1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Controlled parking zones in Lambeth

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by Brixton Hatter, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    It would be fun to glue the cones to the road surface while they were out.
  2. T & P

    T & P |-o-| (-o-) |-o-|

    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' :D
  3. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
    Gramsci and Winot like this.
  4. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

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

  5. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    ^ 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.
  6. nemoanonemo

    nemoanonemo Active Member

    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.
  7. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    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.
  8. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
  9. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
  10. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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 likes this.
  12. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

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

    Smick Strictly Second Class

    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.
  14. Smick

    Smick Strictly Second Class

    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.
    Gramsci likes this.
  15. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
    Gramsci likes this.
  16. Lizzy Mac

    Lizzy Mac Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

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

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

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

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    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.
  20. Lizzy Mac

    Lizzy Mac Well-Known Member

    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.
  21. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

  22. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
    colacubes and Gramsci like this.
  23. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    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.
    gaijingirl likes this.
  24. Ms T

    Ms T Honey-coloured ramparts

  25. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

  26. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    The comment above that had "Anti-car Loons"

    Telegraph comments seem like Private Eye's "From the Message Boards" re-written by old colonels!
  27. T & P

    T & P |-o-| (-o-) |-o-|

    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.
    Smick and Metroman like this.
  28. Metroman

    Metroman Active Member

    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
  29. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Parking in the centre of Brixton is *supposed* to be difficult. Cry me a river.
    (and I own a car)
    lefteri, Jimbeau and teuchter like this.
  30. Ms T

    Ms T Honey-coloured ramparts

    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. :confused:

    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!!
    teuchter likes this.

Share This Page