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. Ms T

    Ms T Honey-coloured ramparts

    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!
     
  2. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    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.
     
  3. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

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

    newbie undisambiguated

    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.
     
  5. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
     
  6. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    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.


    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.
     
  7. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    upload_2017-3-20_10-58-34.png

    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.
     
  8. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
     
  9. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
     
  10. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
     
  11. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    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.
     
  12. organicpanda

    organicpanda cat herder extraodinaire

    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
     
    Winot likes this.
  13. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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?
     
  14. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    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.
     
  15. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    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.
     
  16. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

  17. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

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

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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?
     
  19. organicpanda

    organicpanda cat herder extraodinaire

    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
     
  20. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    This is my opinion, correct.
     
  21. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    Winot likes this.
  22. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    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.
     
  23. CH1

    CH1 "Red Guard"(NLYL)

    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 likes this.
  24. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    "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.
     
  25. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  26. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    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.
     
  27. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  28. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

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

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

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

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
     

Share This Page