Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

[Cat Fan]

Only because that space is shared exclusively between car owners instead of between everyone.

If anyone could pay £100 a year for an SUV sized storage shed on their street, I bet the level of demand would look different.

I pay about £50 a year for a space in one of those bike hangars. The hangar takes one car parking space and can store 4 or 5 bikes. I would pay more than that.

Most houses have at least one car, I'm pretty sure given the choice between a very insecure shed on the main street vs a parking space the parking space would win.

I would ideally limit parking spaces to two per household but I don't make the rules

 

[Cat Fan]

I pay about £50 a year for a space in one of those bike hangars. The hangar takes one car parking space and can store 4 or 5 bikes. I would pay more than that.

That is cool. We should have more bike hangars, it's terrible how slow Lambeth are at installing them.

 

[Cat Fan]

To rent a garage from lambeth for none council tenants costs £36 per week.

According to tinterweb, an 100sq ft lockup at bigyellow is 45 quid a week.

The lockup people and the council have overheads. To build a secure garage/lockup on a parking space and maintain it would cost a fortune so it's not quite a like for like comparison but I do see where you're getting at.

 

[edcraw]

If you would have looked at Fig 5 above, it's a 16% gap.

But your own chart says basically anyone who can afford one with preschool age children has one. It's not so much a luxury when 65%+ of households opt for it, luxuries are for the top 10%-20% of households surely.

How’s your campaign for free cars for low income households with children going?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Spare a thought for Band E, £150 per year increase, which is more than band L. Top quality logic from the council there, way to punish those high polluters.

ULEZ has actually been causing a massive outcry now in the outer boroughs and home counties, even though I agree it doesn't go far enough.

Yes I agree 100%. But this is a charge for owning a car but not being fortunate enough to own a garage or driveway, it's nothing to do with how often the car is driven.

The high polluters pay more, which seems reasonable to me. It’s still an absolute pittance. It should be four or five grand.

 

[alex_]

The lockup people and the council have overheads. To build a secure garage/lockup on a parking space and maintain it would cost a fortune so it's not quite a like for like comparison but I do see where you're getting at.

2.5k for a 10ft shipping container

8ft & 10ft Shipping Containers for Sale UK - New & Used | Portable Space

We sell a range of new (one-trip) and used 8ft and 10ft shipping containers for use on construction sites, commercial organisations, academic institutes and for household storage needs. Buy online or contact us.

www.portablespace.co.uk

 

[alex_]

The high polluters pay more, which seems reasonable to me. It’s still an absolute pittance. It should be four or five grand.

I wouldn’t have thought that usage of a high emissions vehicle necessarily correlate that closely to income, newer and electric cars have lower emissions. This probably isn’t as progressive as people might like.

 

[edcraw]

I wouldn’t have thought that usage of a high emissions vehicle necessarily correlate that closely to income, newer and electric cars have lower emissions. This probably isn’t as progressive as people might like.

Pretty sure CO2 emissions are more inline with vehicle weight than age particularly as it’s about how much fuel they use. A different thing than air pollution.

VED is done by this way and haven’t heard complaints about that.

 

[sparkybird]

Most houses have at least one car, I'm pretty sure given the choice between a very insecure shed on the main street vs a parking space the parking space would win.

I would ideally limit parking spaces to two per household but I don't make the rules

Most houses have at least one car???? Where on earth do you live in Lambeth??? The posh bit? Or maybe you don't live in the borough where over 50% of households don't have access to any car? I'm confused.

 

[teuchter]

On most streets in Lambeth, the houses aren't much wider than a single parking space. So even on a street with completely continuous parking along both sides, with no spaces given over to things like bike hangars or car club spaces, the absolute most you can hope for is one car per house.

But then you have to factor in all the streets where there isn't enough space for parking on both sides. And those where there can't be parking on either side. And then you have to factor in all the streets where there is more than one household per "house" because they've been converted into flats.

Ok, so there are a small proportion of residential streets which are quite spacious, where the house plots are wider, maybe you can even get two or three cars in front of each property. Maybe Cat Fan lives on one of these. But if you are aiming for some kind of fantasy scenario where every household has an on street parking space then some of those spaces are going to have to be given over to people who live on other streets.

The only reason things can appear to work at the moment is that on-street parking space is shared out amongst the minority of households who own a car.

 

[alex_]

According to TfL, 40% of Lambeth households have access to a car.

 

[alex_]

Pretty sure CO2 emissions are more inline with vehicle weight than age particularly as it’s about how much fuel they use. A different thing than air pollution.

VED is done by this way and haven’t heard complaints about that.

View attachment 363827

This is us data, but I’d imagine the trends are similar or greater bearing in mind European cars are smaller.

Newer cars do have lower emissions.

U.K. data is here - Average CO2 Emissions per Car in the UK

Same trend, lower numbers.

Ed - I’m sure you are correct, that there is correlation to weight also after all more weight = greater energy to move at same speed.

But given two cars with the same weight, the newer car will also have lower emissions.

 

[Cat Fan]

2.5k for a 10ft shipping container

8ft & 10ft Shipping Containers for Sale UK - New & Used | Portable Space

We sell a range of new (one-trip) and used 8ft and 10ft shipping containers for use on construction sites, commercial organisations, academic institutes and for household storage needs. Buy online or contact us.

www.portablespace.co.uk

It would certainly change the look of the street if it is lined with shipping containers

It adds up though, there must be thousands of parking spaces in the borough (tens of thousands, hundreds?) So you're talking millions of pounds to convert into storage

 

[Cat Fan]

I wouldn’t have thought that usage of a high emissions vehicle necessarily correlate that closely to income, newer and electric cars have lower emissions. This probably isn’t as progressive as people might like.

Well there are two angles, progressive angle and environmental angle.

The policy fails at being progressive because of the huge across the board increases in a cost of living crisis, with no exemptions for low income households. (Albeit they're less likely to own a car, but some of them still do)

It partially succeeds at being environmental by skewing the cost towards more polluting vehicles but for me the cost should be higher on the most polluting vehicles and lower on EVs. Countries like Norway where incentives like free parking for EVs were offered have seen the best EV take-up in the world. We should aspire to be Norway.

 

[Cat Fan]

Most houses have at least one car???? Where on earth do you live in Lambeth??? The posh bit? Or maybe you don't live in the borough where over 50% of households don't have access to any car? I'm confused.

One of the less accessible by public transport and more "conservation-y" roads

On most streets in Lambeth, the houses aren't much wider than a single parking space. So even on a street with completely continuous parking along both sides, with no spaces given over to things like bike hangars or car club spaces, the absolute most you can hope for is one car per house.

But then you have to factor in all the streets where there isn't enough space for parking on both sides. And those where there can't be parking on either side. And then you have to factor in all the streets where there is more than one household per "house" because they've been converted into flats.

Ok, so there are a small proportion of residential streets which are quite spacious, where the house plots are wider, maybe you can even get two or three cars in front of each property. Maybe Cat Fan lives on one of these. But if you are aiming for some kind of fantasy scenario where every household has an on street parking space then some of those spaces are going to have to be given over to people who live on other streets.

The only reason things can appear to work at the moment is that on-street parking space is shared out amongst the minority of households who own a car.

Yes, spot on, I live on one of the streets with wide houses. But you're completely right it's a fantasy on most roads. I dont understand why households are allowed an unlimited amount of parking permits really. Yes there are some HMOs, but surely it's possible to make exceptions.

I guess my point is that a "one size fits all" approach for such a large and diverse borough is difficult to justify. The north bit by the Thames is so different to Brixton, which is again different to the south bits which are sometimes leafy and suburban.

 

[alex_]

Well there are two angles, progressive angle and environmental angle.

The policy fails at being progressive because of the huge across the board increases in a cost of living crisis, with no exemptions for low income households. (Albeit they're less likely to own a car, but some of them still do)

It partially succeeds at being environmental by skewing the cost towards more polluting vehicles but for me the cost should be higher on the most polluting vehicles and lower on EVs. Countries like Norway where incentives like free parking for EVs were offered have seen the best EV take-up in the world. We should aspire to be Norway.

As I’ve pointed out above - lowest emission cars will be disproportionally owned by wealthier people - so it’s impossible for this to be fully progressive as well as driving environmental objectives

 

[alex_]

One of the less accessible by public transport and more "conservation-y" roads

Yes, spot on, I live on one of the streets with wide houses. But you're completely right it's a fantasy on most roads. I dont understand why households are allowed an unlimited amount of parking permits really. Yes there are some HMOs, but surely it's possible to make exceptions.

I guess my point is that a "one size fits all" approach for such a large and diverse borough is difficult to justify. The north bit by the Thames is so different to Brixton, which is again different to the south bits which are sometimes leafy and suburban.

This would be relatively easy to fix, deny permits for new hmo conversions and for existing hmos for new applications.

 

[thebackrow]

Personally I think emissions based parking charges are bunk. They're not significant enough on the cost of the car, and if your car is high CO2 you're already 'penalised' far more by the increased fuel costs. I'd be surprised if they have any real influence on car choice at all. And if you've got a very high CO2 car that you almost never drive (a guy on a street near me has a classic Porsche) why should you pay more than someone whose annual emissions are far higher from a low co2 car they drive daily on the school run?

Parking takes space - and should be charged based on that but I suppose every little nudge towards better vehicles helps.
But charges are currently far too low - particularly for low emissions vehicles - so fully support. Hopefully they’ll be able to get the info they need to charge based on size (which is one of the principles in the kerbside strategy) soon.

 

[Winot]

Well there are two angles, progressive angle and environmental angle.

The policy fails at being progressive because of the huge across the board increases in a cost of living crisis, with no exemptions for low income households. (Albeit they're less likely to own a car, but some of them still do)

It partially succeeds at being environmental by skewing the cost towards more polluting vehicles but for me the cost should be higher on the most polluting vehicles and lower on EVs. Countries like Norway where incentives like free parking for EVs were offered have seen the best EV take-up in the world. We should aspire to be Norway.

Any fixed cost is going to disproportionately affect the less well off. Parking charges, water bills, bread. The way to tackle this imo is via a progressive tax system. Otherwise you end up having to means test absolutely everything which is a cost in itself.

 

[Rushy]

Four local authorities account for majority of blue badge misuse prosecutions

Councils in England took legal action against 698 people for abusing the disabled parking badge system in 12 months.

www.westerntelegraph.co.uk

Lambeth is responsible for 1/3 of all prosecutions for blue badge misuse in the country - 119 in Lambeth over past 12 months.

 

[teuchter]

It would certainly change the look of the street if it is lined with shipping containers

It adds up though, there must be thousands of parking spaces in the borough (tens of thousands, hundreds?) So you're talking millions of pounds to convert into storage

Not sure why you find the idea of on street storage implausible - it already exists in the form of the bike hangars.

 

[teuchter]

One of the less accessible by public transport and more "conservation-y" roads

Yes, spot on, I live on one of the streets with wide houses. But you're completely right it's a fantasy on most roads. I dont understand why households are allowed an unlimited amount of parking permits really. Yes there are some HMOs, but surely it's possible to make exceptions.

I guess my point is that a "one size fits all" approach for such a large and diverse borough is difficult to justify. The north bit by the Thames is so different to Brixton, which is again different to the south bits which are sometimes leafy and suburban.

The revenue earned from selling an above-average number of parking permits on your street can be used for improvements on other streets.

You want a permit pricing scheme that's basically based on responding to demand. But if the policy is to try and reduce car use, then that kind of scheme doesn't make sense.

Why offer cheap parking to people fortunate enough to live on spacious leafy streets? Those cars still end up driving along everyone else's streets and looking for parking in denser parts of the borough. And you want to give each household space for two cars?

 

[Rushy]

Pretty sure CO2 emissions are more inline with vehicle weight than age particularly as it’s about how much fuel they use. A different thing than air pollution.

VED is done by this way and haven’t heard complaints about that.

View attachment 363827

I don't understand your thinking here. Are you suggesting VED is based on the weight of the car?

 

[edcraw]

I don't understand your thinking here. Are you suggesting VED is based on the weight of the car?

No, it’s done by CO2 emissions. They’ll be some correlation between that and weight though age and engine size will also effect it.

 

[Rushy]

No, it’s done by CO2 emissions. They’ll be some correlation between that and weight though agar and engine size will also effect it.

Yes there will be some correlation. I thought that you were making a broader point than that.

 

[sparkybird]

One of the less accessible by public transport and more "conservation-y" roads

Yes, spot on, I live on one of the streets with wide houses. But you're completely right it's a fantasy on most roads. I dont understand why households are allowed an unlimited amount of parking permits really. Yes there are some HMOs, but surely it's possible to make exceptions.

I guess my point is that a "one size fits all" approach for such a large and diverse borough is difficult to justify. The north bit by the Thames is so different to Brixton, which is again different to the south bits which are sometimes leafy and suburban.

I'm interested to know what 'less accessible by public transport' looks like? How many minutes walk to a bus/tube/train?

My family live in a rural area where there isn't even 1 bus a day (and at best its 20 mins walk from a house). Clearly private cars are essential for daily life, but in the biggest city in the UK that's just not the case.

 

[Cat Fan]

As I’ve pointed out above - lowest emission cars will be disproportionally owned by wealthier people - so it’s impossible for this to be fully progressive as well as driving environmental objectives

Not necessarily true, wealthier people often own these massive SUVs that are the most polluting.

we need to change behaviour over the medium/long term including making owning and running an EV more affordable to everyone. That's why the council wants to install more charging points as part of the kerbside strategy.

 

[Cat Fan]

The revenue earned from selling an above-average number of parking permits on your street can be used for improvements on other streets.

You want a permit pricing scheme that's basically based on responding to demand. But if the policy is to try and reduce car use, then that kind of scheme doesn't make sense.

Why offer cheap parking to people fortunate enough to live on spacious leafy streets? Those cars still end up driving along everyone else's streets and looking for parking in denser parts of the borough. And you want to give each household space for two cars?

Demand responsive charges would help by reducing demand where parking/congestion is genuinely a problem and not overly penalising areas where it's not a problem. Lambeth only recently introduced parking charges in my area by consultation but if residents had known at the time that the charges would triple within a few years would they still have voted yes?

Your argument is basically that we should cross subsidise, which is fair, but that's anti-progressive and leads to less optimal local outcomes. Better to just tax wealth and income properly and fund with general taxation.

I think Lambeth is grabbing money to fill budget holes because they are limited to only a 5% council tax increase.

 

[Cat Fan]

I don't actually want to give each household space for two cars I just think as a first step we should stop any household having more than two cars. And maybe phase down to one over time unless they can prove it is 100% necessary for their occupation.

 

[Cat Fan]

I'm interested to know what 'less accessible by public transport' looks like? How many minutes walk to a bus/tube/train?

My family live in a rural area where there isn't even 1 bus a day (and at best its 20 mins walk from a house). Clearly private cars are essential for daily life, but in the biggest city in the UK that's just not the case.

Yeah, we don't actually use the car daily or even weekly sometimes so you're preaching to the converted. But there are a lot of elderly/disabled folk around who would struggle with walking even a mile, and we're on a steepish hill.

I can't really see why anyone would need multiple cars but there is a house on our road that has at least three or four regularly coming and going, plus a trade van..

The other equality/fairness angle is houses which have been converted with a dropped kerb. They don't pay any parking charge but they're taking away valuable kerbside space.

Not sure it is fair for them to get away from paying anything while you guys think people who have to park on street should pay thousands.