THEREFORE CPZ IS BAD. The CPZ will reduce car journeys which will reduce pollution. That's a different problem with a different solution than commuters hogging road space near a station.

 

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

without destroying local trade and livelihood.

Ah yes, making the local area more pleasant and more accessible (I'm sure those 4 SUVs parked out Moxons for an hour at a time are bringing in hundreds of people to the local area) will hurt shops because reasons.  If more cars are better, then we should reduce the pavement space on LL to create more room for cars. Perhaps demolish a few shops to install a nice big multi-story carpark. There's always one or two empty and the uplift in trade would surely offset that.

Or is it that the status quo is the absolute best possible system the way it is and any change at all in any direction will be worse?

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

And if they're not polluting, and they're not competing for space to park

Well that got bonkers. If they're not polluting and not competing for space, they're not being driven on the roads so you won't be affected by the CPZ and have no reason to complain. Keep your front lawn decoration if you like, it's no skin off my nose. You don't even need to pay road tax.

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by mr.chicken
editing error

[first mate]

The pretty streets line is unconvincing. Dumped Lime bikes and scooters as well a various chained two wheel vehicles are not pretty. Bike hangars sre ugly. Club cars and EVs are no more visually appealing than others.

 

 

[Rockets]

7 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

There will be more. I and most likely the majority of fellow residents will use our democratic right to vote for people who promise to do more.

 

A real shame you won't be given the democratic right to say whether you support CPZs or not in the consultation. Perhaps that part of a democratic right is not one you feel is important.....

 

 

 

3 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

Oh really... do grow up. It's not about the environment it's a conspiracy!

🙄 🤣

Anyone who thinks this is about the environment is daft as a brush....;-)

[teddyboy23]

Agree 

[Penguin68]

23 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

. If there are fewer parking places to drive to, less of the polluting driving gets

Rubbish. Cars are driven round and round looking for places to park where parking is reduced. Or someone gets out to do something and the car is driven round till they've done it, if there are two people. Try living in the real world where people have to get stuff done. 

[malumbu]

Well some will think sod this, parking is too difficult, I'll use an alternative.  You are very dismissive.  The  issue is those that are so wedded to driving they will put up with all inconveniences.

Added, dismissive applies to not just Penguin.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

The  issue is those that are so wedded to driving

You will find that the older and frailer you get, the more wedded you are to driving when the alternative may mean simply not going out at all. You can be frail without being technically disabled, and anyway, for Southwark it would appear that disability is no excuse. I am wedded to driving when, for instance, public transport doesn't go where and when (e.g. late at night, or east: west) I need to go, or takes (e.g. hopper busses travelling east: west locally) up to 5 times and more the journey time of using my car - when you don't have that much life left, wasting it on hopper buses isn't my preferred call. I live {and yes, I live in East Dulwich} a 25 minute walk (for me with hills) from any station, and a 10 minute walk from most useful bus routes (and there aren't buses to some of the places I would want to go). People like me visit me. I am elderly. There are no parking issues where I live, so my equally frail friends can visit, as can people working etc on the house.  And yet Southwark plans to make my life far more restricted, for no better reason than that they'd like the money, and don't like people with cars. Or don't care about them enough to consider their needs, or to consider their needs important.

I have seen cities (Ljubljana for instance) who have LTNs and CPZs but who also plan in a joined up manner, so they have multi-story car parks (charged) on key roads into their (broadly traffic free) center, good (and free in the zone) public transport, free bikes, intelligent road blocks (automatic access to emergency vehicles, key-code access to service vehicles - plumbers etc.). They have built an integrated system which is thought through and city-wide. Achieved, as I understood, through genuine consultation.

Owning a car, and driving it, is not a fundamentally evil thing - although you could hardly tell that by reading some of the posts here. Drivers are not criminals or terrorists or mass murderers (ditto). Cars (particularly electric ones) are not weapons of mass destruction - air quality in London (generally) is much better than it was if still, (in patches, and at times) testing higher than existing targets.

The current proposed blanket CPZ in Southwark is a political (and revenue generating) policy and has nothing to do with either quality of life or health issues. Indeed it militates against the first and makes no claim on the second - save if you believe that transport which is privately operated (however 'clean' it is) is inherently more evil and injurious than that publicly operated. Which is an interesting take on a marxist approach - so I suppose no surprises there.

[malumbu]

My father drove till almost 90.  He damaged cars through poor ability going through clutches, banging into fixed objects.  He was from a generation where owning a car was a massive prestige symbol and would never give it up.  He drove professionally for two decades and was still a competent driver well into his 70s, but even then had given up night driving.  But as he aged he was getting dangerous.

Funnily enough as kids he thought that we should walk, cycle or bus when we were going to school, events and later to pubs and the like rather than give us lifts so he wasn't a petrohead.

But for his last few years keeping a car made no economic sense whatsoever.  So, no I don't agree with your argument that when you are old and frail you need a car.  

[Rockets]

Here is a prediction for you...the CPZ will have zero impact on car ownership or car use in Dulwich. It will, however, be a key part of Southwark's greenwashing programme with them telling us it's them doing their bit for climate change. And that narrative will be swallowed hook, line and sinker by those who are dumb enough to believe what the council tells them and don't bother to look at the reality beyond the council's propaganda.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Rockets

[malumbu]

So what to you reckon the the excuse that old, disabled and/or vulnerable HAVE to have cars to stay mobile

(a) Disagree, they do HAVE to have cars

(b) Occasionally but there are plenty of good alternatives and it may be cheaper to use cabs and Uber if I am an occasionally driver rather than own a car

(c) as (b) but microbility gives another option for older or disabled road users.

[Spartacus]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

So what to you reckon the the excuse that old, disabled and/or vulnerable HAVE to have cars to stay mobile

(a) Disagree, they do HAVE to have cars

(b) Occasionally but there are plenty of good alternatives and it may be cheaper to use cabs and Uber if I am an occasionally driver rather than own a car

(c) as (b) but microbility gives another option for older or disabled road users.

D) motobility provides disabled users with a car thats free to use (excluding fuel / power) and a CPZ / LTN robs them off their freedom to travel where and when they need and not struggle to get in and out of cabs thus retaining their dignity 

[CPR Dave]

I don't think it will have zero impact on car ownership. 

There are a number of people at the bottom of the ladder who are struggling to get by and being charged another £300 + a year to keep the car that keeps them in world will be the tipping poiiþ. Thetmy il leave.

 

That's the great shame of this new Labour politics. It hits the poorest hardest and benefits the richest  the most, same as LTNs and same as ULEZ.

[malumbu]

Then we need to get over this bizarre idea that a car gives us dignity and a cab takes that away.

[first mate]

By 'we' you now feel you speak for all those who are disabled Mal? 

[malumbu]

Society. 

[Spartacus]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Then we need to get over this bizarre idea that a car gives us dignity and a cab takes that away.

Get yourself a wheelchair mal, tie your legs down to stop using them  then see how dignified it is trying to get into an uber or black cab. The dignity comes through being able to get in and out relatively easily and where possible without assistance.

Better still go for one of the hidden disabilities like asperger's syndrome where a strange vehicle freaks you out.

Sometimes you are so far towards the anti car views that you can't spot when you are making life more awkward for others. 

[mr.chicken]

Prioritizing cars over other forms of transport will harm the segment of the disabled population who don't own cars. @Spartacus and @first mate despite your high and mighty attitude you seem to care little for them, since their interests don't align with yours. Or rather than flinging muck, you ought to admit that the situation is complex and offer some ideas. So far we've had:

* make the roads safer.

* Have a consultation

The first isn't really an idea so much as a notion and the second already happened but you didn't like the answer of that or the election or in fact anything which shows that the majority in Southwark doesn't in fact love cars (even though they have no access to them).

London has high levels of air pollution and traffic well away from LTNs is up versus pre covid making the air more polluted and the roads clogged which slows down public transport.

LTNs and CPZs are proven methods which have been tried in other cities to help get this under control. You seem to have no ideas except that everyone else is wrong and established urban planning principles don't apply to Southwark for reasons you can't or wont explain.

But go on, I invite you again to put forth your alternatives to the CPZ to actually improve the situation. Give me something, anything at all that is (a) acceptable to you and (b) implementable and then we can discuss it like rational adults. Or we can go back to flinging muck and accusing pro LTN/CPZ people of borderline genocide (thanks @CPR Dave for that comparison, you really raised the tone there).

[first mate]

On 05/08/2023 at 09:12, CPR Dave said:

Very revealing that they mention all day CPZs.

No doubt that's what the outcome of these sham consultations will be then.

I suppose that was inevitable because the Council can't really enforce 2 hour parking zones. It costs too much money when they don't actually catch that many people and ticket them. So they just don't enforce them at all at the moment.

An all day zone is much more cost efficient to police and would pay for 48 new traffic wardens.

I rather agree, and just trying to keep this thread on subject.

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by first mate

[mr.chicken]

5 minutes ago, first mate said:

I rather agree, and just trying to keep this thread on subject.

Excellent, so if you don't like the CPZ, what would you find an acceptable way to reduce traffic, improve busses and reduce pollution?

Or do you believe the current changing status quo with growing traffic is the best choice?

Because at the moment we're at the stage of  "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas.".

I think that alternative suggestions to the CPZ from people who think the CPZ is a bad idea is entirely on topic, otherwise objections are more or less meaningless.

 

 

[first mate]

Your are working from the premise that a borough-wide CPZ is necessary and therefore an alternative 'must be found'. We do not agree on the premise.

[mr.chicken]

9 minutes ago, first mate said:

Your are working from the premise that a borough-wide CPZ is necessary and therefore an alternative 'must be found'. We do not agree on the premise.

My premise is that the current levels of pollution are too high and the high levels of traffic impeding public transport are bad.

Do you agree or disagree?

A CPZ is not part of a premise. Do you even know what word means? If you have trouble with basic terms then having a rational discussion is going to be very hard indeed 🤣

[first mate]

Apparently Nunhead has very clean air. It is poorly served by public transport. There is no current issue with parking, suggesting the volume of cars is not that great.

I won't address your third paragraph as it is rather revealing about the sort of individual you are.

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by first mate