Petition in support of CPZ

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 19/07/2023 at 19:57, Rockets said:

• According to the Southwark Dulwich Area Transport 2018 report over 60% of people in Dulwich own a car against a borough-wide figure of 42% owning a car
• According to the same report: The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

Dulwich is exactly the wealthier part of Southwark where residents own more cars and drive more miles - and yet pay nothing to keep their cars parked on the council-maintained streets where space is at a premium.

Unless new rail lines are built, PTAL scores will always be lower around here when buses are slower and less reliable - and the main reason for that around here is cars slowing buses down, and valuable street space being allocated to parking for private cars instead of bus lanes.

There's an immense amount of concern trolling on here for the effect CPZs will have on poor and disabled people - but weirdly none of the opponents have any positive suggestions on how to fix the situation, or want to increase tax on rich people more, or improve air quality for sick people, or reduce the number of private cars that are not transporting blue badge holders.

[Spartacus]

Bus lanes in court lane ? 

Now there's an idea 

[alice]

Yes if cars are slowing buses down then open car free closed  roads to the buses. Or the reverse. 

[Kurt_Lane]

57 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Bus lanes in court lane ? 

Now there's an idea 

If it can take me to Herne Hill then I’m all for it. Public transport through Dulwich is terrible and LTNs have made it worse. It’s moronic to have public transport (busses is all we really have if you don’t live near a station) choked on the south circular and lordship lane. I love cycling but it doesn’t work with large bags, or visiting elderly parents or families with kids. 

[jazzer]

So what is the purpose of car tax which driver s have to pay to drive and PARK on roads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rockets]

10 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Dulwich is exactly the wealthier part of Southwark where residents own more cars and drive more miles - and yet pay nothing to keep their cars parked on the council-maintained streets where space is at a premium.

Unless new rail lines are built, PTAL scores will always be lower around here when buses are slower and less reliable - and the main reason for that around here is cars slowing buses down, and valuable street space being allocated to parking for private cars instead of bus lanes.

There's an immense amount of concern trolling on here for the effect CPZs will have on poor and disabled people - but weirdly none of the opponents have any positive suggestions on how to fix the situation, or want to increase tax on rich people more, or improve air quality for sick people, or reduce the number of private cars that are not transporting blue badge holders.

So what you're saying is this is an attack on wealth rather than anything to do with climate change?

So by your own measure you would agree that any use of the public streets should be charged for - so if you walk or cycle?

Are people not paying for the council to maintain the streets via council tax?

[froggy]

On 19/07/2023 at 19:31, megalaki84 said:

Hi all,

If you go by this forum alone, you'd think that there is no support for the CPZ. I wanted to provide a way for people to express their endorsement of this policy to provide a more complete picture.

A minority of people in Southwark own a car but those that do have a greatly outsized impact on pollution, road accidents and climate change in one of the best connected cities in the world. It is only fair that those that cause a greater role in those issues should bear a greater cost. 

If you feel that the CPZ is a positive move by the council to improve our lives, here is one avenue to express that:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=50000040&RPID=9100964&HPID=9100964&$LO$=1

 

 

 

 

The middle-aged woman who called and asked for my signature against the CPZ was visibly shocked when I told her that I wholeheartedly supported it.  I thought she was going to collapse right on my doorstep.  The arrogance and self-righteousness of these people is puzzling.

I did consider doing the rounds with my own, pro-CPZ petition, but decided against it on safety grounds 😀

Edited October 3, 2023 by froggy

[Rockets]

Froggy - does that also suggest perhaps that the majority of other people she had been calling upon were against it perhaps?

And is your assertion that you wouldn't do the rounds with a pro-CPZ petition on safety grounds just another trope?

[froggy]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

Froggy - does that also suggest perhaps that the majority of other people she had been calling upon were against it perhaps?

And is your assertion that you wouldn't do the rounds with a pro-CPZ petition on safety grounds just another trope?

The arrogance and self-righteousness of these people is puzzling.

[Rockets]

Who, the people knocking on doors to solicit opinion on whether residents support the council's plans for the CPZs or me?

Edited October 3, 2023 by Rockets

[malumbu]

Think Froggy has got it spot on Rocks, and even if you don't agree as a discussion forum we all have the right to express a different view.   I'm hoping that my Street WhatsApp doesn't start on CPZs as it has already been infiltrated by some anti vaxer nutters, and I think it is fair to describe them as that who posted 15 minute city conspiracy theory nonsense.  More on that elsewhere.

[first mate]

Malumbu. Confused by your post. Are you saying "anti vaxer nutters" who have posted on your WA street group have also posted on your group against 15 minute cities?  What has any of that got to do with CPZ?!

Edited October 4, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

First Mate - there's a lot of tropes to unpack from that! 😉

 

My point to Froggy was that if their comment was aimed at a fellow poster then they would be falling foul of the new forum rules (which admin I commend you on as they have created a much better discussion forum as the aggressive posters seem to have been muted so well done for implementing it)

Does anyone know who was out soliciting input on the CPZs - is someone doing an area-wide survey like the ones that were done around the LTNs to help counter the council's "you all said you wanted CPZs for x hours a day as we didn't give you any option to object in our consultation"? Or was this just a resident on a particular street canvassing local opinions?

[Romnarz]

" Most of inner London has CPZs" one of the contributors  on here says.

Hmmmm- Most of inner London has amazing public transport.

This  is not the case in and around Dulwich

PS don't own a car and use my bike to get around Dulwich

I do not want to pay and watch the clock anytime I have a visitor or tradesman call. 

In many areas parking restrictions are necessary but around Dulwich that is not the case 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Romnarz

[Spartacus]

On 20/07/2023 at 12:30, malumbu said:

 Most of inner London has CPZs.  

The last poster alerted me to this.

My old man would say "if your mates were jumping off a cliff, would you?" 

Strange peer pressure type argument there malumbu 🤔 

[malumbu]

Most of inner London has CPZs.  The sun still rises in the morning and sets at night.  Workladies and workmen still ply their trade.  People still get visitors.  Oxford seems to be quite a thriving City despite quite d

raconian traffic controls introduced over the decades.  It's fundamental questions on what is done with revenue, is this an effective means of reducing traffic, what is done with freed up road space and whether it is right that car owners rent a section of the public highway.  Surely we have more intelligence and creativity simply to dismiss the concept.

[Rockets]

Zero need for CPZs across the whole of Dulwich. The council knows this and knows that the plans they just aborted did not pass the legal bar for what constitutes a proper consultation.

They will be back to try again but will struggle to make the case because Dulwich residents clearly don't want them and, perhaps more importantly, there is no need for them. Except maybe in Cllr McAshs own ward near Lordship Lane but one suspects his own political career and survival takes precedent over the ideology he is willing to try and force on other neighbouring wards.

[malumbu]

What about my points Rocks?  Any views??  Do you agree that it makes sense for cars to be standing still for most of their time?  Wouldn't it be more efficient and better for the environment if we just accessed a car when we needed it?

[Spartacus]

9 hours ago, malumbu said:

What about my points Rocks?  Any views??  Do you agree that it makes sense for cars to be standing still for most of their time?  Wouldn't it be more efficient and better for the environment if we just accessed a car when we needed it?

A CPZ just means you pay more for your car to "stand still"  it doesn't magically remove all cars from all streets 

In areas where CPZs are introduced, there is still a high proportion of people who choose to still own a car.

Your argument is nonsensical 

[first mate]

And there is a massive and inherent assumption that the majority constantly use a car when they don't need to. None of us would pay very expensive car insurance, taxes and servicing costs unless there was a real need to use a car at times. Plus in somewhere like Nunhead, there is no pressure on parking and no 'need' for CPZ. However, the council desperately ' need ' that CPZ revenue and so are absolutely determined to impose it on residents.
 

Next on the list will be a tax on wood-burners, just wait and see.

[malumbu]

Many use cars where there are reasonable alternatives.  If drivers priced car ownership in full economic terms, including purchase price and depreciation, for many with low annual mileage other forms of transport, car hire and car clubs make better economic sense.  Car ownership is not necessarily rational due to many factors - habit, status, perceived and actual convenience.  Additional costs due to being charged to rent road space whilst the car is stationary makes didly squat difference to the pocket of most car owners in the area - I'm paying more for a family theatre trip and that is the cheap seats.  There is total freedom of choice whether you have a car, and when you choose to drive it.  Measures that are introduced are to encourage you through various means to use it more 'sensibly', responsibly (that includes restrictions such as speed and alcohol consumption) and efficiently. That is to the benefit of society and the environment.

Your comment on wood burners is just daft.  Although it was pretty daft for governments over the last decade or so not to restrict them further when it was known of the health impacts.

 

 

[first mate]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Your comment on wood burners is just daft.  Although it was pretty daft for governments over the last decade or so not to restrict them further when it was known of the health impacts.

Really? Well you clearly have not listened to the various Southwark Council sessions where the matter has been raised. It was discussed at some length in one of them. There again, you don't live in Southwark so maybe do not pay so much attention to detail of what is discussed or proposed.

So given Southwark's stated reason to tax car owners via CPZ is to get them out of their cars and to rid the streets of them completely, how will that be achieved if, as you assert,

"Additional costs due to being charged to rent road space whilst the car is stationary makes didly squat difference to the pocket of most car owners in the area - I'm paying more for a family theatre trip and that is the cheap seats".

Your argument makes no sense ( I won't descend to calling it daft). At least admit the truth, the Council just need and want the dosh, however much they primp, window dress and green wash their motivation for CPZ.

[Rockets]

On 17/11/2023 at 20:48, malumbu said:

Most of inner London has CPZs. 

And therein you highlight a key flaw in your argument. Would you consider Dulwich as an inner London borough like, say Islington or Camden? Nope, not even close. And this is why Southwark have failed in their attempt to force CPZs in areas where there is no justification for them - an area where transport links are "poor". If you can't prove (or create in Southwark's case) parking pressures then CPZs are an absolute non-starter.

 

And remember, Southwark claim their "mandate" for the CPZs came from, ahem, "research" done that was conducted in the north of the borough that included a large proportion of primary school children and students. Although, let's be honest, that was a futile exercise to retrofit that "research" they realised they had no mandate for the CPZs and went scrambling to find some mention of them somewhere and tried to gerrymander it and spin it to desperately reach the legal threshold. Clearly the council's lawyers told them that wasn't good enough!

[legalalien]

Interesting report prepared for the Environmental Scrutiny Commission about whether / what steps the council can take to prevent / charge for applications for dropped kerbs / people paving over their front garden (presumably anticipated in response to roll out of CPZ zones). Answer seems to be not much can be done without risk of breaching relevant law.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s117311/Vehicle Footway Crossovers.pdf

Hopefully this heralds a new approach of taking legal advice before announcing policies.

Edited November 23, 2023 by legalalien

[Rockets]

Yes I can't help but think that the warning shots fired by the government means that councils like Southwark now actually have to play by the rules and can no longer get away with half the things they were doing before.