Southwark-wide CPZ

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Parking is allowed under a CPZ, it's just not always free. And that's not to say that there is no free parking in a CPZ, between certain hours, in certain locations at certain times. What there isn't is free long term storage for vehicles on street.

Sooooo, if I live in a CPZ, own a car that has a permit then providing the bay isn't suspended (much like Parking in a non CPZ street can be now) then I can leave my car there as long as I like because I have a permit...

it is just that I've paid to park there rather then it being free parking. 😉 

Interesting so that kind of sinks your storage concept like the titanic meeting an iceberg. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

It really doesn’t. You can drive and park for free, between certain hours, or for a limited time, if you’re using your car to pick something up for example. At other times you may have to pay. What you can’t do for free, is store a car on the road long term, as for that you will need a residents permit. 

I don’t know why you think that we should all pay for you to store a private car on public land?  

On my street there’s a chap operating an equipment and vehicle hire business from the street, using it to store multiple vehicles. Yet if I needed a skip temporarily I’d have to pay.

I don’t get why people think they’re is an entitlement to subsidised vehicle storage.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Earl, you seem to have a particular axe to grind there and as a result you want to make everyone suffer just to stop a business that's operating nearby.

[first mate]

But if he is hiring vehicles out that must mean they are not there much of the time and others can use the spaces. Also, it sounds like there is not much parking pressure in your street at the moment? Currently, anyone can park ( or store as you call it) a bike on most streets for free. 

[malumbu]

15 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Earl, you seem to have a particular axe to grind there and as a result you want to make everyone suffer just to stop a business that's operating nearby.

Earl's made a fair point.  Why not debate it with him,/her rather than dismiss it.  We've had people in the past use the road as a second hand car lot.

[Spartacus]

Okay

Earl, have you discussed your issue with the business ? 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don’t know why you think that we should all pay for you to store a private car on public land?  

Earl, by the same measure then I presume you don't think that everyone should pay for cycle lane infrastructure on public land or use the cycle securing racks for free?

Edited September 6, 2023 by Rockets

[malumbu]

Oh just throw it back with your anti cycling stuff.  Cyclists have to pay for secure on street parking.  Hopefully money from the CPZ will make cycle parking free.

[Rockets]

No Malumbu, you're wrong.  Cyclists do not have to pay to use the council provided cycle racks to store their bikes - the cycle hangars managed by a private contractor on behalf of the council are the paid-for ones.

 

And haven't you just contradicted Earl's position by now suggesting car owners should be funding free storage for cyclists? You're position seems a bit confused and contradictory - you says it's not ok for people to park their cars for free ("funded by the taxpayer"), however it is ok for people to park their bikes or use cycle lanes for free funded by the tax-payer but your ultimate goal is for drivers to fund cyclists parking for free.

Hmmmm.....I think you argument is falling apart at the seams...

This isn't anti-cycling it's pointing out the bleedingly obvious flaw in the original "free storage for cars is unfair" narrative.

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

Earl

I've been thinking about your skip.

Currently, if you are not in a CPZ, all Southwark charge you is for a skip licence costing £93.60 per month. (source https://www.southwark.gov.uk/business/licences/roads-and-highway-licences/skip-licence?displaypref=large) 

Yet if you are in a CPZ, in addition, Southwark will charge on a daily basis you to suspending a bay for the skip plus your monthly skip licence.

"Parking place suspensions are charged at £45 per day, per one car space. A one off £79 admin fee (which is non-refundable) is also charged regardless of the number of days requested for suspension. An admin fee (£79) is also payable when amending the start or end date or cancelling the suspension requested." (Sourece https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/guide-to-parking/suspension-of-parking-bays)  

Now, if you are having building work done, require a skip plus a guaranteed bay for a builder, that's an addition £90 per day inside a CPZ. 

If builders are like my sisters ones, where they have been on site over 6 months, then that's an eye watering amount to add to any building costs unless you can get the skip on your property (drive or garden) 

Is your anger over a local business worth that much to you? 

Also think about other people who will.want skips in the future and how much a CPZ will cost them compared to now? 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Spartacus

[Lebanums]

15 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It really doesn’t. You can drive and park for free, between certain hours, or for a limited time, if you’re using your car to pick something up for example. At other times you may have to pay. What you can’t do for free, is store a car on the road long term, as for that you will need a residents permit. 

I don’t know why you think that we should all pay for you to store a private car on public land?  

On my street there’s a chap operating an equipment and vehicle hire business from the street, using it to store multiple vehicles. Yet if I needed a skip temporarily I’d have to pay.

I don’t get why people think they’re is an entitlement to subsidised vehicle storage.

Of course you would have to pay for a skip. You don't own it, it is a service being offered to you. Same as a secure bike hangar, but I can park my bike for free on a bike loop.

People who own cars pay road tax, its the local level where the money gets spent on road surface repairs on country and urban roads. Similarly, it also contributes to the building of new roads, but also larger urban projects that benefit road users, like car parks and restructuring city roads. The fact the money gets swallowed up by other budgets is not the road users issue. It is to be argued by the council.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Lebanums

[Penguin68]

18 hours ago, first mate said:

Totally disingenuous EA. It is about revenue, pure and simple, why try to hide it? Again it is not storage. A bike hangar is storage. A garage is storage.

Exactly - the reason why people are prepared to pay for bike storage is that bikes are (frequently) stolen if left on the street, even when chained. As indeed are cars, which is why car owners also pay (and are quite prepared to pay) for secure car storage rather than street parking. Paying for security and paying for street parking are by no means the same thing. Actually, to balance council books, the part of the council deploying bike sheds for which they then charge the users should actually be paying a fee into the local transport budget for their use of the space, as do people hiring and 'parking' skips. With some exceptions cars (unlike building skips or bike sheds) generally do not occupy the same spaces in roads over long continuous periods (some do, of course).

[malumbu]

Cycle racks are not secure Rocks.  I've had bikes stolen from them.  Cycle hangers can also he broken into but have an extra layer of security.  However you see yourself the man or lady on the Clapham Omnibus would see you as pro car and anti bike.

Edited September 7, 2023 by malumbu

[Rockets]

Malumbu - nor is on-street parking - what point are you trying to make? At every turn you seem to be undermining, rather than supporting, the original ludicrous assertion about trying to justify charging people to use public roads to park. 

 

It's not pro-car or anti-bike - rather it's demonstrating the foolishness and flaws in the original, not well thought-out or constructed argument posited by the two-time poster @DesignThinking (see below)......come on admit it, which one of you created that account after buying and having a stab at Adobe Illustrator.....;-) I think Design Thinking should be thinking more about their designs....;-)

 

By that measure would a cycle hoop be worth what, about £15,000 - £20,000? Don't tell the council as they will want to charge for them as well!!!

 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Rockets

[first mate]

"man or lady" ?  Interesting choice of words Mal. Most would say man or woman.

Nothing is secure when parked on the street, many cars are stolen or vandalised, as you know. Storage which must be paid for may be a bit more secure. But seems clear that car owners will be required to subsidise that storage or, as you have suggested, pay for free, secure bike storage.

Quite how you conclude that someone who is a self-professed cyclist is anti cycling is quite a leap.

[Penguin68]

The £8.7k figure is of course for built land, or land with planning permission, specifically not what roads are priced at. And reflects purchase for ownership! 

This doesn't even qualify as a half truth, and, if an ad, would be in breach of Advertising Standards. Luckily political advertising, which is recognised as hyperbole and sham, is broadly exempt. 

[Spartacus]

Malumbu quietly removes bricks from roads where an extention was  to be built to add 87k to flat price.

"If it wasn't for those meddling kids I would have gotten away with it"  is all people can hear being mumbled 

 

 

[malumbu]

According to Peter Skellern, lady and man are appropriate gender specific terms.  Happy to hear of a gender fluid equivalent to the person on the Clapham Omnibus.  Well that probably is the appropriate term.

[first mate]

Actually that did make me laugh. But, I think you need to get a bit more with it, Mal. Of course, you may have had another career as a DJ of a certain type and vintage, where you only ever refer to women as laaaydeeez.

Edited September 7, 2023 by first mate

[CPR Dave]

Do these morons really think they can build houses in the middle of the f***ing roads???

Edited September 7, 2023 by CPR Dave
Sorry, thought there was a bad words filter.

[Spartacus]

16 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

Do these morons really think they can build houses in the middle of the f***ing roads???

They have already started by building small huts.

🤔🤣🤣

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 06/09/2023 at 20:01, Spartacus said:

Earl, you seem to have a particular axe to grind there and as a result you want to make everyone suffer just to stop a business that's operating nearby.

No 'axe to grind', it's just an example to illustrate a point. There is no 'anger' on my part (I'm not CPR Dave), the issue is not with a commercial hire business operating from the road per se (there are also lot's of people with two or more private cars), it's just illustrative of what is the problem - the unsustainable use of a scarce resource, without restriction, and with no expectation that the owners of those vehicles contribute to the cost / opportunity cost of storage. There is no other large, privately owned item that you can just store long term, on public land, completely free.

18 hours ago, Spartacus said:

They have already started by building small huts.

🤔🤣🤣

Hmm, a large metal box kept on the road. Where have I seen that before? You have to pay for this one. If you put wheels on it, instead of in it, perhaps it would be free.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

If it had wheels on it it would not need to be kept in the same place all the time, potentially freeing up that space for use by others, at times.

As it is, it seems that car owners will be subsidising/ paying for these permanent structures to be on the street.

[Earl Aelfheah]

42 minutes ago, first mate said:

If it had wheels on it it would not need to be kept in the same place all the time, potentially freeing up that space for use by others, at times.

As it is, it seems that car owners will be subsidising/ paying for these permanent structures to be on the street.

But it could stay stationary. Just as most cars do, for at least 95% of the time on average.

Bike hangers can fit 6 vehicles in them and they take up less room than a single occupancy Range Rover.

They also don't cause thousands of road injuries and deaths, don't add to pollution and the health impacts that causes, or to climate change, or encourage inactivity and obesity. In other words, they don't externalise their costs on others.

Users of bike hangers do pay a fee for the space they use by the way - exactly what the owners of motorised metal boxes consider an outrageous imposition.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl - your statement on not adding pollution is a complete fallacy as they will create pollution when they are created. This narrative we hear about "pollution-free" solutions is utter nonsense as anything that is made (like these bike hangars) will have a detrimental environmental impact. It's like when people say Lime bikes are pollution free...well expect for when they were made or when they were charged or when you brake or accelerate using the motor. Of course, it's less than a car belching out fumes but don't kid yourself that the infrastructure built to support your POV "don't add pollution".

 

The overall argument of people trying to justify CPZs on the basis of the space cars take on the public realm is as flawed as it is blinkered as it is contradictory. But if people want to go down that route good luck to them but it only leads to a contradictory, hypocritical cul-de-sac.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Rockets