Lordship Lane pavement on a rainy day is a disgrace

[Moovart]

Widening the pavement might provide a route around a large tree but it won't prevent the impending subsidence and root damage to buildings and pavements from massive tree growing within 1.3m of Victorian foundations and water pipes.

The romantic notion that there is an original tree outside Meghan's is not supported by the photo of bomb damage on the front of Farmers.  There are no trees on that photo. 

Young Plane trees are still being planted in Lordship Lane.  I reiterate to RCH that if your neighbour did this so close to your house you would be worried about future damage to your house.  Strangely Southwark doesn't seem to worry at all about this.  

[Penguin68]

10 minutes ago, RenatoMattos said:

The council could make the pavement wider but they won't because they need the money from the fines, pure greed! 

The people who park in the 'shopping' part of Lordship Lane do so, I'm imagining (and it would be true of my experiences) because they are visiting the establishments there either to buy from them or to serve them. Removing what parking there is (taking into account length of stay and time to park restrictions) will be to undermine the shops and food outlets etc. scope to survive fiscally. Which, I'm sure, a proper socialist/ anti-capitalist regime would applaud. Keeping parking may be keeping establishments open, something which I would applaud, but hey - horses for courses.

[Moovart]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9er4dyqywo

This article from Bristol is relevant 

[Penguin68]

2 minutes ago, Moovart said:

This article from Bristol is relevant 

Only as regards 'unstable and unsafe' plane trees - which Southwark would also remove. This is ancillary anyway to removing a fountain to replace with an open retail space. Plane trees make a substantial contribution to air quality, not I notice a current argument for their retention in this debate.

[malumbu]

In deed, and addressing climate change.

A rainy day in Lordship Lane, sometimes I think it's raining all over the world...

4 hours ago, RenatoMattos said:

The council could make the pavement wider but they won't because they need the money from the fines, pure greed! 

Yes damn them for providing public services.  Maybe the American model of no sidewalks and drive in shops and services would be a better model

Edited September 5 by malumbu

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

2 hours ago, RenatoMattos said:

The council could make the pavement wider but they won't because they need the money from the fines, pure greed! 

Source: trust me, bro

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Removing what parking there is (taking into account length of stay and time to park restrictions) will be to undermine the shops and food outlets etc. scope to survive fiscally.

The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. But in any case no one is seriously proposing what you are opposing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/downtowns-cities-holiday-shopping-eliminating-street-parking-spots-boosts-retail-2023-10?amp

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692323002053?via%3Dihub

[Penguin68]

33 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. But in any case no one is seriously proposing what you are opposing.

Are you saying that all those posters who are asking for pavements to be widened (implicity and sometime explicitly by removing parking), are not serious in their proposals? I had assumed that they weren't being satirical.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 05/09/2024 at 10:49, Penguin68 said:

The people who park in the 'shopping' part of Lordship Lane do so, I'm imagining (and it would be true of my experiences) because they are visiting the establishments there either to buy from them or to serve them. Removing what parking there is (taking into account length of stay and time to park restrictions) will be to undermine the shops and food outlets etc. scope to survive fiscally. Which, I'm sure, a proper socialist/ anti-capitalist regime would applaud. Keeping parking may be keeping establishments open, something which I would applaud, but hey - horses for courses.

What waiting restrictions? Most of the parking on the East side of the lane is unregulated I believe. Much of it is being used for long term car storage, e.g.:

Reinstating the widening that was in place during Covid would improve businesses up that end of the lane imo. Narrow pavements which are difficult to navigate don't help trade.

Doing this alongside a 24 hour bus lane would also help improve bus journeys as they often have to slow to a stop to pass each other / the line of parked cars. 

I suspect the number of people who drive to Lordship Lane to shop are minimal. There aren't many parking spaces anyway. We're cramming hundreds of shoppers onto narrow pavements at weekends for the sake of probably less than a dozen spaces up the southern end of the lane, many of which are just being used for free on road storage. I would retain a few dedicated spaces for disabled drivers, maybe one or two for loading and repurpose the rest of the space to create a more pleasant shopping environment personally.

Edited September 6 by Earl Aelfheah

[Nigello]

LL isn’t wide enough for a bus lane and besides, 24/7 is a hammer/nut proposition that gladdens the heart of zealots and unnecessarily irks Mr and Mrs Joe Q Public (writes a car/motorbike/cycle-less pedestrian). 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

The “Arizona” registration plate on the pickup truck is fake. £1000 fine.

https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?registration=Mku254w&checkRecalls=true

https://www.gov.uk/displaying-number-plates

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 hours ago, Nigello said:

LL isn’t wide enough for a bus lane and besides, 24/7 is a hammer/nut proposition that gladdens the heart of zealots and unnecessarily irks Mr and Mrs Joe Q Public (writes a car/motorbike/cycle-less pedestrian). 

I’m talking about the existing bus lane, which currently only operates at certain times.

The pavements were widened during Covid and it was a great improvement. Absolutely zero reason not to reinstate it, except that it inconveniences a handful people who park their car there at the expense of hundreds to people visiting the businesses along the lane (particularly those with mobility issues). 

Edited September 7 by Earl Aelfheah

[march46]

The cars parked there rarely change, reckon it’s business owners more than customers using the space.

Agree it’s a huge shame the pavement widening wasn’t kept, it made for a much more pleasant experience as a pedestrian. 
 

Does anyone know why there are no parking restrictions outside these shops unlike the rest of Lordship Lane?

Edited September 7 by march46

[Rockets]

Was it a concession given during the original CPZ discussion as I think you are right, many spaces are taken by the business owners during working hours? They were very vocal against the measures.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Individual business owners are notorious for overestimating how many of their customers drive to their shops, and overestimate the importance of free parking to shoppers.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/354672/hochul-congestion-pricing-manhattan-diners-cars-transit

https://findingspress.org/article/24497-local-business-perception-vs-mobility-behavior-of-shoppers-a-survey-from-berlin

https://cidadanialxmob.tripod.com/shoppersandhowtheytravel.pdf

[RenatoMattos]

On 06/09/2024 at 13:32, Earl Aelfheah said:

What waiting restrictions? Most of the parking on the East side of the lane is unregulated I believe. Much of it is being used for long term car storage, e.g.:

Reinstating the widening that was in place during Covid would improve businesses up that end of the lane imo. Narrow pavements which are difficult to navigate don't help trade.

Doing this alongside a 24 hour bus lane would also help improve bus journeys as they often have to slow to a stop to pass each other / the line of parked cars. 

I suspect the number of people who drive to Lordship Lane to shop are minimal. There aren't many parking spaces anyway. We're cramming hundreds of shoppers onto narrow pavements at weekends for the sake of probably less than a dozen spaces up the southern end of the lane, many of which are just being used for free on road storage. I would retain a few dedicated spaces for disabled drivers, maybe one or two for loading and repurpose the rest of the space to create a more pleasant shopping environment personally.

 

I completely agree with you, but it seems like the greedy Southwark Council is more focused on the number of tickets they can issue to fine people!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

That doesn’t make any sense at all. If that were the case, the parking spaces would be heavily restricted - not given away for free and blocked up by dodgy trucks and vans for days, weeks or months at a time.

[RenatoMattos]

On 05/09/2024 at 10:49, Penguin68 said:

The people who park in the 'shopping' part of Lordship Lane do so, I'm imagining (and it would be true of my experiences) because they are visiting the establishments there either to buy from them or to serve them. Removing what parking there is (taking into account length of stay and time to park restrictions) will be to undermine the shops and food outlets etc. scope to survive fiscally. Which, I'm sure, a proper socialist/ anti-capitalist regime would applaud. Keeping parking may be keeping establishments open, something which I would applaud, but hey - horses for courses.

Having parking spaces outside the shops on Lordship Lane seems to benefit Southwark Council more than anyone. They offer 30 minutes of free parking, but have three parking officers patrolling, ready to issue fines the moment the time is up. On top of that, the signs are unclear or not visible to must drivers. A good example is the parking space outside Kanella, where parking isn't allowed before 10:00 AM. The number of tickets issued to drivers in the morning is unbelievable!

7 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

That doesn’t make any sense at all. If that were the case, the parking spaces would be heavily restricted - not given away for free and blocked up by dodgy trucks and vans for days, weeks or months at a time.

There was a black van parked outside Lordship Flooring for months, and I never once saw it get a ticket! After months parked outside Lordship Flooring, the van was moved to the front door of FitFor gym and stayed there for over a month as well! 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, RenatoMattos said:

There was a black van parked outside Lordship Flooring for months, and I never once saw it get a ticket!

Not sure whether you want the council to enforce parking restrictions or not have them at all. 🤷

 

[Rockets]

There was a survey of shopping habits  of Lordship Lane some years ago, produced by Southwark Council, and it focussed on where people came from to shop there. I will see if I can find it as I think car was quite high as a lot of visitors came from neighbouring (and those further afield) boroughs. 

 

[raptortruckman69]

On 06/09/2024 at 13:32, Earl Aelfheah said:

What waiting restrictions? Most of the parking on the East side of the lane is unregulated I believe. Much of it is being used for long term car storage, e.g.:

 

I prefer something a bit more modern myself but there's someone with some style.

Edited September 7 by raptortruckman69
spelling

[Rockets]

On 06/09/2024 at 13:32, Earl Aelfheah said:

What waiting restrictions? Most of the parking on the East side of the lane is unregulated I believe. Much of it is being used for long term car storage, e.g.:

A quick search revealed that that monster truck is in fact a rental vehicle and not someone's over-sized family wheels...no doubt much to the disappointment of Dulwich Roads...

https://www.bookaclassic.co.uk/ford-f150-truck-london/

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

What difference does it make if its a rental vehicle? Think you missed the point somewhere.

[first mate]

In response to Earl- Isn't the general advice from the resolutely anti car lobby that we should all use rental cars for any necessary car use? Presumably those rental cars have to be parked somewhere, whether in use or not? If more people ditch their own cars and start using rentals then there will also be more rental cars. Or are you against all car use, whatever the need?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

To call that a non sequitur would be generous.

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What difference does it make if its a rental vehicle? Think you missed the point somewhere.

Well Dulwich Roads refers to the vehicle as "taking up residence" and "appearing in the same places many days in a row" which is clearly trying to project that someone owns this vehicle (they often use such language when they see a vehicle they disapprove of) which is designed to play into the "ludicrously large vehicles clogging up our roads" narrative.

 

And you used it as an example of long-term car storage by posting this followed by the Dulwich Roads post:

On 06/09/2024 at 13:32, Earl Aelfheah said:

What waiting restrictions? Most of the parking on the East side of the lane is unregulated I believe. Much of it is being used for long term car storage, e.g.:

 

So rather than me missing the point I think both you and Dulwich Roads (who often post without thinking or researching as well) have tried to make a point without knowing the full facts. They do this all the time - never let the truth get in the way of a good story is their modus operandi on pretty much everything they post and they never correct anything when the truth emerges, happy to leave their "loose" interpretation of fact on their feed no doubt happy in the knowledge that they have "spun" the story they want their followers to believe, thus reinforcing their own ideology.

There are a million reasons why that ludicrously large vehicle, that is utterly unsuitable for our roads and no doubt an absolute pig to drive, had been parked there for a couple of days - long-term car storage was probably not one of them.

But I am sure our good friend Raptortruckman69 was salivating with envy given that a Raptortruck is the modern-day equivalent! 😉