# Controlled parking zones in Lambeth



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 7, 2009)

Do you live in a controlled parking zone and, if so, what's it like?

Is it easy to get a space/permit for visitors? Do you think it's a better arrangement now, than before the controls were put in place? Can I expect the traffic wardens to be militant in their enforcement of the zone?

Lambeth council are 'considering' one for the area where I live - SW9/SE5 borders around Myatts Fields Park - the so called 'Camberwell M Zone' (it sounds like a secret military area where they keep UFOs or something ) and they are doing a 'consultation' with residents at the moment - we have questionnaires to fill out. I don't own a car and neither do any of the people I live with. If visitors or my family come to visit they can always park on the road outside my house. If I hire a car on occasion, I can also always park on the road outside. I don't see there being a problem - certainly not in the roads around my house anyway.

Someone local has mounted a campaign to get the zone introduced - probably the Calais St residents association. Personally I think it's a bit fckuing selfish to try to get the zone introduced and expect all the local car-owning residents to buy a permit (up to £200 a year) just so a few wealthy people can park their two BMWs outside their front gate. And from what I've read on here before, it looks like quite a pain in the arse to sort out a visitor's permit. There is supposedly a bit of a problem with commuter parking though, and I've got no problem with stopping people parking in my street who should be using public transport to get to work. 

What do you reckon?


----------



## fjydj (Dec 7, 2009)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Do you live in a controlled parking zone and, if so, what's it like?
> 
> Is it easy to get a space/permit for visitors? Do you think it's a better arrangement now, than before the controls were put in place? Can I expect the traffic wardens to be militant in their enforcement of the zone?



if you're not affected by commuter parking for a nearby station, residents parking is one big money raising scam that makes life miserable. You can't have friends visit unless you fork out £3 for a visitor permit or family or work vans pop over.

Every year you have to go to the "customer service centre" show them about 4 bits of id and documents; waste time traveling there and queue for an age and get stung nearly £200. Which obviously is punitive not the actual admin cost of issuing a sticker, and you can't organise it over the internet.

And then make one mistake over the badly signed bays and your car is stolen and it'll cost £300 to get it back. The wardens are a bunch of scum and will ticket and tow cars only minutes after the zones come into force.

If the scheme really was for residents only each zone would be on different one hour block to its neighbouring one eg 8-10, 9-11, 10-12 etc so all day train station parkers can't stop there but your friends and family can still visit. Residents permits would be issued at cost and no vehicles would be towed unless they were genuinely causing an actual obstruction in which case they should just be moved to a nearby space, the parking "fines" should be enouigh penalty


----------



## se5 (Dec 7, 2009)

I live in this area too and on the whole am in favour of the introduction of the controlled parking zone - I own a car so will face paying the £150-200 or whatever but I think the advantages it will bring far outweigh the cost. I am actually not affected currently as I go for weeks on end not using my car and only useit at weekends when parking is not an issue.

I am in favour of the controlled parking zone because it will make the whole area a better more pleasant place to live. And pragmatically I am in favour because all the surrounding areas have controlled parking zones so all the traffic comes and parks here.

Space in London is finite so has to be rationed in some way and to me it is right that car drivers pay for their 'right' to use the streets for parking and to pay compensation for their pollution of public areas. 

Currently the area has one of the lowest rates of car ownership in the whole coiuntry. The figure for Lambeth as a whole is something like 48% car ownership - in the area being consdered for the M parking zone the figure is likely to be much less as it is not a very rich area (move away from the streets surrounding Myatts Fields and you will find lots of council housing). And yet if you look at the figures there is a high incidence of lung diseases/ asthma etc as people suffer from the effects of vehicle pollution. 

The excess of car parking in the area also slows up the public transport - the P5 bus has a very hard job getting around the area due to the parked cars.

The area is blighted by an excess of cars during the week - just look at the number of cars parked on the streets during working days compared to the number in the evenings or at weekends. Outside the working day there are less than half the number of cars on the roads of the proposed M zone.

So where do these cars come from? Well especially at the Camberwell end lots are owned by people who park and go to work in Camberwell. If you look on the map the whole area is surrounded by controlled parking zones so people come and park for free in the proposed M area rather than pay for parking in the other areas in Southwark. Why should we have to have their cars parked on our roads all day? There is also a lot of traffic from Kings College Hospital from people escaping the parking charges in the area surrounding the hospital. Why should we be providing a free car park?

Another issue is people commuting in to central London from outer London and Kent. The area of the M zone is about as far in as you can get and park for free. In the morning on my walk to the tube at Oval I see many people parking up for the day and then getting the tube/ bus in to the centre of London. Why should we have to provide a free carpark for these commuters? 


I appreciate that some people believe that everyone should have the 'right' to do what they want but why should car drivers solely have this right'? I would love to put a bike strorage facility or cycle parking on the road outside my house but you can bet that if I tried I would be stopped even though a shed takes up less space than a car - why are motorists privileged?


----------



## se5 (Dec 7, 2009)

fjydj said:


> if you're not affected by commuter parking for a nearby station, residents parking is one big money raising scam that makes life miserable. You can't have friends visit unless you fork out £3 for a visitor permit or family or work vans pop over.
> 
> Every year you have to go to the "customer service centre" show them about 4 bits of id and documents; waste time traveling there and queue for an age and get stung nearly £200. Which obviously is punitive not the actual admin cost of issuing a sticker, and you can't organise it over the internet.



My advice based on living in another area of Lambeth with a cpz is to buy visitor parking permits and renew resident parking permits by post rather than in person - much less stressful!

And yes it is raising money - money that would otherwise have to be raised by increases in council tax etc


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

The council tried to introduce a CPZ in our area at the top of the hill and we gave them a resounding 'fuck off' even though we are plagued by commuter parking.

Why are we so badly affected?  Because less and less of the area is left as free parking due to so many CPZ's it's squeezing an increasing problem into a smaller and smaller area making the problem worse as they find 'solutions' to it elsewhere in the borough.

CPZ is not the solution.  It's a rip-off and only harms the residents, because the commuters will only find somewhere else further out to park and move the problem somewhere else where perhaps residents might be better off and more willing to fork out £200 on top of the already excessive costs of motoring to park their car (which they pay tax to use) outside their house (which they pay tax on) on the road where they live (which they pay tax to use) - which then moves the problem somewhere else again.

Lots of people seem to think 'CPZ' is the solution - but it's not, and nobody wants to consider the _source_ of the problem.

Perhaps if station parking further out wasn't so damn expensive, people would drive to their nearest station and get the train in to work.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Dec 8, 2009)

Brixton Hatter said:


> it looks like quite a pain in the arse to sort out a visitor's permit.



It is pain in the butt to sort out a 'visitor's permit' so you can move house  as of course at that stage you don't have council tax bills, proof of address etc. Plus possibly only a few days notice to sort it out. 

_Apparently_ there is also something called a 'day waiver' which costs about £5(?) that you can apply for - I have no idea how this works as I didn't know they existed until I was told by the parking geezer that that's what I should have done .

There's a metered zone at the other end of the street that I think visitors could use & just buy a ticket on the day (not much use for deliveries or moving in though).

I would love to have bike storage at street level  carrying 2 bikes down 3 flights of stairs means I don't do it as often as we should.


----------



## netbob (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> Lots of people seem to think 'CPZ' is the solution - but it's not, and nobody wants to consider the _source_ of the problem.



Too many cars?


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

No, just not enough places to put 'em.


----------



## hendo (Dec 8, 2009)

se5 said:


> My advice based on living in another area of Lambeth with a cpz is to buy visitor parking permits and renew resident parking permits by post rather than in person - much less stressful!
> 
> And yes it is raising money - money that would otherwise have to be raised by increases in council tax etc



The idea of sending important documents to Lambeth Council on the basis that they'll return them when they've finished is ridiculous.

To the original poster, get ready for a regime of harrassment, unfair fines and to be used as a cash cow in yet another way.

And finally, an admission from SE5 that the massive increase in permit costs are nothing to do with environmental costs and everything to do with balancing the books at the Town Hall.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Personally I think it's a bit fckuing selfish to try to get the zone introduced and expect all the local car-owning residents to buy a permit (up to £200 a year) just so a few wealthy people can park their two BMWs outside their front gate.



I assume they realise that even a CPZ doesn't guarantee you any parking outside your house, or in your street for that matter, unless you have private marked spaces at extra cost on top of all the permit costs?


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 8, 2009)

i've lived in a CPZ and out of one, and I'd much prefer to have one introduced.


----------



## tarannau (Dec 8, 2009)

AJ Down's bizarre laws pertaining to traffic:

1) It's cyclists rather than cars that are the major cause of congestion, with their bobbing and weaving mullarkey
2) It's not the number of cars that cause problems with parking, its about the number of spaces (notwithstanding the fact that it's a highly built up area, constrained by existing properties)
3)If a local business is generating visitors that require parking (see Iroko) suggest that it be closed down and replaced by apartments to relieve the pressure. Even if this does lead to another, say thirteen, properties all potentially requiring parking spaces too.

You've got to give him credit though - it's a position of consistent idiocy and self delusion.

FWIW I can't say living in a CPZ has made the world of difference to me. At least parking's an option now should I choose to drive - spaces tend to come up regularly, rather than being solidly occupied between 8 and 6 every working day.  I've never had a huge problem getting permits if I'm honest - by using the Lambeth rule (nothing get busy until around 10am at the earliest) I've been quite lucky with waiting times.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Dec 8, 2009)

Definitely support. 

I lived in an area where one was introduced last year. Prior to this we were squeezed by drivers from Kings, Denmark Hill rail station and Loughborough Junction station. This wasn't just about being able to park outside your own house. It was to do with the quality of the environment. Before this we were subject to cars arriving at 6 in the morning and fighting (sometimes literally) over the few gaps by the kerb. Not safe for pedestrians and local kids. Has improved the area greatly. So it's not just about the right to park outside your own house. But quality of life on the streets where we live. I was sceptical when it was introduced. Now support fully.


----------



## Private Storm (Dec 8, 2009)

I live in one and generally think it's positive. However, having to arrange visitor permits or permits for visiting workmen is a hassle. It's worth noting that workmen can get their own permits so long as they have a letter confirming the work they are doing on your property. Takes the job out of your hands.

However, there is a downside. The wardens are pure evil. OK, maybe an exaggeration, but they will try to issue tickets and have your vehicle removed at the slightest provocation. Once our permit fell off the windscreen onto the dashboard and they issued a ticket and removed the car "because they couldn't see it". Another time, a visitor came to the house, came in while I found a permit for them, and in the intervening 3 minutes or so, the wardens had raced up the street and were writing out a ticket. They'd followed him down the street, the sneaky bastards.

On the whole though, it's positive, we always have parking and there is none of the early morning fighting mentioned earlier in the thread.


----------



## se5 (Dec 8, 2009)

hendo said:


> The idea of sending important documents to Lambeth Council on the basis that they'll return them when they've finished is ridiculous.
> 
> To the original poster, get ready for a regime of harrassment, unfair fines and to be used as a cash cow in yet another way.
> 
> And finally, an admission from SE5 that the massive increase in permit costs are nothing to do with environmental costs and everything to do with balancing the books at the Town Hall.



I dont speak from any position of authority on this question - its just that we in the proposed area have had anti-cpz leaflets around saying that it is purely a tax as if that is a bad thing and I have to agree yes it is a tax but its a tax we pay for the right to own a car in London where there is more than adequate public transport available. 

I hope the council will give us some justification for the charge - they should be able to point to environmental or other improvements that the charge will bring or how much is saved on the council tax (but I fear that they wont)

And as for sending lambeth documents when I lived in the CPZ area I was initially concerned knowing the council's  ability to lose things but if you are renewing you only need to send in photocopies. And in my limited experience the Kennington Towers parking place is preferable every time to the town hall and to avoid stress avoid going at weekends or first thing in the morning!


----------



## se5 (Dec 8, 2009)

Having had a look at the Lambeth website I see that the prices of permits are at http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...BC-8FB9D167BCCB/0/EmissionsChargingRules2.pdf 

Based on this I will be paying £130 which is barely the cost of two full tanks of petrol a year and is much less than  the cost of insurance, vehicle excise duty, MOT, servicing etc which are borne by car owners every year.


----------



## tarannau (Dec 8, 2009)

To put that in context, it's  nigh on £150 a month for a garage on our estate alone.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

se5 said:


> Based on this I will be paying £130 which is barely the cost of two full tanks of petrol a year and is much less than  the cost of insurance, vehicle excise duty, MOT, servicing etc which are borne by car owners every year.



You're missing the point entirely.

It's just another, unnecessary, unjustified cost on top of the already excessive costs ot what is a basic right - car ownership.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

I'd like to see people have to pay to leave their lumps of metal on public land, everywhere. Certainly in London where there's no need to own a car, anyway.

So, yes, I would support it as a small step in the right direction.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> a basic right - car ownership.



"right"


----------



## tarannau (Dec 8, 2009)

How the fuck is car ownership a 'basic right' in a city as busy and congested as London? There simply isn't enough space for everyone to own cars, nor the need.

You're growing increasingly crackers and spouting more bollocks with every post AJ.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

People seem to assume that smoking, taking drugs and drinking alcohol are a "basic right" but they're far worse as far as I'm concerned than owning a car.


----------



## tarannau (Dec 8, 2009)

What a gibbering idiot you really are. Nobody's suggested that those are 'basic rights' here, either on this thread or beyond.

That irrelevancy aside, how do you square the idea of the 'right' of car ownership in London and the fact there patently are't enough parking space or roads to accommodate them. It's principled idiocy and a denial of reality at best.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

I never understand why it's always "punish the car owners" when the only alternative, public transport, is neither cheap, reliable, convenient or comfortable - even when travelling alone, let alone as a family, or with a load of shopping, or lengths of timber from B&Q, or 10 bags of compost from the garden centre, etc etc etc.


----------



## prunus (Dec 8, 2009)

ChrisSouth said:


> Definitely support.
> 
> I lived in an area where one was introduced last year. Prior to this we were squeezed by drivers from Kings, Denmark Hill rail station and Loughborough Junction station. This wasn't just about being able to park outside your own house. It was to do with the quality of the environment. Before this we were subject to cars arriving at 6 in the morning and fighting (sometimes literally) over the few gaps by the kerb. Not safe for pedestrians and local kids. Has improved the area greatly. So it's not just about the right to park outside your own house. But quality of life on the streets where we live. I was sceptical when it was introduced. Now support fully.



I'm in the same area, and fully agree with all of the above.  Streets look nicer too, with fewer cars on them.  And the loss of the commuter traffic prowling endlessly round the streets of a morning hunting for a space makes it much nicer.

Now if only they'd extend it to Sunday to catch the massed influx of churchgoers.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> I never understand why it's always "punish the car owners" when the only alternative, public transport, is neither cheap, reliable, convenient or comfortable



In some other UK cities this might just about hold up, but in London?

What a lot of nonsense.


----------



## tarannau (Dec 8, 2009)

Again, you're talking bollocks and not answering the question AJ - how do you square the 'right; of people to own cars and the limited space available, with the certain knowledge that more cars lead to a deleterious effect on the local environment.

Somewhere compromises have to made, even self centred simpletons like yourself can accept that

There's no reason why you couldn't hire a care or take a taxi for special hourneys like that btw - most people don't need 10 bags of compost or timber all that often.


----------



## prunus (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> I never understand why it's always "punish the car owners" when the only alternative, public transport, is neither cheap, reliable, convenient or comfortable - even when travelling alone, let alone as a family, or with a load of shopping, or lengths of timber from B&Q, or 10 bags of compost from the garden centre, etc etc etc.



Where I am the CPZ was introduced not to 'punish' the (local) car owners, but to stop incomers (commuters) driving in, parking all day while going to work from Loughborough Junction etc.  And it's worked a treat.  Frankly the £5/week or whatever it costs is a bargain to be able to park on my street, usually within 10 yards of my actual house, whereas before the CPZ the nearest space was often literally 1/4 mile away.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Again, you're talking bollocks and not answering the question AJ - how do you square the 'right; of people to own cars and the limited space available, with the certain knowledge that more cars lead to a deleterious effect on the local environment.
> 
> Somewhere compromises have to made, even self centred simpletons like yourself can accept that
> 
> There's no reason why you couldn't hire a care or take a taxi for special hourneys like that btw - most people don't need 10 bags of compost or timber all that often.



Places like B&Q can always deliver to your home anyway - although last time I needed some stuff I did it with a taxi because it was actually cheaper.


----------



## prunus (Dec 8, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Again, you're talking bollocks and not answering the question AJ - how do you square the 'right; of people to own cars and the limited space available, with the certain knowledge that more cars lead to a deleterious effect on the local environment.
> 
> Somewhere compromises have to made, even self centred simpletons like yourself can accept that
> 
> There's no reason why you couldn't hire a care or take a taxi for special hourneys like that btw - most people don't need 10 bags of compost or timber all that often.



For some (most?) people in London a car might not be necessary* but for me (and therefore other people in my position) it really is - I have two small children that have to be in different places at different times, many times a day at weekends, plus I need to transport my music (and other members of my groups) equipment to gigs and rehearsals and so on, in London and other parts of the country, on a regular basis, and I transport bags of compost and manure and other equipment to my allotment at least once a fortnight.  Doing all this would be impossible (time and carrying capacity constraints) by public transport and prohibitively expensive by taxi.

I don't resent paying for it though.



* 'Necessary' here means enables things that would otherwise be impossible, rather than essential for life.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

teuchter said:


> In some other UK cities this might just about hold up, but in London?
> 
> What a lot of nonsense.



You've clearly never tried travelling during the rush hour and had to stand for an hour with people invading your personal space.

That's assuming you can get on a bus, of course, and haven't had to wait for 20 minutes watching them going straight past because they're full, or just not coming in the first place.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> You've clearly never tried travelling during the rush hour and had to stand for an hour with people invading your personal space.
> 
> That's assuming you can get on a bus, of course, and haven't had to wait for 20 minutes watching them going straight past because they're full, or just not coming in the first place.



Ah now I see - it all makes sense. Public transport in London is overcrowded in the rush hour, and you want everyone to go by car instead, to relieve the congestion.

Why didn't TfL think of this


----------



## tarannau (Dec 8, 2009)

Some times its worth engaging people in reasoned argument, putting across sensible points that may persuade others.

In this case I find it easier to portray AJDown as a selfish moron, unable to grasp that his 'me me me' approach is not a sustainable way of ensuring a healthy city with a decent flow of people.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Some times its worth engaging people in reasoned argument, putting across sensible points that may persuade others.
> 
> In this case I find it easier to portray AJDown as a selfish moron, unable to grasp that his 'me me me' approach is not a sustainable way of ensuring a healthy city with a decent flow of people.



Thank you for admitting that you completely fail to provide a coherent, reasoned, justified argument and you're just fallling for the same propaganda that all the other lefties sprout.

I bet you painted your hand blue at the weekend, didn't you?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> a coherent, reasoned, justified argument



How about you set a good example and provide one yourself, then.


----------



## prunus (Dec 8, 2009)

teuchter said:


> How about you set a good example and provide one yourself, then.



Ahem:



prunus said:


> For some (most?) people in London a car might not be necessary* but for me (and therefore other people in my position) it really is - I have two small children that have to be in different places at different times, many times a day at weekends, plus I need to transport my music (and other members of my groups) equipment to gigs and rehearsals and so on, in London and other parts of the country, on a regular basis, and I transport bags of compost and manure and other equipment to my allotment at least once a fortnight.  Doing all this would be impossible (time and carrying capacity constraints) by public transport and prohibitively expensive by taxi.
> 
> I don't resent paying for it though.
> 
> ...





teuchter said:


> How about you set a good example and provide one yourself, then.



I disagree with ajdown on almost everything else, but I don't think that the argument that a car is totally unnecessary for people who live in London is the right one to use.


----------



## tarannau (Dec 8, 2009)

What reasoned argument will convince you AJ? You haven't even the courtesy to respond to questions on this thread, clearly avoiding talking about the simple fact that there aren't enough parking spaces or roads to sustain the 'right' of Londoners to own cars.

Do you really deserve a coherent argument with that in mind? You babble idiotic views, unlinked to reality and expect others to justify themselves with reason. Bit rich that


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

tarannau said:


> What reasoned argument will convince you AJ? You haven't even the courtesy to respond to questions on this thread, clearly avoiding talking about the simple fact that there aren't enough parking spaces or roads to sustain the 'right' of Londoners to own cars.
> 
> Do you really deserve a coherent argument with that in mind? You babble idiotic views, unlinked to reality and expect others to justify themselves with reason. Bit rich that



Yes there are too many cars and not enough spaces - but why is that?

Too many houses?

Commuting?

Immigration?

Tourists?

Laziness?

You seem to know everything, so you tell me.


----------



## tarannau (Dec 8, 2009)

Prunus - with the greatest of respect, even that isn't 'necessary'.  It makes your life easier, but it isn't necessary.

My parents were much in the same dilemma as you - long journeys to school and sports fixtures without a car - parent pools and long bus journeys were the order of the day

Equally I know a bloke with a commitment to his large allotment and no car - he does however have a bike trailer. And it's not strictly necessary for only you to drive your band round - yes, it makes life much easier, but it's not a necessity by any means.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

prunus said:


> I disagree with ajdown on almost everything else, but I don't think that the argument that a car is totally unnecessary for people who live in London is the right one to use.



Thank you for at least looking beyond "the name of the poster" and at the contents of the post - rather than the other way round, as many people seem to.

Besides, how far out do you go to count where "London car ownership is not necessary?  Just zone 1, out to zone 4, out to zone 6?  50 miles radius of London out in the country where you get one bus every other Thursday?


----------



## tarannau (Dec 8, 2009)

What are you saying then AJ? - that you concede that your earlier 'right' is actually a load of bollocks and you haven't thought this through at all? .

Well done, you have all the intellect of a pebble.  Putting the poster aside, it's a wholly stupid point and defective reasoning. And yet you want me to fill in the missing details of your reality-untroubled, demented 'car is king' vision of the future? Frankly you can take a running jump


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

prunus said:


> Ahem:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have you considered something like streetcar?

As regarding the children thing... firstly I'm sceptical that it's really so difficult to bring up kids in London without a car (plenty people manage it, as far as I can see). It doesn't cost anything to take them on the bus does it? If it's really impossible to take them to all the places you want to by public transport, then is it outrageous to suggest that you and your kids' activities should be designed to work around London's transport system rather than the other way around?

In any case - the main point about AJdown's ramblings is that he seems to be advocating the car as a means of transport for rush-hour commuting (which is a bit different, presumably, from folk carting their kids around to wherever it is that they are going).

As far as rush hour in London is concerned, suggesting that more people should go by car is surely complete madness, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> Besides, how far out do you go to count where "London car ownership is not necessary?  Just zone 1, out to zone 4, out to zone 6?  50 miles radius of London out in the country where you get one bus every other Thursday?



At least to Zone 4 probably.

I haven't spent enough time in Zone 5/6 to make a judgement about how easy it would be to be car-free there.


----------



## prunus (Dec 8, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Prunus - with the greatest of respect, even that isn't 'necessary'.  It makes your life easier, but it isn't necessary.
> 
> My parents were much in the same dilemma as you - long journeys to school and sports fixtures without a car - parent pools and long bus journeys were the order of the day
> 
> Equally I know a bloke with a commitment to his large allotment and no car - he does however have a bike trailer. And it's not strictly necessary for only you to drive your band round - yes, it makes life much easier, but it's not a necessity by any means.



I did qualify my 'necessary' to some extent   But even so, I think it can be applied here in that I absolutely would not be able to do all the things I do without the car; I don't have a spare moment as it is, and with the best will in the world car pools and public transportation (which we do use a lot a lot as well, just so you know, whenever possible in fact) do just take more time, and would therefore mean dropping some activities.  I know that that it's just an enabling necessity, not an absolute necessity, but I want to do all the things I do, so I have a car.  As I say - happy to pay for the privilege.

I know this because at the moment my car is dead and I need a new one, and I haven't been able to get to the allotment as usual for 3 weeks (that's what's been dropped)...


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

As in typical socialist mode, it seems all the 'solutions' involve a stick, rather than a carrot.

I've already explained, a more convenient, reliable public transport system that _encourages_ people to use it instead of _punishes_ them for not using it would go a long, long way.

Much of the congestion is not actually caused by amount of traffic, but rather traffic flow - roadworks for weeks on end, looking at traffic light sequencing, for example.

Weekend after weekend closure of tube lines/stations etc means a lot of people that might think "I'll get the tube to Westfield" (for example) would decide "stuff that, I'll drive instead".

Car ownership is a fact of modern life.  It's not going to go away overnight.  Forcing everyone on to bicycles is no better a solution than forcing people onto an already underfunded and overcrowded public transport system.


----------



## prunus (Dec 8, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Have you considered something like streetcar?


Yes, I look into it regularly to see how it's getting on, but pricewise it doesn't work for me yet.  I'd much prefer it if it did


teuchter said:


> As regarding the children thing... firstly I'm sceptical that it's really so difficult to bring up kids in London without a car (plenty people manage it, as far as I can see). It doesn't cost anything to take them on the bus does it? If it's really impossible to take them to all the places you want to by public transport, then is it outrageous to suggest that you and your kids' activities should be designed to work around London's transport system rather than the other way around?


Yes of course I'm very privileged, and by extension so are my children.  It's really not the cost, it's the time aspect of public transport.  Maybe you think I'm being greedy by trying to do too much (and enabling my children to do the same) - it is a possible argument, but life is short and there are so many wonderful things to do.  My car enables this, and I'm happy to pay for it.


teuchter said:


> In any case - the main point about AJdown's ramblings is that he seems to be advocating the car as a means of transport for rush-hour commuting (which is a bit different, presumably, from folk carting their kids around to wherever it is that they are going).
> 
> As far as rush hour in London is concerned, suggesting that more people should go by car is surely complete madness, wouldn't you agree?



Absolutely unreservedly.  I have never commuted into London by car, public transport is absolutely more than sufficient (and comfortable, and fast) for that when I'm not on my bike.  Personally I'd make it illegal, or (as that's going a bit far) what about a temporal extension to the congestion charge wherebay it's £50 between 7am and 11am?  Clear the bus lanes a bit I should think and raise some more revenue for them too perhaps.


----------



## girasol (Dec 8, 2009)

Saying that people don't need cars in London is just a silly generalisation.  

Young(ish), childless, able-bodied people in London don't need a car, but those aren't the only people who live in London.

Oh, let's not forget that public transport in London is one of the most expensive in the world, so a lot of the time people on low income can't even afford to use it (not saying they can afford keeping a car either, as that's quite expensive too, but just drawing attention to this fact)


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> As in typical socialist mode, it seems all the 'solutions' involve a stick, rather than a carrot.
> 
> I've already explained, a more convenient, reliable public transport system that _encourages_ people to use it instead of _punishes_ them for not using it would go a long, long way.
> 
> ...



Do you actually, really, think you know better than TfL on this?


----------



## tarannau (Dec 8, 2009)

What has socialism got to do with it? Honestly it's like a gibbering halfwit doll with only a few words or phrases, prompted by a pull string to pipe up with the same old irrelevancies.

The idea that traffic flow could be vastly improved by simple tinkering is again delusional. Even if full efficiencies were made the effect would be marginal and quickly eaten up by new traffic on the road - hey, it's everyone's right to drive after all. It again comes down to your wanting to push aside reality and plausible solutions in favour of tiresome sloganeering and selfishly dreaming of an impossible world where London's magically redesigned and depopulated overnight to allow everyone a car. You're bonkers.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Do you actually, really, think you know better than TfL on this?



Probably, actually, as I have to use the system every day.


----------



## girasol (Dec 8, 2009)

Also, a lot of people who own cars in London use them at the weekends/evenings, not for commuting (that's certainly the case with me and other people I know).


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

tarannau said:


> selfishly dreaming of an impossible world where London's magically redesigned and depopulated overnight to allow everyone a car. You're bonkers.



Why is that any different than a "car free London"?  That's equally impossible - if not more so - yet something frequently promoted by those in positions of authority.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> Probably, actually, as I have to use the system every day.



No doubt you also have extensive experience of the practicalities of co-ordinating and carrying out roadworks, and an in-depth understanding of the ways in which traffic light sequencing affects traffic flow.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> something frequently promoted by those in positions of authority.



I wish it was. It's not, though.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I wish it was. It's not, though.



So you didn't notice banning traffic - even buses -  in Oxford Street last saturday then?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> So you didn't notice banning traffic - even buses -  in Oxford Street last saturday then?



Pedestrianising one street for one day of the year = "car-free London".


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Pedestrianising one street for one day of the year = "car-free London".



First they banned traffic from Oxford Street...


----------



## ChrisSouth (Dec 8, 2009)

prunus said:


> I'm in the same area
> 
> Now if only they'd extend it to Sunday to catch the massed influx of churchgoers.



Are you? Hello then. 

Agree with the church goers. 

And the park goers in the summer.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> Car ownership is a fact of modern life.  It's not going to go away overnight.



Ergo CPZs then. Live with it. Don't wail.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

ChrisSouth said:


> Ergo CPZs then. Live with it. Don't wail.



Not necessarily.  As I already stated, the council tried to introduce a CPZ in my area, and were told where to shove it - and that's without any campaigning necessary.

My main objection is the cost involved, because it still doesn't guarantee you any convenient parking which really makes the situation no different than before.


----------



## timothysutton1 (Dec 8, 2009)

Brixton Hatter said:


> ... questionnaires to fill out ...



We had a questionnaire to fill out too. Unfortunately regarding operation times all it asked was "when does the parking problem start" and "when does it finish". Consequently they imposed parking restrictions that last all day which is unnecessary; they could have just imposed a one hour restriction in the middle of the day which would have stopped the commuters parking which was the real problem.
This sends residents a confusing message; are CPZs there to solve parking problems, or there to generate income for the council?


----------



## ajdown (Dec 8, 2009)

timothysutton1 said:


> This sends residents a confusing message; are CPZs there to solve parking problems, or there to generate income for the council?



Without a shadow of a doubt, the latter.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2009)

What's wrong with them generating income for the council?


----------



## tarannau (Dec 8, 2009)

And, it must be said, they do help with parking too. When I lived in Saltoun, there would have been next to no chance of parking without the CPZ. At least meters and restricted parking meant that spaces turned over fairly quickly


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> Why is that any different than a "car free London"?  That's equally impossible - if not more so - yet something frequently promoted by those in positions of authority.



Go on then, link to one single example of a car-free London being promoted by someone in a position of authority. Hell, link to 3 if it's so common.


----------



## se5 (Dec 8, 2009)

ajdown said:


> Without a shadow of a doubt, the latter.



Its there both to solve parking problems and improve the environment of the area and it also a tax - surely its right that the 49% of people in Lambeth who choose to own a car should pay more so that the majority do not have to pay so much in council tax? 

(stats from 2001 census- http://www.neighbourhood.statistics...003&m=0&r=1&s=1260308668422&enc=1&domainId=16)


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Dec 8, 2009)

se5 said:


> Its there both to solve parking problems and improve the environment of the area and it also a tax - surely its right that the 49% of people in Lambeth who choose to own a car should pay more so that the majority do not have to pay so much in council tax?



Interesting point but you paint as a progressive environmental tax but I don't think it's quite so simple as that.  Disallowing you're friends/family from parking outside your door seems a bit of an infringement really.  

They're trying to impose round our way on Tulse Hill.  We don't have a parking problem so it just seems a extra tax rather than solving a problem.  We've been surveyed twice and are worried because we'll be forced to accept it eventually because other roads will approve it and we'll become subsumed into a bigger plan.

As other's have said being victims of Lambeth Parking Services isn't a great future.


----------



## se5 (Dec 8, 2009)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Interesting point but you paint as a progressive environmental tax but I don't think it's quite so simple as that.  Disallowing you're friends/family from parking outside your door seems a bit of an infringement really.




I dont know about you but I dont forsee anything changing if a CPZ is introduced - my friends and family who come to visit me by car generally come at weekends and in the evenings when the cpz restrictions would not be in place. And on those rare occasions when they do come in the day 
time I would just give them a visitor's parking permit.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 8, 2009)

I'm coming round to the idea of a CPZ - i definitely agree with preventing commuter parking and i can see it would be helpful for my car-owning neighbours, who would rightly pay for the convinience. I guess from a selfish point of view it's a pain that (say) my mates couldnt just come round and park out side the house for 20 minutes, but the benefits appear to outweigh things like that.

Problem is, from reading the questionaire and from previous experience of these consultations, it's pretty clear the council strongly want CPZs everywhere. It's inevitable - everywhere is bound to be a CPZ fairly soon. Question is - is the CPZ the right solution to the problem of too many cars?

I'd like to think that 5 years of a CPZ would change everyone's driving habits and the get them cycling/using public transport instead, and then you could free up the parking again and get rid of the wardens. But I don't think my hippy wonderland will ever exist...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 8, 2009)

Apparently, when a CPZ is introduced, the number of parking spaces actually reduces because they introduce things like widened paving at junctions to stop poeple parking on corners. They also have 20 min parking bays near shops, car pool spaces (for streetcar etc,) short stay spaces for visitors etc. If they get this right then I guess it could work quite well. 

But do they have parking bays with a ticket machine where you can just rock up and pay 50p to park for an hour or whatever? It'd be much easier to have that than go through the whole visitor permit thing...but I'm not sure if I've seen them.


----------



## Ms T (Dec 9, 2009)

I don't think CPZs are because there are "too many cars", it's specifically to prevent commuters from parking on your road, then walking to the tube/train station.  There are CPZs everywhere in our area, with the exception of the Loughborough Junction end of Shakespeare Rd, which is a nightmare to drive down because of all the parked cars.  I have also noticed that the car park in Brockwell Park is permanently full because there are no restrictions.  

I don't have an objection to the principle of a CPZ, or to paying a reasonable amount for a permit.  What annoys me is the fact that a permit has trebled in price, and visitor's permits have doubled.  I would also rather have a CPZ which operated for an hour or so in the middle of the day, which would deter the commuters, but make it easier for residents and their visitors.  

Oh yeah, and Lambeth Parking Services are a nightmare, as others have said.  A couple of years ago they gave us a parking permit for the wrong "zone".  It was a miracle that we didn't get towed away - which is what happened to someone else I know who was a victim of the same mistake.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Dec 9, 2009)

Ms T said:


> I would also rather have a CPZ which operated for an hour or so in the middle of the day, which would deter the commuters, but make it easier for residents and their visitors.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> This is what we've had installed round Ruskin Park. Two hours during the middle of the day. Has worked. Also accompanied by the installation of bike racks along the pavements, better parking marking and a more tranquil atmosphere. I welcome it. And I have a car.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Dec 9, 2009)

Ms T said:


> I don't have an objection to the principle of a CPZ, or to paying a reasonable amount for a permit.  What annoys me is the fact that a permit has trebled in price, and visitor's permits have doubled.  I would also rather have a CPZ which operated for an hour or so in the middle of the day, which would deter the commuters, but make it easier for residents and their visitors.



This is what we've had installed round Ruskin Park. Two hours during the middle of the day. Has worked. Also accompanied by the installation of bike racks along the pavements, better parking marking and a more tranquil atmosphere. I welcome it. And I have a car.


----------



## billythefish (Dec 9, 2009)

ChrisSouth said:


> This is what we've had installed round Ruskin Park. Two hours during the middle of the day. Has worked. Also accompanied by the installation of bike racks along the pavements, better parking marking and a more tranquil atmosphere. I welcome it. And I have a car.



They have this system in Elm Park too - and it always seems there are loads of spare parking spaces.
My road has more conventional hours and it's made a huge difference. Before, I used to have to park two or three blocks away sometimes. Now it's never more than two or three doors away, and even with the inflated price, it equates to only a couple of quid a week.
Not far away is an area where the residents voted against, and it's always utterly crammed of cars.


----------



## hendo (Dec 9, 2009)

Why, when a CPZ is installed, does the council never survey residents to find out how satisfied they are with it? 
Because it is a tax, not a service. And it can be raised by hundreds of percent overnight without consultation.


----------



## prunus (Dec 9, 2009)

hendo said:


> Why, when a CPZ is installed, does the council never survey residents to find out how satisfied they are with it?
> Because it is a tax, not a service. And it can be raised by hundreds of percent overnight without consultation.



Not never:  Lambeth did exactly that about 1 year after ours came in, and I therefore suspect that they do it with all of them.  There's a lot of (absolutely understandable given the utter shower of shite most are most of the time) anti-council prejudice about but it doesn't do to make assumptions.

I don't know what the results were, or even if they've published them yet - have a look on the Lambeth website for "Herne Hill CPZ" if you're interested.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 9, 2009)

Ms T said:


> I would also rather have a CPZ which operated for an hour or so in the middle of the day, which would deter the commuters, but make it easier for residents and their visitors.





ChrisSouth said:


> This is what we've had installed round Ruskin Park. Two hours during the middle of the day. Has worked. Also accompanied by the installation of bike racks along the pavements, better parking marking and a more tranquil atmosphere. I welcome it. And I have a car.



sounds like this could be the answer - a CPZ for just one or two hours a day. presumably visitors/workmen etc dont need a permit outside of those hours?

but you're right though hendo, i cant imagine them ever repealing a CPZ.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 9, 2009)

According to the Lambeth website, there was a complaint that:



> Herne Hill CPZ implemented in February 2009 has caused significant displacement to the extent that streets on the border, namely Poplar Walk and branches, e.g. Dorchester Drive have been re-characterised overnight from streets with no significant parking issues to ones with acute parking intensity: parking and manoeuvring is not only unsafe but has added
> significant noise intrusion to properties not designed against this.
> Displacement is 3-fold:
> -Commuter;
> ...



To be fair, this is Lambeth's response:




			
				Lambeth Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee said:
			
		

> The Council reviews CPZ schemes after they have been implemented to assess their effectiveness and make whatever amendments are necessary. The scope of such a review depends on what issues have been identified since the scheme was implemented, as discussed with stakeholders and Ward Members. The Council committed to review the Herne Hill ‘N’ CPZ which came into force in February 2009, after six months. This commenced with a
> stakeholder meeting in July. It was noted that:
> • parking stress within the CPZ has greatly reduced, as was the intention of the scheme and
> as demonstrated in the attached submission from the questioner;
> ...


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 17, 2009)

felicitations one and all as this is my first post on this forum and i apologise for resurrecting this topic however the council have extended the deadline on the consultation process until the 22 of Jan 2010 and so the issue is still live.

Now as with the op i am undecided on the issue but i am inclined to reject the idea of cpz's on many points which i hope pro-cpz afficianado's can illuminate me on. the first regards the use of cpz's as cash cow/ now according to the puff in favour of the cpz we are told the bulk of income generated by the CPZ will be spent on enforcing the cpz . . . if i am right parking enforcement in lambeth is privatised and run by NCP which is a company that is there to make profits so it could be construed that cpz's are a corporate income stream as much as anything. related to this is the fact that support for cpz's is concentrated for the most part by the well off who have no problem stumping up the annual fee for permits especially as they are the most likely to be able to buy an electric or hybrid car but we live in an urban sprawl and conseqently a diverse community of which a large proportion are less well off families who the cpz will aflict worse than the well off even if they do not own a car as there is a charge for visitors permits . . . so forgive me for asking but this looks like a charge by which the less well off are hit disproportiately hard. i do not have the time to go into other matters here yet but maybe someone who likes the idea of cpz's could say why i should support this as i have no preconceptions about someones worth or rights as a human based on what job they do or how much they earn.


----------



## billythefish (Dec 17, 2009)

cuppa tee said:


> felicitations one and all as this is my first post on this forum and i apologise for resurrecting this topic however the council have extended the deadline on the consultation process until the 22 of Jan 2010 and so the issue is still live.
> 
> Now as with the op i am undecided on the issue but i am inclined to reject the idea of cpz's on many points which i hope pro-cpz afficianado's can illuminate me on. the first regards the use of cpz's as cash cow/ now according to the puff in favour of the cpz we are told the bulk of income generated by the CPZ will be spent on enforcing the cpz . . . if i am right parking enforcement in lambeth is privatised and run by NCP which is a company that is there to make profits so it could be construed that cpz's are a corporate income stream as much as anything. related to this is the fact that support for cpz's is concentrated for the most part by the well off who have no problem stumping up the annual fee for permits especially as they are the most likely to be able to buy an electric or hybrid car but we live in an urban sprawl and conseqently a diverse community of which a large proportion are less well off families who the cpz will aflict worse than the well off even if they do not own a car as there is a charge for visitors permits . . . so forgive me for asking but this looks like a charge by which the less well off are hit disproportiately hard. i do not have the time to go into other matters here yet but maybe someone who likes the idea of cpz's could say why i should support this as i have no preconceptions about someones worth or rights as a human based on what job they do or how much they earn.



I would argue that most of the well off are the ones that can afford a car in the first place.
The cost of a permit breaks down to just a couple of quid a week. This is a drop in the ocean compared to the other costs involved in running my car. Then I remember the nightmare for parking that this street used to be before the CPZ was brought in and from this consumer's point of view I consider it well worth the payment.
I hate the idea of the fee going to line someone's pocket and profiteering from it - but the end result is that I can always park a few doors from my home rather than several blocks away.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2009)

If you're going to object to CPZs being introduced on the basis that their administration is going to be carried out by a private contractor - then you should also object to the provision of all the other council functions that are contracted out, like refuse disposal and loads of other things.

Speaking as someone who believes that no-one needs a car in Lambeth, and that car ownership is therefore a luxury... I'm not too bothered whether CPZs are implemented or not, as long as they are not costing the council any money. If they are bringing the council revenue, I'd see that as a positive.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Dec 17, 2009)

Teuchter, car use will always cost the council money - in bus subsidies*

The busses would be much more efficient if there were no cars. They would be able to travel much faster, and hence carry more passengers more quickly, for almost no additional cost. More passengers would mean more fares, and therefore less subsidy.

(*OK, yes I am aware that tfl gets its money from central govermnment, not Lambeth, but my basic point is still valid)


----------



## ajdown (Dec 17, 2009)

There still won't be enough buses to provide a convenient, reliable service where you can actually get a seat, even if every car was taken off the road.

Why?  Because the bus companies are private companies whose main aim is to turn a profit, not provide the best service it can on any particular route.  

As I've said many times before, you need a carrot - ie incentive - to get people out of cars and on to public transport by it providing an equivalent or better experience than the comfort of "own car".  No 'stick', ie increased charges (on top of the already unnecessarily inflated price of car ownership) will ever work without causing resentment.


----------



## Winot (Dec 17, 2009)

ajdown said:


> As I've said many times before, you need a carrot - ie incentive - to get people out of cars and on to public transport by it providing an equivalent or better experience than the comfort of "own car".



I want a bus with a better stereo than my car.  And better music come to that.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 17, 2009)

Winot said:


> I want a bus with a better stereo than my car.  And better music come to that.



You can get crap tinny music on a mobile phone from more or less any bus going up or down Brixton Hill, from one of the schoolkids at the back of the upper deck during the school runs.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2009)

Laughing Toad said:


> Teuchter, car use will always cost the council money - in bus subsidies*
> 
> The busses would be much more efficient if there were no cars. They would be able to travel much faster, and hence carry more passengers more quickly, for almost no additional cost. More passengers would mean more fares, and therefore less subsidy.
> 
> (*OK, yes I am aware that tfl gets its money from central govermnment, not Lambeth, but my basic point is still valid)



Yup I'd certainly go along with that. I don't know whether or not CPZs can be shown to reduce car use though.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2009)

ajdown said:


> There still won't be enough buses to provide a convenient, reliable service where you can actually get a seat, even if every car was taken off the road.
> 
> Why?  Because the bus companies are private companies whose main aim is to turn a profit, not provide the best service it can on any particular route.
> 
> As I've said many times before, you need a carrot - ie incentive - to get people out of cars and on to public transport by it providing an equivalent or better experience than the comfort of "own car".  No 'stick', ie increased charges (on top of the already unnecessarily inflated price of car ownership) will ever work without causing resentment.



People like you will never be happy though; what can realistically be provided will never be good enough for you. You essentially want to be isolated from any kind of annoyance to you personally and are unable to accept that this simply is not possible, particularly somewhere like London. The only solution is for you to go in some drab suburb somewhere where you don't have to mix with too many other humans.

You can try claiming that you know better than TfL of course, and that with your guidance, by tweaking a few traffic lights and shooting all cyclists London's congestion would vanish overnight. But people will just laugh at you as usual.


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 17, 2009)

thank you for your responses here are some more questions that arise from what i have read even though noone has adressed my initial query

@*billythefish*

where do you think the cars that used to park in your manor have gone, have you heard of the term displacement ? would you say the cpz has made you more or less likely to use your car ? what do you get if you multiply £150 times the number of parking permits in lambeth ?

@*teuchter*

how would you justify the POV that none in london needs a car ?
your faith in the private sector is admirable would you extend it to cover law and order in the form of a private police force run for profit ?

@*laughing toad*

as someone who has found themselves stuck on a bus going 5mph up the brixton road because of cyclists riding in the bus lane your comment gave me the best laugh ive had all week

best regards

cuppa


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2009)

cuppa tee said:


> @*teuchter*
> 
> how would you justify the POV that none in london needs a car ?
> your faith in the private sector is admirable would you extend it to cover law and order in the form of a private police force run for profit ?
> ...



I didn't actually comment on my faith or otherwise in the private sector. Just that it wasn't necessarily a reason to object to CPZs. CPZs are one issue: private contracting of public services is another. As for my thoughts about private contracting: there are some situations where it's definitely not a good idea, and others where I don't really have a problem with it.

My POV that you don't need a car to live in Lambeth is based on my living in Lambeth for the past ten years. And yes I have taken into consideration that not everyone has the same kind of lifestyle as me.


----------



## se5 (Dec 17, 2009)

The issue for me as a local resident is people from outside the area driving in and using the proposed zone as a free car park - as I said in my earlier post people do drive in from outer London, Kent, Surrey and Sussex park their cars in the area and then cycle into or get the tube to central London. If you walk along any of the roads in the area at 8 in the morning there are lots and lots of people parking up having commuted in and who can blame  them - it is free parking which has a profound effect on local people in terms of pollution causing lung diseases and congestion which causes accidents and prevents local people from using the area. They come to the proposed cpz area because all the otehr areas surrounding it are cpzs themselves. For this reason alone I think they should introduce a cpz.


----------



## se5 (Dec 17, 2009)

teuchter said:


> My POV that you don't need a car to live in Lambeth is based on my living in Lambeth for the past ten years. And yes I have taken into consideration that not everyone has the same kind of lifestyle as me.



I agree and for those occasions when a car is more convenient there are car clubs - there are over 10 cars available within 10 minutes of where I live. And of course taxis. 

As for the cost: an extra £150 a year on top of insurance, vehicle excise duty, servicing, MOT etc isnt going to suddenly make a car unaffordable for the poorest families. And the car owning poorest families  are already likely to be paying for parking permits already - all the car parks adjacent to council blocks require permits.


----------



## se5 (Dec 17, 2009)

cuppa tee said:


> @*billythefish*
> 
> where do you think the cars that used to park in your manor have gone, have you heard of the term displacement ? would you say the cpz has made you more or less likely to use your car ? what do you get if you multiply £150 times the number of parking permits in lambeth ?



This is exactly why we need a cpz in the proposed M zone - all the surrounding areas in Lambeth and Southwark are CPZs and we get the vehicles displaced from those. If in charge I would personally impose a CPZ across the whole borough like (I think) Islington has done.

As for the cost yes a lot of it will go in enforcement but at least some will go into the central council revenue account and so the council can use it for other things thus meaning they do not have to raise so much from council tax.


----------



## billythefish (Dec 17, 2009)

cuppa tee said:


> thank you for your responses here are some more questions that arise from what i have read even though noone has adressed my initial query
> 
> @*billythefish*
> 
> where do you think the cars that used to park in your manor have gone, have you heard of the term displacement ? would you say the cpz has made you more or less likely to use your car ? what do you get if you multiply £150 times the number of parking permits in lambeth ?


Displacement? Absolutely - the roads south and east from here voted against the CPZ and are completely crammed 24/7. The best compromise seems to be that mentioned earlier in the thread where the zone is only enforced for a couple of hours during the middle of the day to deter commuters.
It's had no effect on how often I use my car. I only use it when absolutely necessary, which 90% of the time is to get me to remote parts of the countryside (rather than around the city) for both business and pleasure.
No idea how many permits have been issued, but I'd guess that most of the money goes on the small army of enforcement staff and their mopeds.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 18, 2009)

se5 said:


> The issue for me as a local resident is people from outside the area driving in and using the proposed zone as a free car park - as I said in my earlier post people do drive in from outer London, Kent, Surrey and Sussex park their cars in the area and then cycle into or get the tube to central London.



That is exactly the problem - but why make residents suffer by charging them to park where they live?  They aren't the problem, but the people guilty of causing the problem will simply displace to another street and transfer the problem elsewhere, with the knock-on effect already identified until the whole of Lambeth is a CPZ .

Unfortunately, it's exactly the sort of dumb solution I'd expect from a council with the reputation that Lambeth has gained over the years.


----------



## billythefish (Dec 18, 2009)

ajdown said:


> That is exactly the problem - but why make residents suffer by charging them to park where they live?  They aren't the problem, but the people guilty of causing the problem will simply displace to another street and transfer the problem elsewhere, with the knock-on effect already identified until the whole of Lambeth is a CPZ .
> 
> Unfortunately, it's exactly the sort of dumb solution I'd expect from a council with the reputation that Lambeth has gained over the years.


I wouldn't single Lambeth out for CPZ behaviour. They've actually been a lot slower introducing them than most councils I've experienced such as Wandsworth, Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Camden.


----------



## gaijingirl (Dec 18, 2009)

se5 said:


> all the car parks adjacent to council blocks require permits.



Just for the record (and not to detract from your general point), I live in a Lambeth council block and we don't need permits on our estate.  It's only a matter of time though I reckon.  (I don't own a car btw).


----------



## se5 (Dec 18, 2009)

gaijingirl said:


> Just for the record, I live in a Lambeth council block and we don't need permits on our estate.  It's only a matter of time though I reckon.  (I don't own a car btw).



I stand corrected - I was basing my remark on what a friend told me about her estate nearby.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 18, 2009)

ajdown said:


> That is exactly the problem - but why make residents suffer by charging them to park where they live?  They aren't the problem, but the people guilty of causing the problem will simply displace to another street and transfer the problem elsewhere, with the knock-on effect already identified until the whole of Lambeth is a CPZ .



So you accept there is a "problem"? How would you propose to solve it?


----------



## se5 (Dec 18, 2009)

ajdown said:


> That is exactly the problem - but why make residents suffer by charging them to park where they live?  They aren't the problem, but the people guilty of causing the problem will simply displace to another street and transfer the problem elsewhere, with the knock-on effect already identified until the whole of Lambeth is a CPZ .
> 
> Unfortunately, it's exactly the sort of dumb solution I'd expect from a council with the reputation that Lambeth has gained over the years.



Why is this a dumb solution? Why should inner city Lambeth provide free parking for people driving in from elsewhere?

Compare the map of Lambeth CPZs http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...20C-41E9B26742F4/0/ThematicBoroughMapCPZs.pdf

with Southwark http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_44430.pdf

and you will see that the proposed M zone stands out as the only place with free parking anywhere near to central South London


----------



## trashpony (Dec 18, 2009)

If you live on a street where you can never park within 200m of your front door, you might appreciate a CPZ. And besides, it stops people driving in short stupid distances. But I forgot that ajdown thinks being a car owner/driver is a 'right'


----------



## co-op (Dec 18, 2009)

se5 said:


> Its there both to solve parking problems and improve the environment of the area and it also a tax - surely its right that the 49% of people in Lambeth who choose to own a car should pay more so that the majority do not have to pay so much in council tax?
> 
> (stats from 2001 census- http://www.neighbourhood.statistics...003&m=0&r=1&s=1260308668422&enc=1&domainId=16)



Just a minor point in some ways but it's not "49% of people in Lambeth who own a car", it's 49% of households in Lambeth with a car (or cars) registered at an address in Lambeth. This doesn't unfortunately tell us very much about how many people really "have access" to a car (which is how the figure is often used). An example of when this info is confusing is shared houses where one person has a car (a situation I have been in, and I certainly didn't have access to it). 

More generally - it doesn't tell us what percentage of the Lambeth population "have access" to a car; my suspicion is that a pretty large number of car-owners in the borough will be - eg - young couples, meaning that only two people will "have access" to the car when the average household size in Lambeth is larger than that.

Also Lambeth has a pretty massive internal range of wealth; some wards will have car-ownership at way above the 49% level, others way below. I have never had time to really get down to ward-level analysis of car-ownership, because those figures are hard to get at but, according to The Brixton Society (who are not a bunch of be-dreadlock'd anarchists) in their "Lambeth Community Strategy Consultation Draft" (February 2004), ·       

_*"In wards such as Coldharbour, Vassall, Stockwell and Larkhall up to 89% of households don’t have a car; 

Over 80% of the borough’s pensioners and 62% of Lambeth’s lone parents don’t have a car;

Three quarters of people in employment rely on public transport to get to work."*_

Myatts Field's CPZ will almost certainly be within Vassall ward. My gess is that the "up to 89%" of households figure applies to Stockwell or Larkhall rather than Myatts Fields but it would appear that households with a car registered to them are a pretty small minority in Myatts Fields and almost certainly an even smaller proportion of the population will "have access" to those cars.

All of which is a long way round of saying that the present massive bias in favour of car-owners is not just self-defeating (there just isn't enough space), stupid ecologically and highly destructive of the social fabric of our communities, but also hugely undemocratic in areas like most of north Lambeth and they are de facto subsidised by the massive non car-owning majority.

It needs to change.


----------



## se5 (Dec 18, 2009)

co-op said:


> All of which is a long way round of saying that the present massive bias in favour of car-owners is not just self-defeating (there just isn't enough space), stupid ecologically and highly destructive of the social fabric of our communities, but also hugely undemocratic in areas like most of north Lambeth and they are de facto subsidised by the massive non car-owning majority.
> 
> It needs to change.



Exactly - very well put and thanks for clarifying the figures.


----------



## ajdown (Dec 18, 2009)

co-op said:


> in areas like most of north Lambeth and they are de facto subsidised by the massive non car-owning majority.



Why is that a problem?

I don't have children, yet my taxes go towards providing education for other people's children.

I rarely use the health service yet my taxes go towards providing healthcare for everyone else.

So when can I expect some action and/or rebates to even up my tax burden for these and the other services I'm paying for but not using?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 18, 2009)

1. Does people having children have a negative impact on the people of Lambeth as a whole?
Debatable. However, you can't stop people having children, and refusing to care for or educate the children would be unfair on the children, because they didn't have any choice in whether or not they came into existence.

2. Does providing access to healthcare to all regardless of means have a negative impact on the people of Lambeth as a whole? No. Do people have a choice in whether they become ill or not? No.

3. Does allowing unrestricted car use to those who can afford a car have a negative impact on the people of Lambeth as a whole. YES. Do people in Lambeth have a choice about whether or not to own a car? YES.


----------



## co-op (Dec 18, 2009)

ajdown said:


> Why is that a problem?
> 
> I don't have children, yet my taxes go towards providing education for other people's children.
> 
> ...



Firstly, I'm not sure if you've quite understood the logic of taxation; if it was just a question of trying to get back out exactly what you put in _*and*_ in exactly the same ratio that you used any given service there wouldn't be any point in taxation, you might as well just let people spend their money on what they want. Taxation is a means of obtaining collective social goods unrealisable by individual action. What those goods _are_ is what politics is all about.

But my point about the subsidy that the majority of non-car owning Lambethians are currently bearing is that it seems to have slipped out of political debate. Hence my trying to put it back in. All we tend to hear is the car-owning minority complaining about how their "rights" are being taken away. In fact they are routinely diverting huge amounts of space and money away from the majority. Now they may think that IS their right (you seem to think so, unless I've misunderstood you) but I'd like to see that debate carried out. Why do you think a small unrepresentative minority (with above average wealth) should be favoured in this way? What is the social gain?


Your last example - the health service - btw, is not really about in/out analysis at all. It is essentially a form of insurance. A sensible citizen would happily pay in and hope that they would never ever need it - who would want to get a whopping great illness just to square up their accounts? It's a safety net in the case of the worst.


----------



## ricbake (Oct 15, 2016)

Bump

Proposed Controlled Parking Zone Vassall Area
Informal Consultation (22 Sep 2016 - 20 Oct 2016)
Deadline for responses
ON Thursday 20 October 2016 AT 11pm

Lambeth's Parking Stress survey - June 2016   -	https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2016-Vassall-parking-survey_0.pdf

_During the survey 3,900 vehicles used 2,400 spaces

A total of two roads had parking stresses of less than 80%, and these were:  Loughborough Park Parade, and Mostyn Road.

  A total of twenty roads had parking stresses of between 80% and 100%, and these were  Akerman Road, Brief Street, Calais Street, Cancell Road, Claribel Road, Cormont Road, Frederick Crescent, Halsmere Road, Inglis Street, Knatchbull Road, Langton Road, Lilford Road, Lothian Road, Loughborough Road, Minet Road, Normandy Road, Paulet Road, Russell Grove, Templar Street, and Tindall Street. 
 A total of twenty one roads had parking stresses of over 100%, and these were:  Angell Park Gardens, Angell Road, Barrington Road, Belinda Road, Cranmer Road, Elam Street, Elliott Road, Evandale Road, Gordon Grove, Holland Grove, Loughborough Park, Millbrook Road, Moorland Road, Myatt Road, Patmos Road, Penford Road, Vassall Road, Somerleyton Road, St James Crescent, Upstall Street, Welby Street _

To take control of our streets the Council need to impose a Controlled Parking Zone. This will mean only vehicles registered to local addresses will be able to get annual permits at a cost that works out at about 35 to 70 pence per day. There will be visitor permits available to households, otherwise there will be pay and display bays.

This will remove all commuter parking - Cars left Monday to Friday by those living in CPZ areas nearby - abandoned cars - people sleeping in cars - people leaving cars here whilst on holiday - bulk parking of hire cars etc etc

I live in the middle of this free parking free for all and it is a nightmare - yes its an additional expense to have a CPZ but with control over a 1000 fewer vehicles will be coming into these residential streets for free parking every Monday morning.

This is how the responses to the 2010 survey looked - it was rejected then but a close run thing -the streets are much worse now.


----------



## ricbake (Oct 15, 2016)




----------



## T & P (Oct 15, 2016)

I suspect the reason many of such consultations don't meet with residents' approval is because of the fees Lambeth charges for resident parking permits. If the council wants them approved they should try proposing charges of £30 or £40 a year, not £160+.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 15, 2016)

ricbake said:


> Bump
> Proposed Controlled Parking Zone Vassall Area
> Lambeth's Parking Stress survey - June 2016   -	https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2016-Vassall-parking-survey_0.pdf


Nitpicker that I am I was dismayed to see Patmos Road has - in the survey - become Pathos Road. Not inappropriate once in the clutches of the Lambeth Traffic Engineers perhaps.

The other thing is this "Vassall Area" seems to be 50% Coldharbour if you ask me.

I am non-driver whose residential parking outside for maintenance was compromised long ago by controlled parking (maybe 1990?).

How then has Loughborough Road between Fiveways and Brixton Road escaped controlled parking all these years? It must be a nightmare to drive down, at least in daylight hours.


----------



## ricbake (Oct 15, 2016)

Hadn't previously noticed Patmos had become Pathos in the study -  but I understand your empathy

I believe the use of "Vassall" to describe the area is a short hand that possibly does lead to some confusion
the JMP survey report does refer/allude to the fact Vassall Area isn't Vassall Ward.

Loughborough Road at the Brixton Road end is a total disaster of inconsiderate road rage inducing drivers without a modicum of sense every morning and evening... daylight has little effect. Part of the rationale behind the trial closure at the southern end of Loughborough Road was to alleviate it

Controlled parking will improve the situation but not sort it out


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 16, 2016)

ricbake said:


> Loughborough Road at the Brixton Road end is a total disaster of inconsiderate road rage inducing drivers without a modicum of sense every morning and evening... daylight has little effect. Part of the rationale behind the trial closure at the southern end of Loughborough Road was to alleviate it
> 
> Controlled parking will improve the situation but not sort it out



The road closure did alleviate it. Particularly in the mornings and evenings.

It will not sort it out if parking - whether in a CPZ or not - is allowed on both sides of the street.

Despite this it was still opposed by residents.

When the hated road closure was in operation I saw , for the first time, an ambulance using it one morning. Going I presume to Kings.

The present state of affairs is that its a side road people use to park on + a "main" road that car drivers demand to have open as a two way street. 

Whatever the Council proposes on road use they are onto to a hiding.

The reason there has not been an outcry about CPZ zone in this area is that the Loughborough Estate has parking on the estate.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 18, 2016)

The situation has massively changed since I posted the first post on this thread 7 years ago. Vassall is one of the few places around Brixton with unrestricted parking. In 2009 there was no problem - now, the roads are chocka all day. I've moved to Ferndale now but if I was still in Vassall I would now support the CPZ.

I don't own a car btw.

It's a pain in the arse where I live now having to get visitors' permits, and my friends/family have been done plenty of times by officious parking wardens who won't even give you 30 seconds grace. But it does restrict parking to residents only (except Sundays, when our road is fucked with extra cars.)

I'd like to go further now with our road: block one end off (or the middle of the road) and introduce filtered permeability, i.e. pedestrians, cyclists etc can get through, but vehicles can't, leaving just access for residents - and no way through for rat runners. This is the future. Living streets.


----------



## ricbake (Mar 10, 2017)

Vassall Area to have controlled parking from 8.30 to 18.30 monday to friday - Should be in place by August this year.

Decision - Proposed New Controlled Parking Zones - Vassall Area | Lambeth Council


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 10, 2017)

the champagne corks will be popping tonight then..........
great to see democracy in action.........


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 10, 2017)

ricbake said:


> Vassall Area to have controlled parking from 8.30 to 18.30 monday to friday - Should be in place by August this year.
> 
> Decision - Proposed New Controlled Parking Zones - Vassall Area | Lambeth Council


Good. 

Ultimately it's good for the local roads if fewer people are driving to the area from the outskirts of London to park and then get public transport. This is what London needs.


----------



## T & P (Mar 10, 2017)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Good.
> 
> Ultimately it's good for the local roads if fewer people are driving to the area from the outskirts of London to park and then get public transport. This is what London needs.


Completely agree, a given IMO.

There is little justification for Lambeth charging residents three-figure fees for permits though. That will almost certainly be why such proposals keep getting rejected in some areas. Charge a nominal low amount like £20- £30 a year, and I'd imagine every consultation would return a 'yes' result.

Where I live in Tulse Hill we have a controlled parking zone. A few hundred yards away there is a large free parking area. The difference I've observed in both local traffic movement and availability of parking spaces is staggering. Nobody in their right mind would want to endure the extra traffic, noise, lack of parking spaces and pollution. But I can see how being asked to pay £170+ to park your car in your street (and in Lambeth it is pretty much just your street and the next street down the road, a ludicrously small permit area) will put off many people.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2017)

T & P said:


> There is little justification for Lambeth charging residents three-figure fees for permits though. That will almost certainly be why such proposals keep getting rejected in some areas. Charge a nominal low amount like £20- £30 a year, and I'd imagine every consultation would return a 'yes' result... But I can see how being asked to pay £170+ to park your car in your street ... will put off many people.


I don't think £100-odd quid is unreasonable, is it? 30p a day or something? Storing your private property on the public highway which everyone else has paid for, car owners or not...?


----------



## Smick (Mar 11, 2017)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I don't think £100-odd quid is unreasonable, is it? 30p a day or something? Storing your private property on the public highway which everyone else has paid for, car owners or not...?


Nobody is going to pay £100. I live in an area without cpz, I'd welcome it as M-F, 8-6 the road is full of commuters using Tulse Hill Station. My current car is a modern 1.2 petrol and they'd want £150 for that. The last one was a 15 year old 1.6 petrol and that would have been £260. If you can afford a new hybrid, you're ok but if you're stuck with a banger you'll pay half thecar's value to leave it outside your house. Cars don't even pollute when they're parked so why base the permit on co2?


----------



## Winot (Mar 11, 2017)

Smick said:


> Nobody is going to pay £100. I live in an area without cpz, I'd welcome it as M-F, 8-6 the road is full of commuters using Tulse Hill Station. My current car is a modern 1.2 petrol and they'd want £150 for that. The last one was a 15 year old 1.6 petrol and that would have been £260. If you can afford a new hybrid, you're ok but if you're stuck with a banger you'll pay half thecar's value to leave it outside your house. Cars don't even pollute when they're parked so why base the permit on co2?



Local authorities have had their budgets slashed by central government and local services are fucked. They are desparate to raise cash any way they can. Personally I haven't got a problem with them raising money taxing the ownership of an object that takes up public space, is polluting and congestion-causing when used, and is owned by the better off in the borough.


----------



## Smick (Mar 11, 2017)

Winot said:


> Local authorities have had their budgets slashed by central government and local services are fucked. They are desparate to raise cash any way they can. Personally I haven't got a problem with them raising money taxing the ownership of an object that takes up public space, is polluting and congestion-causing when used, and is owned by the better off in the borough.


But for those who have a car, it disproportionally taxes those who can't afford a newer one?

We never had a car before we had kids. Then we had a child and got a car, then had another child. We were doing about 2,000 miles a year and it was costing about £1,000 to keep it on the road. We sold the old one for £400 and found it difficult without it so we got another and will probably always have one. The main use is to go to Lidl in Norbury or to get out of London at the weekends.

We took the bus to the swimming pool last Saturday, walking distance for an able bodied adult, we couldn't get a seat, the bus driver jammed on the brakes, our three year old banged his head on the handrail. I wished we had taken the car.

I look back on our days without kids and a car as being idyllic. Walking where possible, being able to stop for a drink and take public transport home, no MoT, tax, insurance or dickheads scratching or breaking into it. So I understand why you might take your position. But not everyone's in the same position.


----------



## newbie (Mar 11, 2017)

Smick said:


> Nobody is going to pay £100. I live in an area without cpz, I'd welcome it as M-F, 8-6 the road is full of commuters using Tulse Hill Station. My current car is a modern 1.2 petrol and they'd want £150 for that. The last one was a 15 year old 1.6 petrol and that would have been £260. If you can afford a new hybrid, you're ok but if you're stuck with a banger you'll pay half thecar's value to leave it outside your house. Cars don't even pollute when they're parked so why base the permit on co2?


you could consider friends and tradespeople who need to park during the day.  Our CPZ is 10-12am and works perfectly well to keep commuters out without penalising visitors too much.


----------



## Smick (Mar 11, 2017)

newbie said:


> you could consider friends and tradespeople who need to park during the day.  Our CPZ is 10-12am and works perfectly well to keep commuters out without penalising visitors too much.


Someone else on here was noting that you can do pay by mobile on those 10-12 cpzs. So I could park by Herne Hill station on Carver Road, head into Victoria, set an alarm to get on to my app at 09.55, pay for two hours' parking, I don't need to put a ticket on my window. It just makes it cheaper and easier for those commuters.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 11, 2017)

newbie said:


> you could consider friends and tradespeople who need to park during the day.  Our CPZ is 10-12am and works perfectly well to keep commuters out without penalising visitors too much.


in the case of the vassal cpz the commuters who have been causing "_problems_" are mostly identified as people who work at the Camberwell Bus garage and Kings college hospital so basically people working in public services....often with anti social hours and for not much money.....they can't park nearer work because it's all CPz's.....other "problems" included desperate people living in vehicles


----------



## Winot (Mar 11, 2017)

Smick said:


> *But for those who have a car, it disproportionally taxes those who can't afford a newer one*?
> 
> We never had a car before we had kids. Then we had a child and got a car, then had another child. We were doing about 2,000 miles a year and it was costing about £1,000 to keep it on the road. We sold the old one for £400 and found it difficult without it so we got another and will probably always have one. The main use is to go to Lidl in Norbury or to get out of London at the weekends.
> 
> ...



Actually I am in pretty much the same position, down to the number of miles and number of children 

And as for the highlighted bit, any fixed tax is going to be less of a burden for the well off. It wouldn't be practical to have an income-adjusted parking rate.


----------



## newbie (Mar 11, 2017)

Smick said:


> Someone else on here was noting that you can do pay by mobile on those 10-12 cpzs. So I could park by Herne Hill station on Carver Road, head into Victoria, set an alarm to get on to my app at 09.55, pay for two hours' parking, I don't need to put a ticket on my window. It just makes it cheaper and easier for those commuters.


resident parking only, except for a couple of bays there is no pay by text or anything else.


----------



## newbie (Mar 11, 2017)

Smick said:


> Someone else on here was noting that you can do pay by mobile on those 10-12 cpzs. So I could park by Herne Hill station on Carver Road, head into Victoria, set an alarm to get on to my app at 09.55, pay for two hours' parking, I don't need to put a ticket on my window. It just makes it cheaper and easier for those commuters.


ps, is there a 2 hour limit?  don't underestimate the wardens, they do a sweep at 10.05 and 11.55 most days.


----------



## Smick (Mar 11, 2017)

Winot said:


> Actually I am in pretty much the same position, down to the number of miles and number of children
> 
> And as for the highlighted bit, any fixed tax is going to be less of a burden for the well off. It wouldn't be practical to have an income-adjusted parking rate.


But a 15 year old Merc A Class, which we had, will cost £260 to park, due to its ancient engine technology, and a brand new one will cost £110. I think it's safe to assume that the latter has the more disposable income. And the owner of the latter might do 20,000 miles per year with me doing 2,000.

I thought, having paid off the car a while back, that buses, taxis, and first class train travel for longer trips would cost the same or less, but without the heartache of car ownership. It didn't work out that way. 

Parking shouldn't be linked to emissions over a single km. They should up the duty on petrol, abolish road tax and council parking income and then distribute some of the extra petrol income to the councils.


----------



## Winot (Mar 11, 2017)

Smick said:


> But a 15 year old Merc A Class, which we had, will cost £260 to park, due to its ancient engine technology, and a brand new one will cost £110. I think it's safe to assume that the latter has the more disposable income. And the owner of the latter might do 20,000 miles per year with me doing 2,000.
> 
> I thought, having paid off the car a while back, that buses, taxis, and first class train travel for longer trips would cost the same or less, but without the heartache of car ownership. It didn't work out that way.
> 
> Parking shouldn't be linked to emissions over a single km. They should up the duty on petrol, abolish road tax and council parking income and then distribute some of the extra petrol income to the councils.


 
I agree that better and fairer systems could be devised*. But what you've suggested involves a substantial change at central government level. Ain't gonna happen. Parking permits is all the powers LAs have. 


[*I would be in favour of road user pricing for example, linked by GPS to the car, with position-based automatic speed limitation. Technologically possible and politically impossible.]


----------



## Smick (Mar 11, 2017)

Winot said:


> I agree that better and fairer systems could be devised*. But what you've suggested involves a substantial change at central government level. Ain't gonna happen. Parking permits is all the powers LAs have.
> 
> 
> [*I would be in favour of road user pricing for example, linked by GPS to the car, with position-based automatic speed limitation. Technologically possible and politically impossible.]



Just stick extra tax on petrol and diesel. More miles = more tax. It makes so more sense than taxing a cars propensity to pollute, emission level, than its actual pollution, fuel burnt.


----------



## Winot (Mar 12, 2017)

Smick said:


> Just stick extra tax on petrol and diesel. More miles = more tax. It makes so more sense than taxing a cars propensity to pollute, emission level, than its actual pollution, fuel burnt.



Yeah, I'd be in favour of that. But it's unlikely to happen. Remember the fuel duty protests? And none of the money goes to the local authorities.


----------



## ricbake (Mar 12, 2017)

Does anyone here use ant of these car club schemes?
List of car clubs in the UK | Carplus


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 12, 2017)

ricbake said:


> Does anyone here use ant of these car club schemes?
> List of car clubs in the UK | Carplus



A friend of mine does. It works well for him. Some car clubs do vans as well.

I don't know how well served Lambeth us by car clubs.

In Westminster there are loads. Including electric cars. 

Its the way forward for car use.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 12, 2017)

ricbake said:


> Does anyone here use ant of these car club schemes?
> List of car clubs in the UK | Carplus


I have used Zipcar (previously streetcar) for about 5 years. Generally always a car within 10 mins walk even at short notice.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 12, 2017)

Smick said:


> But for those who have a car, it disproportionally taxes those who can't afford a newer one?
> 
> We never had a car before we had kids. Then we had a child and got a car, then had another child. We were doing about 2,000 miles a year and it was costing about £1,000 to keep it on the road. We sold the old one for £400 and found it difficult without it so we got another and will probably always have one. The main use is to go to Lidl in Norbury or to get out of London at the weekends.
> 
> ...


You are moaning, as someone who can afford to buy and run a car, about what amounts to a couple of pounds a week. 

There are plenty of people in London who can't afford to own a car at all. Lots of them have children.

Every person in London who decides to own a car, makes things a little bit worse for everyone else in London who doesn't own a car - whether by choice or as a result of financial circumstance.

And anyone with children who decides to use a car, in particular makes things more difficult for people with children who don't own a car.

The "but I've got children" excuse needs to be thrown into the bin alongside all the other self-interested justifications for car ownership.


----------



## Smick (Mar 12, 2017)

teuchter said:


> You are moaning, as someone who can afford to buy and run a car, about what amounts to a couple of pounds a week.
> 
> There are plenty of people in London who can't afford to own a car at all. Lots of them have children.
> 
> ...


I am not sure it is an excuse, but it definitely is why I own a car. Obviously the wellbeing of my kids, and my sanity, is of no concern to the rest of London, and I accept that each additional car on the road makes the city marginally worse for all its inhabitants, but there are those much worse than parents. Lots of drivers seem to just go round and round, listening to music. Some people drive to the McDonalds drive through, then drive home again with their burgers. Some people even drive to the park to go for a run!

When you have the kids in the car, there is very little can go wrong. Compared to going to Tulse Hill station, lugging a buggy up the stairs, trying to get the kids to stand behind the yellow line, carrying your day's drinks and snacks on your back. Or getting kids on and off a bus when brain donors won't move away from the buggy area, when bus drivers think they are Felipe Massa and my kids go flying across the bus, when you're waiting at a bus stop and the bus is full. All of that shite. Give me the car any day. And I don't feel guilt about it.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 12, 2017)

I think that you've kind of ignored the point that the more parents who take kids on public transport instead of their cars, the better it is for all parents who either want to or have to take their kids on public transport. Just like the more cyclists there are on the road, the safer it is for all cyclists. The more kids who walk to school, the safer it is for all kids who walk to school.

Anyway, fair enough if you refuse to feel any guilt. We all do stuff that is ultimately driven by self interest, of course. But I also think anyone who decides to own a car in London, where it's a privilege, not a necessity, can shut up complaining about the measly amount they have to pay to park it on public land that could be used for other purposes that would benefit everyone. It's massively underpriced as it is, in my opinion. And especially in the context of current council funding shortfalls.

I keep my bike in one of those on-street hangers. There are 6 spaces and I think I pay about £40 a year. 6 x 40 = £240 so proportionately I'm paying more than twice as much as the £110 for a new "low" pollution car you mention. And I actually think what I pay is really cheap.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 12, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Its the way forward for car use.


I'd fuck cars off completely in an ideal world, signing up to some kind of yuppie utopia sanctioned by global brands so I can zip around the metropolis in a metal box is the worst of both worlds, sorry Gramsci but this is greenwash to the max.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 12, 2017)

Winot said:


> Local authorities have had their budgets slashed by central government and local services are fucked. They are desparate to raise cash any way they can. Personally I haven't got a problem with them raising money taxing the ownership of an object that takes up public space, is polluting and congestion-causing when used, and is owned by the better off in the borough.



bollocks...the money goes to the people who administer the CPZ namely national car parks ltd.


----------



## lefteri (Mar 12, 2017)

cuppa tee said:


> bollocks...the money goes to the people who administer the CPZ namely national car parks ltd.



That's incredible, so they pick up the permit fees _and_ the fines?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 12, 2017)

cuppa tee said:


> bollocks...the money goes to the people who administer the CPZ namely national car parks ltd.


Thanks to the campaigns of car owners, councils are currently banned from taking the money. That's not how it should be. But shows how ingrained car culture is.


----------



## Winot (Mar 12, 2017)

cuppa tee said:


> bollocks...the money goes to the people who administer the CPZ namely national car parks ltd.



I didn't know that


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 12, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Thanks to the campaigns of car owners, councils are currently banned from taking the money. That's not how it should be. But shows how ingrained car culture is.


depends on your perspective, I'd say it was more symptomatic of neoliberal economics but good to get confirmation.....


----------



## teuchter (Mar 12, 2017)

cuppa tee said:


> depends on your perspective, I'd say it was more symptomatic of neoliberal economics but good to get confirmation.....


Feel free to explain your perspective, whatever it is.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 12, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Feel free to explain your perspective, whatever it is.



.....thanks, but not tonight


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 12, 2017)

cuppa tee said:


> I'd fuck cars off completely in an ideal world, signing up to some kind of yuppie utopia sanctioned by global brands so I can zip around the metropolis in a metal box is the worst of both worlds, sorry Gramsci but this is greenwash to the max.



This is the kind of comment I get from some car owners. They of course want an ideal world without cars but any reforms to reduce car use ( cycle highways, road closures, CPZ etc), and they will give you reasons why they won't work or are the wrong way to go about it. But of course they are very concerned about environment. Had a van driver trying to tell me that electric vehicles are not the answer as they are quiet last week. Which makes them dangerous. He also tried to tell me that cycle highways are more dangerous than being on the road. He knew as his mate cycles and told him that.

I give up arguing. People get visceral about the right to own and drive a car.

Car Clubs are a reformist measure. They provide an alternative for those who want to have access to a car.

The reason I said it's the future is it can be part of a range of modes of transport. Paris for example has a car version of "Boris bikes". It's about reducing idea that ownership of transport is necessary. In future one could have an Oyster card to cover everything from bikes to trains.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Mar 13, 2017)

I was against the CPZ where I live Brixton/Tulse Hill when consulted a few years back. Now though, things are so bad with traffic generally anything that gets cars off the road is a good thing. I cycle through Myatt's Field and it's just stupid; there are too many parked cars and it ends up being a road block. I resent getting a permit for friends and work vehicles but I guess it's a price worth paying.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 13, 2017)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I was against the CPZ where I live Brixton/Tulse Hill when consulted a few years back. Now though, things are so bad with traffic generally anything that gets cars off the road is a good thing. I cycle through Myatt's Field and it's just stupid; there are too many parked cars and it ends up being a road block. I resent getting a permit for friends and work vehicles but I guess it's a price worth paying.



At less than £5 a day permits are not bad value though. If only the scratchies were easier to get hold of - I've often been told that I don't automatically meet the requirements and need to go through a whole host of other paperwork despite having been on the electoral role / council tax / held permits at the same address for fifteen years.



teuchter said:


> Thanks to the campaigns of car owners, councils are currently banned from taking the money. That's not how it should be. But shows how ingrained car culture is.



That's nuts.


----------



## nick (Mar 13, 2017)

Who needs CPZs?
One way that I have seen a neighbour (Tulse Hill) preserve the rights of residents to park in the street, rather than incoming commuters is:
1) Parent puts kid in car to do school run. 
2) Simultaneously the spouse pops out and puts cones in the street outside the front door
3) Parent A comes back from school run. Parks up outside the house again, removes cones and walks off to the station

What's not to like?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2017)

nick said:


> Who needs CPZs?
> One way that I have seen a neighbour (Tulse Hill) preserve the rights of residents to park in the street, rather than incoming commuters is:
> 1) Parent puts kid in car to do school run.
> 2) Simultaneously the spouse pops out and puts cones in the street outside the front door
> ...


Do you know why they think they need to drive the kid to school? Are they frightened about the kid's safety on public transport/walking or something?


----------



## nick (Mar 13, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Do you know why they think they need to drive the kid to school? Are they frightened about the kid's safety on public transport/walking or something?


Can't be sure - I have never asked them. I forget which school the child is at, so it may be an awkward journey by public transport - and I can understand the reticence to let kids cycle round the south circular.
TBH it was not so much the driving the kid bit that I was trying to comment on, it was the use of cones (apparently) to preserve their bit of pavement: It seemed a little passive aggressive / proprietorial to me.

We must all recognized that we do not own the area of street outside our home. Though I am the first to admit that I get narked if I have to park up more that 5m from the front door. first world problems heh?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2017)

It would be fun to glue the cones to the road surface while they were out.


----------



## T & P (Mar 13, 2017)

nick said:


> Can't be sure - I have never asked them. I forget which school the child is at, so it may be an awkward journey by public transport - and I can understand the reticence to let kids cycle round the south circular.
> TBH it was not so much the driving the kid bit that I was trying to comment on, it was the use of cones (apparently) to preserve their bit of pavement: It seemed a little passive aggressive / proprietorial to me.
> 
> We must all recognized that we do not own the area of street outside our home. Though I am the first to admit that I get narked if I have to park up more that 5m from the front door. first world problems heh?



While this is not very common in London, I am told that in suburbia there is a far stronger sense of entitlement regarding the parking space outside's one house. Indeed, some friends we went to visit once told us with a nervous laugh 'Ooh, the neighbour won't be happy if he sees you've parked in his spot'


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2017)

The thing about councils not being able to take revenue from CPZ permits - as far as I understand this was determined when a group of residents took Barnet council to court when they tried to increase CPZ charges. This was the campaign group (led as far as I can see by a well paid BBC lawyer):

Barnet CPZ Action: About Us

NB they were moaning about an increase from £40 to just £100. They give various reasons for their objection, most of which are very familiar to anyone following car-owner campaigns and can be easily countered, but an interesting one is this:

_It will encourage more off street parking destroying our streets and damaging the environment with more hard landscape.
_
They are talking, I assume, about people paving over their front gardens to provide parking, which is a genuine problem. They are trying to play the "environment card" against measures that if they are allowed to work, can only improve the environment.

It's interesting because the statement to me, is an acknowledgement that hard landscape with vehicles parked on it does not make for a pleasant street environment. What they are saying, in effect is that they *do* want to park their privately owned cars on paved areas owned by the public, but they *don't* want to park their cars on paved areas on their own property, because it would be ugly and environmentally damaging. So they want us collectively to give up the opportunity to add trees, seating, cycle storage, cur club spaces, etc to the public realm, in order that a subset of local residents can use *all* of that space to store their privately owned vehicles. But they don't want to have to give up any of their own space, to satisfy their individual indulgences.

If people own a car, and a nice front garden, then unsurprisingly they would resent a change in circumstances that mean they had to choose between the two. They might resent having to have their *own* car sat there outside their window where previously there was open space and greenery. Maybe giving this some consideration could help such people understand why those who don't own cars might resent so much public space being filled up with cars - cars they don't own or have access to. It wasn't always like this...it's something that's crept up on us and simply become accepted, and I think it's time for us to decide we don't have to accept it.


----------



## newbie (Mar 13, 2017)

I wonder whether their environmental concerns were more along these lines?



> If an area of green space in London the size of twenty-two Hyde Parks
> were to be concreted over there would, quite rightly, be a huge public
> outcry. But when the lost green space in question is made up of front
> gardens rather than parkland, we have let this happen with barely a
> ...


https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/def...assembly-reports-environment-frontgardens.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2017)

^ yes, it's a legitimate problem. The problem exists whether the paved area on which cars are parked exists in someone's front garden, as part of a public road, or as part of a public or private off-street carpark. As a general aim, we should try and limit the amount of ground surface which is paved. The less we rely on private cars, the less land overall has to be paved. Private cars are a horribly inefficient use of space. Just look at an aerial photo of LA to see how stupid it gets if unconstrained.


----------



## nemoanonemo (Mar 13, 2017)

teuchter said:


> The thing about councils not being able to take revenue from CPZ permits - as far as I understand this was determined when a group of residents took Barnet council to court when they tried to increase CPZ charges. This was the campaign group (led as far as I can see by a well paid BBC lawyer):
> 
> Barnet CPZ Action: About Us
> 
> ...



I think that a street is greatly diminished when green front gardens are replaced by hard standing for cars. 

Can't the council charge an annual dropped kerb fee equivalent to the cost of a parking permit? After all, doesn't a dropped kerb automatically reserve an area of road space for the exclusive use of a resident. 

Fortunately, in my road the front yards are too small to be converted. In the next road, the gardens are a little bigger. These are gradually being replaced, frequently with spaces that are too small for the oversized motors that overhang the public footpath.


----------



## newbie (Mar 13, 2017)

teuchter said:


> ^ yes, it's a legitimate problem. The problem exists whether the paved area on which cars are parked exists in someone's front garden, as part of a public road, or as part of a public or private off-street carpark.


When roads are built they have drainage arrangements calculated to remove the surface water that they collect.  That drainage is not increased when residents pave their front gardens, so a problem is created which did not previously exist.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2017)

newbie said:


> When roads are built they have drainage arrangements calculated to remove the surface water that they collect.  That drainage is not increased when residents pave their front gardens, so a problem is created which did not previously exist.



As far as I understand it, the issues are not so much to do with the local drainage systems in the street itself, but the fact that these drainage systems ultimately all discharge into main Victorian sewers that weren't built based on a calculation that could take into account the amount of paved area we have now. They are already overloaded, as evidenced by the fact that they often overflow.

It's also possible (and in theory mandatory) to make paving in front gardens permeable, so that the water soaks through instead of discharging into the public drains.

You could well argue that installing permeable paving in all front gardens, and then replacing an equivalent area of on-street parking space with planting, would be a way of reducing load on existing sewerage.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2017)

nemoanonemo said:


> Can't the council charge an annual dropped kerb fee equivalent to the cost of a parking permit? After all, doesn't a dropped kerb automatically reserve an area of road space for the exclusive use of a resident.



yes, I think their argument is a bit of a red herring in reality for the reason you give.

I doubt an increase in the CPZ charge would actually lead to lots of people paving their front garden, again for the reason you give. It requires planning permission in any case, I think.

My point was that their thinking illustrates that actually they recognise the undesirability of giving over street space to car parking. An issue that can be effectively resolved by charging for parking permits. Their argument doesn't make sense because they aren't accepting that they are being given special privilege over the use of collectively owned space, but moaning about having to pay for it.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2017)

Thinking on this I can understand why some people feel hard done by. I was in the City last week. Outside the loading bay of an office block a Lamborghini was parked. Chatted to someone who was outside for a cigarette. Ended up in a conversation about how London is increasingly for the rich. Cars like this are in your face symbol of wealth. The kind of people who can afford cars like this can absorb any extra costs of car ownership in London.

I do think that policies to reduce car ownership need to go along with hammering the rich scum who flaunt there wealth in London. Live and let live tolerance of ordinary people I chat to is decreasing. Understandably. 

It's naseauting to see the one percent welcomed in this City.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2017)

Simply bar all private vehicles (except those necessary for work) from central London (and greater London too, if I had my way) and provide car share vehicles. That would also get rid of the Lamborghinis. And the oversized SUVs everywhere.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2017)

teuchter said:


> The thing about councils not being able to take revenue from CPZ permits - as far as I understand this was determined when a group of residents took Barnet council to court when they tried to increase CPZ charges. This was the campaign group (led as far as I can see by a well paid BBC lawyer):
> 
> Barnet CPZ Action: About Us
> 
> ...



This is rich people looking after there own class interests. Dressing it up as concern for the environment.


----------



## Smick (Mar 13, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Simply bar all private vehicles (except those necessary for work) from central London (and greater London too, if I had my way) and provide car share vehicles. That would also get rid of the Lamborghinis. And the oversized SUVs everywhere.


 Car share being car club?

I've got a ten minute walk to a car club, then I drive back to the house, which is another 5 minutes, then I have to put the child seat and booster seat in, then get the kids in. That's half an hour gone before I've even left the house. Impractical.

I might as well get an Uber because they have an exemption from car seat rules. But I don't see that as being any better or worse for London than a private car.


----------



## Smick (Mar 13, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Thinking on this I can understand why some people feel hard done by. I was in the City last week. Outside the loading bay of an office block a Lamborghini was parked. Chatted to someone who was outside for a cigarette. Ended up in a conversation about how London is increasingly for the rich. Cars like this are in your face symbol of wealth. The kind of people who can afford cars like this can absorb any extra costs of car ownership in London.
> 
> I do think that policies to reduce car ownership need to go along with hammering the rich scum who flaunt there wealth in London. Live and let live tolerance of ordinary people I chat to is decreasing. Understandably.
> 
> It's naseauting to see the one percent welcomed in this City.



Exactly! I read a story in the Guardian about some guy working for an Arabic multi millionaire who comes to London for the summer as it is less hot than the Middle East. He brings a fleet of exotic cars and parks them wherever he feels. They end up towed or get fines slapped on them and this guy's job was to get them back from the pound and pay the fine. Congestion charging, fuel duty, parking fines, NCP ripoff; none of it matters a jot if you've got the money. Whereas someone on the bread line gets a fine for being five minutes late in returning to their car and the resultant fine can have a massive impact on their wellbeing.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2017)

Smick said:


> Car share being car club?
> 
> I've got a ten minute walk to a car club, then I drive back to the house, which is another 5 minutes, then I have to put the child seat and booster seat in, then get the kids in. That's half an hour gone before I've even left the house. Impractical.
> 
> I might as well get an Uber because they have an exemption from car seat rules. But I don't see that as being any better or worse for London than a private car.



I don't really care if using a car club is a bit more inconvenient for you. It gives an incentive to consider other modes first (the ones which people without a car have no option but to use). Plus, once you're in your car club car, in a scenario where no private cars are allowed, your journey will be much less congested so you might even gain back some of that half hour by spending a smaller portion of your journey in traffic jams.

Car clubs are a way of dealing with the fact that there *are* some journeys for which other modes aren't practical. If everyone has access to a car club then everyone has the same level of access to transport.

I'm not a fan of uber where it undermines public transport excessively. But even if everyone who owns a car got rid of it and only ever used uber instead, it would still be a significantly more efficient use of resources and we'd need loads less parking space everywhere.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Mar 13, 2017)

Is there and easy solution to parents and kids cycling on the pavement to schools/shops etc.  I've often had a go at adults nearly knocking me off my feet only for them to point at their kids with even more bikes on the pavement to justify themselves.  I am asking as a cyclist myself, but also the daughter of 84 year old parents who are terrified of a fall.  It's a killer at that age.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2017)

Smick said:


> *Congestion charging, fuel duty, parking fines,* NCP ripoff; none of it matters a jot if you've got the money. Whereas someone on the bread line gets a fine for being five minutes late in returning to their car and the resultant fine can have a massive impact on their wellbeing.



What's your suggestion? Get rid of it all and have a free-for-all?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2017)

Smick said:


> Car share being car club?
> 
> I've got a ten minute walk to a car club, then I drive back to the house, which is another 5 minutes, then I have to put the child seat and booster seat in, then get the kids in. That's half an hour gone before I've even left the house. Impractical.
> 
> I might as well get an Uber because they have an exemption from car seat rules. But I don't see that as being any better or worse for London than a private car.



This shows there are not enough car clubs in Lambeth. Unlike Westminster where the area is covered well.


----------



## Winot (Mar 13, 2017)

Lizzy Mac said:


> Is there and easy solution to parents and kids cycling on the pavement to schools/shops etc.  I've often had a go at adults nearly knocking me off my feet only for them to point at their kids with even more bikes on the pavement to justify themselves.  I am asking as a cyclist myself, but also the daughter of 84 year old parents who are terrified of a fall.  It's a killer at that age.



Mine cycled to school on the pavement  from 6/7 and switched to the road at about 9. I cycled with them but alongside on the road. Obviously it depends on the route though. I also (tried) to drill into them that they needed to give pedestrians priority.


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Mar 13, 2017)

Winot said:


> Mine cycled to school on the pavement  from 6/7 and switched to the road at about 9. I cycled with them but alongside on the road. Obviously it depends on the route though. I also (tried) to drill into them that they needed to give pedestrians priority.


Yes, I'm pretty sure that I'd be waving my stick at them if I was 85 and they were approaching.  You being on the road isn't the solution that I was looking for, sorry.  I'm really scared for old people now just walking along the pavement with scooters and all sorts coming at them.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 13, 2017)

Looked at Zipcar club map. Central London is well covered. Once you get south of Brixton it get sparse.

Car Sharing in London – The Alternative to Car Hire and Ownership | Zipcar UK

So if people are going to get CPZ zones to discourage car use there needs to be better coverage.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Looked at Zipcar club map. Central London is well covered. Once you get south of Brixton it get sparse.
> 
> Car Sharing in London – The Alternative to Car Hire and Ownership | Zipcar UK
> 
> So if people are going to get CPZ zones to discourage car use there needs to be better coverage.



I think it's reasonable to assume that car club coverage gets sparser as car ownership gets higher as you move out of central London. I'd sort of see it the other way around: introducing measures to reduce private car usage should see improved car club availability follow.


----------



## Winot (Mar 14, 2017)

Lizzy Mac said:


> Yes, I'm pretty sure that I'd be waving my stick at them if I was 85 and they were approaching.  You being on the road isn't the solution that I was looking for, sorry.  I'm really scared for old people now just walking along the pavement with scooters and all sorts coming at them.



Well clearly it's wrong if an 84-year old is feeling intimidated on the pavement. One thing that would help would be safer roads, so that children aren't intimidated riding on them.


----------



## Ms T (Mar 16, 2017)

Councils do get the money from parking charges/fines.  

Councils made hundreds of millions in extra parking charges and fines last year, figures reveal


----------



## teuchter (Mar 17, 2017)

Ms T said:


> Councils do get the money from parking charges/fines.
> 
> Councils made hundreds of millions in extra parking charges and fines last year, figures reveal


Need to look into this more to understand what the actual rules are.

They aren't actually talking about a huge amount of money. About £700M a year for the whole country. 

Funny to read the comments on the article going on about "Marxists" being in charge of local government etc.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 17, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Funny to read the comments on the article going on about "Marxists" being in charge of local government etc.


The comment above that had "Anti-car Loons"

Telegraph comments seem like Private Eye's "From the Message Boards" re-written by old colonels!


----------



## T & P (Mar 17, 2017)

Most of us will have seen the fleet of Lambeth Council Smart cars with a telescopic camera mounted on the roof that are positioned (often illegally, incidentally) near junctions for hours at an end, monitoring traffic light compliance. I very much doubt Lambeth would bother running such scheme if they weren't allowed to keep a substantial part of the penalty charges they dish out.


----------



## Metroman (Mar 17, 2017)

I've come to this party late...*sigh* I hate having to pay this charge, its just a licence for the council to print money and has nothing to do with controlling congestion. If everyone in Lambeth had a garage then no one would pay this and the Council wouldn't implement it in the first place cos they would get no revenue

I'm also annoyed that although I live in SW2, I cannot park in the centre of Brixton as its another zone!! so would have to pay twice if I wanted to park there  its just crazy


----------



## Crispy (Mar 17, 2017)

Parking in the centre of Brixton is *supposed* to be difficult. Cry me a river.
(and I own a car)


----------



## Ms T (Mar 17, 2017)

If you live in SW2 why do you even need to park in central Brixton?  I'm in SE24 (but only just) and it takes me five minutes to get to what I consider to be central Brixton.  

I also own a car and CPZ zones are absolutely essential imho, otherwise the roads would be rammed with non-residents parking for the day and using the tube.  As it is we can rarely park outside our house -- partly because our neighbours (who are very much "old Brixton") have three cars!!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 17, 2017)

Metroman said:


> If everyone in Lambeth had a garage then no one would pay this and the Council wouldn't implement it in the first place cos they would get no revenue



Or if everyone had a jet pack.


----------



## newbie (Mar 17, 2017)

Ms T said:


> If you live in SW2 why do you even need to park in central Brixton?  I'm in SE24 (but only just) and it takes me five minutes to get to what I consider to be central Brixton.
> 
> I also own a car and CPZ zones are absolutely essential imho, otherwise the roads would be rammed with non-residents parking for the day and using the tube.  As it is we can rarely park outside our house -- partly because our neighbours (who are very much "old Brixton") have three cars!!


I had an argument on here, years ago, about whether CPZs were a modern version of the Enclosures Acts! It seems to be a topic that brings out some odd passions.  I get the sentiment that wants a completely carfree city, though I see no prospect of that being introduced in current conditions without both serious authoritarian force and substantial resistance- comfortable personal transportation is very close to the hearts of an awful lot of people, and possibly the only personal space available to some.

So in the meantime, CPZs matter, but they remain a blunt instrument based on a piece of paper in the windscreen. They'll be smarter in future, and anyway at some point autonomous vehicles will change the equation (if the car comes to you the carclub model becomes a lot more convenient, and if they're universal you'll simply order one with kids seats or mobility aids).


----------



## Winot (Mar 17, 2017)

Metroman said:


> I've come to this party late



Were you trying to find a parking space?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2017)

Metroman said:


> I've come to this party late...*sigh* I hate having to pay this charge, its just a licence for the council to print money and has nothing to do with controlling congestion. If everyone in Lambeth had a garage then no one would pay this and the Council wouldn't implement it in the first place cos they would get no revenue
> 
> I'm also annoyed that although I live in SW2, I cannot park in the centre of Brixton as its another zone!! so would have to pay twice if I wanted to park there  its just crazy


if everyone in lambeth had a garage, a large proportion of them would be council tenants and pay rent for them to the council. in addition, many, many people in lambeth don't drive and have no car so most of these garages would either be empty, sublet or used for storage.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 17, 2017)

newbie said:


> I had an argument on here, years ago, about whether CPZs were a modern version of the Enclosures Acts!



More like any arrangement with free on-street parking is a version of the Enclosures acts, because it reserves the use of common land for a select group of people (car owners). And in London, they are a minority and broadly represent the more wealthy portion of the population.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 17, 2017)

teuchter said:


> More like any arrangement with free on-street parking is a version of the Enclosures acts, because it reserves the use of common land for a select group of people (car owners). And in London, they are a minority and broadly represent the more wealthy portion of the population.



This is a slightly ridiculous argument - it'a not like we could turn the same space into a park.

And it does at least make some sense to reserve parking space for residents.

Alex


----------



## Winot (Mar 17, 2017)

alex_ said:


> This is a slightly ridiculous argument - it'a not like we could turn the same space into a park.



Have you ever seen a street cleared of cars for a street party or turned into a play street? It's shocking how much extra space there is.

Streets absolutely are public space, and when cleared of cars kids play on them just like a park.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 17, 2017)

alex_ said:


> This is a slightly ridiculous argument - it'a not like we could turn the same space into a park.



We could plant trees, greenery, provide seating. 

More car club parking.

Provide lots more cycle parking (the cycle hangars in Lambeth are oversubscribed and people tell me it can be a battle just to get one installed on their street)

Even provide some general external storage space for people's other private posessions. If someone can use the space to store their privately owned car, why can't I use it to store my privately owned lawnmower/tent/inflatable dinghy?

There are loads of other ways we could use the space.


----------



## Metroman (Mar 17, 2017)

Wait until the Government introduces road charging, this will be a fairer charge on all motorist, including those with garages!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 17, 2017)

Metroman said:


> Wait until the Government introduces road charging, this will be a fairer charge on all motorist, including those with garages!


Road charging will only address the parking issue if it includes a measure of parking usage in its calculation. Use of roads to get around on, and use of roads to park your car on, are two separate things and should be charged independently of one another.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 17, 2017)

By the way another use of the space that could be freed up by removing on-street parking: fully segregated cycle lanes and/or wider pavements.


----------



## Metroman (Mar 17, 2017)

Thanks, very true - can we have a garage tax introduced to please


----------



## alex_ (Mar 17, 2017)

teuchter said:


> We could plant trees, greenery, provide seating.
> 
> More car club parking.
> 
> ...



And where do you propose the card which currently park on the road go ?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 17, 2017)

newbie said:


> I had an argument on here, years ago, about whether CPZs were a modern version of the Enclosures Acts! It seems to be a topic that brings out some odd passions.  I get the sentiment that wants a completely carfree city, though I see no prospect of that being introduced in current conditions without both serious authoritarian force and substantial resistance- comfortable personal transportation is very close to the hearts of an awful lot of people, and possibly the only personal space available to some.
> 
> So in the meantime, CPZs matter, but they remain a blunt instrument based on a piece of paper in the windscreen. They'll be smarter in future, and anyway at some point autonomous vehicles will change the equation (if the car comes to you the carclub model becomes a lot more convenient, and if they're universal you'll simply order one with kids seats or mobility aids).



It's enclosure act for the well off. See teuchter post here 153.

To compare the enclosure acts with CPZs is an insult to the ordinary people who lost out with the enclosure acts. You hould read some history.


----------



## newbie (Mar 17, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> It's enclosure act for the well off. See teuchter post here 153.
> 
> To compare the enclosure acts with CPZs is an insult to the ordinary people who lost out with the enclosure acts. You hould read some history.


erm, perhaps my post wasn't clear, it was a point put forward by someone else, which I thought ridiculous.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 17, 2017)

alex_ said:


> And where do you propose the card which currently park on the road go ?


Away. That's the point


----------



## alex_ (Mar 18, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Away. That's the point



Where too ? Like magically disappear or round the corner to less middle class streets where people who lobby for "green streets" or whatever this is called don't live ?


----------



## lefteri (Mar 18, 2017)

alex_ said:


> This is a slightly ridiculous argument - it'a not like we could turn the same space into a park.



We could turn it into cycle lanes or wider pavements

In Tokyo car ownership is only allowed if you have an off-street parking space and there are generally no parked cars on the streets - it makes for a much nicer urban environment and is much more pleasurable to walk in than London


----------



## Winot (Mar 18, 2017)

alex_ said:


> Where too ? Like magically disappear or round the corner to less middle class streets where people who lobby for "green streets" or whatever this is called don't live ?



People will be less likely to buy cars. Gradually there will be fewer.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 19, 2017)

Winot said:


> People will be less likely to buy cars. Gradually there will be fewer.



And what happens to congested streets in the meantime ?

This thread started off with residents lobbying their councillors for something to resolve their problem that are too many cars parked on a lot of Lambeth streets so your solution is - we should reduce the amount of parking on the streets ?

How do you think this will go down with residents ?


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 19, 2017)

Winot said:


> People will be less likely to buy cars. Gradually there will be fewer.



Sad, but seeing someone use "fewer" correctly made me smile.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 20, 2017)

alex_ said:


> Where too ? Like magically disappear or round the corner to less middle class streets where people who lobby for "green streets" or whatever this is called don't live ?


What specific hypothetical situation are you asking about?


----------



## alex_ (Mar 20, 2017)

teuchter said:


> What specific hypothetical situation are you asking about?



You said 



teuchter said:


> Away. That's the point



I replied.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 20, 2017)

alex_ said:


> You said
> 
> 
> 
> I replied.


You'd said "it's not like we could turn the same space into a park" and I responded by giving lots of suggestions as to how on-street parking space could be put to other uses.

I wasn't proposing any particular strategy to get rid of the cars to achieve this; I was simply illustrating that if we can get rid of the cars there are plenty of other things we can do with the space.

I can't tell you what would happen to the currently existing cars without knowing what strategy would be pursued.

My preference would be simply to have no privately owned cars in London whatsoever. I suspect that would be too radical for your liking. There are intermediate measures which could go some way to reducing car usage and each would have different effects. There are also all sorts of different timescales over which changes could be made.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 20, 2017)

teuchter said:


> my preference would be simply to have no privately owned cars in London whatsoever. I suspect that would be too radical for your liking.



 No - perfectly happy with this suggestion, as long as there is a narrative which gets us from
"I need somewhere to park" to "I don't need a car".


----------



## Crispy (Mar 20, 2017)

Fleets of on-demand autonomous electric cars that can be stored in highly space-efficient "silos" and only go on the road when responding to a hail or taking people somewhere.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 20, 2017)

alex_ said:


> No - perfectly happy with this suggestion, as long as there is a narrative which gets us from
> "I need somewhere to park" to "I don't need a car".


Not sure exactly what you mean by a "narrative" in this context but an intermediate step between those statements almost certainly has to be "crikey I'm spending a lot of money paying to park this car".


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

alex_ said:


> No - perfectly happy with this suggestion, as long as there is a narrative which gets us from
> "I need somewhere to park" to "I don't need a car".


and takes account of the fact that there are n million people living in London all of whom are entitled to a view on their preferences for the future of personal transportation.  Apart from anything else, nobody has mention Mobility vehicles or holders of disabled badges.  

Obviously it's only a hunch, but I suspect that if there was a proper referendum, with all views properly put, there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of keeping cars.  Until the groundswell of opinion can reverse that this conversation is rather divorced from reality.


----------



## Winot (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> and takes account of the fact that there are n million people living in London all of whom are entitled to a view on their preferences for the future of personal transportation.  Apart from anything else, nobody has mention Mobility vehicles or holders of disabled badges.
> 
> Obviously it's only a hunch, but I suspect that if there was a proper referendum, with all views properly put, there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of keeping cars.  Until the groundswell of opinion can reverse that this conversation is rather divorced from reality.



Of course when asked most people vote for self interest. The way most people think is "what difference does it make if I drive my car to work - besides it's wet and I don't want to share a smelly bus". But n million people cannot each own and drive a car - London would collapse.

It's a classic reactionary tactic to look at the extreme point of change and say that there's no way we can jump from A to Z therefore it's not worth moving to B. Good leadership recognises that B is a worthwhile staging post. Once we are at B, C doesn't look so bad.

We already have policy to discourage driving into central London e.g. high parking charges, congestion zone. They were pretty unpopular when introduced too.


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

Winot said:


> Of course when asked most people vote for self interest. The way most people think is "what difference does it make if I drive my car to work - besides it's wet and I don't want to share a smelly bus". But n million people cannot each own and drive a car - London would collapse.
> 
> It's a classic reactionary tactic to look at the extreme point of change and say that there's no way we can jump from A to Z therefore it's not worth moving to B. Good leadership recognises that B is a worthwhile staging post. Once we are at B, C doesn't look so bad.
> 
> We already have policy to discourage driving into central London e.g. high parking charges, congestion zone. They were pretty unpopular when introduced too.



it's reactionary to suggest that what people want matters?  Interesting.


----------



## Ms T (Mar 20, 2017)

I used to work in an office with a large car park in West London and loads of people would commute by car. Partly because of the antisocial hours, but partly because it was generally a lot cheaper and quicker for them than coming in by train. That's bonkers, IMHO.

Now I'm in Central London and the traffic is especially bonkers at night and the pollution is off the scale.  Some people still drive and pay the congestion charge, because there is access to a car park (not very well advertised), even though we're only 5 minutes from Oxford Circus. Some people drive to a station on the central line, park and take the tube. Again they say it's cheaper than peak time trains and a lot need to drive to a station any way. Getting people out of their cars is hard!


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

Winot said:


> Of course when asked most people vote for self interest. The way most people think is "what difference does it make if I drive my car to work - besides it's wet and I don't want to share a smelly bus". But n million people cannot each own and drive a car - London would collapse.


but here we are, in realworld uncollapsed London with all sorts of serious difficulties which are definitively the responsibility of cars and car drivers, and yet there's only a small lobby for removing cars completely.


----------



## Winot (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> it's reactionary to suggest that what people want matters?  Interesting.



 This is why I don't usually bother responding to you Newbie. I'll go back to that I think. Have a good day.


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

Winot said:


> This is why I don't usually bother responding to you Newbie. I'll go back to that I think. Have a good day.


respond to whatever you please.  You quoted me saying I think what's under discussion is unpopular and you threw 'reactionary' at me.  If you don't like being told that what people want matters then carry on posting about what you think is good for us. Meanwhile there's scope for parallel conversations about the real world.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> it's reactionary to suggest that what people want matters?  Interesting.


It's reactionary to argue against taking steps towards an end position by saying that not enough people can currently be persuaded that the end position could be favourable.

You talked about this conversation - which is mainly about steps towards reduced car usage - being "divorced from reality".

No-one's suggesting that it's realistic to ban cars altogether in one fell swoop.


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

teuchter said:


> It's reactionary to argue against taking steps towards an end position by saying that not enough people can currently be persuaded that the end position could be favourable.


really?  not many people are currently persuaded that abolishing the free-at-point-of-use NHS is favourable, but saying that is reactionary? The NHS is, after all, in their 'self-interest', another claim that is somehow worthy of being easily dismissed. don't be silly.




> You talked about this conversation - which is mainly about steps towards reduced car usage - being "divorced from reality".
> 
> No-one's suggesting that it's realistic to ban cars altogether in one fell swoop.


fine. And also fine that, as I pointed out above, technological change may make a lot of the conversation obsolete at some point in the future.  But we are where we are, discussing whether or not CPZs are a good thing this week, this month.  Moving on from that to proposing abolishing all private car parking, or all private cars, without regard for what people actually want, is divorced from reality.


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

Leaving aside what people actually want you'd need to make a case that your proposal, to deny comfortable personal transportation to the population at large, is 'social progress'.  There's a case for saying that it's the exact opposite: that the primary barrier to car ownership- cost- should be reduced so that all, and not just the more privileged, can reap the benefits that our society offers.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 20, 2017)

I support proposals to extend comfortable, convenient and affordable transportation to the public at large. Continued high levels of car use and dependency are an obstacle to this. 

The lower the level of car dependency is, the better public transport can be. We can already see this in London - pretty much the only place in the UK where car ownership really isn't a necessity for the vast majority of the population, and pretty much the only place in the UK with comprehensive public transport. Because public transport is use by most people, it's a priority. Look at the prominence of issues like bus fares in Mayoral elections. Elsewhere nobody really cares about things like bus services because it's only the poorest who are dependent on them.

The idea that a scenario where everyone has barrier-free access to car ownership could work is completely nuts, especially in London. We've already got horrible problems with congestion and pollution with just a minority owning cars.

What I would support is barrier-free _access to cars in the limited circumstances where they are necessary._ This is what car clubs can provide, without causing congestion and without using up huge areas of space for parking. This is why it's one of the things I mentioned in the "alternative use for parking spaces" list. Removing the idea that you have to _own a car _in order to have_ access to a car _means that it can become affordable to those who can't stump up the capital cost. 10 years ago even I was sceptical that car clubs would work. But partly thanks to technological changes they do. The concept is fully proven - they work and people use them, and they can instantly defeat most of the excuses people come up with for private car ownership.

Discussing CPZs and the charges attached to them is absolutely a step towards better things in the future. It's rather a good way to start people thinking about the use of publicly owned space. As I said earlier, the idea that our public streets should be offered, without cost, for the usage of a select proportion of the public is something that has crept up on us as we stumbled unthinkingly into car-dependent post-war Britain. There's no reason this idea should continue unchallenged. The fact that CPZs even exist ought to make anyone realise that we've invented an unsustainable system, unless you want to go though conspiracy theory route that they are only there to make money for the council.

Finally - the notion that a private-car-free city is pie-in-the-sky or divorced from reality - rubbish. Plenty of examples exist that have gone a long way towards that already. Go to Groningen, or read up on it. Not the only example.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> really?  not many people are currently persuaded that abolishing the free-at-point-of-use NHS is favourable, but saying that is reactionary? The NHS is, after all, in their 'self-interest', another claim that is somehow worthy of being easily dismissed. don't be silly.



Whether or not it's reactionary depends on the context and plausibility of the stated long-term aims and the motivations behind them.

Also, a free NHS is in the interests of the least well off. Free parking is in the interests of the better off. They aren't at all equivalent in terms of the type of "self interest" involved. The NHS is available to everyone; car ownership isn't. If you want to make an NHS analogy in the transport realm, compare it to public transport - particularly, say, rural bus services, which have become increasingly underfunded and expensive since the private car arrived.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> Apart from anything else, nobody has mention Mobility vehicles or holders of disabled badges.



I should swiftly exterminate this red herring too. It is easy to provide reserved parking spaces, and easy to allow exceptions to "car-free" rules for those with disabled badges. It's just not an issue.

And use the opportunity to point out that many people have disabilities which mean they *can't* drive (whether they can afford it or not). The better the public transport provision, the more freedom and independence this group of people can have. Much of the same applies to the elderly.

Look at the progress we've made in London with wheelchair accessible buses. Lots of people can now make journeys where previously they would have been dependent on family or friends. And the more wheelchairs we see on buses, the more normalised it can become and the less of an issue it needs to be.


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Whether or not it's reactionary depends on the context and plausibility of the stated long-term aims and the motivations behind them.


So... since you and Winot have decreed that your hobby horse is progressive any suggestion that the views of any of the other 8 million or so Londoners might matter is necessarily reactionary?   It's your goals and motivation that matter, not theirs.  

You have decided that what people in their millions self-evidently want is not what they should want, because it's not good for them, and because you have a better plan.  

ok.

tbh I should have realised this was pointless when I was told that the votes of millions (how dare they show self interest) matter less than 'good leadership'. Go ahead then, proceed on that basis.


----------



## organicpanda (Mar 20, 2017)

the problem with this way is that the general public are sometimes way behind, going purely on what the masses want would have meant that the death penalty would still be in use and homosexuality would still be banned, I guess sometimes good leadership is more important


----------



## teuchter (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> So... since you and Winot
> You have decided that *what people in their millions self-evidently want* is not what they should want, because it's not good for them, and because you have a better plan.



Go on then - 
a) the millions you are talking about are a portion of what population exactly?
b) how many millions?
c) what do they want?
d) what's the evidence you mention?


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

organicpanda said:


> the problem with this way is that the general public are sometimes way behind, going purely on what the masses want would have meant that the death penalty would still be in use and homosexuality would still be banned, I guess sometimes good leadership is more important


except in as much as politicians stand for election regularly proposing one or both of those, and lose heavily.

I guess (but don't know for sure) the same fate befalls deep green candidates who propose preventing ordinary people owning cars.


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Go on then -
> a) the millions you are talking about are a portion of what population exactly?
> b) how many millions?
> c) what do they want?
> d) what's the evidence you mention?


It's self-evident because of the sheer number of people who spend significant proportions of their income on cars.

I suppose if you can produce some equally blindlingly obvious evidence that there's a huge groundswell of opinion in favour of banning private cars then go ahead, be my guest, but I'm sorry, I've no real interest in your specialist subject, and I'm not up for a discussion about it.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> It's self-evident because of the sheer number of people who spend significant proportions of their income on cars.



2.6 million cars registered in London by 54% of households

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-are-there-in-london.pdf


----------



## alex_ (Mar 20, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I support proposals to extend comfortable, convenient and affordable transportation to the public at large. Continued high levels of car use and dependency are an obstacle to this.
> 
> The lower the level of car dependency is, the better public transport can be. We can already see this in London - pretty much the only place in the UK where car ownership really isn't a necessity for the vast majority of the population, and pretty much the only place in the UK with comprehensive public transport. Because public transport is use by most people, it's a priority. Look at the prominence of issues like bus fares in Mayoral elections. Elsewhere nobody really cares about things like bus services because it's only the poorest who are dependent on them.
> 
> ...



So making people pay to park on the roads sounds like a positive step ?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> It's self-evident because of the sheer number of people who spend significant proportions of their income on cars.
> 
> I suppose if you can produce some equally blindlingly obvious evidence that there's a huge groundswell of opinion in favour of banning private cars then go ahead, be my guest, but I'm sorry, I've no real interest in your specialist subject, and I'm not up for a discussion about it.



You've not answered my questions:

a) the millions you are talking about are a portion of what population exactly?
b) how many millions?
c) what do they want?
d) what's the evidence you mention?


----------



## organicpanda (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> except in as much as politicians stand for election regularly proposing one or both of those, and lose heavily.
> 
> I guess (but don't know for sure) the same fate befalls deep green candidates who propose preventing ordinary people owning cars.


nowadays yes, but at the time of repeal the majority were against both the ending of hanging and the legalisation of homosexuality, over time that has changed, although the last poll (I know) still had the hanging brigade at 55%. As for the deep Greens do they still stand for elections, I thought the Green Party had been sanitised of such radicalism


----------



## teuchter (Mar 20, 2017)

alex_ said:


> So making people pay to park on the roads sounds like a positive step ?


This is my opinion, correct.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> and takes account of the fact that there are n million people living in London all of whom are entitled to a view on their preferences for the future of personal transportation.  Apart from anything else, nobody has mention Mobility vehicles or holders of disabled badges.
> 
> Obviously it's only a hunch, but I suspect that if there was a proper referendum, with all views properly put, there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of keeping cars.  Until the groundswell of opinion can reverse that this conversation is rather divorced from reality.


And how would you phrase your referendum?

What do you mean by views properly put? How would you phrase your referendum ?

Lambeth Council (this Labour administration) was elected on basis of putting pedestrians, cyclists and public transport first. With car owners coming last. This was one of the policies that were put to the electorate. One could say that the people have had there say in a democratic way already.

And this is not about banning individual car ownership. So there is an argument that in Lambeth people have had a democratic say in transport policy.

If you don't like it you could vote for a party that puts individual car ownership first.


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

organicpanda said:


> nowadays yes, but at the time of repeal the majority were against both the ending of hanging and the legalisation of homosexuality, over time that has changed, although the last poll (I know) still had the hanging brigade at 55%.


well ok, you've looked into that, I haven't. TBH I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'd suggest that the difference 
is that politicians can maintain the ban on the death penalty without too much furore, but even if any of them had the will, they'd have to work far harder to take 25m private cars away from their owners.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 20, 2017)

Winot said:


> Of course when asked most people vote for self interest. The way most people think is "what difference does it make if I drive my car to work - besides it's wet and I don't want to share a smelly bus". But n million people cannot each own and drive a car - London would collapse.
> 
> It's a classic reactionary tactic to look at the extreme point of change and say that there's no way we can jump from A to Z therefore it's not worth moving to B. Good leadership recognises that B is a worthwhile staging post. Once we are at B, C doesn't look so bad.
> 
> We already have policy to discourage driving into central London e.g. high parking charges, congestion zone. They were pretty unpopular when introduced too.


What did Lew Kwan Yew do about this?

I gather from my nocturnal viewing of Rico Hizon that public transport in Singapore is excellent and most citizens would not dream of driving to work.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> and takes account of the fact that there are n million people living in London all of whom are entitled to a view on their preferences for the future of personal transportation.  Apart from anything else, nobody has mention Mobility vehicles or holders of disabled badges.
> 
> Obviously it's only a hunch, but I suspect that if there was a proper referendum, with all views properly put, there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of keeping cars.  Until the groundswell of opinion can reverse that this conversation is rather divorced from reality.



"Views properly put". That's the nub of the matter.

For example in a hypothetical referendum people could be offered free public transport in Zones One and Two if private cars were reduced in those areas. Not as barmy as one might think. Has been tried in other cities.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I support proposals to extend comfortable, convenient and affordable transportation to the public at large. Continued high levels of car use and dependency are an obstacle to this.
> 
> The lower the level of car dependency is, the better public transport can be. We can already see this in London - pretty much the only place in the UK where car ownership really isn't a necessity for the vast majority of the population, and pretty much the only place in the UK with comprehensive public transport. Because public transport is use by most people, it's a priority. Look at the prominence of issues like bus fares in Mayoral elections. Elsewhere nobody really cares about things like bus services because it's only the poorest who are dependent on them.
> 
> The idea tha



It was Red Ken who radically improved public transport. It down to him that it's still an issue in Mayoral elections. He made public transport more affordable and more frequent. It's a class issue. He stuck up for those dependent on public transport in the teeth of Tory opposition.

The lasting legacy of his period in office was his effect on public transport for ordinary people.


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> And how would you phrase your referendum?


I wouldn't, it's not my hobby horse.  I made a mistake by making a supportive addition to something someone else said, when winot jumped in with an insult then ran away and hid.  I should know better about the Brixton board, shouldn't have responded then or subsequently, same as I shouldn't have bothered correcting you for your attack upthread.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> I wouldn't, it's not my hobby horse.  I made a mistake by making a supportive addition to something someone else said, when winot jumped in with an insult then ran away and hid.  I should know better about the Brixton board, shouldn't have responded then or subsequently, same as I shouldn't have bothered correcting you for your attack upthread.



You posted about a referendum and made an assumption about what the result would be. I commented on that.

Now you say referendums aren't your thing.


----------



## newbie (Mar 20, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> You posted about a referendum and made an assumption about what the result would be. I commented on that.
> 
> Now you say referendums aren't your thing.


I meant discussions about abolishing cars aren't my thing, so someone else will have to organise the vote.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2017)

newbie said:


> I meant discussions about abolishing cars aren't my thing, so someone else will have to organise the vote.



In that case you should go back and amend your post as that is not how it reads.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 21, 2017)

newbie said:


> I meant discussions about abolishing cars aren't my thing, so someone else will have to organise the vote.


Well, it's a funny old world, because it seems that it was you who first mentioned the notion of a car-free city in the past few pages, and then it was you who introduced the notion of a referendum to decide whether such a thing should come about.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 21, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> It was Red Ken who radically improved public transport. It down to him that it's still an issue in Mayoral elections. He made public transport more affordable and more frequent. It's a class issue. He stuck up for those dependent on public transport in the teeth of Tory opposition.
> 
> The lasting legacy of his period in office was his effect on public transport for ordinary people.



You say this but, if buses and tubes weren't so good the traffic would be a nightmare for ones Bentley.

Public transport is of significant benefit for the people who don't use it too.

Alex


----------



## newbie (Mar 21, 2017)

well yes, the first to use that exact phrase perhaps, as part of a post which reflected that discussing CPZs "_brings out some odd passions_", but that was long after you'd started banging on about how dreadful the "_self-interested justifications for car ownership_" of other people are. How very dare they figure out what they want for themselves.

You'll be pleased to know I'm unlikely to be anywhere near U75 today, so you can carry on telling people that you know best and that what you want is what they should want, if only they'd bin their own self-interest.


----------



## technical (Mar 31, 2017)

We've just had a letter about a consultation on a new CPZ (between Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill) but the consultation period appears to be less than two weeks, which is a bit crap. Response rate bound to be tiny


----------



## Crispy (Mar 31, 2017)

technical said:


> We've just had a letter about a consultation on a new CPZ (between Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill) but the consultation period appears to be less than two weeks, which is a bit crap. Response rate bound to be tiny


There have been meetings/consultations etc. on this for months now. The leaflet (if it's the same one I got) show 58% in favour, 35% opposed iirc.

I think this is the final formal consultation for planning purposes.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Mar 31, 2017)

Yep, there was an extensive survey document sent out about it a few months ago - maybe longer. There are notices up around Archbishops Place saying its being implemented.


----------



## technical (Mar 31, 2017)

Yeah, got the earlier one. But the proposals appear to have changed slightly and a two week window for people to respond is crap - particularly when its around the Easter holiday. 

Getting a bigger response rate is surely helpful in giving the final result better credibility. I'm in favour of it anyway.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Mar 31, 2017)

I'm in favour of it... We don't even have a car, but the commuters circling every morning looking for parking is annoying... Especially annoying is the woman who works for Lambeth who sits in her car for an hour with the motor running watching youtube


----------



## Winot (Mar 31, 2017)

shakespearegirl said:


> I'm in favour of it... We don't even have a car, but the commuters circling every morning looking for parking is annoying... Especially annoying is the woman who works for Lambeth who sits in her car for an hour with the motor running watching youtube



Video her and stick it on YouTube.


----------



## ricbake (Apr 2, 2017)

technical said:


> We've just had a letter about a consultation on a new CPZ (between Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill) but the consultation period appears to be less than two weeks, which is a bit crap. Response rate bound to be tiny





Crispy said:


> There have been meetings/consultations etc. on this for months now. The leaflet (if it's the same one I got) show 58% in favour, 35% opposed iirc.
> 
> I think this is the final formal consultation for planning purposes.



The leaflet posted to all in Vassall area and Brixton Hill for the two schemes are the result of the previous consultations and as Crispy says this is now the formal consultation prior to implementation.

Proposed controlled parking zone Vassall area | Lambeth Council
Brixton Hill controlled parking zone consultation | Lambeth Council

The shortness of the consultation period is a problem but they are still open to suggestions.

The informal consultation was flawed to a degree in that the choices for the hours of operation were limited and exclusive
You could choose for all day ie 8:30 to 18:30 but not for just until 17:30 - if you chose that option you could not express any preference for a shorter period. If you chose 4 hours or 2 hour - it was one or the other.

This is the result from appendix F of the Vassall consultation just for the new "V" zone

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Vassall-Area-Informal-Consultation-Results.pdf


They only had 351 responses from 8910 households so 50.1% is 176 of them opting for all day where 18.8% + 26.5% = 45.3% is 159

This means the decision to go for all day restrictions was down to 17 households out of 8910 (and 16 people didn't respond to the question!)

I would prefer a 2 hour or 4 hour restriction like the Herne Hill area.

Also there should be some more provision for cycles and motor cycles Perhaps more spaces near the parks and local businesses for short period free parking.

Please write to Richard Lancaster, Jenny Brathwaite and the CPZ Consultation if you do want changes - it doesn't take many people to have an effect


----------



## Angellic (Jun 27, 2017)

Are there any updates on the new CPZ's?


----------



## ricbake (Jul 5, 2017)

This just up on Lambeth site regarding Vassall Area CPZ
https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=3955&LLL=0


----------



## Angellic (Jul 31, 2017)

This one has the dates of implementation.
Decision - Proposed New Controlled Parking Zones - Vassall Area, Statutory Consultation Results, Implementation and Funding | Lambeth Council


----------



## technical (Aug 6, 2017)

Brixton hill one being implemented from Monday although not operational till end of September


----------



## technical (Sep 7, 2017)

White lines appearing on the streets around us. Even though it doesn't apply until first week of October it's had an immediate impact as people assume its already in place. Result.


----------



## ricbake (Sep 7, 2017)

It's had an impact around Myatts Field and I suspect come the 2nd October when they start to enforce it will be even more dramatic. 

Permits are now available via the online Lambeth Parking Services - up to £184 for an annual "virtual" permit depending on the car/engine size.
Also minimum of 10 visitor permits at £46.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Sep 7, 2017)

There is a huge amount of moaning going on our street Google Group


----------



## T & P (Sep 7, 2017)

Charges are a bit steep tbh, in particular because they are not meant to be a tax on car ownership or 'rental' fee for use of public space, but simply a fee for residents who apply for a permit once an area becomes controlled. 

If the charge was presented as tax or a 'rental fee' for car ownership and parking rights in the busy and congested city that London is, it might seem more justified and I reckon most people would accept it with less fuss. But seeing as the scheme is usually peddled to residents as a tool to deter outside commuters from parking on their streets, the charges seem very high. Permits could even be justified to be issued for free, or for a small admin fee, if the reason for controlled zones really is about deterring out-of-towners from driving in and parking. What logic is there behind charging people £180 a year? And why not do it all across Lambeth if the justifications were environmental?


----------



## technical (Sep 8, 2017)

They don't do it Lambeth-wide as they have to consult residents beforehand. As there isn't a problem in some places, people will say no. But then cars get displaced from elsewhere and people change their minds and lobby for parking controls. This happened in our neighbourhood. So you get this piecemeal, incremental approach to parking which ends up pissing off most people in one way or another. 

I agree the charges seem steep, particularly as new permits are going to be electronic. We lived closer to Brixton town centre in the mid-2000s when it was introduced in our street and i seem to remember the cost then was around £60 per year, although i could be wrong. But the council is financially stuffed - i don't have a problem with any revenue made from this scheme being spent on roads/public realm works elsewhere in Lambeth.


----------



## lefteri (Sep 8, 2017)

ricbake said:


> It's had an impact around Myatts Field and I suspect come the 2nd October when they start to enforce it will be even more dramatic.
> 
> Permits are now available via the online Lambeth Parking Services - up to £184 for an annual "virtual" permit depending on the car/engine size.
> Also minimum of 10 visitor permits at £46.



I'm really concerned that there will be a big increase in the numbers of cars parking in our estate car park which has sign up but is not enforced - it doesn't help that one of the big signs at the entrance has gone missing


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 8, 2017)

I would think that much of the money goes on enforcing the rules ie paying for parking wardens or whether pc term they are now called. So it's a viscious circle...


----------

