CPZ in Dulwich Village ward to go live on January 6

[Earl Aelfheah]

28 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha Earl....

I certainly think given their own guidance, Dulwich Village was a very strange location for Southwark to put an LTN.

Their recommendation for a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

You can keep doubling down (I have no doubt you will), but your claim that Southwark's policy is that LTNs should only be deployed in the north of the borough, is not right. You could correct your ‘mistake’.

Edited Wednesday at 17:35 by Earl Aelfheah

[march46]

Off topic much? This is a CPZ thread. 

10 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha Earl....

I certainly think given their own guidance, Dulwich Village was a very strange location for Southwark to put an LTN.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 17/12/2024 at 11:57, first mate said:

How can CPZ's distinguish between what is a necessary and unnecessary journey?

Is this a serious question? 

[Kathleen Olander]

13 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Is this a serious question? 

Yes, I would say so.........

[Earl Aelfheah]

Oh, Ok. Well CPZ's aren't sentient. So I would say that it's impossible for them to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary journeys.

[Kathleen Olander]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Oh, Ok. Well CPZ's aren't sentient. So I would say that it's impossible for them to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary journeys.

You are likely to get this thread locked as well, or is that the plan?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just directly answering a question that was (apparently) posed seriously

What is the saying… “ask a silly question….”

Edited Wednesday at 21:36 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

 

On 17/12/2024 at 17:59, malumbu said:

Very unlikely, particularly as school coaches take many cars off the road so smarter and more environmentally friendly 

You could argue of course that if families lived close to school very few children would need to be coached or driven by car to school.

Are these the same diesel school coaches that leave their engines on and idling while waiting to pick up children? Is it right they get to park for free as they bus in children from other parts of London, but local residents have to pay to park?

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

43 minutes ago, first mate said:

 

Are these the same diesel school coaches that leave their engines on and idling while waiting to pick up children? Is it right they get to park for free as they bus in children from other parts of London, but local residents have to pay to park?

 

The idling engine thing is infuriating (and an offence). Needs to be better enforced and fines issued.

[Rockets]

I notice the signage for the CPZs has gone in now...the cash registers are ringing for the council!

The extra long double yellows are following shortly too - just to help create parking pressure so they can have another go at getting an area-wide CPZ.

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The idling engine thing is infuriating (and an offence). Needs to be better enforced and fines issued.

The school has taken action and coaches do not usually leave their engines on.  One busy body (me) has called the school a couple of times to report coach drivers doing this.

Sitting idling is nuts, particularly close to children, Yet so so many drivers do it, proof that many don't care about air quality, or even mind wasting fuel and the cost of that. 

Very few if any authorities enforce this, in the first case the officer has to tell the turn the engine off and only then can issue the notice.  I've seen the police sitting there eating their takeaway with the engine running, and when you ask them to turn it off they don't reply very politely.  It was a waste of time reporting this.

I've given up.  If Nigel Havers can't get people to do this with his calm engaging voice what chance to I have.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1336700049773954

 

[Rockets]

Why do coaches and police cars sit there with the engines running? Is it just to keep warm/cool or is there some other reason?

[Earl Aelfheah]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

Why do coaches and police cars sit there with the engines running? Is it just to keep warm/cool or is there some other reason?

Sometimes it’s this. Others I suspect it’s just laziness / thoughtlessness.

Brent council install signs outside schools and other sites where idling is an issue. They also have an online form where you can report issues so they can target engagement campaigns. https://www.brent.gov.uk/environment/air-quality/no-idling-campaign

I’m not aware of Southwark doing anything in this space?

[first mate]

10 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The idling engine thing is infuriating (and an offence). Needs to be better enforced and fines issued.

And what about the permit aspect? Is it right that local residents will be charged for parking but coaches ferrying children from out of borough to school, get to park gratis? Coaches which take up the space of many cars and may also emit fumes for some time as they sit with engines idling?

[malumbu]

Laziness/habit.  There have been a few campaigns, for example on taxis in Liverpool waiting on the rank.  Essentially put a coat on in the cold rather than run your engine.  I'd add ignorance too, certainly with the cops who had no excuse, several of them sitting in the car doors open in the summer eating their takeaways with the engine running.  That is ignorance being unaware rather than rude.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

And what about the permit aspect? Is it right that local residents will be charged for parking but coaches ferrying children from out of borough to school, get to park gratis? Coaches which take up the space of many cars and may also emit fumes for some time as they sit with engines idling?

I don't have a strong view on whether coaches should need parking permits tbh, but tend to lean towards thinking they shouldn't, no. One coach probably carries what, 90 kids? It takes up considerably less room and causes less congestion and pollution than the 90 SUVs that would likely replace it if it went. Single occupancy vehicles obviously a much bigger problem, and mass transit to some extend, is part of the solution.

Edited Thursday at 09:57 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

Average vehicle occupancy has gently fallen over recent decades and is now about 1.55 for cars and vans.  There are studies of the utility of cars which is generally low, ie they do not have five people in them and are not driven for most of the time.  The opposite tends to be different for buses, in particular urban areas and hopefully the other large conurbations following the London model will improve this further,

I lived a little over a mile from my primary school at a time when many bussed in, and the rest walked.  A handful would have been dropped off.  A time when many mothers were stay at home, most would not have driven and few houses had second cars.  That's just a statement of fact rather than any sort of opinion of 'good old days'.  We'd walk home from maybe 6 or 7 in a mob, and spend the bus money on sweets, so not good for my teeth,  And Ribena for lunch compounded that.  I was 2.5 miles from secondary school, where 95% of those I went to primary school were coached, and a few cycled (I tried for a few weeks).  I never heard of anyone being driven to school.  Different days.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't have a strong view on whether coaches should need parking permits tbh, but tend to lean towards thinking they shouldn't, no.

I agree. If we are serious about becoming less dependent on car journeys then we have to facilitate other means for people to get around and if that leads to the inconvenience of having coaches parking near schools then so be it - we need a pragmatic approach. Pragmatism over idealism is the order of the day.

[Kathleen Olander]

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

I notice the signage for the CPZs has gone in now...the cash registers are ringing for the council!

The extra long double yellows are following shortly too - just to help create parking pressure so they can have another go at getting an area-wide CPZ.

Also notice there are no cost of payment indicated on the signage.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't have a strong view on whether coaches should need parking permits tbh, but tend to lean towards thinking they shouldn't, no. One coach probably carries what, 90 kids? It takes up considerably less room and causes less congestion and pollution than the 90 SUVs that would likely replace it if it went. Single occupancy vehicles obviously a much bigger problem, and mass transit to some extend, is part of the solution.

Would you like all those coaches parked on your residential road?  

[first mate]

On 17/12/2024 at 11:55, malumbu said:

CPZs discourage driving, particularly journeys that may not be necessary or can be completed by more environmentally friendly means.  Bring them on!

Moving on from my earlier (admittedly facetious) response, if CPZ' genuinely cause the majority of car users to dump their cars en masse, may we assume that councils will then stop charging those genuinely dependent on them?

The council does seem to want it both ways. On the one hand they seem to accept that many people (a bit like Malumbu and myself) need to keep a car for occasional trips which are very difficult to do in any other way, but they also claim they want to reduce or even eradicate car ownership. However, so long as they accept that cars are sometimes necessary it is a muddled position. 

If there is no bulk dumping of cars what do we conclude from that; that more people are really genuinely dependent on cars than we had thought or hoped or that the council is not charging enough car ownership tax (CPZ)? If the latter and the council is genuine in wanting to rid the borough of cars, why does it not  put the CPZ up really high, so high that people will abandon cars in their droves? After all, is it not the contention of some of you here that the majority in this part of the borough have no need of a car at all?

I also echo Penguin in asking what is the evidence that CPZ' ( plus extended double yellows that are invariably added) significantly reduce pollution - I assume this is what Malumbu means by environmentally friendly journeys? If fewer users than anticipated discontinue using their cars, driving round and round looking for spaces is hardly going to impact pollution from exhaust fumes or tires.

Edited Thursday at 13:21 by first mate

[Kathleen Olander]

@Malumbu "The school has taken action and coaches do not usually leave their engines on.  One busy body (me) has called the school a couple of times to report coach drivers doing this."

This really surprised me, which school did you contact?  The schools JAGS, Alleyns and Dulwich Coll, whenever approached by local residents, claim that the coaches are nothing to do with them, are organised by the parents, and they are unwilling to intervene!

Again why should residents pay to park in their own neighbourhood when coaches from outside the area get charged nothing to park all day every day.  I rely on public transport and the coaches parked on East Dulwich Grove are a damn nuisance and cause congestion as the road is then not wide enough for the buses, so that they have to either go on other side of road or sit idling waiting for traffic to clear in opposite direction.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

I also echo Penguin in asking what is the evidence that CPZ' ( plus extended double yellows that are invariably added) significantly reduce pollution - I assume this is what Malumbu means by environmentally friendly journeys?

There is none. There is nothing to suggest CPZs reduce car ownership. There is plenty of evidence, however, that they generate huge amounts of cash for the councils that implement them and that councils will go out of their way to create parking pressure to try and convince residents they are the right thing. The councils love nothing more than create a problem where none exists so they can charge residents more money.

Even more ironically, when Aldred & Co did a survey of the Brixton LTNs car ownership within the LTN actually increased....go figure...

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 hours ago, Kathleen Olander said:

Also notice there are no cost of payment indicated on the signage.

Would you like all those coaches parked on your residential road?  

I think the right question is: Would you prefer all of those kids arrived on your road individually by car? 

As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on it, in reality, making coaches pay for a permit isn't going to stop them parking on that road. If residents feel better knowing that a coach has to have a permit, fine, although it seems a bit weird.

The purpose of a CPZ is to partly to reduce parking stress and mass transit actually helps with that aim.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

There is none. There is nothing to suggest CPZs reduce car ownership. There is plenty of evidence, however, that they generate huge amounts of cash for the councils that implement them and that councils will go out of their way to create parking pressure to try and convince residents they are the right thing. The councils love nothing more than create a problem where none exists so they can charge residents more money.

Even more ironically, when Aldred & Co did a survey of the Brixton LTNs car ownership within the LTN actually increased....go figure...

Councils can't use CPZs for income generation, as previously explained. There use and how the money generated is used, is strictly regulated.

CPZ's aren't really aimed at reducing car ownership. Southwark say they're intended to prioritise parking for residents, short-term visitors to shops and business. I believe it's also intended to tackle concerns raised by residents about inconsiderate and unsafe parking related issues linked to local schools. 

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Even more ironically, when Aldred & Co did a survey of the Brixton LTNs car ownership within the LTN actually increased....go figure...

As pointed out previously, this thread isn't about LTNs, but just to correct the record (as I know you wouldn't wish to deliberately spread misinformation) research actually found that residents started driving less once their area became an LTN: The Impact of 2020 Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on Levels of Car/Van Driving among Residents: Findings from Lambeth, London, UK : WestminsterResearch.

Edited Thursday at 16:33 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

2 hours ago, Kathleen Olander said:

@Malumbu "The school has taken action and coaches do not usually leave their engines on.  One busy body (me) has called the school a couple of times to report coach drivers doing this."

This really surprised me, which school did you contact?  The schools JAGS, Alleyns and Dulwich Coll, whenever approached by local residents, claim that the coaches are nothing to do with them, are organised by the parents, and they are unwilling to intervene!

Again why should residents pay to park in their own neighbourhood when coaches from outside the area get charged nothing to park all day every day.  I rely on public transport and the coaches parked on East Dulwich Grove are a damn nuisance and cause congestion as the road is then not wide enough for the buses, so that they have to either go on other side of road or sit idling waiting for traffic to clear in opposite direction.

Because I phoned up reception (Alleyns) twice, and they came out and told the driver to turn their engine off

I did it with my best Nigel Havers accent and they were very impressed!

[Kathleen Olander]

@Earl Aelfheah"

Quote

I think the right question is: Would you prefer all of those kids arrived on your road individually by car? 

As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on it, in reality, making coaches pay for a permit isn't going to stop them parking on that road. If residents feel better knowing that a coach has to have a permit, fine, although it seems a bit weird.

The purpose of a CPZ is to partly to reduce parking stress and mass transit actually helps with that aim.

The kids won't be arriving by car will they, there will be a CPZ so parents will just park elsewhere.

Making coaches pay for a permit is fair, residents have to buy permits for their visitors, so why shouldn't the schools visitors pay too.

The purpose of a CPZ is to create more income for Southwark Council.