That sounds like a recipe for the fit and the rich.
Many people can’t afford to replace their car and even those who can afford to scrap an old car (with all the resulting pollution that would entail) couldn’t afford a new or electric vehicle, even though some of them might desire to shift the pollution involved in the manufacture of it and its fuel elsewhere (not of course shifting the particulates that come from a heavier vehicle’s road use).
And not everyone with reduced mobility has a blue badge to exempt them from certain (not all or in all areas) parking charges. Those who have suffered injury or illness and are undergoing serious and debilitating medical treatment don’t get blue badges.
I for one would love to be able to follow the instruction “get on your bike”.
@HannahM I agree pavements are for pedestrians. I rage against vehicles parked on pavements. But how much pavement clutter is down to advertising boards and unnecessary signage?
Indeed, Mary! Dare I say there are some elitist/divisive arguments creeping into this topic. How would electric cars solve the parking issues (if there are any) on Honor Oak Park? What if you can’t afford an electric car, like most of us? How would “use your bike if you are local” sound to a disabled person?
Oh and leonk, I assure you, driving is not “cheap” unless you’re a wealthy person for whom it’s a small proportion of your outgoings. We should consider the many working class people who rely on their cars, like carers and delivery drivers for example, and who would be hit disproportionately by extra parking charges (in addition to the huge and regressive taxation on fuel, annual vehicle tax etc)
Hannah, if some of us believe there are “hierarchies” of road users, we’ll struggle to have an objective and fair discussion about new parking charges in Honor Oak Park, without ideology creeping in and clouding our judgement.
In any case, many comments here seem tangential to the question of parking on Honor Oak Park. Perhaps some comments should be moved to a separate thread.
Just out of interest, how would parking charges affect you personally given that the first 30 minutes would be free? I’m not being challenging with that question, I’m just genuinely interested. Thanks
We do not know whether there are plans for parking meters or not anymore (given the removal of signage).
If there were, we do not know whether parking meters would have a 30 minute leeway for free parking or not.
Assuming that there was a 30 minute free parking limit - this replicates the current situation. If you park over 30 minutes on HO high street presently then you are liable to be fined.
The question then arises - why have parking meters in the first place. The objectives of having parking meters on HO high street have not been clearly expressed or evidenced in the discussion above as far as I can see.
There are not presently difficulties parking on HO high street (cf. the example of Taymount Rise). As far as I have observed, motorists tend park for a short period, grab some shopping and then continue on. As I have already said, installing parking meters (if providing no free time) will not avoid the main issue for pollution etc of the cars driving up and down the street and idling in a queue for the traffic lights. In my view, neither will parking meters facilitate a significant change in people’s behaviours from car use to walking/bikes.
To be clear - personally I rarely, if ever, park on HO high street since I live within walking distance and walk there. My concerns regarding the parking meters are (a) for the local businesses and (b) for pushing parking issues, including pollution and noise, into the adjacent residential streets (all for no obvious benefit).
Well I do think it a bit elitist to be bringing in £33k cars into this debate on parking in Honor Oak. I’ve never paid anything like that and I bought my last one only two years ago. One could argue - if you are too disabled to ride a bike you probably shouldn’t be driving a car.
These were common when I was young powered by first world war soldiers who had various bits blown off. Last week’s Paralympics show how we have progressed:
So let’s get back to the real issue - 30 minutes free parking actually promotes usage of the bays for shopping rather than having them blocked by commuters. Perversely that may be encouraging local car shopping which, I assume, you are in favour?.
I own a car, and use it fairly regularly, mostly for visiting family outside London, but occasional trips in London also. I spend less per month than a monthly travel card would cost (factoring in all costs of having a car).
Journeys to other parts of the UK can be ridiculously expensive by train.
I understand that driving is an accessibility issue that shouldn’t just be for high income people. But that’s kind of getting into issues with capitalism itself.
Perhaps a socialist environment where we were all allocated x number of miles would be appropriate. Would that be something you’d be into?
The DVLA certainly does … try getting a licence if you have had seizures in the last two years or have impaired vision for starters. But you can still walk, ride or take public transport to Honor Oak … I’ve not checked out if the pavements are wide enough for invalid carriages to pass comfortably. Leo?
What say you to the hairdressers and hospitality venues?
If we want to kill our high streets as any kind of inclusive destination venue, this is a sure fire way to do it.
On your other point, when you said:
and added:
Well if you’ve had seizures or have impaired vision you probably shouldn’t be riding a bicycle either. I’d be surprised if you could get insured to do so.
But your original comment was “if you are too disabled to ride a bike you probably shouldn’t be driving a car”. That rules out everyone with bad knees for starters!
Iclusivity is important and some people will always need to drive. Howeve many don’t. We live in a very walkable area with good public transport.
If you own a car it can seem like you need it as you organise your life around having it, especially in London where the costs of car ownership really have to be justified.
I wouldn’t oppose the parking charges if the first 30 mins was free with a max stay of 2-3 hours to cater for those who need more time to visit the hairdresser or beautician. I would assume the revenue would go mostly to pay for better enforcement - not sure if the current limits are enforced. In the 15 years I have lived here I haven’t seen any tickets being issued.
Let’s hope any “30 mins free” provision isn’t as farcical as that being introduced by Southwark ‘over the hill’ in East Dulwich – as described in this thread: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2228162
“I checked this out a while back. It’s 30 mins free but you still have to register, apparently. I called the number and no one answered for ages. Instead, it kept playing a message to say that I could use the PayByPhone app. I downloaded it and put the location code in. However, the app doesn’t give you option of registering for the free 30 mins. Instead, you have to select paid parking. I didn’t do that and risked popping into the shops and got away with it. I contacted the council about this, asking how we are supposed to register for free parking if the phone number and app don’t work, but I never received a response.”
Controlled parking near uncontrolled parking rarely works. I live on a residential road where we have 6 x 30 minute controlled spaces. They are completely empty now. All the spaces that are uncontrolled are completely full. Any additional controls to these spaces in Honor Oak will just shift the parking to the residential streets if you take the evidence from what happens in the rest of the area.
I have used this Sainsburys while walking, cycling but never driven there but I do think we should be pragmatic rather than idealist when it comes to these changes and think about local residents. The current answers to car pollution seem to be about diverting parking, congestion from one place to the other rather than trying to tackle some of the underlying issues. It is understandable that non-car owning residents object to the fact that our streets are occupied by cars parked on them or owned indirectly by driveways which own/occupy the parking space in front of them for free but CPZs tend to be unpopular as they are too expensive and tend to be in the richer streets.
I think that a cheap borough wide car permit scheme connected to Council tax for everybody who owns a car in the borough with exemptions/reductions for carers etc should be considered. It would need a good bit of thought to get the detail right which we all know is not Lewisham’s strong point.
In fact judging from the popularity of the ‘parklets’ poll option, people seem to want to improve the social and community aspect of a local high street: every parklet means one less parking meter, so essentially we’re all in agreement.
